Anyone know anything about this book?
https://twitter.com/joycemeng22/stat...22734197153792
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...-magic-diamond
Seems to utilise Victor Gulenko and Helen Fisher’s work.
The Magic Diamond (Dario Nardi book)
Anyone know anything about this book?
https://twitter.com/joycemeng22/stat...22734197153792
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...-magic-diamond
Seems to utilise Victor Gulenko and Helen Fisher’s work.
Amazon has reviews and excerpts.
I’d regard myself as Holistic judging (Fi or Ti) based on that, and Holistic perceiving (Catalyst Ne).
So I logged in to comment on Nardio and go off spending time replying to Shotgun when I knew it would be unpleasant...and now I remember why I logged in!
Nardio is an interesting guy. Supposedly he created a bell curve way of typing people based on looking at their neural activity. If they are too far away from the curve, then he says they have no type or are an outlier type. I think that's interesting. I'm going to have more time over Christmas break, so I promise to read his book and I will comment on it later.
Originally Posted by Aramas
I purchased a copy yesterday. Hopefully there won't be too much of a delay in delivering it.
He seems to have misunderstood Si. At least in part.
Wait. Is this myers briggs?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
dat feel when I see myself in holistic Ne and have education of a scientist.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
He is a guy who is informed somewhat by Socionics. He has read Gulenko's recent book for example. But it is possible that he is primarily influenced by Jung.
Instead of doubting is a speculative method with questionable quality, he doubts in main theory, doing this mainly based on very limited doubtful results. A nice example of lack of self-criticism. With the lack of objectivity and of common reason such people generally do nothing useful, just fly in own dreams. There is a lof of such "interesting" ones.
He claims about "8 Paths" of Jung in the title(!) and then describes 16 of own views on functions. This inconsistency is another example of too speculative approach.
> I'm going to have more time over Christmas break, so I promise to read his book and I will comment on it later.
There is normal theory of types which is correct and useful. If to learn to use it good - this may give useful results with more chance than reading of speculative theoretical nonsense. Mainly such nonsense appears to cover the lack of practical skills what leads to worse results.
The similar reasons lead noobs to have an interest to heresies.
I'm doubtful about Nardi's brain scan research, or at least, would like to see it put up for peer review.
But the book may not cover that, and I guess I'm interested enough in a book that possibly has descriptions influenced by Gulenko and Helen Fisher.
I'm doubtful it could describe "512 subtypes" well and consistently, but I am hopeful. I have noticed since yesterday that even with those broad four groupings, I couldn't easily say if I have an "Analytical" or "Holistic" Judging style - I could easily see why somebody else would consider me as either. This makes me somewhat doubtful about its use as a tool of self-discovery (whether for defining myself, or when try to develop myself) - I'd be better off just picking up the insights I like and not limiting myself.
This really sounds like myers-briggs, and they have misunderstood Jung. Like why would Si be about "culture and history" and "guard others". He seems to be talking about FiSe ESI or something. The other box about "Hearth Si" sounds more correct.
Defender Si
Act as an anchor. On guard, and guard others. A firm sense of culture and history. Stick with the strongest impressions from your upbringing. Prefer convenience and familiarity. Block big changes. Traditional. Aim to civilize.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well when you build a system from pieces to function as whole do you use holistic Ne with analytical Ti or analytic Ne with holistic Ti?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Maybe so.
Nardi links the 16 types with specific brain activity (or EEG data).
Certain cognitive-skills are also linked with certain parts of the brain.
Here is an ENFJs brain activity:
For an ENFJ brain, you can see high activity in the brain regions that involve:
--words,
--explaining things,
--tone & voice,
--social feedback.
This makes sense since we know ENFJs are Fe-ego
From what I've seen of the book so far - it feels like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, although possibly more constructive in that it doesn't require so much effort from yourself. And it does sound very much like a lot of MBTI books I used to read while at university - so I would say it is MBTI that is heavily informed by Socionics.
In terms of Socionics - from what I see, I don't think it gets anymore interesting than what has already been posted in this thread, thus I think most people here would be disappointed by it if they were expecting more. Or at least, if you want a Socionics book and you can only choose one book, go for the Gulenko one.
But I think this book will be of value to me - it will allow me to ask questions of myself and perhaps allow for self-improvement, which is more than I can say for the years I've read about Socionics. If you are sceptical of stereotypical self-help books, as I am, you might hate it - but personally, I think it has a lot of content to think about. But there are probably better books in that regard - it's just that it's nice to read a book influenced by much of the things I have.
The book does somewhat cover a summary of his claimed EEG data, but it is worthless to laypeople such as ourselves. If it does have value, then I'll wait for some peer-reviewed research to pick it up before I start dissecting brains or whatever can be done practically with the data.
I thought this was interesting (page 424):
"A tricycle configuration means the dominant process leads (as the front wheel), while two processes provide support (as back wheels). The study's results support the hypothesis that the supporting wheels are generally one of two orientations relative to the dominant: either 1), an auxiliary function in both attitudes; or 2), an auxiliary function and the opposite attitude of the dominant function (Barimany 2017; 2020). Thus, we might wish to revise the current coding scheme we use to represent personality type patterns. For example, for ISTJ, it is apparently more accurate to say Si-Tx, where Tx indicates both Te and Ti, rather than saying Si-Te."
(By ISTJ, it means SLI)
The 2017 paper is here: The hierarchy of functions in Jungian Psychological Type: Comparing theory to evidence by Mina Barimany
I didn't read the survey but that's a nice way to conceptualize 2 subtypes. (Si + Te) + Se = SLI-Si or (Si + Te) + Ti = SLI-Te
I need to get back to that because it didn't make immediate sense to me, but it seemed like it might have some relevance for or against Model A.
He is a MBTI first Guy. In the book he basically backs up most of Objective personality and ties that into DCHN. He never says this by name, besides giving Gulenko
credit for the DCHN subtypes, the "Holistic" vs "analytical" stuff is the masculine, feminine functions from Objective personality type.
Reply With Quote
