• 

  The Lawrence Welk Show

  This sister act is a sensation!

• 

  VP Debate Open: Palin / Biden

  Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin go head to head

I'm watching the movie Stargate Atlantis: Rising.  Its decent.  The special effects are good and its fairly imaginative.  The acting is adequate... not awesome though.  The plot holds my attention if somewhat predictable.  I love SciFi, but this show is mostly typical for the genre.  In general, I'd say the Stargate series is not as good as the Star Trek series.

The reason I'm writing about this movie is because it reminds me of the tropes site.  A show like Stargate is filled with tropes.  For instance, the characters are largely stereotypes.  I don't mean to say that this show is worse than most shows.  Actually, its an enjoyable show, but the stereotypes do annoy me.  I don't empathize with the Stargate characters to the extent that I empathize with the characters in Star Trek: Next Generation.

Genre shows are often filled with cliche's and predictable plots, but there are some very good genre shows.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show that uses tropes but manages to bring new life to them.  And then there are shows like Dead Like Me which step outside of the typical tropes of a genre.

What I was wondering about is why people enjoy tropes, and furthermore why people enjoy tropes used in unoriginal ways.  Creating original stories and characters is challenging, but that can't explain the vast amount of copycat shows.  I suspect that most people enjoy shows because it gives them an escape from their normal lives.  Life is mostly unpredictable and so people turn to shows with a desire for the predictable.

This is my favorie Onion video.  I couldn't get it to embed so that it would play.  So, here is the link to the video on the Onion website.

How will Millennials Makeover American Politics?

http://www.e-strategyblog.com/2008/01/what-does-the-y.html  

Like the GI generation, the Millennials are coming of age during a time of crisis (Hero generations, both) and of a civic-minded bent. On page 231 of Strauss and Howe's 2000 book Millennials Rising, they observe:

The fist Millennials have yet to cast their votes, so they're still flying low under the adult radar, presumed to be alienated cynics who don't care about voting, much less organizing. Yet adults who watch them perform civic tasks may sense something different brewing. Today's school kids take the Pledge of Allegiance, and flag saluting, more seriously than Boomers or Gen Xers did. Growing Up Digital author Don Tapscott describes their "very strong sense of the common good and of collective social and civic responsibility." Check out Kids Voting USA, Children's Express, or the web world, and you'll see kids discussing issues, participating in polls, and organizing mock elections, at times quite energetically.

But the very fiber of the political junkie in me believes in the conventional wisdom of politics that young people do not vote. During my entire adult lifetime, election after election, young voters have failed to participate in the political process to any significant degree. Thus, even though my research indicated that the Millennials could be the exception, I was highly skeptical of the Obama campaign's reliance on turning out not just young voters, but new young voters to an Iowa caucus system that is highly intimidating to newcomers.

The following video features William Strauss discussing Millennials Rising on 11/14/00, prior to the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush:

Barack Obama's Youth Vote

  Bucking conventional wisdom and history, Barack Obama did just that. As Time magazine points out, Obama's campaign turned out voters 25 years of age and younger in record numbers: "while overall Democratic turnout jumped 90% [from 2004], the number of young Democrats participating soared 135%...According to surveys of voters entering the caucuses, young voters preferred Obama over the next-closest competitor by more than 4 to 1." That gave Obama a net gain of 17,000 votes and he won with roughly 20,000 votes ahead of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.  

But even Obama's victory on the backs of young voters didn't fully dispel my skepticism of depending heavily upon the youth vote. That turnout could easily be explained by the fact that the Gen X candidate is a youthful, charismatic man who naturally appeals to young people. I would have easily accepted that explanation until I read a story on Saturday about a local election here in Minnesota.  

In Northfield, Minnesota, we held a special election to fill a state Senate seat that was vacated due to a judicial appointment. The race pitted Ray Cox, a moderate Republican who had held a state House seat in the district against the DFL (the name of our state Democratic party) candidate, Kevin Dahle, a political newcomer.  

"Dahle was boosted by the student vote at Carleton and St. Olaf colleges, despite predictions that few undergrads would turn out for a special election held just as they returned to campus from winter break," the Star Tribune reported. "In the four Northfield precincts where most students vote, Dahle won nearly four times as many votes as Cox. His advantage there accounted for about two-thirds of his 1,600-vote victory margin."  

Add this to the data on Millennials' civic-mindedness, and their votes for Obama, and I'm far more willing to believe that a fundamental shift has occurred in youth voting patterns. If young voters continue to consistently show up at the polls, then our nation's political landscape will be fundamentally altered.  

http://stephenchambersblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/please-get-out-of-new-one-if-you-cant.html  

A very interesting article in today's NY Times discusses the generational shift that is afoot at college campuses today--and no, I'm not talking about the hordes of young Millenials rushing in from high school; I'm talking about the late Gen Xers who are now taking faculty positions as the Baby Boomers begin to retire in larger numbers.  
This article is a bit scant on the larger changes that have occurred at universities--including the dramatic shift in hiring of adjunct faculty rather than full-time faculty--but it does make the point that the ideology of these 'youngsters' is akin to Obama's shushing of the Baby Boomers in his campaign positioning. Andrew Sullivan wrote a good piece about in December, 2007.  



http://stephenchambersblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-generation.html  

With Obama's candidacy, we are witnessing a profound generational shift. Time and again, political analysts reflect on Barack Obama's self-conscious departure from the psycho-drama of the Baby Boom generation, but nowhere have I seen a major political analyst reflect on Obama's generational identity. How is it that we can endlessly discuss the Clintons' relentless adherence to the Baby Boomer ideology of divisiveness of the 1960s that has managed to swallow politics for at least the last 20 - 30 years, but we see no serious discussion of Obama's generation identity, except as it deviates from the Baby Boomer creed? In other words, analysts enjoy mentioning--as a kind of descriptive short-hand--that Obama was only a child during the Vietnam Era, which so heavily influenced the Clintons, and in the next breath, they describe is politics of inclusiveness as a kind of cultural response to the Boomer Hawk-vs-Dove.  

Now, I understand that Obama did not grow up during the momentous, most-important decade of the 1960s and that he was too young to really remember Watergate, etc. etc.--which begs the question: What did influence him? Obama is a member of the generation that was labelled by their Baby Boomer and Silent Generation parents as Generation X. This was a generation of disorganized do-nothings, who were characterized as socially unaware and politically unmotivated. This is the generation to which Barack Obama belongs (allowing for his unique upbringing), and it is certainly the generation that most strongly supported (along with college-age Millenials) his candidacy.  

I'll pick apart the implications of this (and of its overall unimportance to the media) in the coming days. For now, it's worth asking why Obama is consistently characterized only in terms of the Baby Boom? Is it simply because Hillary Clinton is such an iconic and loud public figure? Yes and no. I believe it is also the result of a epistemological foundation that was laid during the 1960s - 1970s, and which were perfect in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact of the matter is that we have handy historical cliches that can be readily applied to the generations of both Hillary (Boomer) and McCain (Silent). For a generation like Generation X, which was itself defined by its tendency to avoid definition (and even, by the way, by its rejecting of the label Gen X), this is proving to be much more complex.  

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/02/mccain-vs-obama.html  

So what does all this have to do with McCain and Obama? John McCain is of the Silent-Artist generation (b. 1936). What is his big appeal? He is an independent Republican who crosses party-lines to build consensus. He will supposedly draw independents into the fold and talks optimistically with straight talk, not moralistic sanctimony.   Barak Obama is of the Gen X-Nomad generation (b. 1961) and seems likely to be the candidate for the Democrats. What is his big appeal? He speaks of hope and change with an optimistic vision of the future while trying to avoid rancorous behavior.   In other words, the voters are applying the brakes to the political rancor of Boomer leaders and locking out the Boomers from the presidential office.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet-kelley/obama-and-generation-jone_b_98444.html  

Generation Jones? Generation Jones, a term coined by social commentator Jonathan Pontell to convey both their anonymity and unfulfilled expectations, covers those of us who were born between 1954 and 1965. The group is often lumped in with Baby Boomers or Generation X, since statistically the Baby Boom runs through 1964 while the characters in Douglas Copeland's novel Generation X would have been born the year after Senator Obama (although Copeland agrees that Jonesers are distinct from both Boomers and Xers).
---
Obama also recognizes that voters do not just want change -- they want a new type of politics (a theme he has emphasized since ABC's tabloid debate). This is why Obama has tried to steer away from the confrontational politics of the Clinton-Bush era, but has not dodged the taboos that the prior generation assiduously avoided from the death penalty to Social Security. Unlike his opponents, Obama understands that the method is part of the message -- change.
---
There are tremors indicating such a shift is occurring today. Polls portray a huge wave of voter discontent with 83 percent of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, confidence in Congress and the White House dropping 63 and 70 percent respectively since just after 9/11 and voters talking of "Bush-Clinton fatigue" (i.e., "Boomer fatigue"). Obama's success comes from harnessing the power of this extreme voter disaffection which may ultimately enable him to build a new majority coalition, just as Roosevelt built a new majority that held the White House for 24 of the next 32 years.  




http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1014328/how_old_is_john_mccain_what_generation.html?cat=75  

John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone , which was American territory from 1903 to 1979. McCain celebrated his 72nd birthday three days before the opening of the 2008 Republican National Convention that officially made him the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. The GOP Presidential nominee is the first Republican of the "Silent Generation" to run for President on a major party ticket.  

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1014538/how_old_is_sarah_palin_what_generation.html  
Sarah Palin was born on February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho, the daughter of science teacher Charles R. Heath and his wife, the former Sarah Sheeran, a school secretary. When Sarah, Jr. was but a tyke, the Heath family moved to Alaska. Ninety sixty-four typically is considered as the final year of the generational cohort known as the Baby Boom Generation. Nineteen-sixty-four It is characterized as the high water mark of America's post-World War II prosperity and affluence, a year that climaxed with President Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, the godfather of the modern conservative movement of which Palin and John McCain (born August 29, 1936), her running mate on the 2008 GOP Presidential ticket, are members of. McCain, a member of the Silent Generation, occupies the Senate seat that Goldwater, a member of the G.I. Generation, once held.  

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1015700/how_old_is_barack_obama_what_generation.html  
Barack Obama was born on the cusp of Generation X. The differing experiences between those born early in the Baby Boom and those in the last part of the cycle (after 1959) have caused some demographers to lump the tail end of the Boom (1960-64) in with Generation X.  

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1015568/how_old_is_joe_biden_what_generation.html  
Since the youngest member of the Silent Generation will be between 67 and 70 years old in 2012, McCain likely is the last person of his generation to have a shot at the Presidency. If the Obama-Biden ticket fails in 2008, it is unlikely that a nearly 70 year-old Joe Biden will run for President in 2012.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20081009/POLITICS-US-USA-POLITICS-SENIORS/  

MIAMI BEACH, Florida - America's oldest citizens, who traditionally wield outsized electoral clout because they vote in the greatest numbers, are backing John McCain by nearly the same margin that the youngest voters favor Barack Obama.  

Pollsters call it the biggest generation gap in decades and it's all the more striking because voters in every age group agree overwhelmingly the economy is the top issue in the November 4 election to choose President George W. Bush's successor.  

http://generationjones.com/2008election.html  

Discover why Generation Jones is increasingly being viewed as key to the '08 Election in this brand new video, which features numerous top political figures discussing GenJones and this election (everyone who appears in this video is a frequent guest on major national TV political shows)   

 

 

500 U.S. adults born in 1961 were asked:
"Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Baby Boom Generation, Generation X, or a lost generation in-between (usually called Generation Jones)?"

Results:  
22% chose: Baby Boom Generation
57% chose: Generation Jones
21% chose: Generation X      

      http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems               http://pewresearch.org/pubs/27/politics-and-the-dotnet-generation                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25335299/   

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has spent months positioning himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan's conservative movement. Recent poll data, however, show that his Democratic opponent perhaps better embodies some of Reagan's key personality traits.  

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Obama/Obama_Personality-Profile_2007.html

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. Sen. Obama's primary personality patterns were found to be Ambitious/confident and Accommodating/cooperative, with secondary features of the Outgoing/congenial pattern.

The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama's profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power.

The major implication of the study is that it offers an empirically based personological framework for anticipating Obama's likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency. 

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Obama/Obama_Jittan_1-4-2008.html

Transformational

Using a standard assessment procedure developed at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University, we generated a personality profile for Sen. Obama. The profile reveals that Obama's most prominent personal attributes are confidence, assertiveness, and congeniality.

In office, the behavior of confident, ambitious leaders like Obama is characteristically shaped by four core qualities: power, pragmatism, ideology, and self-validation. As persons with a strong belief in their talents and leadership ability, power is an important driver for their leadership behavior and they favor pragmatism as a way of ensuring their own success. Because of extraordinary confidence in their own ideas and potential for success, they are strongly motivated by ideology and a desire to transform society. Finally, their high-self-esteem stimulates a corresponding need for affirmation, resulting in a quest for personal validation.

Ambitious, goal directed

Ambitious, confident leaders like Obama are more goal- than process oriented. This implies that their own advancement and success is more important to them than compromise or maintaining good relations with colleagues.

By the same token, they also are more likely to act as advocates for their own policy vision than as consensus builders or arbitrators. However, because of their pragmatic nature, they will act in a cooperative or harmonious manner when they see it as furthering their self-interest.

Charismatic

Obama's combination of confidence, assertiveness, and congeniality fits the profile of a charismatic leader; he is ambitious, dominant, and outgoing, which enables him to advance a personal vision, inspire followers, and connect with people.

The outgoing pattern in Obama's personality profile, a quality he shares with presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sen. John McCain - yet notably absent in Sen. Clinton - may be key to his meteoric rise to prominence and electoral success thus far in the 2008 election cycle. Ironically, in view of President Clinton's "roll the dice" comment noted above, Obama shares more of Bill Clinton's charismatic personality traits than any of the top-tier candidates in either party.

He will be a tough candidate to beat. In fact, Obama's greatest obstacle may not be whether he has the right personal qualities or the requisite experience to lead, but the readiness of America to elect an African-American to the highest office in the nation.

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Obama/Clinton-Obama_London_3-3-2008.html

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/McCain/McCain_Sweetman_1-7-2008.html

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/McCain/McCain_Personality-Profile_2007.html

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. Sen. McCain's primary personality pattern was found to be Dauntless/dissenting, with secondary features of the Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling patterns.

The combination of Dauntless and Outgoing patterns in McCain's profile suggests a risk-taking adventurer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are characteristically bold, fearless, sensation seeking, and driven by a need to prove their mettle.

McCain's major personality strengths in a leadership role are the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage, coupled with a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that can be instrumental in connecting with critical constituencies for mobilizing support and implementing policy initiatives. His major personality-based limitation is a predisposition to impulsiveness, one manifestation of which is a deficit of emotional restraint.

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/ExecutiveSummaries/McCain.html

Sen. John McCain's personality-based leadership strengths include:

• the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage;

• a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that enables him to connect with people;

• skills and talents that can be employed to mobilize support and implement his policies; and

• a dauntless, confident orientation conducive to the cut and thrust of political life and potentially useful in crisis situations.

Sen. John McCain's personality-based leadership limitations include:

• impulsiveness and lack of emotional restraint;

• a tendency to make unguarded, imprudent remarks that may undermine his political capital;

• a rebellious nature, accompanied by intolerance of delay or frustration and low thresholds for emotional discharge, particularly anger and hostility;

• a potential for taking unnecessary risks and failing to plan ahead.

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/McCain/McCain's_'histrionic'_personality.html

First and foremost it must be pointed out that, as with all personality patterns, the outgoing pattern occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are warm, congenial personalities. Slightly exaggerated outgoing features occur in sociable, gregarious personalities such as Bill Clinton. And in its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, extraversion manifests itself in impulsive, self-centered, overdramatizing, histrionic behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder. In a nutshell, then, this is the essence of the outgoing personality pattern:

• Characteristic behavior. Outgoing personalities are typically friendly and engaging. In more intense form these personalities are livewire, animated bon vivants. In its most extreme, often maladaptive form, histrionic personalities are flamboyant, self-dramatizing thrill-seekers with a penchant for momentary excitements, fleeting adventures, and shortsighted, hedonistic self-indulgence. As leaders they tend to lack "gravitas" and may be prone to scandal, predisposed to reckless, imprudent behaviors, with a penchant for spur-of-the-moment decisions without carefully considering alternatives.
• Personal relations. Outgoing personalities are demonstrative, amiable, and display their feelings openly-anger included. In more extreme form, gregarious individuals may be shallow, superficial attention-seekers highly attentive to popular appeal. Finally, the full-blown histrionic is likely to be flirtatious and seductively exhibitionistic, actively manipulating others to solicit praise, approval, or attention. In a political leadership role, these traits translate into a strong need for validation, one manifestation of which may be an overreliance on polls as an instrument of policy formulation.
• Mindset. Outgoing personalities are not paragons of deep thinking or self-reflection; they typically avoid introspective thought, focusing, instead, on external matters. In its more crystallized form, this personality style is exemplified by a superficial, often "thoughtless" mode. Finally, in their most distilled form, histrionic personalities are poor integrators of experience; they are slow to learn from their mistakes. Politically speaking, this tendency may result in scattered learning, poor judgment, and flawed decision-making.
• Temperament Temperament refers primarily to activity level and the character and intensity of emotional experience. Outgoing personalities are emotionally expressive, responsive, spirited, and lively. People with more exaggerated variants of the outgoing pattern may be overexcitable and moody, with frequent-though short-lived-emotional displays. In its most maladaptive form, the histrionic personality is impetuous, mercurial, and capricious, being easily enthused and as readily angered or bored. Leaders with this personality pattern are skilled at staying in touch with the mood of the people but also prone-as at least one observer in the Clinton White House has put it-to periodic "purple rages."
• Self-image Outgoing personalities are confident in their social abilities, typically viewing themselves as affable and well liked. In stronger doses, extraversion translates into a charming sense of self. In its most distilled form, the histrionic's self-perception has a hedonistic character, epitomized by a self-indulgent image of attracting acquaintances through pursuit of a busy, pleasure-oriented lifestyle. In politics, outgoing personalities, more than any other character types, are political animals strongly attracted to the lure of campaigning; they thrive on the validation of self offered by adulating crowds and the frenetic, connect-with-people activity on the rope line.
• Self-regulation. The preferred stress-management strategy of outgoing personalities is to engage in self-distracting, mindless activities, often in the form of games or physical diversions. In maladaptive form, histrionic personalities employ the defense mechanism of dissociation (or so-called "compartmentalization") to cope with conflict and anxiety. The political implications of dissociation include a leader's failure to face up to unpleasant, dissonant thoughts, feelings, and actions and facile, complemented by cosmetic image-making as revealed in a succession of socially attractive but changing facades.

I conclude this analysis with the caveat that my initial assessment of John McCain's personality, based on his autobiography and other materials in the public domain, departs from the analysis of McCain's naval examiners. In my opinion, the outgoing pattern is of secondary significance in McCain's overall character structure. Of greater primacy is a dauntless, dissenting personality pattern, which McCain shares with Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura and, to a lesser extent, George W. Bush.

As a parting thought-lest we come too quickly to conclusions concerning John McCain's character-consider this: With the exception of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, outgoing candidates have prevailed in every presidential contest since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/4/5/2/p204527_index.html  
McCain's primary personality pattern was found to be Dauntless/dissenting, with secondary features of the Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling patterns. Giuliani's primary personality pattern was found to be Dominant/aggressive, with secondary features of the Conscientious/dutiful and Ambitious/confident patterns. The combination of Dauntless and Outgoing patterns in McCain's profile suggests a risk-taking adventurer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are characteristically bold, fearless, sensation seeking, and driven by a need to prove their mettle. The combination of Dominant and Conscientious patterns in Giuliani's profile suggests an aggressive enforcer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are tough, uncompromising, and believe they have a moral duty to punish and control those who deviate from socially sanctioned norms. McCain's major personality strengths in a leadership role are the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage, coupled with a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that can be instrumental in connecting with critical constituencies for mobilizing support and implementing policy initiatives. His major personality-based limitation is a predisposition to impulsiveness, one manifestation of which is a deficit of emotional restraint.  

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/president.html  

Twenty-seven percent of American voters claim they choose presidential candidates primarily on the basis of the nominee's character and moral values, according to a poll conducted after the 2000 elections. However, candidates with a solid character--straightforward, dutiful and disciplined--often run into trouble being an effective president, says Steven J. Rubenzer, PhD, a Houston-based clinical psychologist and co-founder of the Foundation for the Study of Personality in History. In fact, a tendency to tell the truth can actually harm a president's shot at being considered historically "great," he says.  

---  

Those presidents who received high marks from historians tended to be smart, have ambitious goals and be willing to bend the truth, according to results published in Rubenzer's new book--co-authored with retired clinical psychologist Tom Faschingbauer, PhD--"Personality, Character & Leadership in the White House: Psychologists Assess the Presidents" (Brassey's, 2004). And these findings converge with previous research by political psychologists such as Dean Simonton, PhD, at the University of California, Davis, who finds that intelligence, as measured by a combination of personal achievements, analysis of a president's interests and scores on the personality measure openness to experience, predicts presidential success above all other individual factors.  

---  

"Openness overlaps with intelligence because to some degree you have to be intelligent to appreciate new experiences," explains Simonton. "People who are low in intelligence, their systems are overwhelmed by the very rich environments that are attractive to people who are open to new experiences."  

---

However, the personality factors that increase candidates' chances for success in office are not necessarily the same as those that help them get elected, psychologists say. For example, intellectual brilliance seems negatively related to a president's margin of victory, finds Simonton.

"The ones who are the most intellectually brilliant are often barely elected," he says. "They have trouble speaking in sound bites and communicating with the public."

---

While intelligence can make for a good president but a bad candidate, achievement-striving--or the tendency to work toward lofty goals--may benefit presidents both on the campaign trail and while in office.

"Achievement-striving means people have high goals, but more importantly, they work hard to achieve them," says Rubenzer. "They stay focused; they are kind of workaholics."

---

In contrast, research by psychologist David Winter, PhD, at the University of Michigan, finds that achievement motivation, defined as a drive to do things well, may be a hindrance for presidents in office.

---

"People high in achievement motivation do best when they have large amounts of personal control," says Winter. "They become frustrated by the bureaucracy of politics."

Indeed, in Rubenzer's personality analysis Carter, who historians note as stymied by the checks and balances of the presidency, scored very high on achievement-striving--in the top 1 percent of all former presidents. However, Carter had two fatal personality flaws: a lack of assertiveness and a tendency to be straightforward, notes the psychologist.

"A president has to influence, either by deceit or forcefulness," says Rubenzer. "When you see those two scores on someone who is otherwise so qualified you think, well, maybe that is the reason."

http://www.apa.org/releases/presidents.html  

Results of the research indicate that great presidents, besides being stubborn and disagreeable, are more extraverted, open to experience, assertive, achievement striving, excitement seeking and more open to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values. Historically great presidents were low on straightforwardness, vulnerability and order.  

---  

It may come as no surprise that the research shows that most modern presidents are clearly extraverts. However, the data indicates that the early presidents scored below average on this factor. Does that mean that presidents are becoming more extraverted, or that the entire population has become more extraverted? The researchers say their data can't answer that question, but "given the increasing role of the media in presidential elections, the more plausible explanation is that the change is limited to the presidents and not the general population."    

http://www.personalitiesinhistory.com/Presidency_Project.asp  

	The ability to lie and deceive is an important quality for success in the White House, and presidents who are less straightforward typically make better presidents.
	Despite his recent popularity and reputation for integrity, John Adams's personality closely resembled Richard Nixon's.
	Presidents are much more Extraverted today than in the past and less intellectually curious than in the past. They may also be lower in character.
	Jimmy Carter is the only modern president that much resembles Founding Fathers Jefferson and Madison and the greatest president of the 19th century, Abe Lincoln. Eisenhower is the only modern president much like Washington.
	Franklin Roosevelt seems to be the template for modern presidents, with recent presidents showing high (Kennedy, Clinton) or moderate (LBJ) similarity to him. Reagan resembled his as well.
	Modern Democratic presidents tend to be very Extraverted, achievement-oriented, ebullient, and sympathetic to the poor, but are willing to deceive and relatively unprincipled.
	Modern Republican presidents tend to be less sympathetic to the less fortunate and much more inclined to rely on traditional sources of moral authority than average Americans.
	George W. Bush appears to have fewer traits related to presidential success than most presidents. He most resembles Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan.

 
http://www.personalitiesinhistory.com/Types_of_Presidents.asp  

Types of Presidents

© Steve Rubenzer, 2004 Dominators The Dominators include LBJ, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, and Chester Arthur (in order of inclusion). They are prone to bully others and to disregard the feelings and rights of those not on their side. They are bossy, demanding, and domineering; they flatter or manipulate people to get their way. They bend or break rules, and as presidents, stretch the constraints of constitutional government. They are not religious or spiritual, and tend to be prejudiced. Introverts John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, and Benjamin Harrison. Introverted presidents are psychologically minded, complex, deep men. They are not regarded as warm and friendly, and have difficulty controlling social situations. They prefer to work alone and avoid close relationships. Often jittery or tense, they are not happy and high-spirited; they tend to feel irritable, overwhelmed by stress, and to overreact. © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 Good Guys Hayes, Taylor, Eisenhower, Tyler, Fillmore, Cleveland, Ford, and Washington. Good Guys almost never feel themselves to be worthless, are rarely jittery or tense, and don't feel overwhelmed by stress. They make good decisions even under adversity. They have a hard time lying, aren't crafty or sly, and don't trick, bully or flatter people to get their way. They don't spend much time fantasizing and daydreaming but don't deny problems. Innocents Taft, Harding, and Grant Innocents are submissive and accept domination easily, and are "gullible, naive, suggestible." Not autonomous, independent or individualistic, they sometimes don't assert themselves when they should. Compared to other presidents (who are an industrious lot), they have trouble getting motivated and down to work, and are lethargic, sluggish, lazy, and slothful. © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 The Actors The Actors group includes Ronald Reagan, Warren Harding, William Henry Harrison, Bill Clinton, and Franklin Pierce Compared to other presidents, Actors are gullible, naive, and suggestible, warm and self-disclosing; they allow their feelings to show on their faces and in their posture. They are not meticulous, perfectionistic, or precise; they tend to waste time before getting to work, and tolerate unethical behavior in colleagues. Actors are enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, zestful, charismatic, and charming. Maintainers This group contains William McKinley, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and Harry Truman Maintainers stay focused on the job, work slowly but steadily, and are "industrious, persistent, tenacious, thorough." They are "uncreative, unimaginative," and do not indulge in elaborate daydreams and fantasies. They are conforming and conventional, not rebellious. © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 © Steve Rubenzer, 2004 Philosophes James Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Jimmy Carter, and Rutherford Hayes. Compared to other presidents, Philosophes are curious and inquisitive, interested in science, and fascinated by patterns in nature and art. They are concerned with philosophical issues (e.g., religion, the meaning of life), have many interests, and enjoy solving brain-twister puzzles. They see themselves as broad-minded and believe that students should be exposed to new ideas and controversial speakers. Despite being analytical, logical, and good at math, they value art and beauty and are attentive to the moods of different settings. They are also "nice" people: They believe that everyone is deserving of respect and prefer complimenting others to being praised themselves. Extraverts FDR and Kennedy form the kernel of this cluster, and are followed by Bill Clinton, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, William Harrison, Warren Harding, Andrew Jackson, and LBJ. Extraverted presidents are enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, and zestful; they call attention to themselves. They are "impetuous, uninhibited, unrestrained," are not consistent, predictable, or steady. They indulge their impulses and show their feelings through their faces and body language. They have a flair for the dramatic but are not dependable and responsible. They don't take pride in being rational or objective. © Steve Rubenzer, 2004

http://www.personalitiesinhistory.com/2004_Elections.asp        
http://www.personalitiesinhistory.com/Predicting_Success.asp   

What is the Right Stuff to be a Successful President?

Using our data, Professor Deniz Ones of the University of Minnesota identified the following personality factors as predictors of presidential success:

Rated Intelligence - Intelligence is related to success in almost any complicated job, from CEO to NFL quarterback. Although we did not have intelligence test scores, we did ask our raters how intelligent, inventive, insightful, complex, and wise they perceived the various presidents to be. Those that received high ratings, like Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson, performed better than those who are rated as less gifted, like Harding.

Assertiveness, or dominance, is the capacity to influence through one's presence and ideas. It is the single most important trait to presidential success. Presidents are an assertive group, and on the average score higher than eight of ten typical Americans. Better presidents like the Roosevelts, Wilson, and Jackson score higher than average chief executives. Truman was the only successful president who was less assertive than his peers. Low scorers include Harding, Taft, and Coolidge.

Positive Emotions - A president's optimism and enthusiasm are important for performance on the job, but also for getting elected. Enthusiastic and high spirited presidents like the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Kennedy are typically more successful; low scorers are reserved and serious, like J. Q. Adams, Hoover, and Nixon. Washington was the only truly successful low scorer on this scale.

Activity Level - Highly energetic chief executives like TR, LBJ, and Carter tend to be rated higher on this scale by historians than more placid characters like Grant, Taft, and Coolidge.

Achievement striving (having high goals and working towards them in a systematic and focused manner) is an obvious asset and is related to success in most all walks of life apart from the arts. Two of the lowest scorers, Grant and Harding, are widely regarded as presidential failures. High scorers include a number of undisputed "greats" like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Washington, but also more ambiguous performers such as Carter, Nixon, and LBJ.

Low Straightforwardness - Historians tell us that a president's credibility is essential to the ability to lead. Yet, the tendency and ability to deceive is correlated with historians' ratings of presidential success. Great presidents, such as Lincoln and FDR, have tended to bend the truth more than a little. Both managed to be both a moral leader and an artful politician. Grant and Fillmore were more honest, but also less effective.

Tender-Mindedness (concern for the less fortunate) predicts both presidential success and ethical behavior on the job. FDR and Lincoln scored high on this quality, while Buchanan and Nixon scored low.

Competence - High scorers on this scale seek appropriate information when faced with a decision, have good judgment, and are broadly capable - like Washington and Eisenhower. Low scores include the lowest ranked presidents Harding and Grant, but also the impetuous and successful Andrew Jackson.

Low Vulnerability - Presidents who feel unnerved by stress and unable to cope with problems on their own (score high on Vulnerability) are likely to be given low marks by historians. Emotionally hardy presidents, like Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, tend to do better than more Vulnerable chief executives, like Harding and the Adams's.

These are the only traits that have been empirically shown to have a distinct and unique relation to presidential success. "Character" was unrelated to historians' rating of presidential greatness.

  http://www.andycrown.net/presidential_personality.htm   

Presidential Personality

 

Dimensions of personality according to James David Barber in The Pulse of Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980).

1) Activity or Passivity

How much energy does a president invest in his presidency?

2) Positiveness or Negativeness toward the job of president

Does the president enjoy his job?  Does he enjoy exercising power?  Does the job make him sad or discouraged?

*These dimensions are closely related to dimensions of dominance/submissiveness, extroversion/introversion, and optimism/pessimism.

Types of Personality

1. Active positive

A president who spends a lot of energy and enjoys his job.  This type of president tends to have high self-esteem.  He tends to be productive in pushing programs through.  He is flexible enough to try something else when his plans are stymied.  He wants results.

FDR, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, George Bush (The first Bush presidency)

2. Active negative

A president who spends a lot of energy but does not enjoy his job.  This type tends to have low self-esteem.  Expands his energy compulsively to compensate for some shortcoming or to prove to others that he is a person to be reckoned with,  Seeks and tries to retain power.  Is rigid when stymied.  He wants to get and keep power.

Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson

3. Passive positive

A president who does not spend much energy but nevertheless likes the job.  Tends to have low self-esteem and compensates for this by seeking affection instead of power.  He does this by being agreeable and cooperative rather than assertive.  He wants affection.

William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Ronald Reagan

4. Passive negative

A president who does not spend much energy and does not like the job.  He becomes president because he thinks he should, out of a sense of service to the country.  He wants the grim satisfaction of doing his duty.

Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon

http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/  

NTPs tend towards independent more than towards either party but tend towards Republican slightly more than Democrat.
STJs tend towards Republican more than Democrat but tend towards Democrat more than independent.
ENFs tend to be equally distributed between Republican and Democrat.  

ISTJ Dem   30% Rep   42% Ind   28%	ISFJ Dem   34% Rep   36% Ind   30%	INFJ Dem   49% Rep   22% Ind   29%	INTJ Dem   19% Rep   40% Ind   41%
ISTP Dem   28% Rep   38% Ind   34%	ISFP Dem   33% Rep   26% Ind   41%	INFP Dem   38% Rep   22% Ind   40%	INTP Dem   17% Rep   34% Ind   49%
ESTP Dem   27% Rep   35% Ind   37%	ESFP Dem   39% Rep   31% Ind   31%	ENFP Dem   34% Rep   31% Ind   34%	ENTP Dem   26% Rep   28% Ind   45%
ESTJ Dem   32% Rep   46% Ind   22%	ESFJ Dem   33% Rep   37% Ind   30%	ENFJ Dem   35% Rep   35% Ind   30%	ENTJ Dem   26% Rep   40% Ind   34%

 
http://www.thembtiblog.com/2008/10/mbti-preferences-of-republicans-and.html  

Republicans preferred INTJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, and ISTJ (the executive types). The ESTJs are more than twice as likely as the INFPs and INFJs to be Republicans.

Democrats were typically NF or INFJ. In fact, those people with a preference for Feeling are more likely than other types to identify themselves as Democrats.

Independents preferred NTP.  

http://www.personalityzone.com/user/KipParent/view/blog/politics-genes-and-temperament.html

• Artisans are about 10% more likely to be registered as Democrats than as Republicans or Independents. They are the least likely to actually vote in an election.
• Guardians are about 10% more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats, and are the least likely of the temperaments to be Independents or apolitical. They are also the most likely to vote.
• Idealists are 17% more likely to be Democrats than Independents, and 34% more likely Democrats than Republicans.
• Rationals are the most likely to identify themselves as Independents or apolitical. For those that are party members, they are 45% more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.

Raw results:
-	Apolitical	Dem	Rep	Lib	Ind	Green	Likely to vote
Artisans	9.6%	28.2%	25.4%	5.9%	24.1%	6.9%	47.5%
Guardians	9.1%	29.6%	32.5%	3.4%	21.4%	4.1%	60.0%
Idealists	12.6%	28.3%	21.2%	6.2%	24.7%	7.1%	56.4%
Rationals	13.8%	25.6%	17.5%	7.9%	28.0%	7.2%	58.4%

    
http://www.personalitypage.com/political_affil.html  

Percentages of political affiliation amongst types.  

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:X1nCcq-HLaEJ:www.aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol67_0307_apti.pdf+republican+democrat+%22mbti%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us  

"SJs were overrepresented in persons reporting very conservative political views, and Ns were overrepresented in persons reporting very liberal political views (ENTJs excepted)."  

FFM Openness to experience factor correlates to Intuition.  

Type is correlated with party affiliation but not party registration.
STJ - Conservative   
NFP - Liberal  Inuitives show more interest in politics.
Introversion (and Sensation) correlated to a sense of political alienation.
Thinking correlated with being for the death penalty.
Perceiving correlated with being pro-choice about abortion.  

http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/famous-people/  

  Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ - Overseer	ESFJ - Supporter	ISTJ - Examiner	ISFJ - Defender
Lyndon B. Johnson	William McKinley	George Washington
James Monroe		Andrew Johnson
Andrew Jackson		Benjamin Harrison
William Henry Harrison		Herbert Hoover
Grover Cleveland		George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush		Harry Truman

  Creators (SP)

ESTP - Persuader	ESFP - Entertainer	ISTP - Craftsman	ISFP - Artist
James Buchanan	Ronald Reagan	Zachary Taylor	Millard Fillmore
	Bill Clinton		Ulysses S. Grant

  Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ - Chief	ENTP - Originator	INTJ - Strategist	INTP - Engineer
Franklin D. Roosevelt	John Adams	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Abraham Lincoln
Richard Nixon	James A. Garfield	Thomas Jefferson	James Madison
	Rutherford B. Hayes	Woodrow Wilson	John Quincy Adams
	Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt	Chester A. Arthur	John Tyler
		Calvin Coolidge	Gerald Ford
		James K. Polk

  Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ - Mentor	ENFP - Advocate	INFJ - Confidant	INFP - Dreamer
		Martin Van Buren

 
http://www.keirsey.com/picking_president_temperament.aspx     

Elections Since 1960
Year	Winner	Temperament	Loser	Temperament
1960	Kennedy	Artisan Promoter	Nixon	Guardian
1964	Johnson	Artisan Promoter	Goldwater	Rational
1968	Nixon	Guardian Supervisor	Humphrey	Idealist
1972	Nixon	Guardian Supervisor	McGovern	Guardian
1976	Carter	Guardian Supervisor	Ford	Guardian
1980	Reagan	Artisan Performer	Carter	Guardian
1984	Reagan	Artisan Performer	Mondale	Guardian
1988	Bush-41	Guardian Protector	Dukakis	Guardian
1992	Clinton	Artisan Performer	Bush-41	Guardian
1996	Clinton	Artisan Performer	Dole	Guardian
2000	Bush-43	Artisan Promoter	Gore	Rational
2004	Bush-43	Artisan Promoter	Kerry	Idealist

 
http://www.personalityzone.com/user/KipParent/view/blog/rating-the-candidates-4-personality-as-the-differe.html  

John McCain is the Republican Party's secret weapon in this election, should they decide to nominate the most electable (of the 4 I've looked at so far, that is) of their candidates.  Why is McCain the most electable, even though he is languishing well behind the front-runners in most primary polls?

Simple.  McCain is the only Artisan in the bunch.  Of the major Republican candidates, McCain has been the most straight forward to figure.  You get what you see - he really doesn't seem to have any hidden agenda.  Like most STP Artisans (think Donald Trump or General George Patton), he is a man "in the moment", not prone to introspection or giving careful thought before reacting to circumstances.

---

While McCain's Artisan traits have not endeared him to the largely Guardian Republican base who decide the the primaries, they make him a winner with the independents who actually decide the November election. Remember, these voters are not strongly focused on issues, but on how much they "like" the candidate.  In fact, in both personalityZone's surveys and CNN's head-to-head polls, McCain is consistently the strongest of the Republican candidates against each of the Democratic front runners.  More than 100 years of consistent voter behavior in choosing Artisans in the November elections is still true today.

http://www.personalityzone.com/user/KipParent/view/blog/rating-the-candidates-7-personality-as-the-differe.html  

Like Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Obama is a Rational, most likely an INTJ Mastermind.  This comes through in his communication style - he has an exceptional ability to paint a vision, to communicate abstract pictures of the future that make sense to people, and his utilitarian approach to action -  looking for what "works" rather than "what's been done before" or "what is 'right'".  

---  

While he is not an Artisan, his ability to connect with people is almost as strong, giving him the best ability outside the true Artisan candidates for garnering the uncommitted voters needed to win in November. 

http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/all/#page_start  

Hillary Clinton - ESTJ
Barack Obama - ENFP
John McCain - ESTP  

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWVmZWRkZDhiZTk3ZTBiNTZlZmFlNTc5NjdkZmYyZTE=   

Obama's mistake is that he confuses being phlegmatic with being presidential. Hippocrates, the father of medical science, devised a system of grading personalities in the fifth-century B.C. that has never been more relevant. He described those with phlegmatic temperaments as harmonious, calm, easygoing, and diplomatic - precisely the traits that the current campaign coverage suggests we should want in any occupant of the Oval Office.

McCain, by contrast, is what Hippocrates would call choleric. Cholerics are passionate, decisive, opinionated, stubborn, and driven. To paraphrase one notable choleric, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (largely regarded as a great president), there is nothing cholerics love so much as a good fight. McCain's temperament is, in part, what enabled him to survive imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Viet Cong.

Liberals will fret that the impulsive, passionate McCain has a temperament ill-suited for a president, yet it is those defining characteristics of the choleric - zeal, decisiveness, perseverance, a certainty of opinion on fundamental matters of right and wrong and on our core national values - that make McCain the better choice for the office. Not to lose one's temper in the face of evil is actually dysfunctional and in certain cases downright dangerous. The real question is, then, not whether McCain has a temper (he most certainly does), but why Obama doesn't and whether that matters.

Well, it does matter. The affable Obama is less-suited for the office because of his tendency to equanimity. The inclination to avoid confrontation and seek consensus, though admirable, are not the principal traits we should want in the person on whose desk the buck stops. The desire for everyone to get along too often leads to acquiescence and compromise, and a failure to do what is necessary in time of crisis (think of the indecisive Jimmy Carter and his mishandling of the Iran hostage crisis). That is not to say that dispassion and diplomacy have no place. They do, but you probably want them in a secretary of State, not the denizen of the Oval Office.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enneagram types of candidates.  

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/FORUM/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21386  

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6lyeJeCJ2J0J:blackfirewhitefire.blogspot.com/2008/09/enneagram-and-politicians.html+obama+mccain+enneagram&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us  

http://everydayenneagramblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/enneagram-personlity-types-of.html  

http://ptypes.disqus.com/ptypes_barack_obamas_enneagram_type_the_peacemaker_9w1/  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Narcissism  

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/narcissism.htm  

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=0318e3e7-4f42-429c-861a-545b330a7960  

http://www.maccoby.com/Articles/NarLeaders.shtml   

http://pods.gaia.com/is_there_a_god/discussions/view/350021#350021

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Leadership for the New Century
By Linda O. Valenty, Ofer Feldman

http://books.google.com/books?id=MGXpQDNrPsgC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22Millon+Inventory+of+Diagnostic+Criteria%22+MIDC&source=web&ots=1ow5LMK--E&sig=Xhz8ft1D77f0bdt_z1UwL2EFluQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR1,M1 

At work tonight, I was reading the book Secret Cinema: Gnostic Vision in Film by Eric G. Wilson.  The author is insightful and this book has more depth than most books about movies.  He talks about many of my favorite movies.  One of them is Altered States and it got me thinking.  There are some other movies with very similar themes: The Fountain, What Dreams May Come, and The Mothman Prophecies.

The most general similarity is that the protagonists are men in a position of authority but a specific kind of authority.  They are men of knowledge and in 3 of the movies its scientific knowledge.  These characters are heroes but not the traditional hero type. 

These movies are balanced by female characters who are of central importance to the protagonists's motivation.  The women add conflict, but they also offer the protagonist an alternative.  They are obvious anima figures that represent potential balance.

Another similarity is that these movies are about the supernatural.  The main aspect of this involves themes of life and death.  In 3 of the movies, its the leading female's death that inspires the protagonist's obsessive seeking.  The women represent a different way of dealing with life and death.  Related to life and death, there is strong use of plants as symbols.  In 3 of the movies, tree symbolism is central.  In 2 of the movies, the protagonist is studying a plant chemical.

There is one other important character type.  The protagonist has some person who acts as a mentor/friend.  This person helps the main character in his transformation or otherwise acts as a balancing force.  This person might even go part way with the protagonist on his journey, even act as a guide.  In some ways, this character bridges the distance between the protagonist and his anima figure.  This character has something to teach the protagonist.  He/she knows something about the supernatural or at least has some spiritual insight.

In Altered States, the mentor and friend are separate characters.  The friend is completely rational, but it is a shaman who offers the protagonist his first insight to that which is beyond the rational.  So, the closest to a mentor is a threshold guardian.  There is also a shaman-like character in The Fountain who is a threshold guardian  Both of these are guardians of the sacred plant.

There is a final element I'll bring up.  These movies are about dualities: male/female, life/death, supernatural/science, rational/non-rational, human/non-human, primitive/civilized, willpower/acceptance, etc.  All of these dualites are closely connected. 

The protagonist represents one end of the dualities.  He is a man playing an important role of civilization: doctor, scientist, researcher, journalist.  He is fighting against death and trying to rationally make sense of the supernatural.  He is unwilling to give up and accept defeat.  So, this leaves the other end of the dualities outside of him.  The women character is the most opposite to the protagonist, but in some ways she represents a less clear distinction between the dualities.  The whole dualistic viewpoint is that of the protagonist.  His either/or thinking is his central conflict.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog has been started as two different threads:
Community Film Picks (zFilms) Group
God Pod or Life, the Universe and Everything
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------