O.K so here is a piece from the book.
"...The figure below shows one typical route. The route jumps from T3 (precise speaker) to P3 (tactical navigator) to F8 (grounded believer) to FP1 (chief judge, one of the two pre frontal regions). The person:
1.Listens to words spoken by himself or others, then...
2.Integrates visual and kinesthetic data, either to complement the verbal data or to focus his mind (P3 regulates our sense of personal boundaries).
3.Evaluates the inputs in terms of strongly-held personal values.
4.Decides what to do and explains why..."
This is the ENTJ/ENFJ specific circuit, part of what gives them such an effective and quick decision making ability. If you ever observe a group of EN-Js IRL discussing a plan of action in their special way it is not possible to operate fast enough to join in with them.
According to Nardi the individual regions do many things, there is a page or more describing each region. Region F8 (grounded believer) for instance is described as being involved in helping to say a word with strong emphasis, ignoring context and recalling exact literal details, it isn't described as just the home of your personal values. As an INFJ this my prize region, what I do most (not including use of Jungian functions). The remembering of exact, literal, out of context details is a huge part of how I sieve someones mentality from their words and actions. The emphasizing of words would explain INFJs doing this often on the internet.
I know that my opinion doesn't count as science, but this is what I mean by everything in the book being right, it all matches up with observable behavior.
Take another region, F7: The imaginative mimic.
-Infer based on context
-Imagine another place or time
-Mirror others' behavior
-Mentally play out a situation
Then there is also talk of "mirror neurons", some of the word based abilities of this region and a whole page else. According to Nardi EN-Ps both have it as their prize region. So he doesn't just say this region is ---- and that region is ----.
The personal observations aside, does this information help his case in your eyes at all?
He also mentions that his research is based on a "situated" research paradigm rather than the conventional research paradigm (pronounced para-did-jem). He basically says that to confirm a hypothesis and prepare it for publication the conventional research PARAHDIDGERM is the route to take, the exploration of phenomenons and the allowance of surprises is why he chose the route he did. He says that his results will need to be tested more rigorously in the future. Is this any good?