type this guy - INTp or INTj?

[aestrivex]

[Hitta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LqxU0KzUo0

Whatever type he is, I want to shoot him with a laser cannon. He is dumb as fuck. How in the hell do you prove the existence of God when you can't even prove that we exist?

[liveandletlive]

ili!

[PotatoSpirit]

Ahahahahahahahah

[Expat]

Weird, but I think LII.

[Hitta]

Weird, but I think LII.

Um, does everyone else see what I see?

[aestrivex]

Weird, but I think LII.

why?

[Expat]

why?

Almost everything he's saying is , as in establishing correlations - between intelligence and believing in God, intelligence and inclination to depression, etc. That is the overall theme of his little lecture. He also gets into a bit of when he suddenly digresses on different kinds of intelligence. He does use input but at the service of , as when he provides some examples and quotes. Finally, I don't get the impression of strong , and this may not mean much but perhaps the pleasant environment he chose to shoot the video may mean valueing.

Using the IA language, he seems to be mostly into External Statics of Fields.

I didn't get a consistent vibe regarding his temperament, so I could see ILE too, although I'd expect an ILE to be a bit goofier.

[Expat]

There may be a theme in the background, so suggesting a type -- but what he's trying to convey is , even if a bit disjointed.

[Hitta]

There may be a theme in the background, so suggesting a type -- but what he's trying to convey is , even if a bit disjointed.

You are just dumb, simply put.

[Expat]

That's ok. I think you are about the biggest combination of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, all mixed with a pathetic inclination to whine, as in "why doesn't anyone give me more encouragement?", on this (and apparently other) forums. So if you think I'm dumb, it's ok. I take it as a compliment . I would worry if you thought I was correct.

[Hitta]

That's ok. I think you are about the biggest combination of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, all mixed with a pathetic inclination to whine, as in "why doesn't anyone give me more encouragement?", on this (and apparently other) forums. So if you think I'm dumb, it's ok. I take it as a compliment . I would worry if you thought I was correct.

No, I get frustrated because people on here aren't capable of using logic. You are one of those people. You are more retarded than a mother that uses regular underwear on her infant son.

[Phaedrus]

I had thought Einstein's God was an "impersonal God", is what he called it -- not the sort of God associated with souls or afterlifes necessarily, but just the structure of the natural world.

Correct. And the guy seems to have misunderstood Chris Langan too.

But yes, I think that was a stream of mostly Ni in the video. And without much Fe, so I'd figure some INT type.

Correct observation.

Originally Posted by Expat
Almost everything he's saying is , as in establishing correlations - between intelligence and believing in God, intelligence and inclination to depression, etc. That is the overall theme of his little lecture.

Yes, that's the overall theme -- but it is not . The guy is clearly not an LII. He is an ILI, and he is also one of very few examples I have seen of an ILI that believes in God. But he has misunderstood and confused the things he is talking about, which is probably the main reason why he doesn't seem to be very smart.

[leckysupport]

Whatever type he is, I want to shoot him with a laser cannon. He is dumb as fuck. How in the hell do you prove the existence of God when you can't even prove that we exist?

He wasn't trying to prove the exsitence of God.

[aestrivex]

Almost everything he's saying is , as in establishing correlations - between intelligence and believing in God, intelligence and inclination to depression, etc. That is the overall theme of his little lecture. He also gets into a bit of when he suddenly digresses on different kinds of intelligence. He does use input but at the service of , as when he provides some examples and quotes. Finally, I don't get the impression of strong , and this may not mean much but perhaps the pleasant environment he chose to shoot the video may mean valueing.

Using the IA language, he seems to be mostly into External Statics of Fields.

I didn't get a consistent vibe regarding his temperament, so I could see ILE too, although I'd expect an ILE to be a bit goofier.

honestly i don't agree at all. i think his emphasis is not really on considering or "establishing correlations" at all but rather trying to make sense of what he does interpret as going on, and as trying to explain his perspective on things. his perspective is very biased in favor of catholicism (although actually he doesn't demonstrate it in this video). i think he's a very open-minded individual who happens to be very very closed-minded on the issue of god.

some things that i noticed: he integrates a lot of factual information into the discussion in order to prove his points (i think ignoring a great deal of factual information to the contrary, but that's a different issue). he makes many of his points in a very roundabout and open-ended way. he seems to be talking entirely out of his understanding and out of his head for the majority of the time, and has a very drawn out thinking process where it's easy to follow the flow of all of his ideas. he draws on a lot of different areas that he finds relevant to the topic at hand.

his choice of topics in his videos often relate to religion, but in cases like this one reflect on the role of the individual in the greater scheme of things, both of which can be interpreted as Ni topics.


my conclusion was: probably ILI.

[Expat]

honestly i don't agree at all. i think his emphasis is not really on considering or "establishing correlations" at all

In this one particular video - the only one I saw - it's what he talks about for a considerable amount of time. "Intelligence - believing in God" and "intelligence - depression" and even, rather lamely, "Jewishness - intelligence". He's sort of taking for granted that these kinds of correlations are likely. How is that not his emphasis in that particular video?

some things that i noticed: he integrates a lot of factual information into the discussion in order to prove his points (i think ignoring a great deal of factual information to the contrary, but that's a different issue).

That is precisely what I saw in that one video, too. Which I saw as another point for LII.

he makes many of his points in a very roundabout and open-ended way. he seems to be talking entirely out of his understanding and out of his head for the majority of the time, and has a very drawn out thinking process where it's easy to follow the flow of all of his ideas. he draws on a lot of different areas that he finds relevant to the topic at hand.

Right.

his choice of topics in his videos often relate to religion, but in cases like this one reflect on the role of the individual in the greater scheme of things, both of which can be interpreted as Ni topics.

my conclusion was: probably ILI.

Okay, again, I was looking at that one video only. If I saw his other videos I guess I would see more evidence of ILI.

[Expat]

I support the ILI typing, if only to finally have a universally-agreed upon idiot that is actually not typed IEI or LII or some other BS

Do you think that that's a good reason?

[Ms. Kensington]

he does strike me as ISTp or INTp from a few of the videos. I can see where expat is coming from but I dont feel comfortable stating my thoughts just yet. I havent formed an opinion with argument. but in his videos he seems to be less lenient with factual information while being much more fluid with different related concepts (like religion).

Im wondering about what niffweed said about an openminded person who is closed minded about a certain topic. It is making me think, because although it would make some sense if the break was between people topics and factual topics, it seems odd that someone would not treat all ideas in the same fashion. I dont know.

EDIT: after watching more of the videos I feel I would feel more comfortable with him than with most INTps I've met. Now I'd say hes ISTp or INTj. I think ISTp.

[aestrivex]

In this one particular video - the only one I saw - it's what he talks about for a considerable amount of time. "Intelligence - believing in God" and "intelligence - depression" and even, rather lamely, "Jewishness - intelligence". He's sort of taking for granted that these kinds of correlations are likely. How is that not his emphasis in that particular video?

his correlations are dumb and ignore a wealth of evidence to the contrary. but i really disagree with you about the emphasis being that "these kinds of correlations are likely" and must exist, and it is his job to find them. rather i think his approach is much more about "here's reality as i see it, and i'm going to give a long and rambling monologue about what i think some of the dynamics of this particular aspect of reality." which doesn't strike me as particularly LII.

That is precisely what I saw in that one video, too. Which I saw as another point for LII.

it seems that you saw much of the same evidence as i and came up with a diametrically differing conclusion.

Okay, again, I was looking at that one video only. If I saw his other videos I guess I would see more evidence of ILI.

or i could be wrong in the ILI typing. actually i think this particular video is not that representative of most of his videos, only in the sense that he's a very religious catholic who's very interested in the spiritual experience, and all of the other videos of his that i've watched so far (which i find very interesting, even though i disagree with them), excepting one political stump for john mccain, he's talked extensively about his experience and his interpretation of many aspects of religion (ie, discussing atheism, trying to dispel myths about catholicism, talking about his therapy sessions when he was accused of being crazy for attempting to start a jesus-oriented cult, etc.)

for a variety of reasons related to their content many of those videos aren't really optimal for getting inside his head and seeing how he thinks. i think the one in this thread is better in that respect.

[Expat]

his correlations are dumb and ignore a wealth of evidence to the contrary. but i really disagree with you about the emphasis being that "these kinds of correlations are likely" and must exist, and it is his job to find them. rather i think his approach is much more about "here's reality as i see it, and i'm going to give a long and rambling monologue about what i think some of the dynamics of this particular aspect of reality." which doesn't strike me as particularly LII.

Those particular correlations aren't dynamic, but static.

Anyway, never mind. Since I haven't seen the other videos, it's pretty pointless. Even if what I am describing is evidence of , there's nothing against an ILI "indulging" in it now and then.

[Phaedrus]

Even if what I am describing is evidence of

But what you are describing is not evidence of -- that's what's most important to realize in this discussion.

[Outside]

Umm, I thought that he was an INFj at first, but judging from his MYSPACE page, he could be an INFp. In fact, I do think that he is an INFp...