Nardi Neuroscience, 8 Function Models & CT

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Nardi Neuroscience, 8 Function Models & CT

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #16288
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    A discussion from Discord that may be worthwhile for others to also hop into 🙂
    "Azure Fe" is "The Doctor"

    Spoiler

    The only resistance I have for FeSi is my rather terrible Si
    But, that brings me to another question / clarification. Is it the stance of CT that types use 4 functions exclusively or primarily?

    yes, the CT stance is that.. the whole point of saying types exist is synonymous with saying that there are biological differences between individuals, such that some carry the aspects of Ne/Si and others of Ni/Se, and the mutual exclusion is theorized to belong at the genetic level, or similar.
    so far this is supported by tentative studies of identical twins and some hereditary patterns

    That wouldn't necessarily preclude that these things are simply preferences.
    It's one thing to say a person is left handed. It's entirely another to say that because they are left handed, they don't use their right hand.

    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.

    I interpret them as literal manifestations of those functions.
    Socionics and a few other models support this assumption.
    And again, I go back to that Nardi stuff I can't prove because he shared some things with me that aren't public yet, but he seems to be showing that people do use all 8 functions in varying measure.
    Dominant functions do seem to exhibit patterns and those patterns seem to show up in fleeting moments in any given subject depending on task. The distinction is frequency.
    aka preference

    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)

    Fair, but Jung's model assumed a dominant function, an auxiliary of the opposite J or P, and the other 6 as inferior.
    The reason there are 8 functions is because of preference markers, not necessarily because there are 8 inherent subroutines in cerebral intra-action.
    N vs S, F vs T, micro vs macro

    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

    The only thing the Nardi scans show is that people who have various preference markers share some significant similarities with respect to how their brains interact with themselves.

    exactly
    that's all

    Therefore, we're looking at preference markers that can be tracked neurologically.

    as far as i've seen it doesn't prove the existence of a symmetrical structure

    No, I wouldn't assume there is any symmetry inherently.

    so concivably, a good heuristic system with 12 categories... which also had type preferences outlined... and was properly matching 'traits'... would also find parity with some neurological data

    And if there are neurological trackers for these preferences in how the mind interacts with itself, then those markers can also manifest as micro expressions and unconscious body language.
    From my perspective, CT and Nardi are tracking very similar things from very different means.

    that's fine, but that does not confirm any theoretical structure

    I'm not sure I understand your stance here.

    well, you're assuming CT is just another heuristic that's tracking preferences and matching them to microexpressions

    Are you saying that CT doesn't have a theoretical structure?
    I'm definitely saying that Nardi's scans are not implying a theoretical structure. They're only confirming preferences and coherence maps.

    what i am saying is that, the hard part here, is for any typological system to confirm its theoretical structure. it's easy to get a match between a set of preferences/traits and neural activity, if indeed the neural regions are thought to be associated with certain traits in the first place. but this does not confirm any particular theory's core axioms or structures.

    People with this particular preference are regularly exhibiting this coherence pattern.

    right

    That's as far as it goes.

    And I'm saying CT is not that.
    CT is making a little bit more of a bold claim,
    which admittedly needs a lot more support to back up

    You're taking it to the step that these signals have correlation to preferences or more than that?
    If preferences are strongly correlated to coherence, then coherence can strongly correlate to preferences. The same can be true for visual signals.
    Or... are you then taking these correlations to a further degree of association?
    I don't even think Jung did that.

    the symmetry in the signals themselves, the organic inkling for mutual exclusivity (even though not perfect), the ties to identical twins, the ties to heredity, the inter-signal correlations... all point to CT touching upon a naturally existing structure to human mannerisms that is non-random, and this 'structure' is interpreted by the CT model. the CT model may be incorrect, but the body of data which CT is accumulating is 'organized' -- and as such, it becomes important to look at what is causing these natural structural organizations.

    CT is claiming that there is a natural structure there

    and that it correlates to cognitive structures

    identical twins often also share other psychological preferences and emotions that aren't physical or behavioral.
    Not sure if I would consider identical twins as a solid litmus for this since we don't know exactly what is causing these things in identical twins. For example, the strange empathic connections.

    it seems to hold true even when separated at birth for decades

    There have been interesting studies on blood samples that imply our blood reacts similarly to our bodies when no longer in our bodies.
    Identical twins could be somehow tied to whatever is causing that.

    well i don't see how that would go against my point, even if it were true :thinking:

    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?

    Your arguments against Nardi's scans seem to apply directly to CT's validations. The difference is that CT is claiming there is a structure at work and Nardi is claiming that his maps seem to align with a structure of preferences.

    Doc actually is asking a good question... can't it be that the other 4 are deep in the unconscious and that signal mixing is happening when one of them gets up a bit more than it should? We did see signal mixing in people like Umbi who also did a lot of meditation and went in mind altering states...just Pe hypothesizing, I have no idea

    CT and Nardi both seem to be seeing the criteria for all 8 preferences in most subjects.

    Wouldn't it be awesome if I could develop Fe lol :joy:

    ... and often in proportion to those preferences.
    According to Socionics, SeFi not only could develop Fe, but could become quite good at it, as they inherently have 'strong but unvalued' Fe.
    The trick is learning to value it.

    But then the other 4 don't seem necessary...
    So why would they exist

    Necessary? No. Helpful? Yes.
    Id' assume they exist for redundancy. Kind of like men having nipples.

    I mean the body works in a certain way... everything is necessary or it isn't there...or almost everything

    They need to be available in all sets to provide preference in any given set.
    Left handed people don't tend to use their right hands as much.

    No, but 2 hands are necessary

    It can lead to the perception that "I do everything with my left hand" when that's not entirely true.

    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.

    Some handicapable amputees would disagree.
    Those numbers seem to agree with what Nardi has told me.
    The back end functions seem to show about 20% of the time, with a really clear signal about 5%
    This is statistically significant enough to ignore in a general sense, but not in a deeper mechanics of the mind and psyche sense.
    I mean the primary question posed by this that won't have an easy answer is "What if someone really didn't have those back 4 functions on any level?" This is because we don't know how significant those single digit percentage preferences are.

    They could be as important to mental health as trace element minerals are to physical health.
     

    Maybe they aren't really there but...can...grow? Idk if that makes sense...like normally you don't have them but there is a potential pool in the mind...and under certain circumstances they can start to develop... But this might not be a healthy thing..maybe this is absurd

    errh.. i think this speculation is really hard to support

    Of course it is.
    But, what isn't hard to support is that the means used to measure these functions exists in people who shouldn't have them according to a 4 function model.

    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

    that's only if you're defining functions as brain area specific activities

    Yeah, I was going to suggest mentally ill subjects as a potential control.
    Coherence isn't brain area activity.

    but it's concivable that if humanity is genetically bifurcated, such that some have Ni/Se and others have Ne/Si -- it would be the case that both humans use all their brain

    It's a measure of how the whole brain interacts with itself. Significant difference.

    so the use of all regions just admits to the fact that all humans use their whole brain

    we would not expect some humans to have lacking use of brain matter
    that's silly

    Again, it's not regions.

    Oh sure

    Give me a moment. I'll show a comparison graphic.
    Left is coherence. Right is regional activity.

    oh, can u explain coherence more?

    ... coherently :)) sorry :))

    Coherence is when two regions operate at the same frequency for any duration.
    They are synchronized.
    They're working together.
    So, you could easily have high activity in two regions that aren't working together.
    You could have low activity in regions that are.
    Coherence maps are measuring how often any two regions are synchronized.
    This shows how the brain interacts with itself, rather than which regions are active.

    nice

    Regional activity maps generally don't show much preference for types.

    i've heard something like that with neural cliques

    yes, this seems a more fruitful direction to investigate

    I mean... in a vague way, you can make some inferences from a regional activity map, but the coherence maps tend to have a very high rate of similarity.
    r = .9 or there about in most cases.
    And the discrepancies are assuming mistypes due to the way Nardi screens subjects for their type.

    has Nardi actually published papers on this yet? last i checked he just did a pilot study

    He's still getting subjects together.
    And he got into a big legal battle with UCLA a few years ago.

    Why?

    Oddly, over nothing to do with this study.
    I don't have the details other than it was entirely political.
    Department shuffling and crony nepotism.
    That said, how the brain interacts with itself is far more congruent with personal preferences than regional activity.

    Can certain mental ilnesses change the coherence patterns? Or something else like neurofeedback
    ?

    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.

    Using P3 isn't going to make you wave your arms around. Using the connection between Fp1, T8, and P3 might because those regions have to be connected via neural pathways that by default include signals running down the redundant arcs.

    This actually makes sense

    Thanks
    I'm probably the only person who sees how these two studies have a lot of potential for overlap and mutual support.

    But I know very little about the subject and you are an Fe lead, so...:thinking: :ehHappy:

    I talked to Dario about it, and he kind of checked out when he saw that CT uses subjective means it created to verify itself.

    No, you aren't, I can see it too just based on what you said

    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.

    That's understandable.
    My only concern is that taking the stance that the other 4 functions aren't used can be problematic in signal reading. "I just saw a loud Ne signal" could really cloud things if it's not assumed that the back end functions will manifest at times.

    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.

    the reading methodology supports checking all signals we see
    and allowing for signal mixing, if that is indeed what we are seeing

    /nod

    and we confirm a function generally by the "count to 4" rule, so that if there's a stray signal here or there, it's not equivalent to saying the function exists in them. Some people have anatomical features that cause signal boxes to be checked

    but it almost never happens that a person has 4+ signals in two opposite functions

    When you say 4 signals, you mean distinct signals, not 4 instances of a specific signal?
    I dunno why I just asked that.
    Ti dumb

    right

    4 signals 🙂

    I'm looking at the timestamps I've done of my own videos.

    (i gtg do stuff ^^; bbl!)
    [collapse]
    #16334
    GreenCoyote
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    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!

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram