Cherry Cola
Banned
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.
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.