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.

Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia + Neuroplasticity
Neuroplasticity refers to the susceptibility to physiological changes of the nervous system, due to changes in behavior, environment, neural processes, or parts of the body other than the nervous system. The brain changes throughout life.
Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the general consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.
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 .

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