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.

The Joys of McDougallism

I've been a vegan for ten years, and have always considered myself to be in good health. This year, however, I noticed in some photographs that I had a protruding stomach - not a beer belly, but the beginnings of one. I bought some scales and to my shock and horror, discovered that I weighed 82 kilos. I'd always assumed that I weighed 75-77 kilos.

I became determined to lose weight. I'd been aware for some time that Australia did have a growing weight problem and that Australians and Americans seemed to be more obese, or at least more pudgy, than they were decades ago - in the 1970s and 1980s. Watch any film or TV show from that period and you'll see how skinny the actors are. Being skinny came naturally to male actors in particular back then - look at how skinny Harrison Ford was in the first three Star Wars movies, for instance - but now male actors and celebrities, it seems, have to fight to stay in shape. I looked at some of the extreme diets taken by celebrities Matthew McConaughey, Jake Gyllenhaal, Patrick Bateman and Al Sharpton. If you want to follow any of these, you need get used to eating very little. Gyllenhaal subsisted on a diet of kale and chewing gum while filming Nightcrawler (2014). I tried a variant on this - I ate only two slices of toast for dinner every night, for example - and lost a few kilos. But as could be expected, this sort of self-denial proved to be unsatisfactory and unsustainable. So Hollywood methods didn't really work for me.

The work of Dr John McDougall turned out to be my salvation. I had read one of McDougall's books - The McDougall Program: Twelve Days to Dynamic Health (1990) - the year before and had attempted to put its recommendations into practice in a desultory way. I gave up coffee, and bought all the food in his 12-day diet program with the intention of eating it.

But I didn't have the time to prepare three different meals a day for 12 days - really, I needed a chef to do it for me - and I couldn't stay from coffee for long. I did introduce one permanent change to my diet, however: I stopped using vegetable oil and oily foods such as peanut butter and potato chips.

To find the easiest to read summary of McDougall's ideas, download this PDF of 'Doctor McDougall's Color Picture Book': "Food Poisoning" - How to Cure It by Eating Beans, Corn, Pasta, Potatoes, Rice, etc. here. I characterise McDougallism as the reverse of the high-carb, high protein Atkins-type diets. McDougall advocates a high fibre, high carbohydrate, low fat and low protein vegan diet. He likes 'starches' - bread, rice, corn, potatoes, squash, sweet potatoes, legumes and the rest - and doesn't like vegetable oil, meat and cheese (tofu) substitutes, dried fruits, nuts, avocados, caffeine, alcohol, fruit juice, processed food (especially sugary processed food) and vitamin supplements.

As stated before, I ditched vegetable oil, but really didn't follow McDougallism. Then I chanced across these chance comments from supply-side economist and blogger (and occasional raw food vegan) Nathan Lewis. When surveying the popular diets of today - including the Paleo diet, the raw food vegan diet and the McDougall diet - Lewis concluded that they worked for the following reason:

These strategies do work, and they work for much the same reason as the raw vegan approach works. It's not because "meat makes you healthy," and bananas and mangoes don't, or vice versa. It's what you're not eating.

If you take a "lotsa meat and nonsweet vegetables" approach, here's what you're not eating:

1) All processed foods, including all junk foods, soda, etc.
2) Foods made from the "white food" white flour, dairy, white sugar complex
3) All the GMO foods, including things made from corn and soy
4) Anything with nasty additives like MSG or artificial sweeteners
5) Possibly little or no dairy, depending on your diet strategy ("paleo")
6) Maybe less booze and coffee.
7) Probably a lot less salt, most of which is in processed foods.

I found this quote intriguing:

"Body fat" (actually a lot of it is water stored in the fat tissues) is affected by all kinds of things, including the amount of salt, alcohol, caffeine and other toxins in the diet. The body needs water to purge these toxins, so if you consume this regularly, the body naturally stores more water so that it has enough on hand. Douglas Graham says that he finds that long-term raw vegans generally have bodyfat well below these levels, even as people get older.

I wasn't absolutely convinced of the 'science' behind this, but I resolved to abstain from caffeine altogether for a few weeks and see what happened. I found this difficult: I needed to go from 1-5 cups of coffee and tea a day (plus fizzy drinks such as Diet Coke or diet V or Mother) to zero, and I experienced withdrawal symptoms straight away - headaches, pains in my legs, and flat moods. Caffeine seems to be the most addictive substance known to man. But I coped with the withdrawal symptoms by taking some paracetamol pills, and they disappeared after a week or two. I was rewarded with better sleep and an improvement in my temper - I became less irritable.

With some sadness, I also gave up beer, and stuck to drinking wine and spirits - also, fizzy drinks and processed foods such as tinned fruits (which come preserved in fruit juice). I generally stay away from pasta and spaghetti, even the high fibre kinds, because I seem to add on weight whenever I eat them.

My next step was to buy an online copy of McDougall's Starch Solution (2013), a much better book than the McDougall Program, and much more concise. Instead of trying to make all the recipes in his crash diet, I concentrated on making two or three of the meals over and over. The recipes seemed better than the ones in McDougall Program. I recommend them over 'normal' junk food - pizzas and the like - because one can't binge on them and overeat, as they're so filling. It's hard to imagine, for instance, anyone wolfing down bowl after bowl of his sweet potato Tunisian stew and rice.

The results speak for themselves. I'm now down to 71 kilos most days, and occasionally drop to 70 (in my adult life, the lowest I've weighed in 68-69 kilos). I have a flat stomach - my 'abs' are showing - and feel pretty good about myself. I seem to carry myself in a different way - e.g., I walk in a different way - and generally find that I'm much more comfortable in my body than I was before. It appears that women notice me before. I'm sure that most men will find that taking up the McDougall diet will improve marriages and relationships... McDougall, in Starch Solution, makes some interesting observations on the relation between physical health and attractiveness to the opposite sex.

The experience has made me reflect on the value of one's body and health. I see now that it's no use having lots of money, and living in a prosperous country, if you abuse your body and run it into the ground. You only get one body in life, and, after wrecking it, you can't trade it in for a new one. That's unlike a storyline - set in a dystopian future - in Jack Kirby's OMAC series, which explored the possibility of body trading: evil rich old people paid to have their minds transferred into the bodies of beautiful young people who had been kidnapped.

The tragedy of many people's lives in Australia and America is that their health has deteriorated significantly, not by the time they've reached 60 or 70, but by 30 or 40. This doesn't come about because of malnutrition and starvation but because of too much of the wrong food. McDougall's ideas can help us beat this scourge. Mark Hootsen signing off.