This is Your Brain on Type

[Snuggletron]

I blame the few wasted teenage years with my brain on LSD, coke, meth, weed, shrooms. Doors of Perception, yo. Or perhaps being a well traveled and well rounded military brat growing up. Gives the illusion of intuition. Or maybe it's that I'm a Fi/Ne type with a dad who was desperate to make me play sports and who insisted I not come home unless I beat the shit out of neighborhood bullies.

Seriously, I really don't know why I can see myself in different types. Or why some others can't. MBTI is a little confining. That's all I can say.

maybe you're insane and can't be typed. Sir, may I assist you in recovering all of your malfunctioning brain pieces?

Sir, are you implying that I am a scoundrel?? Why, if you continue spreading your poxing ideas upon this fair land then I shall turn you in to the City Watch!

I think I just copied your "sir" sentence structure to reply to Kdude. Does this mean we are both scoundrels? Sir? Sir??

Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good blaster at your side.

 

[KDude]

maybe you're insane and can't be typed.

I'm not insane. I think I'm just an ISP, who believes in doing the right thing, and doesn't have Asperger's in the emotional department. I mistook it for Fi. That, or I am Fi.. but can make logical deductions, don't skip across fields with a kite, and not in the business of giving people free handjobs. Either/or.

 

[Snuggletron]

so you're link?

<----

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I read it, very interesting. A psychologist friend of mine who normally dismisses all the personality stuff got REALLY interested of it and found the results awesome.

My points of interest:
The primarly Te people had efficient brains, meaning that they didn't use parts of the brain not needed for a task.
Calculations could be perfromed fast either with using just a few parts of the brain, or many.
The one who was slow and got the math questions wrong used many parts of the brain, some with full activation, others with mediocre activation.

I think that first point explains a crucial difference between me and some of the folks I've been observing. People who understand technical and mathematical subjects wrong often seem to make all kinds of connections between subject matter and real life.. they attach all kinds of humane meanings to numbers, concepts and operations where there aren't any. Seems like superior math skills don't come from letting your brain use all it's parts at a one time. It seems like the key is silencing the unneeded parts.

I've sometimes thought of people who say "everything's connected to everything". Well. I've always thought that many things are connected to many things, but some things can be proven to be independent, i.e. they are not connected.

Personally I feel I like to make the good connections, not all the connections. I dislike people who barely make any connections at all, though.

The introvert's brain on idle mode.. they're using more of their brain when doing NOTHING than I'm probably using when I'm doing some technical job of mine WELL. No wonder they're irritated over almost any stimulus.

Nice study there.

 

[Seymour]

I read it, very interesting. A psychologist friend of mine who normally dismisses all the personality stuff got REALLY interested of it and found the results awesome.

I agree it's fascinating. Makes me wish there were more data available, and the number of subjects was high enough to be significant. Nardi says he has more data now, and is going to be writing a book in the spring (who knows when it will be published, of course).

My points of interest:
The primarly Te people had efficient brains, meaning that they didn't use parts of the brain not needed for a task.

You'll note that three sample levels of activity were given. "Fast, efficient and correct," "slow, efficient and wrong," and "fast, inefficient and correct." So, whether being efficient at thinking is good or bad remains to be seen, since it's shown for both the right and wrong answers. It raises the question if "slow, efficient and wrong" could have found an alternate route to the correct answer if that person has been less efficient and devoted more mental resources to the task.

Calculations could be perfromed fast either with using just a few parts of the brain, or many.
The one who was slow and got the math questions wrong used many parts of the brain, some with full activation, others with mediocre activation.

Actually, slow and wrong is labeled as "efficient." Plus, slow and wrong used two brain regions at a lower intensity... so whether that's net less brain activation than "fast, efficient and right" seems debatable. Based on the statement about "Two of these subjects voluntarily reported that they had 'efficient thinking.' And so they did! Even when they got tasks wrong." It sounds like the two "efficients" could both be Te doms. Still, it's unclear since Nardi doesn't spell it out.

I know that subjectively I sometimes get frustrated with my ESTJ relatives, because just getting them to step back and reconsider can be a major hurdle. I wonder if they are so "efficient" that they discount things before truly evaluating them.

I think that first point explains a crucial difference between me and some of the folks I've been observing. People who understand technical and mathematical subjects wrong often seem to make all kinds of connections between subject matter and real life.. they attach all kinds of humane meanings to numbers, concepts and operations where there aren't any. Seems like superior math skills don't come from letting your brain use all it's parts at a one time. It seems like the key is silencing the unneeded parts.

I would say it's more like engaging the correct parts or using alternate means successfully. You'll note that the "inefficient" fast and right math answerer engaged many parts of the brain, but was still fast and right. Seems like the inefficient (but fast and correct) person didn't engage p3 (elsewhere labeled as "identify objects") like the efficient and correct person did, and instead used a host of other brain regions to get the correct answer. Again, not enough information too do more than make wild conjectures.

The introvert's brain on idle mode.. they're using more of their brain when doing NOTHING than I'm probably using when I'm doing some technical job of mine WELL. No wonder they're irritated over almost any stimulus.

Well, it's long been known that introverts require less external input to perform well on tasks. For example, I cannot do anything requiring real concentration with music (especially music with lyrics) or the TV on. However, I know extraverts that absolutely need background music or the TV on in order to stay stimulated enough to focus on their current task. Conversely, an introvert will hit a point of overstimulation long before an extravert. Whether one is "better" or not is debatable... partially depends on the individual managing his or her environment for optimal performance.

 

[Lily flower]

•Te-doms and Ti-doms were more "mentally efficient." That is, there brains were minimally activated much of the time, unless interesting analysis was called for.

Well, when my brain is turned off, I don't call it "mentally efficient," and I don't think that is what I would call it for other people either.

 

[Rail Tracer]

The very first task every subject does is a series of simple exercises to achieve a ‘blank’EEG:
-“Close your eyes, relax, breath, clear your mind.” Works well, my mind is more concentrated on breathing.
-“Pick a point ahead of you in your field of view and stare it for as long as you can.” Works pretty good too. My mind is concentrated on that one point.
-“Draw one circle repetitively over and over.” This one annoys me since the pen/pencil makes noise...since I'm drawing it repeatedly... good way to take anger out though.
-“Close your eyes, pick a simple word and repeat it to yourself for as long as you can.” This one is kind of annoying also. It is like telling yourself that you aren't going to get mad, but you get mad anyways.

Something like an XXXP?

Well, it's long been known that introverts require less external input to perform well on tasks. For example, I cannot do anything requiring real concentration with music (especially music with lyrics) or the TV on. However, I know extraverts that absolutely need background music or the TV on in order to stay stimulated enough to focus on their current task. Conversely, an introvert will hit a point of overstimulation long before an extravert. Whether one is "better" or not is debatable... partially depends on the individual managing his or her environment for optimal performance.

It is probably why I HATE having a clock that makes any type of ticking noise in my room. It makes it really hard for me to fall asleep because my mind is on that annoying ticking sound.

I do notice that music tends to quiet my mind (it has to be "slow" though) so that I do not think of anything in particular. However, like you, I tend to turn off music when it is counter-productive and I need to concentrate on something.

Would be better with more of the other types to test.

 

[FDG]

•Te-doms and Ti-doms were more "mentally efficient." That is, there brains were minimally activated much of the time, unless interesting analysis was called for.

Well, when my brain is turned off, I don't call it "mentally efficient," and I don't think that is what I would call it for other people either.

That's how it's technically defined in physics (i.e. a lower amount of energy will be expended in order to perform the same task), though, so what you personally think cannot be considered terribly relevant in a scientific study.

 

[highlander]

Ni associated activities seem to be in the wrong place according to Lenore (she says on left side. Nardi says right side

 

[Zarathustra]

Ni associated activities seem to be in the wrong place according to Lenore (she says on left side. Nardi says right side

I'm with Nardi on that one...

Btw, his cognitive processes test on that website is the best I've ever taken...

 

[Salomé]

The introvert's brain on idle mode.. they're using more of their brain when doing NOTHING than I'm probably using when I'm doing some technical job of mine WELL. No wonder they're irritated over almost any stimulus.

Doing nothing requires a lot of thought.

Meanwhile, ENTJ "area of expertise": Pointing while reading.
It didn't say whether their lips moved at the same time.

 

[EJCC]

[*] Te-doms and Ti-doms were more "mentally efficient." That is, there brains were minimally activated much of the time, unless interesting analysis was called for.

Huh.

Something worth introspecting about, on my part.

 

[Seymour]

There's another study out on brains and personality... this time looking at the Big Five and the size of areas of the brain: Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five.

This study includes some fun pictures:

From the discussion (note I give the MBTI equivalents, but keep in mind this table... talking about correlations of correlations gets to be a bit tenuous) :

Extraversion (which correlates with MBTI Extraversion, of course):

Extraversion was associated with the volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex. This region is involved in coding the reward values of stimuli, and has therefore been hypothesized to be a substrate of Extraversion (Depue & Collins, 1999), which appears to reflect sensitivity to reward. Increased volume of orbitofrontal cortex has been associated with Extraversion in two other studies (Omura, Constable, & Canli, 2005; Rauch et al., 2005), and our study provides further evidence for this association.

Neuroticism (no MBTI equivalent)

Neuroticism was associated with reduced volume in dorsomedial PFC and a segment of left medial temporal lobe including posterior hippocampus, and with increased volume in the mid-cingulate gyrus, including both gray and white matter. These associations are consistent with the theory that Neuroticism represents the primary manifestation in personality of sensitivity to threat and punishment, encompassing traits that involve negative emotion and emotional dysregulation. J.A.

These associations are consistent with the theory that Neuroticism represents the primary manifestation in personality of sensitivity to threat and punishment, encompassing traits that involve negative emotion and emotional dysregulation. J.A. Gray and McNaughton (2000) have implicated the hippocampus in the detection of uncertainty and goal conflict and in the control of rumination and anxiety, functions they linked to Neuroticism. In addition, reduced hippocampal volume has been associated with stress and depression (Bremner et al., 2000). The mid-cingulate cortex has been associated with detection of error and response to pain, both physical and emotional (Carter et al., 1998; Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004). A larger volume in this region in individuals who score higher in Neuroticism may reflect higher sensitivity both to the possibility of error and to pain following punishment. Finally, dorsomedial PFC has been implicated in evaluation of the self and in emotion regulation (Heatherton et al., 2004; Ochsner & Gross, 2005). A smaller volume in this region may be related to the emotional dysregulation associated with Neuroticism and to the related tendency to evaluate the self negatively. Taken together, these associations present clear evidence that Neuroticism is broadly related to variation in brain systems governing sensitivity to threat and punishment.

So neuroticism is related to (among other things) a sensitivity to pain and punishment, combined with an inability to self regulate.


Agreeableness (which correlates with MBTI Feeling):

Agreeableness was associated with reduced volume in posterior left superior temporal sulcus and with increased volume in posterior cingulate cortex. The superior temporal sulcus is involved in the interpretation of other individuals’ actions and intentions on the basis of biological motion (Pelphrey & Morris, 2006), a process that may be more efficient in individuals who score higher in Agreeableness. The posterior cingulate has been implicated in the process of understanding other individuals’ beliefs, a sophisticated, late-emerging component of theory of mind (Saxe & Powell, 2006). These associations are consistent with the hypothesis that Agreeableness is associated with the social information processing that enables and motivates altruistic behavior. We also found an association between Agreeableness and volume in the fusiform gyrus, which we did not predict, but which is nonetheless consistent with a social information processing function, given the area's proximity to the fusiform region specialized for perceiving faces (Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun, 1997).

No huge surprises there.


Conscientiousness (which correlates with MBTI Judging):

Conscientiousness was associated positively with volume of the middle frontal gyrus in left lateral PFC. The region of association was large, stretching from close to the frontal pole to the posterior region of lateral PFC. The middle frontal gyrus is crucially involved in maintaining information in working memory and in the execution of planned action. In terms of brain function, moving from posterior to anterior regions of lateral PFC appears to entail an increasing hierarchy of abstraction and complexity, in terms of rules that are maintained and selected to guide behavior (Bunge & Zelazo, 2006). Our results may therefore reflect the association of Conscientiousness with effective self-regulation at multiple levels of complexity, which would be in keeping with this trait's importance as a predictor of academic and occupational performance, health, and longevity.

Which makes sense, considering that conscientiousness (or Judging) applies on a number of broad levels.


Openness/Intellect (which correlates with MBTI iNtuition):

We found no associations with Openness/Intellect in regions large enough to be significant at p < .05, corrected. However, we did find that Openness/Intellect was associated—at p < .01, uncorrected—with one region consistent with our hypotheses: an area of parietal cortex involved in working memory and the control of attention. A previous study found that a nearly identical region (Talairach coordinates: 46, −33, 45) showed the strongest correlation between neural activity (during a difficult working memory task) and intelligence (J.R. Gray et al., 2003). This finding is significant because Openness/Intellect is the only Big Five trait that has been consistently and positively associated with intelligence (DeYoung et al., 2005). Our current finding for Openness/Intellect is not conclusive, but it does indicate a specific ROI for testing in future studies.

The above is kind of interesting, since it would make sense that focusing on abstractions might require a certain kind of focus of attention; there is nothing physical about an abstraction to serve as sensory re-focusing reminder.

 

[Eric B]

Pretty good!
Though I belive Agreeableness corresponds more directly to the factors of Informing/Directing (paired with E/I in the Interaction Styles, and correspond with T/F for S's only) and Structure vs Motive (which pairs NT/SJ and SP/NF, and corresponds with T/F for N's only), and represents the old temperament factor of "people vs task". The "focus on others' intentions" mentioned would seem to go along with that.
Also, Conscientiousness would fit Keirsey's Cooperative/Pragmatic (J/P for S's only), which partly shapes the speed one takes action (do what works/what's right). Sure enough, this report mentions "execution of planned action".

Openness, as representing S/N, then becomes a cross-factor, if you take the conative matrix to be Str/M and C/Prg. Hence, the weaker association. It would be already implicit in two of the other factors.

 

[Thalassa]

That's cool, my SLUAI then corresponds perfectly with ENFP.

Although sometimes I have SLUEI, which brought up an ENTP result on one test. I know I'm not an ENTP though.

I resent the implication that Feeling always means "niceness."

 

[stalemate]

not in the business of giving people free handjobs

I don't think "we" are going to work out...

 

[Eric B]

This discussion plus the one on Fudjack-Dinkelaker got me thinking of how the 32 types can be represented, since with three letter codes, you can use Comfort-Discomfort as the new fourth letter.

(C=Comfort; D=Discomfort; Melancholy & Choleric: Discomfort; Phlegmatic & Sanguine: Comfort per Eysenck; Supine is also Discomfort. Affection temperament (third letter in ICA codes) also affects C/D. TDI = MBTI Type Differentiation Indicator which adds C/D)

MBTDI|Globl5|Jung|Fj/D|Inclusion/Control/Affection (M-Mel, C-Chol, P-Phleg, G-sanGuine, S-Supine)

INFPC RCUAI IFNC inFc PPP, PPG (Mod C: PPM, PPC, PPS SPP, SPG, PSP, PSG)
INFPD RLUAI IFND inFd SSS, SSM, SSC (Mod D: SPS, SPC, SPM, SSM, SSC, SSG, PSS, PSC, PSM)
INTPC RCUEI ITNC inTc PCP, PCG
INTPD RLUEI ITND inTd SCS, SCM, SCC (Mod D: PCS, PCM, PCC, SCG, SCP)
INFJC RCOAI INFC iNfc MPP, MPG
INFJD RLOAI INFD iNfd MSM, MSS, MSC (Mod D: MSG, MSP, MPM, MPC, MPS)
INTJC RCOEI INTC iNfc MCP, PCG
INTJD RLOEI INTD iNfd MCM, MCC, MCS
ISTJC RCOEN ISTC iStc MMG, MMP
ISTJD RLOEN ISTD iStd MMM, MMS, MMC
ISFJC RCOAN ISFC iSfc PMP, PMG
ISFJD RLOAN ISFD iSfd SMS, SMM, SMC (Mod D: SMP, SMG, PMS, PMC, PMM)
ISTPC RCUEN ITSC isTc MGG, MGP
ISTPD RLUEN ITSD isTd MGM, MGS, MGC
ISFPC RCUAN IFSC isFc PGP, PGG
ISFPD RLUAN IFSD isFd SGS, SGM, SGC (Mod D: PGS, SGP, PGC, PGM, SGG)
ENFPC SCUAI ENFC eNfc GPG, GPP
ENFPD SLUAI ENFD eNfd GSS, GSC, GSM (Mod D: GSG, GSP, GPS, GPM, GPC)
ENTPC SCUEI ENTC eNtc GCG, GCP
ENTPD SLUEI ENTD eNtd GCC, GCM, GCS
ENFJC SCOAI EFNC enFc CPP, CPG
ENFJD SLOAI EFND enFd CSC, CSS, CSM (Mod D: CSP, CSG, CPC, CPM, CPS)
ENTJC SCOEI ETNC enTc CCP, CCG
ENTJD SLOEI ETND enTd CCC, CCM, CCS
ESTJC SCOEN ETSC esTc CMP, CMG
ESTJD SLOEN ETSD esTd CMC, CMM, CMS
ESFJC SCOAN EFSC esFc GMG, GMP
ESFJD SLOAN EFSD esFd GMM, GMC, GMS
ESTPC SCUEN ESTC eStc CGG, CGP
ESTPD SLUEN ESTD eStd CGC, CGM, CGS
ESFPC SCUAN ESFC eSfc GGG, GGP
ESFPD SLUAN ESFD eSfd GGS, GGM, GGC