Bill and Hillary Clinton

[Expat]

(As in, if you're not getting Fi and you don't feel like you have the option of ending the relationship, you'd do whatever you had to in order to get anything that even remotely resembles Fi.)

Yes. Especially if you have trouble understanding how Fi can even be so low as someone's priority.

Although now that we know Bill is the EIE in question... hmm... he is a remarkably narcissistic individual... all we see is his public face... I tend to see him as warm, affectionate, compassionate, womanizing, narcissistic, charismatic, large ego (though not necessarily arrogant). I liked him mostly as a president because I felt he was very compassionate, which I seem to think is the most important trait in a leader (not because I've actually evaluated this and how naive it may be ).

What do you mean by "compassionate"? As in, "I feel your pain"?

[Blaze]

so it's bill and hillary huh? i would have to say the author's description does describe them. socionically, i still say it's a crap shoot. you can make a case for a lot of different types for each of them.

[Logos]

What I find interesting is how the analysis of types from the description compares with their previously held types: Bill (ESE) and Hilary (LSI). After this analysis, Bill's creative function switched whereas Hilary's leading function switched. Just to offer a big what if, to what degree would the relationship description still make sense if Bill was ESE and Hilary was LSI as it previously generally believed?

[Blaze]

i always thought bill was ESE and hillary was LII.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

What I find interesting is how the analysis of types from the description compares with their previously held types: Bill (ESE) and Hilary (LSI). After this analysis, Bill's creative function switched whereas Hilary's leading function switched. Just to offer a big what if, to what degree would the relationship description still make sense if Bill was ESE and Hilary was LSI as it previously generally believed?

Well personally I had already been thinking of EIE for him for a while, but I only shifted from LSI to ESI for her after seeing Bernstein's book. It's not just the bit by Morris; everything fits. As for the ESE-LSI relationship, I don't think it would work in the way described. I think ESE-LSI is one of those relationships where they find out they are better off as friends rather than as a couple, so they would have separated early on. This is of course just my opinion.

While he could still see an ESE as fake and manipulative, it's very doubtful that he'd call him an intellectual and put so much emphasis on what seems to be his strong Ne. And obviously it's not because ESE's aren't or can't be smart, but they too have a more practical kind of intelligence, generally not being too concerned with demonstrating how well-read they are or anything like that.

Also, would an IEE (if that's what Morris is) call an LSI "the real person" of the two of them? Would he see the warmth and compassion in an LSI so easily? Especially over that of an ESE? He clearly sees her weak Ne though, and the "ruthless streak" he observes could be his impression of either LSI or ESI, but I don't think he'd be as sympathetic or read into their relationship quite the same way.

Also, my own opinion is that she is not addicted to him, or whatever he called it, nor is she especially unhappy. Yes, he rather sucks and she definitely got the short end of the stick there, but I think that her goals, aspirations, and the faith Morris mentions are what have kept her around. When the whole Monica Lewinski thing etc. broke, I thought, "Why the hell doesn't she leave him?" I don't think it's any kind of dependence that is keeping her around, but pure stubbornness, determination, her own sense of what's best for her (politically or otherwise), and the lack of seeing any better options. If Morris is IEE, he would certainly have a hard time understanding that, and chalk it up to dependence, as would many others. But he does the the other thing keeping her around which I believe is Fi.

Yes. This may have been why she followed Bill to Arkansas in the first place, and I think she even said something like that at the time. She was asked by her friends if she was sure that was the best decision. She said something like, she wasn't sure, but she was determined to make it work.

Anyway, while I don't like either one of them, and wasn't too happy to find out that I was suggesting I might actually have something in common with Hillary, I do think it makes sense that she is ESI, and he beta NF.

I wasn't happy with the concept that she is ESI, either!

[Logos]

While he could still see an ESE as fake and manipulative, it's very doubtful that he'd call him an intellectual and put so much emphasis on what seems to be his strong Ne. And obviously it's not because ESE's aren't or can't be smart, but they too have a more practical kind of intelligence, generally not being too concerned with demonstrating how well-read they are or anything like that.

Also, would an IEE (if that's what Morris is) call an LSI "the real person" of the two of them? Would he see the warmth and compassion in an LSI so easily? Especially over that of an ESE? He clearly sees her weak Ne though, and the "ruthless streak" he observes could be his impression of either LSI or ESI, but I don't think he'd be as sympathetic or read into their relationship quite the same way.

Also, my own opinion is that she is not addicted to him, or whatever he called it, nor is she especially unhappy. Yes, he rather sucks and she definitely got the short end of the stick there, but I think that her goals, aspirations, and the faith Morris mentions are what have kept her around. When the whole Monica Lewinski thing etc. broke, I thought, "Why the hell doesn't she leave him?" I don't think it's any kind of dependence that is keeping her around, but pure stubbornness, determination, her own sense of what's best for her (politically or otherwise), and the lack of seeing any better options. If Morris is IEE, he would certainly have a hard time understanding that, and chalk it up to dependence, as would many others. But he does the the other thing keeping her around which I believe is Fi.

Anyway, while I don't like either one of them, and wasn't too happy to find out that I was suggesting I might actually have something in common with Hillary, I do think it makes sense that she is ESI, and he beta NF.

One possible explanation may be a sense of gender-bias and functions. Also worth noting, is that if Morris is an IEE and Hilary is an ESI, then he would be Hilary's supervisor.

[Expat]

Also worth noting, is that if Morris is an IEE and Hilary is an ESI, then he would be Hilary's supervisor.

Sure, and I think that was one of Diana's points. His supervision is from the point of view of , that is, he sees her low as weakness and does not really understand that she may stick to him partly due to not seeing better options, rather than being dependent on him. To me that is consistent with supervision of IEE over ESI.

[discojoe]

I remember watching Morris's videos and feeling like he gave off the aura of an ENFp, but also feeling like the advice he gave was too Beta . But I guess that's the job of a political adviser.

[tereg]

But I really think that original description makes a good case for the - thing to be working. Which, in married couples, would go a long way towards keeping them together.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this, and going back over my initial impressions of the passage. I just went through this thread again, and I'm having a difficult time seeing how the shift in opinion happened from Alpha to Beta NF.

I can see how the and from Hillary, and I pointed that out, but in the sense that he values it, I'm failing to visualize how this is happening.

I need to be able to visualize what - interaction looks like in order to understand this, which, I'm having a hard time seeing (in a very general sense) just what that looks like.

But again, looking at it from Bill's perspective from the passage, I'm trying to get a handle on what is going on here within the realm.

And what the contrast is between this and what I was seeing originally as .

Hope that makes sense, because I'm still stuck on Alpha for Bill, and I need someone to sort of spell it out for me why Bill as Beta NF is more apparent than Alpha (in the vs sense).

[Park]

I remember watching Morris's videos and feeling like he gave off the aura of an ENFp, but also feeling like the advice he gave was too Beta . But I guess that's the job of a political adviser.

Didn't you say you thought he was ISTj? (maybe I remember wrong...)

[discojoe]

Didn't you say you thought he was ISTj? (maybe I remember wrong...)

Yeah I did. I mentioned that he was hitting my blind spot as far as typing was concerned. Basically, I couldn't see Beta NF, but I also saw Beta values in his advice to candidates during interviews, so I just defaulted to ISTj.

[Ritella]

While he could still see an ESE as fake and manipulative, it's very doubtful that he'd call him an intellectual and put so much emphasis on what seems to be his strong Ne. And obviously it's not because ESE's aren't or can't be smart, but they too have a more practical kind of intelligence, generally not being too concerned with demonstrating how well-read they are or anything like that.

Wait, no. I actually know ESEs who are very well read and fairly concerned with demonstrating it. Also, they don't show signs of what I would consider "practical intelligence."
In fact, when I read the description about why the author considered Bill intelligent and not Hillary, I actually related to his analysis and saw of lot of my ESE friend in his description of Bill. My exact thoughts for Bill's description were "yes, i love people who have conversations in which they tie in lots of different information. the problem is that i can make the connections, but I can't ever remember the information." Okay, so, to be clear, I saw what Bill does as something that I can do only once the information is in front of me (because I have very short term memory for these things). I have Ne ego and I didn't see myself as similar to Bill, which might be why the description didn't really strike me as Ne, so much as Ne valuing. My interactions with ESEs often involve them throwing out lots of info and me drawing links.
I did originally think the description was ILE, but I was contemplating ESE because ESE's role is Te and their HA is Ne. I'm not saying that I think he is ESE, because I don't have an idea.
Actually, why not SLI for that description of Bill? They contemplate global issues, throw out info, have a weird Fe public persona, don't show emotions in private......

[Sirena]

yeah, this is basically i suppose how i interpreted it. fwiw i didn't find the description very flattering at all. it may (or may not) be significant that i thought it was a horrible way to describe someone you supposedly admire in some way.

I don't think Morris has any admiration for the Clintons. They have a long history and have been on pretty bad terms for a while, from what I understand.

[Joy]

I've just finished watching a number of youtube clips of Morris, and it seems like he becomes irrational whenever he starts talking about Hillary. I don't think reading his description of her is a fair way to type her.

[Wittmont]

I've just finished watching a number of youtube clips of Morris, and it seems like he becomes irrational whenever he starts talking about Hillary. I don't think reading his description of her is a fair way to type her.

Yup, just what I thought when I first read the article. The description is more a hatchet job than something solid to build an analysis on I feel. Not that I am a fan of either.

[Expat]

The point that some of you are missing is this -- it's not just Morris's description in isolation. As I pointed out, that was quoted in Carl Bernstein's book A Woman in Charge. Unlike his old Watergate buddy Bob Woodward, Bernstein now preferred to use named, and quoted, sources to write his book. There is nothing really in Morris's description that flatly contradicts what anyone else has said; it's not as if what Morris says is the total opposite of what all other sources have said and I picked precisely it. I chose that description simply because it's the longest one that Bernstein included, among those that are directly quoted and so can be attributed to a single individual.

Nor is Bernstein's book a sort of attack on the Clintons or her in particular; as far as I know no reviewer, of whatever political inclination, has accused him of that.

Of course in order to debate that, you'd have to read the book -- but in the meantime, I'm saying that to dismiss the description because of who the author is, and due to his obvious prejudices, is a mistake.

[Logos]

The point that some of you are missing is this -- it's not just Morris's description in isolation. As I pointed out, that was quoted in Carl Bernstein's book A Woman in Charge. Unlike his old Watergate buddy Bob Woodward, Bernstein now preferred to use named, and quoted, sources to write his book. There is nothing really in Morris's description that flatly contradicts what anyone else has said; it's not as if what Morris says is the total opposite of what all other sources have said and I picked precisely it. I chose that description simply because it's the longest one that Bernstein included, among those that are directly quoted and so can be attributed to a single individual.

Nor is Bernstein's book a sort of attack on the Clintons or her in particular; as far as I know no reviewer, of whatever political inclination, has accused him of that.

Of course in order to debate that, you'd have to read the book -- but in the meantime, I'm saying that to dismiss the description because of who the author is, and due to his obvious prejudices, is a mistake.

But is it not also a mistake to take this source strictly as is without additional outside knowledge?

[Expat]

But is it not also a mistake to take this source strictly as is without additional outside knowledge?

Are you referring to my mistake? Or Bernstein's?

[Logos]

Are you referring to my mistake? Or Bernstein's?

I was not aware that you made a mistake. I am merely saying that it would be a mistake to take Morris's word as strictly golden and unquestionable.

[Expat]

I was not aware that you made a mistake. I am merely saying that it would be a mistake to take Morris's word as strictly golden and unquestionable.

I don't think anyone is proposing to do that. It is a point of view, of value because he knew them so closely, and to be weary of because of his biases and prejudices. The first aspect makes it a folly to dismiss him; the second should make you wary. Historians, when considering evidence from eyewitnesses, face this dilemma all the time. For instance, shall we dismiss Philo's eyewitness descripton of Caligula's behavior because of his obvious fear and loathing of Caligula? What is the "truth"? I don't know.

[Logos]

I don't think anyone is proposing to do that. It is a point of view, of value because he knew them so closely, and to be weary of because of his biases and prejudices. The first aspect makes it a folly to dismiss him; the second should make you wary. Historians, when considering evidence from eyewitnesses, face this dilemma all the time. For instance, shall we dismiss Philo's eyewitness descripton of Caligula's behavior because of his obvious fear and loathing of Caligula? What is the "truth"? I don't know.

In which case, we would seem to be agreeing on this matter.

[Suomea]

...

[Suomea]

...

[1981slater]

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino."

6. The Activation Function: a person's activity on this function depends on the surrounding; when this function is "energized" by others – his/her activity may even sometimes exceed activity of other people, and when it is not – the activity disappears without leaving a trace.



To me, it all sounds as an ISFj writer charging against an ENTp and supporting another ISFj.

[Beautiful sky]

Hillary Clinton seems introvert

[Park]

[MisterNi]

Hillary Clinton seems introvert

No, Hillary and Bill are LIE and SEE respectively while Chelsea is an IEE.

[lemontrees]

bill - iee
hillary - lse

[Sol]

cheating Bill - ENTJ
stupid cocainist Hillary - N-F type

[MisterNi]

cheating Bill - ENTJ
stupid cocainist Hillary - N-F type

Wrong Hillary Clinton, future President of the United States of America is LIE and; Bill Clinton is SEE.

#VoteHillary everyone!!!

[hellohellohello]

Hillary is LSE and Bill is IEE

[Distance]

link: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/201...-is-esfp-enfp/

Why Bill Clinton is ESFP (and not ENFP)


We recently received an email suggesting that Bill Clinton is ENFP, rather than ESFP. Our correspondent submitted the following arguments to us:

1. The ESFP was called “the Performer” by Myers, and ESFPs often play the clown.
2. Clinton has a stellar academic record and is very intelligent.
3. Clinton cares about the world, and such global consideration is the hallmark of NFs, not SPs.

[qaz00]

Bill Clinton SEI-Fe C>H

Hillary Clinton D-IEI-Fe or D-ILE-Ti