- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
@safsom I wouldn’t doubt that there are some issues with Nardi’s studies, but I think there may be more value there than you suggest (in a broad sense, if not necessarily for CT in particular). First of all, I don’t think he ignores the possibility of other parts of the brain being equally or even more important than what he can see with an EEG. I seem to recall him acknowledging this in his book. But he’s limited by the technology available, and if there is a significant correlation between type and the way we use the parts of our brains that we can easily study, then that’s still useful information even if it’s incomplete information.
Second of all, I can see why people self-typing themselves in his studies is seen as problematic from the perspective of someone into CT (because they could be wrong about their type), but that just means that what he’s studying isn’t cognitive functions but something else – people’s self-perceptions of their personalities. In my opinion, that’s still interesting and valuable information. From the perspective of most scientists, MBTI and Jungian typology in general is a less-good version of the big five at best and basically meaningless at worst. So if Nardi has people self-type in MBTI and then shows that there are correlations between how people self-type and how people use their brains, then that is very interesting information that actually lends some credibility to the MBTI system. Unfortunately, since how people self-type in MBTI is very commonly different than their CT type, his research results may not be very meaningful for the CT system. But it’s still interesting information about the connections between how people view their personalities and how people use their brains.