User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 211

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I was the one who, with my stupid and misinformed comments, resurrected this thread from the dead, bringing the brains back to life with the epic electric powers of sith alchemy, flowing like lightning through our brains, powering our decisions, and giving us control over the creation!

    It follows that the dark side of our brains, the parts were are less proficent at sufficiently harnessing, are the parts that will guide our ways towards greatness, and alter the very course of our destinies.

    Such is the way of true power, such is the way of the SITH, SITH being a better personality type than any other in the entire whole of MBTI!

  2. #122
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    @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).
    Clearly. If you're right, you're wrong, and if you're wrong, you're right. Twist your lizard brain around that one.

    Also, learn to attribute correctly. If you want to criticise anyone, criticise Nardi. It has nothing to do with me. I'm one of the people in the thread who DOESN'T endorse his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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).
    Read more widely than Wikipedia and you'll cease to be surprised.

    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.
    Talking of too simplistic...not even Nardi says this.
    INTPs use FP1&FP2 together, for example (in addition to whole-brain "Christmas tree" Ne). We seem to be one of the least "lateralised" types, according to his research.

    I'm not sure where you get this (what time segment of the video?).
    Covered.

    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.
    Dispassionate is a better word. I used "objective" facetiously. No one is objective, naturally.

    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.
    It's exactly what he said. Blink and you'd miss it though. He also said NPs were "too creative" ( which is exactly what a not very creative J would say...).

    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's implied. What he actually says is not very interesting.

    You can derive it thus:
    He claims this research provides "deep support" for Jungian functions. This presupposes some kind of mapping from EEG functional area to cognitive function. The likely candidate for Fi is F8. The closest match for Fe is T5. INTPs use F8 more than T5. Ergo, INTPs use Fi more than Fe.
    I know there are lots of holes in this argument, but it's not my argument, so

    Yes, though he doesn't explicitly say this.
    I'm less interested in explicit statements than logical conclusions.
    /INTP

    INTPs predominate with F3, F4 and C3. ISTPs use P3 and P4. ENTPs use C4 and P4. ESTPs use F3, F4, P3 and P4.
    Senseless.

    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.
    It's one way. But it's the wrong way. That's not what we do at all. Much of our thinking is non-verbal. To extrapolate from a tiny data set which doesn't even know what it purports to show or how, to this sort of thing is ludicrous. And a good reason for disregarding this research entirely.

    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.
    Do you really believe this? How bizarre.

    I've noticed INTPs seem challenged when it comes to meaning.
    Maybe they're just challenged by YOUR meaning. I agree with INTP's comments in this regard.

    It's funny because you've read the book, and yet you missed much of what was there in black and white, it seems, as well as the obvious conclusions...

    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.”
    He said this about INTPs? I don't think.
    The designers of the earliest computers WERE INTPs. Lol.

    I suspect he mostly dumbs things down. Also, the topics he pursues don't readily yield themselves to logical analysis.
    Sure they do. They just don't stand up very well under that kind of clinical scrutiny.

    From the data, it looks like INTJ/ISFP is one of the closer match-ups, while INTP/ISFJ is one of the worst.
    ...which negates his "rule".

    The guy can't even draw sound conclusions from his own data. He's a rank amateur.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #123
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    I've always thought Fe was the lying function myself.
    Shhhhhh! Don't say that out loud.

    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.
    "The world is divided into two types of people: those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't. I'm with the latter."
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #124
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Shhhhhh! Don't say that out loud.


    "The world is divided into two types of people: those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't. I'm with the latter."
    Aha good point. We have enough division already, we dont need more. Absolutism is easy, understanding of complex multi-layered specific's is hard. Merry Christmas by the way Salome. Id give you an internet hug...but im not sure if you would enjoy that lol.
    '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.

  5. #125
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Note that INTPs are "definition nazis", while INTJs are "grammar nazis".
    As if a person would only give a shit about definitions but not grammar. I don't buy it.
    Here's an amusing thread started by an INTJ who is whining about grammar:

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Recently, a pattern has become increasingly prevalent of extroverted sensors around me feeling compelled to point out what they perceive to be grammatical errors and to obsess over minute details. As an NT, I find this terribly offputting and unproductive most of the time. For example, the other day we had company over (family) and I was explaining to my aunt that if I pursue a law degree in the UK, in order to make it transferrable to Canada it will have to be reviewed by a committee and based on where I got the degree, my marks, and so forth, they will specify X, Y, Z (usually some exams and a number of hours at a Canadian accredited law school). Now, here I said "Z" like "zee" rather than "zed." Then, she proceeded to completely derail the conversation by going on about it being "zed" for Canadians, which is something I know but don't care to change since zee comes much more naturally to me and I find it more pleasing to the ears, the heck with tradition. Nevertheless, here is a classic case of an NT talking about big ideas and a sensor obsessing over an irrelevant detail to the exclusion of the essence of the matter.

    In my experience, these matters are about choices. Let me use myself as a case and point. For those of you that have heard me speak on vent, you know that I can be exceedingly literal (i.e. if you use an "all" where it's only a "some," I'm going to call you on it. I am also going to be very attentive to the assumptions on which your arguments are based). Now, this comes quite naturally and therefore it is a challenge for me to hear an argument out to its fullest completion without interrupting to expose a minute flaw that was perceived with lightning speed. Even if I think it, I won't necessarily publish what I know if I think it's not going to degrade the quality of the discussion. True, it requires strong self-discipline but I believe it is better in the long run. Let someone else be the person who makes their big contribution by exposing a syntax error.

    Thoughts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    case in point
    a specific example of what one is talking about.
    Now, as a case in point, let's look at nineteenth-century England.
    Fireworks can be dangerous. For a case in point, look at what happened to Bob Smith last Fourth of July.


    Your Aunt made me do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Correcting spelling and grammar seems to be a Ti thing, in my experience.

    NTPs do it all the time, and the Se users that you're referring to are probably mostly ESTPs who are doing it more out of Ti than Se.

    The theory would probably argue that you as a Te user don't see much point in such nitpicking precision if it's not really improving results in any meaningful way, but oh well. Ti is annoying like that.
    As usual, people randomly assign function attitudes to whatever it is they choose to bitch about on any given day.

  6. #126
    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
    Read more widely than Wikipedia and you'll cease to be surprised.
    Perhaps. It's not as if you make a case for it.

    Talking of too simplistic...not even Nardi says this.
    You don't have the book, so of course you're certain of this.

    INTPs use FP1&FP2 together, for example (in addition to whole-brain "Christmas tree" Ne). We seem to be one of the least "lateralised" types, according to his research.
    Source? Or do you claim that the Christmas tree is a source of decreased lateralization? Everyone has the "whole brain" modes.

    W/r to FP1 and FP2, everyone uses both, the difference is the relative amount of usage. The statistics, while not definitive given the number of subjects, don't have any exceptions.

    Covered.
    So I see in INTP's response, though I understand your thirst to be vague and condescending.

    The way I read the Te = good liar ... notice that it's all T-doms. There are no ISTPs, and one INTP. To a Tx-dom, a "lie" is simply an "untruth", as opposed to a "deception" (which is more apropos to F-style values). Lying is "easy" because it's simply a statement of something untrue, not an overall effort to make someone else believe the lie.

    It's implied. What he actually says is not very interesting.

    You can derive it thus:
    He claims this research provides "deep support" for Jungian functions. This presupposes some kind of mapping from EEG functional area to cognitive function. The likely candidate for Fi is F8. The closest match for Fe is T5. INTPs use F8 more than T5. Ergo, INTPs use Fi more than Fe.
    I know there are lots of holes in this argument, but it's not my argument, so
    Yours is a straw man argument. You attribute to him an argument he doesn't make using your own assumptions which he likely doesn't make either.

    I'm less interested in explicit statements than logical conclusions.
    Based on your own subjective logic.

    Senseless.
    Data.

    It's one way. But it's the wrong way. That's not what we do at all. Much of our thinking is non-verbal. To extrapolate from a tiny data set which doesn't even know what it purports to show or how, to this sort of thing is ludicrous. And a good reason for disregarding this research entirely.
    What aspects of your thinking are non-verbal? I perhaps get thrown by how much INTPs place so much weight on a given word, as if it implies far more logically than most humans would normally intend.

    Do you really believe this? How bizarre.
    It's an observation.

    Maybe they're just challenged by YOUR meaning.
    Very possibly. Most people don't seem to be challenged by my meaning, not even most INTPs. But there are a few INTPs that appear to have a perspective that is so very systematic, that they appear to have a great deal of difficulty understanding the meaning of anything outside their systems. Really, it feels like talking to an AI that just says "that does not compute," with no effort to evaluate why it doesn't compute (which is where the meaning lies).

    He said this about INTPs? I don't think.
    The designers of the earliest computers WERE INTPs. Lol.
    Where did I say "INTP", hmm? Oh, that must be your "plain meaning in black and white." I find this quote to describe the weakness of most INTP reasoning, where they seem to just say the same thing over and over again based on their own particular set of axioms, without exploring the possibility that the axioms or data have flaws. The equivalent INTJ flaw is confirmation bias, where all tests of the idea seem to bear out its truth, but not realizing that the tests are flawed. INTPs believe their axioms, INTJs believe their tests.

    Sure they do. They just don't stand up very well under that kind of clinical scrutiny.
    Most human matters don't stand up that well under clinical scrutiny, and those that do don't seem to reveal much about their subjects.

    ...which negates his "rule".

    The guy can't even draw sound conclusions from his own data. He's a rank amateur.
    I'm sure you could do better. It's a great loss to all that might hear your insights that you don't bother.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  7. #127
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post

    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.
    I just came across this. How do you believe others can take your arguments seriously when you say things like this? Is it demonstrating a supreme command of logic or is it arrogance?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  8. #128
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Perhaps. It's not as if you make a case for it.
    Do you need someone to spell out the reasons for you?
    Another indication of shallow reading habits...
    It's neither my job, nor my interest, to convince you of anything. I expect people to make up their own minds.
    You don't have the book, so of course you're certain of this.
    If the book contradicts his presentations, it's just more evidence of his sloppy "science".

    Source?
    Rewatch the video. I'm not going to watch it again for you, and you seem to have missed a lot the first time, so you might benefit.

    W/r to FP1 and FP2, everyone uses both, the difference is the relative amount of usage. The statistics, while not definitive given the number of subjects, don't have any exceptions.
    Where are the statistics? The presentation points to FP1&2 + F3&4 being used simultaneously.

    So I see in INTP's response, though I understand your thirst to be vague and condescending.
    wut? Didn't take the INTJs long to resort to insults. No surprises there.

    The way I read the Te = good liar ... notice that it's all T-doms. There are no ISTPs, and one INTP. To a Tx-dom, a "lie" is simply an "untruth", as opposed to a "deception" (which is more apropos to F-style values). Lying is "easy" because it's simply a statement of something untrue, not an overall effort to make someone else believe the lie.
    Wrong. The INTP was "not a good liar". Unless, once again, his presentation contradicts his book. I suspect you just failed to read it correctly.

    Yours is a straw man argument. You attribute to him an argument he doesn't make using your own assumptions which he likely doesn't make either.
    Nope. It's simple logic. That you can't follow it and can't propose an alternative path is your failing, not mine.
    Note also that you make a lot of your own assumptions which are not only not supported by the research but also completely contradict it.
    What aspects of your thinking are non-verbal?
    The stuff we don't put into WORDS.

    It is commonplace for INTPs to express frustration with the inadequacy of language as a medium for communicating ideas. Especially novel ideas (for which the language may require to be invented). Many (if not most) of us prefer diagrams, models, formulae. I find that drawing something helps me to understand it more fully. This is because it reveals context, relationship and pattern in ways that language cannot.

    There is a body of evidence which suggests that most thinking is non- verbal. We are required to translate the original medium of thought into language simply for the purpose of communication.
    Where did I say "INTP", hmm?
    Directly before your quote. Jesus. Are you proposing that you didn't intend to link the quote with your observation? How disingenuous. That must be lying Te at work...
    I find this quote to describe the weakness of most INTP reasoning,
    Oh so I was right?
    Or I was wrong? Or you didn't make the link until now? Give me a fucking break.

    where they seem to just say the same thing over and over again based on their own particular set of axioms, without exploring the possibility that the axioms or data have flaws.
    Absolute bullshit.
    The equivalent INTJ flaw is confirmation bias, where all tests of the idea seem to bear out its truth, but not realizing that the tests are flawed. INTPs believe their axioms, INTJs believe their tests.
    Ridiculous oversimplification. Any type can fall prey to cognitive bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I just came across this. How do you believe others can take your arguments seriously when you say things like this? Is it demonstrating a supreme command of logic or is it arrogance?
    It's an observation, not an argument. You made a category error. There is nothing to argue about. Don't resort to personal insults. You're a mod, you really ought to be able to restrain yourself a little better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    As usual, people randomly assign function attitudes to whatever it is they choose to bitch about on any given day.
    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    INTPs believe their axioms, INTJs believe their tests.
    I might actually have to side with Jaguar on this one, but I do have a few points about what uumlau says as well:

    As interesting as these tests are on brain analysis, a test can only read so much, just as axioms cannot confirm anything empirically, though axioms can, with the liberating light of reason, guide our ways to higher planes of thought experimental rigor cannot reach, the combination of the 2 being more a more valuable assett to aid us in our journeys.

    In other words, experiments can illuminate the known world before our eyes, while reason can penetrate the black depths of the night sky and the great ocean of discovery.

    Still though, I believe the experiments should come first and, when they cannot go any further, we should revert back to reason to set our gaze upon loftier and more esoteric sights.

  10. #130
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    And a good reason for disregarding this research entirely.
    *does a double-check on your type*

    Ti dom, yep.

    Color me shocked! An INTP disregarding data? Never!

    Shouldn't it tickle your brain to dig deeper?
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

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