|| o In his book he says that for Ne-leads, the "christmas tree" pattern was practically their default brain activity. The mind accessing all parts of its neural network and taking longer to give a response, as more possibilities are generated every second. This coincides with CT's notion that Ne-users have more scattered minds/eyes, and take longer processing a few stimuli because their deduction isn't streamlined in few directions.
|| o He mentions that for Ni-leads, the "blue-brain" state (or "zen-state" as he calls it in his book) was practically the default activity of Ni-leads. This coincides with CT's notion that Ni users have a holistic and unified neural tapestry which they access not 1 piece at a time, but all at once and enter a more "hypnotic" state. The blue-brain pattern is also associated with tranquility and relaxation: "On the edge of sleep".
|| o In his book, the "tennis-hop" pattern which he associates with Se, perfectly describes the way CT describes the difference between Se and Ne. Both the "tennis hop" and the "christmas tree" brian patterns caused cross-contextualization and toggling between different brain activities, but as seen in page 22 of the second PDF the amplitude of Ne was much higher.
Did Nardi determine the type of the subjects at first? Or did he recognized the EEG patterns first and then type the subjects? I tend to think that the latter is more careful and showing--if the data he's looking at is indeed pointing to the functions themselves. (I have been procrastinating on reading his book. Ha.)
(I just realized this thread has been very old. I tend not to look at dates in forum, so sorry for reactivating this very old thread.)
Last Edit: Dec 29, 2016 16:15:50 GMT -5 by AtomNous
I think he had to start somewhere first, so the first 60+ samples were typed via traditional methods.
He mentions here or there that he can often tell a person's type by their neural activity now, but I'm not sure if he corrects a person's self-typing if their scan shows something different... or if he just expands the definition of the type.
@ghouse - They are essentially correct, at the level of analysis they're written at.*
Perhaps with the one exception of:
A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!”
This phrase has been misappropriated to justify more than a few Ne-leads mistyping as Ni-leads. It's not true that Ni has any exceptional claim to this experience, although surely all types have them. If it comes from anywhere it's most likely Pe, as an experience of novelty (of information). And more specifically, in Ne as a moment where novelty converges with cross-contextualization (N).
The way Ni works as a worldview process is by assimilating over time, various thematic parallels that run through causality. To the extent that the Ni user is unaware of the form of their own mental tapestry, these thematic threads just work subconsciously but reveal themselves whenever an occasion calls for it.
So one Ni-lead might say "LePen is not gonna win the election", and when asked why they may not know. But there is no one moment when the conclusion arises that "ah! LePen will lose". It's a slow accumulation of probabilities... at first the probability of something crosses over the 50-50 line, then it gets more and more reinforced in one direction... with no single event contributing too heavily to the sway.
This is why Ni has a signal of being "unimpressed" (bored) -- because the probability of things is already set in their worldview. Novelty is not the domain of Ni. "Typicality" is. But typicality according to broad-spanning thematic parallels.
* This level of analysis is incomplete, and is only addressing a layer higher toward the surface. Something like this:
Nardi's Keys2Cognition site describes the functions at Layer 03. And most 'good' literature on the functions stay at this level.
But "what a function is" could arguably be looked at from the micro to macro level. All these layers are interdependent, and presently CT is exploring how layers 01-04 are codependent. Having an objective measuring stuck for functions really allows for incredible expansion of breadth in definition of the functions.
No longer are the functions only to be seen as conceptual descriptions related to identity and underlying motivation. We see the functions as persistent human realities that saturate every sphere of our society, the ideologies we create, our epistemology and ethical paradigms.
so sorry for the long reply. i've probably been needing an occasion to put this into a diagram properly. and this prompted it's expression. but i hope the answers is in there somewhere.
Auburn Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. I was asking because I've been trying to find some ways to apply CT to my own (and hopefully eventually other's) growth and development. I've been frequenting the Development and Growth/Help Board (I guess that is where this comment belongs at this point) and was considering using Nardi's definitions of the functions' "developed use" activities as perhaps "training" activities for their given functions. Has it already been determined if Nardi's typology corresponds to CT, or is that what the coming EEG studies are for?
Edit: I recently came across this article by Nardi describing function development. Are his descriptions of Ni developmental levels consistent with CT's? www.darionardi.com/functions.html