Edward Snowden

[Kalach]

Again: it's an exposé, not a conspiracy theory. He isn't hiding anything; he's leaking it. He isn't blowing up his part and lecturing with the grandiose pomposity of the average INTJ, he's just stating the facts. Obviously, he has an opinion, he's just not arrogant enough to believe it's the only one that counts.

That seems... not quite congruent with his actions. By, y'know, just a little bit. Once out in public he is, according to himself, the normal, average guy, just like everyone else, who saw things that worried him (even though he uses the present tense to describe them). Yet, the reason this normal, average guy is in public at all is--what? He didn't decide the institutional NSA has it all wrong? That no Congressman could help? He didn't decide that his opinion of what he saw was sufficient unto itself that he would be right to usurp the power and authority of the US government? And after that, he goes about it by just stating the facts? Not in any video I saw. He states the overview, short on detail, long on interpretation.

Also, so it's an exposé? So what? Any person can expose. Every person can. But why is he working on this one? I say, this particular "conspiracy" he has outed looks like the normal grist for any INTJ's mill--power, abuses, hidden action, grand authorities, and simple mistakes made by people who just don't understand what part they're playing in the bigger structure behind everything they do.

Come now. You know it makes sense. You're infatuated with an INTP. It happens.
We are kind of wonderful.

Well, sure. But I've read marketing books written by INTPs. A favorite and re-occuring imperative is "comprehensive analysis". Action comes after comprehensive analysis. And choices for action derive from policy. Always policy. That bothered me in the Snowden videos because he uses the word several times. "Might he be one of them?" I wondered. But I wasn't sure. It's not clear if he dislikes policy or embraces it. Sometimes he talks of policy as his own solution and other times he talks of it as inadequate to the task of leading choice.

 

[Coriolis]

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sorts of things"

It's common for INTPs to be more certain about what they don't want/ aren't prepared to tolerate, than what they do. He knows that he doesn't want to live in a society full of hypocrites and slaves, but he doesn't necessarily have an overarching vision for some sublime Utopia either. Or put another way, he defines Utopia by what it doesn't contain, rather that what it does.
The INTJ stipulates the world he wants to live in; the INTP the world he does not.

An interesting way to explain the distinction. I see this in my SO as well.

He recognises that the NSA's method of snooping is both "the most efficient" and an "abuse". Isn't that like, an oxymoron for an INTJ? Je is all about ends justifying means.

It is not a contradiction if the INTJ does not agree with the ends in question. In such a case the ends then become the abuse, and the means used to reach them simply a waste of resources that otherwise could have been spent reaching truly worthwhile goals.

Snowden doesn't trust authority - not even his own. The fact that he was authorised to spy on the President on the flimsiest of pretexts, frightened him. Whoever said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - I'm thinking it wasn't an NTJ.

The INTP is as reluctant to impose his will on others as he is to have others impose their will on him. Both attitudes inform Snowden's actions. He can simultaneously believe/fear that his actions will have no lasting legacy, yet still be convinced it's the right thing to do: ends are largely irrelevant.

He doesn't press his vision upon the world, because he recognises that his is only one perspective (Pe) all the while being convinced of its subjective rightness (Ji). He distinguishes between moral absolutes and technical facts. He collects and presents those facts and allows others to draw their own conclusions without trying to get in the way of that process any more than is necessary (also known as Informative vs Directive). His own conclusions coupled with his disposition create a moral imperative which has dictated the course of the rest of his life, but he doesn't actively intervene to destroy the system he despises (as you suggest an INTJ would). He does however, subvert it. He allows a more informed public to decide their own fate, while his lack of faith in human nature guarantees his retreat, rather than than trust his own fate to others.

All this, especially the highlighted, argues for INTP.

 

[Kalach]

Where the Snowman speaks, and "we" don't listen:

...until eventually you realise that, uh, these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who was simply hired by the government.

He says that "you" realise this because anyone else you can talk to--anyone he could talk to--wasn't handling the existence of "abuses" adequately. So, how does he make that leap of logic? I hear no "And it's a principle of democracy that..."​

"...they, uh, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them, and it analyses them, and it measures them, and it stores them for periods of time, simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends."

Why does he list those qualities--easiest, most efficient, most valuable? It's hardly efficient, it's not easy, and why is it valuable? But for making NSA lives easier, it is. (Although exactly why "valuable" is in there is still mysterious.) So, he's describing mechanisms judged according to subjective value, not objective efficacy.​

"I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model."

What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person? It's mechanisms again. Not objective people, but objective mechanisms.​

"And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

And there you go, sportsfans, there's the end of the INTP story. Because viola, truth is proven by people standing up and saying this is the truth, this is what's happening. Truth is Authenticity. It is determined not by objective considerations, but by subjective effect.​

Etc and so on.

I haven't seen anyone show where he uses INTP processes or values. I've seen you show where he could be using them. And now we know he doesn't because someone actually listened to the words. You should all be ashamed.

 

[Southern Kross]

Yeah, I would go with INTJ.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Where the Snowman speaks, and "we" don't listen:

...until eventually you realise that, uh, these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who was simply hired by the government.

He says that "you" realise this because anyone else you can talk to--anyone he could talk to--wasn't handling the existence of "abuses" adequately. So, how does he make that leap of logic? I hear no "And it's a principle of democracy that..."​

"...they, uh, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them, and it analyses them, and it measures them, and it stores them for periods of time, simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends."

Why does he list those qualities--easiest, most efficient, most valuable? It's hardly efficient, it's not easy, and why is it valuable? But for making NSA lives easier, it is. (Although exactly why "valuable" is in there is still mysterious.) So, he's describing mechanisms judged according to subjective value, not objective efficacy.​

"I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model."

What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person? It's mechanisms again. Not objective people, but objective mechanisms.​

"And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

And there you go, sportsfans, there's the end of the INTP story. Because viola, truth is proven by people standing up and saying this is the truth, this is what's happening. Truth is Authenticity. It is determined not by objective considerations, but by subjective effect.​

Etc and so on.

I haven't seen anyone show where he uses INTP processes or values. I've seen you show where he could be using them. And now we know he doesn't because someone actually listened to the words. You should all be ashamed.

The bold clinches it for me in favor of INTJ as well.

 

[JocktheMotie]

The bold clinches it for me in favor of INTJ as well.

Really? That seemed like the most ITP part. Believing that access to pure, unaltered Truth creates out of its own existence action and change in the minds of people who experience it is about the most characteristic ideal of Ti you can get. Snowden believes all he has to do is release that essential piece of information and that information will do all of the work for him, independent of what he personally feels should be done with it. That's not for him to say, his quest begins and ends at Truth.

Anyways. This whole realization drove me nuts. I suppose I always sort of knew this was happening, but even the lack of real response caught me by surprise. Turkey freaks the fuck out over a park being paved; our government basically spies on every single on of its citizens but we're too busy to do anything but wait for 4 hours in line for a cronut. Yes I'm bitter. 4 hours for a fucking cronut.

 

[Kalach]

Really? That seemed like the most ITP part. Believing that access to pure, unaltered Truth creates out of its own existence action and change in the minds of people who experience it is about the most characteristic ideal of Ti you can get. Snowden believes all he has to do is release that essential piece of information and that information will do all of the work for him, independent of what he personally feels should be done with it. That's not for him to say, his quest begins and ends at Truth.

He said also that he has to be part of the disclosure process because otherwise it wouldn't work. He said, leaking exists and the government approves of it where it gets them positive results, but that whistleblowers are "typically maligned, y'know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against government." His quest does not begin and end with truth. He's "come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies." And he goes on to say:

"But, at the same time, you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living, uh, living unfreely, but comfortably is something you're willing to accept--and I think many of us are, it's, it's the human nature--uh, you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your, your large paycheck, for relatively little work, uh, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows, but... if you realise that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, uh, you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."​

He doesn't say what freedom is, nor what is oppression. With only the things we know so far, then for him surveillance is oppression. Which seems an odd position. But he's speaking in terms of generations. He doesn't say generations of what. It may just be generations of leaders. And for American presidents that's four years, right? But he's talking as if the terms are larger and place further into the future. From that perspective, it's actually kind of weak to finish up on, oh well, better let the public decide. But on that point he said a weird thing earlier.

"When you are subverting the power of government, that, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy, and, if you do that in secret consistently, y'know, as the government does, uh, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side, but they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs, that falls to individual citizens. But, they're typically maligned...."​

Now, he says that right after saying the public is owed an explanation for the motivations of people who make disclosures. So, when he goes on to talk about subverting the power of government, who is he talking about? Who is the subversive? Is he talking about himself? A few words later he stresses "as the government does", suggesting a change in sentence subject. As in, now he's talking about the government. But here's the other thing. He says subverting the power of government is fundamentally dangerous to democracy. What does he mean? Subverting an elected government's mandate to decide for the governed?

His quest centers around visions of the future and how those visions come true.

 

[Kalach]

Any INTP willing to come forward and claim that degree of vagueness in language and obscurity of reference as characteristic, feel free.

 

[JocktheMotie]

He said also that he has to be part of the disclosure process because otherwise it wouldn't work. He said, leaking exists and the government approves of it where it gets them positive results, but that whistleblowers are "typically maligned, y'know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against government." His quest does not begin and end with truth. He's "come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies."

"But, at the same time, you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living, uh, living unfreely, but comfortably is something you're willing to accept--and I think many of us are, it's, it's the human nature--uh, you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your, your large paycheck, for relatively little work, uh, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows, but... if you realise that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, uh, you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."​

Right, but he's not saying "he" is an intrinsically important element to the truth, but that coming out with the Truth in the way that he has renders his information less corruptible by the government that wants to simply label him as a traitor as a way to discredit his information. The guy stuck his face on every newspaper and ruined his life so NOBAMA and Pals couldn't just say "disgruntled employee/liar/baby sodomizer;" it's simply context to understand the importance of his information, nothing more. I'm not sure why you think this part is typologically relevant anyways, unless you described it some posts above and I missed it.

He doesn't say what freedom is, nor what is oppression. With only the things we know so far, then for him surveillance is oppression. Which seems an odd position. But he's speaking in terms of generations. He doesn't say generations of what. It may just be generations of leaders. And for American presidents that's four years, right? But he's talking as if the terms are larger and place further into the future. From that perspective, it's actually kind of weak to finish up on, oh well, better let the public decide. But on that point he said a weird thing earlier.

"When you are subverting the power of government, that, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy, and, if you do that in secret consistently, y'know, as the government does, uh, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side, but they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs, that falls to individual citizens. But, they're typically maligned...."​

Now, he says that right after saying the public is owed an explanation for the motivations of people who make disclosures. So, when he goes on to talk about subverting the power of government, who is he talking about? Who is the subversive? Is he talking about himself? A few words later he stresses "as the government does", suggesting a change in sentence subject. As in, now he's talking about the government. But here's the other thing. He says subverting the power of government is fundamentally dangerous to democracy. What does he mean? Subverting an elected government's mandate to decide for the governed?

His quest centers around visions of the future and how those visions come true.

He's observing the present status quo and taking it to its logical conclusion to a nebulous time "down the road." Ti users do this all time and it's one characteristic that makes them so self defeating.

*next time I should probably watch the source material*
It does seem like he switched directions/subject mid thought. So basically, he rambled, and got back to his main point that individuals who leak in secret are maligned and their findings tarnished, so he feels he needs to be visible in order to protect his claims from being discredited. As Blue says, it's not an appeal to authority tactic, it's one of sticking his neck out to protect the real focus.

For what it's worth, I think he's ISTP.

Any INTP willing to come forward and claim that degree of vagueness in language and obscurity of reference as characteristic, feel free.

They probably don't find him vague.

 

[Salomé]

ZOMG, Kalach, you're obsessed.
Don't make me watch that video again, because I might fall in love, and if he turns out to be INTJ, I'm going to have to dump a whole bunch of prejudices and get some new ones, and who has time for that?

"...they, uh, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them, and it analyses them, and it measures them, and it stores them for periods of time, simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends."

Why does he list those qualities--easiest, most efficient, most valuable? It's hardly efficient, it's not easy, and why is it valuable? But for making NSA lives easier, it is.​

He's presenting the reasons from the perspective of the NSA.
Duh.
We can switch perspectives easily without attaching to them. We has flexible Pness.

"I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model."

What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person? It's mechanisms again. Not objective people, but objective mechanisms.​

I understand him perfectly. You might think that someone who abuses sentence construction in that way would necessarily be INTJ, but, on this occasion, you'd be wrong.

"And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

Snowden isn't saying "this is true because I say it's true" - an appeal to authority. He's saying, "this truth is important enough for me to stick my neck on the line".

I think you know that really. But this straw-clutching exercise is cute.​

 

[Kalach]

Right, but he's not saying "he" is an intrinsically important element to the truth, but that coming out with the Truth in the way that he has renders his information less corruptible by the government that wants to simply label him as a traitor as a way to discredit his information. The guy stuck his face on every newspaper and ruined his life so NOBAMA and Pals couldn't just say "disgruntled employee/liar/baby sodomizer;" it's simply context to understand the importance of his information, nothing more. I'm not sure why you think this part is typologically relevant anyways, unless you described it some posts above and I missed it.

What context? With his face on the revelations, we know they came from some dude who likes grey shirts, had cardboard boxes up on all the windows of his house, and lived with a stripper. And he failed high school. So with that face on the story, no campaign of disinformation can start up? And that's why he ruined his life? Seems like a reach.

I don't know why he put his own face on this story. My instinct is to say he doesn't think the facts speak for themselves. That, if true, is typologically relevant because it suggests some hidden vision he wants people to see. Furthermore, claiming the revelations to be unaltered works as a first step in extroverted thinking. "I'm honest and truthful, so where do we go from here?"

Plus, but this is something of a guess, it's a better idea strategically to be a public face. They disappear less easily than anonymous citizens. Such a thought may count as typologically relevant, but even an INTP could be that aware of consequences.

He's observing the present status quo and taking it to its logical conclusion to a nebulous time "down the road." Ti users do this all time and it's one characteristic that makes them so self defeating.

He observed a logical conclusion?

They probably don't find him vague.

There you go. I used a word, and it was a good word, but what *I* was referring to by it wasn't known, thus the standard definition of that word got used because indeed, he's not vague. He's quite definite in what he says. He explicit. He's clear that some nebulous thing is happening and we have to consider it too. Any INTP that wishes to come forward and claim how often they too rely on ill-formed and vague background entities, feel free.

How often do INTPs rely on imprecise, mysterious, but known to themselves, vision?

 

[Kalach]

He's presenting the reasons from the perspective of the NSA.

From a perspective the NSA could have, but why that one? That's the one they do have? He says so.

I understand him perfectly. You might think that someone who abuses sentence construction in that way would necessarily be INTJ, but, on this occasion, you'd be wrong.

"Mean" doesn't mean mean, it means mean. As in, why. Why is the public owed an explanation? What is it about the democratic model that places this obligation on him? He doesn't say. He just states that he thinks this. What is it about democracy that obliges the people who go outside of it to apologise? Because he's breaking the system the people trust or because he's breaking the people's trust?

Snowden isn't saying "this is true because I say it's true" - an appeal to authority. He's saying, "this truth is important enough for me to stick my neck on the line".

This truth? Which one? Which damn truth? What truth is he revealing? If someone would actually ascribe to him the truth he is showing, we could get some sense of what typologically he's been doing. I say his truth is a vision that's bigger than the evidence he provides. The evidence sets the scene for understanding the wider implication. The wider implication is more substantial to him than the current abuses. Thus I claim is evidence of a typological profile. What truth do you think he's conveying?

I think you know that really. But this straw-clutching exercise is cute.

Please. You haven't done the comprehensive analysis and I haven't publicly convinced people of a vision. Good for P, bad for J.

 

[Salomé]

Any INTP that wishes to come forward and claim how often they too rely on ill-formed and vague background entities, feel free.

I honestly think you're losing it. You're so persuaded by your own ill-formed vagaries, that you're convinced he has them too...
But that isn't evidence that he has. And you haven't provided anything convincing to support your notion of the hidden visions that you imagine animate the man.( Given that they're hidden, I can't blame you for that.)

The fact that he can imagine a worse-case scenario, doesn't make him Mystic Meg.
He's a fucking risk analyst, that's his job.

 

[Salomé]

From a perspective the NSA could have, but why that one? That's the one they do have? He says so.

Logic dictates so. It's unlikely that they are actively *trying* to be inefficient.

Why is the public owed an explanation?

Because he knows that people care about motives as much as message. (There's that capacity to inhabit multiple perspectives again).

What is it about the democratic model that places this obligation on him? He doesn't say. He just states that he thinks this. What is it about democracy that obliges the people who go outside of it to apologise? Because he's breaking the system the people trust or because he's breaking the people's trust?

Because he believes in democracy, the form of government, and presumes other people who imagine themselves to be living in one will too.

This truth? Which one? Which damn truth? What truth is he revealing? If someone would actually ascribe to him the truth he is showing, we could get some sense of what typologically he's been doing. I say his truth is a vision that's bigger than the evidence he provides. The evidence sets the scene for understanding the wider implication. The wider implication is more substantial to him than the current abuses. Thus I claim is evidence of a typological profile. What truth do you think he's conveying?

The truth that the NSA treats US citizens like enemies of the state.

 

[Coriolis]

"And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

The underscored is Ti: the truth is self-evident, and stands on its own, not needing the objective, external proof that Te would require/present. The highlighted is much more Fe than Fi: moral value defined externally; he thinks it breaks the rules, but invites everyone else to weigh in, whereas for Fi, moral value is self-evident, needing no external corroboration. Ergo, INTP.

Many of Snowden's quotes can be analyzed similarly. Readers can do the math themselves.

 

[Kalach]

This is laughable. I've been following the revelations. None of them stand on their own. Even the thousands of documented breaches of privacy laws per year can be written off as accidental. Anyone who believes in the need to secure the nation against terrorism will have little problem with this. Look around and see. So what compelling truth does Snowden signal the existence of? If it's just that the NSA is jogging along nicely without democratic oversight, then why the hell is that compelling? Where is his reasoning? He literally doesn't provide any. Instead, he warns of a compelling possibility, that tyranny is coming.

I do not believe that INTP's function this way. They don't trade in compelling possibility. Possibility for them comes and goes. Logic is their key. And where does Snowden display this approach? Where does he use logic? Where does he actually reason from principles to situated conclusion, or whatever insulated crap it is INTPs do? This bullshit about Ti being mystical gesturing toward self evidences without actual process is ridiculous. WHERE DOES HE USE LOGIC?

 

[Kalach]

"The storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude, ah, to where it's getting to the point you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

There, mofos: logic. The contingent logic of current mechanisms and their emerging potential effect on people described as if inescapable. And that's no paranoid vision of the future, no siree, that right there is real objective truth, available for anyone to see. I'm sure you'll all agree.​

 

[Salomé]

"The storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude, ah, to where it's getting to the point you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

There, mofos: logic. The contingent logic of current mechanisms and their emerging potential effect on people described as if inescapable. And that's no paranoid vision of the future, no siree, that right there is real objective truth, available for anyone to see. I'm sure you'll all agree.​

What he is describing is the capability of the NSA. This is just fact. He's egging the pudding a little with his scare-mongering, I'll grant you that. But given his knowledge of the way such agencies operate, it's hardly straying into the territory of science fiction. More a lesson from history.

Your only argument seems to be: this guy is paranoid and fails at logic, therefore he's INTJ. You don't think much of your type, do you?

thousands of documented breaches of privacy laws per year can be written off as accidental.

wut?

Anyone who believes in the need to secure the nation against terrorism will have little problem with this.

Sure. Because it has been working so well for you.

Where does he actually reason from principles to situated conclusion, or whatever insulated crap it is INTPs do?

See the stuff about policy..and..stuff..holy fuck, bored with this now.

 

[Salomé]

It's not paranoia when they're really out to get ya.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.

While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights.

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

 

[Kalach]

What he is describing is the capability of the NSA. This is just fact. He's egging the pudding a little with his scare-mongering, I'll grant you that. But given his knowledge of the way such agencies operate, it's hardly straying into the territory of science fiction. More a lesson from history.

What he's interpreting is the future capability of the NSA. He says "getting to the point". The capabilities don't exist yet, though they're getting there. And glaringly missing is any substantial claim about institutional culture. He doesn't say the NSA has an agenda. Objective capabilities exist and no one's at the wheel? The complete case for going public is missing that element. An INTP would miss that? Would an INTJ?

Your only argument seems to be: this guy is paranoid and fails at logic, therefore he's INTJ. You don't think much of your type, do you?

Pfft, you gave it up a few posts back:

[...] if he turns out to be INTJ [...]

And this procedure -- J wins only when P concedes -- is good for producing comprehensive analysis that you don't have to do yourself, but meanwhile something soemthing soemthing who cares.


Plus, seriously, you don't see me doing what he did? He said I'm a normal guy, I don;'t have special skills. I said, he's paranoid, and doesn't do logic well. The missing part is, he's also right. There are important things here to see and decide about. How could I not think that my type is very much the bee's knees when it scores a coup like this one? Everyone else wants to split hairs and look at the world just as everyone else does? Let them. They're not the one's getting crazy stuff right.

Ah, hubris. It does show us what needs to be done next. Whatever Snowden has spotted needs to be clarified. The details aren't there yet. He could be wrong. Someone, a large number of people, need to look it all over, and make determinations. Presumably the whole thing'll go wrong if they end up making determinations other than those he made, but at that time we'll know better anyway.

Viola, teh INTJ process.