Mitt Romney

[Chiharu]

Well, to start off I'd like to say that most candidates try to embody their party, and the Republican party has a very xxSJ persona. But we have to remember that the Republican party appeals to people of all types for a variety of reasons.

So Romney could very well be an ENTJ, just not a very bright one. He doesn't seem ESTJ to me. I definitely get ExxJ from him. I don't think he's a feeler, but hey, we don't really know him.



Edit: I'm VERYSUPERLIBERAL but I try to avoid bias when I have enough self-control to do so.

 

[ZPowers]

I guess I'd go with xNTJ trying to come off as an ESTJ. Makes him look stiff, but he has to do it to be at all relatable. There's a comfortable version of Romney somewhere, but the average person would not be too fond of that guy (he seemed more at ease in that 47% video than I've seen him at any other time in this whole campaign). He wants to look principled, but there's a lot of evidence in his various gaffes and often incredibly thin or ever-changing ideologies that he's more concerned merely with winning and the strategy of the game.

 

[Tigerlily]

You know, a lot of you seem to be under the impression that all Sensors are ignorant/stupid and to me, that in itself is ignorant/stupid. Think about what you're saying. You're assuming that you know a person's type, but it's not usually that black and white. It's more likely that most people aren't archetypal types, so trying to type them is a waste of time. That being said, my guess is still ESTJ.

 

[lunalum]

He's the archetypal ETJ politician..... I would guess ESTJ as well.

 

[Falcarius]

It would not surprise Falcarius if Romney was an introvert.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Still not seeing an N, in the sense that N's think about the connections between things primarily. I've seen FAR too many S "moralists" who are perfectly capable of aggrandizing a situation into a climactic battle between the forces of good and evil, democracy vs communism, or some other extreme ideology -- it's just a shadow form of N, with little nuance. I see them in politics, I see them in religion, I see them everywhere.

So I'm still not seeing N here as a healthy nuanced function.

Imagine Lark if he was born in Utah

(hopefully I didn't insult Lark he is just the first religiously conservative entj that came to mind. If he was born in a red state in America he would be a lot more "conservative" by the American definition.)

Romney is not the "down to earth" S type who likes to shoot guns or fuck his maid in the laundry room. He's more like the good religious kid who stayed tried and true to 1970's america conservatism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/politics/how-harvard-shaped-mitt-romney.html

I mean look at the guy. He's freaking mormon Zack Morris

 

[Speed Gavroche]

ISFJ 3w2 So/Sp.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Still not seeing an N, in the sense that N's think about the connections between things primarily. I've seen FAR too many S "moralists" who are perfectly capable of aggrandizing a situation into a climactic battle between the forces of good and evil, democracy vs communism, or some other extreme ideology -- it's just a shadow form of N, with little nuance. I see them in politics, I see them in religion, I see them everywhere.

So I'm still not seeing N here as a healthy nuanced function.

Indeed. Romney is definetly an SJ. While Obama, by contrast, is definetly an NP.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Still not seeing an N, in the sense that N's think about the connections between things primarily. I've seen FAR too many S "moralists" who are perfectly capable of aggrandizing a situation into a climactic battle between the forces of good and evil, democracy vs communism, or some other extreme ideology -- it's just a shadow form of N, with little nuance. I see them in politics, I see them in religion, I see them everywhere.

So I'm still not seeing N here as a healthy nuanced function.

Wait, how does Romney do any of this?
I see Obama doing this a lot and I respect Romney a lot for not reducing his campaign tactics to slander and partisanship, even if it will lose him the election. But Obama, who has taken every opportunity to sensationalize division, is not generally considered a sensor. There are many who believe Obama created a racial divide by focusing on racial differences in the last four years. Some speculate on a Bradley Effect for the voter turnout today and seem to make it clear that racism has become more of an issue.

And I suppose you could argue that racial differences were there and Obama just focused on them, but differences are always going to be there and aren't always bad; it's once we take offense to these differences, only then does it become racism. And I think Obama finds offense with small issues that don't need to be about racism. He's then rallies part of the country towards seeing issues on the basis of race. It's sad. I do not like this. It is frustrating.
To be honest, the couple times I was asked who I would vote for, I was very uneasy to say Romney and needed to find out how the other person saw 'Republicans' first before associating with whatever crap they believe applies to all Republicans. Everyone seems to hate Romney, but all they have is hearsay accusations about him or his character or associating him with what past 'Republicans' have done, which doesn't mean that's what he will do, especially if he explains how it will be different. It's a little sickening.

 

[Totenkindly]

Wait, how does Romney do any of this? I see Obama doing this a lot and I respect Romney a lot for not reducing his campaign tactics to slander and partisanship, even if it will lose him the election.

Seriously? Just two days ago, Paul Ryan basically said Obama was godless and leading the nation down a path of destruction because he isn't the same denomination of Christian as him and said he is a betrayer of western values, and so forth. Do I need to dig back through all of the speeches by Ryan and Romney to show how they painted Obama many times over in this kind of crazy, false light? I'm not sure why you are saying Romney's team has not done this kind of thing. I'm not sure of the content of their TV and radio ads because I do not have TV or radio, but certainly by their SPEECHES to their constituents, I've heard the smear jobs.

But Obama, who has taken every opportunity to sensationalize division, is not generally considered a sensor. There are many who believe Obama created a racial divide by focusing on racial differences in the last four years. Some speculate on a Bradley Effect for the voter turnout today and seem to make it clear that racism has become more of an issue.

Maybe it's because i'm white, but I haven't even been aware of much "black" politics in the news regarding Obama. In fact, the blacks have had a serious issue with him, especially because of his support of gay marriage, and feel he didn't do enough for them. Again, I'm not sure where you are coming from.

And I suppose you could argue that racial differences were there and Obama just focused on them, but differences are always going to be there and aren't always bad; it's once we take offense to these differences, only then does it become racism. And I think Obama finds offense with small issues that don't need to be about racism. He's then rallies part of the country towards seeing issues on the basis of race. It's sad. I do not like this. It is frustrating.

Some big examples would help. Even mustering up one specific example would be helpful.

To be honest, the couple times I was asked who I would vote for, I was very uneasy to say Romney and needed to find out how the other person saw 'Republicans' first before associating with whatever crap they believe applies to all Republicans. Everyone seems to hate Romney, but all they have is hearsay accusations about him or his character or associating him with what past 'Republicans' have done, which doesn't mean that's what he will do, especially if he explains how it will be different. It's a little sickening.

Anything I know about Romney, it's about listening to Romney talk, reading articles, listening to Paul Ryan, etc., and also being part of a conservative religious community for many many years of my life that is supportive of Romney just because he is white and represents conservative religion, and I have to listen to them besmirch Obama partly because he is black and certainly because he is not a Christian [like them, if they credit him with any faith in God at all]. I'm not sure why you think that is a wrong basis by which to not vote for Romney and to be critical of the lack of substance in his plans; one merely has to sit through a debate or compare speeches to see how he waffles and/or has no specific answers for how he will do what he claims he can do.

In fact, the last few days he has ripped off Obama's 2008 schtick of claiming to be the "change maker" and preaching a message of hope, without ever really being convincing about what needs changed and how his changes are the best and how he would accomplish them. It's very silly. He pretends to be whatever he thinks will get him elected.

 

[Night]

Romney - ESTJ
Ryan - ENTJ

Obama - ENTP
Biden - ESTP

These would be my guesses; however, MBTI is unrelated to things like social philosophy or political standing. I'm personally unconvinced that MBTI has any reliable associative link to any real-world metric, if I'm honest. In this case (without reading the thread) I think there's temptation to provide dispensation to one's "favored" function and unfairly pair it with the ideology that best matches personal stances on life and individual experiences with other people.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Still not seeing an N, in the sense that N's think about the connections between things primarily. I've seen FAR too many S "moralists" who are perfectly capable of aggrandizing a situation into a climactic battle between the forces of good and evil, democracy vs communism, or some other extreme ideology -- it's just a shadow form of N, with little nuance. I see them in politics, I see them in religion, I see them everywhere.

So I'm still not seeing N here as a healthy nuanced function.

A politician who sensationalizes something does not always believe in it themselves, they may just do it for effect.

Ronald Reagan played the "simple" card and was widely mocked as stupid by his detractors, and loved for his down-to-earth nature by hi supporters.

When he was very old, his personal letters were published and people saw that his public act was very far from his real personality.

Next, iNtuitives can often have very evil ideologies, but just in a more "intellectual" guise. The founder of the Shining Path terorist group in Peru, one of the most violent terrorist organizations in history, was a Philosophy lecturer and renowned intellectual.

Likewise nobody who had studied them would doubt that the founders of the most murderous ideology inhistory - Marx, Engels and, later, Lenin, who adapted their ideology - were all N's.

I think you are following the common MBTI route of identifying negative characteristics, with types other than your own, and identifying positive characteristics, with your own type.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think you are following the common MBTI route of identifying negative characteristics, with types other than your own, and identifying positive characteristics, with your own type.

Uh... no.
I just don't think he's an N.
I could just as easily say your own inherent biases are leading you to misread me.

And to answer the other insinuation in your post:
S people also consider me an ally, typically, on this forum and others, despite my being N; and I have a lot of issue with some N behavior. I certainly don't promote N style as better than S style, and I despise seeing N's who do that.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I could just as easily say your own inherent biases are leading you to misread me.

And to answer the other insinuation in your post:
S people also consider me an ally, typically, on this forum and others, despite my being N; and I have a lot of issue with some N behavior. I certainly don't promote N style as better than S style, and I despise seeing N's who do that.

Damn some intp's on a forum love to get on a high horse don't they it's why INTPc is such a flame fest

I don't know what my inherent biases are meant to be. also aren't biases learned and not inherent?

Regarding my "insinuations", I didn't make any insiuations, I just said directly what I thought you were doing!

If it's true that you don't really think that way, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding, however it was a reasonable supposition from your post, where you said that black and white sensationalist politics, are an S trait.

I don't think this is true. I think that most intellectuals who are iNtuitives may have a complex understanding of reality but when it comes to actually DOING politics, they are more than capable of simplifying things to a black and white vision "for the masses".

Take Marxism. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Illych Lenin, were undoubtedly iNtuitives and able to have a very "interconnected" view of reality, however their propaganda was murderous, violent, and sensationalist.

So good sir, I dispute your previous post, no "insinuation" necessary.

 

[Totenkindly]

Damn some intp's on a forum love to get on a high horse don't they it's why INTPc is such a flame fest

You're really good at saying exactly the wrong thing, you know that? Now you're making assumptions about me based on type rather than as an individual; I also typically don't post over at INTPc because I don't like the atmosphere.

Wanna try again? (On second thought, please don't; there's a reason I typically skip your posts anyway.)

Regarding my "insinuations", I didn't make any insiuations, I just said directly what I thought you were doing!

I was being kind.

If it's true that you don't really think that way, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding, however it was a reasonable supposition from your post, where you said that black and white sensationalist politics, are an S trait.

This is why I don't like to enter these kinds of "typing" discussions, and why in fact I dropped out of this particular thread for weeks until you Quoted me today.

In general, typing to me is a pattern-matching thing, not a detail analysis. But people have trouble with anything but the latter. And trying to explain my perceptions, I typically just get this kind of crap from people that you're giving me here.

I dropped out of this discussion for a reason, and I don't plan to re-engage.

So good sir, I dispute your previous post, no "insinuation" necessary.

Sir?

Anyway, I'm done with the topic.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

You're really good at saying exactly the wrong thing, you know that? Now you're making assumptions about me based on type rather than as an individual; I also typically don't post over at INTPc because I don't like the atmosphere.

What assumption? It was an observation not an assumption.

This is why I don't like to enter these kinds of "typing" discussions, and why in fact I dropped out of this particular thread for weeks until you Quoted me today.

Nope, you psoted today at 7.02 pm before I quoted you, go to the bottom of page 3.

In general, typing to me is a pattern-matching thing, not a detail analysis. But people have trouble with anything but the latter. And trying to explain my perceptions, I typically just get this kind of crap from people that you're giving me here.

No-one gave you any crap, I just disagreed..which is apparently a terrible thing to do?

Maybe you're just too sensitive!

I dropped out of this discussion for a reason, and I don't plan to re-engage.


Sir?

Anyway, I'm done with the topic.

Ok then...people on this forum usually need to have the last word...and I usually let them...so on this occasion I will accept your gracious decision to reverse the aforementioned trend.

 

[Salomé]

So Romney could very well be an ENTJ, just not a very bright one.

Wait...ENTJs are supposed to be bright?

I could see ENTJ. So does this guy:
http://www.mlm.com/articles/view/personality-styles-of-the-presidential-candidates-2-of-series/print
He has Obama as INFP. It's not out of the question.

And another:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-career-within-you/201204/romney-s-personality-type

 

[lunalum]

Romney - ESTJ
Ryan - ENTJ

I think Ryan may be an ENFP...... he's more "out there," kind of like Gingrich.

Obama - ENTP
Biden - ESTP

Obama could maybe be ENTP..... I've heard a good case for INFJ too. No clue about Biden.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

LOSR Har Har Har

 

[Giggly]

I'll go with ESTJ.

Obama is an NP? I'm don't see that. Maybe ESTP.