User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 211

  1. #91
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Book arrived today, so now I'll see what all the hoopla is about (looks interesting, from what I can see glancing through it).
    I said this book was gonna end up in the collection of books I want to read but never will. Now I only have one chapter left.

  2. #92
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    unless a truly scientific approach was/is taken, we're not left with any conclusiveness or truly reliable, consistent means of determining mbti, or validating that any of these categories exist in any meaningful way.

    ... if you could actually PROVE to someone that they are type ABCD and only ABCD and can't possibly be any other type, then that's something. But having people read literature, determine / self-report that they're INFJ or ISTP, and then have them provide that information to someone who then wants to see what an 'INFJ's or ISTP's brain function is like' doesn't prove much of anything - it only states that EEG results of someone who thinks they're a certain type (but you can't prove they're that type because there's no universal consensus of how to determine type)
    Excellent.
    Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.

  3. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Excellent.
    Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.
    True. However, if enough people self-report as a certain type, and an aggregate of the results show a consistent and distinct pattern for people reporting as that type that is statistically significant in comparison to controls/the rest of the types, I'd say regardless of a standardized identification method, that itself proves integrity of information. Again, it comes down to the disappointing sample size. Which again, future research will hopefully benefit from the renewed focus and opportunity due to the sexiness of the book.

  4. #94
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Seconding @Jaguar in his thanking of @cascadeco. The reality is that we haven't yet arrived at a consistent pattern, and so we should probably stop talking as if we have.

    We'll get there someday, though. Research like this that aims to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical is a great start. @uumlau's analogy along the lines of typology being a 'rough cut' (and one of many possible explanations) akin to the four elements is apt.

    Even if Dario's research isn't conclusive, it sure points to a methodology that's ripe with potential.

  5. #95
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Excellent.
    Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.
    I suspect it's obvious to far more people than you suggest.

    If it were 100% conclusive science, there would be no discussions, there would be lessons. There were never any "discussions" of physics in my years of study, except on those topics where the science was not settled. And that's where the real science was being done.

    We are obligated to discuss that of which we are collectively ignorant in order to discover how much we know and how much we don't know. It doesn't necessarily gain us any insight into the right answers, but it provides much insight into what are the right questions.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Seconding @Jaguar in his thanking of @cascadeco. The reality is that we haven't yet arrived at a consistent pattern, and so we should probably stop talking as if we have.

    We'll get there someday, though. Research like this that aims to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical is a great start. @uumlau's analogy along the lines of typology being a 'rough cut' (and one of many possible explanations) akin to the four elements is apt.

    Even if Dario's research isn't conclusive, it sure points to a methodology that's ripe with potential.
    That's what I was trying to say.

  7. #97
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    ... if you could actually PROVE to someone that they are type ABCD and only ABCD and can't possibly be any other type, then that's something. But having people read literature, determine / self-report that they're INFJ or ISTP, and then have them provide that information to someone who then wants to see what an 'INFJ's or ISTP's brain function is like' doesn't prove much of anything - it only states that EEG results of someone who thinks they're a certain type (but you can't prove they're that type because there's no universal consensus of how to determine type) are a certain result. What if someones' brain results in reality match the results of an NTP or SFP, but they don't identify with either of those types and others wouldn't type them as either of those types? What would that imply about the usefulness of the system as it currently stands? These are all hypotheticals.. just things I think about as tied to this subject.
    I guess the question would be why they self-report as the given type in the first place. It would at least be some sort of clue as to what that type's brain function is like. There is a lot of overlap and variation, and many reasons why their self-report might not match what others say. (He uses his Interstrength Cognitive Assessment {ISCA}, which measures the eight processes; appears like a more professional version of the Keys 2 Cognition we have discussed here. I guess he is confident on its accuracy).

    I think it would be interesting, if the EEG was done first, and then they were typed afterward, to see if it matches.

    I'm still trying to piece together what is what with the 16 brain region "skills-sets" (As he calls them). But while reading, it dawned on me how his research and Lenore's theory on the hemispheres might not contradict at all, as was initially suggested. Nardi emphasized that the areas he was mapping were the "neo-cortex". I looked up in Lenore's book for where she placed the J (Je/Pi) left and P (Pe/Je) right, E-front and I-back locations, but it doesn't say. (There's also the "Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint" article, but the Internet Archive is down, or something, so I couldn't check that out again).

    However she did explain to me the functions as "neurological connections" from the limbic system to the frontal cortex. In Nardi's research, "the functions" aren't what's located in these 16 areas. They just stimulate activity in these areas.
    So the functions aren't "things" located on the neocortex, so these connections they represent can still fit the right/left/front/back hemisphere order she mentioned, without contradicting the new research. (Plan to look for the common threads in which functions stimulate which areas since it seems Nardi doesn't put it all together in the book).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  8. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I
    I think it would be interesting, if the EEG was done first, and then they were typed afterward, to see if it matches.
    This would indeed be fascinating. This is the type of further research and play I hope is spurred.

  9. #99
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    However she did explain to me the functions as "neurological connections" from the limbic system to the frontal cortex. In Nardi's research, "the functions" aren't what's located in these 16 areas. They just stimulate activity in these areas.
    So the functions aren't "things" located on the neocortex, so these connections they represent can still fit the right/left/front/back hemisphere order she mentioned, without contradicting the new research. (Plan to look for the common threads in which functions stimulate which areas since it seems Nardi doesn't put it all together in the book).
    nardis work shows that its not just frontal cortex connections to limbic system. only the Fp(prefrontal) and F(frontal) sensors are on frontal cortex.

    i started to write a topic few days ago digging deeper into these brain areas that are connected to the areas where nardis sensors are, but got bored, saved what i wrote and dont feel like continuing to write that, but if you are interested about this, this is what i wrote so far, one thing you may notice that some sensors in nardis work are connected to same regions deeper in the brains, imo this is one of the essential things in understanding how typology relates to brain(excuse the lack of organization with this, it was just a sketch feel free to ask for clarification or extra info about something):

    This is the regular separation of brain lobes and shows sulcus.


    Sulcus basically means deep fissure. Central sulcus divides parietal lobe from frontal lobe and lateral sulcus divides frontal and temporal lobes. There is no connections between frontal lobe and parietal or temporal lobes on the surface of brains, but are connected in deeper parts of the brains.
    It should be mentioned that the areas on the different sides of central sulcus are (on the frontal side) primary motor area(controlling movement http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_...06_cr_mou.html) and (on the parietal side)primary somatosensory(feeling touch). Nardis C3/4 sensors seem to be measuring both of these areas with each sensor.



    And here is how nardi placed the sensors on his work:


    Frontal lobe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobes :


    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #100

    Default

    I think lenores works compliments nardis
    If you go to personalitypathways you'll see she talks about how the four quadrants arent really where the functions are located but the part of the brain needed for the process to take place.
    No front left hemisphere no extraverted judgement etc

Similar Threads

  1. Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 629
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 06:03 PM
  2. [JCF] Neuroscience of Personality - Dario Nardi
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-24-2016, 09:30 AM
  3. Video: Authors@Google: Dario Nardi - Neuroscience of Personality
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2014, 09:26 PM
  4. The pitfalls of personality typing, and the nascence of neuroscience
    By karmacoma in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-08-2013, 04:47 PM
  5. The Novelty of Personality Types
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 06:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO