Dawkins critizement of religion is almost stereotypically INTP... Unlikability and unsuredness are definitely not set-in-stone INTP traits either, just watched this clip of him on what I believe to be an INFJ hosted show:
Possibly, if he grew up in a small town in America that was strongly Xian, where reason and logic tend to be ignored, someone who came to conclusions based on logic, probably would be a T.
But what if he was growing up as part of a highly educated upper class in British culture during the 40s, a culture that produced people like Andrew Wiles, Alan Turing, Stephen Hawking, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, to name but a few?
@Architect
Dawkins as an INFJ would be Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. INFJ's, with Fe in the secondary, tend to be more publicly charming (and privately caustic) then what I see here. He's introverted and thinking primarily, without spending a lot of time on it he is an INTP candidate in my estimation.
If you want to see an example of British people with public caustic-ness, then look no further than Nick Griffin.
@Teohrn
Additionally, he usually makes argument based on logic rather than feeling, quality taken aside.
There are many NFs in science. They usually go into fields like psychology, medicine, and biology, although some go into the harder sciences as well. They too present their arguments as being based on logic. If they didn't, their arguments would get dismissed.
In addition, Dawkins family background is from the educated upper classes of the
United Kingdom. Only rarely do we let those with attitudes such as are typical of Fox News, on British TV, and then only to make them a laughing stock.
It is about preferences rather than strengths (although you will most likely be better in your modus operandi than anything else). One can prefer thinking while being bad at it; many are, in fact. A feeler would probably not try to wrestle with the religious and religion as Dawkins does. Dawkins firm stance over what he believes to be right and true despite even fellow atheists thinking it is over-the-top does not seem very feeling.
Moreover, Dawkins is perhaps not as charming as you may seem to think he is, SinChroniCity certainly does not seem to be charmed by him, despite his wishes to. It seems to be the case with a lot of people too, who find him to be rather militant.
What do you call those people who are emotional, but annoying? They're clearly not Thinkers. They're not charming either. Obviously, they don't exist?
Or, on the other hand, maybe, just because you are in touch with your emotions, doesn't mean you'll always try to please people. But, if you are in touch with your emotions, and you are STILL annoying, then it's something you are aware of, and so is a conscious choice, a choice you MIGHT make, if you think that you'll make the world a better place because of it.
Dawkins views on religions, clearly show that he thinks that they are so potentially harmful, that he'd think that annoying some people would be a worthwhile sacrifice, if it meant that his visions of a scientific utopia would be achieved. In Dawkins' own words, he is just trying to get religious people to "see the light". He believes that he is
helping them.
Have you considered that you, while finding his logic to be shoddy, still agree with him and therefore find yourself attracted to him (interpret that as you like)?
What I find most annoying about Dawkins, is that although his arguments appear at first glance, that nothing else could be true, when I sit and think about them, I realise that the opposite of what he concludes must be true.
That ability, to present a viewpoint, that seems to be completely comprehensive, and to almost exclude from thinking, of any other way, is an extremely intense perception, and a strong characteristic of Ni-doms.
From what I understand, a difficulty that INTPs have, is that they are usually making conclusions, based on intense logic, so intense, that hardly anyone understands it, unless they sit down and think about it. In other words, what they say, is so intensely logical, that when you first hear it, you think it's crazy, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, even if you don't agree with those conclusions.
Dawkins' arguments are very persuasive at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more holes I see, and the more I wonder how Dawkins could have possible come up with that in the first place. So he seems to me, to be the opposite of an INTP, and, even if you agree with his conclusions after thinking about his arguments fo a while, he's definitely not like the majority of INTPs, whose arguments aren't understood that well at first glance.
The site is alright if you use it as a guideline and if you use critical thinking. I agree with a lot of it, but I also disagree with just as much. Though I guess you have an easy job when you get to include posterboys like INTJ Nietzsche and INTP Einstein.
Nietzsche could NOT have been an INTJ. When his country was preparing for war, Nietzsche was against it. An INTJ's reaction would be to do something about it, to try to change society. All Nietzsche did was leave for Switzerland, and hope that others would "get the message". Not Te-ish at all.
