Noam Chomsky Myers-Brigs type - MBTI, enneagram and personality type info
He relies heavily upon quotations, but rarely identifies the speaker or writer. Sounds like he just doesn't agree with you. People are interested in the issues, and they're interested in the issues because they are important. Zizka, are you incapable of reading. "It actually was pretty rash and unwarranted for me to leave the debate then, especially since (a) I wasn’t the target of the sour comments and (b) I completely forgot to watch the Dershowitz-Chomsky debate (not very intellectually honest of me :P ) so I apologize and I’m re-entering the debate now after having watched it. In fact one could argue that his success in spreading his message is in no small part because of the fact that he is impassioned, stubborn, singular, and convicted but not dispassionate at all. INTJs are interested in ideas and theories when observing the world.. (Though both types can do both). By the way I agree, the actual viewpoints Chomsky holds are irrelevant here. So I stay with INFJ. Ie Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. It points out the way Chomsky forms his political arguments. He looks at ideologies as a product of underlying principles first and foremost. This is Chomsky's response to Alan Dershowitz' picking-apart of a letter Chomsky signed that dishonestly portrayed Israel as a villain. Everything so darn obvious to them that their their respective opponents would want to throw something at them. I respect his contribution with language but that is it. "Thank you, Typer. As a matter of fact, you can say it is Si, how he meticulously works from his bank of facts. So which one is it. What a damn silly typing. In INTP vs INTJ debates, INTP are often criticised for being hyper-critical of others theories but that is because they look first to get down to the underlying logic within them, and judge them on their own merit with Ti. If this was Chomsky’s attempt to prove that Dershowitz is a dishonest provocateur, then I wouldn’t peg him as a Ti-dom Fe-inferior. Can you provide actual proof of his "impassioned politics". Since INTPs are Ti-Dom and Fe-inf they would probably keep ethical justifications to a minimum and focus on showing inconsistencies in the counterarguments in an impersonal, intellectually honest, dispassionate manner. And it's the thought behind it which he focuses in on, rather than its utility. Zero charisma, just well formulated ideas grounded in facts and observations. Especially with the sort of critique that Chomsky is somewhat ignoring the external world and instead too far soaked into theory, which would seem to lean to INxP. But one has to look at the whole. Zizka, there is no point of lying about what I said. I really don't even know where this "morally impassioned" thing came from. I'm not here to challenge your views and dogmas. And the frustrated Chomsky loses his patience. It's filled with straw man arguments, doesn't even respond to Dershowitz's most salient criticism, and seems much more interested in attacking Dershowitz's character (fiercely) than in addressing the criticisms Dershowitz had. See the fallacy. Rest assured I'll counterargue all your points when I get time. If Chomsky was trying to show Dershowitz was a “provocateur” and “intellectually dishonest" and he was a Ti-dom Fe-inferior, I’d expect his attempt to “lay down the truth” to be more dispassionate and analytical, even though of course he has to come out and say he believes Dershowitz is a provocateur. )Not that an INTP would ever settle on an explicit goal. We need room to discuss and debate here without being bogged down with personal political opinions. (As if it's impossible for the offending party to rephrase their theory in non-contradictory terms or something. Don't try to interpret my political beliefs when I say that open-mindedness never struck me as his strong suit. INTJ 1w9 so like gandalf. Its not strawmanning when it proves a point. From Wikipedia (Chomsky#Debates): Chomsky has been known to defend vigorously and debate his views and opinions, in philosophy, linguistics (Linguistics Wars), and politics. What's funny is scotty has a good point with the INTP typing. This would be anti-Fe. an INFJ he is not. The latter I'd agree with, but your attempt to frame me as being hypocritical is idiotic. Like derekap98 I can see INFJ, INTJ, and INFP (maybe). I deduced you were inferring that his career was INTPish. There's a new troll every day pretty much signing up to vote INFJ. If you're using function loop crap, maybe, but that's just because his Ti is so strongly overwhelming Ne. Since they brought different baggage and aims to the discussion, it’s reasonable to assume that they’d approach things differently regardless of their types. He relies on media reports that help his points but reject others which oppose his point. Discover Array, and more, famous people, fictional characters and celebrities here!. This is not a consistent approach. Again, zizka, you continue to lie about what I say. All Chomsky is trying to prove is that Dershowitz is a provocateur that is only concerned with pushing his own agenda rather than discussing topics with intellectual honesty. (2) Whether or not most "rational" types agree with him is irrelevant since, as you say, political ideologies don't have a type. A few points: (1) Inductive reasoning, all else being equal, is actually more Te than Ti. Tell me if you believe both Noam and Harris share the same type and why. I posted it to show the difference between him (INTP) and Harris (INFJ). Is it "intellectually honest. Regardless if you're an idiot or not, you're a stone cold liar. (3) He is not "impartial" in his political philosophy. When he believes all media is controlled, then how come his use of that same media yo prove HIS point, proves his impartiality. Even when his position is right, he is still not neutral at all to say the very least. Regarding your “The key with typing Chomsky…” comment, he doesn’t just lose his patience over lack of logical standards, otherwise he would focus much more on reinforcing those logical standards than on fiercely standing up for the weak and those who he believes have the moral high ground. Let's go back to something you said earlier in the thread: that an INTP would be impassioned too if he knew he was "right. It proves cherry picking. "he believes all media is controlled" - classic strawman. You are in the best place to test MBTI and learn what type Noam Chomsky likely is!. I'm voting INFJ for now. I think you may find him more dispassionate if you agree with his ideology. It's an odd choice of words to use to describe him. That's sure he is more passionate to make the world less unfair than a 3w4 like you would be. Scotty is arguing linguistics is an INTP subject as if a subject has a type and then disagrees that political stances don't attract certain types. Ventus, are you even familiar with Chomsky. If not INFJ, then he is INTJ or maybe INFP, but I seriously doubt INTP. It is not an anti-INTP thing to explain in detail why you won't bother responding to someone's rubbish. I don't you know what strawman means especially the way you're using it. The point that Chomsky isn't impartial. You asked us to look at what Chomsky does outside political commentary which I assumed is his work of linguistics. Note I only care about how he formed them, why he believes them, and how he champions/expresses them; I don't care about what they are. But Chomsky never comes from a position of neutrality. Now, if your point was Chomsky usually isn’t as fiery as he is in that essay I linked, then yes, he obviously is very calm and well-reasoned in the debate. But really it's just the presence of a dominant judging function (Ti) paired with Ne-aux. Anyone who voted INFJ must have never heard him speak. There's clear INFJ's, borderline INFJ's and then Noam Chomsky, a clear theoretical, Ti-dominant in every regard. Chomsky isn't like that. Chomsky is sharp, analytical, and cerebral, an intellectual at the core. Also, like I said before, take the politics out of it and look at what he said in other fields where people aren't going to try to smear him. This is easy to read and understand. Also an obvious T voted as a F because he cares about stuffYou have to use function, scotty1w9 or 6w5. This is evident since his political arguments are always morally impassioned but sometimes draw moral equivalences and occasionally cherry pick and make up facts to paint the picture Chomsky wants people to believe. And I don't know what you are saying in response to my "the key with" comment because he is exactly trying to reinforce the logical standards in the debate that we were referencing. :PIn fact he does just what you say he doesn't (showing inconsistencies in the counterarguments in an impersonal, intellectually honest, dispassionate manner). What is the best option for the MBTI type of Noam Chomsky? What about enneagram and other personality types?. And honestly, since so much character association is used in the world of politics, why are we even looking at politics to type him, much less quoting a Wall Street Journal article which references impassioned non-reasoning. Ventus in the Woodrow Wilson comments: "INFJs are very smart and profound but are characterized by their counselor-like willingness to compromise, understand other people, and touch others' lives. http://genius. Go and quote where I supposedly was arguing linguistics as an INTP subject, and until then, make yourself scarce. An INTP would've changed the goal five times before the first publication. For the record despite the impression I may have given I'm actually a left-leaning centrist, not a conservative. It's just that I oppose cherry picked quotes of other people's description of Chomsky. (3) Also, in regards to the Dershowitz thing, I see a double standard: how come when a conservative (Roger Scruton) tries to show Chomsky is a biased provocateur you say he’s just trying to “smear” Chomsky and that nothing he says holds weight, but when Chomsky does the exact same thing (except in a much more impassioned, fiery manner) to Dershowitz, Chomsky is “intellectually honestly revealing Dershowitz to be intellectually dishonest” and that Dershowitz’s arguments are “rubbish. Harris wanted to have a public debate with Chomsky regarding misconceptions about each other; Chomsky didn’t. Scroll down and tell me what you disagree with out of what I've already said. I can’t imagine an intellectually honest INTP who specifically sets out to show his intellectual superiority would just gloss over the single biggest counterargument and instead focus on making personal attacks. See my point 5.  He has had notable debates with Jean Piaget, Michel Foucault, William F. Just not here. Note also his linguistic program: in five decades the goal remained the same (the ultimate grammar). I understand that he he comes across as very NF like but some INTPs share many values NFs do. (2) I disagree with your reasoning on the Dershowitz thing. If you are to argue for a strong feeling function, it would have to be Fi and not Fe because he does not approach anything from a practical advocacy angle, being completely comfortable keeping his ramblings confined within academia, and really being more focused with correcting flawed reasoning and giving his own interpretation of events rather than building a cohesive philosophy from scratch or definitive solutions, which would be expected from an Ni-dom. An INTP would (as a Ti dom) know that he is "right" since he carefully and dispassionately analyzed the issues and came to viewpoints that made logical sense. The key with typing Chomsky is that he processes everything individually and digs down to the root. Most rational types tend to take the same "sides" he does, and he always defends his positions with impressive rationality to the point where it seems at least that he derived his positions through rationalization rather than through dogma. Yes in his exchange with Harris he looks incredibly INTP. That is simply not an Ni approach, no matter what way you want to look at it. Instead we get a very impassioned and fiery essay that actually fails to address what Dershowitz claims is the “BIG[gest] lie” the letter made (that it claims Israel wants to eradicate the Palestinians). It's true that his critiques of those who wield power and influence can be withering - that's the central function of an effective critic or just a human being with a conscience - but one would be hard-pressed to find someone as prominent as he who is as steadfastly polite and considerate and eager to listen when it comes to interacting with those who are powerless and voiceless. Again an obvious 1 voted as 5 because he is intelligentType 1 because he b*tch and moans too much. com/articles/SB115922160207573526 Please don't try to induce my political beliefs from this post, in fact my opinion of Chomsky is irrelevant to this discussion. I never argued you can't mate a type with political foresights. The introverted function is what defines the introvert above all, and Chomsky above all puts his value on thought process and consistency, above the creation of encompassing philosophy which is ready for action. Watch him in the Youtube video "Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard". (4) What you quote me saying from the Woodrow Wilson page was a heuristic and though it’s true in general it’s actually not true for all INFJs especially ones convicted in their visions, in fact this comment by impeccable on the Wilson page is on point: "INFJs yield in personal matters but are extremely non compromising in their vision. LOL what, INFJ. Ventus, watch the damn debateSince the debate seems to have turned combative and sour I think I'll check out for now. Although Chomsky’s frequent arguments that work ‘in a vacuum’ and Dershowitz’ frequent anger that he’s not looking at the external environment seem to show Ti vs. You see him in a debate and you will observe that he is the most level-headed debater ever. I am still not voting yet but INTP is seeming more and more plausible the more I think about it. He actually explained quite clearly the faults of certain media, based on how they didn't even cover certain true stories. ” Like I’ve been saying all along in this debate, even if Chomsky is completely right, he doesn’t defend his points in a manner that suggests that he is a Ti-dom (i. Every person’s preference can be found on a spectrum, so just choose the letter you identify with most.. I think at the very least, his Ne-aux is quite clear, and if your argument is that "he cannot be Ne-aux because that would require either inferior thinking or feeling function" I could point to examples of INxP that don't show a strong preference in either direction. Here you can explore of famous people and fictional characters.. I don't know where they come from but I've given up this one. The Guardian said of Chomsky's debating ability, "His boldness and clarity infuriates opponents—academe is crowded with critics who have made twerps of themselves taking him on. You did say that Chomsky's political commentary shouldn't be used to point his type but you feel okay saying his style of work in linguistics is INTPish. Well, that's a large leap, Zizka. What happened to forum posters who actually watched him speak. If you enjoyed this entry, find out about the personality types of Writers characters list.. I think you did admit earlier that he can arrive at those conclusions from an impartial basis, so I don't know why you have returned to the "fiercely standing up for the weak" line as you have already basically conceded it is a non-argument. Its a common thread, all his opponents accuse him blindly supporting a party which is line with his position. They wouldn't accept things going wrong for them and will hold on to the vision. These long debates just tend to be exhausting lolI guess though if Ventus wants to resume I could respond. org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse(5) Non-inferior Fe evidence: Glenn Greenwald on Chomsky’s demeanor: "Far from being some sort of brutal, domineering, and angry "alpha-male" savage, Chomsky - no matter your views of him - is one of the most soft-spoken and unfailingly civil and polite political advocates on the planet. I actually personally met him at a gathering and I can say INFJ is not completely absurd typing. This points me towards Ti because my INTP friend also debates in a very level-headed demeanor. org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourseRead this exchange: http://www. Your comments are getting childish now so I choose to ignore them. I don't think posting an article that quotes some of his opponents throwing ad hominems is a convincing argument. I'm not voting yet because I am still on the fence about him. I thought his INTJ self-assuredness was obvious. htmland if you're going to insist on typing him as an F type he'd be INFP. You aren't wrong. " I agree, but let's dig a little deeper. "We need room to discuss and debate here without being bogged down with personal political opinions. He is so IMPARTIAL to each side that he operates with no blinders, putting himself at odds with certain mainstream political movements. The endnotes supply more frustration. and you'll see what I mean. Chomsky's arguments, by contrast, suggest that he knows he is "right" for primarily ethical reasons that he then backs up with supporting logic. ' This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir. Samantha Power on Chomsky’s argument style: "Chomsky's glib and caustic tone is distracting. htm - Is it "impersonal" or "dispassionate. Basically, that Dershowitz isn't your definition of INTP (which coincidentally works as he's an ExTJ). This is more a a stubborn, driven Ni approach. Intelligence and impartial analysis are mutually exclusive. That said I think if I were typing them on that exchange alone, I would indeed assume they are different types with Harris more Fe and Chomsky more Ti. Haven't voted yet though. The biggest leap being that you somehow attributed the logic to me being that of "Linguistics is an INTP field" rather than "Chomsky's attitude on the subject of linguistics is INTP". Especially when I explained in general terms what it was about how he attacked intellectual subjects that made me think he was an INTP. He is intelligent and mature and one of the greatest modern intellectuals but he never was a non partisan, non aligned one. I am pointing to the inconsistent approach he takes in using media reports. info/letters/20060817. Compare with someone like Harris, a prominent Fe user who is perfectly at home in that arena. INFJs are visionaries and idealists who ooze creative imagination and brilliant ideas.. When I say impartial, I don't mean that he's accepting of dumb arguments and illogical sides. INTJ are much more comfortable applying the theories they like to achieve results they like (a somewhat large generalization, but Chomsky tends to divorce himself from any theory and pick out small tidbits from within them). The quotes you provide suggest that he *debates* like an INTP but like I said, debating style doesn’t necessarily say much about type since it’s a formal setting. com/guess-type/603898-noam-chomsky. But for him, the key reason he's so convicted in his beliefs is not because they are logical, but because they are ethical (in his view). Read this exchange: http://www. Actually I think he's INTJ like Richard Rorty. INTPs for the most part might be neutral to right and wrong and more likely be interested in truth and fallacy. I also disagree that being conservative invalidates Scruton's viewpoints, but since you do, I'll drop that point. " This attribute of INFJ is exactly why Chomsky cannot be one. Chomsky, however, had no interest in debating Harris about misunderstandings and only responded to correct ways Harris misunderstood him (which only made him more convinced a public debate would be unfruitful). Any type will be impassioned if he/she is utterly convicted that he/she had seen the "truth" and some people weren't listening. ” Are you sure the fact you agree with Chomsky isn’t making you think he’s more impartial than he is. I see him as INFJ. Also saying "very Ni-ish" means nothing. When I say right, I mean logically deduced. any opposing data ptoduced by media is "controlled by the governments". I can live with INFP but it seems the thing that gets him off track is when he feels like he is in an arena where logical standards aren't being enforced.
. I might be an idiot but you were hypocritical in a sense, implying that his take on linguistics is INTPish but then argued that you can't mate a type with his political foresights. He has a clear preference for inductive reasoning, which is correctly identified as Ti and then used by function magicians to type him as INFJ due to "Ni", even though Ne is obvious in how he has a strong history of creating his own theories from pretty much scratch to be consistent with empirically verifiable facts and processes. he doesn’t primarily focus on reinforcing logical standards, contrary to what you think). So I'd disagree that Chomsky primarily "logically deduces" his beliefs and defends them by "showing inconsistencies in the counterarguments in an impersonal, intellectually honest, dispassionate manner. Roger Scruton on the two different Chomskies: http://www. They are extroverted, idealistic, charismatic, outspoken, highly principled and ethical, and usually know how to connect!. His humanism is legion. It's filled with fiery language and ad hominem. Another crazy notion of mine: especially when you're a philosopher dismissing a theory because of inconsistencies can be Te rather that Ti. See the fallacy. @scotty - The problem is Chomsky's politics are such an important part of his personality that you can't really ignore them. But if that's too much for you to handle, look at what he's done outside of politics, and tell me where this strong "Fe" or "Ni" is. " *Again, even if Dershowitz is 100% wrong and Chomsky is 100% right, you can't deny that Chomsky's *manner of rebuttal* seems very, very unlike what one would expect from a Ti-dom. Boldness, clarity, boring speaker, "don't want to be swayed. And lol@refusing to look at the arguments of the other side. If he has a Ne/Si axis he’d be an INFP, though I’m also convinced that Chomsky is not a T-inferior. I feel that his take on the subject is very Ni-like. But he doesn’t. Care to elaborate how his take on linguistics is INTPish. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.. The thing that really makes his INTPness clear to me is how he tends to advocate for certain ways of thinking about things, rather than clearly defined ideologies. He is definitely an IN though. Well, that published exchange with Harris makes him look more INTP than I thought possibleI will say, just as a general response to Ventus's posts, that it seems to be more of a Fi type passion that he is arguing for rather than a Fe one. Seems like you have a personal stake in defending Chomsky which would be great on a political forum. Ventus, about his exchanges with Dershowitz, it may help to understand the history between them. Well of course, everyone thought he was INTP. To him his opponents are never right, mostly morally. And far from being devoid of hope, it's almost impossible to find an establishment critic more passionate and animated when talking about the ability of people to join together to create real social and political change. I've witnessed a lot of INTP vs INTJ debates and Chomsky clearly is on the side of INTP which I am now entirely convinced about. Why don't you read or listen to Chomsky's arguments rather than listen to what a conservative in Rupert Murdoch's rag says about how he forms his arguments. But maybe its not that clear. You are also flawed in your argument when you clearly favour Chomsky over his opponents. Have to get to work now. :-) Six points: (1) Beyond the fact that Dershowitz seems extroverted while Chomsky seems introverted, it’s hard to glean anything significant about their types just from that debate. Even if not directly tested, public voting can provide good accuracy regarding Noam Chomsky Myers-Briggs and personality type!. Giving the vibe that Chomsky is right and his opponents are wrong thus their opinion of him doesn't matter. com/Noam-chomsky-chomsky-zizek-debate-annotatedWait his political ideology has a type. (BTW I’m not saying your political beliefs aren’t impartial—in fact, there probably are impartial ways to arrive at them—all I’m saying is that Chomsky’s manner of arriving at them isn’t impartial). Turning that into "all media is controlled" is intellectually dishonest rubbish. I think if you read the whole exchange you will come to the conclusion that he truly is an INTP. I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is. Quoted from zizka:. But even then each type would go about arguing for the "truth" in a different way. Chomsky has a definite agenda, he is a clear partisan. Led a penchant for logic and reason, this controversial linguist can only be INTJ. If you only look at Chomsky as a linguist then you won't get a full picture of his personality. So during the whole exchange Harris tried to keep polite and open-minded so as to remain cordial and clear things up as if the debate were public. It would have been a strawman had he not said that. I don't know where do you see his impartiality when even he doesn't claim it. In doing so, he is comfortable constraining himself within the walls of academia where he tears down theories at their core. I didn't cite the article to make a political statement but to show how he thinks. That leaves INTJ and INFJ and though I could see Fi at a level, I find his contrast with Dershowitz to show he prefers Ti over Te and I find his tendency to reliably side with the weak and draw moral equivalencies between people that do not always seem equivalent to show Fe over Fi. In this site you can find out which of the 16 types this character 'Noam Chomsky' belongs to!. And even in linguistics, he doesn't seem to be that sure of what his endpoints look like, but he concerns himself more with steering the debate in the right direction. Bill Clinton's humanitarian rationale for the Kosovo war was ridiculed 'by leading military and political analysts' in Israel, we are told, but the citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself. But debating style doesn’t really say much about types because it’s a formal setting. @scotty yeah I too have noticed a fair number of INFJ votes for Chomsky recently, and if they indeed are troll votes they should be removed. , Christopher Hitchens, George Lakoff, Richard Perle, Hilary Putnam, Willard Van Orman Quine, John Maynard Smith, and Alan Dershowitz, to name a few. Funny thing the interviewer asked him the same question. To quote what I said earlier, "In fact he does just what you say he doesn't (showing inconsistencies in the counterarguments in an impersonal, intellectually honest, dispassionate manner). When an INTP knows they're right, they are going to be very stubborn too. Strawmen don't prove points. More specifically, where passion actually shapes his ideology more than what can be expected of a typical INTP. @Typer yes they do not seem to take the same approach in that exchange. In politics there will always be people out there trying to assassinate someone's character so that you don't listen to their opinions. When he agrees with a claim, Chomsky introduces it with the word 'uncontroversially' or credits it to 'distinguished authorities. Even if Scruton is ideologically 100% wrong and Chomsky is ideologically 100% right, Scruton's observations about Chomsky's manner of forming his political arguments remain the same. But anyway watch that Youtube video I talked about and you will see that it is not Chomsky's natural style to respond in that manner, but he just wanted to put it on the record. Don't worry - yours wasn't a special strawman that did. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his politics it's clear that precise, INTPish linguistics-Chomsky and stubborn, morally impassioned politics-Chomsky are two very different beasts. ” (6) Chomsky is extremely intelligent and thus, no matter if he’s INTP or INFJ, will have more powerful Ti than most Ti-doms. http://personalitycafe. I have had my fair share of debates with INFJs and they are not that level headed. He brings a level of precision and intuitive understanding to every topic he approaches as an INTP would. I thought Chomsky was a clear cut case of an INFJ intellectual. Welcome to MBTIBase - PersonalityBase, here you can learn about Noam Chomsky MBTI type.. Also, inductive reasoning is known to be more of the INTP way while INTJ more deductive. Of all the introverted intuitive types, INFJ makes the least sense by far. Ventus, like I said before, he has plenty of material you can read yourself that you really don't have to quote other people on his argumentation style, when you can just read his exchanges with Harris and Zizek for starters. ' Those who don't share his viewpoint don't simply disagree; they are the 'prevailing intellectual culture' or the 'educated classes. You're just inconsistent. In his debate with Zizek he makes his distaste for "theory", basically academic garble with no logical backbone, very clear. "I firmly disagree that one should disregard Chomsky's political arguments when typing him since they're a key part of his personality and, unlike linguistics, are not dependent on his T function. I mean he looks at geopolitics through an unbiased perspective and shows minimal bias because he doesn't jump to conclusions.
. " "We don't want to be swayed by superficial eloquence, by emotion and so on. Look in the INTP vs INTJ threads scattered over the internets. as well as why I don't care what someone in Murdoch's rag says about him. This is true even in politics; examine any INTP political theorist, president, economist, etc. He only borrows data that suits him, any opposing data ptoduced by media is "controlled by the governments". " -- Which was why I initially suggested keeping politics out of it. You're correct in identifying his Ti, I think, but he seems much too singularly focused, morally impassioned, and closed-off to opposing views to be INTP. Sorry if that wasn't the point. One thing he's not is INFJ though. -----Yeah, you made it, it's called a "strawman". " In response to his speaking style being criticized as boring, Chomsky said, "I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way. Isabel Briggs Myers, a researcher and practitioner of Jung’s theory, proposed to see the judging-perceiving relationship as a fourth dichotomy influencing personality type.. In his personal life most people describe him as pretty gentle and diffident. One thing I’d definitely expect if Chomsky were INTP (since INTPs are Ti-dom and thus unlikely to be convinced by anything but sound logic) is that his highest priority would be to prove *logically* that Dershowitz is a provocateur and intellectually dishonest. I'm open to better arguments but remain an INFJ vote and don't see how Chomsky is impartial and dispassionate. That's why you have to go straight from the horse's mouth to actually attempt to type him based on his politics. The article doesn't just quote ad hominems.