I am pretty sure Mitt Romney is an ENFp. Oh, and hi, I am Cory, liveandletlive got me to come here, and i am an ENTj. Nice chatting.
I am pretty sure Mitt Romney is an ENFp. Oh, and hi, I am Cory, liveandletlive got me to come here, and i am an ENTj. Nice chatting.
Last edited by silke; 08-09-2018 at 10:26 PM. Reason: updated links
Of course, I don't care- because he's not for the things I am for at all.
I doubt ENFp highly. Perhaps ESTj is a possibility of sorts, but that's the only delta type that even strikes me as reasonable.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I don't have any strong feelings about Mitt Romney one way or the other, but did think this was hilarious.
lollin
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Seems like ESTj politicians always get the bad rep.....
His mannerisms and the way he gets awkward seem classic E3
.... And obviously not an ethical type.
Rigid. Smug. Condescending.
Gotta go with (douchebag) LSE-Te E3
Yes, of course, I see the resemblance
He makes the most awkward factual remarks, which seems like a very uneasy Te type. He looks like an LSE who is trying desperately to say the right things all the time, and is trying to mask his 'feelings' with what he's supposed to say - and comes off as super robotic. He only speaks well when he's in a very comfortable environment, (which I think is very LSE), and he seems very bad at reading Fe cues.
So you are E3? That actually makes sense. More than you being LSE, at least.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
LSE
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
No. Not sure how you can see yourself, Mitt Romney, and me as all the same Etype.So you are E3? That actually makes sense. More than you being LSE, at least.
I'd say Romney is more 3w2 though. He has no real principles other than trying to look successful, and trying really hard to say what he thinks other people want to hear. This works in well with LSE-Te, I think, because he is obviously entirely socially inept, and the more he's put on the spotlight and shown how "light -hearted" and "easy going" and "relatable" he is, the more ridiculous he comes off. The GOP still wants him to be something like Reagan or Sarah Palin, who has that "natural charm" -- as in, is someone who is an ethical type. But that is obviously not Romney's strength, at all. They tried to do this with McCain last time, too, and it was a bit of a bust - IDK his type, but I remember ESI, and I see him more or less as someone who is Te valuing.
He seems much more inclined to 'look' for Fi cues from people to see how to relate, because he is unable to actually produce any relational development his own, and his ways of dealing with Fe are sporadic at best, if not generally clueless.
I suppose the curious thing is that if he is an LSE, he's a very, very terrible one in terms of doing any scouting on world affairs - going to the UK and saying the things he did seems really uninformed - really, just a matter of being informed... but then again, he did seem to know the material well enough, just not how to present it in a way that related well to others. He obviously seems a bit sheltered, so combine that with his strong desire to say whatever the GOP script-writers want him to say, he's put in a situation where he has to rely on a skill he doesn't have -- smoothly relating ideas to an audience, especially one that isn't pre-established as welcoming to him.
I see him a lot less comfortable in relating information to people, rather than actually processing or handling bits of data.
..... and yeah, the image above works, too.
Sometimes I think he has to be an alien or something. No one's that awkward in real life, right?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
i just hate everything right now, after seeing that
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I type George W Bush LSE too, they remind me a lot of one another
Yeah dubya wasn't too bright, but he came off as more genuine and sincere. His papa I can't say I recollect too much about since I was a little kid, but he did seem pretty stiff like mitt.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I was speaking of their sociotype and personality, though not their political perspectives. Bush Sr. seemed pretty introverted unlike the animated extroverts, definitely of a slower calmer, and introspective mentality. I type all three Delta ST.
Heh I wonder if that's because he is a lot more genuine and sincere, and partly due to that didn't worry about coming off as bright.
Last edited by 717495; 08-04-2012 at 07:31 AM.
I think GWB actually feels bad about things nowadays (guess), and tried to connect with people, even though he was being used as a tool by Cheney and the others from Project for A New American Century. And his father's hopes, too. GWB didn't want to disappoint people he cared about, but wanted to be good to other people, in his way.
Mitt Romney, like other "pathetic versions" of E3s, is running around trying to prove something because he needs to be famous because of whatever childhood trauma / some else's shadow / desperate fame whore. Please like me, please like me, please like me. Ugh. Not that all E3s are that way, of course, but unhealthy 3w2s? yeah....
Bush's 'lack of articulate speech' at least seems to inspire he spoke from the heart; Romney's lack of conviction about anything other than appearing successful makes him seem ... as he seems.
Apparently he only took 3 questions, all from American reporters, on his recent trip abroad. I hope he faces more questions from unpleasant people soon. Or has a chat with billy mays.
I would say the Bushes are of a more comfortable upbringing than Romney, I imagine an overall more socially honest and freer lifestyle, partly due to their positive relationships in upbringing. That is to say I see a lot of communicative similarity between he and his father. His father just seems pretty introverted (internal, introspective, calm, lack of spark and animation, nothing like Romney). It's easier to tell watching all three of them back-to-back. I wonder what Romney's parents types were/are because this can have a negative impact on an ability to relate and socialize with people in a natural way.
One aspect of similarity I see is a lot of the same lack of thoughtfulness and sympathy in Bush Jr's thought process as Romney has, they come off sort of robotic, exacting, and assertive in tone and inclination, something I'm quite used to with LSEs. Not to mention that energetic directness. I would have to say both LSE just based on being able to spot the type well.
Last edited by 717495; 08-04-2012 at 08:35 AM.
I think you're confusing George H.W. Bush's WASP upbringing for introversion.
Who let the dogs out? Woof, Woof, Woof. (Yes, the black vote is now mine)
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I dont think he is LSE.
I completely agree on what you said on how the more light-hearted, easy-going, and relatable they try to make him the more ridiculous he seems. This is completely spot on, I wish politics in general were more real but many people buy into stuff like this.
The video the person posted up... I find that funny, he's essentially trying to campaign to the "poor african americans". It's ridiculous because is there even any real chance Romney can sway votes from this demographic -- probably not. He has trouble relating to them in a real way, and doesn't have enough charisma or charm to bullshit his way through it. He's basically a mormon businessman -- which means he supports the upper classes which are mostly white and his religion is the whitest version of christianity. It seems like a huge waste of time for his campaign, Romney as the person isn't going to change over night. I'm not complaining though -- its not like I want him to win.
What really disgusts me about Romney though is the Mormonism, I don't know why. It's not that I don't think people shouldn't have the right to be Mormons, of course they should, and its there own personal liberty to believe what they want. However, I find it to be the most disgusting thing to me. Mormon temples are adorned in ivory white material are are shaped like castles. It's incredibly cheesy to me, its rehashing actual medieval culture and life into some kind of disney land spectacle. The entire religion was founded by a charlatan prophet early on in America. The book of mormon is written in an older dialect of the english language to appear more authoratative. It's just awfully cheesy, and its very difficult for me to see how anyone can actually like the religion, let alone believe it. I happen to like the architecture of castles and medieval culture as well, but I find actually studying the history behind this time era and the development of humanity to be more fascinating and real than the cheesiness of the Mormon religion. Everything about the religion smells of selling people some disneylandesque cheap rehasing of medieval culture to dumb Americans in exchange of the veneration and exhaltation of some charlatan prophet or "church elder".
George Bush was a dumb SEE.
Mitt Romney... no idea. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he was LSE.
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I didn't say he would work for me. I did say he was better for me than you.
I think that's damn sincere.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html