Originally Posted by
Jack Oliver Aaron
Your observation about Trump is right. He does manipulate crowds by influencing their emotional states. However, I would say that your socionics interpretation is incorrect. The Contact/Inert dichotomy has little to do with changing other people. Instead it is about how the user's own position is likely to change or not. It is quite clear that Trump sets the mood of his rallies and tries to get everyone else to go along with that mood. This would be an Inert (and Bold +Valued) usage of Ethics.
Furthermore, the aspect to do with manipulation involves the expectation that people's emotional states are liable to change and that a firm setting of the mood will change their emotions to suit Trump's needs. That is a way of viewing Ethics that is Dynamic, in constant flux and open to being changed and altered by someone. That is quite different to the Static, relational Ethics we see Introverted Ethics. From this point and the one above, your observation supports Extroverted Ethics in either the Leading or Mobilising position for Donald Trump.
Your comparison to Julius Caesar is at least half correct. You are right in that Caesar and Trump were both blind to the long-term effects of their actions, and that they were motivated by a relentless pursuit of power. This is what makes them both Extroverted Sensation Leading and Introverted Intuition Suggestive. However, from what I know about Caesar, his popularism, although emulated by classic SLEs like Napoleon and Mussolini, was more of a front for his political ability on the one-to-one. Caesar sought less to change or influence the mood of the people, and more to be relatable to others, not a rank above them, someone who could be trusted to rule. This is one reason why he refused to be made Emperor, so that he would not be seen as a King. The Republic would surely assassinate a King. I think Expat knows a lot more about this than I do though. His position is SEE for Caesar.
Reply With Quote