Political Types
Some Caveats
As you read this article, please remember what is presented here are my views — my hypotheses. We cannot “type” someone else, but we can observe patterns of behavior — and type is a pattern. So all that is in this article is observations and conjecture — albeit educated conjecture based on the many workshops I’ve attended and my work with type for over a decade.
As a framework, let’s be clear on several things: the context (politics) is likely to be filled with emotion and fed by our closely held values and beliefs. This is not offered to change your beliefs, but to help us all learn more by engaging in dialog.
Also, it is important to differentiate the contextual self, the developed self, and the core self. Each of these selves might exhibit a different type pattern. (Click here to read more about the “three selves,” a concept pioneered by Dr. Linda Berens.)
Speculating on the Candidates Types
You’d have to be living in a cave not to know there’s an important election upon us. There are campaign parties, bumper stickers, television ads, presidential debates — the whole schmeer!
Naturally, whenever so much national (even international) attention is focused on specific individuals, a question of what their psychological types are comes up.
I have been reading speculation on this topic for quite some time now. And it’s a great place to start noticing right away about the difficulties between typing someone’s “persona” (or contextual self) and typing someone’s “personality.” It’s so easy to confuse the two! Furthermore, this is where a lot of type MISunderstanding shows up, because many people cannot separate typology from ideology.
Ideology versus Typology
If we identify the type pattern of the Republican and the Democratic candidates based on their ideology, for many the temptation is to suggest that Obama is of the “Idealist” temperament (NF), while McCain is of the “Guardian” temperament (SJ). After all, Obama appeals to a younger crowd and promotes belief in an idealized society. The words “faith” and “hope” and “change” are commonly associated with his campaign.
On the other hand, McCain seems much more conservative, back-to-basics, let’s-protect-the-country-from-terrorism, win-the-war, old-fashioned American values. He promotes good conservatorship for the country, and exemplifies the wish to return to a simpler life where we trust our government (and army) to protect us from any enemies.
It’s a fascinating comparison to make, and I mostly agree with typing the themes or “ethos” of these two distinctly different political campaigns in precisely these ways.
However, I daresay these types of ethos do not accurately reflect the actual psychological types of the candidates themselves, and it is a mistake to type the candidates solely based on the flavor of their campaigns.
My Hypothesis
Before I go any further, I will repeat what one type enthusiast rightly stated, “I think it is very difficult if not impossible to know a public person’s Myers-Briggs’ type. Their public persona will be somewhat different from their full personality, so all one can do is guess.” And I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many filters between us and a political candidate that it is a bit like grasping at straws to discern their true type pattern.
And yet, it doesn’t keep anyone from trying! Which means you can count me in as an enthusiastic type speculator too.
Thus, with the caveat that I’m taking as wild a guess as anybody, following is my hypothesis of the candidates’ likely core type patterns:
John McCain: ISFP (just like GWB)
Sarah Palin: ESTP
Barack Obama: ESFP
Joe Biden: ESFP
And, since there has been so much speculation about her, Hillary Clinton: INTJ
The first thing that you will probably notice from my interpretation is that every one of them save Hillary is associated with the Artisan temperament.
So what’s up with that? How can I support that proposition?
Temperament Theory Background
Before I explain some of my reasoning, I’d like to mention how Dr. Linda Berens recently gave the four temperaments new names, partly because the old names were frequently misapplied and generated many misunderstandings. Berens’ new names are intended to describe something about the temperament that is indelible — an unmistakable quality about the pattern that “can’t help itself.” These new names don’t capture the *whole* of the pattern (no single word could!), but it does capture an essence which is certain to be present in the individual.
The new names for these temperaments are thus:
(NF) Idealist = Catalyst
(NT) Rational = Theorist
(SJ) Guardian = Stabilizer
(SP) Artisan = Improviser
This new term for the Artisan temperament informs a great deal of my proposition about all the current candidates — Improviser. They are, all of them, remarkable improvisers! They have been improvising under every circumstance and condition imaginable. Moreover, my premise dovetails neatly with Dr. David Keirsey’s prediction that we will probably have Artisan (Improviser) Presidents for the next 50 years due to their remarkable talents — especially their facility at being tactical and improvising effectively when a camera and/or crowd is watching them.
This, more than any other capability seems the most outstanding skill in most of our leading political candidates/celebrities over the past few decades — certainly since we have moved to more immediate mediums of media exposure and lessened our use of print and even radio as our primary sources of political information and campaigning conduits. In many respects, this is a “YouTube” election. Everything is happening “in the moment,” and the candidates are under constant scrutiny, every blemish permanently captured on video. There’s no chance to make a mistake, no margin for error. The show must go on (and on).
Improvisers seem to have a knack for being attractive on camera, remaining cool under fire, and turning on a dime to “spin” their campaigns — all at the same time! It’s impressive.
Notably, during this election season, it’s been Hillary Clinton who has taken the most heat for seeming “wooden” or inexpressive. She appears to demonstrate the primary talents of the Theorist pattern: strategic thinking and diplomacy, while tactics lag behind as her third-best intelligence. It’s no wonder she’s taken a bit of a beating, not to overlook the brouhaha about her lack of emotionality (a decidedly UNfeminine persona), and the press made hay the time she cried as if a planetary discovery had just been unveiled. My suspicion is that Hillary is married to an Improviser past President, and has learned and benefited greatly from that association, much as Eleanor Roosevelt did with F.D.R. Nevertheless, all the coaching in the world can’t make her into a temperament she’s not. As brilliantly as Hillary performed, I wonder whether lacking an Improviser temperament ultimately undermined her, much as it has undermined so many other worthy candidates.
McCain and Obama — Both Improvisers?
Let me now devote all my attention to an examination of the two leading political candidates, and save the secondary players’ scrutiny for another time.
Many people have remarked on John McCain’s conservative views, and these are frequently associated to a Stabilizer temperament. However, I believe his perspective is more appropriately associated with a dominant cognitive process of introverted Feeling. Jungian Dr. John Beebe has said that introverted Feeling is more conservative than extraverted Feeling, and it seems to me that McCain is a clear representation of that, much as George W. Bush has also been these past eight years. Both men are very determined about their belief systems and in perpetuating their personal values. Their attitudes of introversion seem apparent, despite their being prominent public figures.
In contrast, Barack Obama seems more outgoing than either of these two men. Obama’s campaign has been based on influencing others, and being *open* to influence from others, which is a marked difference with his opponent — a quality he seems to share with Joe Biden. Thus, even while both these Democrats champion basic American values (just like a good father might do), they are more interested in connecting with others and coming together cooperatively, whether through demonstrating unity within their own party, developing unity in the country as a whole (by identifying common ground), or promoting unity with the world at large by working more effectively with foreign powers, even with our so-called enemies. Their political ticket strives to *engage* with others, and is based on inclusivity rather than exclusivity.
Certainly such behavior seems very idealistic for a political candidate, and it’s surely why Obama is being pegged by many as an Idealist. Yet, as I turn to the new terms from Berens, I see him less as a Catalyst and more as an extraverted, pragmatic, values-driven Improviser. (Berens’ nickname for the ESFP pattern is “Motivator-Presenter.”) And let’s face it — what a showman Obama is! He made a huge splash at the Democratic National Convention four years ago, and many of us sat up and took notice of him at that time as a possible contender for the Presidency. To have shot into place as the frontrunner in this presidential campaign has taken some chutzpah, tactical genius, and extraordinary charisma.
McCain’s likely ISFP type is nicknamed “Composer-Producer” by Berens. He has certainly demonstrated that in the way he “composed” and “produced” many bills during the years he served in the Senate, often in the face of opposition from his own party. Certainly it won him the moniker “Maverick,” which has been bandied about extensively during this campaign. It seems to me that McCain marches to the beat of his own drum by following his own conscience. No one else holds sway over him, and yet he is remarkable for his genuine conscientiousness. Loyalty and camaraderie are shared with those fellow soldiers who served time in prison with him. It seems clear they are members of his intimate inner circle, and are the select few (besides his family) who have any purchase on the decisions McCain makes. McCain is a maverick in that his conscience is solely his own. These characteristics seem to point to the Improviser temperament.
I chalk the candidates’ major differences up to basic differences in introversion and extraversion as a general attitude. Inclusion and exclusion have been ongoing themes during this entire campaign. Voting for McCain is voting for another introverted President who makes up his own mind; voting for Obama is voting for an extraverted President who craves participative decision-making. Looking through this lens, we see what a dramatic impact one’s overall preference for introversion or extraversion has on personality, exactly as Jung observed nearly a hundred years ago.
My Justification
In concert with this difference in basic attitude, it seems safe to suggest that John McCain is a rational type, while Obama is an irrational type. Mind you, I am applying these terms in a strictly Jungian sense. Rational and Irrational are not to be confused with the J/P scale on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (though it often is). This distinction simply indicates whether a person’s superior (aka Dominant) function is a judging (deciding) function, or is a perceiving (data-gathering) function. Irrational types possess a perceiving function as their dominant process, while rational types possess a judging function as theirs. This difference explains why McCain seems very decisive, despite having a “P” on the end of his code, while Obama seems better able to “go with the flow” as is usually associated with a “P” in the code. (Republicans sometimes criticize him for shifting his position with ease.)
Thus, we might consider McCain primarily a “decision-maker” and Obama primarily an “information-gatherer.” Neither process is superior, and both are needed to have a balanced personality, yet it suggests what a person is more likely to be known for.
Dominant and auxiliary functions aside, another way to scrutinize these gentlemen typologically is to take a look at their likely types in view of Shadow behaviors. When they are being “critical” (embodying the archetype of the Critical Parent, which is carried by one’s 6th function of personality), what process does each of them seem to be channeling?
What became obvious during this past campaign, and was particularly notable during the three televised presidential debates, is how each of these men tended to get grumpy and critical around specific topics. For instance, throughout the final presidential debate, McCain’s likely senex side was prevalent; his patriarchal side seemed evident. During those moments when McCain was distancing himself from President Bush, reiterating “the facts,” or even sharing “lessons from the past,” he appeared to be in the realm of introverted Sensing, the 6th function for ISFPs. (Coincidentally, this is when McCain seems the most Guardian or Stabilizer in his personality.)
In contrast, Obama has been most critical throughout his campaign regarding the way foreign policy has been handled. He clearly believes we need to connect with others better, and “connecting” can sometimes be a euphemism for extraverted Feeling. It seems strangely paradoxical that during those times he has been most critical, it has been in service of promoting unity. Thus it seems that Obama’s Critical Parent is Fe, the 6th function for ESFPs. And, just like McCain seems Stabilizer with this behavior, this is when Obama seems the most Idealist or Catalyst in his personality.
Not That Different
I’ve encountered a number of type guesses for the candidates by now via the internet, and have noticed the tendency people have of trying to make them into polar opposites, as if somehow by representing opposing political parties means they can’t be similar in any way. Unfortunately, this is where we confuse ideology with typology. It seems to me that type watchers are trying too hard to sort them into dramatically different type patterns, despite the fact that we’re talking about people attracted to the same field (politics) and operating from similar backgrounds (legal). Clearly, both of them hunger for the spotlight, and an Improviser’s core need is to make an Impact. Pretending they are vastly different might be the equivalent of suggesting that two star basketball players on opposing teams have distinctly different type patterns merely because they are competing against each other on the basketball court. C’mon, we aren’t comparing apples and oranges, we’re comparing oranges and oranges. And let’s face it: both the Republican and Democratic candidates have been criticized for being difficult to pin down — as one person famously stated, “it’s like trying to nail Jello to the wall.” So perhaps they aren’t as far different from one another as we’d like to imagine.
Type Bias
On that note, I was dismayed to learn that some people are ascribing “N” to many of the political candidates with the belief that “N” means iNtelligent while “S” means “stupid” — and of course nobody stupid could possibly be capable of running a political campaign or leading the country. Speculations such as these have no place in type-watching, and are dreadfully offensive. (I rank it right up there with supposing blonds are dumb, or teenagers are up to no good.) Such blatant bigotry dismisses the likelihood that the Father of our Country, George Washington, probably had Sensing preferences. Furthermore, I happen to know members of Mensa (the high IQ society) who have preferences for ISTJ and ESFP, so it’s inaccurate to believe those with a Sensing preference are dumber than those who prefer iNtuition.
Neither is there room for suggesting that the candidates we like are a “good type,” and candidates we don’t like are a “bad type,” since that violates the whole premise of the types being equally valuable. Truthfully, I don’t even like mentioning these distasteful ideas, and yet I’ve encountered such inappropriate biases so many times now in discussing the campaign with people who enjoy talking about type that it would be foolhardy to overlook mentioning them.
Why Speculate?
Identifying the type of public figures is a dicey proposition, and yet it can be delightful to see how well type theory holds up when one is diligent in applying the models. [note: good type observations can spur me to re-think my position; see the comments below] Discussions like these can bring out the best in us, and also the worst in us. Perhaps that’s why we have all been inculcated from a very early age not to discuss politics or religion in polite company. In similar fashion, I’ve tried to avoid discussing political issues per se so as not to trigger anybody, and yet no doubt my analysis of the candidates’ types will trigger somebody anyway, particularly if they have not yet separated ideology from typology. Given that possibility, perhaps a good way to wrap up this discussion is with a reminder that Isabel Briggs-Myers designed the amazing Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for the sake of ending World War — as a way to appreciate differences and accept others; to acknowledge that the true purpose of type is to unite us rather than divide us.
I hope you have enjoyed my speculation.
-Vicky Jo 
Permission is granted to reproduce this article via newsletter or website as long as proper attribution is given:
Author: Vicky Jo Varner, Type Coach, www.TypeInsights.com/blog
I coach people to identify and develop their natural personality strengths in order to maximize their potential.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
[...] about this assessment: Political Types | Type Insights For some reason, I can’t really picture what type Obama would be, as the article says, it’s [...]
October 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Wow, interesting stuff. I agree with you about everyone except I’m not so sure about Obama. He may be an idealist - I’ve heard more Idealistic diatribe out of his mouth than from many a politician.
October 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I think “rhetoric” may be the key word there. Idealists/Catalysts tend to eschew rhetoric.
Yes, people desperately want Obama to be an Idealist [Catalyst], but as I say above, I think idealism is the flavor of the campaign, not the actual person. (Similarly, I think JFK was an Artisan/Improviser, but his dreams about the space program got his persona conflated with idealism. IMHO.)
That’s the primary reason Berens changed the name: because *anyone* can be idealistic, no matter what type they are. I’ve met idealistic Guardian/Stabilizers, Artisan/Improvisers, Rational/Theorists, AND (interestingly, and in stark contrast) I’ve met some very cynical-sounding Idealist/Catalysts.
Idealism is NOT what the pattern is about. The reason Keirsey chose the name “idealist” is because this temperament is perpetually focused on the Way Things Could Be, i.e., a better world. So if they cook the world’s best meal (for instance), some part of them will nevertheless be thinking about how it could be done better in the future. That’s the real meaning Keirsey intended for “idealist.”
Since most people don’t make such a fine distinction, then perhaps they can look for the behaviors germane to each of the patterns, such as these.
Idealists/Catalysts talk about:
relationships
developing people’s potential
making the world a better place
meaning-of-life issues
significance of events
the future
Artisans/Improvisers talk about:
actions, activities
what can be done
luck, chance, odds
how to get things done
courage, excitement, fun
what’s happening now or next
Idealist/Catalyst language is:
metaphoric
global
dramatic and intense
flowing
Artisan/Improviser language is:
full of stories and anecdotes (boy did we hear those during this election season or what — “Joe the Plumber” was done to death :-P)
colorful and colloquial
incorporates language of others
impactful
As a type professional with 12 years under her belt, these are the behaviors I’m looking for when I’m trying to sort out a person’s temperament/type.
I happen to agree with Dr. David Keirsey (senior) that there has never been an NF President. Truthfully, I wish I had a nickel for every ESFP who’s been mis-typed as an ENFP. It would make a nice passive income.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
That whole article was great…(and I sooooo called Obama being an improvisor a year and a half ago).
“”Pretending they are vastly different might be the equivalent of suggesting that two star basketball players on opposing teams have distinctly different type patterns merely because they are competing against each other on the basketball court”"
Thank you so much for writing that. The media will always find some silly personality caricatures with which to portray the candidates, that should be obvious to people by now.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“Jungian Dr. John Beebe has said that introverted Feeling is more conservative than extraverted Feeling”
What exactly did John Beebe mean by that?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Ah, that’s a post for later on.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’ve been following McCain for sometime as I’ve always pegged him as a Guardian/ISTJ. I think people confuse his being a “maverick” with his strong introverted feeling in the 3rd position and his sense of duty to his country. His frequent outbursts around issues he feels strongly about are more likely to indicate an overinflated introverted feeling perspective rather than a dominant one.
In his personal life you don’t really see “maverick” or risk-taking behavior anywhere. The maverick label came from his going against the grain–but not really. He is really staying true to Republican ideals–ones that have been diluted over the last 8 years with our current President. McCain’s adherence to the core of what it means to be a Republican and his willingness to stand up for that is not being a maverick–but being true to a long history of ideals. I think because of this label people assume he’s an Artisan. Guardians can be mavericks just the same.
ISTJ’s are also frequently drawn to creating policy and crafting very comprehensive documentation/legislation to support the issues they are dedicated to so his ability to work in this regard would be consistent with ISTJ.
For what I’ve seen of Obama I would peg him as a Rational–not ESFP (i.e.; Bill Clinton). I don’t believe he has exhibited a Get-Things-Going style at all during the last few years, rather In-Charge, and his dedication to his education and focus on a singular goal is very consistent with ENTJ style of leadership.
October 31st, 2008 at 3:18 am
Great post! I’m very interested in this topic.
I figured that Obama is an Improviser..because of his talent for making such a quick, widespread impact on people. McCain’s typing is a surprise - yes, his conservative values threw me off guard. (Btw I am also curious, along with Gabe, to know more about what Dr. Beebe meant when he said that introverted Feeling tends to be more conservative than Fe.)
Thank you for clearing up all the Hilary speculation!
And I like the part about the shadow functions. In addition to looking at the candidates’ strong points, it also looks at their “bumpy” areas, giving us better insights into their Types.
There’s something else to be noticed, besides that nearly all of the politicians you mention are Improvisers. They all seem to have a preference for either Fi or Te (except for Sarah Palin). Would you know if there is something about extraverted Feeling and introverted Thinking that shies away from politics??
I have been wondering about the candidates’ types for a very long time. I really enjoyed reading this!
October 31st, 2008 at 8:23 am
I have minimal expertise in the area of typing but have
always found it so helpful and interesting. THANK YOU for this article it has helped me wrap my mind and heart around the candidates in a different light…a warmer light, a more understanding light. Very helpful~
October 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Kris –
well you are one of the people whose opinion I highly respect on this topic, since I know you use the multiple model approach to typing.
I’m feeling resistant to your impressions around McCain (although you’ve got me thinking!), but the Obama speculation interests me.
I concede that Obama certainly seems “phlegmatic” (the old Hippocrates’ term for Theorist/Rational) against McCain, who seems like a hot-head in comparison. I even heard that he got the nickname “no drama Obama” from campaign workers. Furthermore, as I remember with the whole Joe-the-Plumber business, Obama seemed like “tough luck, Joe” about the matter in a very unsentimental, unaffected, Thinking way.
Now if you’re right about ENTJ being Obama’s pattern, it’s still the same ego-compatible processes as ESFP that I speculated, albeit a different temperament and a different interaction style. So… perhaps Obama is using introverted iNtuition in a Good Parent role, and *that’s* where the Idealism is manifesting from.
And the Critical Parent role would be extraverted iNtuition — which might look like, “We’ll go to hell in a handbasket if we don’t change our ways” and other negative possibilities. Hm, I can see that.
And last, perhaps it’s the Eternal Child extraverted Sensing that I’m picking up and mis-reading as Tactical intelligence. Hmmm…. very interesting. And only yesterday I came across something that said Obama prefers to “stick to the script” and uses teleprompters extensively, so maybe that tactical Child needs lotsa “support”!
Normally I eschew analyzing famous people and getting embroiled in politics. If I hadn’t been around Dr. John Beebe so much during a type workshop where he talked a lot about the election, I might have avoided it altogether. (We even watched the final Presidential debate together, so that really got me going.) I don’t even care whether I’m right or not — I just love having rich conversations about the patterns. There’s nothing like good type dialogue to make my heart sing!
October 31st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Kristin -
It’s not so much that “extraverted Feeling and introverted Thinking that shies away from politics” — it’s that introverted Feeling is *attracted* to politics (and where Fi goes, Te must follow).
We are always attracted toward using our ego-compatible processes, and steer away from using our ego-incompatible processes. So Fe < --> Ti simply doesn’t shine in most political contexts.
Eventually I’ll post a blog entry about what I’ve learned about Fi from John Beebe that will help lay that out better.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I had two other reasons for thinking Obama was an improvisor:
-the mainstream media seems to despise theorists (Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry?, Donald Rumsfeld(became unpopular way before bush)), but figures like Maureen Dowd were IN LOVE with Obama since early in the primary season. I think it would be interesting to know when Obama got that nickname, because his ‘no drama’ persona(ality?) in the debates is quite a recent development.
-that his intuition was introverted and tertiary or inferior. Call it Pink-floyd-lyrics intuition. I saw his early speeches as vague in a way that still expertly calculated what people (the democratic base) wanted to hear. Can a theorist get that good at telling people what they want to hear?
October 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I don’t know why you think those types. Seems pretty clear that they are these types:
GWB - ISTJ - Stubbornly set in his ways. Thinks logistically.
Barak Obama - ENTJ
He is definitely a Field Marshall with a dominant function of Te and auxiliary of Ni.
Sarah Palin - ESFJ
October 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Gabe,
my INTJ husband thinks my first contention is still right: ESFP. I don’t know whether a Theorist can get that good at telling people what they want to hear, but remember that there’s a whole political “machine” behind him — he’s hardly on his own. And that’s one of the compelling pieces for my husband: he sees Obama using the Get-Things-Going, participative style much more than an In-Charge, make quick decisions style.
Eric:
I’ve given a number of reasons in my blog why I think the candidates are the types they are — throwing letters at me does not compel me in any way, no matter how certain you sound. As far as why I think GWB is ISFP — good question! Eight years ago I did puzzle over GWB’s type, but I was on a professional type user email list during that election season, and they helped me recognize the ISFP pattern in him (against tremendous resistance on my part!). So if it’s “obvious” to you, then it’s not so obvious to other type experts who are leaders in the field. If I’m wrong, then so are they. How long have you been working with type models now? Perhaps you need to work with them a little longer to understand them more. (Nothing beats an in-person workshop!)
October 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Vicky Jo: You are right–it is difficult (and often fun) to type public persona’s. But that is the whole point—type should be a dialogue. This is where insight and learning comes from and where the progress continues (I don’t really think understanding the human personality has an ending).
In the end–it doesn’t really matter what their core type really is. I just hope that regardless of who gets elected they create some positive energy and confidence in the economy so we can get back to business.
Happy Halloween!
October 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I’m still very interested on the part about the shadow functions. Something I thought about: If Sarah Palin is ESTP, then her critical 6th function would be extraverted Thinking, right? I’ve noticed that there was a lot of worry over her debating skills, and she’s kind of considered the underdog when she debates Biden. Can this be attributed to 6th position Te?
October 31st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
You can make anyone sound like a particular personality type by redefining the personality types. I’m going to stick to Jung’s 8 cognitive processes of:
* Se: Extroverted Sensing
* Si: Introverted Sensing
* Ne: Extroverted iNtuiting
* Ni: Introverted iNtuiting
* Ti: Introverted Thinking
* Fe: Extroverted Feeling
* Fi: Introverted Feeling
Let’s start with Barack Obama. His campaign is based on him having a plan and he outlines his plan on his website. For example, his plan on how to eliminate Washington corruption:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/index.php
Barack takes a seemingly logical approach to problems. He also seems to have an inner source of knowledge. Barack is accused of not having enough experience but he also seems to have all the answers to the problems. Clearly and extrovert, I’m placing his extroverted function as his dominant function:
Te = Extroverted Thinking
Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of extraverted Thinking. Extraverted Thinking helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. Empirical thinking is at the core of extraverted Thinking when we challenge someone’s ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made, often trying to establish order in someone else’s thought process. In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else’s logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.
His ability to come up with solutions to all the problems comes from his Introverted function of intuiting:
Ni = Introverted iNtuiting
Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions.
These definitions come from http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/
Many people think that Barack is an Idealist. They think that he is feeling dominant. Having a primary or secondary function of Ni can make a person seem this way because Ni is so good at theorizing the way things should be.
Don’t take the shortness of my previous post to mean I don’t have any experience. I’ve started learning about this from the book “Please Understand Me” 14 years ago. Since then I have sought to apply this knowledge to the people I interact with. As an INTJ I am constantly analyzing my environment and the people around me. I don’t need to go to a workshop for this because I think that real knowledge comes from self-discovery. But that may just be the dominant Ni in me speaking.
In my interactions with ESFPs I do not notice any similarity with them and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton, who we can agree is ESFP, is all talk. A smooth talker. However, he did not try to take a hands on approach for getting things done. He spoke in generalities. Barack says exactly what he is going to do. His words take the bull by the horns. He maps out exactly how he is going to get things done.
That is why I think he is a strategist, Field Marshall ENTJ
Eric
October 31st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Yeah, I don’t know why I always assumed that Obama’s charisma was due to some innate talent.
So do you think Obama has a get-things-going interaction style because of how he runs his campaign? (something that would tell us about his personality that I admit I know almost nothing about)
November 1st, 2008 at 8:11 am
In regards to Sarah Palin, I don’t think the following applies to her:
“Moreover, my premise dovetails neatly with Dr. David Keirsey’s prediction that we will probably have Artisan (Improviser) Presidents for the next 50 years due to their remarkable talents — especially their facility at being tactical and improvising effectively when a camera and/or crowd is watching them.”
Palin’s style seems very memorized. She acts like she was coached with catch phrases, much like the rest of the Bush Administration. Notice that when the Bush Administration says something they say it with exactly the same words and phrases. This is characteristic of a logistical intelligence, that of the Guardians(Stabilizer)(SJ)
Stabilizers will stick to what they know and not go outside the unfamiliar.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 am
It disturbs me that you’ve written some majorly controversial things about the domFi+auxSe type pattern, especially with reference to leadership style, and yet, you haven’t clarified exactly why you believe that all Artisans who have the Fi+Se pattern would behave the same way if they are in a position of leadership. I do *not* see any correlations whatsoever between my self and McCain, either in personality or in style, and it not only disgusts me to see both him and GWB listed as examples of “my type”, but I do not think that were I in a position of leaadership, I woulld behave like either of them. I don’t value the kind of narrow-minded thinking that both men engage in. This sentence particularly upsets me:
“It seems to me that McCain marches to the beat of his own drum by following his own conscience. No one else holds sway over him, and yet he is remarkable for his genuine conscientiousness. Loyalty and camaraderie are shared with those fellow soldiers who served time in prison with him. It seems clear they are members of his intimate inner circle, and are the select few (besides his family) who have any purchase on the decisions McCain makes. McCain is a maverick in that his conscience is solely his own.”
Do you really believe that all ISFPs would behave like that? I do not, and it angers me that type theorists are convinced of something that is clearly not fair and not true.
Sarah
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
IMO for someone who claims to work with type, you do a disservice to MBTI by trying to type people you do not know and who have not taken the instrument. In addition, working ‘backwards’ from someone’s political beliefs to their type is ridiculous, because it assumes type determines belief. What you have done makes MBTI equivalent to horoscoping people.
I have worked with MBTI for 20 years (although I rarely use it now and have not kept up on the new marketing versions) and have known many people of similar type who have completely different political views. In addition, people can behave differently than their type, and if anyone has probably learned to behave differently in different situations it is probably an African-American male who wants to be president.
From Type Insights: old school mbti’er, I replied to your comment here.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Interesting stuff!
It’s nice to know that Bush and McCain have the Behind-the-Scenes Interaction Style. Too many people have the misconception that In-Charge means leader, and Behind-the-Scenes means follower. Thank you for showing that any Interaction Style can be a leader!
November 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Wow. I haven’t really had much contact with anything to do with types and am now sat here totally blown away by all these terms!? I’ve got quite hooked and am now off to see what other information you have. Thanks Vicky Jo for introducing me to this weird and wonderful world!
Corrina
November 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Corrina -
welcome to the wonderful and wacky world of type! I hope you enjoyed your visit here. You’re welcome back anytime.
Sarah and Old School MBTI’r -
Your comments are so important that I’ll be responding to them in whole new blog articles later. So please stay tuned.
old school mbti’er, I replied to your comment here.
Sarah, you’re up next!
Eric -
You make some interesting arguments for Obama having ENTJ prefs, although you are delving into stereotype more than I am comfortable with. You didn’t need to cite so much from cognitiveprocesses.com — I’m actually a contributor to the book from which that text was taken. (I hope you bought the book — there’s so much more in it. http://tinyurl.com/BlueBk)
It feels like you are making broad, sweeping generalizations about Stabilizers. I don’t feel like you are holding them in positive regard, and that disheartens me.
Last, I don’t think you can *really* learn about type by merely reading about it. If you’re going to type other people “out there,” then you can’t rely solely on what’s “in here.” In fact, I might even surmise that trying to do so is an achilles heel of the INTJ. (And I’m married to one, so I have a little bit of experience with this pattern.) I repeat, there is no substitute for a live type workshop for you to witness the patterns in action, and create your “mental map” for healthy representations of the types.
I’ll probably write a blog article about this down the road while I’m at it (so many articles, so little time!), so stay tuned.
(Hey, I DID write a reply to Eric — and it’s posted here.)
November 27th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Hi Sarah,
I have been giving some careful consideration to your comments regarding GWB and McCain’s supposed personality type. Just because we may disagree with a person’s choices or actions, does not necessarily mean that their personality is so different to ours. There are many more facets to a person than simply their personality that can govern external behaviours. If this were not the case then, following your argument, I’d feel very sorry for that percentage of the population who share the same personality as Adolf Hitler.
Have you not considered that perhaps the reason why you dislike being tarred with the same brush as GWB or McCain is not so much that you both share the same Introverted Feeling preference but rather that your deeply held personal values, which are closely associated with Fi, are so diametrically opposed that it is offensive to be regarded as similar?
You state that you would never act or behave the same way as either of them, therefore a question you should consider asking yourself would be, how would you do things differently and, leaving aside the grand policy decisions (based on values or other criteria), on a personal level in what ways would your approach to government be different? How do you interact with other people? How do you let your personal values guide your actions? How much input do you require from others before making decisions, etc?
Is it not just possible that by answering these questions and comparing with one’s perceptions of GWB or McCain answers you might not be as dissimilar as you first thought?
Best Regards,
Charles [INFJ]
January 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
To charles — thank you for the thoughtful comments. This is probably a shadow issue I’ve been dealing with ever since I heard somewhere else that Bush supposedly has ISFP preferences. It’s so tempting to disown anyone who might be my type but who doesn’t live his or her life in a way that I personally understand and value. At any rate, I do understand that there’s a big difference between specific life choices people make and their type preferences, and I agree with what you’ve said.
to Vicky Jo — I’m very sorry for the outburst.
Me reacting too soon again to something I’ve read, again. I could stand to develop a bit more emotional self control. I apologize.
(by the way, I thought McCain’s concession speech was quite well-said and well-worded, and my opinion of the guy went up slightly after viewing that. Not that I agree with his politics, but it was refreshing to notice that he didn’t project the sense of arrogance and entitlement as GWB.)
Sarah