Micah Purvis - Diagnostic Report (IEI)

After a diagnostic interview, an analysis of Micah’s answers suggests the 8 IM Elements may best be assigned to the functions of Model A in the following order, making his best fit type the ‘Intuitive Ethical Integrator’ or ‘IEI’.

Leading Function - Telos (T1)

To Micah, “faith is something that everyone has, so it’s just a matter of what you’re gonna decide to have faith in”. With this view, Micah approaches the fields of film and literature with a near “spiritual” reverence. It is with this reverence that Micah requires a story to be “allowed… to speak through metaphor and imagery”, believing that to do otherwise and overly “preach” the message would not be having faith that it will be interpreted correctly. Micah sees the close identification with literature, and his eventual contribution to it, as his life’s calling. In addition to this pseudo-religious approach to a singular aim, Micah shows a natural affinity for analysing the meanings of themes, this being his chief area of confidence. This affinity for themes also manifests in how his interests draw his attention.  For instance, his enjoyment of the horror genre is less about feeling afraid and more about grappling with the “metaphysical idea of fear in a symbolic way made into reality”. Furthermore, he is clear that in his own writing, he is not so much focused on character, or the plot, but more on the underlying themes these superficial elements represent, with not all of his love poems being “actually love poems”, but representing something deeper. In these ways, we can see that Telos manifests as a prime, all-encompassing motivator for Micah and a place of natural confidence. One could say that Micah ‘lives and breathes’ thematic imagery and is a devotee to creating and furthering these themes in literature. For this reason, the best place for Telos is straightforwardly the Leading function. 

Creative Function - Emotions (E2)

Micah does not see himself as purely an analyst of themes, but also a “storyteller”, and throughout his interview, the desire to shore up the deeper meanings of events was interspersed with an emotive quality that could engage a reader. Micah remarks that in his own writing, there is often a “tragic” quality and he has written multiple poems that would be quite moving. In discussing his own interest in literature, above all other interests, Micah speaks of “passion” it instils in him that he does not feel for other fields, and how that feeling of enthusiasm is crucial for him to give the time to learn something, saying that “once you get [his] heart there, [his] mind is already almost there.” Although a teacher himself, Micah criticises schooling for taking the “exciting” elements out of fiction, such that pupils lose interest in what ought to be emotionally compelling. Furthermore, in mathematics, his least favourite subject, Micah recalls a begrudging respect he felt towards his maths teacher, who eagerly showed his own passion for the subject, which to Micah, may as well be “humanity” itself. With this desire for passion comes an expectation on others to show their emotions openly, with Micah becoming suspicious of his friendships with those who do not communicate a positive reaction to him. At the same time, Micah is able to adapt and shape his tone to the needs of his audience, being able to “work in jokes”  to his speeches to make them less boring and, despite naturally being highly critical of written poetry, being tactful and focusing on the positives when marking another person’s work, assuming the quality of the work did not reflect on his own ability. From this information, we can see that Emotions plays a strong and valued, but flexible and subordinate role to Telos, giving his sense of underlying, thematic meaning, a dramatic and emotional edge. This best fits the Creative function.

Role Function - Senses (S3)

Talking to Micah, he appears to possess a stable, calm demeanour, without the restlessness often seen with a type low in Senses. On a few occasions, Micah mentions how he can be lazy, disposed to “chilling and stuff”. He also shows a middling level of ability in day to day maintenance, and upon being asked about the tidiness of his room, said that “people are worse than me, but I’m not the best”. At college, he was capable at keeping his clothes “off the ground”, but never took much pride in this and never saw himself as a “very tidy person in general”. Furthermore, we can see that Micah, despite feeling lazy, finds the idea of a workaholic to be “very attractive”, which suggests that he is not comfortable with his lack of activity and would prefer a more unhealthy level of activity. Overall, this suggests that Senses is one of Micah’s weaker functions, but not the weakest, while also not being valued, more something Micah does to middling ability without appreciation. This is a good fit for the Role function.

Vulnerable Function - Pragmatism (P4)

In general, Micah says that he has “never really been exceptional… at anything” and does not feel confident in his ability to do things well. Despite this, and not wanting to be “viewed as dumb”, Micah has not evidenced much drive to increase his capabilities. During his college degree, Micah worried about his finances, realising that after graduating he would “have no idea [how] to make money”. Nonetheless, he continued with his chosen degree of English because he enjoyed it. Additionally, when trying to learn things, Micah soon realised that it was a pointless activity unless he was passionate about the thing he wished to learn. In these ways, we see that Micah’s priorities in decision-making are counter to what is practical or about self-improvement, with him much preferring to do what fires his passion, even if the stakes are high. Micah’s difficulty with efficient implementation extends to how he articulates himself, with Micah having a faltering, wordy way of communicating, with many uses of “like” to stall his delivery of sentences and the inappropriate use of qualifications like “almost” or “maybe”, such that the strength of his language, when taken literally, does not match what he actually meant. At times, Micah would pause and say “I’m not sure if I know how to explain”, acknowledging the trouble he has with putting his thoughts into words. In general, Micah avoided the use of objective fact when speaking, preferring to begin controversial sentences with “To me, it is…” and ground the truth of the statement in personal opinion, seemingly an area in which he feels more authority to speak from. What we can see from this is that Micah struggles to accumulate and work with factual information he is not passionate about and has a more universal trouble assessing how to do things well and whether he has done a good job, making it a very weak area. At the same time, he deprioritises attempts to overcome this difficulty, showing he does not value it. This range of qualities best fits the Vulnerable function.

Suggestive Function - Force (F5)

Micah expresses an interest and attraction to the wilful and dynamic, even workaholic “hero” of the stories he analyses. However, when asked about his ‘own story’, Micah said that he is “usually no[t]” the hero, reserving this for “people [he] admire[s]”. Additionally, he was quick to identify the physical activity of sports as one of the areas he is least confident in, and has recently felt “annoy[ed]” at his own lack of assertiveness while teaching at school, feeling unable to “get [the] respect” from his pupils to cause them to be quiet, something which he has seen other teachers achieve “automatically”. As well as lacking assertiveness and the dynamism to see himself as a ‘hero’, Micah shows a general difficulty moving from his thoughts to activity, sometimes due to laziness, or especially when having feelings of emotional distress, and “if [he doesn’t] have someone forcing [him] to do something… it’s really hard for [him] to do” something productive. What we can see from this is a pronounced lack of confidence and ability in Force, with Micah very much seeing himself as support for more engaging individuals. At the same time, it appears that Micah values this area, seeing things in terms of who is more ‘heroic’ and appreciating the forceful willpower that others can provide for him. For these reasons, Force best fits the Suggestive function for Micah.

Mobilising Function – Laws (L6)

Although struggling with the practicality of learning factual information and applying it well, Micah shows more confidence in his ability to “analyse themes” and seems to readily enjoy picking apart the underlying meaning from surface material in literature and film. Although struggling to articulate himself efficiently, Micah shows a refined sense of the distinctions between the ideas he is analysing and has formulated a clear sense of “how [he] see[s] the world” and reality. Analysis of literature is also something he takes seriously, with Micah being “harsh or critical” of the poetry he and others construct. Indeed, despite not feeling very intelligent, intelligence is a quality his friends readily identify in him, and although he will avoid games and puzzles that may make him look “dumb” in front of others, Micah will feel confident with certain other logical games like chess. What can be garnered from this is that Laws is another area of middling natural ability for Micah, but something which he has taken seriously and is able to use competently in his chosen field. This is a good fit for the Mobilising function.

Ignoring Function - Ideas (I7)

It is clear that Micah’s chief interest is in writing literature, and when asked what he would do if this were not an option, he would still like to be in a career that is in close proximity to this field, showing a passionate but singular devotion. While only able to learn that which fires up his passion, it is also clear that Micah maintains a focused, even narrow scope on what creates that passion, and does not seem to collect a broad range of different interests. Nevertheless, Micah does showcase an ability and confidence in analysing ambiguity and breadth of shifting perspectives, particularly when applied to literature, with him enjoying how perception of a story can shift depending on the viewpoint of each character in a story. What this suggests is that Ideas is a limited, even suppressed area for Micah, but which can be used powerfully in service of his Leading function. The Ignoring function best fits this description.

Demonstrative Function – Relations (R8)

A regularly occurring theme for Micah is his focus on close attachments to certain individuals, and this can be seen in his work, with him being “quite fond of… using couples” and love poems, but normally as “metaphors” for deeper themes. This can also be seen in who he identifies as heroes, being the individual people in his life that he “admire[s]”. When feeling inadequate, it is notable that Micah focuses more on his personal relationships and experiences strong feelings in this area. He may begin to “question” his friendship with someone if the other person reacts apathetically to him, causing him further anxiety. This can be quite intense for Micah, with him temporarily abandoning poetry due to the pain of a particular relationship, where he eventually wrote a poem for them. What we can see from this is a consistent, dominant theme for Micah that runs alongside his Leading and Creative functions. The strong focus in this area indicates that it is a strong function. However, it does not appear to be valued, but rather something Micah returns to when feeling inadequate. Furthermore, when given the choice between focusing on personal character for its own sake and broader themes, Micah will choose the latter. For these reasons, we can see Relations as being very strong and prevalent for Micah, but unvalued and not used for its own sake, while seen more when he is lower in confidence. This best fits the Demonstrative function.

If you would like a diagnostic interview, please email worldsocionics@hotmail.com.

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.

Barack Obama (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Barack Hussein Obama is an American lawyer, book author and politician who served as the 44^th 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.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Francophone Genevan scholar and essayist of the Age of Enlightenment. His Political Philosophy, especially his definition of social contract hypothesis, unequivocally impacted the French Revolution and the advancement of the Liberal, Conservative and Socialist hypothesis. A splendid, undisciplined and flighty scholar all through his vivid life, his perspectives on Philosophy of Education and on religion were just as disputable yet by and by powerful. He is considered to have imagined present day self-portrayal and his novel 'Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse' was one of the top of the line anecdotal works of the eighteenth Century and was vital to the improvement of Romanticism. He additionally made essential commitments to music, both as a scholar and as an author.

One day in 1742, Jean-Jacques Rousseau read a copy of the local newsletter, 'The Metro DeVos'. It contained an essay on whether recent advances in the arts and sciences had contributed to what was called the "purification of morals" - which would could also be referred to as an inquiry on whether the world was getting better or not. Rousseau experienced an epiphany, it struck him that civilization and progress had not improved people. Instead, this progress had exacted a destructive influence on the morality of human beings who had once been morally prosperous. Rousseau took this insight and turned it into the central thesis to what became his celebrated discourse the Arts and Sciences. His argument was simple - individuals had once been good and happy, though once people emerged from their social state and joined society, they eventually become plagued by vice and sin. In this work and it's twin discourse On the Origins and Foundations of Inequality, Rousseau went on to sketch what it might have been like at the beginning of history - an idyllic period which he called 'the state of nature'. Long ago, when men and women lived in forests and never entered a shop or read a newspaper, the philosopher pictured people independently stating their own minds and being drawn towards the essentials of a satisfied life. A love for family, a respect for nature, an awe at the beauty of the universe and a taste for music or simple entertainment. This 'state of nature' was moral and guided by spontaneous pity, empathy for others and their suffering. The following about Rousseau's work indicate a demonstrative need for assessing his connections, patterns and implications of human nature through imaginative insight. This is often the case of T1 types who are especially drawn to abstract and spiritual work and the world-rejectingness of being able to declare that the current state of the world that we live in is flawed - desperately needing to be improved, in Rousseau's mind.

Rousseau glorified the idea of human beings in their natural state, it followed in the novels that he wrote, he constantly celebrated intense feeling rather than great deeds or social events. In his novel, 'Julie' written in 1761, Rousseau depicted the excitement and anguish of an upper-class woman caught in a love triangle between her sensitive tutor and boring aristocratic man. Rousseau's contemporaries might have seen Julie as unwise in her feelings as a passing fancy, but Rousseau painted her love in a much higher light. He developed the depth, honor and grandeur of romantic love in his novels - regardless of the confusion of polyamorous relationships at the time. Throughout his life, Rousseau was similarly romantic and or perhaps derogatorily referred to as self-absorbed. In his famous 'Confessions', one of the first ever autobiographies, Rousseau spent pages exploring his inner life. It contained how he found shopping so frustrating, the feeling of tenderness for his ex's new partner and the joys of gardening. To him, these weren't trivial or self-absorbed topics, they were a part of an important task - to show what living is like on the inside. This proves to be excellent evidence for Rousseau to have Strong and Valued E2, in that he felt the need to express the nature of his T1 centered musings in a very thoughtful and introspective demeanor - to better support his deeply moral causes by getting others emotionally invested.

To clarify, this brings to light what exactly about civilization that Rousseau thought corrupted people and led to moral degeneracy. Rousseau claimed that the march towards civilization awakened in people an unhealthy form of 'amour propre' or self-love. He identified it as something artificial was centred around pride, jealously and vanity - it became clear to me that Rousseau greatly favored authenticity as a virtuous trait. Rousseau argued that this destructive form of self-love had emerged as people had moved into cities and there had begun to compare themselves to others, thus creating their own identities solely by reference to their neighbors. Civilized people had stopped thinking about what they wanted and they felt, instead imitating other people by entering into competitions for status and money - losing sight of their own sensations. Rousseau was generally unconcerned with how to improve or optimize his criticisms of society with constructive pragmatism, behaving ambivalent towards the more factual approach to solving the problems of society. This mentality of preferring to do morally good things with the goal of making us feel good rather than accepting this as the most logical solution does fit the description of weak and subdued P4.

Rousseau is forever associated with the term, 'noble savage' because it was his work that described the innocence and morality of our ancestors and contrasted it with modern decadence. At the time that Rousseau was writing, European society was fascinated by the plight of the North American tribes. Reports of Indian society drawn up in the 16th century had once described Indians as materially simple, yet psychologically rich and interesting. Rousseau fantasized over these interesting societies with close-knit, egalitarian, religious and martial. However, in a few decades after the arrival of the Europeans - the status system of Indian society had been revolutionized through contact with technology and luxury of European industry. Indians had now longed for guns, alcohol, beads and mirrors. Rates of suicide and alcoholism had risen and the originally prosperous communities/factions were crumbling. Modern society the lives of people who had once lived happily in the state of nature. Rousseau uses these examples to demonstrate how immoral modern society is, by forming these logical categories to fit his worldview. However, he was very prone to irrelevant tangents and unclear illustrations in his novels, often failing to address the intended point completely. The following does in fact, give us a clear example of someone with bold and weak L6.
Rousseau's interest in natural goodness made him interested in the idea (not quite the reality) of children. In 1762, he wrote 'Emile' or 'On Education' which was perhaps one of the most successful books ever written about how to raise children. Rousseau had suggested that all children were born naturally good and that the key to raising them was to always prevent their corruption by society. This idea became widely influential, parents before this time had seen their children as wicked or as blank-slates. They had now viewed them as fountains of wisdom and tried to give them a childhood full of play and visits to forests and lakes. Even aside from this, Rousseau is quite clearly capable at using E and R, but shows a natural preference for E in his musings. An unmistakable nonconformist who was preoccupied with the equity of autonomy and individual self-determination is a better fit for someone with R8.

The following of what has been mentioned about Jean-Jacques Rousseau clearly points towards T1, E2, P4, L6, and R8. In conclusion, I believe Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a superb representative of the IEI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about IEI, click here.

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

Plato (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Plato was a Greek philosopher who founded the Academy in Athens, one of the greatest philosophical schools of antiquity in Ancient Greece. Many of Plato's works had an enormous impact on the development of Western philosophy and science for centuries to come. Plato has often been sourced as one of the founders of Western religion and spirituality, heavily influencing famous philosophers and scholars such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Saint Augustine of Hippo.

Plato was the first innovator of the dialogue and dialectic forms in philosophy, which helped solidify the foundations for Western political philosophy. In works such as the 'Republic' and 'Laws', elaborate on the treatment of political questions from a philosophical perspective. One of Plato's works reflects an interesting philosophical approach to the political world. This Socratic dialogue reflects concerning the definition of justice, the order and character of the just city-state and the just man. The formed the abstract idea of what a Republic is like, discusses the meaning of justice and examines whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man by considering a series of different cities coming into existence in speech. Particularly, these are recurring themes of L and T.

In the 'Republic', Plato describes the soul as divided into three parts, labeled appetitive, spirited, and rational. He offers this division partly as a way of explaining our psychological complexity and partly to provide a justification for philosophy as the highest of all pursuits, because it corresponds to the highest part of the soul—the rational part. The idea of writing treatises on systems of government is an adequately expresses Plato's emphasis of creating rules and structures by which a government and its individuals can abide by. This reflects the emphasized values of L and T within Plato's work by the finding logical relationships between abstract forms and effectively organizing it to fit a proper system. I find this to be far more in line with T1 and L6, instead of L1 and T6. Furthermore, this additionally presents Plato's passionate visions of an ideal society E+T combined with how to properly implement concrete rules in government which blocks F+L. The Republic is essentially a Beta society, the fundamental idea of loyalty for the country and putting beyond one's own life is very purpose and vision based. (F/T and L/E values)

Plato was a great supporter of Socrates' work, using him as a mouthpiece to support his own collective and hierarchical ideas. Plato was also not attracted to the idea of being the center of the attention and much rather prefers to operate out of public view. I do not think this would be likely in the case of a Beta Energizer who would have no issue communicating their ideas directly and facing challenges without having much fear of being incorrect. This leaves us with LSI and IEI as two possible types. To further clarify the distinction, to better examine on of Plato's works is through the 'Theory of Forms'. Plato was heavily drawn to idealized abstractions, internalized conceptions of how reality can be interpreted. The 'Theory of Forms' for instance, differentiates the abstract world of thought from the world of the senses, where art and mythology operate. The 'Theory of Forms' maintains that two distinct levels of reality exist: the visible world of sights and sounds that we inhabit and the intelligible world of Forms that stands above the visible world and gives it meaning. This is a highly internal subject that deals with humanitarian values instead of an objective method of interpreting reality externally. (Ego T+E and Super-Id L+F)

Thus far what has been mentioned about Plato clearly points towards T1, E2, F5 and L6. In conclusion, Plato is an excellent representative of the IEI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about IEI, click here.

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

Mahatma Gandhi (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, later known by the honorific 'Mahatma', led the movement for independence under British-controlled India of the early 20th century. Initially trained as a lawyer, he became involved in political demonstrations while expatriate in South Africa with the local Indian community there. Over time he became known as the 'father' of the Indian nation. He was most known for his consistent approach of non-violent civil disobedience.

There has been some debate over Gandhi's type. Many paint him as a gentle, highly conscience-driven man with his pacifism being interpreted as a sign he could not value F. However, I would offer an alternative opinion: Although Gandhi's principle of non-violence was of not physically hurting people, it was not a principle that prevented him from changing the world aggressively by any other means available to him. Gandhi believed that the occupation of India needed to be confronted and changed by radical means. Not only this, but he tried actively to be an enabler of such confrontation and impact on the world with his ideologies. He just happened to have been influenced by Eastern philosophies, so that he believed in not doing so via bloodshed. In this regard, his way of viewing the world was still much in line with F & T valuers. The absence of physical force is trivial compared to his world-confronting and world-changing world-view, which is often seen in the F-valuing Beta quadra.

Gandhi was a visionary nationalist who sought to bring about great change in India, possessing a great ideological mission. Throughout his life, he rejected the comforts and conveniences of the day to day, so that someday his mission could be achieved, wearing simple spun-clothes, and putting himself in painful or dangerous situations, or going on hunger strikes. This is very consistent with someone who focused primarily on T, with a rejection of S. Indeed, this would fit T1 and S3 rather well.

A quote from Gandhi : "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Gandhi believed this act of "collective suicide", in response to the Holocaust, "would have been heroism". What we see here is someone who very much saw the world in terms of the battling of forces against each other. However, he believed that the right way to manage this force was to bend to the butcher's knife, to submit to violence so that it would inspire thousands of others to act. Rather than someone who saw no value in authority, hierarchy, systems of power (F+L) etc., he saw it as crucial to bring about world change, by submitting to it. This fits very well with F5.

As for claims that morality led his actions, I would say that Gandhi was not someone who made decisions as to what was 'right' and 'wrong' based on personal conscience. His choices give little sign of someone who personally feels that something is bad or good. On the contrary, Gandhi was largely driven by religious, spiritual and political principles or ideologies that would remain a consistent, objective guide for him, rather than personal attitudes of morality. For instance, his pacifism was largely due to the influences of Jainism and the ideological preaching of Tolstoy. His desire for rebellion against British occupation came purely from an Indian nationalism, rather than a general dislike of coercion. This was clear, given his support of the British subjugation of the Zulus. In addition, he was obsessed with religious ideals of purity. For example, he would personally challenge himself to be more 'pure' by sleeping in the same bed as young girls and demonstrating that he could resist having sex with them. Also, his principles could be firm and unbending, when he allowed his wife to die of illness by forbidding that she be allowed to have penicillin, as it was against his principles. This shows a very clear reliance on the structure and ideology of L, rather than the more situational and personalised sentimental judgements of R. This makes it quite clear that Gandhi was a Beta type, valuing L alongside T.

At the same time Gandhi was clearly very capable of judging the mood of the people, and timing his actions perfectly to create a great, populist reaction that defied all common sense. Why would so many people go nuts over some salt? In going on the famous Dandi Salt March, Gandhi had the perfect balance of an illegal, but seemingly innocuous activity (collecting seawater to make salt), while presenting the act as a sort of religious pilgrimage that the British knew they would look bad to stop, all the while, securing as much media coverage as could be accomplished back then and managing to win over more and more people with each village he visited on the way. The subtle success of this March in rallying Indian people behind him, while not immediately angering the British and provoking their reaction, clearly shows someone who understood the mood of the people and how to manage it, albeit subtly. This is the hallmark of E2. At the same time, his firmness of L easily fits the weaker, but more overt L6. He may have followed principles zealously, but he did not show the same nuance in managing systems and frameworks that he did in managing the spirit of the people.

Gandhi knew that he commanded the love and admiration of many thousands of Indians, and he used this like a weapon. When he wanted something, he would go on a hunger strike, knowing that his opponents would bend under the desperation of his followers to keep him alive. This is once again, very much in line with valued F, but one that only surfaces through use of stronger T1 & E2, therefore F5 (and throughout a complete rejection of P4 & S3, he had no interest in daily conveniences, comforts or practicalities, and was more self-sacrificing than self-sufficient). This, combined with a rigid L6, makes IEI the most reasonable typing for Gandhi.

To learn more about the IEI, click here.

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

Sources

Gandhi's Passive Aggression (33 Strategies of War)

IEI - Intuitive Ethical Integrator - "The Mystic"

This is the type profile for the Intuitive Ethical Integrator (IEI). To see more type profiles, click here.

Marilyn Monroe

1. Time

IEIs can be characterised by a continuous search for meaning and purpose in their lives and the world in general. With a tendency to detach from daily affairs, they enter a state of deep self-reflection, looking back through their recollections and looking ahead to the probable future which they feel humanity is heading towards. IEIs tend to possess a dissatisfaction with the superficiality of daily existence, instead believing in some greater calling that must be connected with and understood before being ultimately accepted. Frequently, an IEI will be disposed towards the wanderings of their imagination, running memories through their mind again and again to fathom the steps of their personal journey. IEIs may also try to look ahead and envision a shared utopia for themselves and those they identify with. This continual search results in a tendency of these types to philosophise on the reason for our existence, why we are here and what everything is leading up to. The focus on a single, teleological end directs much of their behaviour, with them having a strong, but often indescribable, feeling of how significant events of the present might help to shape future developments. Similarly, they will often place their actions in terms of their role in the bigger picture, adjusting their behaviour in a way serves meaningful ends. At each point, the journey is set out and IEIs seek to influence themselves and others into staying on track. Often such an approach results in a vague knowing of the importance or urgency of a moment and its relation to future developments. This allows them to know not just when it is urgent to act, but also when an outcome, whether desired or not, is inevitable. 

Mahatma Gandhi

2. Emotions

Usually, IEIs tend to focus on the interpersonal, creating the sense of not only their personal fate but also a shared narrative for others to feel part of. Frequently, they will seek to express their insights to people, often through some art form such as music or writing, or through some political or humanitarian outlet. Often there is an alternative, dark or gothic feel to such expression, providing a sense of the fantastical but which to them feels more real than cheesy cliché. Through such approaches, they seek to inspire others and will derive a strong sense of belonging and identification with those groups and congregations who openly support them in their endeavours. IEIs look ahead to future goals and higher causes and as such, they want to persuade others to join in with achieving these goals. To this end, IEIs can motivate and encourage others with romanticised language, better conveying the specialness and importance of such developments and making people want to assist. This is not to say that all IEIs are very expressive of their emotional states in conversation, as many can be more solemn or taciturn. However, when speaking or writing, the poetic use of language can give them away. Furthermore, they tend to be socially diplomatic and subtly charismatic, adapting themselves to the interlocutor in conversation and even mirroring their needs. In this way, they can be very likeable, often giving the impression that they are on the side of whoever they are talking to and finding the right thing to say that stimulates passion without causing offence. This approach rarely stands out in public settings, but is rather more subtle and supportive than dominant, allowing them to operate smoothly in the background of a community and make no enemies, often surviving any major social upheavals. Rather than drive the group conversation, they will likely focus on individuals, looking to draw them back into the fold. IEIs do well at looking ahead to see social consequences, having a good idea how to mediate and mitigate likely conflicts that would cause a schism in a group or prevent the greater goal from being achieved.

Mother Teresa

3. Senses

To an extent, IEIs can be in tune with the needs of their body and tend to look after themselves well, cultivating a good aesthetic, eating well, dressing appropriately and in general managing to make themselves appear welcoming and appeasing to others. Due to their tendency towards self-reflection, IEIs do not tend to place many demands on their bodies, allowing them to stay in a good physical state. They may even be able to relax and enjoy the moment in the company of their friends. IEIs tend to be naturally diplomatic and able to soothe tensions between people in the moment, should they feel the conflict is petty or not serving some greater goal. However, IEIs may just as easily cause conflict if they feel the peace of the environment is bringing stagnancy and a lack of meaningful development. Furthermore, the imagined, remembered or predicted worlds of the IEI can be filled with physical and aesthetic beauty, often of a slightly ethereal or unnerving nature to contrast with the dullness of present existence. However, at heart, IEIs are ascetics and do not see much value in the simplicity of the day to day. They are fundamentally dissatisfied with the world as it currently is, yearning for something more profound to give themselves to. Relaxation is often an anathema to fulfilling higher goals, and the IEI may look to artistic states of suffering as being more preferable for this reason. IEIs will see daily tasks as mundane and pointless unless it serves some higher purpose, lacking the crucial elements that contribute to the big picture. As a result, IEIs prefer not to indulge in such distractions, instead needing to relate it in some way to their purpose. IEIs instead seek out environments of exciting, more intense activity, where under great pressure, action needs to be taken with no time for leisurely delay. By doing so, IEIs are able to feel that they are getting somewhere, rather than stuck in the lazy temptations of the present.

Andy Warhol

4. Pragmatism

IEIs are given to heartfelt deliveries on their musings and thoughts. Such an approach is not well suited to demands for hard empirical evidence. As such, the narratives given by IEIs can come across as mystical and lacking in factual accuracy or any clear grounding. When they have a clear vision for what is going to happen in the long run, they can feel frustrated when circumstantial facts of the present contradict what they know inside. When presented with new factual information, the IEI will likely discard the information unless it can be shown to be consistent with other sources and able to be tied into a coherent ideology. Otherwise, the IEI will feel quickly confused by conflicting and changing sources of data and not know which to choose. It is often the case that an IEI can talk or write for a long time on their musings, what they think about the world, etc., without actually saying anything factually informative. IEIs tend to strongly dislike feeling quizzed and will try to avoid situations where they may be shown by others to lack knowledge in an important area. IEIs particularly dislike humdrum practical tasks where they can be easily shown to be inept and incapable of doing things properly. When faced with such chores, they will quickly feel the mental and physical strain, despairing over a messy house or unkept area that they are required to clean up but have no idea where to begin. IEIs tend to be clumsy and not so good at carrying out tasks efficiently or particularly well. Often they may seek distraction from their difficulty with carrying out procedure through appeals to humour, proclaiming their 'uselessness' as an endearing trait. However, should a person try to offer advice or instruction in how to do something better, they may be defensive or insulted, feeling that they are being condescended to or treated like an idiot. Additionally will quickly tire of long, dry, factual explanations for how things work, finding such advice not only condescending but also boring and unimportant in the greater scheme of things. IEIs find it naturally hard to motivate themselves and so little is more discouraging to them than being told what they are finally attempting to do is being done wrong. 

Kate Bush

5. Force

The introspective nature of IEIs leaves them quite unaware of the events happening to them in the present. Naturally caught up in their thoughts and reflections, IEIs often have a clearer view of vague future events than what is in front of their face. This causes IEIs to be very indecisive in their daily behaviour, knowing the outcome they are hoping for, but lacking the presence to take needed action and ensure such an outcome. The paralysis can be so severe that IEIs can come across as weak wallflowers, or people who bend too easily to higher authority. However, in order to reach desired outcomes, IEIs feel that reality has to be confronted and pushed onto the right path. As a result, IEIs tend to be attracted to those with strength of will, who have the energy to make things happen. IEIs may make subtle appeals to their emotions and sense of urgency when they feel it is the right time to act, causing the more powerful to fight in their stead. Alternatively, many IEIs will seek to be less passive, looking to strong, wilful people as examples that can inspire them to act, if only for a limited duration. Lacking a connection to the reality of the situation, IEIs can appreciate a firm shake by the shoulders to ground them and an authoritative tone to tell them how things really are. Indeed, no other type can maintain both a compassion for the suffering of the underdog, and a reverence for the brutality of the strong, as the IEI.

6. Laws

Barack Obama

IEIs tend to possess a strong desire to prove their intellect to others, and often approach this need in trying to form a consistent, clear understanding of themselves and the world they occupy. With a naturally fluid and ever-changing perception of events, it is common for an IEI to adopt an ideology or credo that outlines the principles they believe in, providing needed structure to their vision and beliefs. Sometimes, this can lead to fanaticism, with an obsession on their chosen ideology at the expense of real needs and common sense. Often drawn to philosophy and structures of thought, IEIs can spend a lot of time trying to figure out their priorities in life and the standards for them to live by. When deciding on these standards, they can become rather stubborn and resist challenges to their logic, instead being more open to those who can validate or add to their understanding and bring some of the finer points into clarity. Despite this stubbornness, the IEI may decide not to make their disagreement obvious to others, sometimes giving the impression of agreement. However, they can give way if exposed to superior or flawless reasoning. They will only appreciate structural or principle-based logic, rather than any practical 'how-to' advice. This brings a sense of integrity in their ideals, where, despite being agreeable and adaptable, the IEI maintains a sense of their core principles.

Diana, Princess of Wales

7. Ideas

With their focus on a singular, underlying purpose, the IEI has little interest in speculating or brainstorming multiple possibilities. Although they are perfectly capable of considering multiple alternatives, they choose not to unless it is absolutely necessary to the situation. After all, considering back-ups or alternatives to the main vision suggests that the predicted outcome may be wrong, and would only lead to confusion and dissolution of resolve. Rather than dip into a variety of areas and interests, IEIs prefer to focus on a particular area that they feel brings personal meaning to their existence and will devote themselves to that area. However, they may be more happy exploring a range of areas within their scope of devotion if that somehow adds to the meaning of their activity. For them, what could possibly happen is unimportant and meaningless in comparison to the destiny that will happen, with their approach being to actually limit the number of possibilities available and ensure the desired outcome. For an IEI, the possibilities often serve as distractions from the right path and as such, possess no merit.

8. Relations

Plato

IEIs tend to operate on a one-on-one basis, being able to form intense, emotional connections with individuals. Furthermore, they have a good sense of people and tend to be able to make the right friends in the right situations. Nevertheless, IEIs are not so interested in character judgement and the formation of close bonds for its own sake. Instead of keeping good people close and bad people at a distance, IEIs prefer to assess whether a person's destiny is tied with their own and others, creating long term relationships with those that do. The purpose for this is less directed towards the individual's worth in relation to the IEI, but rather to pull compatible individuals together into a circle of belonging and camaraderie. Rather than judging the inner character of an individual, IEIs will instead look to see if a person belongs within their desired circle, being able to subtly draw the right people in and leading out those they feel do not belong. In this way, once they have the people they feel they need, they are less inclined to seek other people out to get to know. With those who they feel belong, IEIs wish to close the gap and connect profoundly and authentically, although successfully closing the gap often requires a clear demonstration of interest and desire from the other person. In this way, the IEI attempts to experience intensity of feeling and longing in a company of significant others, rather than deciding whether a particular person is appropriate to experience such feelings with. Within such circles of belonging, the IEI is able to feel that something momentous and important will come to pass.

Some famous people we think are IEIs:

• Huma Abedin
• Akhenaten
• Dante Alighieri
• Waleed Aly
• Hans Christian Andersen
• Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
• William Blake
• Anne Brontë
• Kate Bush
• Kurt Cobain
• Kellyanne Conway
• Osamu Dazai
• Princess Diana
• Bob Dylan
• Edward VIII
• Adolf Eichmann
• Gustave Flaubert
• José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia
• Neil Gaiman
• Mahatma Gandhi
• Naomi Gleit
• Jean-Luc Godard
• Vincent van Gogh
• Jake Gyllenhaal
• Richard Hammond
• George Harrison
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Martin Heidegger
• Rudolf Hess
• Hildegard of Bingen
• Heinrich Himmler
• Hozier
• Michael Jackson
• Carl Jung
• Søren Kierkegaard
• Osama bin Laden
• Pope Leo XIII
• Till Lindemann
• Livy
• Louis XIII of France
• H. P. Lovecraft
• Ludwig II of Bavaria
• Harold Macmillan
• Emmanuel Macron
• Georgy Malenkov
• Peter Mandelson
• Bob Marley
• Karl Marx
• Giuseppe Mazzini
• Ed Miliband
• François Mitterrand
• Marilyn Monroe
• Alanis Morisette
• Robert Mugabe
• Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
• Napoleon III
• Nerva
• Friedrich Nietzsche
• Nostradamus
• Barack Obama
• Yoko Ono
• Otho
• Paul I of Russia
• Plato
• Pliny the Younger
• Edgar Allan Poe
• Pol Pot
• Natalie Portman
• Puyi
• Grigori Rasputin
• John Reed (journalist)
• Alan Rickman
• Maximilien Robespierre
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Rumi
• Peter Sculthorpe
• Haile Selassie
• M. Night Shyamalan
• Patrick Stewart
• George Stroumboulopoulos
• Serj Tankian
• Mother Teresa
• Leo Tolstoy
• Melania Trump
• Malcolm Turnbull
• Andy Warhol
• H. G. Wells
• Elijah Wood
• Sergei Yesenin

Some fictional characters we think are IEIs:

• Mr. William Collins (Pride & Prejudice)
• Albus Dumbledore (Harry Potter)
• Johann Faust VIII (Shaman King)
• Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter)
• The Major (Hellsing)
• Nagato (Naruto)
• Sailor Neptune (Sailor Moon)
• Pride (Full Metal Alchemist)
• Russia (Hetalia)
• Lord Summerisle (The Wicker Man)
• Daenerys Targaryen (A Song of Ice and Fire)
• Sybill Trelawney (Harry Potter)
• Ashley Wilkes (Gone With The Wind)