It feels like were basically in agreement but using different words and explanations.
I'm inclined to believe that is what happens with almost all arguments. I'm glad that in this case, we can see our points of agreement. Makes it easier to get on, and to discuss.
I just want to distinguish between people being rational and people experiencing themselves as rational. I think the latter holds true for a majority but not the former.
I agree, in that most people see themselves as being objectively rational, and that doesn't mean they are rational, and whether they are or not, other people often don't see them as being obectively rational.
Also Its very much the form of Dawkins arguments, how he presents them and what they are like that I have used to argue that he is an intp. I am no great fan of the man but admittedly I like his style. I don't see how that would make me want him to be intp seeing as I'm an infj.
Well, the reason that I raised it, is why I think he's an INFJ. I can see plenty of INTPs online who share his views on religions, on atheism, on science, and on many things. Plus, many rationals hold by his selfish gene theory.
However, what confused me, was that his style of behaviour and writing wasn't like most INTPs. When atheist INTPs talk about religions, they're usually extremely dismissive, like it's so obvious to them, that they see no point in even discussing the point. When Richard Dawkins talks about religions, he is far more engaging and far more interesting to listen to. He usually makes some extreme generalisations about religions. But he usually provides a small and concise reasoning for them, rather like INTJs do. However, unlike INTJs, he does seem to consider much about how people feel about religions, and especially raises issues about harming others, which suggests Fe to me, rather than Te.
Also, when I started reading his "Selfish Gene" book, I was quite astonished. I had already got the gist of his theory. But I was trying to understand more about how he came to his ideas. In the introduction, he is very revealing. He starts by explaining that he started with an idea that everything in the universe tends towards one central principle, and that is to aim for more stability. I'd agree with that conclusion, because I came to that intuition myself. Dawkins is writing a science book. Plus, it's a theory of everything, and so is an extraordinary claim, and requires substantial proof. But he just glosses over it as if it was a given for him. Then he goes on to talk about viewing genes "as if" they were selfish, on the basis that someone else had done so with photons. Again, intuitively I can see the connection. But just because it might make sense to use the perspective to describe the behaviour of photons, because of the peculiary way photons behave, doesn't mean that it would make sense to use that perspective anywhere else, unless they also have those same peculiarities. But those peculiarities are the results of quantum physics, which aren't assumed to apply to other areas like genes. Dawkins again doesn't really focus on providing reasoning for that, only the description of the intuition. When he ends the introduction, he does something very unscientific. He explains that he's just offering a possible perspective on how one can look at the behaviour of species. For him, it's an exploration of an idea. He's not trying to prove it with intense rational reasoning,
He does introduce rational arguments, such as when he gives reasoning for using individual selection for his theory, which implies selfishness. But he doesn't so much provide arguments to support individual selection, but rather reasons to reject group selection, and thus to accept individual selection by default. It's as if he is using reason to deal with other people's objectives, extrovertedly, rather than to make introverted arguments to support his views.
He also is cited as saying that he just wants people to think for themselves, which sounds like an INTP. But then he goes on about raising children with religions, as being akin to child abuse. It gives me the impression that he likes the idea of people thinking for themselves, but only when their thoughts are one of the thoughts that he considers acceptable. Rather like Henry Ford saying you can have any colour car you want, as long as it's black. It's not anywhere near as open as an INTP who is unsure. It's not anywhere near as closed and rigid as an INTP who has come to a certain decision. But it does have that inbetween-ness of judgement that is in keeping with the way that Ni-doms express themselves, and it supports the right of people to think and feel as they choose, which seems to be something that many INFJs feel strongly. Many INFJs just don't like the idea of categorising people. But at the same time, they have a habit of behaving as if they want to impress their values on others very strongly.
Also, there is his dress sense. It's too good. INTPs often are accused of dressing like hobos. I can dress up pretty well, when I make the effort to. But even so, when I do so, there is something of a formulaic system about it for me, a theme that I follow, that addresses why I am dressing. In other words, I look good, but there is a certain formality about it. Dawkins carries off the natural good looks and dress sense of a Feeler, with no sense of the formalism of when I make the effort.
He has the same easy style with his conversation. But when he debates with religious people, his conversation is definitely more adversarial, and yet rather engaging. It's like he's not a robot, but a human, disagreeing very strongly with another human. One can almost imagine him inviting you to tea, telling you that you're evil, while smiling, and offering you a cupcake.
I can see similar approaches in xNFJs. Not so much ENFJs, because they can be rather bullish, while Dawkins seems to try to persuade others of his views, which suggests to me that he's probably more like an INFJ.
He might be an INTP after all. I don't know everything about MBTI. I can certainly see major differnences between me and most INTPs here, which suggests that I don't understand INTPs as well as I would like.
But it seems to me, that the way he describes his own ideas, and the ways that he talks to others, and generally dresses and presents himself, is a lot closer to Ni-doms, and those with Fe, and INFJs.
That's just my view. But maybe if you can provide reasons why INTPs might do all this, then maybe my view is wrong.
On the other hand, the typical complaint about why he can't be an INFJ, is that Feelers are supposed to be irrational, and uninterested in science.
But a few INFJs said they did extremely well in maths (one said she was in the top 1%), and there are many Feelers who are atheists, and see themselves as rational, and love science.
Also, Antonio Damasio's work has convinced me, that Feelers are just as capable of reasoning and thinking intelligently as any Thinker.
So I don't see why he can't be an INFJ.
