The "intuitive bias" debate

[rav3n]

I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that, when making decisions or assigning value to things, some people prefer to engage with certain regions of their brain more than others would. The problem here is the approach Nardi's taken involves shoehorning mental processes into predetermined categories. It's like staring at tea dregs to predict the future; you can make the tea dregs mean whatever you want them to mean. A more empirical approach would be to instead observe the processes as they unfold, map those processes out for recurring patterns, and then derive new categories based on what the data's revealed. Once categories have been derived which reflect data, that's when you can match up the functions against these categories for any overlap.

This is a link to Nardi's patent.

NEUROLOGICAL PERFORMANCE QUOTIENT - Nardi, Dario

NEUROLOGICAL PERFORMANCE QUOTIENT
United States Patent Application 20150079578 Kind Code: A1


Abstract:
This Invention is a psychometric instrument that generates scores for highly specific neurological skills. UNDERLYING RESEARCH: Brain-mapping data is generated by EEG testing on multiple human subjects while performing tasks related to specific brain regions. Scores are calculated, algorithms developed, and visual diagrams drawn. The data is compared to known functions for specific brain neocortex regions, and verified by independent testing for psychological types by statistical analysis. PSYCHOMETRIC INSTRUMENT: Patterns in the brain-mapping data are identified and sorted into neurological skill sets. Questions for specific neurological skills are developed from the data, and a scoring system devised. The instrument is administered to clients who answer specific graded questions. SKILLS PROFILE: The instrument compiles and reports on multiple neurological skill sets, including: 20 cognitive skills, right/left hemispheric balance, five sensory modalities (auditory, kinesthetic, visual, meta, executive), and four competency skill sets (directive, analytical, expressive, reflective). Applications include: counseling, business and education.

 

[rav3n]

I never stated that you stated that Nardi said that he'd detonated the J/P dichotomy.

On the contrary: I pointed out that Nardi said that those results (and he said he couldn't emphasize this enough) shouldn't be viewed as having "proven" anything at all.

So your interpretation of those pix as having "detonated the J/P dichotomy" goes waaaaay beyond any claims that he's making for his results.

And you'll have to excuse me if I'm disinclined to "draw my own conclusions" from pix that Nardi himself says nobody should be drawing any conclusions from.

And if you think you have a better handle than Nardi does on how much significance should be assigned to those pix, I suspect I'm not going to be able to help you with that.


[Sent from my keyboard using my two little eyes and my brain.]

Nardi making no claims has nothing to do with my claims. All scientists and researchers state that further study is necessary. This is part of the peer reviewing process that reinforces or negates the findings of studies. Also, further research grants are often given to the scientists to further their studies.

And no doubt, you'll refuse to draw any conclusions since the obvious conclusions would negate some of your beliefs.