Decode Your Personality: Go Beyond Myers-Briggs With 64 Brain-Based Subtypes

by Dario Nardi

What’s your best path, not just for your personality type, but for your unique life?

You may already know your Myers-Briggs type (ESTJ, INFP, etc.) or maybe you’re just now exploring. You might even know the secret of cognitive dynamics. But wherever you start, there’s more.... People of the same type look and feel so varied and pursue different interests. Why? Because we are shaped by both nature and nurture.

There are “subtypes”! Brain-imaging data of hundreds of people from all walks of life shows 4 common variants of each Myers-Briggs type. Which variant ranks as first for Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, or Harmonizing?

Inside you will type basicsThe story of going from 16 Myers-Briggs types to 64 neuro-variantsA full chapter for every typeEach type’s stack of Jungian cognitive functions—including the yin and yang side of eachHolistic portraits based on extensive interviewsFour brain-based descriptions for each type, for 64 total. These are developmental paths that people take, with different neural wiring. Which of these fits best?Common pitfalls and neuroses, energy management, and aspirations toward the opposite type.Key reminders for growth.This is your tool for type. You will find coaching tips, deep dives into the subtypes, how to balance opposites, and ways to deal with neurotic episodes. Why wait, lose your way, or leave life to chance? Starting now, you can go from 16 to 64, graduating to the next level of type expertise.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology

Kindle Edition

Published November 2, 2023

Reviews

[Anita Ashland · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent reference to have on hand for better understanding your type and the types of others.

Nardi is well-known in the field for using EEG brain imaging for determining type. In this book he looks at the four variants of each of the 16 types: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing. He also describes the yin and yang version of each of the eight functions.

If you have ever felt that none of the 16 types are an exact fit, this book explains why and will help you find the subtype that fits you best. The book also contains a chapter on coaching others regarding their type and has an assessment you can use to figure out your type.

[Gold Dust · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nardi's types:
1. D(ominant) – assertive, confident, driven; often in leader roles; strong front brain bias
2. C(reative) – exploratory, social, innovative; often in rebel roles; brain has a starburst pattern
3. H(armonizing) – empathetic, shy, reflective; often in relater roles; brain has a diamond pattern
4. N(ormalizing) – conventional, dedicated, thorough; often in support roles; brain has an even field or back bias
These are expressed as a letter at the end of an MBTI type (e.g., ISFP-D). These four subtypes are basically the same four types invented by Linda Berens and several other creators of four-type typologies.

Each of Nardi's subtypes sounds like specific MBTI letters or cognitive functions:
1. D(ominant) – ET or Te
2. C(reative) – ENP or Ne
3. H(armonizing) – INF or Fi
4. N(ormalizing) – ISJ or Si

Nardi gave examples of the subtypes of ISFP, but most didn't sound like ISFP at all. ISFP-D was a confident business owner like ENTJ (56), ISFP-C was a rebellious punk rocker like ENTP (57), and ISFP-N was described as a meticulous, methodical, and routine-oriented professor like ISTJ (59). Aside from being intuitive (61), the ISFP-H was the only one that sounded like an ISFP; but this makes sense since the ISFP is already a feeling type, so the H subtype doesn't contradict the ISFP type.
A flaw with Nardi's subtypes is their overreliance on career choice. He believes that our subtype is mainly determined by our career choices which influence how we are on a regular basis or in our daily activities (40, 46). But often what job we take isn't about our preference or identity, but about circumstance or necessity. For example, someone without any college degree might work as a cashier or waiter. People in those jobs may have all sorts of different personalities, and they probably don't enjoy their job. But they took the job because it's a common one available to people without degrees.

Jobs that require degrees are going to have more people who actually want to work them, although the reason for the attraction may vary. Take the career of doctor as an example. You might assume that people who become doctors enjoy helping people. But in reality, not all people gravitate toward that career for that reason. Obtaining high pay, status, or parental approval are just a few alternative reasons for becoming a doctor. Doctors might stick with their job for those reasons despite disliking their job.
When it comes to Nardi's examples of the four subtypes of ISFP, someone who pursues being a boss or punk rocker is going to choose that profession intentionally, because those careers are difficult to obtain and not commonly available. But the problem is that ISFPs would not choose those professions because they contradict the personality of the ISFP. ISFPs are not leaders or rebels; they are quiet, shy, and traditional.
As for our jobs rewiring our brain and changing our personalities, I disagree there too. All of us had to take math in school, and surely that made all of our neocortexes light up in similar ways when solving math problems. But it didn't make everyone like math or change our personalities to become more logical or analytical. So in my opinion, you can't tell someone's personality (or subtype) just based on their job; someone's job may not be one they like or are well suited to, and I doubt it will change their personality.

Both the subtypes of Nathan Glass and Dario Nardi have this problem: How is an INTJ-Te or an INTJ-D any different than a regular ENTJ? If the INTJ's Te is so strong, maybe they are simply an extravert? If an INTJ is the harmonizing type, then maybe they are simply an INFJ?
These problems could be solved by simply using a percentage or spectrum for each of the dichotomous traits. An INTJ with only 55% introversion is going to resemble an ENTJ and not be as shy as an INTJ with 95% introversion. Inventing subtypes for all these variations seems needlessly complicated. Admittedly, having a type label does make it easier and quicker to communicate with others about what someone's personality is.