# MBTI and Neuroscience



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> Yes! And I'm also kind of like..... can I talk to some NTs about this? Some with some science background?


I'm from engineering bg and I couldn't speak on behalf of all but it seems NT love both empirical evidence and 'mere' explorative theories too. Dario nardi has been in the field for quite a while, i believe he knows what he's doing.

I think it's all just matter of time until all the dots and links be connected between neuroscience and 'pseudoscience' called personality theories.

Infact almost all scientific improvements come from such mechanism. If we stuck with empirical basis, we will still all be living in the platonian cave.




_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

This starts a bit slow and gets more and more interesting, imo.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

I've shied away from neurological theories of temperament primarily because I read a book written on the topic by Helen Fisher that I found to be extremely reductionist and trite. What offended me about it personally is that she put forth this theory that F men and NF men in particular all suffered from low testosterone and concomitant low social status. Felt more like her personal views of who we are rather than anything based in empiricism. My T levels were fine the last I checked.

What I'm curious about are the epigenetic effects that influence neurological development, and how they ultimately influence temperament. I personally don't believe that temperament is plastic, but there are some who claim that temperament can change, especially in early life.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Cougar In Winter said:


> I've shied away from neurological theories of temperament primarily because I read a book written on the topic by Helen Fisher that I found to be extremely reductionist and trite. What offended me about it personally is that she put forth this theory that F men and NF men in particular all suffered from low testosterone and concomitant low social status. Felt more like her personal views of who we are rather than anything based in empiricism. My T levels were fine the last I checked.
> 
> What I'm curious about are the epigenetic effects that influence neurological development, and how they ultimately influence temperament. I personally don't believe that temperament is plastic, but there are some who claim that temperament can change, especially in early life.


Hmm, an unfortunate book, it sounds. Supposedly in Neuroscience Ne-doms lack.... was it dopamine receptors? and therefore need "More more more" to feel satisfied. I think it was dopamine, not serotonin.... and you can't check for that, exactly, however Neuroscientists have ways that I don't understand. I haven't asked enough questions and it is currently beyond my training. It sounds right enough in theory to me. 

But Nardi's stuff is about building a science by documenting consistent observations. MBTI has been rejected by the scientific world--- including mainstream psychology-- but I don't think they can now with his research. I think this gives us the data we need to verify MBTI, and justify us all being here saying MBTI type is a thing! At least Jung functions are a thing! I get meaning out of is when he says something like Fi-dom flow state occurs when they are listening. So that is beyond Jung's descriptions and it does seem verified with my own findings with my own INFPs and ISFPs in my life and makes me appreciate their talents even more. 
There is also a TED Talks about how type plays out with learning Math. I got quite a lot out of it.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

@Llyralen I listen to the Personality Hacker podcast and read some of Nardi's materials, and it was interesting, especially, as you say, that there does seem to be some physiological basis for type. What he said in the podcast confirmed what I have known about ENFPs for a long time, that they are probably the most adaptable type of all. And the info about SJ specialization was fascinating as well, and very much in line with what I've seen in life. It's amazing how many times I've envied SJs and SPs for being able to spend so much of their life's energies perfecting one skill or one facet of their lives. I simply don't have that in me. I get bored or distracted far too easily, which is why I'll never be able to crochet a rug or become a scholar of early Norman history.

But, it's all very intriguing. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Cougar In Winter said:


> @Llyralen I listen to the Personality Hacker podcast and read some of Nardi's materials, and it was interesting, especially, as you say, that there does seem to be some physiological basis for type. What he said in the podcast confirmed what I have known about ENFPs for a long time, that they are probably the most adaptable type of all. And the info about SJ specialization was fascinating as well, and very much in line with what I've seen in life. It's amazing how many times I've envied SJs and SPs for being able to spend so much of their life's energies perfecting one skill or one facet of their lives. I simply don't have that in me. I get bored or distracted far too easily, which is why I'll never be able to crochet a rug or become a scholar of early Norman history.
> 
> But, it's all very intriguing. Thanks for posting this.


Oh yay! Thank you for looking at the info! Now I feel partially pacified. lol. I don't know if that was your sole intent? lol. Somebody has to try to pacify me on this, huh? lol
Here's a question for an Ni-dom: Basically it says you guys get into flow as soon as there is a new concept, and yeah... I would think that you guys would just want to go from new concept to new concept the same way I do with Ne Dom... and it almost looks like with this math teacher (above) that it seemed like Ni did want to just keep going with math, new concept after new concept. In real life it SEEMS like I see you guys going very deeply into one thing that gives you concept after concept or maybe I'm wrong? Do you think you can explain how that is for you guys? And maybe you are looking for your own interest to go so deeply into? Not Norman history but something else? What do you experience?


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

Llyralen said:


> Oh yay! Thank you for looking at the info! Now I feel partially pacified. lol. I don't know if that was your sole intent? lol. Somebody has to try to pacify me on this, huh? lol
> Here's a question for an Ni-dom: Basically it says you guys get into flow as soon as there is a new concept, and yeah... I would think that you guys would just want to go from new concept to new concept the same way I do with Ne Dom... and it almost looks like with this math teacher (above) that it seemed like Ni did want to just keep going with math, new concept after new concept. In real life it SEEMS like I see you guys going very deeply into one thing that gives you concept after concept or maybe I'm wrong? Do you think you can explain how that is for you guys? And maybe you are looking for your own interest to go so deeply into? Not Norman history but something else? What do you experience?


Have you ever had Deja vu? 

It's like that, when you look at a new concept, it's like you get Deja vu, rather than being new it is familiar. And I don't know if other people get this, but when I get Deja vu, I feel almost as if I could predict the next few moments, predict what's going to happen like I'm reciting it from memory. (In that situation I obviously can't but I feel as if I could lol)

Well, anyway, that's what Ni is like for me, when I see a new concept I get Deja vu, rather than feeling new it feels familiar, I see all the ways I already know this concept and there is only a few pieces of it that actually seem new to me.

However I don't really want to go from new concept to new concept. I'd rather let the concepts come to me. That said there is a sense of affirmation that I get right at the point when I feel like I saw through the new concept and it all connected. It's similar to the fabled "a ha" moment.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

wums said:


> Have you ever had Deja vu?
> 
> It's like that, when you look at a new concept, it's like you get Deja vu, rather than being new it is familiar. And I don't know if other people get this, but when I get Deja vu, I feel almost as if I could predict the next few moments, predict what's going to happen like I'm reciting it from memory. (In that situation I obviously can't but I feel as if I could lol)
> 
> ...


I love this description. If I get deja vu then I feel like I have to do something to change whatever it is I'm doing or something bad will surely happen. lol. But. I totally get this description. Thank you, wums!


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

I think this tread is very interesting and the idea of finding neurophysiological correlates of MTBI function is fantastic, but let me tell you that there is a kind of big challenge when interpreting data at this level.

Look, let's take a disease where cognition and mental processing is severely impaired: schizophrenia. If you look to functional imaging of patients they are mostly normal, and we have a pretty good idea of were to look -which neuronal circuits are affected and damaged-, just that damage is "lost" into the whole picture.Below there is a good review about imaging studies and as you can see the "findings" are unrelated to the circuits known as damaged, specifically the mesocortical pathway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesocortical_pathway)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812015/

In other words, we don't see the actual "damage" but the collateral effects in -unrelated- areas that are really sensitive....

However I agree that Nardi's research is very interesting, and the EGG + conectome methodology is the proper one. There is also other groups working around, combining EGG with another technique (fNIRS) that is very powerful to study circuits in vivo.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25721430
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30356708
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28450977


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@ilovegoodcheese. Yay! I am checking your links out! I think it’s too new in the science for him to look at type and disease. I think someone asks him about ADHD and type in the following link and it sounds like he screens for mental illnesses/disruptions at this point which is only smart at this point in the research, IMO. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/18gudp/ama_with_typologist_dario_nardi/


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Look at this one @ilovegoodcheese. I just happened on it after looking at your links. Wouldn’t you want a completely different set-up if you added Fe and Fi to the mix and were able to screen for people’s type. Hmm, well not necessarily if you are trying to teach all random healthy participants to learn to do both Fe and Fi and see which one promotes more social behavior... but looking at it from a Jung perspective feeling Fi would make you withdraw more but with Fe I would think it would promote more social interactions. I don’t know, I admit I only read the abstract and I’m a rookie about neuroscience. What do you think, though? Applying Jungian functions to studies like this one? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27568587/?i=2&from=/22503509/related


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> Look at this one
> @ilovegoodcheese
> . I just happened on it after looking at your links. Wouldn’t you want a completely different set-up if you added Fe and Fi to the mix and were able to screen for people’s type. Hmm, well not necessarily if you are trying to teach all random healthy participants to learn to do both Fe and Fi and see which one promotes more social behavior... but looking at it from a Jung perspective feeling Fi would make you withdraw more but with Fe I would think it would promote more social interactions. I don’t know, I admit I only read the abstract and I’m a rookie about neuroscience. What do you think, though? Applying Jungian functions to studies like this one?
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27568587/?i=2&from=/22503509/related


Remember the algorithm game video you played a while ago? You must now have slight hint on how you become accustomed to certain mode, feeling more confident thus secure that that most of the time the mode will give you the best result you craved for.

It's because your neurons and axons are interconnected through multiple other neuron through synapses to make paths. Once it pick certain path then reiterates, the more the specific paths being used, the stronger the link between certain neurons, creating associated sets. Effectively trained it.

The paths certainly can be visualized the similar way you can see the algorithm being visualized in the video.

Infact all cutting edge AI being developed mimicking how our brain works, aptly named neural networks. And it can be visualized.

Your brain creating the fastest and most efficient path (following your own parameters):





Resulting in you, you are (one of) the trained bird:








_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@contradictionary I do remember that algorithm game very well. I liked that thread, thank you. It was interesting to pick out my own process. I remember the overall pattern I picked and why, actually. Okay, so the pathfinding and flappy bird is really cool too, and I don't know much about AI. So what constitutes a AI "neuron"? A certain unit of programing probably?

Something funny.... when my son was 5 years old and his dad and I wanted to watch a scary movie and send them to bed he said, "Why can't we see it? Why would you watch something bad?" and I said, "Because your brain is just developing and the pathways that your brain is making now are really strong ones and so it's important that we don't create strong pathways that have to do with things that are scary." And my son.... being the awesome brain that he is was like "Oh! That makes sense!" And to me that's the real reason. I never have to lie to my kids and we've talked about our brains and how they work and why or why not mom and dad think something is appropriate for their whole lives that way. It works awesome!

Anyway, so... I'm never on the other parts of the forum talking about stuff like AI because I most like talking to people I know fairly well, so here's a question in case you've thought about this and I don't know much. What do you think about most jobs being taken by AI? What do you predict?


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

Llyralen said:


> Look at this one @*ilovegoodcheese* . I just happened on it after looking at your links. Wouldn’t you want a completely different set-up if you added Fe and Fi to the mix and were able to screen for people’s type. Hmm, well not necessarily if you are trying to teach all random healthy participants to learn to do both Fe and Fi and see which one promotes more social behavior... but looking at it from a Jung perspective feeling Fi would make you withdraw more but with Fe I would think it would promote more social interactions. I don’t know, I admit I only read the abstract and I’m a rookie about neuroscience. What do you think, though? Applying Jungian functions to studies like this one?
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27568587/?i=2&from=/22503509/related


good one 

you can get the full text here https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.003

yes, dmPFMC has been involved in many self-cognition tasks, or broadly in social cognition.There is a lot around about it, some ... well... a little bit... odd... 

Here is a good article, figure 6 and afterwards is probably the part that might interest you...

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/26/1/304/2367141

For me the best evidence that points in the right direction is the connectivity with the amydalar structures via ACC (a well known circuit) and that in animals models it can be reproduced, as here

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/357/6347/162.full.pdf

and if you wish something more epidemiological, involving psychiatric PTSD and depression, here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460053/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881118799935

But just as example the complexity of what we "evolved" from Nardi's work... dmPFMC will be F4 and F3 in Nardi's diagram...

Answering you -sorry for the long intro-, I think applying Jungian functions in this context is as handling a delicate carving chisel where everyone else is parading with chainsaws and dreaming in forest bulldozers...

However, i think the intervention market is almost there, and as this is mostly healthy or sub-healthy people, for these majority of prospective users the tools are chisels, not chainsaws.... 

tip: maybe it is worth to check for the head acupuncture points...


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

ilovegoodcheese said:


> good one
> 
> you can get the full text here https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.003
> 
> ...


Thank you, it’s nice to get the full paper, and from it I’m already struck by how closely the descriptions of their interventions fit Fe and Fi descriptions of how we feel empathy—/ and those two different pathways have lots of research documenting them but without being termed Fe or Fi. It’s kind of a pity to not differentiate MBTI in the subjects, IMO. If I applied the recommendations of the study to myself then I don’t believe that the results would exactly be wanted by me long term. The thing is, I tried. I know I’m capable of feeling Fe but it doesn’t work well with the rest of my stack, at least from personal experience, and made it so I had to change other things about me. It was uncomfortable. I could only sustain it for 3 days 2 of those on a weekend. 

Anyway, I get you in the analogy of where we are at, chainsaws not chisels. But if Junian functions are real and if MBTI stacks ARE needed then I think some of the results of many of these studies might actually be misapplied. Also— much of this is subjective— this study in particular maybe biased in its suggestions towards extroversion? What do you think? 

I think our stacks are how they are for a reason to support our dominant functions. Like, how could I be dominant Ne (gathering info) without a strong internal sense of self Xi) Ne-Fe-Se-Te would never do, I don’t think. 

I will look at your other study more, it’s somewhat over my head— actually very over my head. How much do you know about this stuff, cheese? Is this your area? Or interest as to most Ne-dom where you’ve had a few years as a hobby interest? Because I want to kind of apologize either way for not knowing much at all myself. I wonder how many years away we are from accepting and incorporating these Jungian philosophy into neuroscience, or if we are dealing with a science that won’t because The info did not originate with them? 

I wonder how well Nardi’s work is acceptEd in his own field? I don’t know— and if so if there is truth with a capital T for Jungian functions, then they do truly need to be included. 
The great thing about Jung is that he didn’t put judgements on these functions. He didn’t say Fe was better than Te, etc. or (this would rouse many here) extroversion better than introversion.

What think you, cheese? 
Others?


----------



## ENFPurpleKitti (Mar 20, 2017)

Need.
Thanks!
*Snatch.*
Mine now!


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

Llyralen said:


> Thank you, it’s nice to get the full paper, and from it I’m already struck by how closely the descriptions of their interventions fit Fe and Fi descriptions of how we feel empathy—/ and those two different pathways have lots of research documenting them but without being termed Fe or Fi. It’s kind of a pity to not differentiate MBTI in the subjects, IMO.


I think empathy/selfishness is the most easy function to work with, so yes, i agree. 

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.




Llyralen said:


> If I applied the recommendations of the study to myself then I don’t believe that the results would exactly be wanted by me long term. The thing is, I tried. I know I’m capable of feeling Fe but it doesn’t work well with the rest of my stack, at least from personal experience, and made it so I had to change other things about me. It was uncomfortable. I could only sustain it for 3 days 2 of those on a weekend.


Most of the findings in science are not really ready to use, let's say. The ambition is to know more, or often, just get a little step more ahead. We used to distinguish applied sciences from basic sciences. That articles are still in basic sciences. There is not yet any attempt to intervene in the system. Think about what it could be done there, and i'm sure you'll see the opportunities. Can you imagine something making people to use less Te? or more Fe ? And as always some are to bring a better world, but also -misused- can cause a lot of pain. 




Llyralen said:


> Anyway, I get you in the analogy of where we are at, chainsaws not chisels. But if Junian functions are real and if MBTI stacks ARE needed then I think some of the results of many of these studies might actually be misapplied. Also— much of this is subjective— this study in particular maybe biased in its suggestions towards extroversion? What do you think?
> .


I think in neuropsycology we are to the point we want to see an effect, so something drastic (like a disease) is the context to refer to. 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. But if we talk about something really stable, i agree that neuroticism (or any idicator of dysfunction) must not be there, because the obvious characteristic of healthy persons is that is precisely healthy... if somebody is in a high neuroticism state, therapy is against that. Then we can follow into MTBI.
.
If jung theories are correct, then we can speculate we have 4 different and independent "decision" axis in the brain, and each MTBI function (eg. Fi/Fe) inputs over there. Brain is a nice organ because function correlates pretty well with shape -with physical connections- so functions are physical pathways -physical wirings-. If the "main" decision track is the dmPFC -> ACC -> amygdalar structures, functions will be colaterals over there. From where? that's no so complicated, functions that contrast experience versus immediate input need to come from memory areas and sensorial areas, function that recall over verbalization or logic need to come from verbal or logic processing areas, etc...

So why is so difficult? because there are a lot of wires and because it is really hard to follow where it goes a single wire, specially with the person/animal alive. Basically there are just two ways, a) stimulate one point and see a change in the global output b) break the wiring and see that does not work anymore.

a) is barely ethically in humans, really complex to do it safely, and nothing is done -yet- to my knowledge. I was half-jocking about brain accupunture before, becuase i see that as relative faesible and "safe" way. I'm not sure if the stimulus is big enough, probably not, but if it is traditionally done, something had to be observed isn't ?  

b) is simply unacceptable (lobotomies are that). Before you ask, no, drugs does not work because they affect hundreds of pathways. Is not possible to focus the drug just into one singe wire. There is no way to reversibly "cut" the wire. 

So one need animal models. And there comes the problem... does a mouse has anything that resembles MTBI? Fe/Fi probably.... Si or Se maybe.... Ti /Te: I don't think so... Ne/Ni: no way.... uh..... is that a rank of something ???  



Llyralen said:


> I think our stacks are how they are fora reason to support our dominant functions. Like, how could I be dominant Ne (gathering info) without a strong internal sense of self Xi) Ne-Fe-Se-Te would never do, I don’t think.


Everything evolves in base an opportunity, that creates an advantage to the individuals that, randomly, exhibit a talent in one characteristic matching the environment. I think most MTBI function can give an advantage in one or other situation, so makes sense they evolved. What perhaps somebody could is to take which profiles work better in what environment, check percentages of that profiles in the population and match the percentages of that "advantages" in the environment where the population population. I can tell you, without even starting, that ESxx profiles are more abundant in places where there are immediate threats and high environmental pressure, so at least, "doers" are where "not doing" is lethal.. -i know i pick the easier one 



Llyralen said:


> I will look at your other study more, it’s somewhat over my head— actually very over my head. How much do you know about this stuff, cheese? Is this your area? Or interest as to most Ne-dom where you’ve had a few years as a hobby interest? Because I want to kind of apologize either way for not knowing much at all myself. I wonder how many years away we are from accepting and incorporating these Jungian philosophy into neuroscience, or if we are dealing with a science that won’t because The info did not originate with them?


I'm PhD in neuroscience and always had some interest in psycology.Is not exactly my area, my area are brain diseases and i'm doing more what is "applied science", but it's fun. Jung into neuroscience? 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 



Llyralen said:


> I wonder how well Nardi’s work is acceptEd in his own field? I don’t know— and if so if there is truth with a capital T for Jungian functions, then they do truly need to be included.


to my knowledge not too much...but that's normal. Academia is extremely resistant to novelty, even it seems the opposite. The issue is how science is evaluated. 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),. but, anyway that's not easy when it is a theory... If it is a technique or a procedure is more easy, because is possible to demonstrate that it works and check if it is better or worse of what we have. That, incidentally is one of the reason that I prefer applied sciences than pure basic stuff, even i don't like to deal with details, is more easy to score an impact.



Llyralen said:


> The great thing about Jung is that he didn’t put judgements on these functions. He didn’t say Fe was better than Te, etc. or (this would rouse many here) extroversion better than introversion.
> 
> What think you, cheese?
> Others?


Probably it is not, if it exist in the wild, it means it have an ecological niche (a geosocial niche?) were it confers an advantage. I like to think that the advantage is in the synergy, in the diversity that confers adaptability to volatile environment, but that's another topic...

I don't know.. does it make sense to you?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

ilovegoodcheese said:


> ...
> 
> I don't know.. does it make sense to you?


What i know is that i'm glad i share the same perspective as a real neuroscientist like you. 

Related to research field, somehow i have a feeling that types do not distribute quite evenly especially in social sciences, compared to the actual in society. Which may explain how you see the academia behave as such. I hope your Ne can follow where i'm getting at. :wink:

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@ilovegoodcheese. I just lost a big ‘old well-thought-out reply that I worked on for quite a while. Gah! I’m so ticked. Lol. I will have to do a shorter version. 
So, yeah...I see so many applications that make it seem important for MBTI and healthy brains to be studied. The first example I wanted to bring out is little-understood mood drugs like Paxil that also have a personality-changing effect. I have a family member who was on it. They were more extroverted, more engaged in things but was also unbalanced and lost the ability to see the consequences of actions. My point is, we are already dabbling where we don’t understand. I believe Dario’s research talked about extroverts having more of a chemical that suppresses negative feelings. So I could wonder about those 2 things. 

I did see _something, somewhere_ with colored illustrations talking about how (shh...) S and F were more primitive  from what I recall it was associated with Nardi? I was a bit miffed, but then I think, well some group has to populate the world with N’s, hence the role of NFs. Lol. F can also create art founded in meaning which I don’t think we humans consider primitive— but maybe art and human meaning and human population in a setting of peace and plenty when we invent robots to act for us and become huge brains 300,000 years from now will seem more like human narcissism? We will have to see what functions appear then. 

I know Nardi studied MBTI in older individuals, but I’m not sure about children. Since little ones have less experiences, I would think they would be excellent to study the development of MBTI and show dominant function. I listened to a seminar today on MBTI and relationships. The speaker said her friend types her babies in the womb and the speaker asked the mothers to think about their experience. Well my kids personalities were there pretty much as soon as I could feel them each moving and I have fraternal twins. I always knew from their personalities who was where doing what and ultrasounds confirmed that to me. I think it would be awesome to study and document the development of healthy MBTI over lifespans. I know it’s still not really established about MBTI being real, but it seems like most of us who look into the functions can’t help but then observe these in ourselves and others. 

I do see how manipulative and maybe even engineered, eventually, things might get with a better understanding of the functions and that could be terrifying and definitely should bring in a fountain of ethics questions but as I say...it seems like we are already dabbling in manipulation with the drugs we’ve got. I do think we need a bunch of different temperaments for us to work as a society now. 

There was more in the old post! Gah! I do get that we want to study disease. Do we just expect that much variation in type? Years ago I heard a story about Einstein’s brain traveling to a scientist in Tupperware on ice and that we learned that aglial cells and topography were important from Einstein’s physical brain. I came away with the idea that if Einstein had not played the violin, he might not have come up with many of his ideas about physics— that he had an extra fold in his brain in the visual-special area right next to music? Do you expect so much variation in brains, really, that this might be a lot of the reason MBTI isn’t studied? Is just because people expect a lot more variation than just 8 specific functions? Nardi says there is only like 3% chance or something that a non-ENFP would exhibit the patterns he has documented in ENFPs (we are the most homogenous type he says, though). By the way, was that story about Einstein’s brain true, do you know? Nardi does these workshops, I hope it helps fund him. I do remember in grad school that what you ended up experimenting had less to do with passionate interest and more to do with who your professor was and the ability to fund. 

Alright, that kind of re-created it. I really appreciate getting to talk to someone in the field, cheese. =)


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> What i know is that i'm glad i share the same perspective as a real neuroscientist like you.
> 
> Related to research field, somehow i have a feeling that types do not distribute quite evenly especially in social sciences, compared to the actual in society. Which may explain how you see the academia behave as such. I hope your Ne can follow where i'm getting at. :wink:
> 
> _Sent sans PC_


The biggest cause of lack of success of projects is personal "war" between the team, thing that is really pathetic because in theory everyone wants the same. 

The system is mostly INTPs, ENTPs and INTJs, so there is zero natural talent for interpersonal relations, is more, most of ENTPs, that in theory are the more able to "glue" the team, end acting as INTJs because otherwise their Fe burn them out. Yes, i know, thinking that an ENTP can glue anything is pretty desperate, but there is nothing else around...

And support personnel is typically ISTJ or ISTP, that make it even worse. So at the end one see INTJ - ISTJ "alliances" to keep change away meanwhile they help to promote one each other. There are many initiatives to introduce modern people management skills, because from the political level it is really obvious the problem, but again the INTJ-ISTJ "trench" is really hard to overcome, often they use everything they learn to sabotage.

I think the solution could be more ENTJ or ESTJ types, but these run away because they see the dimensions of the problem and the very little outcome in their scales. I'm not sure what could be a solution...


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Is @elvis2010 around? He would contribute so much to this thread....


----------



## elvis2010 (Jul 1, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> 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.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

elvis2010 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

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_


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@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


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

That's quite a leap of faith from enfp to istj/estj, radical, but sounds plausible.

#imagining me as isfp/esfp#

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> 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?


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

i'm actually a terrible listener and always had problems with it.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Lakigigar said:


> 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.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Llyralen said:


> @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..
> ...


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.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> 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.


----------



## elvis2010 (Jul 1, 2010)

ilovegoodcheese said:


> 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. 




ilovegoodcheese said:


> 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. 




ilovegoodcheese said:


> 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.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

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)


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> 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!


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Shrodingers drink said:


> 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_


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> 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!


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> 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.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> @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.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> 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.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> 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!


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Shrodingers drink said:


> 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!


Tert Fe problem. 

I lack it. 

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Tert Fe problem.
> 
> I lack it.
> 
> _Sent sans PC_


And your intellent with style, life just isn’t fair sometimes! :tongue:


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@UberY0shi This is the thread. I started an NT one as well... I'll dig it up too.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

I still really like this thread. People, continue saying interesting things here for me to read. 

I want to hear more about the genetics side. Also I'm offering up my bodily fluids for testing. You're welcome! @Shrodingers drink


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Hey @Sour Roses. I might be wrong, but we’re you reading Nardi’s book. What do you think? Get anything out of it. Also the NT Nardi thread was great too. I will thread bump it.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

I haven't seen this before. I'm just about to watch it! Yay lucky NPs!
https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-nps-with-dario-nardi-ph-d/


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Llyralen said:


> Hey @Sour Roses. I might be wrong, but we’re you reading Nardi’s book. What do you think? Get anything out of it. Also the NT Nardi thread was great too. I will thread bump it.



Yes, I have it right here on my bookshelf. I love the book!

I'll come back later with a real answer... but today is my moms B-day and I have cake to bake and servitude to perform


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Sour Roses said:


> Yes, I have it right here on my bookshelf. I love the book!
> 
> I'll come back later with a real answer... but today is my moms B-day and I have cake to bake and servitude to perform


Oh yay! Have so much fun making that special! 
Um.... that webinar I just posted was from Novemeber 2018 and it shows a leap in understanding from him. It was fascinating!


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Yay! Yay! Yay! There IS more. GUYS THESE ARE AMAZING! Highly recommended and since they are more recent, they are more current! Check out all of the stuff at the bottom!

https://www.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-sjs-with-dario-nardi-phd


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Guys! There IS an NJ one! This was recorded in Dec 2018. These are SO good!
https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-njs/

Just to post it again, here is the NP one.

https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-nps-with-dario-nardi-ph-d/


SJ
https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-sjs-with-dario-nardi-ph-d/

SP
https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-sps-with-dario-nardi-ph-d/


Got 'em all!!!


----------



## terrihozz (Apr 27, 2019)

We want to take in as much information as possible before making a decision (Ne dom) without hurting ourselves or anybody else (Fi) and so we use Ne and Fi together to try to make solutions that will help with these 2 conflicting goals. So we will say to people, "


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

This is the best interview yet with Dario Nardi, imo! And recent! Love it!!!


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Check out Dario's brain scan when he meditates...when he gets excited about ideas...etc. NEAT!
Also... if you're into the neuroscience of type like I am he just gives out little nuggets like how different type's brains relax, etc.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

The first type he's done an entire PowerPoint on. Yeah! I haven't watched this yet, I'm still on the last video...


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Putting a pin here, I need to come back later and view this all properly. I wonder if tagging myself works, never tried that?
@Sour Roses


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)




----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

I really got a lot out of this one:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm very intrigued about the "Christmas Tree Brain" because I really relate to it. 









The Christmas Tree Brain


What is a “Christmas Tree Brain?” Someone who likes to shop? Decorate the house? Take a limo ride to view the holiday lights? Actually, the Christmas Tree Brain is an asynchronous macro-state measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG). It is characterized by various brain regions firing at...




www.annholm.net





Trans-contextual thinking really describes how I think my brain works. My brain is like the World Wide Web with links, pics, and keywords. 









Trans-contextual Thinking and the Genius of Tom Waits


Trans-contextual thinking is the ability to create connections in the mind between things that aren't typically associated with each other in a particular context...




intuitivemusician.com







https://d3aencwbm6zmht.cloudfront.net/asset/123161/EEGandSocialCognition.pdf











NeTi (ENTP) — Type in Mind







www.typeinmind.com


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm very intrigued about the "Christmas Tree Brain" because I really relate to it.
> 
> Trans-contextual thinking really describes how I think my brain works. My brain is like the World Wide Web with links, pics, and keywords.


I totally agree. I think it really covers it. And it makes sense that the Christmas tree means we are scanning all our already learned knowledge looking for matches, connections, and new synergy. I know this is how I learn, all the multiple questions bubble up, I have to choose what to ask first, then I double check my question/theory to see if I’m right, then ask another question and boy is it fun to learn something new. 

Have you ever known that you were over-burdening a teacher and your fellow students with questions during a class... concluding to yourself “I guess I’d better stay after class to ask all of these... I’m too excited!”


----------



## Behnam Agahi (Oct 27, 2020)

Llyralen said:


> I totally agree. I think it really covers it. And it makes sense that the Christmas tree means we are scanning all our already learned knowledge looking for matches, connections, and new synergy. I know this is how I learn, all the multiple questions bubble up, I have to choose what to ask first, then I double check my question/theory to see if I’m right, then ask another question and boy is it fun to learn something new.
> 
> Have you ever known that you were over-burdening a teacher and your fellow students with questions during a class... concluding to yourself “I guess I’d better stay after class to ask all of these... I’m too excited!”


What you said is Ne Si.
That Christmas Tree Model you mentioned matches perfectly with Jung's definition of Ne Si.
Or for example Se Ni means taking things and reacting to them as they come up (Se) and figuring out something unconsciously when facing a problem (Ni).


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> I believe that philosophy and psychological theories are much better tools to understand the (irrational) human mind.
> 
> Surely at some point science will discover some link, but it will be like those stupidities that after 10000 years only now are "scientifically proven".
> 
> ...


Yes I agree 
Intuition comes first 
Nevertheless the scientific method is great to propose a coherent système


----------

