[MechanicalSun]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you are making the claim that psychology will never be a hard science without having really been exposed to it much and only through third parties?

No I have taken psychology courses myself, while doing neurociences and general medical courses(endocrinology, phys, biochem etc). Thou the curiosity came mostly from trying to understand my gf/circle "motivation" to study such stuff.

	Science is about the quantification and measurement of the natural world and natural phenomenon. Then the modelling and prediction of it with statistics and other simulations in order to try and predict common behavior.

Ok. The actual flow diagram would be like x.Dimensional and interrelated with many directions, but i guess for didactic/explanatory purposes does the job.

While I agree with you that psychology is a soft science where it's hard to measure and quantify things, to make the claim that it will never be a hard science is absurd. The field has only been around for the past 100 years and it's really only in the past 30 that we've actually developed the technology and different tools to begin to measure the brain, as other sciences have such tools at their disposal to measure their phenomenons. You're ability to model and explain is only as accurate as your tools. The sciences have had a couple hundred years if not more to develop tools.

Neurosciences as we know it, started when, in 1906? Not much of a difference with psychology, and quantum mechanics, etc. Psychoanalysis=tool, old enough. Didn't want to use EEG or histology available at the time.

	As for prediction it's pretty easy to make some pretty basic repeatable and testable predictions and hypothesis about people's brains and how they work. Brain surgery and that entire field of medicine would pretty much be impossible if you weren't able to do this.

Ok. If you say so.

	As for more complex theories relating to behavior and consciousness on a grander scale you're probably going to have to wait a while. We do not yet have the tools and understanding. The human brain is probably the most complex thing in existence. It is going to take a while to map out and fully quantify.

The tools are available as well as the knowledge. As they were since the start of 1900's but never taken into consideration. Thou I agree with human brain being complex, at least for "us humans" to understand.

	This isn't people measuring their own brains. It's people as independent observers measuring other people's brains. Your 'the brain can't study itself' argument is bunk as by that logic we as mammals can't study any other mammals as it would all be subjective.

Human 1 looks at human 2's brain to understand the brain of all humans. Human brain=! other mammals and other living creatures nervous systems.


One more thing to add and I quite agree with: "a word to the wise is sufficient"

[Humble Bragger]

Nardi is the only reason I haven't lost complete hope in MBTI.
I wonder how much you can predict with his data when there were just 60 students with some showing clear cultural differences.

[jndiii]

Originally Posted by MechanicalSun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like the contribution. But psychology has never and will never be considered a scientific field. Resorting to neuroscience to validate some psychological criteria will not change it. Don't misinterpret me, I hope psychology becomes more strict and someday is counted as a science. Anyway this is step in the right direction, thanks for sharing To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Psychology ... will never be considered a scientific field." But ... "Don't misinterpret me, I hope psychology ... someday is counted as a science."

You contradict yourself. Which do you really mean?

	Originally Posted by WindUp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd be interested in hearing more about the differences between INFJs and INTJs if anyone is willing to share.

Not a lot of differences between INTJ and INFJ. They're close cousins that use the same kind of visual and dynamic reasoning and penchant for speaking precisely. INFJs focus less on objective reasoning, however, and instead have some very strong core values (Grounded Believer, F8), and pay close attention to others' needs (Sensitive Mediator, T5). Also, the INTJ expresses the typical "Te efficiency" in terms of the dynamic nature of the thought patterns. This Te style is more present in the Te-doms, where quick decision-making is how Te thinks, with the result that the other regions of the brain tend to shut themselves off as "Te" rapidly sees, hears, recalls, then decides. It's as if the brain gets so much practice that it has figured out how to decide in the most efficient way possible, and thus can do so all day long, the way one would expect a Te-style executive to do.

An intriguing aspect for the INTJ that becomes obvious in the comparison is that they engage the Intuitive Listener (T4) section of the brain, which is used to notice tone of voice, hear when something "resonates" or "speaks" to oneself personally, or feel that someone is being "phony" but can't say why. Two other types that are known for this region are ISFP and INFP, the Fi doms. For INFJs, though, it's more lightly used; they're judging more by values and social cues, instead of by "Fi tone". An interesting implication is that INTJs may be listening much more closely than other types might give them credit for, often missing details but keeping close track of tone/intent, while INFJs are focused more on literal details and exact parsing of words, especially those that apply to a social context.

Don't assume from this that the T4 region is solely the province of Fi: I'm saying the above based on the INTJ/INFJ differences, especially w/r to Fi. ENTPs, ENTJs, ENFJs, ISFJs and ESFPs also "use" it, and a purely functional perspective would conclude that it's associated with Fi doms, Ne doms, and Ni types other than INFJ, with ISFJ being an outlier. That's too messy a result, function-wise, with too much room for error, given the small sample size. It's better to judge type/function based on the overall dynamics of the regions, I think.

That's it for the INTJ/INFJ comparison. Feel free to ask other questions.

[MechanicalSun]

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"   Psychology ... will never be considered a scientific field." But ... "Don't misinterpret me, I hope psychology ... someday is counted as a science." You contradict yourself. Which do you really mean?

I would like/wish, but know (rationally) that the chance of that to happen is too low(practically "never").