I'm a qualified M-B practitioner and I'm pretty convinced that George Bush is an ENFJ. For one thing, the "T" attributed to him by Yoffe would mean he uses logic. Clearly he doesn't. Bush fits the NF profile in basing impressions of reality on intuition "N"rather than gathering facts and letting his feelings not, logic rule his decisions. The J indicates he won't second guess himself. I also suspect few, if any introverts have been elected president. Gene McCarthy is a prime example of the disadvantages introversion brings to a race for the office.

Sent by Linda Burrell | 4:06 PM ET | 02-22-2008

Iam running for the Congress of the United States. I would be interested in taking the test...if it's at no cost!!!1

Sent by Thomas L. Scrivens | 4:40 PM ET | 02-22-2008

Hi Thomas

Here is an online version of the test:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Tom Regan
Host, Newsblog

Sent by Tom Regan | 4:47 PM ET | 02-22-2008

"Not an introvert in the bunch, which is probably important when running for president."

Introverts make great leaders, actually. John F. Kennedy, Thomas Jefferson, Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Martin Luther King Jr, George Washington, George H.W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II - just a few strong leaders who are thought to be introverts.

Sent by Kristi Cash White | 8:01 PM ET | 02-22-2008

Yoffe is almost completely wrong in her analysis. Hillary Clinton is an INTJ, not an ESTJ. Her preference for introversion is what makes her seem, to some voters, hard to know or even borderline inauthentic. Introverts do not wear their feelings on their sleeves, are more comfortable in close contact than in large crowds, and get their energy from themselves rather than from the external world. Clinton's preference for thinking makes her seem logical, objective and--in a world conditioned to expect women to be warm and overtly nurturing--cold. As for intuition (N) versus sensing (S), it is hard to imagine that a person who has spent her entire life involved in big picture, policy-wonkish work and avocations (and who is a lawyer to boot) is a sensing type, simply because she is good at details.

The problem with Yoffe's analysis is that she reads Keirsey's descriptions of certain types combinations, applies those to her own (somewhat biased) understanding of candidate bios, and then concludes what type they are. She uses MBTI to reduce people to caricatures rather than as a tool to expand understanding. The only appropriate way to apply Myers-Briggs (which is an "indicator" not a "test) is to look at the four polarities assessed: extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, feeling/thinking, and perceiving/judging and then ponder what implications these might have. Myers-Briggs, cogently and ethically applied, is a tool for understanding and appreciating differences, not boxing people into stereotypes.

For research-based discussions of MBTI and candidates by writers who are qualified in Myers-Briggs administration, see:

http://www.typetalk.com/oka-tips-tools.php#Election

and for an analysis of what Clinton and Obama have in common in terms of type, see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher/the-trouble-with-vision-_b_84531.html

Sent by Michael Melcher | 9:07 PM ET | 02-22-2008

Emily Yoffe, while showing imagination in wondering what M-B acronym best describes each candidate, clearly has failed to understand the implications of the 'test'. Since Emily could also be characterized by an ENTP like script, her perceptions on how the candidates are most apt to be characterized is itself going to be filtered through her own M-B acronym. It is SSA backwards for her to divine their acronyms, the candidates need to take the surveys themselves. Even if you take the survey yourself, and look to figure out how the questions are ???trying??? to pigeon hole you, the results will be false. For those rockets scientist out there, it is a bit like quantum mechanics where the measurement itself changes the results one is trying to measure.
Nice try Emily???. ENTP?

Sent by arthurW from Virginia | 3:30 PM ET | 02-23-2008

I agree with Michael Melcher's comment. Hillary is INTJ. A sensor is concerned with the here and now, sight taste smell touch etc. She has a developed intuition to foresee her goals and the J function to follow through on those objectives. From reading a biography of Hillary, she is naturally an introvert who prefers the quiet solitude of books. McCain's analysis seems alright, but Obama is likely INFP with a developed extroverted personality from his career experiences and networking.
Otherwise, one must remember that myers brigg is a spectrum; there are different degrees of introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, feeling/thinking, perceiving/judging. It is only a general estimate of a person's temperament, so don't take it too seriously.

I'm INXX, btw. It fluctuates.

Sent by melanie | 3:40 PM ET | 02-23-2008

OK...I have taught political science for 30 years. Of all the quantitative research I have suffered through in PSQ, this is the dumbest, most speculative, made-for-sound bite and getting into NPR trash I have ever read. Read a BOOK.

Sent by Political Science Professor | 4:32 PM ET | 02-23-2008

I understand that M-B is about personality preferences - how a person prefers to act. We are all XXXX, and any mentally healthy person wears many M-B profiles during a day, depending on the task at hand.

Sent by R Brown in Minnesota | 5:22 PM ET | 02-23-2008

Hey Arthur W. why do you sound so hard on ENTPs? Someone who is ENTP typically has a very strong understanding of a situation and its underlying implications. I agree with a lot of you that Emily's "analysis" is pretty superficial. Hence, I'd actually doubt that she's ENTP.

Sent by Valerie | 5:40 PM ET | 02-23-2008

Actually you have all ommitted an important factor in this testing: biotyrhms.

For example, I can go through a whole day USDA. Then comes night, my biorythms kick in and I go INXS.

I think Stalin was USSR and Hitler was NAZI. Those guys had some wicked biorythyms.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:49 PM ET | 02-23-2008

The fact that there isn't consensus describing the personalities of these celebrities speaks volumes about the usefulness of the test. the acronym describingmyers briggs should be BS.

Sent by John Henderson | 10:52 PM ET | 02-23-2008

There is no way Bush is an NF. He's too shallow and lacking in vision to be an N, and too heartless to be an F. ST seems more like it. Also, I strongly suspect that he is a sociopath- lacking emotions, empathy and conscience, manipulative, power hungry, able to do anything to anyone without remorse and lies when the truth would do as well. Read "The Sociopath Next Door." He clearly surrounds himself with sociopaths- which are 4% of the population according to the book.

Sent by Sapprielle | 5:39 PM ET | 02-24-2008

Is NPR actually reading these posts? quite aside from the stupid choice of stories, obviously chosen to draw fire from the unwashed, Fred Camorra is obscene, scatological, boorish,m and using these blogs to provoke. It is beneath NPR to allow his posts---if, indeed, they are being screened--which I am coming to doubt, as I prepare to turn elsewhere for intellectual debate.

Sent by political science professor | 12:31 AM ET | 02-25-2008

Sent by political science professor: Fred Camorra is obscene, scatological, boorish,m and using these blogs to provoke.

Please, it's Fred Camorra Call. If ever I'm being critiqued by a political science professor, I only ask to get the complete name spelled correctly. If you need any help, you can go next door to the English Lit Department for editing advice.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:27 AM ET | 02-25-2008

I have taught the MBTI for 20 years in Industry and I have a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology.
I think it is fun to hypothesize about what type someone is if not taken too seriously. Dr. Keirsey who created the Temperament Personality Types (that match the MBTI) used to tell his students, 'don't go by the test - watch their feet.' Noting that behavior tells all.
Here is the problem. We see only what we are shown; political figures are like the little man in the Wizard of Oz, behind the curtain.
We can make some assumptions, however, we must remember that handlers, speech writers, press agents, etc make up our view of politicians.
We must understand that there are preferences and there are adapted behaviors. I know many corporate trainers who are Introverting (not Introverted) in their behavior. At the end of the day they are exhausted. Those like me who are Extroverting (not Extroverts)are exhilarated at the end of a training day. During the training you would not be able to tell us apart.
I do believe we can make some assumptions and guesses but they should not be taken as seriously as the results of a properly adminstered instrument.
As it is used here the MBTI is a parlor game that should be taken with a grain or two of salt.
Thank you for this discussion, there is value in looking at the behavior and asking the questions.
It might be helpful to ask, 'Is Geo. W. Bush acting like a Christian? Has he fulfilled his promise to get Ben Laden? Has he acted like a uniter?'

Sent by Rev. Dr. Gregory J. Max, Psy. D. | 1:58 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I think most of you writing about the MBTI here are idiots. That would make you ISFP, or is it ENTJ, anyhow, isn't there a personality type that goes something like "I'll assign myself and others an MBTI type to understand the world inside my little box of perception and I'll convince myself I'm not an idiot." No wait, you don't need to be assigned that type, I guess you're just idiots.

Sent by Robert | 3:52 PM ET | 02-29-2008

Robert- Yes they are assigning people into boxes, just like you are assigning them into the idiot box.

Sent by Petra | 3:32 AM ET | 03-07-2008

This is a good forum. I think speculating about personality type is interesting in that it may give us hints about the contrasting future leadership style of each of the candidates. My greatest concern in this particular election is how governing style and management orientation will effect both the future President's policy and vision.

What Gregory Max said regarding the handlers and the "Wizard of Oz" curtain is illuminating indeed because the comment shows that we often are mistaken about true intentions, motivations and governing style of public figures due to a carefully crafted public persona. In private, these people may in fact be quite different. So, we are merely speculating here.

But, it can be a useful exercise because I do believe we are at a critical juncture in American politics where we need a leader with a plan, with vision because navigating this maze of economic, environmental and foreign policy predicaments will require huge foresight and planning.

That said, I will throw my hat into the ring with a few comments regarding the candidates. Hillary Clinton is an interesting character because there is much debate about where she lies on the MBTI spectrum. My guess is XXTJ.

What is clear is that she is tough-minded and that she appears cold. Now, those attributes could describe a number of MBTI personalities. But, generally it fits the TJ type best. I doubt there is great debate on that score.

What I find more difficult is to get behind her motivations and thinking style which will help ascertain the N/F dichotomy.

I am a very dominant N (NT to be precise) and think in extremely theoretical, high level, suppositional terms. As a result, I have a fairly easy time spotting another N right from the start. Hillary Clinton does not strike me as an "N" in the least.

When I think of other NT/NF's I know, the bond is immediate for two reasons: 1. They talk differently from most people and are much more interested in creating frameworks from possibilities and supposition. 2. Because "S"'s make up such a large percentage of the population, "N"'s often have an 'odd man out' flair to them. That is they manifest a persona that suggests some level of disenfranchisement, worry about the future, desire for change. None of this fits Hillary Clinton.

She is a detail-oriented person who speaks in very concrete language. Her wonkishness simply demonstrates her love of detail more than of policy theory, classic S. But, more than that, I do get the sense that she represents and feels comfortable with the status quo more than has a burning desire to change anything. As a result, I consider her to be a Guardian SJ.

So, I lean toward XSTJ. I haven't resolved if she is TRULY an extrovert or an introvert forced into an outgoing persona due to her career choices and husband.

Sorry, Michael Melcher. There is no way she is an NT. As an NT, I see few similarities in her style to myself or my other friends.

Sent by Edward | 6:06 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Hillary Clinton is an ISTJ. There is absolutely no way that she is an NT type.

Sent by Jay | 12:07 AM ET | 03-10-2008

This thread is chock full of people that don't seem understand to understand the very fundamentals of MBTI. The E/I is about energy. If a person is energized by others, they are E-type; if they are taxed, then I-type. This is the hardest one for me to decide re:Hillary, because it's easy to imagine her in a room all by herself and perfectly content as such, and yet she's a politician. I say she's an "I- type", but it's the hardest of the four to call. The N/S is easy: do they think about what is actual or what is possible. She is all about the actual, the details, the a + b + c and finds Obama's "possibilities" vacuous. She is at her most uncomfortable when asked to be creative. She is anything but an artist and, if you listen to Colin Powell, comes closest to failure when there isn't a real or past example that she can rely upon. She is without a doubt an "S-type". The F/T type is similarly easy. It's about how people make decisions. F types rely on gut instinct, how they feel about things. They imagine themselves in the middle of a situation and decide everything based on how it would affect them. T-types are more objective. They take themselves out of the equation and look at the cold, hard facts. She is a "T-type", no question. The P/J type is about how people are oriented towards time. P-types are present-oriented. They keep their options open until the last minute. They are almost always late (like her husband, Bill Clinton, who's a classic P type.) She is a J-type, she is open/close. Like all J-types, she is oriented towards the future. She is comfortable closing (or making near-immediate decisions) because she thinks about the future, its consequences constantly, not the present. It is also why she has made so many mistakes in this campaign. She vested too much in her inevitability. She looked at her future self and saw no contenders her equal, and made decisions around that future self and failed to account for what was happening around her in the present. And now that she's having to retool to find her present anew every other week, she is lost and throwing anything that she hopes will stick. She is a "J-type", no question, and this is/was her Achilles Heel. She is the classic ST type, traditionalist. You can even imagine her as other ST-types: lawyers, accountants, police, etc. She's a rule follower, nor a rule maker: a + b + c. She is an introverted traditionalist type female and that makes her an ISTJ.

Sent by Jay | 12:32 AM ET | 03-10-2008

so how exactly are people trying to decide whether Hillary has _STJ or _NTJ preferences? type stereotypes? campaign platitudes? My best guess for Clinton would be either INTJ or ENTJ. And what in the world makes people think that hillary is a 'traditionalist'. Are people forgetting that she tried to overhaul the healthcare system, and that her current proposal, while more modest, will CHANGE the system much more than what Obama's idea?
Besides, STABALIZERS ('guardians') arent' always conventional. one of the leading Jungians in the field today believes that Alfred Hitchcock was an ISTJ (www.ccc-apt.org/beebe2008)
Bush: no catylist or theorist (NF and NT respectively) uses intuition as badly and as president Bush. Whenever I see it, I presume he's faking. there is NOW WAY that bush has dominant extraverted feeling.
What we keep forgetting is that part of running for president is the art of faking your personality.

Sent by Gabe | 10:51 PM ET | 04-05-2008

(self correction) actually some theorists and catylists can be pretty lousy with intuition. BUT, I still think bush is faking.
Also, if you read biographical material about him, he's extremely clearly an improvisor ('artisian')

Sent by Gabe | 11:51 AM ET | 04-06-2008

Another note: Both stabalizers and guardians can and do use intuition quite impressively sometimes.
This leads me to Obama. I find it odd that the "ENFP" claim has not been questioned. Campaign persona aside, whenever I listen to Obama, his intuition sounds more like Introverted intuition.
My other suspicion is that, despite his supposed lack for specifics, Obama has a preference for sensing. That's where I think the campaign persona comes in. He seems to have a basic knowledge for symbolism, where he knows how to get people 'riled' around, symbols, but he doesn't seem to exactly know what he's talking about when he does this. This is a fairly typical attribut of introverted intuition when it is used by extraverted sensation (ES_P) types.

Sent by Gabe | 12:26 PM ET | 04-07-2008

I have been listening to Obama a lot recently and he is sounding less and less like an NF indeed. I have constantly heard mentions of tone deafness or aloofness. Gabe, while I agree with you that Obama is not an NF, I attribute his aloofness to his being a thinker and not to his being an Introvert. I think the guy is an NT. When you listen to him speak, you can almost hear the wheels spinning. At the same time, he uses broad, analytical, theoretical language when speaking off the cuff. That is very NT behavior.

For me, it is the off the cuff remarks and the language and focus therein that really points to a candidate's true character.

Sent by Edward | 10:01 AM ET | 04-14-2008