learnedax comments:I'm not sure I agree that creativity and consideration are predominantly at odds, but it does seem to have a high correlation, at least around here.
In addition to seeming to fit the observational data, there's a good theoretical explanation. That always makes me happy when that happens. :)
First of all, I want to re-emphasize that we're not talking about the total broad class of all things which are considerate, we're talking about gestures of consideration which indicate a person has been thought of in their absence, which I will continue to call "gestures of consideration" for short.
The thing about such gestures of consideration which creative people tend not to get is that they are, practically speaking, often rooted in consistency. The underlying dichotomy is really not one of "creative" vs. "considerate" -- two terms I have employed to characterize this contrast in mutually flattering terms (yes, this is a veiled MBTI discussion :) -- but a dichotomy between being oriented toward novelty vs. being oriented towards consistency. It is the people who consistently think of others who think of others when they are absent. If they think of you while you're there, they'll continue to think of you while you're not.
Creativity is about novelty. To create is to make that which is new. The very mechanics of personality which incline someone to creativity disadvantage them in consistency.
That disinclination is not so great it cannot be overcome with even just a moderate amount of determination. But it is, as far as we know, a permanent inclination, and learning to overcome it does not make it go away, the same way that 25 years of instrumental music training on both hands has rendered me marvelously capable in my left hand, but still right handed.
The inclination to consistency manifests in two ways, which is why there is another interesting correlation to which I have alluded. Those people who are most likely to do these gestures of consideration from an orientation to consistency are also more likely to express that consideration in gestures of traditional forms. They are less likely to express their consideration by writing a poem than they are by writing a note in a Christmas card, less likely to send a gift "for no reason" than send a birthday present.
The inclination for consistency is precisely what imbues for those people tradition with such appeal. What is tradition if not consistency? Thus the observation of traditional gestures in traditional ways can be especially important to the same people who are so good at remembering to think of someone when they aren't there.
That is why it's very rare to see someone consistently do highly creative and innovative gestures of consideration.
I suspect that it is more about attitudes with regard to oneself and others, in particular whether you focus your energies outward or inward, but the effect is quite likely the same.
I would disagree with that surmise, in that I don't think this varies with introversion/extroversion. I have been particularly impressed at the gestures of consideration from a number of introverted Considerate people. They tend to express themselves not in surprise parties but letters, not to many but to few, but the pattern is still there. On the flip side, gregarious, extroverted creative people don't seem to be any better at it than their introverted brethren.
Since you give the SCA as an example, I find it worth noting that (modulus martial activities, which is an entirely different topic) the main division in recognition within the SCA is between creativity and service. The mapping to this topic is not exact in that service is not truly the same as consideration, but it's close enough to be interesting.
Oh, yes, I've gone on a bit, on that topic before. :) The one thing the SCA really has going for it that so many subcultures lack -- and I swear I never imagined I would say any such thing -- is the Tripartite Model of Human Endeavor, which we see reflected in the reward system. I won't go into it now, but I'm convinced the fact the Society has codified respect/status for three very different sorts of roles with in the Society, and woven that respect into the fabric of the Society's culture, has much to do with the vigor and durability of the Society, especially in contrast to many other groups. It goes quite a way to helping Considerate and Creative people (as well as many other "warring factions") feel both at home and tolerant of others.
But that said, it's still the case that local branches can fall out of balance. Since there is no equilibrium between these various roles/styles/approaches, if one gets a little advantage, it tends to be self-reinforcing, and spiral quickly into a big advantage. It can happen both easily and quickly. Also, when a group gets particularly large and people form up into subgroups (regardless of porosity), they tend to pick people like them, which can result in localized imbalances. Hence, "service households", "A&S households" and "fighting households".
But I digress: this is far beyond mere Considerate vs. Creative, or even Service vs. A&S vs. Martial, and it is much more complicated (in Carolingia, I understand the greatest local award overlap is between Daystar and Moon!)
I think your practical solutions are workable, but do not really address a major barrier in solving this problem, to wit: suggesting to others that you feel a lack of consideration is on the one hand frequently perceived as selfish either by yourself or by others, and on the other hand taints the result. As you say, we are talking about being considered in one's absence. Thus, receiving consideration because you acted to arrange it is fundamentally unsatisfying, even if it is not the trivial case of directly asking for it.
Amen. Have you been following Mason Darrow?
In addition to feeling one is being selfish to ask for such things, some people feel ashamed to from a sense that having to ask for gestures that you mean things to others is pathetic, or angry for being put in that spot. Probably lots of avenues for unhappiness.
This is what we call a catch-22.
Well, I think it is possible to let people know what you want in general without specifying it, and without tainting it. There are other, er, realms of human experience, shall we say, were people in asymmetrical doer/done-to relationships manage to explicitly negotiate what will transpire between them, and I gather many have managed to do so in a way which leaves room for authenticity of expression and surprize.
Now, that fact that you wrote this is in and of itself an act of consideration (in multiple senses).
It is, but not one of the gestures of consideration of which we were speaking. I'm still thinking about that computer program. :)