Yes, clearly his supporters do like him, although for many it was a matter of liking him a little more than Biden/Harris. So what does this say about the voters? Have they (we) become less agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable? Things were not always like this.
Thanks for putting this out there. I didn't vote for him and never would, but I dislike the self-rightousness of many of the Democrats I know and their unwillingness to concede the real mistakes and flaws in governance made by "our side."
I mean, it's a truism even among Democrats these days that academia and mainstream media are in an echo chamber, but with any politician you also do have to get into what people think they will do if elected. By a small margin, more people were worried about inflation or immigration than democracy or abortion rights, according to the exit polls, so he got more votes.
Also, I know this is hard to accept, but a lot of people really, really don't like the academia-media-HR-journalism left half of the ruling class, and the fact that Trump pisses them off is a big plus.
That is a helpful summary of the studies of his personality. I have a couple of thoughts. Most of the work in personality structure has relied on self-report, or at least that is my understanding of the work in this area. Self-report of personality has always struck me as a real limitation of this research. I find Myers-Briggs ratings to be as useful as a horoscope.
A true rating of personality would seem to require a 360 degree report by friends, family, colleagues, customers, supervisors.... and so on. It seems to me you would need to assess people in different contexts, with differences in expectations and power. Of course this sort of measurement is completely impractical, and so we take the easy path and do our research with self-report measures.
Back to the question of observers rating Trump... they are all observing Trump in a very specific context. Trump is engaged in a very specific performance, almost always to a video recording device, sometimes to a crowd of supporters. This seems like a very specific, and very narrow view of who he might actually be. It strikes me that this exercise is more about defining the personalty of a character Donald Trump plays on TV.
To some degree I think this explains the vastly different conclusions that Donald Trump supporters and Donald Trump detractors arrive at. I think we all know he is playing a character and then we take a guess about who he might actually be, behind the mask. If you like him you assume the real Donald is wonderful. If you dislike him you assume the real Donald is terrible. For sure there are some specific behaviors we can objectively use to assess his true identity, but even there some people call it lying, others call it hyperbole.
To take the example in the article, Trump is high E, low O, low A, low C. ESTP. All his various incarnations on Personality Database, the crowdsourced MBTI site, agree.
There, it's now more useful than a horoscope. It ignores neuroticism and forces people into false dichotomies (lots of people are intermediate on these axes), but its value isn't zero.
Is there a difference between a man as a political figure and just a man? I didn't vote for either Trump or K. Harris. I can't consider her as a smart political figure. But Tramp?! There are so many negative traits in his character, and the country still chose him. We are waiting for the result.
They absolutely do. I was at a pharmacy here in DC the day after the election, and two older men were sitting to my right. One said to the other "I voted for Trump this time. He's a good man." It was so weird hearing that because I could (intellectually) understand voting for him despite not thinking he's a good person more than genuinely feeling like he's a good person.
Donald Trump is overt. "The Establishment" is covert. He is awful, to be sure, but so are his most vociferous detractors. They just do it behind the scenes, under the table, or perhaps even in the clear light of day, but with the understanding their actions won't be covered.
Thus, it comes down to competence, or at least the appearance of it. However one feels about Trump's capabilities, or lack thereof, it is undeniable that his detractors have categorically failed on the tasks most important to the American people. More to the point, they have done so while taking their moral and intellectual superiority for granted. Grandiosity is irksome, but acceptable if you at least appear capable. If you don't, you fail.
Could you give some examples of how the detractors have "failed?" Is it a matter of perception or reality? We'd all like inflation to go away, for example, but what leader and country has managed that in the current environment in the world?
I think you are midisdiagnosing Trump voters here. Many voters just really don’t care about those characteristics. They care, whether accurately or not, about differences in policy between the candidates.
Yes, clearly his supporters do like him, although for many it was a matter of liking him a little more than Biden/Harris. So what does this say about the voters? Have they (we) become less agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable? Things were not always like this.
Thanks for putting this out there. I didn't vote for him and never would, but I dislike the self-rightousness of many of the Democrats I know and their unwillingness to concede the real mistakes and flaws in governance made by "our side."
I mean, it's a truism even among Democrats these days that academia and mainstream media are in an echo chamber, but with any politician you also do have to get into what people think they will do if elected. By a small margin, more people were worried about inflation or immigration than democracy or abortion rights, according to the exit polls, so he got more votes.
Also, I know this is hard to accept, but a lot of people really, really don't like the academia-media-HR-journalism left half of the ruling class, and the fact that Trump pisses them off is a big plus.
That is a helpful summary of the studies of his personality. I have a couple of thoughts. Most of the work in personality structure has relied on self-report, or at least that is my understanding of the work in this area. Self-report of personality has always struck me as a real limitation of this research. I find Myers-Briggs ratings to be as useful as a horoscope.
A true rating of personality would seem to require a 360 degree report by friends, family, colleagues, customers, supervisors.... and so on. It seems to me you would need to assess people in different contexts, with differences in expectations and power. Of course this sort of measurement is completely impractical, and so we take the easy path and do our research with self-report measures.
Back to the question of observers rating Trump... they are all observing Trump in a very specific context. Trump is engaged in a very specific performance, almost always to a video recording device, sometimes to a crowd of supporters. This seems like a very specific, and very narrow view of who he might actually be. It strikes me that this exercise is more about defining the personalty of a character Donald Trump plays on TV.
To some degree I think this explains the vastly different conclusions that Donald Trump supporters and Donald Trump detractors arrive at. I think we all know he is playing a character and then we take a guess about who he might actually be, behind the mask. If you like him you assume the real Donald is wonderful. If you dislike him you assume the real Donald is terrible. For sure there are some specific behaviors we can objectively use to assess his true identity, but even there some people call it lying, others call it hyperbole.
High E=E low E=I (duh)
High O=N low O=S
High A=F low A=T
High C=J low C=P
MBTI does not use neuroticism.
To take the example in the article, Trump is high E, low O, low A, low C. ESTP. All his various incarnations on Personality Database, the crowdsourced MBTI site, agree.
There, it's now more useful than a horoscope. It ignores neuroticism and forces people into false dichotomies (lots of people are intermediate on these axes), but its value isn't zero.
I agree that crowdsourcing MBTI increases its value because you have multiple raters.
Is there a difference between a man as a political figure and just a man? I didn't vote for either Trump or K. Harris. I can't consider her as a smart political figure. But Tramp?! There are so many negative traits in his character, and the country still chose him. We are waiting for the result.
They absolutely do. I was at a pharmacy here in DC the day after the election, and two older men were sitting to my right. One said to the other "I voted for Trump this time. He's a good man." It was so weird hearing that because I could (intellectually) understand voting for him despite not thinking he's a good person more than genuinely feeling like he's a good person.
Trump is the type of person who people judge him by how Trump makes them feel
Donald Trump is overt. "The Establishment" is covert. He is awful, to be sure, but so are his most vociferous detractors. They just do it behind the scenes, under the table, or perhaps even in the clear light of day, but with the understanding their actions won't be covered.
Thus, it comes down to competence, or at least the appearance of it. However one feels about Trump's capabilities, or lack thereof, it is undeniable that his detractors have categorically failed on the tasks most important to the American people. More to the point, they have done so while taking their moral and intellectual superiority for granted. Grandiosity is irksome, but acceptable if you at least appear capable. If you don't, you fail.
Could you give some examples of how the detractors have "failed?" Is it a matter of perception or reality? We'd all like inflation to go away, for example, but what leader and country has managed that in the current environment in the world?
I think you are midisdiagnosing Trump voters here. Many voters just really don’t care about those characteristics. They care, whether accurately or not, about differences in policy between the candidates.