Talk:Bush, George W.

for EIE

Are we slowly building a case for EIE here? Expat 04:29, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

No :-). I'm undecided on his type, but I noticed a possible glitch in your LSE argument. (Admin 04:34, 12 June 2007 (CDT))

Yeah, actually I'm not decided myself. I have difficulty seeing him as anything but an EJ, but I can't see LIE, and ESE and LSE look odd due to what you pointed out; on the other hand, the preference for a rigid schedule speaks against EIE, too. Perhaps I should drop that bit of the argument as having the least importance; overall I think EIE begins to be it.

I'm starting to see EIE, actually. Expat 13:49, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I can also see some arguments for SEI and IEI. I watched Fahrenheit 911 the other day and got another look at Bush. For EIE he seems to lack the 'biting' quality that they usually seem to have, and the ability to fight back effectively in verbal confrontations. He seems to be at a loss of words much of the time. I still don't know... Let's keep building up the arguments. --Admin 14:28, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Just be aware that Michael Moore (who is no ILI, sorry :-) he couldn't care less for facts) shamelessly manipulates, through "creative", even fraudulent, editing, the shots in his "documentaries" in order to get the effect he wants, in that case to put Bush in as negative a light as possible. What he did in that regard to Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine was appalling. Bush did not seem to be so much at a loss for words during the townhall presidential debates (although he has performed badly in others) or even during that Charlie Rose interview. Personally I'd disregard anything coming from a Michael Moore movie, unless you can be totally certain of the editing. If he's SEI, then we can throw away all those physical bits of typing, as in graceless and stiff walk; the same also goes (but less so) for IEI. Expat 14:50, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Aha, I haven't looked at that Charlie Rose interview yet. By the way, what do you think is Moore's type? IEI or EIE? --Admin 14:55, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd guess IEI, for one reason, again his approach to which seems more like a PoLR than a role function. Already when he made his first movie, Roger and Me, his fraudulent manipulation of the facts was spotted and pointed out, and he replied to interviewers in a baffled way, in a sort of, "who cares about that, it's a movie, not a PhD thesis" way. His subsequent movies and books got the same kind of hammering, especially Bowling for Columbine, so he set up what he calls his "fact-checking team", or whatever, that assembles the quotes and references that he uses at the drop of a hat to "prove" his statements; however, there is no effort to check whether those references were correct or not in the first place; it's an ass-covering exercise, not an attempt to use facts. That team digs up whatever "facts" they can find to support his statements. I can't watch a Michael Moore movie without feeling sick due to the shameless emotional manipulation of the editing and the distortion of facts for effect (like trying to get a congressman to "sign up his son for service in Iraq" - since when can fathers take their decisions for their sons? It's sheer idiocy that proves nothing). When I say such things, most people assume I am being politically motivated, which is not true at all; I welcome documentaries of any political inclinations, as long as they make their case without the destruction of truth and distortion of facts that Moore does in his movies and books. Expat 15:17, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I typed Moore back when I wasn't studying videos yet. I can see the case for IEI. Maybe we can start a page on him, too, since the arguments are ready. --Admin 15:21, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Well if I participate in that discussion I will run the risk of being accused of "bashing IEIs" or "loving Bush" or whatever. I think that those people who gave him the top prize in Venice, including Quentin Tarantino, should be ashamed of themselves. Interestingly, in Fahrenheit 911 Moore shows a very very good awareness of the power of -- why did he black out the images of the actual attack? Because he knew very well that to show them might get people emotionally mobilized in the opposite direction of what he intented. That's why he toned it down. His manipulative tactics are so obvious it's insulting. Expat 15:28, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Never mind, let's go ahead. I know how to build the case in a more detached way. Expat 16:14, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Against EIE

Perhaps the EIE people would like to explain this...? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/ots.henry.bush.iraq/index.html

'"You know, I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved," the president said. "And so when it's all said and done, Ed, if you ever come down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that's important to me."'

Fe: HA, fighting to the end against those dastardly :Te: political mechanations. Tcaudilllg 11:41, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think it's possible to explain every single isolated remark, but having said that, I think that that quote supports EIE. When he says "I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved", he's taken for granted that "everybody's like that", which to me is always a giveaway on one's base function (I don't think that Ganin's HA concept is totally correct). He shows awareness of Fe and in the end shifts to Ni to see it in the longer term. That was a Fe-Ni remark in my opinion. Expat 11:53, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"No observable thirst for knowledge or facts. Distaste for the practicalities of business" - since those traits are clearly connected to Te, which is non-valued (ie role) function for the EIE, this is actually an argument for EIE. Or are you suggesting that the role function should be visible like the base or creative one? Expat 12:04, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I have moved this from "Against EIE" to "For EIE" since it's an argument FOR EIE under classical socionics. Any reader will just think we are nuts if we are so inconsistent. Expat 13:32, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

...We were talking about different things. I mistook EIE for IEE. (so easy to get confused) My case was against him being an ENFp, not an ENFj. I had mislabeled my case, although the case against ENFp is strong.

As for the EIE option, I've felt supervised by him every day since he took office. It's creepy, thinking that at any moment he could order the bombing of Iran and get us into WWIII. Such a display of force could catch me up in the terrifying :Se: maelstrom of war. Tcaudilllg 14:27, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"I've felt supervised by him every day since he took office" - that rely's on the assumption that you are typed correctly as well as that you properly understand supervision. I'm not disputing your type or understanding just pointing out that this is subjective evidence for/against a type and doesn't work here Bionicgoat 17:42, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes. We can discuss whether what he displays is Fe or Se, and on the definitions of those functions, but how can we discuss (1) whether what you feel is really supervision and (2) whether your long-distance perception of the president of the United States, which includes the office as well as the person, is really a good example of socionics relationship? Expat 17:50, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

EIE uses :Te: as their role; where have we seen George Bush use facts as a rationale for his actions as president? Certainly, he does not seem to have a desire to bridge differences between opposing parties: he has never, probably will never have sought that middle ground that :Te: knows so well. The business end of things. Too, the enthusiasm factor is missing: ENFJs lead through enthusiasm for a cause. Where is the enthusiasm "inspired" by George W. Bush?

I also think his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan a second time is reflective of weak :Fi:.

One final note that may or may not be acceptable, but it's worth knowing anyway: Bush may well have an ESFp exertion type. If that were the case, then he would produce :Ti: conclusions that stir :Fi: feelings. So to say, his conclusions evoke emotional reactions in people. When he invokes the spector of the terrorists coming after us if we leave Iraq "prematurely", we (Americans) feel the fear of terrorism which we associate with the determination of the terrorists to attack us.

There is also a quote in TIME magazine where he discusses his election strategy with his aides. Specifically, he says he would "keep his foot on Kerry's throat", as though he were an alpha wolf taming a rival. Very :Se:.

SLE

Some of the points on SLE have some merit, but I think that the reference to "the INFp John Kerry" should be removed. First, we'd have to establish Kerry's type separately first; any reader will ask "where are they discussing Kerry's type"? Second, anyone who loses a presidential election - especially by so thin a margin - will be "bitter", regardless of the type of his opponent; is there evidence that Kerry is so "bitter"? Second, the scope for this kind of role played by the socionics type of a political adversary is weak at best. Third, on the contrary, I think that an INFp would be inclined to understand why an ESTp was elected, as in "oh well, I can see why many voted for him"; if an ESTj were elected, the INFp would ask, "how could anyone vote for a guy like THAT"? Expat 12:12, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm suggesting that this person who is well into his later years, who in all likelyhood knows nothing about socionics and little about psychology, has a bit of knowledge of who his is, and is sharing that with us in that quote. I for one don't want to be loved: I am loved and that's that. I don't have to "want" to be loved because I already am. Bush, like all :Ti: creative types, does not realize his innate connections to others. :Ti: types know these connections as surely as :Te: types know their place in the world. For IEE, the innate experience (function 7) is the flow of history: what happened, when it happened, and what will happen in the future. Bush has no faith in the future; if he did, he wouldn't be resisting now what the polls are certain to affirm in 16 months: the exit of the U.S. from Iraq whether or not the Iraqi government requests it. In his view, the future is what he makes it and if there is no one to take the role of its safeguard, it will turn grim. IEEs *know* the future: they know what they are committed, in concert with others, to creating. They recognize that although the future may not turn out exactly the way they want it to, their interests will be represented in the outcome.

I think you might profit from a re-examination of how you see the functions, Expat.

Edit: corrected EIE to IEE. Tcaudilllg 12:28, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I think you might profit from learning classical socionics, which is the subject of this Wiki. Expat 12:31, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

EDIT: About the Kerry thing, why not INFp? ...Put in a disclaimer maybe, or take it out altogether, it doesn't matter. ...Yeah it's really not worth putting up the fight. Just take it out.

As for the socionics quip, you mean Augusta's? Those who would safeguard information must be impartial to its content. Elsewise they only stem the flow of progress.... Tcaudilllg 12:28, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

No. That is not the purpose of this wiki. This is an encyclopedia, a reference work, for people to learn about what is generally agreed is classical socionics. It's for people to learn what is agreed is correct. It may not be correct and you may be right; that's another story. But this wiki is a compilation of the available information on classical socionics; anything deviating from that is treated as a hypothesis, such as your own theories and Smilingeyes. This wiki does not claim to be the "truth", it does claim to reflect to the best of our knowledge the present state of classical socionics. And Rick, here, is the ultimate arbiter of what will be regarded as such or not. That is the purpose of this wiki.Expat 12:53, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think you've exaggerated a little bit :-) Yes, the articles especially are compilations of what is known and available plus a little bit of our own creativity applied in ways that are consistent with the main principles. Ideas that imply a departure from or reworking of central principles of socionics are treated separately (as "hypotheses") and given objective analysis. I don't like to think of myself as an "ultimate arbiter," because numerous discussions here have shown that I can change my mind, but I do have a good idea of what constitutes classical socionics, plus I have access to additional sources here. Some of the wiki is for collaborative projects that aren't encyclopedic, but derived from a classical understanding of socionics (there has to be a common conceptual basis for the projects we've started so far). Also, note that individual users can post their own articles, like thehotelambush did here. --Admin 13:42, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I highly recommend that tcaudilllg take advantage of his user page/subpages as a place to develop his theory. Thehotelambush 22:42, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

On Kerry, it's not up to me to prove that he is not INFp; it is up to you to prove that he is, if you're going to use him as argument to type someone else. Expat 13:05, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Tcaudilllg, I removed the INFp phrase as being too disputable in the present argument. Could you clarify a bit these points:

Is open to historical interpretations... Took the offensive against Democrats in the 2002 election."

Also, "failed businessman" needs to be related to your SLE argument somehow. --Admin 13:26, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd thought the business issue would be implicit given :Te: is function 8. "Is open to historical interpretations" is 5th function :Ni:. At the time of the 2002 election, TIME noted how brusque -- and risky -- it was for a president to risk his prestige campaigning hard for congressmen. He must have been very confident in himself and in his political environment to risk taking on the congressmen he did... or a total moron who was handled by Karl Rove. The man is not a retard, he's an ESTp who doesn't give a damn about the facts just as I don't give a damn about any pretenses of a "necesary course" for history. (does any non-pathological INTj?)

He was also Donald Rumsfeld's supervisor, a relationship that played out quite visibly during Rumsfeld's tenure. But until I make the case that Rumsfeld is INTj I shouldn't use it here.

...The problem I have with waiting 'till an extensive foolproof case is made before you declare something "true" is that often the case takes a very long time to construct in full and it's not clear who will take the time to make. Doesn't mean it's not worth making. INTjs are the best at noticing these cases, due to their intuition, while at the same time being among the worst to try to prove them because they don't like fraternizing just for the purpose of finding a "chosen one" for every idea they'd like to see accepted by the masses. If we had a socion aware society, you could just figure the best type for making the argument and look up an interested party without much trouble. But we don't. Tcaudilllg 14:27, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm a bit confused about your references to the 8th function - how exactly do you think it is demonstrated? Thehotelambush 22:42, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

the infamous "one finger victory salute"

does this tell us anything about his type? :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVynnbx1Xsc he seems pretty comfortable/amused with it Bionicgoat 23:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Very good :) I think it means high focus on Fe, actually. The kind of joke also means focus on Se. Yes it would be too little to base a typing on, but that's what I see there. Expat 04:41, 14 July 2007 (CDT)