George W Bush

[CuriousSoul]

quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ge_w_bush.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Quotes











Rice was reportedly overheard saying, “As I was telling my husb—” and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, “As I was telling President Bush.” Jaws dropped, but a guest says the slip by the unmarried politician, who spends weekends with the president and his wife, seemed more psychologically telling than incriminating. Nobody thinks Bush and Rice are actually an item. A National Security Council spokesman laughed and said, “No comment.”

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...245/index.html

One lesson Rice absorbed during the first Bush administration was that a personal relationship with the president mattered a great deal, and she forged her relationship with George W. early on. She and the candidate could talk sports--Rice was a big football fan and Bush a former owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team--and Rice could tell stories of baseball great Willie Mays, who had once been her mother's student in high school. George Bush was a fitness buff and Rice, who used more than one personal trainer, worked out with him. Among the "Vulcans," the self-styled coterie of Bush foreign policy advisers, Rice was the one who could explain issues in a way the candidate understood easily. "I like to be around her," Bush was quoted as saying, "Besides, she's really smart!" [9]

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/20...a04prados.html

Slate had a pretty good take on the incident:

http://www.slate.com/id/2099516


The great promise/major selling point of Socionics is the promise of true love in duality relations. Duality partners are very different kind of personalities and on a casual level understanding between duality partners is not always easy. Sometimes though duality relations flourish even between friends and colleagues. And conversely this kind of close personal working relations, (well what do I know), can help in identification by hinting at the possible types of the parties: in this case most likely between INTJ Rice and ESFJ Bush.

There does not seem to be any agreement on the type of the American president, (well there rarely is MBTI being little more than a collection of type descriptions.) In my opinion there are number of reasons why George W Bush is ESFJ. First the hard evidence, here is a picture of young George W Bush. The pictures on Filatova's page tend to be of youngish people so currently I can type young people based on their looks much better than mature adults. Compare young "Dubbya" to pictures of ESFJ men on Filatova's database here:

http://ru.laser.ru/socion/references/filatova/esfj/



Can you see what I see? I hope I am not hallucinating... It is pretty crazy stuff this visual identification, but hey why not...
Then there is functional analyzis. I think we all quite familiar with quotes about incidents like this one:

It is said, that, before September 11, George W. Bush thought the Taliban were a Bavarian brass band. Now, thanks to his comprehensive knowledge, the most powerful man in the world has got into hot water again.

It was Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, who helped her boss out of the embarassing situation. During a conversation between the two presidents, George W. Bush, 55, and Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 71, Bush bewildered his colleague with the question "Do you have blacks, too?"

Rice, 47, noticing how astonished the Brazilian was, saved the day by telling Bush "Mr. President, Brazil probably has more blacks than the USA. Some say it's the country with the most blacks outside Africa." Later, Cardoso commented that regarding Latin America, Bush was still in his "learning phase".

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents2.shtml


In other words logic is hardly his strongest function. On the other hand he has neither shown much hesitation in admitting his ignorance or his need to rely on his administration and advisers. This corresponds quite closely to white/introverted logic as weak subconscious fifth function:

The fifth function has great difficulty making sense of information on its own. Information is perceived on the one hand as little understood background noise and on the other hand as something of great importance. The individual feels good when others explain to him what he is experiencing in this aspect of reality and what he should do about it. One’s opinions in this area are easily influenced. Without others’ care and concern one feels like an abandoned child. A person rarely feels ashamed about problems related to his fifth function and can easily request help if he sees that others are self-assured in this area. If others speak with an authoritative tone, one listens carefully to advice having to do with one’s fifth function. One rarely stands up for the fifth function’s interests, but accepts as much help as others are willing to give. Criticism is interpreted as concern for one’s needs. People who lack duals’ concern in this area frequently hint at their fifth function’s helplessness and neediness in the subconscious hope that the right people will respond to their cry for help. Dualization helps to develop the fifth function and make sense of one’s subconscious needs in this area. Self-perfection on one’s own is extremely difficult. If the individual has someone he trusts to follow, he feels happy and protected. Otherwise he feels resentful of society at large for not providing him with the care and assistance he needs.

http://www.geocities.com/tommylove90..._elements.html


Going through all the functions and possible types would be rather painstaking exercise, but I think functional analyzes can be highly useful in typing people. Basicly for example this kind of open shameless demonstration of one's ignorance would generally be characteristic of only people with logic as third and fith function thus either ISFJ, INFJ, ESFJ or ENFJ, and methinks: much more likely the extroverted types.

On other hand there is ample evidence that extroverted emotions is the lead function that George Bush most identifies with, The first function is the strongest and most conscious function and forms the core of one’s perception of reality.

President George W. Bush: "I'm a loving guy... And I'm also someone, however, who's got a job to do... and I intend to do it." (Sept 13, 2001

Note also extroverted/business logic as role function: He works very diligently. He does not prefer one errand to another, all should be accomplished whether interesting or not. This is not something to be discussed or analyzed; simply the work must be completed (ESFJ decription)


This post became rather longer than I intented, I may continue later... But I think it pays to observe people carefully: to notice not only which functions are clearly visible and strong: but also in which aspects of reality do people openly demonstrate their weaknesses (fifth function) and which aspects of reality are perceived rather painfully and may elicit irrationally strong negative reactions (most often fourth function). I think it more should be written about the Socionics Functions. The problem with the functions in MBTI seems to be that they are kind of hanging in the air - there is no clear theory on how different functions should show up in people's behaviour. Thus the disputes over what the functions for different types are, easily seem rather pointless. Since the theory of functions in MBTI seems to rarely be able to predict anything, the usefulness of the whole theory is questionable at best - I for one have yet to read a single MBTI description of types according to their functions.

There actually seems to be an MBTI analyzes of George W Bush which favours ESFJ as his type, and at least extroverted feeling is well descriped, I could have added many more examples.

http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/Variety.htm

[MysticSonic]

Interesting proposition, but how would you account for his sheer lack of tact when dealing with people?

[metaiwan]

I'd have to agree with Bush being ESFJ and Rice being INTJ...although I think one of the hardest things to do is typing someone you have no met and do not know. Although one thing I know for sure...Bush is not ESTP "I'm a loving guy"... an ESTP would never say that.
I saw some kind of documentary where a real life journalist who followed Bush around on Air Force One, so you got to see a lot of what he is like when not reading scripts etc. He always seemed to try to brighten the mood and make jokes, but was slow to realize some things the journalist was saying were moking, and once he did he got defensive. He is definately an extravert.

Maybe politics don't belong here but I gotta say I hate the "debates" coming up between the two "different" parties. A fricken manual and script for the thing is already written, where obviously they will both avoid answering answers with what they feel to try to capture the most of the middle as they can. The association that does the debates is strongly bipartisan instead of non-partisan, blocking out any possible debates where third party canidates can speak and raise issues the Republicrats refuse to take ANY stance on.

[CuriousSoul]

Interesting proposition, but how would you account for his sheer lack of tact when dealing with people?

Well tact in dealing with other people corresponds often to following established ethical rules, thus rational logical types: TJs with ethics as their role functions might well behave more tactfully than ESFJs or ENFJs.

People with ethics of emotions/extroverted feelings as first function would not shy about demonstrating their first function or receiving criticism about what they do or think using their first function. They also think little of criticizing others from the standpoint of their first function. One’s first function is what one tends to value most in oneself and what one identifies oneself most with. In one’s opinions and activities related to one’s first function one rarely yields to others’ influence and is capable of standing up for oneself and leading others. The first function is interested in others just as much or more than oneself and needs a large field to apply itself. It needs people that will heed its qualified advice and accept its program.

This kind of supreme confidence on the righteousness of one's emotions and right to demonstrate them would often not appear particularly tactful or as Gulenko put it:
ESFJs also can show a wide range of emotions during conversation. They have very characteristic negative emotions, periodically showing indignation which can flare up without warning and which can die down just as quickly. Their negative behaviour often cannot be explained logically as they can create a drama from something that may seem unimportant. During conversation ESFJs pay close attention to the ethics and good behaviour of others. They like to give ethical evaluations and analyses on who behaved well and who did not. They also watch that the norms of politeness are obeyed. ESFJs react negatively to people who do not obey ethical norms. This is why others can sometimes consider them to be confrontational and difficult to live with. Many people believe ESFJs could be very demanding and tactless.

Often high degree of emotionality is even expected of women and attributed to their feminine temper/periods, whereas in males it may appear either as rather immature silliness or downright frightening if backed by a well built frame and a high level of testoterone.


ESFJs were also charactererized as people with:
strong tastes and preferences; enthusiastic and forceful about likes and dislikes; socialites; emotional involvement; reflect values of community; large emotional range

http://www.geocities.com/tommylove9000/moods.html

In the case of George W. Bush the values of community would at least partly seem to represent the values of the 1960s upper class Frat boys which can be somewhat out of touch with modern day sensibilities.


Correction I wrote:
Note also extroverted/business logic as role function: He works very diligently. He does not prefer one errand to another, all should be accomplished whether interesting or not. This is not something to be discussed or analyzed; simply the work must be completed (ESFJ decription)
I should get the functions right if I try to analyze types by their functions This "work must be completed" actually corresponds to the ESFJs fourth painful function: introverted intuition/intuition of time.
Sorry.

Is anyone going to watch the first debate today? If Kerry is ENFP and Bush ESFJ, could this intertype communication aspect actually be observed?

[metaiwan]

Is anyone going to watch the first debate today? If Kerry is ENFP and Bush ESFJ, could this intertype communication aspect actually be observed?

Well no, actually, and that's what I am kinda bitching about. They aren't allowed...yes that's right BARRED FROM ADDRESSING EACH OTHER, in fact they do not do rebuttels on each other's questions either. Isn't American great?

Actually I think you were right about the third function as the "things must get done" part...the role they need to do is based on business logic, and 4th function to avoid criticism for not getting it done fast enough/no forsight.

[ayoforjager]

I'm pretty sure Bush is an ESFP. He was a party animal at Yale, he never admits weakness, he's all about "leadership." Plus he's got excellent people skills, he's always going on vacation, he delegates any task that requires actual thinking, and he gets passionate about things and refuses to take things slowly.

Do you think a rational type would have rushed into the Iraq war like that, totally disregarding the future? It's like he intentionally brushed reason aside, because that's what ESFPs do.

Kerry on the other hand, is probably not an ENFP. He's way to dry and logical. I think the socionics.com people typed him as ENFP because he looks like one in a couple of his pictures. They like to go by V.I. But Kerry has always struck me as an INTP...

[metaiwan]

I'm pretty sure Bush is an ESFP. He was a party animal at Yale, he never admits weakness, he's all about "leadership." Plus he's got excellent people skills, he's always going on vacation, he delegates any task that requires actual thinking, and he gets passionate about things and refuses to take things slowly.

Do you think a rational type would have rushed into the Iraq war like that, totally disregarding the future? It's like he intentionally brushed reason aside, because that's what ESFPs do.

Kerry on the other hand, is probably not an ENFP. He's way to dry and logical. I think the socionics.com people typed him as ENFP because he looks like one in a couple of his pictures. They like to go by V.I. But Kerry has always struck me as an INTP...

i don't really agree with any of this at all. you can't put something as insanely complicated as going to war with Iraq to analyze a personality trait.

I don't know about kerry, but he doesn't seem to have that brooding neck i always see in intp pictures either

[Bear]

Bush is very similar to ENTJ. They can be confused with ESFJ because they are also fast in their words in actions. Their jokes can be accounted for their role function (mood lift). But they are not really sensitive and can tell people stuff that is better not told - some not very tactful jokes, for example. They are also more likely to go into politics - the power is one of their values.

[ayoforjager]

Bush is aggressive, charismatic, passionate, and dumb as a brick. ESFP all the way. And Kerry's got that monotone way of speaking characteristic of INTPs.

Bush seems to rely almost entirely on his charisma. Kerry's got the droopy, I'm-about-to-be-victimised-INTP look, and he's confident in his intellect. ENFPs really aren't, since they share the ESFP's hidden agenda. Of all of Kerry's weaknesses, extraverted thinking really isn't one of them. Clinton's an ENFP. Kerry just can't give speeches like Clinton could. He's more style is more direct, and senatorial.

[discourse]

Based only on my intuition, i think that Rice is ESFJ. INTJ type would never say that someone is her husband that way. It's a compliment and that means that's it was said problably by the F type. F values are feminite. Probably Bush and Rice have identical relations.

[discourse]

Putin is INTP. As we all know, he is the President of the Russia. Usa and Russia have always being either in conflict or dreing to work together. Right now, the relations are try. Putin fights for the terrorism. USA also, but they don't collaborate. IF Bush would have strong Se, then Putin and he would be good friends (duals or semiduality). But there is no friendships. That means that Bush might be ESFJ. Then the relation is conflicting and they both dry to do their own things and alone.

[Bear]

According to most russian socionics experts, Putin is INTJ and Bush is ENTJ.
The relations are called contrary.
But it's a bad idea to explore intertype relations between politicians - the relations are rather formal, with no freedom of expression. Every politician is always playing a role and may not behave like representatives of his sociotype.

[discourse]

really, Putin is INTJ? But Jeltsin was ENTJ and he wouldn't had made someome with whom he is in contrary relations hes place keeper. Or would he?

[metaiwan]

According to most russian socionics experts, Putin is INTJ and Bush is ENTJ.
The relations are called contrary.
But it's a bad idea to explore intertype relations between politicians - the relations are rather formal, with no freedom of expression. Every politician is always playing a role and may not behave like representatives of his sociotype.

I think you're right about the evidence we are using to establish type. Politics are very complicated and there are way too many factors to consider. For instance a person's stance on issues has more to do with what his advisor's recommendations are and his party's stances than other things. Let's try to decide based on 'off the cuff' comments and the person's personal life if we can.

[CuriousSoul]

Well no, actually, and that's what I am kinda bitching about. They aren't allowed...yes that's right BARRED FROM ADDRESSING EACH OTHER, in fact they do not do rebuttels on each other's questions either. Isn't American great?

Actually I think you were right about the third function as the "things must get done" part...the role they need to do is based on <span id="BUSINESS" class=xxxxkeyword onmouseover="onmo(this);" onmouseout="inMenu=false;hide(this);">business</span> logic, and 4th function to avoid criticism for not getting it done fast enough/no forsight.

A good point. I just looked for the relevant quote and forgot to think for myself. As to the debate, it did seem pretty scripted and did not turn out very interesting. I did not even have the split screen and could not see George Bush smirking so apparantely I missed most of the fun.

I think it better to just forget all the Keirsey descriptions and most of MBTI descriptions as well, they are just highly misleading and often plain wrong. For example ESFPs have extroverted thinking as their hidden agenda. They want to know about pretty much everything, if you spent any time with ESFPs you should notice that they often tend to have a habit of constantly asking questions, whereas Bush has shown an almost total lack of intellectul curiousity and does not appear the least bothered by it. Also consider the quadra values, the first quadra is much more hedonistic than the third.

Putin in my opinion would most likely be ISTP mainly based on strikingly similar mimicry to couple of ISTPs I know but since I do not speak Russian it is little more than a guess. I do wonder though how they would type George Bush as ENTJ, do they give any detailed accounts of how they reached that strange conclusion? Whether personal relations really play a major role in international politics seems difficult to determine. We might rather be inclined to interpret political disagreements as personal animosities.

Kerry might well be ENFP. There are basically two types of ENFPs the highly social ones who often resemble ESFPs and the almost introverted ones which can be very difficult to recognize. These would probably correspond to the two major subtypes, but it is difficult to make sense of the subtypes theory as there does not seem to be any general agreement at the moment, or is there?
This article gives a vivid account of Kerry's character flaws, the description comes curiously close to the Vigilant Oldham's type/paranoid personality disorder description. Of course it is a partisan source so take it with a pinch of salt.

http://www.vdare.com/malkin/kerry_mr_perfect.htm

[CuriousSoul]

Sorry, apparantely I forgot to log in again. I MUST Remember from now on: Check and Recheck every time. I have no patience with this annoyingly slow and virus-infected computer that keeps on crashing all the time either, oh well.

[Bear]

I stated only that the majority thinks Putin is INTJ and Bush is ENTJ.
Determining type was always the biggest problem in socionics. I guess only the man himself can determine his type precisely enough. All other methods are only estimates.
Many of the guesses for Bush and Putin types are based on visual identification. I agree they fit into that types pretty well by appearance.
As for Putin, he is rather mysterious figure. No one knows how he behaves when he is not at tv screen. His private life is not well-known.
The most common guesses for his type are INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, ISTP and ESTJ.
None of them really contradict what we know (ISTP is doubtful though). By appearance imho he is most similar to INTJ or ISTJ.
As for Bush, all agree that he is an extrovert, many people consider he is feeling type, but even more consider hie is thinking type )).
The fact that he is dumb doesn't mean he can't be the thinking type, ENTJ for example.
ENTJs are very fast and energetic, they are very confident in their decisions. The fact that not all of his decisions are correct doesn't bother Bush. Actually I don't think he is troubled with critics. He has a dumb but firm position in his politics. That's not typical for feeling types, who are more influenced by reasoning and critics.
He might also be ESTJ, that was a common version.
ENFP and ESFJ were among the versions, many people think he has a strong Fe function.
Also, ESFJ is the superego of ENTJ and vice versa. The actions of the superego block can be taken for ego block actions sometimes.
Also, I think he is not sensing type, but intuitive. He doesn't have that confidence in his movements and overall look that sensing types share.
Typing celebrities is even more difficult than typing people you know well.
And typing yourself and your friends can be a rather difficult task ).

[CuriousSoul]

I stated only that the majority thinks Putin is INTJ and Bush is ENTJ.
Determining type was always the biggest problem in socionics. I guess only the man himself can determine his type precisely enough. All other methods are only estimates.

What I would be interested in is to know why they think the way they do. What are the methods employed in typing celebrities? Do they just compare their behaviour to type descriptions or representatives of the types. What about all the other possible methods?

The fact that he is dumb doesn't mean he can't be the thinking type, ENTJ for example.

Well perhaps I came across harsher than I intended. Bush can after all not be that dum with a Harvard MBA and all:

At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism."

http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essay...umi_president/

Even the best estimates of his IQ tend to be around 125 (with standard deviation of 15 points):
Extrapolating from Bush's SAT scores, his "IQ" could be estimated as being in the 120-130 range. Quite respectably above average, but not genius.

http://uplink.space.com/printthread....19&type=thread


Of course this was all before he found the bottle, I think this might well explain for example this:

Also, I think he is not sensing type, but intuitive. He doesn't have that confidence in his movements and overall look that sensing types share.

Typing celebrities is even more difficult than typing people you know well.
And typing yourself and your friends can be a rather difficult task ).

Well it is, and reaching an agreement with other "typologists" is harder still. Yet if we cannot type people correctly everything else in Socionics is pretty much meaningless. And I do not belive that the tests are very reliable either, they just give a false sense of confidence.

[metaiwan]

http://www.bushisms.com/pics.html

This is why I believe George W to be an ESFj, look at the range of emotional expression!

[trey]

having watched a lengthy biographical documentary on bush, with a lot of detail about his life between college and his first gubernatorial campaign, i esteem him a very likely ENFJ, strongly indicated by a few things:

- his naturally effusive persona while campaigning, with a focus on interacting with people (rather than public speaking or lecturing or however you see it)

- chronic substance abuse in his 20's, in line with his wealth and accomplishment oriented "hidden agenda." his efforts to kill those two birds with one stone by following his dad's footsteps into oil investment were miserable failures.

- i forgot.


it's very difficult to determine a politician's type, particularly in bush's case because so much of his presidency is scripted (including the rare chances of natural interaction.. i.e. with media, whose questions and his answers are likely just as scripted as his speeches). anyone who saw the bush-kerry debates got some nice glimpses at his true personality's preferences when he found an unexpected chance to improvise an attack on a kerry statement or to make a terrible joke that nobody laughed at.

[CuriousSoul]

it's very difficult to determine a politician's type, particularly in bush's case because so much of his presidency is scripted (including the rare chances of natural interaction.. i.e. with media, whose questions and his answers are likely just as scripted as his speeches). anyone who saw the bush-kerry debates got some nice glimpses at his true personality's preferences when he found an unexpected chance to improvise an attack on a kerry statement or to make a terrible joke that nobody laughed at.

I just do not know. The more I read and think things over the less I seem to understand. There is so much conflicting data and so little absolutely reliable information. Sometimes I get a very strong feeling about type based on similarities to some people I know well, or other times when I follow somebody's behaviour for some time it can feel almost like I get inside their head and can figure out the way they think. With Bush the Younger though it feels impossible to say where the public persona ends and when the real Bush will please stand up.

I am even seriously entertaining the possibility that George W Bush is ISFJ, Laura "the self-confessed introvert" ESFP and Condoleezza Rice ENTJ. Any thoughts?

[Creepy-caffron]

Bush is ENTJ; Condi is ISFJ.

Trust me.

[metaiwan]

why should we? tell us why you think that please.

[Creepy-caffron]

I've been observing people, and their individual types, for over 5 years now. I've gotten it down to a science, although my observations are based purely on experience.

[MysticSonic]

Yes, that's certainly a good reason to believe you! Your word is worth far more then actual evidence.

[metaiwan]

We were just suggesting that you post _any_ sort of evidence or reasons you had to reach your conclusion, not that we agree or disagree with you, but we don't know you so your word is worth nothing. This is an internet message board. We're here to promote understanding, let's don't argue back and forth about whos better at socionics. Give us some actual reasoning you used so we can give our opinions if you are right or wrong. But I think MysticSonic said everything I did with much less words.

[Moniker04]

Dude, seriously how does anybody think that Bush is entj and condi isfj?

I can't tell for sure because he is basically a stage actor, but Bush does not come off as a logical intutive. If he was an ENTJ, it's highly unlikely that he would be considered by a large percentage of the world as an idiot. ENTJ's generally come off as intellectually competant individuals. Does Bush? Answer that yourself. Furthermore, Socionics.com typed him as an estp last year. That does sound on target, but I don't know for sure. How do you you?

Condi--straight up INTJ. I'm one-and I can spot an extreme one like her a mile away. Evidence--uh, let's see- sharp beady eyes. Conducts herself in a very logical manner with a confidence that could only come from one who has thinking as a primary function. She's a self admitted workaholic and perfectionist. There's gotta be more but I can't remember. She just seems like such a sterotypical intj. Buddy, there is no chance in hell that she is an isfj.

Peace

[Creepy-]

Condi isn't INTJ- She's not even a borderline N. Her logical approach to situations that is a common indication of T is a valid argument, although ISFJ's commonly come across as conducting themselves this manner as well, according to Socionics.com. My father is an INTJ and my mother is an ISFJ, so I think of myself as a pretty accurate predictor of both of these types.

I don't know about the claims of Bush being ENTJ, but it would expalin the element of duality between himself and Condi. And being ENTJ does not necessarily imply intellect; in fact, intellect has nothing to do with type. And he is definitely not ESTP. Bush lacks the dominant sensing fucntion that is the most telling indication of this type.

[CuriousSoul]

Furthermore, Socionics.com typed him as an estp last year. That does sound on target, but I don't know for sure. How do you you?

I don't think so, and anyway where did you get this idea?

So how about Bush ISFJ, Rice ENTJ?
I am still working on this theory, as I know it sounds pretty preposterous and I may have a hard time trying to convince anyone, but for starters, what got me thinking was this comment:

Hmm... enfp and istp are quite far away from each other if you look at the way it obtained via tests. And they are very close if you look from
socionics model point of view. It is unlikely that your guy mixed up three
of four scales on the test, but possible that he read different profiles
and decided that enfp suites him better. However, just a week ago I met an ENFp that looks like Johnatan Price and he was very quiet type. He kept
using word "logical" in many cases trying to rationalize things. If you
wouldn't know that logic is his actual coordination aspect, you would think
that he was an ENTp at the closest.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/10

and this:

The 7th function:
It is the zone of your agression, where you act very arrogantly. You have own opinion, and you neglect its significance for yourself, but at the same time you are concerned, that others observe it.
6) Types, having the 7th Fe (ISFJ, INFJ), have own model when emotions must be shown. They may even appear very cold.
For example, when I asked one INFJ girl to read more loudly and empathically her novel, she refused it.
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=18

and pictures like this:

or this:

and even this:


They just seem to fit slightly better with this:

ENTJs like expensive, good quality clothes, however they can find it difficult to effectively combine their wardrobe. This is especially noticeable in ENTJ males. They are very attracted to bright colour combinations and may combine two or three styles together. However, their aesthetic understanding is not usually very well developed and therefore they may find difficult to work where aesthetics play an important role. ENTJs often wear the same clothes for long periods giving the impression that they have just come back from a long trip and haven't had time to change.

Than what I had originally thought:

Their clothes are not usually very striking. INTJs do not like to attract excessive attention to themselves and most of the time they stick to simple clothes, often wearing the same style and composition for a long time.
Based on the fairly limited reliable observations I have been able to make these basic rules would seem to apply to both sexes .

So just maybe:
Sometimes it would indeed seem to be the case that people appear very similar to their dual even though that is not the impression you get by reading the type descriptions. I can clearly see how the salesman like smile of George W Bush and his reckless behaviour can, in the eyes of experienced socionists, appear very similar to ENTJs, but nonetheless, having followed his speeches and interviews closely I cannot help but to conclude that ethics is his lead function, not his creative, role, nor painful function. The way he reasons appears to be that he bases his decisions very much on his own ethical/emotional judgement, values personal loyalty very highly and consistently above any performance criteria, defends his value based decisions passionately, is almost immune to any personal or political criticism, and does not attempt to dress his emotional reasoning in logical garb as logical types very often tend to do. The introverted and extroverted elements on the other hand seem to be quite difficult to detect, as the conventional thinking introversion=shyness, extroversion=sociability appears to be surprisingly often completely wrong. ISFJs also have introverted intuition as their hidden agenda, the 6th function, and this woul naturally fit with his born again christian personality, and although it can certainly be difficult to judge from the outside he seems to be very sincery about his beliefs.

Just read the ISFJ description once again and ask yourself could this not fit George W Bush:


ISFJs often have a very characteristic facial expression that usually shows alertness and readiness to resist. Sometimes their regular facial expression may show dissatisfaction, a critical disposition or even anger. When ISFJs are thinking they may fix their eyes to an object or person for a long period. In these cases their eyes may show a look of bewilderment in reflection to the situation they are in. ISFJs can remain in the same position for a long time.

ISFJs normally have slightly thick lips which they normally keep tightly together. Their facial structure is smooth, with a distinct lack of prominent or sharp cheek bones. ISFJs can have very slim and elongated figures as well as full figures with big, wide shoulders. Their clothes are always tidy and often strictly elegant with a touch of officially even when they are not at work.

Where the reviewing of any new project is concerned ISFJs are critical, actively seeking out major defects. They try to analyse the situation logically, objectively and with emotions detachment. ISFJs have a very well developed sense of duty.

ISFJs notice people who do not obey ethical norms. When among friends ISFJs always give their ethical evaluations of other peoples actions. Their quick wit enables them to reply effectively to people with sharp tongues. ISFJs enjoy to play jokes on people by telling them something seemingly serious with a straight face. Staying alone with a person for a long time can make ISFJs feel uncomfortable so does the presence of strangers in their homes.

ISFJs know how to actively defend themselves and those close to them. If they take the responsibility of a persons welfare upon them, they will provide protection and defend the persons interests as if they were their own. When the opportunity to take their revenge arises, they know how to find the most defenceless place for their strike.

ISFJs do not cope well in indefinite situations. They can start panicking easily by worrying incessantly about their situation. They do not like to wait for impending events, the nearer it comes the more tension they accumulate. They tend to release their stress with alcohol or in the company of close friends.

ISFJs like orderliness and cleanliness at home. They rarely tidy up but when they do they do a very thorough job. They are unlikely to go to sleep if they know that they have to finish some duties in their home. They can not simply rest without finding something to busy themselves with. ISFJs likely to judge the work by the quantity of energy spent and not the end result.
http://www.socionics.com/prof/isfj.htm

There are also curious similarities to Francicso Franco and Heinrich Himmler but maybe I'd better not go into details. Just remember never to anger an ISFJ man, they will find a way to get back at you.

[metaiwan]

It seems obvious to me that Bush displays ethics as his first function as well, yet it appears to be extraverted ethics(ethics of emotion). While it is true that introversion does not equal shyness, it is just more likely that an introverted person would be (more) shy, personal, quiet, keep to themselves type of person. the literal introverted is 'subjective', or oriented towards the subject, while an extravert is 'objective', or oriented towards the object. Shyness != introversion, it's just a damn good clue.

As far as Bush being ESTP, does anyone know an ESTP who would say "i'm a loving guy", as Bush has said in a few different ways? I mean, ESTPs have as their function of least resistance. Its obvious to me a definate feel to Bush. Even possibly an ENTj, as their need to seem an exciting lively person is due to their role function as . But I really do think Bush is ESFJ, _possibly_ ENFJ, _possibly_ ENTJ, but really I do think he is an ESFJ. But again I dont' claim to be an expert, and I have no skill at VI, but I have seen quite a bit of Bush on TV and documentaries and all of his manurisms and such and it really does appear to be extraverted feeling to me.

my two cents

edit:

also to note Bush's wide emotional reactions and displays. see how many different expressions you can find of him on the internet.... then compare it to say rice(see how many different expressions she has). this is extraverted feeling people.

[CuriousSoul]

My obsession with visual identification may not be all together healthy and wholesome but nevertheless time after time I have been convinced of the potential of this method. Even VI does appear to support my new claim that George W Bush is ISFJ.



Here is a picture of the chracacter actor Bob Gunton who was typed, in my opinion correctly, as ISFJ by Socionics.com



I may be overstretching my case but I think that the famous statement I am a loving guy could be more accurately interpreted as his self-identification with Fi, introverted feeling. He defined himself by what he himself feels. An ESFJ might rather have emphasized how he wants to be perceived, for example: "I am a friendly guy."

[Creepy-]

He is an ISFP, the ethical subtype.

He's daughter's describe his "true" self (home behavior) on a tv interview.

[false]

"I'm a loving guy"... an ESTP would never say that.

Why not? It is hidden agenda of ESTP...

[false]

Due to my VI of bush, bush is ESTp. Rice is NT, Dont push bush to the same quadrable, remember of relations of benefit and relations of supervision. These can work quite well at work. Note that Rice is not a mate for bush, she is his advisior.

[CuriousSoul]

President Bush and the Perils of Socionics
I originally thought I would write a lengthy article discussing my arguments for typing George W Bush as ISFJ (Dreiser), but then I came to see the futility of the exercise, for as long as there is no generally accepted foolproof method of typing, any argument is ultimately as good as any other. As hard as I have tried to uncover the true type of your Dear Leader, when there simply is no reliable way to verify the correctness of my conclusions, all I end up doing may well be just getting lost in my verbal cleverness, and thus I have decided to write this simply as a one off opinion piece/quasi-scientific enquiry into human nature - and hope you might find some food for thought in my muddled musings for the Easter holidays. So without further ado, what does it actually take to make a president?


You're in a Mexican diner in Dallas, Texas. You're sitting at a table, eating your dinner quietly. At the next table, there is a a couple eating with their four-year-old son at the table.

Suddenly, another man storms up to the small family. He is apparently drunk, and furious. "You fucking son of a bitch!" he shouts at the father. Everyone stops eating and stares at the man. You cringe when you see the young boy.

"I saw what you wrote," he rants on. "We're not going to forget this." You feel shock at this kind of drunken behavior in a public restaurant. You feel sympathetic fear for the man and his wife, being threatened in such an ominous way, as if the man were a member of organized crime and the family could expect thugs to visit them in the night with baseball bats or something.

You might fear the man who stormed in and raved, you might feel disgusted, angry, or perhaps, if you are more compassionate, you might feel pity.

But would you elect him president?

The above incident did in fact happen. It was early April, 1986. The drunk was George W. Bush, and the man and woman with the child were Wall Street Journal editor Al Hunt and his wife, Judy Woodruff. Hunt had written an editorial in which he predicted that Jack Kemp, not George Bush Sr., would win the GOP presidential nomination in 1988.
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000164.html


It was curious little incidents like this one that got me thinking. Is this behavior characteristic of Hugo and the Alpha Quadra in general? Well, there are always exceptions, but as a general rule this seemed to fit much better with the more assertive and aggressive Beta and Gamma Quadrables than with the more peace-loving Alpha and Delta. There are also other cases that seem to indicate a man with a very well developed facility for confidently making even difficult and painful ethical decisions:


In the second presidential debate, for instance, Bush argued that a stronger hate-crimes law was not needed in Texas because three men were facing the death penalty for the racially motivated murder of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death behind a pickup truck.

“It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they’re put to death,” Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face.

But Bush wasn’t telling the truth. One of the three killers actually had received life imprisonment, not the death penalty. Bush had misstated or exaggerated the facts of a major criminal case that had occurred during his tenure as Texas governor.

One could only imagine how the press would have played up a similar mistake by Gore. It would have been all the voters would have heard about for a week.

With its penchant for cookie-cutter “themes” used to define candidates, the press also might have seized on Bush’s smirking comment about the condemned men and used it to remind the public about Bush’s earlier insensitivity when he mimicked condemned murderess Carla Faye Tucker as she was pleading for her life.

“With pursed lips in mock desperation, [Bush said] ‘Please don’t kill me’,” wrote Talk magazine’s conservative columnist Tucker Carlson.

Given the media’s endless search for a personality flaw behind Gore’s supposed exaggerations, a similar standard applied to Bush might have led to a conclusion that he suffers from a personality defect that leads him to mock people he is about to put to death.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/101500a.html


As a matter of fact, I think he does. The nature of this peculiar defect seemed to elude me for a long time. Why do surpsingly many people seem to take pleasure in the suffering of others even when there does not seem to be any direct benefit to them? Rather to the contrary it would seem natural to presume that this kind of Schadenfreude is likely to lower his esteem and question his character, and thus would be ultimately counter to man's selfish interests. One might thus be inclined to argue that such behavior must be an aberration, a horrid mental dysfunction brought about by unfavorable enviroment, or if one allows for Freudian interpretations, some kind of childhood trauma. But considering the wide spread prevalence and persistence of this pattern of behavior even among the highly functioning members of the upper echelons of society, it may well be that it is actually an essential part of our human nature. We may find a certain satisfaction in taking revenge on not only those who offend us personally, but even on those who just do not play fair and square:


Further support for the idea that strong reciprocity is an adaptation in its own right comes from the theoretical studies of economist Herbert Gintis of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California at Los Angeles, and others. They set up a computer model in which groups of individuals interacted, and watched how their behaviour evolved. Individuals were set up in the model to behave initially either as cheats or as cooperators, and in personal interactions the former came off best. When groups competed with one another, however, cooperation came into its own: groups with more cooperators were likely to flourish.

But that was only the start. The individuals, whether initially cooperators or cheats, were also programmed to copy successful behaviour. In simulations with groups ranging from 4 to 256 individuals, the team found that altruism could evolve. The benefits that cooperation conferred on a group outweighed its costs to individuals - but only in groups of less than about 10. Ancestral human hunter-gatherer bands are thought to have numbered 30 or more individuals, so how could cooperative behaviour have evolved and spread in these groups?

The answer lies in the fact that strong reciprocity is not simply a matter of cooperation; it also requires punishment of those who fail to toe the line. When the team added punishment to their models, they found it made a huge difference. In a second round of simulations, they included a new kind of individual: the "punishers". These punishers were not only willing to cooperate with others but also to punish cheats. By making cheats pay for their antisocial actions, they tipped the balance towards cooperation. This time, competition between groups led to the emergence of cooperation in groups of up to 50 individuals (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100, p 3531).

Could competition between small groups of our ancestors somehow have turned them into strong reciprocators? Gintis, Boyd and their colleagues believe so. What's more, subsequent research by Fehr, working with economist Urs Fischbacher of the University of Zurich, suggests that as humans came to live in larger groups, their attitudes towards reciprocity may have become even more hard-line. Using a similar model to Gintis and the others (Nature, vol 425, p 785), they found that cooperation can become the default behaviour in large groups provided punishers are willing to punish not only those who cheat, but also those who fail to punish cheats (see Graph). "In this case," Fehr says, "even groups of several hundred individuals can establish cooperation rates of between 70 and 80 per cent."
These findings suggest that true altruism, far from being a maladaptation, may be the key to our species' success by providing the social glue that allowed our ancestors to form strong, resilient groups. It is still crucial for social cohesion in today's very different world. "Something like it had to evolve," Gintis says.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524901.600

How this is relevant for socionics is still at this stage hard to say, but it would seem most plausible that the predisposition to engage in this kind of behavior is partly under genetic contol and probably subject to frequency dependent selection. A community flourishes better when a certain proportion of its members are willing to take revenge over and above any personal interest - and disturbing and unpleasant as this kind of self-righteous and downright ruthless bloodlust can be - ultimately we can sleep in peace only because strong men stay up at night ready to do harm to those who wish us evil. Or in the language of socionics; the peaceful and creative Alpha and Delta can flourish only thanks to the fighting spirit of Beta and the sharp rejection of all evil that is the hallmark of Gamma.

As Dmitri Lytov wrote most socionists consider the United States an ENTJ culture. A culture that feels itself at home in the mercantile, "collaborating and acquiring" Gamma. Thus it is an expansionist extroverted culture, a logical Te dominated culture that values hard facts and cold cash over abstruse speculation and bohemian poverty, a democratic culture that treats everyone equally yet does not hesitate to impose its iron discipline on those who fail to stay on the straight and narrow, in short: a culture that also honors and reflefts the values of its dual ISFJ:

And Bukalov presumed that each ethnic type contains a "dual image" from the very beginning, i.e., one should distinguish the COMMON national behavior (which reflects the ethnic types) from SOCIALLY ACCEPTED but rare manifestations of the "dual image".

He wrote an interesting article about the American ethnic type, which is, unfortunately, not yet translated (I promised to him to do it, when I have more or less spare time, and I still don't (

So, in this article Bukalov considered the manifestations of ISFj in the American culture. For example, these are:
1) "political corectness"
2) religion (America is even the most religious country in the world, except for Musleem countries)
3) very high moral requirements to politicians
4) etc.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=125

From a more detached foreign perspective one can perhaps observe certain cultural traits with greater clarity, for the natives of the land can be prone to take the peculiarities of their own culture as universal human values. I happened to watch Meet the Press last Sunday and was struck by the sincere admiration the distinguished journalists/politicians felt for president Bush's ability to boldly make moral judgements - judgements that often from a certain European liberal point of view appear over simplistic and often downright feckless - but perhaps reflect the need for the simple uncompromising morality of right, wrong and duty in a country the size of a continent, rich in its diversity, but also in its divisions. A country held together only by the tough love of its iron-handed dual, Dreiser.

[Dmitri Lytov]

In my opinion, George Bush is ENFj.
At least, dramatization of the situation is his favorite move.
On the other hand, he has never ever even played a role of a smart, critical and self-criticizing guy, so why somebody thinks he is T? He rather "likes" than "understands the necessity", rather "hates" than "finds inexpedient", etc., rather persuades than analyzes etc. He appeals rather to people's feelings and emotions than logic, so why is he T? Not at all!

[Smilingeyes]

Reviving topic in response to the subject coming up in a gamma forum thread.

I agree with curious's original assumption that Bush is Esfj. Dominant Fe is easy to see for many people but I think I have to give reasons as to why I presume Bush is an SJ and not an NJ.

1. Intuitive judging creates a consistent, strategic person that is easy to predict. Whereas Sensory Judging creates an inconsistent tactical person who is difficult to predict and creates constant surprises.

2. 4th function Si creates an aversion to making a personal stand, a personal statement. When Enxj acts personally to change the outcome of a situation it is because he/she thinks he/she has no other options. 2nd function Si creates a person who believes that he personally has to act at any given moment to change the outcome of a situation, play a role so to speak.

3. Bush's attitude to being a war-time president is actually more consistent with alpha than with beta or gamma values. The attitude is that "everything is fine, let's enjoy life". This is the reason he has trouble staying on message when his beta advisors try to enforce policy.

4. Preference of Condi Rice (INTJ) over D. Rumsfeld (ISTJ).

5. Total ignorance and actual avoidance of the big picture. 4th function Ni (phobia)

6. Willingness to try out things despite knowing he has no aptitude for them. Hidden agenda Ne. Whereas a person with hidden agenda Se would have an urge to take command over his staff and see results of his works.

[Scarecrow]

Oh oh oh, and here's the clincher!

In regards to the meetings between Bush (ESFJ) and Rice (INTJ):

In certain cases this dual pair may demonstrate a disregard for the morals and opinions of the others, shocking them by the straightforwardness of their actions.

(from description of ESFJ/INTJ dual pair at http://socioniko.narod.ru/en/1.3.rels/dual-1j.html)

Case closed. Next.

[Creepy-]

On ESPN, they mentioned Bush is an ENTJ:

http://www.braintypes.com/espnews2.htm

[Creepy-]

1. Intuitive judging creates a consistent, strategic person that is easy to predict. Whereas Sensory Judging creates an inconsistent tactical person who is difficult to predict and creates constant surprises.

Why? INTj's are probably one of the hardest type to predict. You don't know what they are thinking because it is introverted. This introverted egnima is expressed through extraverted intuition; a function which is pretty much unpredictable.