Hillary Clinton is an introvert. I'm quite sure about this. My best guess is that, in Myers-Briggs terms, she is an INTJ (details below). This explains a lot about how the world regards her and why the press seems to find her so problematic.
Let me start backwards. In yesterday's New York Times, a lengthy article about Hillary Clinton's political persona ends by comparing Hillary and Bill at the eulogy of one of Hillary's best friends, Diane Blair. Hillary gave a great eulogy, but apparently it wasn't tearful enough. "It was left to Bill Clinton to bring the service to its emotional peak," the article concludes. "When he spoke of Mrs. Blair, Mr. Clinton wept. 'I felt about her as I have rarely felt about anyone,' he said. His wife, Diane Blair's best friend, held steady in the front row.'"
Presumably, what writer Mark Leibovich would like us to conclude is: "oooh, yet again Hillary is so cold and emotionally flat. Oooh, what a strange person she is."
What I concluded was, "yeah, big duh, Mark Leibovich. Hillary is an introverted thinker, and Bill is an extraverted feeler, and each was behaving in a style appropriate to his or her type."
According to the theory behind the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), each of us uses four different types of mental processes, each of which has two poles: introversion/extraversion, intuition/sensing, thinking/feeling and perceiving/judging. We have access to all of these functions, but we tend to prefer one of each pair. This theory is unprovable, but in my personal and work experience, it is valid.
Introversion/extraversion refer to where people get their energy. Extraverts get their energy from other people, the external world, and experiences. Introverts get their energy from themselves or their own space. Extraverts are often chatty, social and open; introverts are often quiet, reflective and contained. Introverts open up to their close friends; extraverts open up to everyone. Bill Clinton is clearly an extravert; I think Hillary is an introvert.
Since 75% of the population is extraverted, extraverts are considered normal. By comparison, introverts are considered a little weird ("why can't you just open up?"). (As I've written in The Creative Lawyer, law is an exception: the majority of lawyers are introverts.) Introverts often have to feign extraversion to succeed in the professional world; their natural style is often not valued. Much of the criticism of Hillary Clinton's authenticity is criticism of her introversion. She's basically criticized for being private and for being careful about her words; and then she's criticized for inauthenticity when she tries to act more extraverted and social.
The second Myers-Briggs function is intuition vs. sensing. Intuitives look for concepts, the big picture, and possibilities. Sensing types are more interested in facts, details and concrete reality. Hillary has some strong sensing skills but my guess that she, like Bill, is an intuitive abbreviated as "N").
The third Myers-Briggs function is thinking vs. feelings. Both of these are ways of thinking. Thinkers prefer to make decisions based on impartial, objective principles, whereas feelers prefer to make decisions based on strongly held personal values or the effect on other people. Thinkers tend to think logically; feelers tend to think associatively. Though Hillary talks a lot about her values, I think that she, like the vast majority of lawyers and virtually all the men running for president (with the possible exception of John Edwards), is a thinker. Bill is a feeler.
Around 60% of women are feelers, and around 60% of men are thinkers. This means that both Hillary and Bill are in the minority for their particular gender. This is where the press gets wigged out. The words commonly used to describe presidential presence are all thinker-ish: strong, clear-headed, tough, questioning, blah blah blah. So the press is constantly evaluating whether she's enough of a thinker to be president. At the same time, the press seems discomfited that Hillary is not more girly: they also want her to be compassionate, open, nuanced -- apparently she is supposed to cry at eulogies.
The final Myers-Briggs polarity is judging/perceiving. This refers to attitudes about closure. People with a preference for judging like to be scheduled, organized, and know where they stand; people with a preference for perceiving are more spontaneous and open-ended. Hillary is a J, Bill is a big P.
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton: INTJ. Bill Clinton: ENFP.
What's the point? Since Hillary is in the spotlight, more or less 24/7, people assume that everything she does has some core meaning that has implications for her potential presidency or her character. But sometimes Hillary is just being an introvert, and that's that.
Follow Michael Melcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelMelcher
First, I just want to encourage you to continue using MBTI constructs to help people understand that politics is very much about personality. And, the MBTI is a useful framework.
However, I would like to correct a few of your statements used in your analysis.
First, the notion that 75% of the population is Extraverted is an outdated statistic. That estimate was provided by the early work of Isabel Myers based on her studies of convenience samples. The most recent research (a randon sample of the U.S. population) suggests the population is much more even...about 50/50 on the EI preference. This information comes from the 1998 revision of the MBTI by Consulting Psychologists Press in the development of the new Form M of the MBTI.
Second, the data on sex and T-F preferences indicates that approximately 45% of males are F and some 70% of females are F. The T-F data have always been the most problematic and sensitive to cultural shifts in the politics of the country.
Your assessment of Bill as ENFP fits with the gossip I know (and that involves an expert group who knows the individual who typed Bill). I also agree with your assessment of Hillary as INTJ. NT women almost always are seen as a "bitch." The strong logical and theoretical orientation of the female NT clearly is a sex-role stereotype breaker. She has a clear preference for the strategic perspective, but she is going to come across as "wooden", "cerebral", and "unapproachable." Not exactly the norm of SFJ for women in this society.
For those who might be interested, Consulting Psychologist Press--in the development of the new Form M of the MBTI--asked about political party affiliation. For anyone who would like to read my take on the results, you can go here:
http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/
bob
I must caution the columnist however, with some terminology: INTJs are not Introverted Thinkers. They're Introverts *with* Thinking, and there is a difference. INTPs are Introverted Thinkers (with Extraverted iNtuition), because the direction of Thinking is Introverted, and it's their dominant function. INTJs are Introverted iNtuitives (with Extraverted Thinking). Yes, this is all MBTI 201, not 101, and it may seem like splitting hairs, but worth noting.
(1) She doesn't really enjoy people. As a result, she has to actually make an effort to be nice. And when she's angry or frustrated, this is the first effort that goes.
(2) She demonizes her opponents, as typified by her "right wing conspiracy" rants and her reported hatred for Obama--a feeling that seems to have permeated her campaign staff. This actually makes HER look weak.
(3) I can think of no act of political courage she has taken. Her war vote and her refusal to clearly repudiate it are the seminal examples here.
(4) She was willing to play 2nd fiddle to Bill for a couple of decades or so. Vice presidents have seldom been good presidential candidates. I think only two have been elected president (who did not run as incumbants having been called on to assume the presidency mid term). Both were one-term presidents. I think Hillary has a problem similar to former vice-presidents--she does not have the same drive to be president that Obama has or Bill Clinton had. (I don't think George Bush had it either, but Karl Rove had it for him.) Sure she's hard working and wants it, but that is not enough. You don't play second fiddle for so many years and then suddenly become presidential material. (I think John Edwards hurt his present bid by running with Kerry.)
(5) She is similar to the present Bush in surrounding herself with a small tight-knit circle of loyalists who tell her what she wants to hear (Obama bad, experience good). Unfortunately, none is Karl Rove. As a result, inept pettiness has signaled a faltering campaign.
(6) She has a tin ear, and not just musically. On a small scale, take, for example, her campaign's reference to Obama's kindergarten paper. On a far more substantial scale, the 1994 health care plan.
psycho-babble,
Hillary is a Hawk,
that's what makes her obnoxious
.
Pardon me?
Virtually everything in this post completely contradicts this last statement.
The whole point of this analysis is that these apparent behaviours have very real implications for how Hillary would perform as President.
Her introversion - and particularly the inauthenticity that results from it - have profound implications for how she would perform as President in a time which NEEDS authenticity.
The essential definition of "authenticity" is the "appearance of integration."
Even if a candidate - or a President - is actually honest or integrated, they must also SEEM integrated to gain and maintain trust in an uncertain world.
Hillary's challenge in this regard is one of the root causes of my concern about her potential effectiveness as President and Commander in Chief.
in psycho-land that needs to be re-evaluated
especially bearing in mind that there's a lot
of pressure to sell happy pills...always look
at the money angle. Also, I think trying to
psych people out instead of just talking to
them and asking frank questions is, well,
ineffective, if not sleazy.
The job Hillary is applying for is that of
President. It's not just a job, it's probably
a royal bitch of a job. Speaking of royal
bitches, that would be my primary objection
to seeing her elected. Emphasis on the royalty,
there. I think there are participants in the
american political process from foreign shores
that have Lots Of Money, patrons, if you will.
Yes, the 'm' word. Save the psychoanalysis,
let's see the books.
Founding Fathers Would CRINGE!
But Hillary has had the best interpersonal coaches and political handlers money can buy and her whole problem with not connecting with voters is her blatant refusal to stand behind the following slogan to drive her campaign:
"It's Not The Economy, Stupid. IT'S YOUR JOB".
Voters *sense* (S) that this election is about jobs and healthcare and economic survival and yet, her pro-outsourcing, pro-NAFTA positions scream to voters "You poor bastards don't mean shit to me." That's all it is.
People point to her vote on Iran recently... well, a rose is a rose but when is a vote not a vote? The particular vote was to identify a particular Iranian organization as a terrorist group, which in fact it is. But we hear the vote subversively was a nod to give Bush leeway to go to war, which Hillary spoke out against at the time of the vote and still denounces. We've had too much of the politics of subversion, I feel.
It's like living with a roommate whom you have to tiptoe around, everything revolves around their demands, they redefine language even - for if you say you're going somewhere it means you're not going somewhere else and everything is fraught with hidden objectives and ulterior motives. You need a code book just to decipher them, ENOUGH already! Sometimes a vote is (or should be) exactly that - a vote. I think we need to get back to plain-speaking, saying what we mean and ironically the candidate who is wrongly accused of 'parsing' the most, to me at least, speaks the purest of truth.
http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2007-12-2-eg-prediction
and here are my fave personality sorter testing and splainin' sites, if ya wanna get yours done up right:
http://www.keirsey.com/
(presidential primer):
http://www.keirsey.com/pres_book.aspx
(also):
typelogic.com
humanmetrics.com
personalitytype.com
As an American I believe in Freedom for the individual and the Orwellian ,in name and consequence, "Patriot" Act is as Anti-Freedom and Anti-American as a law could be.
Bush, and Congress destroyed our Freedom and the American government will continue to be the greatest threat to American Freedom and prosperity.
The Founders knew this that is why checks and balances were put into place. That is why the Founders and other great Americans like Lincoln , Paine knew that under no circumstance should the governmnet be trusted.
The secrecy and "Just Trust Us" attitude of the Bush administration and neoCON republicans and many democrats are outrageous and anti-American.