Angela Merkel (LII): Personality Type Analysis

Angela Dorothea Merkel is a German physicist, research scientist and politician who has been serving as the Chancellor (i.e. equivalent to prime minister) of Germany since 1998. She is not only the first woman in that position, but also the youngest when sworn in, as well as the only one with a background in natural sciences.

She was born in 1954 in Hamburg, in what was then West Germany. Soon afterwards her family moved to what was then East Germany so that her father, a Lutheran pastor, could take a position in Perleberg, to the north of Berlin. Therefore, she grew up under East Germany's Soviet-aligned communist regime. Always a very good student - among other things she learned to speak Russian fluently - she studied Physics in the University of Leipzig. Like every young East German who wanted to have a chance of being allowed to go to university, she joined the official youth organisation FDJ (Free German Youth) which led to some minor controversy later, although by all accounts she joined it because she had to, not because of any ideological conviction. Interestingly, she declined a position she sought as a lecturer of engineering as she was informed she would have to report on her colleagues to the Stasi, the secret police, giving as excuse that she was unable to keep secrets. She then became a graduate student at the prestigious Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof, completing a doctorate with a thesis in the field of quantum chemistry, and she then continued to work there as a research scientist after 1978. Her life was then relatively uneventful until 1989, the year when Europe's communist regimes collapsed and the Berlin Wall was first opened. Following the fall of the East German dictatorship, Merkel decided to join one of the newly-formed political parties, the DA (Democratic Awakening). She was described there as quiet in meetings, mostly not speaking, and helping with technical matters, like installing PCs. When the DA was hit by controversy - that one of their leaders had worked as a Stasi informer -  Merkel volunteered to be the one to deal with the press, becoming noted for her unflappable demeanour, calmly and knowledgeably answering journalists' questions. She attracted the attention of Lothar de Maizière, the head of the only democratically elected government of East Germany in the brief transition period before the reunification, who made her the deputy spokesperson of his government. She then joined the CDU - West Germany's party in government, with which the DA merged - and ran successfully for a parliamentary seat in the first elections of the unified Germany in 1990. The CDU chancellor, Helmut Kohl, who had noticed Merkel previously, immediately appointed her Minister for Women and Youth in his cabinet - a very junior position. Kohl promoted her later to Minister for the Enviroment in 1994. The chancellor clearly appointed her largely because he needed eastern Germans in his government, and as his protegee and the youngest minister, Kohl somewhat patronisingly referred to her as "my girl".

The above already provides some information for Angela Merkel's Socionics type. What first brought her into political visibility is a trait that is very clear to this day, her unflappability when answering complex questions in public, in a very non-emotional, calm, analytical and knowledgeable manner. She has nothing of the more 'inspirational' kind of politicians like Barack Obama (IEI), Bill Clinton (EIE), etc. Her 'charisma' - if it can be called that - stems from her self-confidence in her ability to understand issues and to answer questions in a logical and convincing way. That, and, her 'behind the scenes' low-profile stance in her early days of the DA, when she was almost unnoticed until being the the only one to volunteer to talk to the press in a crisis - already point very clearly to a person of very low E, and hints to low F as well, and of much greater confidence in her understanding of issues and ability to explain them clearly, logically and consistency (L and P). That already points to a Logical rather than Ethical type.

The CDU lost the elections of 1998, leading to Helmut Kohl being succeeded by the SPD's Gerhard Schröder as chancellor; Merkel however retained her seat, and became the secretary-general of the CDU, reporting to the new CDU leader, Wolfgang Schäuble. However, in 1999 the CDU was shaken by a scandal when it was disclosed that it had financed its electoral campaigns via several illegal means. That scandal hit several of the CDU's senior figures, including Schäuble and Helmut Kohl himself, while leaving Merkel untouched. She swiftly placed 'principle' above 'loyalty', publicly criticising, and distancing herself from, the party leaders involved in the scandal, including her former mentor Helmut Kohl, who saw it as a betrayal. With more senior party leaders out of the way, Angela Merkel became CDU leader, which also meant leader of the opposition. With the failure of Gerhard Schröder's SPD to maintain its majority in 2005, Angela Merkel emerged as the new German Chancellor, in a government of a "Grand Coalition" of the CDU and SPD.

Interestingly, although she had become CDU leader in 2000, she was not the CDU candidate for chancellor in the 2002 elections; rather it was Edmund Stoiber, the charismatic premier of Bavaria, who however lost the election to Schröder in 2002, leaving the path finally open to Merkel. Stoiber, the leader of the CDU's sister party CSU, had likewise been unaffected by the CDU scandals, and it is revealing that Merkel's rise seemed to depend far more on the self-destruction of her rivals than on her own drive for power (in a career path parallel to that of François Hollande (SEI) ).

As already mentioned, Merkel made a point of publicly condemning those involved in the CDU scandals, not sparing those to whom she owed personal loyalty, especially Helmut Kohl and Wolfgang Schäuble - some could unkindly say that she "threw them under the bus". This is an interesting contrast to politicians who value personal loyalty above all, like Jacques Chirac (SEE), yet the other evidence shown above does not point to Merkel being a ruthless power-seeker who stabs her former mentors in the back for the sake of her own personal advancement. Rather, it points to a person who devalues R as well as having low focus on F, with her placing abstract principles and concepts L, and/or pragmatism P, above R. Merkel's approach to R is best illustrated by her nearly identical answers in separate interviews, when she was asked about the status of her relationships with her former mentor Helmut Kohl, her former party leader Wolfgang Schäuble, and her defeated predecessor as chancellor, Gerhard Schröder - all by then in one form or the other in political oblivion, while she had risen to the top. On those occasions, Merkel's answer was a variation of (paraphrasing): "status of the relationship? What do you mean? Well we do talk. Sometimes" or in Kohl's case,  a very matter-of fact answer: no, they were not in contact.

Almost any other politician in her position, I daresay, would either have given more 'political', positive, socially acceptable answers, or 'passionate' ones (E), or elaborated in more detail in each specific case (R), or perhaps even, aware that she was in a position of immense power while her former rivals were in oblivion, shown either glee or mercy (which would be related to awareness of F). Merkel's answers - which were seen as odd by journalists - show again weak F, E and R, but R rather as something she feels the need to pay at least lip service to, pointing to R3.

Angela Merkel has been married (for the second time) since 1998 to Joachim Sauer, a chemistry professor in Berlin of some reputation in the field of heterogeneous catalysts. He keeps an extremely low public profile and they both prefer to live in their own apartment in Berlin, where she has said she likes to take refuge in a quiet atmosphere and cook for her husband. She has often openly expressed dislike for the gigantic Federal Chancellery designed and built by Helmut Kohl as the seat of government of the new unified Germany (a sign of lack of concern for any negative PR those comments could cause - weak focus on E+T) and that she prefers not to work at the huge Kohl-designed desk in her office but rather at the more down-to-earth meeting table. All of that points to a person with a clear focus on S, but with a lack of concern for, even awareness of, the symbolic trappings of power of her office (E+T). Also revealingly, when recalling her life as a researcher in East Berlin, what she emphasised as being very negative and depressive about that period was not the lack of freedom in East Germany along with the awareness that colleagues might be Stasi informers - no, what she found most depressive was how "ugly" everything was in East Germany. All of the above points to S as far more valued than F and places Merkel in the Alpha or Delta quadras.

What we have so far points consistently to a Logical type of the Alpha or Delta quadras who has very low focus on F, E and R, and the consistent description of her behaviour in her earliest political activities suggest an Integrator type. That would point to LII as well as SLI as plausible types; however, Merkel's approach to R and L  noted above points to R3 rather than to R6, and her S, although valued, seems S6 rather than S1: Merkel likes positive S sensations for herself but she is not a person obviously able to create a positive S environment for others, by means of a warm or soothing personality. The evidence points to LII as Angela Merkel's type and that fits everything that is known about her, as well as her approach to the office of German Chancellor.

To learn more about LII, click here.

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

Sources: besides Wikipedia, several YouTube interviews as well as interviews and articles in the weekly Der Spiegel.

Ed Wood (ILE): Personality Type Analysis

Edward David Wood Jr., best known simply as Ed Wood, was an American film director, producer, writer, and actor, as well as the author of plays and many books, mostly novels. He has often been called the “worst director of all time”, having directed the supposedly “worst film ever made”, Plan 9 from Outer Space in 1956. Although he achieved little recognition in his lifetime, he later became a cult figure, a status consolidated by Tim Burton’s 1994 biographical film Ed Wood starring Johnny Depp. 

Ed Wood was born in 1924 in New York to middle-class parents. Already in his teens he showed enthusiasm for films and film-making. He served as a marine in WWII in the Pacific, seeing combat several times and being wounded more than once. Discharged as a corporal, he moved to Hollywood in 1947 to start working as a filmmaker. Although able to get work in the mainstream movie and television industry as a writer and director of commercials and very low-budget productions, from the beginning Ed preferred to work independently; a path he maintained to the end.

In 1953 Ed wrote, directed and starred (under a pseudonym) the semi-autobiographical, semi-documentary Glen or Glenda; it and his later Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 from Outer Space are today the movies most often associated with Ed Wood, but his total body of work, including movies where he just wrote or produced, is much vaster. Unfortunately, Ed never achieved critical or commercial success in his lifetime, sinking in the 1970s into exploitative soft-porn films and alcoholism, until his death in 1978 from a heart attack during an episode of binge drinking and depression.

We can get a first hint from Ed Wood’s Socionics type from a broad-brush look at his movies as a whole – at least those of the 1950s and 1960s, where they were still 'his' films, before he sunk into pure exploitation flicks. Their common traits are:

1. a spark of originality, even in old genres, that make them somewhat innovative in relation to similar movies of the time; 
2. usually plots that do make some sense and are often complex (even in implausible or absurd scenarios or premises); 
3. awkward dialogue that sounds more like digressions on ideas or obvious tools to carry the plot rather than plausible portrayals of how human beings interact; 
4. extremely low budgets with the cheapness of the sets and special effects being laughably obvious; 
5. the use of stock footage to complement the story (or as padding); 
6. very bad, wooden acting except when he had a truly good actor like Bela Lugosi.

Something revealing about the above traits is that Ed genuinely did not seem to realise the extent to which his awkward dialogues, extremely bad acting and obviously cheap effects and sets would detract from the audience's enjoyment of the often entertaining and original stories. He seemed to think that the audience would mostly overlook those 'details' in favour of enjoying the pictures as a whole (as he himself did). He obviously knew these movies were cheap; but he did not see the extent to which they came across as shoddy. I argue that that already points to Ed Wood having weak R, as well as E since he had extreme difficulty with convincing, realistic dialogues (showing a difficulty in understanding how people interact) but also probably weak S since he seemed to underestimate how his shoddy details would come across.

Ed's chief defining trait was an extreme self-confidence in being able to make movies single-handedly and in his ability to write original, interesting scripts in a variety of subjects and genres, as well as in bringing to production movies from nearly non-existing resources. This points to strong confidence in I as well as P, being naturally able to generate novel ideas and find the practical means of making his ideas work in reality.

Interestingly, Ed was far more focused on making the movies he wanted to make rather than making money from them, both in terms of not 'selling out' by trying to work as a hired hand for others, and in not really being very careful about protecting his interests when signing contracts and the like. Also, although Ed was depressed in the end due to the failure of his career, financial gain was never his chief motivation. That points to weak and subdued F as well as subdued P. It is useful to contrast Ed Wood with his near-contemporary, Roger Corman (LSE). Corman was in many ways similar to Ed in preferring to make his own movies independently and making them very cheaply. The chief difference is that Corman's ultimate goal was making profitable movies even at the cost of their originality, with Corman being far more a producer than a writer and creator of original movies he cared deeply about - that is, with P being a greater priority than I.

Ed's movies are also original and unconventional by slightly deviating from the norm in existing genres and movies, and he did that in a large variety of ways. He seldom, or never, went into truly 'experimental' movies that went deeply outside the norm or explored deep insights or inner demons, he preferred to explore ideas broadly while not going too deeply into them. That is consistent with being strong in I and preferring it over T for a filmmaker.

Taking a closer look at Glen or Glenda, which according to Ed himself is an accurate depiction of one aspect of his psychology and private life, we find an inclination towards cross-dressing. Ed Wood retained since childhood a liking for wearing women's clothes and a special liking for angora pieces. Yet, by all accounts, including of his ex-wife Dolores Fuller and his widow, Kathy O'Hara, this had no connection to homosexuality or transgenderism, but was a purely sensorial fetish, since his childhood when his mother used to dress him in girl's clothes, of angora in particular.

Ed's inner thoughts on the matter are probably illustrated by this passage of Glen or Glenda :

“Give this man satin undies, a dress, a sweater and a skirt or even the lounging outfit he has on and he’s the happiest individual in the world. He can work better, think better, even play better. He can be more of a credit to his community and his government, because he is happy".

This is a first-person description of S5, in particular blocked with E in super-id, and according to those who knew him intimately it accurately represents his reasons for his cross-dressing.

This all boils down to a man of very strong and valued I1, with strong but subdued P8, weak and valued S5 and E6 as well as subdued very weak R4 with likely F3. The type that fits Ed Wood best is ILE.

The Church of Ed Wood, established in 1996, is a legally recognised religious organisation in the US based on Ed Wood as the Saviour.

To learn more about ILE, please click here.

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

Sources: besides Wikipedia and direct observations of his movies, the documentaries Ed Wood: look back in angora  and the "Incredibly Strange" episode on Ed . 

Heraclitus (ILI): Personality Type Analysis

Heraclitus was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in the city of Ephesus, at the time part of the Persian Empire. In his most active period around 500 BCE, Heraclitus postulated a distinguishing theory which he called "Logos" or an oratorical method used to convince or persuasion through logic. He is famously known for his central dogma of philosophy, universal flux, unity of opposites and that fire is element that comprises everything in the universe. The supposed interpretation of these doctrines has been the subject of controversy for historians, since his original inference often drawn from this theory that in the world as Heraclitus conceived - that these contradictory propositions must be true.

What interested Heraclitus the most in philosophy was metaphysics and epistemology, which is a very internal subject, which thus gave way for Heraclitus to implore it with absolute confidence in detached monologues that took the form of a perplexing riddle or puzzle. The virtuous soul can survive the death of its physical body and eventually rejoin the cosmic fire. However, the process of separation and unity is continual. Heraclitus believed that opposites was the driving force and eternal condition of the universe. This is best demonstrated in this statement, "Men do not understand that being at variance it also agrees with itself, there is a harmony, as with the bow and the lyre." Heraclitus argues that equal strife and opposition are both necessary and good, because the concept of universal tension ensures that both opposites will exchange periods of alternating dominance and that none shall ever completely extinguish the other. His life's work, preference for observing the world in terms of how things will turn out and engagement in scholarly activities suggests a type with very strong T, perhaps the only feasible explanation for this would be T1. 

Of what little is known from his life, of what the most reliable information about him has been passed down through stories written to illustrate his character inferred from his own work. What is known for certain, is his own dogma of philosophy, "Everything is in a state of flux and strife between opposites is the eternal condition of the universe". Anyone who challenged this claim, was condemned so witless by Herclitus that they should "hang themselves and leave the city to the rule of children". His antagonism of the first order often got him in trouble with other philosophers of the time, he personally ridiculed Homer the Poet and claimed that he should have been turned out and whipped. Heraclitus only held great disdain for philosophers he personally disliked, yet he still scornfully dismissed ideas from philosophers he thought to be idiots and did not hesitate to dismantle the intellectual integrity of both Pythagoras and Xenophanes. Heraclitus emphasised much attention towards the people who he clearly liked and disliked, while simultaneously avoiding the public impression that Heraclitus unknowingly cultivated himself. The following above is consistent with a man with very weak R and E, though clearly valuing R over E. Primarily, his judgement of relations with other people was determined on the basis of resentment and gave little effort (if any) to try to improve these relationships at all. All that has previously been stated above already confirms F5 and R6 in the Super-Id, E4 in the Super-Ego, all of which point to Gamma as the most likely quadra for Heraclitus.

Heraclitus thought that the three principal elements of nature were earth, fire and water. He postulated that fire was a primary substance that contains and controls the other two substances. Heraclitus stated, "All things are in exchange for fire, and fire for all things... the transformations of fire are, first of all, sea; and half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind." In his view, the 'fire' that Heraclitus believed to be contained within all materials on earth, were in direct counterpart to the human soul. Furthermore, he believed weak men to be tainted by the 'watery' elements of nature, reflecting fatigue, stupidity and vice. Unlike other rational philosophers during his time period, Heraclitus often chose not to explain the reasons behind his thinking in great detail. Indeed, the fragments of his works that survive today are so obscure, that even those who followed in his footsteps (the Stoics were perhaps closest to uncovering the complete rationale behind his thoughts) had nicknamed him "the riddler". His works are written in aphoristic and prophetic style, with a clear contempt for those that cannot see what is clearly before them. This strongly fits strong and unvalued L, very similar to L8.

Thus far what has been mentioned about Heraclitus clearly points towards T1, E4, F5, R6 and L8. In conclusion, I believe Heraclitus is a good representative of the ILI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about ILI, click here.

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

Osamu Dazai (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Osamu Dazai was a Japanese novelist, considered to be one of the most important storytellers of postwar Japan. While known primarily as a novelist, Dazai also earned recognition for his numerous short stories, including “Omoide” (“Memories”), “Sarugashima” (“Monkey Island”), and “Ha” (“Leaves”), which were published in Bannen, his first collection of short stories. Like most of his longer fiction, Dazai's short stories are autobiographical and reflect a troubled life marred by alcoholism, drug addiction, and several suicide attempts. Nevertheless, Dazai's fiction showcases his artistic imagination and unique confessional narrative technique.

Of what is known of Osamu during his youth, was his obsession with Japanese communities and society, nearly to the point where he would feel extremely desolate and depressed when people didn't take notice to his lamentations on what would happen to these societies in the future. Osamu was also interested in idealized projections of a utopia, he actively expressed of resentment towards societies he perceived as failures. (Countries torn apart by war, famine, apartheid, etc.) Many of his novels can easily be identified by having a very dark and wry theme, from powerful explorations of an individual’s alienation from society to the destructive effects of war and the transition from a feudal Japan to an industrial society. Osamu was regularly arranged towards the wanderings of his creative ability in everyday life, running recollections through his mind numerous times to understand the progressions of their own adventure. This consistent hunt of importance in his life and philosophising on the explanation behind human presence (i.e. "Why we are here and what everything is paving the way to."), would point to a type with a very strong confidence in T, more like T1 than the weaker T6.

Osamu desperately wanted to share the depths and insights of his novels that projected the casual cruelties of life and its fleeting moments of human connection and tenderness. Osamu was interested in getting others to feel what he felt, in hopes that individuals out there in the world wouldn't be afraid in exploring their own darker emotional states. In his youth, Osamu acted unusually cheerful and whimsical, though he spoke about this to address that he wanted to "mask how I truly felt on the inside". Osamu tried to motivate others by this idea and determined a solid feeling of recognizable proof with the individuals who might transparently bolster him in his tries. However, this did not give Osamu the results that he expected, with much of his works becoming bestselling novels in Japan long after his death. His methodology emerged in public settings, though was is considerably more inconspicuous and supportive, permitting him to work easily out of sight of a group. This suggests that Osamu was very fluent in E related works, bringing the notion of his flexibility in whether to add a profound T deeper meaning or the struggles of how people emerge triumphantly from F harsher realities, hinting at a flexible E2 than a more restrained E5.

Osamu had a hidden self-destructive nature in which he was involved in various scandals with women in an attempt to force himself out of his own negative emotional states. He actively sought physical stimulation in an attempt to passionately feel something, rather than be dragged down by trivial and meaningless tasks. His scandalous life of drug addiction, alcoholism, rebelliousness, love affairs, and despair touched the lost generation of his times. Osamu was easily manipulated and taken advantage of by others, his advocation of communism at the time of post-war Japan had very little practical bearing on reality and pertained to his own insights and reflections of an ideal world. Furthermore, he was able to fulfill his pervasive interest in revolutionary change by participating in the Pacific war, motivating him to act. The following already makes sense for a type with weak, valued F and unvalued P, making it more likely for an unattended P4 and sensitive F5.

In his personal life, Osamu was very emotionally intelligent and nihilistic towards the meaninglessness of human society, constantly striving for a "perfect society" that could not be practically implemented in the physical world. Osamu specifically lacked the ability to clearly express his inner perceptions to others, resulting in him becoming even more troubled and isolated from Japanese society. As an adult, the majority of his literary works become increasingly despairing, thus reflecting his own emotional crisis. Osamu Dazai spent years formulating a clear ideology for himself to live by and thus provided much needed structure to his own beliefs. Osamu sought to keep up a steady, clear comprehension of himself and the world he was involved in, alongside with the time that he set aside in his leisure to attempt to make sense of his actual needs in life and standards for him to live by. This points to a type with weak and valued L6.

His literary works would often reflect the cogitations to topics pertaining to morality, ethics, and relationships, wanting others to better understand that human nature isn't "black and white". The stories he wrote carried a large amount of emotional depth and the personal internalized conceptions of not what humanity "should be" but rather delivers his gloomy and nihilistic interpretation of what humanity "is". Rather than delving into an assortment of insights and intrigues, Osamu concentrated seriously on his thoughts that he felt conveyed individually intending to his presence and committed himself hours upon hours expounding on subjects that once in awhile veered off from negative emotionality. This recommends somebody with a powerlessness to adjust I for the sake of T, suggesting the relationship between I7 and T1 with reluctantly having to come up with alternate perceptions of these topics that already held a clear vision in his mind. 

Thus far what has been mentioned about Osamu clearly points towards T1, E2, P4, F5, L6, I7. In conclusion, I believe that Osamu is a very clear IEI.

To learn more about IEI, click here.

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

Trajan (EIE): Personality Type Analysis

Marcus Ulpius Traianus, later Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus, best known as Trajan, was the 13^th Roman Emperor from 98 to 117. His reign is usually regarded as the zenith of the classical Roman civilisation, in terms of territorial expansion and political and military self-confidence. Trajan himself was associated with and largely credited for that zenith.  He was born in 53 in Spain, the first emperor not born in Italy. His father was closely associated with the Flavian emperors and so Trajan climbed easily the steps of the typical aristocratic Roman public career. He had already reached the highest levels of public office as the Emperor Domitian, a gloomy ruler of authoritarian inclinations, was assassinated in his own bedroom and succeeded by the elderly senator Nerva (IEI) as emperor. Nerva’s brief reign was marked by politico-military meltdown, until he abruptly appointed Trajan as his successor, who at the time was serving as a military governor on the Danube border. Nerva died shortly afterwards leading to Trajan’s smooth ascension.

In terms of major events, Trajan’s reign can be summarised as: a few years of consolidation and military build-up followed by two brief, successive campaigns against the Dacians across the Danube, following up previous conflicts under Domitian (ILI).  Those campaigns led to the annexation of what is roughly Romania today. Then, some ten years of civil administration and the low-profile annexation of what is today Jordan. In his final years, Trajan launched a major war against the Parthian Empire, leading to the (short-lived) annexation of today’s Iraq and the South Caucasus, with Trajan dying of natural causes immediately afterwards while still in the region . At this point the Roman Empire reached the largest territorial expansion it would ever reach.

Trajan spent much time of his early career, and later as emperor, as a military commander, and clearly felt comfortable in that role.  At war, he made a point of taking personal command, so that at the end of his Parthian campaign he became the only Roman Emperor ever to reach the Persian Gulf personally. He was seen by his contemporaries as a “soldier-emperor” and that was a very important part of the public image he consciously promoted. Historically, although it can be argued that his Dacian Wars were inherited from Domitian, in the case of Parthia he went for an all-out war as reaction to a treaty breach when there were probably other options – in fact the historian and senator Cassius Dio, and the later Emperor Julian the Apostate (LIE), took for granted in their writings that Trajan had been driven by a desire for conquest and glory as goals in themselves. All of the above points strongly to Trajan having F as a valued function, and so being a type of the Beta or Gamma quadras. Having said that, how strong Trajan’s F was is less clear. Although an obviously competent general, it is also true that both his Dacian and Parthian campaigns were based on the use of overwhelming military force, mobilizing in each case over one third of the entire Roman army in cautious, strategically planned campaigns. This is in clear contrast to Julius Caesar (SEE), Sulla (ESI) or Scipio Africanus (ESI), F ego types who relied more on on-the-fly tactical improvisation and very efficient and quick, aggressive use of the existing resources even when in numerical disadvantage. Surely Trajan had more options than they, but that already hints at F being not quite as strong as F1, and more like F6.

Arguably Trajan’s greatest achievement as emperor was not military, though, but political. All his predecessors, after Augustus (LIE), had had difficulty with the fundamental political problem of balancing their three main “constituencies”, that is, the armies, the Senate, and Rome’s civilian population, with often conflicting priorities. Trajan’s predecessors had often ended up hated by the Senate and/or people while relying on support from the military - or toppled by military force if they lost support in that area. Trajan however managed the political feat of gaining support from all those 'factions'. To the army he was a competent, victorious commander-in-chief who looked after their concerns as “one of them”; to the Senate he was an accessible leader who interacted with his former peers in terms of social near-equality; to the general population he was an approachable ruler who spent lavishly on public works and spectacles, and improved the supply of water and grain. That was accomplished by a combination of three factors: Trajan’s personality; real, tangible achievements; and the 'ideology' of his rule, supported by what can be called PR or propaganda. He has been called the first emperor to have governed with anything like a consistent official ideology, or perhaps narrative.

That ideology, or narrative, was simple: Trajan was the emperor because he was the best man for the job, due to his personal qualities, 'CV', connections, and the manner of his ascension, which gave him a sort of “legitimacy” or “mandate” that most of his predecessors had lacked. To back that up, he had to act the role.  He had a politician’s gift for remembering the names of individual citizens and soldiers; “his association with the people was marked by affability and his intercourse with the Senate by dignity” according to Cassius Dio; he would attend private social events unguarded (no 'secret service'). The overall impression, by all accounts, is of a man who does not put a foot wrong and seems at ease in any social situation. In private, though, among his intimates and cronies, he indulged a bit in hedonism with bisexual debauchery and drunken parties, yet avoiding really bad crapulence or harming anyone. Halfway through his reign the Senate created for him the honorific title of Optimus Princeps, “the best emperor”. There may be a seeming contradiction in that the regime’s official ideology was necessarily based on a cult of personality ,and yet Trajan managed the balancing act of minimising that - by proving himself worthy of it, apparently without seeming ridiculous or a hypocrite.  Never mind the occasional theatrical gestures such as telling his Praetorian Prefect, in public, to “use your sword to protect me if I govern well, or against, me, if I govern badly”.  This is all the more impressive as in terms of actual power and centralised decision-making, he was as autocratic as the “tyrant” Domitian had been. The usually sceptical historian and senator Tacitus (LSI), a contemporary and generally harsh critic of the autocratic imperial regime, was charmed, writing that Trajan had accomplished what had seemed impossible, reconciling the rule by emperors with freedom of thought and expression.  I argue that the above strongly hints at a man with very high confidence in E, possibly at the level of a modern master politician, like Jacques Chirac (SEE), John F. Kennedy (EIE), Ronald Reagan (EIE), Bill Clinton (EIE) or Barack Obama (IEI). That his perfectly fine-tuned image was held together by a consistent ideology, however simple, suggests some valuing of L even if not very strong.

There is direct evidence on Trajan as a person as his correspondence with Pliny the Younger (IEI) has survived, from the period when Pliny was Trajan’s governor of what is today northern Turkey. Some of the letters are trivial (like Pliny congratulating Trajan on his birthday and Trajan thanking him, etc.), or matter-of-fact questions and answers on precise legal matters; others, though, give a glimpse into Trajan’s mind and personality. First, when writing to Pliny, a younger man now serving as his direct subordinate, Trajan mostly goes out of his way to write in a friendly and polite manner, carefully explaining the reasons for his decisions rather than just handing down instructions, especially when he has to turn down a request of Pliny’s. He writes to Pliny more like a mentor than as a ruler or boss. A couple of exceptions are when Trajan reacts a bit impatiently, in a “why are you even asking me this” way.  Nevertheless the easily accessible ruler who spoke to senators in terms of social equality, described by Dio, is consistently seen in those letters.  In terms of Trajan’s reasoning  for his decisions, it is interesting that when restraining Pliny’s occasional authoritarian inclinations (as when he suggested compulsory loans in his province), Trajan argues that such things are not “in accordance with the spirit of our times” – the ancient equivalent of today’s argumentation based on “it’s 2017!” – rather than argue their intrinsic unfairness or inefficiency. This points to a mind arguing rather from a E and T perspective rather than L or P. Most famously, and of historical significance, is Trajan’s reply to Pliny on how to deal with Christians in his province. Being a Christian had technically been illegal since Nero’s persecution, some 50 years before, but in practice the Roman State usually did not concern itself with the issue, so that Pliny was baffled when, as governor, he had to deal with people accused of being Christians. He had no idea of what that meant or what their precise legal status was, and upon interrogation Pliny, in his words, “found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths”, and some people were being denounced as Christians anonymously, so he wrote Trajan for guidance. The reply, in full, was:

“You have followed the right course of procedure, my dear Pliny, in your examination of the cases of persons charged with being Christians, for it is impossible to lay down a general rule to a fixed formula. These people must not be hunted out; if they are brought before you and the charge against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone who denies that he is a Christian, and makes it clear that he is not by offering prayers to our gods, he is to be pardoned as a result of his repentance however suspect his past conduct may be. But pamphlets circulated anonymously must play no part in any accusation. They create the worst sort of precedent and are quite out of keeping with the spirit of our age.”

This letter became generally the legal precedent for subsequent reigns until the more active persecutions of the 3^rd century, and was often praised for its relative tolerance;  however, also criticised, already in ancient times, for its inconsistency and opportunism:  being a Christian continued to be against the law, but not something as bad as deserving active concern by the state. This pragmatism, even opportunism, yet combined with a sense of justice, is present in most of Trajan’s letters, and at least in day-to-day matters of governing points to P as having a higher focus than L.

Elaborating on P. Trajan’s civilian administration was very concerned with practical matters such as building roads, bridges, aqueducts, public spaces, and ports, not only in Rome and Italy but across the empire. Yet, revealingly, rather than merely practical endeavours (such as the extensive but 'low-key' road-building program of Antonius Pius (SLI)), Trajan’s reign was a time of 'the biggest': the largest forum, the largest public baths, the longest bridge, the largest harbour, etc. Although of practical utility, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Trajan was at least as concerned, if not more, with the propaganda or feel-good effect of such grandiose building as he was with their practical benefits. That is, it shows a concern with E+T as at least equal to P, but it also points to P as not being a truly weak function.

Trajan’s approach to P can be solved by his final years. As mentioned above, in 114 he launched a major war against the Parthian Empire which resulted in quick early victories, with him announcing the annexation to the Roman Empire of today’s Iraq and the South Caucasus and then starting to return to Rome. This military success was however undermined by practical realities: first, the  invasion of Mesopotamia greatly disturbed the vast Jewish population living in the Parthian Empire, with the Exilarch calling for a Jewish uprising in the Roman Empire, which quickly ignited in Egypt and Cyprus in particular; second, the Roman Empire’s hold on those newly-annexed provinces was tenuous, with rebellions taking place even as Trajan had barely left the region. He died while still in today’s Turkey, leading to the succession of his close kinsman and associate Hadrian (ILE), then the governor of Syria. Hadrian’s first major decision was the immediate withdrawal from Trajan’s newly annexed provinces – a very controversial decision for any Roman Emperor, and which suggests that the impracticality of those annexations must have seemed obvious (although not to Trajan). Also, one of the enduring mysteries of Trajan’s reign is precisely that he died, of natural causes in his sixties, without clearly announcing Hadrian as his successor, which could have led to a succession crisis. Yet it was clear to everyone that Hadrian would succeed him as he was Trajan’s closest male relative as well as the commander of the largest military forces when Trajan died. I suggest that the explanation points to Trajan being ultimately more concerned with L: having based his rule on an L ideology of the emperor being “the best man for the job” as per general consensus, he could not decide to flatly overrule that for P purposes in single-handedly appointing Hadrian (or anyone else) as his successor.

What we have, then, as a man of very strong confidence and focus on E who also very obviously values F without it seeming to be an ego function; who values L over P but at the same time had P as seemingly stronger, with his P actions seemingly helping his E motivations. That is, a Beta of very strong E and visible P and F with weak but valued L. The type that fits Trajan best is EIE.

Trajan’s reputation as “the best emperor” remained undiminished through the centuries. To the end of the Empire the Senate acclaimed a new emperor with the wishes that he would be “better than Trajan”;  Dante Alighieri, who in his Divine Comedy had placed many popes in Hell, saw fit, exceptionally, to place the pagan Trajan in Heaven.

To learn more about EIE, please click here.

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

Sources: besides Wikipedia, the scholarly biography is Julian Bennett’s Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Cassius Dio’s history and Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan are available online.

François Hollande (SEI): Personality Type Analysis

François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande is a French civil servant, lawyer and politician who served as the President of France since elected in 2012 as the PS (Socialist Party) candidate, defeating the incumbent president, Nicolas Sarkozy (LIE), until leaving office in May 2017.

Like the majority of French presidents and prime ministers since the 1970s, Hollande is an alumnus of the ultra-elite ENA graduate school. His classmates there included Dominique de Villepin (later Jacques Chirac’s (SEE) last prime minister) and Ségolène Royal (defeated by Sarkozy in the presidential election of 2007; Hollande's Minister of Ecology), who became his domestic partner and with whom Hollande has 4 children. On the one hand Hollande’s political career has been typical of his generation in the sense that he slowly climbed up the ranks of the PS through a succession of legislative and executive elective offices, until becoming First Secretary of the Socialist Party (that is, its nominal leader) in 1997 on the recommendation of Lionel Jospin, then the PS Prime Minister. On the other hand, however, his political rise has also been unusual in the sense that his political career was based on local and regional offices, and he remains the only French president of the 5th Republic to have never been a cabinet minister. It is fair to say that when he launched his presidential bid, François Hollande was relatively unknown to the general French public: he had been the President of the Corrèze Regional Council (that is, roughly equivalent to county executive) in his Corrèze political base in the southwest of France for four years and had not occupied a truly high-profile political position at national level.

It is widely acknowledged that the relatively unknown Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012 not so much because of his own merits, but rather because of the French electorate’s exhaustion and frustration with Sarkozy, who had by then been a very visible and dominating figure in French politics for about a decade. Likewise, Hollande rose to become the PS presidential candidate not so much because he had long actively pursued that position strategically (like Sarkozy had), but much more because of the successive elimination of his PS rivals, both through the political self-destruction of the heavyweights (Lionel Jospin and Dominique Strauss-Kahn) and the higher unpopularity in the PS of his later rivals (Laurent Fabius and Ségolène Royal herself). It is fair to say that Hollande’s rise to the presidency was based far more on him being the 'last survivor' after quietly standing on the sidelines, than on him being a relentless power-seeker.

The veteran journalist Franz-Olivier Giesbert, in his documentary on Hollande, observed that all of Hollande’s political rivals consistently underestimated his intellect, resilience, and political skills. Lionel Jospin made Hollande his successor as First Secretary of the PS because Jospin wanted precisely a man who would “bring calm, serenity and concord” to the PS, then torn asunder by political fights in the aftermath of François Mitterrand’s (IEI) death. That is, Jospin obviously saw Hollande as an alternative to the heavyweights fighting for prominence in the party, rather than as a faction leader himself or someone who would be resented or envied or seen as a threat. Hollande has commented to journalists that he saw his political career as a series of many events, very often unpredictable, and that his career could easily have been derailed at any point, so he just took events as they came, without worrying too much about it.

The above already makes F Ego types extremely unlikely as well as F6 types, and points to weak or at least unvalued F, that is, the Alpha or Delta quadra. Nevertheless, in separate interviews, his close collaborators have consistently said that despite his relatively harmless facade, Hollande has an inner steel that easily comes to the surface if he is pushed too hard or he sees no way to defuse the situation. That suggests a man who dislikes direct conflict rather than who lacks confidence in it, pointing probably to F in the Id, so F7 or F8.

François Hollande’s intimate relationships have followed a consistent and revealing pattern. In summary, he seems to be a sequentially monogamous man who however tends to 'blur' from one monogamous relationship to the next, with 'overlaps' in between, rather than a man who has a 'main' long-term relationship with 'flings' by the side (like Chirac or Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (LII)) or with two long-term, parallel relationships (like Mitterrand) or with clear, dramatic break-ups followed by intense new relationships (like Sarkozy). Rather, Hollande’s pattern has been of starting a new relationship without wanting to face directly the actual break-up with the still-existing one. That was the pattern of his first entering into a relationship with Valerie Trierweiler before actually leaving Ségolène Royal; and more recently, doing exactly the same with Julie Gayet and Valerie Trierweiler in turn. I argue that rather than being a 'polygamist', Hollande is someone who prefers to postpone as long as he can unpleasant confrontations, even at the cost of a period of infidelity in between. Yet, once the need for the confrontation is unavoidable, he can be quick and ruthless, even cruel, as per the accounts of those developments – he has been described as “waiting until he is against a wall before he decides to take a decision or fight”. That again points most obviously to F7 or perhaps F8, that is SEI, SLI, ESE or LSE, except that the latter two are less likely to be seen as the placid, politically passive and even 'inoffensive' figure as seen by his political patrons and rivals.

Aware that he was largely elected for 'not being Nicolas Sarkozy' rather than 'for being François Hollande', he consciously adopted a political image and style that he referred to as being again a "normal president”. That meant in essence: a more hands-off (or high-level) president who left the daily running of the country to his prime minister (unlike the notoriously hyper-active, controlling Sarkozy), and preferring a more low-profile, quiet style of moving about in the country, with trains as his preferred means of transportation. The documentary Le Pouvoir by the veteran maker of political documentaries, Patrick Rotman, who followed Hollande over several days, shows him as a man who acts as president by holding many meetings with several of his assistants in the Elysée Palace,even seemingly junior ones, with him preferring to make sure that he understands and summarises the consensus of those present rather than providing clear direction or targets. That would have been the most suitable way of acting in his former job as president of a regional council, which he seems to have found most congenial, and that probably also accounts for his success in that former role. His seeming expectation is that in a meeting others will generate ideas (rather than listen to his own ideas), in an environment seemingly 'democratic' in the sense that everyone would have a say. This is behaviour pointing to again to a valuation of I over F, with I in the Super-Id and most likely I5. Complementing that, he seems to prefer to maintain some degree of informality in such meetings, with Hollande apparently genuinely concerned with putting even his junior auxiliaries at ease and in comfort. This is consistent with S in ego, which also fits his other traits as a man who prefers calm and avoids unnecessary confrontation. Arguably that is also part of the reason why he prefers to appoint prime ministers and then let them govern more or less without his interference.

François Hollande is ideologically a man of the left, of the Socialist Party in France, in the sense that he seems to share the basic assumptions of PS voters. However, he seems to have some difficulty in arguing or exploring those assumptions in detail, and most revealingly, he seems to have a genuine difficulty with understanding where those who disagree are coming from. This was seen, for instance in his presidential debate with Sarkozy, where the latter kept coming up with pragmatic (or opportunistic) arguments based on “reality”, as in how to fight terrorism, with a seemingly puzzled (or repelled) Hollande repeating that that would be “wrong” due to clashing with some broader, generalised principles, to Sarkozy’s increased exasperation. Likewise, in a recent interview with journalists, Hollande seemed genuinely perplexed when, after he pointed out the supposed danger of the rise of the FN’s Marine Le Pen as something that should concern everyone, a journalist retorted that that rise had all taken place in the period of Hollande’s presidency (implying that he should assume at least some responsibility for that). A clearly baffled Hollande listed the events supposedly responsible (Brexit, Donald Trump (SLE), terrorism, etc.) and could not argue when the journalist replied that most of the FN voters did not have any interest in Trump. Those interchanges were revealing because they showed Hollande to not be a non-ideological opportunist able to shift gears in order to win an argument (like Chirac), or a cool analyst who deconstructs an argument and makes his own (like Giscard). Rather, Hollande has a set of clear beliefs, worldviews and conclusions that he takes for granted but is somewhat thrown off-balance when those are openly challenged, and rather than point the flaws in the other person’s argument, he seems to have difficulty accepting that they actually believe that argument. This is a trait most typical of L valuers who are however not that confident in L, and seems most like L6.

Finally, looking at R and E. As a politician, Hollande was most successful at the local and regional levels. As president he has been widely judged as a failure, by far the least popular president of the 5th Republic and the very first to not even try to be re-elected. He seems at his best when he can connect directly to the people in front of him and when addressing small-scale, concrete problems that affect people in their daily lives. As a politician on campaign, he consistently comes across as a jovial figure completely at ease and in good humour, in a way that seems completely genuine. As a speaker addressing crowds, though, he comes across as somewhat dull and boring; he is not a master of oratory able to get crowds enthusiastic. That suggests a man who is quietly confident in both R and E but not so much in stirring emotions on a grand scale. His E seems to be a more 'short-range'; one aimed at the people immediately in his presence rather than to anonymous crowds with whom he has to connect in a more abstract way, that is, E blocked with S rather than T. His extreme hesitation (until he has no choice) in breaking up close relationships also suggests a focus on R and S higher than F, i.e. S1, R8 and F7.

What we have is a S ego with F7, L6, and strong R8 and E2. The type that fits François Hollande best is SEI.

To learn more about SEI, click here.

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

Sources: besides his entry in the French Wikipedia and general observations, the book Un président ne devrait pas dire ça by Gérard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme; Patrick Rotman's documentary Le Pouvoir and Franz-Olivier Giesbert's documentary Que se passe-t-il dans la tête de François Hollande. The bit of the interview showing Hollande baffled at the journalists' questions can be seen here.

Maxim Gorky (LSI): Personality Type Analysis

Alexei Maximovich Peshkov, primarily known by the pseudonym 'Maxim Gorky', was a Russian and Soviet writer famous for his founding of the socialist realism literary method and political activism during the time of the Russian Empire. Maxim Gorky was known for his active participation in the Marxist social-democratic movement and his public opposition towards the Tsarist regime. His most famous literary works have strongly impacted Russian culture and have remarkably contributed very passionate insights within the field of short stories, poetry and memoirs that described the lives of people in the lowest strata and on the margins of society. He associated with fellow great writers of the time, like Leo Tolstoy and Anton Chekhov and greatly admired their works and contributions the the literary community at the time.

In his pursuit of socialist realism, Maxim Gorky regularly emphasized the principles and rules that needed to be formed in order to implement the ideological vision of Soviet Russia. Maxim wrote about political machinations in accordance to fixed categories and explicitly favored specific perspectives over other political viewpoints in how the world should be structured. His work had a strong connection towards the correctness of ideological clarity and conceptualized a rule-based framework that had application in law, justice and social order. Maxim found that his observations about socialism were absolute truths and he confidently expressed his views with certainty and absolution that he put forward into the social community around him. Interestingly enough, he expressed his intellectual and political perspectives apathetically without much conviction and these concepts were very static and rigid, without pertaining to any sort of ambiguity. Additionally, Maxim was highly focused on the functionality of realistic systems, he knew exactly what information could be integrated into his ideology and what information held no relevance or meaning to that particular ideology. The following advocates solid evidence for an individual with strong and valued L1.

Maxim Gorky portrayed the bitterness of oppressed individuals through his writing and exploited the people of Russia. Reoccurring themes within his work demonstrated a proud defiance against the perceived "organized" and "respectable" society. Maxim deconstructed these illusions of dysfunctional government systems in order to elaborate on the rules and guidelines to build one anew that was in favor of the collective, instead of the aristocratic. Maxim Gorky fearlessly criticized and confronted the Tsarist regime and committed himself so strongly to his socialist ideologies that it eventually led him to be arrested many times along with forcing other revolutionaries to act just as proactive and restless as he was. Consequently, he was still very committed to his revolutionary ideologies and acted assertively towards pointing out the flaws in political systems and dismantling the arguments of the opposing party. Maxim's desire to impact and influence the world with highly complex ideological systems with sheer conviction supports the idea of Beta values with very disciplined and intimidating F2.

Maxim Gorky strongly favored environments of free expression where every individual is given a voice and a chance to express their deepest personal concerns. Despite his advocation of these communities - to which others responded quite positively to - Maxim was generally seen as very quiet and reserved in the public eye. Maxim's stern lifestyle was quite noticeable as he became very absorbed into his work and sometimes neglected the need to develop friendships and forming connections with others. However, he was much more internally passionate and connected much more deeply with the few individuals that shared the same ideologies and adopted the same set of principles. On the subject of Maxim's work, he often found strong elements of humanity and individual dignity in even the most brutalized and demoralized of individuals. His sympathy for the underdog made him known as a powerful spokesman for the illiterate masses, their current sufferings and dreams of a better life. Although his clear valuing of E is apparent, he lacked the natural and persuasiveness to motivate others, becoming more intensively focused on logical strictness. This social consciousness and motivation to unify people without the ability or the means to do so makes a solid case for E5.

In later years, Maxim lived in isolation on Capri island not only to separate himself from the public, but also set time aside to cultivate the meaningful "God-Building" concept that was designed to replace organized religion. This deeply internal philosophy sought to recapture the power of myth for the social-democratic revolution and to create a religious atheism that placed collective humanity where God was imbued with passion, wonderment, moral certainty. Along with Leo Tolstoy, Maxim Gorky was very interested and passionate about the discovery of a higher sense of purpose and a singular vision of the world. It's very clear between the contrast between the two individuals that Leo Tolstoy wrote about the justice of independence and one's individual self-determination, while Maxim Gorky wrote about elaborating on principled worldviews and drawing conscious attention towards a long-term vision in how the world should be. He became a follower of these writers who sought to cultivate their passions into writing, even in absence of a political agenda or cause. In addition, he also had an irreversible belief that he knew exactly what was going to happen in his life and oriented himself towards the vision of what the future might look like. Maxim sternly carried out his actions through this outlook on by limiting himself to a singular path in life, while ignoring meaningless obligations with his family and venturing on his own in search of anagogical clarity through esoteric messages that reflected an idealistic society free of aristocratic rule. Maxim regularly emphasized on the concrete implementation of idealistic societies that favored the collective, yet was unable to adequately communicate the esoteric and involve himself into humanitarian studies suggests bold and weak T6.

Thus far what has been mentioned about Maxim Gorky clearly points towards L1, F2, E5, and T6. In conclusion, I believe Maxim Gorky is a classic representative of the LSI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about LSI, click here.

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