User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 211

  1. #41
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I think that this sort of brain research is interesting; however the main issue I have is that things seem backwards.. although I realize you have to start somewhere. I feel like thousands of people would have to have their results recorded, *minus reporting mbti type first*, determine definite/solid patterns from that, and then once you have your solid groupings based on brain results alone, THEN you tackle mbti (have people take the test or self-report), and determine whether there is a definitive, absolutely consistent correlation between brain pattern/activity and one and only one type, and determine the validity of current typing methods/understanding, all in one bang. And probably/possibly redefine mbti and how typing is done/how types are determined, from that.
    I agree that would give one more complete and perhaps unbiased results, but the cost would be massive. Nardi spent one-and-a-half to three hours with each person, having them perform various tasks and interact socially in various ways. Meanwhile, he had himself and at least one additional observer taking observing EEG readings and taking notes.

    Another issue is that EEG produces massive amounts data over time (since it can detect relatively quick changes). Therefore just analyzing the reams of data becomes a big issue.

    I could see combining dry, wireless EEGs (expensive) with a recording camera and some basic computer analysis to reduce the amount of manual human analysis needed. Once could have some brave soul wear the EEG cap and camera through their day (or for some study-specific interactions), and then make a first-pass analysis of the EEG data for "interesting" brain states, and then use the recorded camera data to determine what the person was doing at the time.

    Then one could have subjects take various statistical measures... or group them and then try to come up with tests (instruments) like MBTI or Big Five measures that would align with the groups.

    On a practical note, EEG is still fairly expensive for individuals: around $6000 US for decent 20 sensor model, and at least $20,000 US for a dry wireless model (some are rentable for around $4,000 US a month, though). Still, over time those prices are going to come down, so it seems inevitable that where will eventually be commercially possible to obtaining EEG data of oneself.

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Anyway, the regions/descriptions I identified with most were F3, T4, T5, T6, 02, and Fp1. Least/ones I don't think I utilize much at all are C3 and 01, and possibly F8. All of the others I was neutral/undecided about.
    Type-wise, typically INFJs are more T3 (word content) oriented than T4 oriented (tone of voice). They are typically strong in one of the visual thinking areas (O1 or O2).

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by dimane View Post
    I think what I really mean is what is the difference between NTP and STP
    INTPs tend to use regions F3 (linearly derive solutions, follow trees of boolean logic, etc) and F4 (precise definition and categorization).

    ISTPs tend to favor T3 (integration of visual-knesthetic data) and P4 (that gambling/economist region that helps weight between multiple alternatives each with their own pros and cons). This makes sense, given the more hands-on, risk-taking behavior of STPs.

    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.

  2. #42

    Default

    Don't ENTP and ISTP alternate between high use of p3 and P4 while ESTP and INTP use F3 and F4

  3. #43
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post

    On a practical note, EEG is still fairly expensive for individuals: around $6000 US for decent 20 sensor model, and at least $20,000 US for a dry wireless model (some are rentable for around $4,000 US a month, though). Still, over time those prices are going to come down, so it seems inevitable that where will eventually be commercially possible to obtaining EEG data of oneself.
    You can make one for 20$ and there are some eeg systems(headset, computer that analyzes and that frequency filtering thing) at ebay for pretty cheap(under 1000$). Then there is that wireless eeg headset that can be used to control a computer, i think 18 sensor one was around 500$, which can naturally read and you could record activity with it.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #44

    Default

    IN NARDIs book does he talk about the tert and inferior

  5. #45
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I agree that would give one more complete and perhaps unbiased results, but the cost would be massive. Nardi spent one-and-a-half to three hours with each person, having them perform various tasks and interact socially in various ways. Meanwhile, he had himself and at least one additional observer taking observing EEG readings and taking notes.

    Another issue is that EEG produces massive amounts data over time (since it can detect relatively quick changes). Therefore just analyzing the reams of data becomes a big issue.

    I could see combining dry, wireless EEGs (expensive) with a recording camera and some basic computer analysis to reduce the amount of manual human analysis needed. Once could have some brave soul wear the EEG cap and camera through their day (or for some study-specific interactions), and then make a first-pass analysis of the EEG data for "interesting" brain states, and then use the recorded camera data to determine what the person was doing at the time.

    Then one could have subjects take various statistical measures... or group them and then try to come up with tests (instruments) like MBTI or Big Five measures that would align with the groups.

    On a practical note, EEG is still fairly expensive for individuals: around $6000 US for decent 20 sensor model, and at least $20,000 US for a dry wireless model (some are rentable for around $4,000 US a month, though). Still, over time those prices are going to come down, so it seems inevitable that where will eventually be commercially possible to obtaining EEG data of oneself.
    Oh, I don't doubt that it would be very expensive, time consuming, and result in lots of data to sift through and make sense of. But in my opinion 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. There's a reason mbti isn't taken seriously by the psychological/medical community. Also, we all know tests have their failings, so there isn't even a consistent, universally agreed-upon means of typing [With Nardi's research, he and his associates in their multi-hour interaction with each participant would probably be applying their OWN consistent method of determining the persons' type and such, so that would hopefully be consistent, but it doesn't get away from the issue of other 'Experts' in the field who might come to different conclusions of each of the peoples' types].

    ... 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.


    Type-wise, typically INFJs are more T3 (word content) oriented than T4 oriented (tone of voice).
    This is interesting to me, as the NFJ's I know are very attuned to tone of voice, body language, etc (could this be extended to pretty much all F's in general?). This also seems to go against what I would think a dom/aux Ni-er would do... which is look beyond the surface (the 'surface' being the words only), and look at the body language, factor in the tone, see whether the words actually allign with the body language/tone... it's simple people-reading. Taking into account all factors, all of the context, not taking words at simple face value. It's why the internet medium provides so many more challenges to communication than in-face... you're lacking some essential elements.

    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).
    For myself, I cited the F3 as something I relate strongly to, because in reading its description, I do this all of the time. Things 'making sense' and being logical is very important to me, and I am constantly analyzing things. I also do not think this is something I've been 'trained' in, beyond my being inclined towards math and science growing up, and pursuing the sciences in college. So the initial interest/aptitude was already there - I wasn't forced into learning this, or forcing my mind to think in this way; I've just tended to naturally excel at this sort of exercise and tested accordingly on those sorts of subjects/aptitude tests, and this is an element others (coworkers/bosses) note in me as well. I even enjoyed logic puzzles as a teen.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  6. #46

    Default

    So your saying they could be wrongly identify with a certain type
    Considering you don't agree what they say about INFJ So couldn't you be doing the same and wrongly identify with INFJ

  7. #47
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dimane View Post
    So your saying they could be wrongly identify with a certain type
    Considering you don't agree what they say about INFJ So couldn't you be doing the same and wrongly identify with INFJ
    Sure; this is partly my point, and could apply to tons of other people on this forum. If you look at lots of posts in this forum, I'm never definitively saying I AM INFJ, and often add various qualifiers that probably annoy half the people on this site - and some of that is due to what I write above. However, in the 4 years I've posted on here, forum-goers associate me with INFJ, and given that I don't view the system as terribly scientific in the first place, and view it as generally just being a nice little categorical system that most people aren't going to fit perfectly into, it seems a reasonable conclusion and I don't think any other type would be any MORE reasonable. But that's the nature of many mbti discussions; there are a myriad of ways people can define type, or explain away various inconsistencies in type, esp. if you bring in all of the shadow theory stuff, enneagram, stress, etc.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  8. #48

    Default

    Lets just call the system a work in progress

  9. #49
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dimane View Post
    IN NARDIs book does he talk about the tert and inferior
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Oh, I don't doubt that it would be very expensive, time consuming, and result in lots of data to sift through and make sense of. But in my opinion 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. There's a reason mbti isn't taken seriously by the psychological/medical community.
    Well, there are several reasons MBTI isn't taken that seriously... partially because Big Five fills some of the same niche, plus it was developed empirically and statistically rather than from a theory. I find it bland on its own, but it's certainly been well researched and validated. (See Reynierse's take on an empirically based MBTI-flavored but somewhat more Big FIve-ish system).

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Also, we all know tests have their failings, so there isn't even a consistent, universally agreed-upon means of typing [With Nardi's research, he and his associates in their multi-hour interaction with each participant would probably be applying their OWN consistent method of determining the persons' type and such, so that would hopefully be consistent, but it doesn't get away from the issue of other 'Experts' in the field who might come to different conclusions of each of the peoples' types].
    I think self-assessment tests have their own failings (they depend on self perception, which is notoriously unreliable in many cases). Plus, it's fairly likely that preferences fall more on a bell curve, which would explain how interested, motivated people have a hard time settling on types, despite tests and instruments.

    Regardless, I don't think Nardi determined type from brain readings, though... I believe he worked the other way around (type before analysis).

    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 1currently stands? These are all hypotheticals.. just things I think about as tied to this subject.
    I generally agree. You are right that it doesn't PROVE all that much as it stands now. All it really proves is that people (in sample of 60 people) who have settled on a particular best fit type shared much more similar levels of activity by brain region with others of the same type than with people of other types (see page 154 & 155, the charts are pretty striking). This is just looking at usage levels of regions, ignoring the whole-brain patterns themselves.

    Nardi mentioned, I recall, that he also made a pass of trying Big Five correlations, and correlation with individual letter preferences, and those correlations were very week. The correlations with full type was much stronger, although he does mention on p158 that there were interesting correlations using preference dyads as well (cue Reynierse again).

    And again, this is early stuff (assuming it bears out over time). Eventually, one might want to work out algorithms to watch for patterns, and then work back to a more a accurate written type instruments/tests (which then could be validated against brain scans, rather than vice versa).

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    This is interesting to me, as the NFJ's I know are very attuned to tone of voice, body language, etc (could this be extended to pretty much all F's in general?). This also seems to go against what I would think a dom/aux Ni-er would do... which is look beyond the surface (the 'surface' being the words only), and look at the body language, factor in the tone, see whether the words actually allign with the body language/tone... it's simple people-reading. Taking into account all factors, all of the context, not taking words at simple face value. It's why the internet medium provides so many more challenges to communication than in-face... you're lacking some essential elements.
    Well, since Fe is associated with being very attuned to social feedback (T5) I do think people who favor Fe certainly take in social information via multiple channels. Those clearly would include body language and tone of voice.

    It's just that Fe is more associated with T3 rather than with T4. Looking at the sample charts, it looks to be the most extreme with ESFJs, who more heavily favor T3 than other FJs. That's not to say INFJs don't use T4. There's still T4 going on, as the sample INFJ chart shows! Contrast with INTPs, who show little or no activity in either T3 or T4.

    For Fi the T3 and T4 are more balanced (even though FPs, especially female FPs, tend to show less activity in the social feedback area, T5... perhaps because males use T5 for disambiguate faces). Still, looking at individual information (the case studies of 3 ISFPs, page 163), it's clear that there was individual variation (two ISPs show higher T4 usages, one ISFP showed higher T3).

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    For myself, I cited the F3 as something I relate strongly to, because in reading its description, I do this all of the time. Things 'making sense' and being logical is very important to me, and I am constantly analyzing things. I also do not think this is something I've been 'trained' in, beyond my being inclined towards math and science growing up, and pursuing the sciences in college. So the initial interest/aptitude was already there - I wasn't forced into learning this, or forcing my mind to think in this way; I've just tended to naturally excel at this sort of exercise and tested accordingly on those sorts of subjects/aptitude tests, and this is an element others (coworkers/bosses) note in me as well. I even enjoyed logic puzzles as a teen.
    I wasn't trying to imply that you were mistaken or were trained, per se. One thing I like about Nardi is he potentially offers another lens on how people are typical or atypical for their type. Nobody is a perfect fit, but it's interesting see where Nardi's finding don't match with one's personal experience (assuming Nardi's findings are largely correct).

    Since I'm a programmer, I'd like to see where I fall on F3 and F4, myself... since most INFPs show very low usage in those areas. Do I use those regions, or am I just fooling myself? Interestingly, INTJs and ISTJs also show very low usage of those regions, too.
    Last edited by Seymour; 03-20-2012 at 12:52 PM.

  10. #50

    Default

    Can he tell developed the lower funtions are from there eeg results
    Also are P3 and P4 proccess focused while F3 and F4 goal focused because I Nardi considers ENTP and ISTP procces focused so I wondering if that the reason

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