Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
11,028 Posts
I haven't read any of his books and yes, I'd agree that his work was very exploratory. He is however the very first neuroscientist to actually acknowledge MBTI as having research value so no, you're absolutely wrong about his research having no value as his EEG studies, which are published applied and academic research, does show that functions are seemingly valid.
Those studies are very poor. Sample sizes were tiny and he tends to jump to conclusions way too quick about his findings, while ignoring other possible result influencing factors. In his book he went into details how he conducted research, scientifically they are poor. Besides those flaws he also failed to ensure identical experiment conditions and that could skew results as well.

If you're not a scientist, then I guess reading his books might be better for you, but if you do understand the science then getting a hold of a few of his published papers would be much more informative. I guess being intellectually curious is one of the nice things about living in a big city. He did most if not all of his work while at UCLA and I live fairly close to UCLA and can go there and look stuff up if I'd like.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm a student. I can confidently say that I would have got a negative grade from work like that.


Neuroscientists can and do work with MBTI, although most probably stick with the Big 5 or some other scientifically validated analog to the MBTI while psychologists will either have to reverse their position on MBTI or continue to call it pseudoscience and work their way around the fact that a lot of older psychologists are going to call the MBTI pseudoscience.
Most of psychology and psychiatry isn't exactly scientific either.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ 7w8 sx/so
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
Those studies are very poor. Sample sizes were tiny and he tends to jump to conclusions way too quick about his findings, while ignoring other possible result influencing factors. In his book he went into details how he conducted research, scientifically they are poor. Besides those flaws he also failed to ensure identical experiment conditions and that could skew results as well.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm a student. I can confidently say that I would have got a negative grade from work like that.

Most of psychology and psychiatry isn't exactly scientific either.
His methodology and sample size was fine. A sample size of more than 10 is really all one needs to if there are statistically significant at all. The only people I've seen complaining are foreigners who want to discredit his work then use it as a baseline for their own work.

Sure, go ahead and think that.

Neuroscience is definitely a hard science. So you don't know what you're talking about here.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
189 Posts
I found Youtube videos of Dario Nardi. I like the fact that he used EEG in conjunction with MBTI typing. Sounds fascinating. I will try to find his books.
 

·
Premium Member
INFJ 4w3 sp/sx
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
I have talked briefly to Dario Nardi on Facebook. He is a child lol. And refuses to listen to anybody who even slightly criticizes his work (and yeah I think the premises of his works are mostly BS dressed up as science).

I don't think Ni vs Ne is poorly defined at all. It is all about valuing singularity of vision and insight (Ni) vs valuing multiplicity of possibilities and interests (Ne). Both can deal with imagination, abstractions and conceptual associations very well, so I don't think this is what you should look for to distinguish Ni vs Ne. I do think Ni types can ponder about possibilities, but ultimately Ni types will prefer to restrict or narrow down possibilities instead of expanding possibilities like Ne types do.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
189 Posts
Ni types will prefer to restrict or narrow down possibilities instead of expanding possibilities like Ne types do.
Ah, this is a good definition.

So, then, how would you explain how N couples with the S function? (Ni+Se vs Ne+Si)

As an Ni user, I always have to check with the outside world for accuracy, including asking people outright what they saw/heard/thought/felt.

The Ne people I know have already touched base with the outside world during their use of intuition, and they are merely using Si to examine the results and catalog them as experiences.
 

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
11,028 Posts
His methodology and sample size was fine. A sample size of more than 10 is really all one needs to if there are statistically significant at all. The only people I've seen complaining are foreigners who want to discredit his work then use it as a baseline for their own work.
Sample size of 10 can only be somewhat fine in a very well known experimentation criteria and generally not for finding out new things. For example to check if in some places trees are infected by X disease. Even then that's really as far as you can stretch word "research". Nardi instead of one variable investigated 8 or 16 with a sample size of less than 100. Even by your logic that would mean that he should have at least investigated 80 or 160 people. But that's a really awful research, because he mostly tested one age group of people, ignored gender, ignored many other psychological characteristics. In short it could be concluded that he simply tried to use one research samples to make conclusions about shit ton of things. That's not how empirical research works. I'm not even talking how he doesn't seem to differentiate between MBTI and cognitive functions, how for some types he only found 1 or 2 people and many other fatal flaws. I can understand his excitement and he probably felt good about writing the book, but his experiments nearly no scientific value.

He even claims that he has been interested in MBTI/cognitive functions for decades and he has a PhD in systems (yeah, absolutely nothing in psychology, neuroscience or biology, his degree is something in between maths, management and IT). Considering how much experience and skills he should have, it's really shameful for him to so many newbie mistakes. If I remember correctly he even wrote that he will make some further research, but most of his websites are dead or haven't been updated since 2004 or so. He just makes it look like like he wanted to publish a book for some quick profit and then just disappear. However, he made a presentation at Google and has been a bit active on YT, so that theory doesn't hold up. Instead it's pretty clear that he most likely got too excited and published that books due to how he felt, but that doesn't mean that he should have discarded some standard critical thinking and quality assurance. Well at least he was humble enough to write in his book that his research is just a primer for him or for others to continue to make other researches and that the whole purpose of writing that book was to spread the message that MBTI/cognitive functions might be something worth scientifically investigating (despite lacking adequate evidence for doing so).

Look, I understand that you are so defensive because there aren't many people doing neuroscientific research about MBTI/cog. functions, but that doesn't mean that even in such tiny community quality assurance could be discarded as irrelevant. It just builds a poor reputation and there are many more sites that exploit MBTI for some quick buck. Reputation of MBTI is pretty bad as is and the only way to change it is by being reasonable, constructive, fair and logical.

Also I want to say that neuroscience isn't exactly a hard science yet. It's in infancy and in it people are still just discovering ways of how to correctly investigate brains. Calm down and don't think that it's as legit as medicine, it's not. If it was, then in psychiatrist's room he wouldn't bother with conversations and instead he would just work with the organ of interest (brains) directly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
This is the biggest ever bullshit I've read about any functions since I know type theory.

1.) You don't lose any big picture, because intuition in general is about big picture. You may lose it with Si. But not with a function what is concerned with big picture and not with details.
2.) Intuition is creativeness. You make abstract connections, and make ideas, associations and visions from them. Most of the art is abstract. Because they born from this proccess I described. If this does not describe creativity to you, then you seriously need to rethink yourself. Also, what does that mean that "creativity is an expression"? What if someone is creative and don't express it? They still have the potential for creativeness...or if you don't see something it is non-existent? Then I guess by your standard, nothing exist for example in people mind, because you can't see it.
3.)When you express, you don't neccessarily make judgements. What if I express for example a smile? What am I judge with a smile? It is just an expression.
4.)"Creativity is more about mastering an art by practice" - no. Creativity is what kind of original ideas you have. And as I said, N functions are concerned with ideas. Their entire field are ideas.
this is just plain wrong. If you do something that millions did before you, but you mastered it with practice, you won't be creative. This is not how this term is used at all.

You mix up creating something with being creative very badly. You can create a cake, but if you did it according to a recipe, you won't be creative, not matter how strongly you mastered it.
Intuition is a perceiving function, which doesn't produce anything. Creativity implies that something is produced. It doesn't need to be physical. For example, a fiction, although can be hold in your hand, is a creation that's non-physical. People with strong intuition can "see" the abstract either more deeply (Ni) and/or more broadly (Ne) with higher clarity than average. But, that doesn't make them creative.

Expression is judgment. When you smile, there's a reason behind the smile. It might be because of something you think is "good". If something is "bad", you probably wouldn't smile. It can be fake (say, you're acting). In that case, it's still a judgment, but it's from a script. It can also be viewed as your judgment of what someone happy would act.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Intuition is a perceiving function, which doesn't produce anything. Creativity implies that something is produced. It doesn't need to be physical. For example, a fiction, although can be hold in your hand, is a creation that's non-physical. People with strong intuition can "see" the abstract either more deeply (Ni) and/or more broadly (Ne) with higher clarity than average. But, that doesn't make them creative.
Uhhh, you're not going to win this one..

The definition of creativity is:
"the use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness."

Intuition is arguably the ONLY function that's "creative". It's the only function that's capable of perceiving anything new, anything original.
Sensation perceives what is - whether it's external sensory data, or your own subjective interpretations of that sensory data, Thinking determines what things are - it makes sense of them, and Feeling determines whether you like or dislike something.

Intuition is the only function capable of new, original ideas due to how it works - some people might twist this into some sorta slam against Sensors being not creative but that'd be way wrong, doesn't matter where intuition is, whether it's preferred or not, and S types can have better and stronger N than N types since all that stuff is purely personal preference, and not indicative of skill.

Intuition is a perceiving function, yeah, but it does produce something. What it produces is mental imagery - it produces, well, perceptions. Things one sees, that aren't tangible.

The stronger ones intuition is, the more clearer they're able to see this psychic imagery, the more clearer they're able to perceive information in their mind that literally doesn't exist in the tangible outer world, the more clearer, then, one could argue, they're able to perceive their own "creativity".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I'm probably just not communicating it clearly. It's hard to describe how I think.
No reason to rude about it.
I can describe. Assuming I got it right.

It's the problem with visual thinking. It's like living with with Google Glass on both eyes.


But Google Glass that shows pictures related to your thoughts whenever you think of anything.

I am also experiencing the state of thoughts and imaginations being at times stronger than the real world. It's not that I can't see the world and it's not a mental disorder. It's how my thoughts work. It's under my control just the same way I am able to control my breath. I can't stop it for long because it stopping would mean I am dead but I can "hold it" for a while and I can also make it "deeper" or "shallower" at will.

I have an additional layer between me and reality. It's a tool. It's fully transparent when I focus on the real life but covers my sense of sight when I am thinking hard. I am still able to react to any danger in the outside world but normal stuff don't register.

People that know me well ask me "Where are you?" when I dive in my thoughts because they can see I travelled far and deep. It wakes me up from the state and I realize I spent the last a few minutes in the other end of the city, trying to find my notebook in my own room - while still sitting in the car. So I answer "In my room, I was looking for the notebook. It's in the drawer." and we both laugh.

It's actually pretty awesome. The world created in my imagination is in full color and full 3D. And it changes just like reality or just like I want it to - whatever is needed. It's like a lucid dream, just without control-issues. I can solve any problem in my mind. Unless it's math or orthography, lol. My imaginary eye doesn't do well with letters and numbers (apparently "you can't read in dreams" either, I tried and the text constantly changes, I can read up to 3 words but as I soon as I stop looking at them they disappear or change so they don't do well as data storage). I need a piece of paper for that.

Some people call it daydreaming. Seems pretty accurate. In literal sense. Because the visual thoughts behave just like a dream, despite appearing during the "day" (= when awake). But it isn't daydreaming per se because daydreaming is basically wasting time thinking about pink elephants. Visual thinking is a tool that can be used for that too but also gets used during productive work. It's active at all times.

I call it visual thinking but it also involves other senses, such as hearing, smell and tough. I am able to dive that deep. But usually it gets restricted to the visual for me as sight is my prefered sense.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
189 Posts
...he has a PhD in systems (yeah, absolutely nothing in psychology, neuroscience or biology, his degree is something in between maths, management and IT).
Then he is purposely deceptive. This is what his website says:

"Dario Nardi, Ph.D. is a world renowned author, researcher, speaker and expert in neuroscience, personality, and body-mind practices."

That sentence implies that his academic credentials are related to psychology. It doesn't directly say so. Therefore, he is guilty of lying by omission, epecially if he allows people to refer to him as Dr. Nardi without saying that he is a systems engineer, or whatever he is.

The definition of creativity is:
"the use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness."
I agree. N has the ability to envision things that do not exist in concrete form. I would call that creativity. Everyone has some form of N. Using it with any other cognitive function will boost creativity.
 

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
11,028 Posts
Then he is purposely deceptive. This is what his website says:

"Dario Nardi, Ph.D. is a world renowned author, researcher, speaker and expert in neuroscience, personality, and body-mind practices."

That sentence implies that his academic credentials are related to psychology. It doesn't directly say so. Therefore, he is guilty of lying by omission, epecially if he allows people to refer to him as Dr. Nardi without saying that he is a systems engineer, or whatever he is.
You can see for yourself (it's an old site and doesn't open on Firefox, but works in Pale Moon):

Here's a screenshot of that site:
868124



Look at the bottom of that website and you can see that he has PhD in Human Complex System degree program. So yeah it seem that I made a bit of mistake by calling it IT related subject, but let's look at UCLA's site. Oh well it seems that they don't even teach that program anymore. So I looked on internet what it could possibly and I found three things to which it could refer to:
PhD in Complex Systems and Data Science | Vermont Complex Systems Center at UVM IT systems
https://poly.engineering.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/HSEPhD-Graduate-Program-Handbook_2020-2021.pdf Universal social science
Systems Ph.D. | Systems Engineering Random engineering

His department suggests that he is closest to what second link refers to:
"Human Systems Engineering describes a growing transdisciplinary field (including the disciplines of psychology and engineering) that explores how people interact with technological and social systems in contexts that include transportation, medicine, military, computing and other complex systems. Cognitive science provides the foundation necessary for integrating human capabilities and limitations into complex sociotechnical systems (i.e., the practice of cognitive or human systems engineering).

This Ph.D. is designed to produce individuals who are well-grounded in cognitive science and skilled in its methods and applications. Employers (e.g., Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hospitals, industry) have an ever-increasing demand for personnel who can bridge the gap between rigorous science and solutions to real-world problems.The Ph.D. degree will provide transdisciplinary, research-driven training in applied cognitive science and human systems engineering. "

So my conclusion here is that he doesn't have a degree in psychology or neurosciences, however he's not entirely out of it with his PhD. It's just that in his program what he was interested in and wrote a book about was kinda ignored and he lacked appropriate knowledge to write it well. Seemingly he studied a hardly practical subject (yet) and for some reason either didn't learn a proper scientific research models or just ignored them. Meanwhile his studies were a mixture of humanities and social sciences, thus it can explain why using and interpreting EGG isn't his strong skill granted that there wasn't anywhere mentioned that somebody more skilled helped him to interpret results.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,394 Posts
One can read Dario Nardi's bio here: Dario Nardi

Dario did his doctorate work in Systems Science (1995-1998) at the State University of New York (www.binghamton.edu/ssie/) and gained his bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering (1988-1992) from the University of Southern California (USC Viterbi | Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering), where he enjoyed USC's Academic Scholarship for Excellence, a full-tuition undergraduate scholarship.

I don't necessarily mind his lack of credentials, one's work can make up for this, but I do mind he's not allowing his work, methods and raw data to be peer reviewed while he writes books about it with his own analysis and conclusions. BTW there are previous studies done with the MBTI and brain patterns, published and available in the MBTI studies database.
 

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
11,028 Posts
I don't necessarily mind his lack of credentials, one's work can make up for this, but I do mind he's not allowing his work, methods and raw data to be peer reviewed while he writes books about it with his own analysis and conclusions. BTW there are previous studies done with the MBTI and brain patterns, published and available in the MBTI studies database.
But in some of his works he just mentioned that he is a PhD. I do agree with poster above that it is really deceptive, but I also agree that PhD isn't so important here. I frankly can't even tell if he intentionally tried to scam people or not, but it's pretty clear that his studies and his findings are dodgy.

It does bother me that on the cover of his book he wrote huge ass PhD which reader could only assume is in psychology of neuroscience. That is dodgy and leaves a poor impression. I have his book and use it as monitor stand, but there are two interesting pictures:
20200914_143751.jpg

868127


Now I'm really confused. So 3 different sources claim that he had 3 entirely different careers.

And another picture:
868129


Here he claims that he is award winning or something. He never won anything for his investigation of MBTI or at least absolutely nothing that is publicly known. He seems to be a CEO of Radiance House and in that book there was a shitload of apps and books advertised. Those apps looks like pre-2010s iPhone apps and books are typical self help crap wrote by himself or by Linda Barens. I tried to go to Radiance House website, but it doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't seem that his business was very successful. My book was written in 2011, so any decent book publisher should be still alive. I don't have an Apple devices, but he advertises "Mobile Trainer App" (for iPad), "Personality Types" (his and Barens work), "Love Therapy". The last "Love Therapy" app looks like like complete bullshit, worse than some old dodgy horoscope websites. It seems that I can't look at App Store from web browser, so yeah no further overview from me on those.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
189 Posts
You can see for yourself (it's an old site and doesn't open on Firefox, but works in Pale Moon):
Back door. Thanks. Worked in Brave browser. Still, the website is outdated, from 2007.

The material you quoted -- from Cornell -- does most accurately describe Systems Engineering jobs. "Employers (e.g., Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hospitals, industry)..." Other examples given: water and food supply chains, weather forecasting, carbon capture, pharmaceutical manufacturing, shale gas mining.

Still, it's not psychiatry or psychology. A person might be able to stretch the ASU definition which includes researching: "...how people interact with technological and social systems." And that would include EEG and Meyer's Briggs.

But really, it's a stretch. The actual, medical knowledge for reading EEGs falls squarely in the realm of Medicine.

I know a systems engineer. He works for a software company with a government contract doing logistics for the military, moving supplies and equipment around.

I don't necessarily mind his lack of credentials, one's work can make up for this, I do mind he's not allowing his work, methods and raw data to be peer reviewed
YES. Peer review.

Now I'm really confused. So 3 different sources claim that he had 3 entirely different careers...
Here he claims that he is award winning or something. He never won anything for his investigation of MBTI or at least absolutely nothing that is publicly known. He seems to be a CEO of Radiance House...but it doesn't exist anymore.
Marketing from book publishers.

So... He has a PhD. He is an author. His research is not peer-reviewed. His no longer operates a publishing company. He sells apps online. He does public presentations. That's it.
 

·
Plague Doctor
INTJ, 5w4, Ni-T type
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
To create their new song, do mocking birds use S or N? Their song is always a synthesis of all other songs they have ever heard before, sometimes years old. They do create something new, though: it's a remix of all the other things they've heard put together in a new way.

The reason I ask is that one member here was correlating creativity and inventiveness to N and I wondered how that worked in an applied manner. Would a mockingbird be an N or an S? Or, would the process the mockingbird take to create their song be an N process or an S process?

I'm sorry if my question isn't readily understood as on topic, but I believe it is. I'm genuinely interested in answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dulcinea

·
Registered
ENTJ 7w8 sx/so
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
Sample size of 10 can only be somewhat fine in a very well known experimentation criteria and generally not for finding out new things. For example to check if in some places trees are infected by X disease. Even then that's really as far as you can stretch word "research". Nardi instead of one variable investigated 8 or 16 with a sample size of less than 100. Even by your logic that would mean that he should have at least investigated 80 or 160 people. But that's a really awful research, because he mostly tested one age group of people, ignored gender, ignored many other psychological characteristics. In short it could be concluded that he simply tried to use one research samples to make conclusions about shit ton of things. That's not how empirical research works. I'm not even talking how he doesn't seem to differentiate between MBTI and cognitive functions, how for some types he only found 1 or 2 people and many other fatal flaws. I can understand his excitement and he probably felt good about writing the book, but his experiments nearly no scientific value.

He even claims that he has been interested in MBTI/cognitive functions for decades and he has a PhD in systems (yeah, absolutely nothing in psychology, neuroscience or biology, his degree is something in between maths, management and IT). Considering how much experience and skills he should have, it's really shameful for him to so many newbie mistakes. If I remember correctly he even wrote that he will make some further research, but most of his websites are dead or haven't been updated since 2004 or so. He just makes it look like like he wanted to publish a book for some quick profit and then just disappear. However, he made a presentation at Google and has been a bit active on YT, so that theory doesn't hold up. Instead it's pretty clear that he most likely got too excited and published that books due to how he felt, but that doesn't mean that he should have discarded some standard critical thinking and quality assurance. Well at least he was humble enough to write in his book that his research is just a primer for him or for others to continue to make other researches and that the whole purpose of writing that book was to spread the message that MBTI/cognitive functions might be something worth scientifically investigating (despite lacking adequate evidence for doing so).

Look, I understand that you are so defensive because there aren't many people doing neuroscientific research about MBTI/cog. functions, but that doesn't mean that even in such tiny community quality assurance could be discarded as irrelevant. It just builds a poor reputation and there are many more sites that exploit MBTI for some quick buck. Reputation of MBTI is pretty bad as is and the only way to change it is by being reasonable, constructive, fair and logical.

Also I want to say that neuroscience isn't exactly a hard science yet. It's in infancy and in it people are still just discovering ways of how to correctly investigate brains. Calm down and don't think that it's as legit as medicine, it's not. If it was, then in psychiatrist's room he wouldn't bother with conversations and instead he would just work with the organ of interest (brains) directly.
Well, like I was saying. His research is exploratory, not authoritative. Because again, the results were very significant. Just because you think you can do better doesn't mean his research is invalid. Plus, Nardi was the lead researcher. He had a lot of actual neuroscientists working with him, so his degree being in systems doesn't matter at all. If you're going to complain, complain about his actual research, because you just sound like someone who's jealous and haven't come up with even a valid criticism of his actual research.

Also, he no longer does research on the topic because he no longer teaches at UCLA. lol God, you write up this long ass post only to be wrong with all of your speculations. He transferred to UCSB after his initial work on MBTI and EEG. How do I know this? Because I was an assistant on his research team. This was back when I was considering going back to school for Neuroscience.

I'm not being defensive, I'm telling you to make actual valid criticisms, and not just complaining because he's a somebody and you're a nobody. Because that's exactly how your complaints are coming off as. I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but all you do is complain and don't add any constructive input or insight.

Uh huh. If you don't think neuroscience is a hard science, then I'd say you don't actually know what you're talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
It's true that Ni vs Ne is very poorly defined in general. People have a general understanding of it, but the problem with these things is that once you get specific, you often come to behaviours where multiple functions are involved, which makes it extremely hard to get an actual sense of what's really going on.

When you stick to general analysis it can be pretty easy to think of the differences sometimes though. One of my favourite examples is comparing writers like George R. R. Martin and someone like Stephen King.
Martin makes complex storylines where competing ideas are all over the place and there's no authorotive vision. King on the other hand makes many stories, which stick to a few themes and often have overlapping ideas. Many of his stories even take place in the same universe (or multiverse) and interweave to make one cohesive whole.

That's the crux of the whole thing. Ne is branching and multifaceted, where Ni is integrating and dwells on similar ideas a lot. Ne expands from the facts, where Ni tries to fit the facts to a single narrative.

That said, it's hard to define things like that further. When typing someone who "has a lot of ideas", that can mean basically anything. You'd need to understand if they have ideas that recur regularly and fit similar themes or if they speculate wildly and forget things as they come across shiny new ideas.

Most attempts I've seen to define these terms further run into problems with other functions. I've described Ni as controlling, but Ne-users also have Si, which is just as controlling. Ne is exploratory, but Se is also exploratory.

Coming to where the rest of the thread is at, I have high hopes for neuroscience as an answer to these problems, but I suspect we're not getting the answers by defining what we think the functions are and trying to scan the brain to find those processes. We're going to have to start from analyzing brain function and start to discover in what aspects people differ fundamentally. That's difficult research though that will take a long time. Brains differ in so many ways that finding out what the differences are in "how people handle ideas", is very far off from what we're able to do.

I'm also very open to the idea that what we define as cognitive functions are actually specific results of processes that happen elsewhere in the brain. For example, maybe we will find that Ne is a product of having exploratory tendencies, combined with a drive to create things, or we will find that there are patterns in the order in which certain parts of the brain are activated in people. Maybe we will find that there are many more types than we thought and maybe we will find that there are only four types and the rest is due to 'big five' type factors.

I'm excited for what we will find and I'm very happy to speculate in the mean time, but I don't think we can expect anything major to come out of MBTI/neuroscience research in the next twenty years or so.

As to defining Ne/Ni better: I'm all for it, but getting people on the internet to agree on anything is next to impossible. The only thing we can do is keep the discussion alive and try to keep each other honest by asking people to provide data whenever they claim something.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,394 Posts
I'm also very open to the idea that what we define as cognitive functions are actually specific results of processes that happen elsewhere in the brain. For example, maybe we will find that Ne is a product of having exploratory tendencies, combined with a drive to create things, or we will find that there are patterns in the order in which certain parts of the brain are activated in people. Maybe we will find that there are many more types than we thought and maybe we will find that there are only four types and the rest is due to 'big five' type factors.
It's more than that even, functions are not just confined in the brain patterns but they relate to the whole nervous system and how our body responds and adapts to all stimuli. check out the interoception for example which relates to gut feelings and how we deal with (un)predicted external stimuli, which likely relates to F. Nardi's approach is almost like looking at the tree and missing the forest. Which is why he ends up pointing at skills and claiming they're functions and even tho he's acknowledged this in more recent interviews he doesn't seem to understand the problem with that (yet?) or at least doesn't communicate it...

That's the crux of the whole thing. Ne is branching and multifaceted, where Ni is integrating and dwells on similar ideas a lot. Ne expands from the facts, where Ni tries to fit the facts to a single narrative.
Yea I agree with that and I cringe a little when I see people act as if Ni isn't, well, N. I think that's partly because Ni and even Si are treated as rational functions by the MBTI, probs because many IJs are T or F doms yet their analytical needs are attributed to their Ni or Si since MBTI enforces the narrative that IJs are S and N doms without testing it.
 

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
11,028 Posts
Well, like I was saying. His research is exploratory, not authoritative. Because again, the results were very significant. Just because you think you can do better doesn't mean his research is invalid. Plus, Nardi was the lead researcher. He had a lot of actual neuroscientists working with him, so his degree being in systems doesn't matter at all. If you're going to complain, complain about his actual research, because you just sound like someone who's jealous and haven't come up with even a valid criticism of his actual research.
Why are you trying to say to me that I'm jealous? I know that I'm not and better yet why should I be? I bought his book, because I genuinely was interested in what he was researching. I paid for it (and yes it was heavily overpriced) and I wanted to know more, despite that I only got some poorly done research that hardly means anything.

In his book he never mentioned working with any actual neuroscientists, only with several assistants. If he actually worked with other neuroscientists, it's really weird of him to not mention them properly in his book, which was dedicated to explain his study and results in detail.

Frankly, can you stop being annoying? I have already provided a lot of criticism and you are simply ignoring it. You haven't said anything about certain points. So here they are, respond:
1) Not assuring same conditions for every person
2) Ignoring possible interference of other psychological phenomena and trying to explain everything in MBTI
3) Only 2-3 people for certain types (if I remember correctly there weren't many ENTJs, ESTPs)
4) Issues with boredom leading to ignorance of tasks (like in trying to write name in language that subject didn't know)
5) Pretty much all activity in brains interpreted as having some meaning related to his research
6) Trying to make a shit ton of conclusions from little amount of data (like he wanted to make conclusions about MBTI types, cognitive functions and even about different cognition due to different cultures)
7) Not having more people in research of different age groups
8) Ignorance of any other brain part other than cerebrum
Special Question) Is there any evidence that type is constant in your life or it is a speculation that it should be?

And don't respond with "he already did a lot of data collection and research". It doesn't matter if he lacks proper sample size and proper conclusion making.

Also, he no longer does research on the topic because he no longer teaches at UCLA.
That's a weak argument. He seemed to be really passionate and he said that he had an EEG machine personally, he didn't rent it. If he was seriously dedicated to the topic he could have arranged studies at another place. So far he hasn't done anything similar


Uh huh. If you don't think neuroscience is a hard science, then I'd say you don't actually know what you're talking about.
I only say that, because I don't think it is yet. It lacks maturity, many things are unknown and many things are yet to be established. Methodology seems similar to a hard science, however research is just exploring basics. Due to this general fidlyness and very experimental nature I don't think that it is a hard science yet.

Just a simple question. Is it really true that different EEG frequencies show different levels of activity in different parts of brain? Is EEG truly is a proper machine for looking at brain activity or it is just the best option yet, because it's not known well how to do that task more effectively?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I've seen way too many people try to misuse such knowledge. Also, I probably do know what you're talking about but I'd say it'd be best not to until you can communicate it clearly. Talking about matters of the psyche is very unsettling to most people and if you can't communicate it clearly, then most people would rather write you off as being insane. In the literal sense of the word.
No offense but we're on a personality forum here. What better place to explore our half formed ideas with other people that get cognitive functions than here? Why are we trying to adhere to the level of understandimg of the general public when we aren't announcing our ideas to humanity?
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Top