User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 211

  1. #111
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    I certainly wouldn't mind an EEG right now...

    I used to have them when I had a type of nocturnal epilepsy. I remember they used to tell me to relax and just sit there and think about things as normal while they shone different strobe lights in my eyes.

    They kept telling me off because they thought I was blinking too much or moving by what they could see on the scan and it was spiking while throwing off their readings...I just told them "No, i'm thinking, isn't that what I was told to do?"
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    After reading Dario Nardi's EEG readings of Analyzer Operators and Conceptualizer Directors it became quite evident I am not either of those 2 types since they lacked the categorization and deductive logic skills possessed by Designer Theorizers so it follows that I finally figured out that I believe myself to be a Designer Theorizer, disagree with me though you may.

    edit - After receiving a rep on this comment I realized I may have made a miscalculation on thinking I was Designer Theorizer as it is very possible that I overestimated my logical abilities hence they may not be sufficiently advanced enough for me to be Designer Theorizer or Analyzer Operator but rather I could be Conceptualizer Director which is a better brainstormer and visualizer as an Ni type not Ti like the other 2.
    Last edited by RaptorWizard; 11-04-2012 at 02:27 PM.

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    HEY GUYS GUESS WHAT LOLOLOL I IS ANALYZER OPERATOR ISTP

    btw Seymor is not an enneagram 5. Thats all folks!

  4. #114
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Thanks for posting this, @Seymour, I caught the google lecture today and read the presentations, but the book doesn't appear to be available outside the US. I'm not sure it's worth the shipping costs - Nardi strikes me as a bit of an intellectual lightweight.
    His presentation and methodology seem amateurish. Is the book stronger on theory/presentation? His conclusions seem superficial, vague and speculative.
    He claims that it provides "deep" support for Jungian functions, yet I see no evidence of this.
    Also, it seems to contradict some of the established facts about brain lateralisation (as conveyed in the excellent, The Master and his Emissary, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, the culmination of 20 yrs of research. Highly recommended, best book I've read this year.)

    What was interesting (do correct me if I've picked this up wrongly):

    ESTJ = classic "left-brain" thinking
    ETJs (very efficient but often wrong)
    ENJs (like being stuck on a highway with no off-ramp) lol
    Te= the lying function (!)

    Ti users are the most objective. (I guess that settles that argument.

    NPs consistently the most creative.

    Support for Thomson CF order (inferior =least-used).
    Ti doms make better use of Fi than Fe.

    The INTP who makes pays no attention to T5 (Fe?) and then all of a sudden experiences this intense over-stimulation which floods the other regions is a fantastic metaphor for inferior Fe (and it's not even a metaphor!).
    Similarly, Te users struggle more with Fi. (And it takes on the characteristic "negative" quality of the inferior when expressed).

    Ti supposedly engages 6 regions (more than any other function other than Ne) F3, F4, FP1,FP2 also P3&4 - is this just sensors or all Ti users? Is this an argument for SeTi as an indivisible quantity? But then, it can't be because ESTPs 'look like' INTPs. How to reconcile with function theory?

    I would have expected INTPs to show greater use of O1 - we are supposed to be model builders and "architects". We tend to do well with visual spatial tasks like mental rotation. So where is this activity? Or are we just so accomplished that it doesn't require enough mental effort to "light up"? Which observation (Nardi makes in one of his presentations) throws all his findings into question. He suggests that low level activation could be expertise - so how does he distinguish between weak use and mastery?

    Also surprised at the low T3 use. Precision in the use of language is supposed to be an INTP characteristic/preoccupation...

    INTPs are likely to quickly stop listening as they assess the [IR]relevance of what others are saying.
    Fixed.
    It's true that it's hard for us to listen to nonsense or redundant info. (Which made watching the video to the end a trial). Interesting to see that the listening regions literally shutdown. It's an involuntary response. I think it's related to being more visual (not auditory) learners. I can't take much spoken information in, even when motivated to do so. I need to see it written down / sketched out.

    F3 and F4 tend to be a lesser used region by most people (other than TPs), unless they have had training or real-world experience that require the use of those regions. Even Nardi sheepishly admitted that as an INTJ, he probably didn't really use those regions much (which one would think would be critical for logical reasoning).
    Unsurprising. I've noticed INTJs seem challenged when it comes to logic. And Nardi doesn't exhibit decent critical reasoning skills at all. I'm not sure if he just really dumbs everything down (for a wider audience) or if he's just really dumb. Having read some of his academic papers and the "books" he has co-authored, I lean towards the latter interpretation.

    Regarding this observation that only Ti users seem to have facility with this region (and not even all Ti users at that - which in itself, is an inconsistent finding) it seems odd to me that evolution would give us all much the same brain, and yet only a small % of the population actually get to use decent sized chunks of it without specialist training. Doesn't that seem odd to you? I also don't see which of the tasks were designed to stretch the "logic" centres. And if it is the case that INTPs resort to logic where logic is not required, how does that make them more efficient thinkers?
    ( I think the main criticism here is that the number of subjects (3-4) is simply too small to draw general conclusions. )
    One additional difference is humor. Use of F4 (precise definition and categorization) is associated with humor based on surprise and unexpected outcome. F4 humor is associated with incongruity, like puns (whatever one's opinion of them) and witticisms (like Wilde's "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal").

    ISTPs show less activation of F4, and tend towards a humor that graviates more towards breaking social conventions (TPs in general tend not to show a lot of activity in T5, which attends to social feedback).

    Of course, sense of humor varies amongst people of the same type, but Nardi did spend some time on the F4/incongruity humor correlation.
    Perhaps this helps explain why INTP humour only really seems to translate well to other INTPs. Although... a lot of very successful comedians are TPs, so which region are non-TP types using to appreciate this "F4" type of humour?
    Isn't all humour associated with incongruity and surprise? ( "breaking social conventions" is a sub-category)

    It does support the finding that humour, irony (and metaphor) are right-brain phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    He does (see p160 & 161 of Neuroscience of Personality). Nardi says he finds less statistical distance with our opposite type. In the workshop, he elaborated and said the closest secondary match of brain region usage was with the "near opposite type." He defined near opposite type as the type that results when you reverse your type code letters except E/I. So, INTJs were most similar to ISFPs, ENTPs to ESFJs, INFJs to ISTPs, etc. This matches up well the the theory of tertiary and inferior functions, since your "near opposite's" primary and auxiliary functions are your tertiary and inferior functions.
    Can you elaborate on this? How does it match up well?
    It doesn't make sense to me, nor is it consistent with what is presented above for INTPs (closest to ESTPs, not ISFJs).
    Or is it that opposite types are using the same brain regions, but very differently? This would make some sense, yet is inconsistent with his finding that we all use the same brain regions in the same way (which is not true, btw).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    @Salomé you said Ti users are the most logical/critical/objective thinkers, yet ISTPs, your Ti cousins, tested very low on expert classifier and deductive analyst.

    Clearly we lack the reasoning power possessed by INTPs, so your statement about Ti users as a whole was innacurrate, at least for ISTPs, like me (and I'm not that logical, yet I detected such a simple critical flaw in your "objective" reasoning, deductively debunking your classifications).

  6. #116
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    He claims that it provides "deep" support for Jungian functions, yet I see no evidence of this.
    Also, it seems to contradict some of the established facts about brain lateralisation (as conveyed in the excellent, The Master and his Emissary, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, the culmination of 20 yrs of research. Highly recommended, best book I've read this year.)
    That's an interesting one, thanks for the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Te= the lying function (!)
    Ive always thought Fe was the lying function myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Ti users are the most objective. (I guess that settles that argument.
    It's interesting what people value.

    Hmm typology....either it is bullshit with some diamond in it, or a diamond with a bit of bullshit in it. My main problem is that there isn't much in it's favour apart from heuristic observation. But I have to say I do not think people are just circumstantial deviations from a singular template, but nor do I believe that there is that much inherency in the types themselves.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    You know' Im actually a bit surprised by this, but apparently, the categories INTJ has high, like Process Manager, Precise Speaker, Purposeful Futurist, and Visual Engineer, are all high-mid for ISTP, and a few of the categories ISTP has high, like Chief Judge, and Abstract Impressionist, are both high-mid for INTJ, meaning that, at least in their ways of reasoning, ISTP and INTJ are actually quite similar, interesting, and apparently, ISTP and INTJ are overall fairly similar to INTP as well, all 3 sharing Chief Judge, Process Manager, and Visual Engineer, at least high to high-mid, which could largely explain why for a while I haven't been able to tell which of those 3 types I am, although I'm pretty good at soccer, which indicates tactical navigator and strategic gamer might be high for me, possibly making ISTP, Analyzer Operator, the best choice.

  8. #118
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Thanks for posting this, @Seymour, I caught the google lecture today and read the presentations, but the book doesn't appear to be available outside the US. I'm not sure it's worth the shipping costs - Nardi strikes me as a bit of an intellectual lightweight.
    His presentation and methodology seem amateurish. Is the book stronger on theory/presentation? His conclusions seem superficial, vague and speculative.
    He claims that it provides "deep" support for Jungian functions, yet I see no evidence of this.
    Also, it seems to contradict some of the established facts about brain lateralisation (as conveyed in the excellent, The Master and his Emissary, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, the culmination of 20 yrs of research. Highly recommended, best book I've read this year.)
    I'm surprised at the amount of weight you give to brain lateralization. Nardi's brief comments appear to conform to the wiki article on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral...brain_function). Basically, yeah, it's there, but it's way more complicated than just "left/right". The key correlation is that all the judging dominants primarily use FP1 (front left) and the perceiving dominants use FP2 (front right). After that, it's kind of a grab bag.

    As for his observations supporting Jungian functions, rewatch that section including the context that he's mentioning MBTI: his observations don't really correlate with the MBTI dichotomies, but they do strongly correlate with the Jungian functions. Looking at EEG vs MBTI, the Ns all look different, the Ss all look different, the Ps look different, and so on. But looking at Jungian functions, Ni doms are similar, Fi doms are similar, Si doms are similar, Te doms are similar, and so on, in both terms of the dynamic EEG patterns and the frequency of use of brain regions. There is some correlation with the auxiliary function, but it appears to be more in the dynamic EEG patterns associated with the functions, not the overall usage of brain regions.

    What was interesting (do correct me if I've picked this up wrongly):

    ESTJ = classic "left-brain" thinking
    Yeah, pretty much.
    ETJs (very efficient but often wrong)
    Not an inaccurate assumption, but keep in mind that the Te mantra is "good enough for now", not ultimate universal truth.

    ENJs (like being stuck on a highway with no off-ramp) lol
    Yeah, I found that amusing for both types (T/F).

    Te= the lying function (!)
    I'm not sure where you get this (what time segment of the video?).

    Ti users are the most objective. (I guess that settles that argument.
    Heheh.

    Note that the real observation is the emotional dissociation. In Ti mode, Ti types go into that "green" dissociative state, which pushes aside all emotionality. If you think about it, "objective" != "lack/disregard of emotion". Prejudices remain, they just aren't "emotional" ones. One of these prejudices is an instinctive distrust of emotion, which may very well still represent truth, even if it isn't derived logically.

    NPs consistently the most creative.
    That isn't really what he said. The Ne "Christmas tree" pattern is very useful for creativity. It is a particular version of creativity, qualitatively different from other kinds.

    Support for Thomson CF order (inferior =least-used).
    Yes.
    Ti doms make better use of Fi than Fe.
    Um, no. He doesn't say this anywhere. Rather, he discusses the dynamic nature of the inferior with his INTP embarrassment example. The Fe is still there as "embarrassment", but it doesn't trigger without a lot of stimulation.

    The INTP who makes pays no attention to T5 (Fe?) and then all of a sudden experiences this intense over-stimulation which floods the other regions is a fantastic metaphor for inferior Fe (and it's not even a metaphor!).
    Yes.

    Similarly, Te users struggle more with Fi. (And it takes on the characteristic "negative" quality of the inferior when expressed).
    Yes, though he doesn't explicitly say this.

    Ti supposedly engages 6 regions (more than any other function other than Ne) F3, F4, FP1,FP2 also P3&4 - is this just sensors or all Ti users?
    INTPs predominate with F3, F4 and C3. ISTPs use P3 and P4. ENTPs use C4 and P4. ESTPs use F3, F4, P3 and P4.

    Is this an argument for SeTi as an indivisible quantity?
    I wouldn't think so.

    But then, it can't be because ESTPs 'look like' INTPs. How to reconcile with function theory?
    Note that the correlation isn't just the use of regions, but also the dynamic patterns. The Ti types typically go into the green dissociative state. Also, I strongly suspect that the "frequency of use" of regions, while a useful metric, only "sort of" correlates with type: if one were to try to derive type from the frequency of use, one would often misread type, because the regions are also strongly associated with individual skill. Someone practiced in rote math or languages or sports will use P3 a lot, no matter the type. But only the Ti types will go green when they start thinking hard, and only the Fi types will go "blue" when they listen.

    I would have expected INTPs to show greater use of O1 - we are supposed to be model builders and "architects". We tend to do well with visual spatial tasks like mental rotation. So where is this activity?
    INTPs do indeed use O1, it just isn't primary. One way of looking at this is perhaps INTPs start from symbolic logic (F3), a strong sense of categorization (F4), and a mastery of facts (C3), and from that are able to visualize (O1) an overall model. Conversely, an INTJ would start from the visualization (O1) and sense of dynamics (T6, Purposeful Futurist), and gradually develop a model from that.

    An analogy might be, where an INTP would use "A=B and B=C, therefore A=C", an INTJ would instinctively use Venn diagrams, determine the intersection of A, B and C, and if they all coincide, then A = B = C. The INTJ logical fuzziness that INTPs detect is that because INTJs start with O1, there's a strong sense of "mostly equal" or an overall degree of equality. The INTJ keeps track of whether one is well within the boundaries of the A/B/C intersection, or if one is close to a boundary condition and must exert more rigor. A lot of INTP/INTJ crosstalk occurs when the topics of conversation are in this "mostly equal" state, with the INTP insisting that they just aren't at all the same, and the INTJ noting that it all works just fine as long as one ensures certain conditions are satisfied (without having to worry about what happens when the conditions aren't satisfied).

    Or are we just so accomplished that it doesn't require enough mental effort to "light up"? Which observation (Nardi makes in one of his presentations) throws all his findings into question. He suggests that low level activation could be expertise - so how does he distinguish between weak use and mastery?
    Low level activation is more of a casual or instinctive expertise. For instance, I'm sure that all my work spent moving my fingers to type this uses no real brain power - it's all "muscle memory". The brain power is being spent forming the thoughts and words, not typing them.

    Also surprised at the low T3 use. Precision in the use of language is supposed to be an INTP characteristic/preoccupation...
    There is an interesting distinction to be made here. The INTP equivalent is over in F4, the categorization. INTJs (and INFJs) use T3. This should give a clue as to what is really being discussed. Note that INTPs are "definition nazis", while INTJs are "grammar nazis". INTPs care about the "atomic" meaning of a word, i.e., a word should mean one thing, and only that one thing, and if the meaning is vague it should be specified. INTJs and INFJs instead care about the meaning of a sentence, how the words "dynamically" relate to each other.

    For example:
    Only he drove the car. [no one else drove]
    He only drove the car. [that's all he did]
    He drove only the car. [he didn't drive anything else]
    He drove the only car. [there was only one car, and he drove it]

    This suggests that T3 is about grammatical precision, not definitional precision, which appears to be the province of F4.

    Fixed.
    It's true that it's hard for us to listen to nonsense or redundant info. (Which made watching the video to the end a trial). Interesting to see that the listening regions literally shutdown. It's an involuntary response. I think it's related to being more visual (not auditory) learners. I can't take much spoken information in, even when motivated to do so. I need to see it written down / sketched out.
    Interesting to know.

    I have the opposite perspective: I don't know whether it's nonsense or redundant until I hear it and process it. Yes, when listening, one mostly pulls in useless data, but if one is really listening, one is listening FOR the USEFUL data. I put myself in a state where I'm keeping aware, but not consciously processing. Recently I was learning a dance move that had to be executed at one particular passage of music. A dance class is relatively short (50 minutes total), and so there isn't enough time to analyze the music to the degree I would want to. Instead, I had to listen. If I listened, then I could immediately transition and take my follower into a dip at the exact right moment, without thinking hard about it. If I tried to think about it, I'd miss the cue. (This would be an Fi/Se version of listening, something I can do, but it's not my usual approach.)

    Unsurprising. I've noticed INTJs seem challenged when it comes to logic.
    I've noticed INTPs seem challenged when it comes to meaning.

    To quote Heinlein:
    Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you--with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out.”
    And Nardi doesn't exhibit decent critical reasoning skills at all. I'm not sure if he just really dumbs everything down (for a wider audience) or if he's just really dumb. Having read some of his academic papers and the "books" he has co-authored, I lean towards the latter interpretation.
    I suspect he mostly dumbs things down. Also, the topics he pursues don't readily yield themselves to logical analysis.

    Regarding this observation that only Ti users seem to have facility with this region (and not even all Ti users at that - which in itself, is an inconsistent finding) it seems odd to me that evolution would give us all much the same brain, and yet only a small % of the population actually get to use decent sized chunks of it without specialist training. Doesn't that seem odd to you? I also don't see which of the tasks were designed to stretch the "logic" centres. And if it is the case that INTPs resort to logic where logic is not required, how does that make them more efficient thinkers?
    ( I think the main criticism here is that the number of subjects (3-4) is simply too small to draw general conclusions. )
    Yes, I think the number of subjects strongly affects the observations. I suspect you'd see higher usage among INTJs doing math/physics, where the intellectual rigor is required.

    Can you elaborate on this? How does it match up well?
    It doesn't make sense to me, nor is it consistent with what is presented above for INTPs (closest to ESTPs, not ISFJs).
    Or is it that opposite types are using the same brain regions, but very differently? This would make some sense, yet is inconsistent with his finding that we all use the same brain regions in the same way (which is not true, btw).
    From the data, it looks like INTJ/ISFP is one of the closer match-ups, while INTP/ISFJ is one of the worst. I suspect it has to do with how skills affect brain usage. Only the most technically adept of people have any call to use F3 and F4. It would be interesting to take a bunch of scientists, type them, and see how much they use F3 and F4.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  9. #119
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Thanks, uumlau, what you covered pretty much fits with my understanding (such as it is).

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Not an inaccurate assumption, but keep in mind that the Te mantra is "good enough for now", not ultimate universal truth.
    It's also all about efficiency and mental stamina. There's nothing wrong with that, but it might not be the ideal strategy in every case. (Just like Ne is not going to be ideal for producing consistent, standardized results against repetitive data.)



    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé
    Te= the lying function (!)
    I'm not sure where you get this (what time segment of the video?).
    I think maybe she's referring to "facile explainer" function of FP1, where it can generate logical sounding reasons for why we chose to do something... reasons that may have nothing to do with the truth. Note that we all use FP1 and FP2, it's a question of which predominates, and Nardi's finding is j-doms tend to favor FP1 and p-doms tend to favor FP2. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be more complicated, because I think other studies have found that some kinds of training (like meditation) can shift the FP1/FP2 balance.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    From the data, it looks like INTJ/ISFP is one of the closer match-ups, while INTP/ISFJ is one of the worst. I suspect it has to do with how skills affect brain usage. Only the most technically adept of people have any call to use F3 and F4. It would be interesting to take a bunch of scientists, type them, and see how much they use F3 and F4.
    Also remember that Si appears to correlate with specialization (and a strategy that uses repetition to "burn in" learning), so Si-dom brains seem to vary a lot depending on training. It's interesting to compare that with Ni-doms, who seem to be more generalists. In any case, it's clear that training and experience does have some affect on which regions one uses, so I agree that studying different types of people in the same professions would be revealing. One of the frustrating things about Nardi's work is the small number of subjects of any given type. It makes it hard to know with certainty what is a generalized pattern, and what might be coincidental among the 3-5 people of that type.

  10. #120
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    As for his observations supporting Jungian functions, rewatch that section including the context that he's mentioning MBTI: his observations don't really correlate with the MBTI dichotomies, but they do strongly correlate with the Jungian functions. Looking at EEG vs MBTI, the Ns all look different, the Ss all look different, the Ps look different, and so on. But looking at Jungian functions, Ni doms are similar, Fi doms are similar, Si doms are similar, Te doms are similar, and so on, in both terms of the dynamic EEG patterns and the frequency of use of brain regions. There is some correlation with the auxiliary function, but it appears to be more in the dynamic EEG patterns associated with the functions, not the overall usage of brain regions.
    MBTI uses jungian cognitive functions, the P/J etc is just a code to put introverted intuition with extraverted thinking, introverted(or extraverted depending on who you ask) feeling and extraverted sensation in shorter way.



    I'm not sure where you get this (what time segment of the video?).
    "Among these eight, 6 were excellent liars (all ESTJs and ENTJs), 1 was not tested for lying, and 1 (the INTP) was not a good liar. Also, males were better liars than females.
    No other subjects (other types) were excellent liars." - http://www.keys2cognition.com%2Fpape...lCognition.pdf

    also he said somewhere that high F7 use was an indication of being a bad liar and that ENFPs(high F7) are especially bad at lying and telling whether someone is lying or not.


    Note that the real observation is the emotional dissociation. In Ti mode, Ti types go into that "green" dissociative state, which pushes aside all emotionality. If you think about it, "objective" != "lack/disregard of emotion". Prejudices remain, they just aren't "emotional" ones. One of these prejudices is an instinctive distrust of emotion, which may very well still represent truth, even if it isn't derived logically.
    yea i dont think emotional disassociation is what makes people objective. it just releases the logic from being disturbed by emotions, but Ti logic itself is subjective, since its not guided by(/chained to) sensory data, but is logic in its purest form.


    That isn't really what he said. The Ne "Christmas tree" pattern is very useful for creativity. It is a particular version of creativity, qualitatively different from other kinds.
    he said that this pattern gives most creative answers when the person needs to fill in the blanks.



    Um, no. He doesn't say this anywhere. Rather, he discusses the dynamic nature of the inferior with his INTP embarrassment example. The Fe is still there as "embarrassment", but it doesn't trigger without a lot of stimulation.
    it should be added that Ti users(as mentioned) shut down the emotions and bla bla bla from logic and use logic in making decisions, hence, even tho there might be some activity in F8(Fi), its not used as decision making and by definition Fi = decision making = INTPs dont have Fi, even tho they use F8.

    also when it comes to T5(Fe) and that its not easily triggered, but when it triggers it goes berserk, well this can be trained so that it gets more easier triggered, but is handled better(been there done that)



    Yes, though he doesn't explicitly say this.
    he does explicitly say this in some earlier PDF(have few different versions on my computer dunno if its the one i posted earlier) about ENTJs and it most likely is the same with ESTJs and i would assume in kiddy INTJs and ISTJs.


    Note that the correlation isn't just the use of regions, but also the dynamic patterns. The Ti types typically go into the green dissociative state. Also, I strongly suspect that the "frequency of use" of regions, while a useful metric, only "sort of" correlates with type: if one were to try to derive type from the frequency of use, one would often misread type, because the regions are also strongly associated with individual skill. Someone practiced in rote math or languages or sports will use P3 a lot, no matter the type. But only the Ti types will go green when they start thinking hard, and only the Fi types will go "blue" when they listen.
    i think you either misunderstood what the patterns in this case mean or you just constructed that whole thing in very weird way. those "dynamic patterns" are one area getting lit, then communicating to another area that gets lit, which communicates to other area etc. this is where the real differences between types come in play(and which sadly nardi didnt look at much, most likely cuz visualize image -> weight many factors at once and process management, instead of categorize/define ideas, linearly derive solutions. christmas tree explain and decide to test and look at the results closer)



    Low level activation is more of a casual or instinctive expertise. For instance, I'm sure that all my work spent moving my fingers to type this uses no real brain power - it's all "muscle memory". The brain power is being spent forming the thoughts and words, not typing them.
    yea, expertise comes from neural pathways getting more defined in the region and when the pathways are more defined, they require less processing, since there is already short and efficient pathway for that specific thought or task. this is what jung called differentiation. but the "casual" low activation is also apparent when even if the person isnt an expert and doesent have so well defined/differentiated pathways, but is just not trying so hard.


    There is an interesting distinction to be made here. The INTP equivalent is over in F4, the categorization. INTJs (and INFJs) use T3. This should give a clue as to what is really being discussed. Note that INTPs are "definition nazis", while INTJs are "grammar nazis". INTPs care about the "atomic" meaning of a word, i.e., a word should mean one thing, and only that one thing, and if the meaning is vague it should be specified. INTJs and INFJs instead care about the meaning of a sentence, how the words "dynamically" relate to each other.

    For example:
    Only he drove the car. [no one else drove]
    He only drove the car. [that's all he did]
    He drove only the car. [he didn't drive anything else]
    He drove the only car. [there was only one car, and he drove it]

    This suggests that T3 is about grammatical precision, not definitional precision, which appears to be the province of F4.
    i agree with the definition and grammar nazi thing, but not with the other stuff. or well, it is true that INXJs care more about the meaning of sentence, than single words. BUT the single words make up the sentence, so in order to construct whole sentence with proper meaning, you need the precision of words and because of that, your example is simply wrong and is more about how INTPs do it not how INTJs do it. INTJ way would be more like "he drove car" or other not well defined sentences that make sense in the context of things, but much is left for assumptions and stuff like "i didnt say other people also drove the car, so it didnt happen". i have noticed that listening to INTJs is(to me at least) a constant decrypting of what the heck is he trying to say, both single words are often replaced with some other words that doesent really fit there, but can be associated to what they meant to say(and sometimes being really misleading), the whole sentence is missing words that should be there for clarity etc.

    but actually i think we should be talking of clauses vs sentences. all your examples were simple sentences(consisting of one clause). i think when it comes to constructing comprehensive, logical and in depth clauses is where INTJs often have hard time compared to INTPs, but sadly sentences consist of clauses, so if the clauses are worded weirdly and thus doesent make much sense to others, the whole sentence will sound weird, but might make sense if thought through. i think where INTPs often go wrong, is that even tho the clauses and single words might be worded logically and well, jumping from clause to clause might require some logical leaps(or you end up with BIIIIG walls of text). with INTJs the logical leap has to be done between every other word and is more about "what the heck he means by that" than adding the clauses together to form a logical whole.


    Interesting to know.

    I have the opposite perspective: I don't know whether it's nonsense or redundant until I hear it and process it. Yes, when listening, one mostly pulls in useless data, but if one is really listening, one is listening FOR the USEFUL data. I put myself in a state where I'm keeping aware, but not consciously processing. Recently I was learning a dance move that had to be executed at one particular passage of music. A dance class is relatively short (50 minutes total), and so there isn't enough time to analyze the music to the degree I would want to. Instead, I had to listen. If I listened, then I could immediately transition and take my follower into a dip at the exact right moment, without thinking hard about it. If I tried to think about it, I'd miss the cue. (This would be an Fi/Se version of listening, something I can do, but it's not my usual approach.)
    i think what you said about if thinking you miss the cue, explains perfectly what the INXJ zone out thing is about. listening requires so much conscious effort that it disturbs thinking, making the listen/think thing kind of an on/off switch, but not exactly. because from what i have noticed, INTJs can listen and think at the same time, but the listening isnt incorporated much to thought(instead its left to some background processes and maybe incorporated with a little delay when thought allows it), thus reacting to what has been heard while listening might hinder greatly.


    I've noticed INTPs seem challenged when it comes to meaning.
    i have noticed that INTJs have really hard time expressing meaning to others, but is more like "car is driving"(yes thats a bit extreme example, but you most likely understood the meaning if you are good at picking up the meaning) and other people are supposed to deduce first what the heck is even meant by that and then why he said that. but this comes down to what i explained about the car driving examples. when it comes to INTJ saying something as weird as "car is driving" there is a meaning to that, and that meaning plays larger role than what actually has been said. but the problem is that the meaning is usually about the O2(visualize and create impression), which is not readily available to other people, but which the INTJ sees as obvious and assumes that its obvious to others aswell. this might easily make it seem to INTJ like INTPs dont understand meaning well, when its not about that, but about stopping at figuring out what the heck the INTJ tried to say, not paying so much attention to whats going on in the external world etc
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 632
    Last Post: 12-15-2017, 11:40 AM
  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