Type These Well-Known Presidents

[Rocky]

Didn't quite understand that - isn't a Socionics ISFj always supposed to be either an MBTI ISFJ or ISFP? Guess I'm revealing some ignorance here ...

I disagree with what you just said, and Phaedrus, but I will just say what I mean --

Please, Expat. Don't you see that you are contradicting yourself? Your views on this matter are not consistent. You admit that an MBTT ISFJ is closest to a socionic ISFj. That means that every MBTT ISFJ is a socionic ISFj, because the defining criterion for being an ISFJ is that you fit the type descriptions, which means that if you are an ISFJ you belong to the group of people that they are trying to portray in their ISFJ type descriptions. Under no circumstances is it possible to be an ISFJ and not be a socionic ISFj. That makes no sense at all if you have understood what it means to be a type in MBTT. And Keirsey's ISFJs are completely identical to MBTT ISFJs. The only difference is that Keirsey doesn't talk about functions. The type descriptions are extremely similar. It is absolutely impossible that they are talking about different groups of people.

Oh, God no.

See, this is what I meant when I said you are forcing this too much. The only times you post on here anymore is to defend the belief that "all types are the same, always" which can't be true. BTW, I do think you try and force the belief that you are Ni in socionics by using MBTT definitions of Ti, when of course that doesn't make sense. And if we were talking about Jung, then he would probably say that your intutition was "archaic", and thus, not a dominant function. The best answer for your type, with everything you continue to post, is dominant Ti, which I don't think is impossible (or even uncommon) for people who relate to dominant Ti in MBTT.

[Phaedrus]

I think Carter is a Socionics ISFj

And I think that you could be right about that.

I have observed that many people (regardless of whether that is what Keirsey meant or not) tend to type people in Keirsey according to their interests and activities, so that a scientist or engineer "has" to be an NT, an "idealist activist" "has" to be an NF, etc. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that that's what Ragnar was doing.

Okay. I don't know what Ragnar was doing, but people seem to be thinking the most ridiculous things when it comes to typing people, and I don't think we should assume that people are typing people correctly if they base their claims solely on someone's interests and activities. We should avoid making Keirsey's model look more stupid than it is. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

I will just ignore any debates referring to Meyer-Briggs and especially Keirsey from now on. From my point of view they are a huge waste of time.

My main interest is always to get the socionic types right. The only reason I stepped in here was because I wanted to correct some misunderstandings. And I thought that your post would cause people to get the wrong ideas about the types.

[Phaedrus]

See, this is what I meant when I said you are forcing this too much.

The best answer for your type, with everything you continue to post, is dominant Ti, which I don't think is impossible (or even uncommon) for people who relate to dominant Ti in MBTT.

Who is forcing things? You and others insist on claiming that I am probably an INTj, without commenting at all on any of all the arguments I have put forward against that claim, and despite all the HUGE problems that are linked to it and all the devastating consequences that would follow it it is true. If you want me to take you seriously, you simply must make at least a slight effort and contribute in trying to solve the problem.

I hope that you realize that there are problems with the claim that I am an INTj, and that those problems concern Socionics as a theory. Why don't you start with trying to explain how I can be an INTj and an INTP at the same time? (It is an indisputable fact that I am an INTP in MBTT.) And how should we explain the fact that most INTps on this forum think that they are INTPs and most INTjs think that they are INTJs (for example Sergei Ganin)? How can I be the same socionic type as Ganin and UDP, considering the fact that they are INTJs and I am an INTP?

[FDG]

LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLO @ phaddy!!!

[Rocky]

See, this is what I meant when I said you are forcing this too much.

The best answer for your type, with everything you continue to post, is dominant Ti, which I don't think is impossible (or even uncommon) for people who relate to dominant Ti in MBTT.

Who is forcing things? You and others insist on claiming that I am probably an INTj, without commenting at all on any of all the arguments I have put forward against that claim, and despite all the HUGE problems that are linked to it and all the devastating consequences that would follow it it is true. If you want me to take you seriously, you simply must make at least a slight effort and contribute in trying to solve the problem.

I hope that you realize that there are problems with the claim that I am an INTj, and that those problems concern Socionics as a theory. Why don't you start with trying to explain how I can be an INTj and an INTP at the same time? (It is an indisputable fact that I am an INTP in MBTT.) And how should we explain the fact that most INTps on this forum think that they are INTPs and most INTjs think that they are INTJs (for example Sergei Ganin)? How can I be the same socionic type as Ganin and UDP, considering the fact that they are INTJs and I am an INTP?

OK.

You claim you are Te as opposed to Ti in socionics because you are "non-human" oriented, however anyone else would say that both Thinking functions are geared towards innanimate objects, whereas both Feeling functions are gearded towards more human/living objects. So that argument doesn't hold. You claim that Ni is a logical function whereas Ti is non-logical; obviously a problem that I won't bother repeating here. Then, you use examples from the MBTT of things like, "INTPs have a clear and precise thought-process" or something like that, to support the claim that that is Ni. Of course the problem with that again is that the MBTT describes INTPs like that because according to theory, their inner world is "organized" (judgment), and almost anyone in socionics would also say that that quality is Ti dominant more then anything else, as, if it were Ni for example, NiFe would also have to have the same clearness of mind when in reality the Feelers are somewhat more fuzzy. Also, Intuition is a process of "opening up" whereas Thinking is a process of "closing off", and your behavior strongly suggests a sort of stubborness.

There's probably more but that's a quick list. I don't believe in anything Ganin says. Also, if you think the problems with typing you as LII in socionics stems from the relationships, then you may be right, but I don't really beleive that type can strongly predict relationships anymore, but you can at least talk about the building blocks of type and start from there.

Go.

[Rocky]

And how should we explain the fact that most INTps on this forum think that they are INTPs and most INTjs think that they are INTJs (for example Sergei Ganin)? How can I be the same socionic type as Ganin and UDP, considering the fact that they are INTJs and I am an INTP?

I'll answer this seperately. Most people probably consider themselves the same type for reasons too broad to be relevant to the argument. I think the way you talk you sound most similar to someone like Subterranean, but both of you different types to people like TC and UDP.

It's probably also a bit sad that every thread has to be hijacked by this argument btw.

EDIT/// look on page three because I made another post before this one.

[Expat]

Getting a bit back on topic --

Gerald Ford - ISFj
Lyndon Johnson - ESFp
Herbert Hoover - ESTj
Calvin Coolidge - INTp or ISTp
James K. Polk - ENTj
Chester Arthur - perhaps ENFj
James Buchanan - perhaps INTj

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for backing up your claims with arguments, Rocky.

You claim you are Te as opposed to Ti in socionics because you are "non-human" oriented, however anyone else would say that both Thinking functions are geared towards innanimate objects, whereas both Feeling functions are gearded towards more human/living objects.

Agreed. But consider the world view of someone like Kant. Contrast his perspective with Hans Eysenck's. Consider how many real life INTjs have this "bottom-up" approach to things, whereas I have a "top-down" approach. If you don't think that there is anything to my interpretation of how the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy typically manifests itself in the attitudes and views of INTjs and INTps, how do you interpret that dichotomy? What does it mean, according to your understanding, to be a Subjectivist, and what does it mean to be an Objectivist? Or do you think that Reinin's dichotomies are all crap?

You claim that Ni is a logical function whereas Ti is non-logical;

Where and when did I claim something that absurd? If you are referring to the recent thread where I commented on something tcaudillg wrote, here is what I said:

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Disregarding the question of whether what you say here is consistent with the common socionic understanding of , if what you say is true, it would explain a lot and give us an understanding of the socionic types that would enable us to see their similarity with the corresponding MBTT types more clearly according to the ABCD=ABCd school, which I still defend.

Note that I don't say that I agree with tcaudillg's understanding of . I only say that if what he says is true, then it would explain a lot about the types (not the functions). There are of course many problems with the definitions of the functions if tcaudillg is right about .

In fact I very much agree with what you said in the same thread:

Te believes that logic is a one-way street, and Ti is more opinionated; Te is good at laying out and expressing ideas whereas Ti holds back it's thoughts until pressured and then let's everything out at the same time; Te believes that things can be measured, Ti believes that things can be made up; Te is more formal, Ti being apathetic; and Te is bent on expanding it's control over people while Ti's more focused on asking itself what is going to happen.

I think that an important detail in what you say here is the first sentence. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but according to my experience Ti types are more inclined to be relativists regarding the laws of logic. They tend to believe that there can be many different kind of logics, for example the three-value logic that is presupposed in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. I, in contrast, believe that the most fundamental principles in classical logic are universally true in every possible world. There can be no alternative to those logical principles.

I have never been trying to say that the function is non-logical. Of course it is logical, but so is . What I have criticized is the view that only is logical, since that seems to suggest that Ti types are better at logical thinking than Te types. I don't think that is logical at all. The ability of INTps (and ISTps for that matter) to think logically probably comes from their if any particular function is involved.

If all logical thinking would comes from , then the function would be very strong in most INTps, since that type is good at logical thinking in my opinion. And if that is true, then the argument that I am probably an INTj because I express so much in my posts would not be strong, since that wouldn't tell us much about whether I am an INTj or an INTp.

Then, you use examples from the MBTT of things like, "INTPs have a clear and precise thought-process" or something like that, to support the claim that that is Ni.

No, no, no. Only to support the claim that the INTp/INTP type is good at logical thinking. And since that type doesn't have in the ego block, I dispute the claim that is responsible for logical thinking.

Of course the problem with that again is that the MBTT describes INTPs like that because according to theory, their inner world is "organized" (judgment), and almost anyone in socionics would also say that that quality is Ti dominant more then anything else, as, if it were Ni for example, NiFe would also have to have the same clearness of mind when in reality the Feelers are somewhat more fuzzy. Also, Intuition is a process of "opening up" whereas Thinking is a process of "closing off", and your behavior strongly suggests a sort of stubborness.

That INTPs are described as striving for clarity of mind and wanting their beliefs to form a logical whole and such things can equally well be explained by a combination of and . Both MBTT and Socionics describe pretty much the same behaviour in INTPs and INTps (at least the intuitive subtype of INTp). They agree that they are perceived as laid-back P types, but Socionics explain that behaviour as coming from , whereas MBTT says that it comes from the function that is extraverted, that is, the auxilliary Ne of INTPs. Since both models agree on what kind of behaviour they are observing, why should it matter if they explain the same behaviour theoretically as a manifestation of TiNe or as a manifestation of ?

In a Swedish book on MBTI, written by a professional MBTI practitioner, introverted thinking (Ti) is explained thus (my translation):

Introverted thinking builds his own models of the world from the external facts you have collected. In contrast to extraverted thinking you don't start with sorting the facts. Instead it collect facts more un-prejudiced and open-minded in order to create a model of thought that maybe, maybe not, can be put into practice.

About the differences between Te and Ti it is said in the same book:

The differences are also striking: Extraverted thinking reasons systematically, step-by-step, and sort the facts according to logical rules before they are adopted. Introverted thinking creates logical models in a more holistic, non-linear way, and only after the facts have been collected. You create your own rules and value your freedom strongly.

Of course they have to say such things in MBTT in order to make the theoretical explanation fit the observed behaviours of the types. Te is said to be step-by-step and systematic because the behaviours of ENTJs and INTJs are supposed to be explained by both types having Te as a strong function. Ti is said to be holistic and non-linear because that is how real life INTPs (and INTps) actually think and behave when they are trying to make sense of reality.

There's probably more but that's a quick list. I don't believe in anything Ganin says.

Well, don't you think that it is a problem for the socionic community if one of the most well-known socionists is wrong about his own type?

Also, if you think the problems with typing you as LII in socionics stems from the relationships, then you may be right, but I don't really beleive that type can strongly predict relationships anymore, but you can at least talk about the building blocks of type and start from there.

Maybe I agree with you here. At least I don't think that the intertype relations is a reliable foundation to start with. They are too vaguely described and open for many different interpretations.

[Rocky]

There's probably more but that's a quick list. I don't believe in anything Ganin says.

Well, don't you think that it is a problem for the socionic community if one of the most well-known socionists is wrong about his own type?

I know that Lytov (and I'm guessing other Russians) don't like Ganin. I think he's only popular in the West. He says that his views of the types are different then other socionists, and that people can believe him if they want or not believe him.

[Phaedrus]

I know that Lytov (and I'm guessing other Russians) don't like Ganin. I think he's only popular in the West. He says that his views of the types are different then other socionists, and that people can believe him if they want or not believe him.

Where does Ganin say that his views on the types are different than other socionists? If I have read it I have forgot when and where.

Whether Ganin is popular or not is irrelevant. And unless Lytov is lying, he doesn't dispute Ganin's claim that he is an INTj, since Lytove presents Ganin as an INTj on his own site.

[ragnar]

tend to type people in Keirsey according to their interests and activities, so that a scientist or engineer "has" to be an NT, an "idealist activist" "has" to be an NF, etc. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that that's what Ragnar was doing.

Guess I'm revealing my ignorance again, but your're right on the mark: This is to a large extent how I guessed most socionics types in the list of Presidents. The "scientist" Jefferson, f.i., the "administrator" Washington, the "operator" FDR, etc.


Greetings, ragnar.

[Logos]

Of course logic is not solely the propriety of . Even in the Socionics nomenclature, ILI and LII both imply a world view that values Logic (logos) over Ethics (ethos). So in even the semantics of the name, it would be impossible for to be solely logic and somehow for to be illogical or some lesser form of logic. And the question is how and for what purposes these logicians (and even ethicians? to an extent) express their logic as an hierarchical function of their self-operation. is the logic to support the system developed, whereas is the logic created around what has been developed or what is. Logic often has a sort of connotation with structure, so perhaps an analogous way to view and is architecture and engineering. leads to the development of the blueprint or concept design. is the assessment of the project as it materializes. But worth noting is that, assuming none of these functions are in the ego-block, and must be used in conjunction with the other. It is merely a matter of preferences and strength of these functions which determines the expression of these functions, but they seem to exist as two sides of the same coin. One side requires the other to be able to adequately operate.

The problem is that in many of your posts, Phaedrus, you do an almost opposite claim in which you make to be the measure of all things and to be simply misguided logic. We should not let our own function preferences cloud our value assessments of other functions and types.

[Phaedrus]

The problem is that in many of your posts, Phaedrus, you do an almost opposite claim in which you make to be the measure of all things and to be simply misguided logic.

Don't confuse functions and types. I believe that I personally measure things primarily from a influenced perspective. is not misguided logic, because in itself has nothing to do with logical thinking in my opinion. Neither has anything to do with logical thinking. Logical thinking (which should not be confused with "Logic" in the socionic sense) is above the functions. To think logically means to think correctly according to universal laws (principles) of validity.

Some types, for example INTjs, seem to have a tendency to form incorrect (false)views on the true nature of logical principles and the possibility of relativistic theories being true (correct). That I have that opinion on the types can be seen as an expression of a typical tendency that my own type seem to have, and in that sense I let my own function preferences "cloud" my value assesments of other types. No type is immune to that. We are all "prisoners" in our own type's way of thinking. But that doesn't mean that we are all "made equal" when it comes to thinking correctly. To be a relativist is always wrong. If I would think otherwise I would not be true to my own type; I am destined to think that my own type is better suited to see these things more clearly than other types. And of course every other type will think in exactly that way which is most natural for them. So, you can't criticize my view from a relativistic perspective for being too objectivist without confirming its validity.

[Rocky]

I know that Lytov (and I'm guessing other Russians) don't like Ganin. I think he's only popular in the West. He says that his views of the types are different then other socionists, and that people can believe him if they want or not believe him.

Where does Ganin say that his views on the types are different than other socionists? If I have read it I have forgot when and where.

Whether Ganin is popular or not is irrelevant. And unless Lytov is lying, he doesn't dispute Ganin's claim that he is an INTj, since Lytove presents Ganin as an INTj on his own site.

He doesn't dispute his type because he doesn't dispute anyone's type; but he does disagree on a theoretical basis.

[Expat]

tend to type people in Keirsey according to their interests and activities, so that a scientist or engineer "has" to be an NT, an "idealist activist" "has" to be an NF, etc. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that that's what Ragnar was doing.

Guess I'm revealing my ignorance again, but your're right on the mark: This is to a large extent how I guessed most socionics types in the list of Presidents. The "scientist" Jefferson, f.i., the "administrator" Washington, the "operator" FDR, etc.


Greetings, ragnar.

Thanks.

Regardless of Keirsey's real intentions or criteria, I had already observed that this is how many people go about typing others: " he's an "idealist activist", so NF; now is he I or E, or P or J? Hmm, I guess I and J, so INFJ". I think this is a very poor method.

Carter's whole political persona is based on ethical principles, it's not based on any kind of big "vision" (except, again, on ethics). I thought it likely that he was a Fi-dominant. Far more rational than irrational. Liked to run the presidency with an obsession for details (unlike Reagan for instance), so probably not a Si super-ego type. Talked often in interviews about the need to be tough on people, so not Se PoLR. One of his most important - and disastrous - decisions was to accept the deposed Shah into the US for medical treatmeant, which led - or at least largely contributed - to the hostage crisis that ultimately destroyed his presidency. From the point of view of hard policy and cold logic, there was no reason at all to accept the deposed, dying Shah in the US. Like Ford's pardon of Nixon, it was a decision based solely on "that's the right thing to do" according to his own principles.

Something interesting to consider. I can make an even better case that Carter is ISFj. I think there is a good case that Ford was one, too. And the "mainstream" Socionics view is that Nixon was ISFj (personally I disagree with that).

So there would be a case for saying that three US presidents in succession, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, were ISFj. Which would go against the view of some people (such as Rocky ) that ISFjs somehow are very seldom leaders.

Anyway personally I think Nixon was ENTj rather than ISFj.

[Rocky]

Well fwiw all the possible isfj you've listed I see as more Te.

[Expat]

Where do you see a particular Te focus in Carter or Ford?

[Rocky]

Where do you see a particular Te focus in Carter or Ford?

That would be a harder question to answer, but I wrote a lot about what I see as related to Te in this thread (and the other Ni-Te thread in which we talked about Pheadrus), and I see these guys as having those qualities, so if you disagree with those you can do it.

I will say that I think what some people on this forum call Se others call Te. That might be one of the "consistant" differences in people's opinions.

[Raver]

Where do you see a particular Te focus in Carter or Ford?

That would be a harder question to answer, but I wrote a lot about what I see as related to Te in this thread (and the other Ni-Te thread in which we talked about Pheadrus), and I see these guys as having those qualities, so if you disagree with those you can do it.

I will say that I think what some people on this forum call Se others call Te. That might be one of the "consistant" differences in people's opinions.

Yes, Yes and Yes. Everything Rocky says here is true and reveals a truth about the perception of functions. That the way one perceives a function is arbitrary and can be valid, even if the judgements and results may appear accurate. This is why MBTI viewed as being a rational function and MBTI was way off in defining that function in my opinion. I think George Washington is ESTJ imo and not ISFJ, though other types are possible as well.

[implied]

I will say that I think what some people on this forum call Se others call Te. That might be one of the "consistant" differences in people's opinions.

can agree with this. i suppose this makes sense since ENTj gets supervised by ISTp (successfully?) ISTps can come off like ISFjs (and ESFps, see the "example of INTp-ESFp duality thread.")

[Rocky]

I think a basic "rule" is that most are ExTx, and the closer to ENTJ the better.

[tcaudilllg]

Nixon was ENTj.

[1981slater]

My opinion:

Ronald Reagan EIE Fe
George HW Bush LIE Te
Bill Clinton SLE Ti
George W Bush SLE Se
Barack H Obama SEE Fi