Joined
·
10,147 Posts
Is @elvis2010 around? He would contribute so much to this thread....
I will post more tomorrow, but its posts like this that make me not want to publish my findings/observations. I don't know if you are a N or not Red Panda, and it is nothing personal (honestly your critique is astute and likely many/most would agree with you) but the term "scientific validity" is a phrasing that mostly NT academic elitists use to disparage any notion that they don't happen to agree with. The dirty little secret I see with doctors all the time is that it isn't the data but the person doing the publishing who has the greatest weight which means scientists typically don't really follow the scientific method all that much. Observational studies often worth their weight in gold go unpublished and society suffers.I think he should ditch the predetermined type systems and build new one from the bottom-up, because they add unscientific bias.
There's a lot of controversy with the cognitive functions and for good reason, he's making a mistake using them like this imo. The Grant stack is not true to Jung and has no scientific validity. At least if he's to use the MBTI types he must do so with dichotomies, not CFs.
The problem with the CFs and scientific validity is that the CFs are not defined consistently even at the theoretical level. Even Jung who thought of them first has inconsistencies in his descriptions (example, his T functions).I will post more tomorrow, but its posts like this that make me not want to publish my findings/observations. I don't know if you are a N or not Red Panda, and it is nothing personal (honestly your critique is astute and likely many/most would agree with you) but the term "scientific validity" is a phrasing that mostly NT academic elitists use to disparage any notion that they don't happen to agree with. The dirty little secret I see with doctors all the time is that it isn't the data but the person doing the publishing who has the greatest weight which means scientists typically don't really follow the scientific method all that much. Observational studies often worth their weight in gold go unpublished and society suffers.
The whole basis of the math link that Llyaren posted was that types learn math differently. The entire basis of "science", the gold standard, is double blinded placebo controlled, but it assumes everyone is the same when we aren't. Anyone disparaging type better than answer the question, "So we are all the same then?". There may be a best way to treat a fracture but when it comes to brain function and stress, the idea that one way is the right way is insane, yet that is what the scientific method deems we do. Truth is the scientific method had several brilliant detractors like David Hume.
And when I went to Dario's seminar, to his credit, he only mentioned functions and not type. There is no controversy with what parts of the neocortex control which brain functions. What he does is have you color in the parts of the brain on a piece of paper you think will be most active and then he hooks up the EEG. As you would predict, what you expect to light up and what does are pretty much one in the same. He is aware then of your shrewd criticism Red Panda and corrected for it.
Can he tell personality type with the EEG? I would be shocked if he couldn't, but he stayed away from the topic.
The surprising part of Dario's research is how much he has done on the cheap. The EEG he uses costs a whopping $750. I can't imagine what it would be like if he were to get his hands on a fMRI.
The book Influx by Daniel Suarez mentioned how fMRI could be used by the government to read people's thoughts including when they are lying. If we aren't there now, we aren't far away and it is kind of scary. What Dario did with the EEG, I do with my chemical personality type analysis: tell a person so much about themselves that an unknowing person would swear that we are psychic. Like I have learned to do with my chemical typing, I do not explain all that much but confirm or refute my observations for my most important critic, me.
It makes me cringe...but what is comforting to me is that when I meet older ENFPs they are running things and managing, but it’s like the state Diabetes Educators group and/or a big 300 member drum circle... =). So...I don’t know, there’s hope?That's quite a leap of faith from enfp to istj/estj, radical, but sounds plausible.
#imagining me as isfp/esfp#
Sent sans PC
I might analyze that a bit. One Fi aux Nardi worked with (ESFP) only went into flow state when listening to girls who were peers and Nardi said that this guys’ roommates said listening was a problem with him but that he had a thousand girls after him. Lol.i'm actually a terrible listener and always had problems with it.
I watched the part you say and it was kinda what I anticipated, no proof that the person in his example was actually anything other than "ISTP" before. He was just typed as INFJ based on his love of writing/playing music and just answering the questions he was given, right? So it's a bit of a leap and confirmation bias to say that people "develop" their opposite functions as they age.@elvis2010 and @ilovegoodcheese. Introductions! Both of you are neuroscientists.
Nardi has been studying with the MBTI and brain at midlife. Elvis, he does say on one of the videos I saw that the dominant function is pretty obvious right off the bat— but also that he sees different brains sometimes do kooky things (of course, right?.). He said ENFP brains were the most homogeneous and Si brains the most diverse due to whatever their chosen professions/hobbies. BUT it just makes intuitive sense to me that if he started typing people ostentatiously then it would undermine his observational study since MBTI is a self-report (which is also the reason why it needs Nardi’s work to give it credibility).
There’s so much on this thread I hope you see and talk about @elvis2010. But I know it’s extra work, I’m just glad you’re here to see it. @ilovegoodcheese has brought up a lot of good information and questions. Glad to have experts on board..
If you don’t have much time, then try from 3:45 for about 7 minutes. He says that in midlife because the functions you need are so developed you start putting energy into developing your third and forth function and he gives the example that a INFJ brain starts to look like a ISTP brain and make decisions that sound ISTP. Mine would look more like a ESTJ and I do see older ENFPs running more programs later in life...and for me I ran some programs in my 30s, I’m now more interested in getting back into music and writing and maybe art.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YjVs8nv2TUk
There is no proof that anyone is any type. That's what Dario Nardi is trying to give us is documenting observations of people who type themselves a certain way and then running them through the tests. If in his work he typed anyone it would throw off the results. The only thing that is possible now is self report until his work is accepted. In an even larger context, there is no proof that Jungian Cognitive Functions exist at all and it's not just some dude named Jung's ideas except for what this man is working to document. In an observational study like this he has to go by what people have reportedly typed for themselves (preferably typed in their 20's obviously from this information) and then run them through consistent tests for all people and document the patterns that emerge. If 95% (anyway, a statistically sound amount) of INFPs and ISFPs reach flow state when listening to someone speak about their experience and only 5-10% of other types show flow state while listening THEN we have some data. Now, I just came up with those percentages, but there are statistical significance standards.I watched the part you say and it was kinda what I anticipated, no proof that the person in his example was actually anything other than "ISTP" before. He was just typed as INFJ based on his love of writing/playing music and just answering the questions he was given, right? So it's a bit of a leap and confirmation bias to say that people "develop" their opposite functions as they age.
Calling it development/growth is a biased perspective. An SJ would see it as development if an NP ceased to be NP, and vice versa. Society always pushes Ns to conform and lose their N because it's mostly structured mostly around SJ thinking, and it's gonna happen if they allow themselves to accept it. Certainty and security wins over questioning, anticipating and looking for the bigger picture. So yea, I do think it's possible that people change their type as they age but I wouldn't necessarily call it development/growth. It's losing the energy/will to keep looking for more/embracing change, pushing against the idea that you need to settle (intellectually/physically, etc), not that your functions are so developed you wanna "grow" the others.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected about the scientific/academic world, Cheese. There are those of us in the medical community who are fed up with the "experts" and the term "standard of care". Let me give you one example, chelation, and here is an article about it, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/there-is-no-alternative-medicine/379342/People in academia focus often only in their hypothesis and don't see to much around. Is a little bit the product of the comfort zones and excessive rewards to "expert" professional trajectories. So, until other "expert" in that little area will come with the idea that MTBI is useful, it is not into the toolbox.
You know: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan). If you claim something different, evidence needs to be bulletproof, and i think it's far from there (yet)
Personally i think MTBI is an useful tool in healthy people but it fails with people with severe disease, precisely because it was designed to not include neuroticism as axis.
well i told you before, just get Nardi to publish in nature or science and everyone will be using that.next day The issue is i'm not sure if he is going to make it
I have to say I’m amazed, although not surprised that MBTI has been dismissed by academia.
As someone who studied genetics and molecular biology it’s rather apparent that the cognitive fuctions are operating in a simple 2 foci genetic pattern, you have the Ni/Se and Ne/Si alleles in one region and the Fi/Te and Fe/Ti alleles in another. The cognitive fuctions are highly discrete and can be detected in multiple ways that provide independent verification of their presence.
As a scientist, its literally the most scientific thing I’ve ever encountered in the pseudoscientific field of psychology. which is probably why they were troubled by it, as expertise carries no weight in the scientific method, and academia abhors not being the purveyor of expertise. (Ok that was a little ranty)
You are simultaneously both drunk and sober from my point of observation.I have to say I’m amazed, although not surprised that MBTI has been dismissed by academia.
As someone who studied genetics and molecular biology it’s rather apparent that the cognitive fuctions are operating in a simple 2 foci genetic pattern, you have the Ni/Se and Ne/Si alleles in one region and the Fi/Te and Fe/Ti alleles in another. The cognitive fuctions are highly discrete and can be detected in multiple ways that provide independent verification of their presence.
As a scientist, its literally the most scientific thing I’ve ever encountered in the pseudoscientific field of psychology. which is probably why they were troubled by it, as expertise carries no weight in the scientific method, and academia abhors not being the purveyor of expertise. (Ok that was a little ranty)
I’ve alway thought I took me one drink to get sober, so technically my non alcohol affected state must be considered some form of singularityYou are simultaneously both drunk and sober from my point of observation.
I like it though. There are waves of anti scientific movement related to certain efforts to control certain narratives in social relation. This needed to be stopped.
Sent sans PC
@contradictionaryI’ve alway thought I took me one drink to get sober, so technically my non alcohol affected state must be considered some form of singularity
As someone who considers science to be a methodology that clearly implies that academia is irrelevant to science, there would appear to be a problem Houston!
Truth be told is that the Scientific method (empirical falsification) is non instinctive and needs to be taught. Humans instinctively take sides and then gather evidence to support their position. They naturally disregard anyone with an opposing view. Academia is a natural outcome of our nature that fills a knowledge power vacuum. Before them it was religion, and before religion there were witch doctors. They are the trusted experts that people go to when they are afraid to make their own decision, by doing so you pass off responsibility and gain protection of the herd. Deviating from the values dictated by the trusted experts can be hazardous to your health.@contradictionary
I think ego of the scientists and big business both are the biggest enemies to science. Both love to make things biased and toss out out info.
I agree. I agree that the thinking to understand studies has to be taught. Someone told me there is a phrase of " One man's facts will never trump another man's experience" but that's kind of a problem because I notice people put way too much emphasis into their own perception of the strength of their experience extending it to the population at large. For instance, someone who has been bitten by a shark will mostly likely be skeptical that mosquitoes are the more dangerous of the two species, killing exponentially more people annually. As a teacher of nutrition I see my students struggle with data like this. I sympathize but only to a point because the times people get big publicity talking about their shark attack are the times we won't be able to fund malaria prevention as well. You know? At least I see this every day. When some fad diet comes onto the scene people don't want to concentrate on the information that we really have and become highly skeptical about it.Truth be told is that the Scientific method (empirical falsification) is non instinctive and needs to be taught. Humans instinctively take sides and then gather evidence to support their position. They naturally disregard anyone with an opposing view. Academia is a natural outcome of our nature that fills a knowledge power vacuum. Before them it was religion, and before religion there were witch doctors. They are the trusted experts that people go to when they are afraid to make their own decision, by doing so you pass off responsibility and gain protection of the herd. Deviating from the values dictated by the trusted experts can be hazardous to your health.
I’d love it if most people got to the point of having their own biased opinions.I agree. I agree that the thinking to understand studies has to be taught. Someone told me there is a phrase of " One man's facts will never trump another man's experience" but that's kind of a problem because I notice people put way too much emphasis into their own perception of the strength of their experience extending it to the population at large. For instance, someone who has been bitten by a shark will mostly likely be skeptical that mosquitoes are the more dangerous of the two species, killing exponentially more people annually. As a teacher of nutrition I see my students struggle with data like this. I sympathize but only to a point because the times people get big publicity talking about their shark attack are the times we won't be able to fund malaria prevention as well. You know? At least I see this every day. When some fad diet comes onto the scene people don't want to concentrate on the information that we really have and become highly skeptical about it.