IEE Description (Gilligan)

[Gilly]

IN PROGRESS

Huxley lives in the world of potentiality. He clearly sees all that which is possible for him to accomplish by the means he possesses. He is a genius at identifying the personal strengths and weaknesses of others, and has a realistic idea of his own talents. However, his greatest talent, by far, is distinguishing ingenuine expressions of interest by others: he easily notices inconsistencies in behavior, and can easily connect the dots, recognizing with hardly any effort whether or not someone is being fake. In the same instant, he considers all of the possible motives behind such behavior, and determines the most likely one. He is a natural psychologist: he formulates models of interactions, and uses discrepencies in them to estimate their value to him.

[meatburger]

Its Flattering. I like it

[IcEPiCk]

cool. Can they mix drinks to jks


Its a good explaination. Its funny how they can determine someone is being fake, and yet come off as fake to some people.


Someone mind explaining why they are Giligan though?

[meatburger]

Yeah, i can definately see how we can come across as fake. I suppose i do fake that i like people just because its easier for me. I generally do like most people tho. Btw im not sure that telling if people are fake is actually my strongest part. Im sure i can do it to some extent though.

This morning on the train, i sat down on this seat and i looked across at this guy who seemed to want to sit down there. It was only a small flicker on his face. I motioned for him and he sat down and i moved to another seat. It turns out he knew the girl who was sitting opposite me (and she couldn't see him). Its not that special but it was a good example of how we can pick up non-verbal queues very easy. ?

Gilligan put his name on all the descriptions for some unknown reason icy

[Gilly]

I wrote them sillies

This one is a work in progress. As soon as I can appropriately piece my real life back together, I'll continue my work on them.

[mikemex]

Out biggest ability is to detect inconsistencies in people behaviour and abstract ideas.

For example, yesterday I was eating with my father (INTj) in a restaurant and he was explaining me the differences between religion and philosophy. He said "philosohpy doesn't give you definitive answers, but more relative ones; it always leaves you with more questions, unlike religion, which pretends to give you etheral truths".

Later we started to discuss about eutanasia:

He: "...it's persistent vegetative state; PVE is brain death and that's death".
Me: "Nope, it is not."
(my dad starts to be angry)
He: "Are you playing dumb right? In medical history no single person has returned from brain death."
Me: "No... we are not discussing the same thing. You have to understand the point of view of those who are against eutanasia. Maybe they are wrong from a philosophical point of view because a person who is in PVE will never recover, but they say they are still alive and that's a fact; unless the organic functions have ceased, you are still alive... You are telling me that once you are in PVE you are dead and that's not true".
He: "Don't start that, can you?"
Me: "But it's true. Rocks are 'dead'. A person is not only the mind, but the whole body, and if it is still alive, well, it's alive."
He: "Hey... but do you think they are really alive? They are usually supported by several machines..."
Me: "So does the people who requieres a dyalisis machine, are they 'dead' too?"
(my father gets even more angry)
He: Aja, and I am using glasses...
Me: "I'm just telling you that they are stating a fact: the body (and the reptilian brain) are still alive and thus, you are still alive..."
Me: "You just said when we were eating that philosophy doesn't give definite answers, so you can't make definite statements about eutanasia".
He: "Oh, well. Shut up."

That's probably why Thomas Huxley could debate with anyone and win. We are masters of empathy and can understand opposite points of view perhaps better than any other type. We might not be as good with logic as other types, but we don't really need it. Instead of thinking by ourselves, we generally just go and happily collect concepts from other people and apply them when necessary. By doing so we save a lot of time about creating ideas and instead spend quite a bit of it thinking how those ideas relate to others. Thus we can beat anyone down given enough "training", even an INTj genius like my dad.

Unlike sensors, whose abilities seem to be mostly innate, we intuitives need to train ourselves in order to be effective. That's why so many ENFp seem dumb and frivolous: that's their "undeveloped state". However, for those lucky ENFp who were raised in a stimulating (intelectual, artistic and such) enviroment, more often than not they are seen by others as extremelly bright and refined. "Perfectly rounded" as someone described Huxley.

Modesty, of course, should be erradicated for our own good

[olduser]

Out biggest ability is to detect inconsistencies in people behaviour and abstract ideas.

For example, yesterday I was eating with my father (INTj) in a restaurant and he was explaining me the differences between religion and philosophy. He said "philosohpy doesn't give you definitive answers, but more relative ones; it always leaves you with more questions, unlike religion, which pretends to give you etheral truths".

Later we started to discuss about eutanasia:

He: "...it's persistent vegetative state; PVE is brain death and that's death".
Me: "Nope, it is not."
(my dad starts to be angry)
He: "Are you playing dumb right? In medical history no single person has returned from brain death."
Me: "No... we are not discussing the same thing. You have to understand the point of view of those who are against eutanasia. Maybe they are wrong from a philosophical point of view because a person who is in PVE will never recover, but they say they are still alive and that's a fact; unless the organic functions have ceased, you are still alive... You are telling me that once you are in PVE you are dead and that's not true".
He: "Don't start that, can you?"
Me: "But it's true. Rocks are 'dead'. A person is not only the mind, but the whole body, and if it is still alive, well, it's alive."
He: "Hey... but do you think they are really alive? They are usually supported by several machines..."
Me: "So does the people who requieres a dyalisis machine, are they 'dead' too?"
(my father gets even more angry)
He: Aja, and I am using glasses...
Me: "I'm just telling you that they are stating a fact: the body (and the reptilian brain) are still alive and thus, you are still alive..."
Me: "You just said when we were eating that philosophy doesn't give definite answers, so you can't make definite statements about eutanasia".
He: "Oh, well. Shut up."

That's probably why Thomas Huxley could debate with anyone and win. We are masters of empathy and can understand opposite points of view perhaps better than any other type. We might not be as good with logic as other types, but we don't really need it. Instead of thinking by ourselves, we generally just go and happily collect concepts from other people and apply them when necessary. By doing so we save a lot of time about creating ideas and instead spend quite a bit of it thinking how those ideas relate to others. Thus we can beat anyone down given enough "training", even an INTj genius like my dad.

Unlike sensors, whose abilities seem to be mostly innate, we intuitives need to train ourselves in order to be effective. That's why so many ENFp seem dumb and frivolous: that's their "undeveloped state". However, for those lucky ENFp who were raised in a stimulating (intelectual, artistic and such) enviroment, more often than not they are seen by others as extremelly bright and refined. "Perfectly rounded" as someone described Huxley.

Modesty, of course, should be erradicated for our own good

tell us more about why u r so good.

[FDG]

Heath, stop the mean streak, c'mon. No need for it.

Mikemex: Huxley was pretty damn logical in his writings. I don't think that ENFps's best ability is to find incosistencies, though. This would make no sense from the perispective of a model which divides types into thinking and feeling; feeling types can be just as good at anything requiring logic, but I've rarely seen them trying too hard to apply logic to every domain of their lives.

Sensor abilities innate? What are you talking about?:S

[olduser]

Heath, stop the mean streak, c'mon. No need for it.

I wasn't being mean. When I get time I will clarify. You people seriously don't know mean from obstinate and honest.

[mikemex]

Jungian typology (socionics, MBTI, etc) presuposes two things: the linear model of the mind and the existence of all functions inside the mind of each individual

It's actually a very simple concept. Just imagine a set of glasses in front of each other with different opacities:



As light goes trough, some part of it is absorbed by each consecutive glass and thus the last one is almost completelly shadowed by the others. That's the "preference of functions" types is all about.

It's not that the sensing function of an ESTp is better than one of an INTj; what happens is that in the ESTp, sensing receives "full energy" to work, and thus it produces satisfactory results. In the INTj sensing is not weak, it just produces weak results due to lack of "energy" to work with.

In my opinion, from the evolution point of view, intuition and ethics are more evolved than sensing and logics. For example, reptiles lack the ability to have meaningful relationships with other members of their species. Apes, dolphins and other "superior" animals have the ability not only to relate with others beyond mere neccesity, but also of abstract thinking (apes can imagine an entity they never seen).

In my opinion, again, is intuition and ethics what makes us to be conscious. That might explain why Kiersey defines NF as "identity seeker". I would rather say the NF is "hyperconscious", as all healthy humans reach the conscious level.

Intuition is nothing but a function that extracts information from the subconscious. It requieres, obviously, that the subconcious contains something. Intuition handles abstract stuff because it works with internal information and impressions instead of real stimulus. It's cyclical and thus evolves.

Sensing, on the other hand, doesn't requiere a previous state and thus, in my opinion, does not evolve. A proof that sensing does not evolve lies in the Kiersey empirical observation that sensor judgers are routinary as in this types, intuition is the weakest function. Thus, sensor types are capable of learning trough their intuition function. Since intuition receives less "energy" to work with, an interesting effect occurs: it does not change the intelligence level, it only changes the direction. This is, the knowledge of the sensor types is oriented toward matters that sensory functions can handle easier.

That's why I say sensor types have more innate habilities than intuitives. It's something similar to what Desmond Morris explains in the "Nude Ape": neotenia, or the "trick" of nature of not be born with the abilities already set. Sensors are specialists and intuitives generalists. In the long term, I belive, it's a better bet to be a generalist as nature has shown us with rats, crocaches and... humans are the most succesful species.

Ethics is annother matter which I don't feel like discussing right now.