Your grammar is hard to follow. Fi is an INTP's 8th function, what the hell are you talking about? pointing out Ti with respect to Fi is as irrelevant as pointing out Te or Fe. I have no idea what you are on about.Richard Dawkins is an INTP. If you think otherwise, your worldview of mbti/Jungian_typology is dramatically skewed. To unskew you, it might be of interest to point out that INTPs - as their top function is Ti - have Fi as an as active function as Ti. They counterbalance each other, only then Fi is shadow and therefore unconscious. You might recognize how their Fi is of influence to them; they themselves have no clue.
The basic logic of the system is as follows:Your grammar is hard to follow. Fi is an INTP's 8th function, what the hell are you talking about? pointing out Ti with respect to Fi is as irrelevant as pointing out Te or Fe. I have no idea what you are on about.
I have never read ANY literature that eluded to this. Are you extrapolating or is there real literature on this? I'd like to see it.The basic logic of the system is as follows:
T and F oppose each other strongly, as do I and E.
Ti and Fe have a most repressive relationship.
His approach is that Fi is operating in the shadow of Ti as an unconscious motivator. BAP got on about this too. I think own8ge should tell us more about this.
ALLUDED.I have never read ANY literature that eluded to this. Are you extrapolating or is there real literature on this? I'd like to see it.
My final remarks on this subject are that there are four functions and the attitude of orientation is a matter of predisposition and is somewhat inflexible.Hahahaha. "alluded. fuck. anyway" made me laugh .
thanks for the literature. I'll read it at some point. hmmm.. It has got me thinking though.. I mean. I'm quite sure I do experience Fi. I get upset and depressed and stuff, It may bewilder me as to it's cause, but nonetheless, that is Fi is it not? it seems too strong and frequent for what you would expect from JUST an 8th function. this is by no means an opinion, it is just me pondering the idea.
Classic INFJ argument. Only thing it's missing is the sardonic happy faceIf you think otherwise, your worldview of mbti/Jungian_typology is dramatically skewed.
I'm quite sure I do experience Fi.
You're pondering the idea that you're "quite sure" you experience Fi, but by no means is your opinion that you use Fi?"this is by no means an opinion, it is just me pondering the idea."
Well since all most people will ever know is the public persona so whether or not it's truly accurate to the "person behind the curtain" seems fairly irrelevant.Celebrity typing is wrong most of the time. It's hard enough typing people you know, typing people who put out a public persona is even harder, yet people blithely type away.
I consistently score strongly INTP on mbti tests. I can't do organisation to save myself (lack of Te). I am unreliable and let people down frequently despite always having good intentions(lack of Te). I care for the masses and feel for their suffering(show of Fe). When you get me extroverting, I am a bag of crazy awesome fun, I am the life of the party when I have center stage "hey guys, lets do stuntman tequeila shots then do forwards flips over the bbq and into the bushes" (this actually happened. no exagerating). I am out of touch with my emotions and never have a clue why I am upset (lack of Fi). I am not assertive. I never lead.Do you think you could be an INTJ?
How old are you?
You remind me of myself 5 years ago.
Maybe you're mistaking Fi and Fe completely - as in you do use Fi and recognize a different attitude in Dawkins' feeling so you assume it's Fi because you currently presume to be an INTP.
He wrote a book on religion, where he had a lot of arguments to prove religion false and immoral. He claimed to use logic.In what universe does Richard Dawkins strike anyone as an INTP?
"Facts" is a buzzword. It matters not whether you claim to have the facts, it matters how you came to think you have the facts. The typical portrayal of an ESTJ is one where they think of social truths as facts. That's not what Ricky D does. He's an established professional who has checked the facts for himself.I'm inclined to say ESTJ. He claims facts. And makes concrete proofs. For me evolution is best explained by biochemistry. He never tries to educate masses through molecules.