What type are you?

[jtr1962]

I know that with my temper, the poor litte shit factory would leave this world at an early age.

I don't know if you meant that to be funny or not, but I was laughing my ass off for about ten minutes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Cliptin]

I know that with my temper, the poor litte shit factory would leave this world at an early age.

I don't know if you meant that to be funny or not, but I was laughing my ass off for about ten minutes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

As was I. Coug can be quite candid.

 

[Mercutio]

You get the full listing of your type from the email that they send you when you register, apparently. I did not know that.

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.

 

[The Giver]

You get the full listing of your type from the email that they send you when you register, apparently. I did not know that.

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.

Lord... grant thy mighty Giver patience and tolerance that he might not smite the liberal infidel. Send flocks of your Christians to his door to save him from himself and so that at long last he might see the light and reform his ways. Let them descend upon his door in twos, and threes, and fours, so that he might know at last that you are the lord... not Al Gore.

Amen.

 

[Mercutio]

What the hell is that?

 

[P5-133XL]

so far:

SJ - 7
SP -2
NF - 2
NT - 2

non-SJ's unite!

Distribution Stats

 

[The Giver]

What the hell is that?

A prayer. It helps The Giver not to swallow what some might consider "troll bait".

 

[Jake the Dog]

oh the irony...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.

I could live without knowing that...
Thank god I was a less-than-10 year-old kid when Reagan* was in power. You know, these things happen when you elect an actor to be the President of a nuclear superpower.

I can't f#$@n' believe it was Nancy's trusted astrologer that was commanding behind the scenes the lives of 5 billion people... :lol: :eekers:

*strangely, reading your 20th-century presidents' bioses I consider him and Clinton the most successful all-around...

 

[The Giver]

oh the irony...

Lol, so thick you can taste it huh?

 

[Tea]

strangely, reading your 20th-century presidents' bioses I consider (Reagan) and Clinton the most successful all-around...

Huh? You're kidding me, right? Clinton and Reagan? OK, you could make a case for either of these as moderately important Presidents, perhaps rank them alongside men like Eisenhower and Truman. But to rank either of them (or even both of them put together) above FDR - that's just crazy.

Reagan, they say, ended the Cold War, but that's very debatable. At most, he brought forward the collapse of the Soviet Union by a few years, perhaps a decade at most, meanwhile (according to some) doing substantial harm to the US economy. Indeed it would be perfectly rational to argue that Reagan, in hurrying the end of the old Soviet Empire, only succeeded in making the transition of the USSR into a more efficient and democratic state (or set of states) less orderly and more destructive. I'm not saying that is so, but it's a point of view to consider. But let's be charitable and say that Reagan achieved what people say he did.

Clinton. Well, I guess Clinton did something or other too. Struggling to remember what though.

Truman: this was the President that stepped out of the shadows when FDR died and finished off the great man's work. It was Truman who, as much as any other man, was responsible for the great rebuilding of the world that took place after the hate and devestation of the greatest war the world has ever seen. It was Truman who was responsible for the Marshal Plan that rebuilt Europe, for the emergence of modern Germany as a democratic and successful nation, for the swift recovery of other European nations too. And it was Truman who was responsible for the democratisation of Japan, Truman who appointed that grossy flawed general but truly gifted military governer Macarthur (a political opponent of Truman's, by the way) to administer the occupation of Japan and its restoration to the world as a national good citizen, and the almost complete dissapation of the massive hates and resentments that folowed World War II. A vastly more successful President than either of those modern pigmies.

Eisenhower: this was the man who saw us through the Korean War safely, and who carried on Truman's good work. Unfortunately he was also the man who sewed the seeds of the Vietnam conflict and oversaw the hysterical anti-communist ravings of the '50s. Still, at least the equal of Carter and Reagan.

And then there is FDR. If you can say that Reagan and Truman did one great thing each (as did Lincoln, for that matter, and possibly Washington too - though my knowledge of Washington's Presidency is very small), then you are obliged to admit that FDR did two great things. It was FDR who oversaw the recovery of the world's biggest economy from the Great Depression ("We have nothing to fear except fear itself"), and also managed a successful conclusion to the greatest crisis the world has ever seen - World War II - under very, very difficult circumstances.

In short, if you are going to name one great US President of the 20th Century, there is only one possible candidate: FDR. And if you are going to name two, then the other is most certainly Truman. No-one else is even in the same league as those two. I'm not sure who I would rank third. I'd be interested to hear opinions on that. (Especially Flagreen's - I often don't agree with Bill's views of history, but I always read them with close attention and considerable interest.)

 

[flagreen]

Of the twentieth Century? You have some interesting choices there. I never thought of Truman in just quite that way.

Which one? It's tough really because it depends on what you rate them on. With one exception and that being FDR who rates close to the top in all categories and would have to top the list overall. Truman was not what one would call an inspirational leader. Certainly not as FDR was. And that was Reagan's greatest asset as well. Both Reagan and FDR led, and I mean really "led" this country out of the doldrums it had fallen into. Of course Reagan's challenge was no where near what FDR faced. But when Reagan came into office this country was about as low as it could be morale wise. A US serviceman walking down the street would be lucky not to be spit upon. When he left office, the Country had pride in their military forces and a new found confidence in ourselves. Reagan was an optimist and brought that optimism, back into our lives as Americans. As did FDR. Leadership is an amazing thing. And it was lacking in Clinton, Bush, Carter (God help us!), Ford (who?), Nixon (please!) and Johnson (yuck!).

What role did Reagan play in the downfall of the evil empire? Well it might have collapsed anyway as you point out. But certainly the US arms build up of which Reagan was the chief architect, drove them into bankruptcy. And there's always that possibility that the USSR would have survived indefinitely had that not happened. We'll never know. But one thing is for sure, the world is better place today because it did not survive. Bush "the first" is often not given enough credit for the excellent job he did in for providing the sort of atmosphere where the USSR and it's satellite states could dissolve their relationships without fear of the US taking advantage of the situation.

One of my favorites as a man (not as president per se) was Theodore Roosevelt. Interesting fellow to say the least.

Overall, regardless of the century in which he served, Lincoln still tops the pile. Even FDR did not face the obstacles and opposition he did and yet he always remained resolute in his determination to do what he believed to be the right thing to do.

I'm sure my comments here will draw many cat calls from the peanut gallery so I'll shut up now. The Giver handles political matters for the Green household these days. And he practices his craft at SR these days not here.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I would bet my life that someone would quote Eisenhower and Truman as the best US presidents of the 20th-century, but bear in mind those two were after-war ("victory") presidents.

Their tasks were pretty straight-forward IMO. When WW2 ended the Soviets still didn't have a nuclear-bomb and, for a while, the USA was the only real superpower (since Russians were still licking their war wounds)...

Reagan and Clinton had much more difficult agendas (Cold War, show economic performance) than Eisenhower and Truman.

The good and worthy presidents are being shown on really scary and pivotal scenarios. That's why JFK is regarded a magnificent president (Cuba 1962) by many, although I personally dislike him and his whole damn family.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Roosevelt was a neutral president.

What did he do that's so special?
Declare war on Japan? It was the natural course of action...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Reagan and Clinton had much more difficult agendas (Cold War, show economic performance) than Eisenhower and Truman.

Don't underestimate their jobs. I strongly believe internal approval of a president is much more difficult to achieve than being the president during an all-vs-one war campaign (see Bush Sr.).

Clinton achieved economic prosperity and achievements even the most hardcore Republican can acknowledge. Afterall, war are being won by generals and soldiers, not presidents...

That's why don't be so quick to Bush Jr. as well... Yes his IQ is below Clinton's, yes he got some easy approval due to the "War On Terrorism" auto-publicized stance, but he IS still in-office working on much-needed projects. Let's wait for his mandate to end before criticizing him.

PS. Of course, Bush Jr. belongs to the 21-st century presidents... :wink:

 

[Cliptin]

One of my favorites as a man (not as president per se) was Theodore Roosevelt. Interesting fellow to say the least.
quote]

Although I don't really get into the analysis of history as much as some of you, I too like Teddy as a personal figure. Very quotable too.

 

[Tea]

Roosevelt was a neutral president. What did he do that's so special? Declare war on Japan? It was the natural course of action...

Not so, Prof. FDR, like Churchill before him, had the vision to see that the appeasers were hopelessly naieve, that Hitler and Tojo and their minor lickspittles would never stop demanding ever more, would never content themselves with any amount of conquest, and that their threat was so great that nothing less than the united effort of the entire free world would be sufficient to defeat them.

FDR saw this at a time when most of the USA was convinced that affairs in Poland or Austria or Eithopia or Manchuria were minor foreign matter and of no concern to them, when public opinion strongly favoured no involvement by the US in the war that the English and the Greeks and the Austrailians and the South Africans and the Poles were fighting, when most of the US still believed that the oceans would protect them from the fascist jackboots, and that if any fighting were needful, then the English and the Poles and the Greeks could do it for them.

Very like Lincoln, he was ahead of his time, and just like Lincoln, he had vision and he had paitence. He had the wisdom to see that if he simply came out with a full statement of his views (entirely correct though they were later proved to be), he would be marginalised and rendered powerless. If Roosevelt had said "we must help fight the Fascists" in 1939, when he himself became aware of the peril that threatened, he would be remembered, if at all, simply as a man who was correct in his judgement but utterly powerless to do anything to stop the slide into the abyss. In fact, it's doubtful that he would be remembered at all, for it took the united effort of the United States, England, the Commonwealth, the remnants of occupied Europe, and the USSR as well to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Without America's very generous aid to England, England would have fallen in 1941, without the English and Commonwealth forces at their backs to draw off resources, Hitler would quite probably have defeated the Soviets; without American munitions and the heroic bravery of the US Navy, Australia too would have fallen, sometime in 1942, and without a base anywhere nearer than Pearl Harbour, America would have been powerless against the Japanese. Without FDR, the USA would have been left alone, with only Canada to stand beside it. And it is ludicrous to fantasise that North America could have long withstood the military machine that took the united and desperate efforts of the Soviet Union (who did the bulk of the fighting, let us not forget) America, the entire Commonwealth, England, and the surviving parts of Europe to defeat.

So, had FDR stepped off the tightrope in either direction - urged war before his people were ready to accept it, or on the other hand failed to give all possible aid short of war as early as he did, and failed to prepare his unready country as best he could - then there is no room to doubt that the Allies would have lost. And in that case, then FDR would not be remembered at all by history, for there would be no history, bar the lies and gross distortions of Gobbels and Tokyo Rose.

Instead, FDR showed wisdom and phenomenal paitence. As Flagreen said, he was a leader who led, and he was also a man who was either very lucky or very wise in his choice of subordinates: Marshall was simply the best organiser the military world has ever seen; King was badly flawed but nonetheless capable of learning from his gross mistakes early in the war, and Nimitz, who ran most of the American war against the Japanese more-or-less on his own, was superb.

If it were not for FDR's support of the British during the time when they stood entirely alone in Europe, and his tireless wearing away of shortsighted and foolish domestic opposition, it is very doubtful that you and I would be having this conversation - certainly not in English. As a world leader of the 20th Century, Roosevelt stands second only to Churchill.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Thanks Tea. Your remarks about FDR have been appreciated. I'll do a better research on him to discover all his aspects.

 

[James]

NT.

 

[flagreen]

And you thought you gained an extra day coming over eh? That'll teach you.

 

[flagreen]

Oops posted that last one in the wrong thread.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

NT.

nice thread?!
:?:

 

[flagreen]

NT.

Non Toxic?

No Thanks?

Next Time?

 

[NRG = mc²]

New Technology

 

[simonstre]

NUKE THEM!

 

[Tea]

Not tellin!

 

[Prof.Wizard]

.............

(you SF guys are really really weird...)

 

[Mercutio]

iNtuitive/Thinking

"RATIONAL NTs, being ABSTRACT in communicating and UTILITARIAN in implementing goals, can become highly skilled in STRATEGIC ANALYSIS. Thus their most practiced and developed intelligent operations tend to be marshalling and planning (NTJ organizing), or inventing and configuring (NTP engineering). And they would if they could be wizards in one of these forms of rational operation. They are proud of themselves in the degree they are competent in action, respect themselves in the degree they are autonomous, and feel confident of themselves in the degree they are strong willed. Ever in search of knowledge, this is the "Knowledge Seeking Personality" -- trusting in reason and hungering for achievement. They are usually pragmatic about the present, skeptical about the future, solipsistic about the past, and their preferred time and place are the interval and the intersection. Educationally they go for the sciences, avocationally for technology, and vocationally for systems work. Rationals tend to be individualizing as parents, mindmates as spouses, and learning oriented as children. Rationals are very infrequent, comprising as few as 5% and no more than 7% of the population."

 

[Prof.Wizard]

LOL. And I thought James was responding about Roosevelt... :mrgrn:
(forgot FDR was OT)

 

[Jake the Dog]

another breakdown of types: http://www.typelogic.com/. the description for ENFP isn't exactly flattering but it's true in my case atleast.

 

[P5-133XL]

Reading the descriptions of the NF category, I can pin myself down. I am much closer to a INFJ than the other NF's

 

[Cliptin]

Reading the descriptions of the NF category, I can pin myself down. I am much closer to a INFJ than the other NF's

I must be very close to middle of the road. Of the SJs, I match most closely ISFJ.

However, I remembered taking one of these type tests near the end of high school. 200 questions or something. I think I remember scoring ENTP or INTP but I have since lost the paperwork. After reviewing, INTP this matches me fairly closely too. Ah, well.

 

[Tea]

My pleasure Prof. As you can see, FDR is one of my heros. Interesting to read Flagreen's point of view too. As ever, very thought provoking. Though thinking of Reagan as a good President, let alone one of the greats would require a pretty fundamental shake-up of the way that I conceptualise the man. Good Lord, during my formative years, I don't think any politician anywhere in the world provided as many laughs are Ronnie did. Hey, without Reagan, Max Gillies might not have had a career!

(You sort of had to be there, but The Gillies Report was quite possibly the funniest TV show I've ever seen, and his portrayal of Reagan was just sidesplitting. And - the mark of truly great satire here - from that moment on, you could never see the real Ronnie Reagan on TV without thinking it was just another episode of The Gillies Report.)

...... blip .....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Why is it that, when Tannin and I took the test, we got the same result? That's very interesting. We answered differently to quite a few questions. For example, Tannin said that at a party he'd rather just talk quietly to a few friends, where I was keen of jumping right in and having fun. Lots of other questions got differernt answers too.

This suggests that the test is either (a) remarkably powerful, or (b) not very powerful at all. Interesting.

 

[Mercutio]

The test itself may or may not be powerful. The online version is actually slightly flawed. It used to give a numerical analysis of responses, including some data on the percentages of people with the same score as you. I know, from the test and from real life, that I am as introverted as the test can measure; in fact all my responses tended to extremes.

My guess is, despite variations on some number of questions, you still answered the same way on a core of questions, and that despite a different per-category score, enough of the "real Tony" showed through the veil of Tannin and Tea to get to the same place.

 

[flagreen]

Just for fun I had The Giver take it. He just went down the list of questions selecting the last answer for each one. It turns out this produced a result of "NF".

All Idealists (NFs) share the following core characteristics:


Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.

Idealists, as a temperament, are passionately concerned with personal growth and development. Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self--always this quest for self-knowledge and self-improvement drives their imagination. And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.

Idealists are rare, making up no more than 8 to 10 percent of the population. But their ability to inspire people with their enthusiasm and their idealism has given them influence far beyond their numbers.

Oh yeah... that's The Giver alright.

 

[James]

iNtuitive/Thinking
[...]
Rationals are very infrequent, comprising as few as 5% and no more than 7% of the population."

Or between 20 and 30% of those responding to the online test. Weird.

 

[Mercutio]

For the entirety of NTs, the breakdown from the online test is
ENTJ = 3.17
ENTP = 2.23
INTJ = 5.24
INTP = 3.09

13.73% of test takers are NTs of some sort.

 

[James]

Merc, you're right, I was working from memory. Either way, either the online population is more geared in that direction than the general population, or people are lying to try to get certain personality types, or their estimates of numbers of population in each category are wrong, or finally their list of questions is not enough to properly identify each personaility type.

I seem to be closest to the Architect, INTP.

 

[Mercutio]

Actually, it looks like the percentage of online respondents is below the averages Keirsey is reporting in his blurb.

INTPs ... are 5 - 7% of the population...
INTP = 3.09% of respondents.

Very odd.

 

[James]

Perhaps I should just give up trying to remember the figures and wait until my jet lag has lessened somewhat.