The American Presidents, from WWII-present

[JuJu]

Also, the fact that Bush is culturally behind is part of what makes it easy to type him as delta, when I don't think that he is. This sounds stupid, but my rationale is that generally we associate delta with the "old age" quadra, and perhaps the fact that Bush is culturally "old" or conservative makes it easy to view him as socionics'ly "old" or conservative? Also, although I know typing by weak functions is bad, I totally see Bush as Ne polr > Ni polr, largely for the reasons that I've talked about with him just not accepting the change that has occurred not only in how other groups see America, morality, and the Republican party, but in how America, moral leaders, and the Republican party see themselves, respectively (weakness in accepting new ideas).

I understand what you mean by this and agree with you.

In addition to Bush II's politics, his self-cultivated image as a rural cowboy (albeit born in Connecticut to a preppy New England political family) creates an image that one could associate with (above all over quadras) Delta--down-home, country-western, straight talkin' simple man.

This conservative, non-intellectual, 'country-boy' image belongs largely to Delta, unfair as it may be.

(Of course, betas can be cowboys too... I recently saw Brokeback Mountain...)

[JuJu]

Obama could be EXI.

Having watched Obama for awhile now, I don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell he is Delta... His valuing of Ni has been discussed in this thread.

His inter-type relations don't give any indication that he's alpha or delta.

[Morcheeba]

Having watched Obama for awhile now, I don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell he is Delta... His valuing of Ni has been discussed in this thread.

His inter-type relations don't give any indication that he's alpha or delta.

I'm in agreement with you on this one; though it doesn't happen often.

[JuJu]

I'm in agreement with you on this one; though it doesn't happen often.

LOL... If I keep trying, maybe it'll happen again...

Do you have an opinion on VP Joe Biden's type..?

Most of the Presidents, I've found have picked a VP in their quadra (SEE Roosevelt picked ILI Truman) or in the adjacent quadra (EIE Kennedy picked SEE Johnson.) So maybe Biden's type could help.

P.S. I'm beginning to find the ESTp typing for Bush II plausible... There's been good stuff written in this thread, for sure.

[JohnDo]

I don't normally like to attack people's understanding of socionics, but I think you need to seriously reevaluate your understanding, as it's far too generalized to be at all useful in understanding personality via socionics.

I just wanted to state the main points. Generalized statements don't necessarily mean one's understanding is too generalized.

Te = money and weak Ni = bad president... I'm sure you can see how this is not only a complete caricature of Bush, but also a caricature of socionics, since any type can be focused on money if their circumstances in life have worked out a certain way, and certainly any type can be a bad president.

OK, that's true. Nevertheless, I see Bush as -leading and -vulnerable. Not only because of functions but also because of the overall appearance, V.I. and so on...

Lack of foresight is clearly related to weak and Bush could not foresee anything. Weak does not necessarily mean a bad president, of course. With an INFj vice president everything might have worked well. Unfortunately Cheney is a -lacking idiot, too...

To be honest, I don't know any politician I would type INFp. I think Bush is not introverted, definitely not intuitive, certainly not feeling and obviously not perceiving.

[717495]

Obama is totally an Fi ego. Look at his eyes! lol

I would rule for Gamma, over Delta.

[JohnDo]

Obama is totally an Fi ego. Look at his eyes! lol

Correct.

Maybe we should talk about subtype descriptions to make things clear.

George W. Bush: Si-ESTj
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The sensory subtype is characterized by a differentiation between their internal stability and working capacity. Internally unstable, they are likewise extremely vigorous and cannot relax without business affairs as they do not like wasting time in vain. Interested in new technologies within the professional sphere and able to adapt these to serve their needs. Possess a sense of humor. Their speech is abrupt and emotional; their smile is somewhat tense. Pulls together distance in dialogue through hospitable, friendly gestures – embraces and light touches. Briskly conducts conversation and/or jokes. An aesthete with a taste for gourmet, they love original dishes and beautiful, expensive objects of quality. Are able to relieve pressures by sitting at a table with friends but rarely allow themselves the rest to themselves that they need. Have a tendency to corpulence, their movements are gusty, sharp, quick and impulsive; often embody a restless demeanor.

Cheney: Te-ESTj
(Victor Gulenko) Attempts to combine the entire cycle of production in their hands. A good worker, does not tolerate incompetence, is well educated in their area of competence. Very operational, sometimes wear themselves out with work. Consider that only thus can they require the same from others. Can be sharp in judgments. Usually formulates tasks very clearly. In the sphere of production attains the responsibility for a product, love to admire what they have made, and emphasize the advantage of their goods. Works well under the conditions of a stable market - in transportation, in the army. Clothing is conservative; for them, the main things are cleanliness, order and functionality.


Bill Clinton: Se-ESFp
(Victor Gulenko) Very active, energetic, enterprising. Adventurous, loves competitions and risks, loves playing with the law. If they feel defeated they tend to give up. Is one of the most unpredictable types. Works well in the intermediate trade structures, but not in production. A sharp change in mood is characteristic for them: if something is good for me, then everyone should be happy; if something is bad for me, then let the rest suffer too. Can exert powerful emotional pressure. A good executive and works well in the service industry, for example as a waiter; a good actor (but only in the easy genres like comedy or operetta). Easily manipulates relationships; able to attract people who do not yet know him. Is emotionally unstable; therefore is frequently unsociable (may provoke something and in the case of failure - rapidly retreat into the shadows).


Obama: Fi-ENFp
(Victor Gulenko) Sees in people their concealed gravities and attachments. Prefers to work on a short psychological distance (unlike the other subtype). They love to give advice, and they gravitate towards psychoanalysis, in this case counts on manifestation in people of their positive qualities. They can stand up for others, defending their interests, but find it difficult to stand up for themselves. Is outwardly more frequently thin and elegant. In their clothing, they prefer comfort and soft colours.

[silverchris9]

I just wanted to state the main points. Generalized statements don't necessarily mean one's understanding is too generalized.

OK, that's true. Nevertheless, I see Bush as -leading and -vulnerable. Not only because of functions but also because of the overall appearance, V.I. and so on...

Lack of foresight is clearly related to weak and Bush could not foresee anything. Weak does not necessarily mean a bad president, of course. With an INFj vice president everything might have worked well. Unfortunately Cheney is a -lacking idiot, too...

To be honest, I don't know any politician I would type INFp. I think Bush is not introverted, definitely not intuitive, certainly not feeling and obviously not perceiving.

That was a much more interesting discussion. According to my typing given earlier in the thread, I do agree with you that Bush has weak Ni, although I would argue that he does value Ni. I still think that your assumptions that President Bush entered the Iraq War solely for monetary purposes (or that those monetary purposes could be connected to something besides Te) and that Bush himself lacks foresight and ability to predict future trends are somewhat faulty. To my mind, Bush didn't so much like foresight as to what would occur in the future as he lacked capacity to understand how his actions would affect others' dispositions towards him, weakness in picking up on social niceties, etc. I think his biggest failures are better explained by weak Fi and Ne than weak Ni and Fe, although that is certainly a debatable opinion. I think it is clear that Bush is an ST, though, and I'm split on the question of introverted or extroverted. I think I agree that he's probably judging.

Also, I don't know if you caught my discussion of Se social activity vs. Te social activity re: Michelle Obama (and I'm not assuming that you did, cause it was hella long winded), but that's another way in which I think Bush appears more Se-ego than Te-ego. Te-egos are reserved and cautious in social interactions until they can be sure of an Fi bond between them and the people in their environment. This does not mean they are shy, as they will readily convey information and explain themselves, but it does mean that they are disinclined to show their "true selves," to "wear their hearts on their sleeves," so to speak. Now, Se-egos, their natural state is to "wear their hearts on their sleeves," not in terms of flamboyant EIE emotionality, but in terms of unfettered self-expression, saying whatever they feel, whatever comes to mind, etc., and they are much more likely to enter a social situation with this sort of attitude, and fall back on the more Te way of doing things (strong but unvalued Te) when and if they assess (via Se) that the Te way would be best to accomplish their goals. Bush definitely approaches things in the Se-way. It's clear that Bush is most comfortable when he can unresevedly be his down-home Texas boy self (despite the fact, as Juju said, that he was born in Connecticut), even with people he doesn't know at all, whereas a Te ego would probably consider it improper or maybe just uncomfortable to let it all hang out like that among strangers.

And good point about statements vs. understanding, but your statements were, in my opinion, general to the point of inaccuracy. But yes, your understanding does appear to be more refined/subtle than it appeared at first glance, so that was a misread on my part. Sorry!

I don't know about Cheney lacking Ni (I think he at least values it), by the way. While he might not have necessarily anticipated global events with extreme finesse, he certainly valued the ability to strike a blow, both militarily and politically, at the right time. There's evidence that he intended to invade a country in the middle east at the earliest possible opportunity (he assessed the balance of power and determined that the US needed a friend in the middle east because that area had the crucial combination of political "instability," policies unfriendly to the US, and natural resources i.e., oil), and I suspect that he masterminded the subtle move from "we're invading Afghanistan because that's where bin Laden's base of operations is" to "we're invading Iraq because... um... LOOK HE'S GOT NUKES! NUKE HIM FIRST! ARE YOU AN AMERICAN?" etc. etc. This shows Ni valuing at least, if not Ni-ego (I think Cheney's Se ego, but I could be wrong there. Rove is definitely Ni-ego).

Also, you'll find it's customary to type on this board (and I believe in socionics in general, esp. in the West) with an eye more towards the functions (and sometimes quadra and temperament) than the dichotomies. Whether this is valid or not is something to be considered, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Regarding the subtype descriptions you pulled up:

I don't believe Bush is internally unstable. I think Bush is proud of and comfortable with who he is. Certainly the bit about allowing themselves the rest they need isn't true of Bush, since he was at freakin' Camp David every other weekend of his presidency, I swear. The relax without business affairs is similarly inaccurate in my opinion. I have no evidence for or against the aesthete/gourmet bit. Internal instability, obviously, is harder to prove, but I think that Bush is very sure of what he believes, means, and intends; I just think he can't adjust when asked to view things in a different context and incorporate new facts. He's Ti leading; he focuses on assumed causal relations: you bomb me, I bomb you. You break the rules, I get to punish. I don't see much evidence for Te > Ti for this guy.

Cheney. I buy this a lot more. I have my reasons for thinking Se-ego, but I'll have to amass some more evidence before I can really come to a solid conclusion. This subtype description does appear suspiciously accurate though.

The Clinton bit is more reasonable, I think. But I think Se HA over Se leading, and Ni-creative over Ni-suggestive. He's got strong Ni; otherwise why would he focus so much on the future and future trends and how he can help us get there. Have you heard of the Bridge to the 21st Century speech? More typical Ni focus on the future, painting a verbal picture, grandeur of style ("like a prophet of old" or "our streets will echo again with the laughter of our children"--note the lack of specifics, and the focus on "will" over "can" or "could"). In fact, reading that speech makes me almost 100% positive he's EIE. It's all Ni creative in the service of Fe leading; future forecasting in the service of making a specific emotional impression on the listener (as opposed to making a specific emotional impression as a part of conveying the core of a future vision). Also, Clinton's vibe is much more EIE than SEE; SEEs have a more relaxed, cool vibe. Clinton isn't cool and relaxed; he's actively (anxiously?) engaging you emotionally, and he doesn't have that Se attachment to the object/external world.

First of all (and I will do a bit of typing-by-dichotomies here), Obama is very likely introverted. I say this because he is ultimately more attached to his inner world than to the outer world. You can feel it. He lives in his head and comes out to preach to the world. True extroverts don't visit their internal world with the same frequency and dependency as introverts. Now, in the commonplace sense of the world, Obama is an extrovert, but that's covered better under the Funny Lady song "People" ("...people who need people...") than socionics. Now, as far as Ne vs. Ni, this is difficult to prove, because Obama's rhetoric is so concerned with "Yes we can" and all that jazz, that is often associated with possibilities. But if you watch that "yes we can" video that some artists put out (not Obama himself, I know, but a fairly accurate representation of the character of his "movement" if I can call it that), you see clearly that it isn't concerned with possibility so much as epic historical scope; we can cause a profound change, we can connect to a powerful significance through our actions, etc. That's definitely Ni > Ne; even though it concerned with possibilities, the emphasis is on the historical, on the symbolically grand, on the profundities of historical change. I really suspect Obama is INFp. Although that causes huge problems for my typing of Michelle. Sigh.

Regarding that subtype description, yes, Obama does exhibit all of those characteristics. But they're subdued. That's not the primary part of his character, the psychoanalytical part. Obama, consistent with NiFe rather than NeFi, is much more concerned with general movements, general psychological trends, general estimations of how people's actions can affect their environment, processes, stories, things that represent other things, one story that is typical of thousands of others (he even uses himself as just this sort of symbol); he's much more concerned with these sorts of things than with psychoanalyzing the individual with the intention of offering advice. Trust me, I know IEEs and their accurate assessment of character and advice giving. Obama's not that kind. He can do it, I'm sure, but he's far too historical and he clearly thinks on far too grand of a scale to really fit with this.

Also, about Obama's eyes... I see nothing but Ni + Fe in his facial expression. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head. He's not dealing with the exterior world in those shots, he's entirely in his head being subjective (Ni), and then expressing his internal workings with obvious external markers, facial expressions, etc. (Fe).

[silverchris9]

I do that too, but I'm not beta.

I thought you were ILI? Ni-ego would accord very much with what I'm thinking about here, at least the in-the-head part, if not so much the obvious external markers bit. I can see where this wouldn't necessarily be the best way to type.

What I meant by Fi eyes is that very typical Fi look, not necessarily that it signifies a directly understood process. We all want to make as much sense of such things though.

Truth that we all want to make as much sense of these things as possible. Honestly, I'm not very attuned at all to people giving off Fi-vibe, whereas I am highly sensitive to Se-vibe. So I understand where you're coming from here, and it might just be that I can't see it yet. Shrug. EII is a possibility, especially given that Michelle Obama is probably LSE.

[Marie84]

Regarding that subtype description, yes, Obama does exhibit all of those characteristics. But they're subdued. That's not the primary part of his character, the psychoanalytical part. Obama, consistent with NiFe rather than NeFi, is much more concerned with general movements, general psychological trends, general estimations of how people's actions can affect their environment, processes, stories, things that represent other things, one story that is typical of thousands of others (he even uses himself as just this sort of symbol); he's much more concerned with these sorts of things than with psychoanalyzing the individual with the intention of offering advice. Trust me, I know IEEs and their accurate assessment of character and advice giving. Obama's not that kind. He can do it, I'm sure, but he's far too historical and he clearly thinks on far too grand of a scale to really fit with this.

Also, about Obama's eyes... I see nothing but Ni + Fe in his facial expression. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head. He's not dealing with the exterior world in those shots, he's entirely in his head being subjective (Ni), and then expressing his internal workings with obvious external markers, facial expressions, etc. (Fe).

I agree, nice assessment.
I've presumed Obama to be Beta NF, IEI>EIE, for some time.
On a similar note, I've never seen an IEE being able to act as consistently composed and focused as Obama is in his demeanor

[Marie84]

I just wanted to state the main points. Generalized statements don't necessarily mean one's understanding is too generalized.

OK, that's true. Nevertheless, I see Bush as -leading and -vulnerable. Not only because of functions but also because of the overall appearance, V.I. and so on...

I don't think GWB looks or acts anything like a typical Te dominant, his father on the other hand does

[JohnDo]

I still think that your assumptions that President Bush entered the Iraq War solely for monetary purposes (or that those monetary purposes could be connected to something besides Te) and that Bush himself lacks foresight and ability to predict future trends are somewhat faulty.

There are some different reasons for entering Iraq, indeed. Nevertheless, Iraq is a country with a lot of oil. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all experts in earning money with oil, aren't they?

I think his biggest failures are better explained by weak Fi and Ne than weak Ni and Fe, although that is certainly a debatable opinion.

Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe are the weak functions of a xSTj. So it doesn't make a big difference. Typing by weak functions is not a reliable method I think...

Also, I don't know if you caught my discussion of Se social activity vs. Te social activity re: Michelle Obama (and I'm not assuming that you did, cause it was hella long winded), but that's another way in which I think Bush appears more Se-ego than Te-ego.

Are you familiar with the DCNH system? In my opinion Bush is a creative ESTj so Se is the function strengthened because of his subtype. As Cheney is a dominant Te-ESTj it's no surprise that he seemed to be more powerful than Bush himself...
And no, I didn't catch that discussion...

And good point about statements vs. understanding, but your statements were, in my opinion, general to the point of inaccuracy. But yes, your understanding does appear to be more refined/subtle than it appeared at first glance, so that was a misread on my part. Sorry!

People often say that I oversimplify things. May be true sometimes. I always try to emphasize the main points and leave out the rest...

Also, you'll find it's customary to type on this board (and I believe in socionics in general, esp. in the West) with an eye more towards the functions (and sometimes quadra and temperament) than the dichotomies.

Especially on this forum most people over-evaluate functional analysis. It's not a good idea to ignore dichotomies and type descriptions...

I don't believe Bush is internally unstable. I think Bush is proud of and comfortable with who he is. I don't see much evidence for Te > Ti for this guy.

Hard to tell if a politician is internally unstable or not. I can't see Ti in him. Ti is primarily about truth whereas Bush was lying all the time about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion. Ti-valuing people normally don't act like that (even if I over-simplify things again)...

First of all (and I will do a bit of typing-by-dichotomies here), Obama is very likely introverted. I say this because he is ultimately more attached to his inner world than to the outer world.

He might be extraverted with an introverted subtype.
In this case I can't trust my V.I. skills because I don't know any Africans personally (I'm German). So he might be INFj but INFp I really can't see...

[717495]

Especially on this forum most people over-evaluate functional analysis. It's not a good idea to ignore dichotomies and type descriptions...

Functional analysis is tied to quadra and intertype relations, which is the essential format of Socionics. However dichotomies are important too.

[silverchris9]

There are some different reasons for entering Iraq, indeed. Iraq is a country with a lot of oil. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all experts in earning money with oil, aren't they?

lol. Truth, but that still doesn't mean they're Te. The NPR discussion I heard about Cheney made it seem to me that he was much more concerned with the power relations aspect of it (Se--they have more oil therefore they have more power/strategic advantage should our interests ever clash, not they have more oil therefore they can make more money from us that we could be getting for ourselves).

Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe are the weak functions of a xSTj. So it doesn't make a big difference...

Yeah, but you value your superid functions at least, so you try more with them. I think people tend to improve upon their superid functions especially after being in a close (not necessarily romantic) relationship with a dual, whereas they just avoid superego functions. I think Bush tries and fails at Fe (with the occasional brilliant success at crisis time, i.e., the month or so after 9/11), whereas he gets in trouble for trying to avoid/ignore Ne and Fi, rather than attempting them and just sucking.

Are you familiar with the DCNH system? In my opinion Bush is a creative ESTj so Se is the function strenghened because of his subtype. As Cheney is a dominant Te-ESTj it's no surprise that he seemed to be more powerful than Bush himself...

No, I haven't really learned DCNH yet. I looked over it, but I wasn't immediately pulled in or interested by what I read, so I didn't really investigate further. There are some smart folks around here that are really into it though, so I guess it's incumbent upon me to check it out.

People often say that I oversimplify things. May be true sometimes. I always try to emphasize the main points and leave out the rest...

Ti-ego?

Especially on this forum most people over-evaluate functional analysis. It's not a good idea to ignore dichotomies and type descriptions...

Agreed. Somewhat.

Hard to tell if a politician is internally unstable or not. I can't see Ti in him. Ti is primarily about truth whereas Bush was lying all the time about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction...

I'm very cautious with ascribing "truth" to any one of the functions. LSIs lie all the time, as do LIIs. I do understand where Ti = pursuit of truth comes from, but I could also make that claim about Ni, Ne, and Te. Maybe even Fi too. Furthermore, if he was lying about Iraq and all that, I'm sure even the most stalwart LSI could be persuaded to lie under intense political pressure or if he really, really thought it was the right thing to do.

He might be extraverted with an introverted subtype.
In this case I can't trust my V.I. skills because I don't know any Africans personally (I'm German). So he might be INFj but INFp I really can't see...

Huh. Are there not a lot of people of African decent in Germany? I can see how someone's facial features being overall very unfamiliar could get in the way of V.I.

[JohnDo]

Functional analysis is tied to quadra and intertype relations, which is the essential format of Socionics. However dichotomies are important too.

My favourite methods of type identification are
1.) Visual Identification (comparing to people I know personally)
2.) comparing type descriptions
3.) analyzing dichotomies
4.) analyzing functions
5.) analyzing intertype relations

Most people on this forum would say:
1.) analyzing functions
2.) analyzing functions
3.) analyzing functions
4.) analyzing functions
5.) analyzing functions

[JohnDo]

Yeah, but you value your superid functions at least, so you try more with them.

I disagree. My role function is much stronger than my suggestive function. Isn't the development of the role function the key to a successful and happy life?

No, I haven't really learned DCNH yet. I looked over it, but I wasn't immediately pulled in or interested by what I read, so I didn't really investigate further. There are some smart folks around here that are really into it though, so I guess it's incumbent upon me to check it out.

Yes, you should get into it. I really like DCNH. It makes typings much easier and much more reliable. With a bit experience you can distinguish between 64 types by V.I. then...

Ti-ego?

Good guess.

I'm very cautious with ascribing "truth" to any one of the functions. LSIs lie all the time, as do LIIs.

WHAT? How many LSIs and LIIs do you know personally?!

Huh. Are there not a lot of people of African decent in Germany?

No, not really. There are a lot of Africans in France, Britain or the Netherlands. Has something to do with the fact that Germany lost all its colonies after WW1 and national-socialism afterwards...

[silverchris9]

WHAT? How many LSIs and LIIs do you know personally?!

My dad's an LII, he lies. (Not like, oh, my life was horrible because my father was a horrible liar or something; he's no more generally truthful or false than anybody else, he's just told lies before.) My best friend from high school is an LSI (I think) and he's told lies before for the sake of getting something done. I'm almost 100% positive my high school apologetics teacher was an LII (and definitely definitely Ti-leading), and he's definitely lied to other teachers, administrators, parents, etc. when he thinks they're wrong but doesn't want to explain why he's right. I don't mean that LIIs and LSIs lie any more or less than any other type, I just mean that they definitely aren't immune from the vice of lying, especially when they think it's for a greater good.

I disagree. My role function is much stronger than my suggestive function. Isn't the development of the role function the key to a successful and happy life?

I dunno. I haven't noticed myself getting any better at Si, but I'm only 18, so maybe that's a part of it. Anyway, I'm sure I'm better at my mobilizing (Ti) than my role (Si), and I also care about it more, so I work harder at it. I also think I'm probably better at Se than at Te, if for no other reason that I like Se more.

No, not really. There are a lot of Africans in France, Britain or the Netherlands. Has something to do with the fact that Germany lost all its colonies after WW1 and national-socialism afterwards...

Huh. That's interesting. The accidents of history, I suppose.

[JuJu]

Silverchris, these are great points about Bush II... The more you explain it, ESTp seems increasingly likely.

P.S. As to what John Do wrote about ISTjs and INTjs being particularly truthful: LOL... No... Any type can (and will) lie; lying is a non-Socionics related trait.

My best friend, ISTj, lies all the damn time... He lies so often that we laugh about it together.

[Krig the Viking]

Silverchris, you're making some excellent arguments in this thread. I think you have an accurate assessment of Bush II, and I find you arguments for Obama as IEI convincing.

Since I type Michelle as LSI (tenatively), that would make them an Activation couple. I could see that, given what little I've seen of them together.

[Rick]

Hey, JuJu and others, lots of good info in this thread on the presidents' personalities. Some of you have obviously put a lot of time into studying them. It's a good read.

I, too, find Jorge Doblevé Arbusto baffling. I wonder if he was even "all there," as they say. Sometimes he just seemed confused, both in his facial expression and his lack of ability to express himself. I wonder if he screwed up his brain somehow during his years of drinking, or because of Lyme Disease or some other ailment.

Legend has it that he is highly competitive, for instance, when jogging or cycling. In stark contrast to Obama and some other presidents, he seemed incapable of holding multiple, contradictory viewpoints in his head at the same time. There seemed to always be a "right" answer. It could be argued this is somewhat of a -Ego tendency. Obama, in contrast, is characteristically frank about his doubts and the difficulty of determining what is correct.

There is no escaping the fact that, aside from type, some presidents are more cerebral and -- dare I say it -- smarter than others. ("Brains" and "competence" aren't necessarily synonyms, particularly in the public awareness.) For instance, not only is Obama highly introspective and a bit self-deprecating, but he has an academic mind and says things that demonstrate a high scientific awareness. Clinton reads lots of "brainy" books, even in subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with politics (sample: +kenwilber.com - blog). Likewise Al Gore, a typical intellectual, but with a bit of the politician's poise. I don't think these things can be of much help when typing them, because there have been other politicians of the same types who didn't have these traits.

Brains, I think, help to see the real issues, but they do not necessarily make one a better leader. How effective a leader is seems to depend on how well his/her personal traits match up with the specific challenges that happen to be facing the group at the moment. Sometimes brains are needed, sometimes brawn. The greatest presidents, I think, have had a great deal of both, though brains are generally more important because we're not always at war.

For instance, George W. seemed to rise to the occasion after Sept. 11 and display a great deal of certainty and fortitude. It would be interesting to put Gore, Clinton, Obama, or -- gasp -- Carter in that position and see how they do. However, Bush's characteristic certainty started to seem less and less appropriate over time as the U.S. got bogged down in expensive "military operations" with unclear aims. Churchill was a great wartime leader, but grew less effective in peacetime. His personality was perfect for a war with a very clear aim and justification. If he'd instead used his warrior talent to, say, establish democracy in Namibia, he might have lost his effectiveness, too. Of course, Churchill was also a brainy guy.

(I might be talking myself into an SLE typing for Bush II...)

I have some more thoughts, but they are still too disorganized.

[Krig the Viking]

I think the majority of the problem surrounding Bush II is all the political controversy surrounding him. His political enemies hated and mocked him, and most of his political allies didn't think much better of him by the end. He was too conservative for the liberals, and too liberal for the conservatives. This has led to a lot of distorted ideas about his character and personality. No real human being could be as evil and stupid as he was portrayed, no matter how ineffective or even harmful one might think his policies. To accurately type someone, you must not only know socionics well, but you must also know the person you're typing well.

Bush has always struck me as a fairly straightfoward SLE. His complete indifference to the media, for example, is hard to imagine for an Fe-Ego type. He relaxes by going back to his ranch and cutting brush with a chainsaw -- that has ST written all over it. Even his relaxed, ambling gait is something I commonly see in other SLEs.