A search of recent discussions yields some unintelligible thread by tcaudilllg and Korpsey's article of destructive applications of neuroscience thread. The subject of this thread was not really discussed in either (or any subject for that matter ) so I'm assuming the honor of bringing it before the court.
It has been speculated that certain parts of the brain will atrophy with lack of use and others will strengthen and grow from related activity. Now that the jury knows about as much as I do about the topic at hand, let's proceed .Originally Posted by Wikipedia + Neuroplasticity
If the relationship between the physical structure of the brain and type is direct, then is not type only a temporary behavioral model? Wouldn't it be inaccurate one for rapidly changing brains (e.g. children, students, etc.)? Do you believe that the origin of the expression of one's type is not necessarily found in the brain?
If you guys don't believe in the validity of neuroplastic (or neuroscience in general) research, why? Sure, it's been discredited by the business world with their silly attempts at using it to make a profit and probably has its fair share of pseudo scientific crap. However, the scientific reality of neuroscience is undeniable, and it has been and is being used to undeniably sound effects in various brain-related injuries, especially strokes and spine related injuries.
For those of you who would still believe type is in some way inherited genetically or otherwise predestined for life, I challenge you to produce an argument for how that's possible without including the brain in the explanation or otherwise soundly denounce neuroscience philosophically (an approach I would accept and respect ).
Disclaimer; This is not a neuroscience NWO thread, tcaudilllg beware. I know jack shit about anything neuroscientifically deeper than the explanation above. I'm not denouncing your awesome wet dreams about duality or socionics. Please have mercy