The nueroscience of personality and Dario Nardi - Page 5

The nueroscience of personality and Dario Nardi

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
Thank Tree148Thanks

This is a discussion on The nueroscience of personality and Dario Nardi within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; O.K so here is a piece from the book. "...The figure below shows one typical route. The route jumps from ...

  1. #41
    Unknown Personality

    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?
    Ellis Bell and AncientSpirits thanked this post.

  2. #42
    Unknown Personality


    Quote Originally Posted by Bardo View Post
    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.
    There are two really basic problems here.

    1) The personality model being investigated has no established clinical relevance. That is to say, imagine a world where everyone believes in MBTI -- that is to say, everyone believes it is a good system that describes a lot about how people work. If you have such a system, where everyone agrees that INFJs talk a lot, or that ENTJs are very decisive, then it might make sense to speculate about neurological mechanisms for these differences. Currently, there is no good, scientific evidence to say that these categories have great relevance. Real research motivating clinical relevance must precede research in neural mechanisms, otherwise Nardi's speculations are merely that, groundless speculative mechanisms.

    2) The tasks being done don't lend any confidence to demonstrating any personality differences. This I addressed in the last post I made, doing good science has a lot of its roots in isolating exclusively the personality variables of interest. There is no task, from what I know of Nardi's work, that suggests anything to me about him understanding that his task isolates e.g. a decision making circuit.

    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 ----.
    All that is being described is still a vague hypothetical mechanism for a behavior with no evidence.

    The personal observations aside, does this information help his case in your eyes at all?
    No.

    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?
    Actually his paradigm is nonsituated, what he means is that typically people sit down at a machine and don't move or else the measurements are invalidated. His paradigm instead uses a small portable EEG set. Which is interesting and not automatically unsound, but I would need to be convinced more than I am that such an instrument can still take useful readings when the subject is not asleep (sleep EEG is a whole different world).

  3. #43
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Teybo View Post
    Here's the thing about Dario Nardi and Lenore Thomson. When they talk about brain activation and such, it adds absolutely nothing new to the philosophical discussion. "Right brain, left brain, P3, O2," etc. isn't really meaningful, at least not in any way that really helps us understand each other better. I can't look into your brain, you can't look into mine. It's about as helpful as me saying that because you're ISFP your isoreporgontarator shows high activation, and since I'm INFJ, my depulsificalithumoid shows high activation. Without the accompanying explanation of the patterned and consistent relation between environmental input and behavioral reaction, the so-called biological data is quite useless.

    I'm replying to you, @hornet, not because I have any bone to pick with you (I like you, and find that I generally agree with both your approach to discussions and the content of your opinions), but because I think your statement here about finding his book helpful, regardless of the veracity of his biological claims, to capture much of what's going on surrounding this whole type+EEG phenomenon that Dario is spearheading. I think there are some people who are so hungry for external validation of their perceptions that they are willing to accept any sort of neuroscience jargon in support of their viewpoint, and Lenore and Dario seem to be exemplifying this phenomenon. Maybe related to INTJ/Te land, I don't know? To be 100% clear (since sometimes I feel like I shoot for understatement and end up in asshole territory), and probably this is unnecessary, but I'm not accusing you, Mr. hornet, of anything, nor implying anything about your perceptions, interpretations, knowledge, thoughts, or anything else about type. In fact, I find your statement quite insightful.
    I understand.
    I found it helpful halfway for the external validation,
    halfway because it broadened my horizons about Jung's theory
    actually having to compete with real world data
    to prove it's worth. If Nardi is right or not isn't all that important to me.
    Someone should go down the EEG vs Jung trail, and I'm glad somebody is doing it.
    Maybe it is a dead end. That is fine by me. Then we can put up a big sign that says dead end. ;)
    Figure, AncientSpirits and Hitway thanked this post.

  4. #44
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by hornet
    I found it helpful halfway for the external validation,
    halfway because it broadened my horizons about Jung's theory
    actually having to compete with real world data
    Yeah, that's totally it. It's not so much that I take Nardi's work for absolute fact, but I do think it adds depth to what can be perceived within the comparative architectures of type theories, and how that measures up to objective observation. If that isn't someone's goal to begin with, then obviously it won't mean much. The more one can understand about the way someone thinks as they think, the better he/she will understand others - so it does work that way at least.

    Nardi's stuff is basically a new whip, with new gadgets to fiddle with. If people want to stick to their Camrys and Accords fine, but I think this stuff has the capability of making what we already have better. I really have come, through Nardi, to not see the JCFs as a set of processes to point to in everyday life. I used to think "man, Ni is crazy today" - but that isn't really the case, it's more whichever activity he is describing as related to O1 and O2. Which, again, in light of ways that the JCFs are still very much valid, begs the question "what is being referred to, then?"

    There's just a greater stratus of depth to what can be pointed to in our everyday cognitive environments now. The personal growth and more philosophical aspects can come from this sort of thinking.
    Inveniet, Donovan, Julia Bell and 3 others thanked this post.

  5. #45
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Hello Community,


    I don’t normally comment on or even read forums, but I came across some comments--made by someone who supposedly does neuroscience--that are factually wrong about my work and for some reason attack me personally.


    Imagine you’re tasked to write a book summary. Rather than read the book, you look at a few slides made by author years before the book was published and write a report that (inevitably) includes loads of assumptions and false information and attacks the author personally. Of course you don’t contact the author or such either. What kind of grade does that report deserve?


    Let’s tackle some of the misunderstandings that have come up.


    “Neuroscience of Personality” includes two full chapters that describe the protocol that was developed and used. After the first couple months, and for over 5 years, everybody worked from the same set of tasks. Yes, sometimes I’d add a task or go on an exploratory tangent, marking those times as such, and yes, the last 1/3rd or 1/4 of the time was open-ended, after we’d done to standard tasks, and that was designed in. And by the way, except for the open-ended time at the end of a session, I followed the kind of protocol and assumptions used by the well-received Human Connectome Project.


    The book includes a whole chapter that delves into the rich variety of brain functionality well beyond some convenient labels to warm up laypersons to the topic. In those chapters, I made sure that *every* correlation I talked about is already mentioned somewhere in the neuroscience literature in textbooks and/or peer reviewed papers. For example, I’m not out to prove that the P3 region is involved with oddball identification or tracking of moving objects or a sense of personal body boundaries. Other folks have already published on that.


    From the start, I state the strengths and limitations of the work and tentative nature of the results. The book has an appendix that summarizes some key technical details about the equipment and such with contact information to find me. I understand EEG data and how to analyze it. The device gives voltage readings and there are numerous frequencies present at once. And after one applies FFT, one can pick a dominant frequency. There are several standards to do that. Overall, I used an event-based approach. How else could one find correlations?


    I didn’t begin with “type” as the model. I focused on the many potential intersections of behavior, reported mental activity, EEG results, and what was already known in the neuroscience literature. I also gathered demographic data including best-fit type results. When I did the statistical analysis, I found correlations between type and brain activity. Of course I had type in my head from the start, but believe it or not, by year 4, I had given up on there being a body of meaningful correlations. It was the analysis afterward that really turned me around. Even now though, when I conduct workshops, a lot of the time I don’t mention type, or need to, because the brain is incredibly rich and interesting on its own.


    Also, let’s consider. I presented my work to folks in UCLA’s neuroscience department (of course). No one had a problem with my presentation. Naturally, they had some questions. I answered them. Similarly, other faculty joined me in the lab to observe and inquire. Are are these people “stupid” and not doing real science? Really? Similarly, people who attend my workshops include medical doctors, brain rehabilitation therapists, neuroscientists... No harshness yet, much less personal attacks. I go out of my way to remind people of the tentative nature of the work, the limits of EEG, and the incredibly rich, interlinked, organic nature of the brain; and I am happy to answer technical questions about how I did the work. Certainly, there are times when I say, "That's not my area" or "I don't know".


    Young academics can start off with very narrow views about what constitutes scientific investigation. A good book or course on *philosophy of science* can correct and expand those views. If we don’t spend time asking, “What are the observables?”, “What questions are worth asking?”, and so forth, then we easily end up writing a bunch of pretty-looking, unremarkable papers. Prestige is not a replacement for discovery.


    As for some of the more unusual phenomena I report, after spending a couple hundred hours in front of an EEG monitor running experiments, one sees some amazing stuff. It is very relevant and interesting when every region is dominated by the same frequency and the same amplitude, for 3 minutes solid and unwavering. Only certain events trigger those. Those events share commonalities. The triggers are repeatable for a particular person. Etc. I could go on, and it’s in the book.


    As for my role at UCLA, for 13 years, I was a full time lecturer or assistant adjunct professor, won two teaching awards, and was voted overwhelming by the Anthropology faculty as “excellent” after a formal review process and considered fit to continue teaching and research as a senior lecturer. I'm doing a fellowship for 2 years instead. In fact, over 7 years, I personally supervised over 1500 social science research studies. My primary task was teaching students how to conduct research. Yep! Apparently, my fellow faculty determined I did that very well. Those faculty and I know far more than some random student posting here might imagine he or she knows.


    Finally, let’s be really clear on one thing: My goal definitely isn’t to dress up the “MBTI type tree” with some fancy neuroscience clothing. My goal is to plant and nurture a neuroscience tree with the lessons and ideas of type (among other things) in mind. One of the biggest mistakes in a lot of neuroscience research is the lack of awareness of who the subjects are. As one of the neuroscience faculty here at UCLA said in a lecture a few years ago, we need to start looking at individual differences.


    As I said at the start, I don’t do forums except on very rare occasions. A person might hold a negative impression, express skepticism, etc and seek clarity if interested. That’s natural and helps evolve and clarify things. It’s another to claim expertise, load up attacks based on a bunch of assumptions, fail to read or inquire, and then write stuff that puts quotation marks around things the author has never said (that’s called libel). In those cases, the person is not entitled to an opinion. That person is a troll. The behavior is unbecoming in any community.


    I wish you all the best. If you’d like to know more, you can: a) Watch the Google video, keeping in mind it's meant for Google employees; b) Read my book, which is about 2 years out of date now, but so be it; c) Attend one of my workshops (the short ones I do at universities and clubs are free or almost free); or d) Shoot me an email with your questions, understanding that I’m busy like everyone else and may not respond immediately.


    Regards,
    Dario Nardi
    Donovan, madhatter, Randroth and 24 others thanked this post.

  6. #46
    INFJ - The Protectors

    @AncientSpirits a.k.a. Dr. Dario Nardi

    You deserve an apology from me, an internet stranger. Mea culpa. I shouldn't have made things personal. I am an asshole (and I probably will continue to be, but I'm working on it).
    orni and AncientSpirits thanked this post.

  7. #47
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Teybo, thank you for your response. Please know, I was prompted by a particular someone else. And I realize I forgot to address the crucial question of peer validation of results (which is broader than publishing in specific journals).

    Regarding peer validation.... When I started research, I was told that I could run it as a training lab or a formal study. I choose the former, because I wanted to explore. As a technical matter, that greatly limits where I can publish. Moreover, publishing anything related to Myers-Briggs is very difficult in establishment journals. Peers have been repeatedly told their papers are rejected solely because of using MB, and for no other reason. When I have 5+ subjects in *all* 16 types, I will publish in Journal of Psychological Type, for what that’s worth. (Right now, I have 64 subjects, but there is a still a deficit in some types). Moreover, I’ve taken the patent route. A patent must be excruciatingly clear how to replicate results, which is the gold standard of science. I could also make my data set available when the patent is done, so anyone can check my results. Also, I’m starting work with two persons at other universities right now. One has already worked a couple days with me just to see what I’m seeing, etc. He’s like, “Yep, there it is!” as a particular pattern comes up in an expected situation. Finally, even though a small number of subjects is acceptable in neuroscience, it’s better to have more. I’m working on automated analysis of EEG data, so a room full of folks can wear portable caps as they tackle a diverse set of activities and then receive a computer-generated report, which makes it all pretty objective, even if doing so loses value with respect to context and individuality. That’s a loss: As I explore midlife adults, I find they show more diversity and their brain activity patterns are more readily contextual compared to college students. For that reason, self-reflective best-fit instruments and such may always be useful. Which makes everything harder and reminds us of the subtle complexity of psyche.
    Dyidia, RoSoDude, stoicBrit and 16 others thanked this post.

  8. #48
    Unknown


    @AncientSpirits

    Glad you came on here to clear this up personally. I'm tired of telling people that the article you're talking about is a load of cow manure and needs to be kept off this site and prevented from being spread elsewhere. Fortunately, with the smart people here we've got, it was too confusing and poorly-articulated to amount to much anyway, so the greater good of the study has been left well in-tact.

    This forum has some interesting discussions on your work. For a few months now I and a few others here have been trying to look at ways that your study challenges the definition of a "function." We've also noticed very different ways that the types view the applicability, or lack thereof, of type theory, with correlations between type preferences and "take" on type as they navigate the real world. Although fora are littered with absurdity, this one actually does have some really good discussions that are worth checking out.
    Dyidia, RoSoDude and AncientSpirits thanked this post.

  9. #49
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Man, you have to love it when someone talks trash about an author and then the author makes a personal appearance to tell them why they're wrong. Everyone sees this right?

    functions.jpg

  10. #50
    Unknown Personality


    Dario Nardi,

    I am glad that you have decided to respond in this venue. It gives me more respect for you and your character than I've ever had before. I am going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt at every point where it is possible to do so.

    In reading your response, it is possible that your work is a bit more valuable than I have previously given credit for. However, there remain a lot of problems which make me very skeptical of your methodology which I will try to illustrate as best I can. I am still of the mind that the end result of your work is probably that your findings are not really "true," but you have the opportunity to attempt to convince me otherwise (of which, the process is indeed more important than the success of convincing me).

    You deserve to know a bit about me. My name is Roan LaPlante. I am a research assistant at the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging. I am primarily a methods researcher; I work with MEG methods and software development. My lab is currently focused on analyzing the network connectivity and language function of epileptic patients before and after invasive surgery to remove the epileptogenic focus. My educational background is in Computer Science, Psychology, and Neuroscience.

    Let me respond to the specific points you have addressed in some detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by AncientSpirits View Post
    Imagine you’re tasked to write a book summary. Rather than read the book, you look at a few slides made by author years before the book was published and write a report that (inevitably) includes loads of assumptions and false information and attacks the author personally. Of course you don’t contact the author or such either. What kind of grade does that report deserve?
    It deserves a report that is contingent on the quality of the information that is available. I did not buy your book. The principal reason that I did not buy your book is that none of the material I could find on your work gave me any reason to think that you had a clue. I did watch your talk at google in which you go over the same information as in the slides. I also looked around the internet for your CV and to see if you had ever published any kind of scientific paper or for any other work, that would not entail actually buying the book. Based on the quality of the slides and the talk at Google, I am extremely confident in the content and quality of the "book report" that I wrote, that detailed bad science that was popularly misrepresented.

    It is not outside of the realm of science that an individual, such as yourself, could produce a very bad presentation based on bad pop-science (which it was) to nonscientists and then some years later, have a much better idea of the data and the methods. It is easy for me to accept that this may be the case, and there is no conflict with my previous comments. And if this is the case and I've offended you to the point that you won't talk to me, that is okay with me as well.

    “Neuroscience of Personality” includes two full chapters that describe the protocol that was developed and used. After the first couple months, and for over 5 years, everybody worked from the same set of tasks. Yes, sometimes I’d add a task or go on an exploratory tangent, marking those times as such, and yes, the last 1/3rd or 1/4 of the time was open-ended, after we’d done to standard tasks, and that was designed in. And by the way, except for the open-ended time at the end of a session, I followed the kind of protocol and assumptions used by the well-received Human Connectome Project.
    I am unable to comment without specific knowledge of the tasks.

    The book includes a whole chapter that delves into the rich variety of brain functionality well beyond some convenient labels to warm up laypersons to the topic. In those chapters, I made sure that *every* correlation I talked about is already mentioned somewhere in the neuroscience literature in textbooks and/or peer reviewed papers. For example, I’m not out to prove that the P3 region is involved with oddball identification or tracking of moving objects or a sense of personal body boundaries. Other folks have already published on that.
    In order to respond to this fully, I would need to read your references meticulously and analyze your meta-analysis. It is good that you have references. That said, the way you have presented your claims is not conducive to promoting your intelligence.

    Particularly, this image:



    This is the single image from your work that makes it extremely easy to dismiss what you have to say. All of the functions that you have described are complex tasks with complex computations that recruit large, distributed networks to complete. Producing a map of the brain that roughly equates these tasks to brain regions as defined by EEG sensors -- with the low spatial resolution of EEG -- goes far beyond "convenient labels to warm up nonscientists." This image represents what is wrong with your work -- in spite of your comments throughout your reply here that the brain is a multifaceted, complex, and highly distributed system, this figure shows the opposite. It simplifies the brain enormously and wrongly in terms of its spatial specificity, the types of computations it performs, and suffers from the boxology of 1993-era fMRI.

    This isn't to say that simplifying the brain into models for the better comprehension of scientists or laypersons is not a useful thing. It is to say that the model represented by *this figure* is bad. Again, perhaps this figure shows up merely in your work from years ago, and that now you know it is bad and have improved upon it to clarify it, for instance by better describing and specifying the types of tasks that cause activation from these sensors. I can accept that possibility.

    It would also be even better, of course, if you did some source analysis with a larger array of electrodes, and then you could draw upon a larger body of literature from cortical regions rather than 20 EEG sensors.

    From the start, I state the strengths and limitations of the work and tentative nature of the results. The book has an appendix that summarizes some key technical details about the equipment and such with contact information to find me.
    I am glad to hear it.

    I understand EEG data and how to analyze it. The device gives voltage readings and there are numerous frequencies present at once. And after one applies FFT, one can pick a dominant frequency.
    Yes, one can pick a dominant frequency. This is a principled choice with which to conduct a statistical analysis. This is about all about your choice that is good. If your primary contrast of interest is a discrete category of which frequency bands are activated dominantly, you are discarding almost all of the rich spectral and temporal information that EEG/MEG provides.

    What is the range of frequencies that dominate? That is to say, on your slides on the google talk what is the difference in frequency between blue and green regions? If it is 10 Hz, and thus some of the regions are dominated by low frequencies while some are maximally active at e.g. high beta frequencies, that would indeed be interesting. I suspect it is less and that most of your data is dominated by low alpha, because that is typically the largest frequency range of the signal. Also, how do you come to the conclusion that one region is more highly activated than another in some particular task? The frequency ranges that dominate a region in a task do not tell you this.

    Another question -- have you ever seen a peer reviewed paper report on discrete categories of dominant frequencies as a dependent measure? I'm not sure I have.

    There are several standards to do that. Overall, I used an event-based approach. How else could one find correlations?
    An event-based approach is not the problem.

    Also, let’s consider. I presented my work to folks in UCLA’s neuroscience department (of course). No one had a problem with my presentation. Naturally, they had some questions. I answered them. Similarly, other faculty joined me in the lab to observe and inquire. Are are these people “stupid” and not doing real science?

    Really?
    Without addressing the question of whether people are stupid (many scientists are) or doing real science (some scientists are not), there are some problems. The level of work that is required for a scientific presentation or poster and the degree to which it will be vetted or overtly dismissed is much lower than when one submits this work for publication, as you know. Merely because individuals within the department of neuroscience did not openly dismiss your findings -- they may or may not have any expertise with MEG/EEG methods -- does not suggest that your work is good. Rather, to suggest that your work is good, you will have to *show* that you have considered the possible confounds. Merely stating that the brain is complex and that EEG has methodological limitations, does not address these confounds.

    Indeed science and the internet are wonderful in some ways, because truly science does not involve the requirement of qualifications. It relies on the correctness, and provability of the ideas we have. Or at least, in theory, behind all of the social bullshit and scientific ettiquette, it captures some flavor of this meritocracy.

    Young academics can start off with very narrow views about what constitutes scientific investigation. A good book or course on *philosophy of science* can correct and expand those views. If we don’t spend time asking, “What are the observables?”, “What questions are worth asking?”, and so forth, then we easily end up writing a bunch of pretty-looking, unremarkable papers. Prestige is not a replacement for discovery.
    I agree with these comments. I feel that the neuroscience of personality is a great research topic that has barely been broached. Most of the attempts to broach it, such as this work, is not satisfying. And this stems from the inherent difficulties of the topic. I opine that the principal deficit comes from a poor idea of how personality structure works and that the personality measures should have clincal relevance before they are examined in terms of a biological substrate. But I am getting off topic.

    As for some of the more unusual phenomena I report, after spending a couple hundred hours in front of an EEG monitor running experiments, one sees some amazing stuff. It is very relevant and interesting when every region is dominated by the same frequency and the same amplitude, for 3 minutes solid and unwavering. Only certain events trigger those.
    Those events share commonalities. The triggers are repeatable for a particular person. Etc. I could go on, and it’s in the book.
    What frequencies? How do you characterize the amplitudes as the same? What are the control tasks that suggest to you this is really a genuine finding? These methodological considerations to define "significant" events of this type are extremely nontrivial, and you appear to be glossing over them.

    Finally, let’s be really clear on one thing: My goal definitely isn’t to dress up the “MBTI type tree” with some fancy neuroscience clothing. My goal is to plant and nurture a neuroscience tree with the lessons and ideas of type (among other things) in mind. One of the biggest mistakes in a lot of neuroscience research is the lack of awareness of who the subjects are. As one of the neuroscience faculty here at UCLA said in a lecture a few years ago, we need to start looking at individual differences.
    Yes, I agree.

    Regarding peer validation.... When I started research, I was told that I could run it as a training lab or a formal study. I choose the former, because I wanted to explore. As a technical matter, that greatly limits where I can publish. Moreover, publishing anything related to Myers-Briggs is very difficult in establishment journals. Peers have been repeatedly told their papers are rejected solely because of using MB, and for no other reason. When I have 5+ subjects in *all* 16 types, I will publish in Journal of Psychological Type, for what that’s worth. (Right now, I have 64 subjects, but there is a still a deficit in some types). Moreover, I’ve taken the patent route. A patent must be excruciatingly clear how to replicate results, which is the gold standard of science. I could also make my data set available when the patent is done, so anyone can check my results.
    These are legitimate concerns to varying degrees. They are also "excuses." That is to say, if you don't have peer review, you can't pretend that you do. Avoiding a semantic argument about what is meant by science, not having peer review is a severe limitation of your work.

    Using MBTI types is not an excuse for not having work published. It is a limitation of working with MBTI types. As you surely know the reason for this is that external validity of MBTI types with respect to a battery of clinical measures is low. If your work is good science, it should convince us, demonstrably by the strength of your methods and controls, that you have shown something that is true about MBTI types. If you did this I see no reason why you would not be able to get published. Not in Nature, but in a real journal, and not The Journal of Psychological Type. I don't believe your work *does* do this; I think it is full of methodological holes. By making these excuses, even if they are legitimate, you are skipping peer review and instead publishing your findings a book. There is a reason that many people would say your work is not science -- it is that the process of peer review that has made science what it is, no matter how much we hate it.

    Also, it's possible that had I had the opportunity to ask you personally about your methods, I wouldn't have so easily come to the conclusion that you were an idiot. But I didn't, and instead I looked through the material I had available. And then I looked for journal articles. And there weren't any. That spoke to me tons.

    As I said at the start, I don’t do forums except on very rare occasions. A person might hold a negative impression, express skepticism, etc and seek clarity if interested. That’s natural and helps evolve and clarify things. It’s another to claim expertise, load up attacks based on a bunch of assumptions, fail to read or inquire, and then write stuff that puts quotation marks around things the author has never said (that’s called libel).

    In those cases, the person is not entitled to an opinion. That person is a troll. The behavior is unbecoming in any community.
    I have given you my name and stated my opinions loudly on the internet for anyone to read. The opinions were based on my experience and the work you have done that was available to me. If I have made incorrect assumptions, then I have made incorrect assumptions, and I apologize for making incorrect assumptions. But in no way do I apologize for
    1) "not doing research" simply because i did not purchase a book, having exhausted all other available sources of information
    2) summarizing the points you have made in your work in my own words
    3) speaking my mind

    And if you believe that I am not entitled to an opinion, thats fine with me, and you can stick it up your ass.


     
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
    By dimane in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 11-28-2018, 08:45 AM
  2. [INTP] Dario Nardi pdf
    By Entropic in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-21-2017, 02:11 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2012, 05:11 PM
  4. Dario Nardi writes about function development
    By Entropic in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 12:51 PM
  5. Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
    By Stelmaria in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2012, 08:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0