[Other/Multiple Temperaments] Interview With Dario Nardi!

[AncientSpirits]

Since the early 90s, I've been fascinated by using iterative networks to represent the flow of complex systems. Here's an example of the Theorist (aka Rational/NT) temperament implemented as an iterative network. Such networks are likely possible for the cognitive processes, though they would inevitably reflect typical skills, behaviors, and contexts.

in the network, + signs indicate positive/promoting influence while - signs indicate negative/inhibiting influence. Because all the factors influence each other simultaneously, you can't "solve" the network by walking through it. There is a special algorithm that "iterates" it instead, like running a game simulation.

There is a specific methodology to follow to craft, explore, and verify these kinds of networks, so while it allows for a lot of creativity, it's not arbitrary.

Research and drawing the network is only part of the process. You can implement the network on a computer, simulate various starting conditions, and then "run" the network to see what attractors (patterns) develop.

There are researchers who model brain networks using this same kind of tool.

 

[Yama]

Darios pretty cool.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Scan my brain. Don't tell me about the cancer though, just the type. That's all that matters.

Tell me about the cancer. Actually tell me I have no cancer and will never get cancer.

 

[Yama]

Tell me about the cancer. Actually tell me I have no cancer and will never get cancer.

tell coriolis that i'm not an isfp

 

[Smilephantomhive]

tell coriolis that i'm not an isfp

ok

 

[Turi]

I've got another question but it's kind of lame.

I want to know what the percentages are for each type, from your studies - I'm hoping it can help dispell INFJ as the rarest type because I swear, everyone is an INFJ.

 

[Forever]

I've got another question but it's kind of lame.

I want to know what the percentages are for each type, from your studies - I'm hoping it can help dispell INFJ as the rarest type because I swear, everyone is an INFJ.

If anyone could tell me where this motherlode of INFJ's are.. that'd be great.

 

[Turi]

If anyone could tell me where this motherlode of INFJ's are.. that'd be great.

We basically flood the absolute shit out of every online typology community, all typology/mbti FB groups etc - we're supposedly the rarest type - outcasts, misfits, etc etc but everyone appears to type as an INFJ online.
It makes me wonder where the hell all these like-minded people are, because I've never met anyone I've 'clicked' with in my entire life.

So I was hoping Dario has been like, keeping some stats or something, and would share with us the percentages of each type - or even just a list from most common to least common - just so we can compare his statistics to the official MBTI ones which unfortunately still has INFJ as the rarest type (due to INFJ males being rare - INFJ females, 5th rarest).

I know no one cares about rarity etc, I don't either, I'd just love to see what his percentages are so I can like ha! Knew it! Not the rarest! :/

 

[Eilonwy]

We basically flood the absolute shit out of every online typology community, all typology/mbti FB groups etc - we're supposedly the rarest type - outcasts, misfits, etc etc but everyone appears to type as an INFJ online.
It makes me wonder where the hell all these like-minded people are, because I've never met anyone I've 'clicked' with in my entire life.

So I was hoping Dario has been like, keeping some stats or something, and would share with us the percentages of each type - or even just a list from most common to least common - just so we can compare his statistics to the official MBTI ones which unfortunately still has INFJ as the rarest type (due to INFJ males being rare - INFJ females, 5th rarest).

I know no one cares about rarity etc, I don't either, I'd just love to see what his percentages are so I can like ha! Knew it! Not the rarest! :/

I type as INFJ, I have an INFJ older sister, my best friend as a child has typed as INFJ as an adult, and a friend from a Doctor Who fan club types as INFJ. My experience with all of them is that, as adults, we tend to not "click" in the way in which I'm assuming you mean it. There is no instant, deep connection, recognition, or understanding between us. All of them have been or are in social service jobs. They all care deeply about helping. I experience all of them as closed off in some way, which, I assume, is how I come across, too. There is some ease in conversations depending on the topic, but we can easily offend each other, too.

My experience was that I clicked with my childhood best friend as children but not so much as adults. I have no theories as to why that is.

As for rarity, if INFJs are 1% of the population and I know 3 confirmed in real life, with a possible 4th that I suspect is INFJ, then I need to know at least 400+ people in my life, which I do.

 

[Turi]

I type as INFJ, I have an INFJ older sister, my best friend as a child has typed as INFJ as an adult, and a friend from a Doctor Who fan club types as INFJ. My experience with all of them is that, as adults, we tend to not "click" in the way in which I'm assuming you mean it. There is no instant, deep connection, recognition, or understanding between us. All of them have been or are in social service jobs. They all care deeply about helping. I experience all of them as closed off in some way, which, I assume, is how I come across, too. There is some ease in conversations depending on the topic, but we can easily offend each other, too.

My experience was that I clicked with my childhood best friend as children but not so much as adults. I have no theories as to why that is.

As for rarity, if INFJs are 1% of the population and I know 3 confirmed in real life, with a possible 4th that I suspect is INFJ, then I need to know at least 400+ people in my life, which I do.

INFJs are 2.7% of the population according to official, current statistics - not sure why everyone keeps bandying the 1% statistic about.
I find it incredible that you know 400+ people. Astounding. Are they friends/associates etc, or just people who you've met?

I've got like 70 people on my Facebook, and I swear, I could delete about 60 of them and they wouldn't even notice.. my circle of friends must be like.. 4.. including my wifes side of the family i.e people I'm sort of forced to be friends with then it goes up to like 20. lol.

Interesting that they've all been in social services jobs - I'm actually studying Counselling at the moment, and currently seeking employment doing social services of some sort right now, lol.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

Some other users alluded to an elephant in the room, and while it isn't my intention to argue with Dr. Nardi or "put him on the spot," I am curious, what are the sample sizes for each type you have scanned? Is there a link to this set of data/stats (apologies if you already shared this in the thread; I will look back at some of your posts today). Second, how exactly do you know you are scanning someone who is accurately typed? Yes, I understand MBTI is a self-reporting tool, but are your test subjects people who have been through testing with MBTI Phase I, II, etc, or did they just take a quick test before being hooked up to the scanning machine? How can you determine with accuracy you're testing, say, an INFJ; if they were mistyped, would that screw up the data, the readings?

 

[Eilonwy]

INFJs are 2.7% of the population according to official, current statistics - not sure why everyone keeps bandying the 1% statistic about.
I find it incredible that you know 400+ people. Astounding. Are they friends/associates etc, or just people who you've met?

I've got like 70 people on my Facebook, and I swear, I could delete about 60 of them and they wouldn't even notice.. my circle of friends must be like.. 4.. including my wifes side of the family i.e people I'm sort of forced to be friends with then it goes up to like 20. lol.

Interesting that they've all been in social services jobs - I'm actually studying Counselling at the moment, and currently seeking employment doing social services of some sort right now, lol.

Thanks for the response.

I would define "know" as having spent enough time with a person to get a general idea of their personality as opposed to having only met someone who is still a stranger, and I'm including those who are no longer active in my life at this time. I'm not defining it by liking or disliking in this instance, and I'm not counting how many people I know by how many FB friends I have, though I have 221 atm and I know most of them fairly well.

2.7% is even better! My point is that the percentages can be accurate and saying INFJs are rare can be true, while the personal experience of those percentages can feel like INFJs are not so rare.

As an aside, I haven't confirmed any male INFJs in my real life, so I don't have enough experience to recognize them. Also, my social gender biases get in the way.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I've got another question but it's kind of lame.

I want to know what the percentages are for each type, from your studies - I'm hoping it can help dispell INFJ as the rarest type because I swear, everyone is an INFJ.

It appears to me that INFJ is one of the most common mistypes. I mistyped as one for a-g-e-s. Eventually, I realized I was a P type and ambiverted, and not at all like the actual INFJ I know irl. She even has the classic Ni eyes, which I know is a theory you don't support (VI). Anyway, I think most self-proclaimed INFJs are actually most likely one of the following: ISFJ, INFP, ISFP, INTJ, with possibly a few IxTPs and socially introverted ENFPs who may be misunderstanding functional introversion/extraversion.

 

[Turi]

It appears to me that INFJ is one of the most common mistypes. I mistyped as one for a-g-e-s. Eventually, I realized I was a P type and ambiverted, and not at all like the actual INFJ I know irl. She even has the classic Ni eyes, which I know is a theory you don't support (VI). Anyway, I think most self-proclaimed INFJs are actually most likely one of the following: ISFJ, INFP, ISFP, INTJ, with possibly a few IxTPs and socially introverted ENFPs who may be misunderstanding functional introversion/extraversion.

Yeah, I'd agree with you here.

 

[AncientSpirits]

I have a question for [MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]. Are there ways we can consciously engage and use certain functions? In particular, I'm interesting in knowing more how to access that "Christmas Tree" pattern for extraverted intuition that you speak of.

Great question!

In "8 Keys to Self-Leadership", you'll find approximately 20 activities for each of the 8 cognitive processes, separated into introductory, basic, and advanced tiers. Here's an example page to get started with Introverted Feeling.

In workshops, beyond the "brain basics", this is what we explore. I approach this a few ways. One is based on watching brain activity as people are engaged in coaching or counseling (by someone qualified to do so, not by me). Another is looking at what evokes flow or notable engagement in people of a type, and then encouraging people of other types to try that activity as a way to get into it. Here's an example of priming, with the right-side activity to stimulate iNtuiting:

I have even more specific activities for using extraverting iNtuiting by itself, mostly asking a person to interpret or use a verbal or visual prompt in as many ways as possible, such as using "philosophy oven" in a sentence or interpreting what "she married a rock" means.

I also offer some extended activities that take an hour or so for using it with either introverted Feeling or introverted Thinking, as seen in this for Ne with Ti (of course, being a structured activity, it also has some Te etc in it too):

I think it's important to see how a process works with other processes, particularly with Ne, so folks can better understand it's practical applications. Ne is great for brainstorming yes, but the trans-context thinking is somewhere it shines.

 

[AncientSpirits]

I echo this question. I hit a point a number of years ago where I was in a bit of an Fi/Ti loop. For some reason, for a period of a few months I was in a funk where my mind would spin around, I wasn't very decisive, and overall just got a bit frustrated with myself. I wasn't as product as I normally was and had a hard time making decisions. My function tests were scoring differently. I came to the conclusion that for some odd or unknown reason I hadn't been exercising Te as much as normal. I tried looking at books to see what you can do to use the function more and made a concerted effort on it. This was over a period of several months again. None of it worked. What worked was getting out an engaging with people in person, on the phone, etc. - just getting out there more. At the time, I was working from home and spending a lot of time in my house not interacting with others which had been pretty unusual in my career up to that point. When I got out there, that broke me out of it and everything went back to normal. [MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION] have you seen anything like that before?

I am regularly reminded how trying another process really requires an actual stretch, such that engaging an extraverted processes requires actual extraverting, getting out in the world, or how using extraverted Sensing requires actual physical exertion and/or risk-taking.

I find myself going through phases. Sometimes it's "merely" to recharge. A simple recharge means introverted "me" time. A deep recharge requires I get into my opposite type preferences in a meaningful way. Recently, In October, I spent 9 days in Vanuatu, in the South Pacific, going snorkeling etc everyday. There's no TV there, little phone service, the food just comes down from the trees, it was really awesome. I could do low-key Sensing without the horrid electronic assault of daily modern life. I was soon sleeping 8-9 hours a night, nonstop, getting into shape and feeling amazing. Besides that, I'm not a creature of habit, so getting myself to do daily regular Sensing activities isn't easy unless they have a ton of variety. So I do kundalini yoga, run around neighborhoods (rather than on a treadmill), and I go on short retreats once or maybe twice a month. I don't think I get into the introverted loops as much as much as when I was younger. Now I aim for Ni-Se activities, which I can get through shamanism or outdoor workshop or that kind of thing. I also make sure to hang around with Improviser/SP types a bit, though I find ISFPs the easiest--much easier pace for me than the ESxP types.

 

[AncientSpirits]

People often ask me about the intersection of "EQ" with the brain or type. I can see why. The MBTI framework doesn't cover emotions. But I find the popular EQ framework not to my taste, personally. Here's an example from "Our Brains in Color" of how I start to talk about emotions.

Multiple brain regions are involved, just even in the neocortex. I talk about the limbic system, and recently I've added the Vagal Nerve System (Autonomic Nervous System) as well. Even when we look at the neocortex, there's a lot involved. It's rare for a person to have skill in all of the relevant areas, and different types have their strengths. For example, ESFPs tend to have more wiring and activity around voice tone and detecting intent while ESTPs tend to have more wiring and activity around seeing and interpreting body language. ISFJ tends to be a master of using region FC6, which helps us sort out emotions in a social context. ENFPs tend to be great at mirroring others (F7) but not necessarily feeling in themselves what others are feeling (PC4), which is more ENFJ and ESFJ. And so forth.

 

[AncientSpirits]

I've got another question but it's kind of lame.

I want to know what the percentages are for each type, from your studies - I'm hoping it can help dispell INFJ as the rarest type because I swear, everyone is an INFJ.

I can't really say. My own database, of post-college folks, is filled by paying clients and volunteers. If I relied on that, I'd think the average human being was a well-educated middle aged white woman with iNtuiting preferences and a career in human resources. LOL. I have a rule-of-thumb derived from temperament and interaction styles that deviates somewhat from CPP's MBTI database. But that's it.

Linda Berens and I have long been believers in "look a-likes". There's a table of these on page 11 of "16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery". Often these are simply adjacent types, such as advising someone who scores INFJ to look seriously at INFP. Sometimes, the suggestions go further afield, such as the person who scores as ENTJ needing to take a look at ESTP.

In the brain wiring data, INFJ and ISFJ are really very similar. They have differences to help sort them, but both have high potential for creativity. In fact, every ISFJ I know is a musician, artist, etc.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Nuture or nature for type? Is type genetic? Environmental impact in the womb? Early childhood (6 and younger)? How do so all this?

 

[AncientSpirits]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

Some other users alluded to an elephant in the room, and while it isn't my intention to argue with Dr. Nardi or "put him on the spot," I am curious, what are the sample sizes for each type you have scanned? Is there a link to this set of data/stats (apologies if you already shared this in the thread; I will look back at some of your posts today). Second, how exactly do you know you are scanning someone who is accurately typed? Yes, I understand MBTI is a self-reporting tool, but are your test subjects people who have been through testing with MBTI Phase I, II, etc, or did they just take a quick test before being hooked up to the scanning machine? How can you determine with accuracy you're testing, say, an INFJ; if they were mistyped, would that screw up the data, the readings?

I'm not sure it's an elephant, but it's a very important question.

Back in 2011, I had between 5 and 10 subjects (of college age) from each of the 8 cognitive processes and at least 2 (or 3, I don't recall) of each type, which was obviously not enough to comment at the 16 types level. Those were students from my lab. Almost all of them were familiar with temperament from another course, and they had 10 weeks to go through a type self-discovery process that included the keys2cognition.com assessment and (later) the NPI, reading type descriptions, and so forth. They could also take the MBTI for free through the career counseling office, though most of them stuck with the NPI.

You can read about the NPI here.

That was 6 years ago. Now there are 300+ subjects in the database. I haven't counted how many of each type since. Last I counted, numbers varied from a half-dozen per type at minimum (ESTJ and ESTP) to 25+ (INTP and INFP). Obviously, this is a big bias in the database. Besides a type bias, I've also ended up with a gender bias (too many women) and an education/career bias (too many in helping professions). My aim at the moment is to get a boat load of male blue collar workers with ESTx preferences. I have yet another lead recently into law enforcement, military, and veterans.

In terms of determining type, most of the people who come in have already taken multiple type assessments including the MBTI and are often professionals who use type in some capacity. If not, they are often at least type enthusiasts. That doesn't mean I can be 100% sure of their type. In fact, some come in because they are unsure. I do my best to work with them after they get their results to settle on their best-fit type. I will surely have some mistyped folks, the database is also much larger. By the time I do version 2.0, I'll likely have around 400 subjects.

CALL: If ANYONE lives in Southern California and knows an ESTP or ESTJ who's willing to do brain imaging, I will do their session gratis or for a minimal fee (like $50) if I have to drive out of my area to see them.