Some celebrities I've typed

[Rick]

I know you can discuss forever the types of historical figures, but these three seem especially absurd to me:

- Caesar: SEE
- Nero: EIE
- Richard Nixon: ESI

Actually, Caesar's type is pretty widely accepted among socionists and was given by 16 of 35 socionists in the survey. The original pseudonym for SEE was "Napoleon," but further studies by socionists showed Napoleon to almost certainly be a SLE. Hence, the official pseudonym was switched to "Caesar," which people didn't have a problem with. Also, I independently typed Nixon at one point, not knowing that others had studied him, and also concluded that he was probably ESI.

What's going on here is that people who are geographically and informationally cut off from each other develop different focuses in typing. If people's views about types have been heavily influenced by Meyers-Briggs typology, conclusions will often or usually differ from those most authoritative among Russian/Ukrainian socionists.

[Rick]

Only one fourth knew enough about Alexander the Great to type him. No one was pulling names out of a hat.

Only one fourth thought they knew enough about AtG to type him, and it seems to me that some of them were pulling names out of -- somewhere.

I don't doubt their knowledge of socionics, but of history.

By the way, in the particular case of Alexander I think they may be right, but I agree with Rocky.

It is safe to assume that each type version in this list represents an average of several hours of study and reflection on the part of each socionist who typed the person. We're talking about the most widely recognized and conscientious socionists. Most if not all of them have taken up the study of historical figures and modern celebrities as a serious hobby. Many papers are published on the types of famous people in socionics journals, and this is a common topic of discussion among socionists.

[Expat]

It is safe to assume that each type version in this list represents an average of several hours of study and reflection on the part of each socionist who typed the person. We're talking about the most widely recognized and conscientious socionists. Most if not all of them have taken up the study of historical figures and modern celebrities as a serious hobby. Many papers are published on the types of famous people in socionics journals, and this is a common topic of discussion among socionists.

Would you have a link to any article typing Nixon as ISFj - even in Russian? That should be interesting. Or Nero as ENFj?

History - of some specific periods - has been a serious hobby for me for many years. Among the other historical figures I know well, I can see a case for their typings, but not for Nixon or Nero.

It would be presumptious of me to dismiss their typings of people they know IRL. What I'm disputing is not their knowledge of socionics, but of history.

I really can't see how anyone who knows anything about Nixon's life and career - before he became president - could even think of typing him as ISFj.

In fact, should you only have a hard copy of a paper on Nixon's type as ISFj, I'd be extremely grateful if you could scan it and e-mail it to me. I'd even pay to have it translated professionally. If it's correct, either I know zero - as in nothing at all - about typing, or about Nixon's life.

[Expat]

Also, I independently typed Nixon at one point, not knowing that others had studied him, and also concluded that he was probably ESI.
.

Sorry, I had missed that bit earlier. Could you sum up your reasons for this typing?

[Rick]

It is safe to assume that each type version in this list represents an average of several hours of study and reflection on the part of each socionist who typed the person. We're talking about the most widely recognized and conscientious socionists. Most if not all of them have taken up the study of historical figures and modern celebrities as a serious hobby. Many papers are published on the types of famous people in socionics journals, and this is a common topic of discussion among socionists.

Would you have a link to any article typing Nixon as ISFj - even in Russian? That should be interesting. Or Nero as ENFj?

History - of some specific periods - has been a serious hobby for me for many years. Among the other historical figures I know well, I can see a case for their typings, but not for Nixon or Nero.

It would be presumptious of me to dismiss their typings of people they know IRL. What I'm disputing is not their knowledge of socionics, but of history.

I really can't see how anyone who knows anything about Nixon's life and career - before he became president - could even think of typing him as ISFj.

In fact, should you only have a hard copy of a paper on Nixon's type as ISFj, I'd be extremely grateful if you could scan it and e-mail it to me. I'd even pay to have it translated professionally. If it's correct, either I know zero - as in nothing at all - about typing, or about Nixon's life.

Here's a list I've gathered with Lytov's help of papers published about people in this list:

Niels Bohr (ILE) and Albert Einstein (ILE) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/bohrein.html
Anton Chekhov (LII) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2003-18/chekhov.html
Immanuel Kant (LII) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2003-3/kant.html
Joseph Stalin (LSI) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/celebr/stalin-antosh.html
Sergey Korolyov (SLE) - http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/t/chyky195.html
Julius Caesar (SEE) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2004-7/caesar.html
Mikhail Gorbachev (SEE) and Eduard Shevardnadze (ILI) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/gorbachev.html
Bill Gates (LIE) - http://www.socion.ru/pages/macup.html
Lev Landau (LIE) - http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2...al/landau.html

These are all in Russian, obviously. What's the best online translator?

[Rick]

Also, I independently typed Nixon at one point, not knowing that others had studied him, and also concluded that he was probably ESI.
.

Sorry, I had missed that bit earlier. Could you sum up your reasons for this typing?

Yeah, but let me get back to you this evening.

[Rick]

These are all in Russian, obviously. What's the best online translator?

Just figured it out!
In 2 minutes I will have links to translations of all these papers on the "benchmark" page.

[Expat]

Thank you!

I've read the one on Napoleon and Caesar. It makes a much better case for Napoleon as SLE than for Caesar as SEE - understandably, since the historical record is vastly larger for Napoleon. The main purpose of the paper is to justify the re-typing of Napoleon as SLE, rather than examine Caesar in detail.

I honestly don't think the arguments for Caesar are very convincing. For instance, it mentions Caesar's "calculated" "conscious policy of mercy" in the discussion of Napoleon's , who only used intimidation - which for me is precisely the point. Caesar's "policy of mercy" was indeed calculated, nothing to do with but with and perhaps even , since he himself had been persecuted under Sulla's dictatorship.

But anyway, I did not insist on Caesar very much because the record is scarce. The best source to type him as a person probably are Cicero's letters, who knew him personally. One day I'll try to do it . I'm much more interested in the case for Nixon as ESI.

[Rick]

Thank you!

I've read the one on Napoleon and Caesar. It makes a much better case for Napoleon as SLE than for Caesar as SEE - understandably, since the historical record is immensively larger for Napoleon. The main purpose of the paper is to justify the re-typing of Napoleon as SLE, rather than examine Caesar in detail.

I honestly don't think the arguments for Caesar are very convincing. For instance, it mentions Caesar's "calculated" "conscious policy of mercy" in the discussion of Napoleon's , who only used intimidation - which for me is precisely the point. Caesar's "policy of mercy" was indeed calculated, nothing to do with but with and perhaps even , since he himself had been persecuted under Sulla's dictatorship.

But anyway, I did not insist on Caesar very much because the record is scarce. The best source to type him as a person probably are Cicero's letters, who knew him personally. One day I'll try to do it . I'm much more interested in the case for Nixon as ESI.

If you're really into history and are up to the task, you ought to consider writing a paper with a different viewpoint on Caesar's type from a stronger historical perspective. I think many socionists over here would be delighted to see a paper submitted from western colleagues, and if the paper is good, you might be able to find someone who would translate it for free.

I'll do a separate post on Nixon below.

[Rocky]

Alexander the Great an SLE?

HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?

The current information on Alexander the Great that we have today is *highley* suspect to begin with. Most historians don't agree on some of the more basic information about him. It has gotten to the point of turning him into more of a "symbol" as opposed to an actual person. Trying to type him would be like trying to type the Batman character from different Batman movies played by different actors. Actually, it's probably worse. I think it is rather childish to even claim you know Alexander the Great's type at this point. Unless you are pulling names out of a hat. Which maybe what they are doing.

There are other ones I disagree with of course (Shakespeare was by no means an Extravert), but that ones just popped out it me as rather ridiculus and cause for not taking them seriously.

This project took into consideration only types that socionists felt they were sure of and had investigated personally. I'm just passing this information along. Read the heading carefully. You'll see that less than half felt they could type Shakespeare, while the rest declined. Only one fourth knew enough about Alexander the Great to type him. No one was pulling names out of a hat.

Basically, my point is that there are no reliable resources on Alexander the Great, so the socionists who "claimed" to know him well enough to put a typing on him obviously couldn't. In this case, the only explaination is that they mearly "guessed" at his type. You know what? If I were to guess Alexander the Great's type based on the *legend*, I might say SLE as well. But it's only a legend. His actually personality and personal life are not known, thearby leaving holes. For example, some historians even disagree on the legendary stories about him, none the less what he was actually like as a person. Some will tell you that he cut the knot, some will say that he untied it, while others will even atest that the incident never occured. With this kind of shaky information on Alexander the Great, it is impossible to claim his actual type. So I won't.

As for some other names, I will say that I do agree with LII for Thomas Jefferson and ILE for Freud.

I agree with Expat that Julius Ceasar was LIE, not SEE.

Napolean Bonaparte was SLI.

[Rick]

Basically, my point is that there are no reliable resources on Alexander the Great, so the socionists who "claimed" to know him well enough to put a typing on him obviously couldn't. In this case, the only explaination is that they mearly "guessed" at his type. You know what? If I were to guess Alexander the Great's type based on the *legend*, I might say SLE as well. But it's only a legend. His actually personality and personal life are not known, thearby leaving holes. For example, some historians even disagree on the legendary stories about him, none the less what he was actually like as a person. Some will tell you that he cut the knot, some will say that he untied it, while others will even atest that the incident never occured. With this kind of shaky information on Alexander the Great, it is impossible to claim his actual type. So I won't.

Legends notwithstanding, there are quite a few historical facts available about the life of Alexander the Great -- or at least about his military conquests. Some people might feel comfortable giving him a type based on these facts and what they think is implied by them.

Believe me, this is not the worst it gets. People type characters from novels that aren't even real people. It is also questionable whether attempts to type people in forums like this without personal contact are any less speculative in nature.

[Rick]

Napolean Bonaparte was SLI.

That's an interesting version. What do you base it on?

[Rocky]

Napolean Bonaparte was SLI.

That's an interesting version. What do you base it on?

I typed up a short post before on him...

I used to think that about Napoleon as well. That is, until I started to read more about him. This is part of the reason why I don't like "typing" people anymore until I know enough about them.

Let's start with Napoleon at his worst. His temper. I think I'm only being honest when I say that ISTPs have some of the worst tempers. It's a combination of a reactionary Te function, with a repressed Se. And Napoeleon's temper was apparently not "learned"; he had it all his life. When he was a kid, he was hot-tempered, and would often wrestle or fight his older brother. When he got the equivilant of what we would call a "girlfriend" now, his schoolmates would tease him about it, and he would chase them down and fight them! Sounds like the kind of teasing types with a poor Fe aren't good at taking. I don't know many ESTPs who are like this. This kind of behaviour continued throughout his life. When he was older, it wsa said that his fists often got in the way (striking people of both sexes). Again, ESTPs are rarely reactionary or overly aggressive. Napoleon was very "defensive", which is more Introverted.

There were other things, such as he was known to feel great and strong one day, then slip into depression the next. He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton. Also, he was said to have more routines or superstitions. Falling into routines is more of an Introverted trait, again. When young, Napoleon would also follow his father to taverns, because he had a gambling addiction. Then Napoleon would watch and record what his father did.

One other thing is that he had a love of history and would often read books about past leaders. I know this one is just a stereotype, but ISTPs are more interested in reading about that kind of stuff, whereas ESTPs have little patience for it.

Some quotes by him...

“If I always appear prepared, it is because before entering an undertaking, I have meditated long and have foreseen what might occur. It is not genius where reveals to me suddenly and secretly what I should do in circumstances unexpected by others; it is thought and preparation.”

“The best cure for the body is a quiet mind.”

~ Napoleon

In Frank McLynn's book "Napoleon", he said that "His obsession with his family, and his conviction that every man has his price, reveal Napoleon as closer to a modern Mafia godfather than a visonary European."

I'm lazy now, but maybe in the future I will type up a solid argument for him.

[Expat]

If you're really into history and are up to the task, you ought to consider writing a paper with a different viewpoint on Caesar's type from a stronger historical perspective. I think many socionists over here would be delighted to see a paper submitted from western colleagues, and if the paper is good, you might be able to find someone who would translate it for free.
.

Thanks. I'll see what I can put together.

The mistake, I think, is to put an SEE spin in Caesar's actions as a public figure and politician -- that does not help much in typing him as an individual, especially when there are contemporary or near-contemporary reports of him as a person. Of course, for Napoleon there should be no difficulty on that whatsoever.

[Rick]

I'm much more interested in the case for Nixon as ESI.

Okay, I can only speak for myself. I have no idea of the reasons that other people typed him as such. Also, I am not absolutely certain of my own version, since I don't feel like I've studied Nixon closely enough to, say, post him on my site in my celebrity photos section. Basically, some time last year I gathered a collection of U.S. presidents' photos and studied them carefully. It seemed to me that Nixon was most likely an ESI, and the little bit I read about him didn't seem to contradict the picture of him I had created. So, what do I see in him?

My impression of Nixon from his photos alone is that he is a rather closed and controlling individual (there's a bit of typocentrism in my perception of ESI's, by the way). A good example of the way Nixon comes across is http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECT...13.lowres.jpeg, where he has a smug, closed-mouth smile and a slanty gaze. If this were one photo, it wouldn't mean anything, but this is a pattern. He comes across as feisty, even bitchy, but not visionary or outwardly dynamic. To me he comes across as smug, self-centered, insecure, and suspicious or judgmental of others. These sound like negative traits, but they aren't necessarily; it's just how I perceive people like him from my own type. In addition, he reminds me very much of someone I know who is ESI, but as discussion material that's useless here.

I am curious about other people's impressions of Nixon based on reviewing his photos. Are they similar to mine at all?

But enough about the pictures. At Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) we read about Nixon's image:

He was often portrayed as a sullen loner, with unshaven jowls, slumped shoulders, and a furrowed, sweaty brow. He was also characterized as the very epitome of a "square" and the personification of unpleasant adult authority. Nixon tried to shed these perceptions by staging photo-ops with young people, and even cameo appearances on popular TV shows such as Laugh-In and Hee Haw (before he was president). He also frequently brandished the two-finger V sign (alternately viewed as the "Victory sign" or "peace sign") using both hands, an act which became one of his best-known trademarks. Once the transcripts of the White House tapes were released, people were shocked at the amount of swearing and vicious comments about opponents that Nixon issued. This did not help the public perception, and fed the comedians even more. Nixon's sense of being persecuted by his "enemies," his grandiose belief in his own moral and political excellence, and his commitment to utilize ruthless power at all costs led some experts to describe him as having a narcissistic and paranoid personality.[4] During the Watergate Scandal, Nixon's approval rating had fallen to 25%.

This leads me to believe that my photo-based observations are not far from the truth. This same article gives many examples of Nixon's comments about people. Some, such as his comments about Indira Ghandi, have become historical anecdotes. The ESI's I know seem to have no qualms about dividing people up into "bad" and "good" people based on their perceived moral qualities. People tend to be flippant in their judgments based on their leading functions and not give a damn what others think. I would argue that Nixon's infamous comments about people are based on -- his perception of their moral qualities. If he felt people were scumbags, he said it very harshly -- behind their backs, of course. Nixon was anything but an out-in-the-open politician. He had a distorted view of who his "enemies" were and preferred to engage in behind-the-scenes subversion and control rather than resolve differences and competition in a public setting as extraverts tend to do.

Well, those are my reasons.

[Gilly]

These sound like negative traits, but they aren't necessarily; it's just how I perceive people like him from my own type.

It doesn't hurt that you have -Ne :wink:

[Smilingeyes]

What with the dual thing and all, I've pondered Nixon's case many times myself. I understand and agree with the case that Rick's made. Yet somehow it's also always made me feel uneasy. It might just be an emotional reaction one has about one's duals and how in this case Nixon is a person who has a rather ... strong reputation.

Is there something specific in Nixon's career that makes you doubt ISFj, Expat?

[Rick]

Rocky wrote:

I used to think that about Napoleon as well. That is, until I started to read more about him. This is part of the reason why I don't like "typing" people anymore until I know enough about them.

Let's start with Napoleon at his worst. His temper. I think I'm only being honest when I say that ISTPs have some of the worst tempers. It's a combination of a reactionary Te function, with a repressed Se. And Napoeleon's temper was apparently not "learned"; he had it all his life. When he was a kid, he was hot-tempered, and would often wrestle or fight his older brother. When he got the equivilant of what we would call a "girlfriend" now, his schoolmates would tease him about it, and he would chase them down and fight them! Sounds like the kind of teasing types with a poor Fe aren't good at taking. I don't know many ESTPs who are like this. This kind of behaviour continued throughout his life. When he was older, it wsa said that his fists often got in the way (striking people of both sexes). Again, ESTPs are rarely reactionary or overly aggressive. Napoleon was very "defensive", which is more Introverted.

There were other things, such as he was known to feel great and strong one day, then slip into depression the next. He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton. Also, he was said to have more routines or superstitions. Falling into routines is more of an Introverted trait, again. When young, Napoleon would also follow his father to taverns, because he had a gambling addiction. Then Napoleon would watch and record what his father did.

One other thing is that he had a love of history and would often read books about past leaders. I know this one is just a stereotype, but ISTPs are more interested in reading about that kind of stuff, whereas ESTPs have little patience for it.

I have a somewhat different picture of SLI's. I don't know a single one with a bad temper. I know quite a few bad-tempered LSE's and quite a few stubborn SLI's, but all the SLI's I know are peace-loving and quite tender inside. A friend's dad who was a "confirmed" SLI beat him in his childhood, but I never met this person. The SLI's I know (around 20 or more) avoid verbal conflict and heated situations and at their worst can be very critical of the way people do things, but never would physically threaten anyone. In contrast, most or even all of the SLE's I have known routinely use direct and indirect physical threats as a form of "humor" -- even college professors who like to joke that there will be "casualties" during the upcoming exam. Some SLE's make it seem like they will go all the way in punishing those who break their "rules," and you wonder if they have any internal barriers, or if they are just joking. A standard socionics anecdote is that this type doesn't wait for his opponent to strike, but strikes first when the other isn't yet expecting it.

...with a repressed Se.

The 7th function can hardly be called repressed. If anything it is strong, but given little significance.

He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton.

The types that are most commonly recognized as paranoid are LSI and ESI, both with as their vulnerable, not their suggestive function. I think that as a 5th function, on the contrary, would make someone positively receptive to displays of unexpected originality, which is, in fact, what we observe in SLI's and SEI's. LSI's and ESI's, in contrast, are suspicious of such people, who seem unpardonably "extreme" and "irrational."

Also, he was said to have more routines or superstitions.

SLE's and SEE's seem suggestive to superstitions, which are, in essence, suggestions about what *might* happen in the future due to some inexplicable cosmic forces.

[Rick]

Smilingeyes said:

What with the dual thing and all, I've pondered Nixon's case many times myself. I understand and agree with the case that Rick's made. Yet somehow it's also always made me feel uneasy. It might just be an emotional reaction one has about one's duals and how in this case Nixon is a person who has a rather ... strong reputation.

Probably. I think feelings like this often arise when you have both an internal draw to a person and repulsion because of their bad reputation. It's like you can't make up your mind about the person. Many older-generation Germans had a similar attitude towards ****** (I don't mean to compare Nixon to ******).

[Expat]

Is there something specific in Nixon's career that makes you doubt ISFj, Expat?

Of course, lots.

No offense, but I think Rick's analysis was rather superficial. I'm not American, but recent American history is one of my interests, and I've read lots of books on that period and on Nixon in particular.

As I already mentioned, he was in the Pacific during WWII. There he played a lot of poker, accumulating a total of US$10,000 - quite a hefty sum in those days. When he came back to his wife, Pat, he was approached by the local Republican Party to be their candidate for Congress against Jerry Voorhis - a veteran politician who had mainly ran unopposed. A newcomer like Nixon was allowed the chance to run against Voorhis because more seasoned Republicans saw no chance to beat him - if Nixon would invest his savings of $10,000 in his own campaign.

Among other things, he felt he had a chance because he had always been a top debater in college. And, of course, he won.

Please tell me how "ISFj" it is for a guy to invest all his savings (he didn't have anything else) in a bid for Congress most other politicians saw as hopeless, because he trusted his own debating skills.

This is one specific reason among many others.

[Smilingeyes]

Smilingeyes said:

What ... strong reputation.

Probably. I think feelings like this often arise when you have both an internal draw to a person and repulsion because of their bad reputation. It's like you can't make up your mind about the person. Many older-generation Germans had a similar attitude towards ****** (I don't mean to compare Nixon to ******).

Ah, you see what I mean, good

[Rocky]

Rocky wrote:

I used to think that about Napoleon as well. That is, until I started to read more about him. This is part of the reason why I don't like "typing" people anymore until I know enough about them.

Let's start with Napoleon at his worst. His temper. I think I'm only being honest when I say that ISTPs have some of the worst tempers. It's a combination of a reactionary Te function, with a repressed Se. And Napoeleon's temper was apparently not "learned"; he had it all his life. When he was a kid, he was hot-tempered, and would often wrestle or fight his older brother. When he got the equivilant of what we would call a "girlfriend" now, his schoolmates would tease him about it, and he would chase them down and fight them! Sounds like the kind of teasing types with a poor Fe aren't good at taking. I don't know many ESTPs who are like this. This kind of behaviour continued throughout his life. When he was older, it wsa said that his fists often got in the way (striking people of both sexes). Again, ESTPs are rarely reactionary or overly aggressive. Napoleon was very "defensive", which is more Introverted.

There were other things, such as he was known to feel great and strong one day, then slip into depression the next. He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton. Also, he was said to have more routines or superstitions. Falling into routines is more of an Introverted trait, again. When young, Napoleon would also follow his father to taverns, because he had a gambling addiction. Then Napoleon would watch and record what his father did.

One other thing is that he had a love of history and would often read books about past leaders. I know this one is just a stereotype, but ISTPs are more interested in reading about that kind of stuff, whereas ESTPs have little patience for it.

I have a somewhat different picture of SLI's. I don't know a single one with a bad temper. I know quite a few bad-tempered LSE's and quite a few stubborn SLI's, but all the SLI's I know are peace-loving and quite tender inside. A friend's dad who was a "confirmed" SLI beat him in his childhood, but I never met this person. The SLI's I know (around 20 or more) avoid verbal conflict and heated situations and at their worst can be very critical of the way people do things, but never would physically threaten anyone. In contrast, most or even all of the SLE's I have known routinely use direct and indirect physical threats as a form of "humor" -- even college professors who like to joke that there will be "casualties" during the upcoming exam. Some SLE's make it seem like they will go all the way in punishing those who break their "rules," and you wonder if they have any internal barriers, or if they are just joking. A standard socionics anecdote is that this type doesn't wait for his opponent to strike, but strikes first when the other isn't yet expecting it.

*laughs*

Sorry, but I will cover this in more detail later.

...with a repressed Se.

The 7th function can hardly be called repressed. If anything it is strong, but given little significance.

This too I will explain, hold on.

He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton.

The types that are most commonly recognized as paranoid are LSI and ESI, both with as their vulnerable, not their suggestive function. I think that as a 5th function, on the contrary, would make someone positively receptive to displays of unexpected originality, which is, in fact, what we observe in SLI's and SEI's. LSI's and ESI's, in contrast, are suspicious of such people, who seem unpardonably "extreme" and "irrational."

That would be contradicting to what Jung said.

[Smilingeyes]

No offense, but I think Rick's analysis was rather superficial.

This I agree on and Rick probably as well.

As I already mentioned, he was in the Pacific during WWII. There he played a lot of poker, accumulating a total of US$10,000 - quite a hefty sum in those days.

Hmm, it's an interesting coincidence that this comes up. ISFj is commonly claimed to be a type that tends to be conservative with money. Yet the only male ISFj I know at least claims to be a regular at the local casino. I don't really understand what draws him there or know how much money he wins or loses but the concept itself is interesting to me.

Of course, winning 10 000$ at poker is hardly a type trait.

What is typical for ISFjs is doing unexpected atypical things. Yes, I know it's nonsensical but bear with me. I'll explain.

In behaviour ISFjs tend to act carefully, conservatively, yet this does not in any way mean that the ISFjs have "a quiet brain", no. Their habit is to inhibit their passions on a cognitive level. They are habitually secretive. This causes them to constantly surprise other people since they are very good at covering their tracks. Things like being a closet-drunk, having a deadly disease, or having a mistress can be kept secret by an ISFj even from people who live in the same household for ridiculous lengths of time.

One reason the ENTj is such a good fit to them is that we can be mind-bogglingly forgiving to trivial faults if we find a person good for us at the bottom-line.

The ISFj can and will give free rein to their secret wishes when they feel that a) it is expected of them in the situation or b) they can't inhibit themselves any longer or c) they can accomplish it without any consequences.

It is often perceived that ISFjs can be slowly drawn into difficult situations in which they end up carrying a far larger burden than they expected. Then they carry on carrying that burden because they feel it's their fate. This is the main reason they end up in conflict situations. They try to do things that are undoable because they feel they have to.

Please tell me how "ISFj" it is for a guy to invest all his savings (he didn't have anything else) in a bid for Congress most other politicians saw as hopeless, because he trusted his own debating skills.

I'm going to turn down the challenge. My motivation is to remain conflicted about Richard Nixon. I have no interest to claim him as anything.

[Rocky]

...with a repressed Se.

The 7th function can hardly be called repressed. If anything it is strong, but given little significance.

I will start with this since that would make the most sense.

The way Si works is that it tries to keep everything it takes in in a balance. We don't want things to get too emotional or energetic, nor do we want things to move too slowley. We bring everything to a happy medium to control it. When things start to get too crazy, we try and repress them, in a sense of mediating the enviorment. The problem with this is that after awhile this may build up or we can even be taken advantage of in trying to stay cool. This means that when we start to apply pressure and aggression to outside things, it is seemingly inappropiate (this is in line with what Jung said).

Things come in one way, but go out another.

That's what I meant with repressed Se. We take it all in, leveling it out and trying not to make a big scence, then it all comes out.

Now, as for the aggression/temper part, I have an example (yay for juxtapostion). The almighty useful SLI example of Ty Cobb.

Let's start with how I know he was an Introvert and not an Extravert, since that question might come up. His teammates said of him that he was always the one to travel alone, going his separate way from them, and without bothering to have a friend on the team. He would ride in seperate cars on the train, would have a seperate room, and would go off exploring landmarks and monuments by himself. He would even walk down the streets at night alone, except for his lugar.

Charles Alexander wrote of Cobb that, "He went his own way- aloof, suspicious, without any real friends on that team or among the dozens of other men who would be his teammates over the next twenty-two years” continuing to describe him as a “…quarreling, brawling, single-minded loner.”

One of his daughters recalled, "Mr. Cobb would line up us children like soldiers, review our grades and piano playing- then he'd be gone for months. We never really knew him except as a great man. We were afraid of him- afraid of his awful temper."

Pretty common SLI trait... to come home, then run off again. Also note, "We never really knew him".

Another thing is that, just like Napoleon, he would run into habits. When he was playing well, he would drive to the park the same exact way with the same route, wear the same pants, etc... Introverts are more susceptible to these.

Now, as for SLIs not getting into fights, he certainly would disprove that theory. In fact, it wasn't uncommon at all for him to get into fights. Most people were just afraid of him. Once, a man hot-wired his car, and started to drive off, while Cobb was witnessing the whole thing. He started to run after the car, caught up with it, then threw the thief out. The thief latter on said that, "If I'd known it was his car, I wouldn't have taken it in the first place!"

Another time, a couple of men tried to rob him, one stuck a knife in his back (leaving a 6-inch wound), then he chased that guy down the street and beat him with the butt of his lugar (the gun wouldn't fire). Then he patched up his wound and still played without doctor's care.

He also beat up a fan in the stadium for calling him names, he beat up a groundskeepers for using a phone, he beat up an umpire for making bad calls, he beat up a butcher for selling him a bad piece of fish, he beat up another player, etc... Point is he wasn't against fighting and would stand up for himself whenever he need to.

This, again, is just like Napoleon. As I said before, when Napolaon was young and had a girlfriend, and the kids teased him, he chased after them to fit 'em. This is partially the case of a poor Fe (as I said), and the Si funciton (described above). He continued a lot of this behaviour through his life.

Now, I have a question for you. What kind of good Se dominant would say things like this?

“If I always appear prepared, it is because before entering an undertaking, I have meditated long and have foreseen what might occur. It is not genius where reveals to me suddenly and secretly what I should do in circumstances unexpected by others; it is thought and preparation.”

“The best cure for the body is a quiet mind.”

~ Napoleon

In the first one, he is talking about meditation, and then in the second one goes on to mention needing a quiet mind.

???

He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton.

The types that are most commonly recognized as paranoid are LSI and ESI, both with as their vulnerable, not their suggestive function. I think that as a 5th function, on the contrary, would make someone positively receptive to displays of unexpected originality, which is, in fact, what we observe in SLI's and SEI's. LSI's and ESI's, in contrast, are suspicious of such people, who seem unpardonably "extreme" and "irrational."

Eh...

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion.

[Expat]

Hmm, it's an interesting coincidence that this comes up. ISFj is commonly claimed to be a type that tends to be conservative with money. Yet the only male ISFj I know at least claims to be a regular at the local casino. I don't really understand what draws him there or know how much money he wins or loses but the concept itself is interesting to me.

Of course, winning 10 000$ at poker is hardly a type trait.

I didn't mean the poker-playing bit to be, in itself, an argument against ISFj. I believe that an ISFj who always played poker and feels confident on that may well play a lot of poker or go to a casino a lot.

I mentioned that only as background to what I do consider significant - having risked all that money (which he won over several years) in a first-time bid for Congress against a veteran candidate most others regarded as unbeatable.

What is typical for ISFjs is doing unexpected atypical things. Yes, I know it's nonsensical but bear with me. I'll explain.

In behaviour ISFjs tend to act carefully, conservatively, yet this does not in any way mean that the ISFjs have "a quiet brain", no. Their habit is to inhibit their passions on a cognitive level. They are habitually secretive. This causes them to constantly surprise other people since they are very good at covering their tracks. Things like being a closet-drunk, having a deadly disease, or having a mistress can be kept secret by an ISFj even from people who live in the same household for ridiculous lengths of time.

One reason the ENTj is such a good fit to them is that we can be mind-bogglingly forgiving to trivial faults if we find a person good for us at the bottom-line.

The ISFj can and will give free rein to their secret wishes when they feel that a) it is expected of them in the situation or b) they can't inhibit themselves any longer or c) they can accomplish it without any consequences.

It is often perceived that ISFjs can be slowly drawn into difficult situations in which they end up carrying a far larger burden than they expected. Then they carry on carrying that burden because they feel it's their fate. This is the main reason they end up in conflict situations. They try to do things that are undoable because they feel they have to.

I'm not sure I agree with everything but I certainly do with the highlighted bit.

Back to Nixon -- as I suspected, the arguments for ISFj focus on his presidency, or rather on post-Watergate perceptions of it. Which is actually just a very short period in his life.

I'm not sure I agree with Rocky specifically on Napoleon being ISTp rather than ESTp - I have no firm opinion on that - but I most definitely agree with him that, in order to type a historical figure as an individual, you have to concentrate on his whole life and career, and that particularly the period where s/he had the least political power is often the most useful.

I have lots of arguments, but let me add just one for now. The Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. Whoever actually fared better in them in terms of argument is open to discussion (especially since the arguments were pretty pathetic), but no one disputes that Nixon's awkward appearance (5-o'clock shadow etc) and ill-fitting suit cost him many points in the first debate.

Also, as late as in his post-presidential period, Nixon always claimed that he never watched himself on tv, since that would make him too self-conscious and probably make later tv performances even worse.

All of that means PoLR to me, which is confirmed by the general awkwardness of his appearance and movements.

I'm going to turn down the challenge. My motivation is to remain conflicted about Richard Nixon. I have no interest to claim him as anything.

I'm not sure what this means, honestly. I have no motivation to be emotionally affected about him or other historical figures, nor to "claim" him. My motivation is accurate typing. If I'm wrong about Nixon being LIE rather than ESI, fine, but so far I don't see a case for that.

[Smilingeyes]

I'm not sure I agree with everything but I certainly do with the highlighted bit.

Well, you should agree with the rest as well. It's not theory, it's from experience. Of course I'm not saying that every ISFj secret is nasty, I'm just saying they all have secrets and they will surprise the people around them.

Back to Nixon -- ... and probably make later tv performances even worse.

All of that means PoLR to me, which is confirmed by the general awkwardness of his appearance and movements.

An awkward suit and awkward movements don't really add up to a very good case for someone's type. It's still as superficial as the things you criticized Rick on.

I'm going to turn ... anything.

I'm not sure what this means, honestly.

It means that I only have a very cautious interest in the matter of Nixon's type. I am curious but have no interest to make conclusions on the matter, whereas you are argumentative and while you deny it, you are still making a claim that Nixon is ENTj.

I have no motivation to be emotionally affected about him or other historical figures, nor to "claim" him. My motivation is accurate typing. If I'm wrong about Nixon being LIE rather than ESI, fine, but so far I don't see a case for that.

Yet you are emotional. You're acting aggressive. Finding the truth through argument is useful but it is a strategy that requires passion. Being an ENTj requires one to be passionate. And while it's good to give a calm aura, it's useful to realise what one is doing.

[Expat]

An awkward suit and awkward movements don't really add up to a very good case for someone's type. It's still as superficial as the things you criticized Rick on.

That was hardly my only, or even main, argument, even in terms of PoLR. And I used the debates to illustrate the point. What I'm talking about can be perceived on many other occasions.

And I think it is useful information. How likely is it that for instance an ESFj, especially as a major public figure, would have a problem with his appearance?

It means that I only have a very cautious interest in the matter of Nixon's type. I am curious but have no interest to make conclusions on the matter, whereas you are argumentative and while you deny it, you are still making a claim that Nixon is ENTj.

I don't "deny it". In my very first post after Rick's link, above, I wrote clearly that I thought that Nixon was LIE, Caesar LIE, and Nero, SEI. And just above, I said that "if I'm wrong about Nixon being LIE" --

So how am I denying it? Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "claim".

[Smilingeyes]

That was hardly my only, or even main, argument, even in terms of PoLR. And I used the debates to illustrate the point. What I'm talking about can be perceived in many other occasions.

Ah, well the only other argument you made about that was that Nixon didn't like to see his own tv appearances. If that is your main point, it's just a single habit and as such, trivial.

For reference I'd like to note that ISFjs become very nervous when they are in the limelight, they can act confident for a while but it takes a lot out of them. A couple of ISFj teachers I know can spend hours preparing for their appearances ... in front of 28 9 year olds. When in a party, one of them used bunny ears as an accessory for a costume, she had to run away before anybody was able to take a picture of her. Please, consider it accidental that I'm using an ISFj example. I'm still only claiming that there is as yet no final truth as to Nixon's type.

As for the rest, I like to spread information in the manner of argumentation as much as you do

And I think it is useful information. How likely is it that for instance an ESFj, especially as a major public figure, would have a problem with his appearance?

Let's not start to talk about ESFjs as well.
On the other hand as ISFjs go, many of them are very concerned about their appearance. In this case concerned is not the same as worried, more like fussy. The worry is more about dropping a mask, looking bad in general.

I don't "deny it". In my very first post after Rick's link, above, I wrote clearly that I thought that Nixon was LIE, Caesar LIE, and Nero, SEI. And just above, I said that "if I'm wrong about Nixon being LIE" --

So how am I denying it? Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "claim".

I have no motivation to be emotionally affected about him or other historical figures, nor to "claim" him.

There's the sentence. It's probably safe to say that it was a case of miscommunication, misunderstanding, something like that.

...
...
...

Ah, I'm sorry to return to an earlier point in the conversation. There was something strange, but I only just realized what it was.

You made a point about how Nixon looked bad in comparison with Kennedy in a debate. Now what's fishy here is that pretty much everyone seems to agree that Kennedy is an ENTj himself. If anything, their styles should look similar in the debates.

[Rick]

I agree with Expat that the entire life should be examined, not just the person's brief period in the limelight. I limited myself only to the Wikipedia article, and for a more conclusive study one would definitely need to read up on his childhood and youth.

However, the fact that politicians and other public figures acquire certain images (often negative) despite their attempts to be popular and liked by all is significant. In my experience this image is always related to the way millions of people respond to the person's type (type in the broad sense, not just socionic type). Wide publicity becomes a sort of litmus test of one's personal qualities. No one ever has a completely good reputation or a completely bad one.

As far as gambling, I would add that in addition to poker Nixon was very good at bowling and other sports and was an accomplished pianist. These talents are not type-related, and their presence changes a person. All of the celebrities in the benchmark list are unusual people for their type with unusual energy and gifts.

[Rick]

You made a point about how Nixon looked bad in comparison with Kennedy in a debate. Now what's fishy here is that pretty much everyone seems to agree that Kennedy is an ENTj himself. If anything, their styles should look similar in the debates.

Yes, socionists also consider Kennedy an LIE, as well as Reagan (a few think Reagan could also have been EIE). These men were dynamic and upbeat -- in fact, perhaps too optimistic -- in Reagans' case -- about economic matters. Their positive outlook was contagious to Americans, but it earned them some enemies as well (remember Reaganomics and the "trickle down" theory).

[Rick]

Another thing is that, just like Napoleon, he would run into habits. When he was playing well, he would drive to the park the same exact way with the same route, wear the same pants, etc... Introverts are more susceptible to these.

Most susceptible are rational introverts.

Now, I have a question for you. What kind of good Se dominant would say things like this?

“If I always appear prepared, it is because before entering an undertaking, I have meditated long and have foreseen what might occur. It is not genius where reveals to me suddenly and secretly what I should do in circumstances unexpected by others; it is thought and preparation.”

“The best cure for the body is a quiet mind.”

~ Napoleon

In the first one, he is talking about meditation, and then in the second one goes on to mention needing a quiet mind.

???

Actually, the first is about careful mental planning for battle or other undertakings. The second one is probably about curing illnesses. I don't think they are conclusive. Did Ty Cobb say things like this?

Actually, here are quotes of Napoleon:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bonaparte.html
and Ty Cobb:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...t/ty_cobb.html
and Nixon:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...d_m_nixon.html

He was also somewhat more paranoid, which is an Ne dual-seeking funciton.

The types that are most commonly recognized as paranoid are LSI and ESI, both with as their vulnerable, not their suggestive function. I think that as a 5th function, on the contrary, would make someone positively receptive to displays of unexpected originality, which is, in fact, what we observe in SLI's and SEI's. LSI's and ESI's, in contrast, are suspicious of such people, who seem unpardonably "extreme" and "irrational."

Eh...

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion.

To be honest, I don't understand much of Jung's description. But I think there are some differences from socionics. What he's calling archaic extraverted intuition I think socionists would call introverted intuition as his role function. Because in socionics one is nondiscriminating of signals coming through one's 5th function, while the 3rd function actually does take on 'archaic' forms.

[Rick]

Expat wrote:

I mentioned that only as background to what I do consider significant - having risked all that money (which he won over several years) in a first-time bid for Congress against a veteran candidate most others regarded as unbeatable.

I agree, this requires an explanation if Nixon is ESI, since on face value it seems very bravado and risky.

[Expat]

For reference I'd like to note that ISFjs become very nervous when they are in the limelight, they can act confident for a while but it takes a lot out of them. A couple of ISFj teachers I know can spend hours preparing for their appearances ... in front of 28 9 year olds. When in a party, one of them used bunny ears as an accessory for a costume, she had to run away before anybody was able to take a picture of her. Please, consider it accidental that I'm using an ISFj example.

I have observed something like it myself.

I'm still only claiming that there is as yet no final truth as to Nixon's type.

I think it's difficult to talk of a final truth as to anyone's type, let alone a historical figure. I just thought that, of all possible typings for Nixon, ISFj made very little sense.

You made a point about how Nixon looked bad in comparison with Kennedy in a debate. Now what's fishy here is that pretty much everyone seems to agree that Kennedy is an ENTj himself. If anything, their styles should look similar in the debates.

I'm glad you mentioned that, it helps to clarify my position.

First, I know as much about Kennedy - and Johnson - as about Nixon, and I'm still baffled as to Kennedy's type. I can see the case for ENTj, which is why I won't dispute it, but I see a lot of problems. Again, I'm talking about all his life, not his presidency.

On the PoLR thing.

Certainly, I don't think that an ENTj - especially a public figure - has to have their PoLR manifested in things like ill-fitting suits. I think that Tony Blair is ENTj, and such a trait is not visible. I also agree with Russian socionists that Yulia Tymoshenko is ENTj, and on the contrary, she has gone to a lot of trouble about her appearance, even in order to create a new public image.

An ENTj can surely have a good appearance, clothing, etc - they may over-compensate for it, or consciously make an effort in that area. Kennedy's wife once joked in a conversation that he spent a lot of time making sure his hair looked like that - "he's so vain you won't believe it", she said.

My point is not "all ENTjs will have awkward appearances and look like their suits don't fit", but, rather, persons of which other type are more likely to show this trait? I'm not referring to those debates only.

But, again, the thing is secondary to my argument and I can leave it aside.

[Expat]

However, the fact that politicians and other public figures acquire certain images (often negative) despite their attempts to be popular and liked by all is significant. In my experience this image is always related to the way millions of people respond to the person's type (type in the broad sense, not just socionic type). Wide publicity becomes a sort of litmus test of one's personal qualities. No one ever has a completely good reputation or a completely bad one.

Sure, but remember that Nixon nearly won the 1960 election against Kennedy, which was about as tight as in 2000 and 2004, and most historians agree that there was massive fraud in Illinois and Texas in favor of Kennedy-Johnson, and even think it possible that Nixon actually won that election. In 1972 he was re-elected with the largest electoral margin up to that time (McGovern only carried one state). So before Watergate, his image was controversial but not entirely negative.

As far as gambling, I would add that in addition to poker Nixon was very good at bowling and other sports and was an accomplished pianist. These talents are not type-related, and their presence changes a person. All of the celebrities in the benchmark list are unusual people for their type with unusual energy and gifts.

Of course, again, I did not mean that the poker playing itself was significant.

Anyway, Tip O'Neill - who often played poker with Nixon when he was vice-president - wrote in his memoirs that Nixon was actually a below-average player and that his success in WWII had probably more due to the navy kids not being able to play at all

Yes, socionists also consider Kennedy an LIE, as well as Reagan (a few think Reagan could also have been EIE). These men were dynamic and upbeat -- in fact, perhaps too optimistic -- in Reagans' case -- about economic matters. Their positive outlook was contagious to Americans, but it earned them some enemies as well (remember Reaganomics and the "trickle down" theory).

On Reagan, I think EIE is more likely than LIE, also due to having read David Stockman's memoirs - he was IMO much clearly a LIE and was Reagan's first Budget Director. He definitely did not describe Reagan as one would an identical. But of course this could be biased.

I agree, this requires an explanation if Nixon is ESI, since on face value it seems very bravado and risky.

Nixon's political career before being elected president was full of calculated risky steps, and a clear evaluation of his chances. He was not a career politician who quietly rose through the ranks, in fact, he and Kennedy entered Congress in the same year - 1947 - and up to the 1960 presidential election, Nixon's political rise had been far faster than Kennedy's, despite the Kennedy fortune.

Of course, there were other reasons for that, such as Kennedy's many health problems, but my point is to emphasize the non-ISFj traits of Nixon.

[Expat]

If you're really into history and are up to the task, you ought to consider writing a paper with a different viewpoint on Caesar's type from a stronger historical perspective. I think many socionists over here would be delighted to see a paper submitted from western colleagues, and if the paper is good, you might be able to find someone who would translate it for free.

I've taken a quick look and I can put something together, but it won't be definitive. I still think that those socionists were misinterpreting aspects of Caesar's career and his motivations when typing him as SEE, and I can build a case for LIE, but I think that in the end it will boil down to personal preferences.

The problem is that Caesar is not as shadowy an individual as Alexander, but neither is there the kind of contemporary evidence as in Napoleon's case. The really contemporary eyewitness descriptions - such as Cicero's letters - do not say much in terms of his type. More personal descriptions come from Roman historians of around one hundred years later, and while we can assume that they had access to far more contemporary evidence than we do, the question will remain as to their accuracy.

[Rick]

I had some thoughts about Alexander the Great and why 7 socionists typed him as SLE and 2 as SEE despite a lack of historical material about his person. Actually, the same is true of Genghis Khan, typed as SLE by 5 socionists.

Basically, I think I know their logic. Who would go out conquering distant lands with his army just for the sake of conquering as great an area as possible, without any real economic or political necessity? In socionics this kind of thing is seen as being . In the case of the 2 "defectors" who thought Alexander was SEE, this is probably because of the attention he gave to local customs and forming useful political alliances along the way. It could be argued that he took into consideration the human factor more than a SLE would. In fact, supposedly his own people were displeased with the degree that he assimilated local traditions.

On a side note, I was disappointed with the movie Alexander. I thought the leading actor (forget his name) was a poor representation of the great conqueror. He seemed sort of scared and fearful to me -- not the kind of person who is able to constantly instill confidence in his troops, in my opinion.

[Expat]

Basically, I think I know their logic. Who would go out conquering distant lands with his army just for the sake of conquering as great an area as possible, without any real economic or political necessity?

But you see, that's the problem -- making a typing of an individual in ancient times with modern-day assumptions. Alexander did not wake up one day and said, "I'm going to conquer the world because I want to". He inherited from his father a political situation where Macedon rivalled Persia in the influence over Greek city-states. The ancient world of the area was never really at "peace", it was a constant state of war, with short-lived periods of precarious peace treaties. That is what made the concept of Alexander's empire and the Pax Romana so attractive to the people of the time, which is difficult for the people of today to grasp, not living in a situation where they might be sold into slavery in a petty war between small nations or even city-states.

Having started to fight the Persian Empire directly, his choices were to withdraw and make a peace treaty - and risk a counter-attack by the Persians later on - or just keep going until the Persian Empire was totally defeated once and for all, which is what he did.

He may well have been SLE, but not because he was a megalomaniac who decided on conquest for no reason. His whole world was bent on conquest - he was just the most competent at it. And his contemporaries, living in that world, understood that very well, hence his legend.

On a side note, I was disappointed with the movie Alexander. I thought the leading actor (forget his name) was a poor representation of the great conqueror. He seemed sort of scared and fearful to me -- not the kind of person who is able to constantly instill confidence in his troops, in my opinion.

I agree. On the other hand, I expected to be disappointed with Val Kilmer as Philip II, and actually I thought he was rather good.

[Rick]

He may well have been SLE, but not because he was a megalomaniac who decided on conquest for no reason. His whole world was bent on conquest - he was just the most competent at it. And his contemporaries, living in that world, understood that very well, hence his legend.

Interesting. I understand that the ancient world was very different from today's. But wasn't Alexander's venture into India essentially superfluous?

[Expat]

Interesting. I understand that the ancient world was very different from today's. But wasn't Alexander's venture into India essentially superfluous?

The kingdoms along the Indus had always belonged to the Persian Empire, or been in its sphere of influence, so it could be argued that the first phase was part of consolidating his grip on the Persian territory. His intended further penetration, against which the army revolted, was probably futile.

Interestingly, in its summary of Alexander's character - rightly or wrongly - the Encyclopedia Britannica makes the case for SLE:

He combined an iron will and ability to drive himself and his men to the utmost with a supple and flexible mind; he knew when to draw back and change his policy, though he did this reluctantly. He was imaginative and not without romantic impulses; figures like Achilles, Heracles, and Dionysus were often in his mind, and the salutation at the oracle of Amon clearly influenced his thoughts and ambitions ever afterward. He was swift in anger, and under the strain of his long campaigns this side of his character grew more pronounced. Ruthless and self-willed, he had increasing recourse to terror, showing no hesitation in eliminating men whom he had ceased to trust, either with or without the pretense of a fair trial. Years after his death, Cassander, son of Antipater, a regent of the Macedonian Empire under Alexander, could not pass his statue at Delphi without shuddering. Yet he maintained the loyalty of his men, who followed him to the Hyphasis without complaining and continued to believe in him throughout all hardships.

By the way, I'm going to be even more subversive and say that I actually think that Kennedy was EIE rather than LIE. His skill was , not . "His" was borrowed from others. His essential skill was to make everyone who knew him like him.

[Hugo]

Looks like cone