Richard Dawkins

[Honor]

I'm going INTP along with zago.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

NTJ. The comment about Harry Potter, that's more of an NTJ thing. To me, the fact that he would even consider that indicates that he's stuck on this "vision"' of how humanity can be improved by eliminating theism, or, it seems, any form of thinking that isn't based on some empirical fact. And that includes speculation, analysis, imagination and theorizing in addition to religious faith. All of those things frequently operate without hard evidence.

I really have a hard time seeing Ne being that confined. Ti-Ne would rather use logic or analysis to explain something, not facts. Ni-Te needs facts, and has a harder time operating without hard evidence, even if an idea is 100% logically sound.

Actually, not only is he an NTJ, he seems like an absurd caricature of one.

 

[sleuthiness]

so/sx e56 intp?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

I'm digging up this thread again, because as I was looking through the forum for CognitiveTypes (whom specialize in visual reading), I came across their thread for clear videos of the TeSi.

http://cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/93/tesi-clear-videos (2nd video.)

So it appears they regard Richard as one. I'm inclined to agree with them. I always wondered about his excessive blinking eyes being an indicator of Si. He does seem to be a rather concrete person in general, even if the area in which he works is regarded as abstract. [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], it appears you were right to say ESTJ after all.

 

[sleuthiness]

Wait

Time out

 

[WALMART]

I'm digging up this thread again, because as I was looking through the forum for CognitiveTypes (whom specialize in visual reading), I came across their thread for clear videos of the TeSi.

http://cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/93/tesi-clear-videos (2nd video.)

So it appears they regard Richard as one. I'm inclined to agree with them. I always wondered about his excessive blinking eyes being an indicator of Si. He does seem to be a rather concrete person in general, even if the area in which he works is regarded as abstract. [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], it appears you were right to say ESTJ after all.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of VI. The conclusion is substantiated by his approach to reality alone. Regardless, I'll take the win.

*bows*

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Wait

Time out

Are you standing by INTP?

I'm not sure I'm a fan of VI. The conclusion is substantiated by his approach to reality alone. Regardless, I'll take the win.

*bows*

Why not? I don't know why people reject the plausibility of it, when obviously there will be patterns between people who share similar thought processes, after all the mind is intimately connected with the body.

 

[WALMART]

Why not? I don't know why people reject the plausibility of it, when obviously there will be patterns between people who share similar thought processes, after all the mind is intimately connected with the body.

It's fine, if that's where people want to take the concepts of typology. Seems like there would be too many outliers to make it relevant to the scope of most evolutive theories of Jung, particularly given the fact that even he expressed it would take a considerable level of psychological evaluation to legitimately determine someone's proper type, let alone studying their physical expressions in a five minute Youtube clip.

 

[Emotionalogic]

A clear INTP 5w6. He's an irritated ti user explaining why other people are silly, not a ni-te user trying to impose a vision on the world. There is fe working in the background; despite his reputation, he's actually very polite and explicitly states he "doesn't, by nature, thrive on confrontation". And despite his rejection of religion, he still clings to social Christian morality. INTJ atheists tend to be more Nietzschean, because Ni, Te, Fi, and Se are all more likely to lead one question traditional objective morality than Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si. Much of it comes down to cultural differences; in Britain, its much less taboo to criticize someone's religion. If you want to see what an INTJ militant atheist would look like, Christopher Hitchens (5w4, or maybe 1w9) provides a perfect contrast. http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg

 

[WALMART]

A clear INTP 5w6. He's a irritated ti user explaining why other people are silly, not a ni-te user trying to impose a vision on the world. There is fe working in the background; despite his reputation, he's actually very polite and explicitly states he "doesn't, by nature, thrive on confrontation". And despite his rejection of religion, he still clings to social Christian morality. INTJ atheists tend to be more Nietzschean, because Ni, Te, Fi, and Se are all more likely to lead one question traditional objective morality than Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si. Much of it comes down to cultural differences; in Britain, its much less taboo to criticize someone's religion. If you want to see what an INTJ militant atheist would look like, Christopher Hitchens (5w4, or maybe 1w9) provides a perfect contrast. http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg

Jung typed Darwin a Te type explicitly because of his extraverted exploration of the physical sciences. Darwin, Dawkins. One wrote the Origin of Species as their seminal work, one wrote The Selfish Gene. It's not that complex to see how Dawkins' dominant function is Te, and I would strongly argue for him being a sensor over an intuitor.

"No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism."

If an atheistic naturalist isn't as realistic a worldview as it gets...

 

[RaptorWizard]

INTP or ENTJ, definately very logic/reason obsessed; not quite as much of a radical visionary or ahead of his times.

 

[Emotionalogic]

Jung typed Darwin a Te type explicitly because of his extraverted exploration of the physical sciences. Darwin, Dawkins. One wrote the Origin of Species as their seminal work, one wrote The Selfish Gene. It's not that complex to see how Dawkins' dominant function is Te, and I would strongly argue for him being a sensor over an intuitor.

"No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism."

If an atheistic naturalist isn't as realistic a worldview as it gets...

So he's an extroverted sensor because he's an atheist? And he's te because he's a Darwinian? You do realize MBTI is about personality and cognition, not beliefs, right?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

A clear INTP 5w6. He's an irritated ti user explaining why other people are silly, not a ni-te user trying to impose a vision on the world. There is fe working in the background; despite his reputation, he's actually very polite and explicitly states he "doesn't, by nature, thrive on confrontation". And despite his rejection of religion, he still clings to social Christian morality. INTJ atheists tend to be more Nietzschean, because Ni, Te, Fi, and Se are all more likely to lead one question traditional objective morality than Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si. Much of it comes down to cultural differences; in Britain, its much less taboo to criticize someone's religion. If you want to see what an INTJ militant atheist would look like, Christopher Hitchens (5w4, or maybe 1w9) provides a perfect contrast. http://www.celebritytypes.com/misc_pictures/int.jpg

He's an ExTJ, he works consistently with external frameworks, not by his own inner logic, a la Ti.

Polite != Fe
Thrives on confrontation != Te

INTP or ENTJ, definately very logic/reason obsessed; not quite as much of a radical visionary or ahead of his times.

Massive Te user. But I don't see what being or not being a visionary has to do with it.

 

[Avocado]

He's an ExTJ, he works consistently with external frameworks, not by his own inner logic, a la Ti.

Polite != Fe
Thrives on confrontation != Te



Massive Te user. But I don't see what being or not being a visionary has to do with it.

What would an ENFP 5w6 So/Sp look like?
Even if it is extremely rare, think theoretically...

 

[WALMART]

So he's an extroverted sensor because he's an atheist? And he's te because he's a Darwinian? You do realize MBTI is about personality and cognition, not beliefs, right?

No, he is an extraverted thinker because his primary domain of interest is the objective universe, which happens to take root in the physical sciences moreso than much else.

"Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper."

Read up on your Jung? It goes well beyond the intuitive accessibility of MBTI, from derivation of morality to the establishment of belief systems, even so far as to include the varying propensities for ideological fortitude.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

What would an ENFP 5w6 So/Sp look like?
Even if it is extremely rare, think theoretically...

More secluded than the average ENFP, more socially introverted or at least less "bubbly" than 7's, would seem like more of a Thinker. Would have truth-seeking/objectivity or similar as a primary value.

I don't see why it'd be extremely rare. Sure there are behavioral patterns, but don't be swayed by the stereotypes. I've thought about it for my own type several times, except 5w4.

 

[Avocado]

More secluded than the average ENFP, more socially introverted or at least less "bubbly" than 7's, would seem like more of a Thinker. Would have truth-seeking/objectivity or similar as a primary value.

I don't see why it'd be extremely rare. Sure there are behavioral patterns, but don't be swayed by the stereotypes. I've thought about it for my own type several times, except 5w4.

So, like somebody who is constantly gathering information in order to further some cause they believe in or aid the world? Perhaps somebody who highly values learning and knowledge, but isn't snobby if somebody they encounter is uneducated?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

So, like somebody who is constantly gathering information in order to further some cause they believe in or aid the world? Perhaps somebody who highly values learning and knowledge, but isn't snobby if somebody they encounter is uneducated?

I guess that is a vague outline, yes. Nothing is set though, don't think so specifically about some things like the one about snobbishness. Would would be stopping an ENFP from being snobby? The best way, I think, is to do it all separately: figure out your cognitive functions, then Enneagram, then instinctual variants. Many people try to fit them all together and decide they can't be this or that because it defies stereotype, even if they were right. Just be thorough with your investigations.

 

[Avocado]

I guess that is a vague outline, yes. Nothing is set though, don't think so specifically about some things like the one about snobbishness. Would would be stopping an ENFP from being snobby? The best way, I think, is to do it all separately: figure out your cognitive functions, then Enneagram, then instinctual variants. Many people try to fit them all together and decide they can't be this or that because it defies stereotype, even if they were right. Just be thorough with your investigations.

I did that order, then started doubting myself when I came here...
Lot's of opinions on me...
I think typology has become somewhat of a hobby to me since there is nothing else really better to do when I'm not writing, eating, painting, sleeping, working or at school...

 

[Emotionalogic]

He's an ExTJ, he works consistently with external frameworks, not by his own inner logic, a la Ti.

Polite != Fe
Thrives on confrontation != Te



Massive Te user. But I don't see what being or not being a visionary has to do with it.

He clearly works by internal logic rather than an external framework. Are you seriously suggesting he's a te user just because he works in the "external framework" of Darwinism? By that standard every evolutionary biologist is te. Ni-Te users seek to categorize and order the external world (te) in accordance with their inner visions (ni). Dawkins doesn't do that. He engages with the external world on a fe emotional level (politeness, dislike of confrontation), although he's not great at it because his fe is inferior, in order to share the results of his inner thinking process (ti). Compare him with Hitchens. Hitchens loved debates because he liked to connect with the world on a logical level (te) in order to share his inner feelings (he was much more emotional in his distaste for religion; he thought it was evil, not just wrong). Dawkins dislikes debates, because he would rather connect with the world on an emotional level (fe), but he does it anyway in order to share his inner thoughts.