AmazingAtheist?

[Grublet]

Just curious what you guys think, I have an idea but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think he's amusing. Again, a lot like Jennifer Marbles -- in general I agree with what they're saying, but they usually don't make any 'formal' philosophical arguments, it's more colloquial casual "common sense" arguing.

 

[Grublet]

I think he's amusing. Again, a lot like Jennifer Marbles -- in general I agree with what they're saying, but they usually don't make any 'formal' philosophical arguments, it's more colloquial casual "common sense" arguing.

What type do you think he is?

 

[Totenkindly]

Not sure. Comes off as estj, but it's a video.

 

[Robopop]

I'd say trollicious ENTP.

 

[Riva]

^ I don't see ENTP at all. He seems too forced. Yes it is an act but even the acts of ENTPs are laid back. I don't see the point of elaborating at this point. Maybe if people started arguing on his type I might do so. To elaborate a bit, ENTPs as Ne doms open up rather than close up even in arguments or even in rants. ENTPs would use your data to make connections etc to use it against you rather than block you out. His body language was quite closed up and forceful.

I can't imagine myself (or any ENTP I know or is famous) being so forceful in my deliveries ever.

Also,

Is this person famous/popular in the US? If so I feel sorry for the quality of political rants in the US because he actually sucked. I not being an American and not knowing too much on American politics probably could do a better job at a rant than this person would.

He sucks!

The part in which he says republicans would have Hitler 2012 at the backs of their cars was really funny though.

 

[Ginkgo]

He likes to bitch for entertainment purposes with pseudo-intellectual bravado. ENTP.

 

[ZPowers]

I agree with this guy sporadically, but he's hard to take in anything but very small doses and if I remember he's kind of a huge asshole sometimes. Said some nasty stuff about women/rape, right?

ENTP sounds right though.

 

[cascadeco]

Ok, I laughed at 'Planet Romney'. Yeah... I can def. see ENTP. I know one who could totally go into a rant like this.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I think he's hilarious! I LOL'ed all over the office

 

[Snuggletron]

I preferred Paulsego, who is ESFP.

 

[Craft]

I think he's amusing. Again, a lot like Jennifer Marbles -- in general I agree with what they're saying, but they usually don't make any 'formal' philosophical arguments, it's more colloquial casual "common sense" arguing.

Both of them are ENTPs. It's so painfully obvious, it makes me cringe.

"Common sense" arguing is probably Ti-Ne related.

 

[Orangey]

OMG I fucking hate this fat retard, even if we usually (unfortunately) share opinions.

It pains me to say it, but I think he's ESTP.

 

[Totenkindly]

Both of them are ENTPs. It's so painfully obvious, it makes me cringe.

"Common sense" arguing is probably Ti-Ne related.

Hmmm. It's not really "painfully obvious," it seemed more like Jen M is ESTP.
And I'm not sure why you are attaching "common sense" to N, which looks behind things rather than being "common."

 

[Orangey]

Hmmm. It's not really "painfully obvious," it seemed more like Jen M is ESTP.
And I'm not sure why you are attaching "common sense" to N, which looks behind things rather than being "common."

Yet another S who thinks he's N, and thus attributes S traits to Ns because those are the traits he actually has.

 

[Grublet]

I'm inclined to say he's an ENTP because he reminds me so much of a reincarnated George Carlin.

 

[Craft]

Hmmm. It's not really "painfully obvious," it seemed more like Jen M is ESTP.
And I'm not sure why you are attaching "common sense" to N, which looks behind things rather than being "common."

"1+1=2" is simple. For me, A-A and J-M being ENTP is the same thing as "1+1=2." So yes, for me, it is that painfully obvious.

"Looking behind things" does not encapsulate the totality of iNtuition. "Looking behind things" is only applicable to Ni and speaks nothing about Ne. Ne is "superficial", It merely touches one object lightly and quickly moves on to another. It is "bouncy."

My idea of "common sense" includes sharpness and easy to follow. Ti-Ne-Si is very much "common sensical." It references no other logic system but itself. It is more "common" than any standard of thinking because it is "universal." No context needed. A person from Africa can reach the same conclusions as another person from Russia by using that same very-average "sense" of thinking. This, I introduce to you, is the xNTP logic system.

xSFJs(Si-Ti-Ne) and xSTJs(Si-Fi-Ne) can comprehend this thinking pattern to a certain extent as well, so it is indeed "very common."

Yet another S who thinks he's N, and thus attributes S traits to Ns because those are the traits he actually has.

How rude. You should have at least have the "common decency" of replying directly to me. ..as well as the "common sense" of providing at least one supporting point.

 

[Totenkindly]

"1+1=2" is simple. For me, A-A and J-M being ENTP is the same thing as "1+1=2." So yes, for me, it is that painfully obvious.

Well, I can agree that you might see it as painfully obvious, but you should just as easily be able to see that it might not be the same for everyone -- hence, it's subjective and rationally to make a blanket judgment like "it's painfully obvious" seems naive.

For a similar example, many people being in "painfully obvious things" that can't be shown to be true (such as various religious beliefs -- people argue vehemently about beliefs they consider to be "painfully obvious" --"You can't have babies if you're gay, so being gay isn't as good as being straight nor is it what nature/God wanted", common sense; or "The world is so complex and love wouldn't exist if not for God, how else would people get here?", common sense, etc.) And centuries ago, many would have said it was painfully obvious that the world was flat, using their common sense; after all, it looked flat, and if you went in a direction, you just kept going. They just didn't understand how big the world was.

"Looking behind things" does not encapsulate the totality of iNtuition. "Looking behind things" is only applicable to Ni and speaks nothing about Ne. Ne is "superficial", It merely touches one object lightly and quickly moves on to another. It is "bouncy."

My idea of "common sense" includes sharpness and easy to follow. Ti-Ne-Si is very much "common sensical." It references no other logic system but itself. It is more "common" than any standard of thinking because it is "universal." No context needed. A person from Africa can reach the same conclusions as another person from Russia by using that same very-average "sense" of thinking. This, I introduce to you, is the xNTP logic system.

That's not common sense, by the standard definition of common sense. That's "mathematical logic," if I had to name it -- math is the univeral language, and that's why INTPs traditional think in terms of logic symbollism and structure their ideas and minds that way.

Talk to the common guy down the street, and he doesn't credit the college prof with "common sense." Common sense in the vernacular is stuff that looks so obviously true to the average person (not INTPs, who comprise 3-4% of the population) that you don't even need to use rationality to understand it; you don't need higher learning; you don't need some abstracted angle of thought. While people who know me say I give very good understandable advice, my family and environment would always tell me I had no "common sense" because I kept looking at the bigger picture rather than what worked on a normal daily level.

Are we really arguing about what "common sense" means? INTPs are not the poster children for "common sense," if you actually do a canvass of a normal distribution of the population.

Anyway, while neither AA nor JenM are "dumb" people, if you look at the arguments they actually use in all their videos, they're all "common sense", rubber meets road, vernacular arguments. They are not the kind of arguments that Descartes, or Machiavelli, or Thomas Edison, or Thomas Jefferson, or whomever else would make in order to "prove a point." In fact, I've seen people here (typically NTs) criticize them for having numerous "logical fallacies" in how they express their views, even if they agree with their conclusions. Does that really sound like an NTP? Not typically. They're more interested in talking "rubber meets road," and in fact they are fine with it, because they think in those terms, they're not even trying to translate it into "common sense."

 

[Hyacinth]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/02/scratch-the-amazing-atheist-off-your-list-too/

whatever type he is, he has serious serious issues.

 

[Craft]

Well, I can agree that you might see it as painfully obvious, but you should just as easily be able to see that it might not be the same for everyone -- hence, it's subjective and rationally to make a blanket judgment like "it's painfully obvious" seems naive.

For a similar example, many people being in "painfully obvious things" that can't be shown to be true (such as various religious beliefs -- people argue vehemently about beliefs they consider to be "painfully obvious" --"You can't have babies if you're gay, so being gay isn't as good as being straight nor is it what nature/God wanted", common sense; or "The world is so complex and love wouldn't exist if not for God, how else would people get here?", common sense, etc.) And centuries ago, many would have said it was painfully obvious that the world was flat, using their common sense; after all, it looked flat, and if you went in a direction, you just kept going. They just didn't understand how big the world was.

But I am not these people. I am someone who has watched the apple fall from the tree a million times. I am someone who has watched the same movie a thousand times. I have witnessed the recurring patterns of observable Ti-Ne-Si too many times. It frustrates me how others can't see it when it is in front of them. Consider "painful" and "cringe" as descriptions of my perhaps arrogant frustration. Consider my statement as simply an emotional one.

That's not common sense, by the standard definition of common sense. That's "mathematical logic," if I had to name it -- math is the univeral language, and that's why INTPs traditional think in terms of logic symbollism and structure their ideas and minds that way.

Talk to the common guy down the street, and he doesn't credit the college prof with "common sense." Common sense in the vernacular is stuff that looks so obviously true to the average person (not INTPs, who comprise 3-4% of the population) that you don't even need to use rationality to understand it; you don't need higher learning; you don't need some abstracted angle of thought. While people who know me say I give very good understandable advice, my family and environment would always tell me I had no "common sense" because I kept looking at the bigger picture rather than what worked on a normal daily level.

Are we really arguing about what "common sense" means? INTPs are not the poster children for "common sense," if you actually do a canvass of a normal distribution of the population.

Person by the name of Jennifer, I do not care for norms. I do not care about ideas whose existence in reality are merely agreed upon---subjective hallucinations feasted upon by the feeble-minded. What I care about is undiscovered reality. What we don't know and yet what is honestly existing. This is what I'm trying to figure out and express. I am saying that there are larger implications to "Common sense", and that the the "common guy down the street" could be that same "college professor" wearing a different outfit. They both have the same thinking patterns. It doesn't matter what you call it..."higher learning"..."abstracted angle of thought"..."common sense."