[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Neuroscience of Personality - Dario Nardi

[highlander]

This book is about the results of Dario Nardi's investigation into personality type and and how it relates to activity in the brain. He proposes that people use their brain in fundamentally different ways and that particular types tend to demonstrate stronger activity in certain areas of the brain than others. The concepts are fascinating as is the book. The following is a presentation that he gave at Google on the topic which lays out some of his ideas.

What I really liked was that this represented some pretty fresh thinking and he does a nice job of explaining things. If cognitive functions do really exist than it would seem logical that our brains are wired in certain consistent ways. One of the more interesting things I recall him saying (and I'm not even sure it's in the book) is that certain types as they age, start to look like other types. The INTJ, that prefers Ni>Te>Fi>Se is compared to the ISFP that prefers Fi>Se>Ni>Te. Those two types share the top 4 cognitive functions and as a result, brain activity converges as they grow older. I believe the idea may be that existence of the same function pairs (such as Ni/Se) and the corresponding maturation of their usage as someone gets older, causes those two types to look more similar.

The biggest problem I have with the book is the number of participants in the study, which if I understand it correctly, is 56 individuals. I am no expert on statistics and I guess many medical studies involve small populations like this and present conclusions based on those numbers. Even if what is in the book is true, I don't understand why he didn't involve more students. It just seems like an extremely small population from which to derive conclusions from. That is the only reason I give this 4 stars instead of 5.

 

[badger055]

This is the only personality book I bought. It's good. End of review.

 

[iauiugu]

This book's proposition seems potentially revolutionary if its tentative results are true

In my understanding of the findings, it isn't dependent on the existence of a physical difference of the brain that leads cognitive type difference, but how the patterns of brain activity reflect type. his approach is truly anthropological, based in long-term observation and study, over the more conventional formal and robotic forms of cognitive study.

Some of his findings I admit I found beautifully illustrative: that an extroverted sensing-dominant brain shows little high-level activity except for a rapid 'tennis hop' of activity between the hemispheres, like the hopping side to side of a tennis player remaining nimble, or the minimal and efficient cognitive activity of the logic model-following extroverted thinker

I find it worth reading for anyone interested in how type could be more than a convenient but fictive model of personality

 

[grey_beard]

This book's proposition seems potentially revolutionary if its tentative results are true

In my understanding of the findings, it isn't dependent on the existence of a physical difference of the brain that leads cognitive type difference, but how the patterns of brain activity reflect type. his approach is truly anthropological, based in long-term observation and study, over the more conventional formal and robotic forms of cognitive study.

Some of his findings I admit I found beautifully illustrative: that an extroverted sensing-dominant brain shows little high-level activity except for a rapid 'tennis hop' of activity between the hemispheres, like the hopping side to side of a tennis player remaining nimble, or the minimal and efficient cognitive activity of the logic model-following extroverted thinker

I find it worth reading for anyone interested in how type could be more than a convenient but fictive model of personality

If what I have heard about Nardi is correct, he did not do whatever happened to be necessary to comply with the Institutional Review Board stuff for research on human subjects, and therefore, could not get federal funding for his work. It *might* be -- I am not in the field, so I don't know how the game is played -- that his results are viewed as "tainted" or *officially ignored and shunned*, and so he is not getting the kudos/attention from the rest of the professional psychological community that he would otherwise receive.

Even though I am a physicist by training, and noted the lack of rigor in his setup, I found his results fascinating and full of chewy food-for-thought nonetheless. For example, to revise and extend his tests by using various MRI scans in lieu of EEG...

 

[iauiugu]

If what I have heard about Nardi is correct, he did not do whatever happened to be necessary to comply with the Institutional Review Board stuff for research on human subjects, and therefore, could not get federal funding for his work.

I'd love to know why his work was rejected; I'd imagine its because of his active participation in studies in building rapport with subjects during the hour-long series of activities he puts them through. It's not a particularly replicable method of testing subjects, as most psychological testing I know of tries hard to make sterile and objective environments that tease out discrete parts of human nature to test, as if putting a human in such conditions is somehow truer. What works for studying a particle or bacterium seems less reliable for humans, in my humble opinion.

What would make his work tainted or shunned? It seems like Jungian type is generally viewed lowly for a variety of reasons, many of which are based in deep assumptions of what it metaphysically presupposes, or what can be said of the mind and consciousness at all.

What makes EEG less reliable than MRI in your mind? His results suggest type wouldn't necessarily show up in brain structures, the focus of MRIs. My takeaway from his work was that certain patterns of electrical activity correlated with self-identified type descriptions -- like the 'christmas tree' disharmony of activity most prominent among extroverted intuition doms, reflecting its trans-contextual expertise. Does this necessarily require a physical causal source?

 

[grey_beard]

I'd love to know why his work was rejected; I'd imagine its because of his active participation in studies in building rapport with subjects during the hour-long series of activities he puts them through. It's not a particularly replicable method of testing subjects, as most psychological testing I know of tries hard to make sterile and objective environments that tease out discrete parts of human nature to test, as if putting a human in such conditions is somehow truer. What works for studying a particle or bacterium seems less reliable for humans, in my humble opinion.

What would make his work tainted or shunned? It seems like Jungian type is generally viewed lowly for a variety of reasons, many of which are based in deep assumptions of what it metaphysically presupposes, or what can be said of the mind and consciousness at all.

What makes EEG less reliable than MRI in your mind? His results suggest type wouldn't necessarily show up in brain structures, the focus of MRIs. My takeaway from his work was that certain patterns of electrical activity correlated with self-identified type descriptions -- like the 'christmas tree' disharmony of activity most prominent among extroverted intuition doms, reflecting its trans-contextual expertise. Does this necessarily require a physical causal source?

Sensitivity of the scan (signal to noise ratio, possibly reproducibility).

 

[Mole]

The neuroscience of mbti is as valid as the neuroscience of astrology.

What it does show is the gullibility and self interest of the followers, as well as a deep rooted resentiment and a deep desire to reify fully alive persons.

The neuroscience of mbti is a desire to do evil dressed up as science.

And as we note, except for the Islamic State, evil tries to hide itself, and here it hides itself behind science.

 

[Jaguar]

I'd love to know why his work was rejected

His leisure suit.

 

[iauiugu]

What it does show is the gullibility and self interest of the followers, as well as a deep rooted resentiment and a deep desire to reify fully alive persons.

The neuroscience of mbti is a desire to do evil dressed up as science.

And as we note, except for the Islamic State, evil tries to hide itself, and here it hides itself behind science.

Is mbti just a system for reifying people into boxes? I know of no serious users of the system who views it in such a simplistic way.

Dario's neuroscience work reflects the more broadly assumed diversity within a single type; his latest breakdown suggests that those who self-identify as the same type are slightly more likely to have very different brain activity than it be very similar, nevermind the diversity of behaviors and particular life experiences that go behind those scanned differences

Is it so impossible that within the great diversity of humanity that a discrete set or sets of psychosocial patterns may be valid and not 'a desire to do evil'? We are after all still animals, and mostly determined by our infrastructure and environment. Much of nature and reality can be described with categories and sets, so why not human nature? It's not like mbti even suggests there are good, bad or best types. It stresses how all types are necessarily and important and good. If anything it implicitly does much to articulate otherwise more hollow platitudes about every human's potential and value.

Do you believe any meaningful categories can be spoken of for characterizing or understanding others?

 

[Mole]

Is mbti just a system for reifying people into boxes? I know of no serious users of the system who views it in such a simplistic way.

Dario's neuroscience work reflects the more broadly assumed diversity within a single type; his latest breakdown suggests that those who self-identify as the same type are slightly more likely to have very different brain activity than it be very similar, nevermind the diversity of behaviors and particular life experiences that go behind those scanned differences

Is it so impossible that within the great diversity of humanity that a discrete set or sets of psychosocial patterns may be valid and not 'a desire to do evil'? We are after all still animals, and mostly determined by our infrastructure and environment. Much of nature and reality can be described with categories and sets, so why not human nature? It's not like mbti even suggests there are good, bad or best types. It stresses how all types are necessarily and important and good. If anything it implicitly does much to articulate otherwise more hollow platitudes about every human's potential and value.

Do you believe any meaningful categories can be spoken of for characterizing or understanding others?

Yes of course, and these categories are properly measured by a qualified psychometrician. Mbti is not psychometrics. It is a cult based upon Carl Jung who was psychotic, failed his analysis with Sigmund Freud, adopted the Fuhrer as his father figure, abused his female patients, and became a guru of the New Age religion.

 

[iauiugu]

Yes of course, and these categories are properly measured by a qualified psychometrician. Mbti is not psychometrics. It is a cult based upon Carl Jung who was psychotic, failed his analysis with Sigmund Freud, adopted the Fuhrer as his father figure, abused his female patients, and became a guru of the New Age religion.

the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory is a psychometric system.

 

[Mole]

the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory is a psychometric system.

There is not one university in the world teaches mbti because mbti is not psychometrics, rather mbti is cult.

 

[iauiugu]

What makes it a cult? It's not a closed, esoteric community; there's millions of users by choice, statistical analyses that underlie many (not most sure) of its theory. It's not taught in academies but its upper echelons do commit themselves to scientific rigor. Psychology has a behaviorialist bias that puts mbti on the defensive despite its efficacy being without question. It's not like academies are flawless commitments to the evolution of the human intellect. skyrocketing tuition costs are evidence of as much.

this is the academy.

As Dario Nardi says, academic psych assumes the mind is a black box that can only be Scientifically Studied through neuroscience, which was probably why he went in that direction with type.

out of curiosity why are you a member of a forum in which a system you consider a cult is popular

 

[Pionart]

Does anyone here own the book?

Looking for a rough breakdown on which type uses each of the brain regions the most, e.g. ENFJ = F7, etc.

I saw a list on another forum, only T types were mentioned though; it was the highest 4 regions for each of those 8.

From what I understand, the Judgement functions are more tied in to particular regions, whereas Perception functions associate more with particular patterns of brain activity overall.

 

[Mole]

What makes it a cult? It's not a closed, esoteric community; there's millions of users by choice, statistical analyses that underlie many (not most sure) of its theory. It's not taught in academies but its upper echelons do commit themselves to scientific rigor. Psychology has a behaviorialist bias that puts mbti on the defensive despite its efficacy being without question. It's not like academies are flawless commitments to the evolution of the human intellect. skyrocketing tuition costs are evidence of as much.

this is the academy.

As Dario Nardi says, academic psych assumes the mind is a black box that can only be Scientifically Studied through neuroscience, which was probably why he went in that direction with type.

out of curiosity why are you a member of a forum in which a system you consider a cult is popular

I was invited to join Typology Central by the moderator, Geoff. And it is a fascinating journey to discover so many believe in astrology and mbti. It's like discovering a large group who believe the Sun goes round the Earth.

For 200,000 years we believed the Sun went round the Earth because we could see it doing this every day, and so it became part of our conventional wisdom. But only a short time ago we had people starting to say publicly that the Earth went round the Sun and some of them were burnt at the stake.

And yet we still have the same mindset defending astrology and mbti.

So I am very interested in the psychology of personal and social delusion.

 

[iauiugu]

I was invited to join Typology Central by the moderator, Geoff. And it is a fascinating journey to discover so many believe in astrology and mbti. It's like discovering a large group who believe the Sun goes round the Earth.

For 200,000 years we believed the Sun went round the Earth because we could see it doing this every day, and so it became part of our conventional wisdom. But only a short time ago we had people starting to say publicly that the Earth went round the Sun and some of them were burnt at the stake.

And yet we still have the same mindset defending astrology and mbti.

So I am very interested in the psychology of personal and social delusion.

neither this nor anything you've said in response to my posts concretely states what is delusion or wrong about astrology or mbti. just focused focused mbti's forefather's reputation and compared it to isis and mythology. if you are only looking to confirm your assumptions then i guess it's fine, but if you are interested in persuading others to your more reasonable worldview then you will have to do more.

 

[Mole]

neither this nor anything you've said in response to my posts concretely states what is delusion or wrong about astrology or mbti. just focused focused mbti's forefather's reputation and compared it to isis and mythology. if you are only looking to confirm your assumptions then i guess it's fine, but if you are interested in persuading others to your more reasonable worldview then you will have to do more.

The literate individual has a point of view (POV), and having points of view literate individuals seek to persuade others of their point of view, but members of the etribe together create a patchwork quilt with their posts. No patch contradicts another patch, rather together they create a whole quilt.

So it is the tone of each post, the structure of each post, which resonates with each other post, or it is dissonant. The posts dance with each other to an unheard melody. Can you hear it? Listen carefully and you will hear the tune, at first it sounds like the wind in the willows, but then it captivates you, and you are entranced.

You will lose your point view and become one with the noosphere, the music of the spheres, the music of the spherical Earth.

 

[iauiugu]

The literate individual has a point of view (POV), and having points of view literate individuals seek to persuade others of their point of view, but members of the etribe together create a patchwork quilt with their posts. No patch contradicts another patch, rather together they create a whole quilt.

So it is the tone of each post, the structure of each post, which resonates with each other post, or it is dissonant. The posts dance with each other to an unheard melody. Can you hear it? Listen carefully and you will hear the tune, at first it sounds like the wind in the willows, but then it captivates you, and you are entranced.

You will lose your point view and become one with the noosphere, the music of the spheres, the music of the spherical Earth.

uh sorry no i can't relate to this description. i see posts as intimations into the worldview of those who make them, lenses i overlay on my own views in other to synthesize them into a greater whole. what is flawed is discarded; contradictions are resolved; what has the greatest effect or affect is focused on.

tbh the discrepancy here seems like the metaphysical, a priori discrepancy pointed out in this video between the Ne-Si cognitive function axis (you: seeking the truth behind the multiple perspectives) an the Ni-Se axis (me: seeking the bottom line of the raw data).

 

[Mole]

99% of what universities teach is cult. Have you ever taken a course in economics? How about history?

This is simply a perversion of the word cult by someone trying to be smart.

 

[Mole]

uh sorry no i can't relate to this description. i see posts as intimations into the worldview of those who make them, lenses i overlay on my own views in other to synthesize them into a greater whole. what is flawed is discarded; contradictions are resolved; what has the greatest effect or affect is focused on.

This is a worldview of print. It is linear and sequential, logical and teleological. Whereas as the worldview of the electronic media (emedia) is entirely different.