Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality

[frogface]

Not sure if this has been pointed out but, ESTP as an Expert Classifier?!!! Surely, there must be some mistake- ESTPs are just not conceptual AT ALL, in fact all the ones I know have little tolerance for politics, philosophy etc, they only talk about the chicks they rooted, the drugs they snorted etc.

 

[Thalassa]

Not sure if this has been pointed out but, ESTP as an Expert Classifier?!!! Surely, there must be some mistake- ESTPs are just not conceptual AT ALL, in fact all the ones I know have little tolerance for politics, philosophy etc, they only talk about the chicks they rooted, the drugs they snorted etc.

Oh boy are you a troll? ESTPs are notorious for being politicians. There have been several SP presidents, including John F. Kennedy, bro.

Get a clue.

 

[frogface]

No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?

 

[KDude]

No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?

From the outside Se might seem like mindless "go go action", but it is Perception like every other Percieving function. It is not the redheaded stepchild of Perceiving functions...reduced to mindless actions. "All arms and no eyes". Action is just the byproduct, not the source.

No, they're not visionaries, but they do pick up on trends and effective solutions nonetheless. Just not in the farseeing sense. But not being farseeing does not mean they can't conceptualize with what's in front of them.

 

[SD45T-2]

No I'm not a troll and I'm not saying that all ESTPs are meatheads (they are very smooth and charming which makes them great politicians), but isn't it bleeding obvious that none of them spend time thinking about conceptual stuff, they are all go go action. They are not visionaries in any sense, that's just not their game. I'm just saying that this is a glaring error in Dario's work, and if this can't be explained adequately- how can you take this stuff credibly?

 

[dimane]

Categorize & Define
Region F4 highly active when subject
defines a term or categorizes an
observation.
• Trying to figure out whether a particular
animal is an aquatic mammal.
• “Egyptian War [a card game] is like
War except that…”
• “Is this a grape?” (when blindfolded and
asked to figure out a random assortment
of objects)
• What (assigned) meaning does a
particular tarot card have?
F4 can used for hunting,science,etc

 

[dimane]

Along time ago there was a show called home improvement.
The shows main character showed alot of F4 and he was an ESTP

 

[King sns]

Wow, awesome. I hope they do more along this line, I'll have to leave this in the tabs and look more later. I think this is the kind of stuff I'm looking for when I continue to mindlessly log onto this website.

 

[King sns]

I just kind of ran through my own processes, (seemingly more accurate than MBTI itself), as suspected, heavy focus on the right side of the brain according to this chart... Front to back and in between. Except for F7. I think I use that one a lot. fp2, f4, t4, t6, and 02 on the right.. strong F7 on the left, C3, and sometimes T3 (all more toward the front of the brain and not as strong a usage except for F7.)

 

[dimane]

^^^ are these based on Ne and Fi or cognitive skills you think you have

 

[FFF]

Book arrived today, so now I'll see what all the hoopla is about (looks interesting, from what I can see glancing through it).

I said this book was gonna end up in the collection of books I want to read but never will. Now I only have one chapter left.

 

[Jaguar]

unless a truly scientific approach was/is taken, we're not left with any conclusiveness or truly reliable, consistent means of determining mbti, or validating that any of these categories exist in any meaningful way.

... if you could actually PROVE to someone that they are type ABCD and only ABCD and can't possibly be any other type, then that's something. But having people read literature, determine / self-report that they're INFJ or ISTP, and then have them provide that information to someone who then wants to see what an 'INFJ's or ISTP's brain function is like' doesn't prove much of anything - it only states that EEG results of someone who thinks they're a certain type (but you can't prove they're that type because there's no universal consensus of how to determine type)

Excellent.
Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.

 

[Mia.]

Excellent.
Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.

True. However, if enough people self-report as a certain type, and an aggregate of the results show a consistent and distinct pattern for people reporting as that type that is statistically significant in comparison to controls/the rest of the types, I'd say regardless of a standardized identification method, that itself proves integrity of information. Again, it comes down to the disappointing sample size. Which again, future research will hopefully benefit from the renewed focus and opportunity due to the sexiness of the book.

 

[garbage]

Seconding [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] in his thanking of [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. The reality is that we haven't yet arrived at a consistent pattern, and so we should probably stop talking as if we have.

We'll get there someday, though. Research like this that aims to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical is a great start. [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s analogy along the lines of typology being a 'rough cut' (and one of many possible explanations) akin to the four elements is apt.

Even if Dario's research isn't conclusive, it sure points to a methodology that's ripe with potential.

 

[uumlau]

Excellent.
Thank you for posting something that should be obvious to all, but in reality is obvious to few.

I suspect it's obvious to far more people than you suggest.

If it were 100% conclusive science, there would be no discussions, there would be lessons. There were never any "discussions" of physics in my years of study, except on those topics where the science was not settled. And that's where the real science was being done.

We are obligated to discuss that of which we are collectively ignorant in order to discover how much we know and how much we don't know. It doesn't necessarily gain us any insight into the right answers, but it provides much insight into what are the right questions.

 

[Mia.]

Seconding [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] in his thanking of [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. The reality is that we haven't yet arrived at a consistent pattern, and so we should probably stop talking as if we have.

We'll get there someday, though. Research like this that aims to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical is a great start. [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s analogy along the lines of typology being a 'rough cut' (and one of many possible explanations) akin to the four elements is apt.

Even if Dario's research isn't conclusive, it sure points to a methodology that's ripe with potential.

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Eric B]

... if you could actually PROVE to someone that they are type ABCD and only ABCD and can't possibly be any other type, then that's something. But having people read literature, determine / self-report that they're INFJ or ISTP, and then have them provide that information to someone who then wants to see what an 'INFJ's or ISTP's brain function is like' doesn't prove much of anything - it only states that EEG results of someone who thinks they're a certain type (but you can't prove they're that type because there's no universal consensus of how to determine type) are a certain result. What if someones' brain results in reality match the results of an NTP or SFP, but they don't identify with either of those types and others wouldn't type them as either of those types? What would that imply about the usefulness of the system as it currently stands? These are all hypotheticals.. just things I think about as tied to this subject.

I guess the question would be why they self-report as the given type in the first place. It would at least be some sort of clue as to what that type's brain function is like. There is a lot of overlap and variation, and many reasons why their self-report might not match what others say. (He uses his Interstrength Cognitive Assessment {ISCA}, which measures the eight processes; appears like a more professional version of the Keys 2 Cognition we have discussed here. I guess he is confident on its accuracy).

I think it would be interesting, if the EEG was done first, and then they were typed afterward, to see if it matches.

I'm still trying to piece together what is what with the 16 brain region "skills-sets" (As he calls them). But while reading, it dawned on me how his research and Lenore's theory on the hemispheres might not contradict at all, as was initially suggested. Nardi emphasized that the areas he was mapping were the "neo-cortex". I looked up in Lenore's book for where she placed the J (Je/Pi) left and P (Pe/Je) right, E-front and I-back locations, but it doesn't say. (There's also the "Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint" article, but the Internet Archive is down, or something, so I couldn't check that out again).

However she did explain to me the functions as "neurological connections" from the limbic system to the frontal cortex. In Nardi's research, "the functions" aren't what's located in these 16 areas. They just stimulate activity in these areas.
So the functions aren't "things" located on the neocortex, so these connections they represent can still fit the right/left/front/back hemisphere order she mentioned, without contradicting the new research. (Plan to look for the common threads in which functions stimulate which areas since it seems Nardi doesn't put it all together in the book).

 

[Mia.]

I
I think it would be interesting, if the EEG was done first, and then they were typed afterward, to see if it matches.

This would indeed be fascinating. This is the type of further research and play I hope is spurred.

 

[INTP]

However she did explain to me the functions as "neurological connections" from the limbic system to the frontal cortex. In Nardi's research, "the functions" aren't what's located in these 16 areas. They just stimulate activity in these areas.
So the functions aren't "things" located on the neocortex, so these connections they represent can still fit the right/left/front/back hemisphere order she mentioned, without contradicting the new research. (Plan to look for the common threads in which functions stimulate which areas since it seems Nardi doesn't put it all together in the book).

nardis work shows that its not just frontal cortex connections to limbic system. only the Fp(prefrontal) and F(frontal) sensors are on frontal cortex.

i started to write a topic few days ago digging deeper into these brain areas that are connected to the areas where nardis sensors are, but got bored, saved what i wrote and dont feel like continuing to write that, but if you are interested about this, this is what i wrote so far, one thing you may notice that some sensors in nardis work are connected to same regions deeper in the brains, imo this is one of the essential things in understanding how typology relates to brain(excuse the lack of organization with this, it was just a sketch feel free to ask for clarification or extra info about something):

This is the regular separation of brain lobes and shows sulcus.

Sulcus basically means deep fissure. Central sulcus divides parietal lobe from frontal lobe and lateral sulcus divides frontal and temporal lobes. There is no connections between frontal lobe and parietal or temporal lobes on the surface of brains, but are connected in deeper parts of the brains.
It should be mentioned that the areas on the different sides of central sulcus are (on the frontal side) primary motor area(controlling movement http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_06/d_06_cr/d_06_cr_mou/d_06_cr_mou.html) and (on the parietal side)primary somatosensory(feeling touch). Nardis C3/4 sensors seem to be measuring both of these areas with each sensor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putamen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantia_nigra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_pallidus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudate_nucleus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subthalamic_nucleus
Supplementary motor area basically plans movement

And there is actually an body representation on it that looks like this

And here is how nardi placed the sensors on his work:

Frontal lobe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobes :

The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress unacceptable social responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events. Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions.

The frontal lobes also play an important part in retaining longer term memories which are not task-based. These are often memories associated with emotions derived from input from the brain's limbic system( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system ). The frontal lobe modifies those emotions to generally fit socially acceptable norms.

Psychological tests that measure frontal lobe function include finger tapping, Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, and measures of verbal and figural fluency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
The prefrontal cortex(Fp1/2) is highly interconnected with much of the brain, including extensive connections with other cortical regions(where nardi placed the sensors), as well as subcortical areas(deeper parts of the brains). The dorsal prefrontal cortex is especially interconnected with brain regions involved with attention, cognition and action,[12] while the ventral prefrontal cortex interconnects with brain regions involved with emotion.[13] The prefrontal cortex also receives inputs from the brainstem arousal systems, and its function is particularly dependent on its neurochemical environment.[14] Thus, there is coordination between our state of arousal and our mental state.[15]

I think its important to know about the limbic system if you want to understand things in more depth.

Example of how deeper parts of the brains are connected to areas in nardis work;
Look up thalamus in the first spoiler. And here is closer look of thalamus

This is the VA part of thalamus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventral_anterior_nucleus
It sends out information to supplementary(close to nardis F3/4) and primary motor cortex(C3/4, but these sensors also include primary somatosensory).

It gets input from basal ganglia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_subdivisions_and_connections_of_the_basal_ganglia#Outputs_of_the_basal_ganglia_system )

The basal ganglia are associated with a variety of functions, including voluntary motor control, procedural learning relating to routine behaviors or "habits" such as bruxism, eye movements, and cognitive, emotional functions. Currently popular theories implicate the basal ganglia primarily in action selection, that is, the decision of which of several possible behaviors to execute at a given time.Experimental studies show that the basal ganglia exert an inhibitory influence on a number of motor systems, and that a release of this inhibition permits a motor system to become active. The "behavior switching" that takes place within the basal ganglia is influenced by signals from many parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex(Nardis Fp1/2), which plays a key role in executive functions.

Other outputs from basal ganglia system are superior colliculus(aka optic tectum) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_colliculus ) of tectum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectum ) and VO part of thalamus(not going more indepth on that, but..)

The superior colliculus is involved in preliminary visual processing and control of eye movements. In non-mammalian vertebrates it serves as the main visual area of the brain, functionally analogous to the visual areas of the cerebral cortex(Nardi sensors:O1 & 2) in mammals.

The inferior colliculus is involved in auditory processing. It receives input from various brain stem nuclei and projects to the medial geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, which relays auditory information to the primary auditory cortex.

Optic tectum(Superior colliculus) is shown here(where the tracts from the two eyes meet):

This way the basal ganglia can control what input O1/2 receive from eyes(eye movement) and does some preprocessing in optic tectum. But also control motor systems through thalamus.

Here is a picture that i draw some time ago as an note:

Basically from body to C3/4 it goes something like this:

Medulla is connected to your spine(hopefully everyone knows what spine does ) from other end and on pons the other end. It controls autonomic nervous system(things that happen in your body automatically, like breathing, heart etc. involuntary actions of body) and connects spine to other parts of the body.

Link between medulla and pons is called the raphe system:

(didnt write about all parts of limbic system down to my notes, check wiki for more info about those if you want)

Pons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pons

The pons contains nuclei that relay signals from the forebrain to the cerebellum, along with nuclei that deal primarily with sleep, respiration, swallowing, bladder control, hearing, equilibrium, taste, eye movement, facial expressions, facial sensation, and posture.[4]

Within the pons is the pneumotaxic center, a nucleus in the pons that regulates the change from inspiration to expiration.[5]

The pons also contains the sleep paralysis center of the brain and also plays a role in generating dreams

This white matter includes tracts that conduct signals from the cerebrum(where nardis sensors are) down to the cerebellum and medulla(descending raphe system), and tracts that carry the sensory signals up into the thalamus.[2]

Here you can see the acoustic nerve( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulocochlear_nerve ) also, which transmits information to the acoustic areas(temporal lobe/ nardis T6/5, along with ears, so the area gets info from two areas, ears and here)

 

[dimane]

I think lenores works compliments nardis
If you go to personalitypathways you'll see she talks about how the four quadrants arent really where the functions are located but the part of the brain needed for the process to take place.
No front left hemisphere no extraverted judgement etc