Post by The Doctor on Mar 22, 2018 14:14:29 GMT -5
There are a lot of interesting extrapolations to unpack here.....
First, Dario appears to be from the school of thought that type preferences are set by individual self identification, rather than EEG patterns. Seems like he's under the impression that more common traits in certain types are more indicative of 'actual type', but otherwise includes any self identified type as is. From what I understand, that aligns with the MBTI certification ethics. (I could be wrong.)
Next, this further implies that there is far more overlap than not, and that type simply is preference and leanings, not distinctions. That might seem counter intuitive to those of us who are constantly splitting hairs, but it's more than likely the reality of things. Note, however that the nature vs nurture argument is still valid. Some of these preferences are likely not conscious.
Lastly, and this is the part that is really going to rub against the grain of things going on here, it appears that these preferences are not directly linked to cerebral cortex activity, and therefore unconscious micro expressions may not be as good of an indicator as we would like. It appears they're simply another triangulation tool, just like EEG, self assessment, etc.
My hunch is that this will all move into a new approach once the patterns that overlap MBTI types become more clear. As I understand it, there are 5 basic EEG coherence configurations and several variations on them. I bet before this is all over, MBTI is ditched for the EEG pattern models, and Visual Reading is adapted to match. If I were to take a stab at what they'd be called, it would probably be based on Left, Right, Frontal, Optical, Auditory, Technical, and Kinetic regions. L, R, F, O, A, T, and K. Add in the 5 basic patterns that will likely get a number, and the end result will probably be types that look like LO3, FT5, RK1, etc.
First, Dario appears to be from the school of thought that type preferences are set by individual self identification, rather than EEG patterns. Seems like he's under the impression that more common traits in certain types are more indicative of 'actual type', but otherwise includes any self identified type as is. From what I understand, that aligns with the MBTI certification ethics. (I could be wrong.)
Next, this further implies that there is far more overlap than not, and that type simply is preference and leanings, not distinctions. That might seem counter intuitive to those of us who are constantly splitting hairs, but it's more than likely the reality of things. Note, however that the nature vs nurture argument is still valid. Some of these preferences are likely not conscious.
Lastly, and this is the part that is really going to rub against the grain of things going on here, it appears that these preferences are not directly linked to cerebral cortex activity, and therefore unconscious micro expressions may not be as good of an indicator as we would like. It appears they're simply another triangulation tool, just like EEG, self assessment, etc.
My hunch is that this will all move into a new approach once the patterns that overlap MBTI types become more clear. As I understand it, there are 5 basic EEG coherence configurations and several variations on them. I bet before this is all over, MBTI is ditched for the EEG pattern models, and Visual Reading is adapted to match. If I were to take a stab at what they'd be called, it would probably be based on Left, Right, Frontal, Optical, Auditory, Technical, and Kinetic regions. L, R, F, O, A, T, and K. Add in the 5 basic patterns that will likely get a number, and the end result will probably be types that look like LO3, FT5, RK1, etc.
