Richard Dawkins - LSI instead of ILE?
Here is a snipet about Richard Dawkins that I found on another website:
Quote:
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.