Personality Cafe banner
61 - 80 of 121 Posts
Discussion starter · #61 ·
Is @elvis2010 around? He would contribute so much to this thread....
 
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.
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 Observational studies often worth their weight in gold go unpublished and society suffers.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.
 
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.
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).
And the function stack, specifically has no scientific validity in the sense that it claims for example that ESTP and INFJ have exactly the same functions in different order, yet statistics show that such opposite types do not share interests, likes, life goals etc etc. This makes sense by Jung's theory of course, but few people actually pay attention to it nowadays. This is why MBTI ditched using the functions and stuck to dichotomies, I think.

Jung's theory has no scientific validity either but at least it was based on some premises that are well observable and evolutionary-wise important (extra/introversion as an adaptability scale) and can be consistently extended to create types. So back to what I said earlier, the modern definitions of CFs are not based on these premises, and I'm not sure how Nardi defined them in order to make his study, I don't have his book so if you can expound on that it would be nice.

what's the chemical analysis typing thing you mention?
 
If one put weighting on the function stacks, it is very much intuitively making sense.

Let's say, just for illustration purpose, an ENFP preference: 45% Ne, 30% Fi, 15% Te, 8% Si, 2% the rest of shadows. Percentage will varied between individual and maturity level.

With the same weighting ISTJ preference: 45%Si, 30% Te, 15% Fi, 8% Ne, 2% the rest of shadows.

By probability anyone can see the possibility of intersections of 30% Fi in ENFP with 15% Fi in ISTJ, the same principle with Te, Ne and Si, even in the shadows.

Hey, it's very basic math. Thank you.

Sent sans PC
 
Discussion starter · #65 ·
@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
 
Discussion starter · #67 ·
That's quite a leap of faith from enfp to istj/estj, radical, but sounds plausible.

#imagining me as isfp/esfp#

Sent sans PC
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?
 
Discussion starter · #69 ·
i'm actually a terrible listener and always had problems with it.
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 myself often drift into imagination land or Ne land unless whatever is being talked about really engages me. Or music. I wonder what happens to my brain with music.
 
@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
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.
 
Discussion starter · #71 ·
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.
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.

The thing that to me shows how neat this is is that the results HAVE BEEN consistent and they have been consistent with the amount of cognitive function going on in each stack. For instance ESFPs and ENFPs also show some flow state (but not as much) when listening to people--- and sometimes it's just certain people. Anyway, this is where we are at with trying to show how cognitive functions work in the brain.

Are there certain angles of MBTI theory or Socionics theory that you feel are different than the cognitive functions and you like those theories better than the cognitive functions? What beliefs do you have that are either confirmed or demolished if Nardi's work turns out to be confirmed?

Actually Nardi's work would really help with the biases that you are talking about. There was a neuroscience study that I pointed out specifically to @ilovegoodcheese that was biased towards behaviors that promoted extroversion and understanding someone from their perspective WITHOUT putting yourself into the person's shoes which caused more introversion. THAT is the kind of study that Nardi's work might temper or stop. The kind of study that says extroversion is better and specifically what those who study Jungian function would call Fe (although they did not call it Fe, but the area of the brain used for these activities they discussed were well documented already) and these were BIASED in a way that Jung and Jung's followers will never be. So Nardi's work, if accepted, and if we are accepting Jung's work, imo, would undo a lot of these problems. After all, Jung never said Fe was to be preferred for society over Fi. So yeah... your point is very important to me too, but Nardi's work is on our side.
 
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)
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/
This Dr. Lamas, like almost every doctor today, goes off on chelation and doesn't even understand it but to his credit, he later admits that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

One day in 1999, a disheveled man (Lamas describes him as resembling Lieutenant Columbo, but with heart disease) came to Mount Sinai asking whether chelation therapy was worthwhile. “Of course not,” Lamas told him. “That’s quackery. It might be dangerous, it’s certainly costly, and it’s not going to do you any good.”
But that night, Lamas found himself dwelling on his dogmatic response. “It’s not like I had a class on chelation therapy,” he told me, his eyes closing as he smiled.

There are those of though in the alternative medicine world where I have just been granted entry who do know what chelation is and who can benefit from this therapy, but we have just kept our heads down and stay in our own little meetings and don't discuss the matter except among ourselves and our patients.

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.


What if MBTI (I don't know what you mean by MTBI) was actually a primitive attempt to understand the variation of neurotransmitters of the central nervous system and hormones of various individuals, and the people who originated the theory had no idea what those neurotransmitters and hormones were? Now you construct a model of those chemicals with each type and have a baseline. Wouldn't disease/psychosis be predictably based on those models? Couldn't you say those who have lower levels of catecholamines be more likely to suffer from Parkinson's than heart disease, and what types would you expect that in?

You brought up empathy and studies have shown males exhibit a lack of empathy when going through puberty likely due to testosterone. I am not sure if it is well known or not, but there is also hyperempathy I have seen in women due to a lack of estrogen, crying at the site of a dead bird at the side of the road while literally illogically eating Chicken McNuggets. With appropriate estrogen therapy, the hyperempathy is restored to healthy levels. So would that explain in part why so many men are Ts and so many women are Fs? (Truth be told, this was the hardest of all the letters I had with regards to getting the various hormonal markings, T v. F)

If you understand the base line state then, you could see how someone with say a low dopamine level, could be devastated by lowering dopamine further. On the flip side, someone with a higher level could tolerate a temporary lowering quite well.

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 been having some wicked trouble with font sizes. When I mentioned previously that when I went to a movie with an ENTP friend of mine, he saw the symbolism and got twice of much out of it then I did, one poster said that I would remember more details. I think that is likely true. I seemed also to know what is likely to be more popular at least among the general public than my ENTP friend would as well. I am not sure what hurdles Nardi would have to face in the research world, but while I think what Nardi is doing worthwhile and very interesting, I see nothing about it sadly that would catch fire in the treatment/real world at least not yet.

 
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)
 
Discussion starter · #74 ·
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'm SO glad you posted this! I have kind of always tried to detect if there might be any more functions out there that got missed by Jung and have never seen any or experienced any. And your answer really helps show why there are just 8 functions and not 9. Excellent! Now thats something that should gt studied, MBTI and genetics. Plus now I've got someone to pose my genetics questions to. Yay!
 
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 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
 
You 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
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 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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llyralen
Discussion starter · #77 ·
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 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!
@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.
 
@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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llyralen
Discussion starter · #79 ·
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 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.
 
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.
I’d love it if most people got to the point of having their own biased opinions.
The much larger problem is groupthink and people instinctively going along with the herd without even thinking, also known as ENTP Hell! :rolleyes:
 
61 - 80 of 121 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top