[Matchbook]

No, it doesn't exist yet, and I can't invent it. But someone should invent it. This is just for fun, but at the same time...who knows? It could work.

Here is how it could work:

Brain scans are done on all 16 MBTI types. Each type is given tests and stimuli that correspond to the functioning of each of the 8 cognitive functions. For instance, a participant is told to put their hand on a warm metal surface and think about the heat and feeling of the metal. A brain scan and neurofeedback is done during that moment to determine the activity of Se. Comparing the results from the 16 types, the consistent elements can be discovered that are responsible for Se activity, and likewise after other tests, the activity of the other functions, so that a brain scan could be looked at and the evaluator could say, "Here we see high Fi and Si activity."

After this, a neurofeedback device could be produced from the information so that you could be hooked to a computer, and watch a real-time graph, with a bar for each cognitive function, raising and lowering according to your neuro-output.

Maybe the ability to do this is 80 years off, or maybe no one has tried hard enough. Ok all of you logicians, rip it to shreds!...or think of ways it could be done. I'm sure it could. Maybe in the future one could have a small electrode the size of a grain of rice planted in the skin of their temple sending a signal to a wireless wristband with a screen that graphs cognitive function activity in real-time. OH YEAH!!

 

[nevermore]

It's be more accurate than those silly tests, and certainly far more efficient than browsing forums and poring over descriptions for months on end...

 

[penchant]

Makes perfect sense to me. I heard recently that neurologists have now discovered a way to actually map the human brain very precisely since we now have 3D scans and computers powerful enough to unfold all the folds of the brain, which apparently was a problem before. So I believe there will be great leaps forward in our knowledge in this area in the near future.

 

[Matchbook]

Yes. And here is another add-on to this invention idea. The wristband (or whatever it would be) that displays the graphing read-out of the 8 functions in real-time, has an option so that you can set a start time and a stop time, or a set length of time like 30 minutes, so that it at the end of the time period it will display a bar graph read-out showing the averages of each cognitive function during that time. So if you were sketching a picture, or doing math, you can take a look at which functions you were using most and least during that time.

Hehe...I like to dream. I doubt this would ever happen. Wait no! I didn't just say that! It will happen.

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

I love the idea, though it's accuracy (resolution) would depend entirely on the amount of accurately assessed individuals used to establish a baseline.

You can think of resolution like in digital photo reproduction: a photo reproduced at 80dpi (dots per inch) will look jagged grainy, and is generally considered a poor quality reproduction; where as a photo reproduced at 2000dpi will look smooth, and may be considered a good reproduction. But if you look at the 2000dpi reproduction with a magnifying glass, you can still see the jagged edges. So it is a matter of perception.

The next thing to consider is accurately assessing individuals to be part of the baseline group. The MBTI was never intended to supply individuals with an accurate representation of their personality, but rather help them to understand the naturally occuring differences and their own preferences.

An alternative to this invention could be a graph or bar chart that shows each of the 4 base functions (S/N, T/F) and to what extent each is being utilised. Resolution would still be an issue, but there would be no need to assess different personality types, just measure the responses to different stimuli.
Sense would be to place their hand in a bucket of cold water and ask them to describe the sensations. iNtuition could then be tested for by asking them what the cold water reminds them of, or by asking them to describe a fictional character. Showing them two cards, one red and one blue, and asking them to point out the blue card to test a Thinking or validity descision. Then ask them which of the 2 colours they like best to test a Feeling or value descision.
Strength of individual response would need to be established through multiple tests of each type and correlated with the individual's perception of their own response in each case.
Measurement of brain activity and body response could then be compared to the data, and algorithms could be produced to predict the use of each function.

A simple invention that already uses some of these tests is called a polygraph machine. The correlation and interpretation of the data is still done manually though.

 

[penchant]

Aw, don't give up on the attitudes. Why should not the distinction between Se and Si be possible?

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

Aw, don't give up on the attitudes. Why should not the distinction between Se and Si be possible?

There is alot of difference in the measurement of the functions and preference of attitude. This difference has somewhat to do with the quote in your user signature, you're unlikely to notice much of a distinction between Introvertive and Extrovertive cognition, (not behaviour,) through studying it.

It may, however, be possible, for each individual using the device, to build up a store of data that could be used to describe an individual's prefered function use.
If an extremely diligent individual was to correctly recognise and record, (by the pressing of one of two buttons,) internally or externally used functions, a further data store may be built. This further data could then be used when describing the individual's prefered function, but providing only subjective clarity about the individual's cognitive attitude.
BUT, the individual's own process of recognition and recording would colour and distort the recorded results to the point of making the records useless.

 

[penchant]

There is alot of difference in the measurement of the functions and preference of attitude. This difference has somewhat to do with the quote in your user signature, you're unlikely to notice much of a distinction between Introvertive and Extrovertive cognition, (not behaviour,) through studying it.

I think this is where I don't follow you. I don't see why it there wouldn't be a difference in the readings, that could be translated into introvertive or extravertive cognition, and matched with observable differences in approaches to problem solving.

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

I think this is where I don't follow you. I don't see why it there wouldn't be a difference in the readings, that could be translated into introvertive or extravertive cognition, and matched with observable differences in approaches to problem solving.

The following is based on my own subjective observation coupled with what I understand about the way MBTI uses the functions: (despite it being in a draft format, I hope it helps)

Consider 2 typed individuals and their prefered cognitive functions,
INTJ ENTJ
NiTe TeNi

Both think about things in the same way, but put their emphasis in a different place.
(This emphasis cannot be measured, only guessed at.)

When an individual of either type makes a conscious (observable) decision the following cognitive process takes place:
A subconscious decision, to make a conscious decision, is made based on subconsciously obtained information that suggests a conscious decision should be made.

You could stare at the two individuals and their brain scans all day and not pick the difference, because the cognitive process is the same for both.

 

[penchant]

Both think about things in the same way, but put their emphasis in a different place.
(This emphasis cannot be measured, only guessed at.)

If you are talking about emphasis as "degree of use", then why could it not be possible to measure emphasis? If you are talking about emphasis as preference, then I am with you.

When an individual of either type makes a conscious (observable) decision the following cognitive process takes place:
A subconscious decision, to make a conscious decision, is made based on subconsciously obtained information that suggests a conscious decision should be made.

You could stare at the two individuals and their brain scans all day and not pick the difference, because the cognitive process is the same for both.

I agree that if the cognivite processes are identical then we wouldn't be able to measure any difference neurologically, nor observe any difference in behaviour. That is, as far as I can see, actually the basis for trying to pin down the cognitive functions with brain scans.

And, just to make sure we are on the same page on this, I am not suggesting that this method could be used to type people. To do that we would somehow need to be able to measure preference as opposed to use. Doing these experiments could however be a good indicator of which functions a given person uses in a given context.

But I do still not see the answer to my question... My point was not about comparing E-types and I-types, but the Introverted and Extraverted variant of each Cognitive Function. That would translate to comparing an INTJ with an INTP and looking for either NiTe or TiNe... What are your thoughts on that?

Sorry for the lack of structure to my post...

 

[rowingineden]

This is so Ne+Te. :tongue:

Actually, we would probably be able to distinguish between use of cognitive functions by looking at what part of the brain was active during certain kinds of activities - Te is a left-brained function, probably located in the frontal lobe, for example. Ti might then be right-frontal? *shrugs*

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

Perhaps an analogy:

Consider two athletes, both run and both swim. One is better at runnung, the other is better at swimming. Despite their performance, both prefer running.
Performance is not a prediction of preference.

 

[penchant]

This is so Ne+Te. :tongue:

Actually, we would probably be able to distinguish between use of cognitive functions by looking at what part of the brain was active during certain kinds of activities - Te is a left-brained function, probably located in the frontal lobe, for example. Ti might then be right-frontal? *shrugs*

This image (Lenore Thomson)... But not everyone agrees of course...

 

[rowingineden]

Perhaps an analogy:

Consider two athletes, both run and both swim. One is better at runnung, the other is better at swimming. Despite their performance, both prefer running.
Performance is not a prediction of preference.

I don't see the relevancy of this statement, because preference is rarely objectively measurable as it is an internal thing, whereas performance/behavior is measurable. You would have a margin of error, but people usually behave according temperament, which would also include preferences.

I think you're being a problematic INTJ for no real reason.

 

[penchant]

Perhaps an analogy:

Consider two athletes, both run and both swim. One is better at runnung, the other is better at swimming. Despite their performance, both prefer running.
Performance is not a prediction of preference.

Does the analogy hold for T vs. F only? Or for Te vs. Ti as well?

 

[rowingineden]

This image (Lenore Thomson)... But not everyone agrees of course...

I can see some validity in that hypothesis.

 

[penchant]

I can see some validity in that hypothesis.

I shoud've posted this link too: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/9648-types-brain-pseudo-science-behind-mbti.html

God, I'm lazy today...

 

[Matchbook]

Perhaps an analogy:

Consider two athletes, both run and both swim. One is better at runnung, the other is better at swimming. Despite their performance, both prefer running.
Performance is not a prediction of preference.

ImNoTJustletters, I found some of what you shared in your posts helpful, but I do disagree with your reasoning for why the function attitudes can't be delineated. Take Se and Si for example. Certain areas of the brain are going to increase activity during sensory activity, however, when Si is active, portions of the brain that relate to memory will fire up as well. This makes it possible for an expert in brain activity to recognize the difference. Do you agree? I could go on to explain how the other functions could be delineated as well, but first I'd like to see if you agree with this reasoning.

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

Off Topic:

I don't see the relevancy of this statement, because preference is rarely objectively measurable as it is an internal thing, whereas performance/behavior is measurable. You would have a margin of error, but people usually behave according temperament, which would also include preferences.

I think you're being a problematic INTJ for no real reason.

Now why would you purposely go and make a target out of yourself by criticizing an evil genius?

Here's the logic of the above quote:
"I can't understand what you've said in the context of the discussion. But rather than admit my own lack of understanding I'll criticize the the statement, make some statements of my own to make myself sound intelectual, and finish by criticizing and stereotyping the maker of the statement."

If you wish to continue criticizing me, do three things:
- take it to a different thread. (Suggested title: ImNoTJust a critic)
- join the queue!
- be right!


On topic:

I'd like to address your statements in the context of this discussion:

preference is rarely objectively measurable as it is an internal thing,

I agree that preference is rarely measureable. But if we knew it's parameters or where to find it, (as you are suggesting it is an internal thing,) then we could measure it.

performance/behavior is measurable.

This is true.

You would have a margin of error,

There is always a margin.

but people usually behave according temperament,

WRONG! People behave according to their subconsciously held beliefs. Temperament is a tool for describing different types of cognition and behaviours.



If it becomes an issue, I will add some clarity to the athlete analogy in a subsequent post.

 

[ImNoTJustletters]

ImNoTJustletters, I found some of what you shared in your posts helpful, but I do disagree with your reasoning for why the function attitudes can't be delineated. Take Se and Si for example. Certain areas of the brain are going to increase activity during sensory activity, however, when Si is active, portions of the brain that relate to memory will fire up as well. This makes it possible for an expert in brain activity to recognize the difference. Do you agree? I could go on to explain how the other functions could be delineated as well, but first I'd like to see if you agree with this reasoning.

(I hate to sound like a polotician, but)
That is an excelent question. I would suggest that there are two specific areas of the brain that could show whether a person was using a function nternally or externally. They are the memory centres, (as you suggested,) and the communication centres.
The problem arises when trying to correlate purely subjective data from many individuals performing the same functional task. The fact that an individual may show a stronger performance than other individuals in a particular task, does not mean that they have a preference for that task.