INTPs’ & ISTPs’ “One Thing”

[Architect]

http://personalityjunkie.com/intps-istps-one-thing/

 

[Miss spelt]

That's actually really dumb.

 

[Architect]

Three posts, provocative avatar, pointless comment. Thanks for coming in today.

 

[Miss spelt]

It is though.

 

[TheManBeyond]

this time i'm with archie, new user i know you fear us but you shall open your true self

 

[Analyzer]

That's actually really dumb.

lol

 

[Miss spelt]

this time i'm with archie, new user i know you fear us but you shall open your true self

I fear you least of all.

It's dumb for a number of reasons.

It assumes neuroanatomical differences between "types" (dumb)
It's sexist (dumb)
It enforces stereotypical limitations (little box theory aka dumb)
Op posts a link with no commentary then dismisses opinions (dumb)

 

[Miss spelt]

Oh self-aggrandizing INTP masturbation

what's your "one thing" op?? Auto mechanics? INTP forum? Drugs?

 

[DrSketchpad]

Disregarding unproductive conversation...

I actually rather liked it. Drenth points out something that I've been thinking about in regards to function dynamics. That being that a dominant Ti (or what I think, is that every dominant) is tied to nearly seemingly contradictory in(Fe)rior in someway.

 

[TheManBeyond]

this guy is rather brontosaurie or cherry cola or some user like that
piz bro
may the force be with u

 

[TBerg]

Miss spelt thinks that political correctness substitutes for scientific argument.

 

[Miss spelt]

I'm a girl.

 

[Miss spelt]

Miss spelt thinks that political correctness substitutes for scientific argument.

I made some arguments to support my position.

I think INTP is among the least likely to have a singular purpose.

What you said I think is not actually what I think.

Scientific argument is not necessary to call essays on MBTI dumb.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I fear you least of all.

It's dumb for a number of reasons.

It assumes neuroanatomical differences between "types" (dumb)
It's sexist (dumb)
It enforces stereotypical limitations (little box theory aka dumb)
Op posts a link with no commentary then dismisses opinions (dumb)

I agree that it's dumb but i also think your reasons for thinking it's dumb are dumb. Are you sure about the reasons?

 

[Miss spelt]

I agree that it's dumb but i also think your reasons for thinking it's dumb are dumb. Are you sure about the reasons?

They might be dumb reasons. That's ok though I'm open to that. Those are the main reasons why, yes. I could read it a third time but hell no.

 

[TBerg]

Well then. I guess Drenth actually put the effort into laying out something for others to ponder. You, on the other hand, bring nothing but Tabula Rasa presumptions, which is the most politically correct and mind-numbing thing in our modern world.

 

[Miss spelt]

Well then. I guess Drenth actually put the effort into laying out something for others to ponder. You, on the other hand, bring nothing but Tabula Rasa presumptions, which is the most politically correct and mind-numbing thing in our modern world.

Drenth made shit up or fell victim to common mythology.

There is no proven sexual dimorphism in the corpus callosum.

 

[Miss spelt]

I should clarify, I'm sorry. There is, but certainly not anything that resembles what Dr. Drenth states in his essay.

 

[TBerg]

Then go and just shout "sexist" at Scientific American and Simon Baron Cohen and see how much they are persuaded and not simply berated into a brainwash session.

 

[Miss spelt]

Then go and just shout "sexist" at Scientific American and Simon Baron Cohen and see how much they are persuaded and not simply berated into a brainwash session.

Let it go man.

 

[Architect]

I agree that his sex argument was waving hands, but he is a Shrink after all and we're talking psychology. I also haven't seen that ISTPs are nearly as concerned with their purpose as INTP's. I do see that INTPs are obsessive about it. This board is filled with them trying to find their place. On that score I think Andrew nailed the point, both theoretically and from anecdotal evidence.

Otherwise your style isnt working too well here so far.

 

[Miss spelt]

The extreme male brain theory (EMB), put forward by Baron-Cohen suggests that autistic brains show an exaggeration of the features associated with male brains. These are mainly size and connectivity with males generally having a larger brain with more white matter, leading to increased connectivity in each hemisphere. This is seen in an exaggerated form in the brains of those with ASD. Another feature of male brains is having a smaller corpus callosum in at least some regions leading to decreased inter-hemispheric connectivity. This is also seen in those with ASD. Individuals with ASD were found to have widesperead interconnectivity abnormalities in specific brain regions. This could explain the different results on empathy tests between men and women as well as the deficiencies in empathy seen in ASD as empathy requires several brain regions to be activated which need information from many different areas of the brain. A further example of how brain structure can influence ASD is looking at cases where the corpus callosum does not fully develop (agenesis of corpus callosum). It was found that autism is commonly diagnosed in children where the corpus callosum does not fully develop (45% of children with agenesis of the corpus callosum). A further example of brain structures relating to ASD is that children with ASD tend to have a larger amygdala, this is another example of being an extreme version of the male brain which generally has a larger amygdala. These brain differences have all been shown to have an influence on social cognition and communication.

Like I can read and shit.

Maybe one of you... TBerg, Architect,

Explain how this relates to the MBTI?

 

[Miss spelt]

I mean I can see now my original response of sexism was invalid so I hope this satisfies TBerg.

I don't retract my original statements that it's generally dumb though.

Like he has taken a purely scientific concept here and just made it to fit his MBTI theory and then basically abandoned the science and just made it about MBTI.

So if you can satisfy this issue then I guess that's that right? Really it has nothing to do with "INTP" and everything to do with prenatal testosterone.

Why not ESTP, then? Seriously...

 

[Inquisitor]

I agree that his sex argument was waving hands, but he is a Shrink after all and we're talking psychology.

Minor point of clarification: Drenth apparently has a doctorate in physical therapy.

Andrew Drenth

Talk about being led by Fe...

 

[Architect]

I know about his rethinking pain blog, but I'm pretty sure he said he got into Psych. Yeah, I recall him talking about how it was an inferior grip thing but not really a good fit.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It wouldn't be dumb if the so called 'extreme autistics' were typed. I'm betting they'd turn up to be INTP.

I don't see it as sexist either. Don't see what the fuss is all about.

As for brain makeup, I won't be surprised if there were general categorizes where the makeup matches up with type, MBTI is about cognitive wiring that's in the brain after all.

 

[Architect]

From many decades of watching I can certify that men are more driven in this way then women, whatever the reason. I don't give a shit if that is considered sexist, especially since older women will be the first to admit that. I keep hearing that after menopause what they miss isn't the estrogen but the small amount of testosterone they used to have. Gave focus and drive. This is where I think the difference is.

 

[Miss spelt]

It wouldn't be dumb if the so called 'extreme autistics' were typed. I'm betting they'd turn up to be INTP.

I don't see it as sexist either. Don't see what the fuss is all about.

As for brain makeup, I won't be surprised if there were general categorizes where the makeup matches up with type, MBTI is about cognitive wiring that's in the brain after all.

Hmm well I'm thinking most ASD are more INTJ, in general, but that's open for contention.

The fuss was about TBerg jumping on (one) of my numerous reasons listed for it being dumb, to which I've since taken the liberty of debunking on my own accord and retracting... So that's kind of over with.

It's disputable that MBTI is about "cognitive wiring" but I know there's fixed and inflexible beliefs regarding that topic so I'm not going to get into it.

If anything, this "one track mind" idea applies mostly to ASD and to a lesser extent males in general. It's a pretty far reach for IxTP specifically N for whatever reason to take credit. Particularly when you look at the Ne function as it is supposedly associated with diffuse activity across the entire cortex which is basically the exact opposite of the physiological activity being alluded to.

So INTP self-aggrandizing masturbation still remains as a reasonably valid reason for this whole article to be rather dumb.

 

[Inquisitor]

I mean I can see now my original response of sexism was invalid so I hope this satisfies TBerg.

I don't retract my original statements that it's generally dumb though.

Like he has taken a purely scientific concept here and just made it to fit his MBTI theory and then basically abandoned the science and just made it about MBTI.

So if you can satisfy this issue then I guess that's that right? Really it has nothing to do with "INTP" and everything to do with prenatal testosterone.

Why not ESTP, then? Seriously...

Because every type has a dominant (most conscious) and inferior function (totally unconscious). Architect has previously labeled functions as "motivations." I think he is correct in this regard.

I would also add, however, that Jung talks about libido, which can roughly be translated as psychic energy. You can visualize it as a ball of lightning. My understanding is that libido is funneled in a particular direction (orientation) starting at birth. Extraverts funnel their libido into the objective, while introverts direct it into the subjective. The result is that the brain becomes wired in a certain way, and this then translates to the development of certain cognitive capabilities and the concurrent atrophy of others.

I took issue with Drenth's hunter/tribe metaphor. The INTP is more like the shaman of the tribe, and in fact this is what Jung actually says in the early chapters of Psychological Types.

As for the bits in the article about the science, he just suggested some plausible scientific evidence for his observations and made no absolute assertions. But I think there can be no doubt that psychological types exist. One cannot be both introverted and extraverted in attitude. Same goes for sensing vs. intuition and thinking vs. feeling. One preference must dominate in each of these. Libido has to choose a certain path and cannot split equally 50/50 into both preferences.

As for needing to find that one single purpose...it's the story of my life. Currently taking CS classes, I frequently have to remind myself that there is a larger social benefit to learning how to code, and if I can improve people's lives by helping to develop better technology, that gives my Fe what it needs for me to be able to buckle down and do my work. Without that context, I emotionally feel like I'm betraying myself by not studying or working on something more humanitarian in nature like analytical psychology or Ayurveda (Indian medicine). But then I think critically about this emotional impetus and realize the career implications of working as a professional psychologist or alternative medicine practitioner. I still struggle with it every day though...

My private ambition is to discover the link between physical constitution and psychological type. It's slow-going, but I am convinced that the body and mind must develop as one and never separately.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Spoiler

Hmm well I'm thinking most ASD are more INTJ, in general, but that's open for contention.

The fuss was about TBerg jumping on (one) of my numerous reasons listed for it being dumb, to which I've since taken the liberty of debunking on my own accord and retracting... So that's kind of over with.

It's disputable that MBTI is about "cognitive wiring" but I know there's fixed and inflexible beliefs regarding that topic so I'm not going to get into it.

If anything, this "one track mind" idea applies mostly to ASD and to a lesser extent males in general. It's a pretty far reach for IxTP specifically N for whatever reason to take credit. Particularly when you look at the Ne function as it is supposedly associated with diffuse activity across the entire cortex which is basically the exact opposite of the physiological activity being alluded to.

So INTP self-aggrandizing masturbation still remains as a reasonably valid reason for this whole article to be rather dumb.

I think the "one track mind" Drenth is talking about is more existential/philosophical in nature rather than an ASD take on it. And you're reading Drenth backwards there. He does claim that it goes for all men in general.

"While it’s certainly not unique to ITPs, it seems most prevalent among these types. I see this as largely explainable in light of two things: sex and personality type.
With regard to sex, the desire for a singular purpose appears to be more common in men."

But I do agree that INTJ's could fall under the ASD too, I could see that. Introverted NT's in general seem that way.

 

[Miss spelt]

Yeah the whole Jung thing is what I was referring to as fixed and inflexible beliefs. It's 90 years old and totally just a made up theory. The most validity you're going to see with the MBTI is its rough association with the Big Five which have been shown to be valid across cultures and also through the duration of the individual's life.

So yeah, CF supporters are clinging to old beliefs which are pretty much BS. Anyone who maintains INTP and ISTP are "introverted thinking" types are really overlooking the actual, VALID psychological dimensions at play. Jung did well for his time but let's not forget the bulk (90%) of that book of his basically focuses on introversion and extraversion and only marginally discusses the functions of T F N and S insofar as he was able to define them in the context of his broader ideas of I and E.

And I'm not reading him backwards because uh look at the title.. Right?? Lol. He takes a scientific phenomenon which has been demonstrated in the lab, which is sexually dimorphic, and then falsely attributes it to typology for the sake of rewriting it according to imaginary theories.

 

[Miss spelt]

I think the "one track mind" Drenth is talking about is more existential/philosophical in nature rather than an ASD take on it. And you're reading Drenth backwards there. He does claim that it goes for all men in general.

"While it’s certainly not unique to ITPs, it seems most prevalent among these types. I see this as largely explainable in light of two things: sex and personality type.
With regard to sex, the desire for a singular purpose appears to be more common in men."

It "seems" most prevalent among these types,

In light of two things: sex and personality type.

Honestly this guy could completely abandon the typological perspective here because he's basically just peddling horseshit out of the back of a wagon.

If he can demonstrate for example that -

This effect produces higher levels of openness and lower levels of extraversion... I mean lol even if he could go THAT far we'd potentially have a typological discussion on our hands. As it is, we don't.

 

[onesteptwostep]

1) Titles are often used for hooks.

2) MBTI "Ixxx" i.e. introvertedness, and actual introversion are actually different.

3) MBTI types are not about personality, they're about psychological models, as opposed to the Big Five.

The word I'd like to emphasis is prevalent, but yeah.

 

[Alias]

The One Thing

I fear you least of all.

You're not supposed to fear The Man Beyond.

 

[Miss spelt]

1) Titles are often used for hooks.

2) MBTI "Ixxx" i.e. introvertedness, and actual introversion are actually different.

3) MBTI types are not about personality, they're about psychological models, as opposed to the Big Five.

The word I'd like to emphasis is prevalent, but yeah.

Introversion in Jung's model refers to a disposition whereupon one is constantly attempting an ascendancy upon the objective stimulus, so as to exalt the importance of the subjective aspect (the mirroring) within the mind that reflects external, objective stimuli. The attitude of introversion therefore emphasizes the idea that the subjective aspect is more real and more relevant than the objective state which only exists as a fleeting moment in time, whose only purpose is to evoke the subjective sense-impression.

Demonstrating proficiency so you can cease and desist with holding my hand through this.

Please attempt to address the point I've actually made here -- that in the absence of anything tangible, the loose association with typology actually has NO PLACE in the discussion of sexual dimorphism in the corpus callosum and he (the author) threw it in there for suckers like Architect to latch on to and make dumb threads like this one.

Now, on the other hand..........if he were to stick to the facts and discuss the merit of a one-track mind in men as compared to women we'd have a valid article.

OR,....OR OR OR

Let's say we want to make this an existential or philosophical discussion of the one track mind as it could pertain to typology. Then sexual dimorphism in the brain actually has no place in the discussion at all.

Smashing the two together is as unnatural as eating a hot dog with a hamburger bun.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Smashing the two together is as unnatural as eating a hot dog with a hamburger bun.

*jaw drops*

Wait... That's unnatural?

*leaves thread*

 

[Tannhauser]

Yeah the whole Jung thing is what I was referring to as fixed and inflexible beliefs. It's 90 years old and totally just a made up theory. The most validity you're going to see with the MBTI is its rough association with the Big Five which have been shown to be valid across cultures and also through the duration of the individual's life.

So yeah, CF supporters are clinging to old beliefs which are pretty much BS. Anyone who maintains INTP and ISTP are "introverted thinking" types are really overlooking the actual, VALID psychological dimensions at play. Jung did well for his time but let's not forget the bulk (90%) of that book of his basically focuses on introversion and extraversion and only marginally discusses the functions of T F N and S insofar as he was able to define them in the context of his broader ideas of I and E.

And I'm not reading him backwards because uh look at the title.. Right?? Lol. He takes a scientific phenomenon which has been demonstrated in the lab, which is sexually dimorphic, and then falsely attributes it to typology for the sake of rewriting it according to imaginary theories.

You seem to judge MBTI as scientific theory. It is not. It is a model, and as all models it has its use in some cases and useless in other. In the end all models are wrong but some are useful (don't remember whose quote that is).

It is easy to see it is not scientific: it is not falsifiable. Whenever it is wrong one can simply say "well, it was wrong in that instance because the individual acted out of character" or something like that. Very much like Freud's theories, for example.

I have seen Drent try to mix studies and science into his speculations about MBTI stuff. Sometimes it was plainly wrong, sometimes he made some interesting observations. In the end.. who cares whether it is scientifically sound? MBTI has nothing to do with science, it is just a model you can play around with.

 

[Architect]

You seem to judge MBTI as scientific theory. It is not. It is a model, and as all models it has its use in some cases and useless in other.

I don't see the distinction. General Relativity is a model of gravity which in that it is a geometrical field. Is gravity actually a geometrical field? What do you mean by "actually"? What does it mean to "be" something? Quickly it falls into a philosophical hole and doesn't really go anywhere.

For this reason scientists yes, create models that describe the world, and these are called theories. All that theory means is that it can be amended and changed in the future as more evidence comes in.

In the end all models are wrong but some are useful (don't remember whose quote that is).

Don't know what that means. Newtons gravity isn't wrong, it's just incomplete. Once theories have been demonstrated they don't or aren't wrong.

At any rate yes I'd rate MBTI as the best psychological scientific theory we have. The reason is that it is a model which allows us to predict new things not in evidence from the basic data which proves the theory. Such as the relationship between the dominant and inferior.

In contrast is the Big Five, which has a lot more studies behind it, but which is actually a terrible theory because it's not predicative, but purely descriptive. Leave it to mainstream psychologists to screw up something so basic as a personality model.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Had go afk a bit but:

MBTI is from Myers-Briggs, not Carl Jung.

On whether that can be in the discussion or not: that's an opinion, not a consensus. MBTI doesn't have a neurological study yet, but there are existing statistical correlations between type and sex. NTS and STs largely fall under males while SFs and NFs largely fall under females.

So, it could be said that ITPs (who tend to be males) could always be wanting "that one thing" because of their Pness.

I don't see how you can bash Drenth because he only notes a certain category of persons. From my perspective type, neurology and sex are all interrelated to some degree, more than we actually realize.

 

[Architect]

MBTI doesn't have a neurological study yet.

Yes it does, look up Dario Nardi. He's just looking at the neocortex however as that is what can be measured with a cheap and simple EEG setup. A fMRI would allow you to look at the cortex which is where I believe we'll find the neurological basis for the theory.

But that's beside the point. We don't have the basis for gravity - no gravitons have been observed and they are just a hypothesis. Doesn't matter, the theory/model of GR describes the phenomenon of gravity and makes new unobserved predictions. That's all you need. And MBTI, or Jungs theory, describes human behavior and predicts new observables. Knowing the basis for it would just be gravy.

 

[Miss spelt]

@tannhauser - emphasis on scientific validity was in response to TBerg's original criticism of my approach.

@onesteptwostep - MBTI is not Jung and therefore Jung's types are not MBTI ....... So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say at this point. Maybe just stop. Just stop.

@Architect - no distinction is made between "neocortex" and "cortex" when looking at brain imaging techniques LOL omg. If you want to get technical there are less sophisticated cortical areas like the hippocampus which can still be assessed with an electroencephalograph however it's not like an fMRI is the key to unlocking typology in this way. You're likely referring to subcortical structures like various nuclei of the thalamus..... but you have no idea how ignorant that was haha it's okay

 

[Miss spelt]

@ Architect --- Finally, as I have referenced once already.- Nardi's EEG studies point to intuition as a whole brain function which directly contradicts the proposal made in the OP

 

[redbaron]

It takes a lot of cognitive bias to come to the kind of conclusions Drenth and Architect are with typology in this thread. Which is the basic issue really.

Drenth gets some stuff really right, other stuff really wrong and a lot falls into the category of debatable. Which is fine, but MBTI is far from being robust as a theory. This topic specifically can be related to so many people (whether IxTP or not) that it's not logically sound to promote it as though it were a legitimate phenom.

The real insidious thing about cognitive bias is that, as a largely unconscious phenomena, it can still prove to be right about things often enough to allow an individual to continue believing in the validity of their claims on that basis.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not sure whether you understand how Jung relates itself to MBTI, and more specifically, how it doesn't relate. MBTI has the P/J quality which completely reworks the types. The cognitive orderings for an INTP and an INTJ for example, are completely different. One is Ti-Ne while the other is Ni-Te.

On the other hand, MBTI introvertedness, or the I/E dichotomy, is a switch up of the first two and last two functions. They're not really about introversion and extroversion themselves, but rather, about functionalities which have introverted or extraverted qualities.

Again, MBTI introvertedness and introversion which Jung states, are different.

 

[Tannhauser]

I don't see the distinction. General Relativity is a model of gravity which in that it is a geometrical field. Is gravity actually a geometrical field? What do you mean by "actually"? What does it mean to "be" something? Quickly it falls into a philosophical hole and doesn't really go anywhere.

For this reason scientists yes, create models that describe the world, and these are called theories. All that theory means is that it can be amended and changed in the future as more evidence comes in.



Don't know what that means. Newtons gravity isn't wrong, it's just incomplete. Once theories have been demonstrated they don't or aren't wrong.

At any rate yes I'd rate MBTI as the best psychological scientific theory we have. The reason is that it is a model which allows us to predict new things not in evidence from the basic data which proves the theory. Such as the relationship between the dominant and inferior.

In contrast is the Big Five, which has a lot more studies behind it, but which is actually a terrible theory because it's not predicative, but purely descriptive. Leave it to mainstream psychologists to screw up something so basic as a personality model.

Yes, I guess the distinction between model and scientific theory was an ambiguous one. But there is a difference between for example MBTI and Newton's model of gravity. When we look at the the orbital path of Mercury around the sun and see that it does not follow Newton's predictions, we realise the model is wrong in the sense that it is falsified as a general model for mechanics. Does such an example exist for MBTI? I don't think so. One can gather examples where it does predict correctly, but the same can be done for astrology.

 

[Miss spelt]

I'm not sure whether you understand how Jung relates itself to MBTI, and more specifically, how it doesn't relate. MBTI has the P/J quality which completely reworks the types. The cognitive orderings for an INTP and an INTJ for example, are completely different. One is Ti-Ne while the other is Ni-Te.

On the other hand, MBTI introvertedness, or the I/E dichotomy, is a switch up of the first two and last two functions. They're not really about introversion and extroversion themselves, but rather, functionalities which have introverted or extraverted qualities.

Again, MBTI introvertedness and introversion itself are different.

Omg

When I explained that I understood introversion
And the mbti
And Jung

And I asked you to cease and desist with Personality Junkie indoctrination 101

And then I asked you to stop responding to me in general because we are having different conversations

I could have never anticipated this degree of twit. Thank you, so much.

 

[Miss spelt]

It takes a lot of cognitive bias to come to the kind of conclusions Drenth and Architect are with typology in this thread. Which is the basic issue really.

Drenth gets some stuff really right, other stuff really wrong and a lot falls into the category of debatable. Which is fine, but MBTI is far from being robust as a theory. This topic specifically can be related to so many people (whether IxTP or not) that it's not logically sound to promote it as though it were a legitimate phenom.

The real insidious thing about cognitive bias is that, as a largely unconscious phenomena, it can still prove to be right about things often enough to allow an individual to continue believing in the validity of their claims on that basis.

This is really insightful and 100% accurate with regards to this thread.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Antsy

I'm just poking holes in your disposition because you seem to typologize the article as some INTP egobath, when it isn't and doesn't. The exposition of Carl's definition of introversion also has nothing to do with the bulk of what I posted, that is, that type is related to sex, and because of it, that it leads hand to the theory that type is therefore tied with neurological makeup.

There is a cognitive bias, given that Drenth sees himself as INTP and is a male himself. I mean that's understandable.

 

[Inquisitor]

It takes a lot of cognitive bias to come to the kind of conclusions Drenth and Architect are with typology in this thread. Which is the basic issue really.

Drenth gets some stuff really right, other stuff really wrong and a lot falls into the category of debatable. Which is fine, but MBTI is far from being robust as a theory. This topic specifically can be related to so many people (whether IxTP or not) that it's not logically sound to promote it as though it were a legitimate phenom.

The real insidious thing about cognitive bias is that, as a largely unconscious phenomena, it can still prove to be right about things often enough to allow an individual to continue believing in the validity of their claims on that basis.

What specifically does he get wrong? And what is debatable? Where is the bias? Explain...

 

[Inquisitor]

@ Architect --- Finally, as I have referenced once already.- Nardi's EEG studies point to intuition as a whole brain function which directly contradicts the proposal made in the OP

First off, methinks you are a feminist and this article of Drenth's was offensive to you somehow. I read the article again, and I fail to see how someone could get upset about sexism from reading that...unless you have feminist ideals. Nowhere does the author make any judgments whatsoever about the superiority/inferiority of having a mind that tends to be more inclined to "dominance" and to have "fewer but more focused interests." No one is saying (including the author) that there aren't plenty of women out there who would not fit that description.

If you want to get upset about that, go ahead, but you lost credibility the instant that you said that most of what CJ supporters believe is "BS." Also, methinks you never read Psychological Types, because he explores far more than just introversion/extraversion in that book. It's definitely not 90% attitude and 10% preferences, and it's not something you can quickly read and easily digest...there's a ton of nuance in there, and he makes a really compelling case.

As for the "debunking" of what the author talked about, you apparently fail to see the difference between intuition and thinking. The article was about Ti, not Ni or Ne. Ti, according to one study (which I can't remember where I saw it) is "found" to be most active in the left posterior hemisphere of the brain. I put that in quotes, because it's not actually a function of any kind, it's just an area of the brain that happens to be extremely well-developed in INTPs and ISTPs. Just because Nardi found a "Xmas tree brain" phenomenon for intuition does not automatically invalidate the idea that men have fewer connections between hemispheres than women. Show me scientific research that shows exactly what these connections are and what they do...Is it not possible that each sphere of the brain could act independently? Maybe what you see on the EEG with intuition has zero to do with the corpus callosum?

And anyway, I could care less if I do or don't have as many inter-sphere connections as women because as Architect says, the latest science and the Big Five are not predicative.