Interesting excerpt from the referenced self-monitoring paper: "Stated otherwise, the theory of self-monitoring concerns differences in the extent to which people value, create, cultivate, and project social images and public appearances. High self-monitors can be likened to consummate social pragmatists, willing and able to project images designed to impress others. Moreover, they seem to believe in the appearances they create and to take stock in the fact that these appearances can and do become social realities. By contrast, low self-monitors seem not only unwilling but also unable to carry off appearances. They live as if put-on images are falsehoods, as if only those public displays true to the privately experienced self are principled."

I've also read that the ability for human ancestors to organize might be based on negatively impacting emotions related to self-image: "I believe that the origins of the uniquely human emotions of shame and guilt are an outcome of natural selection pushing combination strategies for negative emotions.... to feel shame and guilt, there must be a sense of self as an object of evaluation" [1]

If these hypotheses are true, "high self-monitors" might come from from 2 places: 1. an aptitude for putting on appearances (and believing in them as an image of self) 2. high sensitivity to negative "self" emotions like shame and guilt

Consider these 2 archetypes ("A" & "P"), now also consider alongside them a 3rd archetype of all "low self-monitors" ("D"). The most interesting part is to model the interaction of these 3 archetypes working together - naturally these different perspectives cause misunderstanding, but perhaps balance. In 2004, Parker, Stone, Brady et al proposed a theory to model these relationships in simple terms. Some people have even referred to the articulation of this theory as the "greatest speech ever". [2]

[1] http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddoc... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc