A discussion from Discord that may be worthwhile for others to also hop into 🙂
"Azure Fe" is "The Doctor"
in CT, function axes are thought to be exclusive, but the signals emitted by people do have some crossover or mixing because they're secondary effects -- and are thus subject to the noise of environment and persona. vultology is thus a tool to try to get at the root biology, until a time as the phenomenon can be confirmed in other ways. and perhaps even then it remains useful.
well, to me such an 8 function model seems to lack methodological support for the existence of 8 functions altogether. It doesn't really mean much to say we all have these eight categories in operation in the Nardi sense, since it makes it easy to vary. (why not 9? if we're talking about brain-region functionalities, there are dozens, not just 8)
if we wish to say type has biological basis, at the level of specifically 8 functions, the specific number 8 has to be valid in some form that is structural. for example, there are a limited number of blood types (8) because of the biological basis of each component, and them coming together one way or another
That's as far as it goes.
CT is claiming that there is a natural structure there
well i don't see how that would go against my point, even if it were true
Identical twins separated at birth have an incredibly high rate of taking on the same professions and making similar life choices. How would those be biological, and if they are, how would this be different from Nardi's scans demonstrating coherence correlation within preferences since the brain is biological?
it's a fair hypothesis, mmh. but the general population appears to not have signals for the eight functions. this itself needs explaining. if signal mixing really only happens in ~20% of people very mildly (1 or 2 signals), and strongly in ~5% (which is about what i've seen. Umbi being in that ~5%)... then it begs the question of why. in such a case, we need to look at what's causing the signals at a deeper level. signal mixing could be an artifact of using an imperfect measurement tool to something that is indeed mutually exclusive. or if it's not mutually exclusive, then some means of explaining this overwhelming tilt towards exclusion would be needed.
They could be as important to mental health as trace element minerals are to physical health.
Hey maybe we could check if there is a pattern for signal mixing? Like does signal mixing usually come with trauma/ heavy drug use/ schizoid tendencies etc...or is it random
so the use of all regions just admits to the fact that all humans use their whole brain
yes, this seems a more fruitful direction to investigate
And reading these coherence maps is much more like reading body language... and this is my personal theory based on what I understand of neuroscience... that syncronized regions are going to be MUCH more likely to spawn micro expressions due to how the redundant nervous system operates.
This actually makes sense
i would be surprised to see an eight function model being validated empirically, although i certainly can't rule it out entirely. the CT model could be wrong about this core assumption, but the focus of CT up to now has been to quantify was is most obvious first -- because not even the most obvious parts of the model (or Jungian theory, more broadly) have gained sufficient validation. before we can even ask if we possess the four other functions, we have to affirm the existence of function axes altogether. and if nothing else, it has been instrumental to aim for differentiation between the axes, so as to isolate exactly what we mean to measure in objective terms. the problem with 8 function models, imo, is that they are unhelpful for confirming the existence of any of the theoretical tenants of the model because of how the lack of mutual exclusivity opens the door to rationalizations in any direction, and anomalies are explained by recourse to the other 4 functions and their influence. this makes for unfalsifiable situations. if 8 functions was actually right all along, i'd be flabbergasted but delighted! still, we gotta set a foundation first before we can properly ask that question.
As much as it isn't helpful to add them because that can cause confusion, it might also not be helpful to deny their existence.
but it almost never happens that a person has 4+ signals in two opposite functions
really great back and forth here. I think it would be interesting to do brain scans from the CT perspective and see what happens while a person uses CT signals, even if multiple regions light up. Maybe there would be a specific pattern to the trail of brain activity.
(example) sometimes when types listen to information they do the Si or Ni scowl. Maybe it somehow correlates to the brain region that listens Nardi usually associates with Fi doms in MBTI.
I used to be into Nardi's work a while ago. Have his book too.
Looks like both methods are pretty scientific in different ways.
inductive vs deductive thinking?
anyhow, very cool read. good debate/exchange of positions and ideas.
I am all for both parties making a super system baby!