Post by MsLajlaa on Feb 14, 2014 10:04:49 GMT -5
Erifrail has written this here :
If I understand it correctly, the basis of CT is very similar to what Nardi does. The sample group from which the visual patterns were induced was categorized based on Jungian functions. So there was 1) a small initial sample group and 2) use of already existing Jungian cognitive function descriptions as hypothesis - the two similar sins Nardi is accused of making. The point is, then, that CT falls by the same argument that people are using against Nardi. I'm not saying they need to fall down but that it should be kept in mind that CT is not necessarily doing any better in this regard.
The actual benefit of Nardi's methodology, and also CT, is that even if MBTI and Jungian functions turned out to be mistaken, the sample material can still be enlightening. There seem to be patterns (both in brain activity and visual expressions), whether they translate into Jungian concepts or not. What comes more, based on Nardi's studies there seem to be more than probable correlations between people's brain activities and preferences, be it an identification to an MBTI stereotype, cognitive functions or some kind of behavioral activity (gambling, doing maths, dancing, brainstorming etc.) That is NOT to say that if you use your brain in a certain way that would automatically make you a certain type. That would be unwise speculation, especially before we have LOTS of more source material. And even then, there is always the fact that we are complex and plastic organisms, so any theory trying to capture our nature is doomed to be an estimation with blurry lines at best. But what can be said, after gathering enough data, is that it can be more likely that a person whose brain shows more activity in fp1 than fp2 identifies with a J-lead MBTI type with a chance of X (higher than 0.5 that is). Whether that person actually identifies with J-lead, is another question.
CT on the other hand could check whether person with fp1 preference is showing also J-lead signals. For me that is the most interesting thing: to compare CT readings with EEG maps. If they seem to be not in line with each other, the question is of course WHY? It just seems too rigid to claim that Nardi's studies have nothing to do with CT. Just read Erifrail's own description above! He says himself that it would be odd if there was only a small correlation to MBTI in CT. And as Nardi does not use only MBTI stereotypical personality descriptions but also extensively Jungian functions, the probability of correlation between these two methodologies should be even higher.
CT's first/core sample group - from which the rest branched out - was actually my family, and the families of a couple other members (like Cent). We typed ourselves and our family using Jungian/JCF (non-Keirsey/MBTI) interpretations of the functions.* We then looked for people who gestured similar to us or our family members, with no particular interest in renown MBTI celeb icons. We only later expanded into reading people which MBTI has reads on, when we had a methodology already congealing. And it just so happens that MBTI isn't entirely wrong in it's deductions - which was to be expected.
The way things like this usually work is there's a grain of truth coated by a mesh of inaccuracies. I would be more surprise if there was a small or zero correlation to MBTI because then that would mean that there are millions of people (MBTIers) whose observations are entirely wrong. Though humans are prone to inaccuracy, rarely at they that blind (unless it's pertaining a religion, which MBTI isn't). People gravitate to MBTI not just because it's a popular thing, but because there's *something there* and they sense that, even though they can't fully grasp it. Hence why a lot of MBTIers carry a love/hate relationship to MBTI because it explains much but also doesn't explain enough.
* If we had gotten our initial types wrong, and those of our families, then that would be a potential issue. Then our methodology wouldn't hold up to par, and be very full of holes which would be apparent. We might be prone to irrationally justify certain correlations, but those could be picked apart quite easily by anyone who took a good look at it.
[...]
The only way to know if we did it right (i.e. the correlating) is to take a good look at it. In science one learns that it's not very relevant where a theory came from - as often times they come from unexpected places and even vague intuitions that cannot be justified (re: Einstein) - but if they function and can be see to be true when replicated by others: repeatability. So if one were to try it out and not see the consistency, or try a different method that displays more consistency, then the theory is shown to be inferior. =)
The way things like this usually work is there's a grain of truth coated by a mesh of inaccuracies. I would be more surprise if there was a small or zero correlation to MBTI because then that would mean that there are millions of people (MBTIers) whose observations are entirely wrong. Though humans are prone to inaccuracy, rarely at they that blind (unless it's pertaining a religion, which MBTI isn't). People gravitate to MBTI not just because it's a popular thing, but because there's *something there* and they sense that, even though they can't fully grasp it. Hence why a lot of MBTIers carry a love/hate relationship to MBTI because it explains much but also doesn't explain enough.
* If we had gotten our initial types wrong, and those of our families, then that would be a potential issue. Then our methodology wouldn't hold up to par, and be very full of holes which would be apparent. We might be prone to irrationally justify certain correlations, but those could be picked apart quite easily by anyone who took a good look at it.
[...]
The only way to know if we did it right (i.e. the correlating) is to take a good look at it. In science one learns that it's not very relevant where a theory came from - as often times they come from unexpected places and even vague intuitions that cannot be justified (re: Einstein) - but if they function and can be see to be true when replicated by others: repeatability. So if one were to try it out and not see the consistency, or try a different method that displays more consistency, then the theory is shown to be inferior. =)
The actual benefit of Nardi's methodology, and also CT, is that even if MBTI and Jungian functions turned out to be mistaken, the sample material can still be enlightening. There seem to be patterns (both in brain activity and visual expressions), whether they translate into Jungian concepts or not. What comes more, based on Nardi's studies there seem to be more than probable correlations between people's brain activities and preferences, be it an identification to an MBTI stereotype, cognitive functions or some kind of behavioral activity (gambling, doing maths, dancing, brainstorming etc.) That is NOT to say that if you use your brain in a certain way that would automatically make you a certain type. That would be unwise speculation, especially before we have LOTS of more source material. And even then, there is always the fact that we are complex and plastic organisms, so any theory trying to capture our nature is doomed to be an estimation with blurry lines at best. But what can be said, after gathering enough data, is that it can be more likely that a person whose brain shows more activity in fp1 than fp2 identifies with a J-lead MBTI type with a chance of X (higher than 0.5 that is). Whether that person actually identifies with J-lead, is another question.
CT on the other hand could check whether person with fp1 preference is showing also J-lead signals. For me that is the most interesting thing: to compare CT readings with EEG maps. If they seem to be not in line with each other, the question is of course WHY? It just seems too rigid to claim that Nardi's studies have nothing to do with CT. Just read Erifrail's own description above! He says himself that it would be odd if there was only a small correlation to MBTI in CT. And as Nardi does not use only MBTI stereotypical personality descriptions but also extensively Jungian functions, the probability of correlation between these two methodologies should be even higher.