Bill and Hillary Clinton

[Expat]

This is a real description by a real person about a real couple. It's in a book. I have left out just very few bits which might be too revealing of the couple's identity.

What do you make of it?

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino."

"Her spiritual mysticism -- is an essential characteristic. She doesn't feel all the bumps on the road because she does have a faith -- it's not "Let Go, Let God" because she tries to manipulate the outcome. But I think that she has a piece with herself over the outcome -- that in times of threats that loom in her life, or have loomed and still loom, they are such that if she took all of them very seriously she'd be a wreck. I think that there's a kind of detachment that probably has a spiritual sense".

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways. She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are. But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself. She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

"She's not a creative thinker -- she's not a heavily substantive person. She's not a heavy-duty intellectual. He's much brighter than she is. She's bright, but she's not very bright. She doesn't spend her time like he does worrying about every problem facing the world, and trying to come up with a solution. [ -- ] She has a certain genre of intelligence, which is that of a very effective advocate".

"He's always talking about books that he either just read or something he read in college. And he'll talk about Thomas Aquinas in the conversation. He'll talk about Erasmus. And he'll talk about Paul Kennedy. [ -- ] It will be a melange, a mosaic -- With her, there are never footprints of anything she's read beyond immediate preparation for her work".

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

"In a real sense she is his human face [- - ] She's a real person. I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine. He uses denial of affection as his method of getting people to do what he wants them to do - the ones he's close to - rather than to praise or give affection. It's the strangers he showers everything on -- If he feels that his relationship with you is set, there's nothing to lose -- As he does with her."

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

I think that for socionics it's a treasure mine, and the author (presumably) knows nothing of socionics.

[marooned]

my thought was he's ILI; she's SEE.

[Blaze]

he sounds like an LII. she sounds ESE.

[Expat]

Okay, so one for Alpha, another for Gamma so far.

You both thought they are duals -- any particular reason to go for duality?

[Blaze]

Okay, so one for Alpha, another for Gamma so far.

You both thought they are duals -- any particular reason to go for duality?

well i picked up on a mutual meeting of needs and it seemed to have a caretaking flavor with Fe as the main need the ESE meets for LII. the only part that seemed off was the part about said ESE not having political skills. this is not so much true for either ESE or SEE.

[Expat]

I thought it sounded more like Aggressor-Victim, since it also mentions him needing to shake off her domination. It sounds like she "takes care of him" more in a than way.

[marooned]

You both thought they are duals -- any particular reason to go for duality?

good point. I was zeroing in on her dominance of him and rescuing him... how she bangs her head into the wall... how he appreciates her rescuing him.

but this has all led to a different idea... because when I started reading it about how he's an emotional albino and he can radiate emotions back out... I had been thinking Ti dominance at first (needing Fe).

now I'm wondering about LII-SEE. he appreciates her rescuing of him, but resents her dominance in part.

When I read this paragraph alone

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino."

I was starting to lean into EIE-LSI, but... the proceeding paragraphs proved otherwise.

[Expat]

I was starting to lean into EIE-LSI, but... the proceeding paragraphs proved otherwise.

Why? How does it prove otherwise?

[marooned]

Why? How does it prove otherwise?

I thought he was too good at going around things that are coming to not have strong ... and her tendency to run into the things that are coming head on seemed more (or at least weak ).

-----------------

Hmm... I forgot about this part

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

SEE stereotypically is politically skillful. Perhaps she is ESI.

[Blaze]

now I'm wondering about LII-SEE. he appreciates her rescuing of him, but resents her dominance in part.

SEE wouldn't give off Fe though, and what she gives him seems so clearly Fe.

perhaps she is EIE? still doesn't fully explain the dominance though. but i have seen EIE's act pretty dominant, must be an Se hidden agenda manifesting itself.

[Park]

My overall impression is ENTp-Ti & INFp-Fe.

I could also see ENTp-Ti & ESFp-Fi.

[Expat]

The point that some of you are missing is this -- it's not just Morris's description in isolation. As I pointed out, that was quoted in Carl Bernstein's book A Woman in Charge. Unlike his old Watergate buddy Bob Woodward, Bernstein now preferred to use named, and quoted, sources to write his book. There is nothing really in Morris's description that flatly contradicts what anyone else has said; it's not as if what Morris says is the total opposite of what all other sources have said and I picked precisely it. I chose that description simply because it's the longest one that Bernstein included, among those that are directly quoted and so can be attributed to a single individual.

Nor is Bernstein's book a sort of attack on the Clintons or her in particular; as far as I know no reviewer, of whatever political inclination, has accused him of that.

Of course in order to debate that, you'd have to read the book -- but in the meantime, I'm saying that to dismiss the description because of who the author is, and due to his obvious prejudices, is a mistake.

[tereg]

Here are my thoughts, with parenthetical notes edited in.

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino." ()

"Her spiritual mysticism -- is an essential characteristic. She doesn't feel all the bumps on the road because she does have a faith -- it's not "Let Go, Let God" because she tries to manipulate the outcome. But I think that she has a piece with herself over the outcome -- that in times of threats that loom in her life, or have loomed and still loom, they are such that if she took all of them very seriously she'd be a wreck. I think that there's a kind of detachment that probably has a spiritual sense". (I sense elements here, but also some )

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways. () She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are (I see and here). But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself (devalued , and the need to concretely see the fruition of something tangible - again). She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

"She's not a creative thinker -- she's not a heavily substantive person. She's not a heavy-duty intellectual. He's much brighter than she is. She's bright, but she's not very bright. She doesn't spend her time like he does worrying about every problem facing the world, and trying to come up with a solution. [ -- ] She has a certain genre of intelligence, which is that of a very effective advocate".

"He's always talking about books that he either just read or something he read in college. And he'll talk about Thomas Aquinas in the conversation. He'll talk about Erasmus. And he'll talk about Paul Kennedy. [ -- ] It will be a melange, a mosaic (I wonder how he expresses these things. Is it with a sense of wonder, something just out of reach? Or is it something to provoke conversation with others around him?)-- With her, there are never footprints of anything she's read beyond immediate preparation for her work". (A very present-minded state of mind. What matters is now. I think multiple elements are at play here, with maybe and visible here)

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't." (At this point Gamma sounds pretty good)

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]" ( + I think)

"In a real sense she is his human face [- - ] She's a real person. (i.e. he's pie-in-the-sky/head in the clouds which to a Gamma an Alpha would appear this way, I think.) I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine. He uses denial of affection as his method of getting people to do what he wants them to do (evoking a response by denying emotional response. This sounds like again.) - the ones he's close to - rather than to praise or give affection. It's the strangers he showers everything on -- If he feels that his relationship with you is set, there's nothing to lose -- As he does with her." (This is a different "present" state of mind, but one with being bold with risk and the exhilaration of the unknown, new experience. Taking caution to the wind. Again, multiple elements in play, but this sounds like it's coming from an sort of motivation from him.)

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote (This sounds more like a desire for the liberating spirit he seems to exude. She's more concerned about the present, the here and now, whereas his seemingly freewheeling carefree sort of attitude is elusive, intoxicating and frustrating). And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get." (He's acting out of when he is catalyzed by the movement, she's responding out of , the emotional caring and connection she desires.)

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination (Domination. Is this PoLR how it's being described here? A judgement of emotional content?). Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- " ( running off to the fields.)

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on". (The action and consequence defining the man. A bad thing that happens because it was caused by a bad person. But like any other ephemeral thought, this also too shall pass.)

He's some sort of Alpha and she a Gamma.

I'd probably say the is dominant for him, so ESFj

For her, I suppose INTp or ISFj would fit here. I feel like I need more to distinguish the quadra values better.

[Expat]

He's some sort of Alpha and she a Gamma.

I'd probably say the is dominant for him, so ESFj

For her, I suppose INTp or ISFj would fit here. I feel like I need more to distinguish the quadra values better.

But does it overall sound as bad as conflict? I agree with most of your analysis, by the way, but not all of it.

[tereg]

But does it overall sound as bad as conflict?

I don't think so. As I was reading it, conflict didn't seem to fit right for some reason. So, I wouldn't go as far as saying exact conflictors, but I feel confident enough in saying that they are in opposing quadras.

[marooned]

But it was these parts of it especially that were making me think ILI...

But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

He's so removed... it seems ... so detached... it's not emotional displays that bring him out, but her rescuing of him... ?

It's weird though because they don't seem happy in this description... like something is missing... or wrong...

[Expat]

But it was these parts of it especially that were making me think ILI...

He's so removed... it seems ... so detached... it's not emotional displays that bring him out, but her rescuing of him... ?

I agree with you on the and needing from her. Also, it's not that he needs from her primarily - according to the author (again, this description is how its author sees them, not necessarily "the truth").

It's weird though because they don't seem happy in this description... like something is missing... or wrong...

That's why I wouldn't say duality as first choice.

[marooned]

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

This is a Gamma thing IMO (though EII will not talk to people for months when mad at them either). But I see SEE as being more warm... more outwardly forceful from the beginning... saying they are mad at you flat out (or just being more demonstrative).

I think she's ESI - he's ILI...

he's a logical victim; she's an ethical aggressor (she's dominant, possessive, likes to rescue him because it gives her power)... so they both have to be gamma. I think he's too removed, detached, a little too ish and introverted to be LIE.

[Expat]

he's a logical victim; she's an ethical aggressor (she's dominant, possessive, likes to rescue him because it gives her power)... so they both have to be gamma. I think he's too removed, detached, a little too ish and introverted to be LIE.

Why do you think he's logical? Why not an ethical victim?

@tereg: in my opinion, you spotted a lot of , but in his case, I think it's more important that their interaction seems overal more - .

[Mediator Kam]

For the woman, I definitely saw ISFj.

guy, idk I saw some sort of NT.

[marooned]

I agree with most of your analysis, by the way, but not all of it.

Me too, Tereg. I thought most of it was excellent.

Why do you think he's logical? Why not an ethical victim?

One thing about what Tereg said that I sort of "hitched on" and found odd when reading it the first time as well...

I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine. He uses denial of affection as his method of getting people to do what he wants them to do (evoking a response by denying emotional response. This sounds like again.) - the ones he's close to - rather than to praise or give affection. It's the strangers he showers everything on -- If he feels that his relationship with you is set, there's nothing to lose -- As he does with her."

When I read this I thought he might be anal-retentive in a sort of way. The elusive and withholding part I saw as .

But it was the denying affection to get others to do what he wants them to do part that seemed odd. I had sort of read this in this cold way... because the ILI (being PoLR) tries to erase all sign of emotion from their face...

but to deny affection deliberately... I don't know what that is. Maybe Tereg's right... maybe this is an manipulation.

But to get back to your question, Expat... I would have a hard time seeing him as Beta NF because he is so emotionless... when alone he feels nothing at all. I think I saw him as this person devoid of most feeling, who can reflect others feelings but cannot produce his own.

But it is true that this doesn't necessarily mean he cannot be ethical.

The other part of it that seemed odd was it seemed to say he showers affection on people he doesn't know well! (Not an ILI thing AT ALL). With her, he knows they're set, so he doesn't bother to do this with her, because he doesn't need to secure her. That does seem like a stereotypically IEI thing in a way...

Though as an IEI myself, I don't relate to it... his coldness towards her... deliberately denying affection... showering people he doesn't know with affection (yuck, too difficult).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

What makes the author think he's not capable of love, affection, caring, compassion, and so on? Did he say so, or is the author just not seeing evidence of it? "It's your feeling coming back to you" "When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything" Unless the person in question actually told the author these things, what a crappy thing to say about a person! All this says is that the person in question gives the appearance of not having emotion of their own and only reflecting others' emotions. INFp comes to mind, as I could imagine them giving this kind of impression.

Well, sure, but that's already significant.

The author misspelled "peace" as "piece" I assume?

No, I did. I only have the book as a hard copy, so I transcribed the thing manually.

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways. She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are. But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself. She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

Man I don't like the author. That's one thing I can say for sure. The author is Ne valuing, and Fe valuing I believe - alpha. The characters however, hmm. Anyway, I think what he/she is noticing is Ne, present in him, not so much in her. Doesn't mean he's Ne, as he could also be Ni.

I think you're right there, so it makes LSI unlikely for the author, then. I agree that it reads like something from the PoV of ie -biased.

What an arrogant and ignorant bastard. You're going to question someone's intelligence and call them non-substantive because they don't worry about every problem facing the world? I think the author is saying much more about what he/she values than really telling us much about the couple. The author sounds alpha, and neither of the couple is alpha imo. The author values his brand of intelligence which is of the bookish, ruminative variety, an "intellectual" . I think he's INxp - Ni. Not sure about her.

Well sure it says something about the author, but, indirectly, also something about her.

How well does the author know them? He/she seems somewhat enamored with the guy's intelligence, and put off by his supposed lack of emotion. I think the author is INTj, expecting the warmth of an ESFj from others, but impressed by the guy's intelligence. He seems to readily discount her.

Well, remember that, overall, he seems to see her as having more character than he. He said that she's the one who's "a real person".

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

Fi quadra from the POV of Fe quadra person. The way he sees her suggests IxFj as seen from alpha eyes.

You saw that from that paragraph, or together with the rest so far?

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

How much is true, and how much of this is imagined? I have been described in precisely this way by alphas before.

Well that's also significant.

Okay, is he actually doing this on purpose, or is that how it appears? Is he just withdrawing in the INxp way when upset, or is he actually denying affection? If he can't show compassion, love etc supposedly anyway then how much can he really be denying? But showering praise and affection on strangers sure doesn't sound INTp, but could be how a person saw an INFp. Though it's not quite reality, they could be viewed in such a way.

Yes, but perhaps not only INFps.

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

My guess is that it's an INFp-ISFj relationship as viewed by an INTj.

So I guess that you had no problem in identifying with her (of course, taking his biases in consideration)?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

lmao. i was wondering if anyone thought this guy sounded awfully presumptious/snobbish. glad that diana posted. anyhow i think the author sounds rather Ti, perhaps she's IXFj as diana has suggested. i'm not sure where INTp for the husband is coming from.

Yeah now I'm thinking that ILE or LII is more likely for the author than LSI.

[Expat]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy --

I don't think that he's in any way addicted to her. I think that he uses her to help enable him. To do good things and bad things, but to enable him. He sees the world in very functional terms. In regard to affection and relationships and conversation, and rewards, punishments and coldness and warmth and praise and thanks and blame and yelling and all those things, these are tools he uses to get people to do what he wants them to do. And his goal is to get everybody to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he draws a lot of distinction among people -- Some people he just feels are more important to him than others. It's a largely functional relationship: I've always said it's a shorthand that she loves [him] and [he] loves [himself], so they have something in common".

Not playing games I really just found, and transcribed, this extra bit.

[Expat]

By the way, of course the author is not impartial, for socionics and personal dislike reasons. But I think that even through his "filter" we can say something about the types of the couple. I mean, he wouldn't want to paint a picture that's unrecognizable. So it may be a caricature, and if it's hostile, their "true" characters can be glimpsed by assuming that he's exaggerating - but not inventing - their negative traits, and that the traits that he sees as positive, are almost certainly visible to everyone.

[Park]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy -- ...

Sounds like a manipulative fuck.

[Expat]

What about this:

The woman: ESI.
The man: EIE

The author: perhaps ILE makes the most sense. What he sees as greatest "weaknesses" in her are related to and preferring over it; he doesn't seem to really dislike her as be bewildered by her. The man being his beneficiary might make sense, and it would explain how he got close to them, but later broke bitterly with them both. It would also be consistent with Diana's immediate dislike to what he wrote.

I think EIE-ESI for them, and ILE for him, based on the information we have so far, would make sense because:

- they do seem to have the Se-Ni thing going on, Aggressor-Victim
- the problems they do have seem to be on the Fi-Fe connection
- the author values Fe but at the same time seems to think that the guy's Fe is "overblown" - it's a common reaction to those who have our HA as base function
- the man's image of trying to control everyone suggests more EJ than IP.

What do you think?

[marooned]

I don't think that he's in any way addicted to her. I think that he uses her to help enable him. To do good things and bad things, but to enable him. He sees the world in very functional terms. In regard to affection and relationships and conversation, and rewards, punishments and coldness and warmth and praise and thanks and blame and yelling and all those things, these are tools he uses to get people to do what he wants them to do. And his goal is to get everybody to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he draws a lot of distinction among people -- Some people he just feels are more important to him than others. It's a largely functional relationship: I've always said it's a shorthand that she loves [him] and [he] loves [himself], so they have something in common".

I can't figure out if the husband is really this way... or if this is some valuing interpretation of Beta NF... or what... Actually this seems like dislike of on the author's part. Except... I dislike this as well. Um, anyway.

[Blaze]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy --

Not playing games I really just found, and transcribed, this extra bit.

couldn't that be said of an EIE? an SLE? an ILE? an LII? in short, practically anybody?

this is starting to feel like a parlour game of tarot cards or something....

[Expat]

couldn't that be said of an EIE? an SLE? an ILE? an LII? in short, practically anybody?

Well, would that be typically said about EIIs or SLIs? Or ILIs? I disagree that even LIIs would come across like that, unless the author is painting a totally unrecognizable picture.

[Joy]

In summary, he sounds EIE or ILE. She sounds like an unhappy person, probably Te dominant. (fwiw, in the not all that distant past I was very much like the author's description of her.)

[Logos]

Yeah now I'm thinking that ILE or LII is more likely for the author than LSI.

I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness of , but with it being somewhat undervalued plus valued . This also rightly puts the author at odds with the man in terms of their valued means of information processing, and makes the author more sympathetic to the female, while being critical of the female's use of and lack of .

[Expat]

I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness of , but with it being somewhat undervalued plus valued . This also rightly puts the author at odds with the man in terms of their valued means of information processing, and makes the author more sympathetic to the female, while being critical of the female's use of and lack of .

Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing with her, while at the same time "criticising" her for the low . Despite what he says about her, overall it seems to me that he's more sympathetic to her than to him.

[Park]

Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing with her, while at the same time "criticising" her for the low . Despite what he says about her, overall it seems to me that he's more sympathetic to her than to him.

I am amazed how you didn't see (realize) this before.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

I haven't read any of this topic yet. I'll offer my impressions of this passage as I go along.

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino."

This could be a description of a Fe valuing type written by a Fi/Te valuing type.

"Her spiritual mysticism -- is an essential characteristic. She doesn't feel all the bumps on the road because she does have a faith -- it's not "Let Go, Let God" because she tries to manipulate the outcome. But I think that she has a piece with herself over the outcome -- that in times of threats that loom in her life, or have loomed and still loom, they are such that if she took all of them very seriously she'd be a wreck. I think that there's a kind of detachment that probably has a spiritual sense".

If she truly had the type of peace it sounds like he's describing she wouldn't continue to find herself in situations that are as bad as the author is making them sound.

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways.

Ne?

She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are. But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself. She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

This could be a negative manifestation of the EJ temperament. Also, this description of her makes it clear that she's not as spiritually in tune as perhaps she portrays. This is the reason she does not realize creative solutions.

"She's not a creative thinker -- she's not a heavily substantive person. She's not a heavy-duty intellectual. He's much brighter than she is. She's bright, but she's not very bright. She doesn't spend her time like he does worrying about every problem facing the world, and trying to come up with a solution. [ -- ] She has a certain genre of intelligence, which is that of a very effective advocate".

For her, this could suggest Te dominance. For him... Ti valuing perhaps. But this makes the author sound more Ti/Fe valuing than (s)he did in the first paragraph.

"He's always talking about books that he either just read or something he read in college. And he'll talk about Thomas Aquinas in the conversation. He'll talk about Erasmus. And he'll talk about Paul Kennedy. [ -- ] It will be a melange, a mosaic --

This could be a number of things. Ne dominance comes to mind though for some reason.

With her, there are never footprints of anything she's read beyond immediate preparation for her work".

Te > Ti

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

This just sounds like an unhappy person.

"In a real sense she is his human face [- - ] She's a real person. I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine. He uses denial of affection as his method of getting people to do what he wants them to do - the ones he's close to - rather than to praise or give affection. It's the strangers he showers everything on -- If he feels that his relationship with you is set, there's nothing to lose -- As he does with her."

I've witnessed this in EIE's.

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

[marooned]

What about this:

The woman: ESI.
The man: EIE

I think this works. ESI for her seems really clear to me. I saw him more as IEI, because I got this removed, detached, cold feel to him... BUT his showering others with affection (presenting a public face?) and the author describing him as "anal-retentive" (which I was having difficulty figuring out which type would perceive IEI as anal-retentive) would make sense with EIE. Anyway, I don't really care which Beta NF.

I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness of , but with it being somewhat undervalued plus valued . This also rightly puts the author at odds with the man in terms of their valued means of information processing, and makes the author more sympathetic to the female, while being critical of the female's use of and lack of .

Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing with her, while at the same time "criticising" her for the low . Despite what he says about her, overall it seems to me that he's more sympathetic to her than to him.

Diana's post was awesome.

I still am not convinced of any type for the author.

I saw the author's description of her not being as intelligent as failing to recognize her intelligence (although she simply could be "less intelligent" and it's not type-related). The author sees intelligence as being creative and being able to arrange the world in new ways and being intellectual and jumping over things coming up or going around them (in essence, s/he sees intuition and intellectualism as intelligence -- for instance the husband could read tons of books and fail to really get them but if he mentioned them all the time the author might think it a sign of his intellectualism and intelligence).

Her intelligence is more of the practical kind and the author doesn't seem to recognize this. For one, she doesn't feel the need to flaunt an intellectual air. She reads what she needs to know and uses it for an end. The realm of practical intelligence is complex and advanced, but I don't think the author is looking far enough.

I can see the arguments for the author valuing here. I can see it as, her is weak therefore although she is bright, she is not "very bright." I can see it as observing that although the husband doesn't value , he can easily use it.

But I did get the feeling that the author is much more sympathetic to her than to him. I almost detected a protective feeling towards her. She is a "real person" and she "adores him" and if she were to leave him... The author cares about her and what happens to her. The author seems to see her as trapped with him when he cannot love her because she is addicted to him and because she loves him.

I didn't see the author as really having a problem with her . I think the author wanted her to be free... or sees her as magnificent.

I have difficulty seeing the author as Alpha because although I can see the case for valuing, and valuing... then why is he so sympathetic to her?

I have difficulty seeing the author as Beta because he so clearly doesn't seem to fully understand the husband. (Maybe there is more here that I am missing - well obviously there is much more, that we will never know).

I have difficulty seeing the author as Delta NF because I don't see the author as perceptive enough about what's going on... I could see the argument that the author sympathizes with her more because they share ... but for some reason, I think that the author would understand the husband better if s/he were Delta NF. Unless the husband truly is as cold and heartless as the author describes.

I can't see the author as Gamma because he doesn't understand the wife well enough... for some reason I get the feeling that the author came to understand the wife through much time and observation... but still the author describes her as a sort of foreign exotic entity.

Anyway, if there are sides, I see the author on the wife's side... to protect her from the husband.

[discojoe]

I remember watching Morris's videos and feeling like he gave off the aura of an ENFp, but also feeling like the advice he gave was too Beta . But I guess that's the job of a political adviser.