INFjs and switching to Se PoLR

[Expat]

You have as PoLR, which, among other things, means that you're not comfortable with using, or receiving, sheer authoritarian pressure, or of understanding well which fights you can pick up - of knowing when to be a bully, and when to be an ass-kisser, as types do.

My questions is this.

Do you find it plausible that an INFj raised in a family where "victory at any cost" is the chief value might shift to the extreme of using excessively, to the point of being characterized as a "mean bastard" and "ruthless" - while, of course, still remaining an INFj in all other respects, including conflict relations with ESTps? Especially as they'd be the first to see through you, as the "professionals"?

Since is your first function, you'd also be known as a "self-righteous mean bastard".

Can you see that happening?

[Expat]

No opinions? Even from non-INFjs?

Perhaps my intentions were misunderstood --

I'm trying to type a historical figure, who was perceived by many who knew him personally as a "self-righteous mean bastard". That in principle speaks against INFj, but I have little doubt of the strong, even dominant, . So why not ISFj? Because that doesn't fit well, either, also because he had what seemed a very clear relation of conflict with an ESTp.

I'm trying to make sense of this, not annoy INFjs .

[ENFperator]

I see that no one has relied to your topic.

I think this can be applied (more or less) to my INFj father. If I have typed them right his parents were ISTj and ENTj. He has told me that he had continual conflicts with classmates and teachers during his school years and had poor self-control. Later in the university he did weightlifting (the „ideal” discipline for an INFj :wink: ), because he probably thought that he is a perspective athlete. But he really had sucess! And he has told me that he always wanted to be the best everywhere.

And since is his first function he had/has sort of a „self-righteous mean bastard”reputation. That’s why I think INFjs and ISTjs aren’t that different – ISTjs terrorize people with the rules, INFjs do that with their morals.

Now I’ll get back to my work, I’m very busy with my exams right now.

[Expat]

And since is his first function he had/has sort of a „self-righteous mean bastard”reputation. That’s why I think INFjs and ISTjs aren’t that different – ISTjs terrorize people with the rules, INFjs do that with their morals.

Thank you! But are you sure he's not ISFj?

[ENFperator]

He usually surrenders when involved in an argument with types. He seems helpless when someone is using heavy pressure on him.

[Rick]

Expat, I knew a guy who is a "confirmed" EII who grew up with an SLE dad (conflict). He had an interesting air about him, even after many years of close friendship with an LSE. I don't know if this was because of the conflict relationship or because of other traits. He always seemed unduly exacting of himself and tried to show how serious he was and how serious his thoughts were (this is super-ego behavior in this case), rather than take the ethical niches that came up. As a result, he was always "hard to figure out" and had more difficulty making friendships.

However, I can't say he was ever mean or ruthless. "Stale" would be a much better word. Actually, I can't recall ever meeting a mean or ruthless EII. Another EII that I know who is always using his Super-ego among other people can say harsh things, but he also is not mean or ruthless.

I have seen meanness in ESI's occasionally.

[CuriousSoul]

Do you find it plausible that an INFj raised in a family where "victory at any cost" is the chief value might shift to the extreme of using excessively, to the point of being characterized as a "mean bastard" and "ruthless" - while, of course, still remaining an INFj in all other respects, including conflict relations with ESTps? Especially as they'd be the first to see through you, as the "professionals"?

Since is your first function, you'd also be known as a "self-righteous mean bastard".

Can you see that happening?

Sorry, that it took a while to answer.
It is a bit difficult to say since I am not aware of any INFJs that would fit your description. From a more speculative theoretical point of view I would say: Yes, it is possible. Often times the place of least resistance is weak function in the sense that it is difficult to tolerate it from others, but it is not necessarily all that weak if we are in a position to apply it to others... Can look ugly, but pretty human, I guess. Still I am not convinced what makes this person an INFJ in the first place. Many types find it difficult to deal with ESTPs and typing based on the fit of the intertype relations is fraught with difficulties - take it from a former INFP... If, on the other hand, this putative INFJ appears to have disproportionately many Delta friends, you could well be into something.

[Expat]

ENFperator, Rick and CuriousSoul, thanks!

The person I'm thinking of is Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy, JFK's brother. I have little doubt that he was dominant, and ISFj would appear to be the most obvious choice, but when watching or reading interviews with him, I get more of an INFj impression than ISFj -- there are other things as well.

He and Lyndon Johnson (ESTp I now think) couldn't, by all and their own accounts, stand each other at gut level. To me it seems like conflict, but it could conceivably also be supervision.

By the way, he was called "ruthless", "self-righteous" and "mean" by many who knew him personally, also friends and family. His father said of him, approvingly, "Bobby's my boy. When he hates you, you stay hated".

I'll think about this further -- I see the problems with INFj, of course.

[Sarah]

His father said of him, approvingly, "Bobby's my boy. When he hates you, you stay hated".

That describes my ISFj friend perfectly. When he hates people, it's so personal for him that he can never totally and completely forgive them, even if they resolve the issues that caused problems in the first place. But that may just be a personal thing rather than type-related.

[Rick]

Interesting case. I have now read about Robert Kennedy from Wikipedia and looked at his photos. Here are some quotes:

Robert was combative, aggressive and emotional, but also very loyal to his father and elder brothers, even though he was very young by difference in age. During his political career, he was often described as "ruthless."

Robert was his brother's most trusted advisor and political enforcer, outranking Lyndon Johnson, JFK's vice president and most Cabinet secretaries.

RFK was at the head of a coterie of young, inexperienced but well-educated White House officials who were loyal to JFK and his vision, and were viewed with scorn and suspicion from the bureaucracy, establishment politicians and the military's top officers. Robert was especially noted, and often criticized for cronyism, arrogance and combativeness and suspicion and rivalry with establishment figures in the Cabinet and the Democratic party, and several unsubstantiated charges of corruption and abuse of power. But all of Robert Kennedy's work, attitude, thought and conduct revolved around his loyalty to his brother and the future of his administration. Kennedy was a source of reliability and emotional strength to the President.

The murder of President Kennedy, which happened two days after Robert Kennedy's 38th birthday, was a brutal shock to the world, the whole nation, the Kennedy family, but especially to Robert. For the rest of his short life, he never overcame the shock and personal grief of those days in 1963...

At the 1964 Democratic National Convention, Kennedy was due to give a speech prior to the showing of a memorial film dedicated to the late President. As Kennedy was introduced, tens of thousands of delegates, party workers, young members, observing journalists and others broke into thunderous applause and an outroar of support for the nervous and emotionally fragile Robert, standing at the podium. He broke down and began to cry...

Robert Kennedy mustered enough strength to deliver the speech, but broke down into tears backstage. He would remain personally devastated for many months...

Here Kennedy was at a remarkable contrast to his brother. JFK had been thwarted in his effort to pacify yet persuade the politicians of the Southern states to accept civil rights legislation, and his unwillingness to steamroll or appear arrogant to southern Americans. JFK had introduced a major tax-cut legislation to propel the economy, and had trimmed and transformed the workings of the U.S. government. His agenda was not half as committed to a major expansion of government institutions as RFK's social program was. And JFK backed U.S. involvement in South East Asia and other parts of the world against Soviet-sponsored communist aggression, while Robert ultimately committed himself against the war in Vietnam.

By these comparisons, it is easier to portray Robert Kennedy, instead of President John F. Kennedy, as a real icon of American liberalism and the modern political agenda of the United States Democratic Party.

Originally Kennedy had denied speculation that he was going to run for the Democratic nomination in 1968 against President Lyndon Johnson ... Along with doubts of his ability to win the nomination, Kennedy feared that his candidacy would appear to be a product of a personal feud with Johnson.

Robert and Ethel kept their life and family out of the public eye, and were comparatively very private and conservative.

Kennedy was always a loyal son, brother, and family man. Despite the fact that his father's most ambitious dreams centered around his elder brothers, Robert was fiercely loyal to Joseph, Joe Jr. and John. His competitiveness was admired by his father and elder brothers, while his loyalty bound them affectionately closer to each other than most brothers are. Working on the campaigns of John Kennedy, Robert was more involved, passionate and tenacious than the candidate himself, obsessed with every detail, fighting out every battle and taking workers to task.

Considered an eloquent speaker generally, RFK also wrote extensively on politics and issues confronting his generation

Based on this information I would guess you are right about . In addition, this also makes great sense considering I think along with many others that JFK was . If you speculate that JFK was EIE, however, I don't think that fits together with Johnson being SLE. If the two were activators and Bobby Kennedy was an ESI or EII, Bobby's influence would have been minimal. But apparently there was no one closer to JFK than his brother (in terms of political advisors/partners and confidantes). This would be very strange for relations of extinguishment and somewhat unusual for mirage. Actually, I don't yet have an opinion on Johnson.

I haven't read or heard interviews with Bobby, but based on this info I would argue he is ESI. "Arrogance," "combativeness," "scorn," "suspicion," "arrogance," "rivalry," "cronyism," "fierce loyalty," "reliability," "feuding," "emotional strength," "passion," "tenacity," are typical of ESI's and would be unusual for EII's, to say the least. EII's are commonly known for their "supportiveness," but hardly for their "fierce loyalty." Also they are hardly this dogged in pursuing other's interests. Note also that the older brothers admired him for these qualities, which implies that they are clearly strengths, and not the "sick" product of a repressed PoLR. Note that he was the emotional glue of the families and kept the brothers very close. I think this is a very elegant case of + being valued by an environment, but then, I haven't read the interviews.

[Rick]

His father said of him, approvingly, "Bobby's my boy. When he hates you, you stay hated".

That describes my ISFj friend perfectly. When he hates people, it's so personal for him that he can never totally and completely forgive them, even if they resolve the issues that caused problems in the first place. But that may just be a personal thing rather than type-related.

I don't know. My ESI grandma is exactly like that, too! In fact, it's one of her defining qualities.

[Rick]

It's interesting that ESI's and LSI's are often viewed publicly in a sort of negative light. But imagine that you are an LIE and have someone around like that! I think it would be very encouraging.

[Rick]

"Arrogance," "combativeness," "scorn," "suspicion," "arrogance," "rivalry," "cronyism," "fierce loyalty," "reliability," "feuding," "emotional strength," "passion," "tenacity," are typical of ESI's and would be unusual for EII's, to say the least. EII's are commonly known for their "supportiveness," but hardly for their "fierce loyalty." Also they are hardly this dogged in pursuing other's interests. Note also that the older brothers admired him for these qualities, which implies that they are clearly strengths, and not the "sick" product of a repressed PoLR. Note that he was the emotional glue of the families and kept the brothers very close.

Is it just me, or does this also sound a lot like Richard Nixon??

[Rick]

Sorry for posting so much . But this is really intriguing.

Here Kennedy was at a remarkable contrast to his brother. JFK had been thwarted in his effort to pacify yet persuade the politicians of the Southern states to accept civil rights legislation, and his unwillingness to steamroll or appear arrogant to southern Americans. JFK had introduced a major tax-cut legislation to propel the economy, and had trimmed and transformed the workings of the U.S. government. His agenda was not half as committed to a major expansion of government institutions as RFK's social program was. And JFK backed U.S. involvement in South East Asia and other parts of the world against Soviet-sponsored communist aggression, while Robert ultimately committed himself against the war in Vietnam.

Here again we see an interesting dichotomy -- focus on economic expansion vs. more social programs. One is expansionary and individualistic in nature, the other is about internal development and social justice. One's ideology is , the other . Actually, and , to be more precise. One is Republican, the other Democrat... (doesn't it seem?...) And these two systems coexist side by side, with the aspect always a bit more dominant than . Interesting, don't you think?

[Sarah]

I don't know. My ESI grandma is exactly like that, too! In fact, it's one of her defining qualities.

Thanks, Rick! I'm not always sure which of my observations I should interpret purely on a personal level, since my knowledge of socionics is not complete. It's nice to have consistent information.

[Rick]

I've working on a hypothesis on Johnson's type - or maybe even . Here are some more Wikipedia excerpts:

In 1927, Johnson enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers' College (now Texas State University-San Marcos). He worked his way through school, participated in debate and campus politics, edited the school newspaper, and graduated in the 1930's. Robert Caro devoted several chapters of The Path to Power, the first volume of his biography The Years of Lyndon Johnson, to detailing how Johnson's years at San Marcos cemented his skills in persuasion that he would use to great effect in his political life. This was complemented by his humbling experience of taking a year off from college, where he taught mostly Mexican immigrants at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, Texas.

Soon after he graduated from college, Johnson taught public speaking and debate in a Houston high school.

In 1935, Johnson became the head of the Texas National Youth Administration. His new post enabled him to use the powers of government to find educational and job opportunities for young people. The position in effect enabled him to build political pull with his constituents. He served as the head for two years, only resigning to run for Congress. Johnson was a notoriously tough boss with his employees throughout his career, often demanding long workdays and work on weekends; he worked as much as they did, if not more.

Some political enemies charged that Johnson's efforts during the war were trivial and his self-promotion afterward was inappropriate. A month after this incident, President Roosevelt ordered members of Congress serving in the military to return to their offices. Of eight members then serving, four agreed to resign from the armed forces; four resigned from Congress. Johnson returned to Washington, and continued to serve in the House of Representatives through 1949. As Johnson's leading biographer concludes, "The mission was a temporary exposure to danger calculated to satisfy Johnson's personal and political wishes, but it also represented a genuine effort on his part, however misplaced, to improve the lot of America's fighting men."

Once in the Senate, Johnson immediately sought power. Johnson was known among his colleagues for his highly successful "courtships" of older senators, especially Senator Richard Russell, patrician leader of the Conservative coalition and arguably the most powerful man in the Senate. Johnson, always at his best when working one-on-one, proceeded to gain Russell's favor in the same way as he had "courted" Speaker Sam Rayburn and gained his crucial support in the House.

Johnson was appointed to the Armed Services Committee, and later in 1950, he helped create the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee. Johnson became its chairman and conducted a number of investigations of defense costs and efficiency. These investigations—couched in headline-grabbing phraseology but largely devoid of substance—tended to recycle old investigations and demand actions that were already being taken by the Truman administration. However, Johnson's brilliant strategic leaks, his overall manipulation of the press, the incredible speed at which his committee issued new reports (less incredible considering the recycled content), and the fact that he ensured every report was endorsed unanimously by the committee all got him headlines and national attention.

After the election Johnson was powerless. Kennedy and his senior advisors rarely consulted the Texan, and prevented him from assuming the vital role that the previous Vice President, Nixon, had played in energizing the state parties. Kennedy appointed him to nominal jobs such as head of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, which led him to work with blacks and other minorities. Johnson took on numerous minor diplomatic missions, which gave him limited insights into international issues. He was allowed to observe Cabinet and National Security meetings. Kennedy did give Johnson control over all presidential appointments involving Texas. The best position was chairman of the President's Ad Hoc Committee for Science.

Johnson used his famous charm and strong-arm tactics to push through his new policies...

An example of his strong arm tactics was 'The Treatment'; this was where he saw people alone in a small adjoining room where he would pull his chair close to the guests and lean forward until his nose was inches away from the visitor's face. Members of Congress from whom Johnson wanted a vote looked visibly shaken after their meeting with the President.

President Johnson had a dislike for the American war effort in Vietnam, which he had inherited from Kennedy, but expanded considerably following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (less than 3 weeks after the Republican Convention of 1964 which had nominated Barry Goldwater for president). Though he would often privately curse the war, referring to it as his "bitch mistress," at the same time Johnson believed that America could not afford to look weak in the eyes of the world, and so he escalated the war effort continuously from 1964 to 1968

At the same time, Johnson was afraid that too much focus on Vietnam would distract attention from his Great Society programs, so the levels of military escalation, while significant, were never enough to make any real headway in the war. Against his wishes, Johnson's presidency was soon dominated by the Vietnam War.

That year, the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, which is the most visited presidential library in the nation—over a quarter million visitors per year—opened on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin.

Though he attended the service, Nixon did not speak, as customary for presidents during presidential funerals, but both eulogists turned to him as they spoke and lauded him for his tributes to the former president, as Rusk had the day before.

Johnson was famously frugal. Even as President, White House tapes recorded him asking a photographer to take his family portraits for free, saying he was a very poor man living on a weekly paycheck and had a very great deal of financial debt. In fact Johnson was a multimillionaire, but he still received the photographic portraits without having to pay a cent. The White House press corps would make jokes at his expense regarding his habit of turning off all lights in the White House when the rooms were not in use. Johnson's secretary revealed years later that he would wash and reuse Styrofoam cups.[citation needed]

Johnson seemed to crave personal approval. After delivering a major speech on civil rights, he called 32 people, all of whom he knew would greatly approve of his speech, to ask what they thought. All of these people, recorded for posterity in White House tapes, were overwhelmingly complimentary.[citation

Johnson, while using the White House bathroom, was known to insist that others accompany him and continue to discuss official matters, take dictation, or another convenient pretense. This was one of Johnson's many tactics for asserting psychological power over others.[citation needed]

Robert F. Kennedy greatly disliked Johnson and the feeling was mutual. Robert felt that Johnson was not worthy of the vice presidency, while Johnson merely regarded Robert as "Jack's Little Brother" (Jack being one of John F. Kennedy's nicknames), a spoiled brat who was riding his older brother's coat tails to success.[citation needed]

Expat, why do you think ?
It seems to me biographers emphasis his persuasive skills and ability to psychologically manipulate others. Before politics, he seemed to choose opportunities where he would be able to work directly with people and influence them (paper editor, job placement position, teaching degree, helping teach Mexicans in Texas). This need for confirming others' approval of what he said is also telling (James Kerry was also observed to be this way, too).

Here are some more quotes:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...ge=gr&GRid=550

Adept at inter-Washington politics, he could obtain support from his opponents, and his image as a "Master Politician" would later cause many people to distrust him.

These qualities seem to point to ethics and extraversion.

http://www.libraryreference.org/johnson.html

The Texan proved to be a shrewd, skillful Senate leader. A consistent opponent of civil rights legislation until 1957, he developed excellent personal relationships with powerful conservative Southerners. A hard worker, he impressed colleagues with his attention to the details of legislation and his willingness to compromise.

Again, the focus on being able to build good relationships with anyone.

The assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, elevated Johnson to the White House, where he quickly proved a masterful, reassuring leader in the realm of domestic affairs.

In 1964 the Republicans nominated Senator Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona as their presidential nominee. Goldwater was an extreme conservative in domestic policy and an advocate of strong military action to protect American interests in Vietnam. Johnson had increased the number of U.S. military personnel there from 16,000 at the time of Kennedy's assassination to nearly 25,000 a year later. Contrasted to Goldwater, however, he seemed a model of restraint.

Actually, take a look at the hard-nosed and tough Goldwater as a potential SLE.

Among them were personal factors such as his temperamental activism, faith in U.S. military power, and staunch anti-communism.

... Escalation also failed to win the war. The drawn-out struggle made Johnson even more secretive, dogmatic, and hypersensitive to criticism. His usually sure political instincts were failing.

[Rick]

More on Goldwater that might be interesting:

Goldwater was a supporter of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy to the bitter end (one of only 22 Senators who voted against McCarthy's censure), developed a deep friendship with President John F. Kennedy and a lasting dislike for Lyndon B. Johnson, whom he said "used every dirty trick in the bag", and Richard Nixon, whom he later called "the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life" (though he was a key ally of Nixon during Nixon's administration, Goldwater felt deeply betrayed by Watergate). Goldwater tended to have a caustic wit that cost him popularity in the Republican Party. He once characterized the policies of the Eisenhower administration as a "dime-store new deal". President Eisenhower once said to him "Barry, you speak too quick and too loud"; to which Goldwater is said to have responded "Well is that so, President Twinkletoes Fancy-Pants"?

Goldwater was painted as a dangerous figure by the Johnson campaign, which countered Goldwater's slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the line "In your guts, you know he's nuts." Johnson himself did not mention Goldwater in his own acceptance speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, nor did he debate against Goldwater.

Goldwater's provocative advocacy of aggressive tactics to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia led to effective counter-attacks from Lyndon Johnson and his supporters, who feared that Goldwater's militancy would have dire consequences, possibly even including nuclear war.

In the 1990s he became more controversial because of statements that aggravated many social conservatives...

He became known for the occasional, humorous off-color remark; he once told talk-show host Jay Leno and guest Roseanne Barr that he planned to get a tattoo of a lipstick pucker "right on my ass."

So, if Goldwater is SLE and Johnson EIE, their dislike of each other might seem strange. I have a harder time seeing Johnson as IEE, though that would fit better with things. It would be nice to get this puzzle worked out.

[Expat]

Thanks for the comments, Rick!

Well, first, some general comments - - I have read several books and articles on that period and its main protagonists, including several memoirs. My typings of Nixon, the Kennedys, Johnson, etc are based on an overall impression from reading such books. That does NOT mean that I think I'm always right :wink: but it does mean that it's more difficult for me to put the case for my typings in writing, since I'm not using Wikipedia and a lot of the material I've read isn't even online.

Second, I think it's a mistake to type Kennedy or Reagan as LIE due to their economic or tax policies, or other government policies - that is useful to type absolute or near-absolute monarchs but not modern-day politicians.

My case for typing both Kennedy and Reagan as EIE stems from getting an impression of them as individuals, reading reports by people who knew them personally (or quotations thereof). They were both types, and the used in their economic policies was borrowed from others.

One day I'll try to write an article on Kennedy as EIE, but for the moment I'll just ask you do trust me :wink: .

Based on this information I would guess you are right about . In addition, this also makes great sense considering I think along with many others that JFK was . If you speculate that JFK was EIE, however, I don't think that fits together with Johnson being SLE. If the two were activators and Bobby Kennedy was an ESI or EII, Bobby's influence would have been minimal. But apparently there was no one closer to JFK than his brother (in terms of political advisors/partners and confidantes). This would be very strange for relations of extinguishment and somewhat unusual for mirage. Actually, I don't yet have an opinion on Johnson.

The problem with that reasoning is that it ignores the fact that for the Kennedys, even today - and even more so for the "original" Kennedy brothers - family unity and mutual support was of foremost importance. Also, Bobby had been managing JFK's campaigns since 1952, when he entered the Senate. It was only then that JFK started to have more contact with Lyndon Johnson, who was Majority Leader. The Kennedys got very annoyed at Johnson first in 1956, when he backed out of a proposed Johnson-Kennedy ticket, and in the primaries of 1960 Johnson made several attacks on the Kennedys, also on the patriarch, Joseph.

Lyndon Johnson remained a rival to Kennedy for political power, and was chosen as VP candidate for political reasons only - regardless of the intertype relationships involved, I do not find it credible that, in that background, Johnson could get closer to JFK than his own brother (and, again, campaign manager for 8 years).

Still, witnesses say that, on a personal level, JFK and Johnson got along well in their Senate years (as did JFK and Nixon, for that matter), so I think that Activity is plausible.

I haven't read or heard interviews with Bobby, but based on this info I would argue he is ESI. "Arrogance," "combativeness," "scorn," "suspicion," "arrogance," "rivalry," "cronyism," "fierce loyalty," "reliability," "feuding," "emotional strength," "passion," "tenacity," are typical of ESI's and would be unusual for EII's, to say the least. EII's are commonly known for their "supportiveness," but hardly for their "fierce loyalty." Also they are hardly this dogged in pursuing other's interests. Note also that the older brothers admired him for these qualities, which implies that they are clearly strengths, and not the "sick" product of a repressed PoLR. Note that he was the emotional glue of the families and kept the brothers very close. I think this is a very elegant case of + being valued by an environment, but then, I haven't read the interviews.

Well, I disagree with , but anyway, that is the public perception of Bobby. On that basis, ESI is more obvious. But I have problems seeing Bobby with a PoLR, and Arthur Schlesinger - who knew and idolised both brothers - has written that the common perception of Bobby is false, based on a facade. But I haven't decided, I just wanted to know if there could be a case for EII.

Now, on Johnson:

Expat, why do you think ?
It seems to me biographers emphasis his persuasive skills and ability to psychologically manipulate others. Before politics, he seemed to choose opportunities where he would be able to work directly with people and influence them (paper editor, job placement position, teaching degree, helping teach Mexicans in Texas). This need for confirming others' approval of what he said is also telling (James Kerry was also observed to be this way, too).

Here are some more quotes:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...ge=gr&GRid=550

Adept at inter-Washington politics, he could obtain support from his opponents, and his image as a "Master Politician" would later cause many people to distrust him.

These qualities seem to point to ethics and extraversion.

http://www.libraryreference.org/johnson.html

The Texan proved to be a shrewd, skillful Senate leader. A consistent opponent of civil rights legislation until 1957, he developed excellent personal relationships with powerful conservative Southerners. A hard worker, he impressed colleagues with his attention to the details of legislation and his willingness to compromise.

Again, the focus on being able to build good relationships with anyone.

Again, I can't give internet quotes -- the image I get from reading about Johnson is of a guy, using physical intimidation (the "Johnson treatment"), flattery, and sheer power-grabbing to get ahead. He was also known to impulsively explode and humiliate his assistants in the presence of others (and then forget about it). He was a "Master Politician" in the way, not . As for SLE rather than SEE, I'd say his hidden agenda was .

Actually, take a look at the hard-nosed and tough Goldwater as a potential SLE.

I've read Goldwater's memoirs, and my tentative typing for him is LII. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

He gives his reasons for disliking Johnson as his being a "wheeler-dealer", a liar, without any principles etc. I don't remember all the details but it was very much what logical types usually call types.

Anyway, again, my problem is that I can't really easily put my case for those typings in few words. I think that those Wikipedia quotes are misleading.

One day I'll put my case in text, starting with JFK as EIE. It's the easiest.

[Expat]

Is it just me, or does this also sound a lot like Richard Nixon??

Again, I think that that perception of Nixon doesn't hold if you take a close look at all his career.

His father said of him, approvingly, "Bobby's my boy. When he hates you, you stay hated".

That describes my ISFj friend perfectly. When he hates people, it's so personal for him that he can never totally and completely forgive them, even if they resolve the issues that caused problems in the first place. But that may just be a personal thing rather than type-related.

It would be nice to know that the opposite also holds - that is, that if an ESI loves someone, they stay loved.

[Expat]

Sorry for posting so much . But this is really intriguing.

Here Kennedy was at a remarkable contrast to his brother. JFK had been thwarted in his effort to pacify yet persuade the politicians of the Southern states to accept civil rights legislation, and his unwillingness to steamroll or appear arrogant to southern Americans. JFK had introduced a major tax-cut legislation to propel the economy, and had trimmed and transformed the workings of the U.S. government. His agenda was not half as committed to a major expansion of government institutions as RFK's social program was. And JFK backed U.S. involvement in South East Asia and other parts of the world against Soviet-sponsored communist aggression, while Robert ultimately committed himself against the war in Vietnam.

Here again we see an interesting dichotomy -- focus on economic expansion vs. more social programs. One is expansionary and individualistic in nature, the other is about internal development and social justice. One's ideology is , the other . Actually, and , to be more precise. One is Republican, the other Democrat... (doesn't it seem?...) And these two systems coexist side by side, with the aspect always a bit more dominant than . Interesting, don't you think?

Again, I really don't think it's a good idea to type public figures on their perceived policies -- as for Bobby and Vietnam, he was all for it during his brother's presidency, and he was also the architect of "Operation Mongoose" aimed at assassinating Castro. He became a critic of the Vietnam policies of Lyndon Johnson. So there is no clear-cut ideological difference.

[Sarah]

It would be nice to know that the opposite also holds - that is, that if an ESI loves someone, they stay loved.

Fortunately, that also seems to be true. It is interesting when the two coincide, for instance when someone the ESI loves betrays him in some way. He continues to love them and be loyal to them, even if the betrayal was deep enough to make him hate them as well (the inner conflict is terrible). If the person tries to reconcile with the ESI, he will usually accept it after a time and continue almost as before, except that he will never completely forgive them for the betrayal and will not trust them completely again. But it will be mostly okay, and his love is unwavering throughout. If the person does not apologize for the betrayal and or try to reconcile, the ESI will continue to both love and hate them. He will still be loyal to the point where, if the unapologetic person is in trouble and asks for help, he will do whatever is necessary to help. His emotions of love and hate will both stay strong as long as no gesture of remorse is given.

So in summary (from what I have seen), it works something like this:

-If he hates someone without ever having cared for them, there is no hope for them. They will stay hated.
-If he loves someone, they stay loved.
-If he likes someone okay and they betray him, they will not be forgiven. (Though if it is a only a minor betrayal, and they're really sorry, he may be willing to remain acquaintances. But he will never forget, and they will never be more than acquaintances.)
-If he loves someone and they betray him, he will both love and hate them. If they are sorry about it, the hate will be reduced, and the relationship will proceed (mostly) as before.

[this is true for the ESI I have been friends with for a long time---I don't know to what extent it is true for others.]

[Rick]

Again, I can't give internet quotes -- the image I get from reading about Johnson is of a guy, using physical intimidation (the "Johnson treatment"), flattery, and sheer power-grabbing to get ahead. He was also known to impulsively explode and humiliate his assistants in the presence of others (and then forget about it). He was a "Master Politician" in the way, not . As for SLE rather than SEE, I'd say his hidden agenda was .

A couple comments for now. I also have my unstated reasons for typing that are hard to articulate (mostly based on studying photos). For example, Johnson doesn't have the "heavy," "grounded in reality" look, in my opinion.

If Wikipedia is correct, not only was Johnson able to psychologically manipulate others at times, but he was also able to get others to like him, and maintain relations of "like" indefinitely. The fact that this is mentioned in different biographies shows that he was clearly "above average" in this regard. This would be very unlike SLE.

In my opinion you may be putting too much emphasis on the "hidden agenda" thing as a typing istrument. This approach is only found among people in and around Ganin's site. The 6th function can make itself manifest abstractly as a desire for a certain kind of recognition, but in day-to-day matters it tends to simply be ignored. It's not an area that you can consistently impress others in day in, day out.

I fully agree that we the Kennedy family ties must be taken into consideration, and that a dual within the family is different from a dual without, etc. But I can say for certain that there really is nothing useful an EII can do for an EIE in day-to-day matters, brother or not. That would be a forced and frustrating relationship that would always lead to a split in a stressful work setting.

The idea of typing people based on economic or other policy alone is also not quite to my liking, either. I find it a bit too abstract and potentially inaccurate. But afterwards it provides interesting parallels. Bukalov puts more emphasis on this. He might say that when a president assumes office, he essentially comes to office with a ready network of people and that this group pretty much has his integral type. (I'm not sure this is always true).

I think that how people are known in the limelight isn't always what they think is their "true character," as you mention with Bobby. But it is very hard to consistently portray a character that is related to your weak functions. I think in these cases biographers are saying that there were weak functions used for personal use that were very important to the person in his personal life that did not come across in his public image.

That's it for now. Interested in your comments.

[Expat]

I fully agree that we the Kennedy family ties must be taken into consideration, and that a dual within the family is different from a dual without, etc. But I can say for certain that there really is nothing useful an EII can do for an EIE in day-to-day matters, brother or not. That would be a forced and frustrating relationship that would always lead to a split in a stressful work setting.

I can see that, and by all accounts the John/Robert Kennedy relationship was a close one psychologically. I agree that all points out to ESI in Bobby's case. It's just that some of his writings, and comments of others about him, do not suggest someone with a PoLR, on the contrary. A more complicated, and also problematic, option would be to make Bobby an LII intuitive subtype, to account for his strong . So perhaps he wasn't dominant after all. I'll go for ESI for now and maybe put something together on that.

The idea of typing people based on economic or other policy alone is also not quite to my liking, either. I find it a bit too abstract and potentially inaccurate. But afterwards it provides interesting parallels. Bukalov puts more emphasis on this. He might say that when a president assumes office, he essentially comes to office with a ready network of people and that this group pretty much has his integral type. (I'm not sure this is always true).

I don't think this is always true. For instance, Reagan's "supply-side economics" ideologues had actually belonged to Jack Kemp's circle. When, every early on the Republican primary dispute, Kemp agreed to drop out and support Reagan, the Reagan core group - who had no idea about economic policy - welcomed Kemp's circle into their own ranks and Reagan became an enthusiast, but those ideas hadn't originated with him and even he was a late convert. That scenario is vividly described by David Stockman in his The Triumph of Politics memoir. He was originally attached to Jack Kemp.

About Kennedy, to put it very simply, the one thing everyone who ever knew him personally agrees on about him is that he had an amazing ability to make anyone he met like him (especially women), that his personality brightened up any room he entered. Also, he was thrashed - and felt thrashed - by Khruschev in a ideological discussion when they met in Vienna. According to Lytov, and I agree, Khruschev was SEI. A LIE feel crushed after a discussion on communism vs capitalism with a SEI? I am skeptical. As VP, it had been Nixon who had thrashed Khruschev in their "Kitchen Debate" in Moscow. After such a discussion with an SEI, a LIE might say, "that guy's insane", but not "he kicked my ass" which is more or less what Kennedy said.

That is just one of many of my arguments for Kennedy as EIE.

I think that how people are known in the limelight isn't always what they think is their "true character," as you mention with Bobby. But it is very hard to consistently portray a character that is related to your weak functions. I think in these cases biographers are saying that there were weak functions used for personal use that were very important to the person in his personal life that did not come across in his public image.

I agree, which is why I started this thread. I see the obvious problems of Bobby as EII.

As for Johnson, I think SLEs can be very flattering and ingratiating - even ass-kissers - with people whom they need but can't bully or intimidate. But perhaps SEE is better for Johnson.

[Expat]

A few thoughts on Lyndon Johnson by one of his biographers, Robert Dallek, in a Booknotes interview:

LAMB: What quick words would you use to define Lyndon Johnson?


DALLEK: He was a magnificent scoundrel, a self-serving altruist, a man of high ideals and no principles, a chameleon on plaid. He was a man of many contradictions, a man with vision who's self-serving.

He was a man who lived, I think, with a terrible sense of emptiness. There was something deep in his psyche, which made him feel empty or unloved or unwanted, and he had to fill himself up. This was a man who had to fill himself with work, with food, with drink, with talk, with womanizing. He had to be the best. He had to dominate. He had to control. He had to be the most powerful. Well, I think he identified with disadvantaged people -- people who he saw as also lacking things, needing things. He was a very needy man in a way. He needed to have attention. He needed to be the constant center, the focus of everyone's attention.

If you met Lyndon Johnson, you never forgot him. He did some of the most outrageous things. I don't know if I can even relate them here on cable television because he was terribly vulgar and crude. There was partly purpose to this, though. He was implanting himself in your memory. You had to remember Lyndon Johnson. He identifies with disadvantaged people who are needy the way, in a sense, he was needy, and he works very hard throughout his career to serve them. I don't want to paint a picture of a saint. Believe me, this man was intensely ambitious, but it's just the point you quoted: "He loved to marry his ambition to his ideals."

Or by Robert Caro, another biographer:

CARO: I think he was a man who had to win. I see in this, I think we all see, in this volume, in this election, a man who had to win. He had kidney stones during this campaign. It was his last chance. Kidney stones are a particularly agonizing pain, and this was a terrible attack, and his fever was 105 degrees, and the doctors told him, you know, "You must get to a hospital, you're risking the loss of the kidney function." In fact, it goes on, "You're risking the loss of your life." He wouldn't stop campaigning. He was laying, he was driving back and forth across Texas, lying in the back of the car between stops, gagging and retching, perspiration pouring off him, but every time they pulled into a town, he'd get on a clean shirt, big smile, and he'd bound out. He'd shake every hand and give the speech. When you use the word knowingly or unknowingly, I almost think it's deeper than that with Lyndon Johnson. He simply had to win.

[Rick]

Interesting. So now we have documented different aspects of his person -- his ability to ingratiate himself and his controlling nature. I would still lean towards EIE (IEE we can drop confidently). But I just found him on Lytov's site typed as an SEE, so that has got me thinking. Maybe we can get him in here for a commentary.

The kind of attention-getting behavior described above, I think, can be attributed to either or , depending on its hidden content. Did Johnson want to be the physical center of attention? Or did he want to be at the emotional center? Did he want things and capital to revolve around him, or did he want everyone to listen to him and serve his ideas? At the very least, we can through out IEE. I still feel Johnson is an ethical type. That anecdote about needing to ask everyone's attention and get everyone's approval is very anti-SLE.

[Expat]

So in summary (from what I have seen), it works something like this:

-If he hates someone without ever having cared for them, there is no hope for them. They will stay hated.
-If he loves someone, they stay loved.
-If he likes someone okay and they betray him, they will not be forgiven. (Though if it is a only a minor betrayal, and they're really sorry, he may be willing to remain acquaintances. But he will never forget, and they will never be more than acquaintances.)
-If he loves someone and they betray him, he will both love and hate them. If they are sorry about it, the hate will be reduced, and the relationship will proceed (mostly) as before.

[this is true for the ESI I have been friends with for a long time---I don't know to what extent it is true for others.]

I think this is generally true, and it would be nice to know that, in particular, the "stay loved" is true. Thanks!

[Expat]

I still feel Johnson is an ethical type. That anecdote about needing to ask everyone's attention and get everyone's approval is very anti-SLE.

I think SEE is possible, what I feel about him is mainly . And, if Johnson was SEE and Bobby LII intuitive subtype, that would fit nicely.

I saw what you wrote above regarding the hidden agenda - - so you don't think that SLEs have a need for admiration, a need "to be loved"?

[Rick]

I saw what you wrote above regarding the hidden agenda - - so you don't think that SLEs have a need for admiration, a need "to be loved"?

Need - yes. Skill - no.

[Rick]

I still feel Johnson is an ethical type. That anecdote about needing to ask everyone's attention and get everyone's approval is very anti-SLE.

I think SEE is possible, what I feel about him is mainly . And, if Johnson was SEE and Bobby LII intuitive subtype, that would fit nicely.

I saw what you wrote above regarding the hidden agenda - - so you don't think that SLEs have a need for admiration, a need "to be loved"?

Dmitri says he'll get back to us.

Can you give some more detail about the dislike between RBK and LBJ?

[Rick]

Just thought I'd note the interesting resemblance between Jack London and JFK:
http://images.google.com/images?svnu...on&btnG=Search
and
http://images.google.com/images?svnu...on&btnG=Search

[Expat]

Can you give some more detail about the dislike between RBK and LBJ?

By all accounts of people who knew them well, including LBJ's own, there was certainly a problem of sheer "chemistry" beyond any political disagreements, but their political disputes had left a lot of resentment. But Arthur Schlesinger says that, once, as VP, LBJ even tried to find out way, asking "your brother likes me. Jackie likes me. But why, why don't you like me?" Schlesinger said that, among other things, it was the problem between LBJ's "Texan overstatement" and RFK's "laconic irony".

Jeff Shesol wrote a book on that, called Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade , and here are some quotes from his Booknotes interview:

I was utterly struck by the language Kennedy uses to describe LBJ. He describes him as an animal, in many ways: `mean, bitter, vicious.

And on LBJ's behavior immediately after JFK's death:

as soon as Johnson got to Washington, wanted to move into the Oval Office immediately--had been advised, in fairness, by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that he really needed to move in right away and assume the reins of the presidency so that there was no question in the world, particularly in the Communist world, that there was order in the United States and continuity.

So Johnson wanted to move into the Oval Office and very callously told
John Kennedy's personal secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, to get her stuff
together by 9:30 and--so his girls could come in. That's the way he
put it. Robert Kennedy walked into the Oval Office to--moments later
to get some of his brother's belongings out of the desk, found Evelyn
Lincoln weeping and was just enraged at Johnson. He just couldn't
believe that Johnson could be so callous.

He stormed into the Oval Office and attacked Johnson for it.
Johnson blithely sort of waved his hand and gave Evelyn
Lincoln another hour to get her things together. So things got off to
a very bad foot between the two of them--on a very bad foot.

[INFJ_girl]

There's no way I could ever be ruthless as a life-long trait. I can identify with some of the rather negaitve things listed above but in general those are only drawn upon when necessary, usually when bad or difficult things get inside me so deeply that I have to shut down entirely. I get to emotional overload, and feel too much to go on like that. Being a bastard is always a last resort. INFJs are far too empathetic, so even when we have to be cold it's hard for us because we feel what we've done to the other person.

It's like either I can care all the way or I have to put up the wall and not care at all. The first is natural to me, the second is a learned reaction to bad stimuli. And once I've had to shut down to something, I walk away from it. In order to have ongoing interaction with anything, I have to let it inside me, and that's where the good stuff is.

[anndelise]

I'm not sure if this will be useful at all, but my observations on FiNe and Se PoLR:

Typically, when faced with external forces which are forcing the FiNe to respond, the FiNe will withdraw or avoid those forces as best as they can. However, I would think that in an environment in which they are forced to assert themselves somehow, or forced to use their Se on a regular basis, I can see how they could come across as a ruthless s.o.b.

For starters, they easily notice what a person likes/dislikes, wants/doesn't want, etc. They can also probably see possible ways of meeting those wants/likes as well as ways of ensuring that the wants/likes aren't met. Also seeing how to utilize those wants/likes diswants/dislikes to their desired advantage. Having been forced to assert themselves when they would normally withdraw, they'd have awesome weaponry at their disposal.

[Expat]

The kind of attention-getting behavior described above, I think, can be attributed to either or , depending on its hidden content. Did Johnson want to be the physical center of attention? Or did he want to be at the emotional center? Did he want things and capital to revolve around him, or did he want everyone to listen to him and serve his ideas? At the very least, we can through out IEE. I still feel Johnson is an ethical type. That anecdote about needing to ask everyone's attention and get everyone's approval is very anti-SLE.

Rick,

Here you have good examples of the "Johnson treatment".

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/nytjohnson.jpg
http://www.uiowa.edu/commstud/resour...verbal/lbj.htm

[Expat]

INFJ_girl and anndelise, thanks.

I also find it unlikely that an INFj could come across as "ruthless" all the time, but I have my reasons to consider that that might be the case for RFK -- old Joe Kennedy, the patriarch, went out of his way to raise his children to be "winners" and he even thought JFK was too soft.

But now I'm more inclined to INTj intuitive subtype or, indeed, ISFj. They make more sense if JFK was ENFj.

[Rick]

Well, this has been an interesting topic, and I hope I can return to it better informed some day .

[Expat]

Going through my library of books on that era, I just found very interesting information in Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of LBJ - she spent months at his ranch after he left the presidency.

On LBJ's thoughts on Robert Kennedy, regarding LBJ's dismay at not being an intellectual:

-- here was a man who seemed to combine both intellect and will. John Kennedy had never seemed to constitute the same kind of threat. From their first meeting, Johnson had typed [Senator John Kennedy] as "weak and pallid", "a scrawny man with a bad back, a weak and indecisive politician, a nice man, a gentle man, but not a man's man". With Bobby, it was different. If he was smaller, he was tougher, and a brutal bargainer - - at the same time, the reports that Bobby liked to read, quote poems, and take long walks by himself connoted to Johnson a man of the mind.

The simplest solution is

Lyndon Johnson: ESFp
Robert Kennedy: ISTj
John Kennedy: ENFj

Then you have Robert Kennedy as Johnson's supervisor, and his brother's dual -- which fits what is known of their relationship. So Robert Kennedy wasn't dominant but perhaps was a sensory subtype who relied almost as much on as on .

[Rick]

Very interesting. Good hypothesis. I had the same thought, but I am still under the influence of the JFK=LIE idea. I will look into this issue some more eventually.

[Expat]

@Rick: Thank you!

Actually I have the case for JFK as EIE all finished in my head, but it would have to include quotes from several books, including a Khrushchev biography, which I don't have online, which means I'll have to transcribe them manually.

[The Reality Denialist]

I'd say the best way to describe it is that they become very pushy against invisible wall.