I'm delighted that the efforts of Nardi's work are spreading!
Her understanding of the processes is quite incorrect though: quite prepackaged/typical Myers-Briggs concepts. Many forum members here are already far beyond her expertise, despite her time in the theory. The topic of education and type is very important though, and one I'm very much looking forward to making an impact in. (I believe CT has the potential to do much more than this, if it develops properly)
How would you suggest someone learn about the processes in a comprehensive and accurate way? I've been all around the internet and youtube reading different descriptions and things, but I can't help but feel that I don't have the whole picture.
I'm delighted that the efforts of Nardi's work are spreading!
Her understanding of the processes is quite incorrect though: quite prepackaged/typical Myers-Briggs concepts. Many forum members here are already far beyond her expertise, despite her time in the theory. The topic of education and type is very important though, and one I'm very much looking forward to making an impact in. (I believe CT has the potential to do much more than this, if it develops properly)
Well it sounds using similar techniques as Nardi uses to tap into people's types, and their results match up. It seems like they're both going off of real experiences. If the kid's are happier and learning more then they did before isn't that proof in itself. If I'm correct you want tangible. How much more tangible can you get? If you respect Nardi's work it sounds like her's is based on similar criteria. They seem to be going about finding it in a similar way. I mean they seem more on the same page. Has there been any actual tests or correlations between your work and Nardi's? I would think a scan is as empirical as you can get. If you strongly believe in you theory, and that it correlates to the scans why not test it? I know it's expensive, but couldn't you contact Nardi, and tell him your findings? You could just converse and ask him if your ways of reading people match up? If there is a real correlation you'll both benefit.
Post by ayoungspirit on Aug 16, 2013 9:46:34 GMT -5
I think that her approach mostly work at a very young age, when people are the most close to their original type, but as soon as oscillation/tertiary enter the picture, the issue become a lot more complex. This is promising though.
Also, she did not say a word about the T or F lead.
Last Edit: Aug 20, 2013 15:13:41 GMT -5 by ayoungspirit
Post by seekerselfdiscovery on Aug 16, 2013 16:54:15 GMT -5
Perhaps you're right. I personally believe that type stays true even as you age. I think people may adapt more as needed, but deep down their still their true type. Maybe she'll help spread understanding of differences. At least that's a start compared to our one size fits all approach. It sounds like she mostly works with kids. I think the same should be tested on adults too. I'm pretty sure Nardi uses similar methods + brain scans though.
I too noticed she didn't mention thinking and feeling. I know so little about her and her work. I don't know her reasoning for leaving that out. She might even go more into when working with the students. From what I got the perception plays a big role in learning. Perhaps it's what she mostly goes off of. She may go off of T/F less, or not at all. People can always build off of her work too. I'm just glad to see schools may finally be stepping away from the one size fits all. Kids should get to feel good about themselves, and not be bored all the time. More emphasis should be put on finding their straights, and keeping them engaged. I see a lot of potential in this.
I don't think the metaphors to show off though. It can be hard sometimes to express intuition in any other way, especially for an Ni user. Again I noticed the lack of T and F. I was curious about them myself. I found the overall information to be quite helpful though. I bet she has an explanation for leaving them out. I believe there's always a reason. Weather or not it's good is a matter of opinion.