Christopher Hitchens

[mu4]

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

And many of these same fundamentalist Christians would absolutely advocate the slaying of those muslims left and right as well? The difference is they want both.

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.

China is a brutal society, that is going thru a period of revolutionary change, the way they treat all political dissidents is repugnant. How Americans treat the indians and blacks was also repugnant in it's early advancement, as was the horrors of British Imperialism. Do I believe that the Chinese have the means within their society to correct themselves and fix many of these injustices, absolutely. I don't have the same confidence in many other society such as Islamist dictatorships and Myanmar's juntas.

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.

Do I believe the Japanese have the ability within their society to resolve many of their injustices. I believe so, I also believe Cuba in the future will have the ability to resolve it's injustices. With Castro's reign coming to a end and the opening of the global markets to Cuba, I believe it has already improved it's situation dramatically. The modern golden age we currently live in was built on a mountain or atrocities and horrors, hard decisions, bad decisions, missteps and abortions. However, I do not believe in giving up on civilization, and I never will, and I believe sometimes we need to hold our nose, look past all the hate and horrible things people have done to each other and work together to build something everyone can share in.

[mu4]

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.

I seriously doubt the peasant armies of the communist and fascist regimes were secular humanists of any sort. They're just peasants, who wanted to eat and had a lot of hatred towards the rich. These revolutions started in countries with literacy rates sub 70% and likely these people never even heard the term secular humanism and if they did, had no understanding of it. However many of the places are now literate, they have health care, schools and scientists. Maybe there will be a future for them in this modern world now.

It happened, you can't reverse it, people have to move on.

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.

The enlightenment and age of reason was about taking the reigns of governance into the hands of man. It was never about making a perfect world, just taking responsibility for what parts we can.

[mfckr]

I seriously doubt the peasant armies of the communist and fascist regimes were secular humanists of any sort. They're just peasants, who wanted to eat and had a lot of hatred towards the rich. These revolutions started in countries with literacy rates sub 70% and likely these people never even heard the term secular humanism and if they did, had no understanding of it. However many of the places are now literate, they have health care, schools and scientists. Maybe there will be a future for them in this modern world now.

No, but the leaders who passed down orders to do the butchering were frequently avowed secularists. The USSR, 3rd Reich, People's Republic of China, etc. were all quite keen on suppressing religion.

It happened, you can't reverse it, people have to move on.

Only point in bringing it up was just to show that secular humanism can be equally deadly as any conventional religion.

[implied]

No, but the leaders who passed down orders to do the butchering were frequently avowed secularists. The USSR, 3rd Reich, People's Republic of China, etc. were all quite keen on suppressing religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

just bringing this up so hkkmr cannot put his head in the sand about this one.

also, this john gray speech is exactly the sort of thing i have looked for. something not driven by rage abt new atheists by like, fundamentalist christians, but simply historically describing.

[mu4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

just bringing this up so hkkmr cannot put his head in the sand about this one.

also, this john gray speech is exactly the sort of thing i have looked for. something not driven by rage abt new atheists by like, fundamentalist christians, but simply historically describing.

As I said, China is a brutal society still, I already said their behavior was repugnant, what else do you want? What do you want to do about it, invade China? Cultural imperialism? Economic sanctions? Isn't that what you've been arguing against. You can't save every lost and abused minority or fix every injustices, and they're not a group that's made it onto my priority list.

I want to get this out because I think the west simply doesn't know how to approach China. The only way you're going to end the persecution of Falun Gong, Tibetans, whatever trendy minority group in China is current in vogue is to offer practical roads to freedom the Chinese people, all of them. The Chinese do not have any desire for war or revolution so it's going to have to occur thru political reform. By shaming the Chinese, it is only building a deep ressentiment in the Chinese populace towards the West as well as towards these minority groups. With a over 90% dominance in the Han population, good luck getting anything done without their agreement.

[mu4]

No, but the leaders who passed down orders to do the butchering were frequently avowed secularists. The USSR, 3rd Reich, People's Republic of China, etc. were all quite keen on suppressing religion.

Only point in bringing it up was just to show that secular humanism can be equally deadly as any conventional religion.

It's not about religion or secular humanism, human brutality is human. Duh, missing the obvious once again Ashton. The thing about secular humanism vs religion is no God made us do it, we did it, our bed, we sleep in it. And plenty of secular humanists were purged and killed in these revolutions, who may have wanted a different version of the world then the totalitarian state that evolved and are disappearing.

If there was a model of a successful state, it would be the American one, and it is also full of problems(slavery, indians, chinese, japanese), wonder what sort of values exists in the American one. Secular, humanist, universalist... Secular humanism isn't perfect, but I've never seen a theocracy where the leaders believed their God was the one true God and that apostasy is punishable by death create a society as pluralistic and great as America and I don't see it as possible.

[implied]

As I said, China is a brutal society still, I already said their behavior was repugnant, what else do you want? What do you want to do about it, invade China? Cultural imperialism? Economic sanctions? Isn't that what you've been arguing against. You can't save every lost and abused minority or fix every injustices, and they're not a group that's made it onto my priority list.

who is on your priority list, then? isn't there something to be said of promoting human rights for all and not just for those "most worthy"? is it more okay to harvest organs from the falun gong, or are general han chinese okay, too? when i spoke of my students, you seemed sympathetic and to think it was a good project and something people could learn from. those are almost exclusively burmese young women, they are a majority represented of those who have actually gained refugee/asylee status in the united states. and to get that, it has to be pretty fucking awful. i don't make laws or policies, and i can't make proposals as to what to do about the human rights problem in china. the u.s. is too embedded with china's money at this point to propose economic sanctions.

I want to get this out because I think the west simply doesn't know how to approach China. The only way you're going to end the persecution of Falun Gong, Tibetans, whatever trendy minority group in China is current in vogue is to offer practical roads to freedom the Chinese people, all of them. The Chinese do not have any desire for war or revolution so it's going to have to occur thru political reform. By shaming the Chinese, it is only building a deep ressentiment in the Chinese populace towards the West as well as towards these minority groups. With a over 90% dominance in the Han population, good luck getting anything done without their agreement.

i am paraphrasing christopher hitchens (your new lover) more or less verbatim to make a point. this is a tactic called devil's advocacy which i know you are more than experienced in. he has argued these //very// points, and i would claim that he is bringing about a new "yellow peril" which is what we need in this world just as much as we need more islamophobia. although, i do think their support of burma for monetary gain is really fucked up because i have personally dealt with that population and seen many very young girls with scars, rapes, & other various tortures i don't wish to mention. i know you are quite proud of your chinese heritage, to the point of nationalism almost, and it seems like i can't allow you to be naive. it's deception if you fall in love with his views on atheism and ignore everything else he has written politically. and no, i would never personally support cultural imperialism, but i would certainly allow asylum for those who are tortured on the basis of belief, ethnicity, etc.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._in_china.html <--- hitchens on china.

[mu4]

who is on your priority list, then? isn't there something to be said of promoting human rights for all and not just for those "most worthy"? is it more okay to harvest organs from the falun gong, or are general han chinese okay, too? when i spoke of my students, you seemed sympathetic and to think it was a good project and something people could learn from. those are almost exclusively burmese young women, they are a majority represented of those who have actually gained refugee/asylee status in the united states. and to get that, it has to be pretty fucking awful. i don't make laws or policies, and i can't make proposals as to what to do about the human rights problem in china. the u.s. is too embedded with china's money at this point to propose economic sanctions.

i am paraphrasing christopher hitchens (your new lover) more or less verbatim to make a point. this is a tactic called devil's advocacy which i know you are more than experienced in. he has argued these //very// points, and i would claim that he is bringing about a new "yellow peril" which is what we need in this world just as much as we need more islamophobia. although, i do think their support of burma for monetary gain is really fucked up because i have personally dealt with that population and seen many very young girls with scars, rapes, & other various tortures i don't wish to mention. i know you are quite proud of your chinese heritage, to the point of nationalism almost, and it seems like i can't allow you to be naive. it's deception if you fall in love with his views on atheism and ignore everything else he has written politically. and no, i would never personally support cultural imperialism, but i would certainly allow asylum for those who are tortured on the basis of belief, ethnicity, etc.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._in_china.html <--- hitchens on china.

I believe in human rights for all and it is a worthy goal to be accomplished, but it's important to find the right method of dialogue in order to achieve these goals. I do not believe you can achieve human rights for the Tibetans or Falun Gong without first achieving human rights for the Chinese people. And there is a good change the status of Tibetans and the Falun Gong can be improved by generally better human rights in China. Human rights for all people in China is a goal I happily support and I do with my donations and beliefs.

You know I support everything you are doing but I think if you want to change Chinese policy, you don't shame the Chinese people. I'm ethnically Chinese and I have a lot of skin in this game due to most of my family living in China.

I think a lot of criticism of China and the Chinese comes from people with very little skin in the game and no interest in the well-being of China and the Chinese people. As long as the West engages China without this idea of mutual benefit and merely a game of blame and shame, it will not get anywhere.

There's a lot of hate and racism towards the Chinese in the US, and I feel they're just as demonized a group as the muslims. Should I blame the pro-tibetans and pro-falun gong for fanning the flames of chinese hatred? I don't think I want to play the blame game.

My only suggestion is that people should support a more liberal and free China rather then focus on individual groups within China.

I'm not really disagreeing with you and I don't think that much of Christopher Hitchens, I don't think he's done anything horribly wrong and his opinion isn't horribly wrong either. He's not a dumb person and he's not a extremist and probably someone that can be reasoned with. He may have a few offensive views but ultimately I'm much more worried about the real assholes out there. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the list of charlatans and frauds go on.

[implied]

I believe in human rights for all and it is a worthy goal to be accomplished, but it's important to find the right method of dialogue in order to achieve these goals. I do not believe you can achieve human rights for the Tibetans or Falun Gong without first achieving human rights for the Chinese people. And there is a good change the status of Tibetans and the Falun Gong can be improved by generally better human rights in China. Human rights for all people in China is a goal I happily support and I do with my donations and beliefs.

donations to where? where do you donate to protest the chinese gov't? sincerely curious. can you even speak against those actions in china? the beijing students i had were sort of fucking amazed that we were criticizing george w. bush, as in totally, totally shocked.

You know I support everything you are doing but I think if you want to change Chinese policy, you don't shame the Chinese people. I'm ethnically Chinese and I have a lot of skin in this game due to most of my family living in China.

duh, but it is good to be aware of what your government does. it isn't even about the chinese people, who i have had nothing but positive experiences with. it's about the chinese government. i would say that generally asian-americans are viewed as "model minorities" as a whole. that can be a good thing or a bad thing, but within the united states, generally there is a more positive view of any asian-american versus anyone from a hispanic country.

There's a lot of hate and racism towards the Chinese in the US, and I feel they're just as demonized a group as the muslims. Should I blame the pro-tibetans and pro-falun gong for fanning the flames of chinese hatred? I don't think I want to play the blame game.

no. i feel chinese hatred in the u.s. is more or less fear about some sort of chinese superpower economic takeover. it has nothing to do with some ridiculous idea that we will all be under chinese law one day. i don't think people care much about human rights in china in general, the u.s. doesn't have a fantastic track record for that matter, so that is basically something that isn't ever going to come up.

My only suggestion is that people should support a more liberal and free China rather then focus on individual groups within China.

that would be much easier if it were possible to ever speak to the chinese who are IN china.

I'm not really disagreeing with you and I don't think that much of Christopher Hitchens, I don't think he's done anything horribly wrong and his opinion isn't horribly wrong either. He's not a dumb person and he's not a extremist and probably someone that can be reasoned with. He may have a few offensive views but ultimately I'm much more worried about the real assholes out there. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the list of charlatans and frauds go on.

sadly, the extremist representatives wackjobs of a group are often the most vocal.

[mu4]

donations to where? where do you donate to protest the chinese gov't? sincerely curious. can you even speak against those actions in china? the beijing students i had were sort of fucking amazed that we were criticizing george w. bush, as in totally, totally shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_Weiwei#cite_note-119 There's plenty of Chinese that are protesting the Chinese government.

Or the new Christian Bale thing that just happened when he went to visit a dissident.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-...b_1153627.html

Even reading the Huffington post article, there is a level of antipathy that is going to not fly with most Chinese readers. They might not like the government, but people like Marty Kaplan aren't going to be making a huge impact in China.

o. i feel chinese hatred in the u.s. is more or less fear about some sort of chinese superpower economic takeover. it has nothing to do with some ridiculous idea that we will all be under chinese law one day. i don't think people care much about human rights in china in general, the u.s. doesn't have a fantastic track record for that matter, so that is basically something that isn't ever going to come up.

There's a lot of people who want China to fail, and the Chinese know this, and that's a big problem for diplomacy. The Chinese don't want China to fail and they're willing to stomach a bad government if they believe it will succeed.

How do you get the Chinese to believe they will succeed while reforming the bad parts of their government and without offending them?

It has to be people who have a interest in the benefit of the Chinese, it has to be people who have skin in the game, it has to be people who are sincere.

[implied]

let me state that i'm sorry if i've misread you. i've often had the impression that you were all things pro-china, including the government as something without problems. china has a rich culture, and it's sad to me to watch it ruined by a government which its own people can't seem to get rid off or are incredibly naive about.

[Beautiful sky]

As a very typical SEE, he is noticeable in his appearance because Se is naturally inclined towards knowing how they come off; naturally authoritarian and resolute, he has learned how to control the ATHEIST public which reveres him. His lack of sight of the necessity of the other side (whether that is having empathy for the religious people) traps him into sticking with his POV and not seeing the bigger picture and only tooting his own horn on a stance he's taken up and will follow blindly (Ti PoLR); Fi response: "his emotionalism frequently re-weighs logic" and this logic is the very disregard for the current system, structure, laws in society, which are currently influenced by religion; he rejects spirituality (spirituality was observed when he lived in the US and observed the general more religious atmosphere here).

There are SEE who completely embrace Religion to the point of dogma; Hitchens' has embraced Atheism to the point of Dogma too, putting him on the opposite end of those who do. Se in SEE is all about what system they stick hard and fast to.

[implied]

i think herman cain would be a better SEE tbqh. capable of coming off as forceful, but also very likeable and relatable to regular people despite being pretty rich. not very well read on all the facts and current issues albeit very business oriented. totally affable and likeable, people loved him. i think Ni and Te would be very useful to him and i feel like he'd have a pile of INTps giving him the facts in a simple manner. he stated a billion times that it's up to whoever he would delegate to answer almost all the questions. 9-9-9 was really simplified. even if people didn't like his politics he was incredibly entertaining and affable.

[munenori2]

Hitchens looks like he'd sweat a lot. And he does the whole sour face thing.

[Park]

Hitchens was one of a kind. A hero, and the kind of character I'll always look up to.

One of the people he's talked the most violently against is Henry Kissinger, one of the biggest (ENFj) assholes in American history.

[mfckr]

.

[Absurd]

Problem(?) is, Atheism is religion. Never heard of him before but watched first vid and it seems he chose one religion for another. Cool.

Hitchens looks like he'd sweat a lot. And he does the whole sour face thing.

And he is possessed by evil spirits, no one killed him yet. A tragedy.

Fat sweaty gasbag.

Yea, how can be this way, ehhh, horrible...

[Nowisthetime]

Hitchen was actually an ILE.

[Absurd]

Monkey comes out of the sleeve. Socionics is full of wonders, people are full of wonders. The vid must be blurred rendering the typing nearly impossible.

[Whoobie77]

Hitchens is an Obstinate Type. And he's a Se/Ni type. And I think his political leanings and how he arrived at them (falling in line behind the ever notorious Marx) point to a dialectical-algorithmic cognition style. I think he went out and did battle with Christians precisely because he would concede if someone presented a strong enough argument to him. So he's either EIE or ILI. Irrationals see the world as it is, and Hitchens made a career out of smashing what he believed were pretty lies...so, I'm inclined to say ILI. Plus, there seems something intensely "democratic" about his profiles on Mother Teresa, Thomas Jefferson, etc., which were about evaluating people on their own merits instead of their affiliations. At the same time...he's got a possible aristocrat tinge. as he defined himself with labels like "atheist" and "Marxist", and he's always had an air of pageantry about him...idk

[silke]

LSE-Te sx/so 1w9

Hitchens looks very similar to Expat himself, who has been typed on this forum as LIE/LSE e1. As per Expat's typing of him as Fi leading type, I can't imagine how Hitchens, being such an energetic and opinionated personality, would get along smoothly with any LIEs or LSEs. He's awfully outspoken, high strung, and energetic to get along with other extraverts. Any moralizing attitudes of his are easily explained by him being Type 1: The Reformer: "They [1s] strive to overcome adversity—particularly moral adversity—so that the human spirit can shine through and make a difference. They strive after “higher values,” even at the cost of great personal sacrifice.... Can be morally heroic."

Hitchens is an Obstinate Type. And he's a Se/Ni type. And I think his political leanings and how he arrived at them (falling in line behind the ever notorious Marx) point to a dialectical-algorithmic cognition style. I think he went out and did battle with Christians precisely because he would concede if someone presented a strong enough argument to him. So he's either EIE or ILI.

His obstinate and confrontational spirit could easily be attributes to him being Sx-1 (link):

Sexual 1:
"Anger that feels like fire."
"Likes the intensity of being fully and passionately engaged with another person."
"Can appear 8ish and assertive. More unconventional and most free of the 1's to show anger."
"Criticism is directed outward."
"Feeling of being cleansed and freed with the expression of repressed anger."
"Undermine others so that they are needed. Erupt out of control."
"The other causes me to be obsessed. Pushing self on others."

Such assertive attitudes could be easily misattributed to Se under the conventional socionics stereotypes.

[Park]

I love Hitchens. Here's a great, very personal interview.



Interviewer might be EII.

[Whoobie77]

LSE-Te sx 1

Yeah, that's probably right, actually. I understand the types a bit better than when I wrote that. He's got that frightening Fe-less Te inflexibility going on, and his constant drunkeness, cigar smoking and suit wearing could be his Si at work. Plus, he's still a Dialectical Algorithmic. And I can see the sentimental EII in him that dreams of more perfect human relations.

[Suomea]

I love Hitchens. Here's a great, very personal interview.



Interviewer might be EII.

I think you're right on the interviewer being EII. As for Hitchen's himself I think Gamma is extremely likely. I'm having quite a hard time typing him within Gamma though besides thinking that SEE is not nearly as likely as the three others.

Points for ESI- He seems to have Se creative and an Ixxj temperament
Seems to be in tune with his static likes and dislikes (Clinton, etc.)

Points for LIE- He seems to have weakish Fe (or I guess it could be a general distaste for it)
Se could be showing through as a hidden agenda (he does sometimes seem over the top with the Se)
Seems to use Te a lot. Seems quite knowledgeable.
Si could be POLR as he seems to not care very much about harmony with his immediate surroundings.

Points for ILI- Hmmmmm can't think of any reasons for ILI over LIE so I guess the other two are more likely.


I'll go with LIE though this could just be because the fact that he's intelligent and separately that he's also a man make me unnecessarily think he's stronger with Te and weaker with Fi than he really is. If someone has good arguments for ESI, ILI, or SEE I could be convinced.

[Contra]

I always thought of him as Gamma rational. The only other type I'd figure for him is some sort of Delta ST.

[golden]

Haha. I was about to say he's too greasy to be Si-less, and then I noticed I posted earlier in this thread to call him greasy.

LSE or something.

[Amber]

probably LSE sx/so

[wacey]

ALL the ESI suggestions so far really boil down to this: Hitchens is phlegmatic.

Either...

He is an ESI leaning extremely heavy (and I mean HEAVY) on the Ti-role (a possibility given how stilted, convoluted, and circular his logical reasoning is...the man takes five years to say one simple thing) and he over intellectualizes Fi topics to the point of irrelevancy. Every little thing he says regarding Fi topics: sure they make sense, yet its not viscerally situated enough in his own experience, not produced fast enough, nor portrayed in ways that seem second nature to a person who has been paying attention and inwardly producing introverted feeling information his whole life. If he is ESI, then he must have been an incredibly tightly held together individual who expressed his weaker areas (Ti) as a continual life habit. Maybe this came from being a critical thinker and an academic, more power to him for paying attention to areas of his life that are, if the socionics theory is correct, more difficult and tiresome for an individual to maintain.

The ESI is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grow tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by , the ESI attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.
ESIs see the value of logical consistency in systems for areas or tasks they see as useful, but do not see the point of lingering on that if the pursuit of such consistency deviates too long or deeply from practical reality or from concerns relating to individuals and their relationships, and they are not really interested in discussions by others who choose to do so.

Or...

He is not an ESI at all. Several other phlegmatic types exist. Why is LSE Te subtype out of the question? Again, stilted Ti coming from another less valued function, such as LSE ignoring Ti? Most of Hitchen's ideas and concepts generally speaking argue towards real world application of his ideas. He argued against abstract concepts, often mocking those who participated in flights of intellectual fancy. His ideas where geared towards real world applications and when he deemed ideas did not follow under these guidelines, he would make short work of deriding them. Basically finding these ridiculous. Ironically, his did seem very receptive to Ne, and I am sure the search for alternatives and interconnected concepts he found a great amount of pleasure pursuing. Much of his logical arguments extrapolate and expand in ways that makes one believe he is activated by extroverted intuition. As far as Te goes his brand is the Te variety that occurs in the academic arenas (not the only place Te is found). He openly comments on topics or ideas he found pointless and useless. He was often discussing actions and politics that was poorly done, "bound to fail, all manners of unprofessionalism" (wikisocion).

LSEs' primary mode of talking about things is to use a factual, non-emotional perspective. They are interested in objective events, facts, and knowledge that cannot easily be called into question. They may come across as dry or monotone because of their emphasis on objective, rather than emotional aspects of communication.

Further, his mannerisms tended towards a steady rhythm, he seemed to avoid outbursts of energy (except when defending an idea), but its not ideas I am talking about. It is his whole demeanour. Can you really see this guy enjoying his hidden sense of creative Se? and I'm sorry, but just driving argument points of interest home in front of an audience alone does not count as creative Se. He was always talking about how he wanted the good life, things to be easy and come easily for him.

The ESI is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people as well of himself. This makes ESIs seem "judgmental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined

"But wait!" you say. "That sounds just like Hitchens." Well, yes, and no. Yes Hitchens is judgmental, he often evaluates ethics and morals. The truth is though, he is %100 meta about ethics. Maybe this goes back the Ti-role, yet I think it really means its because its not a base function of his, this kind of introverted feeling. Nowhere does he talk about his friends or family, nowhere does he talk about his deeply held sentiments regarding other people in his life, accept very rarely and with to much self caution about it. And maybe he is ESI, they are super private people for the most part. But I wouldn't go off this alone. I think Fi was valued by him, just not as a base function. Fi suggestive for Hitchens works just as nicely.

And finally this last quote:

When they are in a bad mood they can be very direct, sometimes even to the point of being verbally abrasive to loved ones and complete strangers.

This is from an LSE description on wikisocion. Now, in all honesty, can this not be the general description of how Hitchens behaved in the majority of his lectures, interviews, debates?

Finally, does this man strike you as a sensory feeler, a member of the social club. Now I rarely refer to MBTI, but in many cases it could be said that on the surface ISFP closely matches ISFj.

Attachment 5755

So to recap: ESI leaning on Ti-role. Or, LSE-Te with an Fi suggestive and Ne activation.

BOTH ESI and LSE are phlegmatic, negativists. Especially so when LSE is the normalizing subtype.

Could you really see an LIE be happy to come home at night to this guy?

Attachment 5756

I could get into how much of a misogynist arrogant pig he was, ie: his bet that no women have ever been funny in the history of mankind....to be challenged by Tina Fey of all people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA), but I don't believe views and opinions are necessarily type related.

[wacey]

Plus, his friendship with this guy:

Attachment 5757

Stephen Fry.

[Adam Strange]

Could you really see an LIE be happy to come home at night to this guy?

Attachment 5756

That's pretty funny, but it is probably a good argument. I prefer a lean and hungry look with someone who is up for an active life style, and so do the female LIE's I know, judging by the pictures I've seen of their husbands.

[wacey]

That's pretty funny, but it is probably a good argument. I prefer a lean and hungry look with someone who is up for an active life style, and so do the female LIE's I know, judging by the pictures I've seen of their husbands.

Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to get at. That hunger for life. There is certain soul missing there. That quite thunder you hear in the distance.

[Amber]

vibes like Words



taking down mother teresa

[wacey]

I never really understood his total hatred for Mother Theresa.

[Park]

I never really understood his total hatred for Mother Theresa.

Watch his documentary or read his book and you will understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Pos...dp/185984054X/

[Park]

Don't know how anyone familiar with the REAL Mother Teresa and her atrocities can respect her, the sadistic, immoral, twisted, narcissistic, evil IEI cunt that she was.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Don't know how anyone familiar with the REAL Mother Teresa and her atrocities can respect her, the sadistic, immoral, twisted, narcissistic, evil IEI cunt that she was.

Evil? Indeed. I watched a doc about her and her repugnant organization. Charity my ass, they didn't spend a single penny in helping people, all money went directly to the Vatican.

But I don't think she was IEI. Imo the general accepted type still fits well, EII. If Ropespierre (LII) was able to commit atrocities in the name of he Revolution, so could her for his own idealized vision.

[Adam Strange]

I did not know that Mother Teresa was anything other than a selfless saint. But if she was indeed an IEI, well, Ni is not about making moral distinctions.
Here is a video I like about IEI's which says the same thing from 6:05 to 11:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4dLLS-DQfA

I mean, I've got fairly strong Ni, and very weak Fi, and I'm scared to death of some of my first reactions to what I see as bad behavior. Thank goodness I almost always take some time to consider all of the consequences, and ask other people's opinions before acting.

[Amber]

MBTI. hawt


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p64IuEoC9_0

[Adam Strange]

MBTI. hawt

]

I've seen this video. The scenario could only happen with an ENTJ who was completely ignoring his inner landscape. In real life, MBTI ISFP's get my full attention when they talk, and much to my consternation, seem to be able to tell me what to do, mostly because what they say makes so much sense that doing it is only logical. Or maybe they've figured me out to the point where they're familiar with the controls. It's a good thing they have strong ethics.

[Amber]

I've seen this video. The scenario could only happen with an ENTJ who was completely ignoring his inner landscape. In real life, MBTI ISFP's get my full attention when they talk, and much to my consternation, seem to be able to tell me what to do, mostly because what they say makes so much sense that doing it is only logical. Or maybe they've figured me out to the point where they're familiar with the controls. It's a good thing they have strong ethics.

Oh lol I didn't see that happen between you and your male dual on here.