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.
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.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 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.3. Dogs or cats?
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.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?
I was mainly in introverted Feeling stuff, as I viewed it, like music and fiction writing starting around age 21 on through my 20s.
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.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?
User Tag List
21%, aanule, AbbyNormal, Abcdenfp, Abendrot, Afkan, Again_Chloe, AgentF, Aha, Also, andresimon, Andy, Animal, AphroditeGoneAwry, Arctic Hysteria, Article Poster, Athenian200, Avocado, BadOctopus, Betty Blue, BlackCat, BluRoses, brainiac, Bullterrier, Bush, Captain_Invincible, cascadeco, Cassandra, Cellmold, Chaotic Harmony, Chickennugget, chickpea, Chloe, ChocolateMoose123, cloakofsnow, Cloudpatrol, cm81, COLORATURA, Comeback Girl, Coriolis, Crabs, Craft, CuriousFeeling, Cyanide, DiscoBiscuit, Domino, DomNi, DreamBeliever, Dyslexxie, edcoaching, Eilonwy, EJCC, Elfboy, empatheticdrunk, Ene, Entropic, ergophobe, Eric B, Esoteric Wench, Estelia, estorm, Eternal Harmony, Ethanescence, Everin, Evo, fetus, Fidelia, Firebird 8118, five sounds, floralcoralpot, Fluffywolf, Folderol, Forever_Jung, Frosty, Galaxy Gazer, Galena, GarrotTheThief, geedoenfj, Gerbah, Giggly, greenfairy, grey_beard, gromit, Grunfur, Haight, Halla74, Hapyniss, Hazashin, heiots, Hiraeth, Hive, Holy, hornet, Hypatia, Ingrid in grids, InsatiableCuriosity, INTJMom, INTJWoman, INTP, INTPness
Thread: Interview With Dario Nardi!
-
12-13-2017, 05:44 PM #91
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
-
12-13-2017, 05:47 PM #92
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
-
12-13-2017, 05:53 PM #93
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
Yes, exactly.
That is certainly fascinating. Also makes sense.
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.
-
12-13-2017, 06:33 PM #94
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
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!
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.
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?
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.SearchingforPeace liked this post
-
12-13-2017, 06:39 PM #95
- Join Date
- Dec 2016
- Posts
- 9,678
Scan my brain. Don't tell me about the cancer though, just the type. That's all that matters.
-
12-13-2017, 06:55 PM #96
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
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.
-
12-13-2017, 07:01 PM #97
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Posts
- 4
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.
-
12-13-2017, 07:22 PM #98
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Posts
- 60
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.
-
12-13-2017, 07:31 PM #99
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Posts
- 4
-
12-13-2017, 10:22 PM #100
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?
Similar Threads
-
Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
By Mondo in forum Online Personality TestsReplies: 680Last Post: 07-03-2019, 12:36 PM -
Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
By Seymour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 210Last Post: 11-26-2017, 07:39 PM -
Video: New Dario Nardi Interview
By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS FeedsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-12-2015, 10:55 PM -
IxTP + INFJ = INTJ (Dario Nardi Interviews "Remix")
By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 9Last Post: 04-09-2014, 05:17 PM -
Dario Nardi on Reddit
By 011235813 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 20Last Post: 02-28-2013, 12:10 PM