On the EIE dominance of US presidential primaries since 1972

[lefty]

And you think THAT's the basis for my typing? Ridiculous.

If you want to know how I go about typing celebrities, take a look at the articles I've written (also on Reagan) in the wiki. I'm obviously not always right, but I don't type in such a frivolous way. I posted pictures because that makes such threads more interesting, and yes, they add VI information; but they are not the "evidence" for my typing.

i dont have to look at your articles im an intuitive myself.


i have to say, though, that i do appreciate a forum in which to debate this kind of thing...i'm just giving you my 2 cents, btw, and i just disagree with you.

Oh and I may be typing frivolously, in your opinion, but I have to say I feel like I'm perfecting it in real life.

Peace,

[munenori2]

i dont have to look at your articles im an intuitive myself.

lol, that's some intuition if you can read his mind AND know he's wrong without even looking.

[Park]

Screw the Olympics!

[Expat]

lol, that's some intuition if you can read his mind AND know he's wrong without even looking.

"As you can see, my Jedi powers are far beyond yours" - Count Doku in Episode I

That's why I wonder, sometimes, if I am not indeed a LSE -- such intuition is beyond my grasp.

[Wittmont]

I doubt all of those guys are the same type. I have a really hard time to see Carter and George W Bush as the same type for example. Carter is highly empathic for one thing, and he paid a high price for that politically. Remember his 'Malaise" speech? Carter got so much stick for that from his political enemies both Democratic and Republican. The Republicans used that as a tool to get Reagan elected and again Reagan and Carter are very contrasting characters.

George W Bush is definitely not empathic. His complete inability to empathise is one of his key characteristics. Bush is goofy whereas Carter is always sober. And so on.

[Expat]

Which is exactly why I think it's a mistake to type people by benchmarking.

[Wittmont]

Which is exactly why I think it's a mistake to type people by benchmarking.

Hmm, Model A was developed to described observed behaviour was it not? Not the other way round.

People do not fall into a certain Model A type because that is their predetermined type, but are a certain Model A type because their behaviour is best explained by a certain Model A definition, correct?

It makes no sense to me if a person is a typed as a certain Model A type but nothing in his behavior really matches the observed behaviour that is the foundation behind the creation of that type of character.

[Expat]

Yes, but it is necessary to see how those behavior traits relate to functions.

I see Carter's reference to "malaise", and appearing on tv wearing warm clothes indoors to "motivate" people to save energy, etc, as much a manifestation of Fe focus as Obama's "yes you can" thing.

Likewise, there is not such a thing as a "goofy type" or a "sober type". Different types will be one, or the other, for different reasons.

[xyz]

i dont have to look at your articles im an intuitive myself.

bahahaha

Who needs this "reading", amirite?