Blizzard night something interesting to ponder

[whometense]

Anyone seen this website?

Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics at Saint John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Collegeville and St. Joseph, Minnesota
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/

Here are a few quotes:

George W. Bush (dated August 1999)

I conducted an indirect assessment of the political personality of Texas governor George W. Bush from the conceptual perspective of Theodore Millon’s model of personality. Information concerning Gov. Bush was collected from published biographical accounts and political profiles and synthesized into a personality profile using the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria, which yields 34 normal and maladaptive personality classifications congruent with Axis II of the DSM-IV. Gov. Bush’s primary personality patterns were found to be Outgoing/gregarious and Dauntless/adventurous (Immelman, 1999).

Outgoing leaders are gregarious, confident in their social abilities, skilled in the art of social influence, and have a charming, engaging personal style that makes people like them. Although they have a tendency to become easily bored, especially when faced with repetitive and mundane tasks, their enthusiasms often prove effective in energizing and motivating others. These outgoing qualities, which Bush shares with President Bill Clinton, are diametrically opposed to Vice President Al Gore’s more introverted disposition.

Adventurous leaders are characterized by strong independence strivings, an ambition to excel, competitiveness, and often by sensation-seeking and risk-taking behaviors. These personalities also have a tendency to be overconfident, and their trademark charm may be somewhat glib and superficial. Bush’s adventurous traits account for what Gov. Bush has called the "so-called wild, exotic days" of his youth—now tempered by age, experience, lifestyle modifications, and political ambition...

...A less-than-deliberative President Bush, however, will run the risk of failing at times to fully appreciate the implications of his decisions, displaying sufficient depth of comprehension, or effectively weighing alternatives and long-term consequences of policy initiatives. Furthermore, an outgoing, relatively unreflective President Bush may not keep himself as thoroughly informed as he should (for example, by reading briefings or background reports), may force decisions to be made prematurely, may lose sight of his limitations, and may tend to sacrifice effective policy for political success.

John McCain (dated January 1999)

The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Senator McCain’s primary personality patterns were found to be Dauntless/venturesome and Outgoing/gregarious.

John McCain’s major personality strengths on the campaign trail and in a leadership role are the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage, coupled with a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that will enable him to connect with critical constituencies in mobilizing support and implementing his policies.

McCain’s major personality-based limitation as a candidate is a predisposition to impulsiveness, some manifestations of which are his infamous lack of emotional restraint and his tendency to make unguarded, imprudent remarks.

Hillary Clinton (dated April 2000)

The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Hillary Clinton’s primary personality patterns were found to be Ambitious/superior and Dominant/controlling. She also had a secondary Conscientious/dutiful pattern and some situation-specific Contentious and Distrusting features.

Ambitious individuals are bold, competitive, and self-assured; they easily assume leadership roles, expect others to recognize their special qualities, and act as though entitled. Dominant individuals enjoy the power to direct others and to evoke obedience and respect; they are tough and unsentimental and often make effective leaders.

Hillary Clinton’s major personality strengths in a political role are her confident assertiveness and commanding presence. Her major personality-based shortcomings are a lack of empathy and congeniality, uncompromising assertiveness, and cognitive inflexibility.

Al Gore (dated July 1998)

The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the Millon Index of Personality Styles Manual and compared with those of President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole. Vice President Gore’s primary personality patterns were found to be Conscientious/dutiful and Introverted/aloof.

A dimensional reconceptualization of the results to examine convergences among the present Millon-based findings, Simonton’s dimensions of presidential style, and the five-factor model suggests that Gore is highly deliberative/conscientious, somewhat lacking in interpersonality/ agreeableness, and low in charisma/extraversion. In terms of Renshon’s elements of character, Gore’s profile suggests that his ambition is rooted in a sense of duty; that his character integrity is well consolidated; and that his interpersonal relatedness is marked more by detachment than by a tendency to move toward, away from, or against others.

Al Gore’s major personality strengths are his conscientiousness and low susceptibility to ethical misconduct. His major personality-based limitations pertaining to presidential performance are his deficits in the important political skills of interpersonality, charisma, spontaneity, and his self-defeating potential for tenaciously pursuing a pet policy or dogmatically advancing some central principle in defiance of legislative or public disapproval.

John Kerry (dated July 2005)

The paper reports the results of an indirect assessment of the personality of Sen. John Kerry, Democratic Party nominee in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

Sen. Kerry’s primary personality pattern is Ambitious/confident, with secondary features of the Dominant/asserting and Dauntless/venturesome patterns.

So far so good, right? Then his assessment, as far as I'm concerned, goes wildly off the tracks:

The amalgam of Ambitious and Dominant patterns in Sen. Kerry’s profile indicates an adaptive, nonpathological variant of the elitist narcissist syndrome.

People with an Ambitious–Dominant personality composite feel privileged and empowered by virtue of special childhood status, cultivate special status and advantages by association, are upwardly mobile, seek the good life, and tend to lay claim to greater accomplishment than is borne out by their actual achievements.

The major implication of the study is that it offers an empirically based personological framework for evaluating conflicting claims about John Kerry’s integrity and candor, thus providing a basis for inferring his character as a presidential candidate.

What do you think? A lot of accuracy there - except for Kerry's, which was, oddly enough, apparently prepared after the election - perhaps after absorbing the media's view of him?

[JI7]

1. agree, the media whores

especially the part about "tend to lay claim to greater accomplishment than is borne our of their actual achievements" sounds like something based on the swift boat assholes and just the overall crap about how he did nothing in the Senate.

[whometense]

2. Here's something else to look at:

http://www.handwriting.com/pdf/jfkerry.pdf

I was looking through all this and wondering how I'd like to see myself laid out like this for the entire world to poke at (answer: NOT MUCH).

For the sake of comparison, here's Bush's: http://www.handwriting.com/pdf/gwbush.pdf

McCain's: http://www.handwriting.com/pdf/mccain.pdf

Gore's: http://www.handwriting.com/pdf/algore.pdf

Hillary's: http://www.handwriting.com/pdf/hillaryclinton.pdf

[whometense]

3. One more, then bed ;-)

http://www.personalityinhistory.com/2004_Elections.asp

I wonder where all these analyses get their personality info. The impressions they get of Kerry's warmth make me wonder if they're even describing the same man I know as John Kerry. This concluding graph is kind of interesting, though.



Edited to add: Competence??? I'll accept Bush's rating - but Kerry's?? Where'd that come from?

Media bias?

[JI7]

4. it's such crap

and does seem mostly to be stuff based on media whores.

did they do anything such as actually watch the candidates for themselves ? i doubt it or else they would have given real examples.

[karynnj]

8. One comment

Their sources for Kerry were the Brinkley book and the BOSTON GLOBE biography. Most of the Brinkley book deals with Kerry at 25 and is obviously given little weight. How does a man WHO RISKS HIS LIFE to save another score .8% on altruism? He's in the BOTTOM 1% of all people - you would think that even if he never again did anything for anybody, that ONE action should put you at least at average. So, where does this come from - the Boston Globe book - which never gave him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

[whometense]

9. I agree

Should have mentioned it in my post (I plead late night!) but the altruism score was another one that really got me too.

I guess he lost points because the only reason he risked his life to save Jim Rassmann was to build up his presidential cred 30+ years ahead of time. :eyes:

[karynnj]

11. That was incredibly cynical of him

I disagreed with almost all of them - but that one was so blatant it stood out. It does show that the RW decade long effort to foster this myth that people said he was Just For Kerry has had an affect on some people here. ( Even though you should question how if everyone disliked him, he was asked into a rock band and voted as President of the Political union for 2 years, in spite of being a Democrat on a Republican campus.)

[whometense]

13. Hmmmm, yeah....

about that...

Reading this utter crap is good for me - it reminds me why it's so important to keep talking about how far off the mark these assessments are, and why we have to jump all over local jerks like Joan Vennochi and Howie Carr, who provide the fodder that the national media people chew on.

Howie Carr, lest anyone forget, was the author of the scurrilous "liveshot" epithet, so unfairly applied to JK, whose BCCI and Iran-Contra investigations were ignored to the point that he had to resort to such tactics in order to get any kind of media attention at all focused on what he his investigations were turning up.

His one stupid comment (and let there be no mistake, Howie Carr LOATHES JK; he's no objective journalist) enabled decades of media talking heads to marginalize and trivialize all the important work he was doing for decades afterwards. Howie Carr and the Boston Globe have that dubious achievement on their heads.

[ginnyinWI]

12. this one is very suspect because

they based it on reading biographies! That's just ridiculous. I do respect the handwriting one a lot more, because it is a much more objective measure. I printed out the Holland diagrams. Thanks! :)

[wisteria]

5. Biased evaluation based on media typecasting. Bullsh*t.

Gee, even Hillary fairs better than Kerry. Just another load of crap presented by lazy evaluators.

[karynnj]

7. Hillary comes out pretty badly too

With Kerry, it looks like they started with the stereotypes. He is aloof, privledged, etc and the fact that he is definately an alpha male. Using just this you get a person with none of Kerry's depth. (unless we have all been deceived.)

[karynnj]

6. The problem is that the input implies the output

I think their analysis on Bush is way too benign. (my bias - yeah, but there is nothing there that suggests the level of anger he displays.

On Kerry, the worst thing "is tend to lay claim to greater accomplishment than is borne out by their actual achievements". In reality, there are more times when Kerry quietly does good for the sake of doing good and seeks no credit or publicity. The first time I noticed this, was seeing the reunion with Rassmann on TV where after Rassmann spoke of Kerry saving his life, Kerry looked slightly embarrassed and said that anyone would do that. It was a very compelling moment and totally not scripted.

The accounts others told about what he did in Vietnam, gave him more credit than his own accounts. It was Skip Barker who told Brinkley that Kerry saved the 40+ villagers in the free fire zone - a story that impressed me as much as any of the medal stories. We also saw any number of times where Kerry's work ended up without Kerry's name on it to get it passed.

Also, though he is now incredibly rich (through marriage to Teresa), he clearly was not motivated primarily to seek the good life - he made decisions that kept him poorer than all his friends. How many Senators (who didn't start rich) ended up through the contacts they had rich - Kerry didn't. As to the status and connections - that was the world he was born into. (Oddly it fits Bill Clinton better - and he had to be ambitious/dominant as well. (in fact he was more ambitious and would sacrifice anything for it and far more dominant.) With Kerry it ignores the times where he choose to do the right thing (as he saw it) even when he knew it was more likely to hurt him than to further his career.

What you see in Kerry's is that the input ignores almost everything about him. It is one dimensional (with a sub category) versus the 2 dimensions for the others. The conscientious category they give Gore fits Kerry to a tee (as it does Gore). It leads to integrity being a root - which would contradict the result they wanted.

[whometense]

10. Great analysis.

What you see in Kerry's is that the input ignores almost everything about him.

I think the real benefit of reading things like this is to see the blueprint the media is working from.

Once someone accepts this take on him it gives them the freedom to spin everything he does in this light - hence, a self-fulfilling prophesy. See? We told you he's aloof/elitist (I hate that word. Who on this planet is more elitist than Bush and his cronies???) insensitive and superficial. The 180 degree opposite of his actual character.

Of course, the more people learn about him and come into actual contact with him, the more this spin loses its credibility. Which is why the corporate media has worked so hard to take away Kerry's media megaphone. They know none of this is true, but they keep pushing it anyway.

I also should mention that the expert on the first website seems to be something of a professsional Bush apologist. I noticed he wrote an article about why Bush isn't as much of an idiot as he appears to be. Talk about spin.

[TayTay]

14. Interesting stuff Whome!

But a lot of it is based on overt things. Some of the most interesting looks into Mr K's character are the things that are not overt. Take, for instance, his service in Vietnam and his subsequent leadership in the VVAW movement. A real and insightful look at character would seek to examine both sides of this person, the man who went to war and the man who came back and opposed that war and the personality that combines both things. (I have always believed that I voted to elect the total person in the times that I have voted for Mr. Kerry. I wanted the whole complex package. The man who went to serve and do his duty to country and the man with the deep understanding and questioning of what that duty meant and entailed.) These personality tests don't seem to be able to look deeply into the nature of contradiction, which is inherent in all human beings, and which is very important in forming a full person.

The media formed a picture of John Kerry that made him seem slightly depressed and 'a downer' of a guy. ('He looks sad,' was one media description of him that I heard in '04, for instance.) This both reminded me of past campaigns of Kerry's in Mass and was a distortion of same in many ways. I have written this many times before, but Mr. Kerry's 'base' in Mass was with traditional Democrats: union-members, low-income households, working-class people combined with the upper-income Dems who worked in the 'information' industries of high tech, health care and education. (He is a Democrat, after all.) I don't think the traditional Dem households would have gone so strongly for a John Kerry who was a depressed guy. I think they did respond to the other description of that quality: this is a guy who understands that actions have consequences and that we should be very careful what we do and consider how those actions will turn out. He can testify to actions that began with patriotic fervor and huge amounts of confidence and exuberance and ended badly with deep and lasting costs to many people.

This was not a negative. This was a positive. This is the type of person that Mass wanted to represent them in the Senate, someone who understands the costs of an action. Mr. Kerry got reelected in 1990 after the Iran-Contra investigations and the fact that the US had been using drug-smugglers to evade the law and supply a foreign group of fighters with cash and weapons. Massachusetts people did not find this 'negative' work, but the type of thing that US Senators should be doing: policing the government and helping it to correct course when the wrong actions are taken. There is a time and a place for positive flag-waving. There is also a time and a place for uncovering wrong-doing and for doing the hard and often thankless work of correcting that wrong-doing.

I don't know how this ultimately factors into the 'personality tests' but, I want the guy who understands that not all actions are good, that there is a dark and manipulative side to all that flag-waving and that actions have consequences that shouldn't just be swept under the rug. That's what I wanted and voted for the 6-8 times I have voted for John Kerry for public office. Ahm, I voted for the grown-up, that's the one I want to represent me.