Personality Zone

• Keirsey
• Kip Parent
• LBJ
• McCain
• Obama
• Temperament

Posted by JackDermody on Jun 10, 2008 When people hear that W's profile is similar to JFK's, they are perplexed. On the one hand, sure, these guys are concrete and utilitarian. On the other hand, one is not very bright; the other is brilliant. Same thing for their successors. LBJ promoted like Donald Trump; McCain (JM?) is no LBJ, as Muskie would have said. The lesson here? Temperament studies steer us in insightful and very, very useful directions but, gee, there's so-o-o-o-o much more! It still lingers very scary to me that Artisans have not lost a national election for freakin' ever. Obama's chances will be good if his own tactical people out-maneuver the Repubulican tactitians!!!

Posted by Keillan on Jun 10, 2008 One consideration to take into play is that Johnson pretty much had the full support of a U.S. Congress of the same party. Despite how Viet Nam progressed, the Democrats maintained control the entire time, even during Nixon's administration. McCain would likely not have that particular advantage as even if the Republicans reclaim Congress with this year's elections, it won't be giving him the fullest support. How McCain would interact with that situation is worth considering as well.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jun 11, 2008 In examining McCain and Obama, another important, and radical difference is their positions on economics. [For those who don’t know me, that is the main issue.] Now that Obama is released from capturing the “left,” the dance between him and McCain will be illuminating. Both McCain and Obama are utilitarian in stance, and they are primary populists: they will say anything within their ideologies to get elected (a requirement to get elected). McCain is viewed as a centrist, and Obama says he is a centrist. Obama’s economic rhetoric is taxing and social spending, and I would argue clearly “left.” McCain’s economic rhetoric is nontaxing and stop spending, and I would argue clearly “right.” Whoever wins, the government will become larger and older. There is little a president, these days, can do about the growth of government and its spending. Keillan’s point, that most likely McCain will not be in control domestically if he gets elected, should be considered. The only other Promoter Artisan who didn’t have control, was Bush 43, essentially in his second term. LBJ, JFK, FDR, and TR essentially had political control in their eras. Reagan was a Performer Artisan, and didn’t have control of government, so he let his political opposition get what they wanted, to get what he wanted. Clinton, a Performer Artisan, lost control of government for most of his tenure, so he basically adopted his political opposition’s agenda.

Posted by JackDermody on Jun 11, 2008 A couple of points, David. I hope you're wrong that today's presidents can do little to control governmental growth. I'd like to think it's still a matter of leadership -- playing Congress well as LBJ did (altho his goal was clearly not about cutting spending). What's scary to me is that the Republicans have held all three branches of government these last few years and somehow forgot about controlling spending. My second point is about Performer Artisans -- does their natural cooperativeness keep them from tough thinking, tough decisions, tough negotiations when it really matters? I have seen Performer Artisan sales people transform into Trump-style negotiators when it gets to the bottom line, so I would hope we'd get a President like that one day.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jun 12, 2008 History and Physics guarantee that civilizations die. The issue is when, not if. I have to add about 50 years to escape the guaranteed coming chaos; sorry kids. It might be a nice chaos on the other hand, but it could happen ANYTIME. History tells us overwhelmingly that it is TAXES that kill civilizations. (For Good and Evil: The History of Taxes, by Charles Adams). Given that we are an economically poor country, each family in this country owns 1.5 Million, I can't see why another factor would be the main reason for our death and break up. Regarding tough thinking, tough decisions, tough negotiations can be done by Artisans, Guardians, and Rationals. (Even Idealists can be "tough" like Mao or Gandhi) "Tough" decisions like not giving up Star Wars proved Reagan was tough, and he got what he wanted without compromising (in fact, because he was tough). Jimmy Carter made the "tough" decision to abandon Taiwan. Tough doesn't mean "right." Promoter Artisan are tough and flexible most of the time, but they also can ignore others if they think they are right. Bush W., LBJ, and FDR were the biggest spenders and increased the age of the US more than any other Presidents.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jun 12, 2008 Owes (not owns) 1.5 Million.

Posted by Pat on Jun 13, 2008 It's a cliche on the Fourth Turning forum that Obama is promising to be a President for the forthcoming Crisis Era; that is, his head seems to be in the next two decades, whereas Clinton's head is still in the 80s and 90s, and McCain's is in the 60s and 70s. Which you have just vividly demonstrated.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jun 15, 2008 History doesn’t repeat itself, at best it rhymes (Mark Twain). We don’t know how and where McCain or Obama will ultimately take their social and economics ideas from and what “age” they exist in, until their presidencies begin and end. One can assert the age of those imputed ideas based on your own political bias. For example, one could argue that Obama might take his economic ideas from the 1930’s, based on his current rhetoric. Then again, Obama could change his tune, depending on who he listens to mainly when, and if, he acquires power. One of possible clues of what McCain and Obama will do economically, is based on their advisors. McCain has used Carly Fiorina as his primary upfront economic guru. Obama has several economic advisors: Austan Goolsbee apparently is a major one. James Galbraith, son of John Galbraith, the main institutional Keynesian of the previous century, apparently is one of Obama’s advisors.

Posted by JackDermody on Jun 17, 2008 Galbraith and Goolsbee are evidently full-blooded capitalists. The former, however, feels many of his colleagues in the profession lack flexibility and good listening skills; Galbraith particularly focuses on the ruinous nature of wartime economies. Goolsbee is a pragmatist with a good dose of empathy toward both individuals and businesses, e.g., suggesting having the government take over GM's pension commitments in return for the car company's commitment to building fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly cars. Goolsbee's paper on taxing the rich does not look at all like populist rich-bashing, but more like an effort to understand the complexity of wealth management as acted upon by the top doggies-in-general, i.e., more appreciation than depreciation (if you'll pardon the pun).

Posted by estanford on Jun 18, 2008 I'm just glad the primary is over -- the way I see it, purely from the perspective of governance, Obama is the weakest of all the three finalists; however, he is also the candidate in the best position to get stronger if he's given half a chance. (McCain isn't getting any younger, and Hillary isn't getting any smoother; Obama's problem is experience, which he can fix on account of his being smart as a whip.) McCain and Obama need to attack the weak points in each other's positions, so that the victorious candidate emerges with stronger policies come election day.

Posted by unders on Jul 4, 2008 I really hope Obama wins. No matter what, we need to get out of this war. No war is good for the economy. It is merely money wasted, whether you want to put this money on social welfare, or on a tax cut. I dont care if your a democrat or republican, the only benefits of war is the few large corporations what are contracted to make war machines. These corporations dont use a diverse enough of resources to inject money into the economy. Money needs to stay with the people, so people have the ability to buy things thus, stimulating the economy. The last thing we want is to reply on foreign nations to buy or invest in our goods.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jul 6, 2008 Unders, I think your characterization of the situation is shallow; you not sufficient in your analysis. "No war is good for the economy" -- Is a rather blanket statement. First, what is "good"? Second, I suggest you look at history a little more.

Posted by unders on Jul 7, 2008 well, to be more specific... no war is good for the economy of the side who is pre-dominantly in the conflict or part of the reasons of conflict. And, winning wealth by conquest shouldn't count because it sort of doesn't apply to our century anymore? Or, at least i hope not.

Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jul 7, 2008 Part of the problem in characterizing war is the length of one's own time horizon. Consider the Civil War (American to be exact). It was bad. It was the bloodiest war. However, not only did 'it free the slaves' it spurred on the mixing of people throughout the nation, helped speed the industrialization the North, it profoundly changed America. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Those who do not learn from history will not add to it.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 10, 2008 From an economic perspective (at least in the short term), a war can be very good for an economy. You could argue that the host of problems this country is suffering through right now should have crippled the economy much more than it has done so far.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 10, 2008 I am curious, Kip, as to why you have typed Mr. Obama as a mastermind. I am certain he is not. His alleged flip-flopping on a host of important issues is a criticism most likely thrown at an NTp than an NTj. Not really knowing where an NTj stands (like Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich) never seems to be a problem. It may be the reason that NTj are never terribly popular in the political realm and why Obama is quite the opposite. The kind of sea change one would expect to come with the election of an NTj does not seem possible at all with Obama.

Posted by drmst33 on Jul 10, 2008 leonbodevin has a good point Kip. I too was wondering how the INTJ classification came about for Obama. And unders, there are many who dislike war and many who do. Economically speaking, as has been pointed out, wars can promote large stimulus to economies. It can also devastate them. However, wars are never so simple as black and white when it comes to economics and the effects war has. I agree with David...invest in learning a little more about history. There are other impacts from wars outside of economics.

Posted by unders on Jul 10, 2008 Well, i agree that it was good that the civil war freed the slaves, and that it was necessary to Lincoln to bring the country into war to keep it together. ................................................................................. I don't know the exact relationship between the industrial revolution and the civil war, but I don't think it would be wrong of me to say that the industrial revolution could have happened with or without the civil war? ..................................................................................... I guess im looking at even a bigger issue/semi philosophical one too. The freedom of slaves and the mix of races help spur the economy and made our nation better. In our history, the civil war was the means of making that happen. But, can we say for sure that that was the only way? And, also, i dont think the act of war itself was the cause of the industrial revolution, nor the freedom of slaves. It was the will of the North and its people's desire to free the slaves that was the cause. The war was an effect of it, maybe even a necessary mean. ....................................................................................... Regardless, I guess there is no point debating about this issue because it seems to stem from a difference in belief and a much philosophical one.. especially regarding human nature and all. ........................................................................

Posted by Ranson on Jul 15, 2008 I see the point other make about Obama not quite fitting the profile of an INTJ, but I find it curious that of all NT's INTJ's can have the most outwardly complex character's. In my experience atleast. Which makes me think that Obama might have a far more complex personality than we have given him credit for.

Posted by KipParent on Jul 17, 2008 This is a great discussion. As I've written a number of times, pegging someone's type (beyond temperament) without personal observation is pretty tough. Even determining temperament can be hard- especially with politicians, who often work very hard to hide their true personalities in public. Dave Keirsey and I have had long discussions about Al Gore's temperament, and I'm not sure that Dave has finally come to see the light :) even yet. Anyway, I don't think you can accurately figure this out just by what you see of a candidate on TV (especially once they are high profile and have a multitude of "handlers" watching out for them. I read Obama's first book and did a lot of digging as to what his friends and adversaries had to say about him before he was a leading presidential candidate. I believe he is a Rational, and think he is a Mastermind. But that is just my educated opinion in the end.

Posted by JackDermody on Jul 17, 2008 I'm guessing that it's more important to see that Obama is close to the Midzone between T and F, i.e., yes he's probably a Rational, but he evidences a whole bunch of Idealist strengths alongside the Rational. And this may be more important than what sort of Rational he is. He appears to do cartwheels of thinking on both sides of the brain. He may be as cooperative as he is utilitarian. What I don't see in him is a great deal of concrete perception -- witness his story in The Audacity of Hope where he buys a pair of shoes a half size too small, and wears them for 9 weeks in great discomfort.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 18, 2008 Yes, Kip, I think you're absolutely right: it's very hard to type someone without having them actually take the Keirsey sorter. But I think there is a sense people have for people of their own type. I remember having that sense for Allen Greenspan even when this site typed him as a fieldmarshal: he was simply too quiet and mysterious to be anything but a mastermind. But I think my disagreement about Obama's personality has a lot to do with the typical weakness of any organizer rational: a perception or reality that that politician is inflexible (perhaps because that we NTj are nothing if not planners). This is clearly not the case with Obama. If there is a subtype of the architects and Jefferson would be the posterboy for that subtype, Obama would fit quite nicely in it. That is to say that he tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth, that there is evidence that he takes both sides of many issues.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 18, 2008 No edit button. Inventor Rational is probably a better model for Obama than architect. I guess this would be my best "educated guess."

Posted by Ranson on Jul 19, 2008 I'm not totally convinced he is an E. I have made it a point to read as many biographies (auto as well) of rationals a possible. As I read Obama's "Dreams from my Father" I kept getting the impression he is an very introspective thinker. Contrast that to Richard Feynman engaging and first person mode of writing, or even Hillary Clinton's auto-biography. To me there seems to be a large contrast between the three's writing style, which can hint at their temperment. I think that the difficult part in analyzing Obama is his diverse heritage. His father was an NT of some sort, and mother must have been an NF "E" for sure. Obama has reflected many times on his mother's empathy and compassion towards others as having a profound influence on him. Also he has been exposed to a world in a way few of us have ever been or will be, by way of his bi-racial heritage. I think these two factors alone augmented his personality's development into one more balance, more mature, and developed. Which can lend to an introverted "F" being somewhere in there. Plus, He like many mature INTJ's (emotionally speaking), have been able to "balance" rationallity and heart. Something that is less directly observed in INTP's. As I have stated before and KipParent may have hit inadvertantly on before, Obama is a much more complex individual than that can be surmised in a profile of any NT.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 19, 2008 I believe somewhere on this site Keirsey had typed Obama's mother as an INFJ. Of course Obama is complicated. But there are plenty of examples of "complex individuals" in all the rationals. Both Buckminster Fuller and J.R. Oppenheimer (both inventors) were enigmas to even those closest to them. Inventors can be quite good coordinators (like Edison and Oppenheimer) as well. Obama's debating style is also like the inventor's. Certainly I am no expert, though, and like Kip's opinion that Obama is a mastermind, my best guess that he is an inventor is about as good as I'll get unless I meet the guy.

Posted by Ranson on Jul 19, 2008 True, im stating my best guess also. I agree there has been several complex rationals, I hope I did not give the impression that it wasn't true of all rationals. As I stated before Obama's style of writing and his approach to say community organizing is one that makes me think he has a J. I disagree with you on Obama's debating style, he isn't a fluid debator, he seems as if his head is disconnected from his mouth, something that were to puzzle me if he were an E. One final thought, when I put foward Obama's unusal background as a possible road bump to determing is sub-type, I was think that maybe his bi-racial background forced him to develop into a more empatheic, complicated person, especially after reading his book. I'm not bi-racial but I know several people who are and they always have a very emotional and complex view of themselves. I'm no expert in temperment, but I think we should explore what that part of his background may have had on his development, especially in his late teen's and 20's. Thanks for the feedback though.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 22, 2008 You're being pretty vague here, Ranson. Could you draw some more concrete parallels to known masterminds?

Posted by InventorChampionIntuitive on Jul 22, 2008 Just to clarify, if Obama is an INTJ, which I think is correct, I think his heirachy of functions is Dominant Intuitive, Secondary Thinking, Tertiary Feeling, and last Sensing. I'm not sure if this is correct. If so, have we ever had a dominant iNtuitive president, and how do dominant iNtuitives lead?

Posted by Ranson on Jul 23, 2008 Just like Eisenhower, Grant, Macarthur, Napoleon, Obama is a planner, a strategic planner. In his first book Dreams from my Father, he talks about his vision for the apartment complex in Chicago’s Southside. What sets him apart from the other rational group is his extensive planning and highly pragmatic execution of those plans (not to say all NT's aren't pragmatic, but for NTJ's both are usually very developed). There is no indication of temperamental spontaneity or extroversion during his years growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, what it does show though is a young man who is charismatic, sociable, confident, and at ease at least outwardly with himself. That can be in part attributed to his mothers influence and that he was raised in Hawaii. In that way he follows a similar narrative of Eisenhower during his formative years. I believe that Eisenhower mother’s personality and nurturing played an extensive role in shaping his demeanor. Even as Commander and later president, Eisenhower displayed some of the more Sanguine qualities. General Grant, whose auto-biography has a similar style of writing as Obama’s, displayed strong introverted feeling in his personal and revealing thoughts on his separation from his wife during his station, and his own almost manic fear of failure. In the end Grant decides to buck his post without second thought and return to his wife. True, all rationals have a strong fear of failure, but in Grants case how he describes his emotions, how he reveals plainly his struggle and pain, is something that most ENTP’s for instance would not do. For example look at Richard Feynman’s recollection of the process of his wife’s death. He only describes his emotion in one short sentence. He broke down one day thinking of buying his dead wife a dress. Such suppression of emotion is not on display in neither Grants nor Obama’s writing about particularly moving subjects as loved ones. In the case of Macarthur, my understanding is him being an ENTJ, also I have know no account of him being an charmasic, easy-going fellow, nor Bill Gates for that matter, on the other hand I have read that Napoleon when to his advantage could put on a memorizing charm. I point this out to say that people can have a dynamic mix that borrows from all over the place in terms of personality. As far as the emotional side that I pointed out in other posts. Take an example of Isaac Newton. Pyschologist who have studied his writings note that he had severe emotional issue’s stemming from his painful childhood, and subsequent anger and sometime rage toward his mother. I would bet that some of that has to do with his introverted feeling again I think because of the way it was expressed. So to me when considering Obama’s bi-racial, absent father, death of his father and other emotional difficult issues he has to face, it would be worthy to explore how his describing and dealing with says about his preference for feeling. This is much longer than I intended so I’ll stop there.

Posted by leonbodevin on Jul 24, 2008 Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed explanation. You've certainly got me pretty convinced. I just ordered "Obama: From Promise to Power." I'll let you know what my thoughts are.

Posted by Ranson on Jul 24, 2008 Look foward to it.

Posted by rockcab on Jul 29, 2008 I find it interesting that Obama is pegged as an INTJ because I read a Slate.com article and the author there is convinced that Obama is an ENFP. The article further pegged Hillary as ESTJ but it agrees with Kip that McCain is an ESTP. As an ENFP and an avid follower of Obama (I've read his two autobiographies and Obama: From Promise to Power), I would obviously like to think he's a fellow ENFP, but I think he is an NT (rational) for sure. I don't think he's an INTJ as I think he's more of a P than a J (I remember reading about his office as being very messy with books and notes everywhere, not a J trait where things need to be in order, particularly in a work space). I would put him as either an ENTP or INTP. I actually lean toward ENTP as politics is a draining sport for any introvert to really enjoy as much as Obama seems to loves it.

Posted by Ranson on Jul 29, 2008 The slate article was off by a mile. If Obama were a "P" he would have a free-wheeling style similar to John McCain and George Bush, or Bill Clinton. I don't see that when I read his books, Obama constantly comes to sometype of "judgement" about everything. Always organizing infromation into sometype concept that can be applied in the real world. True of all rationals, but he uses planning to a far extent, something that could smother a "P".

Posted by drmst33 on Jul 29, 2008 I guess I just don't see the I in Obama, and I also have difficulty seeing the J a lot of the time. Perhaps that is due to his "handlers." As an INTJ myself, I just don't see him as one. I will definitely read more about him.

Posted by Ranson on Jul 30, 2008 I found the newsweek article written on Obama's faith really good read.

Posted by unders on Aug 4, 2008 No matter what Obama's true type is...he is a very well developed and balanced person. So, he has developed preferences that isn't native to his type. However, I still see Obama as a native idealist who developed rational skills early on (but who knows, maybe it's the vice versa)

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 6, 2008 I'm slowly making my way through Obama: From Promise to Power. He is most definitely a mastermind. I think privately there is an Obama that's quite imperious that we don't see with all the glowing press. He is much more versatile mastermind than most (which is why I think I originally mistyped him as an inventor rational) but he still has many of the same foibles as any mastermind (although not to an extreme like say John Nash). This biography is quite good for anybody that enjoys reading bios of famous people.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 6, 2008 How long before Kip writes his post on Obama?

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 9, 2008 Looking forward to the Obama post. I am interested to what people think of the McCain / Obama matchup. Obama came into the race with the huge strategic advantage of being the democrat in a very toxic environment for republicans. But he doesn't seem to be a good tactician and McCain seems more able to speak in specific terms about his plans for the country. Some of Obama's ideas (like his windfall profits tax on the oil companies) seem like they have not been thought out very much. Gore came closest to beating a promoter artisan in the general election but in a lot of ways Obama seems like a weaker candidate than Gore. He is loathe to the kind of one-on-one combat that promoters are so good at.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 11, 2008 Eventhough Esienhower was a war hero, I wonder what type of campagin pointers Obama can take from him.

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 12, 2008 The campaign commercials I've seen from the Eisenhower campaign presented Ike as a wise paternal figure to the country. This was easier for Ike to pull off since he was older (62) and more experienced when he was elected president. The kind of stonewalling that Ike liked to engage in to give himself more strategic flexibility would also seem to be much harder to pull off in this day and age. Obama has tried several tactics to try and deflect any criticism of his candidacy; I would argue that these tactics have not worked. Any campaign pointers would most likely have to be directed to Obama being a mastermind since we live in such a different kind of world than we used to. He needs to stop speaking so abstractly all the time about change and start speaking in very specific terms on what he plans to do when he is elected president. I would think this would help him "close the deal" with the American public since the majority of the public is sensing and not intuitive.

Posted by drmst33 on Aug 18, 2008 I would have to agree about Obama provding clear details versus the abstract ones about change. Especially since I also agree that most of the public is sensing and not intuitive. In today's current political climate, many perceive a lack of ability to supply "concrete" answers to how someone plans to accomplish the changes they are speaking about as not able to accomplish those changes, even those with an intuitive nature. I am also inclined to agree with you again leonbodevin, that the tactics Obama has tried to reduce the impact of criticisms against him have not been successful. Having read up more on Obama's writings, I now agree with the assertion that he is an INTJ. But he definitely has molded himself into another persona for the public eye to reduce the perception of him as a Mastermind. Ranson, even though Ike was a rational, I don't believe that Obama is a position to utilize any of Ike's campaign tactics. Presidential politics have changed a good deal in certain respects, and Obama does not have the involved military and political background which Ike drew upon. Obama can't parallel Ike, because Ike used that background as the basis for much of his campaign. Kip I am looking forward to reading about what you have to say on Obama.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 18, 2008 Yes I understand your point, but they do have one thing in common- a very ingaging personality. Being that I'm far to young to know anything before the first George Bush presidency, I can always remeber Ike's personality being fornt in center in other descripton of him. Obama has what Clinton lacked, orator ability and a deadly charm. So when I mentioned that both Ike and Obama are of a similar type, I was not refering to their being able to draft parts of Ike's campagin slogan, but if there were any angle they could use to put Obama's personality in front. To me one of the big mistakes NT's make in politics especially is not being personable or precieved as "people friendly". I think Obama to a safe degree has doged that. His problem is that he is facing an "SP" with a war hero's recored that can connect emotional on the stump with voters. That in itself posses a great threat to Obama, how can he connect on a level as John McCain has, of course John has the advantage, but we have never seen an INTJ like Obama. So back to my original point, how can they cultivate a connection with the voters through showing his personality? Could Ike's campagin give them any clues?

Posted by Ranson on Aug 18, 2008 I find it curious that everyone (including myself) wonders "where are the details" then I remeber reading his books and reading transcripts from some of his one on one interviews. While his does move to the abstract when he talks about ideals and "change", he can and does give a heavy dose of realistic thinking, everywhere but on the stump as of recently. I wonder why?

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 19, 2008 In interviews Obama talks a lot about "applause lines." He didn't always speak in platitudes. The evolution of his speaking style has a lot to do with the fact that he couldn't have attracted the crowds that he did during the primaries by delving headlong into policy details. But I do think it's time to use that rational brain of his to propose some real solutions. Interestingly, another mastermind rational feels the same way. Economist Thomas Sowell recently posted this article on realclearpolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_galbraith_effect.html

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 19, 2008 Perhaps there are some useful analogies for Obama with the last charismatic rational to run for president - Robert F. Kennedy? It may also help him to pick a running mate that is better at tactics than he is - such as a promoter artisan like Joe Biden.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 19, 2008 Yeah I think Robert was an NT, I dont know enough though to give a solid reason. On the other hand I agree that Obama should pick an SP, just as Bill picked an NT in Gore. It's the best of both worlds.....especially if he could find an ESFP, seeing as how it would allow him a solid sounding board for his idea's because a ESFP could translate them into something more concret. I think though that there is enough detail...for an NT out there for individuals to understand his thought-process when coming to decisions...which is somewhat more important than policy detail.

Posted by leonbodevin on Aug 20, 2008 I'm reading Evan Thomas's biography on RFK right now. Robert Kennedy was an architect rational. Haven't been keeping up enough to see if any of Obama's VP options are performers. Evan Bayh is probably a guardian, Joe Biden is a promoter artisan and of course Hillary is a fieldmarshal.

Posted by drmst33 on Aug 21, 2008 I think one thing to point out in trying to use Obama's "deadly charm" as a connecting factor to reach out to people is that it can and often does backfire for rationals. People either view it as false or suspect in some way. They begin to feel like it's being used to distract or cover facts up about the person or they begin to perceive that flip-flopping/wishy-washy attitude. Artisans tend to get away with it because they seem to connect with people with visceral emotion that seems to be hard or near difficult for Rationals to emmulate. People often can't even explain why they relate to the Artisan. Which is why I woudl have to agree that Obama should think strongly about an Artisan as his running mate. Reversely McCain would in fact probably benefit from a Rational as his VP, or a guardian. I think either option would benefit that ticket. Kip when are we going to see the next installment? Pretty soon we'll be asking for your analysis of the respective VPs and how the tickets are going to stack up.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 23, 2008 I agree that it can and does backfire....mostly from missing sometype of "human" element, authenticity I guess. This does remind me of my personal experience with an INTJ teacher....I would say he was a very honest (as all INTJ's can be) and emotionally open, in an intuitive way, he was everyone's favorite because he as fair and you felt as if he gave you his honest thoughts, so I guess that is another way of looking at it. Kip, what is taking you so long???????

Posted by Badlands17 on Aug 24, 2008 I can totally see ENTP or INTJ for Obama, but I think it's probably ENTP; I think most people see an N-T-F-S function order cause his F is clearly more developed than his S. Without a doubt he's either Ni or Ne dominant, but after that it becomes unclear what his judging functions are. His inferior isn't likely Se, so therefore Ne dominant is reaffirmed. Ti-Fe is more likely than Fi-Te, so therefore he's probably ENTP. Biden seems to be an ISTJ though. Anyone disagree?

Posted by Ranson on Aug 25, 2008 You havent given any serious reason to support your position. Just a quick though--if he were an ENTP do you think he would be so careful and considered in say...debates? Also for an ENTP, he seems to live a very conventional life, based on common sense and traditions, something I think more common in a Te than an En-Ti. How much have you actually read about him?

Posted by Ranson on Aug 25, 2008 As for Biden, I cant really speak on him. But I doubt he is anything other than an SP.

Posted by Ranson on Aug 25, 2008 As for Biden, I cant really speak on him. But I doubt he is anything other than an SP.

Posted by drmst33 on Aug 27, 2008 Kip, I really want to see the next installment! I am very intrigued to see what you have to say about Obama. And I really want your take on Biden as well.

Responses by Guardians, Artisans, Rationals, Idealists, All