• 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

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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!
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION] 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.

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/Lateralization_of_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 :shrug:

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.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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."
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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. :D Id give you an internet hug...but im not sure if you would enjoy that lol.
 

Jaguar

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

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?

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.

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.
 

uumlau

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

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 :shrug:
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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... :shrug:
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".

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
As usual, people randomly assign function attitudes to whatever it is they choose to bitch about on any given day.
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.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
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? ;)
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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 have mixed feelings on Nardi's work. IMO, some of the earlier workbooks with his name on them seemed overly basic, dumbed down, etc. I liked 8 Keys to Self Leadership (videos and book). Neuroscience of Personality was interesting for the ideas it put forth. I don't particularly like his cognitive function test.

( I think the main criticism here is that the number of subjects (3-4) is simply too small to draw general conclusions. )

If there is one criticism I can make of all of his "research", it is this one thing. I don't know why he hasn't increased the sample sizes. It seriously detracts from the credibility in my mind.

Ive always thought Fe was the lying function myself.

Made me lol. They're only little white lies though :).

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.

This captures it pretty well.

I spend a lot of time reading what other people write and making sure that it’s solid prior to giving it to clients - probably 300 - 500 documents a year. I would not say I’m a grammar Nazi though poor grammar and spelling most certainly annoy me. I’m more focused on quality of the whole thing. It is not only the meaning of the sentence but all that’s being written. Are the thoughts, observations, etc. expressed clearly? Is it written in such a manner that the audience will understand it? Does it communicate anything meaningful? Is it cohesive? Is it concise? When I write things myself, I can spend a fair bit of time writing and rewriting in an effort to be clear and to communicate what I wish to communicate. When people are sloppy, it kind of sets me off because it is obvious they have invested little in the quality of what they are producing. In those cases, I have a tendency to rip what they wrote to shreds.


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.

As an INTJ, I work hard to communicate what I am thinking in a clear way – in writing in particular. Precision in words is important in conveying meaning - exactly as you state. Verbal communication is harder because I don’t have the time to articulate things in as clear as a manner as I'd prefer. I often struggle to find the right word. It happened to me just a few minutes ago. The word I was searching for in this case was “juxtaposition”. It was essential to the core point I was trying to make. So, words do mean something to the INTJ. The difference I think is that INTPs sometimes get hung up on a particular definition of a particular word, which comes across to the INTJ as nitpicking and a failing to appreciate the the big picture. What you describe as difficulty in comprehending what the INTJ is trying to say is understandable because it is something that we can take years to develop. Context shifting has a downside because others don’t always follow what you are saying. Watching a conversation between an ESTJ and an INTJ is a perfect illustration of this.

It's an observation, not an argument. You made a category error.

Your calling it a "category error" is the exact type of definitional conflict between INTJs and INTPs that I raised earlier.

You made a judgment of another person based on your subjective personal views. It's a broad sweeping generalization. It's not an observation.

The guy can't even draw sound conclusions from his own data. He's a rank amateur.

Just like this is.

The problem is that you are criticizing for a failure to use reason and logic and yet arrive at conclusions that seem to be biased, subjective, broad sweeping generalizations that don’t appear to be based on sound reasoning and logic. It’s not intended to be an insult. I’m having difficulty understanding how you reach what appear to be such black and white conclusions.

Edit: Reflecting on what bothers me here. I find much of your commentary interesting. It makes me think. However at the end of the day - are the conclusions right or wrong? Are they fair and balanced? It's something I'm sensitive to.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If there is one criticism I can make of all of his "research", it is this one thing. I don't know why he hasn't increased the sample sizes. It seriously detracts from the credibility in my mind.

He did talk about this at his workshop, and his main problem was having to do things on a shoestring budget. He did his research as a "training lab," in order to get it done at all. Since he didn't know in advance what kind of patterns he was looking for, he needed to do something broad data collection and observation, rather than a very targeted, strict protocol. That meant his initial research wasn't a good fit for grant, or the kind of work that would be appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal. He hoped that his work will lead to more targeted studies. Also, he spent 2-3 hours with each subject, and needed his only EEG machine, extra observers, as well as people to interact with his subjects (so he could get data about EEG activity during social interactions).

And even while there are frustratingly few people per type, there were enough to show statistically significant correlations between type and brain-region usage. It may not have the resolution we'd like, but does look like there's a there there.

I do agree that the small sample sizes are a major limiting factor. Also, the fact that only college students were involved is a limitation as well (doesn't say much about the brains of other age groups). As someone who is *ahem* well post-college, I'd be interested to compare how things change in older subjects.

You made a judgment of another person based on your subjective personal views. It's a broad sweeping generalization.

I agree with you there. I find it puzzling, because I think Salomé has interesting insights, but there seems to be a whole lot of unacknowledged bias there (not that we aren't all biased, one way or the other).
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
*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? ;)

If that's your assessment of my critique, maybe you need to dig deeper. The study is piss-poor and the presentation is full of errors. It's sloppy and unscientific, yet masquerades as serious research. I'm actually very disappointed that more effort didn't go into study design, the collection of meaningful volumes of data, and the publication of a peer-reviewed paper. Nardi himself confesses to his failings in this regard. Of course, it should surprise no one that MBTI doesn't attract serious research.

INTP expressed similar reservations. Given your lame, invalid assessment of our type's short-comings, it's ironic that we are the people paying proper attention to data quality.

But then, it's not like an INFP to allow facts to get in the way of personal prejudice. :whistling:

When people are sloppy, it kind of sets me off because it is obvious they have invested little in the quality of what they are producing. In those cases, I have a tendency to rip what they wrote to shreds.
Well, I guess we have something in common.

Your calling it a "category error" is the exact type of definitional conflict between INTJs and INTPs that I raised earlier.
Duh.

You made a judgment of another person based on your subjective personal views.
Everyone does this. All the time. Every day. Usually based on less than the information I have available. Welcome to humanity.
How do you think you make your judgments about people....me, for example?
/rhetorical

In any event, I am using my judgment to evaluate "Nardi the self-professed expert", not Nardi, the man. I didn't NOT read the presentations or NOT watch the video because Nardi has thus far failed to impress. But when I have to decide where to invest my finite resources, um...yes, I'd suggest it's entirely logical and sensible to form an impression as to whether someone is credible and worth investing in, or not. It's called being discriminating. And it's a hallmark of critical thinking.

You've agreed with much of what I've said, so you do exactly the same thing, you just don't express your opinions in the same way.

In any event, your knuckle-rapping is fucking tiresome. Cut it out. I can form judgments in any way I see fit and it's none of your business. Your popping into threads to pass judgment on me (for passing judgment) is odious, patronising, hypocritical and utterly uneccessary. This is what makes you guys such a PITA. It derails the thread, lowers the tone, and affects the participation of others who might actually have something on-topic / worthwhile to say. It's also an abuse of your position as a mod. (If you don't understand why, I'd be happy to explain it to you, in private.) I don't know if you even get how inflammatory it is. In your case, I doubt it.
In Nardi's defence, I was genuinely surprised to learn he self-typed as INTJ, because he's really very personable and modest.

It's not an observation.
The "category error", was calling my critique an "argument". It wasn't an argument.
My "observation" related to INTJs, (and was consistent with research findings) which is what I assumed you were reacting to (if you weren't, you shouldn't have included it in your quote.) Truth be told, that's what got under both your's and umlau's skin. And you've both demonstrated the truth of that observation, yet again.

God. Arguing with INTJs is unutterably dull. I wish you guys would leave me the fuck alone.
I’m having difficulty understanding how you reach what appear to be such black and white conclusions.
Consider that it's none of your business how I decide who is worth my time and who isn't? I told you already: I'm not trying to persuade anyone. If you feel like joining Nardi's fanclub, knock yourself out.

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but trust me when I say that your arrogance and patronising attempts to "correct" my thinking are AT LEAST as irritating to me as I am to you.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
God. Arguing with INTJs is unutterably dull.

You could argue with me. I dont do logic, I make inconsistant and contradictory statments and I also have a lifetime membership to Adhominemsor's.

Oh we could have so much fun.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You could argue with me. I dont do logic, I make inconsistant and contradictory statments and I also have a lifetime membership to Adhominemsor's.

Oh we could have so much fun.
You'd have to say something I disagree with first...

:p
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Given your lame, invalid assessment of our type's short-comings, it's ironic that we are the people paying proper attention to data quality.

I wasn't being serious, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek - joke fail on my part. :laugh:

I do think there's enough in there to spark further examination, do you not agree?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Dario Nardi is clearly the most brilliant and insightful individual to ever lift the lack of clarity on typology since it's creation.

what do you base this opinion on?
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
Maybe this has already been said and I missed it. But I think it would be interesting to do a larger scale experiment with more people... and see if you can identify the person's type based on their brain scans.
 
Top