Christopher Hitchens

[Expat]

Christopher Hitchens

 

[KSpin]

Excellent. Those Americans don't like naughty words said on their televisions!

Think of the children! (who probably use those words all the time)

[Quaris]

[ragnar]

ENTj. The "slight insecurity and nervousness" Expat referred to comes out quite clearly a few times in many clips on youtube, imho.

[Marie84]

I'm pretty sure he's an ESI from watching many of his videos on YT. In the past I thought possibly Gamma NT but from further examination it's clear to me that he prioritizes, as well as immensely skilled, in Fi and Se. His arguments tend to point out what he perceives as inhumanities and indecencies in beliefs and conduct; I doubt any Te would be so confident to state such accusations of immorality like he does, such as calling people and beliefs "wickedly immoral" as well as being capable of identifying with humans on a deeply empathetic level with articulate detail
example


I think any Te comes from the need to acquire as much factual information as one can consume (I think I do this as well), combined with his obvious intellect, which makes hm come across as more of a logic type. Te bases also tend to withdraw from making sweeping emotional statements over their lack of ability to judge and apply them accurately, Hitchen's though is clearly emotionally involved rather than objective

[mfckr]

.

[717495]

He reminds me of Gulanzon except he doesn't look Asian.

P.S. Bill Maher conflicts with everyone.

[Marie84]

Marie84 just thinks that cuz Expat does.

Do you have an actual rebuttal against my explained reasoning for typing Hitchen's ESI?

and ftr, I would not have thought of SEE as an alternative for him like Expat did, as I have yet to see any show of Fe demonstrative in his demeanor

[Krig the Viking]

I'm pretty sure he's an ESI from watching many of his videos on YT. In the past I thought possibly Gamma NT but from further examination it's clear to me that he prioritizes, as well as immensely skilled, in Fi and Se. His arguments tend to point out what he perceives as inhumanities and indecencies in beliefs and conduct; I doubt any Te would be so confident to state such accusations of immorality like he does, such as calling people and beliefs "wickedly immoral" as well as being capable of identifying with humans on a deeply empathetic level with articulate detail
example

[video]

I think any Te comes from the need to acquire as much factual information as one can consume (I think I do this as well), combined with his obvious intellect, which makes hm come across as more of a logic type. Te bases also tend to withdraw from making sweeping emotional statements over their lack of ability to judge and apply them accurately, Hitchen's though is clearly emotionally involved rather than objective

I've long thought the same, that Hitchens is ESI, though as far as I know I wasn't previously aware of your or Expat's typing of him. D-ESI, probably. The Creative Se seems fairly obvious from his forceful manner, and his body language seems fairly straightforwardly IJ. My reasoning on his Base Fi was similar to yours.

LIEs have a more "dry" vibe, in my experience, and a less forceful vibe. It's as if half their mind is always far away, thinking of what they have to do next.

[Beautiful sky]

Actually, now that I have him confirmed. I think he's SEE

[mfckr]

.

[Marie84]

He fidgets an awful lot for an IJ type—his overall disposition matches better with EJ temperament. Incredibly restless.

What does fidgeting or nervousness have to do with type? I'd think most people would be somewhat uneased when making controversial statements in front of a crowd

Yes, he talks a great deal about ethical issues—but he's an embarrassing blowhard about it, and it makes me cringe. Like when you want somebody to stop doing something they obviously suck at. He's not Fi base, no way, no how. It's too pained and unnatural. I almost feel sorry for him.

He talks a great deal about ethical issues....which is not Fi? What do you think Fi is?

Anyway, I think he's an ESTj who's trying way too hard to live vicariously through his dual-seeking function.

Where's the weak Fi? And the Fe role? And the Ni vulnerable? I don't know of any Ni PoLR who'd make a career around contemplating deep philosophical issues that lack any tangible application

I've long thought the same, that Hitchens is ESI, though as far as I know I wasn't previously aware of your or Expat's typing of him. D-ESI, probably. The Creative Se seems fairly obvious from his forceful manner, and his body language seems fairly straightforwardly IJ. My reasoning on his Base Fi was similar to yours.

LIEs have a more "dry" vibe, in my experience, and a less forceful vibe. It's as if half their mind is always far away, thinking of what they have to do next.

Precisely, the directness he shows is more apparent of an Se strength. LIE's are not very good at applying pressure without the awkwardness
I'd say Sam Harris is a good example of an LIE thinker in comparison

[mfckr]

.

[Marie84]

I didn't say nervousness. I said he fidgets a lot and seems quite restless—he matches the EJ description I linked from Wikisocion.

I didn't imply you interpreted his fidgeting as nervousness, I did, which I think is a valid reason for the fidgeting. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I do think it would make perfect sense for any person to feel somewhat uneasy speaking to large crowd, especially about such controversial issues

He appears restless every time I've seen him, whether it's 1-1 interviews or crowds.

And for someone so "assertive" and "direct", you'd think he'd be far more at ease with what he's saying despite its controversial nature. He seems horribly awkward to me and it's difficult to take him seriously.

Anybody can -talk- about ethical issues. It's quite another thing to speak with natural confidence about ethical issues—he lacks that natural confidence from my POV. Hence why I have a difficult time taking him seriously. Dude seems entirely out of his element.

The weak Fi is evident in how pathetic he comes across trying to speak about ostensibly ethical issues.

Someone lacks confidence in their ethical beliefs by making a career out voicing their ethical criticisms? Or perhaps you're referring to how he delivers his views? If so, that's more related to , Fi bases simply are not concerned with their emotional expressions; being polite, yes, needing to entertain others with an engaging presence, no

His attempts at being provocative. He seems to ideate himself as someone brash and outspoken, and enjoys drawing attention to himself in that regard.

This seems to be what you and Krig are labeling "Se." It isn't.

Except being prone to push ones views onto others with such a conviction is indicative of strong Se, and weak Ne as well.

I'd figure Sam Harris for ILE, but that's a separate topic.

Well that's a different discussion, but let's just say I strongly disagree

[717495]

Anybody can -talk- about ethical issues. It's quite another thing to speak with natural confidence about ethical issues—he lacks that natural confidence from my POV. Hence why I have a difficult time taking him seriously. Dude seems entirely out of his element.

The weak Fi is evident in how pathetic he comes across trying to speak about ostensibly ethical issues.

[golden]

The greasy, creepy, arrogant type. Lacks interpersonal effectiveness.

I don't see how he can be an introvert or an Ni-valuer.

That's all I see for now.

[mfckr]

.

[golden]

Oh, so it's not just me. I got the same impression. He really bothers me.



He does. Another strike against him being an F type IMO.

I know some pretty clear F types who arguably lack interpersonal effectiveness--depending on whom you ask and what the Fs are trying to accomplish. But F types, whether effective or not, normally give me the impression that they are working on reading other people and people-oriented situations, and how they fit with them, in the moment (and they seem to collect interpersonal data and analyze it later). This guy is just plowing along in dunderhead fashion and doesn't seem to give a toss.

[Raver]

R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens, I'm not really sure about his type. I think him being an alcoholic might of made it more difficult to type him.

[Gilly]

He reminds me of Gulanzon except he doesn't look Asian.

P.S. Bill Maher conflicts with everyone.

What the fuck? Gulanzon is made of fluff; Hitchens is a fucking warrior. You are so fucking absurd.

[Gilly]

Yeah, absolutely nothing like Gul... at all. He's like the opposite of Gulanzon, actually. Hitchens is much more fierce.

For real yo...poli has gone off his fucking rocker with his "impressions" since he started sipping on Galen's cup of Ashtons koolaide.

[717495]

You are bad at understanding jokes and maybe a bit retarded.

[Wittmont]

Hitchens was ESI.

Here is an intersting article where Ian McEwan describes discussing and reading with Hitchens on his deathbed. Check the photo with quadra mates McEwan (SEE), Hitchens (ESI) and Martin Amis (gamma introvert, ILI most likely).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...-by-ian-mcewan

Note that they are reading and discussing works by other Gammas. Philip Larkin (SEE), Thomas Mann (ILI), Dreiser (quintessential ESI, note the similarity to Hitchens)...

[Gilly]

Still can't help but find Hitchens incredibly creepy and boring. I don't understand the fascination with him.

He's a douche but he has appreciable spirit, imo. He was a necessary force. Better for the role than Richard Dawkins, certainly.

[Wittmont]

Still can't help but find Hitchens incredibly creepy and boring. I don't understand the fascination with him.

Same fwiw.

[mu4]

I must give this man props for having impeccable taste in literature and spirits.

[implied]

NEOcon.

[implied]

Still can't help but find Hitchens incredibly creepy and boring. I don't understand the fascination with him.

i agree w/ you. not a fan at all, but we can call him the man who created the idea among atheists that imperialism is some kind of awesome idea. and i think he was worse for the role of some sort of atheist figurehead than richard dawkins. he was a political writer, first. he treats the situation in burma as like, the fault of "fanatical burman buddhism." if that isn't neocon, i don't know what is. islamophobic as well.

he's whatever george w. bush is. what, estj? i disagree on expat's typing of him as ISFj in so many ways, although i see the logic behind that typing, barely. i have no idea how hitchens is a moral type when all his arguments revolve around logic so heavily, as well as politics. i have never seen the "aggressor" vibe unless aggressor simply means pissing people off. i do not see his "morals" or "Fi" as much more than promoting his own political views. he also generally has the worst social skills that having pissed upon the majority of the world's religions, i even found myself googling to see if he were actually somewhere on the autistic spectrum. that isn't EVEN meant to be insulting. i tried to understand why a man would have such views and attempt to alienate... everyone. i just see a complete lack of an ability to relate with people, or anything much more than his own views/agenda.

also, someone please tell me where the Ni or Te seeking is in this man. expat never explained this in his original typing. expat is smart, though his typing is not infallible by any means.

[mfckr]

.

[implied]

Was that the New Atheism?



Totally agree.



Ew. I'm not sure how people can reason that this dude is an ethical/Fi-dom type when he spews that kind of oblivious nonsense.



Well, he was pretty gung-ho for the Iraq War.



Yeah, I type Hitchens ESTj; same as I type GW Bush.

They both have a habit of justifying actions on grounds of retardedly sweeping moral imperatives. I believe a case could be made that this is something symptomatic of bad Fi-DS.

that actually works really well imho. the stereotyping and alienating of various religions based upon the worst case, most extreme examples -- i don't know what that is about. i only know his arguments were often like, "see, this person who caused a war claimed x faith, thus this is why religion of all kinds is bad." i won't speculate on that being ethical or logical, but i do think it points to having a brain pickled with alcohol.

also, i had never known of this being called "new atheism" but i know that fidel castro used very similar tactics when getting rid of every religion in cuba and instituting state atheism. i always called those people listed "atheist fundamentalists," and feel that they appeal to those who wish to portray an "intellectual vibe." i do not think that his pushing imperialism as a good thing is "new atheism" as much as neoconservative, but he definitely falls under the category of a "new atheist." which basically seems like a religion in itself. it's interesting to note that he never comes up with anything remotely reasonable like, "here in the united states we should have a greater separation of church and state, so that -- for instance -- homosexuals can have a civil union, reap the legal benefits of marriage, and then get married later at the church's discretion." this has not been his argument, it's been more or less attacking and not much reasoning about how to solve the problem other than just obliterating muslims since all muslims are islamists in his mind. and he is neocon in my mind due to more or less promoting a war against whatever is unpopular at the time. since homosexuality, abortion, women's rights have been accepted in the united states much more than in the past, he can win over the liberals by attacking catholicism. he can then paint every member of these religions as adhering strictly to beating the shit out of anyone who disagrees with them. he can win over the conservatives by attacking islam, even if he himself is an atheist and a large portion of conservatives in the u.s. are christian. he can win the liberals over in the sense that he can paint muslims as mistreating homosexuals & treating women as chattel. in that sense, he's made a good game plan to get everyone to support wars and imperialism.

[implied]

just so y'all know i am saying my oaths at my wedding on a copy of the god delusion.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24455

[Nowisthetime]

Yes, LSE works well. LIE: maybeeeee, but not really, ESI: no

He is not Ne polr, but Ni polr is useful when you want to criticise religion. Very factual also.

[mu4]

I don't think Hitchens really brought that many atheist over to the "imperialism" crowd. I was against the Iraq War and still am against it and am glad it's finally closing some of those chapters.

Anyways "new atheism" has always tried to approach the problem from a journalistic education perspective, as well as a policy perspective such as removing tax exemptions from religious organizations, etc etc.

I think what "new atheism" has sold a lot of books and have given a relatively invisible group of people, non-believers a impetus to become vocal and visible in public life.

The idea of a state atheism in the US is laughable and a bit paranoid imo, however the idea of a religious theocracy isn't that laughable and possible.

Most of the labeling of atheists and non-believes as belonging to Atheist extremist groups have been done by other religious groups in a effort to attack them. Also they often associate these people and groups with totalitarian regimes and past atrocities.

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny.

You can be sure that if there is some religious holocaust in the western modern world it won't be the secular humanists, it'll be the same douche-bags that's done it in the past, power hungry narcissists hungry for power.

Coming from a culture that hasn't had a deity for thousands of years, it's not a necessary belief. But Religion is often a vehicle for various charlatans and parasites to attach their suckers on. As long as humanity keep spitting these individuals out they'll latch on to some system and turn it into crap. Probably the best invention in the past couple of thousand years has been a hard separation of church and state along with freedom of belief while making illegal the oppressive practices that many religions engage in. This way at least the charlatans and parasites are quarantined.

Freedom from religion and freedom of religion is going to continue to make people more secular, investigate ethics and morality without the oppressive demands of dogma and ideology. As long as these values and others are defended, I think it'll be a ok world, a little up and down, some conflicts here and there.

[implied]

Do you have an actual rebuttal against my explained reasoning for typing Hitchen's ESI?

and ftr, I would not have thought of SEE as an alternative for him like Expat did, as I have yet to see any show of Fe demonstrative in his demeanor

ISFjs are quite capable of using Fe much like Te dominants can use Ti, although it is typically subdued due to its position.

[mfckr]

that actually works really well imho. the stereotyping and alienating of various religions based upon the worst case, most extreme examples -- i don't know what that is about. i only know his arguments were often like, "see, this person who caused a war claimed x faith, thus this is why religion of all kinds is bad."

Yup, that's been impression too. Coarsely 1-dimensional and blunderingly oversimplistic arguments, with no appropriate grasp of the involved context or scope.

Looks like neurotic Ni-PoLR + Fi-DS to me.

i won't speculate on that being ethical or logical, but i do think it points to having a brain pickled with alcohol.

That too.

also, i had never known of this being called "new atheism" but i know that fidel castro used very similar tactics when getting rid of every religion in cuba and instituting state atheism. i always called those people listed "atheist fundamentalists," and feel that they appeal to those who wish to portray an "intellectual vibe."

Which reminds me, lecky posted this YT awhile ago about that. I listened to part of it, and it's pretty interesting:

i do not think that his pushing imperialism as a good thing is "new atheism" as much as neoconservative, but he definitely falls under the category of a "new atheist." which basically seems like a religion in itself.

Yeah, it's pretty much just fundamentalist atheism.

it's interesting to note that he never comes up with anything remotely reasonable like, "here in the united states we should have a greater separation of church and state, so that -- for instance -- homosexuals can have a civil union, reap the legal benefits of marriage, and then get married later at the church's discretion." this has not been his argument, it's been more or less attacking and not much reasoning about how to solve the problem other than just obliterating muslims since all muslims are islamists in his mind.

I think part of it's that he enjoys being seen as an outspoken bigot and drawing attention to himself. Rather than actually like, being a productive voice of reason and facilitating constructive dialogue about bs in the world.

and he is neocon in my mind due to more or less promoting a war against whatever is unpopular at the time. since homosexuality, abortion, women's rights have been accepted in the united states much more than in the past, he can win over the liberals by attacking catholicism. he can then paint every member of these religions as adhering strictly to beating the shit out of anyone who disagrees with them. he can win over the conservatives by attacking islam, even if he himself is an atheist and a large portion of conservatives in the u.s. are christian. he can win the liberals over in the sense that he can paint muslims as mistreating homosexuals & treating women as chattel. in that sense, he's made a good game plan to get everyone to support wars and imperialism.

Lol. That's what I keep wondering, is if his anti-religion views are conjoined with his neocon sentiments—i.e., "we should aggressively war against Radical Islam because religion is terrible!" kind of thinking. I haven't listened or read enough of him to discern how true that might be, but yeah.

just so y'all know i am saying my oaths at my wedding on a copy of the god delusion.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24455

Hahahah

[implied]

I don't think Hitchens really brought that many atheist over to the "imperialism" crowd. I was against the Iraq War and still am against it and am glad it's finally closing some of those chapters.

Anyways "new atheism" has always tried to approach the problem from a journalistic education perspective, as well as a policy perspective such as removing tax exemptions from religious organizations, etc etc.

I think what "new atheism" has sold a lot of books and have given a relatively invisible group of people, non-believers a impetus to become vocal and visible in public life.

The idea of a state atheism in the US is laughable and a bit paranoid imo, however the idea of a religious theocracy isn't that laughable and possible.

hkkmr, my father lived through state atheism and came out alive. paranoia if you wish, but i do think he leans towards advocating that over a secular society or a stronger separation of church & state. it has happened many times, and i am sure that many countries did not expect drastic changes in their own policies. this happens with revolutions quite often.

You can be sure that if there is some religious holocaust in the western modern world it won't be the secular humanists, it'll be the same douche-bags that's done it in the past, power hungry narcissists hungry for power.

secular humanists aren't even who we are discussing here, hkkmr. i am discussing "new atheists."

Coming from a culture that hasn't had a deity for thousands of years, it's not a necessary belief. But Religion is often a vehicle for various charlatans and parasites to attach their suckers on. As long as humanity keep spitting these individuals out they'll latch on to some system and turn it into crap. Probably the best invention in the past couple of thousand years has been a hard separation of church and state along with freedom of belief while making illegal the oppressive practices that many religions engage in. This way at least the charlatans and parasites are quarantined.

yes, like the falun gong of your own country.

Freedom from religion and freedom of religion is going to continue to make people more secular, investigate ethics and morality without the oppressive demands of dogma and ideology. As long as these values and others are defended, I think it'll be a ok world, a little up and down, some conflicts here and there.

SECULAR, not atheist.

again, please show me Ni + Te in his values anywhere as he must belong to gamma so be influenced by Ni and Te in some combination. and expat is weird about typing ISFjs as usually people who are so political he types as beta types. i would be okay with i guess. why is his hair so greasy? he always looks like he'd smell.


lecky always got some good links. i am watching this youtube rn.

[implied]

@ashton - sam harris i am not familiar with unless he is the "new atheist" guy who compared atheists as being persecuted like jewish ppl in the holocaust or like african-americans in the slave days. i know i read some article by some guy with a phd who said that like, verbatim. maybe in the LA times?

[mu4]

secular humanists aren't even who we are discussing here, hkkmr. i am discussing "new atheists."

I'm not sure most of these new atheists have a really hardliner in their advocacy. There's a big difference between suicide bombing and killing abortion doctors and making vocal criticisms and writing some essays.

I mean adding "in god we trust" and "under god" and putting up the 10 commandments is far more invasive and religiously intolerant then anything the new atheists are doing.

yes, like the falun gong of your own country.

Or Scientology or whatever that polygamist cult or Manson or any number of cults that crops up.

SECULAR, not atheist.

I don't think a lot of religious people see the difference? I don't really want to get into a what is atheism debate, because generally I get labeled as a extremists or some other junk. I think it's often pointless and generally useless to try to deal rationally with true believers. My solution is to throw attractive women at the problem. Men will convert if they think it will get them laid. And women generally enjoy the freedoms secular society offers.

again, please show me Ni + Te in his values anywhere as he must belong to gamma so be influenced by Ni and Te in some combination. and expat is weird about typing ISFjs as usually people who are so political he types as beta types. i would be okay with i guess. why is his hair so greasy? he always looks like he'd smell.

I don't know what type he is, he's probably a T type of some sort.


Your father's revolution was a communist one, do you see that occurred in the US? If there is a revolution here it won't be anything like the Cuban one.

[implied]

I'm not sure most of these new atheists have a really hardliner in their advocacy. There's a big difference between suicide bombing and killing abortion doctors and making vocal criticisms and writing some essays.

I mean adding "in god we trust" and "under god" and putting up the 10 commandments is far more invasive and religiously intolerant then anything the new atheists are doing.

i'd agree that those things should be taken out, but i still would say the new atheists are far more polemic as a whole. many people simply do not think much of "in god we trust" or "under god" since the settlers were protestant. it's just been around forever and only as we have become more multicultural has it become apparent that we need to get rid of those things.

i mean, putting "in god we trust" on something versus advocating the slaying of muslims left and right? okay whatevzzz.

Or Scientology or whatever that polygamist cult or Manson or any number of cults that crops up.

please look up a little more about the falun gong, hkkmr, and the treatment of the falun gong by the chinese government. there is extensive information out there about this.

I don't think a lot of religious people see the difference? I don't really want to get into a what is atheism debate, because generally I get labeled as a extremists or some other junk. I think it's often pointless and generally useless to try to deal rationally with true believers. My solution is to throw attractive women at the problem. Men will convert if they think it will get them laid. And women generally enjoy the freedoms secular society offers.

no, a lot of people don't see the difference, although they are VERY different. japan has been noted as a secular society. it's also taboo there to pass food w/ chopsticks b/c it reminds them of buddhists passing the bones of the dead. or stick your chopsticks straight up and down in your rice because it looks like joss sticks used at funerals. any number of things that we would find superstitious and that i believe a lot of modern american atheists would call nothing short of retarded.

japan is a secular society but i would not argue that women in japan are "more free" because of the society structure. they still have to deal with separate metro cars so as to not be sexually harrassed on the subway. and sorry, but japan is largely xenophobic and still more or less look at black people like some sort of weird novelty. the burmese junta is based on the execution of certain ethnic minority groups who are not burmese. i doubt greatly that secularism would help, when the problem is with the minority group itself regardless of religious belief or not.

Your father's revolution was a communist one, do you see that occurred in the US? If there is a revolution here it won't be anything like the Cuban one.

no, it would be entirely different because reasons for revolution in the united states are different. i think we are over the idea that marxism would work. i am only pointing out that i think he would be thrilled with an atheist state.

[mfckr]

You can be sure that if there is some religious holocaust in the western modern world it won't be the secular humanists, it'll be the same douche-bags that's done it in the past, power hungry narcissists hungry for power.

A holocaust is still a holocaust, whether done under auspices of divine proclamation, or otherwise.

Secular humanists under Communist and Fascist regimes killed millions in the 20th century, so it's not like their hands are clean here.

Coming from a culture that hasn't had a deity for thousands of years, it's not a necessary belief. But Religion is often a vehicle for various charlatans and parasites to attach their suckers on. As long as humanity keep spitting these individuals out they'll latch on to some system and turn it into crap. Probably the best invention in the past couple of thousand years has been a hard separation of church and state along with freedom of belief while making illegal the oppressive practices that many religions engage in. This way at least the charlatans and parasites are quarantined.

Freedom from religion and freedom of religion is going to continue to make people more secular, investigate ethics and morality without the oppressive demands of dogma and ideology. As long as these values and others are defended, I think it'll be a ok world, a little up and down, some conflicts here and there.

Unfortunately, removing deity-worship—or even spiritual religion altogether—really doesn't resolve any of this.

Considering that such belief systems are oft-replaced with surrogate religions in the form of state-worship—where the Party essentially becomes 'God' and kooky metaphysics like "social justice" and "the People's Will" are invented to mythologize life in epic strokes. Or reason-worship like Scientism—which substitutes faith in the supernatural with faith in the material and dogmatizes technocratic salvation in place of divine.

So no, secularization doesn't guarantee immunity from the charlatans and parasites as it were, nor freedom from oppressive practices.