INTJ Presidential Candidates & Leaders

Al Gore (INTJ)

Thought Provoking Movies to See During This 2008 Election

Idiocracy - Describes the “dumbing down” of America.  Although it’s a highly fictionalized tale, it’s scary how much of it is reflected in today’s society and playing itself out in the presidential campaign.  If you don’t appreciate irreverant, dark humor - stay away!!!   (This is a complete aside, but if you’re interested in Idiocracy from the illuminary women who host “The View”, check this out Mick LaSalle’s blog at:  http://sfgate.info/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=22502)

Here’s Sherri Shepherd, showing that she doesn’t understand the concept of B.C.

And here’s Jacob Bronowski, in the early 1970s series THE ASCENT OF MAN, talking about the dangers of ignorance and dogma.

Primary Colors - Interesting in the context of personality types and presidential candidates.  Bill Clinton (an Enneagram Three Type and ENTP, Myers-Briggs type) is played by John Travolta (also a Three in real life).  Hillary Clinton (an Enneagram Type One and INTJ, Myers-Briggs type) is played by Emma Thompson (also a One in real life).  The casting for these roles is perfect.  If you want to understand the dynamics between Bill and Hillary, Bill’s personality on the campaign trail vs. Hillary’s you’ve got to watch (or rewatch this movie).  Great insight.  Watch how Bill Clinton (Three, ENTP) modifies (manipulates?) his handshakes, his manners, his speech to adapt to his audience in the film.  There’s a connection between Obama and Bill Clinton as political campaigners given their similar personalities.  Both are Enneagram Type Threes (charming, seductive, charismatic, optimistic, hopeful, manipulative?, phony?, narcissistic?) .  Both are NF Myers Briggs types which means that they can “instantly connect” with voters.  They are intuitive and feeling oriented which means that they can pick up and “use” the energy of the audience to their advantage.  They come across as being compassionate, concerned and empathetic.  NFs are generally good counselors, “cheerleaders” and counselors because of their strong communication (listening skills) , empathy, insight and positive feedback.  On the downside,  personality types like Bill Clinton and Obama can come across as “phony”, “dishonest” “lying” and “manipulative” - and, in fact, in  their unhealthy states ”Threes” can be.  Monica Lewinsky comes to mind….  Threes tend to value efficiency and political expediency which means they can have a tendency to “cut corners”, to “tell white lies” for the purposes of getting done what they want to get done.  If you watch Primary Colors with a critical eye you’ll be able to see what I mean….   

Ralph Nadar: An Unreasonable Man - Great documentary.  I didn’t know a lot about Nadar before I viewed the movie.  It was very inspiring to me.  He really is a largely “unsung” hero of the American people.  I bet most Americans have little idea as to the vast number of consumer protection and safety legislation and reform Nadar has successfully crusaded.  He has saved the lives of thousands of people from traffic accidents that would have otherwise resulted in fatalities had his safety legislation not passed Congress.  Nadar is the founder of the group Public Citizen, a watchdog agency that oversees consumer safety issues in most every aspect of Americans lives.  I greatly respect his intellect, determination and integrity.   Although, I don’t believe that he should be president of the United States, I believe he makes a rational argument for the need for a three party system in this country.  He also makes the important point that true liberals are “shooting themselves in the foot” by moving to the center –> right to get votes.  Liberal politicans would actually be more successful if acted on integrity and conviction, if they stood for the issues that true liberal value, made sure that their platforms reflected interests of liberal voters rather than selling themselves and their party out to the right (and corporations).   

The Queen - Not really a great movie.  But interesting in the context of the “Obama as Savior” political phenomenon.  The British press has picked up on the “gushy” sentiments conveyed by many Obama supporters at the mere mention of his name…Obamites get weak in the knees…their hearts begin to race…  A similar phenomenon occurred after the death of Princess Diana.  Hordes of British dropping off flowers at the castles for weeks after her death,  camping out for days at the castle, crying, expressing strong sentiment for a woman they really didn’t know but felt they did (Idol Worship?)  The fact that “royalty” is an antiquated concept having been replaced with a representational democracy seems to be have lost on the folks that idealized her.  There seems to be no contradication in emoting over the death of a woman who chose the life of a “princess” for the access to fame and power the royal family provided.  I am amazed that so many British people continue to believe in their own Camelot ”fairytale” of royal goodness and benevolence.  The fact that Diana traveled as a world ambassador not so much as a promoter of charity, but rather for the benefit of public relations.  As Tony Blair acknowledges in the movie,  Princess Diana possessed charisma embodied people with a “sense of hope”.  It was in the interest of England, and politicans like Tony Blair, at the time to maintain this ”positive spin” of “hope” for England, “hope” for those oppressed in third world countries (even if England was responsible for the oppression), regardless of economic and political events that pointed to the contrary.  Royalty was able to use Diana to bolster their self image as well.   But the truth is that there really wasn’t much depth or substance to Diana.  Her power lied in her ability to evoke “sympathy” (ironic given the unequal access she had to fame, power and wealth via the royal family - I guess she ended up using the royal family in the end).   Obama has been called “Princess Obama” in the British press because he is able to evoke similar emotions on the part of Americans - the idea of “hope”, “progress”, “benevolence” and “kindness” without having to produce a single act - a specific policy or a specific plan which would legitimately engender those feelings, in my view.   Would ”hope” be enough to move this nation forward in a progressive fashion?  Not so IMO, when the candidate in question has sold out to corporate interests, but his supporters still haven’t figured it out…

The End of Suburbia - Thought provoking. Similar to ”An Inconvenient Truth”, not a movie for the “faint of heart”.  Provides a history of the development of American suburban society over most of the last century.  The consequences of this kind of community development is that it has left most Americans completely dependent on their automobiles as its primary source of transportation.  Quality of life has diminished as Americans are forced to drive hours a day to get to their workplaces.  The Walmartization of communities has occurred as small business are forced out of communities where they can no longer compete.  Natural resources are being depleted from the world at an alarming rate.  We have already reached the point of “diminishing returns” when it comes to the world’s oil supply.  And when the world’s oil supply is gone…it will be gone.  The so-called alternative fuel sources are not really practical, require more energy to produce and really will not resolve the problem.  Globalization becomes a questionable future in a scenario where the world does not have enough fuel (or fuel is too costly) to transport goods around the world.  We will have to find creative ways to become self-sufficient as communities else we will not survive as a nation.  Or we can all go to sleep and hope it was all a bad dream?

How Hillary Communicates as an INTJ

I found a website, “the Complete Idiot’s Guide to INTJs” which describes in an article, “The Do’s and Don’t (mostly Don’ts)”in a clever, humorous fashion, the ways most INTJs (myself and Hillary included) communicate with others.  I thought elaborate on some of the key points mentioned as they relate to Hillary, Obama and the current political campaign.  (BTW: The Do’s and Don’t with INTJs, could also apply to Ralph Nadar, since he’s also INTJ).

 1. Never ask an INTJ a question unless you really want a truthful answer. We will not sugarcoat it for you, and we don’t tell white lies to spare anyone’s feelings.  Do you really, truthfully want to know if those jeans make your ass look fat? Normal person’s response: “Um, no, you look fine. Really.” Honest person’s response: “Well… maybe a different belt would help?” INTJ’s response: “No, it’s not the jeans that make your ass look fat; it’s your fat ass that makes your ass look fat.”

Could this explain why some people prefer Obama over Hillary?  Is it because many people prefer politics and policy issues to be discussed in a “sugarcoated”, ethereal way as opposed to a way that speaks to the heart of the matter, from a place of conviction, in a manner that conveys substance in terms of specifics over style.  Of course, it has been argued that all politicians prepare speeches that contain stylistic rhetorical references.  Many “creatively borrow” from the speeches of other politicians.  Rheotric is part of the game.  But if you listen closely to Hillary’s speech patterns, they are far less preachy and impressionistic in style than Obama’s.  (Same goes for Ralph Nadar - but if you’re not intellectual enough to follow, your eyes will glaze over).  Hillary will get specific when she needs to bring home a point.  Contrarily, Obama seems to want to avoid being too specific because he’s a ENFJ and is looking to appeal to people’s emotions.  As an ENFJ, he is highly adept at adapting his style to suit his audience (hence the appearance of manipulation).  One specific example occurred when Obama changed his accent to appeal to his black audience.  He sounded like a black, Southern preacher.  Other times, he sounds nothing like that. (BTW: Obama has acknowledged that he did this and apparently has no moral qualms with this type of communicative manipulation).  As an ENFJ, Obama is uncomfortable with conflict.  When Obama is present with Hillary and the media, his nonverbal language speaks to this fact.  He visually squirms when someone confronts him with something he doesn’t want to discuss.  Obama does not want to promote or confront conflict.  To do so would to be contrary to his personna as a man of “peace and harmony”.  It will be interesting how this aspect of his personality plays out during the rest of the campaign season.  As some political analysts have noted, Obama will need to get more specific soon else some of his supporters will turn against him.  To say that Obama’s campaign has been somewhat “shallow and superficial”, ”lacking in substance” is a valid perspective.  Hillary is smart to start to call Obama on some of his rhetorical tactics.  If Hillary can continue to hammer away at the “authenticity” factor, I think she will continue to make inroads.  She will be able to sway voters who prefer substance over style, specifically NTs, STJs (Myer-Brigg personality types). 

2. DON’T express an opinion to us unless you are prepared to back it up with sound arguments and well pedigreed facts and evidence. Otherwise do not be surprised when we logically shred your opinion for you and hand it back to you in tatters.

It’s well-recognized that Hillary is a much better debater on the issues  As an INTJ, she uses the power of logical reasoning to make her case.  And, more than likely, she’s done her homework.

3. DON’T be repetitive. We have absolutely no patience for that. There’s no need to cover old ground, and we heard you the first time, unless we were zoning out. And if we were zoning out it’s probably because you started repeating yourself.

Not sure how this applies specifically to Hillary.  But as an INTJ, I can say that we’re not the most patient people in the world.  I’m tend to be serious.  I have strong opinions about things.  I’m honest and straightforward.  At times I can be self-confident and speak with genuine conviction.  I generally prefer interacting with people who are intelligent, thoughtful and will engaged me in debate so that I can fine-tune my arguments.  I appreciate it when people take what I have to say seriously enough to listen to what I say the first time I say something.  If I have to repeat myself over and over again to be heard, I can get frustrated and angry.  I’m like in relation to my own children.   (Poor kids - although I must say they have learned to be “good listeners” at home and do well in school).

DON’T take 100 words to say what could have been said in 10. Content-free speech will cause an INTJ to zone out faster than repeating yourself.

True.  I understand the value of bullet points when I’m communicating with a leader of an organization.  Why waste time with the trivial?  Speak to the heart of the matter.  Get to the point.  (I’m probably being hypocritical here…since this post is a ramble - but as an INTJ and a Perfectionist, I’ll probably get back to this post at some point and revise it).  It’s out of courtesy to the audience.  If you are actually reading this right now…your probably a hell of a lot more patience than I have.

DON’T engage us in “small talk”. Keep in mind that you are competing for our attention with all the voices in our heads, and they are bound to be far more interesting than you. Do you really think your talk of the weather or your six year old’s soccer league is going to be more compelling than that? Please. Be realistic.

If you are a non-INTJ, this probably sounds pretty arrogant.  INTJs can come across as arrogant, critical, “know it alls”.  I think that’s part of Hillary’s image problem.  Part of the challenge in her campaign is finding ways to “soften” her image.   INTJs are generally intelligent and articulate.  But their appeal to logic and reason, and stoicism (think Al Gore, also an INTJ) often puts people to sleep.  Hillary likes to get specific.  She likes to talks about her plan for healthcare.  Unfortuately for her campaign, many voters don’t have patience to sit through a long explanation or presentation on a specific issue.  Since a majority of voters are not NT, she needs to find a way to connect with these voters.

DON’T look at an INTJ in bewilderment when she discloses an idea to you. Yes, it may have required a double somersault of imagination to reach their conclusion. Ask them to take you through it step-by-step; they will happily oblige. Ideas are of ultimate importance to an INTJ, and it is a compliment for them to share their ideas with you. Similarly, failing to give due attention to an INTJ’s idea is a high form of insult.

This just reinforces the previous point.  As an INTJ, Hillary takes ideas seriously.  Some of her earlier successes came when she went to town meetings (New Hampshire), when she met with people, listened to them, listened to her ideas.  She was able to convey her concern, her authenticity and ability to be connected (to stay present) with people.  Without this kind of context, though, Hillary can pontificate her ideas without connecting with people…can come across cold.

For more information on INTJs and to see the article the Do’s and Don’ts when Conversing with INTJs in its original context, visit the INTJ Forum (http://intjforum.com). 

List of Possibly Unsafe Drugs Manufactured in Puerto Rico

13 of the 20 best-selling drugs in the U.S. with possible drug safety risk due to lack of FDA oversight and inspection of manufacturing facilities in Puerto Rico. 

  1. Lipitor (Pfizer) for high cholesterol
  2. Zocor (Merck) for high cholesterol
  3. Plavix (BMS Sanofi) a blood thinner
  4. Aranesp (Amgen) anemia
  5. Zoloft (Pfizer) for depression
  6. Epogen (Amgen) for anemia
  7. Enbrel (Amgen) for rheumatoid arthritis
  8. Procrit (Ortho Biotech) for anemia
  9. Norvasc (Pfizer) for high blood pressure
10. Neulasta (Amgen) for low white blood cells in chemotherapy
11. Effexor XR (Wyeth) for depression
12. Zyprexa (Eli Lilly) for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder
13. Risperdal (Janssen) for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder

Leading Drug Manufacturers Put Americans Safety at Risk

There are increasingly more stories coming out in the media regarding the ways drug safety is being compromised by the unscrupulous drug manufacturing processes of many of the world’s largest drug manufacturing companies.  Drugs manufactured in Puerto Rico have been of particular concern recently.  Given the lack of sufficient FDA oversight and inspection it seems that companies feel free to disregard federal regulations and laws which protect American consumers’ safety.  Drug manufacturing companies must be held accountable for insuring the safety of the drugs they manufacture, distribute and sell.  Unfortunately, many companies seem less motivated to produce safe drugs and more concerned about profit margins.  

The following article details more of the problems with drugs coming out of Puerto Rico:  

Tainted Puerto Rican Pills Hit U.S. Mainland: Investigation Finds Myriad Lapses at Plants that Make 13 Best-Selling MedsBy Michael Milea February 5, 2008 SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The first warning sign came when a sharp-eyed worker sorting pills noticed that the odd blue flecks dotting the finished drug capsules matched the paint on the factory doors.After the flecks were spotted again on the capsules, a blood-pressure medication called Diltiazem, the plant began placing covers over drugs in carts in its manufacturing areas.But the factory owner, Canadian drug maker Biovail Corp., never tried to find out whether past shipments of the drug were contaminated — or prevent future contamination, according to U.S. regulators.Thirteen of the 20 best-selling drugs in the United States come from plants on this island. But an investigation by The Associated Press has found dozens of examples over four years of lapses in quality control in the Puerto Rican pharmaceutical industry, which churns out $35 billion of drugs each year, most of it for sale as part of the $300 billion market in the U.S.An AP review of 100 pages of Food and Drug Administration reports shows even modern drug plants here under the watch of U.S. regulators have failed to keep laboratories sterile and have exported tainted pills.“People would be shocked to find this whole variety of contamination,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Washington watchdog group Public Citizen. “The common denominator of all these is there’s really poor quality control.”

FDA officials say the problems in Puerto Rico are proportionate with the large number of pharmaceutical plants here and generally no worse than those on the U.S. mainland.  (My response:  the inspection of U.S. plants is not so great either.  The FDA is vastly understaffed since Bush slashed the FDA budget.  FDA inspections don’t happen as routinely as they should to protect the safety of Americans taking pharmaceutical products.)

Consumer advocates say they demonstrate the regulatory agency does not sufficiently monitor the industry across Puerto Rico and in the mainland.Machinery parts found in Effexor bottles
The FDA issued a warning letter to Wyeth in May 2006, after consumers reported finding machinery pins inside bottles of Effexor, a leading depression treatment, and the heartburn drug Protonix. The letter expressed concern that the plant was not “able to detect that the affected equipment was missing some of its parts.” The Madison, N.J.-based company faulted mistakes by workers who packaged the drugs. \In another case cited in a June 2006 FDA inspection report, a plant owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries exported drugs — including the diabetes treatment Metformin — even though they were known to contain small amounts of metal particles. The company had also received at least six consumer complaints of dark residue inside bottles or foreign material embedded in tablets, according to the report.Teva’s quality-control unit said the presence of some metallic material was to be expected because the manufacturing equipment is made of metal, according to the report.Teva recalled 21 different drugs as a result of the inspection, according to FDA officials, and the Israeli drugmaker announced two months later it was closing the plant, citing a restructuring.

Denise Bradley, a Teva spokeswoman, insisted the medicine from the now-closed plant was safe and effective despite the contamination.  (My response:  this is a completely false and outlandish statement!  Completely irresponsible for a spokesperson to make such a claim regarding the contamination of a drug product. )

The reports obtained by AP were produced by FDA inspections from 2003 to 2007 of 13 pharmaceutical plants — roughly half the total in this U.S. territory, a Caribbean island with one of the world’s highest concentrations of drug makers.Several are closing or downsizing as the expense of updating decades-old plants to meet regulations adds to struggles with rising energy costs and tightening tax breaks.Isolated mishaps or chronic problem?
The FDA often hesitates to crack down at the first sign of problems because manufacturers can chalk them up to isolated mishaps, said John Scharmann, a former FDA administrator for the Denver district now associated with a watchdog group.That appeared to be the case at the Biovail-owned factory in the San Juan suburb of Carolina where the sharp-eyed worker noticed the foreign specks of blue.“Incident was considered an isolated event … even when the employee reported having observed the same particles before,” the report said.David Elder, director of enforcement in FDA’s regulatory affairs office, said pharmaceutical companies generally fix problems on their own and issue recalls if necessary once notified.“They’re making products that save or support lives, so it’s not in their interest to make products that are unsafe or ineffective,” he said. “I think they’re good corporate citizens by and large and want to do right by their patients.”Four of the plants described in the reports closed or announced plans to do so after the discovery of significant quality-control problems, but none of them cited the discoveries as a reason for closing.One of those four, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, produced tablets of the popular antidepressant Paxil CR that split apart, potentially causing patients to take incorrect dosages.Wrong doses in some pills
When the company would not recall all the affected pills, U.S. marshals raided the plant in March 2005 in the largest drug seizure in FDA history and also collected tablets of the diabetes treatment Avandamet after some were found not to have accurate doses of the active ingredient.Some plants in Puerto Rico are three decades old, built when the territory’s pharmaceutical industry took off thanks to tax incentives aimed at developing more high-tech manufacturing.The industry here has faded somewhat. Companies have shed more than 3,000 jobs in the last 18 months and closed several plants for a variety of reasons, including the loss of federal tax breaks and cost-cutting.Still, this island turns out some top-selling drugs on the U.S. market, including cholesterol drugs Lipitor and Zocor, the blood-thinner Plavix, anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen and the antidepressant Zoloft.The FDA’s San Juan office has 22 inspectors who devote about a quarter of their time to pharmaceutical plants. They typically visit the factories once every two years, more often if there are consumer complaints or the company has repeated infractions.Factories confronted with violations often make extensive changes. The Biovail plant invested $5 million in equipment upgrades and addressed problems including errant metal particles from cleaning spatulas. A follow-up FDA inspection found no problems, said Gilbert Godin, executive vice president of the Ontario-based company.Scharmann, a consulting editor for the watchdog publication Dickinson’s FDA Review, said the FDA is concerned by anything that affects drug quality but considers the likelihood that the companies may file legal challenges to enforcement actions.“There’s a fairly broad latitude that is allowed,” Scharmann said.Elder contends inspections are rigorous.“The folks doing this work aren’t just regulators. That’s our job, but we’re also consumers of these products,” he said. “It’s personal to us to make sure these products are in compliance.”   

Factories confronted with violations often make extensive changes. The Biovail plant invested $5 million in equipment upgrades and addressed problems including errant metal particles from cleaning spatulas. A follow-up FDA inspection found no problems, said Gilbert Godin, executive vice president of the Ontario-based company.Scharmann, a consulting editor for the watchdog publication Dickinson’s FDA Review, said the FDA is concerned by anything that affects drug quality but considers the likelihood that the companies may file legal challenges to enforcement actions.“There’s a fairly broad latitude that is allowed,” Scharmann said.Elder contends inspections are rigorous.“The folks doing this work aren’t just regulators. That’s our job, but we’re also consumers of these products,” he said. “It’s personal to us to make sure these products are in compliance.”

Hillary’s Personality - Myers-Briggs INTJ & Enneagram Type One - Perfectionist

Part of my interest in Hillary Clinton and her campaign is due to the fact that we share the same basic personality types (Myers-Briggs INTJ & Enneagram Type One).  I feel I have a basic understanding of her basic character, qualities (positive and negative), and motivations, since I have student of these personality systems for the last several years.  It hurts to see her unfairly beat up by the press and individuals who I believe don’t really understand her.  Being an INTJ female is part of the problem for Hillary.  It’s rather uncommon for women to have this personality type - only 2 - 3% of females are INTJ.  INTJs are intuitive thinkers who have a tendency to value thinking and logic over emotion when making a decision (unlike most women).  As an intuitive thinker, Hillary more or less enjoys debating ideas and can argue both sides of an issue just for the hell of it!  (Hillary is clearly a stronger debater than Obama - an ENFP, for this reason).  Unfortunately, analytical thinkers like Hillary can come across as impersonal, overly analytical, rather blunt and outspoken (not particularily “lady-like” qualities).  Intuitive thinkers value being truthful over being tactful. (This has already been a problem for Hillary since being truthful won’t necessarily win you votes - people really don’t want to hear the truth.  If Obama’s growing popularity is any indication, Americans prefer “platitudes” and “feel good statements”.  But enough on Obama…that’s a future post).   INTJs are perfectionists which means they maintain high standards for themselves and others.   INTJs actually make natural leaders, however, being introverted, they generally don’t seek out the limelight.  When they do take on leadership positions, however, they often provide a new sense of purpose, vision or mission for an organization. 

Some other basis information about  INTJs - Hillary’s personality type:  Independent and individualistic.  Has great insight and vision.  Skilled in creating systems (do well as systems analysts, health care reformers?) , drives self and others toward goals and improvement, ingenious and creative problem solvers, organized, determined and good at follow-through, responsible, works in a logical and orderly way to develop innovative solutions to problems,reserved and private.

Read the following article, written by Michael Melcher, does a pretty good job of explaining why some people have difficulty understanding Hillary (and why they might enjoy calling her a “bitch” because she doesn’t follow the traditional female stereotype):   

Hillary Clinton: Misunderstood INTJ   (Original article at Michael Melcher’s blog at:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher)

Melcher writes:  “Hillary Clinton is an introvert. I’m quite sure about this. My best guess is that, in Myers-Briggs terms, she is an INTJ (details below). This explains a lot about how the world regards her and why the press seems to find her so problematic.Let me start backwards. In yesterday’s New York Times, a lengthy article about Hillary Clinton’s political persona ends by comparing Hillary and Bill at the eulogy of one of Hillary’s best friends, Diane Blair. Hillary gave a great eulogy, but apparently it wasn’t tearful enough. “It was left to Bill Clinton to bring the service to its emotional peak,” the article concludes. “When he spoke of Mrs. Blair, Mr. Clinton wept. ‘I felt about her as I have rarely felt about anyone,’ he said. His wife, Diane Blair’s best friend, held steady in the front row.’” Presumably, what writer Mark Leibovich would like us to conclude is: “oooh, yet again Hillary is so cold and emotionally flat. Oooh, what a strange person she is.”What I concluded was, “yeah, big duh, Mark Leibovich. Hillary is an introverted thinker, and Bill is an extraverted feeler, and each was behaving in a style appropriate to his or her type.”According to the theory behind the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), each of us uses four different types of mental processes, each of which has two poles: introversion/extraversion, intuition/sensing, thinking/feeling and perceiving/judging. We have access to all of these functions, but we tend to prefer one of each pair. This theory is unprovable, but in my personal and work experience, it is valid. Introversion/extraversion refer to where people get their energy. Extraverts get their energy from other people, the external world, and experiences. Introverts get their energy from themselves or their own space. Extraverts are often chatty, social and open; introverts are often quiet, reflective and contained. Introverts open up to their close friends; extraverts open up to everyone. Bill Clinton is clearly an extravert; I think Hillary is an introvert. Since 75% of the population is extraverted, extraverts are considered normal. By comparison, introverts are considered a little weird (”why can’t you just open up?”). (As I’ve written in The Creative Lawyer, law is an exception: the majority of lawyers are introverts.) Introverts often have to feign extraversion to succeed in the professional world; their natural style is often not valued. Much of the criticism of Hillary Clinton’s authenticity is criticism of her introversion. She’s basically criticized for being private and for being careful about her words; and then she’s criticized for inauthenticity when she tries to act more extraverted and social. The second Myers-Briggs function is intuition vs. sensing. Intuitives look for concepts, the big picture, and possibilities. Sensing types are more interested in facts, details and concrete reality. Hillary has some strong sensing skills but my guess that she, like Bill, is an intuitive abbreviated as “N”).The third Myers-Briggs function is thinking vs. feelings. Both of these are ways of thinking. Thinkers prefer to make decisions based on impartial, objective principles, whereas feelers prefer to make decisions based on strongly held personal values or the effect on other people. Thinkers tend to think logically; feelers tend to think associatively. Though Hillary talks a lot about her values, I think that she, like the vast majority of lawyers and virtually all the men running for president (with the possible exception of John Edwards), is a thinker. Bill is a feeler.Around 60% of women are feelers, and around 60% of men are thinkers. This means that both Hillary and Bill are in the minority for their particular gender. This is where the press gets wigged out. The words commonly used to describe presidential presence are all thinker-ish: strong, clear-headed, tough, questioning, blah blah blah. So the press is constantly evaluating whether she’s enough of a thinker to be president. At the same time, the press seems discomfited that Hillary is not more girly: they also want her to be compassionate, open, nuanced — apparently she is supposed to cry at eulogies.The final Myers-Briggs polarity is judging/perceiving. This refers to attitudes about closure. People with a preference for judging like to be scheduled, organized, and know where they stand; people with a preference for perceiving are more spontaneous and open-ended. Hillary is a J, Bill is a big P.Conclusion: Hillary Clinton: INTJ. Bill Clinton: ENFP.What’s the point? Since Hillary is in the spotlight, more or less 24/7, people assume that everything she does has some core meaning that has implications for her potential presidency or her character. But sometimes Hillary is just being an introvert, and that’s that.”

Hillary’s Personality Type According to Enneagram Theory

According to the popular personality theory, the Enneagram, there are nine basis personality types.  Hillary Clinton has been identified by many Ennegram experts a type “One” personality.  “Ones” are the perfectionists and reformers of the world.  They identify strongly with rationalism and idealism, hence their tendency to be involved in reform movements.  “Ones” are conscientious, hardworking people with a strong sense of right and wrong.  They often make good judges, advocates and teachers, since they act as agents of change and believe in justice.  In the process of striving to improve themselves and the environment around them, “Ones” can come across as overly-critical, judgmental, angry and/or high minded.   “Ones” often put a lot of pressure on themselves and others because they maintain high standards.  When “Ones” are unable to keep their perfectionism in check, they may suffer unhealthy levels of stress or may project it on others.  “Ones” are often valued in organizations because of their strong work ethic, ability to stay organized and focused and work single-mindedly on a goal.  “Ones” value integrity above all other values.  It is difficult for “Ones” to act contrary to their deep seated values and beliefs.  They often make excellent speakers because they speak from the heart and with conviction.    Examples of One Leaders - Aristotle, Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Confucius, Queen Elizabeth II, Gandhi, Al GoreCorrelates with following Myers-Briggs types - ISTJ, ENFJ, ENTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENTPInformation derived, in part, from: http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/490_psl/step_9.htmSee www.ennegraminstitute.com for a great source of Enneagram information

McCain is Running with Obama’s “Lacking with Specifics” Theme

John McCain was recently stated: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope,” he said. “It is a platitude.”   Great quote.  While I really would not like to see McCain win, since I am a “populist liberal” by definition, I respect the fact that he is forcing Obama’s hand.  Hopefully, he will succeed. 

McCain response is due in part, I believe by his increasingly legitimate frustration in Obama’s ability to address the fundamental ideological divide that separates the two candidates.  Obama can get away with that tactic with Hillary in so far as he has basically “cut and paste” her platform and made it his own.  Obama threatens McCain’s campaign insofar as white, male conservatives consider Obama as a legitimate choice.   It is quite incredible that white, male conservatives would even consider voting for Obama given the differences in their positions on various political issues.  The McCain campaigners must certainly be shaking their heads in disbelief at this point.  How could a white, conservative men even consider voting for Obama over McCain?  It defies the laws of logic and ideological theory.   Geroge Bush’s attempt to paint McCain as a “true conservative” may fall on deaf ears as it appears even conservative, white men can fall “gaga” over Obama. 

I would really like to know what is going on inside these men’s brains.  I have had male friends of mine tell confirm that they were quite comfortable voting for either McCain or Obama.   Clearly, the huge ideological divide that seperate the two contenders makes little to no difference to them - the war (McCain’s claim tha we could be in it for the next 100 years vs. the troops need to be out now - Obama), immigration, taxation, education, healthcare, the list goes on…. Predicting who will win in various elections becomes more difficult when the decision about who these men will vote for is often irrational and emotional.  (Yep, although men won’t always admit it…they can get quite emotional too).  

The white male voter seems to be a problem for Hillary’s campaign as well.  If men are voting “emotionally”, Hillary is also at a great disadvantage.  Some men simply hate Hillary.  White men are generally not comfortable with the idea of a woman in power.  (This mentality even plays itself out on the elementary school playground - a boy on the playground wondered in disbelief how my son could support Hillary for president.  The boy said to my son, “How could you support Hillary…she’s a girl! So there you have it out of the mouths of babes.)  The fact is that a black male has a better chance at being elected president than a white woman.  While racism still plays a role in who is elected, sexism is even more prevalent in politics and the business world.  It’s too bad Edwards dropped out of the race.  It’s too bad we don’t have a third party candidate.  Maybe if there was more choice on the democratic side, it would never had come to so much mudslinging, emotional hype which Obama’s campaign is feeding on.  Obama’s success is certainly not based on the strength of his arguments, vision or plan for the future.  As long as Obama keeps those “change” signs posted behind himself at press conferences and drop the word, “change” in every speech at every moment, and people don’t challenge and question his rhetoric, I fear he will not rise to the challenge.  Obama has a chance to be elected as president.  Hopefully, it will not be without specific responses to serious issues facing this country.  Hopefully, it will not be simply an “empty messages” of empty promises of change without some serious commitment and plan to do something if he is elected.  

For a link to McCain’s comments on Obama lacking specifics, see video at:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/obamavotersimpactmccaintoo

Greatest Threat to American Education - Teacher Burn Out

As a former teacher,  I thought I’d share the following article in the New York Times which confirmed what I believe to be true  about the American teacher’s experience in the classroom.  It speaks to the truth of what I experienced while teaching.  The reality of public school education is while most parents are extremely supportive of both their own children and their teachers, some simply don’t have a clue, carry their own emotional baggage or don’t care.  For those who are concerned about the future of public education and reform, please read the following article which speaks to the greatest threat to American educational system: teacher burnout.

From New York Times article by Tara Parker-Pope, Teacher Burnout?  Blame the Parents, January 2, 2008  (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/teacher-burnout-blame-the-parents/)

The stress of teaching is often blamed on rowdy students and unrealistic expectations from school officials.  But new research suggests that parents (my emphasis) may be the real culprit in teacher burnout. 

The study, published this month in the psychology journal Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, surveyed 118 German schoolteachers who had been teaching for an average of 20 years.  The questionnaires were designed to assess personality traits like perfectionism (my emphasis). They also measured the teachers’ level of burnout and their reactions to pressure from colleagues, students and parents. Although “burnout” is complex and different for every teacher, it’s usually defined as occurring when a teacher feels emotionally exhausted at the end of the day, appears cynical or uncaring about what happens to students and feels as if he or she has reached few personal goals.  Although perfectionism is often linked with job stress, teachers with perfectionist tendencies in this survey weren’t more likely to have burnout.   But teachers who felt pressure to be perfect or experienced criticism for being imperfect were more likely to have burnout.

Notably, the highest pressure to be perfect didn’t come from students or colleagues but from parents.  While the data come from German schools, the researchers note that many of the demands of teaching, including disruptive students, high expectations from school officials and close scrutiny from parents, are universal. The issue of teacher burnout is important because American schools today are experiencing high levels of teacher turnover as baby boomers retire and new teachers leave the field.

According to the most recent Department of Education statistics available, about 269,000 of the nation’s 3.2 million public school teachers, or 8.4 percent, quit the field in the 2003-2004 school year. Thirty percent of them retired, and 56 percent said they left to pursue another career or because they were dissatisfied. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future has calculated that nearly a third of all new teachers leave the profession after just three years, and that after five years almost half are gone.  To be sure, many issues play a role in teacher burnout and turnover.   Dwindling school resources, low pay and high expectations for test scores from school districts are just some of the challenges teachers face.   But the data from the German study also show that parents can have a big impact on a teacher’s happiness and stress, said study coauthor Joachim Stoeber, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Kent in Britain. Said Dr. Stoeber, “Teachers should focus on their students’ expectations and needs and get support from colleagues if they feel overwhelmed, but not try to make overly demanding parents happy.’’

Suggested reading regarding the related societal phenomenon of ”hovering”, “helicopter” parents, read:  The Price of Privilege written by a San Francisco Bay therapist who works with parents and their families: 

 http://www.thepriceofprivilege.com/excerpt.html 

Bogus Democratic Race Fueled By Emotion

Jonah Goldberg has written an article which I believe speaks to the lack of real, in-depth discussion of issues on the democratic side of the primaries.  It was refreshing to run across his article on the net, given the barrage of pro-Obama commentary which has dominated recent media coverage (especially at msnbc).  Although Jonah Goldberg is ultraconservative (he is editor of the National Review Online), and I do not share his political ideology, I respect his political insights in respect to the democratic primaries.

Mr. Goldberg’s article can be found at National Review Online website. http://.nationalreview.com  

For another critique of the democratic race, see Ralph Nader.   Nader clearly doesn’t share Goldberg’s ideology, but makes some interesting points. These include the idea that Obama has simply “cut and paste” from Hillary’s platform. He has also made many statements that I also agree to be undermining the presidential election process. Some of Nader’s positions include:

1. the idea that both democratic candidates (Hillary and Obama) pander to corporate interests.
2. there really is not much difference between the two candidates in terms of how they view the issues
3. a third party ticket might help provide some accountability since additional questions or issues may be introduced
4. there is really little integrity or accountability on the part of by politicians in the race
5. corporate media has too much influence (spin) over the political process

_____________________________________

An Empty Primary by Jonah Goldberg, Editor in Chief, National Review Online

One thing we’re learning from this election: These really are different parties. First, look at the Democrats. Listen to the discussion about their strategies. Hillary needs to win more blacks and men. Obama must capture more Hispanics and peel away more white women. Both need to fight for “the youth.” Now look at the Republicans and how we talk about them. Can McCain win over conservatives? Should he apologize for his support of amnesty or his opposition to tax cuts? Can Romney convince pro-lifers? Will Huckabee ever make inroads with economic conservatives? Were Rudy’s positions on gays, guns, and abortion too liberal. See what I’m getting at? If substance were water, the Democratic campaign would be a desert. Oh, I know, Hillary’s a wonk, and Obama’sgot enough policy papers to fill the library at Alexandria. So what? Both Obama and Hillary insist there are no major policy differences between them, except for the war and health care. Their disagreements on these two issues actually demonstrate how little separates them. On Iraq, Obama insists that he was right first. But both of them promise to pull troops out as fast as possible. The only argument between them is how fast that might be. It’s hardly a Churchillian conversation. As for health care, their disagreements are interesting to a few health-care wonks and activists — she wants to mandate universal coverage, he doesn’t — but it’s all absurdly academic. Anybody who knows anything about how Washington works understands that presidential campaign proposals are, at best, mere discussion documents when it comes time to craft actual legislation. Just as no plan long survives actual combat, no campaign baloney survives the congressional meat grinder unscathed. But that’s it. The rest of their disagreement boils down to who is a more authentic agent of “change.” In fairness, there’s an interesting debate to be had on that score, as Obama and Hillary’s philosophies of government differ dramatically. Obama believes in a transformative politics where lofty — often gassy — rhetoric is not merely a substitute for action, but actually preferable to the nitty-gritty detail work Hillary prefers.But that debate is almost entirely theoretical, drowned out by the mad scramble to assemble an identity-politics coalition of generic “Hispanics,” “blacks,” “white women,” etc. It’s amazing how complacent the media is in carrying on with this kind of nakedly reductionist analysis. The notion that Hispanics may be voting one way or another for reasons other than their ethnicity seems never to come up.Meanwhile, on the Republican side, women, blacks and Hispanics vote too, but that’s not how the demographics and coalitions of the right work. GOP candidates actually have to win over people who believe things. (After all, the famed, and tragically frayed, “Reagan coalition” was about different groups of principled people, not a mere hodgepodge of ethnicities and genders.) Exit pollsters ask GOP voters whether they’re committed pro-lifers, whether they think the economy is the most important issue, etc. I’m sure they ask Democratic voters similar questions, but it’s telling how little we hear about that. What Democratic voters actually believe doesn’t seem to be that relevant, in large part because Democrats aren’t voting their beliefs, they’re voting affections. Obama is “the one” — in Oprah’s words — not because of his policies but because his is a transcendent, unifying, super-nifty-cool personality.   (emphasis mine…my commentary…that’s enough reason to vote for a candidate, right?) Hillary, meanwhile, is staying aloft largely through her ability to guilt-trip female liberals into sticking with her. Her cultivated weepiness and dour lamentations about how she’s been so picked on sometimes make it seem like she’s setting up a political version of one of those “how-does-a-Jewish-mother-change-a-lightbulb?” jokes. Answer: “It’s all right; I’ll just sit in the dark.”

Recall how her crying jag in New Hampshire, which apparently turned things around for her, was all about how important it is to her to be president. Message: Go ahead and vote for Obama; I’ll just sit here in the dark. Indeed, I’ve lost count of how many stories I’ve heard on public radio about Democratic women deciding to vote for Hillary out of guilt.

The Republican party is a mess, absolutely. Conservatives are sorting out what they believe, what heresies they can tolerate and on which principles they will not bend. At times this argument is loud, ugly and unfortunate. But you know what? At least it’s an argument about something. On the Democratic side, if you strip away the crass appeals to identity politics, the emotional pandering and the helium-infused rhetoric, you’re pretty much left with a campaign about nothing.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Tribune Media Services, Inc.  He is National Review Online, Editor at Large. Original article can be found at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQ2ZmJjOWM4OGY2YTRmYWQ0YWVlZjJlODg4NjE0NDg