View Poll Results: What do we think Richard Dawkins' type is?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • ENTj/LIE

    3 21.43%
  • INTj/LII

    0 0%
  • ESTj/LSE

    1 7.14%
  • ISTj/LSI

    6 42.86%
  • ENTp/ILE

    3 21.43%
  • INTp/ILI

    1 7.14%
  • ENTj/LIE

    0 0%
  • ENFj/EIE

    0 0%
  • ISFj/ESI

    0 0%
  • ISTp/SLI

    0 0%
  • ESTp/SLE

    0 0%
  • INFp/IEI

    0 0%
  • ENFp/IEE

    0 0%
  • ESFj/ESE

    0 0%
  • ISFp/SEI

    0 0%
  • INFj/EII

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 92

Thread: Richard Dawkins

  1. #1
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Richard Dawkins










    Before the forum was sacked there was a thread about Richard Dawkins. I just wanted to say that I've since watched a bunch of videos of him and am inclined to think ILE (or possibly LII) instead of a type. He doesn't seem to have values at all -- no sharing of personal sentiments and personally meaningful experiences, little or no concern for the personal sentiments of the people he speaks in front of (when he is discussing the idea of a godless universe), and basically an avoidance of all things personal in the context of conceptual discussions on the nature of life and the universe. Here's a decent sample:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9JMUFIVqE
    He reminds me of David Deutsch and George Soros

    In contrast, even LIEs and ILIs -- who are also logical types -- seem to enjoy tapping into personal sentiments and meaningful experiences to add a human dimension to discussions on otherwise abstract topics (including those on this forum).

    For an illustration, here's a video about Richard Feynman, a widely recognized LIE in the socionics community:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+feynman&hl=en
    He's similar to Dawkins in some ways (maybe it's just the hair?). Granted, this is sort of a biographical video, but Feynman really does love to tell personal stories -- not just in this video. I haven't heard Dawkins tell a single personal story yet, nor can I remember reading or hearing any from ILEs I know. They like to say funny stuff and be witty, but they avoid telling anything emotionally-colored about their lives.

    Dawkins uses a lot of thought experiments ("just imagine that that were true," etc.) and likes to talk about things on a purely conceptual level. This is somewhat surprising, since his books (at least the two I have read) were full of example after example. But after watching him speak, his true priorities fall into place.

    Comments?
    Last edited by silke; 06-23-2014 at 11:23 PM. Reason: updated interviews

  2. #2
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is what appears to be EII criticism of Dawkins' ILE style:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZhf7PjdJfk
    Dawkins attracts a good deal of criticism, and most it seems to be along lines:
    - "why do you have to go around destroying people's faith and hope?"
    - "what are the implications for our relationships and raising our children if we start teaching this stuff?"
    - "you're unnecessarily harsh, even mean"

    This is the stuff that he has the hardest time responding to.

  3. #3
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dawkins is INFP IMO.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  4. #4
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dioklecian
    Dawkins is INFP IMO.
    Why do you think that?

  5. #5
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have read his book the selfish gene, for my bio class, and it seemed intriguing but insubstantial to me. So I think that he is Ni dominant (imaginative, very interesting perspective), and Fe, because his theories are not really based on facts, but are general interpretations. So I would say INFP.


    A heard a lecture by him recently, he seemed quite emotional and full of pathos, but he didn't have many facts.

    Its' just my opinion.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  6. #6
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dioklecian
    I have read his book the selfish gene, for my bio class, and it seemed intriguing but insubstantial to me. So I think that he is Ni dominant (imaginative, very interesting perspective), and Fe, because his theories are not really based on facts, but are general interpretations. So I would say INFP.

    A heard a lecture by him recently, he seemed quite emotional and full of pathos, but he didn't have many facts.

    Its' just my opinion.
    ILE fits well into your observations, too.

  7. #7
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dioklecian
    I have read his book the selfish gene, for my bio class, and it seemed intriguing but insubstantial to me. So I think that he is Ni dominant (imaginative, very interesting perspective), and Fe, because his theories are not really based on facts, but are general interpretations. So I would say INFP.

    A heard a lecture by him recently, he seemed quite emotional and full of pathos, but he didn't have many facts.

    Its' just my opinion.
    ILE fits well into your observations, too.
    That is very true. However I didn't see the Fe hiden agenda. Also he is not very technical, in my opinion ENTPs inscience tend to be quite complex. Dawkins seems much more accessible.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  8. #8
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's this article he wrote about Douglas Adams' death, might be useful:

    http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html

    I considered him ENTj until CuriousSoul had a post where people though INFj\ENFp.

    I can identify with his approach, but I thought that was because we agreed on the same things - if it was someone else, I might hate him, so I don't know. I like his line of logic and ways of expressing examples.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Here is what appears to be EII criticism of Dawkins' ILE style:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZhf7PjdJfk
    Dawkins attracts a good deal of criticism, and most it seems to be along lines:
    - "why do you have to go around destroying people's faith and hope?"
    - "what are the implications for our relationships and raising our children if we start teaching this stuff?"
    - "you're unnecessarily harsh, even mean"

    This is the stuff that he has the hardest time responding to.
    Lol, what a bunch of crappy objections, like truth should be subordinated to destruction of faith and hope.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dawkins attacks people's opinions rather than the people themselves, and they take it as a personal attack - this is more a scientific approach than having any relation to a socionics function (possibly). His values might be 'everyone is wrong unless they use scientific principles' . But he seems to want to create an universal, watertight argument which can't be defeated on any grounds. Using metaphors etc. is useful so that they can be understood by anyone - this could be , but maybe he doesn't use personal experience so that he isn't open to attack? E.g. his arguments could from the mouth of Satan himself (if he exists), I would still consider them valid, but other people might not - Dawkins puts his arguments in form to prevent personal attack. (but this is still a scientific approach, so meh).

    This is about his return to Kenya where he was born, while also visiting the Leakey family (I don't know what to make of it, it seems very factual, but also says things like 'I always dreamed' etc.):
    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...sterdays.shtml
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Dawkins attacks people's opinions rather than the people themselves, and they take it as a personal attack - this is more a scientific approach than having any relation to a socionics function (possibly). His values might be 'everyone is wrong unless they use scientific principles' . But he seems to want to create an universal, watertight argument which can't be defeated on any grounds.
    I agree with this from the little I have seen of Dawkin. And I have very much the same attitude as Dawkin here. I am a fanatic defender of a scientific attitude, and I agree with the things Dawkin says about religion in the beginning of that interview. I don't think we can draw any conclusions about his type based on the lack or existence of values.

  12. #12
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If we compare Dawkins with Darwin, Dawkins has no problem saying, "yes, people who believe in God are deluded." To me, this is a statement, especially if the people hearing it are in his audience and will inevitably have their feelings hurt. Darwin, who was in a state of metaphysical limbo much of his life until accepting his own agnosticism in his later years, generally avoided saying things that could be interpreted as a rejection of religion -- not because he was religious, but because he couldn't stand the thought that people would think he was a bad person and a destroyer of morals.

    Too bad there isn't much footage of Richard Feynman -- that interview is the only long clip available. What I see in him is some jerkiness and abrubtness of movement and speech (rationality + extraversion), a tendency to focus on illustrative stories, going into detail and not just citing them briefly to demonstrate an abstract point ( value), and a nostalgic attitude ( ). From what I've read of his work and seen in other clips, these seem to be stable traits. I don't see any of this in Dawkins. It's like the whole point is to just get this one little fundamental concept into your head. Also, he seems relaxed and smooth in movement and speech and never seems awkward.

    Another reason I have for Dawkins being ILE is that he spawned the field of memetics -- an Alpha-dominated, abstract, philosophical area of inquiry -- after suggesting the theoretical existence of information replicators in the brain analogous to genes in the body (basically as a thought experiment to demonstrate his point). Memetics is a typically Alpha field like socionics with lots of explanatory value on a theoretical level but big difficulties in building an empirical base. Some of the scientists close to Dawkins seem to be ILEs as well.

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    If we compare Dawkins with Darwin, Dawkins has no problem saying, "yes, people who believe in God are deluded." To me, this is a statement, especially if the people hearing it are in his audience and will inevitably have their feelings hurt.
    I don't think it's a matter of hurt feelings, but logically Dawkins cannot claim to know in which state the people that believe in God are, and doing so would be logically incorrect, no matter what the feelings of the people are.

    Another reason I have for Dawkins being ILE is that he spawned the field of memetics -- an Alpha-dominated, abstract, philosophical area of inquiry -- after suggesting the theoretical existence of information replicators in the brain analogous to genes in the body (basically as a thought experiment to demonstrate his point). Memetics is a typically Alpha field like socionics with lots of explanatory value on a theoretical level but big difficulties in building an empirical base. Some of the scientists close to Dawkins seem to be ILEs as well.
    Ah, but don't you think that as long as a field has useability, then it's not to be discarded?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Another reason I have for Dawkins being ILE is that he spawned the field of memetics -- an Alpha-dominated, abstract, philosophical area of inquiry -- after suggesting the theoretical existence of information replicators in the brain analogous to genes in the body (basically as a thought experiment to demonstrate his point). Memetics is a typically Alpha field like socionics with lots of explanatory value on a theoretical level but big difficulties in building an empirical base. Some of the scientists close to Dawkins seem to be ILEs as well.
    Ah, but don't you think that as long as a field has useability, then it's not to be discarded?
    Of course! I'm a big fan of memetics and think it even has some potentially very useful common ground with socionics.

  15. #15
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    If we compare Dawkins with Darwin, Dawkins has no problem saying, "yes, people who believe in God are deluded." To me, this is a statement, especially if the people hearing it are in his audience and will inevitably have their feelings hurt.
    I don't think it's a matter of hurt feelings, but logically Dawkins cannot claim to know in which state the people that believe in God are, and doing so would be logically incorrect, no matter what the feelings of the people are.
    I think his reasoning goes 'if you don't folloe scientific principles, then you are deluded' - you don't need to act like a religious person to know it's wrong or deluded to be one. To play Devil's Advocate, this could be a fact . I can see ENTp for him, but for me, it's impossible to judge.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    If we compare Dawkins with Darwin, Dawkins has no problem saying, "yes, people who believe in God are deluded." To me, this is a statement, especially if the people hearing it are in his audience and will inevitably have their feelings hurt.
    I don't think it's a matter of hurt feelings, but logically Dawkins cannot claim to know in which state the people that believe in God are, and doing so would be logically incorrect, no matter what the feelings of the people are.
    I think his reasoning goes 'if you don't folloe scientific principles, then you are deluded'[/quote]

    Well this is an arbitrary and uselessly strong attribute. Which principle does he follow to decide the association with science and delusion? Indeed not a scientific one, so he could be deluded as well, by his own definition!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    But his view (and mine) is that his view is changable - its made on the best currently available evidence of the time - anything else is superstition or speculation. Even theories use the best currently available evidence - to change the current theory, you must have evidence which surpasses the previous evidence for the previous theory. But if no-one knows about this theory, and therefore can't judge it as being better on the evidence, you'd be deluded to believe anything other than the current theory. (But you'd also look out for supporting + contrary evidence at the same time (always in transistion). I may not know the current theories available, but it doesn't mean I'm strongly attached to the ideas I currently hold!)
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  18. #18
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't understand the step of delusion, because most religious beliefs are noncontradictory with scientific theories, usually...
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  19. #19
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is evidence, though, Sub? Might personal intuition and conviction be evidence for the self?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  20. #20
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    En masse delusion is worse than personal delusion...science attempts to prevent en masse delusion. On a personal level, there may not be much distinction between fact and 'belief' if you have an idea\vision about things - but as long as you follow the best possible evidence where available, you'll do better than if you didn't.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    but as long as you follow the best possible evidence where available, you'll do better than if you didn't.
    But better, for what? Which criteria do you utilize in order to determine what is better, and what isn't?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I said en masse delusion is worse than personal delusion (it cause more harm for society). Science seeks to avoid such delusions because none of its theories are set in stone (though they may appear to be).

    Basically, science can get planes off the ground, whereas religion can crash them into buildings (this is Dawkins' own argument ). Science doesn't follow ideology, the mystification of reality - it explores the best explainations for the way things are - it is based on facts, not age-old prejudices and assumptions.

    This is from a Dawkins article 'What is True?', you can read the rest at the link:

    A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a particularly profound or wise remark, but it comes into its own when that little learning is in philosophy. A scientist who has the temerity to utter the t-word--true--is likely to encounter philosophical heckling that goes something like this:

    "There is no absolute truth. You are committing an act of personal faith when you claim that the scientific method, including mathematics and logic, is the privileged road to truth. Other cultures might believe that truth is to be found in a rabbit's entrails or the ravings of a prophet atop a pole. It is only your personal faith in science that leads you to favor your brand of truth."

    That strand of half-baked philosophy goes by the name of cultural relativism. It is one aspect of the Fashionable Nonsense detected by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, or the Higher Superstition of Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt. The feminist version is ably exposed by Noretta Koertge, coauthor of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies:

    Women's Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination. ...The standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with "women's ways of knowing." ...These "subjectivist" women see the methods of logic, analysis, and abstraction as "alien territory belonging to men" and "value intuition as a safer and more fruitful approach to truth."

    How should scientists respond to the allegation that our "faith" in logic and scientific truth is just that--faith--not "privileged" over alternative truths? An obvious response is that science gets results. As I once wrote, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet, and I'll show you a hypocrite. ...If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there--the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field--is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right." Science supports its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops, and to predict what will happen and when.
    http://blogs.mit.edu/CS/blogs/doval/.../14/57627.aspx
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  23. #23
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Richard Dawkins

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSbDUCCjrE4[/youtube]

    To my mind, a prime example of an LSE.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whatever his type is, Richard Dawkins is a good example of a person with a clearly accentuated -based view on science. And in that respect he belongs to the group of Objectivists, along with Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Hans Eysenck, and others.

  25. #25
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's quite possible.

    Married to an ex-Bond girl. How quaint.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  26. #26
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95
    my own opinion is that Ni is something his entire outlook majorly lacks, an Achilles heel of his argumentation as much as anything F.
    Which is why LSE would be highly probable.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  27. #27
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The host was a young Dawkins???

    Wow.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  28. #28
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They were apparently good friends. Douglas Adams is probably an ILE, and Richard Dawkins has also been typed as an ILE by Rick. In this video, Richard Dawkins seems not quite used to public speaking as he is now.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  29. #29
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree with Rick, I think Dawkins is more likely LSE than ILE.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Douglas Adams is an ENTp, and Rick is wrong about Richard Dawkins's type. Dawkins is ego.

  31. #31
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I disagree with Rick, I think Dawkins is more likely LSE than ILE.
    You can't see LIE for him? I agree with the -ego but he seems kind of Tony Blairish to me.

  32. #32
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    You can't see LIE for him? I agree with the -ego but he seems kind of Tony Blairish to me.
    I could see LIE, but to me he seems more Delta than Gamma.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  33. #33
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    At the moment, I agree with the typing of ESTj for Dawkins.

    I've seen a short interview between Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) as part of Dawkins' latest TV series. I think somebody typed Rowan Williams as an INFj (or perhaps I did that in my head, I can't remember).

    Dawkins is usually quite abrasive towards people who do not hold his position, but in the case of Rowan Williams, RW made reservations for how his views would come across (knowing full well the position of Dawkins), and Dawkins said RW used poetic language, which he approved of, but it was muddleheaded etc. etc.

    It's a common criticism of Rowan Williams that he is a soft touch - not being particularly strong defender of the Church and so on. He has criticised Dawkins in the media in the past, though that is understandable considering their respective positions. I read an article today about Dawkins' new TV series, and Dawkins said "Oh, Rowan Williams - what a sweet man" - this was in reference to them eating together at some social dinner.

    I know this isn't a convincing argument for ESTj or against ENTp, but I'm not very good at analysing such things .

  34. #34
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Richard Dawkins - LSI instead of ILE?

    Here is a snipet about Richard Dawkins that I found on another website:

    Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and "God Delusion" polemicist, recently offered a frightening glimpse of what might be called the reverse-fundamentalist worldview.

    Mr. Dawkins mused to a British television network that fairy tales and supernatural-themed books such as the "Harry Potter" series are "anti-scientific."

    "Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," the 67-year-old British writer said. "Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."

    It's telling that, in this case, the conclusion, provisional though it may be, reached by a hyperrationalist scientist mirrors exactly that of those who object to "Harry Potter" on religious grounds: that a mind that too frequently wanders from the realm of settled truth becomes vulnerable to poisonous falsehoods.

    Mr. Dawkins' suspicion of fairy tales - of imagination - is an indication of the extremes to which philosophical materialism can lead...."
    I argue that Richard Dawkins is an LSI on the following grounds:

    1) His aggressive approach to promoting atheism is indicative of an Se-valuing type.

    2) His hyper-rationality is indicative of a Ti or Te leading type.

    3) The quote above is indicative on someone who has intuition as a PoLR function.

    4) LSIs are often considered to be the most rational of all the types.

    All of this seems to add up to LSI. Interestingly, here is a quote from Phaedrus on socionics.com about his views on "The God Delusion":

    "If you actually read that book some day, if you understand its content and remember its main arguments, you will not even for a second for the rest of your life seriously considering anything else than atheism as the only correct stance here."

    While it is possible that a person can identify strongly with the ideas of any type, I think it would be unlikely that Phaedrus, who is arguably an LSI, would strongly identify with the ideas of his supervisor.

    Anyway, I'd like to hear your arguments about Dawkins' type.

    Jason

    EDIT: Sorry for accidentally putting this in the wrong section.
    Last edited by jason_m; 11-10-2008 at 06:20 AM.
    LII

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you do a search for him here, you'll see that LSE has also been suggested for him. I'm not so sure about that... because he does seem like an Se valuing type to me. Maybe LIE or LSI is a better suggestion. Though I did see him on a documentary recently where he was amused about being called "Darwin's rottweiler" because "I'm really quite gentle... but then so are rottweilers when you get to know them" (not sure of his exact words). He doesn't seem ILE to me.
    Last edited by hellothere; 11-10-2008 at 07:46 AM. Reason: misquote

  36. #36
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Here is a snipet about Richard Dawkins that I found on another website:



    I argue that Richard Dawkins is an LSI on the following grounds:

    1) His aggressive approach to promoting atheism is indicative of an Se-valuing type.

    2) His hyper-rationality is indicative of a Ti or Te leading type.

    3) The quote above is indicative on someone who has intuition as a PoLR function.

    4) LSIs are often considered to be the most rational of all the types.

    All of this seems to add up to LSI. Interestingly, here is a quote from Phaedrus on socionics.com about his views on "The God Delusion":

    "If you actually read that book some day, if you understand its content and remember its main arguments, you will not even for a second for the rest of your life seriously considering anything else than atheism as the only correct stance here."

    While it is possible that a person can identify strongly with the ideas of any type, I think it would be unlikely that Phaedrus, who is arguably an LSI, would strongly identify with the ideas of his supervisor.

    Anyway, I'd like to hear your arguments about Dawkins' type.

    Jason

    EDIT: Sorry for accidentally putting this in the wrong section.
    If you read any of his books, he has a style of reasoning which is obviously Te. He's ESTj.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    If you read any of his books, he has a style of reasoning which is obviously Te. He's ESTj.
    what's the argument then for ESTj > ENTj?

  38. #38
    pluie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4 sx
    Posts
    300
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Here is a snipet about Richard Dawkins that I found on another website:



    I argue that Richard Dawkins is an LSI on the following grounds:

    1) His aggressive approach to promoting atheism is indicative of an Se-valuing type.

    2) His hyper-rationality is indicative of a Ti or Te leading type.

    3) The quote above is indicative on someone who has intuition as a PoLR function.

    4) LSIs are often considered to be the most rational of all the types.

    All of this seems to add up to LSI. Interestingly, here is a quote from Phaedrus on socionics.com about his views on "The God Delusion":

    "If you actually read that book some day, if you understand its content and remember its main arguments, you will not even for a second for the rest of your life seriously considering anything else than atheism as the only correct stance here."

    While it is possible that a person can identify strongly with the ideas of any type, I think it would be unlikely that Phaedrus, who is arguably an LSI, would strongly identify with the ideas of his supervisor.

    Anyway, I'd like to hear your arguments about Dawkins' type.

    Jason

    EDIT: Sorry for accidentally putting this in the wrong section.


    i definitely think he's a Te leading type. MAYBE even INTP-Te leading. but most likely Te leading. i get the strongest impression that he must prove others wrong... which is the feel i get from Te, based on my perspective, as a beta NF.

    now... entj or estj? i can't really tell yet... i'm about to watch some vids to help me decide. all though i'm thinking that someone with Si wouldn't be as inclined to meander through complex theories such as evolution and creationism nearly as much as Ni. i don't think the Si function suggests much of a NEED for that sort of understanding, or an INTEREST in comparison to Ni.

    and i'm now watching this video, and everything he says seems like a whole lot of nothing to me. i personally think he's a downright idiot.

    Richard Dawkins on militant atheism | Video on TED.com

    if anyone's interested^

    what's with his emotional detachment? it's weird... maybe he got a lobotomy or something. sorry for the off-topic two-cents.
    "If you can find out little melodies for yourself on the piano it is all very well. But if they come of themselves when you are not at the piano, then you have still greater reason to rejoice; for then the inner sense of music is astir in you. The fingers must make what the head wills, not vice versa."- Robert Schumann

  39. #39
    Pretend like it's the weekend Banana Pancakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    your backyard
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I found his logic to be very gamma.

    It was also very easy for me to understand
    ILE-Ti
    6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)

  40. #40
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I think Rick's typing of ESE makes sense.

    At least, that three-part documentary seemed to agree with Fe/Si ego. And FWIW, the three LXEs I know don't have that drawing-out style of Dawkins. They're much more sort of imperative, if that makes any sense.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •