The Neuroscience of Personality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cody

The thing is, ppl look to support what they'd like to be true, instead of looking for real proof (long process) or set postulates of what's more likely true or not. For such, I prefer to show the real effects or manifestations of the thesis instead of to face my anthesis with the thesis, so others could end up concluding for themselves the antithesis with a plus of experience. I also get some fun in the process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

If one wants to create a pretty design with no scientific backing behind it they can become an artist. Shouldn’t call cave paintings science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ooo

We're still far from knowing the brain and it would be counterproductive to create false stereotypes based on some scalp assumptions.

---

This is really interesting.

So interesting why people think somehow Socionics should be excused from being applied the same standards.

YEAH BRO DARIO NARDI'S WORK IS SO UNSCIENTIFIC. I read it about it on some forum post on the Internet, so it must be true.

Socionics is not SUPPOSED TO BE scientific! It's more like, uh, an art.

I wonder if these people suffer from some sort of brain damage.

we might consider our own experience as sufficiently valid, that's something we do on a daily basis. it's another thing to test our "experience" scientifically though, we have to meet the scientific standards, and there things might crumble. it happens all the times, even within the already established scientific theories, things do crumble.

Dario Nardi's work is good, but not yet perfect. we can't draw results from it because it lacks the numbers to be a valid standpoint.

At least in the context of socionics, people who put out books on typology without previous expertise or engagement with the community are usually just trying to make a quick buck off of it. (This includes probably every English-language book on socionics except Filatova's.) They rebrand it as their own and spread misinformation because they care more about reputation and money than intellectual honesty or actual insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

This is really interesting.

So interesting why people think somehow Socionics should be excused from being applied the same standards.

YEAH BRO DARIO NARDI'S WORK IS SO UNSCIENTIFIC. I read it about it on some forum post on the Internet, so it must be true.

Socionics is not SUPPOSED TO BE scientific! It's more like, uh, an art.

I wonder if these people suffer from some sort of brain damage.

---

See the above post. It's because he's charging money for it.

DarkAngelFireWolf69 also charges money for training, courses and seminars:

https://translate.google.co.jp/trans...%2Ftraining%2F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

Info from Aylen from his site:



​So he’s basically some rich boy weeb who could afford to go to fancy schools all over the world, yet isn’t smart enough to create sound methodology and not make an ass out of himself. Then he thinks he deserves to ding poor students for his shoddy services like a sycophant.

Btw I created lecture materials for Waseda recently. This year it was ranked as the top performing private university in the country. I don’t even want to think about how painfully expensive it would be to go there and study as an international student just to satisfy your weeb desires. Repulsive af.

Then again, he got a full-tuition undergrad scholarship and met the emperor LOL and I can respect that.

---

Maybe he’s a rich boy week, but for his main education, a SUNY school and USC are decidedly unfancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golden

Maybe he a rich boy week, but for his main education, a SUNY school and USC are decidedly unfancy.

---

;p US tuition fees are all expensive to me. Although I'm aware yeah it could be a lot fancier.

This is what I like: we have someone with an actual Ph.D. doing real personality research, research that even involves the brain! Most of the 'real' research on personality usually just involves the Big Five, and that touches on what I was saying here. I.e., the usual approach to academic personality typing is just "shut up and calculate" without any understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind the behaviour. That is why it was comparable to quantum mechanics to me... It also touches on here in that his results show that the traits are simply correlated, and therefore not like the hard sciences. Anyway, I suspect the research is not perfect, but it is a big step forward over the Big Five approach or something which is simply subjective, with no scientific basis at all. If I remember correctly, he won an award for his research and he was teacher of the year at UCLA... That's far better than someone guding the research subjectively with no qualifications! (Which is unfortunately the case for almost all Jungian personality typing and the Enneagram - and including myself!...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

This is what I like: we have someone with an actual Ph.D. doing real personality research, research that even involves the brain! Most of the 'real' research on personality usually just involves the Big Five, and that touches on what I was saying here. I.e., the usual approach to academic personality typing is just "shut up and calculate" without any understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind the behaviour. That is why it was comparable to quantum mechanics to me... It also touches on here in that his results show that the traits are simply correlated, and therefore not like the hard sciences. Anyway, I suspect the research is not perfect, but it is a big step forward over the Big Five approach or something which is simply subjective, with no scientific basis at all. If I remember correctly, he won an award for his research and he was teacher of the year at UCLA... That's far better than someone guding the research subjectively with no qualifications! (Which is unfortunately the case for almost all Jungian personality typing and the Enneagram - and including myself!...)

---

This is the most painfully stereotypically Te valuing thing (in the bad blind appeal to authority way, to the point of masochism) I have ever read. Are you an IEE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

This is the most painfully stereotypically Te valuing thing (in the bad blind appeal to authority way, to the point of masochism) I have ever read. Are you an IEE?

---

I'm sorry, do you know what I get from you? I get 'Donald Trump'... That's my message to the rest of the forum about him and his type...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

I'm sorry, do you know what I get from you? I get 'Donald Trump'... That's my message to the rest of the forum about him and his type...

---

And what I get from this post is “yeah I am an IEE”, lel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

And what I get from this post is “yeah I am an IEE”, lel.

---

For me, not any different from before... And Trump is dead honest to boot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

For me, not any different from before... And Trump is dead honest to boot...

---

PS I think I have you on Facebook and have spoken to you before on Google video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

PS I think I have you on Facebook and have spoken to you before on Google video

---

If you're not joking, it must be someone else, because I have facebook but I haven't used Google video..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

If you're not joking, it must be someone else, because I have facebook but I haven't used Google video..

---

Oh yeah his last name doesn’t start with an M nevermind. I just remembered because he was lowkey abrasive at first too lol before warming up more, and was IEE too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbbds

Oh yeah his last name doesn’t start with an M nevermind. I just remembered because he was lowkey abrasive at first too lol before warming up more, and was IEE too.

---

I see. He sounds like a nice fellow, but is not me.

This subject seems akin to mapping what areas of a computer are activated during specific subroutines of an app. I doubt that accurate determinations could be made of where the separation is between app and computer when all one has to work with is energy emissions from a brain and software that can interpret and operate on input in a myriad of ways. Even when scientists fully understand how the brain works, its software will still be separate and distinct, and will have to always be treated as such. Knowing very specifically how an Apple computer works doesn't often help us fix software problems. The neuroscience of personality would seem to have no real objective other than perhaps producing impressive looking MRIs.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

It's interesting and I'd like to see more of this research done under more rigorously controlled conditions, but I have to wonder how anyone can ever be fully certain of their typing, especially after only a few days' worth of research online, which likely includes links to "experts" MBTI blogs.