[.ca] Presidential Temperament: The Unfolding of Character in ... (ISBN 096069546X)

Fascinating, but have a few notes:
Loved the combination of psychology and history. If you find both interesting, you should definitely get this book. And you can contact the publisher to get an update that includes Bill Clinton. Other errors not mentioned by the previous reviewers include that the pictures for W.H. Harrison and J. Buchanan are actually swapped, that it has W.H. Harrison born in 1793 and married in 1775 and that John Quincy Adams's middle name is once spelled "Qunicy". Another curious thing: it appears that the book was written as if the presidents were to be discussed in chronological order, then later changed to group them by types. I think the latter was a better idea, but some references were left which seem to indicate the prior ordering. Then there is the question of the typing of the presidents. Both Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter seem different enough from others in their groups that it's interesting to wonder whether they are really correctly typed. Do we really understand Johnson well enough? After all, he is the man who everyone is suprised to learn once uttered: "Two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she is having her way. And second, let her have it." Then there is Martin Van Buren, who many on the web consider an Idealist INFJ. Even based on just the evidence presented in this book, it seems like it might be the case. His admiration of Jefferson, the fact that diplomacy was his best talent, his lack of charisma (compare to Jackson) and his tendency to work behind-the-scenes all seem to point this way. In addition, I don't think it's necessary to see Van Buren's efforts to avoid dividing the Union over slavery so cynically. Perhaps because he is married to one, Author Keirsey seems to idealize the Idealists out of proportion. They are 12% of the population, but to read him it seems that every single one has goals as earth-shattering as Gandhi's. Does this tally with your experience? Perhaps it's the lack of information about this president that leads to this misinterpretation. But don't Idealists have the tendency to be very private people? I hope it's not just the case that saying "No Idealist has ever been president." sounds more dramatic and marketable on the book cover.

Even Einstein Made A Mistake Now and Again...:
David Keirsey's work in refining MBTI is phenomenal and should be much, much more extensively used in the education system, as it already is and has been in the business world (where efficiency and practicality actually matter, unlike education) for decades now. Of this book, which again was mostly fascinating intellectual meat, I must beg to differ about Keirsey regarding Ronald Reagan's type. I also find it amusing that even geniuses like Keirsey can occasionally "blow one"--even when they are alive to witness the direct observation. Now, concerning Reagan, and concerning Keirsey's assertion that no idealists have ever been president, Keirsey has indeed finally made a gaff. You see, folks; you see, Mr. Keirsey, it's like this: RONALD REAGAN WAS AN ENFP!!! YOU DON'T ALLUDE TO UFO'S a total of 18 TIMES DURING YOUR PRESIDENCY, as REAGAN did, AND YOU DON'T FOCUS ON FUTURE-ORIENTED, BIG-PICTURE DEFENSE SYSTEMS LIKE 'STAR WARS,' as REAGAN did, UNLESS YOU ARE AN INTUITIVE! Keirsey's got Reagan as an ESFP--what he's probably seeing is an ENFP that was raised by Sensor parents (this would account for a higher percentage of Sensor-like everyday quotes from Reagan, which is mainly what Keirsey is basing his mistaken identification on). The more I look at Type, the more I see that parents play a huge role in how we later act, often altering our basic Type to something like a "sub-Type", but they don't determine or change our overall Type/Temperament, to be sure. David--Mr. Keirsey--it's okay to admit you made a mistake. You are such an intellectual giant, and have done so much incredible work, and I am such a HUGE fan of yours. It's okay. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes, right?