Translate

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Antoninus Pius (SLI): Personality Type Analysis

Titus Fulvus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, best known more simply as Antoninus Pius, was the 15th Roman Emperor. Despite the fairly unusual length of his reign - almost 23 years, from 138 to 161 - the direct documentation on the period is very limited. Still, I argue that there is enough evidence, based on what documentation is available, and the overall events of Antoninus's reign and what we know of his policies, to allow for an estimate of  his type, at least from a broad-brush perspective.

Antoninus was born in a wealthy senatorial (i.e. aristocratic landowning) family in 86, during the politically tense years of the authoritarian Emperor Domitian, but he reached adulthood in the more politically relaxed years of the Emperor Trajan. He climbed apparently effortlessly the traditional steps of a Roman public career, that is quaestor, praetor and then consul, during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, who obviously showed Antoninus considerable favor: Antoninus was appointed to very prestigious posts, especially proconsul (i.e. governor) of the province of Asia (the western part of the Turkish peninsula), pretty much the most socially prestigious post for a man of his class. Even so, it was probably a surprise to everyone. including him, when the dying Hadrian suddenly adopted the then 51-year-old Antoninus as his son (and therefore successor), on condition that Antoninus in turn adopt as son his wife's nephew, the future Emperor Marcus Aurelius (EII), then 17. Today most historians tend to think that Hadrian saw the young Marcus as his ultimate successor from the start and Antoninus was chosen as a reliable place-holder for him. Antoninus became emperor upon Hadrian's death, just 4 months after his adoption.

Given the wide freedom to choose and implement policy, enjoyed by an emperor with such a long reign, especially in that period, we can already spot some hints to his Socionics type by looking at the overall features of his reign. Most emperors had chosen to spend considerable parts of their reigns away from Rome or even Italy, either in command of armies in periods of war (like Trajan), or in inspection of the provinces and frontiers while doing some "PR work" (like Hadrian). Antoninus, very unusually, spent the 23 years of his reign in Italy and most of that in Rome itself. Also unlike his immediate predecessors, Antoninus spent essentially no money on high-profile architectural projects in Rome, spending however considerable sums on infrastructure in the provinces, such as aqueducts and roads. Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Antoninus preferred to avoid foreign wars; the military activities of his reign were fairly low-profile "tidying up" operations, the most visible one being the move of the northern frontier in Britain from Hadrian's Wall to the Antonine Wall (which extended roughly from Glasgow to Edinburgh).

Antoninus clearly saw himself more as a 'manager' than as a 'builder' or 'conqueror' or, like Hadrian, a promoter of the idea of empire in the provinces. Antoninus's consistent style of governing, over 23 years, consisted of staying in Rome, governing through subordinates and correspondence, avoiding spending money on war or high-profile building projects, while spending on more low-profile but useful works, while carefully building up a financial surplus. Also, as a "HR manager", Antoninus preferred to keep the same men as provincial governors over many years, rather than rotate them more often as had been a more common practice. Most unusual of all, Antoninus kept the same man in the very sensitive position of Praetorian Prefect (i.e. the commander of the only armed forces in Italy) for a record of 20 years, which was extremely unusual.

The available descriptions of Antoninus, including by his adopted son Marcus Aurelius, portray a man of extreme serenity, immune or indifferent to flattery, of a kindly disposition, who felt a duty to manage the empire carefully, introverted in the social sense, and who had the reputation of a bureaucratic, micro-managing, penny-pinching administrator (even Marcus Aurelius, who worshipped Antoninus, felt the need to defend him on that point in his writings). Marcus Aurelius also wrote that Antoninus lived an extremely temperate life in terms of eating, drinking, and sleeping, knowing perfectly how to take care of his health. So, a stay-at-home, low-profile, careful, penny-pinching "ruler of the known world" who as administrator doesn't care about grandiose public works but does care about aqueducts and roads, as well as saving money;  who prefers to avoid war and who, once knowing he can trust a man to do a job well, prefers to keep him on that job "forever", and who lives a temperate, spartan life - all of that already points, I would argue, to subdued or weak F and E, valued but probably weak R, lower I than S,  and valued P.

Taken as a whole, Antoninus's reign of 23 years can be called uneventful, some might unkindly say "boring", as very little happened and neither did Antoninus take any action to introduce wide-ranging change, as many of his predecessors had done. Antoninus did introduce a series of piecemeal, gradual legislation, all in the direction of what we could call greater humanity and benevolence: he essentially invented the principle of "presumed innocent" in Roman law; made the enfranchisement of slaves easier; introduced the principle of removing slaves from the property of masters who consistently treated them badly; and forbade the "outsourcing" of female slaves as prostitutes, etc. Antoninus was no "revolutionary" who intended to challenge the institution of slavery, but rather someone who thought that slaves should be treated with a minimum of humanity. This, I would argue, points to P over L as quadra value, in the sense that it was done piecemeal, ad hoc, rather than in a more structured, 'paradigm-shifting' way.

The major historical criticism of Antoninus Pius, as a ruler, was that his essential inactivity in foreign policy, over a period of 23 years, diminished the respect, even fear, that Rome's enemies across the Danube and in Parthia (Persia) had felt regarding the Empire since being crushed by Trajan's aggressive wars three generations before; Antoninus seemed oblivious to this danger, or actively decided to ignore it, with the result that immediately after his death in 161 at 74, both the Parthian Empire and Danubian tribes, sensing weakness, launched major military attacks against the empire, forcing Marcus Aurelius to spend most of his reign at war. I would argue that that hints again to subdued F as well as T in Antoninus - I would assume he did not intend to hand a 'ticking bomb' to Marcus Aurelius.

Finally, in an even more broad-brush analysis of Antoninus's reign, there is how he wanted the Roman Empire to be perceived. We have the Greek orator Aelius Aristides's "Roman Oration", delivered to Antoninus Pius himself, in which Aristides describes a peaceful Roman Empire ruled as if it was one single city, and now "the entire civilized world lays down the weapons that were its ancient burden and has turned to adornment and all glad thoughts, with the power to realize them - - You, better than anyone else, have proved the truth of the proverb: The earth is everyone's mother and our common fatherland". Etc etc. Assuming, reasonably, that Aristides knew what Antoninus wanted to hear, he painted his rule, a bit naively, as the realization of a Delta ideal.

Overall Delta values, with no visible focus on E. valued R but not obviously strong; devalued or even ignored F and T; apparent high focus on S and P, little visible I, and an overall impression of a cautious. serene, even passive man. I think the available information, however limited, overall suggests most consistently that Antoninus Pius was a SLI.

Sources: besides Wikipedia, which has a good summary of the overall evidence, the primary documentation is the Historia Augusta's "Life of Antoninus Pius". Marcus Aurelius's description of his adoptive father are in books 1 and 6 of his Meditations. All are available online. Aelius Aristides's Roman Oration is available in its entirety here .

To learn more about SLI click here.

Sunday, 14 August 2016

Donald Trump (SLE): Personality Type Analysis

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, real estate developer, book author, television show host and politician, who possibly will serve as the 45th President of the United States. He is the son of the late real-estate developer Fred Trump. Trump has a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the prestigious Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, but even before graduating he was already working in his father's company.

Trump oversaw several high-profile real estate and building developments in New York City in the 1970s and 1980s, during a time when the city's economic future was dubious and investing there was far from being obviously wise. Trump's projects were often controversial, leading him to become increasingly a public figure, culminating with his construction of Trump Tower in 1983. That was controversial due to its (alleged) questionable taste; the - at the time - dubious business case for such a project in still-then depressed Manhattan; to the demolition of the Art Deco Bonwit Teller building that had previously stood there; and to Trump's increased use of his own name and brand to associate his projects with himself.

At the time Trump was in his thirties, and for an analysis of his type it is useful to take a look at how he came across in interviews of the time. Rather than the later, better known version, who is more inclined to rely on bombast, bragging, self-promotion and extravagant, controversial or even perhaps shocking remarks, the Donald Trump of the early 1980s appeared as a calm, rational, even modest man who showed little emotion or passion as he described in technical detail the reasoning behind his building projects and defended them against criticism, relying on factual, technical arguments (or seemingly so). At the time, Trump started to become identified with NYC's returning optimism since he (by luck or smarts) managed to invest there precisely at the right moment. His public image became that of not only a canny investor but also of a man who "believed in New York", and he explored that image in a virtuous (or vicious) circle whereby his business ventures became indelibly associated with his personality and vice-versa.

In 1987 Donald Trump published his first (and still most famous) book, The Art of the Deal. Actually penned by journalist Tony Schwartz, the book nevertheless is written in Trump's first-person voice and it seems clear that it reflects his own thoughts, words, and views (or at least the views the wanted the public to associate with him). In that book, Trump is still largely his 1980s persona: it is mostly his autobiography (focusing much more on his business ventures than his private life) along with his thoughts, and advice, on how to succeed in real-estate development. That book still reflected what seems to be his obviously deep understanding of that kind of business, as he describes in detail how he came to his decisions, but also with some more general principles: the notions that business deals are about knowing and using one's leverage (F); that intelligence and technical knowledge, or other talents, are less important than one's instinct about their own leverage, strengths, and weaknesses, and a belief that either a person has such instincts, or not (points to F as more valued than P). Further, at the time he was already professing his belief (that later became much more obvious) than even bad publicity is better than no publicity; that making extravagant claims about his objectives and goals, far more than he knows to be feasible, is very useful in building up his image (E blocked with T). He also wrote that another key to success was to always have several alternatives and fall-back positions when trying to strike a business deal, so as never to really lose (points to I). Finally, it is interesting that he seems skeptical of expert technical knowledge when making his big decisions; he prefers, as he says, to ask as many people what they think about a location (especially cab drivers), gradually forming an image of the situation in his mind until he's certain of what the best way forward is (this indicates L as more valued than P in my view).

I argue that the above is perfectly consistent with the core of the present-day Donald Trump, and already reflects some clear Socionics information. His early public persona clearly showed a man at ease with factual impersonal information when defending his business decisions, which was at first obviously a more comfortable "zone" than the appeal to his image. That strongly suggests that his P is in a stronger position than his E. Yet, his increased shift to focusing on E in public, as he got older, more famous and more successful, strongly suggests that E is a quadra value rather than P, which was already clear in The Art of the Deal: P is easy but taken for granted, while E is something he prefers to build up, aim at, and explore. His often-repeated belief that the single most important quality for business deals is to know one's (and others') "leverage", and that is further built up by one's "credibility" which is a consequence of success and the image of being successful, clearly points to F as quadra value and as a zone of great confidence. The above already points to Beta as Trump's quadra - having E and F as quadra values. His strong P points to a logical Beta type, while his focus on keeping several possibilities afloat at once, as well as his confidence in risk-taking and spotting real-estate potential before others shows a reasonable confidence in I. Finally, that Trump states all of that as self-evident truths points to L. All of that already points to SLE as Trump's type, a logical Beta with decent I focus.

"Present-day" Trump presents further evidence. He got into increasingly diverse business ventures that had sometimes little to do with his core business expertise, and were based exclusively on his image, starting with casinos, then into things like Trump Steaks, Trump the Game, finally culminating on the TV shows The Apprentice, Celebrity Apprentice and spin-offs thereof, as well as Miss Universe competitions and the like. I think it's fair to say that by the time of those TV shows he was spending at least as much time (if not far more) in this kind of image-and-celebrity business venture rather than on his originally core real-estate businesses. That again shows the shift from P+F (accumulating wealth through more "concrete" business ventures) to E+F (focusing on his image as a source of power and wealth, as well as probably an end in itself).

Finally, on Trump's most recent "incarnation" i.e. as presidential candidate. His tactics in the Republican primary debates consisted essentially of destroying his rivals through ridicule, by attaching to their images traits (real or not, that's irrelevant) based on perceived weaknesses and pounding on them relentlessly until they "stuck" (i.e. low-energy Jeb Bush (LIE), little Marco, lying Ted, etc). Winning a competition by ruthlessly destroying an adversary, even using what some might call 'low-belt' tactics. shows a focus and skill on F (especially as he himself seemed impervious to such attacks); and the focus on rivals' images - rather than their substance or record - shows again the focus on E, E+T in particular i.e. a broader, longer-term perception of an image, rather than more short-term emotional atmosphere.

Also interestingly, Trump's most notorious political promises are F focused: building a huge wall on the Mexican border (that is the materialization of F), being tough on external commercial rivals, foreign and internal enemies, etc. Whether he actually plans on doing any of that if elected president is less relevant than that he thinks that those promises are effective and plausible and will help him. In addition, the 'present' Donald Trump's focus on E as a political tool has been effective with many people, but they are also seen as over-the-top, or even repugnant, by as many more. This is consistent with E being in a valued function but not really strong (such as lead or creative).

Donald Trump is clearly a SLE and I think it's even difficult to plausibly argue for another Socionics type.

Sources: information on the present Donald Trump is almost infinite; his earlier incarnation can be found in older video interviews and in his first book "The Art of the Deal".

To learn more about SLE, click here.

Thursday, 28 July 2016

Leonardo Da Vinci (ILE): Personality Type Analysis

Leonardo da Vinci or simply Leonardo, was an Italian polymath whose vastly diverse interests included invention, painting, sculpting, architecture, science, music, mathematics, engineering, literature, anatomy, geology, astronomy, botany, writing, history, and cartography. He has been variously called the father of paleontology, ichnology, and architecture, and is widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time. But how can Socionics shed light on this "Universal Genius"?

In discussions about Leonardo's type, it is often remarked how only a sensory type could achieve the beautiful detail and composition in his art. Given alone, this observation is not sufficient to conclude a type with strong S. This skill or eye for detail is trained by years of dedicated practice in the field. Secondly, a renaissance painter would not have worked alone, but would have had assistants. This was certainly the case with Leonardo. We actually know at least two of his assistants by name: Salai and Melzi. The danger we run into here is typing the job, not the person. The most telling thing about Leonardo is not what he does, but how and why.  

The "how" part of this equation is best solved through studying Leonardo's work techniques and habits during his painting of The Last Supper. Fresco was renowned at the time as the most difficult painting technique to master. The painter and biographer, Giorgio Vasari declared it "the most manly, the most certain, most resolute and durable of all the other methods". The key word here is "durable", and yet the mixture Leonardo used for the painting began flaking off the walls of the refectory almost as soon as he had finished it in 1498. But if it was so durable, why did it peel off?

In his letter to Ludoviko Sforza, the Duke of Milan, Leonardo vaguely concluded that he could "carry out ... in a painting whatever may be done, and as well as any other." Yet Leonardo did have a limitation when it came to painting. His teacher, Verocchio, never painted in fresco (but in tempera), and therefore would have been unlikely to pass down its secrets to Leonardo. Not only this, but he had also never worked on such a large painting. After abandoning several altarpieces unfinished, he was suddenly given the task of covering the north wall of the refectory with a painting fifteen feet high by almost twenty-nine feet wide. Despite all this, he proceeded to paint his Last Supper using an unorthodox method: by working with oils on a dry wall.

This deviation from the usual fresco technique, called buon fresco (“good fresco”), could give us the answer to our question. The Buon fresco presented many logistical difficulties, not least because the frescoist had only a very limited number of hours to apply his paints to his daily patch of damp plaster before it dried. This technique, therefore, had to be performed quickly and without mistakes, and major corrections required gouging out a piece of the wall and then re-plastering it. Leonardo, however, was a slow and cautious painter. If we are to attribute any consideration of artistic skill to S, it should be the naturalness and confidence with which the painter is able to capture the subject. He didn't pick up a brush until he had given careful consideration to what he wanted to do. For months, he would create the painting in his mind, makes sketches, and play with the placement of figures. Leonardo would have been unsuited to the highly regimented buon fresco technique, and would have been constrained not only in time, but further restricted to using only those pigments that could withstand the alkalinity of the plaster. 

Leonardo's temperament would have greatly influenced his decision to opt against buon fresco. His tendency, both personal and professional, to recycle a subject in various different versions, abandoning many projects once he had “figured it out”, makes it seem likely he lacked the patience for doing a large wall in this technique. The The fifteenth-century novelist Matteo Bandello, who observed Leonardo at work, recounted: "Some days he would paint from dawn to dusk without stopping to eat and then not paint for 3-4 days at a time." He also writes: "Many a time I have seen Leonardo go in the early morning to work on the platform before the Last Supper; and there he would stay from sunrise till darkness, never laying down the brush, but continuing to paint without eating or drinking. Then three or four days would pass without his touching the work, yet each day he would spend several hours examining and criticising the figures to himself. I have also seen him, when the fancy took him, leave the Corte Vecchia when he was at work on the stupendous horse of clay, and go straight to the Grazie. There, climbing on the platform, he would take a brush and give a few touches to one of the figurines: and then suddenly he would leave and go elsewhere." His inattentiveness towards both the maintenance of his surroundings as well as his biological needs, points not only to very Weak S, but also to a haphazard lifestyle consistent with I1.

So, where did he go? He have the word of a friar named Sabba di Castiglione, who watched the construction and finally the destruction of the horse, that "when he ought to have attended to painting in which no doubt he would have proved a new Appelles, he gave himself entirely to geometry, architecture and anatomy." Leonardo also had a reputation for having something of a fallible nature. He was called "daydreamer", "capricious and fickle" by his contemporaries, many also complained  about his unreliability and chronic procrastination. The Duke of Milan, who had also hired Leonardo to cast a bronze equestrian statue, wrote to Lorenzo de' Medici in Florence asking that Lorenzo send him one or two masters to execute the work, because it did not seem to him that Leonardo would ever finish it. Some years later in Rome, Pope Leo X became so exasperated that he said of Leonardo: "Alas, this man will do nothing; he starts by thinking of the end of the work before its beginning." His unreliability got himself into trouble with sponsors who had committed themselves to his projects, only to watch as Leonardo delayed for long periods, or worse, abandoned the entire project. This tendency of his to being distracted from his work by the latest idea that crossed his mind further reinforces I1. This also is in stark contrast to Thomas Edison (LSE) was seen as remarkable by his contemporaries for his work ethic.

When panting The Last Supper, Leonardo would known the risks of the al secco technique, where the color does not become part of the wall and tends to flake off over time. He would have already seen the deterioration of the over-painting done by earlier masters who sometimes used fresco secco over buono frescos to make additions and add colors they could not use when the plaster was wet.  Apparently Leonardo had faith in his ability to create his own adaptations of medium that would overcome the limitations of the secco technique and allow him to paint his “Last Supper” according at his own schedule.

It is time I explored more of the "why", or to put it better, what drove Leonardo's pursuits. In discussion of Leonardo's possible type, many cite Leonardo's inventions as evidence of valued P. Contrary to the general consensus among Socionists, it is inaccurate to describe Leonardo's genius as "practical" Few of his designs were constructed or even feasible during his lifetime and have actually been described by many historians as "fanciful": his ruminations on science and helicopters were a form of personal edification more akin to daydreaming than scientific contribution. His genius as relating to these designs are only celebrated today as they bear a passing resemblance to later mechanical inventions (such as Leondardo's armoured vehicle to the 20th century tank). Leonardo's sketchbooks attest far more to his wide variety of interests and his depth of understanding, which seems to suggest Valued I+L. The type often proposed by Socionists for Leonardo is LSE, but there is little evidence to suggest there being a pragmatic bent towards his inventions, rather that he was motivated by curiosity.

When typing historical figures, there aren't always good primary sources to use in our analyses, especially not those written by personally by the subject in question. In Leonardo, we are fortunate in that we have access to his notes. The best source to gain insight into Leonardo's worldview and motivations is "Thoughts on Art and Life", which is a collection of his musings spanning a wide range of topics including religion, morality, science, mechanics, politics, speculation, spirits and nature. There are 333 notes in total, containing a number of philosophical statements and maxims, in which he sets out the "eternal" laws which govern all aspects of nature. 

When reading his writings, what becomes quickly apparent from a Socionics standpoint is the degree to which he seeks to unite all his various ideas in a consistent framework. We have seen that Leonardo's approach to art was far removed from convention. His work is notable for being more akin to geometric analysis than to naturalistic expression. When writing on the Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile in a contemporary note, he identified the lips of the mouth with the actual muscles, describing how they form a smile. "These," he writes, "I intend to describe and illustrate in full, proving these movements by means of my mathematical principles." With this process, he sought to unite geometric principle with physical form, secrets he shared with Luca Pacioli in the book De divina proportione (The Divine Proportion). For Leonardo, art was built on the scaffolding of science. He believed divine art emerged from understanding of its underlying mechanisms. Mathematics was the ultimate key to the understanding of the nature he scrutinized so carefully -- the key not only to mechanics and movement, but to all of science, including the biology of man. His goal of integrating experience through a mathematical medium, he attempted to achieve by an analysis of phenomena into what he called "pyramidal" forms of the "four powers" of movement, weight, force and percussion acting on the four elements of earth, water, air and fire (CA 151 ra).

Mathematics, for Leonardo, being more than a tool to serve practical pursuits, rather a goal in and of itself, certainly indicates rather than as a quadra value. His dogmatic assertions of principle and his practice of science provide more unequivocal evidence of strong and valued L. In Manuscript G, he writes: "There is no certainty in science where one of the mathematical sciences cannot be applied or which cannot be brought into union with mathematical principles." (Ms G 95 v) This is one of a number of such statements in his late writings. His belief in "the supreme certainty of mathematics" (W 19084 r) had been implicit in his early work, but it later provided the explicit foundation of his work in the natural and mechanical sciences. 

The diversity of Leonardo's interests, remarked on by Vasari as apparent from an early age, was to find expression across multiple arenas. His experiments in hydrology, aeronautics and even war, his studies of geometry and his architectural plans, his attendance at dissections in Pavia to understand anatomy, and his later hobby of collecting butterflies, as well as personal memos and creative writing including fables, demonstrate Leonardo's hesitation to stick to a single field, but a drive to constantly broaden his palette (no pun intended). To each new venture he brought with him and applied his general principles. All of this gives us a clear picture of I1 and L2 in the ego block.

But what of E? While at work on his various projects, Leonardo often relieved his boredom by amusing himself with pranks, for instance, attaching bird wings to a lizard, and inflating a pig's intestine so that it filled a room to "frighten the life out of his friends." According to Vasari, "He perpetuated hundreds of follies of this kind." On the election of Leo X as pope, da Vinci traveled to Rome as a guest in the Vatican. While there, he started playing a series of pranks and practical jokes within the holy confines. This inclination to liven up the emotional atmosphere points to valued E and perhaps Alpha values, and the inappropriateness of these emotions (especially breaking the solemnity of the Vatican) suggests Weak E, perhaps E6

When Leonardo wasn't working on The Last Supper, he walked the streets staring at people, looking for ideas for the faces of the apostles. He sat in cafes and watched people, observing the movements and facial expressions and sketching them in his notebook. He looked for expressions of surprise, pain, fear, and anger and noted which facial muscles worked to express these feelings. This fascination with expressed emotion is also very consistent with E6.

There is still one gap in this analysis. We have already seen how S was most likely Weak function, however, we haven't as yet established that this was a Valued element. Leonardo's love of nature is often remarked upon. Later in life, he recalled his formative experiences around his childhood home near Vinci, Tuscany, where he spent time appreciating the rivers and wooded valleys of the Apennine Mountains. This suggests Leonardo's S being Valued and part of the Super-Id.


In conclusion, the evidence explored in this analysis points to the Alpha values of I, L, E and S, with I1 and E6 accounting for much of his motivations, with L2 being consistently present in the general principles that linked his various pursuits together, and S5 in his negligence in maintaining his lifestyle whilst caught up in his projects yet appreciating tranquil surroundings when he was among them. All this points to Leonardo da Vinci being a clear example of ILE.

To learn more about ILE, click here.

Monday, 30 May 2016

Roger Corman (LSE): Personality Type Analysis

Roger William Corman is an independent American film-maker, mainly as director, producer, screenwriter, and studio head, active since the 1950s. Corman is mostly famous for the vast number of extremely low budget movies he made in a wide range of genres, mostly horror, science-fiction, adventure or comedy, and for having helped launch the career of many now very famous actors and directors, like Jack Nicholson (SLE), Robert de Niro, James Cameron, Ron Howard, Martin Scorcese and Francis Ford Coppola.

Originally Corman graduated as an engineer, but immediately decided to go into moviemaking instead, starting as a messenger in the 20th Century Fox studios, then quickly moving into independent film-making, Corman's consistent traits as a producer were a focus in maximising the efficiency in the use of scarce resources, re-using sets, wardrobes, and having actors and staff performing many roles and parts in the same movie. One extremely illustrative example of his approach is seen in how he came to make the movie "The Terror" in 1963: having completed one of his (relatively) higher-budget films, the horror comedy "The Raven", he realized that he still had three days to use that movie's elaborate sets before they were dismantled. Seeing an opportunity and disliking waste, he immediately asked an associate to prepare a script for another movie and asked two of "The Raven"'s actors, Boris Karloff and Corman's close associate Jack Nicholson, to shoot a few more scenes. The result was the movie "The Terror", mostly regarded as a low-quality effort with a plot that makes little sense, but which did make effective use of the sets before their demolition.

Likewise, Roger Corman shot the original "The Little Shop of Horrors" in 1960 in just two days, at very low cost, at the same time arguably creating the genre of horror/black comedy. Corman's 1990 memoir is titled "How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime". He clearly sees himself primarily as a cost-effective producer and studio head rather than an innovative artist or film-maker; in interviews, he is extremely critical of the trend towards hugely expensive movies, starting in the late 1970s, which he found even immoral since there were better ways to spend or invest so much money. According to co-workers, he would keep the business side of making a movie all to himself, but gladly delegate to others creative control in writing or directing. He was famous for allowing, even encouraging, members of his team to assume different responsibilities and roles, often in the same movie.

The traits of high focus on maximising the efficient use of scarce resources, while believing in, and encouraging, creativity in others, already points very strongly to P and S in the Ego, and I in the Super-Id. As the above anecdotes show, Corman's ultimate goals were P+S, the efficient use of existing resources, with I a tool towards those goals. In his approach to relationships with individuals, Corman clearly preferred to work with the same team over several movies, asking them to change or expand their skills if necessary, rather than look for new people according to their skills. This extreme conservatism in relationships with individuals points to valued but weak R, likely in the Super-Id.

Another trait that points to Corman's valuing of I is in his having been very active in distributing high-quality foreign movies in the US, like Bergman's and Kurosawa's, when nobody else was interested. He did that despite the relatively low potential for financial profit, because he thought that was an interesting alternative to his standard production of low-budget movies aimed at entertainment. Early in his career the produced himself a more serious and meaningful movie, "The Intruder", which however was of disappointing financial returns, making him more careful about such experiments.

Finally, as a person, in interviews, Corman consistently comes across as low-emotion, blunt but polite and friendly, only occasionally showing amusement or irritation, which points to E role.

Everything in Roger Corman points to the Delta values of P, S, I and R, and more specifically to P1, S2, E3R5 and I6. Corman is clearly a LSE.

To learn more about LSE, click here.

Sources
Besides his memoirs listed above, interviews available online and the documentary "Corman's World".

Thursday, 26 May 2016

Wilhelm II (EIE): Personality Type Analysis

Wilhelm II was King of Prussia and German Emperor (Kaiser) from 1888 to 1918, when he abdicated and fled into exile in the Netherlands,  at the end of the First World War. He has been considered one of the individuals with the most responsibility for the outbreak of that conflict; however, in contrast to Adolf Hitler’s (EIE) role in WWII, the Kaiser’s historical responsibility in WWI and his broader historical role, as well as judgments of his character, remain a source of controversy among historians, in Germany and elsewhere.

Wilhelm II can be regarded as the first, or only, 'true' German Emperor in the context of the German Empire as recreated by Otto von Bismarck in 1871, since his grandfather Wilhelm I showed little interest in exploring the potential and significance of that role, preferring to remain in essence a King of Prussia, and his father Friedrich III only reigned for 3 months, during which he was already dying of throat cancer. It is largely because of this that Wilhelm II is often referred to as simply “the Kaiser”, both in German and in English.

The historical controversy regarding the Kaiser’s role in WWI can be explained by two factors that lead to ambiguous interpretations: (1) the uniqueness of the imperial constitution of 1871 and (2) the nature of the Kaiser’s personality and character, which reinforced the confusion caused by (1).  The 1871 constitution was designed by Bismarck – the chancellor (prime minister) – to fit the precise circumstances of his relationship with Wilhelm I: the chancellor was the head of government, but could be appointed or dismissed only by the Kaiser, with no direct accountability to the elected Reichstag, the parliament. Yet legislation and the budget needed to be approved by the Reichstag. That meant that if on the one hand the Kaiser’s personal power was severely limited by his need to govern through a Chancellor, and with some cooperation from the Reichstag, it also meant that the Chancellor’s independence was severely curtailed by the fact that the Kaiser could dismiss him, in principle, whenever he wished. Still, the Kaiser could hardly appoint as chancellor non-entities that would just do his bidding as they would have difficulty getting legislation approved. To make the situation still more complicated, the Kaiser himself was the supreme commander of the armed forces, without needing the Chancellor, but the military budget needed the Reichstag’s approval. The Kaiser’s somewhat confusing constitutional position is not directly related to Socionics but it helps to explain his actions in the context of his Socionics type.


One of the Kaiser’s most visible personal characteristics was the inclination to give bombastic, off-the-cuff speeches (especially to the army) where he used extravagant warmongering language (“take no prisoners!” etc), and at least one interview (the “Daily Telegraph affair”) where he made seemingly outlandish, and definitely tactless, claims (such as to have personally designed the British military strategy plan in the Boer War, and that his increasing maritime power was aimed at containing Japan rather than Britain, although Germany was in peace with Japan, etc). Likewise, his surviving annotations on letters, reports etc are equally bombastic . In isolation, such traits show a person inclined to make aggressive,  extravagant and boastful remarks based on his emotions of the moment – especially since with the Kaiser, there was an immense distance between his words and his actions (but also because the latter were limited by the nature of his constitutional position).  Often his remarks were so over-the-top that they made others question his seriousness or even his sanity, as in when he addressed Tsar Alexander III as “the admiral of the Pacific” and himself as “the admiral of the Atlantic”, which only led the Tsar to think that Wilhelm II was nuts. Yet, by all accounts, the Kaiser could be charming, approachable and genial in his dealings with individuals, especially those of clearly inferior position in the social hierarchy, whom he tried to put at ease. This is clearly visible in the many surviving film recordings of his public appearances, on occasions such as visiting an orphanage or as a good-humoured old gentleman in his Dutch exile. Also, the Kaiser was perhaps the first major public figure in the world to grasp the value, even the necessity, of exploiting the then-novel medium of cinema as a way to project and control his public image, alternating between an approachable “politician” and a formal, dignified monarch, according to the occasion. All of the above traits point to a man with a prime emphasis on E. This is further confirmed by his daughter, who said that he had the gift of “making each of his children to think they were his personal favourite”.

His two predecessors as Kaiser, his grandfather and his father, were contented to abide by the spirit of the 1871 constitution and let the chancellor- Bismarck – run the government with nearly as much independence  as a modern prime minister. By contrast, Wilhelm II, upon ascending the throne in 1888, quickly started clashing with Bismarck as to who 'was really in charge', partly due to policy disagreements, but mostly due to the question of status (ie whether Wilhelm II could meet ministers individually without Bismarck’s presence). This led to Bismarck resigning and the Kaiser accepting. Immediately afterwards Wilhelm II had two short-lived chancellors who were neither as strong-willed as Bismarck nor as accommodating as the Kaiser would have wished, until he found his seemingly perfect match in Bernhard von Bülow, his longest-serving chancellor (9 years). Von Bülow was a master in running the government as he pleased while never challenging the Kaiser’s formal superior position. The above traits suggest that Wilhelm II was mostly concerned with confirming his superior status in political hierarchy rather than insisting on implementing specific programs of government. This further confirms the Kaiser’s higher focus on E rather than on P but also points to highly Valued F, as also the nature of his spontaneous bombastic remarks. All of that is even further confirmed by the Kaiser’s vast expansion and modernization of the German military navy: that was done through the Kaiser’s personal involvement, and was one of the reasons for the background to WWI, with Britain fearing that Germany aimed at challenging British naval supremacy even to the point of eventually being able to attack Britain directly. Yet, by all accounts, the Kaiser’s true motivations can be summed up simply as “Germany can’t lag behind Britain” rather than as part of a detailed plan or specific policy goals, which further confirm his higher focus on F than on P.

The above traits – a dominant focus on Valued E and F, less emphasis on P – already put Wilhelm II squarely in the Beta quadra. The consensus among all those who observed him in describing the Kaiser as rather hyperactive and energetic, besides extremely talkative, strongly indicate that he was an energiser/extravert, so EIE or SLE.

The Kaiser was known for being much better in getting policies started than making sure they were completed, except in some very specific cases such as the build-up of the navy, about which he felt particularly strongly. He was noted for showing strong interests in a variety of subjects, including technological innovation and archaeology, about which he would gladly engage in informal conversation. Most notably, he involved himself in promoting scientific research, technological development and education in Germany, sponsoring the creation of the hugely prestigious Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut (today the Max-Planck-Institut) and pushing for education reform in Prussian universities so they would emphasize what today are called “STEM” fields. Those traits, although not ruling out SLE as a type for Wilhelm II, do suggest a very strong and spontaneous focus on I, suggesting that that was more likely I8 (as in EIE) rather than I3 (as in SLE).

The Kaiser’s use of F was directly connected to his use of his position as Kaiser. Yet, when truly challenged, he could  find himself in situations  where he was not sure how to exercise personal volitional pressure.  Thus he found himself into a nearly-powerless position during WWI, with generals von Hindenburg and Ludendorff effectively running the war effort; and despite the Kaiser’s foreign policy initiatives having helped set up the background for WWI, in reality he found himself unable to stop it from escalating at the last moment. Finally, he was rather easily pushed into abdication and exile at the end of WWI, feeling depressed, by von Hindenburg. This suggests a much weaker F than in a SLE.

A Beta energiser with quite visible I, extremely visible E, and valued but not-so-strong F: that is perfectly consistent with E1, I8 and F6. Further, besides a vague belief in the divine right of monarchs, it is difficult to see in Wilhelm consistent worldviews or ideologies, showing weak and/or subdued L. All the evidence makes EIE as more likely as Wilhelm II’s type than any other.

Sources: my first views of the Kaiser were shaped by Robert K Massie’s book “Dreadnought”, then further by Christopher Clark’s biography “Kaiser Wilhelm II: A Life in Power”.

To learn more about EIE, click here.

Monday, 23 May 2016

The Problem With Keirsey Temperaments

Those into MBTI have probably heard of David Keirsey's Temperaments, the system that splits the 16 types into four families of four types. However, like many things associated with MBTI, there are numerous problems that need addressing. In this first instalment of the new The Problem With... series, we will look at Keirsey's Temperaments and see why MBTI enthusiasts really should think twice about relying on them.

It's Messy
Keirsey's Temperaments try to put 16 personality types into four main groupings. However, the rules governing which type goes into which group are not sufficiently explained. Keirsey entirely focuses on the basic 4 Dichotomies that we see in the MBTI, i.e. Extroverted/Introverted, iNtuitive/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling and Perceiving/Judging, ignoring completely the 8 Cognitive Functions that ordain these dichotomies.

Without a clear rationale, it is simply asserted that out of the four dichotomies, the Sensing/iNtuition divide is the most important for how different types of people connect with each other. Although Sensors and iNtuitors differ in their affinity for processing concrete vs. abstract information, the burden of proof remains for explaining how and why this difference is more significant to our interactions than, say, the analytical vs. affective differences of Thinking/Feeling. Already, the split is entirely arbitrary.

Additionally, Keirsey divides Thinking and Feeling for iNtuitors (NTs and NFs), but divides Perceiving and Judging for Sensors (SPs and SJs). It has been suggested that the T/F (objective vs. subjective) divide is more noticeable in the abstract ideas of iNtuitors, while the P/J difference can readily observed in the concrete actions of Sensors. However, this misses the point that the middle two dichotomies (N/S and T/F) are very different to the outer two dichotomies (E/I and J/P). The middle dichotomies both tell you about the capability a person has with different cognitive functions. For example, a Feeler is going to have a more mature grasp and proficient use of both Introverted Feeling (Fi) and Extroverted Feeling (Fe), while having a relatively lesser aptitude for both kinds of Thinking. The same goes with iNtuition vs. Sensation. For this reason, N/S and T/F intersect well in distinguishing types by their capability with cognitive functions.

In contrast, the outer dichotomies tell you about the positioning and preference of these more and less developed functions. We know, for instance, that those matching in E/I and J/P prefer a similar energy in their interactions with the world. An EP may be more impulsive and improvising in nature, an EJ, more proactive and responsibility-taking. However, these concepts have nothing to do with capability and whether they are best with iNtuitive, Sensing, Feeling or Thinking cognitions. For this reason, prioritising Sensing and Judging (or Perceiving) together creates a grouping that partially looks at capability and partially at preference, a sort of hybrid. In the case of SJs, it just sets out the four types who are capable at and prefer Introverted Sensing (Si). For SPs, Extroverted Sensing (Se).

When Keirsey decided to have NT and NF on one side, but SP and SJ on the other, he created a lopsided, arbitrary distinction. The difference between NF and NT cannot be compared to the difference between SJ and SP as the classifications are looking at different things. Instead, it creates greater confusion; while it is easy to explain how NFs relate to NTs and vice versa, it is impossible to do the same comparing NFs with SPs. Perceiving ENFP will have a completely different relationship with the SPs compared to the Judging ENFJ.

This leaves us with a messy system, ordained by arbitrary and inconsistent rules. Not only that, but the system is severely limited in its use, not allowing comparison between the two kinds of Ns and Ss.

It's Inaccurate
A response might be to say that regardless of the theoretical mess, Keirsey's temperaments should still work and accurately describe similarity. However, even this is not achieved. A major flaw of Keirsey's Temperaments comes from inaccuracy in generalising each of the 4 types in a temperament to having certain traits in common. In the Please Understand Me series on Rationals (NTs), it is asserted that all "Rationals need to gather up abilities. Wherever they are and whatever they do, they strive to perform competently, and usually succeed".

For NFs and NTs, their commonality should only lie in their capability at certain cognitive functions. For instance, all NTs should be capable with iNtuition and Thinking, but less capable in Sensing and Feeling. However, in this video, the commonality is expressed as a fundamental value/preference, e.g. competence. Keirsey doesn't assert that NTs merely have the ability to do the same things. Instead, he asserts that NTs actually aspire to be a certain way. In doing so, the neglect of cognitive functions is made clear. After all, the desire to "gather up abilities" and "perform competently" has all the markings of preferred Extroverted Thinking (Te). His description of NT applies rather well to xNTJs, who combine have Te among their preferences and strengths. However, this description of the NT fails to describe the motivations of xNTPs, who prefer Introverted Thinking (Ti) and focus much more on creating and understanding new theories than any sort of competent, productive output. Oddly enough, Keirsey's description of NTs is perhaps even more indicative of xSTJs who both focus on Te, yet these would be SJs under his system. By generalising Te motivations to all NTs, while neglecting to attach that motivation to Te types that are not NTs, Keirsey misinforms people about the types with inaccurate group descriptions.

One can see a similar issue with Keirsey's Idealists (NFs), where the focus is placed much more on finding a higher cause and changing the world on a crusade. Such a focus is typical of xNFJs that prefer Introverted iNtuition (Ni) and Fe. However, it entirely misses the point of xNFPs with Extroverted iNtuition (Ne) and Fi, who shun lofty causes to focus on individuals and exploring their perspectives in good faith. As such, it is clear that trying to unite these four types under a shared value system would be inaccurate, requiring a deliberate neglect of the cognitive functions that drive these values.

Once again, Artisans (SPs) and Guardians (SJs) face a different issue. Artisans share Se and Guardians share Si, so it is appropriate to look for some shared preferences in these groups. However, Keirsey defines these values through the combination of Sensing and Perceiving/Judging, rather than investigating the cognitive functions themselves. As such some meaning is lost.

For SPs, Keirsey places the focus on spontaneity and freedom. However, this emphasis overlooks the fact that Ne is perhaps even more prone to whimsicality than Se, yet Ne types are relegated to the NFs and NTs. Ne is the function that tries to keep multiple possibilities open, hating to be limited or obligated, yet Keirsey tries to assign this to the SPs. Consequently, Keirsey places too much emphasis on the superficial, free-spirit behaviours we associate with all Perceiving types, rather than going into the unique qualities of Se and how it creates a certain world-view of immediate action and impact on the present moment. This ability to act with immediacy can protect freedom, but it can also be harsh and dominating. ESTPs are notable among the SPs for being rather more combative and ambitious than freedom-loving, e.g. Donald Trump, Alexander the Great and Winston Churchill. Furthermore, in the case of ISxPs, where Ne is especially lacking, but Ni occupies the tertiary position, obligation to a singular purpose, can actually be valued in its tendency to reduce the ambiguity of life.

For SJs, Keirsey departs considerably from conventional understandings of Si. By combining Sensing and Judging behaviours, Keirsey forms a pastiche of SJ values as rooted in tradition and preservation, seeking merely to conform to the expectations of society, how things have always been done, and hindering progress. In this focus on tradition, of which no basis can be found in Jung's definitions, Keirsey fails to accurately describe the SJs and what drives their behaviour. A description that does justice to the SJs would emphasise their desire for high quality and precision (rather than impact) of sensory experience. The xSFJs should create positive moods and hospitable surroundings, while the xSTJs should cultivate practical, high-quality work. Instead, Keirsey replaces these more complex, virtuous motivations with a general status as "conservators", a very relative quality more common with older people in society regardless of type than especially related to cognitive functions or individual personality. These 'Guardians' take "occupations that involve serving others and belonging to established, recognised institutions". Often this is taken to mean that SJs have the greatest intolerance towards novelty. On the contrary, having Ne in the Tertiary position would make ESxJs rather open to new ideas and perspectives and they are actually rather averse to commitment to a set path in life.

As explained, Keirsey's temperaments convey a great deal of inaccurate information when trying to generalise each of the four types per temperament. While the values of NTs and NFs are represented entirely by the xNFJs and xNTJs, the SPs and SJs are unified and described in ways that fail to do them justice alongside more rigorous descriptions of the cognitive functions.

It's Divisive
Continuing to look at the temperaments as Keirsey describes them, we see that while NTs are presented as the intelligent group, NFs the compassionate group and SPs the exciting, creative (although often less intelligent) group, the SJs are left behind in terms of any special or remarkable quality. Instead, Keirsey stresses tradition, conformity and a certain servility as core to SJ values. In this way, a certain hierarchy exists in Keirsey's system, where the SJs, and to a lesser extent, the SPs, are presented as inferior in their intellect, imagination and independent thought to the NFs and NTs. At the same time, little is done to address this disparity in worth. While NTs solve the mysteries of the universe and NFs inspire the world, the SPs are instead set to painting and fixing cars, while the SJs merely serve people better than themselves.

It is perhaps not surprising then that so few people involved in MBTI identify as SJ types. The SJs, widely claimed to be the most common grouping in the world by MBTI enthusiasts, are also the rarest presence on MBTI forums, or at workshops and meetups. The explanation given by many is that SJs simply aren't interested in personality theories like MBTI. However, if Keirsey's description has any merit, then a highly popular theory that has worked its way into prestigious establishments, such as McKinsey & Company, should not turn these types away.

On the contrary, it seems quite likely that when a group is described in an unflattering manner, where they are portrayed as mindless, servile drones of societal conformity, even those who might actually be SJs may not identify with their temperament as described, and may even feel a social pressure to identify as a 'smarter', 'free-thinking' iNtuitive type instead. In addition, being told that a group is just servile and traditionalist is a sure way to prevent attempts to go further and beginning to understand someone's viewpoints and where they are coming from. From personal experience, these dynamics seem to be at least true in a few cases, where I have seen disparaging remarks made by self-identifying iNtuitors about SJs, saying that they could never form a close bond with someone like that, or telling the rare ISFJ that they probably won't enjoy the meetups that go on (implying that the conversation is too mentally stimulating and unorthodox) and even looking surprised to find out that an NT like myself may actually be dating an SJ. I have even met a few people who seem likely SJs, but cling to their NF/NT typings, seeming disgusted that someone would suggest they are Sensing types. The frequency with which I have experienced these attitudes in others has been quite remarkable to me, and serves as a peculiar example of the prejudices people of an in-group can feel towards outsiders they distrust or feel they cannot relate to.

Such prejudice might be considered an unfortunate circumstance of an otherwise well-intentioned theory, except that Keirsey wanted iNtuitors and Sensors to be separated. In an attempt at social engineering, Keirsey asserted that N types mix best with other Ns, while the S types should be left to other Ss. Two types are seen as compatible as long as they are both N or both S. In this way, two very different types, but both iNtuitive, became seen as ideal pairings, such as ENTP with INFJ. Because of this, it can be argued that Keirsey achieved what he wanted in defining a group of personality types as servile traditionalists, while convincing more intelligent sorts of people that they should not mix with these people if they could help it. However, while a set up may be helpful in the short term to the self-indulgent, it divides people up and creates prejudices and insecurities that didn't exist before. As such, one can make a strong case where the continued use of Keirsey temperaments isn't merely confusingly arbitrary and misinforms people, but that in its divisiveness, it actually can cause real damage to people and their relations with others.

It's probably not MBTI
It is perhaps worth noting that many question whether Keirsey's Temperaments, often measured with his Temperament Sorter (KTS) amounts to simply being a separate theory to MBTI. Technically, the MBTI is what is tested using the actual Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and that official measure makes little mention of Keirsey's temperaments.

However, there is no denying that many people can and do mix concepts from MBTI proper with other concepts from related and offshoot Jungian typologies. There is something to be said in the MBTI practitioner paying little attention to categories like Keirsey's Temperaments, but simultaneously, most Jungian typologies are trying to understand personality differences, and operate on a similar 16-type base. As such, it makes sense to try to combine different ideas and theories on the subject together, provided they can be shown to be beneficial and increase understanding.

Unfortunately, it seems from the points above that an arbitrary, inaccurate and divisive system like Keirsey's Temperaments won't provide such such a benefit. Instead, if there is need to split 16 types from Jungian typology into four smaller families, then perhaps the clearly-defined groupings from Socionics, such as Quadra and Club, would be more beneficial.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Jeb Bush (LIE): Personality Type Analysis

John Ellis "Jeb" Bush is an American businessman and politician who served as the Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Most recently he was an unsuccessful candidate for the nomination as Republican presidential candidate in the 2016 elections. He is the younger brother of former president George W. Bush (ESI) and therefore a son of former president George H.W. Bush (LSE).

Jeb Bush was, by any standards, a very successful governor of Florida: the first Republican ever to win reelection in that state, leaving office with 64% approval. His administration focused on cutting taxes and spending while seemingly maintaining a balanced budget (as required by the Florida constitution). As that inevitably included cuts in government spending, such as reducing the Florida state workforce by 11%, his approval rate must be considered a remarkable achievement.

Jeb Bush's chosen self-image as a politician is that of a competent administrator who focuses on making government more efficient while promoting economic growth and what he sees as necessary reforms in education and immigration. Although widely perceived as more articulate than his brother George, Jeb has never been considered a politician that relies on inspirational speeches and oratory. His persona in most interviews is serious-friendly, one could say with a studied politeness, with little display of emotion. He can get emotional - in the form of sadness or annoyance - when discussing specific personal subjects, such as his children's problems with drugs, or Donald Trump's (SLE) insults during the recent presidential debates. But consistently his preferred approach as a politician has been to present his plans of what he intends to do and his record of having done it, seemingly expecting the electorate to recognize that he knows what he's talking about and therefore would do a good job. In longer, more free-flowing interviews - especially those done way before political campaigns - he seems comfortable and confident when talking at length about several subjects and his ideas to tackle policy problems such as education, immigration and economic growth, liking to focus on innovation and creative ideas, maintaining his friendly-polite persona but almost never cracking a joke or displaying much emotion on such occasions.

The above traits, very consistent, already point to P as Valued and I as a Strong function. His awareness of the need to maintain a friendly-polite personality, which however may come across as flat, besides the fact that he has often been described as "boring", is consistent with E as a weak function but not E4. Also interestingly, like his father, Jeb utterly lacks his brother's chief strength as a politician, namely the ease in coming across as approachable and warm to those in his immediate presence, establishing an easy personal rapport. Yet in that aristocratic family, Jeb had arguably the best chances to learn how to relate to the average person (by not studying in elite universities such as Yale, and volunteering to build schools in Mexico as a young man, etc). This reinforces the notion that both E and R are in weak functions.

When talking to individuals in small towns when campaigning, and when talking at length in an interview about personal issues, such as his daughter's problems with drugs, though, Jeb seems to have the inclination to 'forget' that he is ultimately talking to the general public and focuses on the individuals immediately in front of him, getting more emotional (in a subdued way) as in, sad when talking about his daughter, and annoyed/pissed off/moaning when talking about Trump's insults. Unlike more E-adept politicians - who are always aware that they must project a consistent image - Jeb ends up making comments that are later used against him. This trait - that it is fairly easy to get him to talk about personal issues in (what seems to be) private environments - is consistent with E3 and R5.

Jeb's strengths and weaknesses as a politician may be summed up thus: when in an executive position, he seems to know exactly what he wants to achieve and how to achieve it, and his focus is on economic growth and efficiency, and innovation (again, suggests Strong P). But as a candidate - especially at national level - his weakness is precisely not being able to control the image he's projecting at all times, and - as seen during the recent primary debates - he is completely clueless on how to react to the taunts from Donald Trump (showing Weak and
Subdued E). Jeb's ideal idea of a campaign seems to be, to talk about what he did as governor and what he intends to do as president, giving as much detail as possible, showing that he knows what he's talking about. Likewise in trying to get support among Hispanics, Bush spent time giving interviews and speeches in Spanish, showing his mastery of the language, but seldom trying to appeal at a more emotional level directly.

That was completely inadequate against Trump's tactics, which consisted of saying something crude and exaggerated about Bush (and others), which however seemed to be at least partly true, and hammering on it, until it "stuck" as true. In Jeb's case, it was to describe him as "low energy" - to which Jeb reacted in precisely the wrong way, that is, by moaning a bit about it in small towns (yet still being taped) and in the debates, trying to laugh it off - but not counter-attacking. Suggests Weak although Valued F. The same went for Trump's description of him as too soft on immigration because of his Mexican wife, etc.

What Jeb seemed unable to understand - or to give it enough importance -  is that Trump was slowly 'defining' him in the minds of a large part of the primary voters, so he was unable to effectively counter-attack or respond in kind. Trump was using sheer F - attacks on his adversary's weak points in order to destroy him - blocked with E - not in 'real' terms, but on the image. Jeb seemed not only unable to respond in kind, but incapable of believing that such tactics could work. Even worse, he seemed unable to hide that such taunts did get to him, especially the "low energy" one, suggesting that F is a sensitive point in which he's not very confident, which is indicative of F6.

The above shows. again,  a man far better at P than E or F,, but who does focus on E at the 'socially acceptable level' i.e. his public friendly persona (interestingly, George W Bush once described Jeb as "a rather dour guy" in private). Who keeps coming back to P competence as his selling point, who gets frustrated at F attacks but is at the same time not able, or willing, to fight back at that level. Also, a man who, when talking calmly about his policy ideas, easy slips into I  mode - new uses of technology and their potential, etc., in a way that is consistent with I8,

LIE fits the above traits better than any other type, and is therefore Jeb Bush's likely Socionics type.

Sources: besides Wikipedia and direct observations of Jeb Bush, I think that this video illustrates Jeb Bush's functional ordering of P,  E and I; while this illustrates his valuing of R over E.

To learn more about LIE, click here.