Type These Well-Known Presidents
I know there's been a thread on this but it's been a year and a half, and many new people have joined since the last thread on presidents.
George Washington:
Thomas Jefferson:
Andrew Jackson:
Abraham Lincoln:
Ulysses S Grant:
Teddy Roosevelt:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
Harry Truman:
Dwight D Eisenhower:
John F. Kennedy:
Richard Nixon:
Jimmy Carter:
Ronald Reagan:
George HW Bush
Bill Clinton:
(We've already done the current president enough)
George Washington: ISFj
Thomas Jefferson: INTj
Andrew Jackson: Probably ESFp
Abraham Lincoln: not sure
Ulysses S Grant: ISTp
Teddy Roosevelt: not sure
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: ENFj
Harry Truman: ISTj
Dwight D Eisenhower: perhaps ESTj
John F. Kennedy: ENFj
Richard Nixon: ENTj (yes most people say ISFj but they are wrong)
Jimmy Carter: ISFj
Ronald Reagan: ENTj
George HW Bush ESTj
Bill Clinton: ESFj
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
George Washington: ISFj
Thomas Jefferson: INTj
Andrew Jackson: ESFp
Abraham Lincoln: INxj
Ulysses S Grant: ISTp
Teddy Roosevelt: not sure
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: ExFj
Harry Truman: INTj
Dwight D Eisenhower: ENTj
John F. Kennedy: ENFj
Richard Nixon: ESTj
Jimmy Carter: Not sure. Probably rational.
Ronald Reagan: ExTj
George HW Bush ESTj
Bill Clinton: ESFj
Did anyone else notice that, by all accounts, almost ALL of our presidents have been rational, and the majority extroverted? What is it about EJs and the presidency?
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...
As for rational, I think that Lyndon Johnson was also an ESFp.
As for introverted, I think Woodrow Wilson was an ISFj, John Adams perhaps an INTp, and James Buchanan perhaps an ISFp. These three are little more than guesses though.
I am not disputing your observations - - perhaps it's just that the "restless" EJs are more likely to want to change from one political office to another in quick succession.
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that EJs tend to appear to be the most "stable" people in general. Also, politics is definitely more suited to a Dynamic mindest, and obviously an extrovert is going to be more willing to endure the spotlight, handle all the attention, be out and about, etc. Also, if you think about it, politicians really are the EJs in the equation of the world: they are the ones trying to bring "universal order" to a place that would otherwise be chaotic (rational with a dynamic perspective, no?).
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'd think that IJs would appear at least as stable, probably more so.
Yes, I agree with that.
That is a very positive view of politicians, a lot of them are just in a career like any other.
But for those who "really mean it", yes, I agree again.
I can't see IJs as stable, for some reason. They all seem insecure to me without fail; not trying to say that all IJs ARE insecure, but that is the impression that I've gotten from every single one I've ever met. So that could just be me.
The ones who accel enough to become visible are the ones who 1) have the appropriate skill set, 2) have the correct mindest, and 3) are willing to make certain sacrifices. The sacrifices that a politican makes (lack of privacy, lots of responsibility, public visibility, etc) seem well suited to the EJ temperment to me. Also, the ones with the correct skills and mindset for a job of a dynamic rational disposition are probably going to be dynamic rationals
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...
Perhaps this is a common perception of IJs from the point of view of EPs -- something to discuss further.
These are all good points, and it must be added that if you list only the presidents who were obvious politicians by "vocation", and in the modern sense, probably the EJ proportion is even higher.The ones who accel enough to become visible are the ones who 1) have the appropriate skill set, 2) have the correct mindest, and 3) are willing to make certain sacrifices. The sacrifices that a politican makes (lack of privacy, lots of responsibility, public visibility, etc) seem well suited to the EJ temperment to me. Also, the ones with the correct skills and mindset for a job of a dynamic rational disposition are probably going to be dynamic rationals
Woodrow Wilson, ISFj, only went into politics after becoming President of Princeton as an academic.
Harry Truman, ISTj (or INTj according to Gilligan) was invited to become a politician by the local political boss after going bankrupt as a shopkeeper.
The early 19th century presidents such as Jefferson and Washington do not really count since they were essentially part of a plutocracy.
So yes, I think it makes sense.
I know we talked about Washington here; http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...rge+washington.
Interesting...both of the irrationals on our list were military leaders before they were politicians.
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...
George Washington: ISFJ
Thomas Jefferson: INTp
Andrew Jackson: ESFp
Abraham Lincoln: INFp
Ulysses S Grant: ?
Teddy Roosevelt: ESFp
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: ENFj
Harry Truman: INTj
Dwight D Eisenhower: ENTj
John F. Kennedy: ENFj
Richard Nixon: ESTj
Jimmy Carter: INFj
Ronald Reagan: ENFj
George HW Bush ESTj
Bill Clinton: ESFj
What about... John Adams?
Also I was wondering about Alexander Hamilton, even though he wasn't a president. He and Jefferson represented different political philosophies.
What do you think Hamilton was?
I think ENTj is likely for Hamilton.
Hamilton: ENTj
- Washington's Dual, while being an annoyance to the development of Jefferson's ideal INTj system.
Of course the interesting implication of Jefferson as an INTj and Hamilton as an ENTj is that political parties developed over differences in these Ti (ideal democracy) / Te (running a republic) lines. Kind of like this forum.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That was interesting, the simultaneous and identical posting.
As for John Adams, I think INTp.
JFK: INTP 100$ IMO
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Ack, I still HIGHLY doubt that Washington was isfj or close to it. BTW, I'd say that most of the presidents are extj-ish....
Rocky, I just disagree with you on Washington and ISFjs.
Washington as ISFj and dual to Hamilton as ENTj makes perfect sense IMO, as does Washington as supervisor to Aaron Burr, whom I see as ESTp.
For detailed descriptions of JFK's actual behavior as a private individual, especially as a young man, and using a huge number of eyewitness reports by those who knew him closely, I recommend Nigel Hamilton's JFK: Reckless Youth and Thomas C. Reeves's A Question of Character. That was no INTp.
Kennedy an INTp??? Is that some kind of weird VI thing?
He's got to be almost an archetype ENFj, doesn't he?
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
That's what I think, although the Russians usually type him as ENTj -- I think that if you really study his life, you see ENFj very easily.
My dad idolized, and I mean idolized, JFK, FDR, and Truman. Plus he was a history teacher. I've heard way way too much about those three.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Expat, I think the thing is that some people have different views on what Te and Se are. You seem to see Se types as rigid and pushy, where other people could see that as Te. And yeah, I still believe if Washington isn't estj the next best would be entj, though there isn't much to go on him as an actual person, I admit that Jefferson quote is the only real personal account I could find on Washington, so I go by that.
I may actually agree with the Russians for once on JFK (of what I know abot him)... and it seems like the common American view is more often estp... I could see Truman as estj and FDR as entj...
No, I see IJs as rigid or solid.
And from descriptions by contemporaries, what stands out most clearly in Washington's case is Fi dominance and IJ temperament IMO.
My opinion on Kennedy being ENFj might be based on how my ENFj dad talked about him.
Here's a video clip of an interview with him. Don't worry - it's pretty shortHe gives a smile at the end of it which might help with his type.
I don't think that formal speeches are good to look at for typing, but the interview might help. He could be ENTj.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIVSz_2mSWE
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
My ENFj mother is also a big fan of Kennedy and enjoys reading about the Kennedy clan, as JFK was essentially the first president she "connected" with. He was her generational president, much in the same way that Bill Clinton was my generational president.My opinion on Kennedy being ENFj might be based on how my ENFj dad talked about him.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I read this quote by Kennedy today - I don't know much about him, apart from mostly obvious stuff.
This is a very dynamic thing to say - combined with the lack of nostalgia for the past, he is a Exxj type (I think ENFj, but ENTj is possible - I don't really know how these two types might differentiate talking about a country's future as a land or as a people).For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future
Quotes "by" Kennedy - except if they are from longer and "informal" interviews - must be handled with care since his speeches and articles and perhaps even his book - were all written by Ted Sorensen and approved by Kennedy. Sure, if he approved them, he agreed with them, which means that they do reflect his thoughts up to a point, but it's something to be aware of. Sorensen is INTj IMO, btw, FWIW.
And I had typed Reagan as ENTj above. For a while I flip-flopped, but now I am convinced he was ENFj.
I've read a book of interviews with Truman, called Plain Speaking by Merle Miller, and he seemed more Ti than Te to me. FDR was all Fe according to all who met him (well, of those whose reports I've read).
On asking how it was that he always seemed to know the right thing to do, Truman said, "oh, I don't think anyone ever has problems with knowing the right thing to do. The problem is doing it".
By contrast, Lyndon Johnson said, "you know, doing the right thing is easy. The problem is knowing what's the right thing to do".
I think that's a good example of contrast between a Ti IJ viewpoint and a Se EP one.
You don't think it's a difference between Te/Si point of view (estj) and Ti/Se (estp)? I mean, TiSe and SeTi are still the same functions.I've read a book of interviews with Truman, called Plain Speaking by Merle Miller, and he seemed more Ti than Te to me. FDR was all Fe according to all who met him (well, of those whose reports I've read).
On asking how it was that he always seemed to know the right thing to do, Truman said, "oh, I don't think anyone ever has problems with knowing the right thing to do. The problem is doing it".
By contrast, Lyndon Johnson said, "you know, doing the right thing is easy. The problem is knowing what's the right thing to do".
I think that's a good example of contrast between a Ti IJ viewpoint and a Se EP one.
Well, I see LBJ as ESFp not ESTp.
And I see it as Truman always knowing the "truth" since he was ISTj but perhaps finding it more difficult to do it, as IJ, and LBJ aware that his impulsiveness had had bad results in the past.
Re: Type These Well-Known Presidents
My take:
George Washington: ESFj
Thomas Jefferson: INTp
Andrew Jackson: ENTj
Abraham Lincoln: INTp
Ulysses S Grant: ISTp (ENTj?)
Teddy Roosevelt: ISTp
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: ESTp
Harry Truman: INTj
Dwight D Eisenhower: ENTj
John F. Kennedy: ESTp (ESFp?)
Richard Nixon: ENTj
Jimmy Carter: INFp
Ronald Reagan: ENFj
George HW Bush ISTj
Bill Clinton: ESFp
I'm quite uncertain about most of these, except for FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter.
Am I the only one here convinced Carter is a Keirsey NF idealist?
Greetings, ragnar.
By any chance do you happen to be either an INFp or an ESTp?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I think he is a Keirsey NF idealist.
And a Socionics ISFj.
I can't think of an INFp.
I prefer ESFp for Andrew Jackson but ESTp is possible.
The same goes for Lyndon Johnson, although in his case I'm much more convinced that he was ESFp.
Zachary Taylor and James Garfield may have been ESTps, but ISTj is perhaps better for Garfield.
Aaron Burr was ESTp imo.
I do not think that we had INFp presidents, but since Ragnar's post had a number of ESTps, I thought that he may have been either an ESTp, an INFp (dual), or at least Beta Quadra. The reason why is that often when typing a series of people, the typist will have a larger percentage of subjects categorized into types of their own quadra. But while looking back, only two were ESTp, one ISTj, and one ENFj, while he had a total of six Gammas.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I score INTp on tests, quite consistently.
Didn't quite understand that - isn't a Socionics ISFj always supposed to be either an MBTI ISFJ or ISFP? Guess I'm revealing some ignorance here ...
Greetings, ragnar.
Yes, a socionic ISFj is always an MBTI and Keirsey ISFJ (never an ISFP), and Expat is only confusing you when he says that Carter was a Keirsey NF Idealist AND a socionic ISFj. That is a contradiction. If Carter is an ISFj (I don't have a clear opinion on his type) then he inevitably belongs to Keirsey's Guardian temperament, because every socionic ISFj is an ISFJ in Keirsey's model and therefore also a Guardian.Didn't quite understand that - isn't a Socionics ISFj always supposed to be either an MBTI ISFJ or ISFP?
I disagree with what you just said, and Phaedrus, but I will just say what I mean --
It seems to me that Keirsey's "temperaments" are too often seen as closely related to a person's main aspirations and areas of interest; in the case of NF, a sort of spiritual, global idealism or romanticism; in the case of SJ, a more sort of "down-to earth" approach.
From Carter's supposed and so-called global idealism and do-goodism, besides references to God, UFOs etc, he might be seen as a Keirsey NF. However, a guy who, in interviews, talks spontaneously about the need to be tough on people seems to me to be more Se than Ne. So I think that ISFj Fi subtype is probably right for him.
I don't think that Keirsey's temperaments are even identical to the MBTI equivalent, by the way. Similar yes, but not identical.
Please, Expat. Don't you see that you are contradicting yourself? Your views on this matter are not consistent. You admit that an MBTT ISFJ is closest to a socionic ISFj. That means that every MBTT ISFJ is a socionic ISFj, because the defining criterion for being an ISFJ is that you fit the type descriptions, which means that if you are an ISFJ you belong to the group of people that they are trying to portray in their ISFJ type descriptions. Under no circumstances is it possible to be an ISFJ and not be a socionic ISFj. That makes no sense at all if you have understood what it means to be a type in MBTT. And Keirsey's ISFJs are completely identical to MBTT ISFJs. The only difference is that Keirsey doesn't talk about functions. The type descriptions are extremely similar. It is absolutely impossible that they are talking about different groups of people.I disagree with what you just said, and Phaedrus, but I will just say what I mean --
Yes, but that is not relevant, because you don't become an NF Idealist just because you have a spriritual, global idealism or romanticism. NF Idealists is only the name for a group of types in Keirsey's model -- that special group of four specific types, namely ENFJs, INFJs, ENFPs, and INFPs. The types come first. They are the primary units even for Keirsey. And if you are a socionic ISFj, you necessarily (this is a logical necessity based on the meanings of the words that are used in the type descriptions) must be an ISFJ in both MBTT and Keirsey's model, since that is the only possible alternative that is consistent with the type descriptions.
But that would then only be a preliminary guess on his type. And it would be wrong if Carter is an ISFj.
I don't question that. If you are right Carter is a Guardian.
MBTT uses Keirsey's four temperament groups in their own published material. There is no difference at all. To talk about temperaments in MBTT is to talk about Keirsey's temperaments. The theories are not identical, and the type descriptions are not 100 % identical, but the types (which are demarcated by the type descriptions) are so extremely similar that it is ridiculous to claim that they are not talking about the exact same groups of people. An ISFJ in MBTT is always an ISFJ in Keirsey's model.
Fine, I will rephrase my views:
1) I think Carter is a Socionics ISFj
2) I don't particularly care what type he (or anyone else) is or not in MBTT or Keirsey, so I should withdraw from such debates
3) Regardless of (2), I have observed that many people (regardless of whether that is what Keirsey meant or not) tend to type people in Keirsey according to their interests and activities, so that a scientist or engineer "has" to be an NT, an "idealist activist" "has" to be an NF, etc. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that that's what Ragnar was doing.
I will just ignore any debates referring to Meyer-Briggs and especially Keirsey from now on. From my point of view they are a huge waste of time. Those who disagree, please carry on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote