Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

EuroINTJ

Typing Max Weber

I was not aware that site existed. I always thought of him as a fellow INTJ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because he did extensive analysis of his studies of religions. Also because he didn't seem to be either for or against any particular religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd type him as: ANNOYING. I highly dislike his writing style, and his theories are, IMO, incomplete and simplistic at best. He lived right after Karl Marx, and Marx did a much better job at describing what makes humans, societies and organizations tick - both it terms of a coherent theory, and in terms of writing style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd type him as: ANNOYING. I highly dislike his writing style, and his theories are, IMO, incomplete and simplistic at best.
He's an INTP. He is liable to speak in a more general fashion, when you are looking for a specific answer to a specific question.
He lived right after Karl Marx, and Marx did a much better job at describing what makes humans, societies and organizations tick - both it terms of a coherent theory, and in terms of writing style.
I haven't read Marx. But the bits that I have, suggest that he asks good questions. His answers seem to be more like that of an INJ. Very good for him in the short term. Not necessarily applicable to others, and not really a general concept that is applicable to any country, without re-evaluating how it would work for that country in particular.

Take his comments about religion. TV is more like an opiate, because generally, TV seems to discourage thought and debate, while religions seem to generate huge amounts of debate, and huge amounts of thought, in almost every single person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's an INTP. He is liable to speak in a more general fashion, when you are looking for a specific answer to a specific question.

I haven't read Marx. But the bits that I have, suggest that he asks good questions. His answers seem to be more like that of an INJ. Very good for him in the short term. Not necessarily applicable to others, and not really a general concept that is applicable to any country, without re-evaluating how it would work for that country in particular.

Take his comments about religion. TV is more like an opiate, because generally, TV seems to discourage thought and debate, while religions seem to generate huge amounts of debate, and huge amounts of thought, in almost every single person.

Yes, the problem with Weber is that he's trying to deal with very complex systems using too abstract ideas. You cannot abstract human beings, and especially not human societies. Trouble is much of the Academia base some of their bullshit on his writings, which results in people not getting to the point. I get frustrated with people like him trying to figure out humanity or economics without talking and investigating psychology. That just ain't right. Even the greeks who lived thousands of years before him knew better. Aristotle was a far better theorist of humanity, society and human nature. One cannot even compare the two. Even in terms of language Aristotle surpasses him, and given the time gap that's not to be taken for granted...

You should really read Marx!

He regarded religion and TV (the media of his day anyhow) to be the same - a form of "false consciousness". This is a very interesting term that begs some serious reading.

Once you read his stuff you realize that all the "communists" and "marxists" who came after him were not promoting his theories, but their own take on them. Not that he didn't have some delusions here and there... but much of what he wrote never got implemented the way he thought it should have. The best author that analyzed Marx that I've encountered is Eric Fromm. He took Freud's (and maybe some of Jung's) work and used it to delve deeper into the psychology and sociology Marx was talking about in an age when they haven't yet existed. There are a few available audio books of Fromm online. Look up their torrent or via rapidshare-like sites. Very wise man, a pleasure to listen to. I used my free time cooking to listen to these books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, jonathanb, can you type Weber and explain why?

Nope, sorry. Haven't bothered reading a lot into his stuff since I didn't like much of what I read. I just remembered it momentarily for the relevant tests, and erased it from my mind as soon as it became irrelevant. I can no longer recall enough details to make such analysis.

But people saying he was INTP would make sense in my opinion. Very theory based, but too abstract for an INTJ in my opinion. As I wrote before - people who lived hundreds and thousands of year prior to him, who had similar aspirations in the analysis of political sciences and sociology, did a much better job. I think Marx is also superior as an intellectual and author because you see Marx relating to the many pieces of the puzzle. Marx points out to many relevant examples throughout history. From what I can remember, Weber wasn't all that great in making the analogies to historical events, characters and writings. Marx can be said to be more "holistic". He made an effort to look at the human beings, while Weber was merely examining the symptoms of human behavior.

Take Weber's treatment of leadership as an example. Said it must be one of three types - Rational, Charismatic, or Traditional. This is overly simplistic. People don't choose their leaders like that. I thought this to be simplistic long before I knew of the MBTI and Jung's theories. He's basically saying - people choose or accept leaders because of the type of leadership. It's the other way around! People have psychological preferences that these leadership types answer well, and there are also countless other factors at work here. I know Weber was long before Nazi Germany, but using his theories one could've argued that Hitler rose to power solely because of his Charisma. That's utter nonsense, and everyone who has studied WW2 history in-dept knows that. There were many more important factors that allowed for Hitler to rise, and without some of these no one would have even been exposed to his charisma. For instance - without sound-amplifying technology, he couldn't have rallied and makes speeches in front of hundreds of thousands and millions of people. Without the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the crowds wouldn't have been frustrated and alienated enough to accept his political agendas so willingly... Ironically enough, he helped write the Weimar constituion, which helped fuel Hitler's propaganda.

We also see that he waited towards a very late period in his life to publish his written "theories of everything" - a behaviour that's often associated with INTPs.

Edited by jonathanb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now