Post by A on Jul 29, 2013 5:09:11 GMT -5
Hey everyone,
So ayoungspirit and I have been trying to work out some approximation of what our brain scans would look like, were we to take them, using material from Typology Central and the Nardi website and figured we'd share them with you. They have more precise lists of what brain function does what, for the curious, and you can attempt to see how well you would (theoretically) match your idealized type map. Obviously, this is introspection, so it most likely is not entirely (or in my case perhaps not even partially) accurate, but I've been having fun with it (even if my results make no sense for any type and I'm pretty sure I did something wrong). And here's a slideshow with more information: www.keys2cognition.com/papers/EEGandSocialCognition.pdf Please note these were from a personal conversation, shared with permission and so non-conclusive. Feel free to post your own results, and help us see if we can make any sense of this stuff! No need to read through all my nonsense, as ayoungspirit's illustrates the principle better, I think. And feel free to tell us there's no way we can know these results ourselves. Probably true, but doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
Mine's a mess, and I'm going to go back through it when I have a chance, but here are my two questionnaires (taken while unaware what corresponded to what) and ayoungspirit's stimulated image and comments. Pretty much I'm still inconclusive and have probably missed something or failed to account for some other factor (like Ne christmas light pattern):
Nardi Questionnaire:
Typology Central (Warning: Long)
Alright, typology central time. Take 2. I think this one leads to higher ratings, as it's broader and less specific and I don't like picking the highest option for skills I am unsure of. Please do not feel obliged to read this, as I am, once again, trying to check for my own bias. I am posting this before going back and looking at the functions. These are much broader and I found my rating's were different for the gist ones and the more specific. I think the gist was probably more accurate, as it was more the flavor of the region than the specifics.
Long Descriptions (which make me rate everything higher)
Fp1- High. I'm going to go with it because I can quickly come up with explanations on the fly.
Fp2- Moderate-low. This one's all about knowing where you are in a task, which I am not as good with. (Although this doesn't make sense as I don't think I'm a J-lead)
F7- Moderate. By this description, it may even be moderate-high. I don't mirror other people's behavior, but I do ask what if a lot.
F8- Moderate. I can recall factual details and know well what I believe and like and dislike. I think I use both this and F7 pretty equally, actually, depending on context.
F3- Moderate-high. I can follow and create a chain of reasoning. Plus, I think consciously almost exclusively in words.
F4- Moderate-low (?). I can do this, and don't struggle to classify things, but I also don't do it consciously all that much.
T3- High. I think in words and have strong verbal reasoning abilities (according to standardized tests, not the best measure, but enough for me to assume it's high).
T4- Still low. This is a blind spot for me and I can't do this well.
C3- Moderate. I am strong in some areas, semantic memory, but weak in others, such as drawing diagrams.
C4- Definitely still low. This is not me.
T5- Moderate. Maybe I am FeSi after all. I am curious what people think of me and do want them to like me. Although I'm not sure, as I'm not good at picking up on it, and tend to need to be told straight or get an answer through deductive reasoning and pattern recognition (discovering that short-cut was the key to understanding people)
T6- Moderate-Low. I consider where I will be in the future, and imagine where I am going, but don't do much symbolic thinking. I think I'm blurring this with other things, however, as it says it's entirely non-verbal and what I'm thinking of is not.
P3- Moderate. I can do rote memorization and am aware of where I end and the rest of the world begins, but am not as good at using visual cues to navigate.
O1- Low. I use deductive reason to compensate for poor visualization skills, not the other way around.
O2- Low. I am not particularly visual.
And the gist descriptions, as they are different.
Fp1- Moderate-High
Fp2- Moderate
F7- Moderate-Low (I do not learn by observing others, and will tune others out and work through material on my own when possible)
F3- High
F4- Moderate
F8- Moderate-high
T3- High
C3- Moderate
C4- Low
T4- Low
T5- Moderate-Low
P3- Low (maybe moderate-low)
P4- High
T6- Low. I'm not certain of the future.
O1- Low
O2- Low
Ayoungspirit's Interpretation of Above (With Pictures)
My Thoughts on Mine:
So ayoungspirit and I have been trying to work out some approximation of what our brain scans would look like, were we to take them, using material from Typology Central and the Nardi website and figured we'd share them with you. They have more precise lists of what brain function does what, for the curious, and you can attempt to see how well you would (theoretically) match your idealized type map. Obviously, this is introspection, so it most likely is not entirely (or in my case perhaps not even partially) accurate, but I've been having fun with it (even if my results make no sense for any type and I'm pretty sure I did something wrong). And here's a slideshow with more information: www.keys2cognition.com/papers/EEGandSocialCognition.pdf Please note these were from a personal conversation, shared with permission and so non-conclusive. Feel free to post your own results, and help us see if we can make any sense of this stuff! No need to read through all my nonsense, as ayoungspirit's illustrates the principle better, I think. And feel free to tell us there's no way we can know these results ourselves. Probably true, but doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
Mine's a mess, and I'm going to go back through it when I have a chance, but here are my two questionnaires (taken while unaware what corresponded to what) and ayoungspirit's stimulated image and comments. Pretty much I'm still inconclusive and have probably missed something or failed to account for some other factor (like Ne christmas light pattern):
Nardi Questionnaire:
Numbers in parenthesis are my score out of the maximum possible, with the lowest possible being the maximum divided by 5. I included both a holistic and a numerical measure.
Fp1-ext: Moderate, although I suspect I overestimate my use as this is more consistent with my self-image than the objective reality. So I'm going to go with moderate, to be safe. I can have this type of attitude in relation to tasks I am comfortable with. (10/15)
Fp1-int: Moderate-high, I can put this to use consciously. I am better at explaining things than correcting for errors, and my ability to catch errors is low, but I can easily come up with potential explanations on the fly and I am better at catching other people's mistakes than my own, provided I have adequate context. (8/10)
Fp2-ext: Moderate-high, for all the obvious reasons, although I am not good in groups (11/15)
Fp2-int: Low (maybe moderate-low). Parts of this could be me, but as a whole it didn't really resonate. I wish I was more like this. (4/10)
F3- High. I have strong verbal reasoning skills, and always have, which is essentially what this section seems to analyzing. I don't always use deductive thinking, but I can use it fairly adeptly (I think) when the situation calls for it. (13/15)
F4- Moderate-low (maybe just low). I can follow and understand other people's metaphors and witty humor, but I rarely craft ones of my own, preferring to communicate in a more straightforward manner. (7/15)
F7- Low (maybe on the very low end of moderate-low)- I do daydream quite a bit and use my imagination to fill in gaps in my memory, but that's pretty much the only part of this that's true, as I am not good at reading nonverbal cues. It's possible I'm underestimating this one, as I'm accustomed to assuming I have poor social skills and that I pick up cues subconsciously I am unaware of and adjust accordingly. (6/15)
F8- Moderate (maybe moderate-high). I have a good semantic memory, am fairly secure in my beliefs and values and, oddly, do behave according to traditional morality (I don't drink, curse etc, not for strong moral reasons, just out of personal preference). I do not have grounded goals, however, and my episodic memory is poor. I'm pretty sure this section is almost pure Si, with maybe some F thrown in for good measure. (10/15)
C3- Low (maybe very low). I wish I was better at these tasks, but I'm not. I'm better with concepts than numbers, and tend to derive rather than estimate figures. And my hand-eye coordination is undeniably awful. (4/15)
C4- Low (maybe very low). I'm not artistic or aesthetically oriented and none of the traits are things I strongly express. (3/15)
T3- Moderate (maybe moderate-high). I'm good at following lectures and focus on the content, rather than tone, of speech, but I am tone-deaf. (9/15)
T4- Low. None of this really resonates with me. I do use some degree of ethical arbitration, as my ethics aren't THAT black and white, but as a whole, my use of these skills is limited (6/15)
T5- Low (maybe moderate-low). I'm not good at romance or analyzing facial expressions. I suspect I conform socially more than I'd like, however, and I do get embarrassed when I fail at an important task in front of others (6/15)
T6- Moderate-low. I am not a very visual person. I do pick up on some visual patterns, but it is not as natural or as easy as catching more written or conceptual patterns. I am bad at remembering faces. I do, however, consider a range of possible futures and play around with how things could have turned out differently (7/15)
P3-ps- Moderate-Low. I don't tend to use these skills very much. I am adequate at using them, but I prefer not to as I have other methods that are easier for me for the same tasks (6/10)
P3-ant- Moderate-low. I have a firm sense of personal boundaries, and do sometimes worry I'm being followed when alone late at night in the city (although I suspect part of that comes from warnings from my family). I am not good at navigating through space or by touch, but I enjoy tactically exploring objects and do pay attention to texture. I am clumsy at it, as with all physical skills, however. (10/20)
P4-pos- High. Some of this is subconscious, but I use all these processes with at least moderate frequency. (18/20)
P4-ant- Moderate-low. (maybe just low) Another poor use tied to low physical abilities, but not as poor as other regions. (4/10)
O1- Low (maybe very low). I don't naturally think in charts. I can use and follow them, but I'd prefer to construct a simple diagram based more around text than images (3/10)
O2- Low (maybe very low). I do not have a good holistic perception of the world (2/10)
Image:
ayoungspirit's comments: I don't see what it could refer to so I believe you may underestimate yourself (just one red zone), or these questions are not as suited as the one I used, or I manipulated my results, or you are just bad at a answering them
If you update the yellow zones to red ones, I believe it is more close to the NeTi model because you define O2, T4 and F7 are low zone or they are important for NeFi, and T5 and F7 to FeSi. T3 and P4 are yellow here, and they are red in NeTi.
Some questions may have been unadapted or necessiting personnal interpretation, you could try to procede backward, look are the zones which are supposed to be strong in the different types and see how it could play for you. For example, I realized that a strong use of O1 could look F4, etc.
Fp1-ext: Moderate, although I suspect I overestimate my use as this is more consistent with my self-image than the objective reality. So I'm going to go with moderate, to be safe. I can have this type of attitude in relation to tasks I am comfortable with. (10/15)
Fp1-int: Moderate-high, I can put this to use consciously. I am better at explaining things than correcting for errors, and my ability to catch errors is low, but I can easily come up with potential explanations on the fly and I am better at catching other people's mistakes than my own, provided I have adequate context. (8/10)
Fp2-ext: Moderate-high, for all the obvious reasons, although I am not good in groups (11/15)
Fp2-int: Low (maybe moderate-low). Parts of this could be me, but as a whole it didn't really resonate. I wish I was more like this. (4/10)
F3- High. I have strong verbal reasoning skills, and always have, which is essentially what this section seems to analyzing. I don't always use deductive thinking, but I can use it fairly adeptly (I think) when the situation calls for it. (13/15)
F4- Moderate-low (maybe just low). I can follow and understand other people's metaphors and witty humor, but I rarely craft ones of my own, preferring to communicate in a more straightforward manner. (7/15)
F7- Low (maybe on the very low end of moderate-low)- I do daydream quite a bit and use my imagination to fill in gaps in my memory, but that's pretty much the only part of this that's true, as I am not good at reading nonverbal cues. It's possible I'm underestimating this one, as I'm accustomed to assuming I have poor social skills and that I pick up cues subconsciously I am unaware of and adjust accordingly. (6/15)
F8- Moderate (maybe moderate-high). I have a good semantic memory, am fairly secure in my beliefs and values and, oddly, do behave according to traditional morality (I don't drink, curse etc, not for strong moral reasons, just out of personal preference). I do not have grounded goals, however, and my episodic memory is poor. I'm pretty sure this section is almost pure Si, with maybe some F thrown in for good measure. (10/15)
C3- Low (maybe very low). I wish I was better at these tasks, but I'm not. I'm better with concepts than numbers, and tend to derive rather than estimate figures. And my hand-eye coordination is undeniably awful. (4/15)
C4- Low (maybe very low). I'm not artistic or aesthetically oriented and none of the traits are things I strongly express. (3/15)
T3- Moderate (maybe moderate-high). I'm good at following lectures and focus on the content, rather than tone, of speech, but I am tone-deaf. (9/15)
T4- Low. None of this really resonates with me. I do use some degree of ethical arbitration, as my ethics aren't THAT black and white, but as a whole, my use of these skills is limited (6/15)
T5- Low (maybe moderate-low). I'm not good at romance or analyzing facial expressions. I suspect I conform socially more than I'd like, however, and I do get embarrassed when I fail at an important task in front of others (6/15)
T6- Moderate-low. I am not a very visual person. I do pick up on some visual patterns, but it is not as natural or as easy as catching more written or conceptual patterns. I am bad at remembering faces. I do, however, consider a range of possible futures and play around with how things could have turned out differently (7/15)
P3-ps- Moderate-Low. I don't tend to use these skills very much. I am adequate at using them, but I prefer not to as I have other methods that are easier for me for the same tasks (6/10)
P3-ant- Moderate-low. I have a firm sense of personal boundaries, and do sometimes worry I'm being followed when alone late at night in the city (although I suspect part of that comes from warnings from my family). I am not good at navigating through space or by touch, but I enjoy tactically exploring objects and do pay attention to texture. I am clumsy at it, as with all physical skills, however. (10/20)
P4-pos- High. Some of this is subconscious, but I use all these processes with at least moderate frequency. (18/20)
P4-ant- Moderate-low. (maybe just low) Another poor use tied to low physical abilities, but not as poor as other regions. (4/10)
O1- Low (maybe very low). I don't naturally think in charts. I can use and follow them, but I'd prefer to construct a simple diagram based more around text than images (3/10)
O2- Low (maybe very low). I do not have a good holistic perception of the world (2/10)
Image:
ayoungspirit's comments: I don't see what it could refer to so I believe you may underestimate yourself (just one red zone), or these questions are not as suited as the one I used, or I manipulated my results, or you are just bad at a answering them
If you update the yellow zones to red ones, I believe it is more close to the NeTi model because you define O2, T4 and F7 are low zone or they are important for NeFi, and T5 and F7 to FeSi. T3 and P4 are yellow here, and they are red in NeTi.
Some questions may have been unadapted or necessiting personnal interpretation, you could try to procede backward, look are the zones which are supposed to be strong in the different types and see how it could play for you. For example, I realized that a strong use of O1 could look F4, etc.
Typology Central (Warning: Long)
Alright, typology central time. Take 2. I think this one leads to higher ratings, as it's broader and less specific and I don't like picking the highest option for skills I am unsure of. Please do not feel obliged to read this, as I am, once again, trying to check for my own bias. I am posting this before going back and looking at the functions. These are much broader and I found my rating's were different for the gist ones and the more specific. I think the gist was probably more accurate, as it was more the flavor of the region than the specifics.
Long Descriptions (which make me rate everything higher)
Fp1- High. I'm going to go with it because I can quickly come up with explanations on the fly.
Fp2- Moderate-low. This one's all about knowing where you are in a task, which I am not as good with. (Although this doesn't make sense as I don't think I'm a J-lead)
F7- Moderate. By this description, it may even be moderate-high. I don't mirror other people's behavior, but I do ask what if a lot.
F8- Moderate. I can recall factual details and know well what I believe and like and dislike. I think I use both this and F7 pretty equally, actually, depending on context.
F3- Moderate-high. I can follow and create a chain of reasoning. Plus, I think consciously almost exclusively in words.
F4- Moderate-low (?). I can do this, and don't struggle to classify things, but I also don't do it consciously all that much.
T3- High. I think in words and have strong verbal reasoning abilities (according to standardized tests, not the best measure, but enough for me to assume it's high).
T4- Still low. This is a blind spot for me and I can't do this well.
C3- Moderate. I am strong in some areas, semantic memory, but weak in others, such as drawing diagrams.
C4- Definitely still low. This is not me.
T5- Moderate. Maybe I am FeSi after all. I am curious what people think of me and do want them to like me. Although I'm not sure, as I'm not good at picking up on it, and tend to need to be told straight or get an answer through deductive reasoning and pattern recognition (discovering that short-cut was the key to understanding people)
T6- Moderate-Low. I consider where I will be in the future, and imagine where I am going, but don't do much symbolic thinking. I think I'm blurring this with other things, however, as it says it's entirely non-verbal and what I'm thinking of is not.
P3- Moderate. I can do rote memorization and am aware of where I end and the rest of the world begins, but am not as good at using visual cues to navigate.
O1- Low. I use deductive reason to compensate for poor visualization skills, not the other way around.
O2- Low. I am not particularly visual.
And the gist descriptions, as they are different.
Fp1- Moderate-High
Fp2- Moderate
F7- Moderate-Low (I do not learn by observing others, and will tune others out and work through material on my own when possible)
F3- High
F4- Moderate
F8- Moderate-high
T3- High
C3- Moderate
C4- Low
T4- Low
T5- Moderate-Low
P3- Low (maybe moderate-low)
P4- High
T6- Low. I'm not certain of the future.
O1- Low
O2- Low
Ayoungspirit's Interpretation of Above (With Pictures)
This is what you say to me :
And here is some of my possible adjusting :
The frontal lobes because you do more brainstorming than concise decisions for me. The F3 deductive ability zone because you may overestimate its use for verbal ability which is more T4 (it is said that it is linked to all that we do by thinking to ourselves), but since you rocks at math, I still let it blue, and yellow is not to be excluded. The C3 zone because this is very factual thing, trivial data sorted outside of context, not very semantic, more precise, and you said recently that you were surprised by all that you learned in doing the text, that seemed not very conscious. The P3 zone because you said you were not good at visual cue for kinesthetics (still don't know if this is a word) and I believe it is mostly that.
For the Info NeTi :
NeFi :
FeSi :
I wonder which will be easier to tweak with to explain your adaptation. FeSi still is tempting. There is the J or P frontal ambiguity, you seem to use relatively well your frontal zones, and C3, you expressed some mistrust into O2, T4. But you said to be not that T5, a bit C4. I let you look at that.
Hope i am not confusing you more
And here is some of my possible adjusting :
The frontal lobes because you do more brainstorming than concise decisions for me. The F3 deductive ability zone because you may overestimate its use for verbal ability which is more T4 (it is said that it is linked to all that we do by thinking to ourselves), but since you rocks at math, I still let it blue, and yellow is not to be excluded. The C3 zone because this is very factual thing, trivial data sorted outside of context, not very semantic, more precise, and you said recently that you were surprised by all that you learned in doing the text, that seemed not very conscious. The P3 zone because you said you were not good at visual cue for kinesthetics (still don't know if this is a word) and I believe it is mostly that.
For the Info NeTi :
NeFi :
FeSi :
I wonder which will be easier to tweak with to explain your adaptation. FeSi still is tempting. There is the J or P frontal ambiguity, you seem to use relatively well your frontal zones, and C3, you expressed some mistrust into O2, T4. But you said to be not that T5, a bit C4. I let you look at that.
Hope i am not confusing you more
My Thoughts on Mine:
I think some of my problems might have been only giving high ratings the regions I am good at using, while I may use others frequently, just badly. For instance, I think I need a region that corresponds to navigating/handling the physical world, even if I am clumsy, as I can make it through my day, thank you very much. I also probably need more activity in social areas, as I'm inept but not that inept. I'm thinking over a few potential candidates in each, and will let you guys know if I find one that seems to work.
Also, as much as I would like to be Ne-dom, I'm a bit dubious because I don't do much "mirroring", which according to the slideshow above is important. I learn best on my own, when given a few problems or the chance to talk something out for myself.
I'm not even sure if I'm J or P from these results, as I suspect the Fp-1 traits may correspond more to my idealized version of myself than reality. If it helps, I realized that, while writing, I rarely outline or plan, or know what's going to happen next. I just go, and assume I'll figure it out, which sounds a bit more P to me. Just one example, but fairly representative of my somewhat loose style of working.
Random Thought: I know people who go to UCLA and major in psychology. Some of the people working on this study, or who did, would have been exactly like kids I know. Which is really strange to think.
Also, as much as I would like to be Ne-dom, I'm a bit dubious because I don't do much "mirroring", which according to the slideshow above is important. I learn best on my own, when given a few problems or the chance to talk something out for myself.
I'm not even sure if I'm J or P from these results, as I suspect the Fp-1 traits may correspond more to my idealized version of myself than reality. If it helps, I realized that, while writing, I rarely outline or plan, or know what's going to happen next. I just go, and assume I'll figure it out, which sounds a bit more P to me. Just one example, but fairly representative of my somewhat loose style of working.
Random Thought: I know people who go to UCLA and major in psychology. Some of the people working on this study, or who did, would have been exactly like kids I know. Which is really strange to think.