{"id":5930,"date":"2015-02-03T17:25:02","date_gmt":"2015-02-03T17:25:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=5930"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:50","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:50","slug":"why-woodrow-wilson-is-istj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2015\/02\/why-woodrow-wilson-is-istj\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Woodrow Wilson Is ISTJ"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this article, two of the site administrators explain their current reasons for why they think Woodrow Wilson is an ISTJ. Of the three articles on Woodrow Wilson’s type provided by this site, only the present\u00a0article can\u00a0be taken to represent the official views and type assessments of the site.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

By Ryan Smith and Eva Gregersen<\/strong><\/p>\n

As explained in the hub post on Woodrow Wilson<\/a>, we as the admins of the site find ourselves engaged in informed disagreement with contributing guest writer Dylan Shapiro, who has argued at length that Wilson is an INTJ. In this post, we will present our case for Woodrow Wilson as an ISTJ. But first, some quotes:<\/p>\n

\u201cWilson was a Ph.D. and the former President of Princeton University. To historians, he is one of\u00a0their own<\/em>; and so all his \u2026 folly is happily overlooked.\u201d \u2013 Kelley L. Ross: The Great Republic, Woodrow Wilson<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cMultitudes of his lieges regarded [Wilson] as the wisest man since Solomon, and there were plenty who suspected that he was actually divine.\u201d \u2013 H.L. Mencken: American Mercury, <\/em>October 1931<\/p>\n

\u201c[Wilson] was not a cold intellectual or distant messiah, two stereotypes born in Wilson\u2019s failed struggle over the League of Nations. Nor was he even a \u2018Wilsonian\u2019 \u2026 he would hardly recognize the self-aggrandizing ideals that now bear his name.\u201d \u2013 The New York Times: He Was No Wilsonian,<\/em> December 10, 2009<\/p>\n

\"012_wilson\"<\/a>As these quotes show, Wilson is surrounded by a tradition of scholarship that tends to imbue him with every conceivable virtue. Conversely, a subset of scholars has taken stock of this trend and has started to produce their own instances of counter-history, which predictably construe Wilson as nothing less than the Antichrist himself. To steer clear of both these pitfalls, we shall therefore go for a \u201cnuts and bolts\u201d-style presentation where we seek to remain as close to Wilson\u2019s own words as possible and attempt to keep our generalizations and references to what historians think<\/em> to a minimum.<\/p>\n

Since this piece was written as a counter-piece to Shapiro\u2019s case for Wilson as an INTJ<\/a>, we thought it would be fitting to let Shapiro suggest the text for us to use as the basis of our argument. In Shapiro\u2019s view, Wilson\u2019s essay, On the Writing of History<\/em>, represents a particular strong example of Wilson\u2019s alleged Ni dominance. Hence this article will concern itself with what we might learn of Wilson\u2019s type on the basis of that essay.<\/p>\n

Background of \u2018On the Writing of History\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the Writing of History<\/em> first appeared in 1895, when Wilson was about 40 years old. In this essay, Wilson examines the perennial dispute over whether history should be a science or an art and concludes that there need not be a conflict between the two. If one interprets and analyzes the facts, rather than blindly passing them on to the reader, then substance and style can happily coexist.<\/p>\n

Following the overall course of the argument, Wilson opposes the \u2018new\u2019 way of writing history, where the historian tries to be objective and eschew all art and style:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe old chroniclers, whom we relish, were not dispassionate. … But our modern chroniclers are. … They are, above all things else, knowing, thoroughly informed, subtly sophisticated. They would not for the world contribute any spice of their own to the narrative; and they are much too watchful, circumspect, and dutiful in their care to keep their method pure and untouched by any thought of theirs to let us catch so much as a glimpse of the chronicler underneath the chronicle. Their purpose is to give simply the facts, eschewing art, and substituting a sort of monumental index and table of the world’s events.\u201d \u2013 Wilson: On the Writing on History<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words, Wilson criticizes the new \u2018mechanical\u2019 historians who aspire to be scientific. In Wilson\u2019s view, in order to write good history it is not enough to merely present the naked facts of past events to the reader. The writing of history as a \u201cmonumental index and table of the world’s events\u201d is not the kind of history that Wilson advocates. In fact, he opposes it.<\/p>\n

Now, if we adopt a Myers-Briggsian approach to Jungian typology, it would seem that Wilson is revealing an Intuitive mindset here: As that thinking goes, the people who want the facts, with accuracy and \u201cjust as they are,\u201d are S types, while the people who think behind<\/em> the facts, or want \u201csomething more,\u201d are N types.<\/p>\n

However, there are several problems with this approach: First<\/em>, in terms of the textbook definitions of the functions, it might be argued that Wilson is first and foremost opposing, not Si or Se, but Te-style<\/a> history in this quote. Second<\/em>, as we all know, Jungian functions (unlike the \u201cfour dimension\u201d-approach of the MBTI instrument) pertain to how information is organized and structured in the psyche. It is a theory about psychic processes, not psychic conclusions \u2013 an S type could arrive at an \u201cN-style\u201d conclusion and vice versa<\/em>. Third<\/em>, since typology is a psychological discipline, we cannot expect people to express the workings of the functions directly. Rather, we have to develop a phenomenological representation<\/a> of what the other person\u2019s cognition is like.<\/p>\n

For example, in Shapiro\u2019s piece, analyzing Wilson\u2019s own words, Shapiro writes: \u201cWilson does not speak of the subjective distortion that psychologically implies Ni,\u201d as if we should expect to find Ni types speaking directly of the mechanics of Ni in this manner. However, this is exactly what we should not<\/em> expect: Oftentimes, people do not know that their cognition is partial to their function biases<\/a>, and they usually do not know when they are being subjective unless they have studied Jungian typology. In fact, one of the paradoxes of Introverted Intuition is that while in objective terms, their synthesis is a subjective distortion<\/a> of events along visionary lines, INJs often do not know<\/em> that they are being subjective at all. On the contrary, INJs will oftentimes think that they have seen the essence or essential truth of a thing, when in practice they are conceiving very one-sidedly in favor of a subjective, visionary synthesis (Psychological Types<\/em> \u00a7662).<\/p>\n

Just like we cannot expect INJs to profess that the right way to go about perception is to craft a subjective distortion along visionary lines, we also cannot expect ISJs to say that they \u201cmerely want the facts.\u201d Of course, it may happen that an ISJ says that he or she simply wants \u201cthe facts and nothing but the facts,\u201d but strictly speaking, this tells us little about their type. And at any rate, what ISTJs tend to say the most in our experience is not that they simply want the facts, but rather that they want a proper and careful estimation<\/em> of the facts \u2013 for every fact to be \u201cfully and fairly sifted\u201d as the Duke of Wellington<\/a> said. And that, as we shall see, is incidentally just what Wilson wants as well.<\/p>\n

Wilson\u2019s Reasons for Refusing \u201cFacts Only\u201d History<\/strong><\/p>\n

As we have just seen, Wilson refuses the \u2018facts only\u2019 approach to history, where the historian seeks to mute all subjectivity in favor of a \u201cmonumental index and table of the world’s events.\u201d Something more artful, more \u201cimaginative\u201d is needed, in Wilson\u2019s view. Now, if Wilson had simply appealed to imagination as a self-evident good, this might have constituted some second-order evidence in favor of Intuition. But Wilson does not simply reject the \u201cfacts only\u201d approach to history out of bounds. On the contrary, he is very careful to explain where the license to deviate from the facts may come from:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe trouble is, after all, that men do not invariably find the truth to their taste, and will often deny it when they hear it; and the historian has to do much more than keep his own eyes clear; he has also to catch and hold the eye of his reader.\u00a0 … How shall he take the palate of his reader at unawares, and get the unpalatable facts down his throat along with the palatable? \u2026 It is evident that the thing cannot be done by the \u2018dispassionate annalist.\u2019\u201d \u2013 Wilson: On the Writing on History<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words, Wilson\u2019s reasoning is not such that he simply \u201cappeals to fantasy\u201d (and that we as typologists might take this as some meager indication of N over S). Rather, Wilson\u2019s rationale is that though it might be preferable to tell the facts without all the artful weaving of style and narrative, men would refuse to be made any wiser by it. They want art, not industry. The public at large would remain unmoved by the scholar\u2019s more factual approach. The implication is therefore that this approach would actually be preferable \u2013 that one actually should<\/em> tell \u201csimply the facts\u201d \u2013 if it were not for the \u201cmass of men\u201d who are unmoved by such a rigid approach.[1]<\/p>\n

Certainly,\u00a0Wilson’s reluctance to merely engage in a licentious handling of the facts as a matter of course, and his insistence on furnishing excuses for doing so at length, are not the habitual modus operandi<\/em> of the Ni type. In Shapiro\u2019s piece, he proposes to explain this anomaly by reference to the Compulsive personality style. For our part, we agree that Wilson had Compulsive traits, but as we write on the main page, some Compulsive elements seem to occur as a natural adaptation in many ISTJs. Hence, unless we encounter strong and direct indications of Ni that trump those of Si, there is no need to look closer at Wilson\u2019s Compulsion. So let us look closer at Wilson\u2019s alleged Ni.<\/p>\n

How Wilson May Sound Like an INJ<\/strong><\/p>\n

As we recall, Shapiro recommended On the Writing on History<\/em> on the grounds that it was supposedly a strong demonstration of Wilson\u2019s predilection for Ni. And certainly, Wilson does<\/em> make some rather Ni-sounding statements therein:<\/p>\n

“… the facts do not of themselves constitute the truth. The truth is abstract not concrete. It is the just idea, the right revelation of what things mean. It is evoked only by such arrangements and orderings of fact as suggest meanings … and the best arrangement is always that which displays, not the facts themselves, but the subtle and else invisible forces that lurk in the events and in the minds of men.” \u2013 Wilson: On the Writing on History<\/em><\/p>\n

However, we should also remember that we cannot simply take utterances such as \u201cthe truth is abstract not concrete\u201d or the assertion that meanings reside \u201cbeyond facts\u201d as indicative of specific functions. As mentioned, we have to develop a representation of what the other person\u2019s cognition is like. When Wilson talks about \u201cmeanings beyond facts,\u201d we must make sure that we are reading him on his own terms, and not on the basis of the connotations that these words usually have within the system of Jungian typology. Let us therefore look at what we might expect to happen in the mind of an INTJ:<\/p>\n

\u201c[The Ni-T type] simply touches upon a thing and off he goes. He does not dwell upon the subject, though in the long run one can say that he really does dwell upon it by amplification \u2026 he just catches such an intuition on the wing and leaves it, going round and round amplifying, so that in the end we get a complete picture, but by intuitive means, not by logical means.\u201d \u2013 Jung: Seminar on Zarathustra<\/em> (1934-39) vol. II p. 1083<\/p>\n

The Ni type\u2019s train of thought operates by unconscious amplification and association, not by systematic elucidation (as with the T type) or by elaborating on the meanings found in singular objects and instances (as with the S type). The factor of amplification by association<\/em> is much more forceful in Ni types, whereas Si types prefer to stay with the one<\/em> task at hand. As Jung also says, \u201cthe Sensation type remains with things” (Tavistock Lecture<\/em> I \u00a733). This \u201cthing\u201d may be big or small, abstract or concrete, long- or short-term, present- or future-oriented, but the common denominator is that the psyche of the Si type stays in harness throughout the task set before it, whereas the Ni type leaps between objects and tasks by way of association and amplification of the individual objects to fit an overall process of association, rather than staying with the individual object in itself.<\/p>\n

The Si type may also operate by amplification, but it is usually by way of the concentration and patient focus on the amplification of one<\/em> object that the Si type reveals himself<\/a>. So let us see how these schemata fit Wilson.<\/p>\n

On the face of it, Wilson may resemble an Ni type in the sense that he seeks to uncover \u201cthe meanings behind the facts\u201d and that his preferred mode of doing so is to dwell upon his subject matter by way of amplification. But Wilson certainly does not<\/em> resemble an Ni type in the meanings that his amplifications uncover:<\/p>\n

\u201cHow are you to enable men to know the truth with regard to a period of revolution? Will you give them simply a calm statement of recorded events, simply a quiet, unaccentuated narrative of what actually happened, written in a monotone, and verified by quotations from authentic documents of the time? You may save yourself the trouble. As well make a pencil sketch in outline of a raging conflagration; write upon one portion of it \u2018flame,\u2019 upon another \u2018smoke\u2019; here \u2018town hall,\u2019 where the fire started, and there \u2018spot where fireman was killed.\u2019 It is a chart, not a picture. Even if you made a veritable picture of it, you could give only part of the truth so long as you confined yourself to black and white. Where would be all the wild and terrible colors of the scene: the red and tawny flame; the masses of smoke, carrying the dull glare of the fire to the very skies, like a great signal banner thrown to the winds; the hot and frightened faces of the crowd; the crimsoned gables down the street, with the faint light of a lamp here and there gleaming white from some hastily opened casement? Without the colors your picture is not true. No inventory of items will ever represent the truth: the fuller and more minute you make your inventory, the more will the truth be obscured. The little details will take up as much space in the statement as the great totals into which they are summed up; and the proportions being false, the whole is false.\u201d \u2013 Wilson: On the Writing on History<\/em><\/p>\n

Wilson presents us with a style of amplification which would suggest an S or N function rather than a T or F function.[2] However, Wilson\u2019s intellect has no trouble remaining in harness. Like Freud, who wrote an entire essay on the meaning of Michelangelo\u2019s Moses<\/a>, studying only the statue itself, in this essay Wilson amplifies the one<\/em> task that he has set before himself: To explain why the \u201cfacts only\u201d approach to history will not suffice.<\/p>\n

As we mentioned earlier, it is important to understand Wilson on his own terms and not on the basis of the typical meanings of the words he uses, as they are used within the system of Jungian typology. So while the term \u201cmeanings beyond facts\u201d may loosely be taken to suggest N over S in itself<\/em>, the types of meanings that Wilson alludes to when he talks about \u201cmeanings beyond facts\u201d are not the same \u201cmeanings\u201d or \u201cfacts\u201d as these words are usually understood in many versions of Jungian typology. When Wilson talks about doing justice to the \u201cmeanings beyond facts,\u201d he quite evidently means that the \u201cfacts only\u201d approach to history will fail to do justice to the sense impressions involved. This is exactly what we should expect to find in the Si type, for whom it is the inner sensations caused by sense impressions that are the predominant factor in cognitive orientation.[3]<\/p>\n

Wilson\u2019s Connotations of \u2018Meanings\u2019 and \u2018Facts\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Again, while the words used by Wilson are the same as the words that might be found in various MBTI training materials, each party understands something different by \u201cmeanings\u201d and \u201cfacts\u201d than does the other. The words<\/em> are the same, but the connotations that Wilson and Myers-Briggs understand by them are not.<\/p>\n

Earlier in this essay, we mentioned that as a matter of observation, ISTJs do not typically demand \u201csimply the facts and nothing but the facts.\u201d Rather, the (stereo)typical demand of the ISTJ is that the facts are fully and fairly sifted<\/em> in order to produce a prudent and sensible estimation of them. Wilson says: \u201cThe fuller and more minute you make your inventory, the more will the truth be obscured.\u201d Therefore, to avoid this predicament, a sensible estimation of facts must be undertaken, and in Wilson\u2019s view it is this weighing of the facts that constitutes the \u201cmeaning\u201d and \u201cabstract vision\u201d that lies \u201cbeyond the facts.\u201d As Wilson says over and over again in the essay, the reader must be brought to \u201csee history aright\u201d \u2013 as it really were \u2013 and the historian who distorts the events according to his personal dispositions \u201cgets himself enrolled among a very undesirable class of persons.\u201d Indeed, as Wilson writes, the historian falls into error when history \u201cis not told for its own sake [but is] evidence summed up in order to justify a judgment,\u201d whereas by contrast it might be mentioned that the entire historical production of Hegel, Nietzsche, or Marx was nothing but an analysis undertaken for the sake of justifying a judgment.<\/p>\n

But rather than asking the reader to take our words for what we have said, let us hear Wilson again:<\/p>\n

\u201c[Take the famous historian Thomas] Carlyle, with his \u2026 amazing flashes of insight. The whole matter of what he writes is too dramatic. Surely history was not all enacted so hotly, or with so passionate a rush of men upon the stage. Its quiet scenes must have been longer – not mere pauses and interludes while the tragic parts were being made up. There is not often ordinary sunlight upon the page. The lights burn now wan, now lurid. \u2026 We do not recognize our own world, but seem to see another such as ours might become if peopled by like uneasy Titans. Incomparable to tell of days of storm and revolution, speaking like an oracle and familiar of destiny and fate, searching the hearts of statesmen and conquerors with an easy insight in every day of action, this peasant seer cannot give us the note of piping times of peace, or catch the tone of slow industry; watches ships come and go at the docks, hears freight-vans thunder along the iron highways of the modern world, and loaded trucks lumber heavily through the crowded city streets. \u2026\u00a0 There is no broad and catholic vision, no wise tolerance. … The great seeing imagination of the man lacks that pure radiance in which things are seen steadily and seen whole.\u201d \u2013 Wilson: On the Writing on History<\/em><\/p>\n

Here again, Wilson confirms everything that we have said of him. In his view:<\/p>\n