Interview With Dario Nardi!

[Forever]

;-). 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".

Let's hope we can leave it at that. Perhaps I'd be more comfortable with the square root of that number.

[Eric B]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, from what I understand of the theory, the less conscious the function, the less differentiated it is, including the exact attitudes. I had noted that Quenk's descriptions of inferior Fe and Fi sound pretty much the same; just less controlled emotion under stress. Which is really more of an undifferentiated general “Feeling” (manifest as behavior) than a discrete Fe or Fi.

I think what really differentiates the attitudes are the archetypes themselves, which are really complexes or ego-states when filled with personal experience. So the 8th place archetype is the shadow of the anima, and reverses the associated function's attitude.

[Edit: wait; are you Dario? If so; I didn't realize it until reading some of your other posts].

[AncientSpirits]

Dario, I have a few questions which I suppose aren't very related to each other.

1. Why do you think it is that the academic community doesn't more strongly recognize MBTI or cognitive functions and instead focus on Big 5. There is a lot more information on MBTI and cognitive functions which makes it more practical to use in everyday life.

I've ended up mostly answering this elsewhere. I would add a few things:
--FFM is open-source, while MBTI instrument is not. This makes it suspect (conflicts of interest) and less accessible.
--What's practical for the academic isn't what's practical for the public.

2. As we can't really expect others to take and publish their tests and some of the value of type is to understand others better who think differently than we do, it is naturally beneficial to attempt to guess other people's type. Do you do this? What do you think the best methods are? Language? Do you put any stock on visual typing? Do you use temperament or dichotomies?

Research into expertise suggests high-performing experts draw on 2 resources:
a) A rich theoretical framework
b) Years/thousands of case studies
One area investigated was medical doctors and their ability to diagnose patients.

So yes, I do more-or-less type people, especially if I need to interact with them around something practical. I have all the type models in my head and hundreds, maybe thousands of case studies over almost 25 years. Perceptually, no doubt I'm attending to voice tone and pace, body language, eye motion, physiological structure, word choice, what they respond to with energy, etc. I don't focus on any of these. I just let the info come in and eventually it pings. This info feeds into interaction styles and temperament, as well as cognitive processes. I'm aware of various "flavors" of each type. I don't use career or such as a data point.

I'd must mention "triangulation". This is key. Imagine you are lost in the woods. Fortunately, you have some tools. You have a compass. It provides one data point. You can see mountains as a well-known landmark. That's another data point. Then maybe there's a sign or trail somewhere. That's yet another data point. You can combine this information to arrive at a most-likely current location and route home. In the same way, every assessment provides a data point. Taken together, the data points can be used to triangulate the best-fit type. And if the triangulation is imperfect--that is, there are some contradictions between assessment results--then my confidence is lower and I need to get more active to learn the person's type.

If I want to move faster or verify type, to do micro-pinging. I was inspired by an innovation in quantum physics. There's actually a way to *mostly* bypass the limits of measuring quantum systems. Instead of taking a single hard measurement, which disturbs the system, you very gently ping the system hundreds of times to get a statistical distribution. I think ENFPs do this a lot to assess people's response patterns. I just do this with type. I insert particular words or such into the interaction, very tiny by themselves, and note the brief response (if any). Eventually, I build up a distribution around a particular type, or sometimes a hard response back that's pretty clear.

I'm making it sound more thought out than it is. It's pretty automatic, at least in American culture. In Japan, for example, I have a much harder time because I didn't grow up in the culture, the feedback is more subtle, the general style more conformist, I have many fewer example, and so forth. So I'd actually make an effort there.

I'm *very* skeptical of typing people on TV or through their works or generally in any public capacity. That's why I trust to interact with the person directly.

3. It seems that in cognitive function tests, some extraverted vs. introverted types are very different - Te vs Ti or Fe vs Fi and that people clearly prefer one over the other and the way these things manifest has a clear differentiation. Most people who score high on Ni though seem to score high on Ne and visa versa. Why do you think that is?

I don't know what the MBTI scale data etc says here, but let's say it's the case. I'd think it was due to the abstract nature of Intuiting. Using N, we can image "as if". That's why, when I do exercises in workshops, I think it's important to have people do actual exercises, like fishing the unconscious (Ni) or transcontextual thinking (Ne), that illustrate the practical differences between Ne and Ni (or whatever).

4. How do you think Helen Fisher's type theory fits with MBTI, cognitive functions, temperament theory, etc. Do you see a correlation between these things? What do you think about connecting type to body hormones? http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads...0Chemistry.pdf

There are many dozens of hormones and neuro-transmitters that impact personality, not just four. And even the four she mentions are multi-dimensional. I should probably not open this can of worms.

5. Along the lines of correlation, a couple of years ago I was very curious about how Enneagram was related to four letter type. So I ran some data and came up with this Enneagram and MBTI Correlation - Typology Wiki. It's hard to find a lot of research about personality type in general. You're involved in some very interesting things. Do you publish the results of your research and if so where? Where else do you see interesting and useful research going on?

You can find boat loads of research on personality type in CAPT's MILO database, here:
Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Library

Regarding the enneagram and the brain, I did some research. It's published in 2012 in the "Nine Points Bulletin".

I publish in books and bulletins. When I finish my study of EEG and type, I will publish that in a journal, though links to MBTI might end up being a footnote there, as they hate that kind of thing. I'm also hooked into a grant with research publication options for brain activity, personality, and VR training. Hopefully, that will bear fruit. My publishing history is otherwise mostly in AI. Since I'm mostly running my own business, I don't really care to jump through all the hoops unless it really matters.

[AncientSpirits]

[Edit: wait; are you Dario? If so; I didn't realize it until reading some of your other posts].

LOL. on most forums, I, Dario, am "AncientSpirits".

[Eric B]

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.

So you mean you want "Growth Styles" to be another name or new name for the Intentional Styles? What is your take on that model, as it's already been presented?

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".

LOL; I once tossed around the idea of 81 types, about ten years ago. I liked the FIRO-B structure, which a counseling ministry had licenced and used with the old humor temperaments, and since it consisted of a three-layered stack of two dimensional 0-9 scales, with 4 and 5 as "moderate"; I had paired one level with Interaction styles, and another level with the Keirseyan temperaments, and tried to add ambiversion and moderate poles for the other three letters (after seeing a Socionics site add "ambidextrous" preferences), so that there were 81 types, with 9 temperaments and 9 Interaction styles, which also mapped right onto Enneagram on two levels!
Of course, this did not work with functions, but I was figuring if Keirsey could reject them, then I could set them aside, for the time. A year or so later, when I arrived here, we tried again, with 76 types, realizing the the totally "ambidextrous" XXXX and four of the other possible combinations were impossible with the functions (the person who started that actually did the whole function stacks for the other 76 types!)

So then, after that; I realized it was about "preferences", and even in the FIRO scoring system, 4 or 5 still lean slightly to one pole or the other.

We've been getting around here (and/or Personality Cafe) MBTI or JCF naysayers who argue Jung spoke of "ambiverts"; but to me, they again would still have a slight preference for E or I, but their behavior is what would come out as "moderate" (which is what a system like FIRO would pick out).

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".

Yeah I remember Linda saying the Intentional Styles concepts should not be turned into nouns but remain verbs. (I thought "____ types" was OK, since it still maintains the verb). I never fully understood that, but got the sense that we didn't want them to be what we "are"; but of course "prefer". So this makes sense now. The nouns are making "types" out of them, and that's what the academics don't want. Perhaps, part of it is being new categories, like race, gender, etc. that they fear will become new tools of discrimination, and they are so trying to eliminate those other categories as it is. (Though the DSM has plenty of other [noun-form] categories).
I guess the noun forms are easier to say (and even think), and we are so used to Myers and Keirsey, who do use the nouns.

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.

OK; great. Didn't know there was a branch of science where it was being received better. Sort of like how string theory is still viewed with skepticism in the larger science field, which declares it "not even wrong".

[highlander]

@AncientSpirits

Have you purchased tickets to Star Wars yet?

What do you think about the work by Marcus Buckingham and StrengthsFinder related stuff? Have you ever taken one of these assessments? If so, what were your results and how has it helped you?

[AncientSpirits]

So you mean you want "Growth Styles" to be another name or new name for the Intentional Styles? What is your take on that model, as it's already been presented?

From a marketing viewpoint, I believe "Growth Styles" is a better name. Intention would still be a facet of it. That's my suggestion. Linda and Chris have presented the model in several different ways at type community workshops, letting people know it's in-progress and open to improvements. I get the model, but others not necessarily. It was interesting at San Francisco APT to see maybe half the INTJs in the room see themselves as orchestrators and the other half not themselves at all in it. There's where the growth aspect comes in. Even if Linda's aim is to find a unique dynamic that transcends the 4 types in a style, the underlying cognitive processes are still in play, and the way an NTJ comes to relate to SFP, and vice versa, is through type development.

LOL; I once tossed around the idea of 81 types, about ten years ago. I liked the FIRO-B structure, which a counseling ministry had licenced and used with the old humor temperaments, and since it consisted of a three-layered stack of two dimensional 0-9 scales, with 4 and 5 as "moderate"; I had paired one level with Interaction styles, and another level with the Keirseyan temperaments, and tried to add ambiversion and moderate poles for the other three letters (after seeing a Socionics site add "ambidextrous" preferences), so that there were 81 types, with 9 temperaments and 9 Interaction styles, which also mapped right onto Enneagram on two levels!
Of course, this did not work with functions, but I was figuring if Keirsey could reject them, then I could set them aside, for the time. A year or so later, when I arrived here, we tried again, with 76 types, realizing the the totally "ambidextrous" XXXX and four of the other possible combinations were impossible with the functions (the person who started that actually did the whole function stacks for the other 76 types!)

So then, after that; I realized it was about "preferences", and even in the FIRO scoring system, 4 or 5 still lean slightly to one pole or the other.

Just going through this kind of process can be very useful, to explore alternatives, stumble on complications and edge cases and such, and perhaps close the whole affair, having said it's "doable but...." Way back when, I tried stuff too, especially around subtypes. No luck. But was worthwhile.

We've been getting around here (and/or Personality Cafe) MBTI or JCF naysayers who argue Jung spoke of "ambiverts"; but to me, they again would still have a slight preference for E or I, but their behavior is what would come out as "moderate" (which is what a system like FIRO would pick out).
Yeah I remember Linda saying the Intentional Styles concepts should not be turned into nouns but remain verbs. (I thought "____ types" was OK, since it still maintains the verb). I never fully understood that, but got the sense that we didn't want them to be what we "are"; but of course "prefer". So this makes sense now. The nouns are making "types" out of them, and that's what the academics don't want. Perhaps, part of it is being new categories, like race, gender, etc. that they fear will become new tools of discrimination, and they are so trying to eliminate those other categories as it is. (Though the DSM has plenty of other [noun-form] categories).
I guess the noun forms are easier to say (and even think), and we are so used to Myers and Keirsey, who do use the nouns.

I have no idea. Your interpretation sounds generous. In my POV, it's about power cultivation (outer world) and ego defense (inner world). The whole post-modern quest by social science academics doesn't make sense to me beyond that.

OK; great. Didn't know there was a branch of science where it was being received better. Sort of like how string theory is still viewed with skepticism in the larger science field, which declares it "not even wrong".

I can't say generally. Simply, in my case, when I talk to someone with a cognitive science background, or if someone from psych or neuroscience might be critical--such as claiming brain and mind are the same thing--I point to cognitive science's focus on mental functions. I frame it this way upfront, to preempt disagreements.

[highlander]

@AncientSpirits there is one thing I'm curious about. I have seen you talk in public in a few Youtube videos and such. One of the things that struck is is that you have a great deal of charisma. INTJs might be known for a lot of things but charisma in public speaking doesn't seem to be one of them. At first, I imagined you to be an ENTP or something and it surprised me when I found out later you were an INTJ. You are gifted in your ability to speak in front of people. Is this something that has always come naturally to you or is it learned? It's not the same style at all but there is one other INTJ (I think) that I once saw who was an amazing speaker - Colin Powell - one of the best speakers I have ever seen.

[AncientSpirits]

@AncientSpirits

Have you purchased tickets to Star Wars yet?

What do you think about the work by Marcus Buckingham and StrengthsFinder related stuff? Have you ever taken one of these assessments? If so, what were your results and how has it helped you?

Yes, someone offered to buy tickets for me and I said yes. I'm skeptical. I enjoyed Rogue One but not Star Wars 7, which was mostly for kids. And there's a kid in all of us, so that's great! But I'd almost rather see Blade Runner 2047 again.

I know of StrengthsFinder. I haven't taken it or critically examined it. My initial impression is meh.

In a society that rewards people for specialization, focusing on developing our strengths makes sense. Moreover, I believe that however much we grow, that growth remains within the context of our type, perhaps within just our dominant function. So a person is wasting time trying to be some other type. Just be the best your type can be. Say "no" to "type falsification".

However, in practice, I encourage people to develop their secondary strengths and to explore their opposite. Secondary can mean brain regions or networks that are strong, but not the strongest. Or secondary can mean your auxiliary function. Opposite can mean your non-preferred functions or near opposite type, such as ISFP for an INTJ. Or it can refer to how brain activity tends to shift around midlife--there is a neurological reason why people lose interest in using their strengths and turn to explore undeveloped skill areas, such as an INFJ musician turning to business later in life. Does StrengthsFinder help people deal with career and life transitions that occur due to developmental shifts (in the brain)? Seems unlikely.

[Merced]

@AncientSpirits Intuitive bias: Real or very Real?