Much has been made of the differences between the temperments of Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama is calm, cool, collected (distant?) and McCain is fiery, a maverick (erratic?). I have been observing the two men closely during the debates and I am convinced that Obama is a Myers-Briggs INTJ and McCain is an ESTP. With three out of four preferences being opposite, no wonder they come across so differently!
First, let's look at how introversion versus extroversion plays out in these two candidates. Obama is an introvert. People close to him say he is hard to get to know; by contrast, those aboard the extroverted McCain's Straight Talk Express bus say he is constantly talking, often telling the same jokes and stories over and over. During the debates, McCain interrupted Obama more than Obama interrupted McCain, although McCain did show a lot of polite restraint. During this last debate, I noticed that McCain used his notepad a lot more than Obama did. He wrote things down -- either what Obama was saying that he wanted to respond to, or the things he himself planned to say -- processing the information externally. It wasn't simply a matter of being more diligent; if anything, I thought Obama's responses were more targeted toward what the interviewer asked and what the other candidate said, but Obama processed the information internally -- he made the notes inside his head. Critics of Obama sometimes say that he hesitates as he begins to speak (I have heard people say he must be lying or making it up, since he has to think so hard about it, but we introverts know that internal processing takes time.)
The combination of introversion plus the judging trait made Obama's responses have the following well-organized pattern: first, a statement that establishes what I am talking about; then, a statement of my position on that issue; then, a transition to the side issue the other candidate raised; then, a statement of my position on that issue, etc.
McCain, an extroverted perceiver, speaks very differently. Sometimes, he moved from one idea to another so quickly that I had trouble following the line of thought. One example -- he was talking about the need to end our dependence on foreign oil and the role that offshore drilling would play in reaching that goal; mid-sentence, he thought about how it was fine to buy oil from Canada, and he said so, and that made him think about how Obama wanted to add some regulations to our trade agreement with Canada, so he mentioned that, and also how he disagreed with telegraphing our intentions to other nations by saying such things and how that might lead to bad relations, so he said all of those things right then and totally lost the thread of his plan to eliminate our dependence on middle Eastern oil.
A result of this speaking style is that McCain gets more ideas into a smaller space of time, but they are expressed less fully and less coherently. Not only is McCain's speech more dense with ideas, his ideas are more specific. This is because he has the sensing preference, so he focuses on facts -- specific bills, particular incidents, concrete proposals. The first question of the third debate was about the country's economic woes. In answering, McCain focused narrowly on the mortgage crisis, and outlined a specific plan to renegotiate mortgages based on the reduced values of homes so that people could afford to stay in their houses.
Obama, by contrast, took the question more broadly. He talked about housing prices, but he also talked about job creation, tax relief, and investing in the future of our economy with educational programs. This is because Obama has the intuitive preference. He focuses on overarching ideas and principles. Critics of his say he is vague and never outlines concrete plans for achieving his goals, and he never defines what "change" means. As a fellow intuitive, I am not bothered by this. I think that once you establish the principles by which you will lead, you can apply those principles to the particulars as they come up; I don't need to hear all the details of every little policy. My criticism of McCain is an intuitive's criticism of a sensor -- much of what he talks about seems small, boring, obscure and tedious. Where is his vision for the country?
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
I Guess We're All Voting for Obama, Then
This cartoon showing reasons for each type to vote for Barack Obama is from the web site of Elizabeth Wagele, one of the authors of The Enneagram Made Easy:
She, uh, didn't make one for McCain.
So, what do you guys think? Do these reasons in any way resemble your reasons for voting (or not) for Obama? As a 5, I must admit that I do like it when Obama "uses his brain."
Barack Obama Supporters Come In All Types
by Elizabeth Wagele;
She, uh, didn't make one for McCain.
So, what do you guys think? Do these reasons in any way resemble your reasons for voting (or not) for Obama? As a 5, I must admit that I do like it when Obama "uses his brain."
Saturday, August 9, 2008
A Pair of 3s?
Way back when, Mary Beth typed politician John Edwards as a 3. Today's New York Times seems to corroborate. It contains an opinion piece by Gail Collins titled "Ken Doll in Lust" and is basically saying that after hearing about other politicians' sex scandals, Edwards should have used that knowledge to handle his own better. Despite the word "lust" in the title, the article is actually about deception, and contains plenty of evidence supporting the 3 theory.
Here it is, if you want to read it in its entirety:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09collins.html.
Here's the first statement in the article that makes me think 3:
"As to why he did it, Edwards blamed 'an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.' ” This is apt, as type 3 is the type most associated with narcissism. Quoth Riso and Hudson's Personality Types: "Average Threes are the most narcissistic of the personality tpes.... Narcissists care principally about themselves -- and about other only to the degree that they reflect well upon themselves. They remain intensely self-centered, with a limited ability to empathize with anyone else's feelings or needs. That is why they have little capacity for love and why -- once they have become narcissistic -- average Threes have little capacity to form lasting, mutually satisfying relationships. Relationships are one-sided because both parties are in love with the same person -- the Three."
And then this, from the NYT piece:
"His 2 a.m. visit with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at a Beverly Hills hotel last month was a secret mission to keep her from going public about their liaison, the briefness and meaninglessness of which cannot be stressed too often. " (emphasis mine) I find this statement interesting because it indicates that the affair itself was a lie, since I suspect Edwards gave Hunter the impression that their relationship was, in fact, meaningful. Edwards seems to be defending himself by saying "I wasn't really lying to you -- public wife, etc. -- all that much; I was actually lying to her -- big time!"
Continuing with the article, "Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York in 2006, and paid her $114,000 to follow him around, documenting his every move for campaign videos." How could a 3 reasonably be expected not to fall in love with a person employed to take pictures of him? And then, in the same paragraph:
"Said videos were posted, then mysteriously disappeared from the Edwards Web site, with officials muttering something about campaign finance rules." This might be a little dishonest.
As for the videos, "They exist today on YouTube, where you can see the candidate sitting on his plane, grinning like a hound dog in heat, while he tells Hunter that he doesn’t want to be 'some plastic Ken doll that you put in front of the audience,' and pokes himself in the chest while announcing, 'I actually want the country to see who I am — who I truly am.' " This just about speaks for itself, doesn't it?
From Personality Types:
"Because Threes adapt themselves to the desires and expectations of others to validate themselves, they can lose a clear sense of who they actually are... because their sense of their authentic self becomes increasingly blocked, average Threes begin to engage in internal 'pep talks' to convince themselves that they actually are the outstanding person they are trying to become."
Back to the NYT article:
"If Edwards’s political career is toast, it will be because he has always seemed to be less than a sum of his parts: the position papers, the 'Two Americas,' the photogenic grin, the supersmart wife. The only piece of the package that consistently disappointed was the man himself. He wasn’t a very good running mate for John Kerry, and as a presidential candidate, he always struck me as being about 2 inches deep."
Personality Types on how Threes can appear to others:
"Fear of rejection causes average Threes to abandon themselves as they search for the 'right combination' of factors which they believe will enhance them and make them more acceptable... there is an element of slickness, an emotional hollowness about average Threes because much of what they say and do is not a true reflection of who they actually are. 'Who they are' is becoming ever more difficult to identify, both for others and for themselves."
And a final word from Collins:
"how much less damage would have been done if the offender had taken the inventive tactic of not lying."
And now, lest you think we don't know our audience and realize that what you really want is to know Barrack Obama's Enneagram type, I am ready to do some public speculating. Obama is something of an enigma. Mary Beth and I wonder whether he is a 3 or a 9. We also occasionally wonder whether he is a 1 or a 5. We feel that types 2, 4, 6, and 8 are right out.
Continuing with the tactic of using op-ed pieces from The New York Times, here's one by David Brooks about Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html
While you can find plenty here that will support the 9 theory or the 5 theory, here's the stuff that seems like 3 to me:
"He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things." (emphasis mine)
And this:
"He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely."
3s are famous for not having long-lasting relationships, despite their apparent popularity.
And, finally, this:
"Obama’s 'Dreams From My Father' is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own."
Identity formation is an issue of the heart triad.
Here's my question:
If 3s are shape-shifters who lose their identities trying to give people what they want; 9s are ghosts who merge with others' agendas trying to avoid conflict; and 5s are blanks screens reflecting others' desires, trying to not be seen, what is Obama? Anyone have a theory?
I will go on the record now as saying I think John McCain is a 6 -- counterphobic, 5 wing.
Here it is, if you want to read it in its entirety:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09collins.html.
Here's the first statement in the article that makes me think 3:
"As to why he did it, Edwards blamed 'an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.' ” This is apt, as type 3 is the type most associated with narcissism. Quoth Riso and Hudson's Personality Types: "Average Threes are the most narcissistic of the personality tpes.... Narcissists care principally about themselves -- and about other only to the degree that they reflect well upon themselves. They remain intensely self-centered, with a limited ability to empathize with anyone else's feelings or needs. That is why they have little capacity for love and why -- once they have become narcissistic -- average Threes have little capacity to form lasting, mutually satisfying relationships. Relationships are one-sided because both parties are in love with the same person -- the Three."
And then this, from the NYT piece:
"His 2 a.m. visit with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at a Beverly Hills hotel last month was a secret mission to keep her from going public about their liaison, the briefness and meaninglessness of which cannot be stressed too often. " (emphasis mine) I find this statement interesting because it indicates that the affair itself was a lie, since I suspect Edwards gave Hunter the impression that their relationship was, in fact, meaningful. Edwards seems to be defending himself by saying "I wasn't really lying to you -- public wife, etc. -- all that much; I was actually lying to her -- big time!"
Continuing with the article, "Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York in 2006, and paid her $114,000 to follow him around, documenting his every move for campaign videos." How could a 3 reasonably be expected not to fall in love with a person employed to take pictures of him? And then, in the same paragraph:
"Said videos were posted, then mysteriously disappeared from the Edwards Web site, with officials muttering something about campaign finance rules." This might be a little dishonest.
As for the videos, "They exist today on YouTube, where you can see the candidate sitting on his plane, grinning like a hound dog in heat, while he tells Hunter that he doesn’t want to be 'some plastic Ken doll that you put in front of the audience,' and pokes himself in the chest while announcing, 'I actually want the country to see who I am — who I truly am.' " This just about speaks for itself, doesn't it?
From Personality Types:
"Because Threes adapt themselves to the desires and expectations of others to validate themselves, they can lose a clear sense of who they actually are... because their sense of their authentic self becomes increasingly blocked, average Threes begin to engage in internal 'pep talks' to convince themselves that they actually are the outstanding person they are trying to become."
Back to the NYT article:
"If Edwards’s political career is toast, it will be because he has always seemed to be less than a sum of his parts: the position papers, the 'Two Americas,' the photogenic grin, the supersmart wife. The only piece of the package that consistently disappointed was the man himself. He wasn’t a very good running mate for John Kerry, and as a presidential candidate, he always struck me as being about 2 inches deep."
Personality Types on how Threes can appear to others:
"Fear of rejection causes average Threes to abandon themselves as they search for the 'right combination' of factors which they believe will enhance them and make them more acceptable... there is an element of slickness, an emotional hollowness about average Threes because much of what they say and do is not a true reflection of who they actually are. 'Who they are' is becoming ever more difficult to identify, both for others and for themselves."
And a final word from Collins:
"how much less damage would have been done if the offender had taken the inventive tactic of not lying."
And now, lest you think we don't know our audience and realize that what you really want is to know Barrack Obama's Enneagram type, I am ready to do some public speculating. Obama is something of an enigma. Mary Beth and I wonder whether he is a 3 or a 9. We also occasionally wonder whether he is a 1 or a 5. We feel that types 2, 4, 6, and 8 are right out.
Continuing with the tactic of using op-ed pieces from The New York Times, here's one by David Brooks about Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html
While you can find plenty here that will support the 9 theory or the 5 theory, here's the stuff that seems like 3 to me:
"He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things." (emphasis mine)
And this:
"He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely."
3s are famous for not having long-lasting relationships, despite their apparent popularity.
And, finally, this:
"Obama’s 'Dreams From My Father' is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own."
Identity formation is an issue of the heart triad.
Here's my question:
If 3s are shape-shifters who lose their identities trying to give people what they want; 9s are ghosts who merge with others' agendas trying to avoid conflict; and 5s are blanks screens reflecting others' desires, trying to not be seen, what is Obama? Anyone have a theory?
I will go on the record now as saying I think John McCain is a 6 -- counterphobic, 5 wing.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
