Why were LSI so unsuccessful as American politicians in the 19th century, but fewer after the 20th century?

[Disturbed]

There were many LSI American presidents in the 19th century (and both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Hamilton Stephens were LSI, Davis Se subtype, Stephens Ti subtype), and they were prominent in American politics in the 19th century, but after 19th century, there were no LSI presidents except maybe Truman (was he an ESI-Se?). Bobby Kennedy did come close; but actually I want to make the focus of this thread the Sensory subtype; I can understand the political situations of LSI Ti a bit better.

LSI-Se can't make it into the Presidency anymore, they tend to hold non-mainstream views and the Ti subtype which is more into unifying and holds more mainstream views has come closer but Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence still didn't make it.

The two main reasons I can think of are what I just mentioned, and male LSI-Se are rare.

But what else? How could LSI-Se womens' beauty, unusual experiences, uncommon knowledge, and intellect not help them into the presidency? LSI-Se men are also good looking, how does that not help them? How could Tulsi Gabbard get so few votes when she was so beautiful and so intelligent? Why do the Democrats care so little about aesthetics or are even bothered by beauty?

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I love me some Tulsi Gabbard, sexy ass MILF politician.


But LSI does badly in American politics because the country isn't friendly to aristocratic Ti. Hillary Clinton felt entitled to the presidency several times just for being who she was. USA don't take kindly to that shit.

[Tarnished]

SJW in US seem strong.

[xerx]

I don't have time to elaborate right now, but my strong impression is that Lyndon Johnson was LSI.

While we're here:

* Teddy Roosevelt: SLE

* Franklin Roosevelt: LIE

* Truman: SEE

* Eisenhower: SLI

* JFK: EIE

* Nixon: ILI

* Carter: EII

* Reagan: EIE

* Bush (Sr): LSE

* Clinton: EIE

* Bush (Jr): SEE

* Trump: SLE

* Biden: EIE



And while we're still here:

* George Washington: SEE or ESI (?)

* John Adams: ILI

* Thomas Jefferson: LII

* Abraham Lincoln: EII

[Disturbed]

@xerxGood point about LBJ, never thought about it before; I had thought that SEE-Se was likely, but he certainly V.I.s like an LSI. Not sure of the subtype, probably Se subtype though since he was so skilled at direct manipulation and was more open to change and okay with disorder and since he died of a myocardial infarction. Makes sense, because Gamma Nixon came right after and was disturbed by what was happening and tried to end it. I had also thought Tim Kaine was ESI or LSI, probably LSI maybe LSE-Si, but I doubt it... in some photos he looks similar to LBJ.

[JellyBum]

Are you sure they're LSI's Pretty sure hamilton is universally typed as an LIE

[Disturbed]

@JellyBumI was talking about the CSA Vice President, not the advocate for the Constitution. Thank you. Sorry.

[RBRS]

There were no unsuccessful LSI presidents, because there were no LSI presidents.

Polarity is at the core of Socionics theory, sadly, the Socion's polarities drive contrary to reality. IMs are not polar opposites, nor do they need to have an inverse relation.

There's plenty of examples that show someone can be strong or weak in F or T IMs or strong or weak in S or N IMs at the same time. IMs themselves describe thought processes that are not necessarily working as expected, and are not in contradiction with each other.

Socionics seems accurate because of it's interpretation of certain aspects of life, like the existence of more or less electrifying relations, or some human psychological facts
and it manages to use your confirmation bias to make itself even more credible.

When the system works, it confirms your belief, until it doesn't, and you think there's a mistype, or use a subtyping model to justify it. Add stereotypes and assumed intentions behind IMs and you get a twisted view of reality that is accurate sometimes on isolated facts but difficults your life even more...

And if you take self typing seriously it can lead to quite negative relational results and nullification of personal authenticity in order to fit some type. Limiting yourself to descriptions leads to problems in self knowledge, although most believe it's the opposite what happens.

Socionics is wrong, as most jungian typology right now (although it does give some steps on a good direction) so...

[ouronis]

Both of the examples you gave were from the confederacy..

[Adam Strange]

Both of the examples you gave were from the confederacy..

Good point, @ouronis. LSIs might not do so well in liberal democracies.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Harry Reid (Democrats) and Mitch McConnell (Republicans) I think are both probably LSIs, and both had some impact on politics in their own way in recent years.

I think LSI presidents include: Washington, Buchanan, Benjamin Harrison, Coolidge, and Nixon. Hillary Clinton could easily have been President - she did after all win the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million votes.

[Disturbed]

@ouronis
@Adam Strange
Well, I tend not to go for pure relevancy, I'd rather include every detail. And of course the so-called confederacy wasn't a confederacy at all. If it had been, then South may have been victorious. The Union would've had a more difficult time if things were less centralized; militaries are decentralized by nature, but Jefferson Davis didn't make good decisions. But he was President under a centralized government, so no one really could've given their limited resources. What I find interesting, is that despite Alexander Hamilton Stephens having worse one to one people skills compared to Jefferson Davis, Stephens was the Ti subtype as was Hillary. Both tended to give people what they wanted or were more open to it and were more into efficiency. Davis and Tulsi Gabbard were quixotic, idealistic and willing to tell people what they didn't want to hear, and they were both the Se subtype. Perhaps the Ti subtype somehow has the ability to fluidly read what the masses want and make concessions (similar to LII-Ti) and basically their power gives them happiness and they balance it with what people want so they can hold on to power. Ti subtype accumulates knowledge, so they still kind of please people. I suspect Vlad Putin does that too. Se subtype is more rigid and is less willing to concede to what people want, or at least they are as leaders. EIE-Ni and LSI-Se dual dyad does what they want exclusively it's their own ideas. EIE-Fe and LSI-Ti tend to willing yield most things to what most people want for some reason... perhaps it really has to do Alphas being least selfish and Gammas being the most self-interested, I don't know. Same thing when you're dealing with SLE-Se and SLE-Ti.. in donald trump's actions (he was subtyped towards Alpha), he was willing to let go of the American empire realizing it wasn't fair. Of course, there were many LSI-Se who are willing to do the same (Tulsi Gabbard is one of them), but for totally different reasons rather than fairness. Anyway, I think Putin isn't as bad as people are saying he is and I think American empire and intervention are ridiculous. When Thomas Woodrow Wilson started the Treaty of Versailles, he hadn't realized that could be used to prop up America as an empire; basically, international governmental organizations have wound up having the effect of strengthening the U.S. and giving it and its corporations unfair advantage... that's another example of unsound Gamma methodology (Wilson was an ESI-Se). Same with Ayn Rand (LIE-Ni) and Murry Rothbard (EIE-Ni)... Rothbard, despite having weaker Ti, valued it over Te, and he was ultimately more consistent in his Anarcho-capitalism system vs Ayn Rand's objectivism and her complete pro-big business Gamma lack of sympathy for poor street kids with some unusual talents; most EIE-Ni aren't able to foresee problems very well, but Rothbard had trained his mind to see that there were problems while Ayn Rand had not only said there should be a government, but also a patent system.

Something I've noticed, is that LSIs were more likely to be dictators, emperors, monarchs as were ILE-Ti. Both LSI and ILE-Ti don't do well in liberal democracies. I may be an LSI myself (if not, then LSE or IEI) and I loathe democracy, I think it's totally overrated. I'm not saying autocracy would be better, but there are times when I've truly thought that democracies were terrible. Again, I might be an IEI or an LSE, but I'm no fan of popular rule. I want people to be happy, but I don't think that most people can act in their own interests when it comes to voting... I really don't. That's exactly why ILE-Ti and LSI-Se had more power under monarchies because they could discern cause and effect of factual realities and see the consequences of actions better and took know action when people were demanding solutions that would likely be not very good. Hans Herman Hoppe is an LSI-Se himself, and he mentions people with high time preference do better under a democracy... that means the quality of solutions is worse under a democracy, because they don't wait for every detail to be counted... time limits are set on the leaders to get re-elected, so they'll come up with half assed solutions. I'm not saying I have low time preference myself, but one of my uncles on my mom's side seems to be an LSI-Ti and he has super low time preference... he gets totally immersed in the process of things. His EIE-Ni father had so many problems and had such high time preference that my maternal grandmother had to always stop him from trying every new thing. I get a lot of my problems from him, he had some strong genes... but my maternal grandmother also should've refused to marry him, but she found him so entertaining that she couldn't resist and he kept pressing on and on and on for marriage and she had no where to go so she just said yes. Pretty much everyone was forced to submit to my EIE-Ni maternal grandfather and god I hated his ass. My EIE-Fe dad, On the other hand, is more categorical than into creating tricks and manipulation like EIE-Ni maternal grandfather and is more like, "well, I didn't work for it, if i take it that's stealing, it's not mine, so I'm not going to take it."

[Vis]

I think betas quadra leaders will be remembered as inspiring heros in democracy settings (JFK), while in non-democracy they will be remembered as dictators/murderers (Putin and Xi, who actually did inspiring acts fighting corruption in their early years), because with longer terms their paranoia will get the better of them, and the political isolation they created will make them lose sense of reality. Other quadras are probably no better. Even though a lot of ugly things happen during elections, I think ultimately democracy saves most leader's reputations and sanity.

There are exceptional leaders who willingly give up their power to make the nation/world a better place. But they are so few and far between. So, given most leaders are ordinary people, a democracy system is probably better for leaders of all quadras.