Personality Zone

• 2008
• barack obama
• kip parent
• presidential election

Posted by Pat on Jan 23, 2008 Obama, an INTJ, is up against ENTJ Clinton. On the other hand, what you say about his rearing has been charaterized on the Fourth Turning forums as "typical Nomad - genX" as opposed to Clinton's typically Boomer lifecycle. It matters because these tags relate back to the sort of world they were brought up in and the parenting styles in vogue then. Pat, INTP and very sensitive to these issues because I'm Silent Generation (b.1939) which for a long time was torn between being wannabe GI like my ex, and wannabe Boomer like, say, Abbie Hoffman. My kids are more or less contemporary with Obama and so I agree with the 4T people on this.

Posted by archetypalmind on Jan 24, 2008 This idea of Obama developing other "masks" outside those of the rational is interesting. Carl Jung speaks of the shadow personality (the opposite) when describing the personality types. He cautions people against neglecting this shadow once the main personality is developed. Through my observations, I've seen well-matured individuals persevere in their opposite in addition to their natural preference. In Obama's case, the shadow would be the ESFP. This appears to be a charm that Hillary is struggling to emulate, with her emotional reactions that are all too calculated and not sincere.

Posted by JackDermody on Jan 24, 2008 Obama certainly is a complex human being. When character development over time meets temperament in the person who is highly intelligent and disciplined, we may meet that rich Renaissance person. Some effective leaders I've met have not only learned but have deeply internalized characteristics of all the temperaments. They appreciate where other jpeople are coming from and adapt themselves easily to contexts and values. Sometimes I feel temperament theory may indeed seem simplistic as a theoretical framework for some of these folks. Kit, your Richard Lugar quote about "certain times in history" is why I had thought Obama possessed a bit more "P" than "J" -- in that only three Presidents in our history appear to have been NTPs, i.e, Madison, Jefferson, and Lincoln. And I doubt anyone would disagree that the turmoil we are experiencing now is right up there with the American Revolution, the creation of the Constitution, and the oversight of the Civil War. So I looked hard at Obama's behavior and hoped/guessed that his Artistan speechmaking and clear openness to alternative ideas suggested more P than J and, therefore, some hope for real change at this moment in history. In any case, both Obama and Hillary -- by their very nature, i.e., their natural temperaments -- will indeed be agents for change, if that's what America chooses next November.

Posted by Arachnophobia on Jan 24, 2008 Like Jack, I also saw Obama more as an NTP, an ENTP to be precise. Thats the way he comes across, atleast to me. He somehow got some of the ESTP charme (which isnt that far away from ENTP, changing abstract/concrete communication style) , but the "vision" of an NT, like you have already pointed out in the article. "he has an exceptional ability to paint a vision" could also interpreted as ENTP entrepreneurship, presenting the invention if you want to call it that way, borrowing ENFP idealistic communication (to me, Obama comes across a little bit like Kerry in that respect) to appeal to the democratic base. Your whole argument of being so diverse as in borrowing artisan and idealistic communication sounds a lot like the free-spirited ENTP, looking out for what works. Also to me, he seems to take the cake from Clinton in debates by being somewhat the debate freak who likes the intellectual challenge of a debate, which again points towards ENTP, who often like to engage in discussions. J or P could be decided on weather Obama tries to command people or to persuade them (compare the Lincoln on Leadership part in Please Understand Me 2, Lincoln wrote "persuade rather than coerce", which is Lincoln in his NTP role in action). I didnt watch Obama on this issue yet though...

Posted by Keillan on Jan 25, 2008 I have generally in the past been unconcerned with party nomination races as I feel that is a matter for the parties themselves, while I am an Independent. However, Obama has been one of the candidates out there that has gotten my attention. He seems to be the one best promoting the idea of the U.S. as a whole, rather than which political philosophy will be dominant for the next two to four years. He certainly has convictions, which is good, but he seems to want to be a President for all Americans. His Idealist-like demeanor has me believing more and more he should be the next President. Of course I'll continue to watch him as the campaigns continue, but at least I like what I see.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jan 28, 2008 Obama is impressive, although he is a collectivist. If he gets elected, being a Rational, hopefully he do the opposite of what those who elected want him to do.

Posted by pzpeggy on Jan 28, 2008 Dave, please state clearly what he should do as opposed "to those elected him want him to do". That is a rather arcane statement. He is not all a collectivist, on the contrary he has his special interests as well -they just happen to be the same as most Americans unlike our current unpopular president.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jan 29, 2008 I will have a blog soon that suggests that one might try the strategy to vote for the person you don't agree most. Many of the Presidents DO the opposite of what they promise the party hopefuls. Bush Jr. promised no nation building. Clinton reformed welfare and pushed Republican-backed free trade. Bush Sr. raised taxes with his lips. Reagan increased spending and negotiated with the Russians. This tendency of Presidents to be pragmatic goes back to Adams and Jefferson. Obama is a collectivist, he states in his book, Audacity of Hope, he is a Democrat. He believes in government. He has never suggested lowering taxes.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jan 29, 2008 A small note regarding Obama character, I suspect that his Idealism was highly influenced by his mother. She was a clear Idealist, most likely a Counselor Idealist.

Posted by JackDermody on Jan 29, 2008 Collectivist? How about Socialist or Communist? It just occurred to me this kind of name-calling is how the Republicans will defeat Obama if he is nominated. The Grand Old Party is going to avoid race issues as surely as they daren’t utter the word Nixon, but the old Cold War Chant of “He’s a communist” will win the day…surely. This was J. Edgar Hoover’s tactic against Martin Luther King, Jr. If Hillary is nominated, they’ll sing the same song, especially about healthcare. Why is it that the moment a leader talks about fairness, justice, and community that the lions of free enterprise get paranoid and belligerent? Of course communism deadens the human spirit. Obama cannot possibly be advocating that. Of course pure free enterprise can be a cruel exploiter of front-line workers. Romney, et al. cannot possibly be advocating that, now can they? I think one of the gifts of the three Rationals (Clinton, Obama, and Romney) in this election is the possibility of doing things that make sense instead of following old, ineffective, and corrupted ideologies.

Posted by FriarTuck on Jan 29, 2008 Hey Kip - I caught you on the Ronn Owens show on KGO this morning. Good show! You really ought to promote an appearance like that beforehand so that more of us can catch it.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jan 30, 2008 It is interesting on the different personalities of Presidential elections, but I can't see the direction of government changing significantly for any President, other than more taxes (whether "real" or "virtual"). My question is WHEN the US will die, not IF. For Good or Evil: The History of Taxes, by Charles Adams, demonstrates it is taxes that determines the birth, duration, and death of cultures, hence governments. The rest of history is details.

Posted by JackDermody on Jan 30, 2008 Well, back to "personality being the diffrentiator," John McCain's triumph in Florida today is astounding. I almost want to make some side bets. Kip and David, is it that inevitable that an Artisan will nab the Presidency? Artisan McCain is challenged by Rationals in both parties. If there were ever an historic moment screaming for a Rational it is NOW and, yet, will this Artisan prove to look like he can meet that moment? Will McCain come off as meaty enough to do the job? Or will the public even care?

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jan 30, 2008 History predicts Artisans win, but there are several new factors that could invalidate this trend. A trend is a trend until it is broken. If Hillary wins the nomination, then she will be the first woman. If Obama wins the nomination he will be the first non-white candidate. How that affects the outcome is unknown since these factors has no history to go by. Jack Kennedy was the first Catholic to run but also to win.

Posted by KipParent on Jan 30, 2008 The difference in perspective of the different types is always fascinating to me. For example, the INTP looks at the political system and declares that the direction of government will not change (much) no matter who the president is. Looking at our country as an empire over the course of 3 centuries, I can see some login in this view. Empires are created, grow, prosper, decay, and eventually are replaced. The Earth IS 4.5 billion years old... However, from the NTJ viewpoint, the actions of one president carry tremendous ramifications - one only need look at the presidency of GW Bush vs what an Al Gore presidency might have been. Iraq? Budget deficit? Energy policy? In another 300 years these may prove to be irrelevant in the disposition of our country. However, the effect on people living their lives today is very large.

Posted by CoolaTroopa on Feb 1, 2008 I agree that Obama is an *NTJ, but why not an ENTJ? He seems to be a fairly social guy, especially from reading his autobiography "Audacity of Hope". INTJ would be my second bet though.

Posted by KipParent on Feb 5, 2008 In "Dreams From My Father", Obama describes his time as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. In this role he coached the community leaders, and helped them to lead the events and activities, meet with the politicians, etc. He hasn't been one to show a need to "be in charge" such as the Fieldmarshal usually finds him or her self. I haven't read "Audacity of Hope" yet - I chose the earlier book as it was written before he had any plans of going into politics - so much less reason for spin. BTW, I really enjoyed the book - I think it is well worth a read.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Feb 5, 2008 There are many differences between Keirsey and Myers. One is that Keirsey has little use for Extraversion and Introversion. He uses the concepts of Expressive and Attentive. A Fieldmarshal Rational correlates to Myers' ENTJ, but the Expressive Coordinator (a FieldMarshal) does not have to be "social." Good examples of Fieldmarshals are George C. Marshall and Douglas MacArthur that were mobilizers but would not be considered particularly "social." The Myers E/I doesn't make as much sense for the Rational temperament.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Feb 5, 2008 I have read both Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope. There is no doubt Obama is articulate, analytical, and very bright. However, you see a major difference in political intelligence and economic intelligence when you compare Alan Greenspan's Age of Turbulence with Obama's Audacity of Hope. Economics is simpler and harder. The brillance of the analytical mind of Greenspan comes through because it takes several reads to pick up the dense information and insight of the man and sometimes the jargon gets heavy. Obama's book is a lighter read, well argued but easily debated or contested, politics is shallow and vague.

Posted by KipParent on Feb 5, 2008 Here's an interesting quote from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz who has been covering the Obama campaign. "In an age of all-out political warfare," Kurtz wrote recently, "the Obama campaign is a bit of an odd duck: It is not obsessed with winning each news cycle. The Illinois senator remains a remote figure to those covering him, and his team, while competent and professional, makes only spotty attempts to drive its preferred story lines in the press." This describes an INTJ much more than ENTJ to me.

Posted by orchid on Feb 8, 2008 Greenspan's brilliance??!! oh, good grief! Greenspan's 'brilliance' is a major contributing factor to the mess our economy is in now. Let's take a look at Greenspans record as a prognosticator: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/greenspan-predicts-housing-bust.html <snip> With his "permanently high plateau" call, Greenspan all but assured prices are about ready to collapse. Bear in mind there was no evidence of a Nasdaq crash in Spring of 2000 either. But given that Greenspan has been wrong at every critical juncture in his entire career, we know housing is will collape sooner or later. Actually his position is peculiar to say the least. He claimed there was a bubble in stocks in 1994, he embraced the productivity miracle in 1999-2000 looking for upside in the economy as shown by Fed minutes, then after the bubble burst claimed that bubbles could only be detected after they pop. Now he is claiming "very orderly and moderate cooling where prices where prices will not go down". This is of course reminiscent of esteemed economist Irving Fisher's statement in October 1929: "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." </snip> It won't be hard for Obama or most anybody else to best that sorry record.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Feb 12, 2008 Prediction is difficult especially, about the future. Niels Bohr. I can't think of *anybody* who is "good" at prediction. Greenspan, AS FED CHAIR, was very careful in qualifying his "predictions" -- those who didn't like Greenspan hated his Fedspeak, because he use of the subjunctive. Conditional. Context. If this and if this, that is the Rational speak, and those hearing (but not listening) strip out all the conditionals and make sound bites to their advantage. Rationals know predictions are usually wrong. Greenspan, DOES IN HIS BOOK, "predict" but in GLOBAL TERMS (i.e., generalization) the future. But I can guarantee those who don't listen will not read.

Posted by mtv on Feb 24, 2008 From statements Barack Obama has made I believe he is a P rather than a J. Most likely ENTP. Read the articles about the Obama marriage at Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2176683/pagenum/all/ http://www.slate.com/id/2176679/

Posted by Waxpoeticness on Feb 26, 2008 Actually, there is an interesting article on Slate, concerning the candidates' Keirsey types (http://www.slate.com/id/2176679/). They had a different take on both Hillary and Obama, concluding that Hillary is an ESTJ, while Obama is an ENFP. They make some pretty strong arguments, though Hillary is less likely to be an ESTJ than Obama an ENFP. Yet it seems that most people here are convinced Obama is an NT. I was wondering why that is, considering charisma, a penchant for optimistic language, and a diplomatic leadership style seem to be the characteristics of an Idealist. Although character plays a factor into one's personality, Obama's warmth and ability to cooperate seem more like an inherent tendency rather than a learned trait. Thoughts?

Posted by Bernie on Mar 3, 2008 Well, I agree with the Introverted part. But if you talk to 100 people most of them will say the attribute that first comes to mind when you say "Obama" is charismatic. A charismatic INTJ? Name just one from history. Dick Cheney is an INTJ. Barack Obama is no Dick Cheney. You write of his health plan. Let me help you here: health plans and the like are not drawn up by the candidates -- they lack the expertise. These are made by specialists. This should not come into our data. What should is Obama's answer to the question, "what is one of your flaws?" He said: I fail to keep my desk neat and clean". Does this sound like a TJ to you? I think that what we have in Obama is an chameleon ISFP who can fool people about who he really is in the way that only an Artisan can. (Reserve right to change my mind after I read his book, but note that books by celebrities are usually ghostwritten.)

Posted by leonbodevin on Mar 7, 2008 I'd be very surprised if Mr. Obama was not an NTp. He has a striking number of similarities between another NTp: Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 8, 2008 The two types which externalize emotion are FJs and TPs. If Obama were an xNTP I think we would hear him externalizing emotion pretty frequently, much as Howard Dean expressed anger and as John McCain is still doing. Just today, "Senator Hothead" (McCain) went off on a reporter just for asking an ordinary question. Obama isn't doing that so I strongly doubt he is an xNTP.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 16, 2008 Hmm, seems to me that his middle name was given him by his father, not chosen by him, so I don't see that as any kind of evidence at all. His stances on health care and the environment vis-a-vis their probably outcomes are also moot as this is a matter of opinion, not fact. If you have him as an xxFJ though, you need to point out where he is showing externalized emotion.

Posted by leonbodevin on Mar 16, 2008 I think Mr. Obama is a good example of the difference between an NTp and an NTj. If you look at the difference in rhetoric between a mastermind like John Adams and an architect like Thomas Jefferson, you get some idea that Obama is a classic NTp. John Adams was pugnacious, confrontational, and outspoken. Jefferson's rhetoric, on the other hand, tended to deal with the highest aspirations of mankind even though they sometimes seemed unrealistic and idealistic. Jefferson also liked to give the appearance that he was somehow above the fray while Adams was quite the opposite. Jefferson's rhetoric tended to soar while Adams was more earthy and fiery.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 21, 2008 Well Leon, since you want to go old school, how about Ben Franklin? Got into terrible fights with people, like his father, his older brother, his only son, John Adams, etc. And surely Franklin the inventor and scientist was an ENTP. How do you square that? Speaking of which, is there any kind of scientific/invention nature to Obama? Jefferson was an architect so that counts. Lincoln had several patents related to steamship design. What has Obama shown in this area? As for Kent, you are inserting a value judgment where none is required. It is a biased opinion on your part that there is anything wrong with his middle name in the first place. Who says he even sees anything wrong with it? And there's no way Kennedy was an INFJ. He was certainly an xSFP. Go read Presidential Temperament if you doubt it.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 21, 2008 Well Leon, since you want to go old school, how about Ben Franklin? Got into terrible fights with people, like his father, his older brother, his only son, John Adams, etc. And surely Franklin the inventor and scientist was an ENTP. How do you square that? Speaking of which, is there any kind of scientific/invention nature to Obama? Jefferson was an architect so that counts. Lincoln had several patents related to steamship design. What has Obama shown in this area? As for Kent, you are inserting a value judgment where none is required. It is a biased opinion on your part that there is anything wrong with his middle name in the first place. Who says he even sees anything wrong with it? And there's no way Kennedy was an INFJ. He was certainly an xSFP. Go read Presidential Temperament if you doubt it.

Posted by leonbodevin on Mar 21, 2008 Not every NT is a certified scientist: rationals can contribute to a diverse range of fields. Eisenhower was hardly a scientist though he was undoubtedly a mastermind rational. It's very unusual for any rational to extrovert emotion: that is why they are called rationals. And JFK was not an xSFP either: he is a classic promoter artisan (ESTP). Presidential Temperament lists him as such.

Posted by leonbodevin on Mar 21, 2008 My impression is that Mr. Obama is probably an inventor rational. There's some interesting parallels between himself and other inventor rationals. I don't want to make this a political discussion, but if you look at his recent speech on race, I immediately realized he was probably falling victim to some mistakes that other inventor rationals have made. Most notably was Robert Oppenheimer's mistake after the end of WWII: his message became way too complicated and he began to lose his audience. I think there was an element of Benjamin Franklin's faith in the endless reasonability of the electorate present as well.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 22, 2008 OK on Eisenhower. JFK can be an ESTP; the point was that he's an SP, not an NF. By the way, it's a myth that NTs are always calm, cool and collected. Actually NTs can get angrier than most other types. We TJs seethe inside and the TPs publically explode when angry enough. One fun story on this is the 4th US president James Madison. He must have been an INTP. One day he was speaking and anticipated a lot of critique from the floor, so he told his friend to stop him if he got too heated. Well, we did get a lot of criticism and he did explode. Later he remembered his request and asked the friend, "hey, why didn't you stop me? didn't you notice how angry I was getting?" The friend said, "I did notice, but you were so angry that I was afraid to get in the way."

Posted by Barbarian on Mar 22, 2008 Barack Obama has been described as having an 'everyman' persona. His Wikipedia article cites authors from the New Yorker and New York Post as describing him as having a neutral personality on which others project their histories and beliefs. It would appear this idea is supported by both this review as well as the Slate article mentioned above.

Posted by Bernie on Mar 23, 2008 Well, everyman says SP to me because they are chameleons...

Posted by Bernie on Mar 31, 2008 Presidential Temperament has Kennedy as an xSTP, believably. And, what's in a name and why should it inhibit one's religious belief? Was Jesus a Christian? He had a Jewish name...

Responses by Guardians, Artisans, Rationals, Idealists, All