Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Neuroscience And 4 Personality Subtypes (with Dr. Dario Nardi) | PersonalityHacker.com
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2022
- In this podcast Joel and Antonia are joined by guest host Dr. Dario Nardi to talk about the 4 subtypes of each personality type.
You can find all the portraits under "The 64 Subtypes in Depth" at my.sharedbook.com/serve/nm/ra...
Take The Personality Test: www.PersonalityHacker.com |
Read More In Our Book: amzn.to/2NscRrG
#PersonalityTypes #MBTI #MyersBriggs #PersonalGrowth #SelfHelp
#infp #infj #intj #intp #enfp #enfj #entj #entp #isfj #istj #estj #esfj #istp #estp #isfp #esfp
Thank you for watching. If you found this valuable - would you take a moment to like & subscribe... then share this with someone you think would enjoy this conversation. Thanks. 🙂
Nardi lookin swaggy
He must - since he's an international man of mystery. ~ Joel
I don't know you but you are an awesome person
This reminds me of four sides of mind for each type. Great that Jung's ideas are being developed and worked on from various perspectives!
Me too. Perhaps the Ego is dorminant, supconscious is creative, shadow is normalizing and superego harmonizing when developed. Or simply certain types are 1 of these 4 ways and in each quadra is always these ways in those 4 types perhaps m.m.
Super interesting. I'm an INTJ but I was always like I'm not the classical stereotype. My career has been in creative IT, creative moviemaking and now I call my company "Asset Creators" instead of "Asset Management" to stress the creative part. Now I know I'm creative subtype. Thank you so much Dario Nardi! Hope you can get some funding to do a gigantic peer-reviewed study with brain data and all that so it can be scientifically proven and get more acceptance that way.
INFJ here! Cracked open my Magic Diamond Book and realized I am wholly Holistic in all my functions 😳 excited to balance out!
Thanks Viki for sharing what you discovered about yourself. ~ Joel
infj here... and I can't wait to see the visuals of the brain scans to go along with the exploration and research of this project. I'm fascinated by the ways in which COVID has expanded so many horizons in creative ways. A lot of people out there had time and space to dig in and go nuts! Thank you, Personality Hacker for expanding our possibility for growth by sharing Dr. Nardi with us. I can't wait to dig a little deeper into my own subtype. :]
This is awesome and makes a ton of sense. I know that this is very specific but just wanted to add a thought. I had been a fairly dominant ENFJ but at age 48, I sustained a brain injury and noticed my personality shift. I am A LOT less dominant and far more harmonizing. My ability to focus was decreased tremendously and I am far more
observing than I ever was. This seems to support an analytic vs holistic shift due to the injury. Thanks! It seems that I have changed subtypes within the ENFJ vs becoming an INFJ.
Excellent interview!
Thanks for joining the conversation by watching Denise. ~ Joel
Legends, Thank You 👏👏🌸
Thank you for watching Dani. ~ Joel
This is the first time I’ve seen you two! I listen to your podcast on Spotify all the time. Nice to put a face with your voices! 😂❤
Glad you were able to come join us here on UA-cam Jennifer. ~ Joel
Female ENTP here & definitely never fit into the stereotype. I have quite a few ENFPs around me and it was fascinating being able to recognize the different subtypes in them. I always love hearing Antonia’s take on things because of the Ti breakdown, but her subtype made it so much clearer to me why an ENTP friend of mine always gets mistaken for a Te dom due to his dominant interactive style. Thank you for the amazing content!
Thank you for your feedback. ~ Joel
Enjoying the outside the box thinking of Dr Nardi and how he is bringing together lots of different ideas and concepts.
Thank you Randy for your feedback. ~ Joel
Just heard Dr Dario Nardi, on ENFP subtypes yesterday, & it’s been mind expanding & explains so much more about each personality type. WOW, from 16 to 64 (00)!!!
I'm amazed!
Wow. That's great. Thanks for sharing. ~ Joel
Good data to excuse, motivate People to shift, challenge themselves to change if they want.
Thank you for sharing your feedback. ~ Joel
Antonia, your Ti is so apparent and inspiring to me. A definite top stack. Surprised others don’t see it. 🤨
Thank you 😊 love love love this look into us as the forever expanding kaleidoscope 💜❤️ happy ENFP connecting so much of this conversation with so many people I know and situations and experiences, growing inner glow ☀️🤸🏼♀️
Thank you for sharing. ~ Joel
I listened to the audio version on my commute and found it full of so much fascinating information I had to watch the video version here so I could take notes. Great stuff!
One question I do have; Why do you have 2 copies of "The Ultimate Sales Letter," and more importantly, why aren't they next to each other on your bookshelf? 😏
Hi Joel. You may notice multiple copies of other books too. Sometimes we forget we already own a copy and we end up with another. Or we have a second copy to highlight and markup. I think that particular book "The Ultimate Sales Letter," was actually my mom's copy that somehow ended up at our studio. And why they aren't next to each other... well... we are Perceivers. ~ Joel
Subtypes are good for those who got stuck on caricatures of the types/functions when it was only meant to make a holistic point. They get stuck on, *lose the forest from the trees*. (This is good to push towards because the typology community as a whole seem overly stuck on literal stereotypes lol)
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this. I agree that we need way more nuance of understanding without losing ourselves to the system itself. ~ Joel
can't help myself. Sorry. People also get stuck losing the trees for the forest (the converse of what you said - I may have misunderstood looking at Joel's answer to you). I preferred Dario's driving analogy - I reckon that fits a whole lot better with real life. To be clear, though, I agree with your point & am nitpicking.
I relate to harmonizing. ✨✨✨
Thank you for sharing what resonates from the 4 flavors. ~ Joel
26:30 I was itching to be there to be like PLEASE BREAK IT DOWN. Thank you 😆. That pesky Ti, man
According to Gulenko DCNH subtypes can shift over time.
That is the perspective Dario and we take as well.
-A-
Can you please link the website Dario Nardi mentions for pdf's on the subject? Unable to find it...
I didn't realize it wasn't in the description! My apologies. You can find all the portraits under "The 64 Subtypes in Depth" at my.sharedbook.com/serve/nm/radiancehouse/marketplace/
@@Personalityhacker Thank you :)
The link in comments doesn’t work. Where can I get Darius book on this? Nothing on Amazon for reference.
Is a "normalized" intuitive the same as an intuitive who has "blended"? "Blended" being a term Antonia referenced in much earlier podcasts.
Me @46:00
In his book "64 Types" Gulenko notes the 4 CPI types also correlates to DCNH as he illustrates below:
4 CPI Types:
Alpha: Externally focused on achieving productive goals within societal norms.
-Dominant.
Beta: Internally adhering to societal norms and values.
-Normative.
Gamma: Externally focused interactions, but able to ignore the dictates of norms and make independent decisions.
-Creative.
Delta: Internally oriented with a good imagination. Inclined to reflection and prefers to make their own decisions.
-Harmonizing.
Isn't normative just externally accepting societys Norms but internally rebelling which is why a hobby non work outlet is needed?
What if u have a neurological condition which affects processing, does that have a play in this or not
We should explore this question on future interviews with Dario. Thanks for the comment. ~ Joel
I have a hunch more women are harmonizing and more men dominating.
skater boy intj
The bedrock?
Thanks to Hippocrates
Internal record of external world phlegmatic
Internal record of internal world ( abstract and intuition) melancholy
External reaction to external world choleric
External activities beginning with internal world ( intuition and abstract dreamers)focus
Sanguine
33:30 you are welcome fellow impatient people😆
Intj's without the luxury and "who have to put all the semi-colons at the end of the code." That's *got* to be a Matlab joke 😂; also ironic in this context since doing so suppresses output/ expression. I see what you did there, Dario.
Thanks Tariq for the comment. ~ Joel
Black and white. Good for them not seeing color
Black and white are colours 😊
It’s a joke, mate 👀
The INFP>ENFP Dario is describing around 48 sounds like Russell Brand
I get absolutely no infp vibes from Russell Brand
@@keithparker1346ya im not sure what i was trying to say here - I'm going to have to reqatch this lol
oh he's describing an ENFP but he just mentions he thought he might be INFP before he got to know him - harmonizing ENFP but really he would be more dominant....it was just that small description sounds like his current path
a comment on the interview itself: I found myself hating on your behaviour a little, Antonia, which felt bizarre because I usually very much respect & appreciate your style. But the interview interview itself afforded me some context to this weird vibe I got, & that is analytical v's wholistic. For me, those are really the wrong words to use - at least in this context. I liked Dario's analogy to driving a car better. You can be analytic & wholistic at the same time - it's not a either/or thing. And once I got to that part, I uncovered what I was annoyed about, really. It was the reduction. In reducing it, you boil the individuality and complexity away, turning the human race in to 64 different kinds of people: no more, no less - to be expanded once we start going in to sub-sub-types, like sub-atomic particles. So that was a reminder of what Dario opened with, that he's going to annoy a lot of people, by pigeon-holing them. The ideas need to be reduced to make them comprehensible & accessible by the great unwashed (after all, that's whole idea behind what you guys are doing!), but - well - my suggestion might be to throw in more qualifiers, or a covering statement or two at least, to mention that what you're really doing is presenting archetypes (as in: a perfect example -- Mirriam-Webster dictionary) when presenting the reduced version. In this, I appreciated Joels attempts to deliver something that's relatable to the real world in the style of 'for example, you might like to be an accountant because...' Eek - this should be broken up with a paragraph or two (sorry). Finally, I'd like to just speak plainly & put it out there: To ME - my impression - I own it - I think Joel presents as a little under-confident because he might be having a bit of imposter syndrome and looking for approval? I've learned something relatively recently, & that is when I say stuff like that, I'm really commenting on my own projection of myself on to others. So I recognize that that thought might only be "I smell something that reminds me of my own shit" - & please take it with a grain of salt, Joel.
I think as one grows older, like it or not life will flesh you out. So, as you grow older, you're going to be able to relate to more & more, & it's going to get very confusing - & even lead you to get the "fuck it"s - trying to work out exactly what you are. This subtypes stuff is taking us down the track of understanding that 80-100 billion neurons in each head will give us stars, & halos etc., all manor of combinations & permutations, & the further we look, the more we find. It's juicy stuff. Fascinating! Thank you guys for this.
As an INFJ, it’s funny this is how he reconciled the different systems. Seems to make things more confusing; might as well just describe people as individuals and forget the typing systems… but guess even with Ni, Te does weird things and seems to get lost in the details when realize inductive reasoning led to over generalizations… (also curious about the validity/reliability of how he typed participants)
Between Ni/Ti and a social/behavioral science background, I’m just watching this like “dude, you are doing too much…” People not fitting into 16 stereotypes isn’t fixed by making 64 stereotypes. things irl exists on continuums; we construct where to draw the lines and make categories. models and systems are supposed to simplify complex phenomena so we can think and communicate about them on general terms. No model of human behavior/thought can fit every individual perfectly, always more variables and exceptions to the rules
To me, it makes more sense to look at the cognitive functions as 4 innate general temperaments (xNFJ-xSTP, xNTJ-xSFP, xSFJ-xNTP, and xNFP-xSTJ), with preference order relatively equal and flexible at birth/first year. Culture, societal or familial expectations, presented hobbies/activities, trauma/coping options, caregiver attunement/attachment, etc reward or punish how we use those functions in subtle and overt ways, all day everyday. As we mature, different functions get more practice and advance, and may be applied differently in different situations.
This actually leaves much more space for individual variation than the 64 stereotypes while still simple enough to understand and communicate But you can’t type based on surface information; otherwise you end up confusing opposite types, like INFPs and INFJs. It’s like the Heinz dilemma; doesn’t matter which answer someone gives, their score is based on the explanation
The subjects were primarily Dario's students, lab assistants and other known participants during his time at UCLA. These subtypes are the result of four distinct brainwave patterns that showed up repeatedly on EEG readings of the 16 types. Specifically, preference for the pre-frontal executive functions, a 'starburst' pattern, a 'diamond shape' pattern and a 'quilt-like' pattern. Regardless of the type, these four variances showed up time and time again. They are related to the neurotransmitters people have preferences for, an observation made by Dr Helen Fisher (who Dario credits in the conversation). Your comment about how we grow as individuals is effectively the same concept, since our influences (particularly things like gender before the age of 25 and career choice afterward) are related to the neural pathways to which we default.
If it makes it easier to understand, think of it as another typology system that beautiful overlays on the 16 types and influences how the types will show up. Most people into typology don't feel knowing both their Enneagram and Myers-Briggs types renders it too complicated to manage / we may as well just say people are unique individuals. They recognize that these are different lenses to reflect upon their own patterns and add a bit more nuance. Plus, this layer is particularly helpful as it diagnoses growth opportunities. If I'm overly dependent upon the holistic versions of my preferred cognitive functions, then there are analytic uses of those same functions that are available to me which I can develop and become a more balanced version of my type.
-A-
@@Personalityhacker If it helps you understand yourself better, cool. We use different systems and theories that have shaky evidence, including the mbti (reason not specifying the typing method is a huge red flag). But then, you acknowledge the limitations and don’t claim scientific proof that isn’t there, and can’t be if you understand research methods and statistics..
I wasn’t asking for a lesson on how to think about and understand seemingly contradictory theories and frameworks; my masters and studying DBT made it second nature. I was also a student lab assistant throughout my entire undergrad at another top research institution. That’s how I can raise potential issues with methods and conclusions as well as speak to real life application and how you could synthesize different theories and frameworks
I heard Dr. Dario say the participants were his lab assistants and “known” individuals, but he also made comments about the large sample size (idk the number, but the sample needs to be huge to validate 64 types). Anyway this just brings up more questions around bias and validity… and maybe ethics. It doesn’t tell me how they were typed or the degree of validity and reliability. “What was the typing method?” should be the easiest question about the project. Was it a test? Which one? Or structured interview? Which outline and who scored?… Or did people just self identify?
If the 16 groups aren’t valid, you can’t generalize that “variants” exist in each type; you can’t say anything about the within group pattern. Dr. Dario did admit at one point that he didn’t have the numbers to back up his claims, but pointed to the EEGs and made over generalizations. From what he and you said, scientifically he can only say there are 4 EEG patterns, but can’t say anything about if or how those patterns relate to mbti. Appeals to prestige and authority do NOT fix or address any of these methodology issues.
The problem isn’t limited to this framework either. Playing fast and loose like this, and hiding behind doctor at prestigious institution, contribute to people not trusting science, especially complex social and behavioral sciences. We don’t just make claims based on our experience and beliefs. There are serious methods and protocols, but this presentation is full of red flags.
@@Personalityhacker also this doesn’t “diagnose” anything. You don’t need another system to identify when you’re focusing too much on the forest or the trees… when you layer 3 measures that lack validity on top of each other (enneagram, mbti, and now this) without accounting for their limitations/error, you’re just muddying the waters and validity actually decreases. Of course people are confused! These systems have more in common with religion and spirituality than science (that’s true of pretty much anything linked to Jung). If you want to talk personality with scientific evidence, then go to the Big 5
To clarify, are you claiming to be an infj or are you saying he is an infj? Neither makes sense, so just looking to put all of your assertions into context.
@@randypoisson8823 i'm an INFJ, per cognitive functions. i don't remember what he said he was (this was >2 months ago), maybe INTJ since i used Ni/Te to comment on his errors in logic. but neither of our types really matter for why his 64 subtypes don't hold up to scrutiny. the issues have to do with research/scientific methods, statistics, and validity. the main point was that this presentation is sketchy and has red flags for a snake-oil salesman.
he misrepresented what his research found and what are his assumptions/beliefs. from what i can tell, the science only proved the 4 general types; the rest is just conjecture. the reasons i said this get into the weeds of how we do social sciences and statistical analysis to make general claims. the MBTI doesn't have much scientific validity and adding these subtypes doesn't fix that; if anything it makes things more difficult to prove and functionally meaningless. (i have a MA and BSc in psychology)
i went on to theorize about another potential relationship between those 4 types and the MBTI: maybe there are 4 innate temperaments (the top 4 functions) and experience determines the order and specific type. So for example. Someone could be born with the Ni-Se-Fe-Ti temperament; life experiences then lead them to develop those functions more or less. As they get older, those patterns get stronger and more engrained to become INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, or ESTP. But that's just an educated guess, assuming that the MBTI is even a valid way of categorizing people...
did that help clarify things? if not, can you be more specific about what doesn't make sense? i'll try my best to explain in this limited forum.
Do you want to thoroughly understand Victor Gulenko's DCNH subtype system???? Read this condensed, easy to understand, English version of Gulenko's explanation direct from his "Psychological Types: Why Are People So Different?: 64 Portraits in Socionics" found below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCNH distinguishes the following 4 primary roles each person prefers to play within group social hierarchies:
1) DOMINANT (Leader): Competitive with enhanced vigor and determination; often recognized as the group leader; sets clear objectives; ambitious (even when claiming the contrary); agrees only to temporary compromises with an eye on winning; acts decisively in complicated situations; has a high standard of performance; able to delegate responsibility; authoritarian but not in the details; communicates with a wide range of people while possessing only a small circle of close friends. Motives others and acts as the engine of the group.
Expressed in purposeful terminal action over reflection.
Obsessed by intense activities involving all possible resources, including human, to achieve difficult goals. Which constantly “itches” the brain and does not give rest. Attracted by a strong desire, such a person tries many times to reach the goal, and does not give up with each failed attempt. On the contrary failure generates even more desire to achieve the goal.
Possesses what is sometimes called “sports anger.” Sometimes this obsession comes to fanaticism, which is the maximum motivation for the goal. He is already trying in a different way next time. There is flexibility and ingenuity (Se comes into play). Fixedness with one idea does not end with constant repetition of what does not work.
Sometimes postpones action for a while. Sooner or later, with such concentrated energy and maneuverability, a shift begins. Supporters then gather excitedly to follow the bright leader that energetically moves toward each new goal.
Naturally measures the visual and tangible progress of practical goals as they materialize.
Enhanced through the linear-assertive functions Fe and Te. Fe energy resonates with Te physical movements. ( Se and Ne will also earn you respect as well.)
2) CREATIVE (generator of ideas): Change oriented; searches for new directions and allies; obsessed with originality; rebellious and individualistic; have the power of originality (and sometimes folly); pugnaciousness; ignores common standards; impulsive; dislikes following lengthy procedures; enhanced desire for novelty; offers original solutions; therefore, claiming the independent role in the group.
Characterized by non-standard perceptions and reactions of situations that leads to developing innovations. Flexibly chooses the direction of movement within group dynamics.
Marked by paradoxical thinking and non-standard behavior to solve problems of special complexity that are unattainable for the usual, previously tried, techniques.
Strong inner concentration blocks out external distractions.
The weaknesses of the creative subtype are his uneven working capacity and extreme individualism. Periods of inspiration alternate with stagnation, and even depression. Individualism stems from an unwillingness to reckon with the norms accepted in the collective. The boss of the creative is forced to indulge him, otherwise, he risks losing his talented, unique employee.
Enhanced through the flexible-adaptive functions Ne and Se. Ne (opportunities intuition) resonates with Se (force sensing.) Also aided by Fe, with the help of which the generated idea is presented to the public in a catchy, memorable form. Archimedes, as you remember, shouted “Eureka!”
3)NORMALIZING (finisher): Accurate; compliant; disciplined; efficient; seeks routine work environments that require little flexibility or important decision making; patient; pays attention to detail; conservative; has a narrow circle of trusted friends.
Provides stability within the group due to accepting and supporting formal or informal norms. He is measured and planned, and therefore quite predictable.
He has a good memory, which tells what traditions have passed the test of time. The society is very interested in having many people with Normalizing behavior. Normalizing people, thus, form the foundation of any society. Without them, there would be no order or civilization.
Characterized by the identification, establishment and maintenance of norms and rules regulating both the formal and informal aspects of life and space. Tolerates uncertainty and a constant unpredictable change in the rules worse than the rest
Enhanced through balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi. And to a lesser extent Ni. Ti (structural logic) as a set of formal rules and norms is supported by Fi (relational ethics) which are guided by informal norms and traditions.
Fi is primary. It arises for the first time when ancient people are just beginning to stick together, without having any formal organization. Psychologically Fi is expressed as anxiety and conscience, attachment to close people, and loyalty to traditions. Normalizing by Ti is secondary since it has a formal character and arises later. It is based on knowledge and observance of laws which requires certain psychological qualities of cool-bloodedness and dispassion. Functions Ti and Fi reliably support each other: law-abiding is stable not because of fear of punishment, but out of conscientiousness.
4) HARMONIZING (corrector): Externally calm looking yet easily embarrassed; anxiously hoping for the best; frugal and simple; emotionally sensitive, compliant; avoids conflict, irritable when feeling smothered; tolerant for the sake of habitual comfort; generous and able to empathize with the weak; allusive.
Manifests the enhanced sensitivity to disturbance of group harmony, thus functioning as a peacemaker in a group environment.
Characterized by sensitivity to changes in the broadest sense (from personal to organizational), and developed aesthetic flair. Tolerates aggravated conflicts and contradictions less than the rest. Therefore tends to distance itself from physical and psychological conflict.
Provides feedback in the communicative system. He sends correction signals as an indicator of the psychological atmosphere. At first abruptly and even violently resists a violent demand, but then gradually reconciles and adapts to it.
Enhanced through receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni because they have similar energy. A state of Si (physical relaxation) activates the flight of Ni (imagination) and vice versa. As well as Fi.
- Si: Remember the Latin phrase “Mens sana in corpore sano” (healthy spirit is in a healthy body), in achieving a harmonious state of the psyche.
- Ni: The path of growth from sensation to intuition is more natural, and not vice versa. So, in yoga, you first pass the lower stage of Hatha, sensory, and then move on to the spiritually-intuitive Raja.
- Fi will provide more sufficient harmonization than Ti. After all, Ti is a cold-bloodedness and indifference, dulling the sensitive tuning and adjustment. And the last ones are crucial in the harmonization.
Darionardi mentioned possible 8 subtypes.
In his "64 Portraits in Socionics" Gulenko actually describes an expanded version of 8 DCNH subtypes when a group is composed of 8 people or more as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the group grows to seven or eight participants an additional primary/secondary scale is added creating 8 subtypes to reflect the following hierarchy of primary and secondary group needs.
- Primary: Basic needs such as food, healthcare, accommodation, household essentials, etc.
- Secondary: Higher goals such as career development, achieving greater social mobility, education opportunities, spiritual growth, etc.
The expanded 8 subtypes, their roles, and associated cognitive function are as follows:
1) Primary dominating (Informal leader or motivator): Fe
-Demonstrated through handiwork, emotional influence or inspiring through scare tactics.
-Among animals manifests itself in flashy colors, loud sounds, and impressive mimics or gestures.
2) Secondary dominating (Formal leader or Mover): Te.
-A business leader that stubbornly and persistently moves toward the goal.
3) Primary creating (Connector): Se.
-Enthusiastically giving a nonstandard, quick solution in an extreme situation that is critical for survival.
4) Secondary creating (Innovator): Ne
-Changeable behavior. Associated with intellectual fantasy and nonstandard ideas aimed at future problem solving.
5) Primary normalizing (group Conscience): Fi
-Can be seen as alarming and suspicious behavior which does not rely on formal traditional rules.
6) Secondary normalizing (Coordinator): Ti
-Leads to the formation of overly formal behavior.
Based on regulations, instructions, and official laws.
7) Primary harmonizing (Designer): Si
-Values bodily comfort.
8) Secondary harmonizing (Expert): Ni.
- Isolated and self-immersive behavior. Sees things on a spiritual-mental level.