Celebrity Socionics: Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton - Conflicting Relations

I.

Do Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton like each other? Do they get along? Socionics says no, and that they wouldn't be compatible - in any sense - even if they weren't competing against one another in what has been one of the most bitter and acrimonious presidential election campaigns in US history.

In an earlier post, Donald Trump is typed as an ISTJ, Clinton an ENFJ, using Rod Novichkov's visual identification method. Typing Trump as an ISTJ, and an introvert, may surprise some - I've seen him most typed as an extravert with extraverted sensing Se as a dominant function (that is, as an ESFP or ESTP). But statistics show that the ISTJ is one of your more typical types, and Novichkov's book types many celebrities - including ones who strike us as extraverted and outgoing, such as Robin Williams, John Travolta and Paris Hilton - as ISTJs.

We are, in our lives, more likely to bump into the types who belong to what Keirsey calls the 'Guardians': types who have Si as either a dominant or secondary function, and Fe or Te as dominant and secondary functions. These Guardian types - the ISTJs, the ESFJs, the ISFJs, the ESTJs - show up a lot in Novichkov's list of celebrities. On the other hand, ENFJs don't turn up a lot in Novichkov; Keirsey's 'Idealists' - the NF types, who have either Ni or Ne and Fe or Fi as dominant and secondary functions - there are few and far between. Novichkov claims that his samples of celebrity types reflect statistical reality, and I'm inclined to agree. I encounter plenty of 'Guardians' and few 'Idealists'. So it stands to reason that a billionaire real estate developer turned reality TV celebrity and presidential aspirant would be a 'Guardian' and not, for instance, one of the rarer, 'Idealist' types - e.g., an INFJ or INFP.

Socionics differs from MBTI in a number of respects. One of these is that it emphasises intertype relationships: each of the 16 types has a unique relationship with another which can be determined in advance. Some of these don't bode well for either friendship, romance, work, while others almost guarantee smooth and harmonious relations in any of those fields.

Trump the ISTJ and Clinton the ENFJ stand in a Conflicting relationship with one another. What does this mean? If look at the traditional Jungian dichotomies - Introvert or Extravert, Sensor or Intuitive, Thinker or Feeler, Perceiver or Judger - in the Conflicting pair Hilary and Donald, we find that these are diametrically opposed. Hilary's dominant function is a Judging or Rational one, Donald's is Perceiving or Irrational; Hilary is a Feeler, Donald a Thinker; Hilary is an Extravert, Donald an Introvert; Hilary is an Intuitive, Donald a Sensor.

Secondly, each of the other's leading function in a Conflicting pair - Si in Donald, Fe in Hilary - constitutes the vulnerable function of the other. While MBTI considers only four functions in a type, socionics works with all eight possible functions, and looks at the four functions in MBTI as 'valued' (that is, ones that a type will prize) and the four functions left out of MBTI as 'subdued' (that is, ones that a type will generally not value and not see the use for). The vulnerable function, which occupies the fourth slot in a type, is classified as 'subdued' and therefore not valued; in fact, a type will generally feel uncomfortable and distressed when that function appears in himself or others. In other words, use that function around him, and you will cause him irritation.

Sociotype.com gives a good description of Si in the ENFJ type. I think that it applies to Hilary, or at least what we know about her health and her habit of mislaying emails:

The EIE [ENFJ] is more likely to measure the comfortableness of conversation than other more physiological signs. Still, they are quite attuned to the physical sensations others are experiencing and use the information to raise and lower the emotional conditions that those individuals are experiencing. In any case however, EIEs are prone to making errors in daily routine. This can include having little or no idea of where they put an object, allowing neglected responsibilities to pile up, or failing to remember important tasks given to them; excessive procrastination is common in EIEs. The EIE has little respect for people who seem to be too concerned with their health and comfort and who avoid straining themselves. The EIE feels that people who focus too much on caring for themselves will have no time to achieve anything worthwhile.

The account of Fe as a vulnerable function in the ISTJ gives a perfect picture of Trump:

SLIs [ISTJs] are minimally aware of others' emotional responses and tend to speak in straightforward language. Sometimes they can appear aggressive and respond critically on issues in which they hold strong opinions. This can lead to the perception of SLIs as hostile and, on occasion, arrogant or uncompromising. Often, however, SLIs do not act in such a fashion; such aggressiveness is usually limited to issues in which SLIs are very opinionated -- these can include events in which their lifestyle has been threatened, or if something they require is functioning improperly in a way they do not fully understand.

Fe means, if anything, groupthink and paying attention to the emotional atmosphere and the morals and standards of one's particular group - or society in general. A type with Fe as a vulnerable function falls down in that regard.

Given the above, we can't expect Conflicting types to get along. Here's what sociotype.com has to say:

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

In other words, keep things at a superficial and formal level, don't go too deep, and you'll get along fine. That's been my experience with the type I have a Conflicting relationship with. Having said that, some individuals of that type I cannot stand; they annoy me too much. In such cases, I agree with socionics when it says that Conflict is the worst type of relationship. Generally, a friendship can survive a bad socionics relationship: I've been good friends for years with two individuals whose types are in a Supervisor relationship with mine; another good friend of many years is a Benefactor, and yet another is a Beneficiary. But I've never been friends with a type with whom I have a Conflicting relationship. I think that this is because Conflicting pairs don't share any valued functions, whereas Beneficiary / Benefactor and Supervisor / Supervisee pairs do. In other words, the pairs in the latter group have something in common, whereas Conflicting pairs have nothing in common.

I couldn't possibly conclude this essay without looking at the Conflicting relationship as it appears between certain characters in popular culture, particularly in comic books. The most famous Conflicting relationship is between one comic book character who is an INTP and another who is an ESFP - I am speaking of Doctor Bruce Banner and the Hulk. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby understood, on an intuitive level, socionics and MBTI, and in a stroke of genius came up with the idea of embodying two types who couldn't be more unalike - the INTP and ESFP - in the same superhero character. The Hulk series gives us the most sustained picture of what a Conflicting relationship is like, and it's not good. Banner and the Hulk don't like one another, to say the least, and each to the other represents all the qualities they dislike in a human being.

What of the ENFJ and ISTJ pair? Do they appear in popular culture? We need to understand that the ISTJ and ENFJ often appear in the form of stock characters in any medium (television, movies, comic books, novels, theatre). The ISTJ character will play the role of the righteous avenger, the martinet, the loyal and obedient servant or soldier. The ENFJ character, on the other hand, shows up as cult leader, charismatic leader (think of DC's Nightwing or the Transformers' Optimus Prime), hero teacher (think of Robin Williams' character in Dead Poets Society (1989)), or interfering busybody who pokes his nose into everyone's lives and who has a thin skin and bears grudges (think of Stephanie Forrester in the TV series Bold and the Beautiful - or Richard Nixon). Often a character of a certain MBTI / socionics type will contain all the stock characters associated with his type. That's true of the ISTJ character Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker. Through the six-part Star Wars epic, Anakin / Darth reveals different aspects of the ISTJ - avenger, martinet, loyal servant lingering in the background - in turn. As for the ENFJ of Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi, we only see the good sides of the type - charismatic leader and hero teacher - and we don't get to see the negative (although these are hinted here and there).

So Hilary is Obi-Wan, Trump is Darth Vader. These are two male characters: how about a female ENFJ and male ISTJ pair? Those who are familiar with Taylor's blog, Zombies Ruin Everything, we know the answer: the X-Men's romantic couple Jean Grey and Cyclops.

So Trump is the sullen and brooding stick in the mud Scott Summers, and Hilary is Jean Grey, the empathic, sensitive and charismatic leader and mentor of Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. Or perhaps Hilary is Dark Phoenix...

Mark Hootsen signing off.

A Quick Guide to Visual Identification

I. INTRODUCTION

For the past few months I've been visually typing friends, acquaintances, colleagues and celebrities using Rod Novichkov's method, as outlined in How to Find Yourself and Your Best Match: Socionics: The Modern Approach to Psychological Types (2007). As stated before at this blog, this book isn't highly regarded in the 'Socionics community', but I've found that the method works. I took an MBTI ä test a long time ago, found my type and settled upon in it (I didn't change my mind) and, on picking up Novichkov's book, discovered that Novichkov's visual description matched me to a tee. I'm sure others who are interested in Myers-Briggs and Socionics will have the same experience - unless they've mistyped themselves badly. (Usually the mistypers only get it wrong by one letter. For instance, an INTP on YouTube became convinced - in the past couple of months or so - that he's now an ISTP; but take it from me (and Novichkov), the man's an Intuitive, not a Sensor. Besides which, he behaves like an INTP). Generally, most people on YouTube with a serious interest in Socionics and Myers-Briggs type themselves correctly, and I've found that, more often than not, they physically match Novichkov's descriptions. Take a look at popular channels such as MBTV (ENTJ host), Talking with Famous People (ENTP host), INFJ: BelowtheRadar (INFJ host), Michael Pierce (INFJ host)...

Novichkov's book contains large lists of celebrities he's typed. These lists serve as representative samples of celebrity-dom c. 2007, when the book was published, and surprisingly enough, some types are more represented than others. Looking it over, I see more of what Kersey calls 'Guardians' and 'Artisans' than 'Rationals' and 'Idealists'. (The 'Guardians' are Si and Te or Si and Fe types, the 'Artisans' Se and Ti or Se and Fi types). INFJs, INFPs, ENFJs and the rest don't show up much in celebrity land. I'm sure that statistical surveys will show that these types are rare in the general population as well. I for one have met very few ENFJs and INFJs, and have yet to meet an INTP or INFP.

II. EXTRAVERT AND INTROVERT

Extraverts look at the outside world, Introverts at the inner, and this 'directedness' shows in their facial expressions. Novichkov compares Extraverts to reflector mirrors: their facial expressions reflect what's going on around them and generally seem more animated - or tense and irritable - than introverts. When there's nothing going on around them, Extraverts tend to shut down and switch off. Introverts, on the other hand, will appear withdrawn, distant, and even melancholic and apathetic. Their inner attention or concentration or focus doesn't show up in their facial expression and seems far removed - like a distant train's headlight in a tunnel... Unlike Extraverts, Introverts will always be cool and relaxed.

Below we see Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. Spacey looks tense, irritable and scowling (but he may break into a smile); Wright looks very withdrawn.

Here's young Harrison Ford, an Introvert, who in photographs rarely smiles. He attempts to smile, but always looks uncomfortable doing so, and often his smile turns into a scowl:

As an example of a female Extravert, we have the lovely Reece Witherspoon:

III. INTUITIVES

The typical intuitive is a) skinny, b) gangly, c) thin-lipped; he also skinny, unshapely, knuckled hands - hands like those of Louisiana governor and Republican primary contender Bobby Jindal:

Sitting or standing, the Intuitive assumes 'uncomfortable, fancy, unstable or unusual' positions. I can't think of a better example of this than Miles Davis, who, more often than not, tends to elongate his body like a caterpillar:

As an example of the female Intuitive, we have Megyn Kelly:

IV. SENSORS

The typical Sensor has a full figure and full lips. This isn't the case every time, but the exception proves the rule. I've noticed that Sensors tend to stack on weight more easily.

We find that, unlike the Intuitive, the Sensor has 'thicker, stockier hands'. I take as the prime example of this Donald Trump's hands:

The sensor will sit or stand in a 'comfortable, generic position'. Unlike the fluid Intuitive, the Sensor seems to be somewhat more block-y and rigid. Compare the below pictures of Tom Cruise to those of Miles Davis above:

And Princess Diana:

V. INTROVERTED AND EXTRAVERTED SENSING AND INTUITING

Extraverted or introverted Sensor? Introverted or extraverted Intuitive? How can we can tell? According to Novichkov, it's all in the gaze.

The extraverted Intuitive gaze will bore through you. I call it an armour piercing gaze.

Extraverted Intuitives can seem a little crazy-eyed. Let's take a look at Russell Brand:

Now on to the introverted Sensors. They have, according to Novichkov, 'Floating eyes... [The] Introverted Sensory type looks at you as if he... is scanning the background... Introverted Sensory eyes are slowly moving, either relaxed or squinted, as if adjusting focus'. I think the best way to describe it is that introverted Sensors tend not look at the object but around it. They look around you, not at you. See Richard Burton:

For a female example, there is Julianne Moore. Compare the intensity (or lack of it) of her gaze with Jane Fonda's above:

The extraverted Sensors, in contrast, have 'Running eyes... These eyes examine you from head to toes... They don't miss a single detail... Very energetic, clear eyes... You have no doubt that the person sees you. On a photograph, these eyes express [a] plain, open look... Not wide open or squinted'. I would sum up the extraverted-sensing gaze as watchful and observant. Below we have photos of Brad Pitt and Elizabeth Taylor:

Finally we come to the introverted Intuitives, who have 'Wide open, yet absent eyes... These people are as far from... reality as possible... They tend to live in their own world, and stick to their own understanding of things... This very feature is reflected in their eyes... Their wide open eyes, devoid of any squint, look into eternity, and don't pause on... material objects... These eyes make [the] impression that they don't see at all'.

I've put pictures of Julia Roberts, Adrien Brody and Ronald Reagan below:

VI. THINKERS

The Thinker or Intellectual type differs greatly in his appearance from the Feeler or Emotional. Below I have two Thinkers, side by side: Hugh Jackman and Clint Eastwood. Both show the facial characteristics of the Thinking type: flat, relatively large and expressive forehead (all the expressiveness of the Thinking type is in the forehead); strongly pronounced superciliary arches (that, is the bone underneath the eyebrows sticks out); angular bridge of nose dip, or no dip at all; deep eye sockets; sharp, aquiline nose; narrower and inexpressive lower face:

Here's another side by side example: George Clooney and Bill Clinton:

Finally, female examples: Paris Hilton, Kristen Stewart, Courteney Cox and Gillian Anderson:

VII. FEELERS

The Feeler or Emotional facial type stands in complete contrast to that of the Thinker: rounded, smaller and inexpressive forehead; smoothed out superciliary arches; rounded dip of nose; shallow eye sockets; rounded, pug-shaped nose; wide lower face which is very expressive. Below are Angelina Jolie and Kate Winslet - Jolie, in one photo, is with Brad Pitt, a male Feeler:

Another male Feeler is Hayden Christensen. In the second photo, he's with Natalie Portman, another Feeler:

For a picture of a Thinker and a Feeler standing side by side, we have this still of Zachary Quinto and Penn Badgley from the 2011 movie Margin Call. See if you can tell who's the Thinker and who's the Feeler:

And here's another Thinker and Feeler pair - Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud:

VIII. JUDGING OR PERCEIVING?

In Socionics, a Judger (or Conceiving, as Novichkov calls it) type has a Judging or Rational function as his dominant function; a Perceiver has a Perceiving or Irrational function as his dominant. In Myers Briggs, confusingly enough, a 'Judger' is a type whose Judging function is extraverted; the Perceiver, on the other hand, is the type with an extraverted Perceiving function. So an INTp in Socionics becomes an INTJ in Myers Briggs because the Judging function of this type is extraverted Thinking, Te.

This brings us to perhaps the most controversial part of Novichkov's book. The neck of the Judging type goes straight through the middle of the head, like a bolt, whereas the heading of the Perceiving type seems to hang off the side of the neck slightly. See the below scan:

A side-on profile photograph usually makes this clear. Below we have Nancy Reagan, Mark Zuckerberg and George Harrison, all Judgers:

For Perceivers, Cate Blanchett, Mick Jagger, and Elvis Presley:

For a photo of a Judger and Perceiver side by side, here is a still of Rami Malek and Christian Slater from the TV series Mr Robot. Novichkov types Slater as a Perceiver, I type Malek as a Judger:

IX. PROBLEMS

I don't detect any inconsistencies in Novichkov's system: it fits together perfectly. I will say, though, it can be extremely difficult to use when typing people using photographs (it's much easier to use on people you've met in person). Celebrities, like most of us, put on weight as they get older and develop jowls; they also tend to stoop more. I find it hard to determine if an old or obese celebrity is a Judger or Perceiver, which is why I've encountered more than a little difficulty in typing the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees for 2016. (Typing Chris Christie, for example, presents a few obstacles).

What's more, celebrities - like most of us - have a bad posture and slouch a lot. The Beatles have three Judgers and one Perceiver (according to Novichkov) but it's hard to determine this, seeing as most of the photographs show them slouching and stooping.

Intuitives, in Novichkov, generally have long and spindly fingers with prominent knuckles. But most women have small hands - and some women, fat little hands (e.g., Hilary Clinton); so how can you distinguish the hands of an Intuitive from a Sensor? The answer I came up with is to look at photos of the person when they were younger (and slimmer).

The other to remember is that, when it comes to the perceiving function, a person doesn't always stay consistent. An extraverted Intuitive, for instance, may lapse into the opposite of extraverted intuition - introverted sensing -  now and then: which explains why that the extraverted Intuitive may, in the odd photo here and there, look like an introverted Sensor.  Generally, though, people stay true to their type when being photographed.

Mark Hootsen signing off.