• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatant Fi

Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#1
his debates reek of Fi and Ni, I call INTJ. INTP's aren't dicks like Richard (ohhhh hahahaha dem puns).

In what universe does Richard Dawkins strike anyone as an INTP?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#3
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Your posts frequently render me irate, though I suspect it's my problem, not yours. I just dislike unhelpful posts with no point to them.

Hi cherry :) been a while
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
#4
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

According to the websites listing him as such, he uses arguments containing bits of logic scrupulously linked together, while Hitchens throws the kitchen sink at his opponents. I can see how this might be true. Hitchens used a lot of intuitive judgements while Dawkins worked to directly contradict the arguments themselves.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#5
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Celebrity typing is wrong most of the time. It's hard enough typing people you know, typing people who put out a public persona is even harder, yet people blithely type away.

Regardless as a gut feeling I don't think he's an INTP.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#6
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

couldn't agree with you more architect.

But noone found my pun brilliant and hillarious? I did
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,933
#8
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

He writes well, though on screen he has a penchant for alienating moderates. I prefer Hitchens for the burns, and Sam Harris for the inevitability of his logic (though I haven't read any of their books yet).

I do wonder if Dawkins isscathing as a vehicle of his thoughts, or because he genuinely feels moral superiority as he spouts his beliefs. Surely at his age retaining that level of causticity would be trying?
 

nil

drifting
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,032
Location
within the vast universe
#9
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

couldn't agree with you more architect.

But noone found my pun brilliant and hillarious? I did
BUT INTPs have enormous P-ness.

Coincidence? I think not.
 

own8ge

Existential Nihilist
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,040
#10
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Richard Dawkins is an INTP. If you think otherwise, your worldview of mbti/Jungian_typology is dramatically skewed. To unskew you, it might be of interest to point out that INTPs - as their top function is Ti - have Fi as an as active function as Ti. They counterbalance each other, only then Fi is shadow and therefore unconscious. You might recognize how their Fi is of influence to them; they themselves have no clue.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#11
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Richard Dawkins is an INTP. If you think otherwise, your worldview of mbti/Jungian_typology is dramatically skewed. To unskew you, it might be of interest to point out that INTPs - as their top function is Ti - have Fi as an as active function as Ti. They counterbalance each other, only then Fi is shadow and therefore unconscious. You might recognize how their Fi is of influence to them; they themselves have no clue.
Your grammar is hard to follow. Fi is an INTP's 8th function, what the hell are you talking about? pointing out Ti with respect to Fi is as irrelevant as pointing out Te or Fe. I have no idea what you are on about.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#12
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Your grammar is hard to follow. Fi is an INTP's 8th function, what the hell are you talking about? pointing out Ti with respect to Fi is as irrelevant as pointing out Te or Fe. I have no idea what you are on about.
The basic logic of the system is as follows:

T and F oppose each other strongly, as do I and E.

Ti and Fe have a most repressive relationship.

His approach is that Fi is operating in the shadow of Ti as an unconscious motivator. BAP got on about this too. I think own8ge should tell us more about this.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#13
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

The basic logic of the system is as follows:

T and F oppose each other strongly, as do I and E.

Ti and Fe have a most repressive relationship.

His approach is that Fi is operating in the shadow of Ti as an unconscious motivator. BAP got on about this too. I think own8ge should tell us more about this.
I have never read ANY literature that eluded to this. Are you extrapolating or is there real literature on this? I'd like to see it.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#14
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

I have never read ANY literature that eluded to this. Are you extrapolating or is there real literature on this? I'd like to see it.
ALLUDED.

fuck

anyway.. :)

I have linked it for you to read numerous times.... this logic is represented in Types, Chapter X.

The "shadow function" idea that own8ge is purporting is sort of like the urban myth of typology which you can find from a basic search online. I personally have not read anything that logically indicates Fi is operating "in the shadow" because I think in an introverted thinking type, according to Jung, his most unconscious and troublesome function is the feeling function and it takes on a highly extraverted orientation.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#15
Hahahaha. "alluded. fuck. anyway" made me laugh :).

thanks for the literature. I'll read it at some point. hmmm.. It has got me thinking though.. I mean. I'm quite sure I do experience Fi. I get upset and depressed and stuff, It may bewilder me as to it's cause, but nonetheless, that is Fi is it not? it seems too strong and frequent for what you would expect from JUST an 8th function. this is by no means an opinion, it is just me pondering the idea.

Edit: where is this link? "I have linked it for you to read several times"
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#16
Hahahaha. "alluded. fuck. anyway" made me laugh :).

thanks for the literature. I'll read it at some point. hmmm.. It has got me thinking though.. I mean. I'm quite sure I do experience Fi. I get upset and depressed and stuff, It may bewilder me as to it's cause, but nonetheless, that is Fi is it not? it seems too strong and frequent for what you would expect from JUST an 8th function. this is by no means an opinion, it is just me pondering the idea.
My final remarks on this subject are that there are four functions and the attitude of orientation is a matter of predisposition and is somewhat inflexible.

An INTP wouldn't use Fi because their feeling is extraverted. Feeling something on the inside is not the same thing as having introverted feeling. The introverted attitude of feeling doesn't mean the same thing as "personal feelings" .......... it's - not - even - the - same - ballpark.

Some people would disagree based on observations or another theoretical interpretation of the text.

What we've really got going on here is one bit of source material and a million unique interpretations of it. I for one do not believe in "8 primary functions," I believe in FOUR.

If you're so certain you use Fi then consider that you could be an ISTJ or INTJ or ISFP. Have I guessed at your type yet??

If you think otherwise, your worldview of mbti/Jungian_typology is dramatically skewed.
Classic INFJ argument. Only thing it's missing is the sardonic happy face :)
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#17
"If you're so certain you use Fi then consider that you could be an..."

"this is by no means an opinion, it is just me pondering the idea."
 

DaviPop

shinyhappyperson
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
54
Location
215
#20
Re: why is Richard dawkins listed as an INTP.. blatent Fi

Celebrity typing is wrong most of the time. It's hard enough typing people you know, typing people who put out a public persona is even harder, yet people blithely type away.
Well since all most people will ever know is the public persona so whether or not it's truly accurate to the "person behind the curtain" seems fairly irrelevant.

Trees falling in the woods and whatnot.

I'm not entirely sure why Dawkins gets the reputation of the dick that he does, but then I've only ever read one book by him and watched maybe a handful of interviews. He doesn't seem like he's going out of his way to humiliate his opponent like Hitchens. He just seems to put out his views fairly bluntly which can be interpreted as abrasive.

But with that said I can't say I'm a fan of the Dawkins/Hitch/Harris triumvirate. As an atheist myself they've never really said anything that's made me go "wow".
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#21
You're pondering the idea that you're "quite sure" you experience Fi, but by no means is your opinion that you use Fi? :pueh:

ok....... I think I follow.
whoops. contradicted myself. omit "quite sure". replace with "I wonder"
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#22
Do you think you could be an INTJ?

How old are you?
You remind me of myself 5 years ago.

Maybe you're mistaking Fi and Fe completely - as in you do use Fi and recognize a different attitude in Dawkins' feeling so you assume it's Fi because you currently presume to be an INTP.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand, New Zealand
#24
Do you think you could be an INTJ?

How old are you?
You remind me of myself 5 years ago.

Maybe you're mistaking Fi and Fe completely - as in you do use Fi and recognize a different attitude in Dawkins' feeling so you assume it's Fi because you currently presume to be an INTP.
I consistently score strongly INTP on mbti tests. I can't do organisation to save myself (lack of Te). I am unreliable and let people down frequently despite always having good intentions(lack of Te). I care for the masses and feel for their suffering(show of Fe). When you get me extroverting, I am a bag of crazy awesome fun, I am the life of the party when I have center stage "hey guys, lets do stuntman tequeila shots then do forwards flips over the bbq and into the bushes" (this actually happened. no exagerating). I am out of touch with my emotions and never have a clue why I am upset (lack of Fi). I am not assertive. I never lead.

INTP in my opinion.

uhh why do I think richard dawkins shows Fi? because he doesn't seem to have that unwritten rulebook on the inside of his head where there are certain things you just don't (can't) say to people. I feel like there are lines that INTP's can't cross in assertiveness and in rudeness. It's just too confrontational. Richard dawkins steps over that line and runs a metaphoric marathon past it and doesn't seem to even notice.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#25
But he's neither confrontational nor rude, he just goes ahead and speaks his mind typically in a calm dispassionate voice, he's really quite polite. His arguments are all logic-based, his book didn't really contain much feeling. When it did it was clearly Fe however. The universe is wondrous, we are all living together in this remarkable world, we must strive for this and that. All his feelings arguments urge collective striving towards common goals.

If you want to look at someone who's actually confrontational that's Hitchens.

 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
412
#26
Without going in excruciating detail, I would argue that he is an INTP, based on Keirsey's temperament sorter and the cognitive function model. He obviously views the world in a very rational way, questioning ideas and/or natural phenomenon until he arrives at a satisfactory answer.

I used to find his strict adherence to atheism a bit too close minded, but if you watch enough of his debates you will find that he is more accepting of discussing concepts of gods that are impersonal in nature. He is tolerant of the pantheist, Spinoza god and detests the Judeo-Christian god.

He is a skeptic in nature, but he tends to be rather polite about it for the most part, as opposed to the more inflammatory Hitchens.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,640
#27
In what universe does Richard Dawkins strike anyone as an INTP?
He wrote a book on religion, where he had a lot of arguments to prove religion false and immoral. He claimed to use logic.

He's often said that all he wants is for people to think for themselves.

He says that he likes science a lot.

He used to say that he was an atheist. There are a lot of INTPs who are atheists.

He comes across as very likeable at first, especially to atheists, who feel like he is fighting their corner. INTPs are often well-liked.

I thought about the matter a lot. There are a lot of INTPs who are atheists. So are many other types. I came to the conclusion that he was another type, for reasons that I have not mentioned here.
 

ENTP lurker

Usually useless
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
228
Location
Pluto, solar system
#28
I'm inclined to say ESTJ. He claims facts. And makes concrete proofs. For me evolution is best explained by biochemistry. He never tries to educate masses through molecules.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#29

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,933
#30
I'm inclined to say ESTJ. He claims facts. And makes concrete proofs. For me evolution is best explained by biochemistry. He never tries to educate masses through molecules.
"Facts" is a buzzword. It matters not whether you claim to have the facts, it matters how you came to think you have the facts. The typical portrayal of an ESTJ is one where they think of social truths as facts. That's not what Ricky D does. He's an established professional who has checked the facts for himself.

He doesn't bother with molecules because that shit's hard and unrelatable. People who try to educate the masses about molecules end up educating very few, because nobody will listen. Broad concepts are far easier to illustrate and write a book about, and a person is not necessarily an ESTJ for understanding this.

What Archi said. Public profiles are poor indicators of type. Celebrity selects for particular traits, people know this and adjust themselves for selection.
 
Top Bottom