Very interesting. Have any link?Originally Posted by Jarno
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Doesn't work on myself, but works on some people I know well.
Doesn't work on myself, but works on people I know well.
Doesn't work on myself, but works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
Works on myself, but only works on some people I know well.
Works on myself and works on people I know well.
Works on myself and works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
Makes sense of pretty much everything.
Very interesting. Have any link?
yes I have two. The video starts uninteresting but gets better. You might want to skip a bit.
http://blip.tv/file/557221
http://www.benziger.org/articlesIng/?p=34
Also the 16 types have different brainwaves measured on EEG, I can look up the source for that if you need it.
thank you!
please!Also the 16 types have different brainwaves measured on EEG, I can look up the source for that if you need it.
It has only been useful to me as an introspective device and little more.
Attempts to flexibly expand from that have been met with limited success in describing others to themselves, but not in their relation to those around them, i.e. it works for individuals IME, not groups.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"it was also found that brain wave activity as measured by the EEG differed for each of the psychological types as assesed by the mbti (Gram, Dunn, & Ellis, 2005)"Those EEG measurements sound interesting, if you feel like sharing.
From the book theories of personality, schultz 9th edition.
Cool, thanks!
^ aha, that means socio-/mbti-types are measurable?
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
brain wave activity differs between all individuals. the result is still useless if there is not also a convergence in activity between people of the same type.
I was very excited by the video in the beginning, but got disappointed afterwards - not before wasting many hours with it. It's a simplistic array of facts about the brain functioning and bare assertions *somehow* connecting them to the functions. Functions which btw, are used as as MBTI *if anything* (eg the "undisciplined" ESFP - and Exhorter, adding Ne - is Fe dominant, or that INFP is fundamentally into organized religion) - it's all in that PDF.
You talk about "the 8 functions" but you don't even know/care what are you refering at, as usual you take the names of the functions and types as their very essence, disregarding the inherent differences between those in Socionics and other Jungian-based determinations with similar names. That's gross equivocation. I beg you consider it, as it's not the first time...
One thing is certain, the video describes the location of the functions differently than Socionics. In Socionics it was experimentally (allegedly, too) concluded that one hemisphere is dynamic and the other is static. However, this theory claims that one hemisphere hosts both of what we know as dynamic and static functions, aka left = Perceiving and right = Judging.
---
It's a bunch of gibberish but containing very good observations about individuals of certain types, I like that (I also agree that the fundamentals of philosophy can be found in psychology and the other way around). I see no scientific experiment or demonstration of how those simple facts were used to infer so much, too.
How does that prove anything, how is it "scientifically demonstrated" for instance that the functions are actually mapped on those areas of the brain as she claims? Or what proves the big H.M. case here, that Judging = long-term memory and Perceiving is short-term, or what's the idea? (this was not the case even in Jung, btw, there's no connection between memory type and Rationality, T/F, N/S nor I/E) Apparently scientists don't yet know what are the real functions of the hippocampus. These flat assertions also specify that cognitive functions are precise regions of the brain, while the full MBTI types are rather what we know as functions (connections in the brain which are used for information flow).
There are also a lot of other amateurish assertions around, like erasing the border between physical bodies and objects, as used in philosophy/psychology, or between the perception and physical sensations - pretty much the same mistakes that anndelise has done at one point with a *very* similar video (they may even be related). Is that lady actually taken seriously in academia?
---
Those EEG measurements sound interesting, if you feel like sharing.
And how were the two neuro super-duper scientific articles supposed to demonstrate the same thing as long as the video explains that all P are on the left and all J are on the right hemisphere, while the written article states that T,S are on the left, and N,F are on the right?
(in case I'm missing something - I'm kinda tired right now)Jung’s four Functions are rooted in four distinct areas of the cortex. Thinking is housed in the Left Frontal Lobe. Intuition is housed in the Right Frontal Lobe. Sensation is housed in the Left Posterior Convexity. Feeling is housed in the Right Posterior Convexity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote