Interview With Dario Nardi!

[AncientSpirits]

Dario I have some questions for you.

1. Did you get into philosophy? If so, which philosophers did you agree with/side with more?

I like Kierkegaard. I've read and often reference "The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter". LOL. So I'm not really into philosophy. I think Western Philosophy in particular is rather limited at times because the West has done its best to expunge the means and potential dialog around alternate states of consciousness. The benefit has been less mysticism and more reason. The pitfall has been less grounding and more blah-blah. In Hindu terms, the best Western philosophy raises to the level of Ajna, but a lot of it is Vishuddha. Please know, I think Philosophy, including Western philosophy, has a lot to offer. But it's never been my bag of goodies.

2. In my experience and to the best of my knowledge, a lot of people identify themselves as INFJ in online internet communities. Have you had much experience identifying Ni Dominants through your brain scanning processes? I’ve heard from around that Ni doms tend to holistically cover the brain whereas Ne tries various spots in the brain. I mean how true is this?
For the longest time I’ve identified with INFJ and not too long ago I tried to see if I was an INTJ, (experiencing thoughts on the fly without internalizing causing foot in the mouth issues perhaps through Te), but only then to realize I just needed to let My thoughts complete in my mind.
I’ve tried to question my Ni dominance out of skepticism so much what people see Ni as. People have even go so far to visually type me as IEI-Ni (yes definitely more than one person). I’ve even gone into pseudo-science and I still end up with intuitive characteristics.
Did finding yourself to be INTJ shock you? Do you find to be more open/prone to magical or new age ways of thinking?

I have a lot of Ni dominants in my EEG database. The whole-brain or star-burst brain-wiring pattern is typical of dominant iNtuiting types, though ENFPs and INFJs show it more often, or more strongly usually, than INTJs and ENTPs. Since that pattern also comes up with people in creative professions, regardless of type, I suspect that technical training can demote it, which likely happens more for NTs than NFs. Beyond this, Ne is often more asynchronous, while Ni is more synchronized as if they to get all brain regions to work cooperatively.

3. Dogs or cats?

I like most cats, though I have a particular fondness for short-haired medium sized dogs. I like that cats require less maintenance, and are basically cold-blooded killers (LOL). On the other hand, I feel dogs are more social, thus may be more emotionally rewarding, and the latest evidence suggests they are more intelligent (than most other animals actually, even great apes). I can see why both are favorite pets. Personally, I don't have pets. I believe they deserve love and attention, and I'm too busy for that.

4. Some believe the inferior function can take precedence at an early time where the person can actually be confused what their dominant preference is. (So like late teens / early 20s it starts?) have you had that experience in life with Se? I am right now very tempted into sensing activities than I ever was a teenager/young child. I have an enormous appetite for loud music, being somewhat of cool, nonchalant, I really don’t care what you think, kind of attitude in this point on. While younger me was very much over concerned with who others thought I was. (Obviously this is not just personality alone but after some life experiences and new ways of thinking I kind of embraced this sort of lifestyle) I'm 24 btw.

Did it happen to you though? Did you feel like maybe you should have done something more sensing once you got out of college, did you just resist it? Did it faze you?

Everyone has a different developmental path. I believe the whole pattern of the person including the non-preferred functions can be moderately clear even in early childhood. I am *very* grateful to have lived on the beach in the Caribbean from age 5-8, when other INTJs (in America, etc) would have more likely been shuttered away working on a computer etc. I did Se the least in my teens, then returned to it in my early 30s, and even more so now in my late 40s. I'm very happy to spend an hour or two a day outside exercising, so long as the experience has some variety. So bicycling, snorkeling or scuba, hiking, etc are more interesting to me than lifting weights. I'm so glad I found kundalini yoga, which has a lot more variety than hatha yoga, which I don't enjoy. I am also more open to physically dangerous activities and get a lot of out what some other types might consider stuff that's too unpleasant. Like I don't mind going for a day-long cleanse and purge, even it involves being poisoned, and I think things like sweat lodges are loads of fun. Having been (literally) at the edge of death twice in recent years, I found it incredibly exhilarating and worthwhile.

I was mainly in introverted Feeling stuff, as I viewed it, like music and fiction writing starting around age 21 on through my 20s.

5. Do you find comfort in similar types? Or do you seek to extend yourself outside your comfort zone to challenge your ways of thinking?

Running through the top-10 non-family persons whom I spend most of my time with in person, in order: ENFP, ISFP, ISFP, INTJ, INTJ, INTP, ISTP, ESFP, INFP, and ESTP.

[AncientSpirits]

Have barely been on TypoC for the past week and missed this. No questions beyond stating that I'm a fan of your work and am glad that you're continuing with it, particularly relative to cognitive functions and neuroimaging!

Thank you! And welcome to the conversation.

If you -- or really anyone joining the conversation now -- has the chance, here are key posts from yours truly from earlier in the thread:
#1, #13, #14, #17 (response #3 onward), #20, #23, #37, #41, #45, #62, #78, #80.

[AncientSpirits]

That's kind of what I have thought.

I think if you just look at the top two functions, odds are they may test close to each other and so it seems difficult at times to reliably get data on which one is dominant and which one is auxilary. So based on the introvert/extravert preference, do you order the top 2 as to which is dominant and which is auxilary?

Yes, exactly.

That is certainly fascinating. Also makes sense.

It is an example of a broader approach. There is this multi-faceted set of tools called Type. Whether there are 4 functions or 8 cognitive processes, whether they come in a particular order or not, etc... I use the the tools in a way that fits the application to get the best possible practical result.

I must admit you mentioned Survival Games Personalities Play - you called it a masterpiece compared to Beside Ourselves. Beside Ourselves resonated better with me. Maybe I will have to take a look at the other book. I have both of them. I believe I also have your book on multiple intelligences .

Beside Ourselves is definitely worth reading. The core concepts are sound even if I don't agree in all the details. Perhaps the difference in the books is reflected in the authors' types. Eve Delunas (ENFJ) takes a relatively straight-forward, structured, application-based approach.

[AncientSpirits]

Dario, I find your argument (using the apples) about trait theory to be lacking. Psychologists have moved way beyond the simple description of personality and are tackling deeper questions about personality by applying (among other things) the study of systems to the study of psychology. For example: DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality.

Yes, I know, it's great that they're going here, isn't it! And it supports my point. Trait theory by itself is useful but limited, which is why *some* academic researchers have moved to a more systems approach. Perhaps they will catch up with the dynamic model of Type at some point in terms of its richness and appeal.

The problem with your apple metaphor is that when someone takes scientific issue with your approach, it isn't just a matter of "Let's categorize x" vs. "let's better understand how this thing interacts with a larger system". It is "I doubt that X is a real thing at all" vs., well, taking your word for it I guess? You pooh-pooh the approach of using statistics and the FFM to study personality in this thread. However, would you agree that it is important to have a clear ability to identify an apple before you can rigorously study the role of an apple in a larger system? If you fail to rigorously define what you are studying (an apple), then maybe you aren't studying what you think you are studying at all. Maybe that object you are studying is really a pear. Or maybe it's just a rock. Or maybe its an apple but it's rotten and filled with worms!

Yes of course it's nice to have a good sense of what we're looking at, and I appreciate that it's a challenge to define something that can't be picked off of a tree and put in a wheelbarrow. That said, when I have talked to Five Factor researchers *in person*, they believe the scales and factors that come out of statistical analysis are *sufficient* and perhaps the *only* "scientific" way to describe people. While there are a handful of researchers/theorists who are interested in systems, as you mention above (and I'm aware of work there), most of them don't know the language or concepts of systems, tend to downplay the limitations of statistical approaches, and remain stuck on their tool.

Jung described processes, and I believe neuroscience -- looking at brain regions, networks, reaction patterns, etc -- is a more useful *reference point* to work from, particularly we can actually now see ongoing processes in the nervous system.

When a person comes in to wear your EEG cap, in order for you to claim that the voltages you record mean something besides, well, just voltages, there must be something real and independent of the voltages for you to point to. That is, the voltages cannot be the sole evidence for this other thing; the other thing must have some foundation and validity apart from your EEG data.

Fortunately, EEG has been around for decades and there is a huge body of research that points to the likely meanings of brain measures. For example, to calibrate an EEG, you want to see high alpha band activity when a person does an eyes-closed task. Not every person shows this, but most people do, so a small sample of folks is sufficient to calibrate it. Over the decades, it's become clear what this alpha-band means more specifically. Beyond that, there are hundreds of studies (there are more, but I haven't read more) that point to specific peaks or shifts within or between particular brain regions associated with particular tasks, both specific and general. For example, the left parietal is associated with various visual-spatial skills that, from the viewpoint of a naive person, match well with skills typical of Sensing-Thinking types. That is the primary linker. When we look at the most densely-wired regions, and the skills or activities typically aided by those regions, and then compare those to type and function descriptions and a person's identified type, we get a strong sense -- person after person -- that people develop/use brain regions and networks that meet their psychological needs (as well as their physiological, cultural, and career needs). The links are strong enough to be significant. But of course "Type" (or any other personality model, likely) can only explain some of the results, not all of it.

What evidence can you point to, outside of your EEG data, that supports sorting people according to cognitive functions (i.e., the interaction of preferences) and that isn't as well explained (or better explained) by the simple addition of their preferences? On balance, which approach (multiplicative vs additive) explains more observations with greater parsimony?

First, Mark Majors, PhD (statistician) has done a lot of work to validate eight distinct cognitive processes using a traditional psychometric design. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of folks in the internet type world are unaware of him and his work. I would strongly suggest he be invited to be a future guest.

Beyond that, I think you are asking me the wrong question. Honestly, I mean that.

We can use any models we like. All models are wrong. Some are less wrong, which to me means, more useful than others. If you want to use a linear/additive model, you can get a lot of mileage out of that, as MBTI and FFM folks do. And, bonus, that kind of model is way easier to work with and validate research-wise, just like it's easier to solve 2-body problems over 3-body problems. Alternatively, if you want to use a more complex model, it might end up that that model is slightly more wrong in general, and harder to validate, but actually more useful in specific applications. We should also not limit ourselves to the simpler models in the same way that we ought not limit ourselves to only talking about 2-body solutions. Even in physics, there are approximation methods that are very useful even though they don't align with the underlying dynamics, because they are useful.

I suspect what we're getting at is a big Te vs Ti split here. And I'm an engineer by training. How can we build X to work well for Y? The degree of success is in the functionality. So while I obviously support doing basic research and using known methods and tools to be less wrong, I view all the models as something I can play with, not a holy grail that I'm searching for. Moreover, a dynamic model of type is more closely aligned with the nature of the brain as a dynamic system, and it offers applications and explanations that the linear model cannot do as well (it can do it, just not as well). Jung viewed his type framework as a therapeutic tool, and he strived to get a good tool that worked well and he spent a lot of time doing cross-cultural research, and while I'm not a therapist, I'm following that same approach.

[Peter Deadpan]

Scan my brain. Don't tell me about the cancer though, just the type. That's all that matters.

[AncientSpirits]

Scan my brain. Don't tell me about the cancer though, just the type. That's all that matters.

Happily, I don't diagnose or treat disease.

BTW, when type community folks come to me, they often want a brain scan to find out what type they really are--as in, they're sorting between two or three types, and think the brain scan will tell them which one is the right one. Ha! What usually happens is that the brain scan reveals the same lack of clarity. So Jane is sorting between INFJ, ISTP, and ISFP. She's a lab technician. What the brain imaging reveals is evidence for those three types. LOL. The brain is sort of a 4-D representation of a 5-D or 6-D system (the psyche). And while it offers another data, and richness than just a type sorter, it's still not the person's type, it's their developed self, a shadow of their type.

[OkNo]

First, Mark Majors, PhD (statistician) has done a lot of work to validate eight distinct cognitive processes using a traditional psychometric design. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of folks in the internet type world are unaware of him and his work. I would strongly suggest he be invited to be a future guest.

Beyond that, I think you are asking me the wrong question. Honestly, I mean that.

We can use any models we like. All models are wrong. Some are less wrong, which to me means, more useful than others. If you want to use a linear/additive model, you can get a lot of mileage out of that, as MBTI and FFM folks do. And, bonus, that kind of model is way easier to work with and validate research-wise, just like it's easier to solve 2-body problems over 3-body problems. Alternatively, if you want to use a more complex model, it might end up that that model is slightly more wrong in general, and harder to validate, but actually more useful in specific applications. We should also not limit ourselves to the simpler models in the same way that we ought not limit ourselves to only talking about 2-body solutions. Even in physics, there are approximation methods that are very useful even though they don't align with the underlying dynamics, because they are useful.

Can you provide me any of Mark's work? If it were true that he has validated eight distinct cognitive processes and that these processes were not better explained by an additive preference model, then it would be quite a shift from decades of psychological research, including decades of data from the MBTI itself.

You are welcome to use whatever models you like, but I am welcome to doubt the construct validity of the model you've used. I was hoping that you would provide some justification of the model you used instead of just telling me that all models are wrong. Perhaps you will provide some convincing work by Mark. Time will tell, I suppose.

[AncientSpirits]

Can you provide me any of Mark's work? If it were true that he has validated eight distinct cognitive processes and that these processes were not better explained by an additive preference model, then it would be quite a shift from decades of psychological research, including decades of data from the MBTI itself.

You are welcome to use whatever models you like, but I am welcome to doubt the construct validity of the model you've used. I was hoping that you would provide some justification of the model you used instead of just telling me that all models are wrong. Perhaps you will provide some convincing work by Mark. Time will tell, I suppose.

Mark has presented his work, including the specific statistics and results, at various type conferences. I didn't memorize or take photos of those and he while he did give handouts, I don't have those. I encourage you email Mark. Here is his information: Dr. Mark S Majors <mmmajors@juno.com>

Yes, you are free to raise doubts about whatever you like. Though you say, "some justification of the model you used", when I've clearly stated multiple times on this thread that I used multiple models, including multiple versions of the functions/cognitive processes framework, depending on the application and what works where. With regard to my brain research, at least in V1 of the book, the pilot study, I applied multiple versions of the functions/processes model and found that a basic model of dominant-auxiliary best explained the results. Later, in workshops, I gave some case studies which suggest support for opposite type, but that's just tentative and awaits further analysis. I am very open to whatever results, including disproving the 8 functions model in favor of a preferences of 4 functions model (with E and I, or whatever), as being the best-fit to explain the results.

[OkNo]

Mark has presented his work, including the specific statistics and results, at various type conferences. I didn't memorize or take photos of those and he while he did give handouts, I don't have those. I encourage you email Mark. Here is his information: Dr. Mark S Majors <mmmajors@juno.com>

Yes, you are free to raise doubts about whatever you like. Though you say, "some justification of the model you used", when I've clearly stated multiple times on this thread that I used multiple models, including multiple versions of the functions/cognitive processes framework, depending on the application and what works where. With regard to my brain research, at least in V1 of the book, the pilot study, I applied multiple versions of the functions/processes model and found that a basic model of dominant-auxiliary best explained the results. Later, in workshops, I gave some case studies which suggest support for opposite type, but that's just tentative and awaits further analysis. I am very open to whatever results, including disproving the 8 functions model in favor of a preferences of 4 functions model (with E and I, or whatever), as being the best-fit to explain the results.

I'll reach out to Mark. Thanks for your help. Best of luck in your work.

[highlander]

Dr. Nardi (@AncientSpirits) —

You've long subscribed to the Harold Grant function stack, which is the one that says the typical INTJ stack is Ni-Te-Fi-Se and the typical INTP stack is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe — with the result that INTJs and INTPs, despite sharing three out of four dichotomy preferences, typically have no (preferred) functions in common. INTJs and ESFPs, by contrast, are viewed as sharing the same four functions, albeit in a different order, making them similar in ways that have led you and Linda Berens to endorse the same type foursomes that are also reflected in the socionics quadras.

At a reddit AMA in February 2013, you said that the brain activity you were seeing in midlife INFJs and ISTPs was so similar — because there was so much tertiary Ti and inferior Se activity in the INFJs, and tertiary Ni and inferior Fe in the ISTPs — that you "could hardly tell" which type was which.

But as I'm forever pointing out in forum threads, the Harold Grant function stack is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and more importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it.

You've mentioned "type historian" Peter Geyer a couple times, and as you may know, he wrote an article on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey — the 1983 book that introduced the Grant function stack to the world. And in that article, Geyer pondered why the Grant stack had gained so much traction, given that it had never been validated to any respectable degree. And he noted that a substantial part of the answer seemed to be that, at a particular moment in the MBTI's history, several influential members of the MBTI community felt the need for a "framework" that was "amenable" to a particular kind of "training environment," and Grant enjoyed a high "personal status" as "one of the earlier users of the MBTI" — with the result that "a specific and influential group of actors picked it up and ran with it."

They "picked it up and ran with it"! They certainly did. And they're still running today, even though the notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — more than 30 years after Image to Likeness, and like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — continues to have no more respectable support for its validity than the notion that two people born at the same time will have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

And Geyer, to his credit, viewed the Grant stack's popularity with some serious misgivings, given the lack of empirical support. He said:

Finally, there's the question as to whether appropriate research, particularly crossdisciplinary
research has been attempted i.e are the models under discussion compatible with other research into what is known about human beings?

This is an extremely important question for the validity of anything, but particularly in the field of personality where constructs are necessarily correlated. All too often, and one sees this in the Jungian as well as the type community, there's a sense of being right about what one is doing, as opposed to the desire to investigate this rightness and see whether it succeeds or fails.

One thing that has long struck me as curious about the Grant stack is that it reflects a highly counterintuitive element that I like to call the Harold Grant Double Flip. The Grant model says that, with respect to the function-related dichotomy pairs — i.e., S/N with J/P, and T/F with J/P — if you start with one type (e.g., an INTP), and you flip two preferences, the resulting type (e.g., in this example, ISTJ) will be more like the original type in various ways than the two types you arrive at by only flipping one of those preferences (in this example, ISTP and INTJ).

So, as in your reddit AMA example, FJs and TPs supposedly have "Fe" and "Ti" stuff in common that isn't characteristic of FPs and TJs, and NJs and SPs supposedly have "Ni" and "Se" stuff in common that isn't characteristic of NPs and SJs.

And of course, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a theoretical element that appears strangely counterintuitive, because sometimes it turns out that reality works in counterintuitive ways. But on the other hand, the more counterintuitive a theory is, the more you'd expect the theorists to feel that it was incumbent upon them to subject their theory to some reality-testing and see, as Geyer put it, "whether it succeeds or fails."

It's maybe also worth noting that Geyer's an INTP — Ti-Ne-Si-Fe under the Grant model — but pointed out that he experiences his sensing function as Se rather than Si. And when he wrote that article, he was well into midlife — that time when you say you've observed so much tertiary double-flippiness in some of your subjects' EEGs that you can "hardly tell" the INFJs and the ISTPs apart.

In any case, returning to Geyer's issue of performing "appropriate research"... the personality psychology field has been validating theoretical type groupings for decades now, without any need for brain scans of any kind, and everybody understands how you go about doing that. You come up with an instrument that does a reasonably good (not perfect) job of typing people, and then you see if FJs and TPs (for example) actually do exhibit personality characteristics in common that they don't share with FPs and TJs. And there are countless ways that personality characteristics can be exhibited, from questionnaire responses to hobby choices to behavior in lab exercises (like your workshops).

And here's the thing that I find most curious about your EEG-dominated approach. Brain regions don't have "Fi" and "Se" and similar labels attached to them when you peer inside the skull, obviously, and as I understand it, the way you're determining that the human brain tends to activate in particular ways when the subject is doing "Fi" stuff (for example) is that you're registering the relevant activations happening at the same time that the subject is doing some externally observable thing that you consider to be an "Fi" thing. Right?

One of your "brain maps" points to various regions that you identify as associated with things like "admit novelty," and "place personal value," and "attend to literal details," and "aesthetic recall," and "notice errors," and "categorize and define."

So... when you tell us that the "brain activity" of midlife INFJs and ISTPs in your lab is barely distinguishable because they're both lighting up those Ni, Fe, Ti and Se regions (and/or patterns), I assume that that means that those INFJs and ISTPs are, in addition to (and in conjunction with) the EEG readings, also exhibiting externally observable Ni and Fe and Ti and Se reactions/responses/behavior/etc. that your INFP and ISTJ subjects tend not to exhibit (or not to the same extent) when you put them through the same exercises. Is that correct?

And if you're conducting those exercises with those types, and their externally observable responses are putting them in groups that line up with those Harold Grant Double Flips, then it seems to me that you and your fellow HaroldGrantians should have little trouble validating the Grant function stack the old-fashioned way — i.e., by correlating the associated type groupings (e.g., FJ/TP vs. FP/TJ) with personality-related responses that show up outside the subjects' skulls.

As one example, your written materials describe a "verbal creativity task" that asks the subjects to "provide a coherent sentence for each phrase below," and you explain that "subjects with trans-contextual thinking" — which you say distinguishes Ne types from Ni types — "craft sentences from [certain] phrases more quickly, coherently, and creativity [sic] than other subjects."

So... if NPs and SJs are "Ne" types, and NJs and SPs are "Ni" types, then you should be able to provide some EEG-free validity for the Grant stack by having a suitable number of subjects perform that task, and by having the results reflect the fact that not only are the sentences of the NPs (on average) meaningfully different from the sentences of the NJs, but also — and here's where the Harold Grant Double Flip comes in — that, contrary to what Reynierse (and reckful) would expect, the SJ sentences are more like the NP sentences than like the NJ sentences, and the SP sentences are more like the NJ sentences than like the NP sentences.

If it's true — and as I understand it, some serious questions have been raised — that you've come up with a brain scan technique that's capable of respectably registering "cognitive functions" (assuming they exist), then congratulations, and all power to you, and in that case it could turn out that your EEG readings provide another layer of evidence for the functions (and the Grant stack). But given the existing state of the art, and the fact that your EEG technique hasn't yet established its bona fides in a way that's likely to make any associated "validity" claims for the functions widely credible, it's a holy mystery to me why you (and your fellow HaroldGrantians) wouldn't be inclined to first validate the Grant stack with the same kinds of correlational studies that personality psychologists have been conducting for decades.

Buuut separate and apart from that puzzlement... here's another thing I have trouble wrapping my head around, Dr. Nardi. I also don't understand why there should be a need to conduct any further studies at this late date in order to provide at least some respectable level of empirical support for the Grant stack. People have been correlating MBTI types with just about everything under the sun — internal/attitudinal stuff, external/behavioral stuff, you name it — for over 50 years now. The 1985 MBTI Manual referred to over 1,500 studies (according to a 1990 review of MBTI research), and was full of correlational data. The 1998 Manual reflected the results of many more studies. And you've linked us to the "boat loads" of articles, etc. in the MILO database.

And the correlational patterns that show up in an MBTI data pool are what they are, and don't depend on what patterns the people gathering the data may have been testing, or expecting. So every MBTI correlational study has the potential to end up providing some validity support for the Grant stack — or any other possible MBTI-related model — if it turns out that one or more of the associated type groupings end up being reflected in the resulting correlations.

Assuming that the eight "cognitive functions" have impacts on someone's personality that make "Ne" types significantly different from "Ni" types (and "Fe" types different from "Fi" types, and so on), and assuming that who's an Ne type and who's an Ni type generally reflects the Harold Grant model, it seems inconceivable to me that in all those thousands of existing MBTI data pools, there aren't any where one or more of Fi, Fe, Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, Si and Se are the most significant MBTI-related influence on whatever the study involves, with the result that the Grant model is reflected in the correlations — e.g., with FJs and TPs on one side and FPs and TJs on the other (if it's an Fe vs. Fi thing, or a Te vs. Ti thing, or an Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te thing).

But as I understand it, when Reynierse published his articles in the official MBTI journal, and effectively pronounced the Grant stack (among other aspects of "type dynamics") an emperor with no psychometric clothes, not a single HaroldGrantian came forward and defended the Grant stack by pointing to any respectable body of data.

Instead, you wrote that APTi Bulletin article ("The Case FOR Type Dynamics"), which (no surprise) failed to point to any respectable empirical support in the form of correlational data — and instead, as previously noted, pointed to your "pilot study" EEG lab results, and had the chutzpah to characterize those results as providing "strong and unmistakable" "quantitative support for the 8 Jungian functions."

Strong and unmistakable quantitative support for the 8 Jungian functions.

And that was in 2009, Dr. Nardi, after you and Linda Berens had spent over 20 years (between you) peddling the Grant stack — and describing it in your writings not as a tentative, unofficial, yet-to-be-validated offshoot of the MBTI that you'd decided to run with, but instead as if it was simply how the MBTI works — or "what the four-letter code really stands for" (to quote Linda Berens).

And if the only (purportedly) empirical-supporty response to Reynierse that you (or any other APTi Bulletin contributor, or HaroldGrantian) could manage to come up with in 2009 was your surprising (there's a gentle word for it) characterization of those lab results, then I'd say that arguably gives anyone all the background they need to gauge whether the Grant stack has a bright future ahead of it.

And the rest of your "response" to Reynierse was pretty much just a hand-waving, straw-manny non-response.

On the validity front, you asked why Reynierse's article didn't "mention the existing validated assessments that are designed to tap the 1 Jungian functions." But if a "validated assessment" only "taps" a single Jungian function, and it types somebody "Si" (for example) by virtue of assessment items that tend to be more characteristic of MBTI SJs than other types, then that doesn't contradict anything Reynierse said — or Reynierse's assertion that all MBTI-related personality characteristics result from one of the four relevant preferences and/or simple additive effects (e.g., no double flips) of two or more of the preferences.

And on the other hand, if a "validated assessment" taps a single Jungian function, and the assessment items that get somebody typed "Si" are not things that tend to be more characteristic of MBTI SJs than other types, then that's a "Jungian" assessment that involves a Jung-related typology that isn't the MBTI, and Reynierse's article doesn't speak to those. Reynierse's objections to "type dynamics" essentially involve theoretical elements that (1) are inconsistent with (or go beyond) preference multidimensionality, (2) have no respectable empirical support, and (3) are purportedly associated with the subject's MBTI type.

And #2 is really redundant with #1, since as Reynierse notes, and as far as I know, there is currently no respectable empirical support for any aspect of "type dynamics" that is inconsistent with (or goes beyond) preference multidimensionality.

And that emphatically includes the Harold Grant Double Flip, which in turn is the basis for the forum-famous "tandems" (or "function axes"), not to mention the socionics quadras and that exciting new Berensian lens you've mentioned.

================================

It's worth emphasizing, partly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the applicable history, that the MBTI owes much of its tremendous success, not to mention its claims to intellectual respectability, to the fact that Isabel Myers devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting Carl Jung's typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

And Myers' many years of data gathering demonstrated that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality he described actually cluster in real people. As McCrae and Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) have explained:

Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.

And those scientifically respectable "indices" Myers produced were the dichotomies, rather than the functions. Or rather, you might say that Myers' psychometrically valid categories included the four functions, but not the eight functions — and with the four so-called "perceiving" and "judging" functions really being the two sides of two of the MBTI dichotomies.

And the 30-plus years of data that's been gathered since Myers died reinforces the notion that the reason it makes sense for the official MBTI indicator to test people based on the dichotomies is not because the dichotomies are a "convenient fiction" for that purpose, but rather because those four dimensions are actually the core, substantially-genetic building blocks of Jungian/MBTI type — while the "cognitive functions" are appropriately characterized as (in Reynierse's words) a "category mistake."

In any case, and more specifically, I know of no passage in Gifts Differing or any of Myers' other writings where her type descriptions reflect any double flip effect. Regardless of what dichotomy pair is involved — non-function-related (e.g., NF and ST), or function-related (e.g., SJ and NP), Myers' writings consistently reflect the unsurprising notion that if there's a personality characteristic associated with two preferences, then flipping both preferences will lead you to a type that exhibits the opposite of that characteristic. If SJs are the most whateverish types, then you can pretty reliably expect the NPs to be the least whateverish.

Gifts Differing includes a Type Table that looks like this:

ISTJ	ISFJ	INFJ	INTJ
ISTP	ISFP	INFP	INTP
ESTP	ESFP	ENFP	ENTP
ESTJ	ESFJ	ENFJ	ENTJ

And Myers explained that "the Type Table is a device for seeing all the types in relation to each other. It arranges the types so that those in specific areas of the Table have certain preferences in common and hence share whatever qualities arise from those preferences."

And Myers specifically noted, as one example, that "the more resistant types, the thinkers at left and right and the judging types at top and bottom, make a sort of wall around the Type Table; the 'gentler' FP types are inside. The types with both of the resistant preferences, the tough-minded, executive TJs, occupy the four corners."

Double-flip (and function axes) fans think of TJs and FPs as the Fi/Te types, but Myers consistently described preference-pair-based type groups with opposite preferences as opposites when it came to all of the personality characteristics that she associated with those preference pairs.

And assuming that aspect of Myers' writings reflects reality — and as Reynierse pointed out, that was the state of the data when Myers died, and remained the state of the data in 2009 — then NJs and SPs don't have "Ni" or "Se" things in common, and NPs and SJs don't have "Ne" or "Si" things in common, and FJs and TPs don't have "Fe" or "Ti" things in common, and FPs and TJs don't have "Fi" and "Te" things in common.

And if you can point us to a respectable body of correlational data to the contrary, Dr. Nardi — with respect to any of the eight functions, and any aspect of personality — then please do so. And if the large body of existing MBTI data pools is as lacking in support for double flips as Reynierse says, then unless and until you and your fellow HaroldGrantians can manage to produce some kind of respectable support, why are you OK with continuing to peddle those double flips as if they had any more claim to respectability than the zodiac?

You conducted a "pilot study" that was exploratory, involved a very small sample, and (by your own admission) shouldn't be viewed as "proving" anything. And that's all fine as far as it goes, but... I would have expected a "world renowned ... expert in the fields of neuroscience and personality" (as you've described yourself) to wait until they'd gathered significantly more data — a quantity that, you know, offered some kind of respectable level of support for whatever conclusions they might be moved to draw — before deciding it was time to publish a book with "brain-savvy insights" in its subtitle, or time to tell prospective purchasers of the book that it provides "first-hand scientific knowledge" that they can use as a "practical guide" to help them "improve their work-flow and learning," and "identify people's struggles and stress areas," or time to claim that their lab results provided "strong neurological validity" for Jung's eight types.

================================

I suspect Dr. Nardi may not be interested, but any other reader who's made it this far, who's unacquainted with my much-linked-to (by me) posts about what I call the Real MBTI Model, and who's open to a hefty helping of reality-based input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack — can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in these three posts:

The Real MBTI Model
The bogosity of the "tandems"
The dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI

(The third post replaces the old INTJforum link at the end of the first post.)

Gluttons for punishment should note that the end of the second linked post talks about Berens and Montoya's new "Intentional Styles" grouping — which they were then calling "Cognitive Styles," and which Dr. Nardi prefers to call "Growth Styles," and which I like to call the apotheosis of the double flip. It matches the socionics quadra groups, and it's one of the models that Nardi's recommended (in this thread) as a source of potentially useful "data points" for typing purposes.

Dr. Nardi has also recommended Berens' more well-known "Interaction Styles" model, and anyone interested in reading a long analysis/takedown of that particular typological muddle (an apter word, in this case) will find it in this PerC post.

Many of us have read your point of view before and your arguments for dichotomies over functions. It's clear you have a perspective and that's good and interesting. We've posted sections of it on our Wiki.

In the spirit of open dialogue instead of lecturing and going back to the purpose of this thread - What's your question?