EEG - Dario Nardi's Study: once for all. Feb 19, 2014 10:54:43 GMT -5 by MsLajlaa robinhood and Shivaree like this
Post by MsLajlaa on Feb 19, 2014 10:54:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply! Yes, MsLajlaa is pronounces like “Miss Laylah”. Lajlaa was the name of our late cat; I was studying Hebrew when we got her and was inspired to give her a Hebrew name…
Hey mslajlaa (just realized that it's pronounced "Ms. Laljaa", I must have sounded very silly in the video:p)
As general note, my main intention with the video was to create some good material to be typed from. A lot of the things I said was not well thought-out, nor prepared, so maybe I came off a little more argumentative/serious than I wanted.
Well I probably sounded more aggressive than I would have liked, because I consciously let my emotions come through. Sorry if that was disturbing! I admit I was pretty pissed off by what happened after emington’s EEG trials. He was the only person on the forum who had some kind of access to EEG machine, and instead of utilizing that opportunity to learn, compare and discuss about his foundings, people freaked out and started to blame him from being demanding, ungrateful etc. Why? Because he was asking questions? I really did not understand the reaction, but I assume it has to do with the different attitudes we have towards Nardi’s work. Anyway, that’s just my emotional reaction so let it be.
I think the descriptions posted earlier in the thread seems to sum up his understanding of the functions neatly. Also pg 74, pg 78-85 and pg 142-3 in the book describes the functions and types. What do you think?
Yes, and he also adds on them while describing the types on chapter 6, but that is already the same that CT is doing in the Larin videos (the first slide of text), i.e. interpreting behavior in the light of the functions. I still don’t know the exact material he used in those typings.
There are some weird comments on the book, on which I would really like to see some references, such as on p. 152-3, where Nardi says that some people may be mis-typed, but “studies suggest mis-typing after even a brief self-discovery process amounts to a maximum of a 25 % error rate”. What studies? And how can you know if people are mistyped or not? So no, I’m not 100% behind his method, and I also don’t like Berens’ type descriptions, yet I’m interested in understanding what he means by “statistical validity” of Myers-Briggs, Jungian functions and Berens’ temperament theory (p. 76-77).
Actually, I believe that they have developed into very different directions. I think it's clear when you read CT's psychological understanding of the functions, and Nardi's, while both are superficially similar (like MBTI and CT are), they differ greatly on many levels. --- The theory of CT however is quite original (only superficially like MBTI, and reminds you mostly of Jung's original writings). This in of itself does of course not prove in any way that CT is better at identifying type, it just dissassosiates from all of the old ways and "has a fighting chance at being better/true".
So far I have seen only two early versions of CT function descriptions: Si and Ne. In addition, I have seen some type descriptions in the Larin video series. I very much agree that CT’s descriptions are more eloquent than Nardi’s, but whether they are completely or drastically different, I’m not convinced of.
Compare this to this (from www.keys2cognition.com/cgjung.htm):
“Si - Introverted Sensing
Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference—for example, noticing that some food doesn’t taste the same or is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else. Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience. The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes. “
Are they really completely miscontinuous? Especially, if you think how people would self-type themselves, do you think they would choose differently based on these two descriptions?
One challenge with too theoretical description of the functions is that the more abstract they go, the more difficult it is to relate them to actual experienced psychological phenomena. And if they don’t relate to actual experienced psychology, how can they be descriptions of psychology in the first place? The background assumption of course is that our brain is connected to our “mind”; that what happens in our brain is closely related to how we conceive the world, ourselves etc. and that our behavior is a rather straightforward result of that activity. (Just look at people in a persistent vegetative state: not much behavior happening without the cortex working.) Unlike as for instance the structure of the universe, human mind cannot unproblematically be studied without taking the phenomenological, self-experienced level into account, because what we mean by human mind/personality/psychology very much IS that first-person phenomenology. I assume this is the reason why it becomes harder to speak of pure science with regard to studies of personality etc.
So, to put it simply, our cognition/mind/brain activities are likely not separate from our behavior (some people don’t like to use the term mind but you can think of just brain activity instead). Unless you’re a dualist of some sort, but I don’t think either Nardi or CT is that. This means that if something happens in our brain, it is likely producing some effects on our behavioral activities. The more concrete the examples of how that happens, the easier it is to recognize these patterns in ourselves. So to say that our cognitive processes, whether in the form of Jungian functions or some other area related activity or more holistic pattern, have nothing to do with our behavior is, IMHO, bullshit, although our cognitive processes quite definitely are not the ONLY thing affecting it. But what happens in our cortex has a lot to do with how we orientate to the world and process the data we get via senses. Very much, but not all, of what influences and, I believe, causes our behavior is related to different parts of the cortex and their interrelational activities. The most troubling thing with regard to both CT and Nardi is whether Jungian functions are the best way to describe what happens in our brain. I personally have reservations on that, which is why I’m much more interested in Nardi’s descriptions on brain areas and global patterns than cognitive functions as such, although I do like to play with the idea of 8 functions, too.
Again, both CT initial sample group and Nardi’s test subjects have been self-typed, and the great mystery is how the process of CT’s typing went. As we have seen several times on this forum, and even with your own case, recognizing one’s own patterns is not easy. There probably are cases for whom it’s more straightforward, and these are the cases that seem to have most coherence between different systems (examples from cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/278/transitioning-myers-briggs?page=1&scrollTo=2580).
I think CT has dismissed much more of his work than they have accepted, or even taken interest in. Mainly CT seem mostly interested in the EEG itself, and some of the potentially relevant brain-patterns Nardi has observed.
I don’t know how much it has dismissed. But if you think how they moved from the Motus project (which is exactly in which way I think Nardi’s type of work can be useful, too, if the function theory collapses) to CT, the method is really very similar to Nardi. CT gave up the induction method of Motus due to the immense workload it contains and took on a hypothetical-deductive model. Nothing wrong with that, but as there is always a risk that the hypothesis is wrong, I’m keeping the gates open for Motus and Nardi’s brain pattern recognition results. To speculate a little, I’m thinking whether Nardi’s project was actually one influence on making this move from Motus to CT, i.e. whether Erifrail and Alerith saw Nardi’s findings as supporting the actuality of Jungian functions and in that way inspiring him to develop the theory/hypothesis of CT further.
While we "know" (or assume) that much of Nardi's initial typing-basis is wrong, a lot of the theories Erifrail and Alerith have written about are original, untested and unproven (we don't assume them to necessarily be wrong).
I don’t assume Nardi’s typing-basis is ALL wrong, even if I also have my reservations. But that is, as you said, a matter of faith at this point. Even Erifrail has said (link above) that MBTI is not totally out of place, and Nardi’s typing method is, I believe, not the least accurate in that regard. Yet I definitely doubt whether any of these theories is accurate enough. But they are hypothesis, and we are allowed to play with them.
Anyway, now it would be most interesting to compare how people would type by Nardi’s method, what their brain use would look like and how that compares to CT visual reading. The first and initial trial for that could have been emigton’s type, but we kind of lost that one. I would have been interested in testing how people self-assess their types if done in the similar manner as Nardi’s or CT’s sample subjects and then compare that to VR and EEG results, but I have realized my interests are not widely shared, so my motivation is starting to die down.