posted 04-24-2005 11:58 AM               

George W. Bush, for example, has been identified as an ISTJ (guardian type); Churchill was an ENTP (rational visionary); Mother Teresa was an ISFJ (caretaker), etc.

Personality types in team settings have a fascinating dynamic, which is why Myers-Briggs type is used in many institutional settings to form effective and well-balanced teams. You wouldn't want to form a team made entirely of STs, for example, or NFs.

But what of the early astronauts? I can attest to Carpenter's personality type, classic male type, often found in command: An ENTJ. Rene Carpenter is an ESFJ.

The classic engineer (a Rational) type is the ENTP. My guess, in fact, is the John Glenn is an ENTP. But don't know if he ever was typed.

posted 04-24-2005 08:00 PM               

I have some definite opinions on an adjunct to this subject but I can't share them.

I think these things are attempts to quantify the subjective. A lot of highly intelligent, focused and dedicated individuals put thousands of man-hours into developing these tests. This time would have been better spent doing the hunka-chunka.

If you want to learn all there is about human behavior and personality types go to the zoo and visit Monkey Island. That's us, except for the prehesile tails. For the most part.

Wh do YOU think was the best engineer, commander etc etc?

posted 04-25-2005 06:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kyra:
Interestingly, Wally Schirra despite his charisma and pranksterisms is very Introspective, and the most iNtuitive of the group.

---

This isn't exactly surprising. Many jokers use humor to straight-arm the world.

On a personal level I'm in actual fear when I meet people and I can tell you directly there is physical discomfort involved, hence the term "painfully shy". The jokes fly thick and fast but people can be sweating buckets inside.

You can tell the difference in personality types by their jokes. Some pull pranks in order to see people squirm (I think some Kraut named this "schadenfreud") while others just put up a barrage of jokes so they'll be left alone.

posted 04-25-2005 09:43 AM               

Carpenter brought it up recently because of a fascinating dinner conversation he'd had with an emeritus professor from Embry-Riddle. She was describing left and right brain theory with him, and then tagged him, correctly, as an ENTJ during the course of the evening. Carpenter asked me to send him some literature on it, since all he's been reading lately are his technical journals.

Agreed, kyra, that discussions shouldn't seek to identify the ideal astronaut/pilot/engineer type. I was interested more in the group dynamics.

For example, in the long Glenn-Carpenter prime-alternate training regime, the only clue I have is Carpenter describing his role as "pushing" Glenn toward decisions, a classic J-P dynamic.

I recall noting that Carpenter wasn't an extreme anything (E, N, T, or J), and on E in particular, he wasn't on the E-I border at all.

So Schirra's an INFP?

posted 04-25-2005 07:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:

Best engineer of the seven? My dad gives this honor to Shepard, an INTJ perhaps?

---

Well, you're right about getting into particulars. But the group dynamic thing is pretty good. It might explain why some guys got the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

posted 04-25-2005 08:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Glueck:
Wally was all fun and games except where his flights were concerned.

---

You got that right! I can tell you, from talking to my uncle many years ago when he was representing his engineering group from Martin-Marietta at a meeting concerning a particular re-design with the Mercury spacecraft, ALL of the 7 were quite serious when it came to engineering meetings, including Wally Schirra. My uncle said Wally could "turn it on and off" (the humor), but when it came to the spacecraft, he was all business. Shepard, on the other hand, tended to slowly scan the room with a "fixed scowl". He also said that Schirra, Glenn and Carpenter were the only ones of the 7 who shook his hand and thanked him for his presentation as he was leaving. Even though this was just one meeting, from all accounts I've read about the Mercury 7 personalities over the years, my uncle's impressions seem to be right on the mark.

Best,
Bruce

posted 04-25-2005 08:46 PM               

Carpenter loved and admired John Glenn, as a younger brother would love and admire an accomplished elder brother.

He ceded leadership reluctantly to Al Shepard. The rest were more or less rivals.

Grissom was the dark horse. Always surprising favorites and golden boys.

posted 04-26-2005 01:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
My favorites astronauts always have been John Glenn and Scott Carpenter.If Superman and Captain America were true i would imagine like they.They were shining images of the new frontier, champions of the free world.I respect Shepard,but sincerely i don't like him.

---

Your dislike for Cmdr Shepard is based on what you've read..what you've heard?..Certainly not on personal experience with the man. We could open a big can of worms here and advise you of some of John Glenn's failings, or even Scott Carpenter's ( although I don't know of any.. everyone is human and I'm sure there are some) But after all it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. Cmdr Shepard had many exemplary qualities. I had the chance to meet him here in Rochester for a golf outing, and of course expected the "Icy Commander".. he was far from what was expected, and a terrific afternoon was had discussing everything from landing on Carriers, to the Apollo 1 fire, to his landing at Fra Mauro.. and his sincere admiration of the other 6 members of his fraternity.. and of course, the recent ( at the time) passing of Deke Slayton. I saw a side he rarely let out, I guess..

[This message has been edited by John K. Rochester (edited April 26, 2005).]

posted 04-26-2005 03:09 PM               

And what you know of them at all is what they in large part ~wanted~ you to know about them. The rest was private and unknowable.

The stereotypes serve purposes. But in the end, Icy Commander doesn't begin to explain a complex and intensely gifted leader like Al Shepard.

Glenn and Carpenter are perceived to be nice guys, with wonderful smiles and a winning way in public with children and grandmothers. Favorites of congressional committee members, to be sure, and of yours, for reasons of nostalgia. But they too are complex and driven men.

So, carmelo, when you remember the glory days of the space program with affection, then please spare some of it for the implacable, brilliant, unknowable types like Shepard. He was a big part of why there were glory days at all.

posted 04-26-2005 08:54 PM               

------------------
Don

(Edit: Just so there is no misunderstanding, what I was implying was "we're very lucky to have you and your unique perspective onboard.")

[This message has been edited by dss65 (edited April 26, 2005).]

posted 04-26-2005 09:24 PM               

Yes, everyone will have positive and negative charecteristics found. But the variety of traits is what makes an individual. We must use discretion and respect when discussing these traits to avoid stereotypes and let our heroes have a little privacy. Rule of thumb : If you would not want to read it about yourself online or elsewhere then please don't print it here. In fact, I would not be surprised if our editor does not move this topic to "Free Space" with a similar or further disclaimers or guidelines.

posted 04-27-2005 08:42 AM               

Thanks for the additional background on graphology. I had no idea the art (or science?) was so advanced or that you could use it to extrapolate MBTI!

But I was confounded by your last, rather mysterious, warning to me.

My OP was to start a responsible discussion about astronauts and MBTI, as takes place on other sites, about other public figures. And largely responsible discussion ensued. Further, it's my understanding that there are no good types and no bad types--just different types, all acting and interacting in fascinating ways.

Have I erred? Honestly, is discussion of MBTI considered over the line? If so, I had no idea and hereby proffer my most abject apologies.

posted 04-27-2005 09:21 AM               

He was intrigued, and added it would have been a useful tool. But they didn't think of using it. As it was, the working group spent 30 hours testing ~each~ of the 32 candidates!

Also, it was suggested above that the E-I axis (Extraversion-Introversion) identifies gregariousness and shyness.

posted 05-01-2005 03:21 PM               

There have to be autographs etc available for you to examine. Maybe some collectors here would be willing to let you see their stuff.

I'm told a person's signiture (spelling?) is a picture they draw of themselves. True?

posted 05-02-2005 09:43 PM               

I was just wondering - perhaps it's a good thing M-B wasn't used extensively in the selection process. While its insights might be fascinating, it might also lead to making decisions on mix that might miss out on some exceptional teams. On a project such as Mercury, where the performance comes at a time when the candidate is alone in a one-man spacecraft, perhaps selection as it was - without using M-B as a tool for developing a "balanced" team - led to a superior result.

I don't know... but it is one idea to consider. I have been working for some time on a piece that examines the actual television ratings for space coverage to try and determine just how interest built and waned among the public. It consumes all the spare time I have at the moment, but is almost finished. As I get into producing our Mercury set this sounds like a fascinating subject to consider further!

posted 05-03-2005 10:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
. . .perhaps it's a good thing M-B wasn't used extensively in the selection process. While its insights might be fascinating, it might also lead to making decisions on mix that might miss out on some exceptional teams. . . .
Mark

---

Agreed. In the end, I think the decisionmakers had gut-level instincts about how the seven original astronauts would function both alone and as members of a team and chose accordingly, without the MBTI.

Regarding your research project, check out the "Cannibalism in Space" thread over on Free Space. In addition to anecdotes about cannibalistic scorpions in a bag, during July 1960 survival training, there are also ruminations about waning public interest in spaceflight and exploration in general.

To wit, in the late 1950s and the 1960s, we were all watching, communally, an actual race against a dangerous foe, with our national security at stake. That's good television.

And the race had an actual finish line--landing on the moon.

Does ESPN cover races once they're over and won? Nope. If you're lucky, you get an interview with the winner and loser and maybe an awards ceremony. But you've probably changed the channel by then.

So, in your research on public interest (and TV coverage), you might want to focus on ~perceptions~ about the US-USSR rivalry for S & T preemininence--especially as the finish line (men on the moon) approached.

In the final laps of that epic race, seems like the U.S. was all alone on the track.

This doesn't make the lunar landings any less of a triumph. But without a bitter rival fighting us every step there (as Shepard and Gagarin fought in 1961, and as Glenn/U.S. fought in 1962 to get into orbit), perhaps the race was viewed as less vital to our national survival.

We turned the channel.

posted 05-03-2005 04:16 PM               

Hi Kris,

The deeper I dig into the first-person accounts of the Mercury selection, I find that Charlie Donlan had already decided who he wanted prior to the medical testing at Lovelace and the Stress/Psych testing at WP.
At the get-together for his "final" decision, he stated to the panel that he would list the names of those chosen, and he only wanted to know *if* there was any medical reason to disqualify them. His list was then sent to Gilruth for confirmation. He later mentioned that the medical testing only served to eliminate one or two candidates that he had really wanted.

If the above is true (and I believe it is) then medical and pysch testing couldn't get you *onto* the list, but it could in extreme cases get you removed from the list.
e.g. Lovell, Bill Lawrence and Conrad.

I believe that Carpenter's superb performance during the physical testing (with Glenn nipping at his heels) confused us in regard to the selection process. They, along with Shepard were ALREADY the leading candidates *prior* to the med/psych tests.

Slayton armed with recommendations from "The Seven" as well as Yeager et al handpicked the 1962 group and sent them for testing. Like Mercury, the guys Slayton wanted the most only had to *pass* the tests to come on board. They didn't have to excel...

posted 05-04-2005 10:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by taneal1:
If the above is true (and I believe it is) then medical and pysch testing couldn't get you *onto* the list, but it could in extreme cases get you removed from the list.

---

Tom,

This is ~very~ interesting--as in "Eureka!" interesting--to have the 1959 (and 1962) selection process reframed the way you have above.

But you approach the subject quite properly from the "hidden hand" perspective of Charlie Donlan. In researching the same subject, I was so involved in the nuts and bolts--undertaken by the public face of the selection process. These were the nuts and bolts of stress testing and ink blots that the 1959 working group took so seriously (so I did too), which led me to under-research the roles played by Donlan and North ~prior~ to Lovelace and Wright-Patterson.

But Bob Voas (a member of the working group) DID say, very intriguingly, that the so-called technical interview held at the Pentagon during Phase II had been hugely influential; the three interviewers were IIRC were Gilruth, Gamble, and Donlan. Their first impressions created an immediate list of favorites or front-runners, according to Voas.

Further evidence supporting your take, Tom, on the 1959 (and 1962) selection is found in the Selection Committee's instruction to the working group in late March 1959, after all the tests and workups for the 32 finalists had been quantified, producing those numerical rankings.

Here's what happened: The working group had reported rather triumphantly to the decisionmakers on the Selection Committee that they had numerical rankings for the candidates and had further grouped them into categories: Outstanding, Recommended, Not Recommended for Medical Reasons.

No, no! they were told. Just tell us who is "risky" from a psychiatric standpoint. So the working group reworded the groupings: Recommended without medical reservation and Recommended with medical reservation.

Such was the suspect status of psychiatry, ca. 1959, in the superstitious aviation world of iron men, that the Donlans and the Norths really just wanted the witch doctors to identify the head cases. They had already decided, as you say, who was on the short list. They wanted only validation, or something like it, from the shrinks.

posted 05-05-2005 10:17 AM               

But before the behavioral sciences were banished from NASA in 1962, Dr. Ruff had implemented with Gilruth's approval a longitudinal behavioral and psychiatric study on all the astronauts, pre- and postflight, in an effort to validate the selection criteria and to study psychological adaptation to spaceflight.

It was then thought (and believed to this day) that psychological adaptation to long-duration missions posed the most serious impediment to mission success.

Also, one cannot have science unless one validates his experiments; and astronaut selection in 1959 was an experiment, as no one knew what spaceflight was like. Ruff, then only thirty years old, therefore collected data for Shepard, Grissom, Glenn, and Carpenter. And would continue to collect data as long as humans attempted spaceflight.

But after MA-7, Dr. George Ruff was fired (and his research program terminated) just as he was waiting to conduct his routine preflight interview of Schirra.

And the longitudinal study? Scrapped until an incoming generation of Shuttle-era psychiatrists asked the logical question: "Where are the NASA performance data, validating the selection criteria?"

Was NASA even studying the psychological adaptation of individuals and crews to long-duration flights? Nope.