What Is It About 3-ism?

Note: This was originally published on 1/9/08.
On Sunday, The New York Times ran an article by Noah Feldman entitled "What Is It About Mormonism?" (Shockingly), the article is not about the Enneagram per se, but it does end up making a lot of sense to those of us who look at the world from an Enneagrammic perspective.
The article focuses on Mitt Romney and the possible difficulties his Mormonism will cause him in attempting to secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States. In doing so, the article summarizes quite a bit of Mormon history.
My commentary on the article will focus on the tripartite 3-ish-ness of Mitt Romney (commented on as a 3 here and here), Mormon culture, and American political culture. In doing so, I will summarize many of the main points of the article, but you might want to read the whole thing.
According to the article, the Mormon image is pro-business and socially conservative, in line with everything Republicans profess to like. However, a large chunk of Republican voters say they will not support a Mormon candidate for President. The basic problem is two-fold: a matter of evangelical Christians perceiving Mormonism as non-Christian or at least heretical, and a matter of bigotry.
According to Feldman, this lingering bigotry is fueled by "the disconcerting split between [Mormonism]'s public and private faces." Check out this icon of Type 3, created by the Enneagram Institute:

Feldman goes on to explain: "The church's most inviting public symbols [The Enneagram Institute's "Overview of Type 3" describes 3s as "image-oriented, emphasizing style over substance, symbols over reality"] -- pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts -- evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church's murky past... Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity." To me, it is the exaggerated normalcy that resonates so strongly with type 3.

In order to maintain an appropriate, electable image, Romney will find ways to emphasize the normalcy of his faith without evoking its oddness. Like a good 3 and a good politician, he must spin the facts. More from EI's type 3 overview: "Politics is becoming less concerned with principles or the use of power for the common good than with the display of personalities. Politics serves public relations, selling candidates with their calculated positions to a public which can no longer tell a fabricated image from a real person."

The largest public statement Romney has made about his faith has consisted of: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." Here's Feldman's take on it: "Romney presumably calculated that speaking about Jesus Christ in terms that sound consistent with ordinary American Protestantism would reassure voters that there was in the end nothing especially unusual about Mormonism." (Why, Mitt Romney! How "pragmatic and calculating"! See Personality Types, page 99.)

Another example of the Romney spin on religion, from Feldman: "Romney has felt the need to minimize the centrality of Mormon scripture by saying he reads the Gideon Bible when he is alone in his hotel room on the campaign trail.

The formulation may be seen as a clever hedge: to the ordinary Protestant listener, it sounds as if Romney is saying that he reads the same Bible they do. To the Mormon insider, however, Romney is simply saying that when he travels to the hotel and finds himself, presumably, without a handy copy of the Book of Mormon, he reads the text of the Bible that can be found in the drawer beside the bed...

This is a perfect example of esoteric public speaking: the attempt to convey multiple messages to different audiences through the careful use of words. Something similar is perhaps contained in Romney's outspoken admiration for Rick Warren, the megachurch pastor and best-selling author. To the general audience, the message is the embrace of an evangelical who is as mainstream as it gets. To a Mormon audience, however, the praise is presumably intended at most as a suggestion that it is possible to learn from the remarkable organizational and evangelizing effects of a well-known public figure."

There are aspects of Mormon identity which can help Romney win the nomination. According to Feldman, "In the elite East Coast worlds where Romney has made his career, Mormanism signifies [among other things] professional competence... [and] the systematic overrepresentation of Mormons among top businesspeople and lawyers affords LDS affiliation a certain cache..." In Enneagram literature, type 3 is the type most associated with professional competence.

Still, there is a difference between respecting Mormon individuals or Mormon culture, and respecting Mormon religion. Many Americans believe that Mormonism is a false religion, and that the Book of Mormon lacks authenticity, and they would have a hard time voting for a Mormon President. This attitude is, according to Feldman, "a complicated outgrowth of the tortured history of the faith's relationship to mainstream American political life over the [last] two centuries..."

Mormonism is a secretive religion; the details of its theology and its rituals are kept from outsiders. (In her book Leaving the Saints, type 3 exemplar and ex-Mormon Martha Beck describes her Mormon temple wedding -- and how she was sworn to secrecy about its particulars. For more info on Beck, see the second half of this post.) Feldman attributes this secrecy to two sources -- internal theology and external persecution.

On the theological front, Mormon founder Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelations that were to be shared with only a few people. The doctrine of plural marriage (no longer practiced by mainstream Mormons) is probably the most famous of these secret revelations, and Smith kept it to himself until after his death. Another revelation, which Smith shared in one of his last communications before his death, resonates strongly with Enneagram type 3.

Quoth Smith: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."The natural outgrowth of this idea is the Mormon tenet of the perfectibility of mankind into divine form. This is close to the 3's goal of becoming "a human ideal, embodying widely admired qualities." (Understanding the Enneagram, page 80.)

Alas, Smith, according to Feldman, "was denounced as a charlatan, an impostor, or worse." Calling someone a "charlatan" or an "impostor" is a pretty specific insult, and it fits with type 3's association with the sin of deceit. Certainly, the allegation that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, rather than discovered it when its location was revealed by an angel, comes up over and over. (Two interesting articles on the Book of Mormon, one pro-angelic revelation and one con, are here and here.)

As Mormonism grew under Smith's leadership, Mormon communities in Missouri and Illinois began to be violently persecuted by their neighbors. Smith himself was gunned down by a mob. Smith's successor Brigham Young led the Mormons to Utah, where things were safer. For a while, Mormons openly practiced plural marriage. However, the practice was soon outlawed by the federal government.

One might characterize the Mormon reaction as "deceitful." They said one thing (In 1890, the president of the church advised Mormons not to enter into unlawful marriages), but did another (plural marriage continued in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere.)

Feldman writes, "This period of resisting persecution by living outside the law taught Mormons that secrecy can be a necessary tool for survival. As one apostle (there are 12 who guide the church) later put it in a speech recounted by the historian Kathleen Flake, 'I am not dishonest and not a liar... [but] we have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.'"

Feldman recounts another moment of deception in Mormon history. In 1903, the people of Utah elected Mormon apostle Reed Smoot to the House of Representatives. Since many believed that his association with the Mormon church disqualified him to take office, a series of hearings were held on the Senate floor. Then-president of the church Joseph F. Smith (a nephew of the original Joseph Smith) testified and, according to Feldman, "sought somewhat unsuccessfully to conceal both the continuing practice of plural marriage and his own status as seer and revelator."

Soon after, at Smith's urging, Mormons really did stop practicing plural marriage and Smoot took his seat in Congress.

Thereafter, Mormons sought to appear more politically and theologically mainstream. According to Feldman, "The Mormon path to normalization over the course of the 20th century depended heavily on this avoidance of public discussion of its religious tenets... the less said the better about the particular teachings of the church..." Feldman continues, "Another part of the Mormon assimilationist strategy was to participate actively in politics at the state and national levels. The condition for political success was that nobody asked about the precise content of Mormon religious beliefs and the Mormons themselves made no particular effort to tell."

My concern is that, by de-emphasizing the particulars of their faith, Mormon culture has fallen into a type 3 trap. Consider this quote from page 154 of The Wisdom of the Enneagram: "In the headlong rush to achieve whatever they believe will make them more valuable, Threes can become so alienated from themselves that they no longer know what they truly want or what their real feelings and interests are... as Threes learn to pursue the values that others reward, they gradually lose touch with themselves. Step by step, their own inner core... is left behind until they no longer recognize it."

However, this strategy has won Mormon individuals more and more success in politics and business. Over time, writes Feldman, "Mormons began to succeed in national business and came to be seen as exemplars of the patriotic American ethos." Enter Mitt Romney, Mormon Presidential candidate. Writes Feldman, "Precisely because Romney is so accomplished, so telegenic, in short such an impressive candidate, it may be a slap in Mormons' faces if he finds that he cannot garner the support of conservative values voters... Even if the charge against Romney were that he failed because he was a dissimulating phony, that would hardly be an improvement for the church, given the similarity of that charge with the historical bias against Mormon secrecy."

Although truly miraculous events would have to occur before I would give Romney my vote (I will be voting in the Democratic primary and almost certainly for the Democratic nominee), my personal hope for him is that he keeps (or recovers) a strong connection to his inner core. The culture of his faith tradition, the atmosphere of American politics, and his own psychological predispositions will likely make it difficult.

Romney just came in second in the New Hampshire Republican primary. He congratulated John McCain, who "outcompeted" him and repeatedly compared the situation to getting a "silver medal" when you'd rather have the gold.

Perhaps he could take a page from Hillary Clinton's book. After unexpectedly winning the Democratic primary in New Hampshire (after tearing up in public and reportedly "finding her voice"), she said that the Presidential campaign is not a game; it's about people.

Authenticity can go a long way with the right crowd.

Thoughts on the MBTI Personality Styles of the Candidates

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?

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:

Barack Obama Supporters Come In All Types

href="http://www.wagele.com/">
by Elizabeth Wagele;
href="http://www.wagele.com/obama/">YOUR ENNEAGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL OBAMA CARTOON IS AVAILABLE FOR YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE

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."

Remember Brad?

Hey, do guys remember Brad Spencer? He's the nice guy who writes the Enneagram Book web site. Back in January, he wrote a post for this blog about Obama's Enneagram type. (Check it out here.) He thought Obama was a 3, and I have been leaning in that direction as well, but in January, most of y'all claimed Obama was a 9. Does everyone still feel that way?
Is Obama more like this:

Enneagram Type Three

Or this:

Enneagram Type Nine

?

These badges, by the way, were created by Brad and you are welcome to add the badge representing your type to your blog or web page. (I have added the badges for my type and Mary Beth's type to the sidebar of this blog.)
Go to www.enneagrambook.com/badges/ for the html code.

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.

In Praise of Hypocrisy in Politics

David Runciman questions our habit of looking at political candidates for signs of sincerity or hypocrisy here. He argues that the ability to craft a political mask that can carry one through various situations is a sign of political skill rather than a weakness. He also contrasts hypocrisy with bull-headedness (which seems something of a false comparison to me, at least when he allies "hypocrisy" with the ability to question one's personal convictions.) He has a book coming out later this spring on political masks in history.

Super Tuesday

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Don't forget to vote.

We Now Take a Break from Our Regularly Sceduled Programming to Recap Enneagram Autobiography Class 2

If you have been reading this blog, you have probably noticed that we have more or less abandoned our purported topic, the Enneagram, in favor of a new obsession -- Presidential politics. This is an example of what Mary Beth and I like to call "following the car." (For further explanation, see our first ever blog post.) If this is not your cup of tea, be patient; we will almost certainly turn our attentions back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or some such real soon.
Nonetheless, we have our responsibilities, so here's what happened in session 2 of the Enneagram Autobiography class:


1. Mary Beth and I both had diseases. In her case, it was pink eye. In mine, it was yakky-mouth-itis. As such, I proposed the following division of labor: I would hand out handouts and she would do the talking. Alas, there is no known cure for yakky-mouth-itis.
2. We went around the room sharing selected details from our autobiographies, which I will not post here. If you want to hear the juicy stuff, you have to attend the class. (Next session: Wednesday, January 30th, 7:00pm, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville.)
3. I attempted to answer all Enneagram-related "huh?" and "what?"-type questions with this handout.
4. We talked about why meditation is an important tool for observing one's own ego at work, recommended chapter 4, "Cultivating Awareness," of The Wisdom of the Enneagram, and did a lovingkindness meditation.
5. Mary Beth talked about the emotional issues of types 2 ("I can only give help; I can't accept help") and 3 ("I really am a doctor, but it's still like I'm playing one on tv.")
6. We suggested some journaling topics. Here are a few (all are from The Wisdom of the Enneagram):

"Explore the question, 'How do I know that I am loved?' What counts for love in your life? Whose love are you looking for? What are the signs that this person is giving you love? How do you know, or how would you know that you are loved?"

"What does success mean to you? What did it mean to your parents? What does it mean to your peers? Any connections?"

"Notice your tendency to automatically focus on your differences with people. What does this cost you in terms of your connectedness with others? Does it prevent you from taking up activities that might be beneficial to you?"

Next time:

We'll talk about the emotional issues of types 4, 5, and 6 and learn how to really look at things. To prepare, you might want to look over pages 178 - 259 of The Wisdom of the Enneagram. Also, please bring your journal to class.

Chasing Hillary

Hillary Clinton will be speaking in Nashville tonight. Here are the details, from Tennessee for Hillary:

"Please join Hillary Clinton in Nashville for a Town Hall Event, Saturday, January 26th. The event will be at the Tennessee State University, Kean Hall Gymnasium (3500 John A. Merritt Blvd). Doors will open at 8:00pm. Click here to RSVP for the Nashville Town Hall with Hillary!The Tennessee Primary is only days away on February 5th. Join us for this exciting event and watch the momentum grow that will win Tennessee for Hillary.
Hillary Clinton Town Hall in Nashville
Tennessee State University, Kean Hall Gymnasium3500 John A. Merritt BlvdSaturday, January 26th Doors open at 8:00pm
With questions about the town hall or to RSVP, please email TennesseeforHillary@gmail.com or call our Nashville Headquarters at 615-254-2200."

That's What HE Said

Yesterday, I speculated that when Bill Clinton spoke at Nashville's Fisk University, he would likely talk about civil rights or race relations, as well as why his wife should be the next President.

Clinton very briefly acknowledged MLK day and that Fisk had played host to Martin Luther King back in the day, and then segued into stumping for Hillary. He said she should be the next President because she has the right vision and the right plan, and he made a pretty convincing case for it.

Promises made by Bill, on behalf of Hillary, for the citizens: truly affordable health care for everyone, job creation in the area of developing sustainable energy, taking global warming seriously, getting off of foreign oil, cheap electric cars, home mortgage interest rates staying the same for 5 years, a 90 day freeze on foreclosures, restoration of the Pell grant to its maximum level, withdrawal of troops from Iraq as soon as it's safe and possible.

Also, apparently, they like Hillary overseas and she has successfully worked with Republicans to pass bills in the Senate. She has been a real force for positive change in people's lives.

So basically, that's what he said.

The 3-ish thing he did was slip up a little and talk a lot about what "me" and "we" was gonna do, rather than what she was gonna do. It was in the air, though. One person in the crowd asked a question that started with, "If we elect you... um, Hillary..."

He also, apparently, did this 9-ish thing before arriving in Nashville. And yes, if you were wondering, he did seem well rested.

Politics Round-Up

We did not start this blog to talk about politics nor are either of us political junkies, but I am finding this year's race much more interesting than usual. Also, the two most common search hits this blog gets are What is Obama's Enneagram (or MBTI) type? and What types are compatible?

Here is a collection of articles and observations relating politics and the enneagram that I've collected over the past week.

Here is David Brooks on How Voters Think, which is about the tail wagging the dog (in this case, that we make emotional judgments then come up with rational reasons afterwards.) The article speaks to why personality is one of the big things we are looking for when we consider the candidates.

IF you live in or near Nashville, and IF you want to see Bill Clinton, he's speaking tomorrow night (Monday, Jan. 21) at Fisk University at 6:15. Call this number: (615) 254-2200. I'd call it now because I imagine it will fill up. You have to RSVP with your name. There's a web link to sign up, also, although when I tried it wasn't working yet. Here it is: www.HillaryClinton.com/Nashville.

On the subject of Hillary Clinton, I saw a clip of her appearance on the Tyra Banks Show that highlighted her 1-ishness. Tyra (I'd say 3w2), on the subject of Hillary's role in the Lewinsky situation, asked "Were you embarassed? I would be embarassed." And Hillary said "Well, sure, all of that, but also, I was, I was praying so hard, and thinking so hard, about what was right to do." (This is one-ish because she's saying her primary reaction to the situation was a consideration of what was right.) Tyra asked her whether women who find their husbands are cheating ask H. Clinton for advice, and Hillary said, yes, all the time, and she tells them they have to do what is right for them. Which is a very healthy answer for a 1 (shows the focus on rightness without even a hint of black and white thinking or rigidity.)

In our very first blog post, Cindi predicted we'd rehash the Lewinsky scandal; it's only taken two months for the prediction to come true (ok, it's not a rehash per se.)

Which brings us to Bill Clinton. As you may know, while Riso and Hudson type him as a 3, others (Tom Condon, the Fauvres) consider him a 9. This article about his anger issues suggests 3. (The article discusses a Vesuvius of anger, and although the 9s anger is like lava underneath because it's so repressed and denied AND dissociated from, I haven't seen the 9s letting their anger out like a volcano, and I certainly have never known of a 9 who drove someone else to have to take antidepressants, which this article says happened with George Stephanopoulos as a reaction to Bill Clinton's anger.)

Mitt Romney's anger was also mentioned this week -- there is a clip of him expressing some anger towards a reporter who challenged Romney's rather legalistic (but correct) definition of whether any lobbyists "ran his campaign." There's been a lot of talking and writing about Romney's seeming fake -- he's not where most of the rest of us are on this continuum. Here's one from a guy who knows Romney personally and doesn't consider him fake; here's one speculating on what ABOUT Romney seems fake -- he suggests it might be, of all things, his hair. Nancy Giles wins the "not mincing words award" for just coming out with it and saying Romney seems like a sociopath. After calling Huckabee "freaky" (for trying to combine the Constitution and the Ten Commandments into the "Constimandments") and McCain "long in the tooth" and "frail," she is asked "Nancy, you admit that Mitt Romney looks pretty good right?" She responds "He does but I worry about him in deep ways; I almost think he's a sociopath; he flips with the wind. The only thing steady about Mitt Romney to me has been his faith; he believes in his faith but he's switched up on all his positions and staring people right in the face... I don't trust him farther than I can throw him." (I think she meant psychopath, at least in the way I usually think of it -- I think of psychopath as the very unhealthy 3, the American Psycho or Tom Ripley or Ted Bundy type, a really good faker, and the sociopath as more of the unhealthy 8, the antisocial type. These categories are confusing, not least because I don't think either of them is in the DSM-IV. Here is a discussion of the difference; good luck. I believe this is what qualifies as a "clear" discussion of the difference. That said, I don't think he's a psychopath, of course, and neither, really does Nancy Giles, I don't think. But I see what she means and I think most people do. Part of his problem is I think he's running on a message that he doesn't entirely believe. I don't think a person can be a popular governor of Massachusetts AND truly be conservative enough to win the Republican nomination. Or, maybe this year he could have, but too late, because he's already set his course.)

Still on politics but not about the candidates: Chris Matthews of Hardball. I've always loved him. He's a good example of a 6: the questioner or the devil's advocate. He loves asking questions and getting to the truth; and specifically, loves poking through any BS.

Also, and this is completely off-topic, but Ron Paul came in second in Nevada: completely unexpected, and yet it's getting no media attention that I can see.

What's Your Greatest Weakness?

I'm happy to report that last night's debate went to suit me. Both Clinton and Obama seemed like great choices (and Edwards seemed pretty sharp some of the time, too.) They all stood together, were very collegial, and denied that there was any conflict between them about race. Read about it here and here.

I did see some evidence of enneagram type. For one thing, Obama may or may not be a 9, but he's clearly running on a 9 platform: bringing people together. Here's a quote:

"And what we really should be focusing on is, you know, who's got a vision for how we're going to move the country forward? And I believe that right now, the only way we're going to move the country forward is if we can bring the country together, not just Democrats but independents, Republicans who have also lost trust in government, and we are able to push aside the special interests and the lobbyists, and we are truthful to the American people and enlisting them in changing how our health care system works, how our economy works, what our tax code looks like. "

The most revealing point in the debate, Enneagram-wise, was when the three candidates were asked about their greatest strengths and weakness. Obama's strength sounds like a 9's strength, and echoes the quote above. He said: "My greatest strength, I think, is the ability to bring people together from different perspectives, to get them to recognize what they have in common and to move people in a different direction." This sounds like the peacemaker. In response to this, Clinton suggested that as a management model, setting a vision and bringing people together reminded her of George W. Bush's model, and she suggested she would be a more hands-on manager. Obama did my favorite thing, which is to not get defensive but to calmly say that that's not the issue: in this case, that George W.'s problem wasn't managerial efficiency, it was an inability to listen to differing perspectives:

"But I think that there -- there's something, if we're going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know, had -- (laughter) -- you know, I -- I'm sure he never lost a paper. I'm sure he knows where it is. (Laughter.) What -- what -- what he -- what he could not do -- what he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn't agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together."

So Clinton and Obama look at George W.'s management style, the 1 sees lack of a 1 strength, holding people accountable, and Obama, possible 9, sees lack of a 9 strength: the ability to listen to various perspectives.

What's even more revealing of enneagram type than people's strengths? Their weaknesses. Let's start with John Edwards. Edwards relied on the old interview stand-by, using what is actually a strength as your answer for greatest weakness. C'mon, Senator Edwards, even Michael Scott knows this trick.

"I think weakness -- I sometimes have a very powerful emotional response to pain that I see around me. When I see a man like Donnie Ingram, who I met a few months ago in South Carolina, who worked with for 33 years in the mill, reminded me very much of the kind of people that I grew up with, who's about to lose his job, has no idea where he's going to go, what he's going to do -- I mean, his dignity and self-respect is at issue, and I feel that in a really personal way and in a very emotional way. And I think sometimes that can undermine what you need to do."

So his greatest weakness is he's compassionate? Maybe if he'd said "I'm a weepy pansy-boy" I could have bought it as a weakness, or if he'd explained how empathy for others had gotten in the way of getting things done, but as presented, I can't see how this is a weakness.

Hillary, to her credit, gave a weakness that was really a weakness, and a 1-ish weakness at that: impatience and frustration. Here is the quote:

"I get impatient. I get, you know, really frustrated when people don't seem to understand that we can do so much more to help each other, and sometimes I come across that way. I admit that. I get very concerned about, you know, pushing further and faster than perhaps people are ready to go."

Hillary is a 1w2, and you can hear the 2-ish theme here as well. Impatience and frustration with other people not trying hard enough (very 1-ish), and not going far enough to help people (2.) Her strength was 2ish as well: she talked about her desire to help Americans, especially children, and her track record of doing so.

Now for Obama's weakness: He can't keep up with paperwork:

"And as I indicated before, my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. (Laughter.) You know. The -- you know. And my desk in my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial. I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done. And that's why we've run not only a good campaign but a good U.S. Senate office. "

Now this quote doesn't prove he's a 9; it might indicate he's a Myers-Briggs N and maybe a P or at least not a strong J. But I find it to be something a 9 is more likely to say than a competence type (1, 3, or 5), for instance. I don't see a 3 as likely to be comfortable saying he can't keep track of a sheet of paper or keep his desk organized or that he needs a handler.

Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton. Some people consider B. Clinton a 3 (Riso and Hudson), others a 9 (Condon, Fauvre.) Clinton definitely has some markers of a 3 (called Slick Willie, the womanizing problem), but Obama lacks these. So until I see some evidence otherwise, my going theory is that Obama is a 9 who happens to have a very nice smile.

Hillary Clinton not guilty of racism; Guilty only of being a 1

The most recent poltical tempest-in-a-teapot involves Hillary Clinton's statement that "Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.” Having seen Hillary Clinton this Sunday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, I think she means to stress that it is hard work and wonkishness that actually get things done in government (rather than that MLK didn't do much, which she clearly doesn't really believe -- or, at least, seemed very convincing as she talked about how she didn't believe it.) Sen. Clinton's tactic on Meet the Press was to emphasize that she has more years of experience than Obama and to stress how hard she has worked in the Senate. This is a typical E1 line of reasoning. Russert kept trying to get her to say something negative about Obama (or even better, something racist) but she would not. Russert asked a question about Sen. Clinton having said she was a workhorse as opposed to a showhorse; he asked whether she was implying that Obama was a showhorse. She said no (I couldn't tell whether the truth was no or yes, but I didn't get the feeling she considered him a real workhorse like herself.) She said that within the culture of the Congress, Senators are considered either workhorses or showhorses, depending on whether they spend their time writing legislation, attending committee meetings, etc. or whether they spend their time going on talk shows. She said people expected her to be a showhorse (because she was famous and former First Lady), but she came to the Senate ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work (and she implied that everyone was pleasantly surprised.)

So this is how most 1's do, stress how hard they work. Hillary doesn't go on and on about how she works hard and others don't and either it's not fair or the others are morally wrong (which is how some 1's do), but it seems that she's chosen to position herself as a harder worker than Obama (sort of a Substance vs. Style comparison. And, of course, IF he's a 3, this makes perfect sense.) Another thing 1's often do is discuss principle; I didn't see Sen. Clinton do that, but I suspect that's because her principles and Sen. Obama's are really similar; if she wins the nomination, I would expect to hear about principle in the general election campaign. Tonight there will be the first debate between just Clinton, Obama and Edwards; it will also be the first Democratic debate I watch this election season and of course I will be on the lookout for any signs of Obama's Enneagram type.

To veer away from the Enneagram a bit and focus more on just politics, I am dismayed at the way race has entered the discussion in the past week. Questions on the table are: why did Clinton imply that MLK didn't do much but Lyndon Johnson did? Did Bill Clinton imply that Obama's White House hopes are a fairy tale? Was Bob Johnson wrong to refer to Obama's admitted youthful drug use?

I was lucky enough to be sent the YouTube video of Bill Clinton's supposed "rant" against Obama before I heard that it was supposedly "racially insensitive." I say lucky because I was able to see it fresh. My thoughts were that it wasn't a rant; that it was a collection of organized, thorough, convincing points spoken in an angry tone! It didn't seem to me to have anything to do with race. And yet, by the next day, Donna Brazile was saying B. Clinton's remarks were racially offensive. (I do admit that it would have been insulting had Bill Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid," which was one of Brazile's points, but I don't think he DID call Obama a "kid." If he did, please include a link to it, or a quotation, in the comments section below.) Bill Clinton's remarks have nothing to do with race; they are all about Obama running on a platform of having opposed the war since 2002, but in fact, he has not consistently opposed the war throughout those years. Here, judge for yourself: Bill Clinton on YouTube.

Obama has been quoted as saying that H. Clinton's remarks on MLK and LBJ are "unfortunate." (So does Edwards but I don't care about him; I am trying to decide between the other two.) Here's what Obama needs to do. DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM THIS. I mean, distance yourself from people who read racist remarks where none were intended. Even better, come out and say that the remarks don't seem racist. This will go a long way. It will not hurt you with black voters to do so. It will not hurt you with white voters. It will make you look high-minded. It will allow people to feel like maybe we're getting beyond some of this. On the other hand, if Obama buys into this AT ALL, many white people will start to feel threatened. Why? Because people don't like to feel like they can't say something negative about a black person without being accused of saying that negative thing BECAUSE that person is black. I feel like Obama is in a position to possibly win this election if he's able to come off as above this. It is no secret that the Republicans cannot find a really compelling candidate that they can all agree on, while most Democrats like both Clinton and Obama, and would be happy to vote for either. It's also no secret that many Republicans are not very happy with President Bush. I think Obama might be more liked by independents and Republicans than H. Clinton is, and the possibility is there of taking some votes from lots of independents and some Republicans. You know who is even more tired of identity politics than I am? The Republicans. America wants to like Obama. We haven't yet seen any reason NOT to like Obama. And I think many Americans (including some Republicans) feel embarassed by how America has been looking lately (because of President Bush, the common perception that we'll invade any country we feel like, the weakening of the dollar, among other reasons) and are looking for a way to show that America and the Bush administration's policies are not one and the same. I think there's the feeling that voting for an African American as our president would send the message to the rest of the world (many of whom are not white) that we are not so bad (while voting for a female president, while arguably even more progressive a step, might show part of the world that we're the secular devils they knew we were all along.) Unfortunately, having to hear comments unrelated to race called racist for four years is a reason not to vote for Obama, even if he's not the one making the comments. I want a president who is willing to give the other person's comments the benefit of the doubt when they seem generally well-intentioned. It will be interesting to see what Obama says on this issue in tonight's debate.

Back to the Enneagram: There has been some speculation that Obama might be a 9 rather than a 3 (or a 1.) I kind of hope so. History is usually kind to 9 presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan.) Ford, for example, was chosen because he was popular with members of Congress in both parties, and because it was thought that his presence would be healing (and I think it was.) I think our country could use some healing now.

Also? Tim Russert came off as kind of a jerk.

Obama's Enneagram Type by Brad Spencer

Did you know that when you reach a website through an internet search, the site owner can see what you searched for (and what city the search came from)? Well, it's true, and we have our fingers on the pulse of the two main things people want to know about the Enneagram. Clocking in at a strong number 1, you want to know what type is compatible with yours, or whether a particular type is compatible with yours. Our number 2 most popular, and gaining, only started the day after the Iowa Caucuses: since then, there's been a steady stream of people who reach this site by searching for Barack Obama's personality type. I can see why; I wish I knew myself, as I expressed in this post, and this one. So when Brad Spencer who writes the website Enneagram Book contacted Cindi and me about swapping posts, one of topics we suggested was Obama. That's the topic Brad chose; more about his site after his artcle:

---------------------------------

Obama's Enneagram Type

When Cindi and Mary Beth approached me with the idea of writing down my thoughts on Obama's Enneagram type, I thought that the idea of guessing about Obama would be fun. Even though I haven't kept up with the races too much, I have seen a bit of Obama, or at least enough to give me an idea of where he's coming from. Based on the speeches I've seen of Obama, I'm going to have to guess he is a 3w2 or 2w3. Now, of course you want me to back it up, so I'll give it my best shot:

Most people in politics are a Type 3. Having lived with many type 3's and known many 3's very closely, I can assure you that they are the type built for politics. The 3 is always making small talk, putting people together, and consulting their inner stylist. In order to make it to the top of the political totem-pole, you have to be concerned about how others perceive you and work to make people like you. Welcome to the world of the Enneagram Type 3.

So why a wing 2? Well, Obama has always come off to me as somewhat of an underdog. And I don't think that's a mistake. Often times, Obama has been heard saying things like, "This is all about the voters. I don't even want to be here, you've put me here." This is classic 2-speak. It's all about the other person, except that the other person is supposed to be forever indebted to the 2 for taking the role on.

Alright, so I'm aware that all of this sounds like I'm just beating up on the types. That's not my intent; not at all. But my tongue-in-cheek description of the types is because of the way I approach the Enneagram, which I discuss on my website, EnneagramBook.com. I think that each of the Enneagram types, which are also known as fixations, are just in the way of us being more open, free, and able to communicate with ourselves and others in a truer way. That's why we study the Enneagram, to break free of the shackles of our fixation.

My point is, although it might sound harsh toward Obama, I really like the guy and think he'd make a good President. Hell, I can't think of a better President than a 3 wing 2. And, I fear the day they put a 7 like me in office.

-Brad

http://www.bradleyspencer.com, A Columbus Ohio Web Design Firm
http://www.enneagrambook.com, Musings on the Enneagram

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Go check out Brad's site. Apparently, Brad is writing a book about the Enneagram, and is taking submissions of writings from people as representatives of their types, both for the book and for the website. He also has a list of good links for Enneagram beginners and various original articles, including one on the five most common objections to the Enneagram.

GOP Candidates, Buffy Villains, and Enneagram Types

Check out the article "The GOP Primary Field in Buffy Villains" on this blog. It pairs the GOP candidates with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains they most resemble, and then explains why. Of course, I immediately wondered if this document could provide valuable clues to the personality types of the candidates (or the villains, if you prefer.)
Previously, in her article "Election 'o8", Mary Beth speculated about the Enneagram types of various political candidates. Mary Beth said she thought Fred Thompson might be a 5, an 8w9, or a 9w8. This article pairs Thompson with The Judge, and they really do sort of look alike. The article's description of the two as "a lethargic mess" who "didn't accomplish much" supports the theory that Thompson's personality has a 9-ish component. (Sloth is the vice associated with type 9.)
Mary Beth said Mitt Romney was a 3. The article pairs Romney with Mayor Richard Wilkins and says "They're both clever and generically slick politicians, programmed to appeal to middle America." If that's not type 3, I don't know what is.
Mary Beth said she didn't know what type Rudy Guliani was, but that various people were typing him as a 1 or a 7. This article pairs him with Angelus (the evil version of Angel), who is typed as a 3w4 on the Enneatrek site.
And last, but not least, I know you're dying for our insights on the personality type of Duncan Hunter. Mary Beth didn't speculate about him, and I don't know anything about him, but he is paired with Adam, who has a 5-ish/8-ish vibe to me. Seriously, when he walks up to a human boy, asks, "How do you work?" and then dissects him to find out, my heart just skips a beat. He is the only Buffy villain I have ever had a crush on.

Obama's character

As a follow-up to yesterday's post on Election '08:

David Brooks discusses Obama's character in today's New York Times, here. He doesn't make him sound like a One OR a Three. I don't know what he does sound like -- some healthy type.

I find it interesting what Brooks says about the presidency as a bacterium. I've observed something similar at my workplace. There is a certain position of power that several people have filled over the years, and more often than not, that person has become much less healthy upon taking the job. Cindi and I call that job the ONE RING, because only a person with humility and character can take it on and stay good. I've learned a lot about the Enneagram from observing that position over the years!

Edited: Now to veer completely and utterly off-topic from the Enneagram, but staying related to Obama... One of my favorite blogs, the excellent Baby Name Wizard Blog, announced today its Name of the Year 2007: Barack.

Election '08!

Writing yesterday's post made my brain hurt and wore out my typing fingers, so let's have something lighter for today (although I suppose that you might not find this lighter, depending on what you take seriously.) It's Election '08, Typing the Candidates!

Unfortunately, I don't have a great deal of insight to offer, but maybe together, over time, we can figure some of them out. So, if you've hit this post through a web search, look in the comments section for what people have to say.

Politicians are actually not the easiest celebrities to type, because on top of not knowing them personally, you also have to try to see through a lot of image management.

Let's start with the most well-known example: Hillary Clinton is often given as an example of an Enneagram One.

I think John Edwards seems like a Three, and so does Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul seems like a One, with his focus on principle.

Fred Thompson: I've never watched any of his shows (whatever they were.) From the one debate I saw (the Republican YouTube debate), he struck me as potentially an 8, a 5, or a 9w8.

Huckabee interests me. He seems 2ish to me. Does pardoning all those people make any sense at all in the absence of a 2 energy? He's being viewed as (and seems like) a compassionate conservative who really means it. Would a 2 have been able to keep all that weight off? Would a 2 have accepted all those gifts? He might be a 3w2 or a 1w2. I'm going with 3w2.

Mike Gravel seems like a 1. Principle again.

Giuliani? No idea. I searched and got a few hits saying One. Tom Condon said Seven.

Obama. Condon said One. Me, no idea. (Like I said, I have only watched one debate so far and it was Republican.)

McCain: Absolutely no idea.

OK, now you. Any ideas?

What do you look for in a political candidate?

Post #3 from my other blog, The Half-Assed Game.

Mainly about presidential politics, but somewhat about the Enneagram.