• 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

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

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).

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.
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
Don't ENTP and ISTP alternate between high use of p3 and P4 while ESTP and INTP use F3 and F4
 

INTP

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

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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. :)
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
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
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

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).

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).

... 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).

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).

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:

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
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
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
My thoughts on Nardi's book

I just picked this up and read it. It's extremely interesting.

The really interesting bit isn't merely how the types map to the EEG regions, but rather how the regions end up mimicking each other in various ways.

I'll start off with a tantalizing tidbit, which has been the topic of many other threads. INTJs don't think like INTPs, at all, even though they can superficially seem to do so. Instead, they think more like ISFPs or INFJs: very heavily visually-oriented (O1 and O2) and concerned with predicting the future (T6). INTPs instead make heavy use of symbolic logic (T3) and careful classification (T4) of entities.

So it's as if INTJs are using their GPU instead of their CPU to figure out problems. Even INFJs, with tertiary Ti, don't appear to make much use of T3, and only some use of T4, and rely instead on the O1 and T6 regions most of the time.

ISTPs, with dom Ti and tert Ni appear to use these areas, too, instead of T3/T4, though not as strongly as the INxJs or ISFPs. They appear to specialize with P3 (tactical navigator) and P4 (strategic gamer), where instead of doing abstract math/logic like an INTP, they're doing fast and accurate real time calculations (in an Se way).

What type matches most closely to INTP in EEG terms? ESTP. I'm still digesting this one. I suspect the dynamic patterns are different.

What seems to be clear, though, is that Jung's theory in terms of dominant judging or dominant perceiving is borne out very well in Nardi's work (in spite of its admittedly small sample size). This isn't the MBTI J vs P, it's N and S doms vs T and F doms. This is why INTJ and INFJ look so similar, and ENTPs look like ENFPs, not INTPs.

If you look at the INTJ vs ISFP, these two EEGs are remarkably similar with only one salient difference: ISFPs are way more "judgey", while INTJs are way more tentative and perceiving. This one difference accounts for how the same pathways appear to be used in very different ways. It's as if the INTJ wants to sit back and use the video card of his mind to work on physics simulations, for example, while the ISFP wants to use his mental video card to play awesome games/videos with great sound and special effects.

The really encouraging parts of the book are the bits that show that typology doesn't naively correspond to particular areas of the brain. Rather, these same areas are used differently by different types. Instead, it appears that the dynamic patterns have a strong correlation typology: e.g., the blue "zen pattern" of Ni (or Si expressing expertise); the Ne-style "Christmas tree" pattern; the "ping-pong" pattern of Se staying alert and ready; the green dissociation pattern that is common to both Ti types. I believe that these dynamic patterns may be more key w/r to understanding cognitive processes (and how they map to Jungian functions and types) than the aggregate readings that Nardi gives for each location for a type.

In terms of the eight Jungian functions, I think Nardi ends up providing some of the best descriptions of each in this. This is the best I've ever seen Ni described by an authoritative source. Likewise for Si and Fi. Interestingly, Si isn't rote memorization: it's a preoccupation with the past. Dwelling on the past is what puts Si into that blue zen state.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Just got back to this thread -- haven't really checked it out in a while.

Apparently it got a lot of action (somewhat) recently.

Apologies if there are some worthwhile responses I haven't responded to.

I just picked this up and read it. It's extremely interesting.

The really interesting bit isn't merely how the types map to the EEG regions, but rather how the regions end up mimicking each other in various ways.

:glasses:

I'll start off with a tantalizing tidbit, which has been the topic of many other threads. INTJs don't think like INTPs, at all...

Ya don't say...

:alttongue:

...even though they can superficially seem to do so.

God, I don't even know if I consider that to be the case...

Do people actually consider this to be the case?

Instead, they think more like ISFPs or INFJs...

First thoughts:

- ISFP is same quadra as INTJ in Socionics.
-- But then why wouldn't ENTJ and ESFP be mentioned as well?​
- Obviously INFJs are Jungian cousins, and we all know how Ni doms are similar in a lot of ways (but then end up being rather dissimilar).
- So I wonder why the two Ni doms, and ISFPs... interesting to think about...
-- obviously ISFPs have the same four normal functions as INTJs.
-- I suppose they're also introverts as well, which, obviously, ENTJs and ESFPs aren't, so perhaps that provides the explanation... same dominant loop, just with Fi as the dom in one, and Ni in the other... :thinking:

: very heavily visually-oriented (O1 and O2) and concerned with predicting the future (T6). INTPs instead make heavy use of symbolic logic (T3) and careful classification (T4) of entities.

So it's as if INTJs are using their GPU instead of their CPU to figure out problems.

Not surprising, but very interesting...

One time, in a conversation with my favorite college professor, we were talking about how our minds work, and I said something about the way in which he seems to use and remember language in very specific ways, and how my brain doesn't seem to work in the same way as his, which I called "linguistically".

I said that my brain seems to work much more visually, so remembering which specific words are used and yada yada yada is much less part of my brain function, as I'm always thinking in terms of images, almost like I've got a a movie playing in my brain, which I can fast forward, rewind, pause, and play, and words are just a way of trying to express what's going on with those images.

He looked at me befuddled and was like, "Seriously?"

Largely because of this, I suspect he is an INTP.

Definitely a Ti user.

Even INFJs, with tertiary Ti, don't appear to make much use of T3, and only some use of T4, and rely instead on the O1 and T6 regions most of the time.

Interesting...

I would love to see how this might change based on different levels of tertiary development, different levels of introversion/(lack of) auxiliary development, and with people who work in fields that might require Ti-based thinking more or less.

ISTPs, with dom Ti and tert Ni appear to use these areas, too, instead of T3/T4, though not as strongly as the INxJs or ISFPs. They appear to specialize with P3 (tactical navigator) and P4 (strategic gamer), where instead of doing abstract math/logic like an INTP, they're doing fast and accurate real time calculations (in an Se way).

Interesting...

What type matches most closely to INTP in EEG terms? ESTP. I'm still digesting this one. I suspect the dynamic patterns are different.

Weird.

:thinking:

What seems to be clear, though, is that Jung's theory in terms of dominant judging or dominant perceiving is borne out very well in Nardi's work (in spite of its admittedly small sample size). This isn't the MBTI J vs P, it's N and S doms vs T and F doms. This is why INTJ and INFJ look so similar, and ENTPs look like ENFPs, not INTPs.

Very interesting...


If you look at the INTJ vs ISFP, these two EEGs are remarkably similar with only one salient difference: ISFPs are way more "judgey", while INTJs are way more tentative and perceiving.

Very interesting...

Very a la what [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] was saying in the thread on judging the other day.

This one difference accounts for how the same pathways appear to be used in very different ways. It's as if the INTJ wants to sit back and use the video card of his mind to work on physics economic simulations, for example, while the ISFP wants to use his mental video card to play awesome games/videos with great sound and special effects.

Fixed.

:D

The really encouraging parts of the book are the bits that show that typology doesn't naively correspond to particular areas of the brain.

*cough cough*

Lenore Thomson

*cough cough*

Rather, these same areas are used differently by different types. Instead, it appears that the dynamic patterns have a strong correlation typology: e.g., the blue "zen pattern" of Ni (or Si expressing expertise); the Ne-style "Christmas tree" pattern; the "ping-pong" pattern of Se staying alert and read; the green dissociation pattern that is common to both Ti types. I believe that these dynamic patterns may be more key w/r to understanding cognitive processes (and how they map to Jungian functions and types) than the aggregate readings that Nardi gives for each location for a type.

Yeah, this seems so intuitively obvious to me.

The way to think of functions is not locations of the brain (although this could be part of it) so much as patterns, the way in which electricity/chi/libido flows through the brain (and, hell, the entire nervous system -- frankly, I think feeling functions, at least Fi, hooks up with nerve plexuses elsewhere in the body, like the chest and gut): that's why I loved his findings of the "christmas tree pattern" and the "zen-like pattern" for Ne and Ni -- love the info about the "ping pong pattern" and "disassociated green pattern".

In terms of the eight Jungian functions, I think Nardi ends up providing some of the best descriptions of each in this. This is the best I've every seen Ni described by an authoritative source. Likewise for Si and Fi.

Good to know.

I've found his ability to back up our theoretical/intuitive understanding of the functions with pretty concrete empirical observations to be pretty valuable. I've seen enough evidence just from my day-to-day observations to believe that there's definitely something to the functions, but his observations definitely add an extra level of support to that conviction.

Interestingly, Si isn't rote memorization: it's a preoccupation with the past. Dwelling on the past is what puts Si into that blue zen state.

Yeah, that's not surprising...

My Dad's an ISTJ.

He just finished compiling a scrapbook, in chronological order, from January 1st to December 31st, of two years worth of "What happened on this day in history" scraps from the newspaper. To him, this is just about the coolest thing in the entire world. When we talk history, and I'm all handwavey like, "Yeah, so the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in, what, Decemberish of '43", he gives me a disapproving look and is like, "Z, it was December 7, 1941", and then I'm like, "oh, yeah, so it was D-Day that was Decemberish of '43", and he's like, "that was June of '44", and I'm like, "c'mon dude, that's like 6 months, and you were born by then -- I was practically 40 years away!", and he just shakes his head. I actually like those "What happened on this day in history" things, but the degree to which I do pales in comparison to him. I see it as a "try to understand the evolution of a process" -- whether that process be technological development, political development, economic development, etc. -- that can then be used to try to understand where we are and where we are/should be going. For him, studying the past seems to be almost a religious thing. When he was a kid he used to be all into historical biographies and stuff and was a Son of the American Revolution. Of course, I'm not saying that INTJs, or other non-Si types can't love history; I'm just saying that there's definitely something about the structure of his mind that lends itself to appreciating, and thus being rather adept at, historical study (whether he'd be good at advanced comparative history, or something like that, I don't know, though).
 

dimane

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
43
Last edited:

FFF

Fight For Freedom
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Prefrontal Cortex Usage Percents by Type

For Fp1 and Fp2, a table provided in chapter 9 presents the best way to understand them rather than as level 3 (mod. high) and 4 (high). What follows are the types and percentage of Fp1/Fp2. Notice the first four types are the most imbalanced, especially the ISFP.

ISFP = 68/32
ENFJ = 63/37
ENTJ = 63/37
ISTP = 59/41
INFP = 52/48
ESFJ = 52/48
ESTJ = 52/48
INTP = 51/49
INFJ = 49/51
ENTP= 48/52
ENFP = 48/52
INTJ = 48/52
ESFP = 48/52
ISTJ = 47/53
ESTP = 46/54
ISFJ = 45/55

Fp1 = this region is active when a person gives an explanation, picks among options, or explains a meaning. This region also acts as a gate keeper to screen out negative information that might distract us emotionally.

Fp2 = This region is active when a person deals with novel information or when noting he or she has reached a point in a process. This region also admits negative input and mutes our emotional responses so we can reflect on input.
 
Last edited:

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
For Fp1 and Fp2, a table provided in chapter 9 presents the best way to understand them rather than as level 3 (mod. high) and 4 (high). What follows are the types and percentage of Fp1/Fp2. Notice the first four types are the most imbalanced, especially the ISFP.

ISFP = 68/32
ENFJ = 63/37
ENTJ = 63/37
ISTP = 59/41
INFP = 52/48
ESFJ = 52/48
ESTJ = 52/48
INTP = 51/49
INFJ = 49/51
ENTP= 48/52
ENFP = 48/52
INTJ = 48/52
ESFP = 48/52
ISTJ = 47/53
ESTP = 46/54
ISFJ = 45/55

Fp1 = this region is active when a person gives an explanation, picks among options, or explains a meaning. This region also acts as a gate keeper to screen out negative information that might distract us emotionally.

Fp2 = This region is active when a person deals with novel information or when noting he or she has reached a point in a process. This region also admits negative input and mutes our emotional responses so we can reflect on input.

You missed the ESTJ case.

The remarkable thing about this data is how it splits evenly between judging-doms vs perceiving-doms.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
This is all very, very interesting...

:thinking:

What exactly do these %s represent? The split between use of Fp1 vs. Fp2, right?

Is there any data about types that use Fp1 and/or Fp2 more than other types, relative to the rest of the brain?

I would assume the data would show that we don't all use the prefrontal cortex, as a whole, to the exact same degree...
 

FFF

Fight For Freedom
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Who uses what region the most/least?

4 = highest and 1 = lowest

Region F7 Imaginary Mimic
4: ESFP, ENTP, ENFP, ESFJ
3: ESTJ, ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, INFP, INTP
2: ESTP, ENFJ, ISTP, ISFP
1: ENTJ, ISFJ

Region F8 = Grounded Believer
4: ESFP, ESTJ, ENTJ, INFJ, ISTJ, INFP
3: ENFP, ISFP, INTP
2: ENTP, ESFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, INTJ
1: ESTP, ISFJ

Region F3 = Deductive Analyst
4: ESTP, INTP
3: ESTJ
2: ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ
1: ESFP, ENTP, ENFP, ENTJ, ENFJ, INTJ, INFJ, ISTP, ISFP, INFP

Region F4 = Expert Classifier
4: ESTP, INTP
3: none
2: ESFJ, ENTJ, INFJ
1: ESFP, ENTP, ENFP, ESTJ, ENFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, ISTP, ISFP, INFP

Region T3 = Precise Speaker
4: ENTP, ENTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, INTJ, INFJ, INFP
3: ESTP, ESTJ, ISFJ, ISFP, ISTP
2: ESFP, ENFP, ISTJ, INTP
1: none

Region T4 = Intuitive Listener
4: ESFP, ENFP, INFP
3: ENTP, ENTJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INTJ, ISFP
2: ESTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, INFJ, ISTP
1: ESFJ, INTP

Region C3 = Factual Storekeeper
4: ESTJ, INTP
3: ESFP, ESFJ, ENTJ
2: ENFJ, ISFJ, INTJ, INFP
1: ESTP, ENTP, ENFP, ISTJ, INFJ, ISTP, ISFP

Region C4 = Flowing Artist
4: ENFJ, ISFJ
3: ESFP, ENTP
2: ENTJ, ESFJ, INFJ, INTP, ISFP, INFP
1: ENFP, ESTJ, ESTP, ISTJ, INTJ, ISTP

Region T5 = Sensitive Mediator
4: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ
3: ENFP, INFJ
2: ENTP, ESTJ, ISFP, INTJ, ISTP, INFP
1: ESTP, ESFP, ENTJ, INTP

Region T6 = Purposeful Futurist
4: INTJ, ISFP
3: ENFP, ESFJ, ENFJ, INFJ, ISTP, INFP
2: ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, INTP
1: none

Region P3 = Tactical Navigator
4: ISTP
3: ESTP, ISTJ
2: ESFP, ENFP, ISFJ, ISFP
1: ENTP, ESTJ, ENTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, INTJ, INFJ, INTP, INFP

Region P4 = Strategic Gamer
4: ESTP, ENTP, ISTP
3: none
2: ENFP, ENTJ, ENFJ, INTJ, INTP
1: ESFP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, ISFP, INFP

Region O1 = Visual Engineer
4: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, ISFP
3: ESFP, ESFJ, ISFJ, ISTP, INTP
2: ESTP, ENTP, ENFP, INFP
1: ENFJ

Region O2 = Astract Impressionist
4: ENFP, ISFJ, ISTP, ISFP
3: ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ENFJ, ISTJ, INTJ, INFP
2: ESFP, ESTJ, INFJ
1: ESFJ, INTP

I was typing this up, and then I went to eat dinner. I spent a lot of time putting this together at Starbucks yesterday. It's amazing how similar ESTPs and INTPs are. Nardi says that ESTPs are more geared towards tactical action (he used Mario Kart to simulate this), and I guess INTPs are more inclined to be boring data analysts.

If there's an error somewhere, let me know.
 

FFF

Fight For Freedom
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
691
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
This is all very, very interesting...

:thinking:

What exactly do these %s represent? The split between use of Fp1 vs. Fp2, right?

Is there any data about types that use Fp1 and/or Fp2 more than other types, relative to the rest of the brain?

I would assume the data would show that we don't all use the prefrontal cortex, as a whole, to the exact same degree...

The ISFP's heavy usage of Fp1 and lagging usage of Fp2 suggests they have a hard time facing negative aspects of reality. I believe I knew an ISFP long ago who frequently said, "Let's pretend it never happened, okay?"

You missed the ESTJ case.

The remarkable thing about this data is how it splits evenly between judging-doms vs perceiving-doms.

Fixed the list.

Yeah, the EJs and IPs are led by Fp1 and the EPs and IJs are led by Fp2. This chart shows that for most types besides ISFP, ENFJ, ENTJ, and ISTP, the difference isn't that large.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yeah, the EJs and IPs are led by Fp1...

I found it very interesting that, among the EJs, it was the iNtuitives who were more Fp1-heavy, while among the IPs, it was the Sensors who were...
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The ISFP's heavy usage of Fp1 and lagging usage of Fp2 suggests they have a hard time facing negative aspects of reality. I believe I knew an ISFP long ago who frequently said, "Let's pretend it never happened, okay?"

This sounds so very e9 though....which of course, many ISFPs are. I wonder if this is why ISFPs are more prone to this than INFPs.

Although the below suggests otherwise, even though its regarding F8 (F8 Grounded Believer: Evaluate people and activities in terms of like or dislike, and/or recall details with high accuracy):

Seymour said:
A final thing he pointed out was that those types [which] show a lot of activity in F8 seem to use F8 somewhat differently. INFPs seem to use F8 mostly for positive valuations. ISFPs tend to use it for both positive and negative valuations. Most Te-types tend to use it for negative valuations.


I'm actually surprised that INFPs use this mostly positively. I have to admit I tend to evaluate negatively (as Jung noted Fi is apt to do, or it appears that way, at least).... I see how things DON'T measure up to an ideal & then consider if I can accept its deficiencies. Only if something has potential that is really strikingly close to an ideal can I put on rose-coloured glasses & naively focus on its positives, and really, I see this as Ne tendency to inject positive potential into the unknown.
 
Top