Richard Dawkins

[CJ99]

Anyone any ideas what type he is?

I'm pretty sure he is an NT of some sort but what kind i have no idea of!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Usually I have seen him typed as INTJ.
I am also pretty sure that he is NT.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

INTJ makes sense. Since I don't know anything about his intro/extroversion ENTJ seems a possibility. He seems markedly NTJ.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What kinds of type is mostly likely to be a scientific luminary that makes childishly simple logical fallacies in arguments?

 

[Valiant]

What kinds of type is mostly likely to be a scientific luminary that makes childishly simple logical fallacies in arguments?

INTP's?

 

[dynamiteninja]

ENTJ. He is an extrovert.

Anyway, this has been discussed many times before.

What about Dan Dennett?

 

[Jeffster]

Who is he?

 

[hommefatal]

Yeah, NTJ should be right. Though he doesn't state there is no god.

 

[The Outsider]

Uh, what?

Dawkinks is a very outspoken atheist.

Is stating the nonexistence of god some parameter to being an NTJ? Or I just don't understand your post.

 

[wildcat]

Anyone any ideas what type he is?

I'm pretty sure he is an NT of some sort but what kind i have no idea of!

A TV personality: e
Anyone who writes more than five books in his lifetime is a J.
A true atheist: a J

A thinker: T
A logical and independent thinker: NT

eNTJ.

 

[hommefatal]

Uh, what?

Dawkinks is a very outspoken atheist.

Is stating the nonexistence of god some parameter to being an NTJ? Or I just don't understand your post.

I just meant Js are more likely to state there can't be a god but he says he's not sure.

 

[Litvyak]

he says he's not sure.

Can anybody confirm this? I always thought he is sure about the non-existence of a divine being.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Can anybody confirm this? I always thought he is sure about the non-existence of a divine being.

He says that he is almost 100% sure. Because being 100% sure would not be scientific claim.

 

[hommefatal]

He says that he is almost 100% sure. Because being 100% sure would not be scientific claim.

Yeah.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Can anybody confirm this? I always thought he is sure about the non-existence of a divine being.

Why? Is it that important?

 

[Litvyak]

He says that he is almost 100% sure. Because being 100% sure would not be scientific claim.

That doesn't mean "he doesn't state there is no god", right? He simply knows that it is impossible to formulate a posteriori statements to back up his theories. He's still an atheist through and through, who claims that the existence of a god is highly unlikely (not 100% for obvious reasons).

Why? Is it that important?

Important, no. It is irrelevant in the aspect of typology.
Interesting, yes.

 

[A Schnitzel]

This discussion devolved pretty quickly.

Why does everything have to be about his stance on religion?
Based on some of his other books, he seems to be into crediting others works giving them recognition, which seems to be a Te thing. He also appreciates humour in writing, but doesn't use much humour in his own. I would say that he's an NTJ, but I haven't seen him on TV to tell if he's an extrovert.

 

[Litvyak]

Why does everything have to be about his stance on religion?

Hey, a little offtopic can't hurt I personally think it is a lot more interesting than his type.