I think it is just brilliant to stry to use a theory such as this to see possible ways in which someone with one leaning or the other might be affected as he or she implements GTD. GTD steps will bring up lots of negative feelings for all kinds of reasons. I donm't think the book really talks about that but you can certainly see that in the post. These dysphoric affects and ideas could be stimulated by the reminders of our unfinished efforts, blurry goals, lack of money for supplies, reminders of past failures, uncertain futures, exisitential issues, etc. So it takes a certain amount of forebearance to keep with it. No one would start GTD if all of well. It may some phases of GTD are easier for a person with one tendancy or the other to implent because they are an extension of an automatic practice. For the state-oriented, aspects of one's inner life (worries, self-doubt or even optimistic thoughts) may begin to crest, but he might be used to this and skilled at integrating them into the larger picture. Or if not handling them well could capture them and put them into current projects or something to think about in the future (SDMB). But, the same state-oriented person may need a little help generating specifc actions ("I don't know what to do first" "I can't do x untial I do Y"). In contrast, the action-oriented may more readily see ways to act and move forward but may need to really struggle with the larger analysis (make an action choice without looking at the bigger picture). He might not easily the relationship between actions cjosen and the higher levels of purpose, or draw upon resources (e.g. philosophy, religion, role models) to refine the thinking. I think that the theory gives you a "place" to look for the sticking point. When any of us gets stuck, we need to do an assessment of what we are doing or not doing and it helps to know where to look. If there is a conflict with some individual tendancy , we can look for ways to minimize that or build on it positively.