The boom economy of the past few years brought me many clients who were doing well financially–in some cases, very well–but felt a longing for more satisfaction in their work. They had good salaries and job security, but didn’t feel fulfilled by what they were doing. They took the MBTI and other career assessments to try to find what was missing, and often our work together helped them understand why a “good job” wasn’t making them happy. They realized that some of their dreams had been pushed aside as they saw the opportunity for financial gain in a strong labor market.

In some ways, a strong economy allows us to dream. When companies are growing and jobs are being created, there are more opportunities for us to make a move. But how many of us actually do? A booming economy can limit our choices as much as it creates them, because when we are doing well financially, it takes a tremendous of fortitude to contemplate giving that up for a career with a lower salary or less stability, even if it promises to be more satisfying.

In many ways, today’s current economy presents many of us with a great opportunity to pursue our career dreams. The instability we’re experiencing is uncomfortable, but it can also serve as a catalyst to create a career that will ultimately be more inspiring. This is especially true for those who have been forced into a career change by layoffs or downsizing. These workers no longer have to take the plunge into uncertainty–it’s been thrust upon them. Others are not out of a job, but are beginning to see that their careers are not as stable as they once thought. Without the promise of stability, an uninspiring job is just that.

If you’re experiencing stress and worry about your career in this economy, it’s time to start thinking about how you can use this period of change to work to your advantage. If you come to terms with the idea that you may not be able to achieve the same level of financial success that you once had, what dreams does that open up for you?

I had a client who was a mortgage broker throughout the housing boom. He’d always had a dream of teaching high school, but just couldn’t imagine giving up the financial rewards of selling mortgages to take a job teaching. He was in for quite a shock when the mortgage market collapsed, but it turned out to be an incredible blessing. He no longer had an excuse to keep at a job that he didn’t love, and finally took the plunge to follow his passion. It was a happy coincidence that his dream job was also one that is relatively recession-proof.

You may realize that it hasn’t been finances keeping you from your dreams, but simply inertia. For many of us, the lure of stability is so great that we overlook our dreams for years. If we have a good, stable job, we reason, why risk that to pursue something we can’t be sure will work out? Well, if your stable job is not looking so stable, it’s time to revisit those dreams you put on the back burner. If your goals involve going back to school, so much the better; low interest rates mean affordable student loans, and with any luck, by the time you’ve graduated the labor market will be on the upswing again.

Of course, many of us who’ve been uprooted by economic turmoil were relatively satisfied with our careers. If you basically enjoyed your job but can’t continue on the same path, you can still use this time to refine your goals. Whether you need to change careers or just make a move from one industry to another, you can make this a positive move by increasing your awareness of your work preferences. Take an objective look at the pros and cons of your previous career, and list these in generalities (for example “enjoyed helping others” or “disliked dealing with bureaucracy”). When you’re evaluating possible next moves, refer to this list. Try to focus your search on new careers that will maximize your time spent with your preferred tasks and work environment while minimizing your exposure to your dislikes.

It can be difficult to contemplate making a positive move if you’ve been through a traumatic layoff or downsizing. Particularly if you didn’t love your job, you might feel that you’ve sacrificed time and effort just to have the rug pulled from under you. But often, we need to be shaken up a bit in order to reevaluate what we really want. If you’re feeling unsteady, now is the time to get back in touch with your true goals. In the end, discovering a job that you love will bring you more happiness than you’d find from any amount of financial gain.

Okay, analyzing presidential candidates’ personality types is interesting and instructive, but perhaps it’s time for something a little more lighthearted? After sifting through the superhero movie deluge this summer, I started thinking about our iconic heroes and their personality styles. Some are more apparent than others, but here are my guesses.

Ironman/Tony Stark: ISTP. This character is often found tinkering with metal, circuits, and mechanical devices, engaging in wildly adventurous behavior, and playing the field romantically—all characteristics of the typical ISTP. ISTPs love to be in the action, and more than any other type they have a skill in manipulating mechanical objects. Unlike many superheroes, his exploits result from his desires for action, revenge, and his own survival, rather than from a larger sense of morality or ideals. He’s not an enforcer, but the action and the gear of the superhero business excites him.

Batman/Bruce Wayne: ENTP. More typical of superheroes in the sense that he is idealistic, Batman still lives on the fringes of society. He’s often content with being portrayed as a vigilante or even a villain if it furthers his cause. Like many ENTPs, he doesn’t feel an intrinsic need to belong, as long as he is living by his own personal code. Technologically savvy and inventive, Batman relies on his ability to create superior weapons for his personal crusade–however, unlike Ironman, Batman creates the design and leaves the building up to someone else.

Superman/Clark Kent: ESFJ. Sometimes called the Big Blue Boy Scout, Superman follows the rules and takes care of the weak. Like many ESFJs, he sees his role as a protector, and makes sure that the gears of society hum along smoothly and that people have what they need. He’s the least rogueish of the superheroes, and despite the fact that he’s a member of a supercharged alien race, you get the sense that he really just wants to fit in. He’s responsible, he’s traditional, and he’s always there when you need him.

Spider-Man/Peter Parker: INTJ. Gifted in science, Spider-Man became so when accidentally bitten by a spider, and took on his superhero status reluctantly when he realized his responsiblity to use his powers for good. Most INTJs enjoy science and technology, and Spider-Man is no different; he’s fascinated by his own powers and devises gadgets to assist him. But his responsibility overwhelms him, and he often takes on too much. He has the INTJ’s longing for stability, and this results in much of his stress as a superhero—unfortunately, it’s not a job you can schedule.

Everyone’s doing it–from Slate to Keirsey, journalists and type professionals are all weighing in on the personality types of John McCain and Barack Obama. The writers at Keirsey.com, including Dr. Keirsey himself, argue that personality type has exerted a powerful force in presidential elections over the history of our nation. He makes a case for the idea that Sensors have an advantage when communicating with their constituents because they tend to be more concrete and factual.

However, since few of our past Presidents have taken the indicator or verified their type (the exception being Bill Clinton, who verified as an ENFP) it’s difficult to be sure what advantages personality preferences might confer. Indeed, a candidate’s ability to adapt their persona to the situation at hand might be more important than any of their type preferences. Nonetheless, it’s always interesting to theorize about the types of major figures, and it only becomes more fascinating when the subjects are opponents in a contentious and competitive political race.

The Slate article has gotten quite a bit of press, but unfortunately the author seems to have limited type expertise. Armed with a couple of books by Otto Kroeger, she set out to decide which type fit each candidate best. In later interviews, she avoided questions about her qualifications regarding the instrument, stating: “This is journalism—I know better than they do what type they are….” Anyone familiar with the ethical use of the MBTI® instrument is aware that the final authority on someone’s personality type is the person themselves. Other people can make observations and guesses, but without a thorough evaluation and discussion with the individual, we can never be sure of a person’s type. For what it’s worth, she guessed that McCain would prefer ESTP, and Obama ENFP.

I’m inclined to put a bit more stock in the Keirsey analysis. They didn’t have the benefit of talking with the candidates either, but at least they’re type professionals! The writers at Keirsey.com have theorized that John McCain is an STP Artisan, while Obama is likely a Rational, most probably an INTJ Mastermind. They’ve taken a look at both of the candidates’ career histories, communication styles, and written work to try to observe characteristics of type preference.

McCain’s sometimes inappropriate sense of humor, his reputation as a partier in his younger days, and his apparent tendency to respond to situations from moment to moment are all cited as evidence of an Artisan temperament. In the piece on Obama, the authors cite his innovative ideas and motivation to challenge the status quo, as well as his abstract communication style. Although they conclude he is likely a Rational, they observe that he has well-developed skills outside of his preferences: the ability to relate to others in a more typically Idealist style, as well as the ability to communicate concretely when the situation calls for it.

From my own observations of the candidates, I would guess that McCain is indeed an ESTP. ESTPs like to be in the center of the action, whether on a battlefield or in politics. They can get themselves in trouble with their impulsive nature, saying exactly what they think when they think it, and sometimes they stir up trouble just for the excitement of it. McCain’s reputation as a maverick seems to stem from his ability to candidly point out flaws in process. He’s not so interested in evaluating systems holistically or putting together nuanced policies; he just calls ‘em as he sees ‘em.

McCain communicates in a straightforward manner, but tends to hedge when asked about long-range plans. You get the sense that he prefers to have the freedom to address problems as they arise, rather than having a detailed plan about what will happen. This can also help to explain what some deride as “waffling;” people who prefer Perceiving will often make different decisions depending on the unique situation presented in the moment. Indeed, McCain often seems to state his positions as if they’ve just occurred to him. Unfortunately for McCain, candidates who don’t seem to hold a hard line on an issue are often criticized in the press; for better or for worse, we seem to prize decisiveness and consistency in a leader over flexibility and spontaneity.

When studying Obama, I’m inclined to disagree with the Keirsey evaluation of his type. I do agree that Obama is likely an Intuitive, based on the way he communicates. He speaks in an imaginative, abstract style typical of Intuitive types. His engaging narrative has been noted by supporters and detractors alike; supporters find themselves moved by his positive vision, where detractors feel he is “all ideas and no substance.” Either way, the style they are noticing is characteristic of an Intuitive preference and a tendency to communicate ideas, meaning, and possibilities, rather than facts and details.

I disagree with Keirsey on the T/F dichotomy. Obama strikes me as an Intuitive Feeling (Idealist) type rather than an NT. NF types are driven to visualize a world that is better for people; they are innovative in their thinking about how to improve the human condition and are driven fundamentally by their humanitarian principles. While NTs are motivated to innovate as well, they often are driven to improve systems in terms of efficiency or cost-effectiveness. If it makes more sense, NTs are in favor of it. In contrast, NFs are driven to improve systems in terms of how well they serve people. If it makes the world a better place, NFs are in favor of it. Obama’s policies seem much more consistent with an NF point of view; he seems to espouse policies and positions on the basis of their ability to improve the human condition.

Overall, I would guess that Obama prefers ENFJ. His ability to communicate easily and compellingly is a trait found more often in Extroverted types than in Introverted types; ENFJs in particular are often considered silver-tongued. I would theorize a Judging preference from the way he handles policy ideas; he seems to project plans for implementation well into the future and tends to emphasize the importance of commitment to a goal. In general, ENFJs are the consummate community organizers, taking their positive vision for humanity and getting people together to make it happen. ENFJs are often found leading nonprofit organizations, practicing community-oriented law, or taking on public relations or communications positions that allow them to promote a positive message–all roles that Obama has held at some point in his career.

So, will it make a difference in the election? Keirsey has been commenting on the race throughout the primaries, and noted that both Obama and McCain were their party’s best hope for winning the presidency: McCain because of the historic success of Artisan candidates, and Obama for his ability to communicate concretely, despite his presumed preferences. Having seen the impact that personality preferences make in most areas of life, I’m inclined to believe that they will affect the election. Of course, the candidate that appeals to us most based on personality characteristics may not be the candidate that best represents our interests. My hope is that with awareness of how our preferences may bias us, we’ll be better able to vote for the candidate who truly represents our views and vision for our country.