What do you think?
Rate this book
Neuroscience of Personality: Brain Savvy Insights for All Types of People
Inside your brain are many keys to what make you and others tick. Imagine peering into the minds of your clients, friends, and loved-ones. Now you can! Award-winning UCLA professor and author Dario Nardi brings to life a feast of useful insights drawn from his brain research lab. He will lead you on a journey of self-discovery, chapter by chapter, that is grounded in first-hand scientific knowledge of the brain. This is a practical guide. Learn how to target "in flow" and "low-threshold" activities that engage people creatively and improve their work-flow and learning. Identify people's struggles and stress areas, including "high-threshold" activities for which a person may avoid or do poorly. You will also enjoy a bird's eye view that summarizes many key aspects of the brain all in one place, in everyday language with case studies, work spaces, and visual maps. New to personality type? This book introduces the basics of the 16 Myers-Briggs types, four temperaments, and eight Jungian cognitive processes. Worksheets guide readers to locate their best-fit personality type code. Fans of Carl Jung's work and the Myers-Briggs personality types will be pleased to learn there is strong neurological validity in the brain for eight distinct cognitive processes and sixteen types. Amaze people with cool insights and implications for how people operate! You may even learn which part of your head to point to and say, "This is where I'm thinking right now."
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
47 people are currently reading
1430 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 3, 2021
This was rly shit tbh lmao like I could go into it extensively but idk if she’s worth the effort ... maybe I’ll make a list
1) Low sample size
2) Some of the sample doesn’t even say what he wants them to say
3) Sometimes he tosses out observations but doesn’t rly show how they support MBTI so therefore I guess I should think they don’t ????
4) Dreadfully boring honestly
5) A lot of the book goes into talking about his laboratory and his research process and it’s honestly not particularly fascinating.
6) I don’t understand how we are supposed to apply an analysis of how the different parts of the brain work via his apparently Low tech (according to him) EEG? So quite a bit of his advice feels quite useless to me.
7) I think some parts ... contradicted. MBTI has a very bad habit of making stuff sound as ambiguous and confusing as possible so they can pass of a lack of meaning as mysterious ambiguous phrase 4.
8) I saw that he mistook empathic for empathetic which just made me mad
9) Overall it doesn’t feel too professional(?) It feels more like a fun XD book than a very scientific one.
10) My brain can’t decide whether to trust Dr Nardi more because he taught in UCLA or whether to disregard some of his claims because he’s not a neuroscience doctor but an anthropology one and honestly idk how that changes things but I feel like it might!
11) A lot of other stuff was very general “how to make your life better :)” stuff which wasn’t what I really wanted considering the more scientific vibe the book seems to be trying to go for. Idk, I wanted science. If I wanted to hear about stuff learnt on personal journeys I would definitely prefer something more entertaining. Isabel Myers was better at this tbh!
12) Some of the methodology is a little odd to me like if you ask the ppl ur researching for their MBTI type Before the study and then ask them how they’re thinking during the study ofc they’ll feel inclined to answer in a way that gels with their MBTI? They may also be inclined to stimulate their brains in a way that corresponds with their MBTI type
13) Furthermore I am Skeptical of the way in which some of the zones on the EEG and the cognitive functions line up.
14) If you’re going to prioritise cognitive functions in describing the types and organising them I do not understand the reason why you would advocate for the temperaments being NF, NT, SJ and SP when NF and NT do not share cognitive functions. Especially considering your insight that functions feed their opposites why not combine them based on their stack? Or just do better somehow lmao like categorise them by their first extroverted function or sth
I was looking to this book for some sort of proof that the MBTI corresponds with reality and to some extent it fulfilled that void within me but to a much larger extent it did not reassure me very much.
Brief fun things:
- Fe users being logical but not particularly empathetic wbk
- Fi being the actual empathetic function
- Fi feeding Te and Ti feeding Fe was fun to read about honestly. Like wbk that xxTJs have Fi at the back of their mind constantly so it was nice to have some vague unreliable confirmation of that
That’s really it basically. Honestly not sure if the blue flow state just signifies confidence (delusional or otherwise) because that would explain Ni a lot.
1) Low sample size
2) Some of the sample doesn’t even say what he wants them to say
3) Sometimes he tosses out observations but doesn’t rly show how they support MBTI so therefore I guess I should think they don’t ????
4) Dreadfully boring honestly
5) A lot of the book goes into talking about his laboratory and his research process and it’s honestly not particularly fascinating.
6) I don’t understand how we are supposed to apply an analysis of how the different parts of the brain work via his apparently Low tech (according to him) EEG? So quite a bit of his advice feels quite useless to me.
7) I think some parts ... contradicted. MBTI has a very bad habit of making stuff sound as ambiguous and confusing as possible so they can pass of a lack of meaning as mysterious ambiguous phrase 4.
8) I saw that he mistook empathic for empathetic which just made me mad
9) Overall it doesn’t feel too professional(?) It feels more like a fun XD book than a very scientific one.
10) My brain can’t decide whether to trust Dr Nardi more because he taught in UCLA or whether to disregard some of his claims because he’s not a neuroscience doctor but an anthropology one and honestly idk how that changes things but I feel like it might!
11) A lot of other stuff was very general “how to make your life better :)” stuff which wasn’t what I really wanted considering the more scientific vibe the book seems to be trying to go for. Idk, I wanted science. If I wanted to hear about stuff learnt on personal journeys I would definitely prefer something more entertaining. Isabel Myers was better at this tbh!
12) Some of the methodology is a little odd to me like if you ask the ppl ur researching for their MBTI type Before the study and then ask them how they’re thinking during the study ofc they’ll feel inclined to answer in a way that gels with their MBTI? They may also be inclined to stimulate their brains in a way that corresponds with their MBTI type
13) Furthermore I am Skeptical of the way in which some of the zones on the EEG and the cognitive functions line up.
14) If you’re going to prioritise cognitive functions in describing the types and organising them I do not understand the reason why you would advocate for the temperaments being NF, NT, SJ and SP when NF and NT do not share cognitive functions. Especially considering your insight that functions feed their opposites why not combine them based on their stack? Or just do better somehow lmao like categorise them by their first extroverted function or sth
I was looking to this book for some sort of proof that the MBTI corresponds with reality and to some extent it fulfilled that void within me but to a much larger extent it did not reassure me very much.
Brief fun things:
- Fe users being logical but not particularly empathetic wbk
- Fi being the actual empathetic function
- Fi feeding Te and Ti feeding Fe was fun to read about honestly. Like wbk that xxTJs have Fi at the back of their mind constantly so it was nice to have some vague unreliable confirmation of that
That’s really it basically. Honestly not sure if the blue flow state just signifies confidence (delusional or otherwise) because that would explain Ni a lot.
June 23, 2013
The premise of this book is that we generally use different parts of the brain for different functions, and the regions can be mapped (using EEG/fMri, etc) and functions can be interpreted and represented using Myers-Briggs/Jungian theory of personality...or the other way around. This book assumes personality is just pattern of cognitive functions, and thus not set in stone (Genes? Nurture overrides nature when push comes to shove, aka adapting). Dario Nardi attempts to show that personality types can be broken down to cognitive functions, and it can be validated by interpreting EEG patterns matching to cognitive map.
Here's the map generated from neuroscientific research ('this' region is generally associated with 'that' function, etc):
This book is recommended to people familiar with Myers-Briggs typology (16 types) and Jungian cognitive functions (8 functions).
Pros:
-It's interesting how cognitive functions were mapped to corresponding brain regions.
-Analyses were accurate. I found myself thinking 'This is how I think, or approach information and decisions!' And no, this isn't "cold reading" one gets from psychic.
-Label of me being an INFJ was confirmed.
cons:
-The book itself is pricey, but its quality is very cheap.
-The study this book is focused on can be dismissed due to sampling bias (he picked his participants rather than choosing at random).
-No statistical method was implemented. I'd argue this was a qualitative study rather than a quantitative one he led us to believe.
Worth it? -Yes..if you got $25 to spend for interesting insights.
Here's the map generated from neuroscientific research ('this' region is generally associated with 'that' function, etc):
This book is recommended to people familiar with Myers-Briggs typology (16 types) and Jungian cognitive functions (8 functions).
Pros:
-It's interesting how cognitive functions were mapped to corresponding brain regions.
-Analyses were accurate. I found myself thinking 'This is how I think, or approach information and decisions!' And no, this isn't "cold reading" one gets from psychic.
-Label of me being an INFJ was confirmed.
cons:
-The book itself is pricey, but its quality is very cheap.
-The study this book is focused on can be dismissed due to sampling bias (he picked his participants rather than choosing at random).
-No statistical method was implemented. I'd argue this was a qualitative study rather than a quantitative one he led us to believe.
Worth it? -Yes..if you got $25 to spend for interesting insights.
July 13, 2016
Understanding my MBTI preference and matching mental wiring changed how I view myself and others. The INTJ author brilliantly organized outstanding research and content. Dr. Nardi, as an ENFP, I'm indebted to your scientific findings.
October 19, 2024
UCLA professor uses an EEG machine on 56 college students and tries to correlate their neocortex activity to MBTI types. Most of the participants were Ne-doms, and the least were Se or Fe doms (153). All the students in the study were right-handed, because left-handers have a 50% chance of having their brain regions reversed (31). Does that mean that the functions of the brain regions are malleable based on which hand we choose to use?
“The left hemisphere is dominant for people who are right-handed. Reverse the situation for left-handers. Whichever hemisphere is dominant is the more verbal, linear, and analytical side; while the other is more holistic, spatial, and nonverbal” (33). That means that left = logic, and right = creative only applies to right handed people, and for left handed people it would be right = logic, and left = creative. I don’t see why a person’s dominant half couldn’t be the creative side.
Despite Nardi only studying right handed people, the ESFJ and ESTJ showed higher left brain activity, and the ESFP showed primarily right brain activity (93). The other types didn’t have a preference for left or right brain. But of course these brains were only of individuals and not the average of several people of the same type. This makes it hard to draw conclusions about type based on the brain scans. Although Nardi did say that half of the lab subjects shared 70-90% of their brain activity with other people of the same type (155).
Yet people will use this book to say that there is biological evidence for the existence of cognitive functions. The author said that each neocortex region couldn’t be tied to a specific cognitive function (48, 159), but later said “each Jungian process corresponds to specific regions” (179) and “cognitive functions unique to humans are highly represented in the neocortex” (194). Either way, his description of the neocortex regions sounded like specific functions (34-38, 70):
Fp1 = Ti, Fi, J (making a personal decision/choice; ignores negative emotions)
Fp2 = Ne (brainstorming, introspecting)
F7 = N, Fe (imaginative inferences, mirroring others’ behavior)
F3 = Ti (“if, then” logic)
F4 = Te (categorizing, defining)
F8 = Si, Fi (literal details & value judgments)
T3 = Si (attention to language/grammar)
T4 = Fe (attention to tone of voice)
T5 = Fe (social conformity, embarrassment/shame, men’s recognition/analysis of faces)
T6 = Ni (thinking of the future, predicting, women’s recognition/analysis of faces)
C3 = Se, T (sensation, step-by-step motion, facts)
C4 = SF (sensation, spontaneous motion, aesthetic qualities)
P3 = Se, T (eye-hand coordination, math)
P4 = T (weighing pros and cons)
O1 = NT (mentally manipulating images/shapes)
O2 = NF (interpreting photos, art, abstract images)
Regions Fz and Pz were in the middle of the brain but the author didn’t explain anything about them.
The EEG showed a different color when the brain was having different levels of activity, measured in hertz (40):
Black = 0.0-.5 hertz = sleeping
Blue = 1.0-3.0 hertz = relaxed
Green = 3.5-7.5 hertz = alert, unhappy
Yellow = 8.0-14.0 hertz = active, happy
Orange = 14.5-18.0 hertz = presumably energized, but rarely shows up
Red = 18.5-40 hertz = excited
The neocortex lights up blue all over when the user is in a state of flow, where they are using their talent or passion (16).
ESTP gets this way when doing physical activity or solving a crisis (16).
ESTPs and ESFPs both show a tennis-hop brain pattern (90).
INFPs are the best listeners (16, 121).
Sensors “show more alpha activity (8.0-14.0 Hz),” which means they’re probably happier than intuitives (124, 127, 157).
Autistics tend to show low activity in F7 (N, Fe) and high activity in F8 (Si, Fi) (55). Nardi says F8 is most active for Si or Fi types, but then says type research has linked mild autism with Ti (129). Autistics tend to have great memory for minor details but struggle with making inferences based on context. For example, if asked what word might go with ‘lake’ and ‘woods,’ they might say ‘dolphin’ instead of ‘cabin’ or ‘fishing’ like most people would (55). Now I’m going to ask “What word goes with ‘lake’ and ‘woods’?” of everyone online who claims to have autism (and it seems like it’s almost everyone). Ehehehe. So far the autistics have given answers like “cabin.” When I suggested the dolphin answer, they said that made no sense because dolphins aren’t in lakes. Maybe Nardi gave a bad example. Or maybe these “autistics” just aren’t autistic!
Nardi’s definitions (72):
extraversion = external world (people, places, objects, actions)
Introversion = inner world (thoughts, feelings, memories, imagination)
According to this, extraverted intuition can’t mean imagination because imagination is introverted. But other sources say Ne is imaginative. (Nardi later describes extraverted intuiting as “flow with imaginative potential possibilities as they emerge,” but he might be using Berens’ definition [85]). Jung didn’t; he said it was about seeking new things/people/experiences.
S, N, T, and F (73, direct quotes):
“In any situation, we can focus our attention and access information using either of the following functions:
S - focus on tangible data, what is known (the past and present), and practical means. This is tangible, experiential awareness
N - focus on concepts, patterns, potential (the future or atemporal), and ‘what-if’. This is symbolic, conceptual awareness.
Also, we can make decisions and get organized using either of the following functions:
T - decide and organize based on objective criteria, logic or model-based reasoning, and impersonal principles.
F - decide and organize based on social appropriateness, values, and importance or worth to self and others.
Our smallest acts may involve all four functions. All four are needed, valuable, and available to everyone.”
Functions (paraphrasing 74, 88-89):
Se = immersed in the present; operate on gut instinct; test limits; take risks; act quickly and smoothly; excited by motion, action, and nature; adept at physical multitasking; easily bored by mental/rote/quiet/still tasks; strong memory for details; impatient.
Si = stable, predictable, careful, persistent, hard working, conventional; trusts experiences and authority; in touch with body sensations; strong memory for kinship and raw details; invests for future security; very visual and have a good memory for details (including non-visual ones) (94, 95).
Ne = explores emerging patterns; generates ideas; likes analogies; makes good guesses; good at role play and mirroring others; difficulty staying on task; have the shortest attention spans (99).
Ni = withdraws from the world and enters trance to receive an insight or realization; tries out a realization to transform self; future-focussed; relies on the unconscious; likes symbols; dislikes rote practice; “slow to commit to permanently hard-wiring their brain around a particular task” like a specialist would (103).
Te = measures, constructs, goal oriented, controlling, confident; makes decisions objectively based on evidence. Checks whether things function properly; focussed on word content; good memory for facts and figures; likes visual models like charts/diagrams/grids; gets things done quickly at the expense of accuracy or deep thinking (107).
Ti = Detaches from a situation to study it from different angles and fit it into a theory, framework, or principle. Checks this fit for accuracy. Objective, analytical, good at categorizing, weighing odds/risks, deductive reasoning, navigating spaces; most likely type to be unhappy (110); least interested in listening (111). Nardi says Ti types’ “thought processes are not directly linked to sensory inputs, so their decision-making tends to be ‘deep’ and ‘detached’ (111). But ISTP is supposed to be Ti-dom and is a sensing type! How can both be true? ESTP is supposed to have Ti in aux, and ESTP is arguably the most sensing type there is!
Fe = nurturing trust through giving relationships; empathetically respond to others’ needs and take on their needs and values as their own; gives and receive support to grow closer to people; aware of how others judge them; adjust behavior for social harmony; easily coerced or embarrassed; their true emotional response about morals/ethics is often held back.
Fi = knows what they value/believe and who they are; stays true to self; evaluates based on how much they like or dislike something/someone; follows own morality/ethics; reads between the lines; hard to embarrass (really?!).
Nardi’s book showed the average brain activity of a person from each MBTI type during the hours long session that he studied each for (92-121, 128). He grouped activity into only four categories, so I can’t give a perfectly ordered stack of 8 or 16, only a stack of four with several functions in each of the four groups, which for ease of comparing to the 4 function model, I’ll label as dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior. The words in parentheses is a short summary of the individual whose brain was shown:
ESTP (gamer):
D: Ne, Ti, Te, T (Nardi said ESTPs use F3/Ti more than the other types [110] even though ESTP is not supposed to be Ti-dom!)
A: TiFiJ, Si, SeT, NF
T: NFe, Fe, Ni, NT
I: SeT, SF, Fe, SiFi
ESFP (worked many jobs):
D: Ne, NFe, SiFi, Fe
A: TiFiJ, SeT, SF, NT
T: Si, SeT, Ni, NF
I: Ti, Te, T, Fe
ISTJ (funny hard worker):
D: Ne, SiFi, Fe, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, SeT, NF
T: Ti, Si, Fe, Ni
I: Te, SeT, SF, T
ISFJ (artistic hard worker):
D: Ne, SF, Fe, NF
A: TiFiJ, Si, Fe, NT
T: Ti, SeT, SeT, Ni
I: NFe, Te, SiFi, T
ENTP (idea explorer):
D: Ne, NFe, Si, T (Nardi said ENTP uses P4/T more than the other types [110], yet ENTP is supposed to be Ne-dom!)
A: TiFiJ, SF, Fe, NF
T: SiFi, Fe, Ni, NT
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SeT
ENFP (claims to be able to size up someone’s psychology in an instant - isn’t that supposed to be INFJ’s special ability?):
D: Ne, NFe, Fe, NF
A: TiFiJ, SiFi, Fe, Ni
T: Si, SeT, T, NT
I: Ti, e, SeT, SF
INTJ (sci-fi writer):
D: Ne, Si, Ni, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, NF
T: SiFi, SeT, Fe, T
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SF
INFJ (moody, fickle):
D: Ne, SiFi, Si, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, Ni
T: Te, SF, Fe, NF
I: Ti, SeT, SeT, T
ESTJ (conventional leader):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, SeT, NT
A: Ne, NFe, Si, Ti
T: Te, Fe, Ni, NF
I: Te, SeT, T, SF
ENTJ (entrepreneur):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, Si, NT
A: Ne, SeT, Fe, NF
T: Te, SF, T, Ni
I: NFe, Fe, Ti, SeT
ISTP (nature loving drummer):
D: TiFiJ, SeT, NF, T (Nardi said her most active region was P3/SeT [127])
A: Ne, Si, Ni, NT
T: NFe, SiFi, Fe, Fe
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SF
INTP (philosophical scientist):
D: TiFiJ, Ti, Te, SeT
A: Ne, NFe, SiFi, NT
T: Si, SF, T, Ni
I: Fe, SeT, Fe, NF
ESFJ (social butterfly):
D: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, Si
A: Ne, SeT, Ni, NT
T: Ti, Te, SF, SiFi
I: Fe, SeT, T, NF
ENFJ (healthy musician):
D: TiFiJ, Si, SF, Fe
A: Ne, Te, Ni, NF
T: NFe, SiFi, SeT, T
I: Ti, Te, SeT, NT
INFP (psychologist & humorous story teller):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, Si, Fe
A: Ne, NFe, Ni, NF
T: Fe, SeT, SF, NT
I: Ti, Te, SeT, T
ISFP Bryan (independent & fickle):
D: TiFiJ, NT, NF, Ni
A: Ne, Si, Fe, SiFi
T: NFe, SeT, SF, Fe
I: Ti, Te, SeT, T
This book is used as evidence for the validity of cognitive functions, yet the brain activity actually disproves the stacks. Nardi assured us that he got these people’s correct type. The function order is hard to pinpoint because there’s more than one brain region for several functions such as Fe, Se, and T. But there is only one region for Ni. If INFJ is supposed to be Ni-dom, then why does Ni show up as aux instead of dom (105)? ISFP isn’t supposed to be an Ni type, yet Ni was one of the ISFP’s most active regions (120)! Nardi acts like his brain scan of ISFP proves that its stack is Fi>Se>Ni (124). But the brain scan actually shows Ni being used more than Se (120).
ISFP was the only type which Nardi gave us more than one example of. Their brain region/function activity was not identical, but there are some patterns/commonalities. For the following three ISFPs, their functions are in order from most used to least used because the usage of these three was displayed on a graph instead of just color coded and grouped into one of four categories:
ISFP #2 Ian (performer):
TiFiJ, NF, NT, SiFi, Fe, T, Si, SeT, NFe, Ni, Fe, Ne, SF, Ti, SeT, Te
ISFP #3 Brett (thrill seeker who got INFJ when he took the official MBTI):
Ni, Fe, TiFiJ, Ne, SiFi, Fe, Si, Nt, NF, Ti, NFe, Te, SeT, SF, SeT, T
ISFP #4 Katie (social artist who got ENFP on two different tests but felt ISFP fit her better):
TiFiJ, NFe, Si, Fe, Ne, NT, SeT, SiFi, SF, Fe, Ti, Te, NF, Ni, SeT, T
First of all, it’s a problem that these people’s types don’t even sound certain, and their descriptions don’t even sound like ISFPs. (ISFPs are not supposed to be social, performers, or thrill seekers.) But anyway, let’s analyze these supposed ISFPs and see if there’s any commonalities. TiFiJ was the most common lead function, but this function also tends to lead many of the other MBTI types. Next is NF, which doesn’t make sense because ISFP is not supposed to be an intuitive type. Fe comes next; at least that one makes some sense. After that it’s Si, and that one makes sense. All the ISFPs seem to be weakest in T or Te, and that makes sense. The four function model theory says ISFP’s stack is supposed to be Fi>Se>Ni>Te. According to these brain scans, the real order is more like Fi>N>Fe>Si>Te. Not too far off, but not identical. This is more evidence than Beebe’s 8 function model is wrong, because the four function model says Te is the last function of ISFP, which the brain scans support, but Beebe’s function stack of ISFP has Ti as last. The final function for Brett and Katie is a vague T, but even if we look further into their stack for a definite Ti and Te, the Ti comes sooner than the Te. To me it makes sense that ISFP should have more Ti than Te, because ISFP and Ti are introverts, and ISFP has no E or T in it, therefore ISFP should have no/low Te.
Nardi seems to be in agreement with Jung that INFJ (Ni-Fe)’s opposite is ESTP (Se-Ti) (75). This also contradicts Beebe’s 8 function model.
Nardi made another false claim that his book disproves: “Posterior [back] regions are more active for people who prefer introverting” (124), and “extraverts tend to show more activity in the anterior (front half) of the neocortex” (156). Most people had brain activity in several brain regions, and the majority weren’t all in the front or rear. A couple exceptions were ISTP which had a lot of rear activity (112) and INTP which had a lot of front activity (113). But these are both introverts!
Another false claim: Sensors “show more activity in the left hemisphere, especially regions F3, C3, and P3” (157). Wrong - ESTP shows more activity in the right (92), INTP shows more activity in the left (113).
One thing his scans showed that IS in line with the function stack theory is that the types that are supposed to have a dominant perceiving function (Se, Ne, Si, or Ni) have more activity in Fp2 (Ne), and the types that are supposed to have a dominant judging function (Te, Fe, Ti, or Fi) have more activity in Fp1 (TiFiJ) (124).
Interesting:
“Non-supporters [of a politician] use both emotional and reasoning centers to deny a candidate of an opposing political party. Supporters only use emotional centers to like their own politico and may completely miss the candidate’s contradictions” (10).
“When people allow negative input (criticisms, etc) into their awareness, and they fail to manage their inner response by turning it into sadness, then they become angry” (10).
Watching TV requires the least brain activity, but playing card games with other people uses more brain activity than reading (170-171).
A student of Nardi’s surveyed hundreds of employees and managers at a telecom company and found that all 72 managers were SJ types (181). Makes sense to me, because J types are ambitious hard workers, and S types are obedient. I would also think that the managers would all be extraverts, but the book didn’t say if they were.
Nardi compared a few people doing math who learned math in different ways. The best performing person was a Japanese ENTJ who learned math by rote memorization. The worst performing person was a Lebanese ENFJ who learned math by an auditory method (175-176). The middle performing student was an American ENTP who used the most brain regions. Despite this, the author said that what he thought the most successful teaching method was to have students design/compose/create with an audience/consumer in mind, with the teacher being a facilitator rather than a broadcaster and disciplinarian (180). This is far from the way the Japanese student learned. Of course it’s possible that the Japanese student would’ve performed best no matter how s/he was taught, because Asians tend to have higher IQs than other races, but that’s another issue. . . .
Nardi had his participants play dating games. One game involved the participants looking at photos of people (male, female, various ethnicities, clothing styles), and asking them which one s/he would date. Every female chose the same male, and every male chose the same female (131)! This is really surprising to me; I would’ve thought that there would’ve been *some* variation in what people find attractive. The females all chose a blonde, clean-cut, smiling “all American” male in a football jersey (131). The males all chose a blonde woman wearing a bikini at the beach (185). Does this mean the majority of people view blondes as most attractive? I’d love to play this game and see if I chose that jock guy to date too.
“The left hemisphere is dominant for people who are right-handed. Reverse the situation for left-handers. Whichever hemisphere is dominant is the more verbal, linear, and analytical side; while the other is more holistic, spatial, and nonverbal” (33). That means that left = logic, and right = creative only applies to right handed people, and for left handed people it would be right = logic, and left = creative. I don’t see why a person’s dominant half couldn’t be the creative side.
Despite Nardi only studying right handed people, the ESFJ and ESTJ showed higher left brain activity, and the ESFP showed primarily right brain activity (93). The other types didn’t have a preference for left or right brain. But of course these brains were only of individuals and not the average of several people of the same type. This makes it hard to draw conclusions about type based on the brain scans. Although Nardi did say that half of the lab subjects shared 70-90% of their brain activity with other people of the same type (155).
Yet people will use this book to say that there is biological evidence for the existence of cognitive functions. The author said that each neocortex region couldn’t be tied to a specific cognitive function (48, 159), but later said “each Jungian process corresponds to specific regions” (179) and “cognitive functions unique to humans are highly represented in the neocortex” (194). Either way, his description of the neocortex regions sounded like specific functions (34-38, 70):
Fp1 = Ti, Fi, J (making a personal decision/choice; ignores negative emotions)
Fp2 = Ne (brainstorming, introspecting)
F7 = N, Fe (imaginative inferences, mirroring others’ behavior)
F3 = Ti (“if, then” logic)
F4 = Te (categorizing, defining)
F8 = Si, Fi (literal details & value judgments)
T3 = Si (attention to language/grammar)
T4 = Fe (attention to tone of voice)
T5 = Fe (social conformity, embarrassment/shame, men’s recognition/analysis of faces)
T6 = Ni (thinking of the future, predicting, women’s recognition/analysis of faces)
C3 = Se, T (sensation, step-by-step motion, facts)
C4 = SF (sensation, spontaneous motion, aesthetic qualities)
P3 = Se, T (eye-hand coordination, math)
P4 = T (weighing pros and cons)
O1 = NT (mentally manipulating images/shapes)
O2 = NF (interpreting photos, art, abstract images)
Regions Fz and Pz were in the middle of the brain but the author didn’t explain anything about them.
The EEG showed a different color when the brain was having different levels of activity, measured in hertz (40):
Black = 0.0-.5 hertz = sleeping
Blue = 1.0-3.0 hertz = relaxed
Green = 3.5-7.5 hertz = alert, unhappy
Yellow = 8.0-14.0 hertz = active, happy
Orange = 14.5-18.0 hertz = presumably energized, but rarely shows up
Red = 18.5-40 hertz = excited
The neocortex lights up blue all over when the user is in a state of flow, where they are using their talent or passion (16).
ESTP gets this way when doing physical activity or solving a crisis (16).
ESTPs and ESFPs both show a tennis-hop brain pattern (90).
INFPs are the best listeners (16, 121).
Sensors “show more alpha activity (8.0-14.0 Hz),” which means they’re probably happier than intuitives (124, 127, 157).
Autistics tend to show low activity in F7 (N, Fe) and high activity in F8 (Si, Fi) (55). Nardi says F8 is most active for Si or Fi types, but then says type research has linked mild autism with Ti (129). Autistics tend to have great memory for minor details but struggle with making inferences based on context. For example, if asked what word might go with ‘lake’ and ‘woods,’ they might say ‘dolphin’ instead of ‘cabin’ or ‘fishing’ like most people would (55). Now I’m going to ask “What word goes with ‘lake’ and ‘woods’?” of everyone online who claims to have autism (and it seems like it’s almost everyone). Ehehehe. So far the autistics have given answers like “cabin.” When I suggested the dolphin answer, they said that made no sense because dolphins aren’t in lakes. Maybe Nardi gave a bad example. Or maybe these “autistics” just aren’t autistic!
Nardi’s definitions (72):
extraversion = external world (people, places, objects, actions)
Introversion = inner world (thoughts, feelings, memories, imagination)
According to this, extraverted intuition can’t mean imagination because imagination is introverted. But other sources say Ne is imaginative. (Nardi later describes extraverted intuiting as “flow with imaginative potential possibilities as they emerge,” but he might be using Berens’ definition [85]). Jung didn’t; he said it was about seeking new things/people/experiences.
S, N, T, and F (73, direct quotes):
“In any situation, we can focus our attention and access information using either of the following functions:
S - focus on tangible data, what is known (the past and present), and practical means. This is tangible, experiential awareness
N - focus on concepts, patterns, potential (the future or atemporal), and ‘what-if’. This is symbolic, conceptual awareness.
Also, we can make decisions and get organized using either of the following functions:
T - decide and organize based on objective criteria, logic or model-based reasoning, and impersonal principles.
F - decide and organize based on social appropriateness, values, and importance or worth to self and others.
Our smallest acts may involve all four functions. All four are needed, valuable, and available to everyone.”
Functions (paraphrasing 74, 88-89):
Se = immersed in the present; operate on gut instinct; test limits; take risks; act quickly and smoothly; excited by motion, action, and nature; adept at physical multitasking; easily bored by mental/rote/quiet/still tasks; strong memory for details; impatient.
Si = stable, predictable, careful, persistent, hard working, conventional; trusts experiences and authority; in touch with body sensations; strong memory for kinship and raw details; invests for future security; very visual and have a good memory for details (including non-visual ones) (94, 95).
Ne = explores emerging patterns; generates ideas; likes analogies; makes good guesses; good at role play and mirroring others; difficulty staying on task; have the shortest attention spans (99).
Ni = withdraws from the world and enters trance to receive an insight or realization; tries out a realization to transform self; future-focussed; relies on the unconscious; likes symbols; dislikes rote practice; “slow to commit to permanently hard-wiring their brain around a particular task” like a specialist would (103).
Te = measures, constructs, goal oriented, controlling, confident; makes decisions objectively based on evidence. Checks whether things function properly; focussed on word content; good memory for facts and figures; likes visual models like charts/diagrams/grids; gets things done quickly at the expense of accuracy or deep thinking (107).
Ti = Detaches from a situation to study it from different angles and fit it into a theory, framework, or principle. Checks this fit for accuracy. Objective, analytical, good at categorizing, weighing odds/risks, deductive reasoning, navigating spaces; most likely type to be unhappy (110); least interested in listening (111). Nardi says Ti types’ “thought processes are not directly linked to sensory inputs, so their decision-making tends to be ‘deep’ and ‘detached’ (111). But ISTP is supposed to be Ti-dom and is a sensing type! How can both be true? ESTP is supposed to have Ti in aux, and ESTP is arguably the most sensing type there is!
Fe = nurturing trust through giving relationships; empathetically respond to others’ needs and take on their needs and values as their own; gives and receive support to grow closer to people; aware of how others judge them; adjust behavior for social harmony; easily coerced or embarrassed; their true emotional response about morals/ethics is often held back.
Fi = knows what they value/believe and who they are; stays true to self; evaluates based on how much they like or dislike something/someone; follows own morality/ethics; reads between the lines; hard to embarrass (really?!).
Nardi’s book showed the average brain activity of a person from each MBTI type during the hours long session that he studied each for (92-121, 128). He grouped activity into only four categories, so I can’t give a perfectly ordered stack of 8 or 16, only a stack of four with several functions in each of the four groups, which for ease of comparing to the 4 function model, I’ll label as dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior. The words in parentheses is a short summary of the individual whose brain was shown:
ESTP (gamer):
D: Ne, Ti, Te, T (Nardi said ESTPs use F3/Ti more than the other types [110] even though ESTP is not supposed to be Ti-dom!)
A: TiFiJ, Si, SeT, NF
T: NFe, Fe, Ni, NT
I: SeT, SF, Fe, SiFi
ESFP (worked many jobs):
D: Ne, NFe, SiFi, Fe
A: TiFiJ, SeT, SF, NT
T: Si, SeT, Ni, NF
I: Ti, Te, T, Fe
ISTJ (funny hard worker):
D: Ne, SiFi, Fe, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, SeT, NF
T: Ti, Si, Fe, Ni
I: Te, SeT, SF, T
ISFJ (artistic hard worker):
D: Ne, SF, Fe, NF
A: TiFiJ, Si, Fe, NT
T: Ti, SeT, SeT, Ni
I: NFe, Te, SiFi, T
ENTP (idea explorer):
D: Ne, NFe, Si, T (Nardi said ENTP uses P4/T more than the other types [110], yet ENTP is supposed to be Ne-dom!)
A: TiFiJ, SF, Fe, NF
T: SiFi, Fe, Ni, NT
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SeT
ENFP (claims to be able to size up someone’s psychology in an instant - isn’t that supposed to be INFJ’s special ability?):
D: Ne, NFe, Fe, NF
A: TiFiJ, SiFi, Fe, Ni
T: Si, SeT, T, NT
I: Ti, e, SeT, SF
INTJ (sci-fi writer):
D: Ne, Si, Ni, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, NF
T: SiFi, SeT, Fe, T
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SF
INFJ (moody, fickle):
D: Ne, SiFi, Si, NT
A: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, Ni
T: Te, SF, Fe, NF
I: Ti, SeT, SeT, T
ESTJ (conventional leader):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, SeT, NT
A: Ne, NFe, Si, Ti
T: Te, Fe, Ni, NF
I: Te, SeT, T, SF
ENTJ (entrepreneur):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, Si, NT
A: Ne, SeT, Fe, NF
T: Te, SF, T, Ni
I: NFe, Fe, Ti, SeT
ISTP (nature loving drummer):
D: TiFiJ, SeT, NF, T (Nardi said her most active region was P3/SeT [127])
A: Ne, Si, Ni, NT
T: NFe, SiFi, Fe, Fe
I: Ti, Te, SeT, SF
INTP (philosophical scientist):
D: TiFiJ, Ti, Te, SeT
A: Ne, NFe, SiFi, NT
T: Si, SF, T, Ni
I: Fe, SeT, Fe, NF
ESFJ (social butterfly):
D: TiFiJ, NFe, Fe, Si
A: Ne, SeT, Ni, NT
T: Ti, Te, SF, SiFi
I: Fe, SeT, T, NF
ENFJ (healthy musician):
D: TiFiJ, Si, SF, Fe
A: Ne, Te, Ni, NF
T: NFe, SiFi, SeT, T
I: Ti, Te, SeT, NT
INFP (psychologist & humorous story teller):
D: TiFiJ, SiFi, Si, Fe
A: Ne, NFe, Ni, NF
T: Fe, SeT, SF, NT
I: Ti, Te, SeT, T
ISFP Bryan (independent & fickle):
D: TiFiJ, NT, NF, Ni
A: Ne, Si, Fe, SiFi
T: NFe, SeT, SF, Fe
I: Ti, Te, SeT, T
This book is used as evidence for the validity of cognitive functions, yet the brain activity actually disproves the stacks. Nardi assured us that he got these people’s correct type. The function order is hard to pinpoint because there’s more than one brain region for several functions such as Fe, Se, and T. But there is only one region for Ni. If INFJ is supposed to be Ni-dom, then why does Ni show up as aux instead of dom (105)? ISFP isn’t supposed to be an Ni type, yet Ni was one of the ISFP’s most active regions (120)! Nardi acts like his brain scan of ISFP proves that its stack is Fi>Se>Ni (124). But the brain scan actually shows Ni being used more than Se (120).
ISFP was the only type which Nardi gave us more than one example of. Their brain region/function activity was not identical, but there are some patterns/commonalities. For the following three ISFPs, their functions are in order from most used to least used because the usage of these three was displayed on a graph instead of just color coded and grouped into one of four categories:
ISFP #2 Ian (performer):
TiFiJ, NF, NT, SiFi, Fe, T, Si, SeT, NFe, Ni, Fe, Ne, SF, Ti, SeT, Te
ISFP #3 Brett (thrill seeker who got INFJ when he took the official MBTI):
Ni, Fe, TiFiJ, Ne, SiFi, Fe, Si, Nt, NF, Ti, NFe, Te, SeT, SF, SeT, T
ISFP #4 Katie (social artist who got ENFP on two different tests but felt ISFP fit her better):
TiFiJ, NFe, Si, Fe, Ne, NT, SeT, SiFi, SF, Fe, Ti, Te, NF, Ni, SeT, T
First of all, it’s a problem that these people’s types don’t even sound certain, and their descriptions don’t even sound like ISFPs. (ISFPs are not supposed to be social, performers, or thrill seekers.) But anyway, let’s analyze these supposed ISFPs and see if there’s any commonalities. TiFiJ was the most common lead function, but this function also tends to lead many of the other MBTI types. Next is NF, which doesn’t make sense because ISFP is not supposed to be an intuitive type. Fe comes next; at least that one makes some sense. After that it’s Si, and that one makes sense. All the ISFPs seem to be weakest in T or Te, and that makes sense. The four function model theory says ISFP’s stack is supposed to be Fi>Se>Ni>Te. According to these brain scans, the real order is more like Fi>N>Fe>Si>Te. Not too far off, but not identical. This is more evidence than Beebe’s 8 function model is wrong, because the four function model says Te is the last function of ISFP, which the brain scans support, but Beebe’s function stack of ISFP has Ti as last. The final function for Brett and Katie is a vague T, but even if we look further into their stack for a definite Ti and Te, the Ti comes sooner than the Te. To me it makes sense that ISFP should have more Ti than Te, because ISFP and Ti are introverts, and ISFP has no E or T in it, therefore ISFP should have no/low Te.
Nardi seems to be in agreement with Jung that INFJ (Ni-Fe)’s opposite is ESTP (Se-Ti) (75). This also contradicts Beebe’s 8 function model.
Nardi made another false claim that his book disproves: “Posterior [back] regions are more active for people who prefer introverting” (124), and “extraverts tend to show more activity in the anterior (front half) of the neocortex” (156). Most people had brain activity in several brain regions, and the majority weren’t all in the front or rear. A couple exceptions were ISTP which had a lot of rear activity (112) and INTP which had a lot of front activity (113). But these are both introverts!
Another false claim: Sensors “show more activity in the left hemisphere, especially regions F3, C3, and P3” (157). Wrong - ESTP shows more activity in the right (92), INTP shows more activity in the left (113).
One thing his scans showed that IS in line with the function stack theory is that the types that are supposed to have a dominant perceiving function (Se, Ne, Si, or Ni) have more activity in Fp2 (Ne), and the types that are supposed to have a dominant judging function (Te, Fe, Ti, or Fi) have more activity in Fp1 (TiFiJ) (124).
Interesting:
“Non-supporters [of a politician] use both emotional and reasoning centers to deny a candidate of an opposing political party. Supporters only use emotional centers to like their own politico and may completely miss the candidate’s contradictions” (10).
“When people allow negative input (criticisms, etc) into their awareness, and they fail to manage their inner response by turning it into sadness, then they become angry” (10).
Watching TV requires the least brain activity, but playing card games with other people uses more brain activity than reading (170-171).
A student of Nardi’s surveyed hundreds of employees and managers at a telecom company and found that all 72 managers were SJ types (181). Makes sense to me, because J types are ambitious hard workers, and S types are obedient. I would also think that the managers would all be extraverts, but the book didn’t say if they were.
Nardi compared a few people doing math who learned math in different ways. The best performing person was a Japanese ENTJ who learned math by rote memorization. The worst performing person was a Lebanese ENFJ who learned math by an auditory method (175-176). The middle performing student was an American ENTP who used the most brain regions. Despite this, the author said that what he thought the most successful teaching method was to have students design/compose/create with an audience/consumer in mind, with the teacher being a facilitator rather than a broadcaster and disciplinarian (180). This is far from the way the Japanese student learned. Of course it’s possible that the Japanese student would’ve performed best no matter how s/he was taught, because Asians tend to have higher IQs than other races, but that’s another issue. . . .
Nardi had his participants play dating games. One game involved the participants looking at photos of people (male, female, various ethnicities, clothing styles), and asking them which one s/he would date. Every female chose the same male, and every male chose the same female (131)! This is really surprising to me; I would’ve thought that there would’ve been *some* variation in what people find attractive. The females all chose a blonde, clean-cut, smiling “all American” male in a football jersey (131). The males all chose a blonde woman wearing a bikini at the beach (185). Does this mean the majority of people view blondes as most attractive? I’d love to play this game and see if I chose that jock guy to date too.
June 19, 2018
Very interesting to be sure. Nardi takes a sort of anthropological approach to neuroscience to see if Jung’s Cognitive Functions are actually borne out in the brain.
The book has lots of typos and overstated claims, thus the lower rating, but this research is an important first step into this field. It just would have been nice if Nardi took the second step and had gotten a better editor before writing a book about his research.
Still, it’s a quick read and has some interesting ideas and empirical claims.
The book has lots of typos and overstated claims, thus the lower rating, but this research is an important first step into this field. It just would have been nice if Nardi took the second step and had gotten a better editor before writing a book about his research.
Still, it’s a quick read and has some interesting ideas and empirical claims.
July 6, 2014
I am now brain savvy! :) The lessons taught in the book are deceptively simple but pragmatic.
'More information about ourselves challenges us to be more human, to learn to face issues and make wise choices.'
'Thus, there is no magical 'relationship' brain skill-set or personality type best suited to love. Instead, we are all free to reflect and grow with each other, with promise for the future'
'More information about ourselves challenges us to be more human, to learn to face issues and make wise choices.'
'Thus, there is no magical 'relationship' brain skill-set or personality type best suited to love. Instead, we are all free to reflect and grow with each other, with promise for the future'
January 6, 2018
This books was absolutely amazing. It explains the regions of the neocortex in an easy-to-understand way, and shows brain scans of the different Myers-Briggs types and which brain regions they use. I absolutely loved it and would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about MBTI and/or brain function.
August 27, 2022
This book is total nonsense written in the most boring and unengaging style ever. His intellectual incompetence shows all over the place and on top of that, his rude responses when I pointed out flaws in his book is final nail in the coffin for me. There are several profound errors he has made in the book and his "research" which make the book a glaring piece of pseudoscience, no wonder the book is self-published through his own publishing unit since no respectable institution would have published it. Here is what is wrong with the book:
1.) The author has a flawed understanding of imaging methods, his EEG recordings are replete with error all throughout the book. The book claims to be about "neuroscience" of personality, yet only a small chapter at the end is devoted towards it, and that too without explaining anything at all. Neuroscience researchers use EEG all the time in real "labs" yet most of the times, replication rate is very low. Eysenck's Theory of Extraversion has been studied by thousands of researchers using EEG and all of them have made thousands of different EEG measurements. Yet we are supposed to believe Nardis measurements as "authentic" with a minuscule sampling size having no statistical validity.
2.) The author has made profound statistical errors with misguided sampling selection. For example, he mentions INTPs and ENTPs are 1% of the population each yet they represent close to 8-10% of the population. There were just 2-3 xNTPs in the study!
3.) He has wrongly identified cognitive functions and their exact neural systems. In today's neuroscience, higher order cognition, like logic and divergent thinking, are extremely complicated and thought to be mediated by the whole brain systems. Take Fe. Extraverted Feeling is the most closely related to cognitive theory of mind, which is the ability to intuitively perceive and consider others perspective and feelings. It gives us the ability to be emotionally clever. No neuroscientist ever has assigned a single neural system to Theory of Mind (Fe) because it is extremely complicated and thought to be mediated by several systems at once, yet Dario Nardi would tell you that a certain system is causing it. Dario Nardi says Ne users' brains is exploding with ideas and is assigning a neural system to it. Anybody who is aware of neuroscience research will definitely slap Nardi plump face because the cognition of divergent thinking is such an intractable problem that it's made no headway in last 100 years or so. Same with logic and thinking (Ti and Te). Modern neuroscience research of Antonio Damasio and others have shown that thinking and logic involve not only involve several brain systems but even your bodies! Antonio Damasio has shown that without limbic system and prefrontal integration, logic is no possible. So that just proves Dario completely wrong who think a certain region in Px area of prefrontal cortex is Ti or Te.
4.) Dario Nardi is probably clueless about the entire field of neuroscience, not having Studies things like connectomics, functional connectivity, synaptic wiring all of which are more accurate predictors of behavior. You cannot study such things on an EEG machine which you can buy for like $400 on Ebay.
All in all, I would give the book just a rating of 7/10..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No wait, am just kidding. I'd give the book a solid 0/10 for being a part of corporate agenda to include MBTI in personality tests and make billions out of it...
I corresponded with Nardi through email and he was extremely rude and unwilling to adopt different perspectives and started calling me names... so I guess I am not expecting anything from his but I suggest nobody read this self-published book of a guy with no theory of mind. 😏
1.) The author has a flawed understanding of imaging methods, his EEG recordings are replete with error all throughout the book. The book claims to be about "neuroscience" of personality, yet only a small chapter at the end is devoted towards it, and that too without explaining anything at all. Neuroscience researchers use EEG all the time in real "labs" yet most of the times, replication rate is very low. Eysenck's Theory of Extraversion has been studied by thousands of researchers using EEG and all of them have made thousands of different EEG measurements. Yet we are supposed to believe Nardis measurements as "authentic" with a minuscule sampling size having no statistical validity.
2.) The author has made profound statistical errors with misguided sampling selection. For example, he mentions INTPs and ENTPs are 1% of the population each yet they represent close to 8-10% of the population. There were just 2-3 xNTPs in the study!
3.) He has wrongly identified cognitive functions and their exact neural systems. In today's neuroscience, higher order cognition, like logic and divergent thinking, are extremely complicated and thought to be mediated by the whole brain systems. Take Fe. Extraverted Feeling is the most closely related to cognitive theory of mind, which is the ability to intuitively perceive and consider others perspective and feelings. It gives us the ability to be emotionally clever. No neuroscientist ever has assigned a single neural system to Theory of Mind (Fe) because it is extremely complicated and thought to be mediated by several systems at once, yet Dario Nardi would tell you that a certain system is causing it. Dario Nardi says Ne users' brains is exploding with ideas and is assigning a neural system to it. Anybody who is aware of neuroscience research will definitely slap Nardi plump face because the cognition of divergent thinking is such an intractable problem that it's made no headway in last 100 years or so. Same with logic and thinking (Ti and Te). Modern neuroscience research of Antonio Damasio and others have shown that thinking and logic involve not only involve several brain systems but even your bodies! Antonio Damasio has shown that without limbic system and prefrontal integration, logic is no possible. So that just proves Dario completely wrong who think a certain region in Px area of prefrontal cortex is Ti or Te.
4.) Dario Nardi is probably clueless about the entire field of neuroscience, not having Studies things like connectomics, functional connectivity, synaptic wiring all of which are more accurate predictors of behavior. You cannot study such things on an EEG machine which you can buy for like $400 on Ebay.
All in all, I would give the book just a rating of 7/10..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No wait, am just kidding. I'd give the book a solid 0/10 for being a part of corporate agenda to include MBTI in personality tests and make billions out of it...
I corresponded with Nardi through email and he was extremely rude and unwilling to adopt different perspectives and started calling me names... so I guess I am not expecting anything from his but I suggest nobody read this self-published book of a guy with no theory of mind. 😏
July 11, 2019
I met Dario in June 2019 in San Diego. He is a very warm and interesting person. This book is incredibly interesting and a one of a kind source documenting the physical manifestations of psychological type in the neocortex. While there have been many statistical studies demonstrating the reality of the MBTI dichotomies, Dario’s book shows that Jung’s cognitive functions are also very real as well and that their physical veracity holds for Myers-Briggs types with similar Jungian functions in the brain. I personally can attest that the report Dario sent me after mapping my brain is incredibly similar to the one that is indicated for the person in the book whose type matches my own. This book has given me incredible insight and a new personal direction for which, Dario, I can’t thank you enough.
September 2, 2018
Very informative as part of continuing studies of MBTI, Cognitive Type, and neuroscience. I feel like this just scratches the surface, and it needs a lot more work before it can give very definitive results. The end of the book was a bit random, self-helpy, and pedagogical. I'd love access to his research.
July 28, 2024
so fascinating!
ive studied mbti types for so long so to read about the neuroscience behind it all is awesome. i loved reading about the neocortex and the different regions that come into play when different types experience things. i wish there had been more specific info about the infj but that's just me.
ive studied mbti types for so long so to read about the neuroscience behind it all is awesome. i loved reading about the neocortex and the different regions that come into play when different types experience things. i wish there had been more specific info about the infj but that's just me.
October 1, 2020
This is cool. But it wasn't deep enough, I guess? I really liked the fact that they mapped the functions on the brains but very little new information about personalities are presented in this short book.
October 8, 2019
Loved reading this. MBTI from a neuroscientist's point of view is fascinating.
September 23, 2020
Dr. Nardi is the eminent Jungian neuropsychologist, and this is the book to read to understand why.
December 23, 2020
Now time to reread with a notebook at ready to take notes!😂
August 24, 2021
Just okay, quick read with interesting scientific perspective behind personality. It wasn't amazing nor was it dull. Easy to pick through to things you want to know about about.
August 22, 2023
It would be more beneficial if the author would use more scientific names of brain areas
March 28, 2021
3.5
The book has some interesting insights and opens the door to a lot of questions. It’s a easy read that’s accessible to a wide range of audience, and can be a good jumping off point for personality hobbyists and people new to the field.
As an anecdote, I found the insights on ENTPs (my personality type) to be accurate to my experience. The P4 (strategic gamer) region really jumped out at me as a personal strength, and it seems to be a defining feature of ENTPs according to the author’s findings.
With all that being said, the methodology and scientific rigor of the studies themselves left a lot to be desired. The author is trying to pass off a very ‘soft’ science approach as something ‘harder’ than it is.
Also, for $25, the book is expensive given the quality and editing (a lot of typos - especially in the final chapters). I would also recommend footnoting the claims made in the text to their associated citation in the bibliography.
The book has some interesting insights and opens the door to a lot of questions. It’s a easy read that’s accessible to a wide range of audience, and can be a good jumping off point for personality hobbyists and people new to the field.
As an anecdote, I found the insights on ENTPs (my personality type) to be accurate to my experience. The P4 (strategic gamer) region really jumped out at me as a personal strength, and it seems to be a defining feature of ENTPs according to the author’s findings.
With all that being said, the methodology and scientific rigor of the studies themselves left a lot to be desired. The author is trying to pass off a very ‘soft’ science approach as something ‘harder’ than it is.
Also, for $25, the book is expensive given the quality and editing (a lot of typos - especially in the final chapters). I would also recommend footnoting the claims made in the text to their associated citation in the bibliography.
October 8, 2022
This was definitely an interesting book, but it was, understandably, kind of hard to get through. That's just a fact with non-fiction. However, I did find it very fascinating and I would recommend it to people who know more about neuroscience than I do (which isn't much of a feat).
December 13, 2011
Ultra-cool research relating Jungian personality type and the activity of various brain regions.
September 13, 2023
I learned souch about the between areas of the brain and how these are connected to the Jungian cognitive functions.
December 31, 2017
While this topic is fascinating, I’d love to see an updated version of this book that is more accessible and useable to general audiences.
October 24, 2018
Oddly enough, the best parts of the book, we’re when the author was not talking about brain regions for neuroscience. His insides on type, group dynamics, and more practical applied elements of Myers-Briggs for much more helpful than the brain bits. I would recommend skipping over, some of the redundant writings on brain regions and utilizing more of the practical and organizational psychology elements of the book.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews