EEG - Dario Nardi's Study: once for all.
Feb 13, 2014 19:20:00 GMT -5 by Heron
sitbone, MsLajlaa, and 1 more like this
Post by Heron on Feb 13, 2014 19:20:00 GMT -5
( Auburn it would be great if you give an opinion about this particular topic :3)
@morsecode TheLogicFan @emingtonw robinhood MsLajlaa (tagged these people only because i was following their discussion, if you want to say something about this topic, feel free to do so!)
*warning: i realized that this post is a bit scattered, if you didn't understand some parts, please tell me!*
I created this topic to have a big discussion about the EEG, the work of Dario Nardi and its validity, instead of having tons of frammented threads sparse all through the forum.
I want to say my opinion about it:
I never thought that erifrail, with the things he said, admitted in anyway, explicitly or implicitly, that the work of Nardi is directly comparable with the work he's doing with CT. He surely admitted to be very curious about it, and many times he cited the work finding correlations between its own teory and the findings with the EEG (like: Ne bubbly signals similar to the concept of the Christmas Tree Pattern etc), but really, i never found any explicit evidence about it.
My question here is, for everybody: what if the results with the EEG scanner and the VR give completely different results? What would be the rightest hypothesis? Who's wrong, or what differences makes the two theory clash with one another?
I just want to give my quick opinion about it. For what i read (not the book, i have other books to read and to spend the money with, :B zorry nardy) and from the things he says, i never had the impression that the work of Nardi is to be considered completely reliable. Following in this post:
First the type of Nardi himself. He is an mbti pratictioner, and with the mbti test he resulted INTJ, and he's still totally convinced that this is his actual type
From interviews, and various videos i saw, i see strong signals of Fi, not even Te. I see that he's an Fe user, and probably FeSi>SiFe (in reality from memory i thought SiFe as more possible, but i have to say that overall he's extremely rigid, and his "cold" demeanour reminds me of my FeSi uncle... one of my many FeSi uncles
).
I can post some photos and a video to see if we all agree about that:
So, if we start seeing that the creator himself through CT VR is one type, and through MBTI and Scan is another one?
Now comes again the question: what is the most reliable source from the two? I have to say, with all my ignorance about the respective topics, and from my personal discernment when i read opinions about both theories, i still find CT more reliable. BUUUTTT T T T T T T T, i have other things to say.
---
First of all, the entire research is based on MBTI. Here in the forum (and Erifrail himself) always devalued the theory as superficial and incomplete. And actually, it is really based on stereotypes, odd mixes of other theories (like the kersey temperaments inspired to the temperaments of ancient greece).
In my own opinion, i think that mbti makes the same work of the enneagram, with a some sort of scientific quality to it (and personally, i think that the enneagram is more detailed and accurate in that sense). And so, the entire work of Nardi is based on a theory that CT has no link with, and even discredits.
---
I remember that once i saw and made the questionnaire of his site. At first it asks you your name and your "facilitator", then it starts with the real questionnaire. When i first read it, i found it extremely behavioral-personality oriented, wich in my opinion it doesn't say anything about one's cognitive type, but it has to do with the personal soul and background of the subject, and it has to do with: personality, education, environement, whealth, even sleep rate, diet, sexual activity, use of substances (alcohol, drugs, coffe, chocolate), psychological state etc etc. The variables are so many that is really impossible to type someone via questionnaire (the same goes for the brain scan, in a certain way), all the things i wrote before are capable of changing one's brain activity, behavior, and personality. And from what i understood from Jung and CT, cognitive functions have very little to do with personality.
Is not about "who built this house?" as much as "what kind of material has been used for the bricks of this house?", what matters here is not the actual worker, but the material he utilizes.
About some questions in specific, the first time i had things to say. Some of the questions are simply impossible to reply by the actuall subject. I always thought that with questions like "are you quick and also find easy to explain your reasons?" you have two options: do that with a group of scientist that makes you explain something you know well in front of them and they decide if whether or not you were really able to explain things easily and effectively, or you don't do the test, because it would be falsified at the 90% of the cases for the self perception of the scrutinized.
how many times did you find a teacher that has students that doesn't understand what he's explaining them, then, with another teacher they understand everything, and the first teacher thinks that the students don't want to commit to study with him because they find him unpleasant instead of thinking that maybe there's something wrong in the way he explains things?
Anyway, one question in particular made me think:
And i thought "this doesn't make any sense".
Let's pick up a random type, NiTe, let's split him in three: one followed a classical musician, one is a jazz musician, and another one is in a rock musician.
You hear music in a technical, precise way:
The classical and jazz NiTes will probably find themselves inside this statament, while the rock one would think "oh fuck no, i just want to feel the music: fuck the fucking technique!". But from my personal experience, having started music in a... rock.. way, and then passed to an actual music course, what changed is the following: before school if i heard chord changes (let's say from this song): i would find them in a intuitive way, without a proper vocabulary, i would have thought: "ok, the first chord is from the scale that gives me the malincholic sensation, then it goes down 3 notes, with the chord that gives me an happy sensation. Now we have the chord 3 notes UP the note where the scale starts, and then again, that chord with happy sensations just a note before the principal one", now i would think: "this is a natural minor scale, the first chord is from the tonic, the second is from the 6th grade, is a major chord. The third is from the third grade of the scale, and the last is the subdominant". The differences in this cases is that the first two NiTe musicians, the jazz and the classic one would find the technical therms with a vocabulary that has been tested for many years (even if they differ a bit, anyway) from the western culture, the second one will find out how the song is made by intuitive means. All of them are technical in a certain way, the Rock NiTe has just a subjective vocabulary, i'm not say if it is effective or not, but is a vocabulary indeed. After all, Paul McCartney is completely ignorant in music theory and harmony, but this didn't stop him from becoming extremely famous and make music that pleased casual listeners and trained musicians (actually some musicians find that some songs of the beatles are extremely complicated, talking about theory). He even composed music for an orchestra.
You easily pick out notes, chords, modes, and other aspects of music: the same think as the preceding thing, the first two NiTes will find out things in a techically tested way, and the rock NiTe will find it in a intuitive way.
When playing music, singing or both, you stay in pitch, follow a precise meter, predict what notes come next, and so forth: this is something that everyone with a good musical hear and without any problem in hearing is capable to do. All the NiTes agree.
Music is a serious language for you beyond mere pleasant entertainment: this one made me "angry", because it depends on the personal view of the musicians. Some musicians will find music a serious language and find it funny anyway, some musicians finds it a pleasant entertainment and stop, for some others is just a serious language. And for someone else music is a mean to make money for a living. Is impossible to count all the possible NiTes in this question. Hundreds? Thousands?
The other thing that made me think about this questions is that it has 4 question inside, what if a person connects to one of the question and not to the others? The scrutinized will reply the question ignoring all the questions that he doesn't connect with, or the ones he connects with, and probably the scrutinizer will never know that.
At the end of the test there is another section. It asks: sex, first hand, age, background/carreer/training, mbti type, how you found it, enneagram type and wing of the enneagram type. What surprised me is that there is no trace of any other typing system inspired by jung's work, there is only mbti, without any trace of socionics, for example. To confirm that the whole theory is based solely on MBTI.
---
The other point of doubt i have with his theory. Here i have to explain things with figures, since english is not my main language and i find difficult to explain some concepts. D:
let's say that he wants to find the brain activity of one type. He calls 2 people, both of them say "i'm INFP!", he says "ok, sit here".
The brain scan of the first person gives the square result:
The brain scan of the second person gives the triangle result:
So, what he think now is "mmh, ok, now i have to find the mixed result of the two".
With statistic he finds out that the brain activity of the INFP is a trapezium:
This wasn't the brain activity of the two test subjects, this is the brain activity of an immaginary person that is in the middle of the two. In the middle, not one of them.
Let's say that we find other two people that say "i'm an INFJ!"
One of them is a square again, and the other is a circle. Again he finds with statistics the mix of the brain activity of the two test subjects. Again, the result is not the brain activity of the two subjects, but is the brain activity of a person that doesn't exist in reality, is an immaginary figure. None of them is vaguely similar to the result that the scientist come up with. But the scientist will use that result to discern one's type trough brain activity, and if the test subject is similar enough to the brain activity of the result he found, he would be that type, because he found it through scientific means and statistics, another scientific tool. In my opinion, this doesn't make it scientific and true.
---
Said that, i don't want to dismiss totally the brain scan work. I'm waiting to see results with a study paired with the CT theory!
These were my two cents. :3
Want to hear other opinions!
@morsecode TheLogicFan @emingtonw robinhood MsLajlaa (tagged these people only because i was following their discussion, if you want to say something about this topic, feel free to do so!)
*warning: i realized that this post is a bit scattered, if you didn't understand some parts, please tell me!*
I created this topic to have a big discussion about the EEG, the work of Dario Nardi and its validity, instead of having tons of frammented threads sparse all through the forum.
I want to say my opinion about it:
I never thought that erifrail, with the things he said, admitted in anyway, explicitly or implicitly, that the work of Nardi is directly comparable with the work he's doing with CT. He surely admitted to be very curious about it, and many times he cited the work finding correlations between its own teory and the findings with the EEG (like: Ne bubbly signals similar to the concept of the Christmas Tree Pattern etc), but really, i never found any explicit evidence about it.
My question here is, for everybody: what if the results with the EEG scanner and the VR give completely different results? What would be the rightest hypothesis? Who's wrong, or what differences makes the two theory clash with one another?
I just want to give my quick opinion about it. For what i read (not the book, i have other books to read and to spend the money with, :B zorry nardy) and from the things he says, i never had the impression that the work of Nardi is to be considered completely reliable. Following in this post:
First the type of Nardi himself. He is an mbti pratictioner, and with the mbti test he resulted INTJ, and he's still totally convinced that this is his actual type
From interviews, and various videos i saw, i see strong signals of Fi, not even Te. I see that he's an Fe user, and probably FeSi>SiFe (in reality from memory i thought SiFe as more possible, but i have to say that overall he's extremely rigid, and his "cold" demeanour reminds me of my FeSi uncle... one of my many FeSi uncles
).I can post some photos and a video to see if we all agree about that:
So, if we start seeing that the creator himself through CT VR is one type, and through MBTI and Scan is another one?
Now comes again the question: what is the most reliable source from the two? I have to say, with all my ignorance about the respective topics, and from my personal discernment when i read opinions about both theories, i still find CT more reliable. BUUUTTT T T T T T T T, i have other things to say.
---
First of all, the entire research is based on MBTI. Here in the forum (and Erifrail himself) always devalued the theory as superficial and incomplete. And actually, it is really based on stereotypes, odd mixes of other theories (like the kersey temperaments inspired to the temperaments of ancient greece).
In my own opinion, i think that mbti makes the same work of the enneagram, with a some sort of scientific quality to it (and personally, i think that the enneagram is more detailed and accurate in that sense). And so, the entire work of Nardi is based on a theory that CT has no link with, and even discredits.
---
I remember that once i saw and made the questionnaire of his site. At first it asks you your name and your "facilitator", then it starts with the real questionnaire. When i first read it, i found it extremely behavioral-personality oriented, wich in my opinion it doesn't say anything about one's cognitive type, but it has to do with the personal soul and background of the subject, and it has to do with: personality, education, environement, whealth, even sleep rate, diet, sexual activity, use of substances (alcohol, drugs, coffe, chocolate), psychological state etc etc. The variables are so many that is really impossible to type someone via questionnaire (the same goes for the brain scan, in a certain way), all the things i wrote before are capable of changing one's brain activity, behavior, and personality. And from what i understood from Jung and CT, cognitive functions have very little to do with personality.
Is not about "who built this house?" as much as "what kind of material has been used for the bricks of this house?", what matters here is not the actual worker, but the material he utilizes.
About some questions in specific, the first time i had things to say. Some of the questions are simply impossible to reply by the actuall subject. I always thought that with questions like "are you quick and also find easy to explain your reasons?" you have two options: do that with a group of scientist that makes you explain something you know well in front of them and they decide if whether or not you were really able to explain things easily and effectively, or you don't do the test, because it would be falsified at the 90% of the cases for the self perception of the scrutinized.
how many times did you find a teacher that has students that doesn't understand what he's explaining them, then, with another teacher they understand everything, and the first teacher thinks that the students don't want to commit to study with him because they find him unpleasant instead of thinking that maybe there's something wrong in the way he explains things?
Anyway, one question in particular made me think:
Technical Musician
You hear music in a technical, precise way. You easily pick out notes, chords, modes, and other aspects of music. When playing music, singing or both, you stay in pitch, follow a precise meter, predict what notes come next, and so forth. Music is a serious language for you beyond mere pleasant entertainment.
You hear music in a technical, precise way. You easily pick out notes, chords, modes, and other aspects of music. When playing music, singing or both, you stay in pitch, follow a precise meter, predict what notes come next, and so forth. Music is a serious language for you beyond mere pleasant entertainment.
And i thought "this doesn't make any sense".
Let's pick up a random type, NiTe, let's split him in three: one followed a classical musician, one is a jazz musician, and another one is in a rock musician.
You hear music in a technical, precise way:
The classical and jazz NiTes will probably find themselves inside this statament, while the rock one would think "oh fuck no, i just want to feel the music: fuck the fucking technique!". But from my personal experience, having started music in a... rock.. way, and then passed to an actual music course, what changed is the following: before school if i heard chord changes (let's say from this song): i would find them in a intuitive way, without a proper vocabulary, i would have thought: "ok, the first chord is from the scale that gives me the malincholic sensation, then it goes down 3 notes, with the chord that gives me an happy sensation. Now we have the chord 3 notes UP the note where the scale starts, and then again, that chord with happy sensations just a note before the principal one", now i would think: "this is a natural minor scale, the first chord is from the tonic, the second is from the 6th grade, is a major chord. The third is from the third grade of the scale, and the last is the subdominant". The differences in this cases is that the first two NiTe musicians, the jazz and the classic one would find the technical therms with a vocabulary that has been tested for many years (even if they differ a bit, anyway) from the western culture, the second one will find out how the song is made by intuitive means. All of them are technical in a certain way, the Rock NiTe has just a subjective vocabulary, i'm not say if it is effective or not, but is a vocabulary indeed. After all, Paul McCartney is completely ignorant in music theory and harmony, but this didn't stop him from becoming extremely famous and make music that pleased casual listeners and trained musicians (actually some musicians find that some songs of the beatles are extremely complicated, talking about theory). He even composed music for an orchestra.
You easily pick out notes, chords, modes, and other aspects of music: the same think as the preceding thing, the first two NiTes will find out things in a techically tested way, and the rock NiTe will find it in a intuitive way.
When playing music, singing or both, you stay in pitch, follow a precise meter, predict what notes come next, and so forth: this is something that everyone with a good musical hear and without any problem in hearing is capable to do. All the NiTes agree.
Music is a serious language for you beyond mere pleasant entertainment: this one made me "angry", because it depends on the personal view of the musicians. Some musicians will find music a serious language and find it funny anyway, some musicians finds it a pleasant entertainment and stop, for some others is just a serious language. And for someone else music is a mean to make money for a living. Is impossible to count all the possible NiTes in this question. Hundreds? Thousands?
The other thing that made me think about this questions is that it has 4 question inside, what if a person connects to one of the question and not to the others? The scrutinized will reply the question ignoring all the questions that he doesn't connect with, or the ones he connects with, and probably the scrutinizer will never know that.
At the end of the test there is another section. It asks: sex, first hand, age, background/carreer/training, mbti type, how you found it, enneagram type and wing of the enneagram type. What surprised me is that there is no trace of any other typing system inspired by jung's work, there is only mbti, without any trace of socionics, for example. To confirm that the whole theory is based solely on MBTI.
---
The other point of doubt i have with his theory. Here i have to explain things with figures, since english is not my main language and i find difficult to explain some concepts. D:
let's say that he wants to find the brain activity of one type. He calls 2 people, both of them say "i'm INFP!", he says "ok, sit here".
The brain scan of the first person gives the square result:
The brain scan of the second person gives the triangle result:
So, what he think now is "mmh, ok, now i have to find the mixed result of the two".
With statistic he finds out that the brain activity of the INFP is a trapezium:
This wasn't the brain activity of the two test subjects, this is the brain activity of an immaginary person that is in the middle of the two. In the middle, not one of them.
Let's say that we find other two people that say "i'm an INFJ!"
One of them is a square again, and the other is a circle. Again he finds with statistics the mix of the brain activity of the two test subjects. Again, the result is not the brain activity of the two subjects, but is the brain activity of a person that doesn't exist in reality, is an immaginary figure. None of them is vaguely similar to the result that the scientist come up with. But the scientist will use that result to discern one's type trough brain activity, and if the test subject is similar enough to the brain activity of the result he found, he would be that type, because he found it through scientific means and statistics, another scientific tool. In my opinion, this doesn't make it scientific and true.
---
Said that, i don't want to dismiss totally the brain scan work. I'm waiting to see results with a study paired with the CT theory!
These were my two cents. :3
Want to hear other opinions!
But this page is not far from his descriptions in the book, and at least this information was used also by his lab students. 
I don't know if I'm able to keep my text any shorter than yours! But I think this will sum up my views on the matter of Nardi vs CT well. Hope to get some feedback!