User Tag List

View Poll Results: Would God be a perfect version of the INTJ?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 13.24%
  • No

    59 86.76%
First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 206

  1. #91
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weber View Post
    What utter nonsense. Speak for yourself and your own usage of nomenclature. Any sane historian would realise that simply using the name "Caesar" out of context would be inappropriate and misleading because of how the name has been worn historically. Your personal obsession with Julius is hardly grounds for generalising. In fact, go to Wikipedia and type in "Caesar" for a mainstream example; it leads you to the disambiguation first, proving that your claims of complete lack of ambiguity are ridiculous even outside the realm of experts on the subject. Besides, Julius' adopted son Augustus Caesar, who fits your other criteria, was genuinely an INTJ, adding further to the uncertainty. Your reasoning fails on both the general and specific count.
    When I search for "Caesar" using Google, the first link leads to Julius Caesar on Wikipedia. The second link is "Caesar" as a title, again on Wikipedia, which directly stems from Julius Caesar. In fact, the first eight links are entirely about Julius Caesar. Searching through Wikipedia, I do indeed get a disambiguation list when I type "Caesar," but under the category of "Ancient Rome," only two prominent Caesars are listed: Julius Caesar, the dictator and military leader, and his father, Gaius Julius Caesar, the proconsul. The other two options are the "Julii Caesares," who were the family of Julius Caesar, and "Caesar" the title, which, again, originated entirely because of Julius Caesar. Caesar Augustus (or simply Augustus) was not even listed, nor were any other Roman emperors who bore the name! Now, with this evidence, to whom could I possibly have been referring to?

    It is not misleading to use the singular names of illustrious historical figures, especially in the case of Julius Caesar, who is one of the most famous in history, and while an argument could be made that it can potentially "mislead" the less informed, it is irrelevant. If you don't even know of the Caesar, from whom all subsequent Caesars derive their name, then you shouldn't be injecting your opinion into the discussion anyway. It is understandable, but one could not help but lose respect for your historical credibility. The equivalent would be, in the context of scientific (although the context, in both of these cases, is almost insignificant) history, for somebody to complain about referring to Albert Einstein as simply "Einstein," or Sir Isaac Newton as simply "Newton."

    You're correct in your claim that Augustus (i.e. Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, whose previous name was Octavian) was most likely an INTJ himself; Julius Caesar was as well.

    That being said, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to "Caesar," instead of Julius Caesar, in a casual discussion, where I was simply referring to the Caesar for the sake of simplicity.

    I think the situation stands like so: you attempted to be a, for lack of a better term, smart-ass, were pretentious and as a result wrong, and were put in your place because of it.

    You're also correct in that you are derailing the thread, and are also shaming the INTJ type, and should now depart.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    It is not misleading to use the singular names of illustrious historical figures, especially in the case of Julius Caesar, who is one of the most famous in history, and while an argument could be made that it can potentially "mislead" the less informed, it is irrelevant. If you don't even know of the Caesar, from whom all subsequent Caesars derive their name, then you shouldn't be injecting your opinion into the discussion anyway. It is understandable, but one could not help but lose respect for your historical credibility.
    It seems apparent that you are the one lacking knowledge of history. Cast away the less informed as you please, it only makes your argument weaker. It is as nonsensical to say that all subsequent Caesars got their name from Julius as saying they got it from Julius' father. Augustus Caesar was the one who created the Empire and became its first Emperor, and thus his name is formally the one being perpetuated throughout the royal lines. Augustus was by far the most revolutionary and important of the two, expanding the Empire enormously. I take it you get your historical knowledge and estimations of the importance of historical figures from Asterix & Obelix.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    The equivalent would be, in the context of scientific (although the context, in both of these cases, is almost insignificant) history, for somebody to complain about referring to Albert Einstein as simply "Einstein," or Sir Isaac Newton as simply "Newton."
    Completely false analogy. Name one other famous scientist with the name "Einstein" or "Newton". It's more akin to suddenly start using the name "Kennedy" out of nowhere when discussing any given political topic. Which Kennedy? Ted? John? Robert?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    You're correct in your claim that Augustus (i.e. Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, whose previous name was Octavian) was most likely an INTJ himself; Julius Caesar was as well.
    The latter most certainly was not, which is one of the main fallacies of your argument. Do a quick google search for "Julius Caesar INTJ" and see what consensus you come up with. Even if your other points were sensible (which they're clearly not) this alone destroys the claim of clarity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    You're also correct in that you are derailing the thread, and are also shaming the INTJ type, and should now depart.
    Haha, do you take so much pride in group identity that you fear me shaming it? I would've thought godlike beings to be above such trivial fears

  3. #93
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    INTJs are overrepresented in prominent leadership positions, and many famous military geniuses (e.g. Caesar, Hannibal, Clausewitz, Frederick the Great, Rommel; and I could even make a case for Napoleon) and statesmen, along with business leaders, have been (and are) INTJs, so it is unlikely that the type is inherently fickle; on the contrary, the exact opposite seems true.
    I agree with the argument in general, but your examples are retarded. Julius Caesar and Napoleon were ENTJ. Rommel was an ESTJ (possibly ESTP), and Clausewitz was a clear INFJ.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


  4. #94
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,450

    Default

    You can't type a perfect being. Every type has strengths and weaknesses that the other types don't have. Also, there's no such thing as a "perfect INTJ", because, in my opinion, all types have inherent weaknesses that you can't escape.

    And may I point out the superior tone of the OP's explanation? e.g. the fact that it's "obvious" that God would have to be an NT? And also that the thread creator is INTJ?

    So, to answer the question of the thread's title... No.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  5. #95
    Senior Member Uytuun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    nnnn
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    The OP asks a question and provides an argument (I dunno if it's shitty or not, the discussion an sich doesn't interest me). And then half of the replies are people being all frowny because he had the audacity/arrogance to link his own type to the concept of a god. Free thinking (also) means going beyond these politically correct constraints IMO. It means asking all questions.

  6. #96
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    I have no qualms with him connecting the Judeo-Christian concept of God to his own type, even if it is a tad convenient. He's just wrong and a retard because the Judeo-Christian God doesn't belong to his type.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


  7. #97
    Member themightybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    79

    Default

    The old testament god is certainly xNTJ, I beleive him to be an introvert as well. It seems to me that god tries to put a buffer between himself and the populace, he rarely takes direct action. Instead he reveals himself to a select few individuals and has them carry out his biding.

  8. #98
    Senior Member MiasmaResonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w? sp/sx
    Posts
    156

    Default

    I, personally, think God is COOL.
    "A spill at the plant increased the phosphates in the lake and produced a scum of algae so thick that the swamp smell filled the air, infiltrating the genteel mansions. Debutantes cried over the misfortune of coming out in a season everyone would remember for its bad smell."

  9. #99
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Indeed. Old Testament God was the baddest motherfucker in history.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


  10. #100
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weber View Post
    It seems apparent that you are the one lacking knowledge of history. Cast away the less informed as you please, it only makes your argument weaker.
    No, that doesn't even make sense.

    It is as nonsensical to say that all subsequent Caesars got their name from Julius as saying they got it from Julius' father.
    What are you on about? Of course they derived their names from Julius Caesar. From whom else? Augustus took the name from Julius Caesar, and through the Roman naming convention, the name passed on to the subsequent emperors. It is not nonsensical, but obvious.

    Augustus Caesar was the one who created the Empire and became its first Emperor, and thus his name is formally the one being perpetuated throughout the royal lines. Augustus was by far the most revolutionary and important of the two, expanding the Empire enormously. I take it you get your historical knowledge and estimations of the importance of historical figures from Asterix & Obelix.
    Augustus was the more revolutionary of the two? I will not delve too far into this as I do not want to soil the accomplishments of Augustus due to an argument with an ignoramus, but to place one above the other in such a way is ridiculous.

    Without Julius Caesar, there would have been no Caesar Augustus, first emperor of Rome. Not only did he set the precedent for Roman expansion, but he consolidated power into a sole ruler, becoming dictator perpetuo, without which there would have been no possibility of installing a permanent autocracy under Augustus. What is more revolutionary than wresting power from the five hundred year old senate, and circumscribing it greatly as a result? He virtually overthrew the Roman republic.

    Completely false analogy. Name one other famous scientist with the name "Einstein" or "Newton". It's more akin to suddenly start using the name "Kennedy" out of nowhere when discussing any given political topic. Which Kennedy? Ted? John? Robert?
    Charles Thomas Newton, Alfred Newton, Edward Newton, and Hubert Anson Newton. Non-scientific Newtons? Wayne Newton and Huey P. Newton.

    The surname "Einstein" is admittedly much more exclusive, but I can think of Einstein's first wife, who collaborated with Einstein to develop many of his own theories: the physicist Mileva (née Maric) Einstein.

    Nevertheless, that is a stupid comparison and beside the point I was trying to make. When one mentions the name "Caesar," with no further names attached, most historically educated individuals will think of only one Caesar. I mean, you guessed it yourself, despite your egregious ignorance. Your entire argument is subjective, attempting to somehow "prove" the folly of making a passing remark about a famous historical figure by mentioning only the name by which the figure's prominence is most remembered. Even if one were to mention the name "Kennedy" in a general political sense, most individuals would think of John F. Kennedy first, followed by Robert F. Kennedy, and perhaps, when the context seems to indicate the early Kennedy dynasty, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

    Again, I have no care for your neurosis. Take it elsewhere, or don't address me.

    The latter most certainly was not, which is one of the main fallacies of your argument. Do a quick google search for "Julius Caesar INTJ" and see what consensus you come up with. Even if your other points were sensible (which they're clearly not) this alone destroys the claim of clarity.
    Julius Caesar was most definitely an NTJ, and the only reasoning I see from most people on this forum when differentiating between introversion and extroversion, and determining which was the dominant function in a historical figure, is to emphasize obscure parties and social events that the figure had attended during his or her lifetime, or even more stupidly, that military leadership made them extroverts. They match what they think is embodied by a type, and use backward logic to make conclusions, instead of analyzing the individual within his own context, and attempting to determine which functions are most present in their behavior. Needless to say, such myopic thinking and skewed logic is more than a little inane.

    If you are so deluded that you don't even believe Caesar was an NTJ, then I demand factual evidence that is not your own interpretation, but historical descriptions of Caesar's personality and behavior which would indicate the type specific functions you believe were present. By this, I do not want you to give me descriptions that are so basic that they cannot be extrapolated into an overall profile of his personality, as is so often perpetrated by many members of this forum. Actually, don't do this; I do not want to waste time entering into a pointless debate with you that will remain unresolved and bear no fruit.

    Haha, do you take so much pride in group identity that you fear me shaming it? I would've thought godlike beings to be above such trivial fears
    No, quite frankly, I do not concern myself with other INTJs, due to the fact that the "group" is hardly unified and comprised of worthy individuals - at least in the context of the current MBTI typology. However, I am an INTJ, and I do believe that the INTJ personality predisposes one to think critically and therefore not to make attempts at being a smart-ass when one has no ground to stand upon. Such behavior is shameful to the INTJ archetype. If you wish to be a clown or an annoying little prat, change your type to ESFP, ENFJ, ENFP, or ENTP.

    Most of the INTJs I have seen on this forum have actually succeeded in making me distance myself from the type and the typology in general due to the fact that they are as ignorant as you are, constantly engaging in annoying little arguments even when they are wrong, or worse, when they think they are right. Most don't even consider the traits specific to their type worthy of special consideration. It's pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    I agree with the argument in general, but your examples are retarded. Julius Caesar and Napoleon were ENTJ. Rommel was an ESTJ (possibly ESTP), and Clausewitz was a clear INFJ.
    With the exception of Rommel and Napoleon, who could have been ENTJs, particularly the latter during his later years, the rest were most definitely INTJs. Clausewitz displayed typical NT characteristics. Have you even read On War? Which part of that strikes you as NF? Perhaps you are confusing On War with War and Peace, since Leo Tolstoy could have been an INFJ.

    Napoleon, during his early childhood, was described by his mother as a very reclusive child who spent most of his time alone, reading books. He was also described as a very unsocial and abrasive individual by fellow students at the Brienne-le-Château military academy, spending much of his time in the library, where he devoted it to reading the biographies of famous, particularly ancient, military generals.
    Last edited by Lex Talionis; 05-27-2010 at 05:21 PM.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:23 AM
  2. What sort of evil character would you be?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 06:42 PM
  3. Would this be a personality type issue?
    By Sandy in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 09:38 PM
  4. What kind of cookie would YOU be?
    By Oberon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 07:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO