Originally Posted by Odin

I remember reading that Obama was typed as 3w4 by the folks that publish a lot of the popular books on the Eneagram (Riso and Hudson, IIRC).

I have no idea what 3w4 is or the Eneagram. Is it related to the MBTI?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Here we go again. Not just a few days ago, you were agreeing with me that Democrats needed to market their message better. Now here you are, back to adopting the same leftist mindset that somehow the voters should just 'know' Obama is far preferable than any other GOP candidates. Basically intellectual arrogance that causes the left to lose more elections than they win.

Arrogance is another factor you didn't mention before.

Luckily though, I am not in charge of Obama's campaign.

What I meant is just how far right the voters are, is what was indicated by the comparison mentioned. And yes I think that's a very bad thing. No, I wouldn't expect right wingers to agree with me on that.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I have no idea what 3w4 is or the Enneagram. Is it related to the MBTI?

That is always interesting to compare various systems of psychology, typology and esoteric knowledge. See the MBTI thread under theories; there's some posts on that a while back.

The Enneagram is 9 types of people (enn means 9 in Greek); the MBTI is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and is based on Jungian psychology, including the 4 functions thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. But there are 16 types in that system, so it's complicated to compare them. Some empirical studies have been made on the comparison though. Strauss and Howe of course have only 4 types, and they are related somehow to the 4 functions and to the 4 Greek elements.

I also use astrology, which is the most ancient and venerable typing system. It also uses the 4 elements. I claim that the enneagram is actually astrology, and the 9 types are 9 planetary types. By that reckoning, type 3 is the Sun, Type 8 is Mars, and Type 9 is Venus. Obama being a Leo would seem to fit Type 3, since Leo is linked to The Sun. Type 3 is considered to be people who like to shine in the limelight and have leadership qualities. They may be too interested in status and social approval. Type 8 is a more aggressive kind of leadership, like the god of war, while Type 9 is the peacemaker like Venus and tends to be accomodating or reticent. I have my own pages about these subjects, with more detail: http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagram.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That is always interesting to compare various systems of psychology, typology and esoteric knowledge. See the MBTI thread under theories; there's some posts on that a while back.

The Enneagram is 9 types of people; the MBTI is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and is based on Jungian psychology, including the 4 functions thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. But there are 16 types in that system, so it's complicated to compare them. Some empirical studies have been made on the comparison though. Strauss and Howe of course have only 4 types, and they are related somehow to the 4 functions and to the 4 Greek elements.

I also use astrology, which is the most ancient and venerable typing system. It also uses the 4 elements. I claim that the enneagram is actually astrology, and the 9 types are 9 planetary types. By that reckoning, type 3 is the Sun, Type 8 is Mars, and Type 9 is Venus. Obama being a Leo would seem to fit Type 3, since Leo is linked to The Sun. Type 3 is considered to be people who like to shine in the limelight and have leadership qualities. They may be too interested in status and social approval. Type 8 is a more aggressive kind of leadership, like the god of war, while Type 9 is the peacemaker like Venus and tends to be accomodating or reticent. I have my own pages about these subjects, with more detail: http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagram.html

Huh. I was getting comfortable with understanding the MBTI (me being a very high on the I, T, and J, and less so on the S, which explains a lot).

Now I'll be honest and say straight out I tend to discount astrology as a basis for any kind of projecting social events in the future. But I have read parts of your site..some food for thought.

Upon review, looks like I fit the Type 5.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

In my opinion, Obama is culturally a white Midwestern Xer, who in young adulthood started getting into the more usual African-American culture because that was, after all, how he was defined in this country; and is making a serious INTJ* type effort to turn the combination into a coherent whole.

* Which if he isn't, he's something very close to that, possibly INTP, but certainly NT of some sort, or I'll eat my Type & Temperament books.

Very good take on Obama and I believe the same thing.

To borrow from millennialX's favorite TV show, Bill Cosby just messed everyone up about black people. Somehow we were to believe that these two relatively standard black people would produce mixed raced children, thereby putting forth the narrative that black by necessity is never white. Lisa Bonet's mother is white and like Obama exudes a cultural upbringing of whiteness. Sabrina Le Beauf (Sondra) belongs to that social middle class of Creoles that I mentioned earlier. Two different cultural/racial experiences placed under the umbrella of black.

Now I've been known to label Obama a white Pacific Islander of Kenyan paternity. But upon viewing The Grey Badger's response, I think it's safe to put Pacific Islander and Kenyan under the category of Xer because these represent his nomadic traits. So that white (specifically of the Midwestern variety) seems accurate to me. The adolescent/young adulthood attempts at black American culture are transparent to anyone paying attention. So combining the two is the only thing to appease it.

There is no right answer to what Obama is. But labeling him black (in this day and age) is just all together wrong.

And I completely find the discussion of what to label Obama completely useless. Obviously he's mixed but when it came to filling out the US census form in 2010, he chose to mark 'black'. So be it. Does it change anything a whit? Not whatsoever.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

To borrow from millennialX's favorite TV show, Bill Cosby just messed everyone up about black people. Somehow we were to believe that these two relatively standard black people would produce mixed raced children, thereby putting forth the narrative that black by necessity is never white. Lisa Bonet's mother is white and like Obama exudes a cultural upbringing of whiteness. Sabrina Le Beauf (Sondra) belongs to that social middle class of Creoles that I mentioned earlier. Two different cultural/racial experiences placed under the umbrella of black.

Now I've been known to label Obama a white Pacific Islander of Kenyan paternity. But upon viewing The Grey Badger's response, I think it's safe to put Pacific Islander and Kenyan under the category of Xer because these represent his nomadic traits. So that white (specifically of the Midwestern variety) seems accurate to me. The adolescent/young adulthood attempts at black American culture are transparent to anyone paying attention. So combining the two is the only thing to appease it.

There is no right answer to what Obama is. But labeling him black (in this day and age) is just all together wrong.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

And I completely find the discussion of what to label Obama completely useless. Obviously he's mixed but when it came to filling out the US census form in 2010, he chose to mark 'black'...

Who cares? I could write on the census form that I'm a refugee from Mars but y'all know that aint true. If the discussion is useless to you, don't participate in it. But don't come back here with stories of how racist voters (the origin of this discussion) can't get over the fact that he is black -- because it aint true.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding Obama, remember that the context of all this was Weave's original assertion that his supporters should have known from the beginning that he was incompetent. Whether he is in fact incompetent (which I don't think is true by the way) is irrelevant to that assertion, since it depends not so much on his factual incompetence but on that being what the left is unhappy with him about, and it's not. We're unhappy with him because he turned out to be, as in the image above, a wolf in sheep's clothing. We thought we were electing a fiery reformer, and we got a corporate aparatchik. Very disappointing indeed, but it has nothing to do with competence.

We-ell, I don't see Obama as either a fiery reformer or a corporate apparatchik. Nor am I particularly unhappy with him. He inherited a godawful mess that didn't just start with Bush II but stems all the way back to Ronald Reagan. A significant part of the country is still trapped in the thrall of Reaganomics and fundamentalism. The more impatient elements of the left are all too eager to give up when they don't immediately get their way in the legislative process.

I see this as a long journey out from under several failed ideologies. I think my fellow Joneser Obama also recognizes this, and that is why I will continue to support him in the next election cycle.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We-ell, I don't see Obama as either a fiery reformer or a corporate apparatchik. Nor am I particularly unhappy with him. He inherited a godawful mess that didn't just start with Bush II but stems all the way back to Ronald Reagan. A significant part of the country is still trapped in the thrall of Reaganomics and fundamentalism. The more impatient elements of the left are all too eager to give up when they don't immediately get their way in the legislative process.

I see this as a long journey out from under several failed ideologies. I think my fellow Joneser Obama also recognizes this, and that is why I will continue to support him in the next election cycle.

That seems a sensible analysis, and I may support him too.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Some here will be astonished how it could possibly be, but Reagan -- this board's favorite whipping boy -- is still pretty popular even among "Middle Americans" today who think today's increased income inequality and the Tea Party pretty much suck. I don't think I'd try to rally them with the constant reminder that everything magically, suddenly started going to Hell on January 20, 1981.

Well, even though I think it did. (As I wrote in my previous post)

But I still think a good argument can be made against supply-side thinking, even if you leave Reagan's name out of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Odin

In my poor rural family growing up "Reagan" was almost a swear word. I grew up with my mom going on about how much she loved Carter and how much she hated Reagan. You heard right, my Mom is a JONESER that LIKES CARTER.

I like him, too. He's had a fantastic post-Presidential career.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Interestingly, on the subject of empathy, our pastor is increasingly talking up the "social gospel" in last couple years, especially in the last few months. The sermons are more and more populated with reminders of our duties to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick, that sort of thing -- what most would consider "liberal" ideals today, at least when espoused by government. And this is small town Texas, a place that is 70% Republican. I do think there are signs that this "lack of empathy" is starting to give way as more and more people are starting to feel "there but for the grace of God go I", so to speak.

Originally Posted by annla899

This is good news. And pun intended.

Amen to all of the above.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Who cares? I could write on the census form that I'm a refugee from Mars but y'all know that aint true. If the discussion is useless to you, don't participate in it. But don't come back here with stories of how racist voters (the origin of this discussion) can't get over the fact that he is black -- because it aint true.

You can split very fine hairs over cajuns, creoles, mestizos, mulattoes and micronesians all you want to. But the fact is that for most of America he's a black dude. And in America race still matters.

And I speak with some authority on the subject for two reasons. First, I am part Cherokee and come from a southern heritaged family that passed as white for over a century because passing as white meant the difference between getting hired on at the textile mill and getting to vote on election day.

Secondly, I went to school during the busing era of the late '70's. I was a part of a student council in a high school that had a history of race riots. It wasn't easy be a student leader in such an environment but by the time my class graduated in 1979 the last of the race riots was over 2 years in the past at my school.
So yeah, I know a little about race.
I currently live in western South Carolina and down here, he wont get enough votes to carry the state primarally because he's a Democrat rather than because he's black. But the reason why a Democrat can't carry SC currently is because the Democrats are seen by too many white voters as the black party.
An that's not going to change next year.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I think so. When religious leaders in a very conservative place start using the phrase "social justice" in his sermons -- as I've heard a few times -- attitudes are starting to change. The stereotype is that most folks down on their luck were probably either just lazy or were impoverished and/or homeless and.or unemployed because of self-inflicted behavior (i.e. criminal past, drug/alcohol abuse). I think we're seeing more and more examples of people who did all the "right" things (even as these conservative small-town Texans would see it) and are still losing ground to unemployment, falling wages and loss of health insurance. So this message of "social justice" and of preaching the social gospel is a lot more accepted, and even embraced, than I think it would have been here a few years ago.. People are seeing it's a LOT more than just the lazy and the reckless who are being taken down by the Social Darwinist policies of a corporate-state today.

That is truly encouraging to hear, Ziggy. Thank you.

Originally Posted by James50

Conservatives have always been more generous with their own money than liberals.

James50

Meaning what? You honestly think that private charity is the be-all and end-all of a community's standard of living?

I think there has to be a balance between commonly-held goods and services, funded by taxation, and private donations.

At least liberals don't complain nearly as much about taxes.

Why do people insist on speaking for everybody but themselves? Thank god we don't live in 1979 anymore because with this attitude Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

You can split very fine hairs over cajuns, creoles, mestizos, mulattoes and micronesians all you want to. But the fact is that for most of America he's a black dude. And in America race still matters.

And I speak with some authority on the subject for two reasons. First, I am part Cherokee and come from a southern heritaged family that passed as white for over a century because passing as white meant the difference between getting hired on at the textile mill and getting to vote on election day.

Secondly, I went to school during the busing era of the late '70's. I was a part of a student council in a high school that had a history of race riots. It wasn't easy be a student leader in such an environment but by the time my class graduated in 1979 the last of the race riots was over 2 years in the past at my school.
So yeah, I know a little about race.
I currently live in western South Carolina and down here, he wont get enough votes to carry the state primarally because he's a Democrat rather than because he's black. But the reason why a Democrat can't carry SC currently is because the Democrats are seen by too many white voters as the black party.
An that's not going to change next year.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Well, even though I think it did. (As I wrote in my previous post)

But I still think a good argument can be made against supply-side thinking, even if you leave Reagan's name out of the discussion.

Here I have to disagree. Leaving Reagan out of the discussion because he's popular, adds a level of dissonance that can't be ignored. If supply side is bad, then the problem started long before Bush II. Pretending otherwise makes your argument instinctively hollow. It needs to addressed straight-on.

No, it won't be popular at first, but nothing sinks-in right away.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Why do people insist on speaking for everybody but themselves?

Yeah, I'm sure that you know my neighbors better than I do. :rolls eyes:

Thank god we don't live in 1979 anymore because with this attitude Obama never would have been elected.

FIY, I voted for Obama in 2008.


Now tell me how much else you know about me.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here I have to disagree. Leaving Reagan out of the discussion because he's popular, adds a level of dissonance that can't be ignored. If supply side is bad, then the problem started long before Bush II. Pretending otherwise makes your argument instinctively hollow. It needs to addressed straight-on.

No, it won't be popular at first, but nothing sinks-in right away.

Hey, I was only nineteen at the time and I knew Reagan's economic plan was horseshit. But how does one go all the way back there and knock the Great Communicator off his perch? Does one paint him as malicious? Incompetent? Or simply misled?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yeah, I'm sure that you know my neighbors better than I do. :rolls eyes:


FIY, I voted for Obama in 2008.


Now tell me how much else you know about me.

Um, I know you have very little faith in other human beings because of the trauma experienced as an adolescent and that if the adolescents who voted for and worked for Obama in 2008 had that same lack of faith, Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Um, I know you have very little faith in other human beings

Perhaps.

because of the trauma experienced as an adolescent

No.
Being in high school in the late '70's was all in all a golden age for me personally.
If I have very little faith in other human beings politically it's because I've seen people vote against their own interest for over 30 years.

and that if the adolescents who voted for and worked for Obama in 2008 had that same lack of faith, Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

Oh, the way things are going they'll get there.
I've never seen a politican campaign as one thing and govern as something else to the extent that Obama has.
As of right now I plan to vote for the Green Party candidate for president next year.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Um, I know you have very little faith in other human beings

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

because of the trauma experienced as an adolescent

No.
Being in high school in the late '70's was all in all a golden age for me personally.
If I have very little faith in other human beings politically it's because I've seen people vote against their own interest for over 30 years.

Well what matters (as well as the universal thread between all of it) is that that was then and this is now...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

and that if the adolescents who voted for and worked for Obama in 2008 had that same lack of faith, Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

Oh, the way things are going they'll get there.
I've never seen a politican campaign as one thing and govern as something else to the extent that Obama has.

Well that would be your interpretation as well as a complete abdication of the original statement which is that that thinking would never allow an Obama presidency. Some others including myself believe a slightly different one.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As of right now I plan to vote for the Green Party candidate for president next year.

Well I know you know best what works for you.

P.S. The whole "zero-sum game" argument went right over your head.

Again, best...

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Which is? I've forgotten most of what I knew about that.

Pat, 5W4

Type 3 = the Acheiver
Type 4 = The Individualist

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I have no idea what 3w4 is or the Eneagram. Is it related to the MBTI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That is always interesting to compare various systems of psychology, typology and esoteric knowledge. See the MBTI thread under theories; there's some posts on that a while back.

The Enneagram is 9 types of people (enn means 9 in Greek); the MBTI is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and is based on Jungian psychology, including the 4 functions thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. But there are 16 types in that system, so it's complicated to compare them. Some empirical studies have been made on the comparison though. Strauss and Howe of course have only 4 types, and they are related somehow to the 4 functions and to the 4 Greek elements.

I also use astrology, which is the most ancient and venerable typing system. It also uses the 4 elements. I claim that the enneagram is actually astrology, and the 9 types are 9 planetary types. By that reckoning, type 3 is the Sun, Type 8 is Mars, and Type 9 is Venus. Obama being a Leo would seem to fit Type 3, since Leo is linked to The Sun. Type 3 is considered to be people who like to shine in the limelight and have leadership qualities. They may be too interested in status and social approval. Type 8 is a more aggressive kind of leadership, like the god of war, while Type 9 is the peacemaker like Venus and tends to be accomodating or reticent. I have my own pages about these subjects, with more detail: http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagram.html

Saturn fits Type Six very well, because the ringed planet represents the ability to set limits. Much more than any other planet is it cautious, careful and fearful. It serves authority, but also exercizes it, being the planet of ambition, hard work, determination, and the power of government. When at its best, Saturn represents integrity, honesty and endurance, respectful of tradition. At its worst Saturn is reactionary, repressive, intolerant, rigid and undiplomatic. Saturn rules two signs, the very conservative, pragmatic and ambitious Capricorn, but also (along with Uranus) the rebellious, original and eccentric Aquarius, and the stark contrast between these two signs may account for the two extremes of Type Six. Counterphobic Six may seem to have even more of the revolutionary traits of Uranus than does the more reclusive Type Five. But there's another explanation too, since the assertive, aggressive and adventurous Mars is exalted in Capricorn. This adds the strongly "counterphobic" properties of the red planet to the pragmatic Type Six.

Well, what do you know, Mars IS in Capricorn in my birth chart!