User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 148

  1. #11
    © So Much Deeper™ Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,605

    Default

    I hope I’m not the only one who found a laugh in his little “level 0” remark.
    Likes SearchingforPeace liked this post

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever View Post
    I hope I’m not the only one who found a laugh in his little “level 0” remark.
    ;-). Let's say that person (ESFP preferences) "reminded" me.
    On a more practical note, I find that whatever level a person is working at, the result is often digested by others or simplified in one's on mind, eventually, at one level lower, which suggests there is a "level -1".
    Likes Forever liked this post

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    I have a question for Dario. I understand Dario had participated in a video chat with Victor Gulenko at one point.

    I was wondering how Dario feels about Socionics--Does he view it as a valid typing system, and does he see any noticeable flaws or strengths in comparison to MBTI? Does he feel MBTI and Socionics are compatible and reconcilable, or does he feel they are mutually exclusive and cannot be correlated?
    I think there's something to learn from Socionics, and vice versa.

    -- The Socionics folks sometimes reduce the Myers-Briggs version of type to the MBTI instrument, which is incorrect. Shame on them. There's a huge wealth of material on temperament, type development, type dynamics, interaction styles, etc in the Western version.

    -- The Socionics quadra are worth exploring. I really enjoyed Gulenko's presentation on the quadra in terms of social-psychological development, and from that suggested to Linda Berens that her "cognitive styles" model be called "growth styles" instead. I see the quadra as a great lever there, alongside Beebe's "spine of the personality" and Berens "tandem dynamics".

    -- Socionics got right, IMO, the whole J/P thing, at least in terms of being faithful to Jung and in terms of ease of unpacking the type code to newbies. That said, there are no great resources--that I know of--that define J/P simply in the Jungian terms (aka rational/irrational). So far, it looks like the left and right prefrontal cortex regions correspond to the Jungian/Socionics J/P, whereas the Myers-Briggs one is basically a trait measure with some handwaving.

    -- Socionics is very abstracted. Who can remember all those role names, etc? And wouldn't who-gets-along-with-whom vary by age/development? I think the role stuff is a nice reference point, but it tries too hard. Interpersonal relations are nurture too.

    -- My impression is that there are more Sensing folks involved in the Socionics community. Might be wrong there. Not sure anyone really knows.

    -- Their definitions of Sensing and Feeling do vary from the Myers-Briggs definitions. Thus, I think the two systems are ultimately different and people should be wary about using them interchangeably.

    -- Their lettering system should be declared a disaster area. Myers-Briggs understands marketing-to-the-masses much better.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearchingforPeace View Post
    Thanks Highlander for putting this together.

    Thanks Dario for this and all your work. I really appreciate your efforts in typology and have found great insight in your words.

    Two questions:

    1. What are your thoughts on Quenk and typing by looking at the inferior?
    The last time I heard Naomi speak in person was at the San Francisco APTi conference. Someone asked her, does she get any mileage out of Beebe's model of 8 processes? (rather than just 4 with a focus on the inferior). She said "no".

    When I read through her examples of the inferior, I see a bit of mixing of definitions. This is for a variety of reasons. One, she comes from an older tradition. Two, in Jungian terms, perhaps the inferior is fused and undifferentiated, so our current focus on separating out the 4th and 8th functions is trying too hard to be specific. There may be other reasons. Honestly, I haven't given her work a lot of thought, though I think it's worth studying, not like a Bible, but for inspiration. In contrast, "Survival Games Personalities Play" by Eve Delunas is a masterpiece that's a great reference. My sister said she walked around with a copy of it for several years. Eve focuses on the temperament angle rather than the Jungian processes. If you want to stay with processes, then look at the synergies between Dominant and Inferior, which can be an amazing lever for growth.

    2. For personal growth, is shadow work better than focusing on the inferior?
    Hmm. What an awesome question! Even a few years ago, I could not have answered it. Honestly, I believe they go hand-in-hand, with shadow work the more impactful of the two. The type model -- with language like "inferior" (and "tertiary") -- gives us some reference points when diving into shadow work. But ultimately we need to dive. As part of shadow work, one beyond Type to explore more of Jung's ideas and get familiar with psychodynamics, such as projection. That said, the actual tools used matter. I think Beebe and Berens work on synergy of the 1st and 4th functions can greatly aid growth. And some shadow work tools seem weak to me. We each have an ego structure, and shadow work needs to involve some dissolution of that structure; otherwise, the growth opportunity is mental masturbation, or it's effective but at a pace that's too slow for my taste.

    Here are some helpful tools:

    -- Function-based skill building (e.g. "8 Keys to Self-Leadership")
    -- Voice dialog and active imagination
    -- Meditation, yoga, breathwork
    -- NLP, hypnosis, Ericksonian Psychotherapy
    -- Psychedelics (mainly the entheogens, in a shamanic context)

    I think ALL of these methods benefit from type knowledge and awareness of one's inferior and tertiary. Being aware of archetypes, especially the anima/animus, and phenomena like projection and being "in the grip" are very helpful too with all of these.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nørrsken View Post
    This is so awesome, @highlander, thanks a million! Dario is so very much so INTJ based on all the answers, I could tell he and my dad would be the very best of friends and be dorks together.
    This sounds like a compliment :-).
    Some folks push that I'm so other type. Ha! It's a compliment. But I think no matter what growth etc occurs, that's always within the context of our type.
    Likes Pluvio liked this post

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexicon View Post
    3 questions for Dario:

    1.) favorite ice cream flavor?
    2.) allergic to cats?
    3.) single? Asking for a friend.


    (Don’t actually bother the poor guy with these, I just felt like trolling the thread with the inevitable, stereotypically off-topic AMA questions for some terrible reason.
    Bad moderator! BAD!)
    1. I've been allergic to eggs all of my life, and as an adult am lactose intolerant, so only ice cream for me. I prefer whichever has the least amount of sugary taste. I seem to be one of those folks who has 100x as many tastebuds for sweet as other people.

    2. Only a few cats. I like cats.

    3. LOL. No
    Likes Peter Deadpan liked this post

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merced View Post
    I also have questions!

    1. I am a high school senior who is currently writing a book about personality theory and will be using this publication to increase my chances of getting into my dream school, University of Southern California. Could you give some comments on the process of getting published? Were there any hurdles you faced? What advice would you give to anyone seeking to contribute to the community?

    2. That being said, could you also share about your time at USC? The good, the bad, the ugly?

    3. I and many others argue that the biggest flaw with MBTI specifically is that there is no unified or official definition of functions. Do you agree with this criticism? Do you think, as MBTI and other personality systems gain recognition beyond Buzzfeed quizzes, that it'll generate a stronger and more contemporary foundation academically?

    4. Do you think there is a viable use for MBTI in politics?

    5. Further, do you believe there is a correlation between MBTI and sexuality?

    I vote to bother Dario with these and raise a few more off topic questions.

    6. Do you think cereal is a soup or a salad?

    7. How flexible are you?

    8. Last song you listened to?

    9. Is there a meal that represents your childhood?

    1. So you're a Gen Z/Homelander rather than a Millennial. So sorry about the whole social media thing. Welcome to the insanity. Seriously, congratulations on a great goal. Getting published is fairly easy, and by that I mean arduous and life-draining, once you have already published some other books. As for the first one, thankfully, I had someone to guide me through the process and do much of the work (formatting, editing, printing, advertising, selling, etc). There are many hurdles even in today's e-market. My advice: [CLICK ON HIDDEN TEXT]


    2. I generally liked USC. Fun campus "culture". It was a lot cheaper when I went, and I attended on a scholarship. If you major in a STEM or Business degree, it will likely be worthwhile. If not, your job prospects and lifetime earnings may be less than an associates technical degree, though USC is known for its alumni networking. I suggest doing study abroad. Go to the football games. Volunteer for a leadership position in a club. Get an internship. And so on.

    3. I don't think Type will ever gain that much traction in academia, for several reasons. These come to mind:

    a) as type historian Peter Geyer points out, type is "not a model". It is a therapy tool. His 8 "psychological types" act as a mandala. You can keep going back to it, and each time you can drew fresh insights. In contrast, I view the Five Factor Model as a behavioral trait model that is lifeless with very little therapeutic (or explanatory) value. if we "formalize" the functions (that is, give them specific definitions or operationalize them), then we place a hard limit on what they are about, and since they are about our human psychological nature--which, like language, is apparently boundless--then they would lose their special value.

    b) The functions are meant to be universal across cultures, time and place. Necessarily, they need to be abstract. Jung called them mental functions, with the term function borrowed from mathematics, like y=mx+b. So each function is a set of abstract relations and transformations. So even if we get to the point as a community to have official paragraph long definitions of the functions, they will represent patterns, themes, etc, not singular phenomena.

    c) Type is a systems model, at least when it is used well. I can say from first-hand experience that the vast majority of academics don't think in terms of systems and don't wish to do so. Some may even be incapable. Of course, there are exceptional disciplines such as ecology or engineering that attract a systems mindset. There are disciplines like anthropology that used to be fairly systems oriented, but with generational changes, lost that. I've presented to psychology grad students and faculty before. They are unaware of the tools to analyze and work with systems.

    4. Let's not. Politics is about power and it corrupts everything it touches. Even within the type community, politics trumps type knowledge. Of course, as a research exercise, it might be fun to see relationships between type and political figures for example, but I am unimpressed with work done so far. The one use that helps is to try to diffuse one's own biases and to engage in some perspective shifting. So, for shadow work, it's useful. Perhaps the only good use of politics is shadow work. LOL

    5. What do you mean? Like type and Howard Gardner's unpublished work on Sexual Intelligence?

    6. Cereal is transgressive, which is why kids love it, and even SP types have it for dinner as adults.

    7. Oh Lord. Someone's using Extraverted Intuiting... Let me say, flexibility, acuity, and outcomes are the three goals of NLP, which we can abstract to any domain.

    8. "These Walls" (Live) from "I am Untitled"

    9. Old fashioned granola with goats milk. And fly landed in it.

  8. #18
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,553

    Default

    Wow; “Growth Styles (aka the Quadra in Socionics)”!
    Dr. Berens and Chris Montoya had introduced “Intentional Styles” (originally, “Cognitive Stlyes”), which were the groups formed by the same four common primary functions (both spine and arm; which is what the quadras are). I had long thought we needed these groups outlined, and have been trying to make them more known on these boards, now that a pair of official experts within Western type circles have outlined them. (Seeing that many people have already been drawn to Socionics because it had more concepts like those developed).
    But when I asked her about it, she had indicated they weren't really supposed to be associated with the quadras (which I thought would be good to do, since, again, so many are familiar with Socionics). So has this model been rethought and renamed again? Or is this slightly different; like you mentioned the spine only, which is the dominant/inferior tandem; i.e. are the “Growth Styles” dom./inf. tandems only?

    Also was going to ask what your thoughts were on the larger psychological field's resistance to your neurological studies, but I see you gave some of that, above. I had thought, since their biggest criticism of typology was the “lack of empirical evidence”, that your study was just what they wanted, but from what I saw, they just brushed it off (I forget how the exact objections go). They just seem presupposed to be against anything connected with MBTI. (Seems to be an S/N conflict, and it's so ironic that this theory explains even their opposition to it!)
    In addition to FFM, the “temperament” theory they respect seems to be Birch & Chess, which is also more about standalone “traits“ than putting together a typology (and is more focused on children's behavior). I wonder what it is about those that satisfies them, as far as “empirical validity”. What else do they want, to accept as proof of cognitive functions? Do you hope your followup might break some ground in that regard?
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes iwakar liked this post

  9. #19
    Senior Member Pluvio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    496 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Ne
    Posts
    3,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AncientSpirits View Post
    This sounds like a compliment :-).
    Some folks push that I'm so other type. Ha! It's a compliment. But I think no matter what growth etc occurs, that's always within the context of our type.
    Yeah I was being playful, my dad is into a lot of the same things as you do and I always admire people like you and him.. I know that the world keeps spinning because of highly intelligent ITJ folks like yourselves.
    /\/

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Wow; “Growth Styles (aka the Quadra in Socionics)”!
    Dr. Berens and Chris Montoya had introduced “Intentional Styles” (originally, “Cognitive Stlyes”), which were the groups formed by the same four common primary functions (both spine and arm; which is what the quadras are). I had long thought we needed these groups outlined, and have been trying to make them more known on these boards, now that a pair of official experts within Western type circles have outlined them. (Seeing that many people have already been drawn to Socionics because it had more concepts like those developed).
    But when I asked her about it, she had indicated they weren't really supposed to be associated with the quadras (which I thought would be good to do, since, again, so many are familiar with Socionics). So has this model been rethought and renamed again? Or is this slightly different; like you mentioned the spine only, which is the dominant/inferior tandem; i.e. are the “Growth Styles” dom./inf. tandems only?
    Linda and I are chatting informally. "Growth Styles" is my term, and she's open to it. She's pretty busy, so who knows when (or if) she'll get back to it. Of course Linda will take her own angle on it, starting with a clear table and a variety of sources. I can't see her saying she's going to adapt the quadra. Ultimately, I think this model would be a huge add to the Myers-Briggs community, whatever form it takes precisely. I'd like it to involve all the functions, not just the dom/inf.

    Also was going to ask what your thoughts were on the larger psychological field's resistance to your neurological studies, but I see you gave some of that, above. I had thought, since their biggest criticism of typology was the “lack of empirical evidence”, that your study was just what they wanted, but from what I saw, they just brushed it off (I forget how the exact objections go). They just seem presupposed to be against anything connected with MBTI. (Seems to be an S/N conflict, and it's so ironic that this theory explains even their opposition to it!)
    In addition to FFM, the “temperament” theory they respect seems to be Birch & Chess, which is also more about standalone “traits“ than putting together a typology (and is more focused on children's behavior). I wonder what it is about those that satisfies them, as far as “empirical validity”. What else do they want, to accept as proof of cognitive functions? Do you hope your followup might break some ground in that regard?
    In America, "empirical" is mostly a synonym for "measurable" with "statistical significance". Its historical definition, and still in Europe to an extent, it means something broader that implies practical use, observation, etc. Peter Geyer understands this issue a lot better.

    Yes, there is a self-reflexive hate against the MBTI instrument / model. Even when presented with basic ideas like "assesses preference, not behavior", it's as if they don't want to understand. One time, this FFM gentleman was quite adamant with me that if we're going to talk about types, there should be at least 81 types, 3 per dimension (ex introvert, extrovert, ambivert). It's as if he didn't hear the word "preference" or "process". And of course, he didn't understand systems concepts like "each type is a strange attractor in a state space". I think it's a lost cause. In fact, I think systems thinking in general is a lost cause in academia. It's too demanding in terms of consciousness and cognitive complexity. There are even persons who try to actively stomp it out (aging Baby Boomers, in cases I know).

    When I present type to anyone in an academic setting, I never say MBTI or "type"; and I focus on functions using verb endings, calling them cognitive processes. Eg. "Introverted Sensing" or "Sensing process" or "Sensing bias". I never say "Sensor" or "Sensing types". There's some traction in Cognitive Science, which is interested in mental functions. I should mention, the only two or three people who hate my work, who are in academia, are graduate students with very limited backgrounds. When I've presented on my EEG work to doctors, etc, I can answer all their questions and they are quite receptive (to the work in general, not to MBTI). I say I chose Jung's model because it talks about processes, and the brain is, after all, an information processor.

    To be honest, I don't care about academics. Type will continue to succeed, or sink into obscurity, based on its own merits with the public.

Similar Threads

  1. Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 660
    Last Post: 05-30-2018, 08:06 PM
  2. Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
    By Seymour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 11-26-2017, 07:39 PM
  3. Video: New Dario Nardi Interview
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2015, 10:55 PM
  4. IxTP + INFJ = INTJ (Dario Nardi Interviews "Remix")
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-09-2014, 05:17 PM
  5. Dario Nardi on Reddit
    By 011235813 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-28-2013, 12:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO