When I googled for Sentient, I got this: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience)."
This is the exact thing that is "F" (as against "T" in MBTI), the ability to experience subjectively which can be further categorized to having just the "K" and the deeper ability to have "C and A" (comprehension and analytical ability) in subjective traits.
Incidentally I was talking to a friend of mine today about what makes a good teacher or speaker. She had recently attended some training programs and she was gaga about 2 of the various speakers. One was Mrs Flower and the other was Mr Mouse.
As per my friend,
- both had a good voice (and perhaps voice modulation too - I have requested my friend to give me a recording of someone's voice which she considers to be not good.)
- both obviously had good content - they knew their subjects very well.
- both expressed well - their facial expressions, both tended to move around while speaking rather than standing/sitting in one place.
- both had good relevant humor while speaking - my friend rated Mrs Flower higher than Mr Mouse.
Overall my friend rated the lady slightly higher than she did the gentleman. I asked her why. She replied that the lady moved around more, that both the man and the woman had good voices, both had good content, the lady's sense of humor was better - but when I questioned my friend on this, she said that the lady's higher rating was not because of the better humor. But because the lady connected with my friend and the audience better.
I suggested to my friend that the voice modulation and tendency to move around while talking were indicative of a need to connect with the audience. If you had a flat intonation, as though you were reciting a prayer and sitting or standing in one place while delivering a lecture, it is likely that you are unaware of (the need to connect with) an audience. Put another way, if you didn't have a need to connect with the audience, your modulation and posture and movement would all be ineffective. The audience would tend to tune off.
My friend and I went on to talk about a Mr D, who was a principal in the school where she worked. She likes the way Mr D conducts his meetings. Other people also like meetings which Mr D chaired. The interesting thing is that apparently Mr D doesn't have a good voice, doesn't move around while talking. Yet he is effective. Now how is that possible?
Mr D is a good man. People like him. And maybe that overrides his other deficiencies. Meaning, if a stranger spoke like Mr D did, the audience would likely not have been impressed.
My friend also talked about a third lady who moved around a lot, in almost a dramatic fashion, yet whose lecture was not good. My guess her movements were artificial. The movements were perhaps not dictated by her passion to connect, rather by the belief that movement on the stage creates a better connect.
In conclusion, if your content is good, if you love to connect (and this would show up in your voice modulation and your posture and movements and expressions - essentially in your non verbal language), you will connect with your audience. Humor helps but probably not mandatory. The passion to connect cannot be faked.
