• Dutiful George Washington for Sensing-Judging / Methodicals
• Philosophical Thomas Jefferson for iNtuitive-Thinking / Competitives
• Rambunctious Teddy Roosevelt for Sensing-Perceiving / Spontaneous
• Idealistic Abraham Lincoln for iNtuitive-Feeling / Humanistics

Unfortunately, the cover story (though excellent) treated temperament from a Nine Characteristics perspective rather than a Four Temperaments perspective in a way similar to this Slate article or some recent blog posts regarding presidential personality type.

Yet at least the Time cover/article got me looking for and reading those posts, because the authors guessed slightly different temperaments from each other, and I found the differences illuminating.

But before discussing the blog authors’ picks, my personal predictions were SP/Spontaneous for fiery, action-oriented McCain, NF/Humanistic for idealistic and emotionally intelligent Obama, and NT+Judging/Competitive for sharp-minded and power-hungry Hillary Clinton.

So here’s how the experts typing matched up with mine:

• Everyone agreed that McCain has a spontaneous temperament.
• Emily Yoffe felt that Hillary was an SJ, but it turns out that Hillary has actually taken an MBTI test and has tested as an NTJ, which matched up with most blog post guesses.
• Some experts believe that Obama was an NT, while others felt he was more likely an NF

And here’s what you can take away from the misperceptions and disagreements surrounding presidential candidate typing:

1. Myers-Briggs Preferences (and Temperaments) are just that: preferences.

People are adaptable and can develop or use weaker sides of their personalities – and may even prefer to use them in a given situation.  Introverts, for instance, all have an auxiliary personality that they use for social situations or work.  Johnny Carson was a legendary introvert, but hardly came off as one during The Late Show.

So too could an NT politician learn to speak empathically about deep emotional issues and learn to champion inclusive policies.  Or conversely, NF’s are more than capable of adopting an NT mindset when the need for tough-minded leadership decisions arises.  Hence the NT/NF disagreement over an emotionally savvy, but also emotionally flat “no drama” Obama.

And it’s also why Future Now analyzes buying behavior in terms of “buying modes,” rather than assuming that buying mode will line up with temperament preference.  No one buys accounting software spontaneously, and even the most hard-headed and practical of us have been known to make spontaneous purchases on vacation.

2.  Knowing how temperament preferences overlap – and where they differ – is important

Why would one person see an SJ/Methodical when another sees an NT/Competitive?  Well because both temperaments have a strong preference for logical decision-making.  And an NT with a strong Judging preference, like Hillary’s INTJ personality type, can come off as an organizer – reliable and sufficiently detail-oriented to fool you into thinking they have a methodical temperament*

So what does this mean for your Website/copy?

Rather than pushing copy or messaging styles onto visitors, it’s best to cover all the temperaments persuasive needs according to the “fast up top and slow down bottom” layout method.  That way you can let visitors self-select the copy and links that most appeals to them without worrying about improperly typing them. You can get a sense of how these temperaments interact with a page by reading Howard’s analysis of Jakob Nielson’s eyetracking study.

Conclusion: Put Copy for Fast Decision Makers Up Top and Slow Decision Makers Down Bottom

So the default copy organization for most pages will include copy, links, and calls to action intended for competitive and spontaneous temperaments (your fast decision makers who are less likely to scroll and spend the time to examine the entire page) up top, and copy more suited for methodical and humanistic temperaments (slower decision makers who will examine the entire page) below that.

For instance, if you have an NT/competitive who follows a link intended for Methodicals, the page he lands on will still have some bottom-line or big picture copy at the top of the page and a call to action appropriate for his temperament.  And if that particular competitive keeps reading, well, he may just be in a more Methodical Buying Mode.  No big deal – as long as your pages are set up properly.

And that’s what I took away from the recent spate of articles and blog posts on Temperament and MBTI.

P.S. If this stuff interests you, I highly recommend that you check out this free audio book.

* For the record, what probably should have pushed Yoffe away from typing Hillary as an SJ, is that she is very much an ideologue.  Her political stances were sharply radical when she adopted them and required something of a philosophical bent to arrive at.  She didn’t enter politics by being an outstanding administrator; she entered politics because of a commitment to her political theories and ideas.  Plus, her career as a lawyer indicated an NT preference over SJ.

For content providers, the question remains whether additional short-term bursts of ad revenue will be justified against the potential decrease in brand affinity. Since the ads work under the guise of a regular-old hyperlink, some visitors are completely turned off after clicking on them.

From a usability standpoint, they’re a real pain. Text becomes a pop-up minefield with any slight mouse movement touching one of these ads triggering pop-up advertisements. This creates friction for the visitor, who’s simply trying to do what they came to a site for:  to read the content.

The content’s credibility is also put at stake. Writers, and journalists in particular, are expected to be objective. These in-text advertisement pop-ups are further muddying the lines between editorial integrity and the sales team’s agenda, while posing as unbiased writing.

Speaking of “fair and balanced,” FoxNews.com adopted this measure and claims that they think its great. According to The Wall Street Journal, “FoxNews.com says it doesn´t consider in-text ads to be advertising, because they help provide information about the topic.”

Of course, many bloggers and other writers strive to make money for their work. When the content becomes the ad, visitors may not want to come back. Who in their right mind wants to actively read an infomercial in disguise when they can passively watch one on TV?

The bottom line is that these ads may present a good opportunity to monetize your content, but you risk losing credibility — and once that’s damaged, it’s not easily repaired.

I didn’t think it was possible until I read “Order on Tax Evasion Site Blocked” in the NY Times:

On Friday, Judge Peter W. Hall temporarily blocked the portion of the order requiring Mr. Schulz to turn over to the government the names and identifying details of people who had obtained information at the Web site on how to stop federal tax from being withheld from their paychecks.

My position is clear, I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU. Do you think the IRS should be able to get that list?

A BUSINESS strategy of The New York Times to get its articles to pop up first in Internet searches is creating a perplexing problem: long-buried information about people that is wrong, outdated or incomplete is getting unwelcome new life.

People are coming forward at the rate of roughly one a day to complain that they are being embarrassed, are worried about losing or not getting jobs, or may be losing customers because of the sudden prominence of old news articles that contain errors or were never followed up.

Archived material is being pushed to the top of the search engine result pages by the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) efforts of the New York Times. That is considered good business, especially for a website that makes money from displaying ads and the reader gets what might be relevant information. However, the practice raises a new crop of questions about journalistic ethics:

• What is their responsibility to archive all of their published works?
• Do they have a responsibility as a news organization to follow up on all published material to verify outcomes and then link it back to the older articles?
• Should they allow people the ability to comment on this dated material?
• Should they allow for the editing of the archives at a later date to change what was originally published as news?
• Should some material just be deleted and forgotten in this digital age?
• Whose responsibility is it to monitor and influence (if possible) what the search engines say about people?

Please let me know what you think about these new ethical challenges for journalists. What are our responsibilities as bloggers? Do the readers even care when things have finally been resolved?

P.S. If you’re in the mood for contemplating ethical challenges, Marshall Sponder raises another large one: What’s an honest SEO person to do when Universal Search clogs up SERPS with results they can’t manipulate?

Here’s a taste of what Bullard had to say:

It’s comforting to know that, should…I decide to take a sabbatical, there’s no shortage of people available to hold the fort. The only snag is the quality, or lack of it.

Allow me to explain… I used to play air guitar with a band called Deep Purple. My playing was perfect, I had attitude and I even smashed my air guitar at the end of the number. The reason I played air guitar is that I couldn’t play real guitar very well so I was forced to dwell in this fantasy world where my guitar playing meant something only to me. I should point out that this was years ago when I was still young and foolish. These days I play air tenor saxophone, which is far more challenging.

Most blog sites are the air guitars of journalism. They’re cobbled together by people who wouldn’t stand a hope in hell of getting a job in journalism, mainly because they have very little to say. It’s rather sad how many people think the tedious minutiae of their lives will be of any interest to anyone else.

It’s even sadder when someone reads them.

Can’t you smell the smug? Or is that cigar smoke? Either way, Bullard’s blog-bashing was a massive success.

What’s Next Blog called Ballard a “yellow journalist” as well as–my personal favorite–a “dead tree journalist.”

Eric Berlin responds, insisting Bullard should have “turned on his brain” before attacking the blogosphere, calling the piece “hateful” and “condescending”:

The column turns nearly xenophobic at its end, referencing “some anonymous, scrofulous nerd pumping meaningless drivel into cyberspace at all hours of the day and night simply because he can’t get a girl to sleep with him.”

Bullard’s column is called “Out to Lunch.” Indeed.

In all fairness, Berlin’s blog is called Online Media Cultist–which no doubt would only make Bullard snicker that much more.

Things took a turn for the hilarious today when What’s Next Blog followed-up with Bullard’s YouTube response to his blogger critics.

Is this link-baiting, though, or just an example of two sides trying to frame the argument in his own language (i.e., the “link-baiters” vs. the “wannabe columnists”)?

As a music journalist-turned-marketer/blogger (who also plays a mean air guitar), I find this especially tragicomic. It also evokes Jeffrey Eisenberg’s post about L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein’s insisting he doesn’t care to see readers’ comments.  On the contrary; not only does Bullard want to read your comments, he’s now got retaliation fodder–a columnist’s/blogger’s best friend.

Still, all the publishing of editorial content online… The scouring of blogs near and far to find related opinions… The YouTube posting… Sounds like blogging to me.

Should we assume that Bullard’s in sad shape, or has hit a dry spell in his personal life? Nah…

Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Bullard!