# Interesting find from the cognitive types group.



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

If you're not aware theres a group of people who have taken on a project of finding empirical patterns in facial expressions and mannerisms among cognitive function types. 





 
Something fascinating they found is that the overwhelming majority of nobel prize winners in physics and computer science show signs of FiNe, NOT TiNe. 

Physics & The FiNe | Cognitive Types

Einstein, Bill gates, Niels Bohr and Linus Torvalds all seem to have Fi and Ne. 

In the function sense what's seen a "INTP" might actually be more likely FiNe and vice versa.

A lot of traits such as "coldness", "concealing emotions", and being socially challenged are Fi traits. People have a wrong notion about this that your fourth function is "weak" which I think is where the confusion comes in.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

Interestingly, I went through a phase where I wanted to identify as INTJ so much that I sent them a video to type that was just me emulating INTJ charateristics. Apparently my video is still on their youtube channel. eh.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

SystemEater said:


> Interestingly, I went through a phase where I wanted to identify as INTJ so much that I sent them a video to type that was just me emulating INTJ charateristics. Apparently my video is still on their youtube channel. eh.


Wait are you saying your the first guy in their NiTe video ?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

What I want to know is, how did they go about determining what functions they use?


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> What I want to know is, how did they go about determining what functions they use?


Well certainly theres no way of knowing for sure whether the functions are really paired with said facial expressions, but there does seem to consistent patterns which would appear to be correlated with functions.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Well certainly theres no way of knowing for sure whether the functions are really paired with said facial expressions, but there does seem to consistent patterns which would appear to be correlated with functions.


Okay, so how did they go about determining those? By originally typing someone through the means we use without this visual identification BS. But isn't that a 'subjective' means of typing someone? 

I don't mean to hate on this, but I doubt the rationality of anyone who's not skeptical of it. I think the best way of typing anyone is to have them explain their thought process and putting them in different situations and problems.

And the darting around of the eyes when 'looking for something in your head' is completely untrue for me.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

About the scientists being FiNe, this honestly doesn't surprise me. Having Fi doesn't mean believing in astrology. 

Also, something interesting about what was talked about in the introduction video; it said that people tend to look down and try to get the eyes from receiving as little stimuli as possible, when using Ji. Whenever I am mulling over a problem or deeply thinking about something, I'll close my eyes if I'm alone, and do tend to look down in public when thinking.

EDIT: Also, it said Ne-users concentrate on an object when thinking. That's interesting for me, as well.
@chaoticbrain

How do they define Si? They say they're basing it directly off of Jung's work, but it's a very controversial topic in the Jungian-based typology community and not very many people agree with Jung's definition. (even though he never gives a clear-cut definition to anything)


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Wait are you saying your the first guy in their NiTe video ?


 Yeah. that's me. I should tell them my thoughts and maybe submit a new video. lulz.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

I wonder how they would type a blind person. eh?


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

For one thing, yes your right about being skeptical. I thought they were full of shit at first and you can see some of my comments on their videos saying that. I tried to word this in such a way where i'm not proclaiming it to be objectively true. If there is a consistent set of traits like people who have naïve Ne eyes being correlated also with doing the Si scowl then it seems like it would be a sign of something atleast. 

Also couldn't "looking for something in your head" also be Pi ?


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

SystemEater said:


> Yeah. that's me. I should tell them my thoughts and maybe submit a new video. lulz.


You must be one hell of a good actor if your not NiTe, because your shoulder shrugs and everything actually seemed pretty natural.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> About the scientists being FiNe, this honestly doesn't surprise me. Having Fi doesn't mean believing in astrology.
> 
> Also, something interesting about what was talked about in the introduction video; it said that people tend to look down and try to get the eyes from receiving as little stimuli as possible, when using Ji. Whenever I am mulling over a problem or deeply thinking about something, I'll close my eyes if I'm alone, and do tend to look down in public when thinking.
> 
> ...


 Si - Function [v.01] | Cognitive Types


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> For one thing, yes your right about being skeptical. I thought they were full of shit at first and you can see some of my comments on their videos saying that. I tried to word this in such a way where i'm not proclaiming it to be objectively true. If there is a consistent set of traits like people who have naïve Ne eyes being correlated also with doing the Si scowl then it seems like it would be a sign of something atleast.
> 
> Also couldn't "looking for something in your head" also be Pi ?


Yes, and what's funny, is that they even mention that in a later video. They contradict themselves on this and a few other things involving specific body language correlating to cognitive functions. Another criticism of mine right now is the subjectivity of some of the terms they're using to supposedly 'objectively' interpret cognitive functions via VI (visual identification). Like "naive" eyes. I would instead put it as "wide-open eyes that aren't fixed on a single point for too long," or something similar and hopefully condensed.


EDIT: here's the final draft of it http://cognitivetype.com/profiles/si.html


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

They contradicted themselves ? I don't think they equated "looking for information" with Pe in the video.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> They contradicted themselves ? I don't think they equated "looking for information" with Pe in the video.


The introduction video, when describing Ne. And I didn't even say the 'equated' it to it. They were talking about the eyes and VI.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

All they said was the eyes are seeking new information. I'm pretty sure they'd consider "looking for information"an aspect of both types of perception from the beginning.

Is the part you don't relate to that when trying to give an answer to a question you've never thought of you don't do the eye darting thing ?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Once they have some actual proof, rather than just labeling people and observing and labeling their movements, I might consider this more than just hokum.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> You must be one hell of a good actor if your not NiTe, because your shoulder shrugs and everything actually seemed pretty natural.


Interestingly enough, I come from family of actors, so maybe that literally has something to do with it. My actions were extremely deliberate, but I'm not sure why I was so geared towards convincing these guys that I was Ni. Weird. I'll probably post a personality challenge/introduction video or something here once I have enough posts.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> All they said was the eyes are seeking new information. I'm pretty sure they'd consider "looking for information"an aspect of both types of perception from the beginning.
> 
> Is the part you don't relate to that when trying to give an answer to a question you've never thought of you don't do the eye darting thing ?


I'm pretty sure they said that in the Pe section

That, yes. Just thinking, no.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Once they have some actual proof, rather than just labeling people and observing and labeling their movements, I might consider this more than just hokum.


Says the person who only watched the introduction video.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

We've been over this in another thread.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Teybo said:


> We've been over this in another thread.


I don't remember. Demanding more information, but remaining ignorant of the already existing? 

Don't get me wrong, they don't give much evidence, but they do have some reasoning behind it, which I know you haven't looked through.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Once they have some actual proof, rather than just labeling people and observing and labeling their movements, I might consider this more than just hokum.


Fair enough, their planning on getting a EEG brain scanner and seeing if people they've visually typed match with Dario nardi's research.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Fair enough, their planning on getting a EEG brain scanner and seeing if people they've visually typed match with Dario nardi's research.


Didn't Dario Nardi use the dichotomies, though?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@ThatOneWeirdGuy

I've watched a sufficient number and duration of their videos. Their methodology is not really different from other MBTI physiognomy practitioners, like Podlair. They label people, and label a subset of their physical behaviors, but they don't have any actual proof that the two are connected or correlated in any meaningful or relevant way. Labeling someone is not proof.

Dario did not use the official MBTI, meaning the instrument itself, in his work, but rather a "function based" test instrument as part of a "best fit" exploration.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Didn't Dario Nardi use the dichotomies, though?


No he said they spent a lot of time making sure they were the right type and pretty sure by that he means they had correct functions. He was speaking in terms of dichotomies I believe because the audience was more laymen, weren't knowledgeable about personality theory.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Teybo said:


> I've watched a sufficient number and duration of their videos. Their methodology is not really different from other MBTI physiognomy practitioners, like Podlair. They label people, and label a subset of their physical behaviors, but they don't have any actual proof that the two are connected or correlated. Labeling someone is not proof.


They do provide _some _reasoning on it, though. I completely agree with you, I just don't like it when people say they don't agree with something without even being knowledgeable about it.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> No he said they spent a lot of time making sure they were the right type and pretty sure by that he means they had correct functions. He was speaking in terms of dichotomies I believe because the audience was more laymen, weren't knowledgeable about personality theory.


Yeah, a quick google search shows he does. It will be interesting to see when they get their hands on the technology.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_ThatOneWeirdGuy_
> 
> I've watched a sufficient number and duration of their videos. Their methodology is not really different from other MBTI physiognomy practitioners, like Podlair. They label people, and label a subset of their physical behaviors, but they don't have any actual proof that the two are connected or correlated in any meaningful or relevant way. Labeling someone is not proof.
> 
> Dario did not use the official MBTI, meaning the instrument itself, in his work, but rather a "function based" test instrument as part of a "best fit" exploration.


Pod lair has purposely ambiguous language, and while these people use certain terms that are ambiguous (like Ne eyes), their not most of the time.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

This was awesome (Ellen Page is, in my opinion, so INFJ it hurts. Like seeing the female me). I definitely noticed the NiSe traits in myself, not certain about the FeTi. Will have to draft in some outside opinions.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

@chaoticbrain

IMO, they do have ambiguous language, but maybe not intentionally. As expressed earlier, a lot of the adjectives and descriptions they use are very subjective, like "naive" eyes or "looking through an object rather than concentrating on it." I'll try and get into contact with them and hear their hopefully logically constructed and specific answer.


----------



## stoicBrit (Jun 10, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Fair enough, their planning on getting a EEG brain scanner and seeing if people they've visually typed match with Dario nardi's research.


That would be interesting providing that a professional psychologist types the group of people they target as their sample and then keeps the results quiet until they have done their research.Otherwise they can start their research with a bias instead of correlating their findings with something more solid.After all an ESFJ should have an easy to identify Fe whether the experimenters know their type or not.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

stoicBrit said:


> That would be interesting providing that a professional psychologist types the group of people they target as their sample and then keeps the results quiet until they have done their research.Otherwise they can start their research with a bias instead of correlating their findings with something more solid.After all an ESFJ should have an easy to identify Fe whether the experimenters know their type or not.


Why do they need the psychologist to type them ?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_ThatOneWeirdGuy_
> 
> I've watched a sufficient number and duration of their videos. Their methodology is not really different from other MBTI physiognomy practitioners, like Podlair. They label people, and label a subset of their physical behaviors, but they don't have any actual proof that the two are connected or correlated in any meaningful or relevant way. Labeling someone is not proof.
> 
> Dario did not use the official MBTI, meaning the instrument itself, in his work, but rather a "function based" test instrument as part of a "best fit" exploration.





ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> They do provide _some _reasoning on it, though. I completely agree with you, I just don't like it when people say they don't agree with something without even being knowledgeable about it.


When your methodology and reasoning types both Einstein and Britney Spears as ENFP........


... I think it's time to consider that the system might be lacking a little objectivity. 

I can think of a long list of checks and tests that need to be done in order to insert proper objective rigor to the system. Also, I generally am loathe to accept or rely on any system that uses one aspect to type. I think some of their ideas are really great. I think that Ne-doms DO tend to have 'naive' or childlike eyes (overall childlike, innocent demeanors if you ask me) and I do think that certain types tend to have more severe gestures... maybe even tied directly to conscious function use. Great theories, interesting stuff... but it's 1) just a piece of the puzzle, 2) a heuristic (mental shortcut) that doesn't engage the essentials of cognition, 3) apparently not proactive enough about objective rigor / null hypothesis / etc, 4) most importantly to me, not developed from a wide enough base - both of opinions and probably of control subjects.... so, the system is only as reliable as the typing of the initial test subjects, the initial testing of which likely lacked sufficient rigor to weed out anomalies. 

Did they test differences from the perspective of culture or location? Gender? Age? Social class? How about comparing social circles and groups of friends or professional associates for similar mannerisms? What about their parents? ... do people share mannerisms in familial context?

So many questions that need to be answered but apparently are not being aggressively considered. I think that instead of trying to prove this theory, they should first try to DISprove it.


----------



## stoicBrit (Jun 10, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Why do they need the psychologist to type them ?


I suppose anyone who is qualified to type would suffice,I just presumed that psychologist dealt with Myers Briggs.I'm from England where they don't usually bother with Myers Briggs, So all the interesting stuff I am Learning about cognitive functions and Myers Briggs is off this forum.


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Why do they need the psychologist to type them ?


Well the two creators of the theory aren't exactly flawless. They are just as likely as anyone to mistype others (considering only the self can really observe which functions are in process), and yet they ignore this fact and take their assumptions as fact. They built up their observations of functions by looking at people that they assumed were a certain type (which they could have easily been wrong with). 

I'm fairly certain neither of the creators have any kind of education in psychology (I know that the male who created this only has a high school diploma), so I have a hard time seeing them as being able to really understand human nature enough to not have many flaws in every process of their "theory". 


Basically, there is nothing objective about the processes they went through to determine this theory, and perhaps a psychologist licensed in typing could weed out their biases and provide some objectivity to this whole thing.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@arkigos

Why can't Britney Spears and Albert Einstein be the same type? I agree that there theory hasn't been entirely verified, but this line of reasoning is exactly what CT is trying to eliminate. There are a lot of assumptions on what constitutes a type, and we shouldn't rely on stereotypical means to type people. 

Even with the other comments that we need a professional psychologist to type people and verify type, I totally disagree with this because they probably don't know anymore than we do.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

meh, Neuro Linguistic Programming repackaged. I purchased an introductory book to NLP from the Teach Yourself series. Much of the facial expressions, gestures, etc. were describes within. I've watched this series of videos some time ago. It's true, you can learn much about a person by observing their gestures, their body language and their facial expression. To accurately type somebody you need to consider the nature of the conversation, the language used, the events surrounding the gestures, etc. Sometimes a degree in psych might get in the way of making an accurate observation, people have evolved and become sensitive to this unconscious language for a reason. To over think may be to misunderstand.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

arkigos said:


> When your methodology and reasoning types both Einstein and Britney Spears as ENFP........
> 
> 
> ... I think it's time to consider that the system might be lacking a little objectivity.
> ...


How about the fact that when you test a combination of genetics and muscles, not just facial muscle movements, you may have issues. I did some training courses for Paul Ekman micro-expression training and what sets that apart from this is that with Ekman you focus purely on what can be objectively established without genetics playing a major factor. For instance, having "eyes that sit deep in their sockets" can off the top of my head be influenced by:

- Genetics, for instance having a heavy brow, having a quite protruding or otherwise large nasal ridge and your cheekbones.
- Body fat levels, if you have a "fat face" your eyes tend to look like they are sitting much deeper in their sockets. 
- Various visual issues, for instance if your glasses/contacts are not "updated" you tend to get an "Si-brow" from squinting. 
- Being bloated or having bags under your eyes. 

I don't doubt that correlations in mannerisms can exist between people of the same type, but a significant amount of rigor is required in order to establish that, including but not limited to:

- Accurate typing of the initial subjects based on one or more established and tested frameworks. 
- Accurate recording of their gestures along with external validation of the accuracy of the typing (not excluding data that does not fit the hypothesis.) 
- I would be inclined to suggest using 3 separate teams (at least), one for doing the initial typing, one for determining gestures and expressions and a third to verify the work of the other two teams. 

As you said, cultures and social groups must be investigated and so on. Instead of jumping right in and typing people, more work should be done to have a solid framework to base the work on.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

chwoey said:


> Well the two creators of the theory aren't exactly flawless. They are just as likely as anyone to mistype others (considering only the self can really observe which functions are in process), and yet they ignore this fact and take their assumptions as fact. They built up their observations of functions by looking at people that they assumed were a certain type (which they could have easily been wrong with).
> 
> I'm fairly certain neither of the creators have any kind of education in psychology (I know that the male who created this only has a high school diploma), so I have a hard time seeing them as being able to really understand human nature enough to not have many flaws in every process of their "theory".
> 
> ...


Their typing people and seeing how their brain patterns correlate with Dario nardi's brain signals for the functions. (Ne according to Dario nardi has sort of Christmas tree pattern for instance). But I'm actually not even sure how a "psychologist's" opinion is even relevant. Psychologists for the most part don't study carl jung's cognitive functions.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> @_arkigos_
> 
> Why can't Britney Spears and Albert Einstein be the same type? I agree that there theory hasn't been entirely verified, but this line of reasoning is exactly what CT is trying to eliminate. There are a lot of assumptions on what constitutes a type, and we shouldn't rely on stereotypical means to type people.
> 
> Even with the other comments that we need a professional psychologist to type people and verify type, I totally disagree with this because they probably don't know anymore than we do.


You mean reasoning by dichotomy or stereotyping? Interestingly, rather than eliminating this line of reasoning, they are engaging in a baser form of it. 

The methods used by CT are, by even the broadest definition, the same thing as stereotype - that is to say, a heuristic. Heuristics use some simple or understandable cues or attributes of something to define it by association to a set or group. A stereotype is simply using a few characteristics to determine the whole by relation to other things that share the observed characteristics. Keirsey, for example, fully admits and accepts that he uses this heuristic to develop his description of types. CT is an even baser stereotyping methodology. It is specifically stereotyping.... perhaps not in the colloquial or wholly-negative use, I'll concede.

If I understand your argument against third-party validation correctly... I'd rebut the reiteration of my previous argument that these heuristics are based off of typing of certain people which may or may not be themselves incorrect. 

As far as my stereotyping of Einstein and Spears:

Ne-dom means that the primary mode of cognition is inductive and objective conceptualizing and theorizing. Aka, the generation of concepts and high-level ideas, usually in the form of disposable hypotheses. In this case, processed with subjective and privately ruminating value judgments. Things like this:

"Nothing discernable to the eye of the spirit is more brilliant or obscure than man; nothing is more formidible, complex, mysterious, and infinite. There is a prospect greater than the sea, and it is the sky; there is a prospect greater than the sky, and it is the human soul." - Victor Hugo

It is not stereotyping that tells me that this is not Spears primary mode of cognition... rather, it is the complete lack of example or evidence... and the existence of example and evidence to the contrary.

Also, I'd love to hear the argument for Einstein as a tertiary Te. If CT is accurate, and Einstein is Te, considering how many of Einsteins interviews, written thoughts, and even personal correspondences are available, some consistent examples of his thinking being both tertiary and extraverted should be clear to an objective observer.

I am not certain you've addressed my arguments... instead you turned the discussion back to me. That is fair, and I feel I have addressed that. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my assertions as well. 

I think @_Scelerat_ said it better. 

These are not only genuine concerns... but hint at a greater concern of the developers of this system apparently failing to consider or perform necessary rigor. If the system is true it will not only survive the scrutiny, but benefit greatly in credibility and acceptance.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Their typing people and seeing how their brain patterns correlate with Dario nardi's brain signals for the functions. (Ne according to Dario nardi has sort of Christmas tree pattern for instance). But I'm actually not even sure how a "psychologist's" opinion is even relevant. Psychologists for the most part don't study carl jung's cognitive functions.


''

Even if you use the patterns observed by Dario Nardi you get certain issues. For instance, the christmas tree pattern appears in multiple types, as does the "speed circuit" for making decisions (ENTJ and ENFJ), the Ni-blue-brain pattern appears for INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ (from Neuroscience of Personality), and so on. So while you may be able to "nail down" Ni-Se vs Ne-Si, you're still stuck on deciding between INTJ and INFJ, ENTJ and ENFJ and so on. 

The core problem is that you need to establish type by observing how a person thinks before you can decide on gestures and expressions. When you rely on a subjective perception and judgment of a person's type, and then on a subjective perception of a person's gestures/mannerisms etc in an attempt to discern a pattern, you've created a subjective process. 

If you are aiming to create an objective process you would:

A: Have to figure out a person's type based on objective criteria, which does require the use of a typing process based on objective measures.

B: Record and analyze a fairly large sample of people using those specific processes. That includes a high number of lets say INFJ to figure out how the interplay of functions manifest in gestures in that type, and then cross-referencing that with gestures in other types using Ni-Se and Fe-Ti in order to establish the manifestations of the individual functions. However, this is a problem if you (like I do) think that functions can manifest differently based on their place in the "stack" and "functional-interplay" I.E. Te-Si manifests a little different from Si-Te. This creates a large number of variables.

3. At this stage, assuming that you have a set of "functional gestures" you still have most of your work ahead of you, because it's highly likely that culture and peer-groups influence the use of gestures. Observe a group of let's say Italians vs a group of people of Scandinavians and you'll see much more expressive gestures from the Italian group. 

4. Assuming that you eliminate culture, you're left with a very small "cluster" of gestures that may or may not conform to functional dichotomies. 

This leads to wanting to confirm a theory, which then becomes a victim to bounded rationality and various other forms of cognitive bias that must be eliminated in order for your findings to be relevant. Which would require a relatively large sample size of let's say Te-Fi-Si-Ne people showing a significant enough statistical correlation in their objectively observed gestures to validate the visual typing hypothesis.

Along this simple (and highly truncated) list of steps, you need to:

A) Eliminate bias from the observer and the observe to establish a situation where cognitive function preference pairs can be established from an objective perspective. I.E. every knowledgeable observer would have to agree on the typing. 

B) Every single gesture and movement would have to be analyzed second by second in order to determine the relevant functions. This includes excluding "general" micro-expressions such as those outlined by Dr. Ekman, the "Fi smile" for instance is quite similar to Ekman's contempt in quite a few cases. 

I could go on but I've had 2 bottles of wine and I simple can't be bothered to, but let's just say there are holes in the research so wide that you could fly about 8 747s through and still have plenty of clearance.


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Their typing people and seeing how their brain patterns correlate with Dario nardi's brain signals for the functions. (Ne according to Dario nardi has sort of Christmas tree pattern for instance). But I'm actually not even sure how a "psychologist's" opinion is even relevant. Psychologists for the most part don't study carl jung's cognitive functions.


No, they plan to do that in the future.

Trust me, there ARE psychologists who study the functions and MBTI. 

I get the feeling you are a strong supporter of cognitive types, am I right?


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

chwoey said:


> No, they plan to do that in the future.
> 
> Trust me, there ARE psychologists who study the functions and MBTI.
> 
> I get the feeling you are a strong supporter of cognitive types, am I right?


For one thing MBTI is not the same thing as Carl Jung, there certainly are psychologists who know more Jung's writing than them. But I'm not sure how easy that would be to find.

Kind of a moot point though again because again they already know what signs to look for, assuming Dario nardi typed people correctly they just have to see how it compares to that.

When you say I'm a strong supporter, do you mean I'm making a ridiculous point here? I did admit that they could be wrong earlier in the thread. But I this particular point is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Arkigos

How exactly is seeing someone's functions clear based in their writings ? Telling the difference between Ti and Te is one thing but being able to tell its tertiary?


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

That's a fair point skelerat, however they would be able to achieve a certain degree of research and could use that to modify their theory.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> That's a fair point skelerat, however they would be able to achieve a certain degree of research and could use that to modify their theory.


How much research they are able to do is not really an argument pro or con, the quality of the research is what matters. 

The first order of business should be to establish a solid non-visual typing system, and from what I've seen the Cognitive Types system seems to type people differently than other contributors such as Keirsey, Von Franz, and so on. This in and of itself is not a problem, but I would be concerned if my "still in development" system got conflicting results from established systems unless I'm working from a premise that established systems are wrong. However, this creates a strange problem, since it a priori assumes that much material that contradicts my system is wrong. 

In order to establish such a system you need to collect the data from the variety of systems that exist, and establish objective definitions for the various cognitive functions. Their manifestation then has to be established depending on placement in the "stack" I.E. "how does Ni manifest differently in an ENTJ and INTJ?", "How does Te manifest differently in an ESTJ and ENTJ?" and things like that. You then have to start working through the various contradictions within the systems and between the systems and then work out which system is wrong.


There are more steps but I can't be bothered to write every step out. Once you have a solid non-visual typing system, you can start creating a small scale study, lets say 100 participants of varying types (their types established and confirmed by independent actors) and conduct long video interviews with those people, conducted by an interviewer without a stake in the research. If your hypothesis is confirmed, you should move on to large scale studies. 

A theory is only as solid as it's foundation and modifying a theory if it's based on a foundation of sand, just increases the likelihood of a collapse.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

I like their introductory video. It's nifty how they tape themselves regarding an off-camera "observer" in order to emulate a professional television interview in look/feel. Good people, and they are definitely capturing some traits which seem to correlate to different types.. and I believe there was a socionics site that polled peoples first impressions of an individuals type based on a PHOTOGRAPH... and the overall collective accuracy was fairly above chance.... surely, without any grossly refined (huh?) methodology involving, uh, fancy things like confidence intervals, sample sizes, double-blindedness, peer review etc, there is still going to be a certain degree of zeroing in on what will indubitably be seen by many as "truth"... however, let's look at a fundamental issue: the strength of the entire rationale for their system presumably lies in the notion that typing a direct connection between neurological events and involuntary actions creates a purer, unbiased measure... however, this all must necessarily be validated by the assumptions of another tool (or simply assumptions) that establishes the connection between the MBTI function, the supposed neurological event and subsequent physical behavior... so what you have is an expedient way to identify what is being initially defined by, and reducible to, an imperfect measure that this process seemingly aims to supersede in quality or accuracy... which doesn't really work. btw... it would appear that these guys have already been beaten to the punch by the fellow at braintypes dot com.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Arkigos
> 
> How exactly is seeing someone's functions clear based in their writings ? Telling the difference between Ti and Te is one thing but being able to tell its tertiary?


By it's dominance over or subservience to it's pair function. An individual with a tertiary Te will show a strong(er) Fi usage and will also show that their Te is perhaps less practiced and mature overall than a Te dominant. It would, of course, also be used less than, say, Ne. Also, dominant Ti will keep Ne in check, bearing down on it and tightening it up, making it more coherent at the very least. Tertiary Te only serves to feed Ne with it's face-value observations. It actually seems to speed Ne up and make it speak too quickly about things that it really should (says the Ti-dom) analyzed more thoroughly. 

LOL, I have a special insight on this, I suppose, being married to an ENFP. I know all too well the difference between dom-Ti and tert-Te. Even tert-Ti (INFJ and ISFJ) it's very clear that their Ti is used as a helper to their major functions... and I personally find their logic is ... almost as if sometimes you get the feeling their Si/Ni has their Ti under the heavy influence of their subjective world view - and the Ti is meant to support that rather than running the show itself - I know that isn't a generous thing to say, but there is definitely an emphasis on the higher functions that mitigates the 'pure' Ti. At least in my experience. Also, there is much less of a feel of 'logic for it's own sake' in a tertiary Ti.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

I find this odd arkigos, you're talking about how their approach isn't empirical and yet start talking about your "experience"as if it is? Uh no I don't think there has been any research even remotely into how someone's writing style is correlated with their functions.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

chaoticbrain said:


> I find this odd arkigos, you're talking about how their approach isn't empirical and yet start talking about your "experience"as if it is?


Technically, one's "experience", as in observation of a phenomenon, is empirical. There is a difference between scientific and empirical.

With that said, good point.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> I find this odd arkigos, you're talking about how their approach isn't empirical and yet start talking about your "experience"as if it is? Uh no I don't think there has been any research even remotely into how someone's writing style is correlated with their functions.


I talk about my experience as if it is 'in my experience'. Whether or not you accept it out of hand or compare it to your own, or the descriptions as you've come to accept them, is up to you. I prefer you contradict them if you have grounds to do so. I will take your shared perspective and attempt to reframe my experiences in that light. 

Actually, I have always wondered a bit how others derive their understanding of typing... for me, it seems very odd to simply restate known descriptions or just theory... if I can't (tentatively and carefully) confirm it through personal experience, how can I know it is true? My observations should be consistent with the system as I know it but also be evident in my actual experience, shouldn't it? What do you do?

I am actually accusing them of not doing this. If I were to reduce my methodology to physiognomy or whatever they would call it, I would be very very afraid of whether that system could be accurately correlated to type... hence my concerns. 

It's a really cool idea they have.... I'd love to see it come to fruition... but I feel they are shooting themselves in the foot if they aren't properly rigorous. 

Also, my concerns with typing Einstein and Spears ENFP are not based on my personal experiences at all... but rather any sane interpretation of the cognitive functions as they are generally (or personally) understood. My use of anecdote was superfluous, I suppose.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

chaoticbrain said:


> Uh no I don't think there has been any research even remotely into how someone's writing style is correlated with their functions.


You might be interested in some of these links: http://www.cnts.ua.ac.be/papers/2008/LD08dh.pdf Psychological profiling through textual analysis https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/188410


----------

