Socionists assuming political leaders as EIEs-ENFjs by default

[Expat]

I was wondering at the huge number of political leaders socionists just seem to assume to be ENFj. For instance, from Dmitri Lytov's site, these leaders are typed as ENFj:

President George W. Bush
Nicolae Ceausescu, Romanian dictator
King Charles XII of Sweden
King Frederick the Great of Prussia
Che Guevara
Gaddafi, Libyan dictator
Nero, Roman Emperor

Does anyone know of the base for such typings? Or is there an inclination to type any "leader" as ENFj if one can't think of any other type?

[CuriousSoul]

Does anyone know of the base for such typings? Or is there an inclination to type any "leader" as ENFj if one can't think of any other type?

I think so.
It seems to me that there just is no reliable method of typing celebrities and all the lists available are just based on the roles these people played in the public limelight. I think it migh be worthwile to try to type people, for example, purely according to the Reinin dichotomies or the dictates of the mathematico-mechanical socionics and see what you end up with. At least the results could look different from most other type lists.

[implied]

[Rick]

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's actually often easier to type celebrities (actors excluded) than average people, because celebrities have to use their strengths very well to become successful and famous. They are less amorphous than average people. To become famous and beat the competition you have to integrate everything you do and the reasons for doing it into your leading function and create a distinct "information product" that makes sense to people. If you're a -type, you can't become famous as a nervous, self-conscious war general who's stuck on his super-ego, because the competition will crush you. But if you can find a way to integrate into your profession of war so that war is no longer a super-ego pursuit, but engages your strengths, then you can indeed become famous. And your will be clearly visible in the way you do your job and your statements on war.

[Rick]

I was wondering at the huge number of political leaders socionists just seem to assume to be ENFj. For instance, from Dmitri Lytov's site, these leaders are typed as ENFj:

President George W. Bush
Nicolae Ceausescu, Romanian dictator
King Charles XII of Sweden
King Frederick the Great of Prussia
Che Guevara
Gaddafi, Libyan dictator
Nero, Roman Emperor

Does anyone know of the base for such typings? Or is there an inclination to type any "leader" as ENFj if one can't think of any other type?

What huge number are you talking about? I don't think there are any more EIE politicians than SEE's or SLE's, according to most socionists.

You'll have to ask Lytov. Those are his typings, and there is no consensus on any of these people except for Nero, who made it into the "Celebrity benchmark list."

[Expat]

What huge number are you talking about? I don't think there are any more EIE politicians than SEE's or SLE's, according to most socionists.

You'll have to ask Lytov. Those are his typings, and there is no consensus on any of these people except for Nero, who made it into the "Celebrity benchmark list."

Well, "huge number" is perhaps exaggerated, I was based my observations on Lytov's list, especially as I find some of the typings unjustified.

Do you have an article about Nero's typing? He was about the worst politician ever and seemed to have zero and lots of .

[Rick]

Do you have an article about Nero's typing? He was about the worst politician ever and seemed to have zero and lots of .

No, you'll have to ask Lytov about that.

[Expat]

No, you'll have to ask Lytov about that.

He told me that there is no such article -- I have to assume that it is one of those cases where the typing was made with little historical basis.

Perhaps some day I'll tackle that

[Rick]

Hm, I doubt it. Lytov has an excellent command of history and usually has articulated reasons for his typings... Actual articles on typings are few and far between, but that doesn't mean they weren't researched carefully. I'm sure you understand that, though.

[Expat]

I do, I'm just being a typical arrogant ENTj --

Ok, some day I'll put into writing the case for my typing of Nero as ISFp.

If there was one ENFj emperor, I'd say it was Julian the Apostate (although ENTj is also possible).

[Rick]

I do, I'm just being a typical arrogant ENTj

Funny, whenever people do that arrogant stuff, I automatically respond with and temper people's exaggerations and harsh statements (I just did it above and didn't realize it). Socionics in action...

[Gilly]

Bush is an ESTp, IMO. He looks like he's got the eyes, and if you see those clips of him debating back in the old days, well...

[Rick]

No no no! Bush = .

I agree. I still think he's LSE, but I don't have much to say about the man.

[science as magic]

celebrities have to use their strengths very well to become successful and famous.

I am not sure this need be true. It seems like once one encounters a situation that challanges them often enough they are forced to overcome their weaknesses. Obviously there are many conditions that must be met in order for this to occur....

[Rick]

celebrities have to use their strengths very well to become successful and famous.

I am not sure this need be true. It seems like once one encounters a situation that challanges them often enough they are forced to overcome their weaknesses. Obviously there are many conditions that must be met in order for this to occur....

Using one's strengths is also very challenging, though. I'm saying the competition for success is so great that achieving fame by doing things you're not good at is almost impossible (actually, that's sort of a tautology). Your heart has to be in it in order to apply the necessary creative energy, which also implies you've somehow integrated the activity into your strengths.

I know a SLI who wrote award-winning geophysics papers in college, and everyone has always encouraged her in geology and told her she could become a "great" geologist. But it hasn't happened because she lost interest at one point because the academic life of a geologist didn't suit her. But there are other geologists around her who have made geology and science their life and devoted all their energy to making their name in the field, despite not being any more intelligent. Just an example.

[science as magic]

I am not sure that skills develop wholly unevenly however. For example, those who "have a positive attitude" tend to live longer, have better health, earn more, have more satisfaction in relationships, work, etc. Those who are highly intelligent tend to become better skilled in their 'weak points' without detriment to their abilities in other areas. In fact developing as many channels for mental, physical, emotional, etc expression as possible is to your advantage because if you spend an undue amount of time processing one form of information because of a personal weakness it stifles your ability to be as productive as you could be. Take for example highly intelligent serial killers who never become very 'successful' because their mental disturbance detracts from their ability to 'accomplish' much, keep from getting caught, etc. At the other extreme you have people who are good at everything because the amount of interaction that they have with all sorts of different situations stimulates further development in all areas.