• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/incident-of-2018-08-13.27381/

The elusive ENTJ.

Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Eh this stuff about dawkins being an ESTJ based on the fact that he's a bully as well as his way of smiling.. like seriously? You can't type people on the basis of such info.

Firstly, in what way is he a bully? Does he verbally walk all over people Doctor Phil style? Interupting them while doing it, not bothering to counter their personal logic on its own terms? Does he speak in a manner that projects confidence?

Not really too any of them. Dawkins doesn't really do much in terms of active bullying, while explaining his position to people he uses a "you see it's like this.." voice, which is most of the time rather calm. He does project some amount of Fe in this way, he tries to be polite and he tries not to sound demeaning, nonetheless his primary focus is retaining the authenticity of his logic, so despite being a rather gentle man he still comes of as harsh to a lot of people, likely because if he thinks they do not make sense he will not so much "call them out on it" he will, like I stated before, simply use his well meaning but monotone way of speaking to explain to them how their view does not make sense, and he will NOT be willing to compromise about it at all.

To me this speaks of Ti, and more precisely Ti over Fe, in the same way that INFP's (Fi over Te) often cling on to what they believe is right despite the facts being against them, Ti over Fe users will be unwilling to give up what they find to be truth in accordance with their introverted logic.

This makes them blunt, and especially blunt on paper where their weaker more unconscious Fe is not likely to show, and is almost always overshadowed by their Ti. In the case of Dawkins, the very notion of the fact that he considers child abuse preferable over a religious upbringing speaks miles of how highly he values Ti.

Now A Te user making a similar statement would likely say something along the lines off "It'd be better to grow up an abused but smart child than happy but useless". For a Te user, logic is a tool of efficiency, not authenticity. Compare Hitchens to Dawkins, the former dedicates large parts of his rebuttals to rhetorics, he will use terms and wordings that do not serve the purpose of presenting a logical argument. The logic is there, but so is a bunch of vivid poethical language, a lot of strict ridiculing as well as other tools for impressing his view upon the other person, he wants to get the "general" message across, and his tertiary Fi provides passion rather than authenticity because of it's position. Hitchens is in other words, much like Dr Phil (although the former is INTJ and the latter ESTJ) much more of a conventional bully, he will roll all over you like an unstoppable force.

With Dawkins what upsets people is not the force, people debatte Dawkins and when they pick up on just how little he gives a damn about how they've spoken from their heart, or the core of their beings, or their most profound intuitions, they are insulted. He's an imovable object in this way. Sure he'll answer somewhat respectively, but he wont adjust his position in the least unless what the opponent said has made sense within his logical framework. And if he doesn't understand what his opponent has said, he looks directly confused, and begins stuttering slightly. He doesn't simply assume that he's right by the power of his hunch (like Hitchens with Ni), and/or (in the case of "or", like Dr Phil) collective anchoring in Te. He doesn't reply with an argument that generally works against the type of argument that the opponent has said, rather he wants his counter to be precise and aimed at precisely what was spoken.

Furthermore, is Dawkins an extrovert? Hardly, sure he gets enthusiastic at times.. (and those times are really not at where most times are) but most of the time he's rather uncharismatic, and rather easy going. Likewise, as I've written before he is gentle and honest but still blunt, often in a rather unefficient fashion. He could've written the god delusion in a way that would've made it popular in a wider circle by paying more heed to not stepping on toes, but that's what he pays heed to, he doesn't just want to get the truth out there, he wants to get "the" truth out there. And while he is perhaps not so socially naive and uninsightful as to assume that his way is the best way of doing so, he still doesn't seem able to do it any other way. His focus is inherently set on his inner framework.

This pretty much leaves us with ISTP and INTP, now does he have Auxillary sensing? Fuck no.

Thus INTP.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
Eh this stuff about dawkins being an ESTJ based on the fact that he's a bully as well as his way of smiling.. like seriously? You can't type people on the basis of such info.

Firstly, in what way is he a bully? Does he verbally walk all over people Doctor Phil style? Interupting them while doing it, not bothering to counter their personal logic on its own terms? Does he speak in a manner that projects confidence?

Not really too any of them. Dawkins doesn't really do much in terms of active bullying, while explaining his position to people he uses a "you see it's like this.." voice, which is most of the time rather calm. He does project some amount of Fe in this way, he tries to be polite and he tries not to sound demeaning, nonetheless his primary focus is retaining the authenticity of his logic, so despite being a rather gentle man he still comes of as harsh to a lot of people, likely because if he thinks they do not make sense he will not so much "call them out on it" but rather as I stated before simply use his well meaning but monotone way of speaking to explain to them how their view simply does not make sense, and he will NOT be willing to compromise about it at all.

To me this speaks of Ti, and more precisely Ti over Fe, in the same way that INFP's (Fi over Te) often cling on to what they believe is right despite the facts being against them, Ti over Fe users will be unwilling to give up what they find to be truth in accordance with their introverted logic.

This makes them blunt, and especially blunt on paper where their weaker more unconscious Fe is not likely to show, and is almost always overshadowed by their Ti. In the case of Dawkins, the very notion of the fact that he considers child abuse preferable over a religious upbringing speaks miles of how highly he values Ti.

Now A Te user making a similar statement would likely say something along the lines off "It'd be better to grow up an abused but smart child than happy but useless". For a Te user, logic is a tool of efficiency, not authenticity. Compare Hitchens to Dawkins, the former dedicates large parts of his rebuttals to rhetorics, he will use terms and wordings that do not serve the purpose of presenting a logical argument. The logic is there, but so is a bunch of vivid poethical language, a lot of strict ridiculing as well as other tools for impressing his view upon the other person, he wants to get the "general" message across, and his tertiary Fi provides passion rather than authenticity because of it's position. Hitchens is in other words, much like Dr Phil (although the former is INTJ and the latter ESTJ) much more of a conventional bully, he will roll all over you like an unstoppable force.

With Dawkins what upsets people is not the force, people debatte Dawkins and when they pick up on just how little he gives a damn about how they've spoken from their heart, or the core of their beings, or their most profound intuitions, they are insulted. He's an imovable object in this way. Sure he'll answer somewhat respectively, but he wont adjust his position in the least unless what the opponent said has made sense within his logical framework. And if he doesn't understand what his opponent has said, he looks directly confused, and begins stuttering slightly. He doesn't simply assume that he's right by the power of his hunch (like Hitchens with Ni), and/or (in the case of "or", like Dr Phil) collective anchoring in Te. He doesn't reply with an argument that generally works against the type of argument that the opponent has said, rather he wants his counter to be precise and aimed at precisely what was spoken.

Furthermore, is Dawkins an extrovert? Hardly, sure he gets enthusiastic at times.. (and those times are really not at where most times are) but most of the time he's rather uncharismatic, and rather easy going. Likewise, as I've written before he is gentle and honest but still blunt, often in a rather unefficient fashion. He could've written the god delusion in a way that would've made it popular in a wider circle by paying more heed to not stepping on toes, but that's what he pays heed to, he doesn't just want to get the truth out there, he wants to get "the" truth out there. And while he is perhaps not so socially naive and uninsightful as to assume that his way is the best way of doing so, he still doesn't seem able to do it any other way. His focus is inherently set on his inner framework.

This pretty much leaves us with ISTP and INTP, now does he have Auxillary sensing? Fuck no.

Thus INTP.
Due to is willingness to insist his own logic as correct to the point that he believes that anyone who disagrees with his is wrong and even mistreating there children if they teach them these values over atheism. Leads be to believe that he is a concert thinker thus he has to be a J. I myself am an solid INTP and I could never insist that my personal logic should trump any bodies personal beliefs on child rearing. (with the acceptation of child abuse and in this acceptation only because I have personally seen the damage of child abuse first hand and child abuse is a generally accepted evil in society as a whole. Therefore, I don't actually need to tell anyone how bad it is.)

I am not very good a type others but I do understand what motivates me and I am INTP and my ideas of religion vs. atheism while both revered form Darwkins isn't nearlly as strong. I believe that religion teaches many valuable life lessons (and I for one find it wiser to learn form other peoples mistakes than my own). However, even so I don't think its wrong for an atheist to not expose there child to religion. These are personal chooses that parents have the right to make and its not my place to tell someone what is right for them or there family.

This is not an argument against Dawkins per say he has a right to his own opinions on the matter. However, this is an augment against the assumption that Dawkins is and INTP. Dawkins implies a value to religion (right vs wrong) while I sympathize with religion I equate it with personal chose not right and wrong. I don't think its right to be a christian and wrong to be atheist. I think that I made a personal chose to fallow Christianity and others have the same ability. I don't think I am better because I am Christian no do I think Dawkins is better because he is Atheist. This is were the P and J differ when making chooses. Most of the time I don't relate chooses with good and bad chooses. I do however recognize some bad chooses and other chooses that are better but most likely not good (or perfect). While a J personality type chooses to see the world as black in white. As a P I choose to see the world as grey. Where both the black and the white extremes are rare. (even child abuse is mostly a incredibly dark grey area)
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Due to is willingness to insist his own logic as correct to the point that he believes that anyone who disagrees with his is wrong and even mistreating there children if they teach them these values over atheism. Leads be to believe that he is a concert thinker thus he has to be a J. I myself am an solid INTP and I could never insist that my personal logic should trump any bodies personal beliefs on child rearing. (with the acceptation of child abuse and in this acceptation only because I have personally seen the damage of child abuse first hand and child abuse is a generally accepted evil in society as a whole. Therefore, I don't actually need to tell anyone how bad it is.)

I am not very good a type others but I do understand what motivates me and I am INTP and my ideas of religion vs. atheism while both revered form Darwkins isn't nearlly as strong. I believe that religion teaches many valuable life lessons (and I for one find it wiser to learn form other peoples mistakes than my own). However, even so I don't think its wrong for an atheist to not expose there child to religion. These are personal chooses that parents have the right to make and its not my place to tell someone what is right for them or there family.

This is not an argument against Dawkins per say he has a right to his own opinions on the matter. However, this is an augment against the assumption that Dawkins is and INTP. Dawkins implies a value to religion (right vs wrong) while I sympathize with religion I equate it with personal chose not right and wrong. I don't think its right to be a christian and wrong to be atheist. I think that I made a personal chose to fallow Christianity and others have the same ability. I don't think I am better because I am Christian no do I think Dawkins is better because he is Atheist. This is were the P and J differ when making chooses. Most of the time I don't relate chooses with good and bad chooses. I do however recognize some bad chooses and other chooses that are better but most likely not good (or perfect). While a J personality type chooses to see the world as black in white. As a P I choose to see the world as grey. Where both the black and the white extremes are rare. (even child abuse is mostly a incredibly dark grey area)
Dude you can't use 1 (yourself) INTP's perspective on the world as a signifier for the general. Furthermore, you're mixing type and function up. Dawkins logic is very much judging indeed. Introverted thinking in general is if only its contents are considered generally going to be percieved as more judging than its extroverted variant, because it will in general deviate further from commonly held ideas, because of the simple fact that its a subjective form of logic that is not lodged in a shared social context.

Thus, I consider your argument to be one in favour of Dawkins being an INTP.

I think this is pretty obvious if you read his book as well, for instance he makes some very unpedagogical logical jumps at times, such as when he dismisses the ontological argument as simply being will to belief without elaborating on it at all.
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
...because it will in general deviate further from commonly held ideas, because of the simple fact that its a subjective form of logic that is not lodged in a shared social context.
That's actually incomplete/incorrect...

Ti works in tandem with Fe which is based on shared social contexts. If Ti will make any effort at all to externalize its conviction it will do it via Fe. Ti itself forms its positions individually and subjectively toward a personal vision of 'objectivity', and/but if it is to externalize that at all it can go to great lengths to make itself comprehensible and socially/universally understood/accepted (Fe).

This is the "Diplomatic" tendency of Ti-Fe. The clearer and more precise Ti's ideas can be communicated to others, the more chance there is of unification in collective belief (Fe). Especially for a Ti-lead individual attempting to articulate, this becomes obvious. Although it actually doesn't always work, and people still disagree nonetheless, there is an impulse that quickly rises from Ti analyzing the situation that goes something like: "if only i said it clearer, they'd share my view".

It is the Fi-Te pairing that holds personal subjective views which it doesn't really care to explain to others. The dialogue of Fi-Te will make sense to itself personally, and it will only elaborate that insomuch as is necessary for efficient management of outer systems (Te).
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
Dude you can't use 1 (yourself) INTP's perspective on the world as a signifier for the general. Furthermore, you're mixing type and function up. Dawkins logic is very much judging indeed. Introverted thinking in general is if only its contents are considered generally going to be percieved as more judging than its extroverted variant, because it will in general deviate further from commonly held ideas, because of the simple fact that its a subjective form of logic that is not lodged in a shared social context.

Thus, I consider your argument to be one in favour of Dawkins being an INTP.

I think this is pretty obvious if you read his book as well, for instance he makes some very unpedagogical logical jumps at times, such as when he dismisses the ontological argument as simply being will to belief without elaborating on it at all.
As an INTP I can relate to the motivations of other INTPs. Of course I don't really know much about Dawkins however his perspective seams very arrogant and concrete. Two perspectives myself and many INTPs on this forum try to stay as far way form as possible. I am not saying his perspective is wrong just forien to the perspective I have seen in my self and the INTP community as a whole. This is not to say that there are no people who claim to be both INTPs and share these concrete form of thinking. However, like Dawkins I believe they come form some other perspective not INTPness. This is my opinion and expressed in a way the comes form my own understanding of myself.

Yes Ti can be very concrete in thinking that is why we are also Ne. However, It may be possible that he is INTP and has a very underdeveloped Ne or maybe he just not INTP either one is possible. From you conclusion earlier I would think maybe ISTP or INTJ.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
^ I know of very many arrogant and "concrete" INTPs... check out INTPc
I have that I why I am no longer there. However, I also don't agree with there assumption that they are INTPs. Many of them are INTJ while others are INTPs with very low Ne function. For me this comes across as a very juvenile characteristic for INTPs. Some of them may never out grow this. However, form what I understand of Dawkins he isn't Juvenile in his thinking. He has what appears to be a very rounded understanding of his perspective. Thus if he were an INTP I would aspect that his Ne would be in better balance to his Ti thus not allowing him to hold his ideas in such a concrete nature.

I honestly believe that Dawkins is well developed as a human being therefore I believe that his perspective would line up closer with those who personality he shares. However, a Christian with the same personality perspective as Dawkins would most likely not agree with him they would still hold the same convictions for there own personal values/beliefs.
 

Ink

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
926
Location
svealand
^ Afaik he has spent his entire life debating different topics, he might not be so "arrogant" otherwise, just a trait he had to develop for his career...
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Auburn: I am aware of the fact the Ti works in tandem with Fe, in fact I described it in some (if less than you) detail in my first post in regards to the case of Dawkins. However, it feels like you're overrestimating the effect of Fe in its relationship with Ti when the former is an inferior function and the latter a dominant. In such a case the extent to which a Ti/Fe user will be willing to compromise the precision of his subjective logic to grant his words greater explanatory value (ie external precision) is skewed in favour of the internal precision. And the difficulty to achieve the required external precision increases with the difficulty of the material in question, which in the case of Dawkins, while not rocket science, is still quite complex.

Furthermore the feeling of "If only I explained it better everyone would agree" while certainly common to Ti/Fe types is likely more so for Ni types and as such is hardly sufficient criteria in the process of distinguishing an INTP from an Ni user. The difference would be that Ni user needn't necessarily express the core of his insights to get a message across, rather an Ni user will express particular (in relation to the insights themselves) consequences of those insights. How well this is done varies, but ISFP's for instance, struggle more than INTP's in this regard, whereas INTJ's and INFJ's do better since they've got auxillary extroverted judging functions.

Again Hitchens stands in stark constrast to Dawkins in this regard.

Chad: You're very obviously idealizing INTP's to support your own argument and you're describing Dawkins not in any detail, but simply with single adjectives lacking a context. Yes he can be arrogant, so can types, INTP's included. But How is he arrogant?

And why do you assume he is well developed? You can't simply make a statement which your argument relies upon without supporting it in the least. As it stands, I think he's well developed as well but as the poster above me pointed out, he's going to come off as arrogant doing what he does nonetheless. In fact if you actually watch Dawkins in interviews and different situations you'll see that the instances in which he is percieved as arrogant are those when he is debatting, as a person, on the contrary, he is rather timid. Finally, you're usage of the word concrete is incorrect, Dawkins is rather obviously quite an abstract thinker. Look up the definition of the word and remember that it's a relative term, what you consider concrete needn't necessarily qualify for being called as such.

You're example about a Christian has no relevance whatsoever, I've not said anything that contradicts it, and Dawkins himself is likely aware of it as well.

It's a strange experience seeing people try to type someone simply by discussing typology rather than applying it and considering the person in question.

Here's a good picture, although many have probs seen it already:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
Auburn: I am aware of the fact the Ti works in tandem with Fe, in fact I described it in some (if less than you) detail in my first post in regards to the case of Dawkins. However, it feels like you're overrestimating the effect of Fe in its relationship with Ti when the former is an inferior function and the latter a dominant. In such a case the extent to which a Ti/Fe user will be willing to compromise the precision of his subjective logic to grant his words greater explanatory value (ie external precision) is skewed in favour of the internal precision. And the difficulty to achieve the required external precision increases with the difficulty of the material in question, which in the case of Dawkins, while not rocket science, is still quite complex.

Furthermore the feeling of "If only I explained it better everyone would agree" while certainly common to Ti/Fe types is likely more so for Ni types and as such is hardly sufficient criteria in the process of distinguishing an INTP from an Ni user. The difference would be that Ni user needn't necessarily express the core of his insights to get a message across, rather an Ni user will express particular (in relation to the insights themselves) consequences of those insights. How well this is done varies, but ISFP's for instance, struggle more than INTP's in this regard, whereas INTJ's and INFJ's do better since they've got auxillary extroverted judging functions.

Again Hitchens stands in stark constrast to Dawkins in this regard.

Chad: You're very obviously idealizing INTP's to support your own argument and you're describing Dawkins not in any detail, but simply with single adjectives lacking a context. Yes he can be arrogant, so can types, INTP's included. But How is he arrogant?

And why do you assume he is well developed? You can't simply make a statement which your argument relies upon without supporting it in the least. As it stands, I think he's well developed as well but as the poster above me pointed out, he's going to come off as arrogant doing what he does nonetheless. In fact if you actually watch Dawkins in interviews and different situations you'll see that the instances in which he is percieved as arrogant are those when he is debatting, as a person, on the contrary, he is rather timid. Finally, you're usage of the word concrete is incorrect, Dawkins is rather obviously quite an abstract thinker. Look up the definition of the word and remember that it's a relative term, what you consider concrete needn't necessarily qualify for being called as such.

You're example about a Christian has no relevance whatsoever, I've not said anything that contradicts it, and Dawkins himself is likely aware of it as well.

It's a strange experience seeing people try to type someone simply by discussing typology rather than applying it and considering the person in question.

Here's a good picture, although many have probs seen it already:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg
Sorry, I will address the issues you presented in the your argument.

First if your read any of my other post as well as this one your would realize that I am not Idealizing INTPs. I recolonize even that INTPs can be arragant and concrete in there thinking.

Secondly, I can only speek of Dawkins in general because my understanding of him is in general. I have never seen him speak nor have I read any of his books. I have read some of his arguments in other books and read many critiques about him on this forum and form your own posts. Since I am replying to your quoted post I didn't feel the need to quote your twice.

Third, Dawkins may be a INTP or some other personality type all together. We only read/see Dawkins as a public image that he has created for himself.

To say that someone shouldn't raise there children to believe in Christianity (because you believe its worse than abuse) is an absolute concrete statement about moral right and wrong. This is something I couldn't imagine a well developed INTP saying. Basically he see this issue as black and white.

I mentioned Christianity due to the fact that Dawkins argues against it this is all I really know about him (which i am sure is very limited). I was trying to point out that I wasn't saying the Dawkins Atheism was the personality trait that makes me believe that he isn't an INTP (his fervent assumption in the absolute truth of his atheism is what I don't see lining up with and INTP perspective.) Maybe and juvenile INTP perspective but not one of a more mature understanding.

I was just being respectful of someone who seems to be IMO a very intellectual and a rational person. I don't think Dawkins opinions are juvenile at all. I view them as well defined and thought out perspective. (This view comes form my own limited understanding of Dawkins)

This leads me to believe that Dawkins uses other psychological mechanisms too come to his conclusions. This is not to say that to say the what I believe to be the INTP perspective is better I am just saying I believe it to function differently.

Since we are talking about completely theoretical therms there really isn't a perspective that is better. The only way to really know what personality type Dawkins is would be to have him type himself (I assume that he would be self aware enough to correct type himself.)

Yes, I do make assumption and leaps in my logic as well. However, I personal find these leaps justifiable. Were I don't agree with your conclutions even though I am actually using your arguments about Dawkins due to the fact that you seem to be better informed about who he is.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
If you've never heard him speak or read his original material then why would you try to debate his type?

Edit: That being said, I appreciate your honesty!
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,323
Auburn: I am aware of the fact the Ti works in tandem with Fe, in fact I described it in some (if less than you) detail in my first post in regards to the case of Dawkins. However, it feels like you're overrestimating the effect of Fe in its relationship with Ti when the former is an inferior function and the latter a dominant.
+1
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
Nyooo....
That's wrong.
And it is a very big error in typology.


  • Ti-Fe users express Fe, and conceal Ti.
  • Te-Fi users express Te, and conceal Fi.

Ti is not a proactive process. It does not externalize itself. Its role, its sole role is analysis/discrepancy-finding/refining/differentiating. There is nothing about Ti that is extroverted or expressive.

Whenever a Ti-Fe user, like a TiNe, expresses opinion they do so using Fe and Ne. In other words what you'll see is warming, empathic pushes (granted constantly receeding back into neutrality) and buoyant, syncopated momentum.

People mistakenly think that TiNe (INTPs) will appear logical and cold outwardly. But that's what NiTe appears as (and other Te's) because their logic function is externalized. They have a visible outer shell of 'hard' rationality.

Like Dawkins.

TiNe's inner coldness is entirely inward-turned. This means that TiNe will have an internal world that is quite merciless to irrationality and continually error-check itself against the rest of its system. But outwardly their demeanor will be either Fe-flavored, Se/Ne-flavored, or just dead/flat Ti.

When Ti is heavy in a TiNe, they will appear lifeless, rather than cold. Ti drains the energy away from the body, and does so dispassionately (non-passion) so that the end result is a creature that is unreadable because they emit nothing to be read.

In contrast Te-Fi users are expressing Te's hard shell constantly, while having a moody (or giddy) Fi undertone to that hard shell which they can't fully contain like Ti because it still gives off an emotional vibe.

When you're reading an individual, one should keep in mind that what you're going to see and be hit by most is the extroverted/proactive processes. You will see the introverted processes by subtler cues.

Dawkins has very visible Te.
That's what everyone is picking up from him.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, but Ti users will appear more outwardly "F" than Te users. I'm often told I'm INFP, and it's because I don't radiate Te.
I radiate Fe.

Typology hobbyists type nearly any laid-back Te user as a Ti, because they'll think : "They're clearly a heavy T, but they're also clearly P and relaxed" so they're some form of xxTP.

It's not correct..
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,323
Auburn, the problem with how you describe Fe is that it's simply too shallow. Describing Fe as basically being warm and empathetic in its dealing with people and outer environment in general is incomplete, as Fe can express itself as intimidation, hostility, being a bully as Cherry Cola put it, etc. It just seems like you're asserting the old stereotype of Fe being accommodating and nice.
 
Last edited:

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
Fukyo, I think you've known me long enough to know my understanding of Fe isn't 'shallow'? >.> I just didn't have the time to write down... all the disclaimers/extras (as I often do...)

I agree about Fe being empathic or hostile, not just empathic.
I didn't mean to make it sound one-sided.. just didn't add. c.c This aside, it will still nonetheless show while Ti is concealed. My main point is that Ti is an internal process and when people seem "obviously T" because they radiate a stoney/cold persona, that isn't indicative of Ti.

That detail aside (which is kinda missing the main point!)
I stand by what I said.
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,323
Fukyo, I think you've known me long enough to know my
understanding of Fe isn't 'shallow'? o.o I just didn't have the time to write down... all the disclaimers/extras (as I sometimes do).
Yeah, but....I keep getting the impression that you overestimate the prominence Fe and I'm compelled to correct that >.> (and I know we've talked about that before so I won't get into it anymore.) (and note that I'm not disputing dawkins here)



I also didn't mean to imply that all high-Fi users have the hard Te shell. I was mostly talking in the context of Te-doms because of Dawkins. I agree with the rest of your post. But gah, those two details aside (which are kinda missing the main point!) I stand by what I said.
I misread your post, and corrected myself. Regardless however, I think what I pointed out are not minute details, and that they are not missing the point.

For me, it'd be important to make a point, that for example Fe is not just warm and empathetic pushes. The definition should be complete, otherwise it's not actually on point. And tho I might have not paid enough attention, I haven't seen you acknowledge or assert Fe's other side in any of your threads yet.



Still though, I question the notion that extroverted processes are the most prominent ones and that introverted ones are somehow hidden, or concealed (which can be interpreted as an intent to conceal tho I don't think that's what you meant to convey).
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
Hehe. I'll try to explain clearer.

All functions are discernible, whether introverted or extroverted, because they all cause signals to appear - whether by their inactivity or activity. For example, the way Ti makes the body halt and makes the eyes disengage (hence flatten down) is a lack of action, but that lack causes a visible effect.

But by the nature of the extroverted processes, their proactivity makes them noticeable. Or at least, their visibility isn't due to the side-effect of going into oneself, but the actual effect of their action. I suppose it's not necessarily accurate to say they're "more noticeable" as that can vary on the observer and what they're picking up - so I guess I can't completely say that actively radiated signals are more noticeable than accidentally/proxy radiated signals. Though I personally would suspect that to be a reasonable trend.


I hope that is clearer.


Regarding Fe, there is a bipolarity to Fe. (as there is with Fi).
One could say there is a bipolarity in Ti and Te also, since they are discriminating processes, and divide/contrast, but the ethical processes have a specific impact on the individual.

Since Fe deals with the proper ethical management of the world of the living, it does so by applying force either to one side or the other - in order to bring the social situation back to the desired 'center'. Sometimes that means, for Fe, applying social pressure in the form of guilt, intimidation, or hostility. Other times it means applying grace in the form of favoritism, kindness, etc. The goal in mind is "universal harmony/fairness".

Fundamentally that duality is necessary for Fe to operate. If Fe was solely positive and empathic it would not be a discernment process. In order to perform its function it has to have a way to correct from both sides.

Curiously, though, certain trends arise in those who possess Fe. And these are not innately necessary aspects of Fe's manifestation but they help explain ways in which it can manifest. One thing that often occurs is Fe will desire to show its positive face more than its negative face - particularly in societies (like the USA) where that sort of positivity is highlighted as a virtue. In a society where that is a socially agreed upon virtue, Fe complies more often than not. What then ends up happening is it becomes two-faced/bipolar --- since it still cannot rid itself of the negative aspect which is necessary for the positive to exist. The farther this divide is reinforced the more extreme the contrast will seem when the individual does express the negative aspect.

..for fun ^^
 

Ink

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
926
Location
svealand
Auburn, you seem to use way more Fe than most INTPs, perhaps that should be an indicator your understanding is a little skewed? I read your mastery section, and while true to some extent, isn't balance the key to individuation?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
@Ink

Skimmed your post. Everyone has a high-pitched and a low-pitched voice, all I was saying that was how a high-pitched strong Fe voice sounds, gets more excited at certain places than others etc etc.
I came across this again by accident, and had a fresh insight into this.

ENFJs are characterised by always saying "hug". There are certain people like that, the huggers. They tend to seek emotional affirmations, whether they be physical or verbal, all the time. They also love to hear others' expressing their emotions. When people are unemotional around them, they get antsy, like they can't breathe. When the person expresses some emotions, any emotions, even false emotions, they act like they can breathe again. When people express a lot of emotions around them, they act like they've just eaten a good meal. They behave as if the external expression of emotions is as important to them as air, just as we Ti-doms feel about using Ti. They can't imagine life without it.

Also, they tend to act quite dramatically, when they want to. Their constant usage of Fe, leads to mastery, just as Ti-doms learn to master Ti with constant practice. So a characteristic of them, is that they have good control other their emotions. In effect, an ENFJ is the master of the expression of his emotions, and wants to do so constantly, but INTPs are at their mercy, until they learn to master their inferior function.

They also tend to be weak on reasoning. They usually get by, by coming up with solutions on-the-fly.

You do see those types on TV a lot. They are the ones who raise their voices when they want others to perceive them as acting as if they are excited.

Confidence = low pitch (not as low for all of course, depends how your body is structured), confidence MIGHT be VAGUELY related to type but that's only because of how society values certain things etc. Low voices are related to confidence, only fair conclusion.
Confidence is indirectly associated with low pitch. Often very confident people have a high pitch. People tend to raise their voices when they are excited, as you noted, and people are often excited about the ideas that they are sure of, i.e. confident about. However, a raise in pitch is often associated with higher levels of emotional expression, which can be from elation, excitement, or, nervousness, such as a lack of confidence in one's ideas, and a worry that one's ideas might be criticised by others as a result.

Confidence is associated with assertiveness, firmness in one's stance. If one is confident in one's ideas, then has strong belief that they are true, and a good reason to stick to them. That's true of high pitch, and low pitch. However, if one starts out with a view, and then, when challenged, one raises his pitch, and discussion of the other side's views, then that suggests a change of emotion, caused by putting one's ideas to public scrutiny, which in turn suggests that one is now realising that those criticisms have a point.

Sticking to one's previous pitch, suggests that one is sure. When one is already starting off speaking rather unemotionally and calmly, such as expressed by a low pitch, and that doesn't change, then that expresses certainty. However, that would only be indicative of one who expresses their feelings, i.e. Fe has to be somewhere in the chain. To start off so unemotionally and calmly, suggests a lack of feeling by choice, and so a T. That suggests a T with Fe, i.e. an xxTP. You're an INTP. You might be saying that when you are confident, you have a low voice. That also works for INTPs with a low register, such as a lot of male INTPs.

FJs and TPs express themselves differently. One uses emotion, and is affected by reason. The other uses reason and is affected by emotion.
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
Auburn, you seem to use way more Fe than most INTPs, perhaps that should be an indicator your understanding is a little skewed? I read your mastery section, and while true to some extent, isn't balance the key to individuation?
That's beside the point, because even if I wasn't a strong Fe user (for a TiNe) what I'd look like as a TiNe with strong Ti use would be, as I described, emotionally flat/dead, as opposed to what Te looks as.

You have to truly experience complete-Ti to know what it is like.
When you enter a completely Ti mindset and become nothing but the pure essence of that process (for a moment, disconnecting from the rest of your psyche) the reality of it becomes clear. It slows down time, becomes mute and almost nonexistent.

It deliberately disassociates itself from everyone and everything. In Jung's words, it causes energy to recede away from the object and into the subject. It is in no way a proactive process, save for its proactive discriminating. It then becomes clear that the leaving of this pure state is an impulse belonging to either Fe or Ne (or Se for those who have it). Were it up to Ti it would stay mute, dispassionate and nonexistent forever. The impulse to leave that belongs to other processes.

So you'll never see Ti manifest, save for by its dispassionate withdrawals into itself. If it seems to manifest, it is the impulse of another process.

So that's what Ti looks like. That's all I'm trying to say.

Balance, yes. Each type has their point of balance & there isn't one equilibrium that applies to all. It's contextual, but yes once that balance is reached it is.. I'd call it the optimization of the self (but individuation works?).
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
Eh this stuff about dawkins being an ESTJ based on the fact that he's a bully as well as his way of smiling.. like seriously? You can't type people on the basis of such info.

Firstly, in what way is he a bully? Does he verbally walk all over people Doctor Phil style? Interupting them while doing it, not bothering to counter their personal logic on its own terms? Does he speak in a manner that projects confidence?

Not really too any of them. Dawkins doesn't really do much in terms of active bullying, while explaining his position to people he uses a "you see it's like this.." voice, which is most of the time rather calm. He does project some amount of Fe in this way, he tries to be polite and he tries not to sound demeaning, nonetheless his primary focus is retaining the authenticity of his logic, so despite being a rather gentle man he still comes of as harsh to a lot of people, likely because if he thinks they do not make sense he will not so much "call them out on it" he will, like I stated before, simply use his well meaning but monotone way of speaking to explain to them how their view does not make sense, and he will NOT be willing to compromise about it at all.

To me this speaks of Ti, and more precisely Ti over Fe, in the same way that INFP's (Fi over Te) often cling on to what they believe is right despite the facts being against them, Ti over Fe users will be unwilling to give up what they find to be truth in accordance with their introverted logic.

This makes them blunt, and especially blunt on paper where their weaker more unconscious Fe is not likely to show, and is almost always overshadowed by their Ti. In the case of Dawkins, the very notion of the fact that he considers child abuse preferable over a religious upbringing speaks miles of how highly he values Ti.

Now A Te user making a similar statement would likely say something along the lines off "It'd be better to grow up an abused but smart child than happy but useless". For a Te user, logic is a tool of efficiency, not authenticity. Compare Hitchens to Dawkins, the former dedicates large parts of his rebuttals to rhetorics, he will use terms and wordings that do not serve the purpose of presenting a logical argument. The logic is there, but so is a bunch of vivid poethical language, a lot of strict ridiculing as well as other tools for impressing his view upon the other person, he wants to get the "general" message across, and his tertiary Fi provides passion rather than authenticity because of it's position. Hitchens is in other words, much like Dr Phil (although the former is INTJ and the latter ESTJ) much more of a conventional bully, he will roll all over you like an unstoppable force.

With Dawkins what upsets people is not the force, people debatte Dawkins and when they pick up on just how little he gives a damn about how they've spoken from their heart, or the core of their beings, or their most profound intuitions, they are insulted. He's an imovable object in this way. Sure he'll answer somewhat respectively, but he wont adjust his position in the least unless what the opponent said has made sense within his logical framework. And if he doesn't understand what his opponent has said, he looks directly confused, and begins stuttering slightly. He doesn't simply assume that he's right by the power of his hunch (like Hitchens with Ni), and/or (in the case of "or", like Dr Phil) collective anchoring in Te. He doesn't reply with an argument that generally works against the type of argument that the opponent has said, rather he wants his counter to be precise and aimed at precisely what was spoken.

Furthermore, is Dawkins an extrovert? Hardly, sure he gets enthusiastic at times.. (and those times are really not at where most times are) but most of the time he's rather uncharismatic, and rather easy going. Likewise, as I've written before he is gentle and honest but still blunt, often in a rather unefficient fashion. He could've written the god delusion in a way that would've made it popular in a wider circle by paying more heed to not stepping on toes, but that's what he pays heed to, he doesn't just want to get the truth out there, he wants to get "the" truth out there. And while he is perhaps not so socially naive and uninsightful as to assume that his way is the best way of doing so, he still doesn't seem able to do it any other way. His focus is inherently set on his inner framework.
Dawkins definitely comes across as being confident, but not overtly pushy.

His arguments vis-a-vis religions, seem to suggest that it would morally be wrong to be religious, in that in his view, religions so often come with violence and oppression. He definitely comes across as very likeable. He dresses well. He smiles a lot. He's very emotionally able. But he doesn't seem to mind upsetting other people, if it means that his views will be heard by others, and accepted by more people.

He says that he only wants people to think for themselves. But his comments about atheism, suggest that he would not consider it thinking about theism and religions for oneself, to arrive at a conclusion other than scientific atheism, his own viewpoint.

He talks a lot about how wonderful it is to be an atheist, because one can study nature. But he omits to consider that his career allows him to study nature all day long, while most people can only do that in their few hours out of work, and most people don't like to relax after work. He thinks very much from his own perspective, and so behaves very introvertedly.

All of this points to someone who does think from his own perspective, and tries to get others to also share his perspective, via him trying to persuade them. That's the M.O. of the Ni-dom.

As you put it, he VALUES Ti. He uses Ti arguments, to present his reasoning. I agree with Chad, that I find many holes in his Ti arguments. But I can't help liking Dawkins, and wanting to believe in him. He paints such a rosy picture of reality, that if only people were to give up religions and become atheists, then war and oppression would cease. This appeals to my emotions, the desire for the end of war and oppression. But to me, Ti is like breathing. I can't do without it. If something seems to be illogical, then it's wrong. I have to reject it, even if the alternative would mean war and oppression. That's what is missing from Dawkins, that is so ever-present in Einstein. Einstein presents an uncomfortable world, a world in which we can never reach the speed of light, and so we cannot venture to distant galaxies, except via colony ships that might take thousands of years and several generations to reach their goal. Einstein says that we cannot escape the bounds of our own universe. Einstein says what we cannot do. It's unpleasant to have our dreams curtailed. But his logic is almost unassailable. Dawkins is the reverse. His ideas seem desirable. But his logic is wanting. I want to believe in Einstein because his Ti logic is strong, even though his Fe sympathy is weak. I want to believe in Dawkins because his Fe arguments are strong, even though his Ti logic is weak.

That suggests that he relies on Fe strongly. That all suggests INFJ.

Male INFJs can be easily mistaken for INTPs, because of the tendency amongst male education to be more reserved. This is paticularly true of Brits, which Dawkins is one. It's also true of the upper & upper middle classes, and Dawkins shows by his demeanour and history that he came from that background. Being a scientist, that's even more true of him. Finally, Dawkins was of a generation of Brits who were still raised with the British attitude to control one's emotional responses, for the benefit of society. It shows. But not quite enough. His peers, like Peter Higgs, have said that he's a bit too outspoken for a British atheistic scientist. It's not in keeping with British tradition. He's a social crusader, just a British upper-class scientific one.

Still Ti/Fe. Just that INFJs rely on Ti as their tertiary function. The logic is there. But it's weak, and it doesn't have the control to make complicated abstract theories. The theories must be grounded in real things, and must appeal to the emotions, as Dawkins does with his selfish gene theory and his theories on religions and atheism.
 

Ink

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
926
Location
svealand
That's beside the point, because even if I wasn't a strong Fe user (for a TiNe) what I'd look like as a TiNe with strong Ti use would be, as I described, emotionally flat/dead, as opposed to what Te looks as.

You have to truly experience complete-Ti to know what it is like.
When you enter a completely Ti mindset and become nothing but the pure essence of that process (for a moment, disconnecting from the rest of your psyche) the reality of it becomes clear. It slows down time, becomes mute and almost nonexistent.

It deliberately disassociates itself from everyone and everything. In Jung's words, it causes energy to recede away from the object and into the subject. It is in no way a proactive process, save for its proactive discriminating. It then becomes clear that the leaving of this pure state is an impulse belonging to either Fe or Ne (or Se for those who have it). Were it up to Ti it would stay mute, dispassionate and nonexistent forever. The impulse to leave that belongs to other processes.

So you'll never see Ti manifest, save for by its dispassionate withdrawals into itself. If it seems to manifest, it is the impulse of another process.

So that's what Ti looks like. That's all I'm trying to say.

Balance, yes. Each type has their point of balance & there isn't one equilibrium that applies to all. It's contextual, but yes once that balance is reached it is.. I'd call it the optimization of the self (but individuation works?).
This is what I see Dawkins do all the time though? Withdraw into himself, while articulating with Fe... How much of Dawkins have you seen?
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 06:46
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,287
Dawkins really is a difficult case. I have seen many hours of his lectures, but his judgment is really so perfectly mixed between Ji & Je that it's really hard to tell when he's using what. His sense of rationality is not at all separate from his sense of morality, and in fact they're one in the same to him. And this shows perfectly in his signals too.

Fi also does a sort of momentum halting/pausing but it is not dispassionate. Dawkins never seems to fully neutralize to me, but I realize that's a very subtle/personal assessment. I think I'd like to back down a bit and just say that I know he uses Ji & Je in tandem very strongly, and that his perception processes are Ne/Si. That much I can reasonably support..
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
Dawkins definitely comes across as being confident, but not overtly pushy.

His arguments vis-a-vis religions, seem to suggest that it would morally be wrong to be religious, in that in his view, religions so often come with violence and oppression. He definitely comes across as very likeable. He dresses well. He smiles a lot. He's very emotionally able. But he doesn't seem to mind upsetting other people, if it means that his views will be heard by others, and accepted by more people.

He says that he only wants people to think for themselves. But his comments about atheism, suggest that he would not consider it thinking about theism and religions for oneself, to arrive at a conclusion other than scientific atheism, his own viewpoint.

He talks a lot about how wonderful it is to be an atheist, because one can study nature. But he omits to consider that his career allows him to study nature all day long, while most people can only do that in their few hours out of work, and most people don't like to relax after work. He thinks very much from his own perspective, and so behaves very introvertedly.

All of this points to someone who does think from his own perspective, and tries to get others to also share his perspective, via him trying to persuade them. That's the M.O. of the Ni-dom.

As you put it, he VALUES Ti. He uses Ti arguments, to present his reasoning. I agree with Chad, that I find many holes in his Ti arguments. But I can't help liking Dawkins, and wanting to believe in him. He paints such a rosy picture of reality, that if only people were to give up religions and become atheists, then war and oppression would cease. This appeals to my emotions, the desire for the end of war and oppression. But to me, Ti is like breathing. I can't do without it. If something seems to be illogical, then it's wrong. I have to reject it, even if the alternative would mean war and oppression. That's what is missing from Dawkins, that is so ever-present in Einstein. Einstein presents an uncomfortable world, a world in which we can never reach the speed of light, and so we cannot venture to distant galaxies, except via colony ships that might take thousands of years and several generations to reach their goal. Einstein says that we cannot escape the bounds of our own universe. Einstein says what we cannot do. It's unpleasant to have our dreams curtailed. But his logic is almost unassailable. Dawkins is the reverse. His ideas seem desirable. But his logic is wanting. I want to believe in Einstein because his Ti logic is strong, even though his Fe sympathy is weak. I want to believe in Dawkins because his Fe arguments are strong, even though his Ti logic is weak.

That suggests that he relies on Fe strongly. That all suggests INFJ.

Male INFJs can be easily mistaken for INTPs, because of the tendency amongst male education to be more reserved. This is paticularly true of Brits, which Dawkins is one. It's also true of the upper & upper middle classes, and Dawkins shows by his demeanour and history that he came from that background. Being a scientist, that's even more true of him. Finally, Dawkins was of a generation of Brits who were still raised with the British attitude to control one's emotional responses, for the benefit of society. It shows. But not quite enough. His peers, like Peter Higgs, have said that he's a bit too outspoken for a British atheistic scientist. It's not in keeping with British tradition. He's a social crusader, just a British upper-class scientific one.

Still Ti/Fe. Just that INFJs rely on Ti as their tertiary function. The logic is there. But it's weak, and it doesn't have the control to make complicated abstract theories. The theories must be grounded in real things, and must appeal to the emotions, as Dawkins does with his selfish gene theory and his theories on religions and atheism.
This does seem more reasonable to me. However like I said my understanding of Dawkins is limited.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Scorpio: Erh, Dawkins tries to appeal to emotions, he hardly ever succeeds with anyone who doesn't basically agree with from the beginning, his Fe is hardly where his strenght is at, and the notion of him being an INFJ is ridiculous to the point that I cba to debate it. Sam Harris is an INFJ, Neil Degrasse Tyson is an ENFJ, look at their videos and compare them to Dawkins so that you learn what Fe is like when it's high in the function stack of an intuitive.

Like seriously, so many of you just jump in with random typology theory which you grasp theoretically but obviously haven't studied practically in any detail. The only other option is that you haven't watched Dawkins.

Furthermore, whether or not his Ti logic has holes or not is irrelevant, no one is perfect and that has to do with intelligence as well as subject complexity. If you're gonna bring up such a point then for gods sake go into detail and describe how his logic errs.

As it stands now it's just another I don't like Dawkins so he can't have high Ti.

Auburn: Go read up on the INTP type and how and to what extent they use Fe, and you will see that it's very possible for an INTP who has practiced it (and does it for a living) to channel his Ti. Rather than simply say Ti is introverted so Dawkins cant use it in conversation explain to me how his arguments do not bear the character of Ti?

Again this picture comes to mind: http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
@Cherry Cola

It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that Dawkins was an INFJ. It took me about a year of struggling with the anomlies of his type, until I tried to see if a British INFJ would fit him, and it fitted perfectly.

Scorpio: Erh, Dawkins tries to appeal to emotions, he hardly ever succeeds with anyone who doesn't basically agree with from the beginning,
Nor do most Feelers succeed in persuading people of rational arguments. But as it happens, a LOT of people agree with Dawkins on his arguments that it would cruel and unfair to raise kids with a religion. Distaste for cruelness and unfairness are both emotional considerations.

and the notion of him being an INFJ is ridiculous to the point that I cba to debate it. Sam Harris is an INFJ, Neil Degrasse Tyson is an ENFJ, look at their videos and compare them to Dawkins so that you learn what Fe is like when it's high in the function stack of an intuitive.
Maybe to Americans. Compared to most Brits, Dawkins is positively TEEMING with emotion.

FYI, what got me thinking that Dawkins MIGHT be an INFJ, was when I read that someone typed Sam Harris is an INFJ. Sam Harris reminds me a LOT of Dawkins. Very similar styles.

By the way, you ought to watch Dawkins talking about his mentor, William Hamilton. Or his series about atheism on sex, death and the meaning of life. Brimming with emotional reasoning and undertones.

Like seriously, so many of you just jump in with random typology theory which you grasp theoretically but obviously haven't studied practically in any detail. The only other option is that you haven't watched Dawkins.
He's been on TV and in print here so much, that I've seen more of him, than almost anyone else.

Furthermore, whether or not his Ti logic has holes or not is irrelevant, no one is perfect and that has to do with intelligence as well as subject complexity. If you're gonna bring up such a point then for gods sake go into detail and describe how his logic errs.
In "The Selfish Gene", he uses a gangster argument to dismiss group selection. His argument was that if people would work together, then those who were selfish would always turn to criminaltiy and dominate society. His argument can be annihilated with one word. Police. They exist to protect others, and so are a function of group selection, and they handle criminals.

In "The Selfish Gene", he writes that he read that a physicist wrote that photons act "as if they were intelligent", because their paths are so optimised as to seem to require intelligent decision-making, and on that basis, he thought it would be reasonable to claim that genes could act in the same manner. He doesn't even understand that the statement about photons was based on cold, hard repeated experiments on individual photons, that go counter to everything that scientists found reasonable, and so could not be doubted, and that cannot possibly be applied to anything else, without an equivalent level of evidence.

He said on national TV, that he believes that there could be a god, as much as he believes that there could be an elephant in the next room. But we expect elephants to go around making lots of noise, and that their weight would crack the floors enough to become noticeable even in the next room, because we already know that is their nature. You can't assume that an god would go around making such a fanfare, that such a being would be known to everyone.

These are simply unplausible arguments. Even illiterate Brits put up much better arguments than that. He'd have been ripped apart by his British peers, every day of his life, if that was how he argued. His reasoning is far, far too weak, to make it as a scientist, or not be the laughing stock of the UK.

It's the type of thinking that only persuades people, by appealing to what they would like to believe, rather than what makes sense.

As it stands now it's just another I don't like Dawkins so he can't have high Ti.
I've met plenty of Ts that I didn't like. Lots that I totally disagreed with.

But if Dawkins is an INTP, then I'm definitely not, because my style of thinking is nothing like his at all. FYI, pretty much everything that has ever been written about INTPs, are all traits that I have, all except that many young INTPs on INTPf wrote that they are messy, and don't see any reason not to be, while I'm tidy, because I grew up in a 1-floor maisonette apartment with 6 people, and if I didn't put my toys away after playing with them, they'd probably go missing, never to be seen again. So if Dawkins is an INTP, then everything that has ever been written about INTPs is simply wrong.

That picture irks me. It's exactly how British Feelers look.

Hitchens' picture could easily be that of a British INTP on a normal, non-smiley day. The only thing that he is missing is the glassy-eyed vision staring off into the distance. But then again, he's looking down, and so could be concentrating on something.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
@Cherry Cola
But if Dawkins is an INTP, then I'm definitely not, because my style of thinking is nothing like his at all. FYI, pretty much everything that has ever been written about INTPs, are all traits that I have, all except that many young INTPs on INTPf wrote that they are messy, and don't see any reason not to be, while I'm tidy, because I grew up in a 1-floor maisonette apartment with 6 people, and if I didn't put my toys away after playing with them, they'd probably go missing, never to be seen again. So if Dawkins is an INTP, then everything that has ever been written about INTPs is simply wrong.
This is my reason completely, However Cherry finds this reasoning invalid. She doesn't believe you can judge someones else's personality type as different form you just because they are nothing like you. However, If INTPs can truly be that much different form each other then I would say the use on typology is broken. Honestly, INTPs should be the best at identifying other INTPs. All you have to do is look for the similarities. If there are no similarities between Dawkins in myself or any other person I have meet claiming to be INTP its a very safe bet to say that Dawkins isn't a INTP. This is not a insult we need people like Dawkins in the world he plays his role that role is just not the role of an INTP.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
If you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style I give up. Also the elephant in the next room... for gods sake it's a metaphore.

Now about The Selfish Gene

Was there a policeforce during the time when what would become the human race developed group thinking? No, so that argument is invalid.

The elephant being an elephant is irrelevant, he could've used Russels Teapot or The Spaghetti monster, it's the same point.

And about the photons, he meant that they had the potential to be just as sophisticated. He used photons as an argument because they are even bloody simpler. He understands perfectly well what you think he doesn't understand.

You obviously haven't even grasped Dawkins theories so please refrain from commenting on them lest thou wish genuinely to educate yourself, in which case a little humility is in place.

The irony of your statement that it's the type of arguments which only persuade people by appealing to what they believe is great indeed.

I am however willing to change my argument on that you don't want Dawkins to be a Ti to that you don't want Dawkins to be an INTP. Realize that if you're gonna divide humanity into 16 types then there's gonna be a wide spectrum of variance within each single type.
The fact that you're so sure of yourself that you go ahead and say that if Dawkins is an INTP then all the material on INTP's is wrong says a lot considering you haven't grasped Dawkins theories and you can't see the large difference between Harris and Dawkins.

And no that picture does not describe a brittish fucking feeler, if you changed the theme from religion it could however be applied to someone like Kant.

And yeah Hitchens was such an INTP that he even admitted to doing what he did for fun rather than as, in the case of Dawkins for the inherent virtue of truth.

As it stands, I do consider it possible although less plausible, that Dawkins could be an INTJ instead of an INTP. As it is I can't find any real Ni traits in him, the man seemingly conjures his arguments through logical thinking, he doesn't intuitively grasp them and flesh out his hunches.

But seriously, if you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style then I cba, some people are just not fit for typing. I totally cba to compare the two in detail, but suffice to say Harris succesfully appeals to emotions and knows how to sugarcoat and present uncomfortable truths together in one single argument , whereas Dawkins presents truth in one argument and then goes on to talk about how it's not all bad but actually quite wonderful in another argument when his receptors have already experienced disdain for his words and he's lost them.

Harris is also a lot better at changing his approach in real time to adjust to a crowd if he gets off on the wrong foot, whereas Dawkins in the same situation would just monotonely go on. Harris text about Gun prohibtion is another example of where he differs dramatically from Dawkins, he starts out by appealing to the crowd by painting a picture of himself as a family man and using arguments from that context, he gets people to think that at his core he's not really all that different from them, thereby gaining their trust. Dawkins is a goddamn alien to the common man.

But this is a waste of time.

Auburn: Rationality equalling morality is a classical dominant Ti trait, which I agree that he has.

Ink: I see him do that as well, he bloody does it when debating too.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
If you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style I give up. Also the elephant in the next room... for gods sake it's a metaphore.

Now about The Selfish Gene

Was there a policeforce during the time when what would become the human race developed group thinking? No, so that argument is invalid.

The elephant being an elephant is irrelevant, he could've used Russels Teapot or The Spaghetti monster, it's the same point.

And about the photons, he meant that they had the potential to be just as sophisticated. He used photons as an argument because they are even bloody simpler. He understands perfectly well what you think he doesn't understand.

You obviously haven't even grasped Dawkins theories so please refrain from commenting on them lest thou wish genuinely to educate yourself, in which case a little humility is in place.

The irony of your statement that it's the type of arguments which only persuade people by appealing to what they believe is great indeed.

I am however willing to change my argument on that you don't want Dawkins to be a Ti to that you don't want Dawkins to be an INTP. Realize that if you're gonna divide humanity into 16 types then there's gonna be a wide spectrum of variance within each single type.
The fact that you're so sure of yourself that you go ahead and say that if Dawkins is an INTP then all the material on INTP's is wrong says a lot considering you haven't grasped Dawkins theories and you can't see the large difference between Harris and Dawkins.

And no that picture does not describe a brittish fucking feeler, if you changed the theme from religion it could however be applied to someone like Kant.

And yeah Hitchens was such an INTP that he even admitted to doing what he did for fun rather than as, in the case of Dawkins for the inherent virtue of truth.

As it stands, I do consider it possible although less plausible, that Dawkins could be an INTJ instead of an INTP. As it is I can't find any real Ni traits in him, the man seemingly conjures his arguments through logical thinking, he doesn't intuitively grasp them and flesh out his hunches.

But seriously, if you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style then I cba, some people are just not fit for typing. I totally cba to compare the two in detail, but suffice to say Harris succesfully appeals to emotions and knows how to sugarcoat and present uncomfortable truths together in one single argument , whereas Dawkins presents truth in one argument and then goes on to talk about how it's not all bad but actually quite wonderful in another argument when his receptors have already experienced disdain for his words and he's lost them.

Harris is also a lot better at changing his approach in real time to adjust to a crowd if he gets off on the wrong foot, whereas Dawkins in the same situation would just monotonely go on. Harris text about Gun prohibtion is another example of where he differs dramatically from Dawkins, he starts out by appealing to the crowd by painting a picture of himself as a family man and using arguments from that context, he gets people to think that at his core he's not really all that different from them, thereby gaining their trust. Dawkins is a goddamn alien to the common man.

But this is a waste of time.

Auburn: Rationality equalling morality is a classical dominant Ti trait, which I agree that he has.

Ink: I see him do that as well, he bloody does it when debating too.
Since you seem to look upto Dawkins in much the same way I look up to Einstein I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins has more in common with your personality type INFJ than mine INTP. Personally I agree with scorpiomover on this one if Dawkins is an INTP than I am not and I find that very unlikely.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Hello baseless assumptions and argument by virtue of association. You said you were an INTP? How about use some goddamn Ti then.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
what is this crap about Dawkins being "concrete"? he is extremely far-fetched and holistic in his religious de-bunking. to him, pure logic has definite priority - functioning as an algorithmic guarantee for desirable outcome and thereby rendering compromise and detail superfluous - while observable consequences are just a bonus, the rhetorical potential of which he usually neglects in favour of further abstraction. this reductive preoccupation with parsimony is INTP reasoning at its finest.

it seems you people just can't bear the idea of an INTP possessing any social inadequacies beside the self-chosen aloofness, the eye shades, the cigarette. such petty indignation suggests that you don't fully appreciate or recognize the beauty of his thinking either, leading me to believe you're the mistyped ones.

Fe is manifest not "in tandem" with Ti (that would require equal preference, no?) but as a deep-seated, vulnerable, trembling desire to have the un-biased, refined thinking understood and utilized in a social context.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
I feel the same way, despite not even being a "fan" of Dawkins (he is too boring), I respect him for being a stand up guy who does what he does in a very honest way.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
it seems you people just can't bear the idea of an INTP possessing any social inadequacies beside the self-chosen aloofness, the eye shades, the cigarette. such petty indignation suggests that you don't seem to fully appreciate or recognize the beauty of his thinking either, leading me to believe you're the mistyped ones.
Seriously what are you talking about. Aloofness (maybe) eye shades (nothing to do with personality just performances) and Cigarette (this doesn't even fit me I hate smoking and can't so if this is an INTP trait please count me out)

I don't know were you get your information on INTPness. The only thing I see if that he is relating his logic system directly with his moral one. This is something almost everyone accepts on her. I don't see this as a typical INTP perspective. Like I said he could have an underdeveloped Ne but this would be an insult if he truly was an INTP. Therefore I think its more respectful of him to label him as some other well developed type. Like I said I don't know which one and most people here who are much better at typing then even me don't know were to type him as. He may simple just be in the crack between two different types were INTP maybe one of these types. Like what was suggested by Auburn I am not completely sure. I just don't recognize any similarities between me and him or any other INTP I have meet.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
None of your arguments hitherto show any sign of Ti whatsoever, "it's more respectful", yes but you see no one gives a fuck about whats respectful when trying to determine type.

If people did then no one would be typed as ESFJ.

Also the MBTI system doesn't have borderline types.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
Seriously what are you talking about. Aloofness (maybe) eye shades (nothing to do with personality just performances) and Cigarette (this doesn't even fit me I hate smoking and can't so if this is an INTP trait please count me out)

I don't know were you get your information on INTPness. The only thing I see if that he is relating his logic system directly with his moral one. This is something almost everyone accepts on her. I don't see this as a typical INTP perspective. Like I said he could have an underdeveloped Ne but this would be an insult if he truly was an INTP. Therefore I think its more respectful of him to label him as some other well developed type. Like I said I don't know which one and most people here who are much better at typing then even me don't know were to type him as. He may simple just be in the crack between two different types were INTP maybe one of these types. Like what was suggested by Auburn I am not completely sure. I just don't recognize any similarities between me and him or any other INTP I have meet.
the examples were a bit of fun. the point is that you and your kin are adamantly unwilling to recognize any INTP flaws, and thus dawkins, an openly flawed person, cannot be admitted INTP. of course this is a crude psychological explanation of your stance but it makes more sense than any argument that has been put forth in favour of the idea of dawkins belonging to another type. the fact that you are much less capable of providing an alternative type than denying INTP strengthens my hypothesis.

linking logic and moral in a monistic fashion is clear INTP. moral is essentially behavioral heuristics - something that can well be aided by logic from an INTP perspective. in a deeper sense, moral and logic are equivalent, even identical, to Ti as both seem to be about avoiding the corruptive influence of social bias. an extraverted thinker is less prone to conflate these two things, however, as he/she doesn't value the purity and internal consistency but instead the instrumentality of thinking, and thus is forced to respect the dualistic mythical construct of "ethics"/"morality", pertaining to the higher likelihood of actual improvement that is achieved by considering collective premises, however arbitrary and insignificant to an introverted thinker. overall extraverted thinking is less radically deconstructive, resulting in fewer deviant and challenging concepts.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Yes furthermore you haven't said anything about the fact that you gravely missinterpreted/understood all the examples you brought up from Dawkins book.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
haha i just saw someone typin dawkins INFJ.

that's just weird.

NF means cool and dawkins is the opposite. i don't think more needs to be said about this.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
the fact that you are much less capable of providing an alternative type than denying INTP strengthens my hypothesis.
This is a bad argument. As others who are more talented (understanding) about typing other people also give reason why Dawkins wouldn't be INTP. My reasons are by comparison which really only shows that perspective Dawkins is different then myself.

I would use the same argument if you where to say that Mother Theresa was and INTP. (I quite sue we can agree that she is not). I have absolutely no problem with mother Theresa and I don't believe that she is flawed much in the same way that I don't believe that Dawkins is flawed. I believe no one is perfect including INTPs and every other type however I wouldn't go as far as to say that Dawkins is flow or anyone else that I don't know personally for that matter.

However I believe that Dawkins isn't INTP for the same reason I believe that Mother Theresa isn't INTP. Because I can't relate to there worldview. It don't mean I think that there worldviews are wrong they just don't relate to the way I perceive the universe.

I know that MBTI doesn't have borderline personalities but in reality they exist. Jung himself said that most people don't fit into any type. Of course he was against the idea about typing everyone and wanted to only type the extreme cases. MBTI isn't the bible for personality typing it still open to interpretation. MBTI is far form scientifically proven. It just happens to identify some key issues in some people therefore its hard to completely discredit. However, many people don't fit into the boxes very well. I myself and considering the fact that I could be INTP borderline ENTP. Especially after learning that ENTPs are the most introverted of Extroverted types. The truth is I have a very good balance between my Ti and Ne were they take turns caring the dominant role. Some times I am Ti/Ne/Si/Fe and some times I am Ne/Ti/Fe/Si I kinda swing both ways.

I would except that Dawkins may be similar to this were he is INTP and some other personality type.

Also it is a possibility that Dawkins is an INTP and the reason I can't relate to his world view is because I am a INTP/ENTP (often classified as XNTP). Although this would not explain why other INTP don't relate to his world view.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Or you could just say that if you divide billions of people into 16 types then there's gonna be room for differences within each without bringing borderline types into play and messing up the whole functional stack system.

There's nature and nurture, there's mature and immature, there's that which isn't in the MBTI, and there's the invidivual level of preference for ones functions. All of that allows for quite some differences within each given type without the need to say screw you to mbti theory.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
It should be noted that may lack of ability to type other people accurately doesn't come form a poor understanding of myself just a poor understanding of other people. I believe that the things that define us are not always what others can see easily. The world is full of fake people that I am sure could fool even the best typologist in the world. All I am saying is I don't agree. This is not the same as saying you are wrong. I honestly would like you to come up with more reason why you think this is the case because I still can't see it. This may very well be because I ignorant about typology methods.

All that being said I am rally been trying to defend myself against the accusation. That I am mistyping Dawkins because I believe that he isn't good enough to be an INTP. For all that as been said here and what little information I know about him personally I would say I am a better person than him. Dawkins would be any more or less of a person if he was or wasn't an INTP. I don't believe that he is an INTP because I don't see any correlation between him and what I believe marks me as an INTP.

@Cherry Cola
Sorry if you don't believe borderline personality types should be used in the MBTI system. I believe you will find many people around here that can argue for the use of borderline personality much better than I can. However, I have seen many people present to this phenomenon without it actually breaking the MBTI system. Also the MBTI system is and advancement for Myer/Briges Personality types. Which advanced on the work of Jungs personality types. However, there is no reason that these theories can't be improved be approved upon. It's not like the MBTI is the last holy and truthful understanding of typology. It's just the present system and it has many flaws. Adding the idea of borderline personalities can help fix some of these flaws. As well as other ideas. Yes, it may not work all the time but MBTI doesn't work all the time either.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Chaz: I'll back off on the borderline thingie, as I'm not quite sure how the issues that arise with borderline types are solved here and I do want to support trying to add unto the MBTI system.

Myself whenever I try to add onto it it just feels like I add more flaws :(

Nonetheless, the whole idea of using yourself as an example in a debate like this is no good. You are you, an individual, the INTP is an abstract concept, a generalisation, so to speak, of the idea of the average of all those percieved as falling within the boundaries of this concept.

When using yourself as an example off an INTP you turn yourself in a way into this average sum, when in truth you, as does everyone else, deviate from it to a certain degree. Thereby you create the potential for creating a greater gap between this false average, which is in truth a deviation, and the subject being typed. In this case Dawkins himself also deviates from the average INTP, but perhaps in another way than you do, in another direction than you do.

The notion of Dawkins being an INTP thereby appears less reasonable than it actually is, because each of the deviations are further from one another than they are from the average at the center. If you understand what I'm trying to get at.

That being said, there is no way for me to know that you are actually unwilling to classify Dawkins as an INTP because you don't want to be associated with him. It's just that its a common phenomena, hence statistically it is probable to a certain degree. But you can't apply a statistical tendency to a specific case and claim certainty. So no, I don't know that.

INTJs don't like it when someone says James Camerons one of em for instance.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:46
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
Chaz: I'll back off on the borderline thingie, as I'm not quite sure how the issues that arise with borderline types are solved here and I do want to support trying to add unto the MBTI system.

Myself whenever I try to add onto it it just feels like I add more flaws :(

Nonetheless, the whole idea of using yourself as an example in a debate like this is no good. You are you, an individual, the INTP is an abstract concept, a generalisation, so to speak, of the idea of the average of all those percieved as falling within the boundaries of this concept.

When using yourself as an example off an INTP you turn yourself in a way into this average sum, when in truth you, as does everyone else, deviate from it to a certain degree. Thereby you create the potential for creating a greater gap between this false average, which is in truth a deviation, and the subject being typed. In this case Dawkins himself also deviates from the average INTP, but perhaps in another way than you do, in another direction than you do.

The notion of Dawkins being an INTP thereby appears less reasonable than it actually is, because each of the deviations are further from one another than they are from the average at the center. If you understand what I'm trying to get at.

That being said, there is no way for me to know that you are actually unwilling to classify Dawkins as an INTP because you don't want to be associated with him. It's just that its a common phenomena, hence statistically it is probable to a certain degree. But you can't apply a statistical tendency to a specific case and claim certainty. So no, I don't know that.

INTJs don't like it when someone says James Camerons one of em for instance.
Fair enough, I think this conversation as came to a by pass as far as I am concerned. I really just wish to express my opinion on the matter since I found the topic interesting. I would like to identify other INTP figures that are I can actually see and are actually alive. Because looking at them I can get a greater understanding of my potential strengths and weaknesses as I mature in my own personality.

As far as I can see right now Dawkins isn't a personality role model for me. This is why I am interested in this conversation. I was hoping someone could convince me my interpretation was wrong.

Therefore I presented my opinion with out denying yours.
Even if I don't agree with Dawkins 100% I still admire his courage and Confidence in his own opinion something that is actually absent in my own life. I have beliefs but they are far more flexible than Dawkins. In this aspect Dawkins may actually be Superior to me especially if he ends up being right.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
If you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style I give up. Also the elephant in the next room... for gods sake it's a metaphore.

Now about The Selfish Gene

Was there a policeforce during the time when what would become the human race developed group thinking? No, so that argument is invalid.

The elephant being an elephant is irrelevant, he could've used Russels Teapot or The Spaghetti monster, it's the same point.

And about the photons, he meant that they had the potential to be just as sophisticated. He used photons as an argument because they are even bloody simpler. He understands perfectly well what you think he doesn't understand.

You obviously haven't even grasped Dawkins theories so please refrain from commenting on them lest thou wish genuinely to educate yourself, in which case a little humility is in place.

The irony of your statement that it's the type of arguments which only persuade people by appealing to what they believe is great indeed.

I am however willing to change my argument on that you don't want Dawkins to be a Ti to that you don't want Dawkins to be an INTP. Realize that if you're gonna divide humanity into 16 types then there's gonna be a wide spectrum of variance within each single type.
The fact that you're so sure of yourself that you go ahead and say that if Dawkins is an INTP then all the material on INTP's is wrong says a lot considering you haven't grasped Dawkins theories and you can't see the large difference between Harris and Dawkins.

And no that picture does not describe a brittish fucking feeler, if you changed the theme from religion it could however be applied to someone like Kant.

And yeah Hitchens was such an INTP that he even admitted to doing what he did for fun rather than as, in the case of Dawkins for the inherent virtue of truth.

As it stands, I do consider it possible although less plausible, that Dawkins could be an INTJ instead of an INTP. As it is I can't find any real Ni traits in him, the man seemingly conjures his arguments through logical thinking, he doesn't intuitively grasp them and flesh out his hunches.

But seriously, if you think Dawkins and Harris use a similar style then I cba, some people are just not fit for typing. I totally cba to compare the two in detail, but suffice to say Harris succesfully appeals to emotions and knows how to sugarcoat and present uncomfortable truths together in one single argument , whereas Dawkins presents truth in one argument and then goes on to talk about how it's not all bad but actually quite wonderful in another argument when his receptors have already experienced disdain for his words and he's lost them.

Harris is also a lot better at changing his approach in real time to adjust to a crowd if he gets off on the wrong foot, whereas Dawkins in the same situation would just monotonely go on. Harris text about Gun prohibtion is another example of where he differs dramatically from Dawkins, he starts out by appealing to the crowd by painting a picture of himself as a family man and using arguments from that context, he gets people to think that at his core he's not really all that different from them, thereby gaining their trust. Dawkins is a goddamn alien to the common man.

But this is a waste of time.
Kant believes that his moral theory prohibits lying under all possible circumstances, even those where there is a murderer at the door wondering if the innocent victim is in your house.

Source
If one believes that one must always tell the truth, then one must always tell the truth, even if it results in murder. If individual selection is the key to survival and success, then one must always prioritise one's goals over others, and if someone has something one wants, and the other person doesn't want to give it up unless one kills him, then one must kill him, like the warlord societies in parts of the world, and like Naples in the Middle Ages, where assassination was considered an art. If raising a child with a religious upbringing, is correct, and is child abuse, and then one must do what is correct, even if the result is abuse for the child.

One cannot be inconsistent in one's principles, for if one is, then the benefits of one's principles are cancelled by the times when one goes against one's principles for the sake of one's feelings. One must be ruthless in sticking to one's principles, no matter what, for only by doing so, can one gain the benefits of following one's principles. Feelings are less important than logical consistency.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
However I believe that Dawkins isn't INTP for the same reason I believe that Mother Theresa isn't INTP. Because I can't relate to there worldview.
worldview depends on more than personality type. the specifics aren't that important. MBTI assesses the internal hierarchy and directions of four basic mental functions within a person, not what sort of fiction he/she opts to live in.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
If one believes that one must always tell the truth, then one must always tell the truth, even if it results in murder. If individual selection is the key to survival and success, then one must always prioritise one's goals over others, and if someone has something one wants, and the other person doesn't want to give it up unless one kills him, then one must kill him, like the warlord societies in parts of the world, and like Naples in the Middle Ages, where assassination was considered an art. If raising a child with a religious upbringing, is correct, and is child abuse, and then one must do what is correct, even if the result is abuse for the child.

One cannot be inconsistent in one's principles, for if one is, then the benefits of one's principles are cancelled by the times when one goes against one's principles for the sake of one's feelings. One must be ruthless in sticking to one's principles, no matter what, for only by doing so, can one gain the benefits of following one's principles. Feelings are less important than logical consistency.
and you are just speaking tangential smart-ass glossolalia, completely devoid of relevance.
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
yeah that stuff made no sense, for instance, you may indeed value truth, but you can still lie if you thank that lying would further the spreading of truth in general.

For instance you can say "there is probs no god" instead of saying "If you think logically about it there is fucking nothing pointing to there being a god"
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
and you are just speaking tangential smart-ass glossolalia, completely devoid of relevance.
You can't abandon reason and logic, just because they imply ugly truths. If you do, then you have no way to know what to do.

yeah that stuff made no sense, for instance, you may indeed value truth, but you can still lie if you thank that lying would further the spreading of truth in general.
Waste of time. Like building a house of bricks, on a foundation of quicksand. It's gonna sink.

For instance you can say "there is probs no god" instead of saying "If you think logically about it there is fucking nothing pointing to there being a god"
An INTP would say the latter, except with a bit more logic about it. An INFJ would say the former. It's much softer, and more appealing to the emotions.
 
Local time
Today, 15:46
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
and you can't post a summary of basic deontology and expect to win just because you have no idea how to defend your claims about dawkins' personality type
 
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
You can't abandon reason and logic, just because they imply ugly truths. If you do, then you have no way to know what to do.

Waste of time. Like building a house of bricks, on a foundation of quicksand. It's gonna sink.

An INTP would say the latter, except with a bit more logic about it. An INFJ would say the former. It's much softer, and more appealing to the emotions.
You can't expect other people not to abandon reason and logic when they imply ugly truths. If you do you are deluded.

Furthermore, foundation of quicksand is better than no foundation. If truth is C and people falsely believe A then, if you want these people to believe A they may need to be shown B in order to be able to see C even if B like A is not true.

Consider for instance the first universities, in which they studied theology and discussed christian philosophical issues all the while trying to reconcile the bible with the classic philosophers. Little of what they were doing had any truth to it. But I would've supported those universities anyway because eventually after hundreds of years spent mostly on bogus they payed off truthwise by producing new philosophers as well as science.

And I think the bible is indeed to be considered quicksand as a foundation for truth.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
You can't expect other people not to abandon reason and logic when they imply ugly truths. If you do you are deluded.
If by that, you mean that many people prefer beautiful lies to ugly truth, then I agree. But I don't have to follow their example.

Equally, you are entirely correct to point out, that it is unwise to assume that just because one embraces logic and reason even in the face of realities that one feels uncomfortable about, that everyone would. To not accept that some people will choose comforting lies over uncomforting truth, would be denying logic and reason, and would thus be accepting comfortable lies over unpleasant truth.

Furthermore, foundation of quicksand is better than no foundation. If truth is C and people falsely believe A then, if you want these people to believe A they may need to be shown B in order to be able to see C even if B like A is not true.
If people require to see falsehood to accept a truth, then their reason for accepting that truth is not that it is truth, i.e. not why it is true, but for another reason. Then what they accept is that which is implied by that reason, and since that is not because it is true, but, say, because it is comforting to them, then they continue to accept that which is implied by that comfort which is not true, and they continue to reject that which is implied by that which is true, but which is incompatible with that sense of comfort. Thus, what appears to be quicksand, is a house with only half the foundations. The other half collapses, and keeps collapsing, no matter how many times one builds on the areas without foundation.

That is why so many people disagree with the argument of "the ends justify the means". Invariably, the imagined justified ends, never occur, and what occurs is even more unjustified than the unjustified means.

Consider for instance the first universities, in which they studied theology and discussed christian philosophical issues all the while trying to reconcile the bible with the classic philosophers. Little of what they were doing had any truth to it. But I would've supported those universities anyway because eventually after hundreds of years spent mostly on bogus they payed off truthwise by producing new philosophers as well as science.
I went to university. I talked to people about it there, and people who'd been to uni 5 years earlier, 10 years earlier, 20 years earlier. In uni, students praised it highly. 5 years on, they said that some of it was not worth it. 10 years on, half. By 20 years on, people don't understand why they were taught 90% of what they were taught, as 90% of it was worth almost no value to their lives, and what they found was extremely important, they were never taught.

And I think the bible is indeed to be considered quicksand as a foundation for truth.
Is it rational to consider something quicksand, if you can't read it? I have read the Old Testament in the English, and in the original text. They read so differently, they should be classed as entirely different books.
 
Top Bottom