David Cameron and Gordon Brown
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
One possible way of looking at this is, I think, to see it as an example of aperspective versus a
Brown strikes me as an ILI
Cameron always has this habit it seems of leaning on the desk and turning round and saying things along the lines of 'Am I not right?' 'Is this not a reasonable proposal?' etc., in order to get a jeer of laughter from his own party etc., whom he knows full well is going to agree with him.
This is probably just a thing that all politicians do - GB does it to a certain extent, though he seems more likely to say 'they are wrong, incompetent', 'I'm wise, he's not' etc.
Cameron is a blatent Fe ego; almost certainly EIE. The style and tone of his speech indicates Se HA IMO, and he's a master at getting the crowd on his side; a typical rhetorician, orator and performer. And his ridiculous unintended self-mockery of him riding on a bike to work with all his papers in the car riding up beside him is completely laughable.
Blair defo an ENFj. Cameron not really as much of idealist as what Blair was. When you look at his Bullington club background and his reasons for entering politics there's less Fe with idealism involved. I think he tries to copy Blairs style tho so I'm not sure the Cameron we see now is him or more his image construct (and he has drawn criticism from both sides for excessive spin)
+1
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Unless I have got a totally wrong view of Gordon Brown from seeing him in that video, SG's typing of him as INTp strikes me as obviously incorrect. Can someone explain how you can see Brown as an ILI?
This is also interesting for Brown:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NEealH_Ry6Q
Wow, British parliament is bizarre. It's funny how everyone is allowed to yell and boo at the PM like that.
It's like pantomime..and they never seem to get bored
Wow, very interesting. Brown is clearly a Te ego type; I would say INTp > ISTp. Cameron I think is ESFj, though I could see ENFj. He makes fun of the "bravery" quote, which suggests subdued Se. Per Wikipedia a few of his views also sound Si.
According to Derek Lewis, then Director-General of the Prison Service, Cameron showed him a "his and hers list" of proposals made by Howard and his wife, Sandra. Lewis said that Sandra Howard's list included reducing the quality of prison food, although Sandra Howard denied this claim. Lewis reported that Cameron was "uncomfortable" about the list.[49] In defending Sandra Howard and insisting that she made no such proposal, the journalist Bruce Anderson wrote that Cameron had proposed a much shorter definition on prison catering which revolved around the phrase "balanced diet", and that Lewis had written thanking Cameron for a valuable contribution.
...
He has urged politicians to concentrate more on improving people's happiness and "general well-being", instead of focusing solely on "financial wealth".
I'm not sure of Brown's type, but the only thing that fits INTp is some of the content of what he says. His behaviour, his way of speaking, his look, his way of arguing -- all of that suggests some other type than INTp. Can you name one thing that suggests INTp as the most likely type?
It gets better when the opposition MPs start chanting "resign! resign!" to the PM. John Major had the most amazingly bored look on his face whenever they did that.
And, once, Michael Heseltine actually got hold of the parliamentary Mace and waved it about over his head.
I still think ENFj>ESFj. I'm not sure that those quotes, reflecting policy issues, are that important. As for the "bravery" quote, I see that as his overall strategy of making fun of brown and making him "look phony" - his "does he realize how phony he looks?" is classical ENFj, although surely it could also come from an ESFj. Anyway he's making fun of Brown as "brave", not of the goal of bravery itself.
I think they think that because he's moody, introverted and quite inexpressive, he has Fe PoLR.
In the UK it is actually a democracy.
lol
The way I see it is this:
- David Cameron: if you look at his overall strategy, it's all about ridiculing Brown. Even when Brown is carefully listing answers and arguments on taxes, etc, Cameron is there sitting looking self-satisfied. Even when Brown gives a reply that in principle answers Cameron's question, Cameron then replies with something again aimed at making Brown look silly - especially on the one matter that Brown gave a feeble and silly answer, that is, on the refusal to call for an election. Cameron is all aboutand even a bit of
- Brown: Brown is getting genuinely annoyed and irritated, unlike Cameron, who's all the time keeping his self-satisfied and smug expression. Brown does answer most of Cameron's questions listing facts (), but he doesn't realize the game Cameron is playing, or he can't address it. So to many, no matter the substance of that is being said, Cameron will look like "winning" and Brown like "losing".
In the second clip I posted, Brown looks like crap - tired, untidy - and that doesn't seem to concern him at all (ever imagine Clinton, Bush, etc looking like that?). He is confident about answering detailed questions about specific matters (
I didn't know what current events those guys were referring to, so I couldn't really judge the interaction very well. The only obvious thing to me was Cameron's Fe and Brown's lack of it.
So what Te type do you think he is? ENTj?In the second clip I posted, Brown looks like crap - tired, untidy - and that doesn't seem to concern him at all (ever imagine Clinton, Bush, etc looking like that?). He is confident about answering detailed questions about specific matters (
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Sure. I see it as an ENFj supervising the INTp, summed up in the phrase "does he realize how phony he looks?"
No, INTp.
Ok. Your ENFj-INTP analogy sounds fair.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Expat. I really enjoyed reading your analysis. Very informative. Thank you for posting.
But is it also correct? Let's try to dig a little bit deeper into this. Before we accept that interpretation, there are some questions that need to be answered, and some anomalies that need an explanation.
One anomaly is SG's typing of Cameron. How can two reasonably competent socionists come to two so radically different typings of a famous person? How can Expat suggest ENFj and SG suggest ISTp? That doesn't make sense -- not even if you happen to think that Expat is a much better socionist than SG (or the other way around).
At least a slight problem is Brown's type, but here the two socionists seem to agree. Still, why would an INTp ever want, or be able to, become Prime Minister? Why doesn't he look like a typical INTp? (Well, that question may not have an answer ...)
I realize that my knowledge of Gordon Brown is too limited to be sure of anything regarding his type, but it would be a strange thing if he really is an INTp.
What is your analysis of Expats analysis?
I don't think that, it's a fact.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I need to know more about the persons involved first. I don't have an opinion on his analysis yet.
How would you explain the anomaly regarding Cameron as ENFj and ISTp? Such a huge contrast, with two socionists suggesting two Conflicting types for the same person, is simply unacceptable. It makes the whole Socionics community look ridiculous. So, we need to explain it, before we can move on.
I can't explain it. I can only speculate on his reasons for said type, but as he is not here we cannot know for certain, so I don't see how that discussion would be productive here. It is a reasonable thing to wonder though. Perhaps you could start a thread in SG's forum to try and find out?
What is interesting is Phaedrus's inclination to make it a matter of "who is right" rather than "what is right". He's making the issue of "who is the better socioninst, SG or Expat?"
Why does that matter, I ask? Do we even have to go into that? The fact is, we-do-not-know why Sergei Ganin typed Cameron as ISTp. Ganin - as far as I know - does not substantiate his typings in his website even minimally. For all we know - and that would be my first guess - Ganin may have arrived at ISTp for no other reason than VI, perhaps of pictures. I have no idea.
"Ganin typed Cameron as ISTp" is an useful argument only if we had access to his reasons for this typing.
My reasons are very clear. I can elaborate on them (but I won't do so endlessly because my time and inclination are not unlimited). So rather than use what I see as Phaedrus's kindergarten kind of argumentation - similar to "my dad is stronger than yours" - I wonder why is it so difficult to address my analysis itself, rather than "take refuge" into what others say - whether Sergei Ganin, or a collection of philosophers, or Lytov, or whoever.
Likewise, MY reasons for typing lots of Famous People in the wiki are clear. Anyone can question them, object to them, even ridicule them - and some people do. I have written extensively on MY reasons to type (sometimes against the "socionics establishment" Kennedy and Reagan as ENFj, Nicolas Sarkozy as ENTj, Nelson Mandela as ENFj.
I do refer to other people's typings when I want to demonstrate that I am not the only person with a particular view, so it's not my invention. But I am not dependent on anyone else's analysis to reach my own (correct or incorrect) conclusion.
So, again, I think that the "argumentation" of "why should you trust Expat rather than SG" is feeble beyond belief, demonstrating Phaedrus's utter cluelessness.
But regardless of SG's reasons for typing Cameron ISTp we must become suspicious of both Expat's and SG's typings, since it is a fact that they totally disagree. It means that we must scrutinize every one of our assumptions much more critically then in the hypothetical case where they would have agreed on Cameron's type.
Precisely.
I do not know that SG's typing was based only on VI. That was a guess based on what I have seen in his site. I would be very interested in seeing a through argumentation for typing Cameron as ISTp.
That's exactly what I am not doing here. But it is interesting that you think that I am. It is yet another very clear example of you misunderstanding my intentions and the point of what I am trying to say.
It matters because in order to make Socionics a solid branch of the natural sciences, we need to have a consensus on which methods are reliable and how to use them to get the same result. A situation where socionists disagree a lot on the typings of famous persons over and over again, strongly indicates that the typing methods (including the ones you are using) are not good enough. We should not be satisfied with this. We should definitely become suspicious of both your typings.
NO. It is an important argument in itself. You are much to confident in your typing method, Expat. It has been proven to give incorrect results in the past, and currently we have no way of testing how accurate it really is.
I saw in a bit of his quoted by Cyclops, that Phaedrus seems to think that an INTp being prime minister, or wanting to be one, or able to be one, is a sort of anomaly.
So, playing a bit of the "what socionists think", here's a list of people Lytov put in his old website as possible INTps:
- Yuri Andropov
- Indira Gandhi
- Charles de Gaulle
- Eduard Shevardnadze
And the above people - except Mrs Gandhi - are also listed as famous INTps in socionics.org (which may have been Lytov's original source, no idea, but presumably he agrees with them).
So perhaps the anomaly is Phaedrus's understanding of what INTps can or want to do.
Still on this --
For the first time, I noticed that Sergei Ganin typed Gordon Brown as INTp, and David Cameron as ISTp.
Let's stick with that for the moment. Think of that video again, and then think --
Does it make sense to see Gordon Brown and David Cameron as so similar types as INTp and ISTp? Are they really look-alikes? Do both of them seem to have IP temperament and
I think that the idea is preposterous.
I am not saying that it is impossible for an INTp to want to become prime ministers, but it is certainly not a common phenomenon.
The type descriptions perfectly agree on that point. INTps are "terrible partisans", they are not very interested in participating in social games that would potentially lead them positions of power. And if they would try, despite their natural inclinations not to, they would likely fail.
One reason they are likely to fail is that the INTp type is described as slightly "autistic" (in Lytov's opinion -- which is correct in this case), and we know that they are frequently misunderstood, and that they are often not perceived at their true level of competence. (All of that is described and explained in the type descriptions, so don't criticize me for making it up if you disagree with it.)
I agree. It doesn't make sense. And that's why at least one of your (Expat and SG) typings is likely to be incorrect.Still on this --
For the first time, I noticed that Sergei Ganin typed Gordon Brown as INTp, and David Cameron as ISTp.
Let's stick with that for the moment. Think of that video again, and then think --
Does it make sense to see Gordon Brown and David Cameron as so similar types as INTp and ISTp? Are they really look-alikes? Do both of them seem to have IP temperament and
I think that the idea is preposterous.
That's absurd. Ganin must hate Fe if he thinks Cameron is a weak example of it.
Brown wasn't elected Prime Minister in a general election, meaning he hasn't taken part and won an election a general election. It is rumoured he made a deal with Blair that after Blair was elected he would step down after a few terms and let Brown be Prime Minister. This possibly indicating his hatrid for the ethical work needed to do to win an election or he knew he wasn't the kind of person who could win an election (lack of
He's know for keeping very trusted advisors near him who do his political ground work (which mostly involves S and F elements).
He has based his pr-persona on being competent, since that is what he is and he really can't do anything else.
His lack of charisma is something which is always noted on on political commentary shows.
His ratings in the polls are dropping (last time I was in the UK) mainly due to his inability to give the impression that he knows what he's doing (this goes against his pr-persona I know).
So politically he appears to be really lacking in
David Cameron looks somewhat ESE, IMO. But his Si is really strong, which initially had me thinking ISTp. But after some contemplation, the Fe is there too: both in vi and the plain, manifest evidence of how he's able to work a crowd's affections, connect with them, and maintain popularity. That's dominant Fe for you, IME.
I still think EIE>ESE, but ESE is a type I wouldn't argue strongly against, not without more information on him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote