Someone--a few someones--explained, or asserted smugly, that the opinion of the majority here counts for an important piece of evidence in its own right. I offered several reasons why that particular majority not infrequently can't tell a type from their elbow, none of which reasons would matter if any of that majority had addressed type when they identified type.
Careful. This is getting dangerously close to Ti solipsism here. Perhaps you are one of us as well. Arguing against evidence... are you sure you are an INTJ?
You have not demonstrated why your word or opinion on the matter is more trustworthy than that of the majority. You're simply requesting "evidence" without providing "evidence" for your own point of view. And no, this is not an invisible teapot situation.
"what he sounds like when he speaks" is not a smoking gun. What would be relevant proof would be something that could show that he leaned towards a Ni perspective rather than a Ne perspective.
His reluctance to act, does that sound like Ne, or like Ni to you? Does he have Ni certainty, or Ne uncertainty? When did hesitancy and indecision become a hallmark of Ni?
You proved nothing with your confusing exercise of duplicating his speech patterns. I was imitating INTJ argumentation styles earlier in this thread. Did this cause you to conclude that I am an INTJ?
There is no proof for him being INTJ, or INTP for that matter. That's just like uh, your opinion man.
I'll provide one of the dissimilarities you were clamoring for.
INTJs seem to find it very hard to admit when they are wrong, or even when they may be wrong. Nothing in Snowden's statements point to a certainty in correctness, to a belief that he is correct enough to be able to determine whether the NSA is correct or not. He believes that people should be informed so that they can decide. This is one of the things that convinced me. You even allude to this difference between INTJs and INTPs in your penultimate post by criticizing my "failure to conclude."
Of course, I'm sure that now, this will not be good enough.
I can ask you more questions, but you'll just respond with more one word answers and not actually back up your claims that you are someone who '"understands" typology. You didn't do that above, I don't expect you to do that anywhere else. You did not provide an explanation of the four functions that you claimed you understand so well. Why should I believe you, when you seem afraid and reluctant to even attempt this?
Your convictions are not ironclad evidence.
I knew someone who was convinced that a new utopia would emerge in December 2012. This conviction was, obviously, not the same thing as truth.
Start discussing the same things I'm discussing and giving real responses and counter-analysis and perhaps I'll change my mind. I guarantee you that no one will be convinced if you continue to present your feelings dressed up by table scraps of data, and perhaps I'll change my mind.
Whenever your logic is shown to be faulty, you simply cherry pick new "evidence", rather than taking fault with the analysis. It's rather telling.
To recap my personal recent experiences here, earlier on in this thread I explained how reasoning to the latent state of someone's mind (their type) from their behavior is a fundamentally underdetermined problem. We may develop heuristics that work quite well, and we may learn to use theory of mind to simulate the minds of others. Despite our best efforts, however, we will make mistakes. I also explained that each person's mind, no matter their type, is an overcomplete basis for representing and inferring any other type - any type can, with practice, do it just as well as any other type, albeit from a different perspective. Lastly, I explained that denying these facts is tantamount to confirmation bias. Given that determining someone's type is an underdetermined problem, feigning confidence cannot be anything but confirmation bias. Hence, all statements in a thread like this should be accompanied by at least an implicit "but of course I can't be sure." Instead, here we see the contrary - an explicit I am really sure, which is made even more preposterous by the claim that, despite the fact that the mind is an overcomplete basis for representing or inferring any other type, that one particuar type is naturally gifted at solving this impossible problem with extremely high confidence, and that other types cannot do it even in principle.
It is almost impossible to avoid confirmation bias, but this has been turned it into an epic solo circlejerk. Here's a clever idea: Instead of risking being really wrong and then being in the nasty position of having to back up your wrong beliefs because of your ginormous ego, why not acknowledge that it is really hard to know anything with certainty, approach discussions like this with a modicum of modesty, and accept new information that counters your previous beliefs and biases with humility.
It's less about understanding democracy, and more about certainty vs. doubt. I'm sure people think I'm overly arrogant and certain about things, but the truth is, I'm not inherently certain of things. At least not until I bring it into the open, and see how other people react to it.
With INTJs, I get the sense that they really are that certain. They actually don't seem to have very much doubt at all. In many ways, that's more useful, as it makes action easier.
I'm arguing less that INTJs are wrong, and more that they tend to be certain about things they might be wrong about.
It's less about understanding democracy, and more about humility.
Says you. I think it has more to do with being realistic. He would be an idiot to assume he could do any more than inform the public. He can inform in a way that suggests the choice of certain options over others, as he has, but that is where his influence ends or ended at the time of the initial leak. That is not to say that, therefore, he must be an INTJ. It merely erodes this ridiculous premise for the INTP argument.