HEX - GON

          ‶They were just talking about the phrase: taking one's own council, so I told them all about that hex-gon concept.  I mentioned it to you—kinda briefly—last time, right?″

          ‶YahBut...Remind me...Is that hex gone, like in: 'we payed Witch Hulda to make her hex gone potion' or hexagon, as in: 'Gamey Greta moved her trivial pursuit token into the middle hexagon'?″

          ‶Both.  Neither.  I must not've splaind it goodnuf.  Six letters: H E X space G O N.  Supposed to bring to mind both Witch Hulda's potion and Gamey Greta's final question.″

          ‶AaahOk...I remember there were six scales, but I don't remember the traits on em...Oh and...each of the six were scored from one to six...Umm, I'm wrong...They were scored A B C D E F and, depending on what letters you picked, you got a different result...reminded me of the Myers Briggs.″

          ‶The first trait is your benevolence - avarice scale.  What would your letter be?  You're making a face.  Izit cauzeya need help with a few examples?  Or—like Nancy Normal—you don't wanna gointa any details today?″

          ‶Passive aggressive much?″         

          ‶I'm sorry I said like Nancy Normal.  I shouldn't have been so pushy.″

          ‶IzzFine...I don't mind...But, I guess I could use help defining avarice and benevolence...and, maybe, sketch it out so I can remember this time.″

          ‶Here, I can use this napkin for a visual aid.  On this side is A to F from benevolence to avarice.  Benevolence is similar to being kind and charitable; while avarice is always seeking to profit, but in a mean way.

           You pick A if you've been—as an adult—benevolent to-a-fault; and F if you've been avaricious to-a-fault.  Pick B if you've tried to be benevolent when possible; pick E if you've tried to be avaricious when possible.  Or you pick C if you've more-often-than-not been benevolent; and D if you've more-often-than-not been avaricious.″

          ‶LemmeGeddisStraight...if default mode is either: way too much, mostly attempted, or occurred slightly more than half of the time...you're saying it's possible for a person to be too benevolent?..And...are you saying this isn't for children?″

          ‶Yes.  To both questions.  I don't know if this would be a valuable tool for insane sociopaths.  And children are all insane sociopaths.  An adult who is aware they routinely assist or attempts to help others, without any thought for their own welfare, could consider themself to be an 'A' on this first scale.

           Which leads us to the second trait: your candor - guile scale.  Candor is kinda like speaking honestly and being plainspoken; while guile is kinda like speaking with duplicity in a sly or cunning manner.″

          ‶OhIsee...with too much candor, people's feelings can get hurt by your blunt words; and too much guile people might suspect they're being lied to or deceived...neither's a way to win friends and influence enemies!″

          ‶Right.  Third trait: your amity - enmity scale.  Amity is behaving peacefully and harmoniously; and enmity is hostile, antagonistic behavior.″

          ‶Wow...I sure can't imagine anyone labeling themselves hostile-to-a-fault...But I know a few who seem to always be sullen or angry or they're tryin to pick a fight...Seems this scale would be better if it were scored by someone who could be objective...I think people will just lie about themselves.″

          ‶Although we're goin thru this together, Vernon, mostly this'd be done alone—like the Myers-Briggs.  This is a tool for introspection.  So people can evaluate their own character traits.  Identify which parts of themselves they need to learn to accept or work on changing (incredibly rare). 

           Which brings us to your fourth trait: the integrity - nefarious scale.  Integrity is comparable to one's adherence to ethical or honorable behavior; nefarious is comparable to one's flagrantly horrible or corrupt behavior.″

             ‶Whaa...you just mumble?..somethin like they'd either learn to accept themself or they'd work on fixing their...cranky hair.″

          ‶What I mumbled, Mister Cranky Hair, was incredibly rare.  Most people don't take intelligence tests to finally put a number on their below-averageness, then start crackin books, and then go back and measure their improvement.  Not sayin it never happens; just that it's rare.

              When you took the Myers-Briggs, did you find out you were judgemental and decide you wanted to be more perceptive?″         

          ‶Um...you think I'm judgemental and not very perceptive?″

          ‶The Myers-Briggs doesn't say that or work that way, but—now that I hear you say it out loud—I did sound that way.  I apologize.  My guess would be: you determined that you were either an ESFJ or an ENFJ.  But that can change over time.  Depends on how long ago you took it.″

          ‶Ohyup...ESFJ...the way I remembered it was entertainment-sports-foot-joy.  What would be yours?..Not extravert...so your first letter is I for intravert.  What's the S or N stand for?..I forget.″

             ‶Sensing or Intuition.  When I first took it, I was an INTJ; the way I recall that is: intelligent-jerk.  But, most recently, I was INTP, so—intelligent-prick?″

          ‶Haaa...So...this one's got six letters instead of four...you should name it...cuz...someone could be, like, an ABACAB...I'm pretty sure that there's a hole in there somewhere.″

          ‶Did you just quote a forty year old song, Vernon?  Wouldn't have thought you were old enough to be a Genesis fan!  But, now you've got me wondering: what would someone with an ABACAB on their Agenda Scale be like?  That's its name; the first letter of each of the traits—on the E-F-G end of the scale—spell out the word agenda.  It's a reference to our hidden agendas or having a personal agenda.″

  

          ‶Isee...So ABACAB would be too overly giving...mostly speaks plain...comes off as obnoxiously friendly...is slightly more honest than dishonest...and that brings us up to...″

 

            ‶The pragmatism - dogma scale is the fifth one.  Pragmatists think about practical applications and make decisions based on day-to-day thoughts, actions, and truths; adherents of dogma are very by-the-book, they don't question that book, and tend to scorn those that do question it.

             ABACAB is a gender neutral person who understands their overly pragmatic attitude towards everything, at all times, with everyone around them, tends to get them in more trouble than it avoids.  They're aware the term can't get out of their own way applies to them, and scores themself an 'A': too-pragmatic.″

           ‶Okthen...And the last on the Agenda Scale?″

           ‶The sixth trait is the certainty - ambivalence scale.  Those who are certain possess a strength in their decisions or hold firm to their convictions; and those who are ambivalent are of-mixed-emotions, tend toward indecisiveness, and are aware of their dichotomous cognitive dissonance.

            ABACAB is mostly certain most of the time.  And that's the all of it.″

 

         ‶Allrightythen...I'ma take this napkin...Cuz I'm mostly certain that my agenda isn't at all like they/them...ABACAB's that is...I need to think about it...all though...pretty sure I don't have any A's or F's...Ha!..Just thought of another good one: an AC DC CD is a middle of the road dude who's only major fault is he keeps doing dirty deeds dirt cheap.″

 

          ‶Gotta hand it to ya there Vernon.  That's spot on fast thinkin, hilarious, and a song from the 1970s.  You sure you're not fifty years old?  All I ask is, please, keep me updated with new letter combinations which you might come up with, ok?″

          ‶Noprob...Thanks for this...the Agenda Scale...It's gonna give me shit to think about for days.″

related in some manner:

un-selfaware

opposite behavior

ambivalence

contemplation