• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality

frogface

New member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
2
Not sure if this has been pointed out but, ESTP as an Expert Classifier?!!! Surely, there must be some mistake- ESTPs are just not conceptual AT ALL, in fact all the ones I know have little tolerance for politics, philosophy etc, they only talk about the chicks they rooted, the drugs they snorted etc.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Not sure if this has been pointed out but, ESTP as an Expert Classifier?!!! Surely, there must be some mistake- ESTPs are just not conceptual AT ALL, in fact all the ones I know have little tolerance for politics, philosophy etc, they only talk about the chicks they rooted, the drugs they snorted etc.

Oh boy are you a troll? ESTPs are notorious for being politicians. There have been several SP presidents, including John F. Kennedy, bro.

Get a clue.
 

frogface

New member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
2
No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?

From the outside Se might seem like mindless "go go action", but it is Perception like every other Percieving function. It is not the redheaded stepchild of Perceiving functions...reduced to mindless actions. "All arms and no eyes". Action is just the byproduct, not the source.

No, they're not visionaries, but they do pick up on trends and effective solutions nonetheless. Just not in the farseeing sense. But not being farseeing does not mean they can't conceptualize with what's in front of them.
 

SD45T-2

Senior Jr.
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
4,227
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w2
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?
:fpalm:
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
Categorize & Define
Region F4 highly active when subject
defines a term or categorizes an
observation.
• Trying to figure out whether a particular
animal is an aquatic mammal.
• “Egyptian War [a card game] is like
War except that…”
• “Is this a grape?” (when blindfolded and
asked to figure out a random assortment
of objects)
• What (assigned) meaning does a
particular tarot card have?
F4 can used for hunting,science,etc
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
Along time ago there was a show called home improvement.
The shows main character showed alot of F4 and he was an ESTP
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Wow, awesome. I hope they do more along this line, I'll have to leave this in the tabs and look more later. I think this is the kind of stuff I'm looking for when I continue to mindlessly log onto this website.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just kind of ran through my own processes, (seemingly more accurate than MBTI itself), as suspected, heavy focus on the right side of the brain according to this chart... Front to back and in between. Except for F7. I think I use that one a lot. fp2, f4, t4, t6, and 02 on the right.. strong F7 on the left, C3, and sometimes T3 (all more toward the front of the brain and not as strong a usage except for F7.)
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
^^^ are these based on Ne and Fi or cognitive skills you think you have
 

FFF

Fight For Freedom
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
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.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
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.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
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.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Seconding [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] in his thanking of [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. 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. [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'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.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
Seconding [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] in his thanking of [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. 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. [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
... 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).
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
brain.gif


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/d_06_cr/d_06_cr_mou/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:
Figure5.jpg


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


 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
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
 
Top