Confused about the MC Problem Solving Style

questions
#1

QUESTION 1: MC Holistic or Linear?

I’m really having a difficult time figuring out the Main Character Problem-Solving Style.

Two options:

  1. LINEAR (Masculine)
  2. HOLISTIC (Feminine)

Ok, I sort of figured out this much about my main character:

MC RESOLVE:
Remained Steadfast
MC GROWTH:
Waiting for something to stop.
MC APPROACH:
Do’er (UNSURE)
MC Problem-Solving Style
(holistic or linear)???

Here’s the thing, I’m totally caught up about is in the analysis of Lawrence of Arabia.
By all means Lawrence is a masculine figure. He takes action and commits to battles and heads straight forward into War and doesn’t really think about the big picture (to my perspective).

Sure, he has a dream, which is uniting the Arabs and liberation of Arabia from Turkish imperialism, and he sets out to achieve this dream by creating a militia of bandits and rebels to fight a resistance against the Turks. They succeed.

However, it’s hard to understand why he’d be HOLISTIC THINKER vs. a LINEAR THINKER

Perhaps I’m still confused by the concept and the real understanding between the two. Would you say that Lawrence has a feminine thought process?? I wouldn’t – I’d say he’s really stubborn and would think in terms of steps and goals.

FOR EXAMPLE:

  • Lawrence then thinks, “How can I achieve this goal?”
  • Lawrence comes to the conclusion he must first cross the dessert and take Aqaba.
  • Lawrence realizes that in order to get British support he needs to prove himself [Aqaba]
  • Lawrence sees that the Arabs need weapons, money, artillery, tanks etc.
  • Lawrence recognizes that the key to weakening the Turks is to attack their supply routes!
  • Lawrence (in step) then begins to bomb and attack the railways (main supply route).
  • Lawrence is unsure of his wants, but reassured of his mission by General Allenby!
  • Lawrence then figures out the steps needed to seize Damascus and he follows through.

The analysis reads (for Lawrence):

MC RESOLVE:
Remained Steadfast
MC GROWTH:
Waiting for something to stop.
MC APPROACH:
Do’er
MC Problem-Solving Style
Holistic

Main Character Problem-Solving Style = Holistic

Lawrence sees the larger picture of the Middle East situation, and attempts to unite the territorial tribes and achieve post-war self-determination; he intuitively understands that if they cross the Nefud, Auda’s Howeitat will join them, especially if promised gold; he tries to hold together the quarrelsome tribes in his Arab National Council, and get them to cooperate in keeping Damascus functioning as a city; etc.

How do you interpret that as Holistic?
What the Fudgghhhe?!?!

Meanwhile: BRAVEHEART

MC RESOLVE:
Remained Steadfast
MC GROWTH:
Waiting for something to stop.
MC APPROACH:
Do’er
MC Problem-Solving Style
LINEAR

Main Character Problem-Solving Style = Linear

Wallace throws his whole effort into vanquishing the cause of Scotland’s (and his own personal) misery–English rule and Longshanks’ treachery.

How do you interpret that as Linear?
What the Fudgghhhe?!?!

Illustrations of Logical vs. Intuitive?
#2

I recently read a story in a screenwriting book that had nothing to do with Dramatica, but which I think illustrates Intuitive Problem Solving:

A girl want her grandfather to give her chocolate, but there is none. He gives her a popsicle instead. She puts pepper on the popsicle, and proceeds to eat it. Soon, she starting shrieking in pain as various fluids flow from her face. The grandfather is helpless. Once the pepper reaction subsides, the grandfather buys her a ton of chocolate out of guilt.

There is nothing logical here, but she solved her problem.

1 Like
#3

QUESTION 2:

Consider Gandhi (1982)

Do you think Gandhi is more of Do’er or Be’er?
Because his character is sort of both a Do’er and a Be’er! —

A) he is actively doing stuff to affect the external world, taking on big corporations and whistleblowing, yet,

B) he’s also a very emotional guy… He often does passive aggressive things
for example: Gandhi is always first attacking the enemy [imperialists] head on! However, when things turn crazy and chaos ensues, he capitulates and does a hunger strike, where he lays around in bed weakly and refusing to eat) Gandhi often throws passive aggressive tantrums, faints, has dizzy spells, but in the midst of a crusade he gets really impassioned and takes action to fight and lead.

  • Is Gandhi a Do’er?
  • Is Gandhi a Be’er?
  • is Gandhi a Linear thinker (Masculine)
  • is Gandhi a Holistic thinker (Feminine)
#4

Nothing to add here yet…just wanted to say your formatting of your post makes my heart sing! Horizontal Rules?? Readability upgrade!

1 Like
#5

@JSensebe I appreciate the comment.

A girl want her grandfather to give her chocolate, but there is none. He gives her a popsicle instead. She puts pepper on the popsicle, and proceeds to eat it. Soon, she starting shrieking in pain as various fluids flow from her face. The grandfather is helpless. Once the pepper reaction subsides, the grandfather buys her a ton of chocolate out of guilt.

There is nothing logical here, but she solved her problem.

So, if I’m following you correctly:
you’re saying, passive aggressive nature is sort of the basis of Holistic thinking?

How do you figure that:

THE ULTIMATE MARTYR HIMSELF — (William Wallace of Braveheart)
is a defined by Dramatica as LINEAR THINKER

but LAWRENCE is Holistic?

995BVH_Mel_Gibson_025.jpg720×540 49.6 KB

Is it because WALLACE (BRAVEHEART) had a “LOVE INTEREST”

But TE Lawrence (of Arabia) is holistic in his thinking, because he’s without a love interest?

Is that why he’s a holistic thinker? I’m so confused!

blog-12.jpg714×323 44.7 KB

#6

It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but my gut tells me he’s a Hollistic Do-er. Look at a hunger strike. He’s doing something, only to himself. He’s refusing food. It solves his problem in a non-linear way by causing others to capitulate.

1 Like
#7

A couple of things.

First off, Male (not masculine) uses Linear problem solving and Female (not feminine) uses Holistic problem solving. [Technically it is Male Mental Sex and Female Mental Sex, which is even further in meaning from masculine and feminine than male and female.] Also, it is not what kind of THINKER the MC is, but the type of processing that the MC uses when attempting to resolve inequities. This is a subtle, but important distinction.

Secondly, I think you’re confusing the function of the protagonist in the Overall Story throughline with the MC’s problem-solving approach as part of his personal throughline. Protagonists pursue and consider as their function in the OS (among other characteristics). The MC has the whole panoply of character elements to use.

Lawrence’s role as protagonist in the OS with his personal MC throughline. Taking Aqaba is not an MC personal issue. What Lawrence looks for is a way to change the power balance in Arabia in an attempt to rebalance the world to give the Arabs leverage over the Brits (or vice versa depending on your interpretation). The “how” of accomplishing it is done by changing the definitions of what can and cannot be done, such as crossing an uncrossable desert, or adapting to a foreign culture. Sure, accomplishing this requires steps to be taken but those steps are the result of looking at the entirety of the scenario, testing and finding the areas of influence, then acting in a way to force a rebalance of power. That is a holistic approach to inequity resolution (and creation).

In Wallace’s case, he is very linear. He looks at the problem as cause and effect. Get rid of the English (the cause of Scotland’s problems) to bring independence and honor back to Scotland. Though there were larger problems in the struggle for power within Scotland that attempted to neutralized his efforts, Wallace proved that the English could be defeated, which was enough to convince Robert the Bruce to throw in with the rebellion and oust the English.

It’s possible that the descriptions in the examples are not sufficient enough to communicate the analyst’s decision of Linear or Holistic problem-solving. I cannot argue that point. But I think those two examples are correct in their designations based on the films analyzed.

2 Likes
#8

RE: Question 2

Please do not confuse aggressive or assertive with “masculine”, and therefore passive with “feminine”. Neither should these be associated in any way with Dramatica’s questions about problem-solving style: Linear or Holistic.

  • Male Mental Sex problem-solving (linear) can be aggressive, assertive, or passive.

  • Female Mental Sex problem-solving (holistic) can be aggressive, assertive, or passive.

Please remove any consideration of masculinity, femininity, aggressiveness, and passiveness when considering the Main Character Dynamic question about MC Problem-solving Style: Male or Female, or in its original form: Main Character Mental Sex: Male or Female.

1 Like
#9

I can definitely sympathize with the struggle to define Logical vs. Holistic. I’ve often felt, like Mike_EME, that many of the examples offered for Holistic thinking come across as passive-aggressive (might be a result of my personal bias).

But chuntley’s quote, “changing the definitions of what can and cannot be done,” reminded me a psychology concept involving coping mechanisms, two of which are Concrete and Transformative.

A Concrete thinker accepts a problem’s parameters as unchangeable – the solution must arise out of accepting the situation as it is. Solutions involve being stronger than the opposition, discovering loopholes, etc. This approach inspires incremental problem solving (essentially the Logical mindset as defined by Dramatica).

Transformative thinkers are more likely to redefine the parameters – when presented with a dilemma, they’re more apt to consider solutions that involve adding or removing variables. They’re balancing the current situation with the desired end-game or ‘big picture’ (Holistic).

I don’t know if that helps anyone besides me, but sometimes a term swap can remove mental barriers.

1 Like
#10

@chuntley thanks for the response!

I’m going to try to wrap my head around this for a sec. Help me out if I’m off the ball here.

So, if I’m to really understand your definition by this… — I suppose I’m going to need to watch the video lectures and do a lot of research on this feature to really try to really understand the concept. It’s really confusing concept to wrap my head around – especially how you distinguish between the HOLISTIC vs. LINEAR thinker.

– firstly – MAN & WOMAN — you implore to not think in terms of gender stereotypes. right? but then use this as a defining trait in examples.

And this deeply confuses me – because when you explain the difference, you use a few examples to illustrate your distinctions between the two.

A) ALIEN – Sigourney Weaver is LINEAR [Man]…
B) PRINCE OF TIDES Nick Nolte is HOLISTIC [woman]

Then, you emphasize that it’s really important to not focus on the GENDER TRAITS…
Which is confusing, because in order to illustrate the concept, you use two traditional gender roles reversed in famous characters (ALIEN/PRINCE OF TIDES) – and then you tell me it’s much more complex!

Can you elaborate?

So, I can understand why LAWRENCE is HOLISTIC and WALLACE is LINEAR?
NOTE: I use those two examples [Braveheart/Lawrence], because they’re most related to genre and tone of my current project.

I pulled up the two example files and did a side by side analysis – and when it came to analyzing my own main character’s MENTAL SEX – I was totally lost.

Side note: I’m still somewhat of a newbie to Dramatica. I’m learning as I go (TRIAL/ERROR), but I love the app. I’m trying to understand the theory and set up my story. I’ve been having a tough time with my project. I’ve found out the story is too big, it’s too complex, and it needs to be really tight and concise, at the same time, I don’t want to pander to the audience by portraying a complex story as a black/white — good vs. evil type tale. It’s an ambitious project to say the least, but Dramatica is ideal for this – I have been able to really isolate the themes… However, in DRAMATICA there’s a learning curve! I’m not an expert, but the opposite, and I’m stuck in NEUTRAL AT THE MOMENT!

… Right now, particularly stuck on understanding the THEORY behind DRAMATICA. Because I’m still very new to the process. I like how it doesn’t simplify or quantize, but allows you to compile large dumps of data, then parse out the story and themes that are important – it’s good at really getting organized – especially when I’m like 600 pages into a 30 character film – which is obviously ridiculous! However, the next part of this undertaking will be isolating the main characters, compositing certain characters, and parsing it all down to something simple and concise. Obviously there’s like way TOO much going on – I need to cut and parse, and composite it all… and target and isolate the story and theme! I like the way Dramatica helps with this process… THE BEAST MANUSCRIPT is like 700 pages and 30 characters! haha. I’m cutting! Still trying to understand the theory behind these very alien terms… HOLISTIC THINKING!

what is that???

– using a guide to flesh out my story and using by (mainly) a discrete side by side comparison of BRAVEHEART [William Wallace] & LAWRENCE OF ARABIA [TE Lawrence] – neither character truly fits the archetype of my MAIN CHARACTER: I’m using them as a guide though as I write and flesh out my own script – it’s really difficult for me right now to understand the distinction between these two character traits, their traits and thinking processes – i.e. Lawrence and William Wallace differ — but we’re not talking about the external world or their background or situation or current scenario here… We’re talking about their fundamental approach to dealing with the world and their internal barometer in which they use to reach their overall goals. Right?

I’m trying very hard to get into the character’s head. – I’m looking and analyzing the brains of Wallace and Lawrence – trying to figure out what is distinctively different about the way they approach their problems. The way they think… etc. It’s really hard for me to understand this concept! I may need to buy a dramatica book – because I’m stuck on this – how do LAWRENCE and WALLACE differ?

HOLISTIC vs. LINEAR…

How do these two characteristics differ… how do they distinguish a fundamental difference of character or approach! How does my own MAIN CHARACTER think and what is similar or different about my MC? I have to understand the concept and definition first. I’m trying very hard, but I don’t understand the nuance between WALLACE & LAWRENCE — it’s apparent that two characters differ, but what distinguishes LAWRENCE a holistic thinker? How is he different from WALLACE in this regards? Trying to understand the Linear thinking attitude. i.e. – it’s very logic based – quantized…? and the holistic thinker is harder to define. Is it that they are more decisive based on emotions vs. logic? Capt. Kirk vs. Spock? I don’t really understand the concept yet. Especially when side by side comparing WALLACE & LAWRENCE.

here’s my take

Lawrence is thinking about “THE BIG PICTURE” – the little things he does on that path are means to get to the end goal, but it’s not the focus on the minutia that drives Lawrence, but this focus on the complex balance of power that world has. His goal is to change the world – not just his life or his direct scenario.

So, for example — William Wallace is sort of, one part a man concerned by his own ambitions. It’s not that he doesn’t care about the others, but his primary focus is driven by a “SMALLER” less complex goal — Wallace doesn’t really seek to change the entire world. he rather seeks to change his own situation above all things. i.e. he is oppressed by the English occupation of his land, seeks independence, also motivated in part by anger, hatred, and revenge. But the balance of the world is not in his purview. He’s primarily focused on his direct little world… i.e. his farm, his backyard, his ability to live without persecution, bullying, or fear by an imperial dominating power.

The difference with TE. LAWRENCE is that he’s not oppressed. He’s sort of living a very comfortable lifestyle at first. Sure, life is boring in the basement of the Cairo branch of UK foreign ministry, but he’s not exactly living a harsh existence. It’s certainly not bad, considering the trench warfare in France he’d be fighting in against the Kaiser! And in comparison to the brutality of nomadic life in the desert, he’s quite comfortable… He’s plush… He’s not being oppressed by anyone really. He’s the top of his food chain — and albeit a bastard… (no father), he’s somewhat of an aristocrat and highly educated dandy, well read, educated… etc. He’s just waiting to ride the WAR out without ever putting himself in harms way… he could easily just sit around and hide in the plush officers lounge, play billiards with the officers and drink cocktails and sleep on fine Egyptian cotton sheets in Egypt’s UK foreign ministry branch.

HOWEVER: Lawrence is upset for this very reason!

He wants to see some action and not sit on his rump and wait the war out — he wants to dig his heels in and take action. However, when he meets the Arabs, he’s clearly not one of them! He’s no ARAB! He’s a rich blonde white englishman! He’s determined to “SLUM” about with the riffraff of the desert. Yet, never will he be like them! When the war is over, he’ll go home and the time he spent nomadically across the desert will be just a memory – an old war story to tell others for braggadocio. His real goal is to make himself a legend – and he manipulates the media and uses leverage constantly to get his way… Not only does he impress his generals and his comrades, but he impresses the arabs. He gains worldwide fame and acclaim by syndicated newspapers — the man driven by ego… He wants to be immortal. He’s found his vehicle towards fame and notoriety and it exists in the destruction of the turks, (*outside of the GENERALS orders) – by himself he’d like to claim to the world, he took down the Ottoman empire, not any help from even his own countrymen and fellow soldiers! He did it alone (with the help of his arab friends)… None of which are dedicated to ARAB UNIFICATION or the lofty idealism or Horseradish that Lawrence sells — they are very small and feeble minded… looking to just get bribes or make money… Mercenaries for hire, and plunder is a perk. but the dreams of running their own nation? It’s laughable to them. And Lawrence is just using it as a way to lift the morale of his arab rebel militia mercenaries… They mostly couldn’t care less either, but Sherif Ali seems to be the ONLY one sold on this concocted idea that LAWRENCE knows deep down inside is a lie!

Lawrence is not interested in the reality of things, he’d rather be motivated by the energy and excitement of battles won. He’s a pre-madonna – but he knows he’s lying every time he sells SNAKE OIL to his ARAB pals… “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!” – he sells them… but he knows the British won’t give up their oil interests in the middle east and the key strategic control of the SUEZ CANAL. He knows deep down he’s lying to them… He sometimes catches himself lying to himself. but it’s not even LAWRENCE’S fight! He has no bones to pick. He’s playing a game – albeit a deadly war game, but it’s not about his FREEDOM or his INDEPENDENCE! He’s already been born of privilege – he doesn’t need freedom! He has it already! He’s fighting for glory, fame, and ego… and he’s using leverage to manipulate the situation…

Is that why?

TE Lawrence is a HOLISTIC THINKER because he’s concerned with big goals, he plays the media leverage game, he uses all types of manipulation tactics to achieve his goals (which are diffuse to even Lawrence himself). He employs a different method of achieving goals. Sure, much like Wallace he’s a warrior and fighter, but Lawrence is also very much a political animal, he’s constantly playing mind games and convincing others that their goals are the same as his (albeit, they aren’t) he’s a smooth talker and he plays a crafty and delicate game, weaving snake oil promises, and fluffy dreams of English splendor to the nomads.

vs.

William Wallace (BRAVEHEART) is a LINEAR THINKER – He’s being bullied – he’s tired of getting bullied… He decides — “I’m going to kill the ENGLISH and drive them out of SCOTLAND” and by that reasoning – he believes, his problems (i.e. being bullied) will end! He’s very straight forward… He’s got no master plan… He’s playing all his cards though… He’s maneuvering with the SCOTTISH Nobles, Robert The Bruce, Isabella of Spain, etc. He’s employing political tactics to achieve his goal… but his goal and his values are simple at the root of the issue! He wants to just relax and live a humble life without bullying –

but Lawrence is like the opposite… He wants an EXTRAORDINARY LIFE!
He doesn’t want a simple existence – He’s already a free man! He wants fame and notoriety, and he’s playing a giant game (shift of world powers)

#11

I’m not sure why the term passive-aggressive is being used here at all; it’s not a problem-solving style - in fact, it’s just the opposite: it’s a behavior of resistance/avoidance that typically causes more problems. In fact, the reading of the grandfather’s action had nothing to do with passive aggression.

A linear problem solver is more task-orientated - it’s not necessarily that they don’t see the big picture, but that they see the means to achieving it as requiring steps to be taken and achieved via analyzing and breaking it down into a logical sequence (first I do this, then I connect it to that…). An example would be a car technician who has an understanding of how all the components of a system function and work together.

Holistic is based more on intuition where understanding a system is predicated on sensing its patterns and reacting to it. The concept of linear is essentially that of Analytical (Analytical and Holistic being two forms of cognitive styles in psychology.) A good example of Holistic would be a mediator who’s able to get a general feeling or gist about a situation’s complexity and unlike an analytical person, they don’t need to rip something apart or know all the details to understand what the underlying cause is whether it’s readily apparent to the parties involved or not (which is typically isn’t.)

1 Like
#12

@JBarker thanks for the response. Perhaps maybe I’m guilty of being too analytical myself right now, perhaps if I were to psychoanalyze myself, I’d find out that I’m a genius when it comes to finding excuses to procrastinate! Haha!~ But – that said, I’m owning it! Anyway, in the meantime, I really do appreciate the dialogue and discussion – all your comments so far have been very helpful.

A good example of Holistic would be a mediator who’s able to get a general feeling or gist about a situation’s complexity and unlike an analytical person, they don’t need to rip something apart or know all the details to understand what the underlying cause is whether it’s readily apparent to the parties involved or not (which is typically isn’t.)

Then again, the concept aside. I still can’t figure out what how TE LAWRENCE a holistic thinker, because I wouldn’t consider William Wallace [LINEAR] a very analytical person. I see him as the opposite. he’s not trying to dissect the situation… I don’t know what William Wallace is really doing. He seems to be just happy to kill ENGLISHMEN… However, Lawrence is much more of a complicated man. He’s very complex. He’s a man of paradox. On one hand, he loves and gets excitement (pleasure) from killing, and especially performing executions, but at the same time, he’s deeply troubled by that! He seems like he’s much more ANALYTICAL and much more complex than Wallace. Wallace is sort of an oaf. He’s pretty simple. Sure, he’s clever in political maneuvering and military strategy, but in the end, not clever enough! He ends up with his groin sent to Ireland, his head sent to Wales, his feet sent to London, and his abdomen sent to gloucester! He’s much less analytical in my view. He’s more or less just happy to KILL ENGLISHMEN! and Lawrence is totally in his own little prison of self… He’s at war with himself, whereas – Wallace is at War with England!

#13

I think you’re focusing too much on the goals of Linear vs Holistic thinkers (which could be anything – a linear thinker could want world domination or an extraordinary life as much as any holistic thinker). The mental problem solving style is about how the problem is approached, regardless of the actual goal.

(Now that you’ve introduced horizontal rules to the posts, I can’t not use them :))

We could try approaching the same goal with each mental style. We’ll go with WORLD DOMINATION:

LINEAR:
The Linear solver thinks in “if-then” statements. It will identify the incremental steps needed to solve the problem and then execute on them in order. E.g.
“If I get my hands on a nuke, I can hold the super-powers hostage.”
“If I take out their leader, then the resistance will crumble.”
“If I blackmail the chief of staff, then he’ll be my spy.”
The Linear solver sees views the problem like ascending a staircase one step at a time.

HOLISTIC:
The Holistic solver looks at the problem in totality, then identifies variables to both grow and shrink (balancing forces). It may start at the beginning, work both sides at the same time, manipulate the forces closest to it, etc., in any case it is not mentally bound to an order or system. E.g.
“Tankland decreased its road construction budget – it must be developing air power. I’ll bomb its air bases.”
“Centrizania won’t be so invulnerable once its allies declare neutrality.”
“The FSA dropped food production to build walls – I’ll increase food production to seize the resulting demand and gain an advantage.”
The Holistic thinker views problems as a set of scales – the problem is solved when the desired balance (or lack of) is achieved.

You can also consider how each style would approach navigating a tall hedge-maze. The Linear would test each turn, “Left took me to a dead-end, so ‘right’ is the way to go.” It would feel no need to see the entire maze from a bird’s eye view and might even find such an approach annoying. The Holistic style is opposite – it would be frustrated by solving it one twist at a time, and would rather see the entire maze and then map the route.

3 Likes
#14

You guys (collectively as a group) just ‘nailed it’.

I was totally misunderstanding before, but now, after all that, I finally understand!

THANK YOU!

@LunarDynasty – Great analogies!

1 Like
#15

The point of these two examples is to show that it is NOT gender based. The woman is a linear (Male Mental Sex) problem solver, and the man is a holistic (Female Mental Sex) problem solver. If it was gender based, then the man would use linear problem solving and the woman holistic problem solving.

One key problem for men generically, or Male Mental Sex problem solvers specifically, is that the whole matter of holistic problem solving is in their blind spot. So as a writer, if you are a linear thinker it is going to be difficult (near impossible) to fully understand holistic problem solving. Female Mental Sex problem solvers don’t have this blind spot – their blind spot is in the Story Limit: they can’t empathize with Timelocks. This is true of real people as well as Main Characters and audiences. [NOTE: There is a whole lot of supporting Dramatica theory that you can find on Melanie’s site about this.]

1 Like
#16

Recommendation: Make your MC a Liner problem solver. You’ll empathize (and understand) that character better than a holistic problem solver, PLUS you won’t exclude many of your male (mental sex) audience members by turning the story into a “chick flick” (not meant to be derogatory, but informative).

This sounds like a cop out but it is a real recommendation coming from a practical perspective.

#17

Does this mean that stories with Holistic MC Style and Timelock Story Limit will have an accessibility problem with audiences?

#18

Yes. It’s called Reach in the Audience Appreciations in the Dramatica Software. Here’s the definition:

“Reach • the manner in which the audience identifies with the Main Character • The Reach of a story describes the relationship between the audience and the Main Character. An audience might Empathize with a Main Character in which case the audience identifies with the Main Character and sees the story through his eyes. Alternatively, an audience might Sympathize with the Main Character in which case it stands next to the Main Character as if it is a close acquaintance. The story dynamics that determine Empathy or Sympathy are different for men than for women. Women tend to identify and Empathize with a Main Character of either sex who is limited by an optionlock. Men tend to only Empathize with Main Characters that use linear problem-solving techniques. Women tend to Sympathize with a Main Character of either sex who is limited by a timelock. Men tend only to Sympathize with Main Characters that use holistic problem-solving techniques. As a result of these dynamics, sometimes both women and men will Empathize, sometimes women only, sometimes men only, sometimes neither (both will Sympathize). It should be noted that these are tendencies only. Training, experience, and personal choice in any individual audience member can slip the balance wholly to the other side. Nevertheless, at the subconscious level, these tendencies will hold true.”

1 Like
#19

Also here: http://dramatica.com/dictionary/reach

#20

Could you go a bit more into this? I’m not sure I’m picking up on the distinction between “kind of thinker the MC is” and “type of processing the MC uses”.