I wanted to share some quick personality analysis, after watching this interesting video by Allan Lichtman, author, researcher and professor behind the Keys to the White House theory.

In the video, Prof. Lichtman “schools” Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, offering counter-critique to Uygur’s original call-out video.

Before I go further…a challenge…

If you have a prediction-oriented personality, please predict what I will say here, before you read the rest of the article! Make some simple notes, but add a reasonable amount of detail.

This can be an enlightening activity for predictive types to learn about their personality, their own predictive style, and potentially their gifts.

The personality breakdown, by those involved:

Quick Note: In case the following information does not seem obvious, it is based on my own experience in personality theory, in being extensively trained in the topic, in training and coaching hundreds of people, administering psychometric instruments, running a personality-theory blog for many years, etc.

Yes, you read that right, I am an EXPERIENCED BLOGGER…hear my voice! :-)

The Breakdown

Here is a basic breakdown of the personalities involved, by type.

This is my best estimation right now:

• Professor Allan Lichtman: ENTP (Theorist – Inventor – Professor Type)
• Cenk Uygur: INTJ (Theorist – Strategist – Critic Type)

Note that both are NT types, known as “Theorists” or “Rationals” in Temperament theory.

Initial Commentary

In Uygur’s original video, we can see the following:

First, Cenk says that Professor Lichtman is “entirely full of crap”. This is an emotionally-charged statement, and it’s also a considerable generalization.

Coming from an INTJ this kind of statement immediately causes some concern, as those are both common INTJ blind spots: 1) Overburdened emotional critique and 2) Lack of consideration for details. OK? Continuing…

Next, Cenk focuses on the professor’s statement: “Other people dont have any track record,” Cenk says. But then he jumps to his own track record.

Focusing on Cenk’s personality type, a Ni-dominant (a qualitative-prediction-oriented) type, this also causes some concern. In my experience, it leads me to wonder if Cenk sees himself as an up-and-comer, a contender, in the area where Professor Licthman has established himself: Prediction!

This takes us back into the theory. Let’s go:

Deeper Personality Breakdown

Let’s get deeper the personality theory a little bit:

First, these are both NT personality types (note the letters “NT” in both personality types).

NT personality types tend to think very fluidly with regard to time (notice how in these videos, both of them jump comfortably from past to future, making confident statements in both contexts), and prediction is a very common contested space for NT types.

Also, both of these personality types lead with intuition:

• ENTP Egoic Foundation (Allan Lichtman)
  • Ne: Diffuse Extroverted Intuition (Exploring Ideas)
  • Ti: Qualitative Logic (Organizing Information)

Lichtman had a new idea (his model) and really ran with it! That’s common for Inventor types.

An ENTP like Lichtman is also probably more likely to critique someone else’s lack of due care in organizing information. You can clearly see this approach in his video response to Uygur.

Now for Uygur:

• INTJ Egoic Foundation (Cenk Uygur)
  • Ni: Convergent Qualitative Intuition (Conceptualizing Outcomes)
  • Te: Quantitative Logic (Building on Standardized Knowledge)

An INTJ like Uygur gets a singular, strong, intuitive summary-impression, and runs with it (his video calling out Prof. Lichtman as being “entirely full of crap”)! This general wholistic-summary-first approach is common for intuitive Critic types, even if the details may differ considerably.

An INTJ like Uygur is probably more likely to critique knowledge that seems “un-standardized” or “made up”. In my experience, Uygur would definitely focus on theories like Lichtman’s, in this mode.

In fact, he makes fun of the idea of “picking factors” at about 4:45 in the video. While his critique may be relevant in some ways, this kind of focus can also can indicate an INTJ’s lack of experience in working with qualitative logic, as opposed to broad, shared-knowledge quantitative logic.

To me this adds some weight to the idea that Cenk is in a very passionate, ego-driven mindset.

Predictive Style

There is also a strong difference in predictive style.

• Cenk Uygur’s Predictive Style
  • Wholistic – Gestalt Prediction: Cenk makes direct, assertive, general predictions with phrases like a “message that will catch on,” and so on. In this way, he claims to read the emotive pulse of the American people. That’s no small feat!
  • Information-Collecting to Information-Deriving: Cenk says, “You look at how a campaign is going. You look at the dynamics of the campaign.” But he has no logical model (that he has shared, anyway), and seems to base this sense of the whole from discussions with others, news-consumption, and so on.
    • My guess is that Cenk has a sort of imagined “team” or “personal collection” of favorite news writers and sources, the commentators he subscribes to and trusts to deliver the highest-quality information to his inbox. This is the usual method for an INTJ to build up a strong predictive direction.
    • It’s important to consider this: Even if you don’t have your own logical model, what if you build your gestalt perspectives on top of others’ analysis and models, at least in part? Aren’t many minds greater than one? (Or is this even an appropriate question to compare these two individual styles?)
  • Emotive Certainty: Cenk’s style is to be “struck by” an impression that builds into a strong feeling about an outcome. This is very common for Ni-dominant INTJ types, for whom the secondary qualitative information function is Fi, or Introverted Feeling.
    • Fi tends to strongly lock in the effect of the conclusion, putting a personal stamp of “I stake my reputation on this” on one’s work.
    • INTJs think a lot about these Fi-related character-quality issues, such as having a good reputation, being a good person, and so on. (The downside is, it can make your side of the discussion seem like it’s all about you, as you become more and more of a main character, so to speak.)
  • Arrival at Subjective Focus: “I knew it” is kind of the backstop-phrase for his commentary. “Knew it” is less strong (as Lichtman points out) than “I”, and I think this is important to know. This is not the same as saying that Cenk is a self-centered person, but in this context I think he may have become **too* self-centered. (Possibly after growing frustrated by Lichtman?)
    • Cenk therefore starts to turn this into a contest of character and personality, rather than a contest of ideas.
    • This is characteristic of the inferior function of the INTJ, the emotive block of functionality.
    • To me, this is not a good sign for Cenk at this early point. An INTJ should be supported by that functionality in the background, and should not have to attempt to live in that space at this point.

I predict (ha) that if this contest continues into a debate format, Cenk will attempt to turn it into a sort of betting format: “Let’s see who wins,” (makes a better prediction) or similar.

To me this would be very unwise, but I don’t believe Cenk is able to do much more than that, given his current approach.

In effect, Cenk may tend to focus on showing in a variety of ways that he is a more trustworthy person than Lichtman. INTJ types can be intensely focused on individual character, especially during or past their mid-life stage.

To me, that’s very interesting…

Still, Cenk claims that he went 12-0 in publicly predicting elections. They weren’t all presidential elections, but still…

OK, and for Professor Lichtman:

• Allan Lichtman’s Predictive Style
  • Diffuse – Open: You may not have noticed that he seems slightly more “meh” about outcomes than Cenk Uygur. For one, Cenk is very concerned about character critique. But also, Lichtman’s basic position is that he does not decide the outcome, but the formal, logical model does (see below).
    • He mostly tries to leave his own character out of the commentary, except to comment on his track record. This can be both a blessing and a curse, in different ways.
  • Model-deferential & Model-based Prediction: Lichtman’s conclusions draw the audience back into his Keys to the White House model. In this way, he becomes the “key” to a model which analyzes the “keys to” the American system. This is someone who likes figuring out how to unlock difficult locks, metaphorically speaking! Again—no small feat! But different than Cenk’s natural style which seems based on inputs like American politicians, commentary on them, and their character. What Cenk offers is more like a “highest-probability perspective” than a system of keys.
  • Qualitative Logical Certainty: Lichtman has his own logical model. This is a foundational aspect of the inventor personality. You must have a formal, logical model in some way or another. He has also put his logical model through its paces. He clearly worked on it until it became reliable for his purposes, which is a basic scientific standard.
  • Detail-focus: Lichtman’s attention to detail is comparatively very impressive. I note that where he could hand-wave at people, he often refers right back to specific details of his model, and very specific definitions which form its foundation. I don’t think Cenk would like this very much in a debate setting, because I doubt he has familiarized himself with the model, and as Lichtman showed, Cenk also got some important details wrong.

Because I Have to Go Now…Advice for the Debaters!

OK, I just looked at the clock and I spent wayyyy too much time writing this. And before closing, I wanted to touch on the fact that NT personality perspectives basically invented debate as we know it, due to the preference for information exchange and resolution of perspectives based on the presentation of information.

This leads us to a situation where, of course, one or more of these NT types will tend to lean into the idea of having a debate! And Professor Lichtman threw down the gauntlet at the end of his video.

So, to wrap up the article in a kinda-fun way, here are my tips for both Cenk Uygur and Professor Lichtman, should they ever debate one another:

• Do’s and Don’ts: Personality-centered Debate Tips for Cenk Uygur
  • DO… Be very upfront about your personal style. Admit that these big-picture conclusions just hit you sometimes, share your qualifications, and talk about the fact that you have honed a fine sense for an outcome!
  • DON’T… Get caught up in character critique during a debate. If you have to critique someone’s character, make sure it’s coming from “what people generally say / think” about a person, and not just your own impression of their character. Debates are different! Some of this stuff is OK, but becoming a populist roast-machine is probably not ideal in a debate setting, especially if that becomes your foundation.
  • DO… Share what you learned from some of your favorite sources! Talk about what they say. Don’t worry about giving out your best “secret” sources, they carry important logical value and weight that your breezy style doesn’t need to produce on its own. This will help you in a debate.
  • DON’T… Lose track of the details. Give the important details some time and reason about them logically. Write down your thoughts before any debates happen. Don’t feel pressured to rush into this situation!

For extra credit, Uygur should also study and carefully critique Professor Lichtman’s model. Lichtman will gain extra points every time Uygur shows that he doesn’t understand the basic functionality of the Keys model. Remember what George E.P. Box said—all models are broken, even if some are useful! (Paraphrased!) Build on any relevant weaknesses that you can, and will, find if you study out the logic.

• Do’s and Don’ts: Personality-centered Debate Tips for Allan Lichtman
  • DO… Build a model for Uygur’s style. Use your formal logic to analyze and model Uygur’s approach. Then, leverage this in the debate to predict and talk about the flaws in his approach, if you want!
  • DON’T… Ignore Uygur’s populist-appeal style. The assumptions he makes about what everybody knows and feels! Focus in on the times when he lets himself get illogical, and point it out (as gently as you like!)
  • DO… Share new facets of your model, things that excite you about your work. This shows strong personal character! It will take some of the wind out of Uygur’s character-critique style, if you seem authentically and emotively excited about what you continue to invent, or plan, rather than just a “my existing model is all there is to it” guy. Uygur wants to believe in people who are pushing the power of ideas forward in our society, and you can help deflate his character critique by showing that you are continuing to give growth-oriented attention to your own system, as if taking your own little Pinocchio under your wing!
  • DON’T… Let yourself get worked up! If you can, use humor rather than intensity. The inventor is much more loved as a humorous archetype than as an intense one. Roast yourself, if you can, as well—this will also play against Uygur’s style.

For extra credit, Lichtman should also integrate a gestalt sub-model into his existing model! Directly integrate the big-picture, rather than generating it! This will seem more authentically interesting and trustworthy to people like Uygur, many of whom want a reason to trust your model.

One more prediction link

Peter Zeihan (who also rings my INTJ bell) is calling the 2024 election for Biden. You can compare his style to the personalities above.

Remember, a personality type is a group and not an individual. Individuals always vary in different ways, even though personality type tools can give us a powerful analytical perspective.

OK, that’s all for now everybody. Have a great day! —Marc

Filed in: People /74/ | Intuition /62/ | ENTP /9/ | INTJ /2/ | Global Issues /4/