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

[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

[mfckr]

.

[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.

[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.

[mfckr]

.

[717495]

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

P.S. Bill Maher conflicts with everyone.

[Beautiful sky]

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

[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.

[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.

[mu4]

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

[implied]

NEOcon.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Kill4Me]

ESI-Se...the 'keeping it real' type

He was too irreverent for LSE-Si.

He wasn't blustery enough for LSE-Te.

ESI-Fi is warmer and more down to earth than the Se subtype.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.