Look Into Your Characters’
Brains
At a former job, my boss asked each of us
to take a test, called Emergenetics, which, in simple terms,
is a tool to help a person not only better understand his
or her own thinking patterns and behaviors, but also how those
patterns and behaviors mesh with others’ patterns and
behaviors.
In short, it was a “team-building
activity.” Yes, the dreaded team activity where employees
moan and groan and grudgingly agree to do it because the boss
said so. In my team of ten employees, we each took the Emergenetics
test. Basically, we answered a slew of questions and were
told we’d all reconvene in a month to review the results
together.
A month later, the results came in. The
meeting was mandatory, so we dutifully trudged into the meeting
room, wondering what hocus-pocus we were going to have to
endure.
We were each handed an individualized pie
chart that represented our brains. Each brain chart was divided
into four areas: analytical, structural, conceptual, and social.
And we were told how each chart, based on the test results,
reflected how we currently think.
I looked at my chart, or uh, I mean brain.
I’m 34% analytical (I am? Wait, let me evaluate that
for a moment…), 23% structural (Hmm, these test procedures
are rather interesting.), 24% conceptual (Wow, look at the
colors on this chart!) and 19% social (Hey, anybody want to
grab a latte after this?).
We were asked to share our charts with our
co-workers sitting at the table—after all, this was
a way to get to know how each other thinks, a means to better
understand “where we’re coming from” essentially.
My best buddy was almost 40% structural and we laughed out
loud, recalling the times he insisted I needed to follow guidelines!
A theatre major in the group was an amazing 60% conceptual—well
of course! This guy loved the world of imagination.
And so we began to understand how each of
us thinks, enabling us to better understand each other and
to better work together.
As writers, we can also use these same thinking
attributes to help develop and build our characters. Remember,
this is a tool only, not the sole means to character development.
But I’ve found it’s helped me further develop
my characters by thinking about how they might think and behave,
per the Emergenetics model.
The following provides more in-depth definitions
of each of the Emergenetics four thinking attributes. Emergenetics,
by the way, identified these attributes by factor-analyzing
data from thousands of individuals (I’ll provide their
website at the end of this article).
Thinking Attributes
Analytical: This attribute includes a preference
for reasoning, analysis, financial calculation, higher mathematics,
and problem solving. People who have a strong analytical bent
might enjoy technology, mental analysis, and theoretical concepts.
Words they might use to describe themselves include factual,
rational, clear thinker, critical thinker, and objective.
Structural: This attribute tends to be cautious
of new or untried ideas. People with strong structural thought
processes often like guidelines, methodical progress, organization,
and planned agendas. They describe themselves as orderly,
dependable, implementers, practical, certain, and predictable.
Social. This attribute reflects a need to
get along with people, reliance on others’ opinions,
sensitivity to others, and visceral intuition. Those ranking
high in this social style describe themselves as empathic,
sympathetic, and intuitive about people. They like learning
a new task by having someone show them and often use personal
examples in conversation.
Conceptual. This attribute often searches
for new ways to solve old problems, gets excited when something
is new and different, and enjoys producing ideas more than
drawing conclusions. These people have a tendency to be intuitive
about concepts and ideas. They jump from one task to another,
like metaphoric problem-solving, and take risks. They describe
themselves as global, imaginative, unconventional, and aesthetic.
But keep in mind, although we as writers
know why our characters think the way they do, other characters
don’t. They can’t “see” how another
character is thinking. But they do see other characters’
behavior through expressiveness, assertiveness, and flexibility.
Descriptions of these behavioral attributes
are below.
Expressiveness. This indicates the amount
of social interest people show for others and the world around
them. At one end of the spectrum, a person can effusively
express affection for others or easily start conversations
with strangers while at the other end of the spectrum, a person
can seem painfully shy or meticulously shun the limelight.
Assertiveness. This reflects the degree
of energy invested in expressing thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
People can range from a driving need to convince others of
their point of view to shying away from competitive situations.
Flexibility. This measures a willingness
to accommodate to the thoughts and actions of others. Flexible
people can often handle stressful situations while maintaining
an even temper and may find it easy to be patient with difficult
people. At the other end of the spectrum, they may have trouble
meeting another person halfway and may abhor change.
Currently, I’m writing a book with
a hero who is a “computer guru” and a loner (he
has other characteristics, but I’m simplifying for the
sake of this article). If I were to analyze his thinking percentages,
I’d give him 40% analytical, 25% structural, 10% social,
and 25% conceptual. This higher conceptual tendency provides
a fun twist in his personality. Typically, he appears rational
and logical, but he surprises people, especially the heroine,
with his imaginative streak and his intuitive insights.
Regarding his behavioral attributes, this
character struggles with expressing his emotions, although
he takes the leap from assertiveness to downright aggressiveness
when provoked. And he’s been on his own so long, the
man is rarely flexible.
To return to my work situation, all of our
thinking and behavioral attributes were compiled into one
chart so, at a glance, we could get a sense of how we interacted
as a group. I’ve made the names up to protect people’s
identities, but here’s a glimpse at what the group chart
told us (and we all had them tacked on our walls as a gentle
reminder that each of our thought processes and behaviors
were different, not right or wrong, just different).
Doreen was the most expressive and social
in the group, but also the least analytical. She typically
got very exuberant over other people’s ideas and we
could count on her to get everyone “on the same plate.”
She often asked people what they thought or how they felt…she
was keenly interested in how others were feeling socially.
Brad abhorred structure, but was extremely
conceptual and assertive. We could count on him to speak up
with new, imaginative ideas. We could also count on him to
be late to most meetings.
Our boss was at the lowest end of expressiveness,
but high on conceptual and structural. This woman was always
unnervingly calm, kept everyone on track, and loved to brainstorm
new ideas.
Get the picture? You can use these guidelines
to not only flesh out individual characters, but also how
all the characters interact with each other in a given situation.
But, as I mentioned previously, as with
any character-development tool, keep in mind that these are
guidelines only. People are unique, flexible, and adjust and
change according to whatever environments they’re in.
Also, people’s thinking and behavior adjusts and changes
in response to dramatic episodes, such as significant life
events, alcohol, etc.
Have fun playing with these tools as you
create and fine-tune your characters, and click the link to
learn more about Emergenetics.
back to top |
