Function Order: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe
Though an esteemed judge, Dan comes into the case curious about everyone and everything and respectfully demands that everyone explain their reasoning to him. Though respectful of a fellow judge on the bench, he also says that he’s going to have to explain to him why they shouldn’t hold these men responsible for the atrocities they participated in under the Nazi regime. He’s curious about what it was like to live under the regime, and asks it of his housekeeper and her husband, oblivious to the fact that it might make them uncomfortable (though he notices them sidestepping the issue and assures them he isn’t there to “put them on trial”). He wants to understand how men could do the bad things they did in Germany, and hold them responsible. He also respects Rolfe’s “brilliant use of logic” in the courtroom, but also says it isn’t morally right. Dan isn’t always aware of how his questions are taken, but also doesn’t like to make people feel uncomfortable necessarily. He insists on remaining impartial and passing judgment severely on the men on trial, even though they are remorseful; while appreciative of their remorse, he doesn’t feel it erases their evil deeds, and has no interest in playing politics or giving a verdict just to be popular. He feels both sides present good arguments and that both sides have reasonable merit to their explanations, but that ultimately men should be held responsible for their atrocities. He sees things in broad terms and focuses on their implications, more than the individual cases before him – how this is a judgment on all of Germany, yes, but also focused on the four men standing trial as presiding over Hitler’s corrupt judicial system. He occasionally brings up his own experiences in his discussions, and has an overall “casual” way of acting, including asking people not to address him by an important title or his full name; he’d rather just be “Judge Dan.”
Enneagram: 9w1 so/sp
Dan has an amiable disposition that isn’t harshly judgmental most of the time; he is tolerant of other people and their differences of opinion, even if he’s stubborn about clinging to his idea that they must do “moral right” in this case and not excuse atrocities or let people off the hook. He wonders why he needs so many servants and can’t he do things for himself, but then agrees to let them stay because it’s their one way of being able to eat. Dan loathes pomposity and considers himself a “hick.” He’s generally pleasant to everyone he meets, good-natured, curious about everyone, but also sees it as his moral duty to pass a harsh judgment on people who knowingly or unknowingly (how could they not know, he asks?) who were involved in the extermination of millions of innocent people. He believes it’s right to hold civilization morally responsible for its actions, and set a precedent.