The Magic Diamond (Dario Nardi)

Home Forums Official & Introductions The Magic Diamond (Dario Nardi)

  • Aletheia
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @Auburn

    Saw this post by Dario Nardi on Facebook today and thought it was relevant to this discussion:

    SPOTLIGHT: 512 subtypes? In “The Magic Diamond: Jung’s 8 Paths for Self-Coaching”, I summarize research by me, psychologist Victor Gulenko, and anthropologist Helen Fisher to get at natural variations on how we operate. Altho Jung described 8 “mental functions”, they tend to show up in different ways depending on context, career choice, and such. What are your top ways of operating?

    What interests me about this is mainly the descriptions of ‘Analytic’ and ‘Holistic’ function modes presented in his diagram. The descriptions of Fe and Fi seem to reflect your descriptions of the different emotional attitudes, but with the rest of the functions he’s touching upon the kind of nuances in expression I was mentioning. What do you make of these descriptions? I know you mentioned parsing out the 4 aspects of functions, which I believe relates, but it seems to me there’s likely something else going on here to produce the overall operation of a function in the psyche.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    ^ hey I see it, yeah!

    The ‘analytic’ groups seem to be more ‘assertive’ and the ‘holistic’ groups tend to be more ‘accommodating’, or just live-and-let-live. It seems he just published that new book this month. He’s still going at it from the self-help and life-coach angle, I see. And focusing on behavioral outcomes.

    Hmm, I don’t know if he’s going in the right direction, but it may be worth looking into this new book to see where his ideas have evolved. If nothing else it seems he’s realized, like so many (Gulenko, Powers), the inevitable need for greater nuance (512 subtypes). But it’s interesting to see how people build their subtype systems differently. I wonder what the support is for the subtypes he outlines.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    safsom
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Dario Nardi is a horrible person and a fraud, and if CT is to be taken seriously, I suggest any association or even allusion to his work be removed.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    (Nardi topic split from this thread)

    Dario Nardi is a horrible person and a fraud, and if CT is to be taken seriously, I suggest any association or even allusion to his work be removed.

    How so @safsom ?

    I have my own opinions of Nardi’s work, and its many methodological shortcomings, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    safsom
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Basically everything Nardi has done has been completely made-up.

    The methodological rigor behind his studies is basically zero. He based his “function presence” analysis on making people self-type using the interaction styles and other Keirseyan dichotomies (which Keirsey himself has said have no causal link to cognitive functions at all), and then collecting their brain patterns in “charts” of “patterns” of how areas are accessed.

    He seems to selectively ignore the vast portions of the brain that are yet unknown to us and factor them out to deliberately arrive at coherent-looking portions and confirm these people supposedly having matching types (and if you type them by a non-Keirseyan metric they don’t). Completely also ignores the fact that he doesn’t understand and no one understands the whole thing but continues to insist that the parts he’s selectively cherry-picked and highlighted are “more important” ( without any real explanatory grounding other than them making his typings look good) than others. In addition to this, he has also failed to write sound methodologies for his studies, *conveniently* making them completely non-reproducible.

    He also (in regards to my moral judgement) seems completely willing to distort any and all information when it comes to promoting his own system – an example would be Meghan LeVota, who at some time was receiving speculation for being an Se-dominant, who endorsed his work and who supposedly he “empirically” typed ENFJ (which shouldn’t be possible, as her socionics type and associated traits, EIE, does not have much alignment with the Keirseyan view of the ENFJ he uses) with a “brain scan” (again with selective jargon employed to make himself sound smart and look good). He is a slimy figure willing to do anything for self-promotion.

    Overall, I think his work is garbage, I hate him, and anyone who wants to take typology seriously should also think his work is garbage.

    fayest42
    Participant
    • 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.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON