Dope skill

Bird Profiles: reading style and adapting the message

What this is for

People don't all receive information the same way. The same message — a deadline, a proposal, a pitch, a piece of pushback — lands well with one person and badly with another, not because of what it says but how it's framed. This skill does two linked jobs:

1. Read someone's likely style from observable evidence (how they write, what they emphasize, how they make decisions).
2. Adapt to them — tone, structure, length, what to lead with, what to cut, what payoff to frame around — so it fits how that person takes things in.

The adapting applies across three situations, which share the same underlying read but use different playbooks: everyday communication (work messages, updates, asks), selling and persuading (pitches, proposals, negotiations, renewals), and personal and family relationships (partners, family, close colleagues; recurring friction). Routing to the right playbook is covered below.

The governing idea, in all three: don't deal with people the way you'd want to be dealt with; deal with them the way they'd want to be dealt with. You are matching delivery to the person, not changing the truth of the content.

The model: two axes, four birds

Every read comes down to placing someone on two independent axes. Don't skip to the bird names — get the axes first, then the bird falls out of the combination.

Axis 1 — Pace / assertiveness. How fast and forcefully does the person move?

• Faster / more assertive: tells rather than asks, decides quickly, direct and to-the-point, initiates, gets impatient with long build-ups.
• More measured / reserved: asks rather than tells, wants time to consider, cautious, deliberate, lets others go first.

Axis 2 — Orientation. What does the person lead with — people or the task?

• People / warm: references relationships and feelings, warm openings, cares how things land for people, personal touches.
• Task / cool: gets straight to business, leads with facts/logic/outcomes, little small talk, impersonal.

Cross the two axes:

	People / warm	Task / cool
Fast / assertive	Peacock — wants recognition	Eagle — wants results
Measured / reserved	Dove — wants harmony	Owl — wants to be right

One-line summary of each:

• Peacock (fast + warm): a talker. Driven by recognition, status, being noticed. Thinks in big pictures, decides fast, hates detail and being ignored.
• Eagle (fast + cool): a doer. Driven by results, control, winning. Wants the bottom line, no excuses, autonomy. Blunt, impatient.
• Dove (measured + warm): a feeler. Driven by belonging, security, harmony. Loyal, supportive, dislikes conflict, pressure, and sudden change. Detects insincerity instantly.
• Owl (measured + cool): a thinker. Driven by accuracy, structure, being right. Wants facts, evidence, time. Cautious, precise, risk-averse.

Diagonal opposites clash most: Peacock↔Owl, Eagle↔Dove. If the user is finding someone hard to deal with, they are often that person's diagonal opposite — useful to name, because the friction is style, not malice.

For the full per-type detail — identification cues, what they care about, fears, strengths, weaknesses, and how blends work — read references/profiles.md.

How to read someone (inference method)

Work from evidence to hypothesis, in this order:

1. Gather the cues. Use whatever's available: a writing sample (their emails/messages are the best source), described behavior, decision patterns, what they complain about or praise. A pasted email thread is gold — read it for the two axes, not for content.
2. Place them on Axis 1, then Axis 2, citing the specific cues. "Replies in two lines, makes decisions without consulting, no greeting" → fast/assertive. "Leads every message with the team, asks how you are" → people/warm.
3. Name the primary bird from the quadrant, and look for a secondary — most people are a blend (e.g. a Dove/Owl: warm but cautious and detail-driven). The secondary softens or sharpens the primary; references/profiles.md covers common blends.
4. State your confidence and what it's based on. One email is a weak signal; a long thread plus described behavior is strong. Say which.

Hold the read loosely. This is a description of how someone appears to prefer communicating in this context, not a fixed verdict on their character or a psychological diagnosis. People flex by situation — someone can be an Eagle under deadline and a Dove with their team. Treat the profile as a working hypothesis you update as more evidence arrives, and never present it as a clinical or permanent label. If the evidence is thin, say so and give a provisional read rather than a confident one.

A note on intent: the point is to communicate respectfully and effectively — to meet people where they are so the message gets through. It is not to manipulate, flatter falsely, or exploit someone's fears. Doves in particular detect insincerity instantly, so for any type, fake warmth or empty praise backfires. Adapt the framing; keep the substance honest.

How to adapt: pick the situation, then the playbook

Once you have a read, the core adaptation is the same everywhere — match pace and orientation:

• To a Peacock: open warm, keep it energetic and high-level, lead with the vision/upside, give them credit and visibility, keep detail short. Avoid dense analysis and cold formality.
• To an Eagle: lead with the bottom line and the result, keep it short, give options and let them decide, cut the throat-clearing and the feelings. Avoid long preambles, excuses, and hedging.
• To a Dove: open warmly and sincerely, go at a calm pace, reassure about stability and support, be explicit and gentle about any change, make decisions easy. Avoid pressure, ultimatums, and abruptness.
• To an Owl: be logical and precise, give the facts/figures/evidence and the reasoning, structure it clearly, give them time. Avoid hype, vagueness, emotional appeals, and rushing.

Beyond that core, which playbook you load depends on what the user is trying to do. Read the one that fits; don't load all three:

• Everyday communication — a work message, update, request, announcement, or general "how do I word this to them." → references/messaging.md (openings, structure, length, words to use vs. avoid per type, and a worked before→after rewrite of one message four ways).
• Selling or persuading — a pitch, proposal, renewal, negotiation, or any ask that needs a yes; a customer or buyer. → references/selling.md (what each type buys on, how they decide, how to open/frame/close, hot-button words, what kills the sale, and how to layer a proposal for a mixed buying group).
• Personal or family relationship — a partner, family member, or close colleague; understanding someone, or defusing recurring friction. → references/relationships.md (what each type is like up close, what they need, conflict styles, money dynamics, and how pairings clash).

If a request spans two (e.g. a tense negotiation that's also relationship-sensitive), read both. When in doubt about which, messaging.md is the safe default for written communication.

For the deeper "who is this person" detail behind any of these — identification cues, motivations, fears, strengths, blind spots, blends — references/profiles.md is the shared source.

Output shape

Match the response to what was asked, but a profiling-and-advice request is usually best answered in this order (adapt freely; don't force headers onto a short reply):

1. Read — primary (and secondary) bird, the cues that point there, and your confidence.
2. What they care about / what moves them — their driving motivation and what they value, in a sentence or two.
3. What to avoid — the one or two things most likely to make it misfire.
4. The deliverable — the adapted message, the pitch/approach, or the relationship guidance, depending on what they asked for.

If the user already knows the person's type ("she's a classic Eagle, help me word this"), skip the read and go straight to the adaptation. If they only want a read, stop after step 3.

Keep it practical and concise. The user wants something they can act on, not a personality essay.