Nelson Mandela

[Expat]

Since I have already typed him as ENFj, I will not beat around the bush --

Forget the present or near-present old man -- this is a video of when he was young:




The beginning of the second one reproduces his words upon hearing of his death sentence:




That is the core of an ENFj.

He had an easy relationship with Thabo Mbeki, first his Deputy President, the current president:



Mbeki can be easily typed as INTj imo. He was the one running the government while Mandela focused on the PR aspects of the presidency, by all accounts. Mbeki even wrote Mandela's speeches.

On Mbeki, Mandela commented, "he's diplomatic to the point people think he's weak". -- the ENFj missing from the dual.

On a personal level, Mandela got along with, and understood, much better, this man:



P.W. Botha, the president in 1979-89, during which Mandela remained in jail and his party, banned, than with this man:




F.W de Klerk, the president who actually freed Mandela, unbanned the ANC and ended apartheid, and even joined Mandela's first cabinet.

To me it's very obvious that Botha was ISTj and de Klerk is ESFp.


By all accounts, Mandela could talk much more easily to Botha than to de Klerk.



He also married this woman, Winnie, a clear ESTp imo:
















Not a man lacking in breadth of emotional expressions, is he?

ENFj he is, very clearly.

[Rocky]

Since I have already typed him as ENFj, I will not beat around the bush --

Forget the present or near-present old man -- this is a video of when he was young:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPofm50MHW8[/youtube]

Maybe it's just me, but I see him in this video, and I don't see a glimer of Feeling. His communication is very abrasive.

[Expat]

Maybe it's just me, but I see him in this video, and I don't see a glimer of Feeling. His communication is very abrasive.

1) But you can see lots of other kinds of "feeling" in the tons of pictures I posted, I hope?

2) Being abrasive is also a form of "feeling", isn't it? Depending on what you are feeling, and what you are trying to convey? When talking about political actions against apartheid, would an ENFj - or any other feeling type - be "feelery" in the sense you seem to imply?

In fact, Mandela's behavior in that video is a good illustration of how and why Fe types are construct-creating.

[Expat]

Also, Rocky, which type do you think he is then?

[Not A Communist Shill]

He reminds me of my grandfather who is ESTp - I don't think that's a likely type though, and Expat is probably right (I can certainly see the Beta elements though. If I didn't know anything at all about him, the only other possibility outside Beta would be ISFj, a line of reasoning (sic) reminiscent of the Jane Fonda debate . (For what it's worth, I'd agree with Expat that I think she's ENFj too).

[Slacker]

He seems ish to me. But he was probably angry during that interview because he had to go into hiding (I'd certainly be angry if it were me) and it could be anger rather than forcefulness.

[Rocky]

Maybe it's just me, but I see him in this video, and I don't see a glimer of Feeling. His communication is very abrasive.

1) But you can see lots of other kinds of "feeling" in the tons of pictures I posted, I hope?

I don't know. I don't think if someone smiles that automatically makes them Feeling. I think when he was talking, he gets more serious and that goes away.

2) Being abrasive is also a form of "feeling", isn't it? Depending on what you are feeling, and what you are trying to convey? When talking about political actions against apartheid, would an ENFj - or any other feeling type - be "feelery" in the sense you seem to imply?

A lack of Feeling, maybe.

Also, Rocky, which type do you think he is then?

NT.

[Expat]

2) Being abrasive is also a form of "feeling", isn't it? Depending on what you are feeling, and what you are trying to convey? When talking about political actions against apartheid, would an ENFj - or any other feeling type - be "feelery" in the sense you seem to imply?

A lack of Feeling, maybe.

1) First, you seem to be focusing on that single video and ignoring all other evidence?

2) To say that being abrasive = lack of "Feeling" ---> therefore "logical type" is just totally wrong, in my opinion.

[Rocky]

2) Being abrasive is also a form of "feeling", isn't it? Depending on what you are feeling, and what you are trying to convey? When talking about political actions against apartheid, would an ENFj - or any other feeling type - be "feelery" in the sense you seem to imply?

A lack of Feeling, maybe.

1) First, you seem to be focusing on that single video and ignoring all other evidence?

The evidence seemed to be two videos and pictures... I don't think there's much you can debate about with pictures, so I watched the videos and put more weight into that.

2) To say that being abrasive = lack of "Feeling" ---> therefore "logical type" is just totally wrong, in my opinion.

Well, then where is "Fe"?

[Expat]

The evidence seemed to be two videos and pictures... I don't think there's much you can debate about with pictures, so I watched the videos and put more weight into that.

I couldn't find better videos, to my surprise, or I didn't look hard enough.

Anyway, I saw many interviews of Mandela - especially when I was living in South Africa, during his presidency - and he very often comes across precisely as the friendly old man that the pictures convey. I don't think that you have to see videos to catch a glimpse of his personality as "friendly old man" and "not abrasive", I think that comes across very clearly from the lots of pictures. If you don't want to take that into consideration and prefer to focus on that one single video, ok, then I can see it's a dead-end.

Also, my evidence consists of understanding the characters of the other individuals cited, like Mbeki, Botha and de Klerk, and to have a good idea of their types and of their relationships with Mandela; I could write whole threads on each of them, but I won't for now.

2) To say that being abrasive = lack of "Feeling" ---> therefore "logical type" is just totally wrong, in my opinion.

Well, then where is "Fe"?

First, even if "he had no Fe", that wouldn't make him necessarily a logical type, would it? It would merely indicate high Fi>Fe preference. An ISFj, for instance, could very well come across like that, too. Or an ESFp.

Second, again, if you think that Fe is just about creating a non-abrasive atmosphere, then I think you simply don't understand Fe.

Fe types - especially ENFjs - use emotions to mobilize the emotions of others towards the directions they want. If an ENFj wants to make a crowd angry about something or someone - as in stirring them towards a revolution, as in Trotsky - s/he won't be "friendly" or sugary, the ENFj will be angry, "passionate", with the intention of steering the emotions of their audience. That is what Mandela was doing in that interview. He wanted to generate an "abrasive" mode.

[Expat]

He seems ish to me. But he was probably angry during that interview because he had to go into hiding (I'd certainly be angry if it were me) and it could be anger rather than forcefulness.

Yes, he is ish because it's his quadra value, or hidden agenda more precisely.

[Rocky]

Fe types - especially ENFjs - use emotions to mobilize the emotions of others towards the directions they want. If an ENFj wants to make a crowd angry about something or someone - as in stirring them towards a revolution, as in Trotsky - s/he won't be "friendly" or sugary, the ENFj will be angry, "passionate", with the intention of steering the emotions of their audience. That is what Mandela was doing in that interview. He wanted to generate an "abrasive" mode.

OK. I just never saw enfjs as... rocking the boat. For some reason, that seems like the opposite of the original Jungian description of Fe.

[ScarlettLux]

Fe types - especially ENFjs - use emotions to mobilize the emotions of others towards the directions they want. If an ENFj wants to make a crowd angry about something or someone - as in stirring them towards a revolution, as in Trotsky - s/he won't be "friendly" or sugary, the ENFj will be angry, "passionate", with the intention of steering the emotions of their audience. That is what Mandela was doing in that interview. He wanted to generate an "abrasive" mode.

OK. I just never saw enfjs as... rocking the boat. For some reason, that seems like the opposite of the original Jungian description of Fe.

Okayyyyy Rocky. Except that ENFjs are not only Fe, they are a combination of all 8 functions in different order.. They have that Se hidden agenda as Expat said.. you must not know many ENFjs

[CuriousSoul]

In my opinion most likely ISTP.
This is largely based on the fact that the way he says "Yes" in the first interview is strikingly similar to an ISTP I know.

[Rocky]

Fe types - especially ENFjs - use emotions to mobilize the emotions of others towards the directions they want. If an ENFj wants to make a crowd angry about something or someone - as in stirring them towards a revolution, as in Trotsky - s/he won't be "friendly" or sugary, the ENFj will be angry, "passionate", with the intention of steering the emotions of their audience. That is what Mandela was doing in that interview. He wanted to generate an "abrasive" mode.

OK. I just never saw enfjs as... rocking the boat. For some reason, that seems like the opposite of the original Jungian description of Fe.

Okayyyyy Rocky. Except that ENFjs are not only Fe, they are a combination of all 8 functions in different order.. They have that Se hidden agenda as Expat said.. you must not know many ENFjs

By that reasoning, there wouldn't be any noticable difference between enfj and estp.

[Expat]

OK. I just never saw enfjs as... rocking the boat. For some reason, that seems like the opposite of the original Jungian description of Fe.

Aha. But as I have stated elsewhere, I don't think it's a good idea - in fact, I think it's a very bad idea - to assume that the Jungian functions are the "true" Socionics functions. Socionics has moved beyond Jung. His Se description is also incomplete.

The women Jung was describing in his Extraverted Feeling type description - and they were mainly women, according to him - seemed to be mostly married ESFj women. So he was focusing - especially when compared to his Introverted Feeling type description - on Fe>Fi or Fi>Fe preference with regard to individual relationships, and as far as that goes, it's accurate imo. But there is a lot more to Fe than that.

Consider -- why is it, then, that most Socionists regard "messiah-like" figures such as ******, Trotsky and the Prophet himself as ENFj? Precisely due to that aspect of Fe EJ, the "mobilizing emotions" aspect. Surely those three figures were all about "rocking the boat?"

By that reasoning, there wouldn't be any noticable difference between enfj and estp.

Since they are both Beta extraverts, I think in some cases it my be difficult. But it's possible to see whether the function they are most comfortable using is Se or Fe. In Mandela's case, it's clearly Fe.

[Rocky]

Consider -- why is it, then, that most Socionists regard "messiah-like" figures such as ******, Trotsky and the Prophet himself as ENFj? Precisely due to that aspect of Fe EJ, the "mobilizing emotions" aspect. Surely those three figures were all about "rocking the boat?"

I've never believed ****** to be enfj, either. I would have said entp or entj. Probably the first one.

[Expat]

Consider -- why is it, then, that most Socionists regard "messiah-like" figures such as ******, Trotsky and the Prophet himself as ENFj? Precisely due to that aspect of Fe EJ, the "mobilizing emotions" aspect. Surely those three figures were all about "rocking the boat?"

I've never believed ****** to be enfj, either. I would have said entp or entj. Probably the first one.

Going for sheer speculation now -- I was thinking that, yes, if Jung could observe Mandela, he might well type him as one of his Extraverted Intuitive types, or even Extraverted Thinking types. ****** would probably be typed as Extraverted Intuitive by Jung (again, this is sheer speculation, of course, based on my understanding of Jungian types).

But, again, the Socionics functions as defined by Augusta, and further improved upon by others, are simply not always equivalent to the Jungian types. That is the origin of the disagreement here.

[Rocky]

Maybe I've "reverted" back to the older more straight-forward Jungian view, but it just seems it's easier to explain. You at the very least have a dominant function, with a secondary function that cannot work on it's own because to switch from a "rational" to an "irrational" mindset would be uncomfortable and unhealthy. All other functions are inferior in some way (which probably means they can't be consciously controlled). And yes, given this view, to be able to be to sway social movements through insincere charm (like, say, ******) would be Ne, since it is more or less a promoter function.

[Expat]

And yes, given this view, to be able to be to sway social movements through insincere charm (like, say, ******) would be Ne, since it is more or less a promoter function.

But the thing is, I'm not sure at all that ****** was insincere when he got going in messiah-mode.

[Rocky]

And yes, given this view, to be able to be to sway social movements through insincere charm (like, say, ******) would be Ne, since it is more or less a promoter function.

But the thing is, I'm not sure at all that ****** was insincere when he got going in messiah-mode.

But that I mean, he had no conscious.

[Expat]

But that I mean, he had no conscious.

You mean no conscience?

I rather think that his "conscience" was focused on his and , that is, he had his vision of Germany etc, and all other considerations, also of a human nature, were secondary.

Or perhaps he was just pyschotic or a sociopath, etc, in which case this particular aspect of his character is not really type-related.

Anyway, the main point is, I understand why, coming from a purely Jungian perspective, you'd see Mandela and ****** as more likely Extraverted Intuitives or Extraverted Thinkers. I just think that Socionics is a different story.

[Dioklecian]

ENFJ seems accurate to me.

[Megan]

I agree with Rocky, I do not think he is an ENFj either.

[Expat]

I agree with Rocky, I do not think he is an ENFj either.

Do you also agree with Rocky's reasons as he and I discussed? Are you also thinking of Jungian types, as he is?