Reading Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
Aug 24, 2013 2:23:17 GMT -5 by MsLajlaa
TheLogicFan, ayoungspirit, and 4 more like this
Post by MsLajlaa on Aug 24, 2013 2:23:17 GMT -5
I finally received Nardi's book, and after having skimmed it through I want to share some personal thoughts and feelings about it, because I have certain anxiety with regard to the relations of CT and Nardi's work. I'm not doing a coherent assessment of the book but make some random notes on subjects that I found interesting.
Cognitive profiling for lab students p.24, 152-3:
First of all, my curiosity was finally appeased about how Nardi makes his students to find their cognitive profile expressed as an MBTI code. It seems to be a process that takes weeks (up to 10 weeks). They use his online ISCA test (http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm), get feedback and engage in self-discovery by reading extensively about temperaments (SP, SJ, NT, NF), functions and types.
Nardi expresses that even if there is always a risk of mistyping by self-discovery, he is rather confident on the accuracy of this typing process, because it took several weeks, and, according to "some studies", mistyping after even a brief self-discovery process is maximum 25 % = one letter in a code. Those of his students who didn't settle on one type were removed from the study.
So, if Nardi is so sure of the accuracy of cognitive profiling, why do we get so surprising results in CT? Maybe some of us (me, at least) are not so good at self-assessment. We may not understand how the functions show in us, or what they really are. Our self-image may be very different from what other people see in us (that's why I've also asked people close to me to make these assessments for me). Or maybe some of us are true chameleons and/or hybrids of functions, temperaments and types. Maybe we are "contaminated ground" in that our self-assessments are biased by the attitudes towards different types found in the internet. So we half-unconsciously reply to these assessments in a way to not become a type or have functions we don't want to be or have. Maybe our cultural contexts are messing up the innate temperamental (motivational) and cognitive tendencies we have. Gender is probably one of the biggest factors in this, e.g. Nardi mentions on page 107 that Te-lead females tend to show more diverse brain activity and respond more to social feedback than their male equivalents.
To take myself as an example, I would not have resulted as ENTJ by Nardi's typing process.
I test in ISCA as INFP, ENFP, INTJ or ISTJ. By that testing and reading about functions, Fi is, taken my more longitudinal test results, my strongest function with Te coming next. NeSi pair seems stronger than NiSe. My temperament is either Catalyst (NF) or Theorist (NT) with an option for Stabilizer (SJ). However, I don't find myself in any of the NF profiles, neither in other types. It genuinely feels like a mix. So I would have been excluded from Nardi's study, buaahh.
Opposite types:
Nardi mentions briefly on page 151 that EEG data suggests there are 16 cognitive patterns aligning with Jung's work and that beyond that we are unique in our use of brain, except that "there is a tendency to step into our opposite type". What is this opposite type? In CT theory it would be our polar (FiSe for TeNi). Nardi didn't explain in that context, but previously, on page 75, he speaks about Jung's observations on people exploring their opposites, which are in line with CT, so e.g. NeTi for SiFe. He also mentions more recent studies (no reference though), which suggest "true opposite" pairings: FeSi for TeNi, or TiNe for FiSe. These true opposites, according to Nardi, bedevil us and might represent life-long cognitive deficits.
I'm not sure to which one he refers with our tendency to step into. If I remember right from his Google talk, he means the Jungian/CT version.
To look again at my own self-typing process, the least active functions in me seem to be Se and Fe/Ti. Maybe that is a cue; that my type is somewhere in opposition to these functions. (Ironically, my husband seems to have exactly these functions high in his stock.
)
Cognitive profiling for lab students p.24, 152-3:
First of all, my curiosity was finally appeased about how Nardi makes his students to find their cognitive profile expressed as an MBTI code. It seems to be a process that takes weeks (up to 10 weeks). They use his online ISCA test (http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm), get feedback and engage in self-discovery by reading extensively about temperaments (SP, SJ, NT, NF), functions and types.
Nardi expresses that even if there is always a risk of mistyping by self-discovery, he is rather confident on the accuracy of this typing process, because it took several weeks, and, according to "some studies", mistyping after even a brief self-discovery process is maximum 25 % = one letter in a code. Those of his students who didn't settle on one type were removed from the study.
So, if Nardi is so sure of the accuracy of cognitive profiling, why do we get so surprising results in CT? Maybe some of us (me, at least) are not so good at self-assessment. We may not understand how the functions show in us, or what they really are. Our self-image may be very different from what other people see in us (that's why I've also asked people close to me to make these assessments for me). Or maybe some of us are true chameleons and/or hybrids of functions, temperaments and types. Maybe we are "contaminated ground" in that our self-assessments are biased by the attitudes towards different types found in the internet. So we half-unconsciously reply to these assessments in a way to not become a type or have functions we don't want to be or have. Maybe our cultural contexts are messing up the innate temperamental (motivational) and cognitive tendencies we have. Gender is probably one of the biggest factors in this, e.g. Nardi mentions on page 107 that Te-lead females tend to show more diverse brain activity and respond more to social feedback than their male equivalents.
To take myself as an example, I would not have resulted as ENTJ by Nardi's typing process.
I test in ISCA as INFP, ENFP, INTJ or ISTJ. By that testing and reading about functions, Fi is, taken my more longitudinal test results, my strongest function with Te coming next. NeSi pair seems stronger than NiSe. My temperament is either Catalyst (NF) or Theorist (NT) with an option for Stabilizer (SJ). However, I don't find myself in any of the NF profiles, neither in other types. It genuinely feels like a mix. So I would have been excluded from Nardi's study, buaahh.
Opposite types:
Nardi mentions briefly on page 151 that EEG data suggests there are 16 cognitive patterns aligning with Jung's work and that beyond that we are unique in our use of brain, except that "there is a tendency to step into our opposite type". What is this opposite type? In CT theory it would be our polar (FiSe for TeNi). Nardi didn't explain in that context, but previously, on page 75, he speaks about Jung's observations on people exploring their opposites, which are in line with CT, so e.g. NeTi for SiFe. He also mentions more recent studies (no reference though), which suggest "true opposite" pairings: FeSi for TeNi, or TiNe for FiSe. These true opposites, according to Nardi, bedevil us and might represent life-long cognitive deficits.
I'm not sure to which one he refers with our tendency to step into. If I remember right from his Google talk, he means the Jungian/CT version.
To look again at my own self-typing process, the least active functions in me seem to be Se and Fe/Ti. Maybe that is a cue; that my type is somewhere in opposition to these functions. (Ironically, my husband seems to have exactly these functions high in his stock.
)
