I see him as basically an opportunistic idealist throwing a shoe into the machine of academia so that others can enter with more based on Jung’s work if they desire. He is like a noble lemming, sacrificing his reputation as a serious scientist for new age spiritual pursuits aka his personal interest.
He is deffo ILI IMO. Also heard he is gay but that’s irrelevant except it may have something to do with his unique way of thinking.
That's fair enough. I'm all for idealists, and I find people who focus too much on "reputation" to be irritating anyways because such discussions usually detract from content when new ground is being broken. Not that his content is great just yet; it needs a ton of work as well to clarify and improve. But, he does seem like an intelligent systems scientist on the whole.Originally Posted by sbbds
He certainly has a strong Ni accentuation, as his work should clearly display (doesn't he invent RPG games or something like that?). ILI is possible, but I don't know him well enough to tell and there are so many different paradigms that your thinking of him as ILI and Gulenko as LII-H might actually coincide quite a bit.
It’s relevant because it all adds up towards his career as a researcher, who should strive to put out quality research publications, not speculative garbage. What makes you think he seems like an intelligent systems scientist, besides his PhD title or reputation?
I looked into his work a few years ago and found it to be fascinating in design and novelty albeit quite inconclusive, but I don't remember it all that well. I'm not that interested in personal judgments about someone I barely know. I'm neither a huge supporter or detractor of his.
I suggest you look into the links I posted where a person with more of a background in neuroscience debated with Nardi for a bit about his work on PersonalityCafe and outlined many of the methodological issues his work has.
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. And then charge $100+USD to people, mostly poor students who don’t know any better and are duped into it for them to volunteer as a research participant. And peddle that crap as legitimate scientific research work to other people in the form of books. That’s being a sycophant and I’m going to make personal judgments about that. And being a weeb based on his background is indisputable as well.
I've already engaged with many people that are major detractors of Nardi's work, including some personal friends. I agree that it's not great science or anything. I think his claims have been excessive regarding it, but I don't feel all that harshly towards him as a person.
I enjoy your calm demeanour.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote