The NeuroScience of Typology

[Auburn]

We've all wanted to know this for ages, well here's the beginnings of it! This is a pilot study of the neuroscience behind personality type. It's an hour and a half long video - but imo well worth the time for those who desire a more profound understanding of brain/type.
​

Authors@Google: Dario Nardi - Neuroscience of Personality - YouTube


I'll withhold my opinions for the time being.

 

[Auburn]

​

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I really do think I'd be interested, but 1hr25mins is too long.

A summary would be nice.

 

[Auburn]

but it's.. ..FOR SCIENCE!

 

[nanook]

i have seen this a while ago. what i don't like is how he operates on assumptions about typology, at least in the way he presents his data to the public. it would be scientific to develop a typology based on the neurological data and then see if this typology coincidentally equals the mbti modell. simply looking for a match is too cheap. you can't just say "oh there is this specific thing, and it happens in people who get this mbti test result so it must be function XY because theory says this mbti type uses this function". you have to figure out if "this thing" does what function XY is supposed to do. he has done this maybe for the function Te-dominance, maybe even Ne-dominance, but not for all functions, at least in the presentation, not for secondary functions, those are not necessarily the same etc ...

 

[nanook]

btw, do you guys know braintypes.com ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_types

 

[Fukyo]

I really do think I'd be interested, but 1hr25mins is too long.

A summary would be nice.

Here you go: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...6-dario-nardi-s-neuroscience-personality.html

 

[Minuend]

I saw it. What should I comment on its validity or the content itself?

Because it probably lacks proper support and it seems he hasn't looked at very many individuals within every type. How did he type them? Is that accurate?

The content itself didn't really talk that much about how the research was related to different types. Also just when it got more interesting with cognitive functions, he quit.

There isn't that many opinions and conclusions I can draw from this. I suppose I should say it's good that they are looking at it more "scientifically", but I suppose I'm a bit pessimistic and don't expect something real to come out of this. It's 16 human created types from human observation. I haven't even heard anything supporting the theory that the human brain can only choose 16 general modus operadi. It's just so far from science, I suppose. I didn't really know that was what I thought about it. Interesting.

Oh, hope I'm not rude to you Auburn.

 

[Auburn]

@ nanook & minuend

Yep, I don't disagree with your skepticism no worries. :3 From this limited presentation I had the same questions. I also have his book at home with me atm though, in which he goes into more detail on his methods, why he chose the methods he did, how he went about typing, etc.

(Personally I also think there's no reason why we should assume there are 16 brain modus operandi. The most natural approach I could think of taking is just observing hundreds of people's brains, looking for any patterns, and see how many "patterns" emerge. We might find that there indeed are 16 general sets-of-patterns of human brains, we might find there are 18, or 25, or maybe none.)

From what I've read thus far, he did not go into this with an agenda to prove. He went into it with an open mind and curiosity to understand "what is" there, if anything.

He went into it looking for patterns in people's brains - and used the types they identify with as just one more detail/statistic about them such as their age, race, gender, handedness, etc - to factor into his experiment.

Primarily what he found were patterns (such as the christmas tree, flow state, circuits, tennis hop) and secondarily he noticed that these patterns showed up in much higher percentile within students of the same personality type. In other words, he observed a phenomenon in nature, and also saw that this phenomenon occurred in much higher frequency in the people of similar types.


In the video he states that although every brain *is* different, from his study you have about an 80% chance of sharing about 50% of your brain with someone else of the same type. Whereas, you will likely share very little brain activity if you compare your brain against any random individual. Or per the book:

"It states that half of the lab subjects shared from 70%-90% of their brain activity with other people of the same type."

​

In empirical research, a correlation that high is enough to substantiate the existing theory and warrant further investigation into the details.

But the correlations didn't just stop at the personality type itself, but also aligned with the cognitive functions as outlined in Jung's theory. So for instance an INTP will display high activity in regions which we can correlate to Ti and Ne, and an ESTP will show high activity in that same Ti area, but also displayed the patterns which correlate with Se. And furthermore, an ESFP would display the same high activity in the patterns we can correlate with Se but also high usage of patterns that correlate to Fi - - and so on.

So what I am trying to say is that this is all intricately connected. It's not just a face-value correlation. The correlation is multi-layered in the same way Jung's theory is - much too complex to overrule as a coincidence, although it's also not absolutely clarified which is why more research is needed to further explore the details of it.


However this was just a pilot study, to gauge whether or not there is something under the ground to unearth before digging further. In the book, Nardi emphasizes this is the first revision. =) Mm, the technology he used is not the most fine-tuned, more people samples could be used, etc. But the main point being that there actually *is* some neurological correlation to Jung's functions/types. Other models such as the Big 5 can't make such claims.

 

[Auburn]

Regarding Typing Error

There's the issue of error in typing the students to take into consideration. We can't say 100% he got everybody's type correct before the experimentation began... but then again we don't have a 100% correct or agreed upon way of measuring type in the first place. That's what we *would* find, potentially, via this research. So it may be inevitable that the samples he took aren't 100% properly typed.

If the phenomenon of types is real (which this preliminary study suggests might be) we should be able to use brain scans as the 100% accurate ruler for type. But we end up with a circular logic if we want to have perfect samples to read before we have a template for all types.

So the most reasonable approach to take, as far as clarifying the distinctions between types, is to take a large sample of what we best estimate are the 16 types, and if we do overall see more resemblance than not (which we do), then build a template of that type from the similarities. Then refine it further still via more samples until the template itself is complete.

Completing the template may result in substantially refining/varying from the Jungian model, which is fine. It may have things Jung's model didn't account for but beginning with that template is a good start. As we discover things Jung's model didn't account for the model will simply be modified until it mirrors reality.

 

[Melllvar]

(Personally I also think there's no reason why we should assume there are 16 brain modus operandi. The most natural approach I could think of taking is just observing hundreds of people's brains, looking for any patterns, and see how many "patterns" emerge. We might find that there indeed are 16 general sets-of-patterns of human brains, we might find there are 18, or 25, or maybe none.)

Eh, it's kind of off-topic, but I had an idea that was sort of relevant to that...

The long version is here, the short version is basically that you measure personality traits, behaviors, anything that can be quantified and measured and represent it as a function in a vector space. Each of these 'observables' corresponds to a coordinate axis (more technically a basis vector) in that space. Measurements of this trait get plotted on this axis, then those vectors are summed and give you the person's type. This is very similar to how MBTI models type, but this system allows more detailed analysis and a better understanding of type (see stuff on subspaces in the other thread), while also not limiting it to any particular number of types. It's easy to incorporate new measurables and update the model as more is learned. In the end, the best one includes only the most relevant traits towards making predictions about that person's behavior. Maybe that will precisely coincide with MBTI (I doubt it), but either way it provides a better system and framework to "search" for types.

Just throwing that idea out there, again.

 

[Auburn]

"...is basically that you measure personality traits, behaviors, anything that can be quantified and measured and represent it as a function in a vector space."
​

How exactly do you measure personality traits & behaviors and quantify them as vectors? Would you be using questionnaires then plotting the results?

 

[Melllvar]

In the simplest case, yeah, something like that. There's really two issues, how you represent it mathematically and how you measure it. In the first case, the simplest is to just label the strength/probability-of-occurrence of a given trait as a number between -1 and 1, or 0 and 100, something like that. This is basically the way most of the online MBTI questionnaires already work, they just represent it as bar graphs for N vs. S, F vs. T, etc., and display it as those little charts instead of a point in a four-dimensional space.

There are other possibilities too, e.g. representing traits by (non-linear) functions instead. I'm not sure that's necessary though, since the point would basically be to have a quick summary of a person's generalized cognition and behavior. You could just measure a bunch of random traits about people and study them statistically, and that's basically what this does, the vector space concept mainly just gets away from these rigid INTP vs. ESFJ type stuff and treats type as a completely fluid thing in a complete space of possiblities.

For measurement, questionnaires seem to be the popular thing in psychology, but I'd think it'd be effective to measure it experimentally. E.g. if you're interesting in N vs. S stuff, measure that behaviorally in a similar way to how they do on IQ tests. This would perhaps get things away from the generalized concepts of such things, which seem to vary in exact interpretation from person to person anyways, and instead focuses more on well definable, measurable traits. E.g. put a person through T vs. F scenarios, or N vs. S scenarios, and see with what probability and to what extreme they exhibit a particular type of reaction or solution. Just using familiar concepts like T/F/S/N as examples, again I'd really advocate focusing it on objective qualities/behaviors/reactions rather than such nebulous ones.

Basically, in the end the measurement of various traits is all just statistics, and the vector space concept isn't really needed, it's just useful since it expresses the data better than the current method, and gets around a lot of the gross simplifications involved in MBTI.

As a downside, some of it would be incompatible with current MBTI, as I understand it. Among other things, under this representation a person's true "type" could sit exactly equidistant between any other number of other types, where as in the mainstream thing you have a definite cognitive hierarchy, and you're definitely only one of those 16 and nothing else.

EDIT: On further research, this may not really be that original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_vector Oh well, it still seems a better way to look at what is really being studied here with all the typology stuff.

 

[Auburn]

I see.

"...since the point would basically be to have a quick summary of a person's generalized cognition and behavior."
​

Though, you do realize those behaviors don't necessarily say anything about the person's cognition? What I mean is that the same behavior can emerge from various entirely different brain activities.

In his book, Nardi gives a few case studies where he asks students to come up with possible scenarios that could evolve from a situation. An ISTP came up with various answers while he showed high activity in the front 2 sections (Fp1/Fp2). Other types such as Ne users also came up with various scenarios but displayed the "christmas tree" pattern. The exact same behavior via entirely different cognitive routes.

And this is not exclusive to just that scenario. From what Nardi found, in all ranges of activity - doing math, playing instruments, socializing, etc - different people utilized different brain regions to preform the same task.

This is why using behavioral manifestations to gauge cognition is a flawed approach.
​

If you approach things the way you're suggesting, all you're going to come up with is superficial behavioral correlations (whether of 16 types or however many) people have to one another. But if you put the same people under a brain scan, you'd find they're entirely different.

Addendum:

To put it another way, a bat might resemble a raven more than a bear, but if examined genetically a bat is more closely related to a bear than a raven. You have to examine what is innate, not what are outward similarities.

 

[Melllvar]

Hm, I'll take your word for it.

It kind of depends what you want to do: understand cognition (neuroscience), understand behavior, or link cognition to behavior. It seems fair to say that cognition is heavily related to behavior, even if there are multiple cognitive pathways for performing the same task (which I don't doubt there are). I thought typology was more about linking cognition and behavior.

I'm mainly just throwing the idea out there, for what I thought were the advantages I already mentioned. I'd think a lot of this could easily be covered with some minor modifications, like modifying the measurements to be non-behavioral, or simply using it as a behavioral prediction system independent of underlying cognitive structure, or breaking down more complicated brain functions into simpler components. Like I said in the other thread, my thoughts on all this are still pretty much in the brainstorming stage.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

 

[Auburn]

Hm, I'll take your word for it.

It kind of depends what you want to do: understand cognition (neuroscience), understand behavior, or link cognition to behavior.

True.
Though I would argue that finding the link between cognition & behavior would give a full understanding of both. You can't truly understand behavior without understanding where, cognitively, it is emerging from.

Behavioral typology without neuroscience will always be incomplete - because it will not be able to account for anomalies in behavior. You will understand the full range of a person's behavior when you understand what is going on inside their brain - what parts are ticking and giving birth to that behavior. Without this awareness of the whole brain, you won't understand what's occurring when a person seems to be acting in ways the model in use can't explain. The model we use to define behavior/type must be as intricate as the brain which it is trying to define. To obtain such a model requires an intimate understanding of the brain.

Typology cannot evolve past being a guesstimation/interesting-to-think-about-but-not-really-something-to-take-seriously-model without being grounded in some empirical sense. We can dispute where to draw the fine lines between N/S or F/T (or however many other divisions we wish to create) at infinitum - but as long as every typologist/person has their own slightly different interpretation of things, it will remain an arbitrary system of classification.

Now, if we map out objective patterns of brain activity, then that is something that cannot be disputed. A person's brain can be scanned, and their type can be identified via the patterns their brain displays and the brain regions they utilize. =)

I'm mainly just throwing the idea out there, for what I thought were the advantages I already mentioned. I'd think a lot of this could easily be covered with some minor modifications, like modifying the measurements to be non-behavioral, or simply using it as a behavioral prediction system independent of underlying cognitive structure, or breaking down more complicated brain functions into simpler components. Like I said in the other thread, my thoughts on all this are still pretty much in the brainstorming stage.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

As mentioned above, simply using it for behavioral predictions independent of underlying cognitive structures wouldn't work. This is because behavior emerges from those underlying cognitive structures. You can't possibly accurately predict behavior without understanding where it emerges from and why.

The most you'd get is a guesstimation which might seem to make sense some of the time, but never exact enough to give you solid knowledge of the person. Nor would it give the person genuine understanding about themselves.

Though.. I hope I'm not sounding rude here. Just trying to explain a fundamental principle I see. I appreciate your posts though.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Here you go: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...6-dario-nardi-s-neuroscience-personality.html

Thanks, still wrapping my head around it, but I see they're working with MBTI. Though some of the stuff I agree with, even if I consider MBTI broken.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I haven't watched the video yet (I plan to when I have the time, probably tomorrow) but I have some preliminary thoughts.

First, for the discussion, the system Melllvar is proposing seems to lose what makes MBTI attractive to so many people: it's simplicity. Being able to say "I'm such-and-such type" makes it easy, and people can group themselves together. Even the big 5 ends up having too many components and too much variation for people to be able to group themselves based on it. This is not to say his system wouldn't be better, I'm just saying that it would never gain mainstream popularity the way MBTI has.

Second, mapping personality types with activation of particular brain regions seems to take the hard-wired brain theory for granted. Do these brain experiments take into account that a portion of the population have the hemispheres of their brain reversed as far as function goes (eg some people have dominant Broca's area, Wernicke's area etc on the right hemisphere rather than the left)? Do they take neuroplasticity into account when they measure the response of a particular brain region?

Third, I'm curious as to how the neural landscape of a specific type might evolve as the brain develops and ages, how it responds to stimulation or atrophy, and would be even more interested in how genetic and environmental factors play a role in the way a personality type emerges.

 

[Auburn]

I haven't watched the video yet (I plan to when I have the time, probably tomorrow) but I have some preliminary thoughts.

Sure :3

First, for the discussion, the system Melllvar is proposing seems to lose what makes MBTI attractive to so many people: it's simplicity. Being able to say "I'm such-and-such type" makes it easy, and people can group themselves together. Even the big 5 ends up having too many components and too much variation for people to be able to group themselves based on it. This is not to say his system wouldn't be better, I'm just saying that it would never gain mainstream popularity the way MBTI has.

Probably, yea. MBTI received even more attention that Jung's work because MBTI did that very thing: simplified. It condensed Jung's work and left out all the important bits in order to give it a marketable, quick-and-easy form. =/

But if typology reaches hard-science, then it would grow even more popular than that. It would be studied academically and be in the books.

Second, mapping personality types with activation of particular brain regions seems to take the hard-wired brain theory for granted. Do these brain experiments take into account that a portion of the population have the hemispheres of their brain reversed as far as function goes (eg some people have dominant Broca's area, Wernicke's area etc on the right hemisphere rather than the left)?

He does mention mirrored brain hemisphere, yes. I think his study showed that left-handed people had a 50% chance of showing their brain activity mirrored.

Do they take neuroplasticity into account when they measure the response of a particular brain region?

Mm, I'm not sure what is being asked. You mean to suggest that the plasticity of the brain and what region is used for what process - makes it so that we can't fully map out/correlate brain regions with functions?

If so, I think the way to answer that is that what he observed were brain patterns - some region specific while others are not. For instance, the "christmass tree" pattern involves the whole brain. Very rapidly, all sections switch their frequency & amplitude up and down sporadically - seemingly randomly - for however long they are focused on the task of brainstorming. This christmas-tree pattern was seen in all the test subjects/students who identified as ENTP/ENFP/INTP/INFP, and not in any others.

Other patterns use four sections, such as the "circuit". In fractions of a second, four sections light up, each immediately after the other, right before executing a decision or task. This pattern was seen in the ENxJ personality types.

Other regions are more static. For instance, while working out math problems some students displayed zero activity in all regions except for one - the one he used to work out the math - and so on. It's really interesting, I hope you do watch it.

Third, I'm curious as to how the neural landscape of a specific type might evolve as the brain develops and ages, how it responds to stimulation or atrophy, and would be even more interested in how genetic and environmental factors play a role in the way a personality type emerges.

He limited the age range of his test subjects to between 20-25, in order to reduce the number of variables present in this preliminary study. Yesh, it'd be interesting to see how specific brain types develop in age. Though I suppose that's a secondary question, firstly he is trying to understand whether types exist at all - which is a great point of skepticism still.

One by one, every assertion made by Jung/MBTI will have to be tested. For instance "does type really stay static during your lifetime?" or "are the 16 hierarchies really ordered the way the theory (somewhat arbitrarily?) says they are?". So I suppose the answer to that is, we honestly don't know yet.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Sure :3

Probably, yea. MBTI received even more attention that Jung's work because MBTI did that very thing: simplified. It condensed Jung's work and left out all the important bits in order to give it a marketable, quick-and-easy form. =/

But if typology reaches hard-science, then it would grow even more popular than that. It would be studied academically and be in the books.


He does mention mirrored brain hemisphere, yes. I think his study showed that left-handed people had a 50% chance of showing their brain activity mirrored.

Mm, I'm not sure what is being asked. You mean to suggest that the plasticity of the brain and what region is used for what process - makes it so that we can't fully map out/correlate brain regions with functions?

If so, I think the way to answer that is that what he observed were brain patterns - some region specific while others are not. For instance, the "christmass tree" pattern involves the whole brain. Very rapidly, all sections switch their frequency & amplitude up and down sporadically - seemingly randomly - for however long they are focused on the task of brainstorming. This christmas-tree pattern was seen in all the test subjects/students who identified as ENTP/ENFP/INTP/INFP, and not in any others.

Other patterns use four sections, such as the "circuit". In fractions of a second, four sections light up, each immediately after the other, right before executing a decision or task. This pattern was seen in the ENxJ personality types.

Other regions are more static. For instance, while working out math problems some students displayed zero activity in all regions except for one - the one he used to work out the math - and so on. It's really interesting, I hope you do watch it.

He limited the age range of his test subjects to between 20-25, in order to reduce the number of variables present in this preliminary study. Yesh, it'd be interesting to see how specific brain types develop in age. Though I suppose that's a secondary question, firstly he is trying to understand whether types exist at all - which is a great point of skepticism still.

One by one, every assertion made by Jung/MBTI will have to be tested. For instance "does type really stay static during your lifetime?" or "are the 16 hierarchies really ordered the way the theory (somewhat arbitrarily?) says they are?". So I suppose the answer to that is, we honestly don't know yet.

Summaries like this are very nice ^_^

For us INFJs the logic in the video is a bit too much - we can't tell what the ethical implications are. It might be best for us to ask questions first and then see if the video answers it.

 

[Auburn]

Spoiler

..mhm.. because god forbid I actually spend a whole hour and a half on legitimate critical inquiry--! Oh I would be drained of energy for weeks! ;p

..best to not think too hard or fry my brain cells. best to keep waddling about in acedia, spending that same hour and a half idling the internet, perhaps posting some more mbti ramblings from my half-assed & unfounded understanding.

besides, my understanding's good enough. no need to learn or take in more opinions. i have a black belt in mental masturbation and that's all i need.

it'll just be a waste of time to try. nobody's got anything interesting to say anyhow.

Glad that helped. =)

I must say though, this guy's "style" is not textbook-dry, he's actually quite laid-back and chatty in his approach and even his book. The whole session is very sociable and he talks about the social dynamics of what he saw for most of the video. I would think it'd be very interesting for INFJs... :3

Properly understanding how your fellow man thinks has everything to do with ethics.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Spoiler

..mhm.. because god forbid I actually spend a whole hour and a half on legitimate critical inquiry--! Oh I would be drained of energy for weeks!

..best to not think too hard or fry my brain cells. best to keep waddling about in acedia, spending that same hour and a half idling the internet, perhaps posting some more mbti ramblings from my half-assed & unfounded understanding.

besides, my understanding's good enough. no need to learn or take in more opinions. i have a black belt in mental masturbation and that's all i need.

it'll just be a waste of time to try. nobody's got anything interesting to say anyhow.

Glad that helped. =)

I must say though, this guy's "style" is not textbook-dry, he's actually quite laid-back and chatty in his approach and even his book. The whole session is very sociable and he talks about the social dynamics of what he saw for most of the video. I would think it'd be very interesting for INFJs... :3

Properly understanding how your fellow man thinks has everything to do with ethics.

lol

Spoiler

information can take a while to consolidate. Be patient then.

 

[Auburn]

Um.. of course. No worries at all. ^^

I am glad you took that in good humor O:
Almost didn't post it.. c.c (apologies if it was a bit too snarky. =p)
(i'll shut up now..)

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

^^

Not sure if this is worth reading,

Spoiler

I find it hard to tell if he is referencing the same types that I am used to referencing, and if building a model up based directly from the data is the same thing we try to do with the more social approach to Type. I think he mentioned that Economics graduates tend to have some region which is higher than other people. Maybe then these patterns in brain regions is basically what we mean by type, but is not holistically taking into account how the person is working. Type is meant to be something that wouldn't change if one studied a lot of economics, or became more or less social, or did whatever differently. It should be a static information processing pattern of the brain, which can alter in certain respects but not others without major brain rewiring. When we discuss Type, we basically mean an aspect of personality which does not change throughout your whole lifetime - it is a consistent set of wiring which you can act within, and which other people of similar functioning can also approximate, but throughout which you may have differing amounts of energy allocation throughout your lifetime.

However, I think this confusion is avoided if you separate the new information from the old, which requires creating a new perspective slot, i.e. convergence/consolidation into something which can be navigated at efficient speeds.


- how does he define the dichotomies and the functions?
- how does he define a type regarding its functions?

He may be referencing basically what we are used to, or he may be referencing a new, possibly better possibly not typing system which he built from the ground up with neuroscientific information.

It seems that the approach would have better empirical grounding, but would it be as useful? Regardless, there is likely a lot of good information there, aiding the current perspective and creating a new one.

There will likely be a lot of convergence in psychological matters in the not too distant future. You can immediately perceive that information could be structured much better than it is.

Summary = me saying I'm not sure if he is referencing the same type system I am used to, so will just interpret the information separately which could take time but may well lead to a more useful system

 

[Auburn]

Type is meant to be something that wouldn't change if one studied a lot of economics, or became more or less social, or did whatever differently. It should be a static information processing pattern of the brain, which can alter in certain respects but not others without major brain rewiring. When we discuss Type, we basically mean an aspect of personality which does not change throughout your whole lifetime - it is a consistent set of wiring which you can act within, and which other people of similar functioning can also approximate, but throughout which you may have differing amounts of energy allocation throughout your lifetime.

As much as my own intuition agrees with this perspective, and as much as it makes sense to me that type would be a lifelong thing, it is still fundamentally an assumption some typologists make.

It may be possible to verify this in the future, but it would be one of the last things to be verified. Many things would have to be verified first, for example:

1. Cognitive Functions Exist
2. There are only 8 cognitive functions that factor into Personality Type/Cognition, while other processes deal with other biological handling.
3. A human only has conscious access to 4 of these 8 functions.
4. These 4 conscious functions pair in such a way that create only 16 possible hierarchies - and these remain a static part of the individual throughout his/her life.

At any one of these steps, we may find something unexpected. Nardi is approaching this with an open mind and just observing what goes on in the brains of students who share personality types. Nothing more.

- how does he define the dichotomies and the functions?
- how does he define a type regarding its functions?

Well, he's familiar with Jung's work and is author of many typology books as well. He's familiar with the notion of four processes and their arrangement defining type, so when he refers to type, it's the same model we know of and speak of here.

As far as how he went about typing, he says in his book that each student subject took both the official MBTI test as well as an official ISCA test that measures functions, as well as did reading up on functions & received feedback from him for 10 weeks.

Now as far as arriving at type via brain scanning, I don't think he's actually seriously doing that yet. He is merely observing the brains of these students and starting to notice patterns which occur consistently within certain (jungian) types when they are thinking, feeling or performing certain activities.

In his book he has a list of things he correlates to each function, such as heavy use of certain brain regions, but he also makes a point of not pinpointing functions to a specific brain region itself. This is for various reasons.

One: All subjects used all sections of their brain - contrary to the idea that there are parts of the brain certain types don't utilize - they just didn't all display the same rhythms/patterns lighting up.

Two: The functions manifested as patterns which often involved various brain regions. The functions, if Nardi is defining them at all, are a list of patterns of brain activity and preference for use of certain regions.​

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

As much as my own intuition agrees with this perspective, and as much as it makes sense to me that type would be a lifelong thing, it is still fundamentally an assumption some typologists make.

It may be possible to verify this in the future, but it would be one of the last things to be verified. Many things would have to be verified first, for example:

Spoiler

Complete verification, perhaps, but I'm sure we have enough data to perform longitudal studies of type identification based on various developed methods, and see what aspects of a person can be inferred to stay basically the same, and which aspects change. This may provide a very good indication of which the correct answer is, even if we can't determine it with absolute certainty.

I think it's possible now. idk tho

Spoiler

A large portion of the purpose of Typology is to help you understand the potential ways your brain can function, such as understanding how you solve problems and what you might enjoy and/or excel at as a result of this.

If you just take snapshots of how people's brains are currently operating you may not be able to infer what other ways the person's brain could work. Perhaps to get region A functioning well in some people identified as having a strong use of process A they actually had to use a totally different process, B, which they find more natural, to give process A its abilities, whereas others just naturally perform well with process A and find process B very unnatural to use. In this case, telling the person that they are a strong process A user and so should focus on that would be counterproductive.

It may also be possible that this data does actually indicate one's type, but certain things he said seemed to imply that many of the results would have been largely due to conditioning, e.g. cultural and educational differences.

brain activity might indicate something separate from innate cognition. maybe it does though with the stuff they're looking at, idk

1. Cognitive Functions Exist
2. There are only 8 cognitive functions that factor into Personality Type/Cognition, while other processes deal with other biological handling.
3. A human only has conscious access to 4 of these 8 functions.
4. These 4 conscious functions pair in such a way that create only 16 possible hierarchies - and these remain a static part of the individual throughout his/her life.

Spoiler

It is not that there must be only 4 possible dichotomies, and 16 types, the claim is that these divisions do exist in some real sense, and then clarifying what sense this is. There may well be many other ways to classify people, and so other functions could be identified, but these would essentially be independent from the 16-types system. There may be trichotomies that divide brain structure for example, and so we may be able to divide people differently such that we get a symmetric structure of type from some power of 3. However, if these are independent from type, then they shouldn't manifest from the data anyway as it is defined to be 16-types based. Rather, it would be a point of intratype differentiation and may explain the particular spread of data being observed.

These axioms are too strict. All that is required is that there is a valid way of dividing people such that all members of each group share some structured later of cognitions which can be identified with the presumably 16 Jungian Types. Other factors come in to play as well, but should manifest independently.

(Big 5's similarity to MBTI perhaps implies that only 4 or 5 major/simple dichotomies between people, but other more complex differentiation would still be present. This is just a starting point/development point of udnerstanding.)

At any one of these steps, we may find something unexpected. Nardi is approaching this with an open mind and just observing what goes on in the brains of students who share personality types. Nothing more.

This is fine (assuming he did the divisions correctly).

Well, he's familiar with Jung's work and is author of many typology books as well. He's familiar with the notion of four processes and their arrangement defining type, so when he refers to type, it's the same model we know of and speak of here.

Spoiler

There are different ways to interpret type, and as you mentioned, these results may indicate a different number of types, which would suggest that treating this model as basically the same as the 16 types model would cause many inconsistencies.

i spose so

As far as how he went about typing, he says in his book that each student subject took both the official MBTI test as well as an official ISCA test that measures functions, as well as did reading up on functions & received feedback from him for 10 weeks.

Spoiler

Type can be identified much more efficiently than this. He may or may not have arrived at the correct results according to other methodologies, but presumably correlates well enough for the data to be meaningful (but does the data fit some other model better still?). If the theory he is going off doesn't really fit together in the way Type should, then he may be coming up with correct data based on this similar theory, but it may not show all the things we are looking for.

Was it essentially all/only those of a particular type that showed particular patterns, or just some sufficiently high amount that he can infer that that's what they do? What amount would that be?

seems like a long process, but i assume works well enough.

Now as far as arriving at type via brain scanning, I don't think he's actually seriously doing that yet. He is merely observing the brains of these students and starting to notice patterns which occur consistently within certain (jungian) types when they are thinking, feeling or performing certain activities.

Spoiler

Ahk, so not yet. It is implied quite strongly that that should be the end result though I think - a way of looking at brain region patterns and determining as a result how one processes data currently, what potential they may possess, what behaviours would do well and what wouldnt etc.

but we would be able to reason backwards, yes? "this brain pattern is shown, therefore they are performing this process which differentiates them from others who show this other pattern and therefore use this other process"

In his book he has a list of things he correlates to each function, such as heavy use of certain brain regions, but he also makes a point of not pinpointing functions to a specific brain region itself. This is because all subjects used all sections of their brain. They just didn't all display the same rhythms/patterns lighting up.

Spoiler

Ok, so it seems if these rhythms/patterns also come together in a way congruent with type theory, e.g. There are patterns associated with Intuiting that an INTJ shows, and which an INFJ also shows, but differing when viewing the pattern in a more refined way, and which different even more within a single type when refining further.

I'll have to look more into how he defines type in his model.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I did watch the video a few days ago, but I've been either too lazy or too busy to make a response. I thought it was interesting, and I think that typology theories are definitely in need of having a neuroscience basis.

However, I was a little disappointed by the incredibly low resolution of his brain imaging technique. Brain regions are much more specialized than the large regions he had it separated into, and I think that this lack of resolution makes his results sketchy.

As I mentioned before though, if we take neuroplasticity into account, higher resolution studies would show much larger variability, and would also become sketchy. So the strong correlations between types found in his studies might be because of the low resolution.

I bookmarked his book on my already long list of "Books go buy."

 

[Auburn]

*nods* More research and more refined tests are definitely needed.

I suppose it's difficult to get funding though. There don't seem to be very many people who believe there's something there & would donate money toward research. He mentioned he bought the equipment using a teacher's award.

If I was rich, I'd definitely support studies like this... but alas... =/

 

[cheese]

Auburn, this was so interesting! Thanks very much! Loved it. Took notes!

Everyone, it's not just about type, a lot of it is actually just really fun stuff about the brain and behaviour. It's good to watch if you find learning/speculating about the connections between the brain and behaviour rewarding.

The evangelical christian anecdote was funny.


Hey, try this interesting exercise:
Come up with as many sentences with the words "underwear computer" (linked) in 1 minute as you can. Share responses in spoilers.

 

[Oblivious]

Spoiler

My underwear computer is indispensable.
I in my underwear computer.
My kingdom for an underwear computer.
Underwear computers, the best thing since sliced bread.
I am not wearing underwear, computer.

 

[Neurasthenia]

We've all wanted to know this for ages, well here's the beginnings of it! This is a pilot study of the neuroscience behind personality type. It's an hour and a half long video - but imo well worth the time for those who desire a more profound understanding of brain/type.
​

Authors@Google: Dario Nardi - Neuroscience of Personality - YouTube


I'll withhold my opinions for the time being.

This is exciting. I am going to watch the whole thing when I get home. I'll get back to you.

 

[Auburn]

@ Cheese - Glad you enjoyed it. ^^

As for the exercise...

"In the city of Trousers, down Crapper Rd lived a rather unhygienic boy who spent every evening on his underwear computer."

@ Neurasthenia - Ok. :3

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Found this pdf:
http://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf

 

[ElvenVeil]

but it's.. ..FOR SCIENCE!

.. Time to start watching. On beforehand: Thanks for sharing.

 

[P.H.]

Pretty interesting, but it hasn't really sunk in yet to form an opinion. It sure was worth the procrastination of homework though. Funny thing I could identify with the example of embarrassed INTP's. I indeed don't get embarrassed easily, but when I do, I tremble, my voice cracks or disappears (massively annoying) and I turn red. I always thought I was just weird.

@Auburn
What book are you referring to? I can find a couple of books he wrote.

Spoiler

I have pictures of ladies without underwear on my computer.
I prefer computers above underwear.
I use the computer without wearing underwear.
It would be awesome to have computers integrated in underwear.
You can't play games with underwear (or can you?) but you can on computers.

I also came up with "cats don't wear underwear" and naked lady stuff.

But computers integrated in underwear... Like how awesome would it be when you have like shapeshifting underwear or a sort of display fabric? LED lights maybe to change patterns and stuff. Or RFID tags so that your partners could scan it to know what kind of underwear you're wearing. Sheds a whole new light on the "what are you wearing" sexual tension. Or forget paying by card, pay with your underwear lol. I saw a documentary on computer integrated clothing a while ago on discovery channel. It was pretty neat. Like clothing that could "iron" itself and stuff like that.

Oh wait I missed "linked".

 

[Auburn]

Hi.

This one: http://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-...8475/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331270665&sr=8-1

 

[Ink]

Dario Nardi: neueroscience of MBTI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

So apparently this guy has written many books about this, anyone who isn't poor read any of them and could give a little summary?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Summary:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...6-dario-nardi-s-neuroscience-personality.html

And the accompanying pdf: EEG and Social Cognition (mirror)

 

[Fukyo]

@Ink I merged this because the thread already exists.

@Auburn and @Anarkandi have been looking into this.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Dario Nardi

How many of you have looked into him?
Anna Moss suggested a few of his things to me awhile back, he's got my interest,
Already past keirsey, myersbriggs, that other woman etc, currently working on jung, anyway
Im sure you intps (and s), anyone really actually would be interested.
Hes sort of the our reductionist savior or w/e
Just wanted to know if anyone else has looked into him?

Also, I suppose this might really be psychology/neuroscience instead of typolgy but idk


Just downloaded his book: Neuroscience of Personality

 

[Fukyo]

Merged with an already existing thread(s).

You'd also probably want Spiral Hacker's input. He's into Nardi.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Thanks fukyo!
Also sorry, I didnt search for neuroscience, just nardi and nothing came up.

Also stumbled upon: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/92291-dario-nardis-neuroscience-personality.html

Will read

 

[Fukyo]

No problem, the forum search is pretty abysmal so its unsurprising. I always use google. (query site:intpforum.com)

 

[TimeAsylums]

I don't mean to double dip here, but I recently e-mailed Dario Nardi and got a good response, and wanted to share it here as well

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=427203&postcount=139

 

[Spocksleftball]

but it's.. ..FOR SCIENCE!

I almost peed my pants!

 

[Architect]

Necro, but a good necro. TA put me on to this guy.

Watched the video. He's using a crude system, but at least he's looking at typology and the brain. Ideally he'd be using a fMRI, but as he said he doesn't have any money.

Given that I think it's almost in the realm of popular psyche. EEG is so low key, I'm going to have a USB EEG device in a month for my own use.

 

[Base groove]

Necro, but a good necro. TA put me on to this guy.

Watched the video. He's using a crude system, but at least he's looking at typology and the brain. Ideally he'd be using a fMRI, but as he said he doesn't have any money.

Given that I think it's almost in the realm of popular psyche. EEG is so low key, I'm going to have a USB EEG device in a month for my own use.

It would be extremely irresponsible for you to collect data and post it under the INTP label.

 

[Architect]

It would be extremely irresponsible for you to collect data and post it under the INTP label.

I have no idea what you just said, please elaborate.

 

[Spirit]

I have no idea what you just said, please elaborate.

Based on his past posts, he may think you could use your results in your person AA thread and therefore cause other "INTP's" to think the results of your "neuro" experiments could be taken as fact.

 

[Base groove]

Based on his past posts, he may think you could use your results in your person AA thread and therefore cause other "INTP's" to think the results of your "neuro" experiments could be taken as fact.

Bang on. Must be that Se.