Typings on socionics.com

[tcaudilllg]

Well they put Tommy Lee Jones and Dubya in the same category, and that's a plus. Problem was, they put Colin Powell in there with them!

Colin Powell is one of us: an INTJ to the very core! I think that Socionics.com is getting a bit on the extreme side trying to type people by appearance. Personality must be taken into account, too.

Only an INTJ could have made the case for Iraq's non-existant WMD to the U.N.. ...I admit, I thought he (Saddam) had them. So did every other INTJ I knew. We were all pretty surprised. I mean, it seemed so obvious: why destroy your only trumpcard against the most powerful country on earth?

Back on topic, I think that Socionics.com needs to be a little bit more careful about how they type people. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and Socionics isn't supposed to be a matter of opinion. It's supposed to be science.

[Rocky]

There's absolutely no way that Dubya is SLE. I'm not saying this just because I don't like him and that I happen to be SLE, but because he doesn't act like one at all.

True.

That being said, I think both Ganin and Lytov jump to conclusions way too quickley when typing celebrities. I can pick out a few people on there sites and disprove the with some information that would have been easily obtainable if they tried to research it more.

[Creepy-]

A book that I own provides detailed personality descriptions of the fourty-three American Presidents in addition to examining important factors in their lives such as education, religion, and recreational activities, etc. Bush is described as being lively and outgoing, intensely loyal, self-confidant, punctual, fiercly competitive, self-disciplined, and quick-witted. It is also noted that Bush has a talent for connecting with people and has excellent people skills.

[Creepy-]

I agree that sometimes its easy to disagree. but in my opinion the assumptions of anyone here are no more if not less credible than those of Ganin or Lytov(which themselves seem to "contradict" one another in many instances.)

Now I get a good "feeling" about many of their assumptions(especially those of sergei ganin, just something about him makes him seem very much "for real") and although i never take them completely at face value I trust that there is a high degree of experience and credibility behind them.

[Rocky]

Well, take Marlon Brando, for one. Dmitri typed him as an SLE. One thing about Marlon Brando is that people said he could walk into a room filled with people whom he didn't know, and act exactly like them, taking character. That's Ne dominant. Sensors aren't as good at taking forms or acting like other people; getting into their shoes. Jung's description of the Extraverted Intuitive type explained the exact same thing. He claimed that Ne dominant people are constantley "being someone else". Brando also did some other "out there" irrational things like buy his own island. Apparently, he also pick up random causes on whim. None of this stuff sounds anything like an Se dominant person; Brando was ILE.

[Expat]

I read Brando's memoirs and I agree with you. He was also always getting interested in specific fields of science, even buying equipment to play around. Also, even when living in Hollywood, he never much cared about having a nicely furnished house and the like. He wasn't Si dominant, either.

I think ILE fits him nicely.

Bush is described as being lively and outgoing, intensely loyal, self-confidant, punctual, fiercly competitive, self-disciplined, and quick-witted. It is also noted that Bush has a talent for connecting with people and has excellent people skills.

Bush is not quick-witted. And SLEs are hardly "intensely loyal".

I think Bush is an LSE, also because he's so much like a manager here whom I've typed as LSE.

[tcaudilllg]

Let's not forget Mr. Bush is in the later years of his life. Most of his functions are accordingly well developed. Idiots don't get to the presidency of the United States, I assure you. (note that I am using the term idiot not in the sense of how a person acts, but how willing they are to adapt) Mr. Bush has shown great ability to adapt to changing situations.

Mr. Bush's father was an ISFJ. His brother Jeb is an ESTJ (a classic ESTJ). He is a perceiver who grew up idolizing a judge. Although he can't be a judger, he can emulate judgement.

It seems to me academic that Mr. Bush is an ESTP.

Their eyebrows are often asymmetrical. When ESTps want to show their dissatisfaction they frown as if they are angry. Older ESTps often become puffy and swollen around the eyes. They also have a tendency to squint. Their noses are usually quite wide at the base and their jaws are also large and square. They may have thick, immobile lips, making their speech somewhat garbled.

How many times have we seen all of this? This profile could well be made just for George W. Bush.

ESTps rarely wear eye-catching clothes. They try to maintain a neutral style of clothes, steering away from fashion. Females prefer not to wear very bright or colourful clothing. Males have an inclination to official styles of clothing such as suits etc. ESTps generally prefer to remain in the shadows.

When he's not giving a speech, where is he? Talking to people, catching their pulse. Honing his appraisal of the environmental conditions, trying to match them up with the history he is studied in. By following what he views as historic trends, he can avoid thinking critically about his decisions.

When in conversation, ESTps always show self-restraint and tact. They generally interact in an open and friendly manner, always showing positive emotions. They do not like to openly express their opinions. During interaction ESTps always try to show that they are paying full attention and that they understand their interlocutor very well. One of the ways they do this is by asking many questions concerning personal problems or opinions. They do this with masterful tact and delicacy, therefore gaining other peoples trust very quickly.

He's done all of these things, and until Hurricane Katrina happened he was doing them regularly. People certainly trusted him more than John Kerry. They trusted him when he decided to invade Iraq.

ESTps have a very characteristic way of behaving when in conversation. They can pause for long periods of time before replying to questions or statements. This can give the impression that they are assimilating the received information. In situations such as these they usually squint. ESTps are never afraid to show others that they did not understand or do not know something and therefore never hesitate ask people to repeat or to specify what they said. ESTps enjoy showing their understanding and like to explain things to others. They always do this slowly and methodically giving simple, practical examples. They also prefer to have the last word in conversations, concluding the dialogue themselves.

That folksy charm at work.

When in confrontation, ESTps quickly focus on their opponents weaknesses, usually destroying them with one perfectly placed phrase. If this opportunity does not manifest itself, they have the skills to provoke the reaction they desire. ESTps are very slow to anger. And when they do become angered it is very difficult for them to calm down. They like games that require quick thinking and tactics and often win these games as they have great skill misleading and provoking their opponents into making bad moves.

"I'm gonna keep my foot over Kerry's throat," he told his aids when determining his strategy for re-election. Shortly thereafter he began his "he can run but he can't hide" attacks on Kerry. (this quote from TIME Magazine) There are many other references to his ESTP nature in TIME's reporting on him. There is an interview with him that I kept a copy of. I can post it here, or at least link to it.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/lor...02.html#cutid1

ESTps have cast-iron self-control and nearly always achieve their goals. If required they can step on anyone or anything often ignoring ethics completely if the situation calls for it. If a project becomes too big and difficult for them to control by themselves, they will delegate the less important parts of the project, giving others complete independence to make their own decisions. ESTps do not care much how people achieve results. They give others complete independence to choose their own method of working, as they consider the end result to be more important.

How much of this have we seen lately in him? The Plame Affair, the State of the Union WMD fiasco, his hands-off approach to the war on terror (and the torture): all of these are marks of his ESTP nature.

ESTps are very tactically minded and know how to adapt to changing situations very quickly. They know how to arrange people according to their abilities and usefulness. They prefer to adopt an informal and unofficial leadership. They also do not like doing their own dirty work. ESTps are hard working and extremely persevering people. The more obstacles they meet the more obvious these qualities become. They do not react well to unchallenging situations. They truly come alive in the face of adversity. ESTps are inclined to give ultimatums.

"Saddam Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq. ...We will attack at a time of our choosing."

"Natural disasters are an opportunity to test your mettle."

And there are many other examples that link Bush to the ESTP character.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/dem...es/bush.style/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0700793_4.html

Matthews: "Was he in the loop, the president? Did he know they're going to basically out this woman, this undercover agent, or otherwise deal with this challenge from Joe Wilson or was he sitting around watching them all do it?

Fineman: "I think he's in the loop the way Tony Soprano is in the loop at the Bada Bing. I mean. . . . "

Matthews: "For those of us without HBO, what does that mean?"

Fineman: "He's the godfather. The godfather doesn't know all the details.

[Rocky]

Dude, as an ESTp myself I can safely say that Dubya is definately not an ESTp. There's many reasons, but there's one that's sticking out at me right now: ESTps aren't the type to force their beliefs on other people. Now I know like a gazillion ESTps (as well as myself) and A) NONE of them like Bush either. B) They don't talk, act, or have the same mindset as Bush. C) They're all pretty anti-religious. If they believe something is true, SLEs NEVER shove it down others' throats like how Dubya is right now. Period.

*Ni*

[tcaudilllg]

Dude, as an ESTp myself I can safely say that Dubya is definately not an ESTp. There's many reasons, but there's one that's sticking out at me right now: ESTps aren't the type to force their beliefs on other people. Now I know like a gazillion ESTps (as well as myself) and A) NONE of them like Bush either. B) They don't talk, act, or have the same mindset as Bush. C) They're all pretty anti-religious. If they believe something is true, SLEs NEVER shove it down others' throats like how Dubya is right now. Period.

* and if you're going to argue that I'm shoving this down your throat right now, I'm not. I'm not forcing you to agree with me, but just because it's on Ganin's site and the description sounds a little like him DOES NOT mean that he's SLE.

Points taken, Herzblut, but consider:

1) He's a man, you're a woman. Men usually have agendas of some sort they are trying to push.

2) He wasn't always religious. In fact, he used to be very rowdy and he drank a lot.

3) He's much, much older than you. Accordingly, his weaker functions are much more developed. Including feeling. Because he is not a feeling type, he can use his feeling to advance the goals of his thinking. Now yes, I know you think that's evil, but he's come to a point where he can use it without feeling that way. These points happen about midlife crisis time, which is inline with his own spiritual awakening at 40. How many ESTPs Bush's age do you know who aren't religious? How many over 40? Types evolve as we get older, because the ways our brains function change.

Personally I think he did fall "over the edge", but I'm a liberal thinker. A conservative would probably think differently. You're a liberal too, aren't you Herzblut?

4) I'm not making this point because it's on Socionics.com. I'm making this point because it's intuitively consistent with socionics and typology. To not make it would be inconsistent.

Question Herzblut: are you afraid you will be viewed negatively if you are seen as the same type as Bush? I think Mr. Bush has terrible character flaws, but I can't discern those same flaws in you. Character is just as important to who we are as type, isn't it?

[tcaudilllg]

Points taken, Herzblut, but consider:

1) He's a man, you're a woman. Men usually have agendas of some sort they are trying to push.

True. But what types of agendas?

Anything that advances their view of the world. Men are historically the breadwinners, women the homemakers. Most women even today prefer to play mom when the kids come. Certainly not all of them, but most. They seem to have an innate yearning for protection and for family, and although today the accepted standards of feminine attraction seem to emphasize career over family, this is not necessarily the case because inflation has increased the income level required to maintain a middle-class living standard. Being a family woman today means working outside the home as much as inside the home, and winning as much if not more bread than the man.

In my experience, a guy with big muscles doesn't necessarily get the girl over a guy with small arms but big smarts. But the guy who has muscles and smarts beats both!

2) He wasn't always religious. In fact, he used to be very rowdy and he drank a lot.

But it's not very likely that someone would all the sudden become really religious and force their beliefs on the rest of the country, even if they have as a Suggestive function. And there are actually a lot of SLEs that don't drink (although yes, I admit that a lot do). I'm telling the truth here.

And I believe you're telling the truth. I'm not trying to typify people based on their cultural behaviors. People of all types are prone to alchoholism. An ESTP who is accustomed to a culture where alchohol is proscripted would find it unwise to drink hard liquor, if only for the social consequences. The ESTP tries to stay in touch with their peer group, and in step with their morals and values. Bush's peer group was the Texas ranch-hand crowd. (to drastically simply Texan male culture) "Don't mess with Texas." This group, like the rest of the state, is predominantly conservative. (2/3 conservative to 1/3 liberal)

What I'm trying to say is, just because he doesn't agree with your values, doesn't mean he isn't your type. Bush isn't trying to force his views on anyone. Other people are threatening his ability to keep his values without putting him at odds with society, a state that can be fatal to any perceiver. The abortion debate is every bit as fierce and controversial as slavery was a century and a half ago, and islamic terrorism is something altogether alien to our culture. Our culture is divided over abortion and confused by the terrorists (who have no rational aims), and Mr. Bush is incarnating these confusions and uncertainties. He *is* uncertainty, in a sense.

3) He's much, much older than you. Accordingly, his weaker functions are much more developed. Including feeling. Because he is not a feeling type, he can use his feeling to advance the goals of his thinking. Now yes, I know you think that's evil, but he's come to a point where he can use it without feeling that way. These points happen about midlife crisis time, which is inline with his own spiritual awakening at 40. How many ESTPs Bush's age do you know who aren't religious? How many over 40? Types evolve as we get older, because the ways our brains function change.

First off, let me say that my dad is 50 years old, and ESTp just like me. He's an athiest. I have 2 neighbors that are also SLE and over 40 (1 male and one female), and neither of them associate themselves with any kind of religion or spirituality. And yeah, I agree that functions develop over time, but not to the extent that would completely take over and cause someone to go overboard on the religion.

Feeling plays as strong a role in religion as intuition. It would make sense for ESTPs who's peers are liberal to have distinct religious views. (or lack thereof)

4) I'm not making this point because it's on Socionics.com. I'm making this point because it's intuitively consistent with socionics and typology. To not make it would be inconsistent.

Still, I can sense an identical relation from a mile away, before even talking to the person. Whenever I happen to flip on the TV and Dubya's there, I don't get the "identical relation vibe." Bush kind of seems like a benificiary to me (ESFj), and I can see other SLEs thinking/acting like the benefactor in this type of relation when talking about Bush.

That's because he's using Fe to control the Republicans. They don't have a choice in liking him. He is selectively responding to their feelings.

Alright, he may not be actually controlling them, but he is selectively interfacing with their feelings. Ti and Te are controlling Fe and Fi. I don't get any sort of familiar vibe from him at all when he speaks, not even from thinking. He appears intentionally distant, something extroverts are good at doing.

You don't get vibes from thought patterns that you can't reason with.

Question Herzblut: are you afraid you will be viewed negatively if you are seen as the same type as Bush? I think Mr. Bush has terrible character flaws, but I can't discern those same flaws in you. Character is just as important to who we are as type, isn't it?

I'm not really sure. I guess it's that I don't want to be associated with these negativities, especially if they don't even apply to my type in the first place.

And for the second part, yes, character is important. There's "good" ESTps, as well as "bad ones," as well as "good" and "bad" people of every single type. The bad ones just give the good ones a bad rap.

Jefferson, an INTJ, owned slaves. That's bad INTJ behavior in my book. Bush may have botched up a lot of stuff, but there is still time for him to pull it together. It'll probably be determined by whether or not the Dems win back Congress in the next election, though. He can't restrain himself with the Republicans in charge.

Oh, and on the subject of bad INTJ behavior, we aren't disowning Donald Rumsfeld. He's one of us, and we're embarrassed as hell about it.

All this extroversion is making me tired.