On 2001-11-09 02:13, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-11-08 21:03, Neisha '67 wrote:
Stonewall, why do you think Clinton is an ENTP. I always thought he was an ENFP. He's always getting misty and "feeling [others'] pain." Plus people who have met him say he exudes warmth and makes you feel like you are the most fascinating person in the world. I would think most Ts would have a tough time pulling this off. Furthermore, he has an insatiable desire to be loved, which seems more F than T. Hillary, is, no doubt, a T, but I'm thinking that Bill is an F.

Neisha, you may be right. It is just so hard to tell how much is an act and how much is real. I used to think he had to be an F and probably an ENFP. However when I got to see him engage in verbal gymnastics some more, I became convinced that he must be an ENTP.

Take his deft dancing with the meaning of the word 'is' and also his repeated clever response in the present tense that he "is not having an affair" when Jim Lehrer kept asking him if he "had ever had" an affair with Monica. There are many other examples. I as an INTP can see all the angles just as they appear to him. But the difference is that, as an INTP, I have that bar which prevents me from exploiting those angles as it is against my principles. Because I see all these things such that I am onto him every step of the way, I tend to think that he must be using Ne and Ti as well. Assuming that he is an E, I have come to see him as an ENTP (and he certainly does not seem like an INTP).

Maybe that is just Ne working and he could still be an ENFP. I do not know. But I would be willing to bet that he is an ENTP who is more or less out of control and would do or say anything to further his advantage -- perhaps unlike any other ENTP in the world. Remember that an ENTP is the best advocate in that he is essentially an intuitive salesman who can get inside your mind. That is what Bill Clinton does better than anybody. Hence the "feeling your pain," etc. And do not forget that an ENTP extroverts feeling so there is no conflict here. That business is just a well-rehearsed shuck and jive designed to get into women's pants anyway. I was finally forced to conclude that he is probably an utterly unscrupulous ENTP and thus one of the world's greatest con artists. But I am not certain that I know enough about ENFP to rule it out.

Or he could be like me and straddle the border between F and T, and thus, swings both ways.

(By the way, the rest of my MBTI is nothing like Clinton's. I am an IxTJ, with my S/N flip-flopping and my T consistent but very borderline and weak.)

That's another possibility, Jenny. Good thinking.

Stonewall, I also thought about the EN thing giving him the ability to be a great actor and appear more F than he really is. But, there is also his famous temper, and I couldn't figure out how to factor that in with the EN piece. Not being an extrovert myself, though, I have a hard time getting into the head of one. Donna, can you help us out here? You're an EN, what do you think, is Clinton more of an F or a T?

He also has quite a bit of the NF "Idealist" to him, probably the reason he moved back to Arkansas and went into politics rather than making millions as a trial lawyer in New York -- both he and Hillary easily could have gone the big city corporate route.

Also, isn't it the N that gives you the ability to think of all the possibilities? I thought the T just gave you the tendency to be more cool-headed and logical. And don't discount the fact that he is a lawyer and is surrounded by lawyers. As a lawyer myself, I can attest for the fact that you can't graduate from law school and practice law for even a few years without developing some finally honed analytical skills, regardless of your natural temperment. You may also be swayed by the fact that the man is brilliant, regardless of what we may think of him as a person. There are highly intelligent people of all temperments and you don't need to be a T to be able to spar with the best of them.

Just some more thoughts. In typical NT fashion I can't help but analyze everything.

Neisha, the reason that I thought "seeing all the angles" was Ti was because the ESTP salesman supposedly also "sees all the angles." And the only thing which ESTP has in common with ENTP is Ti. In fact, now that I recall, Ti is critical thinking as opposed to Te which is empirical thinking. Critical thinking sees all the holes which means that it also sees all the angles depending on the intent of the thinker. So I would lean toward Ti seeing all the angles.

The difference between Se and Ne is that Se reads body language (I think?) whereas Ne gets inside someone's head. The ESTP salesman reads body language so that his Ti can find the right angle to make the sale with a given customer. The ENTP trial lawyer sees inside the head so that Ti can find the right attack to destroy a given opponent.

One thing we know about Bill Clinton is that he can see inside the head very well from all accounts, so there is definitely Ne working there. But perhaps he is not in fact seeing all the angles with Ti as I suggested. The problem is that I cannot remember exactly what Fi does and how it works with Ne. However my guess is that Ne working with Fi means that someone can look inside another's head and see what he is feeling -- and empathize. Contrast this with Ne working with Ti which enables someone to look inside another's head and see what he is thinking. I suspect Ne and Fi would help a guy to be a master of seduction and it would help him to find just the right words. But I do not see it as helping him to quickly obfuscate and evade through verbal gymnastics. That seems like we are back to Ne and Ti such that Clinton is an ENTP, although I may have this wrong.

You mention his bad temper and I am not sure that I recall correctly but it seems to me that bad temper is a result of a less developed feeling function. When feeling is the third or fourth function, it is less developed and thus less under control. The ENFP uses feeling second (with Fi) whereas the ENTP uses feeling third (with Fe). The ENTP has an inferior feeling function to the ENFP and thus is more likely to have a bad temper as his emotions are less under control. So if I have this right, Clinton's bad temper is also more indicative of ENTP than ENFP.

You mention the NF Idealist thing with him. I see that as more of an act. Bill Clinton is an opportunist par excellence and that suggests that there is no real conviction to back up his feigned idealism -- thus he is not a true idealist. In fact opportunism requires Ti's ability to improvise. So I would again lean toward ENTP.

The bit about going back to Arkansas makes sense to me as the opportunist would see the opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond. And this would serve as a stepping stone to bigger and better things whereas he would never have graduated beyond a face in the crowd elsewhere. And I honestly see him as being too lazy to be an effective trial lawyer. He supposedly always showed brilliance but apparently never consistently applied himself and in fact did not finish his Rhodes deal. So I do not see where he could have succeeded as a big city trial lawyer or in the corporate world -- or would have even wanted to. This lesser drive or "looking for the easy way" may in fact be more consistent with ENFP, I do not know. But on the whole, I believe the evidence points to a less principled, less convicted ENTP.

There is no doubt that Bill Clinton is a real puzzle.

Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about extroverted and introverted secondary functions. I may actually have to go back and read that conversation you had with Robert Reed!

Clinton is an extremely complex and fascinating person. I thought of something else that probably supports your contention that he is more T than F. It's his complete self-absorption and inability to see the effect of his behavior on others. This isn't an F characteristic and probably is peculiar to an NT, although it might happen with SP's as well? The Clintons storm through life like Tom and Daisy Buchanan and barely seem to notice close friends and associates running up huge legal fees, going to prison, etc. The book Primary Colors illustrates this aspect of his (their?) personality, as do books by George Stephanopolous, Dick Morris, and other former aides. The personality isn't merely magnetic, it swallows people whole and consumes them.

Where did you learn this stuff anyway? My source is the Keirsey books/website. What else is out there?

I always thought of Bill Clinton of being an ExTP. He seems more like a borderline S/N to me, with more of an emphasis on N. So I agree largely that Clinton is an ENTP. Clinton is one who has perfected his use of Extraverted Intuition, which is his dominant function. Unlike an INTP, whose dominant Ti and secondary Ne makes them detest facades, as they are on a continuous search for truth, the dominant Ne and secondary Ti of an ENTP allows them to be able to easily manipulate the truth, which makes them a "salesman" type. They are usually very good at selling ideas to the public, and at putting on a facade because their Ne gives them great control over their environment, and gives them a very good understanding of the environment they are in. While many can't see through an ENTP, the INTP can usually see directly through one because their Ti nature, aided by Ne, allows them to. ENTPs and INTPs largely think alike, but there are very fundamental differences between the two. Because INTPs can see right through ENTPs, Mr. Patton has a hard time listening to Clinton.

Interesting comments. Where do you draw the line around self absorption when you're dealing with a Boomer AND a political leader AND someone with a huge ego AND someone whose scruples are, well, nonexistant?

Personally, I've always thought of Bill Clinton as ESTP. I know people who are ESTP and a smoother operator there is not. ESTP is a master manipulator and does it so well, that people don't even realize they've been manipulated. Think Madonna. ENTP is more motivated by inventing better things than everyone else than by selling, wheeling, and dealing. ENTP's like to come out on top though and can be competitive. Think Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.

All SP's are very easy to get along with and stuff rolls off them like water off a duck's back. ESTP is highly tactical, strategic, and likeable on the level of mass appeal, whereas all NT's whether E or I are more scientific, individual, nonconformist, and analytical.

I can see why Neisha thinks Clinton is ENFP, however, since he has that warm glow that a lot of ENFP's have. Trouble is ENFP hardly ever rises to leadership, and they are sensitive and thin skinned, idealistic, and a little bit naive, which doesn't really fit for Clinton.

But hey, what do I know? I went back and took the test again, just to see, and lo, I come out INTJ this time. I think it is because I'm working with a lot of extremely talkative, emotional people right now and I've been shutting up and trying to be the clear thinker. Which causes me to wonder two things: 1) is the test really valid and 2) are people's personalities really that malleable that they change with circumstances so easily?

On 2001-11-09 15:41, Neisha '67 wrote:

Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about extroverted and introverted secondary functions.

As you know, there are four general functions: Thinking, Feeling, iNtuition, and Sensing. But each of these four general functions is subdivided into two particular functions with opposing attitudes, one directed inward and the other outward. Thus we get:

Te/Ti
Fe/Fi
Ne/Ni
Se/Si

Each of this eight functions supposedly takes place in a different physical location in the brain. Te should not be confused with Ti, for example. As stated, Te is empirical thinking and Ti is critical thinking. They are two completely different methods of reasoning, deductive versus inductive, and your brain is wired from birth to favor one over the other just as you favor using one hand over the other. This demonstrates why people really do not flip between, for example, INTP and INTJ on a daily basis as those confusing test results often suggest. Such a flip would require similar ease with both your brain's empirical thinking "muscle" and critical thinking "muscle" as well as with the reversed-attitude perceiving "muscles" which they separately require in order to receive data, and this does not happen in real life. Even if perchance your Te "muscle" were equal in potential to your Ti "muscle," it is extremely unlikely that your Ni "muscle" would also be even close to equal in potential to your Ne "muscle." And your Te is utterly useless unless it has a functional Ni (or Si) to collect data for it.

The different attitudes of the other three general functions also correspond to distinct brain functions. For example, Si is inwardly directed Sensing and relates to your consciousness of your health and physical well being. But Se is outwardly directed Sensing and takes in your surroundings, i.e. it notices physical details. Ne is outwardly directed iNtuition and it perceives your environment in a general way such that you can conceptualize and discern patterns -- such as cyclical patterns in history. Ni is inwardly directed iNtuition and I cannot remember exactly but it seems like it is much more of a mystical or revelatory perception about the core nature of something which just comes to you perhaps inexplicably. Fe and Fi I cannot remember as well but I think Fe seeks to please others and for people to get along harmoniously whereas Fi perhaps has more to do with maximizing potential and a sense of 'right and wrong'.

Where did you learn this stuff anyway? My source is the Keirsey books/website. What else is out there?

I originally looked into it in an effort to better understand how to communicate ideas to different types of people. Some people swear by this theory as the be all and end all of how the human brain operates. I am not convinced that it gives us the complete picture. However I am convinced of the theory's utility in categorizing different types of people effectively such that we can understand how other types perceive and integrate themselves to reality, and we can then better communicate with them. The theory also serves as something of a metric for the zeitgeist of a given turning and S&H have referenced it in this capacity in their work. It can also be helpful with respect to child rearing decisions. It really does have great utility.

There are a number of books on the theory and its applications in your local bookstore. The theory is an expansion of Jung's work (who was an INTP, by the way...in case you think you may still be one) so they should be in the psychology section. If I can ever manage to dig out some of my books, I can then give you more specific explanations for what each of those eight brain functions (mental muscles) do.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-09 21:09 ]</font>

On 2001-11-09 17:07, madscientist wrote:

Unlike an INTP, whose dominant Ti and secondary Ne makes them detest facades, as they are on a continuous search for truth, the dominant Ne and secondary Ti of an ENTP allows them to be able to easily manipulate the truth, which makes them a "salesman" type. They are usually very good at selling ideas to the public, and at putting on a facade because their Ne gives them great control over their environment, and gives them a very good understanding of the environment they are in. While many can't see through an ENTP, the INTP can usually see directly through one because their Ti nature, aided by Ne, allows them to. ENTPs and INTPs largely think alike, but there are very fundamental differences between the two.

Extremely well stated!

Because INTPs can see right through ENTPs, Mr. Patton has a hard time listening to Clinton...

...or Rush Limbaugh. It cracks me up to consider that most of the country honestly believes that these guys are somehow polar opposites who detest each other when, if the truth be told, they could be (non-identical) twins who secretly admire each other, despite all the propaganda and BS. Only type theory gives you this insight.

On 2001-11-09 18:23, Donna Sherman wrote:

Personally, I've always thought of Bill Clinton as ESTP.

During his first term, I always assumed he was an ESFP given his "touchy-feely" nature and "defining" libido. But we got a decidedly more detailed snapshot during the second term. There definitely is Ti kicking, IMO, so it is either ESTP or ENTP. I see strong Ne and thus ENTP. Hey, let's not forget that NTs get horny too! Bill appears to me to be an ENTP with atypical priorities.

I know people who are ESTP and a smoother operator there is not. ESTP is a master manipulator and does it so well, that people don't even realize they've been manipulated.

LBJ.

ENTP's like to come out on top though and can be competitive.

That sounds like Slick. He just doesn't give up...and never will.

But hey, what do I know? I went back and took the test again, just to see, and lo, I come out INTJ this time. I think it is because I'm working with a lot of extremely talkative, emotional people right now and I've been shutting up and trying to be the clear thinker. Which causes me to wonder two things: 1) is the test really valid and 2) are people's personalities really that malleable that they change with circumstances so easily?

You raise supremely important points here. The test is intended to assess temperament, not personality. Your temperament is in your genes and is constant through your life, excepting the degree to which you gradually maximize the potential of your four main functions through phases of life. Personality on the other hand is the product of temperament and environment and it therefore can change as your environment, or your response to environment, changes, of course always circling around your non-drifting temperamental anchor. If the test were measuring temperament effectively, then people would not be getting all these different results on different days. Obviously, the test is not sufficiently filtering out environmental factors and thus your result on any given day is caught somewhere between your temperament and your personality.

The problem is in the test's methodology. I/E and J/P should not be assessed independently of N/S and T/F as that is a conflict waiting to happen. The most effective tests determine your hierarchy of preferences for all eight functions. Your leading four functions are clearly shown, in order, and this order corresponds unambiguously to only one of the sixteen MBTI types. This is your one true type. It does not matter if you then go back and take Keirsey again and get a different result. Your one true type, set in stone before birth, is revealed by the other test in the specific and unchanging ordering of your functions.

Short of locating one of these other tests, you can familiarize yourself with the specific roles of all eight functions. Determine if you use Ti as opposed to Te, for example, and Ne as opposed to Ni, etc. With a sufficient understanding of the separate functions and your own preferences, you can probably then derive your true type with confidence. Even so, it would probably be better to find one of the actual hierarchical tests.

I've just realized why the Civil War was so destructive. The nation was being led by an INTP. Keirsey characterizes Abraham Lincoln as an INTP. Because of the destruction, it is probably safe to assume that Jefferson Davis is an INTP.

Earlier, Mr. Patton stated the INTPs do not like leadership. The only time when they are found in leadership is in times of revolutionary change. This means that INTPs are only found in leadership in Fourth Turnings. In revolutionary times, INTPs seek leadership, as they believe that they have the vision and wisdom necessary to bring society through a Crisis. The Great Power Crisis seems more like an anomaly with the absense of INTP Prophets in power.

By looking at the C-Components of the INTP personality, we can see why. The INTP's axis is Ti/Ne, with Ne supporting the Ti. In the ENTP, the axis is Ne/Ti, with Ti supporting the Ne. In this case, Ti is for finding answers, and truth using critical thinking, while Ne is used to find information, generate possibilities.

So for an ENTP, the truth is a means while finding and exploring possibilities is an end, and this makes them exceptionally good inventors. For the INTP, finding an exploring possibilities is a means while seeking truth is an end. This makes for some VERY fundamental differences. The ENTP is prone to tailoring the truth to suit his own ends. This makes him a very good communicator of ideas. With this, the ENTP can become very charismatic, and gain a large following of ordinary people as the ENTP is able to explain his views so that everyone understands.

The INTP, however, will resist tailoring a truth. The Ne constantly feeds data into Ti, and the Ti uses it to tweak a truth, or to find new truths. The INTP spends a lot of energy searching for knowledge and truth. Because Ti is dominant, the INTP has ultimate respect for the truth. And because the secondary function is the abstract Ne, INTPs are idea people. They are constantly musing over theories and concepts, trying to milk every single droplet of knowledge they can from a concept. From this, they analyze this knowledge, seeking to build more knowledge and truth from it.

INTPs constantly seek truth. And since truth is an end, they have ultimate respect for the truth. They like knowledge to be in its purest form. Truth must be pure. INTPs are logical purists. When INTPs speak of truths, they are usually very clear about how it is stated. They speak the truth with precision. In fact, INTPs are often very hair-splitting when talking about concepts. INTPs also demand the same from others. As a result, INTPs are often very specific to as how a truth must be told. An INTP is not always happen when the ENTP tailors a truth.

Usually, an INTP is very mellow. An INTP will often correct someone when they make a statement with inconsistent logic, something that can be aggravating to many people. The INTP is often detached, observing the world, taking data in from his Ne. However, if the INTP's principles are violated, or someone makes a statement with seemingly excessive ignorance and/or stupidity, the Ti quickly takes over, and the INTP will come out of his shell. He will provide for clarity, and take a rigid stance. He will "correct" the other person with hair-splitting precision. Again, this can aggravate the other person. Sometimes, a person will argue back, but unless they are another NT (especially another INTP or an ENTP), they are usually beaten back, or usually back down.

With this, let's see what happens when INTPs have a conflict. When one INTP states a truth that the other finds logically inconsistent, the other will attempt to provide for clarity, and "correct" the other person. If the INTP sees logical consistency with the other INTP's rebuttal, he will not argue back. However, if the INTP finds logical inconsistencies, or "sacrilege" of truth in the rebuttal of the other INTP, he will then argue back, stating his arguments, and justifying them with cutting precision. Let me tell you: just like Prophets, INTPs do not back down if they find the other faction to be logically inconsistent. In fact, they will always up the ante. So the INTP issues another rebuttal, but the other one still finds his logic inconsistent. The other issues yet another rebuttal, even stronger than his original rebuttal. Because of that, another one is issued, and he argues about the logical inconsistencies of the original. If both still see each other's arguments as silly, it escalates even more. Usually, they will start to get frustrated with each other. As their patience wears away with the other person who doesn't see what should be plainly obvious, it starts to get more personal, as the inferior Fe function starts to creep up. At this point, one of the factions begins to feel that the other is unintelligent. As a result, they either purposely or accidently adds something to their arguments than is perceived as an attack on the other person's intelligence, real or imaginary. The other faction is deeply offended by this seemingly writing off of their intelligence. When we get to this point, watch out!! By now, Fe bursts onto the surface with the party that feels violated firing the first shot by issuing scathing and piercing attacks against the offending party. If there are other people, especially other iNtuitive people, this is usually a polarizing event. The line has been crossed. Sides are taken, and battle lines are drawn. People think of creative ways to fight rhetoric warfare. With INTPs, this will continue until one side as clearly lost, or the issue becomes moot. Both sides will creativity cause verbal destruction, even calling the other side evil.

INTPs become attached to abstractions, and tools they use. When two INTPs have a large disagreement, it normally erupts into a flame war. When more and more people get involved, it erupts into a "holy war". With the disagreement deepens to a point in which their Fe is affected, and starts to come up, INTPs will fight religiously. For all of the rationalism and logic that an INTP usually harbors, when his buttons are pushed in a certain way, when his principles are being attacked, he will defend himself, and attack the offending person religiously. Often, it comes to resemble a religious war, hence the name "holy war". One very legendary holy war was the one between Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis in the early 1990s. I was VERY active in this holy war, siding with Super Nintendo. Since the geek community is largely populated, and maybe even dominated by INTPs, it is rife with holy wars. For anyone who has worked on a UNIX computer, they have probably witnessed a holy war. The 30 year history of the UNIX operating system is filled with war, holy righteousness, and bloodshed. There were, and still are very legendary holy wars in the computing world. Of course, Linux is in a deepening holy war against Microsoft (a holy war I joined early this year). One of the most legendary holy wars is vi vs. emacs. Both are text editors for Unix systems. For over 10 years, this holy war has been raging red-hot. In 1998, a holy war has started between GNOME and KDE, which are two GUIs for Linux. There have even been holy wars that were about the correct usage of brackets in C programs . In the early 1980s, Richard M. Stallman (probably an INTP) started a crusade for open source software, and this has eventually turned into one of the largest holy wars that ever existed, one that involves hundreds of thousands of geeks, and one that is still growing. Right now, lines are being drawn for the holy war against Microsoft, which will likely prove to be the mother of geek holy wars.

So how does all of this figure into the Civil War, and Lincoln being an INTP? INTPs believe in principles. INTPs do NOT back down when core principles are at stake. They will fight to the bloody finish. The geek community has proven this. Sure, it seems very comical, but sometimes it can be destructive. A 60 year old INTP will inevitably feel that he harbors a lot of knowledge, and is very wise. For a Hero INTP, this will mean applying that wisdom to grand secualr constructions. But in a Crisis, the world is in peril. Feeling that he has gained a lifetime amount of knowledge and wisdom, he feels that he is equipped with the wisdom necessary to guide society through it. In a time of maximum peril, INTPs will not back down from principle. They will up the ante. Only in 4T will an INTP seek power, and only will society vote a lot of INTPs in power. INTPs are by nature other-worldly people. In a 4T, INTPs are able to use their Ne to galvanize society for the defense of principle. If Jefferson Davis is also an INTP, then the reason why there was cataclysmic destruction in the Civil War is really a no-brainer. Two INTPs got into a very large disagreement. With this, I also believe that Samuel Adams is an INTP.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." - John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2001-11-09 23:07 ]</font>

With this many INTPs on the site, especially with INTPs that are extremist leftists, and others that are extreme rightists, is anyone else impressed that there hasn't yet been a major flame war? :wink:

I thought most people knew from previous posts, but I am an INTP. The more tests I take, the more descriptions I read, the more confirmed it is. My percentages are something like:

90% N
85% I
65% P
60% T

Sometimes, I might answer a test closer to J and/or F.

The difficulties with finding your dominant function can be ascribed to the difficulties involved in ANY test or classification. It is simply impossible to encapsulate human nature in a test of 50 to 100 questions. Also, the wording of the questions determines a lot of the answers you give. So it is to some extent a picture based on the test authors' view of the world, as much as a picture of your own personality.

So T is my weakest of the 4 scores, yet still my dominant function. It certainly seems correct. Still, I trust that this does not mean I am condemned to be only a "thinker" in the usual sense of the word. I want to have all of my abilities developed in a holistic way. For example, I like the way "N" answers are worded on the test, but in many ways I am trying to develop sensing; the same with the I/E and the other scales. It is also true that Jung and M&B recommend compensating and developing your opposite functions, not just staying what you are. So you start with your type, and you work with it by balancing and compensating, so that, although you may still be one type, you have developed a balanced personality that suits your needs.

Eric Meece

Mr. Meece, have you developed the N or F more?

You're too kind, Robert madscientist. Who's to say there haven't been??

I like ENFP for Clinton. He is certainly a warm and sympathetic person and despite his brilliant mind, is dominated by his feelings, and can show them easily. His brilliant mind was probably a function of N. ENFPs are said by Myers and Briggs to be the most capable type, but not constant in their enthusiasms. They are flexible, which explains Bill's waverings. I don't think he is an ESTP entrepreneur type. He was an idealist, even though he always compromised. If he had been INFP, he would have been less compromising. But he is a very very strong E, and bends with the world's needs.

"So has anyone tried to correlate MBTI personality types to S&H generational archetypes?"

I did. Look under archived forums, and Theories of History. Almost to the bottom; last post was in May 2001.

I thought that 4 of the MBTI types were closest to the 4 S&H types, with the other MBTI types clustering around and between them. The four most typical types I thought were: INFJ ("oracle, counselor")= prophet, ENTJ ("field marshall") = hero, ESTP ("entrepreneur") = nomad, ISFP ("composer, wanderer") = artist.

Basically, if you read about the types in the book by the authors of the test, it is clear that NF people are closest to prophets, NT to heroes, ST to nomads and SF to artists. I think I quoted the MBTI authors in the earlier forum. They said something like: the NF people are enthusiastic and inspirational, NTs are brilliant and logical, STs are practical, and SFs are warm and sympathetic people persons. In elemental terms, NFs are fire, NTs are air, STs are earth and SFs are water.

Next most typical to these 4 types, but more moderate, were: ENFJ prophet, ENTP hero, ISTP nomad, ISFJ artist.

But to a lesser extent, some NFs also tend toward artist traits, NT to prophet traits, ST to hero traits, and SF to nomad traits.

INTP and INTJ are between hero and prophet. ISTJ and ESTJ are between hero and nomad. ESFP and ESFJ are between nomad and artist. ENFP and INFP are between artist and prophet.

What do you mean, Robert? I don't need to develop the N more, I am already overly N. Have I developed the F? I hope so but many of my life experiences suggest I have a long way to go.

An interesting question about which type our leaders are.

As I said, Clinton is ENFP

I can buy Hillary as INTJ

(notice, not a lot in common between them...)

George W. Bush is definitely not a P, as someone suggested. He is very organized, decisive and punctual, J. Also, he has proven to be not a compromiser, even though he portrays himself to be one. He is definitely S (facts, not ideas or creativity, of which he has virtually none). The other two polarities seem fuzzy. Being more worldly, perhaps he is more E, but he is a bit reclusive. I don't see him as much of a thinker. He doesn't consider human values either, but he does respond to cultural feelings and traditions. He has warmth and cordiality which people can relate to. I would guess then, ESFJ, but he could be ISFJ. If he is ESFJ, he is the opposite of me, which would figure.

Al Gore? Lets see, he is probably as introverted as a leader can get away with being. Definitely N and T. I think he's more J too, but close. INTJ, but not as strongly judging as Hillary perhaps. But in some other ways he is even more INTJ than her, as he styles himself a master imagineer and innovator.

George senior? E, S, T, J. The "supervisor", good military planner as Robert said. Unlike junior, he speaks in formulas and jargon that suggests a thinker. Definitely "prudent." Was not really well fitted for the top job; more of an organization man. He has more N than junior, conceiving the new world order. But lacked "the vision thing."

McCain has more going on than being a good salesman. But let's see: a weak E, probably originally an S but is increasingly N. He is definitely changing his type if anyone is, and becoming a visionary. He is a maverick. That would suggest ENTP. His openness to questions suggests P. But he was probably J earlier.

On 2001-11-09 23:05, madscientist wrote:

I've just realized why the Civil War was so destructive. The nation was being led by an INTP. Keirsey characterizes Abraham Lincoln as an INTP.

I have found that I have disagreed with a lot of Keirsey's assessments in the past and this is another one right here because I definitely do not see Lincoln as an INTP. The only problem is that I am not certain as to what he is.

In looking at the pictures of Lincoln, I see extroverted feeling. But then again, wouldn't everybody look like they were extroverting feeling if they were smiling for the camera? I'm not sure.

There is no question that he was pragmatic...too pragmatic for an INTP. He was no principled opponent of slavery but was merely looking for the best way to solve the problem. His preference for shipping them to Africa did not pan out so he eventually issued the Emancipation Proclamation -- when it was politically expedient to do so. And the Proclamation itself was an empty document which did not free a single slave. An INTP would have been too ashamed to pull a stunt like that.

He went through generals like he was chain-smoking cigarettes, and this was good as it allowed him to finally find the best. Definite pragmatism and almost certainly P.

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he modified his views to suit his audiences as he traveled up and down the state. An INTP would have been more consistent as a matter of principle.

He plagiarized the Funeral Oration of Pericles in writing the Gettysburg Address. I think an INTP would have attempted a little more originality.

I am not convinced that he was not an F but I do see signs of Ti. The turnover with generals suggests improvisation and that is Ti. Also he very effectively found some critical holes in Douglas' speeches, again suggesting Ti.

Lincoln's alleged principles are greatly exaggerated as it is always the victors who write the histories of wars. I do see Ti and P, but I do not see INTP. I am not at all certain that he was in fact an N. However if we trust the victors' account that he educated himself, then that would suggest N. Education was hard to come by then in that part of Kentucky so there is good reason to believe that he in fact was an N.

That leaves me with ENTP and INTP. Frankly Lincoln's behavior was entirely consistent with ENTP and notably inconsistent with INTP. But we are led to believe that he was this dark, brooding, loner. I believe the explanation lies with Lincoln's alleged manic-depression. The depression gave him the appearance of an introvert but in fact he was probably an ENTP. I am going to settle with Lincoln as a manic-depressive ENTP.

The Great Power Crisis seems more like an anomaly with the absense of INTP Prophets in power.

Well, if I am correct, the Revolutionary Crisis was the anomaly because it is the only one which sported INTPs prominently.

The ENTP is prone to tailoring the truth to suit his own ends. This makes him a very good communicator of ideas.

Witness Lincoln's passing off the Funeral Oration as the Gettysburg Address. Hey, it worked once for old Pericles. Why not try it again!

Truth must be pure [for an INTP].

Yes, a document purporting to free some slaves must actually free some slaves.

So how does all of this figure into the Civil War, and Lincoln being an INTP? INTPs believe in principles. INTPs do NOT back down when core principles are at stake. They will fight to the bloody finish.

Putting aside the dubious victor-written history, Lincoln was only fighting to ensure that one-third of the population continued to contribute two-thirds of tariff revenues. The Republican Party was only founded to further the goals of New England business interests once the Whigs choked in the "let's keep trying to get away with butchering the Commerce Clause so as to reward ourselves and our friends with federally financed internal improvements" tradition. The Republicans needed an ENTP to sell the program and they found Lincoln.

BTW, Robert, I thoroughly enjoyed your detailed account of the INTP "holy war." Well done. Also, I am going to take a pass on typing Jeff Davis as I am not confident that I know what he was. However I had the impression that he was a J for some reason. But I am not firm enough to stand by it.

On 2001-11-10 01:48, Eric A Meece wrote:

George W. Bush is definitely not a P, as someone suggested. He is very organized, decisive and punctual, J.

Holy smokes, Eric! You didn't copy this off Karl Rove's propaga...er, webpage did you? In all honesty, I see George W. Bush as precisely the guy that Myers and Briggs had in mind when they wrote their P description. I'll skip the detailed explanation for now but I definitely see him as -SFP and working with people in a Human Resources department or perhaps selling insurance policies somewhere: "Like a good neighborrrr, Dubya is therrrrre."

Al Gore? Lets see, he is probably as introverted as a leader can get away with being. Definitely N and T. I think he's more J too, but close. INTJ, but not as strongly judging as Hillary perhaps. But in some other ways he is even more INTJ than her, as he styles himself a master imagineer and innovator.

Without detailing it now, I see Al Gore as an incredibly tragic case of attempting to fulfill parental expectations when temperamentally unsuited. I would not doubt that he is a bit of the basket case which critics charged and it is sad. I agree that he projects himself as an INTJ. But underneath the surface I actually see INFP. I am not confident about this but I am confident that Gore is not the INTJ he tries to project.

Stonewall, I based my impression of George Dubya on news accounts; his style of governing. We agree on the SF part, but he does have an organized, decisive style of working. That doesn't detract from his sales ability at all, with his SF tendencies. Your observation there is correct and confirms my impression that he is SF-- even though he scarcely understands the way many people feel who are subjected to the results of his screwed-up domestic policies.

As for Al, I couldn't presume to know him as deeply as you claim to. His abilities as a policy wonk do show at least that he has the abilities of a thinker. Of course, so does Bill, whom I think is an F nevertheless. But his F qualities are very easy to see; unlike Gore's which, if they are there, are virtually invisible. Does the way Al acted on the debate podium show a person with a good feeling sense of how people react to people? III don't think so.

Eric, I found the old thread and noted that you faced the same difficulty in applying this theory to your philosophy wheel which I am confronting now with respect to a different matter. Keirsey's wheel is inconsistent in that he divides SJs from SPs and then proceeds to divide NTs from NFs when logically he should have used NJs and NPs (or alternatively he could have used NT, NF, ST, and SF). Keirsey's explanation is that SJs are far more distinct from SPs than STs are from SFs, and that NTs are far more distinct from NFs than NJs are from NPs. Thus the apparent inconsistency in the wheel.

The problem is that Keirsey's distinction may not be the defining one in every context. He is absolutely correct that SJs are properly distinct from SPs as these two are world's apart in how they perceive the world and in how they respond to it. Generally speaking, SPs are free agents who love to play and are more tolerant of others' differences. On the other hand, SJs are organizational/hierarchical, love to work, and are less tolerant of deviations from societal norms. SJs and SPs clash as the SP values personal liberty whereas the SJ opposes it as license. On the other hand, the SJ values economic liberty and control of his own money whereas the SP is more likely to vote for redistributed freebies from the SJ's pocket. As Keirsey describes in Presidential Temperament, SJs use tradition or what they were taught as children as their guide, tend to be conservative, and skew Republican. On the other hand, SPs pursue happiness, tend to be moderate to liberal, and skew Democratic. SJs and SPs represent the fundamental clash between order and freedom in the practical, non-ideological, S realm, and Keirsey's division is absolutely correct here as that battle between order and freedom may well bear upon every facet of life in this realm. SPs are SPs, irrespective of their T or F status. SJs are SJs irrespective of their T or F status.

It is when we get to Ns that things get complicated. I believe that Keirsey's reasons for dividing NTs from NFs centered around occupational choices more than anything else. NTs invariably tend toward technical and scientific fields whereas NFs favor guiding, coaching, and anything aimed at helping people to better themselves. But I suggest that Keirsey's division masks a very real division which exists between Js and Ps in the N realm which mirrors that defining one in the S realm. That order/freedom dichotomy between Js and Ps exists in the N realm and much more strongly as the battle becomes ideological. All Keirsey is really saying is that the T/F distinction takes on noticeable significance in the N realm where the distinction remains relatively muted in the S realm.

So in the end, perhaps Keirsey should have used four divisions in the N realm along with the two in the S realm, specifically: NTJ, NTP, NFJ, NFP, SJ, and SP. But why stop here and what does it mean anyway? The T/F distinction is still relevant in the S realm, just less so. Balance the wheel with eight types: NTJ, NTP, NFJ, NFP, STJ, STP, SFJ, SFP. And these eight divisions make sense since the separate pairings of dominant and auxiliary functions, which in fact define temperament, are isolated. The E/I distinction is only significant in so far as the E in each pair uses the I's auxiliary as his dominant function and the I in each pair uses the E's auxiliary as his dominant function. But their brains work in generally the same way. Obviously it might be better to represent all eight of these in three dimensions depending on what you are doing.

Let me add one more aspect which may bear upon some considerations. Jung originally only dealt with dominant functions as I recall and did not differentiate between the two possible auxiliaries. There are two MBTI types which share any given dominant function and obviously these two types would have a lot of similarities. For example, an INTP is an introverted thinker per Jung and ISTP is the other introverted thinker. Whereas the ISTP is the house carpenter, auto mechanic, or ball player, the INTP is the conceptual extension of these: the architect, mechanical engineer, or virtuoso. INTP and ISTP are the same Jungian archetype but INTP is the conceptual/theoretical version whereas ISTP is the practical/applicative version. The point is that INTP and ISTP are closely linked but this is not at all apparent from Keirsey. And it is not merely a matter of reversing the second letter either. An ENTP, for example, is a Jungian extroverted intuitive and the other extroverted intuitive in MBTI theory is the ENFP. I would think that these close relationships would bear upon some considerations.

Below I will pair the two types in each of the eight subsets, one over the other. And to the right of each, I will list its Jungian cohort. In other words, MBTI cohorts will be paired vertically in the left column and Jungian cohorts will be paired horizontally. No linkage should be interpreted to exist between vertical types in the right column (at least not that I see yet):

ENTJ - ESTJ
INTJ - INFJ

ENTP - ENFP
INTP - ISTP

ENFJ - ESFJ
INFJ - INTJ

ENFP - ENTP
INFP - ISFP

ESTJ - ENTJ
ISTJ - ISFJ

ESFJ - ENFJ
ISFJ - ISTJ

ESTP - ESFP
ISTP - INTP

ESFP - ESTP
ISFP - INFP

I have not attempted to apply this to your philosophy wheel but perhaps you can. The introverted type in each pair may in fact conform to an archetype on your eight point wheel (assuming that it is the introvert who is more given to philosophical reflection). Do you think this might work?

What I am trying to do is place these on a grid or whatever necessary to demonstrate political relationships. And perhaps within this we can discern political movement through each turning and within each generation. Beyond this, perhaps we can chart out our political, national, and global future. But I will get into this later when I have made more sense of it.

I think you're on the right track Stonewall. I didn't take Kiersey's divisions too seriously, since it is not a balanced theory for the reason you mentioned. The J and P difference might be just as strong in the N realm. Perhaps it suited his purposes in determining occupational compatibilities, but it is only his thinking, and not that of Myers-Briggs. Personally I see no reason to look at any of the 8 categories and 4 polarities as "more important" than the others. They are the 4 basic polarities in life, I believe, and the same ones I independenly discovered in my philosophy inquiries.

It is in the E and I category where there is the most variance between philosophy and occupational preferences. I see the I or introversion category as basically the same as a spiritualist orientation, and E as materialistic. This is much the way Jung described this polarity, in terms of "worldliness" vs. interest in the "inner life." However, practically speaking, introverts who pursue such occupations as scientist, engineer or mechanic may be quite materialistic; their introversion does not lead them toward a deep exploration of inner spiritual life, but only to occupations where working alone is needed. The test questions emphasize this aspect of I/E, not the philosophical aspect. So the correlation isn't always there. Perhaps your 8 types, without the E/I polarity, show a greater correlation between occupations and philosophies, and between MBTI and the philosophy wheel, but I would need to take a longer look.

Perhaps it may be that one's philosophical orientation, which was my main expertise, may correlate better to political attitudes and leadership styles than does one's occupational or personality traits. Food for thought. I don't know; only that these two kinds of orientations (philosophy and personality), though similar, are NOT identical.

In any case, though, I see no reason to downplay any of the polarities. J/P and E/I, which I place on the "cardinal points" of the wheel, fit those points in that they have to do with outwardly visible behavior, while the intermittent or quadrant points represent the psychological functions, which are less visible. Which is more important in showing how people lead during a turning? I doubt either set of polarities is really more important than others.

Kiersey thought the outwardly visible polarities were more important; even so, he didn't apply his view consistently. J/P seemed to him to be more important for those types who are more worldly and practical (S and T).

In any case, as I see it (which isn't how Jung & MB present it), all these categories shade into each other. That's why I placed them on a wheel. So P is really closely related to both F and S (between them, in fact), and J is closely related to both N and T. Despite not being explicitly stated, in fact the descriptions of these functions as stated by Jung and MB do bear out the similarities I see. S and F are both more empirical, or experiential; which is the hallmark of P-- openness to experience. T and N are more rational, and thus, like J, they seek order. P is specifically described as "empirical" and J as "rational" by M and B. That is a direct link between Perceiving and Sensing (which is the basis of "empiricism"), and between Judging and Thinking (or the "rational"), respectively; and by extension in the same ways with F and N as well.

Correspondingly, N seeks order in a more "theoretical" inward way, a more spiritual way, just as F seeks experience in the same inward direction. They seek validation of their views from the inward realm, not the world. Thus, they are both closer to I. Meanwhile, T seeks order in a much more concrete and verifiable way according to the external world's standards, and S seeks experience according to those same standards. Thus, both are closer to the E polarity.

I just put them on the wheel using a point system, giving also some points to dominant functions, and comparing these directions with those in philosophy. In the circle, half the types move further out and thus are more extreme, while half are close to the center and thus more of a mixture of the 8 directions. Moving toward the left from the I pole, we have as the extreme consistent types, INFJ (prophet), INTJ (prophet-hero), ENTJ (hero), ESTJ (hero-nomad), ESTP (nomad), ESFP (nomad-artist), ISFP (artist) and INFP (artist-prophet).

A type like ESFJ (Bush), is more of a mixture. They like order, yet are sympathetic, good salespeople, etc. ENTP (McCain), a real maverick and inventor, has lots of objective, well-ordered ideas, but applies them freely to situations. INTP (Lincoln?) has strongly logical and consistent ideas and ideals, but pursues a casual and curious approach to developing and applying them. Etc.

Thus, the pairs I see are (extreme and mixed):
INFJ ENFJ (prophets)
INTJ INTP (prophet-heroes)
ENTJ ENTP (heroes)
ESTJ ISTJ (hero-nomads)
ESTP ISTP (nomads)
ESFP ESFJ (nomad-artists)
ISFP ISFJ (artists)
INFP ENFP (artist-prophets)

The wheel is not the saeculum wheel, however, because it is static like the magic or medicine wheel, and not a moving process or seasonal wheel like the zodiac. So for example hero is next to prophet; not the same as in the saeculum wheel.

Hero types tend to be judgers (prefering a world well-ordered and institutionalized), often shading toward extraversion (worldliness). ENTJ is the closest type. Thinking is strong, and intuition may be stronger than sensing. Prophet types tend to be introverts (spiritual), and often shading toward the judging pole. Intuition is very strong in prophets, and they are more feeling oriented than sensing oriented. Thus, INFJ. Artists are opposite to heroes, and prophets to nomads, correspondingly.

In the seasonal cycle, perhaps, the dominant archetype emerges from a neighboring type, nurturing its arrival, but cause by reaction an opposing type to emerge. Artists react to heroes by moving toward "freedom", or openness, while nomads react to prophets by becoming more extraverted, practical and worldly than their predecessors.

It is not hard to apply these traits to where we are in the turnings. As we approach the Crisis, Heros are rising, Prophets are strong but may be starting to decline in influence. Nomads are coming into their own and some Artists are dissappearing. Therefore, T and J are becoming more important to attitudes and behavior, while F and P are declining. N and S are about equal, while E is gaining over I.

Right now, we have a president who is ESFJ, replacing one who was ENFP and was chosen in a disputed election over an INTJ.

'49, INTP

Interesting. I don't pretend to know enough about the theory to pair up types, but here's something I have noticed about myself that sort of goes with what Stonewall is saying.

Every time I take the test I come with some variation of INTJ. It is always very strong N (sometimes 100%), pretty strong T (about 70% usually), I/E varies (ranging from 60-90% "I" depending on what I am doing at work -- reading, thinking, writing vs. giving lots of presentations, running lots of meetings, arguing in court), and only slightly J (generally about 60%, I'm an organized, tidy person who likes to keep her options open).

Given how I consistently come out, I would think that I would be some combo of INTJ/ENTJ/INTP. But, I read the ENTJ description and it sounds *nothing* like me. I actually find people who are too strongly ENTJ kinda scary! Also, and I'm sorry Stonewall, as much as I truly love, seek out, and *get* people who are INTP, I only find a bit of myself in the INTP description. What's the description that sounds most like me, apart from INTJ? Surprise, it's always INFJ! In fact, when you look at the kind of work I do (lefty public interest lawyer/policy wonk) it's sort of an INFJ/INTJ combo. Basically, I am drawn to NF issues, but I like to pursue them in an NT manner. (I would make a *lousy* social worker, but I help the same people in the political arena or at the Court of Appeals.) But, when I take the test, I always score low on F.

If INTJ and INFJ are somehow paired, this actually makes some sense and I may really be an INTJ after all.

All this INTJ/INTP is freaking me out. I test as INT, with J/P about 50/50 split.

Rich, I was searching this thread for URLs to testing sites and found an earlier post of yours:

I forget when I took the test, on the old threads. I think I was INTJ, close to INFJ.

If you were way over toward 100% with your N but close to 50% with your T, then this would suggest that N is your dominant function such that you would be an INTJ. As shown on this thread, Keirsey's test is sufficiently imprecise that this rule does not always hold true (even though it should). But if you really are far over with N and that close to 50/50 with your T, then I would really think that you are an INTJ. And you do seem like a no nonsense kind of guy. I cannot really tell from here of course, but it never struck me that you might be an INTP.

And that brings me back to my original purpose. Where is everybody getting their scores? Is everybody paying the fee at the Keirsey site or am I missing something? All these tests used to be free but I am not finding any free results.

On 2001-11-13 12:02, Neisha '67 wrote:

What's the description that sounds most like me, apart from INTJ? Surprise, it's always INFJ! In fact, when you look at the kind of work I do (lefty public interest lawyer/policy wonk) it's sort of an INFJ/INTJ combo. Basically, I am drawn to NF issues, but I like to pursue them in an NT manner. (I would make a *lousy* social worker, but I help the same people in the political arena or at the Court of Appeals.) But, when I take the test, I always score low on F.

I suspect you have solved your mystery, Neisha. If INFJ is the best match besides INTJ, then you are homing consistently on the two introverted intuitives. As you gathered, Jung did not draw a distinction in his time and merely addressed the introverted intuitive as one of eight archetypes. Later people introduced the use of two possible auxiliaries with each of Jung's dominants and that created the sixteen types we deal with today. You have seized upon the two which Jung would consider introverted intuitive without distinction. And your legal work strongly suggests that you would be INTJ specifically as very few Fs ever finish law school from what I read.

You have expressed confusion over whether you are a J or P because you like to keep your options open, etc. This may be a reflection of the fact that you are a female INTJ, probably with a softer edge than the standard male INTJ. 2/3 to 3/4 of men are Ts and 2/3 to 3/4 of women are Fs. Men who are Fs tend to develop some anomalous characteristics as society generally demands that they be Ts. Female Ts do something similar since society expects them to be Fs. At least this is the official explanation but there may actually be hormonal reasons for this.

The point is that there really could be separate male and female descriptions for each type. If there were a specific female INTJ description, it may sound more like you. I am just guessing but a female INTJ probably naturally has more F than a man and it may manifest itself in the woman being more casual and P-like as compared to the standard male INTJ -- consistent with yourself. But then there is Hillary Clinton....

If INTJ and INFJ are somehow paired, this actually makes some sense and I may really be an INTJ after all.

Exactly. You are specifically one of Jung's introverted intuitives. And according to MB, you favor T over F as your auxiliary. Your brain favors the following four functions in order: Ni-Te-Fi-Se.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-13 23:05 ]</font>