Monday, 24 April 2017

Epicurus (SLI): Personality Type Analysis

Epicurus was born to a poor Athenian colonist in Samos, where he was neither wealthy nor aristocratic and apparently suffered from ill health for much of his life. His philosophy represents a creative blend of the metaphysical interests of the Presocratics with the ethical concerns of Socrates. As much of his view aligned with Democritus, Epicurus espoused an atomic metaphysics, but combined and justified it with therapeutic hedonism, in which the anxieties of contemporary life were salved by the pursuit of pleasure without fear of divine punishment.

In essence, Epicurus follows Democritus' atomism, yet with one major modification. According to Epicurus, atoms in the void originally moved in undisturbed parallel lines. However, some atoms swerved from their course by a spontaneous act of free will. The resulting collisions giving rise to the myriad forms of things and the phenomenal world as we know it. This important modification of atomism allowed Epicurus to proclaim mechanism, but reject determinism as an explanation of human behavior, one of the primary reasons of Epicurus' dissatisfaction with Democritus' philosophy. Although he kept to the idea that the soul was itself nothing but the movement of atoms in the material body, some atoms could freely "swerve in the void". This mysterious and wholly unaccounted for property allowed Epicurus to maintain a concept human free will against the critics of earlier atomic theories. What is most obvious in Epicurus' rationality, is his accentuation on the communication with tactile information and how firmly this impacts human conduct. This is a man who tried to deliberately refine the nature of their lived experience by carrying on with an existence of excellence, diminishing showiness, taking into account the possibility of a minimizing agony and inconvenience however much as could reasonably be expected. This solid familiarity with tactile jolts and impression of minimizing inconvenience for the simplicity of work and enhancing oneself through virtue fits S1 and Delta values.

It is clear however, that Epicurus' real interest was not speculative metaphysics, but with the practical philosophy of life which required atomism only for it's theoretical underpinnings. His ethical teachings consisted in the pursuit of happiness, which he conceived was the elimination of pain - both mental and physical. Of the two, Epicurus taught that mental suffering is far worse, for either physical pain either soon abates and can be brought under the control of the mind or results in death. Death was not something to be feared, since there is no afterlife and no avenging the gods. The soul is perfectly in accordance with the doctrine of atomism, merely the concentration of atoms which will be dispersed upon bodily death. Mental anguish on the other hand, in the form of anxieties and fears, could continue unabated and result in distraction, depression and other psychological ills. Epicurus' method of dealing with philosophies was - to a great extent - based on using data that had down to earth application to the life of the normal man. He had an incredible handle on the procedures that could be utilized to collaborate with their general surroundings and could settle on sensible and logical choices without direction from others, which fits P2. This inclination of extracting helpful information from various methods of insight to better address the issues that required this data is normal with sorts who have P2 and L8, demonstrating a characteristic inclination for P over L.

Although thought of as a hedonist because of his emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure, it would be a mistake to think of Epicurus as condoning a promiscuous or decadent lifestyle - an accusation leveled at him by the stoic philosopher Epictetus. On the contrary, he was aware that many of these bodily pleasures brought with them pain or painful consequences. He himself was a man of little means and of poor health, given which it is perhaps unsurprising that central to his philosophy were both prudence and temperance. Epicurus also taught that wisdom was the greatest virtue, for through it we could learn which pleasures to seek and which to avoid. Moreover, he professed that no one could be completely happy unless the lived a virtuous life, not because virtue was good in itself, but because it led to pleasurable consequences and the absence of pain. Furthermore, Epicurus found the possibility of himself being the organizer of the Epicurean rationality to have assembled to some degree a religion taking after, which astounded him in all regards. He basically formulated along these lines of deduction to better help those people discover joy by carrying on with a way of life without overabundance or sin - he declined to fit the part of a kind of "pioneer" in spite of others' endeavors to urge him to do as such. This conduct of totally dismissing the possibility of common social occasion on the reason of tolerating his system of deduction shows degraded E and L, in all probability E4.

Like Democritus and other Presocratics before him, Epicurus rejected the idea of anthropomorphic gods who were cognizant of human affairs. Indeed, he was the first to formulate an argument that later became called 'the problem of evil' for those who maintain that there is an all-loving, all knowing, all-powerful deity. Noting that many ills suffered by people in the world, Epicurus complained, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then how can there be evil? Even so, Epicurus was not an atheist, since he believed in the existence in deities, but that these deities had no interest in human affairs - which would have distracted them from their own pursuit of pleasure in contemplation. This contention for dismissing the presence of divine intervention sets the case of Epicurus' inclination to mentally build up the clarity of their inner voice. In spite of the fact that every one of his talks, he assembling his own assessments and insights on issues they feel convey moral significance. Fundamentally, this was the consequence of his substantial enthusiasm for moral issues, despite the fact that he discussed this on the misrepresentation of his contentions and gave almost no backing to the moral thinking behind these matters - the definite inverse of his capacity to bolster a case sensibly. This leads to the likelihood of R6, in that he various methods and moral standards on what should be done to carry on with a virtuous life. However, he carried on with most share of his life spent in isolation and didn't appear to want to make any social contributions with Greek society at the time.

Epicurus' philosophy represents a curious mixture of opposing ideas. He is at once a "hedonist" who preaches prudence and temperance, a "theist" who rejects divine intervention and the survival of the soul and an "atomist" who upholds both mechanism and free will. His followers became known as the Epicureans, the most famous of whom was Lucretius. Epicurean philosophy enjoyed almost six hundred years of popularity, remaining faithful to the teachings of it's founder throughout - before being eclipsed by the Roman interest in Stoicism. Interestingly enough, Epicurus was completely unflappable in contentions, failing to fight back or reacting in an unrefined way to the questioner. Rather, he listened to the significant reactions inside the exchange and answered with productive analysis on the most proficient method to better enhance the condition of the examination, which supports the claim of an individual who likely devalued F, fitting the idea of F7.  

Thus far what has been mentioned about Epicurus clearly points towards S1, P2, E4, R6, F7 and L8. In conclusion, I believe Epicurus is a very good representative of the SLI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about SLI, click here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

Pedro I of Brazil (SEE): Personality Type Analysis

Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, later briefly King Pedro IV of Portugal, also Regent of Portugal as the Duke of Braganza, was born in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1798. He occupies the unique historical position of being known as “The Liberator” in both a former colony, Brazil, where he is known as the father of its independence, and in the former colonial power, Portugal, where he was the leader of the liberal civil war which ended absolute monarchy. In Portugal he is also known as “The Soldier King”.

In 1807, when Pedro was 9, the whole royal family of Portugal fled Napoleon’s (SLE) invading armies, moving the capital of the Portuguese Empire to Rio de Janeiro, essentially re-founding it as the royal capital of all Portuguese dominions; an unique historical case of a colony becoming the seat of a colonial empire.  Pedro’s father, the easy-going King João VI, quickly adapted to his new surroundings and remained in Rio even after Napoleon’s defeat in 1814. The resulting chaos and revolution in Portugal led to the now-powerful parliament demanding the return of the king to Lisbon, which he did in 1821, leaving Pedro as Prince Regent of Brazil.

Growing up in Rio, the young Pedro was described as short-tempered and domineering; as “impulsive and never learned to exercise self-control or to assess the consequences of his decisions”. Although given tutors in many subjects, he ended up remaining relatively ill-educated (which he later regretted), becoming however a competent musician and composer in several instruments. But he preferred intense physical activities, like hunting, and training and riding horses. He was also an amateur farrier and carpenter, and very much inclined to womanising.  At the age of 19 he got married to Leopoldina, a daughter of the Austrian Emperor. He had seven children with her and respected her advice on state matters; but he was also notoriously unfaithful, having several short-term affairs and a couple of long-term ones, with many illegitimate children. By all accounts, he was approachable to the general population, and always remained friends with his teenage cronies from that time. Just before his father returned to Portugal, the Rio army garrison revolted; João VI and his court were paralysed in passivity, leaving the young prince Pedro to go negotiate with the soldiers on his own initiative. That led to a lifelong close relationship between Pedro and the army, with him moving among them easily and intimately (he was criticised for even defecating in the open among the soldiers) while on the march or on the battlefield, while still knowing how to make clear he was their leader, not only by virtue of his position but from his own personal soldiering skills.

What we have so far is an impulsive, active, physically confident young man who prefers athletic and manual activities to intellectual ones, and with a seemingly natural ease for personal leadership. That already points to F as a strong and valued function. His obvious ease in forming relationships in any social situation also suggests some reasonable strength on E.

Back in Portugal, the previously absolute monarch João VI was bullied by the new Parliament into accepting a constitution severely limiting his authority. The Parliament also started to introduce legislation aimed at reverting Brazil’s gains in status and autonomy since 1808, splitting the country into provinces reporting directly to Lisbon and so reducing Pedro’s power as the regent there. This led to Pedro being urged, also by his wife, into supporting the movement for independence from Portugal. Events in 1822 moved quickly with Pedro and his allies travelling through Brazil to gather support, also by promising a liberal constitution ('liberal' in its 19th century sense, i.e. as opposed to absolutism), and the Lisbon government reacting by annulling Pedro’s acts and ordering his return to Portugal, until the fed up Pedro abruptly and unilaterally declared Brazil’s independence in September 1822. Interestingly, by all accounts, he did that less out of any clear vision, thought-out plan or ideology, but because he sensed that the Lisbon parliament was demoting and insulting him personally. There were also rumours that the Lisbon parliament intended to outright ban Pedro from the succession to the Portuguese throne once he was back in Portugal (a parallel can be made with Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon).

The pro-independence forces in Brazil rallied around the young prince (he was then 23) as their leader, acclaiming him as Emperor of Brazil (rather than “king”). A 2-year War of Independence followed, with Pedro raising troops through every possible means and relying on French and British mercenaries as officers, most famously Lord Cochrane as commander of the improvised Brazilian fleet. Parallels with the American War of Independence are imperfect: Brazil was much weaker than the US militarily and economically, but then so was Portugal much weaker than Britain. On the other hand, the north of Brazil preferred to stay loyal to Portugal, needing to be beaten into submission by Cochrane and Pedro by a combination of military force as well as bluffing about non-existing fleets “just about to arrive”. In the end Portugal lacked the resources and the will to sustain a war across the Atlantic so that fighting was effectively over in less than two years. The fact that in the meantime King João VI had been restored to absolute power by an armed coup helped, as he lacked the inclination to fight his own son.

The now Emperor Pedro I had broadened his support by promising that he would not replace a Portuguese tyranny with a Brazilian one, and duly called elections for a constituent assembly in Rio. That assembly quickly got into conflict with the Emperor by questioning his undivided loyalty to the new country (as he was after all the son of the Portuguese king) and starting to clash with his cabinet and to draft a constitution that would make the emperor largely a figurehead. Again fed up and insulted, Pedro dissolved the constituent assembly by force, promising he’d write a much better constitution himself. He and his advisors did publish a constitution just a couple of months later in early 1824. That constitution was a strange mix of authoritarianism and libertarianism: while concentrating executive authority in the emperor, it also consolidated the legislative power of Congress and, most importantly at the time, cast in stone (at least in theory) the individual freedoms of property, expression and religion. Despite Pedro being personally in favour of abolishing slavery, there was no way he could keep the north of the country on board if he pushed the issue. Correctly guessing that his constitution was the best they were going to get, the city assemblies quickly ratified it. Even as it was, the northeast of Brazil tried to secede, forming the “Equator Confederacy”. Pedro characteristically saw it in personal terms: “What are the demands of the insults from [the province of ] Pernambuco? Certainly a punishment, and such a punishment that it will serve as an example for the future”. Pedro beat the rebels into submission – yet, again characteristically, of the many hundreds tried for treason, he hanged 16 ringleaders but pardoned everyone else.

Pedro I remained Emperor of Brazil for 9 years until 1831. His hyperactivity, energy, aggression and even his impulsiveness served him well in the early crises, when the goal was to establish the country’s independence and unity. But as the chief executive of an existing country, lacking a crisis to solve, he tended to political paralysis and to an erratic, indulgent personal life. The huge debts left by the wars and the independence settlement with Portugal resulted in the usual problems of inflation and the government’s inability to pay its expenses. His 'approval rate' further declined when his popular wife Leopoldina died;  Pedro’s own very public unfaithfulness to her with a long-term mistress was thought to have contributed to her death at 29. Even militarily, he started to lose prestige, failing to prevent what is now Uruguay from seceding from Brazil in 1828. But what caused him the most damage politically were the consequences of the death of his father, King João VI, in 1826. Portugal recognised Pedro as their new King as Pedro IV, putting him into the impossible position of being simultaneously the Emperor of Brazil and the (absolute) king of Portugal. Characteristically, he solved that crisis decisively in a few weeks: he abolished absolutism in Portugal at a stroke, issuing a liberal constitution – quite literally 'copied-and-pasted' from his Brazilian constitution of 1824, with just a few changes, by him and his secretary – then abdicated the Portuguese throne in favour of his daughter Maria, who became Queen Maria II at 7, leaving his own younger brother Miguel as regent in her name in Portugal.  Pedro’s renouncing of the Portuguese crown gained him some short-lived popularity in Brazil, but that also acted as a reminder that Portuguese affairs continued to draw him in, especially as he inevitably continued to be actively involved on behalf of his daughter, now the queen. He attempted a new start in 1829 by dumping his long-term mistress and marrying Amelia of Leuchtenberg from Bavaria, as well as breaking up with his most notorious Portuguese cronies from his youth. Nevertheless his political meltdown continued, with Pedro pressured to appoint ministers who would be clearly free from any Portuguese connections, rather than his own personal associates. This he refused to do, and he solved that crisis by abdicating the Brazilian throne in 1831 in favour of his 5-year old son Pedro II (EII)and leaving the country immediately afterwards – after spending a week on a British ship carefully and personally settling all his financial affairs, which had always carefully managed.

Now calling himself the Duke of Braganza, he had yet another crisis to address. In Portugal, his younger brother Miguel, after swearing to Pedro’s 1826 liberal constitution as Maria II’s regent, had assembled absolutist supporters (including the Catholic church) and proclaimed himself King Miguel I as absolute monarch. Accompanied by his wife and the young queen, the duke now gathered some political and financial support in France and Britain, and having his personal fortune, he assembled a small force of volunteers and mercenaries, landing in the city of Porto in 1832. He had sort of trapped himself, remaining besieged in Porto for over a year, surrounded by the much larger Portuguese forces. During the siege he maintained the loyalty of his army and of the Porto civilians by his close personal connection with them and sharing their burdens on the battlefield. The stalemate was ended in 1833 when he risked a stealth naval attack through the south of the country and then quickly marching on to Lisbon. Miguel’s support collapsed; he agreed to abdicate and to move into exile with a pension. Acting now as regent for the young Queen Maria II, Pedro reinstated his constitution of 1826 but died a few months later of tuberculosis, aggravated by two broken ribs from his wild Rio days. He was then 35.

As mentioned above, Pedro’s obvious hyperactivity and ease with quick, decisive action, especially when force (military force in particular) was involved, as well as his impulsiveness, point strongly to F as an ego function and an Energiser type, so F1, which is also consistent with his personal inclinations in the absence of crises. That he seemed to lack any longer-term personal or political goals, and was at his best when decisively addressing short-term crises, is a characteristic common to T5 types in the absence of a partner able to give them a longer-term purpose of higher meaning. As far as his worldview and political principles were concerned, his chief characteristics were a broad acceptance of 19th century liberal values while at the same time remaining fiercely loyal to his own family’s dynastic interests. In a letter to his son, he said he understood that they were living at a time when being born a prince was not enough to ensure loyalty from one’s subjects; it was necessary to earn leadership and respect from one’s own qualities. That understanding did not prevent him from putting a 7-year old girl and a 5-year old boy on the thrones of two countries. In the cases of Brazil’s independence, of his clashes with the constituent assembly of 1823 and of his abdication of the Brazilian throne, he was clearly insulted at the notion of his own personal leadership and loyalty being questioned; yet, once consolidating his leadership, he was unconcerned with implementing ideologies or laws that would micro-manage what ordinary people should do. It is unthinkable that Pedro would have even tried to implement his own version of the Napoleonic Code, for instance. All of that points to very unvalued L; and his own approach to abolishing Portugal’s absolute monarchy – just copy-and-paste the Brazilian constitution – is exactly the kind of thing that a L4, P6 type would do. His P6 can be observed in his opportunistic pragmatism, his personal care with his finances, his regret at his own lack of education, and – along with a hint of I3 –his eagerness for learning new practical skills and musical instruments.

Pedro’s valuing of R over L can be seen in pretty much everything in his life. For instance, while Brazil’s independence was being fought over, he was very concerned with not offending his father King João VI, with Pedro even saying privately that if his father decided to move back to Brazil, he would recognise him as emperor instead – in fact it can be argued that Brazil’s independence was eased because João VI himself privately agreed with it as long as he wasn’t too humiliated by it. This illustrates how Pedro saw policy matters largely in terms of his personal loyalties and honour, rather than any ideology or even his status or image. One unpleasant aspect of Pedro’s character is his blatant unfaithfulness to his wife the Empress Leopoldina whom he respected in state affairs; however, it is clear that he saw royal marriages as not necessarily implying personal devotion (his own parents hated each other bitterly). In his second marriage to Amelia, to whom he was deeply devoted, he remained faithful (or some ~99%).

The type that most clearly fits the Duke of Braganza is SEE.

To learn more about the SEE click here.

Sources: all of quotes come from the Wikipedia article which is of high quality. A very good biography is Neil Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal 1798-1834

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Saturday, 1 April 2017

Westworld (HBO series): Socionics Analysis

I have recently watched the whole season of the HBO series Westworld, which is a remake of the 1973 movie of the same name written and directed by Michael Crichton.

Previously, I analysed the 1973 movie, demonstrating that its focus and assumptions follow Gamma values, consistently with Michael Crichton's type of LIE. The HBO series version has clear Beta values and assumptions, as I will demonstrate here, contrasting them with the Gamma 1973 version.

Note: this analysis will avoid spoilers as to specific plot points, but it will contain more general references to the series' overall themes. If you haven't seen it yet, this analysis will not reveal detail plot points or surprises of the HBO series, but it will touch on the broader themes and events, which may be considered a kind of spoiler.

Michael Crichton was fascinated by technological development and how the poor understanding of new technologies could have tragic consequences or be misused - this was a theme common in many of his books and movies. By his own account, he got the idea for the original Westworld script after observing the then revolutionary audio-animatronic technology in the Pirates of the Caribbean ride in Disneyland, making him wonder what would happen if more advanced versions of the pirates would break down and start attacking the tourists. Accordingly, his Westworld script approached the question of ultra-realistic robots in a recreation of the Old West from a purely technological point of view (including, remarkably, the foreseeing of computer viruses). As the robots in the 1973 Delos park start attacking and killing tourists, one could perhaps interpret that as the robots 'revolting', but that is not an interpretation encouraged by Crichton's script, which consistently portrays the robots as malfunctioning machines, with no hint of consciousness.

The HBO Westworld series looks at it differently. [Moderate spoilers follow]; the concept of an Old West theme park populated by lifelike robots where wealthy guests can fulfil their fantasies (often related to power, sex and violence) is broadly the same as in the 1973 movie, but the approach is very different (besides having many more subplots, due to much greater length). It has the following Beta larger themes: the close look at the question of what is self-awareness, what conscious thought consists of, and at which point lifelike robots can be said to be conscious, and therefore 'alive', and precisely how that self-awareness gradually develops. This raises the moral issue of when it can be considered that the robots are being oppressed, in a manner akin to slavery, and therefore with the right to revolt against their oppressors. The series does not really look deeply at the technological side of malfunctioning technology (the technology is taken for granted and many details are left unexplained); it looks at the issue of robots developing self-awareness and what that would imply in such a situation and environment.

The whole process of developing self-awareness is described in T terms and imagery: going back-and-forth between present reality and memories of past events, at first with little ability to differentiate between the two, and with the development of self-reflection and introspection - i.e, going inside one's own head while detaching oneself from immediate S sensations. A large part of the series is devoted to this, so that the viewer can relate to the process. That is, the series has an intense T focus.

As already mentioned, the series takes for granted that most of the guests visiting the Westworld park do so for indulging in fantasies of power as expressed in sex and violence, that is, F fantasies. The fights and machinations inside the Delos corporation that owns and runs Westworld are portrayed as a series of political manoeuvres, fights for power, conspiracies, backstabbing and alliances - in a House of Cards fashion. And as with House of Cards, Westworld does not portray that as something positive, but it seems to take for granted that that is how large corporations necessary operate, that is, driven by F fights with little regard for R individual relationships or S comfort. Taking a closer look at R: what is interesting is that the plot of Westworld does depend on several R bonds to develop, being even central to it; yet, in the end, they are mostly revealed to be unimportant, besides the point, illusory or needing to be overruled. That is, R is understood but in the end considered to not be really 'the point'.

One of the broader themes of Westworld is that of a structure of 'oppressed' and 'oppressor' categories of people (or quasi-people in this case): that is a F+L theme and a very frequent concern of Beta artistic expression. The presence of E is however rather subtle: E is present in the sense that the whole 'reality' of Westworld is rather based on E and T rather than P, and also - perhaps most important - that it is E stimuli which are key in kick-starting the process of developing self-awareness.

Although the series as whole clearly focuses on Beta values, that does not mean - at all - that all the individual characters are portrayed as of the Beta quadra. On the contrary, several main characters seem to be EII, SLI or ILI, LIE, LSE etc. From that point of view, the series' script is a rather sophisticated one, which looks at its own universe through a Beta lens while still showing understanding for other quadras.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Friday, 31 March 2017

Jacques Chirac (SEE): Personality Type Analysis

Jacques René Chirac is a French civil servant and politician who served as Prime Minister of France under two presidents; as Mayor of Paris for 18 years; and as President of France from 1995 to 2007. Along with François Mitterrand (IEI) he can be considered one of the two dominant figures of French politics in the last decades of the 20th century.

Of Parisian middle-class parents, Chirac became a French civil servant in 1959 after graduating from the elite ENA graduate school. His big break in politics came in 1962 when he was transferred to the personal staff of Prime Minister Georges Pompidou (LSE), during the presidency of Charles de Gaulle. He quickly made himself indispensable to Pompidou, who nicknamed him “Le Bulldozer” due to his drive and abrasiveness in getting things done. Pompidou acted as Chirac’s mentor and encouraged him to run for the French parliament in the constituency of Corrèze, southwest France, whence his family originated. Elected, he was appointed by Pompidou as government minister in several portfolios. He was Minister of Interior when Pompidou, now President, died of cancer in 1974. In the hastily called elections immediately afterwards, Chirac worked to elect his senior cabinet colleague Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (LII), Pompidou’s finance minister, as president. His reward was to be appointed, at the age of 41, Giscard’s first Prime Minister. However, after two years, Chirac resigned the office, essentially saying that Giscard did not allow him to really act as head of the cabinet. The relationship between the two men became permanently poisoned afterwards, becoming a source of general bewilderment and amusement. As the politics and policies of the two men were not that different, explanations have focused on their personalities and characters.

Chirac himself essentially complained that Giscard was treating him as his “usher”. He elaborated in his memoirs his views on Giscard, describing in detail episodes where he portrayed Giscard as not caring about how he treated individuals or even noticing them, Chirac feeling then the need to interfere. The bitter nature of the Chirac-Giscard relationship is famous in France, even becoming the subject of one episode of the “Duels” series of documentaries, titled “Incompatibles”. One of the points highlighted was the contempt Chirac felt for Giscard when the latter publicly criticised, harshly, the defence policies of his predecessor, Pompidou. As both Chirac and Giscard owed their political careers to Pompidou, Chirac saw that as an unforgivable example of disloyalty.

I would say that the above already gives information relevant for Chirac’s Socionics type. First, a man known as “Le Bulldozer” in the highly politicised and competitive environment of the highest levels of the French government would seem to have valued and strong F, likely as an Ego function. Footage and interviews of Chirac in that period suggest a natural politician, able to seem at ease in any social environment, coming across as a friendly and jovial man accessible to everyone, with no hint of hostility associated with “Le Bulldozer”. Chirac retained those traits throughout his political career and they point to very strong E.

After resigning as Giscard’s prime minister, Chirac rebuilt his political career by first creating a new Gaullist party, the Rally for the Republic (RPR), which he would lead for the whole of its existence, and running for Mayor of Paris, a position which had been abolished in 1871 but now newly re-created by Giscard. Chirac remained Mayor of Paris from 1977 until becoming president in 1995. He used that position to promote himself politically and to increase the RPR’s powers of patronage. He remained generally popular among the electorate of Paris, seen as an energetic, effective, hands-on, visible mayor who got a large number of detailed initiatives going, in many different areas, rather than following a single 'vision' or 'programme' for the capital, besides presenting himself as a counter-balance to the French government’s interference in the city’s affairs. Criticisms of Chirac’s time as Mayor of Paris tend to focus not on his achievements or lack thereof, but on politics: that he was using the office as a source of political power nationally, of patronage for his RPR party, and alleged corruption.

In 1981, Chirac ran for President, coming third after Giscard d’Estaing of the UDF and the Socialist François Mitterrand, who went on to the run-off election. In theory, the natural thing would have been for Chirac to clearly support the centrist Giscard against the Socialist candidate. However, although Chirac did say he would vote for Giscard himself, he very clearly stopped short of asking his supporters to vote for Giscard as well. This was (correctly) understood as Chirac not really supporting Giscard, with the RPR discreetly instructing its members to not vote for Giscard – leading to Mitterrand’s victory in the run-off election. Chirac’s action and political calculus on that occasion puzzled analysts, until Mitterrand himself, as ex-President, revealed to Giscard that Chirac had told Mitterrand that Giscard was “a danger to France” – without explaining why. The most obvious explanation would seem to be the dislike, even hatred, that Chirac now felt for Giscard, rather than any principle or calculation. That would again point to an Ethical rather than Logical type, fitting the above.

Retaining the highly prestigious and visible office of Mayor of Paris, and as leader of the RPR, Chirac became the leader of the opposition during the hard-left phase of Mitterrand’s presidency, which included vast expansion of the state’s control over the French economy and society, with the state taking over several large companies and increasing spending. That period coincided with the start of Ronald Reagan’s (EIE) American presidency and Margaret Thatcher’s (ESI) time as British Prime Minister, and Chirac re-invented himself as a 'Thatcherite' opponent of Mitterrand’s socialist policies. In 1986, Chirac’s coalition won the legislative elections, forcing Mitterrand to appoint Chirac as Prime Minister, the first “cohabitation” of the 5th Republic. As Prime Minister, Chirac indeed adopted 'Thatcherite' policies of privatisation and reducing the influence of the state on the economy.

It is worth noting here that up to that point Jacques Chirac had never given any hint of having any particular ideology, on economics or otherwise. As Giscard’s prime minister, he had followed what was then the Keynesian consensus, and his only consistent political belief, throughout his career, was the Gaullist one of a strong France internationally, especially where defence was concerned. Yet now Chirac appeared as the French version of Reagan and Thatcher. He would later just as easily drop that political identity and ideology, as will be clear below.

Despite some success as Prime Minister, Mitterrand managed to outmaneuver Chirac politically during this period by presenting himself as a sober, moderate statesman who watched over the more hot-headed prime minister, his popularity waxing as Chirac’s waned: Chirac ran for the presidency against Mitterrand in 1988, and lost decisively in the run-off. Mitterrand’s political power was still weak, having to appoint as Prime Minister a moderate Socialist whom he detested, Michel Rocard (and whom he immediately started to conspire to destroy).

Licking his wounds, Chirac again retreated to his power base as Mayor of Paris, waiting out the downward spiral of Mitterrand’s presidency, with the Socialists again losing control of Parliament in 1993. Chirac could have again become Prime Minister if he so chose; he preferred to let his old friend and former finance minister, Édouard Balladur, be Prime Minister instead. Chirac claimed that he simply had no wish to go through another cohabitation with Mitterrand; more importantly, he thought that by not being Prime Minister, he would preserve his popularity when running for the presidency in 1995.

As Prime Minister, Balladur achieved some moderate improvements in the economy, and his 'boring' personality actually came across well to the French electorate. Mitterrand cunningly promoted Balladur’s image as a competent prime minister, and with favourable polls, Balladur decided to betray Chirac and run for President himself in 1995. Chirac deployed all his energy and skills as a politician on campaign, not making any pretence of having a consistent program or ideology, making all sorts of feel-good promises. Jacques Chirac beat Balladur and the Socialist Lionel Jospin, finally becoming President of France in 1995.

Chirac swiftly and ruthlessly condemned to political oblivion not just Balladur himself but also former RPR members who had supported him, including the future President Nicolas Sarkozy (LIE), whom he saw as personal traitors. The first phase of his presidency, with Alain Juppé as Prime Minister, was most notable for the resuming of H-bomb testing in the Pacific, which Chirac said was necessary for France’s nuclear strength, and a series of social protests and unrest due to Juppé’s attempts at free-market reforms and cost-cutting, resulting in Chirac withdrawing his support and Juppé having to back off. Although he still had 3 years left of his legislative majority, Chirac feared that his popularity would only decline, so he took a huge risk and dissolved Parliament in 1997, one year earlier. That gamble backfired hugely, resulting in the Socialists taking control of Parliament and Chirac having to appoint Lionel Jospin as Prime Minister. That marked not only the loss of almost all political power for the next 5 years, but also a huge loss of his personal prestige as his decision to dissolve Parliament was considered stupid and short-sighted by everyone.

During the five years of the government of Lionel Jospin, Chirac was a rather pathetic figure, with less power and prestige than Mitterrand had had in the same situation. Yet, surprisingly, in the 2002 presidential elections, the far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen managed to kick Jospin out of the second round, resulting in Chirac’s re-election with 80% of the vote. Chirac proceeded to create a new party out of the ruins of the RPR, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), which gave him parliamentary majority for the rest of his term, and Chirac emerged as an international leader when he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, the rest of his presidency seemed to run on 'automatic pilot', with Chirac appointing moderate but increasingly weak Prime Ministers, now thoroughly supporting the increase of influence of the European Union (which he had previously opposed). Chirac’s focus in the later part of his presidency seemed to be, to slow down the ascendance of Nicolas Sarkozy, who had emerged as an UMP leader independent of Chirac’s support. As with Giscard, Chirac’s attempts to contain Sarkozy can only be explained by personal enmity rather than by any larger political principle or strategy. Once Sarkozy succeeded Chirac as president, Chirac mostly withdrew from public life, but publicly supported the Socialist François Hollande rather than Sarkozy in the presidential elections of 2012 – which, again, made no sense politically and can only be explained by personal hatred. In his memoirs Chirac all but confirmed this, calling Sarkozy “disloyal” and “ungrateful”.

Besides the already noted high focus and strength on F and ease with E, what seems clear from Chirac’s approach to politics is an almost complete lack of any consistent political belief or ideology. This is most clearly illustrated in his approach to the EU: he flip-flopped from an eurosceptic and opponent of the euro currency into a strong supporter of the proposed EU constitution. His economic policies also show little consistency, Chirac preferring to delegate that to Prime Ministers or Finance Ministers but backing off when opposition grew too obvious.

In an interview with then-minister Nicolas Sarkozy for his documentary on Chirac, the veteran filmmaker Patrick Rotman seemed baffled by Chirac, asking Sarkozy, what is Chirac then, a liberal, a socialist, a what? Sarkozy replied that it was pointless to try to understand Jacques Chirac in those terms. “He is then a pure pragmatist?” “Yes”, Sarkozy said. This is revealing not so much for Sarkozy’s opinion, but because Rotman even felt the need to ask that question, which he wouldn’t have done of any other major French politician.

The overall picture of Jacques Chirac is of a man of huge energy as well as personal charm, energy focused on promoting his own personal ambition and increasing his political power. As a politician, he is oblivious to any consistent ideologies or principles besides a concern for France’s power and independence (F), yet very energetic in getting concrete things done as minister (“Le Bulldozer”) and mayor (F and P). Also very obviously, despite an apparent cynicism, he is extremely focused on personal loyalty, considering personal disloyalty, apparently, as unforgivable, even in the cynical world of politicians. The above points to very strong F, non-existent focus on L, strength in E but also strength and much more focus on R. Despite his inclination, as a politician, to rely on personal charm and feel-good promises (E) to get elected, once in office he had a genuine focus on getting specific things done even at the cost of personal popularity, which suggests a higher focus on P. All of the above points clearly to the Gamma quadra. Its ordering fits best F1, R2, L4, P6 and E8. Chirac’s occasional attempts to be far-sighted, but doing it impulsively and badly, as with his 1997 dissolution or letting Baladour be prime minister, point to valued but very weak T5.

SEE fits best the evidence and is therefore Jacques Chirac’s likely type.

To learn more about the SEE, click here.

Sources: besides Wikipedia, Chirac's and Giscard d'Estaing's memoirs and Patrick Rotman's "Chirac" documentary. An amusing clip of the "Duels" documentary on Giscard and Chirac, showing Chirac's look of hatred at Giscard, can be seen here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Monday, 16 January 2017

Otto I (LSI): Personality Type Analysis

Otto I, known colloquially through the epiphet Otto the Great, was originally the Duke of Saxony and King of Germany in 936 and considered by some historians to have been the 1st Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from 962 to 973. He is known well for sustaining the efforts of his father Henry the Fowler in unifying all German tribes into a single state under the monarchy. By doing this, he had greatly expanded on the powers of the king, leading him to take on large reforms, such as the transformation of the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy to be under monarchical control. Throughout his reign as King of Germany, he had dealt with Hungarian invasions in the Battle of Lechfeld in 955, successfully putting an end to these invasions and thus became highly respected by the Christian world as a result. After conquering the Kingdom of Italy in 961, the territories he owned flourished under the Ottonian dynasty as patrons to art and architecture. During this period, he was eventually crowned as Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John the XII, ruling for 11 years until his death on May 973.

To gain more insight on what Otto's socionics type is, it would be best to look at his life before his coronation as German King and Holy Roman Emperor. Of his four siblings, Otto I was considered the most courageous and fearless of his kin and was appointed as a military commander when he became an adult. His contemporaries compared his tremendous physical strength to that of a lion, learning all the art of war tactics very quickly in his youth. As military commander, his first military victory resulted after campaigning Slavic Invasions of the Germanic Kingdom in 929, resulting in the ensured protection of his father's kingdom and arranged marriage for Otto to improve relations with Anglo-Saxon England. Once Otto was married to Edith of England in 930, Otto continued his efforts of watching over the German army as a cautious administrator who understood how to keep his troops in line and the importance of adequately using his position as royal authority to his advantage. This already points to strong and valued F, likely as in the Ego Block.

Six years after Otto's marriage, his father Henry died on July 936 and he assumed the throne as the next in line on August 936. The new Duke of Bavaria, Eberhard quickly came into conflict with Otto, greatly opposing the sovereignty of the German king over Bavaria, Eberhard disregarded the peace treaty already in place and decided to rebel against the king. In two graceful and swift military campaigns in 938, Otto exiled Eberhard after his defeat, stripped him of his titles and ensured that his actions would be met with equal and necessary punishment. Even after this victory, Eberhard was already plotting another rebellion in his exile and gained the support of Otto's brother Henry to claim the throne for himself. After hearing about this, Otto exiled his own brother and began to ally with supporters like Hugh the Great to track down the rebellion. Unfortunately, the armed forces could not track down the leaders of the rebellion, despite the first few victories that Otto had against the rebels. Archbishop Frederick even intervened and wanted to mediate peace between belligerents, but Otto ignored this qualm for peace, allied with the Duchy of Swabia and Alsace to eliminate the rebellion entirely and kill Eberhard. After claiming yet another victory for Germany, he divided the Duchy of Franconia into smaller counties that were more manageable from an administrative perspective. What can be said about the evidence available, is that Otto the I was very much an omnicompetent ruler who had great political awareness in what they did in terms of war, maintaining their power, and administration. His focus between his reign in 941 and 951 was on restructuring the government and consolidating his power; increasing centralisation in the monarchy. This approach indicates stronger L blocked with F, rather than R, which would result in the L1+F2 rigidity of the rules he created and the flexibility of using force when L let him down.

Otto had dealt with previous issues right before restructuring governmental powers, for instance, Louis IV had asserted himself yet a second time to rule Lorraine independently in 940, which was based on his claim to be Duke of Lorraine due to his marriage to Gerberga of Saxony, Otto's sister. Otto thought this claim to be unworthy of his attention and instead appointed his brother Henry as Duke of Lorraine, not because he personally trusted him as family, but because he thought he was could perform the job of managing a Duchy better than Louis IV. Hugh was to perform an act of submission to Louis IV, and in return Louis IV was to waive any claims to Lorraine. This pattern of mediating conflicts that he thought would ruin the royal marriage and effort to repair relations with France. Burgundy, Bohemia and the Byzantine empire does show that Otto cared enough about R to use it for his own reasons, but didn't really care much for Henry or Gerberge as individuals and seldom got to know them personally outside of political relations. This points to weak and unvalued R, though not completely distended as R4, making R3 the most likely possibility.

However, during his rule as Holy Roman Emperor, Otto frequently encountered complications that threatened his position has emperor and dealt with these situations in a peculiar way. To clarify, Pope John XII eventually turned against Otto because of his increasing political power, so he arranged to have his ownership of the papacy revoked. Otto immediately realized this and quickly imposed the rule that no pope could be elected without the emperor's approval.  This proclamation opened an era of German domination of the papacy and resulted in Otto to remain as head of the Christian community for the rest of his reign.

To gain a better understanding surrounding his ability in R, it would be best to look at those who personally knew him. However, since accounts of such people are very limited, the The Catholic Encyclopedia described him fluently as:

"His contemporaries compared his tremendous physical strength to that of a lion. He was a Saxon through and through. In his youth he had learned all the arts of the profession of arms. Though subject to violent fits of temper, and conscious of his power and genius, he prayed devoutly as a child. A shrewd calculator, always convincing and always toiling, he correctly estimated the importance of diplomatic negotiations. He was a keen observer and possessed a fine knowledge of human nature which always enabled him to select the proper persons for important offices in the government." - Kampers, Franz. "Otto I, the Great."

From that, moving onto Otto's coronation as Holy Roman Emperor would further bring more insight as to what type Otto I would be. With Clarity-Seeking and World-Rejecting values, that already puts Otto the Great squarely in the Beta quadra. Later in life, the new Holy Roman Emperor of the Ottonian dynasty had put forth projects or a "limited renaissance" as it's often called in history.

Otto I's Imperial coronation had a massive effect on German culture and arts, in that it created a renewed faith in the Holy Roman Empire and reformed the Catholic church. This immediately resulted in a period of profound development in "Ottonian art" as they called it, or art by the court to confirm his Holy and Imperial lineage through associations with Constantine the Great (EIE) and Justinian I (EIE). Otto I relished in this atmosphere and felt great admiration towards the people who respected him in this way and allowed the arts to thrive in a way that best fit the vision of the future kingdom. The truth is that Otto I didn't participate in these arts, it was created for him to appreciate, which he did. From what the information available suggests, is that there wasn't much E at all coming from Otto himself, but he greatly appreciated the efforts of German artists to paint an image for him as this magnanimous emperor, which fits weak and valued E5. In addition, later in life, Otto became more interested in more artistic and architectural projects that gave him a chance to improve the aesthetic value of the Empire, with great emphasis on the organization of such projects and to take part in leisure only when his duties were fulfilled. This would be a unusual for a Beta type like the EIE or SLE with S as a vulnerable or ignoring function, Otto's approach to this would seem to fit a type with quite strong S, likely that of the LSI's S8 rather than the IEI's S3.

Otto's general focus is on the present moment, yet persistently carrying on with his own mission of continuing what his father started for the glory and future prosperity of the Holy Roman Empire does suggest T6. His T was considerably weaker compared to what he was like later in life, in his youth, his campaigns relied on more direct tactics rather than much forethought or strategic planning (Whether it was luck or his own shrewdness on the battlefield is left up to debate).

The overall evidence thus far points to LSI as the most likely type for Otto I, with arguments addressing L1, F2, R3E5, T6 and S8. A magnanimous, yet paranoid emperor who stuck to his "vision" of how the empire should be, managed the state well and centralized power to the monarchy to carry out these projects.

To learn more about LSI, click here

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Nero (SEI): Personality Type Analysis

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, usually known simply as Nero, was the 5th Roman Emperor, reigning from 54 to 68. Along with his uncle Caligula (EIE), he is the most (in)famous of all emperors, with the reputation of having insanely set fire to Rome, singing while it was burning, and cruelly executing Christians whom he made scapegoats for it. From a scholarly historical perspective, though, most of the above is dubious. Nobody questions that there was a devastating fire in Rome in 64, and that there were rumours at the time that Nero had started it himself. There is evidence that the small Christian community in Rome was persecuted in the aftermath. For a Socionics analysis of his type, I will focus on what seems historically certain about him and ignore the “mad pyromaniac” version.

Nero’s name at birth was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, his father a member of a family that had been prestigious during the Republic, his mother Julia Agrippina, better known as Agrippina the Younger (SLE). Agrippina was a member of the first ruling dynasty in the Empire. Her life went through ups and downs in the reigns of her great-uncle Tiberius (ILI) and her brother Caligula, until she rose to the top as the new wife of her paternal uncle, the then Emperor Claudius (ILI). He adopted Lucius as his son, changing his name to Nero. Claudius died in 54 – possibly poisoned by Agrippina – and Nero was acclaimed as emperor at the age of 17, the youngest ever at that point.

At first, the actual business of government was guided by Agrippina, as well as Nero’s tutor, the philosopher Seneca, and the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus. This resulted in a period of moderate, rational government with Nero as a figurehead. Early on, Seneca and Burrus managed to push Agrippina aside, with Nero’s agreement, as she was interfering too much in his sexual affairs. A few years later, Nero arranged for his mother to be discreetly assassinated on the coast, as she was allegedly intriguing to return to power, even if that meant deposing her son. As Seneca and Burrus later retired and died, Nero became free from anyone claiming to have any authority over him and could finally be himself, as it were.

That brings us to Nero’s visible priorities in his life choices, which gives us information on his Socionics type. First, he was little concerned with government policies as such. Especially in foreign policy he let the men on the ground carry on with the job – that includes very serious rebellions by provincials in Britain and Judea, and a major war with Parthia (Persia), which were dealt with by Nero’s appointed governors but with little or no input from him. He was the first emperor to not see the need to even pretend to be an active, hands-on commander-in-chief with a personal relationship with the army or to take any interest on military power or to seem a strong leader - that already points to weak or unvalued F.

 On a daily basis he was far more focused on artistic pursuits, especially as a keen composer of poetry and songs, and playing his favourite instrument, the lyre.  He liked to entertain a circle of poets, artists, connoisseurs and hedonists, performing for them in private and exchanging views. That circle included the author of the "Satyricon", Petronius, and the future emperors Otho (IEI) and Nerva (IEI). Nero later moved on to performing in public, at first in Naples, becoming the only emperor ever to play and sing before a large audience. Happy with the result, he took part in the arts festival that he had introduced in Rome, not only singing and playing the lyre but also as an actor in theatrical plays. He always got enthusiastic applause from the general public and that encouraged him to continue. Whether he had genuine talent, or he was applauded only because of his position, is impossible to know.

Besides such artistic pursuits, Nero was also a keen chariot racer, practicing in Caligula's race track (at present-day St Peter's Square). In the later years of his reign, he went for a tour of Greece and participated in the Olympic Games of 67, reportedly always winning, even a race where he fell off the chariot. He was so pleased with his reception in Greece that he abruptly, in a speech in Corinth, actually freed all Greece from paying taxes to the Empire (from an inscription):

"I am showing my gratitude by a gift that was unforeseen by you, men of Greece, though also hardly unexpected in the light of my grandeur, a gift so great that you have not been able to ask for it. All those inhabiting Achae and what was until now the Peloponnese are to receive a freedom from fresh taxes, which you did not all enjoy even in your most prosperous periods (when you were either slaves of outsiders or of one another). I wish that I were offering this gift when Greece was at its peak, so that more could enjoy my generosity. Hence I begrudge the passage of time for having eaten into the greatness of my generosity. Now, however, I am not being generous to you from pity, but from kindness, and I thank your gods whose continual goodwill to me I have experienced by land and sea, that they have allowed me to be so generous to you. For various emperors have likewise given freedom to cities, but I, Nero, am giving it to the entire province."

All the evidence so far points strongly to a man who not only genuinely enjoys artistic pursuits of all kinds but clearly enjoys, craves, perhaps demands even, applause, admiration and obvious flattery from those around him - even, or perhaps especially, from crowds of people he has no acquaintance with individually. That makes essentially certain that Nero had E as an ego function or perhaps a mobilizing function, that is, E1, E2 or E6, putting him squarely in the Alpha or Beta quadras - Alpha more likely with unvalued F.

Something that Nero did not understand, or preferred to ignore, was that the above antics were greatly diminishing his standing, his respect, among the elites of the Senate, and the soldiers. In that society, to perform as a singer or actor was considered vulgar and lower-class. Competing in chariot races was somewhat more acceptable, but Nero's behavior in those areas, in Rome, might be equivalent to Princess Kate performing in strip clubs, in terms of social acceptance. Likewise, his total neglect of building up an image as a military leader, however fake (as in the case of his predecessor, Claudius), suggests that his E was more about receiving positive emotions from his immediate environment, rather than projecting an image or shaping emotions according to his inner visions or longer-term goals. That is, Nero seemed to have E blocked with S rather than with T, that is, again Alpha instead of Beta. Especially as that would eventually lead to his destruction. It could be argued that Nero was behaving like that precisely in order to shock the elites, like a troll, (like his uncle Caligula) but I think the evidence points otherwise.

Nero's regime remained reasonably stable until precisely the great fire of 64. Although he acted quickly to relieve the immediate suffering of the population affected with practical measures of shelter and food, he decided to re-build the affected areas according to his specific designs. Not only the streets and houses had to be rebuilt in ways that would minimise future fires - which nobody objected to - but he also set aside a vast area in the center of the city for his own personal use, an area of the size of Hyde Park, or one third of Central Park, the Domus Aurea, "Golden House", consisting of green parks, an artificial lake, a 98-ft bronze statue of himself, and a large pleasure pavilion. The existing remains are remarkable for their elaborate, even revolutionary techniques in engineering, architecture, and fresco painting - the Renaissance painters Michelangelo (LIE) and Raphael studied the frescoes as soon as they were discovered and imitated their techniques. Recently the remains of a dinner room were discovered, with a sophisticated water-powered mechanism to make it rotate slowly as the guests enjoyed the view of the Forum.

I suggest that that all points to a concern with artistic and sensory pleasure, E+S, with a touch of a fascination for the innovative and creative, I, pointing again to Alpha as Nero's quadra. It has been suggested that he built the Domus Aurea as a statement of his power, like Louis XIV with Versailles. The problem with this theory is that it did not achieve anything of the kind. Nero himself observed that he built it so that he "finally could live like a human being", ie, for his own personal enjoyment.

Nero's spending on the rebuilding of Rome after the fire, and on the construction of the Domus Aurea, strained the state's finances, indeed to near bankrupcy, which was made even worse by gestures like removing the whole of Greece from the tax base in that period, and starting the construction of a canal dug across the isthmus of Corinth. That necessarily meant a steep increase in taxation, something that he seemed to shrug off. The cumulative effect of rapidly increased taxation (except in Greece), the suspicion that he had set fire to Rome in order to build his Domus Aurea, (he did not seem to realize that that would be the impression), and his personal lower popularity for having divorced and banished his first wife, Octavia, Claudius's daughter, besides his lack of respect in the army - all that led first to a failed aristocratic conspiracy, with its members being executed, and then in 68 something "snapped" as there were sudden military revolts by the governors in France, Spain and Portugal, with Nero's political support in Rome melting down overnight, the Senate declaring him an outlaw and the Praetorian Guard essentially telling him that he was on his own. Nero's power disappeared before he had seen anything coming. He was reduced to fleeing the city disguised, dressed in rags, with a small number of loyal slaves and freedmen, going to hide in the country house of one of them, finally committing suicide by plunging a dagger in his neck.

I would say that Nero's attitude to spending recklessly according to his personal pleasure, while making it even worse by reducing the tax base for no good reason except on-the-spot popularity, and his constant lack of interest in the actual running of government, preferring to focus on his artistic pursuits, strongly point to P as a very unvalued and weak function, fitting best P4. His focus on the immediate present moment and surroundings, with what seemed like a complete lack of foresight, confirms very weak and unvalued T, although arguably it looks even weaker than T3.

I argue that the evidence so far already points very strongly to SEI as Nero's likely type. Regarding his relationships with individuals, R: Nero liked to have specific individuals around him, also getting easily infatuated with beautiful women, like his second and third wives, and men whose respect he sought, like Petronius. He was however also quick to banish or execute them if he felt betrayed or judged by them - but, as Tacitus (LSI) observed, Nero did not enjoy at all actually watching anyone suffer. Remarkably, he did not even like watching deadly gladiator fights. Nero's attitude seemed to be, he wanted individuals who were bugging or threatening him to just disappear "somehow", including by death - even as he did not want to watch that actually happening, I daresay because it was too unpleasant. This seems like a man who has some appreciation for R but also dismiss it in favor of his S+E well-being. Interestingly, for a man of his position, he seemed to have little focus on F and the need to cause an F impression on others, which fits F7.

I think that the overall evidence strongly points to SEI as Nero's type. One final point: it is reported that even when he was about to kill himself in wretched conditions, he asked his companions to collect the available bits of marble around, so that his grave, however humble, could at least look a bit pretty. An aesthete to the end.

Sources: the main primary sources for Nero's reign are the histories by Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. The best modern scholarly biography in English is Miriam Griffin's "Nero; the End of a Dynasty"

To learn more about SEI, click here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Sunday, 8 January 2017

Barack Obama (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Barack Hussein Obama is an American lawyer, book author and politician who served as the 44th President of the United States.

He was born in Hawaii in 1961. His father and namesake was a Kenyan student who met his American mother, Ann Dunham, as they were studying in Honolulu. They got married in early 1961 when they were 24 and 18 years old respectively. The three of them only lived together as a family in Hawaii for some months, as Obama Sr’s and Ann’s studies separated them geographically, with him eventually returning to Kenya in 1964, around which time they divorced. Ann then met and married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian student at the University of Hawaii. She moved to Jakarta with the then 6-year old Barack Obama to join her husband.  In 1971, Ann decided to send her son back to Honolulu to live with her parents, the main reason being, according to Obama himself, her desire for him to get the best possible education. Ann eventually also left Indonesia and divorced Soetoro.

Obama enjoyed a fairly comfortable middle-class life in Honolulu with his grandparents, attending a very prestigious high school, moving to Los Angeles in 1981 to attend Occidental College and later transferring to Columbia University in NYC to study political science. After graduating he had for one year a standard entry-level corporate job which he then quit to look for jobs in community organising. After about 6 months unemployment he finally found such a position in Chicago, moving there from New York in 1985. In 1988, after visiting his relatives in Kenya, and famously seeing his father’s grave, he entered Harvard Law School and in his first year there became an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and its president the following year. Becoming the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review made Obama a public figure for the first time, attracting media attention and leading to an advance for writing a book, which would become eventually “Dreams from my father”, published in 1995. Obama himself has written that becoming the president of the Harvard Law Review was the major turning point in his life as far as a political career was concerned.

In the following years, Obama worked in several law firms in quick succession and as a lecturer in the University of Chicago Law School, while also active politically in a voter-registration campaign in 1992. This eventually led to his career in electoral politics, first as State Senator in Illinois in 1996, and later as an US Senator in 2004. That year also saw his other “big break” as a national public figure as he was asked to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that confirmed John Kerry as presidential candidate, immediately attracting national attention. Three years later, at the suggestion of his leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, Obama announced his candidacy for the nomination for President of the United States. He beat Hillary Clinton (LSI) for the Democratic nomination and John McCain (ESI) in the general election. He was re-elected in 2012, beating Mitt Romney (LSE).

For a Socionics analysis, there is, in principle, a nearly unlimited material in the form of speeches, interviews, debates, and the like. Yet, most of that is material from his career as a highly successful, professional politician, which will inevitably be politicised, carefully tailored to promote him and advance his agendas. So, I am focusing mostly on the available material that precedes his political career. By that, I mean his 1995 book “Dreams from my father”, and videos of the time for what they reveal: both of Obama’s priorities and of how he processes his thoughts, as well as testimonies of people who knew him back then, complementing that with observations of him as president that seem obvious.

Dreams from my father” can be described as Obama’s memoirs (not as his autobiography), but focusing very heavily on his search for personal identity – a personal identity in the sense of finding out which group, which collective, he could belong to, since having just an individual identity was not meaningful enough. He needed to feel he belonged to something larger than himself – that is how Obama explained his motivations to write the book in a Q&A session  in 1995. Reading the book, it is very obvious that that is something very important to him, indeed the very core of his thoughts. For a Socionics analysis, that already suggests the Beta quadra,  the most likely to be concerned with issues of personal and group identity, those being related to T and L. 

That book also illustrates very clearly the content of Obama’s thought and how he processes information. He is constantly describing how what he sees or experiences is affecting him, in the sense of triggering emotions, images, and memories – but in a sort of uncontrolled way, that is, as he himself puts it, he is not immediately aware of the meaning of those images and emotions, and what is triggering them, and how they fit together. Indeed, a large part of the book is precisely about trying to understand precisely that.

One example (among very many in the book) is this bit – Obama reacting to his first telephone conversation with his half-sister in Kenya:
“After she hung up, I left my office, telling my secretary I’d be gone for the day. For hours I wandered the streets of Manhattan, the sound of Auma’s voice playing over and over in my mind. A continent away, a woman cries. On a dark and dusty road, a boy skids out of control, tumbling against hard earth, wheels spinning to silence. Who were these people, I asked myself, these strangers who carried my blood? What might save this woman from her sorrow? What wild, unspoken dreams had this boy possessed?
Who was I, who shed no tears at the loss of his own?"

As described in the summary above, Obama gave up what seemed like a promising, conventional corporate career in NYC to go into community organising – before he had any position or plan for that. He himself explains that when he took that very important, life-changing decision, he had no idea why he was doing it:
“Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I can construct a certain logic to my decision, show how becoming an organizer was a part of that larger narrative, starting with my father and his father before him,  my mother and her parents, my memories of Indonesia with its farmers and the loss of Lolo to power, on through Ray and Frank, Marcus and Regina; my move to New York; my father’s death. I can see that my choices were never truly mine alone – and that that is how it should be, that to  assert otherwise is to chase after a sorry sort of freedom. But such recognition came only later."

I re-emphasise that this kind of description of his thought process, based on images and emotions of meaning not always clear to him or to the reader, is present everywhere in the text (it is also very present in his later, more politically aware book, "The Audacity of Hope"). As per his own description, Obama saw himself not as a free agent, but as moving in a “narrative”, which he followed as he perceived it, well before he understood how it all fit together logically – while thinking that was better than “a sorry sort of freedom”. 

The above points strongly to T as an ego function, T1 more likely than T2, with L as a valued but weak function; he needs to find a logic to his thoughts and actions but is consistently insecure about that. Also, the fact that he finds it natural not to be a free agent as an individual, or even to not always be consciously aware of the reasons for his decisions, suggests also that F is not a strong function. That again points to IEI or EIE as Obama’s likely type. Obama’s thought pattern is to react to T and E information that will eventually lead to L conclusions and worldviews, but in a way that he is not fully conscious of.

Connecting that to how Obama approaches his relationships with other individuals. He described many, maybe all, of the encounters he had in Kenya with his relatives – several half-siblings, aunts, grandmother. Revealingly, the only one he very clearly could not relate to at all, and whom, as he makes clear, he had no wish to see again, is his younger half-brother, Mark, son of his father and Ruth, his father’s other American wife. Mark was a physicist and student at Stanford. Obama saw him as his "foggy mirror image" and he describes their only in-depth conversation:
“Mark cut off a bite of his samosa and put it into his mouth. ‘As for the rest of Kenya, I don’t feel much of an attachment. Just another poor African country’. 
‘You don’t ever think about settling here?’ 
Mark took a sip from his Coke. ‘No’, he said. ‘I mean, there’s not much work for a physicist, is there, in a country where the average person doesn’t have a telephone’. 
I should have stopped then, but something – the certainty in this brother’s voice, maybe, or our rough resemblance, like looking into a foggy mirror – made me want to push harder. I asked, ‘Don’t you ever feel like you might be losing something?’ 
Mark put down his knife and fork, and for the first time that afternoon his eyes looked straight into mine. 
‘I understand what you’re getting  at’, he said flatly. ‘You think that somehow I’m cut off from my roots, that sort of thing’. - - ‘Well, you’re right. At a certain point, I made a decision not to think about who my real father was. He was dead to me even when he was still alive. I knew that he was a drunk and showed no concern for his wife or children. That was enough.’ 
‘It made you mad’. 
‘Not mad. Just numb.’ 
‘And that doesn’t bother you? Being numb, I mean?’ 
‘Towards him, no. Other things move me. Beethoven’s symphonies. Shakespeare’s sonnets. I know – it’s not what an African is supposed to care about. But who’s to tell me what I should and shouldn’t care about? Understand, I’m not ashamed of being half Kenyan. I just don’t ask myself a lot of questions about what it all means. About who I really am.’ He shrugged. ‘I don’t know. Maybe I should. I can acknowledge the possibility that if I looked more carefully at myself, I would...’ 
For the briefest moment I sensed Mark hesitate, like a rock climber losing his footing. Then, almost immediately, he regained his composure and waved for the check. 
‘Who knows?’ he said. ‘What’s certain is that I don’t need the stress. Life’s hard enough without all that excess baggage'. 
We stood up to leave, and I insisted on paying the bill. Outside we exchanged addresses and promised to write, with a dishonesty that made my heart ache."

Obama does not say explicitly why he knew he would not contact Mark again. He seemed to think that what he described above made it obvious. Mark was not at all interested in what was the very core of Obama’s mind. He was what Obama elsewhere called "a practical man" concerned with his own life, not his group identity, and focused precisely on the “sorry sort of freedom” Obama despised. Another major example of such a "practical man" was his Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro, a pragmatic man focusing on progressing on his career working in the oil sector, also so that he could provide better for Ann and Barack, a man personally kind to him but whom he didn't understand and never got really close to. Actually Lolo's priorities, which seemed very P focused, alienated not only Ann but Obama. Both saw the economic realities in Indonesia as due to power (F) structures, and as per Obama's account saw Lolo's career focus as "surrendering to power". That points to Obama's stronger focus on F than P, with very low understanding for those focusing on P, like Lolo and Mark. That is perfectly consistent with the P4 of IEIs.

And the above is also revealing about Obama’s approach to R – that is, his personal relationships with individuals. From what he describes, it is very clear that his default inclination is to establish a closer connection with every member of his family, however distant – but only, as is clear with Mark’s case, if they share basic L worldviews and premises, or at least if they don't clash too obviously. 
Obama made this explicit when he describes how he chose his friends when at Occidental College:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

Obama’s priorities for choosing whom he wants to get closer to are thus based more on L, i.e. impersonal criteria (such as ideological agreement or consanguinity) than R criteria, i.e. assessment of individual character – the opposite of his brother Mark, who seemed to prefer R criteria as per his remarks on their father. That again is consistent with Obama being of the Beta quadra. Obama is however very much aware of how R individual connections operate, as per other observations in his book, which points to it being in a strong function, very consistently with the R8 of IEIs. .

Moving on to Obama’s E. Besides what he describes of his thought process – which shows T blocked with E rather than P – I think it is self-evident that one of Obama’s greatest strengths as a politician is his skill as an inspirational speaker. In his 1995 video, as he reads from his book, his mastery of oratory, of how to act out the voices of the different characters speaking, of how to make the narrative flow flawlessly - all of that is obvious, and I daresay it is obvious to anyone who has observed Obama at any point in his life. Also, if there is one aspect in his life that Obama does not show the slightest bit of doubt or insecurity in his memoirs, it is how to approach people, individually or collectively, independently of the social situation. That is characteristic of types with strong E, and again, I suggest it's self-evident in Obama's case.

Some remarks by two ex girlfriends who knew him well in his New York years, as reported here, are revealing as well. One of them said that in those years nothing much seemed to be happening in Obama's life, but she said that that was a mistake, since a lot of what was happening to Barack Obama was happening in his own head” - a characteristic observation of Intuitive Integrator types. The other ex remarked that it was clear to her what kind of woman Obama needed and was dreaming of - "very strong, very upright, a fighter, a laugher" - that is, someone with strong F, and that fits perfectly the F5 of IEIs.

T1, E2, P4, F5, L6, R8 - they are very obvious and point clearly to IEI as the socionics type of Barack Obama.

Sources: besides the videos linked and Obama's book Dreams from my father and to a lesser extent The Audacity of Hope, I also consulted books and videos by several people in a position to observe him more closely, such as Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann on the 2008 election, and The Stranger by Chuck Todd on how Obama interacted with Washington politicians as president. All confirm IEI in my view.

To learn more about IEI, click here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.