Wasn't he one of the neocon supporters of torture and the invasion of Iraq? Fuck him.
ENTp
ISFp
ESFj
INTj
ESTp
INFp
ENFj
ISTj
ESFp
INTp
ENTj
ISFj
ESFp
ISTp
ESTj
INFj
Wasn't he one of the neocon supporters of torture and the invasion of Iraq? Fuck him.
Last edited by xerx; 05-24-2015 at 01:28 AM.
Not really-- he was a socialist "anti-theist" who to everyone's shock began to support the bush doctrine in 2002 or so. He hated the neocons almost as much as he hated god.Originally Posted by xerx
SEE FINAL
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Whatever his social ideology, in terms of foreign policy goals, his views were remarkably close to those held by the Neocons. Chiefly, he held to the belief in a civilizing imperialism and the clash of civilizations. He defended the use of torture until personally undergoing the procedure. On a number of occasions, he defended and even lauded Bush the man.
Doesn't the word "aggressor" come to mind?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Seen parts of this before. No, no, I get why he went after her, but I still don't get why so vehemently? Anger at the church and religion in general more-so then her as an individual. There are plenty of purely evil people out there.....
As if one person, Mother Theresa, was the cause and single perpetrator of all the societal ills he so adamantly appeared to (intellectually) oppose. For a man so opposed to suffering...he smoked and drank himself to a cancerous death.
They are both hypocrites imo.
Yeah, your basically right. But that being said, Bush the man is actually descibed as being an extremely nice guy (the dalai lama even extolled his kindness despite pointing out that his policies were shit). Hitchens focused more on relgion in his later years anyway, perhaps he was shortsighted.
He had the balls to speak up against social injustice and religious bullying and opposed everything and everyone that insults basic human rights and integrity. Why so vehemently? Because he wouldn't tolerate bullshit and oppression. Mother Teresa imposed suffering onto others, he suffered by being a friend of people and the humanitarian that Mother Teresa and the rest of society's fake humanitarians never were.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
"One of the things you could do with Christopher is to radically disagree with him without harming the friendship. You could take him on, or be taken on by him about whatever idea you have, and express yourself as vehemently as possible and it wouldn't really shake the basis of your fondness of each other at all."
^ Extra points for Fi/Te quadra.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I like him, but he's clearly evil in that he opposes religion.
He seems good for a bland coffee, but good for a talking with.
http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk...-analysis.html
Christopher Hitchens (ESI) - An Analysis
Christopher Hitchens was noted for his intellectual scepticism. He made forthright and harsh critiques and had a very independent approach, not quite belonging in any camp but focusing much on his own views and tearing down populist, but inaccurate beliefs with the more negative facts of the case. This sort of approach is a strong indicator of Gamma values.
Christopher Hitchens
However, while even MBTI would note this independent, intellectual and sceptical nature of Hitchens (he's commonly typed INTJ), it is apparent that his focus in this field was not Intuitive-Logical, i.e. abstract and systematic issues, but Sensory-Ethical i.e. politics, personal issues and people.
It has been argued that as an intellectual he must have been Intuitive (and Logical). This is incorrect. He did indeed convey his visceral disgust in an intellectual setting, but this is not the same as intellectualising moral arguments. For someone who intellectualises moral arguments, I would contrast with Sam Harris (LIE), who takes matters to a general philosophical issue, rather than Hitchens' relatively concrete emphasis on what person X did and how depraved they are internally.
Although supported by facts that he had read, Hitchens regularly drew attention to the personal aspects of the topic being discussed. He was a writer of polemics, wilfully attacking individuals in his critiques that were abhorrent to his sensibilities and who had done things that were damaging to people. He focused on Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger for instance. In each case, he drew attention to their failings as people and the critical sentiment he felt towards them. As such, although intelligent/intellectual, he was particularly conscience and principle-driven. Harsh judgement (R+F) was, I think, the most apparent theme in his intellectual work.
In general, Hitchens would talk about whatever he felt was wrong to him (R), and declare with conviction (F2) what made it unethical. There was less of the focus on trends and past experience to create a picture of bad outcomes from stupid decisions, but much more the act itself (F) as part of a deficient moral character (R). This is why, in politics, his work focused on individuals and their wrongdoing itself e.g. greed, hypocrisy, etc. rather than that something was stupid/wrongheaded (P) because of what it will lead to (T). He emphasised the question "is he really a good person?" and proceeds to show what was done that actually was quite bad of them. In comparison, David Starkey (ILI) focuses more on the long term stupidity of our actions i.e. based on how similar decisions have gone badly in the past, this new decision is very stupid. Starkey emphasises these trends and outcomes (T), showing whether our chosen strategy will work well or not (P). This is not to say that neither will attempt the other's approach at times, but that each other's alternative approach is not preferred.
In addition, Hitchens, although confrontational, was able to manage the level of confrontation rather expertly. He would calmly air his disgust and create the right level of distance to his opponent. In comparison, Starkey is unabashed in his derision of stupidity, suddenly and rudely railing against people who have said something without having thought it through properly. In this regard, Hitchens utilised R+F with far greater nuance, being civil and frank until he met someone deserving of a ruthless dressing down, where an angry Starkey can be treated as having acted unfairly harsh, open to critique by others for his rude (E4), but unmeasured and thus unconvincing attack.
These qualities, I think, make ESI the most likely typing for Hitchens.
Sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqjfGFHes0w - Clever Comebacks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lw3B8vjIC0 - Polemic against Henry Kissinger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4 - Polemic against Mother Teresa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1D6Tfpo1RQ - David Starkey
Founder & President of World Socionics Society
http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety
Gamma NT does seems to fit the best, with a strong ethical focus. When I think Hitchens, I think Critic and Skeptic.
I always had a crush on him, still do even tho he's dead now. Such handsome, such smart.
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
Does the post immediately above your post have any bearing on your thoughts?
Founder & President of World Socionics Society
http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety
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.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-16-2016 at 04:42 AM.
Does the post immediately above your post have any bearing on your thoughts?
No, it did not. I think Hitchens falls under the a very broad definition of NT. He was a Researcher more than he was a Social, Gamma more than Alpha. While he certainly had a strong humanist, moral code, it was likely developed overtime through NT traits such as free thought, inquiry, and skepticism. As with all types, NTs can be very concerned with ethical behavior, but his own moral integrity was developed by questioning the "revealed" knowledge of organized religion and its claim to moral authority. This is not the behavior of a Social, which by its own definition would not welcome facts that disrupted social harmony. The very fact that he was a public intellectual places him in the intuitive category. The fact that he was a skeptic and publicly debated and questioned religious morality(something which is quite personal to most people) makes him logical over ethical. His attack against someone's morality derived from revealed religion was part of an attempt to promote humanism and enlightenment values and not his own subjective, ethical system based on how he felt in the moment or whether he was trying to establish personal relationships. NTs, especially Gamma NTs usually have a very rational, ethical system that is consistent with the definition of Fi. Besides, all human beings do in fact have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong based on one's culture, religious, and philosophical commitments, so I think it would be incorrect to conclude that just because one has a strong personal, moral code that they are ESI. There are other factors to consider. Again, when looking at the big picture, Hitchens has more in common with the social archetype "Critic" than with "Guardian". I see where the description of ESI suits him, I just don't agree that it is the best fit, if there is one at all.
Te-ego.
I would agree.
His logic was pretty much superb. 4D, but not Alpha.
I would type him as ILI-Te Sx/So 6w5. One of my favourite ILIs for sure. RIP.
ESI
Last edited by Jake; 01-01-2017 at 05:38 PM.
Peter is the better Hitchens brother. ILI?
His type of absolutism...
I think I'd give Cristopher The ultimate extreme ESI badge.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I assume the idea of ESI for Hitchens came from Expat. if he were ESI indeed I'd find it odd him going after mother teresa (who was typed as EII by simlingeyes). Just seems strange, i'd assume ESI-EII would have a similar outlook on matters of ethics.
I'm not sure what event you're referring to, though the criticism might not be type related.
I always thought Mother Theresa was ESE anyways.
ILE
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Shit. People of the same sociotype can have different ethical outlooks.
He absolutely revered David Hume, who may be ILE. It would be odd to revere a conflictor, if one was presumably ESI, as a few in socionics think.
Amazing.
ESI seems about right. In contrast with (logical) Dawkins, he takes a more personal approach in his arguments against religion.
Christopher Hitchens - INTJ - Robespierre
Last edited by khcs; 01-05-2020 at 09:47 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
