Approach v. Attitude

questions
#1

Okay, so my next question has to do with Approach and Attitude. For most (well, many) of the dynamic pairs I feel like I have a good grasp of the thematic counterpoint going on. Desire v. Ability: just because you want to do something doesn’t necessarily mean you’re able to do it. Fact v. Fantasy: when is it better to believe in something real, and when to believe in something unreal? But I’m having trouble with Approach v. Attitude, because they seem prima facie neither mutually exclusive nor at opposite ends of a spectrum. Just because you approach something doesn’t mean you have an attitude toward it? No. When is it better to approach something, and when to have an attitude toward it? No. I tried the Analysis Filter on dramatica.com, but I’m still stuck–esp. because it says things like “In each of the stories below, everyone faces issues emanating from The Main Character’s preferred method of general problem solving (OS Issue: Approach). This issue naturally calls for every character to also address (OS Counterpoint: )”, with nothing actually listed for what the counterpoint is.

Any thoughts that might help me gain some clarity on this?

#2

Does it matter if you have the wrong attitude when you take the right approach?
Does the right attitude help you through tough times, even if your approach may make everything worse?

1 Like
#3

bobRaskoph pretty much described it the way I have always thought of it as well. Even after reading through the filter analysis.

That actually appears to be a glitch on the page as the Counterpoint should always be Attitude.

The Godfather example helped to wrap my head around it a bit more. When they approached things with a personal attitude, a personal vendetta, it was considered bad for business but also bad for them personally. Even though Vito had a reasonable attitude for denying Sollazzo’s proposition his approach was faulty as it pissed off the other families and ended up getting him shot at. Sonny went after Sollazzo after the hit on his father and ended up getting brutally murdered. His attitude was personal and his approach therefore was reckless.

There just seems to be a very specific yet complex way that attitudes and approaches clash with what ends up happening in the short and long term. Good attitudes bad approaches. Bad attitudes good approaches etc…

1 Like
#4

These are both very helpful. So this dynamic pair involves not just opposites but also the presence of one thing IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OTHER. So a character with the Attitude element would have the right attitude AND THE WRONG APPROACH, and the character with the Approach element would have the right approach AND THE WRONG ATTITUDE.

Do the other dynamic pairs work like this? Does Desire indicate Desire IN THE ABSENCE OF ABILITY, Need indicate Need IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPEDIENCY?

#5

In my opinion, one doesn’t indicate the absence of the other. It’s just that you have to look at the counterpoint from the perspective of the issue.
So if you have the issue of Desire, you could look at desire on its own, desire as opposed to ability, desire without ability, desire with a lot of ability, desirability…
A character with the Attitude issue would most likely look at everything with the lens of Attitudes and be additionaly confronted with different approaches as a counterpoint. Negativity or positivity is not inherent in your choice for the issues.

Here are some questions and answers based on the whole issue vs. counterpoint topic:
http://dramatica.com/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-issue-and-counterpoint
http://dramatica.com/questions/how-do-the-issue-and-counterpoint-interact

1 Like
#6

No this is wrong. The absence of one does not imply the other. Dynamic pairs work both way - negatively and positively. So one’s approach could conflict with another’s attitude OR someone with the right approach and attitude can achieve anything. That kind of idea.

#7

Yes it is a glitch. Have to add that to the list…

#8

Okay, this and bobRaskoph’s answer help me a lot. I still have some mental wrestling to do with the concept but I think I have a better handle at least on what it is I have to wrestle!

Thank you both so much.

#9

I have been having trouble with this same paring. I took this from my FOUR THROUGHLINES THEMES report from the Dramatica Story Expert

Influence Character Story Thematic Report

In “my story,”Joe is the influence character, meaning that we see Joe as the primary influence on Frank’s personal fulfillment. In fact, Frank is on the wrong path, and Joe pressures him to take a better approach. As an Activity character, Joe works by taking action.

With regard to that “activity”, Joe is primarily concerned with Obtaining, especially in terms of Approach. In fact, it is the discrepancy between Approach and Attitude that is most exemplified by Joe. Driving a wedge between these two items is the source of his drive, which is Uncontrolled. In other words, changes in his frenzy over the course of the story create direct responses in the level of Joe’s satisfaction. Only if Control replaced Uncontrolled would Joe be satisfied.

Joe is uniquely able to pursue this course as a result of his association with Attitude. At least, he would be able to if Rationalization didn’t always get in his way. The frustrations Joe feels when he is held back only serve to increase the extent of his Concern with Obtaining.

In summary, Joe’s primary Concern is an activity or endeavor regarding Obtaining. More specifically, he impacts the balance between Approach and Attitude in the context of Activity. His primary influence is focused on Approach. As a result, issues regarding Attitude arise. As Joe’s impact grows, it tips the balance between Approach and Attitude in the eyes of the other characters. Affecting his impact on Frank are his drive regarding Uncontrolled, and his satisfaction with Control. That said, Joe may be focused on Avoidance and believe Pursuit as the best response. Aided in this effort by his unique abilities in the area of Attitude, he is held back by an aspect of Rationalization as it is measured against Doing.

Joe’s wife has had it with him and Joe’s activity is to get his wife back. She will not even talk to Joe until he finds Frank and gets him back to his wife and kids. Joe cannot control Frank who is determined to go out and wield his new found Attitude of living a life without fear and Frank wants everyone else to join him in this new approach to life.

Joe’s problem with Frank in the past has been Franks “all talk but no action” (is this approach or attitude — or both) Joe thinks this may be more of the same.

As far as Rationalization I would say Joe’s rationalization of why he cheated on his wife.
Could anyone else carry this further or make it better in the light of the report quoted? Do I seem to be on the right track #approach #attitude ?? How could Joe be

uniquely able to pursue this course as a result of his association with Attitude?

#10

Joe believes that ones approach (methodology of doing or being) is directly affected by ones attitude. And visa-versa. He thinks Frank’s approach in the past has lacked balls and his attitude lacks conviction. Now, Frank has run off which got Joe into trouble with his wife and he’s not sure if he likes Frank’s new approach and attitude. (Joe’s approach and attitude could use some adjusting when it comes to being a good husband)