Left & Right brain specialisation – JUNG MBIT

Currently there is a tendency in psychology to dismiss the notion of left and right brain thinking. But I don’t agree. Obvious specialisation occurs, you only have to look at left and right-handedness to see its effects.

Now as a theoretical kick off I’d like to resurrect a bell-shaped model I drew up some time ago. My aim was to spread Jungian/MBIT attributes over a bell-shaped curve that also had left and right brain orientation… and some other parameters.


What I was interested in most was assigning attributes either as more left or right-brained and ensuring the most prominent attributes were closer to the mass around the mean.

This model feels to be correctly balanced, and there are no items that break any of my parameters of what I consider valid. Hence, all sorts of information is thrown up. Visual models are far nicer than arithmetic proofs… and more powerful to boot.

Lots of findings of this model I haven’t even checked, so it would be interesting over time to test them.

But let’s start with the biggest finding.

The i(N)tuition is placed higher than the (F)eeling because I believe i(N)tuition is evolved feeling, likewise with (T)hinking being evolved (S)ensing.  (I sincerely believe there can be a virtuous loop between Feeling and Thinking, effectively Feeling leverages Sensing up to thinking and thinking leverages Feeling up to intuition. But make no doubt about it, feeling is the dynamo).

The above paragraph puts my assertions in direct conflict with Jungian and MBIT. In Jung / MBIT the tradeoffs are (S)ensing v i(N)tuition and (T)hinking v (F)eeling. Whereas my tradeoffs are effectively a hierarchy* (S)ensing to (T)hinking, (F)eeling to i(N)tuition. I.e. Conscious Rational thought / control; subconscious emotional fight/flight and autosuggestive i(N)uitiveness.

Obviously the counter argument to the above, is that i(N)tuition is pattern formed (S)ensing. But what is (T)hinking then? Using this approach it seems far more logical to have (S)ensing to (T)hinking to i(N)tuition which is TOO much emphasis on rational thought and not enough on those autonomic/subconscious basic drivers that give rise to (F)eeling and it’s consequences.

A concession I can make is that potentially there are different types of i(N)tuition, the emotionally driven and the non emotionally driven.  But, as before, the emotionally driven can leverage the non emotional but not vice versa, furthermore the emotional element if sufficiently activated (like though depression etc) can be at work constantly. Hence, we have greater leverage and greater ‘on’ time**. (Nb: There is a third leveraging factor which I believe comes from another hierarchy shown in right handedness to left handedness through to ambidextrous, basically how the brain can balance processing of tasks***)

So as a starter for 10, that’s about it…


*One of the reasons I favour a hierarchy is that its obvious that growth in attributes occurs over time towards the greatest potentiality.  There is some circumstantial evidence to support my theory that babies initially have an (I)ntroverted, (S)ensing, (F)eeling, (P)erceiving orientation and therefore they MUST migrate to their end adult orientation.

** I’ve sighted some circumstantial evidence that some of the greatest male thinkers have had clinically depressed mothers. I think because of the XY combination the mothers traits of clinical depression has been passed on creating the dynamo effect of Thinking / Feeling interplay. Jungs’ mother was such a case.

*** Right handedness is present in 87?-90% of the population. Left handedness is in 10% of the population and is credited with greater creativity (My belief stimulates pathways through the creative areas) and by implication the ‘rare’ ambidextrous must be some residual amount (My belief is that it allows greater use of both hemispheres).

Posted in Jung MBIT | Leave a comment

Visual cortex – Experiment

The following experiment has been shown on various news outlets and the actual paper is included below.



The serious issue I have with this experiment is the lack of a decent sized sample set and the fact that invariably they have used Japanese candidates.

I take particularly strong objection to this statement because it is wrong.

“When hundreds of dots moving in multiple directions are displayed on a screen, it is impossible to track the trajectory of   each individual dot. Multiple moving dots give a perception of the whole and produce an integrated perception. In this paper,  we report on a robust, novel visual illusion in which multiple dots move along straight trajectories without colliding”

The main reason is I see the dots moving in straight lines. And others report the same findings*. My conjecture is that people with strong visual cortexs may well have an advantage in this perception** and those that modulate their visual inputs are going to be looking at the few dots around the X and then all the dots around the X to gain an understanding of the movements.

*British readers.

**This may well tie into higher evolved pattern forming associations. The next question is whether this can be enhanced with use, like gamers visually assimilating large amounts of data in video games or whether its something more attributable to introvert types that enjoy visualisation in their mind because they simply have the ability. (Which could then lead into whether introverts visualisation such interactions exhaust their minds quicker because they are compiling far greater amounts of visual inputs relative to the subjects that are just closing down visualisations into simple patterns and seeing the dots moving in none linear patterns).

Posted in Visual Cortex | Leave a comment

Intuition – The ‘Pattern forming’ mindset

One of the greatest strengths of INTJs is their intuitive capabilities. Intuition is effectively subconscious routines that would ordinarily be conscious activities. You hear terms such as ‘auto suggestion’ and ‘instinct’, intuition is all of these, it is a learned activity just like riding a proverbial bicycle.

Intuition within INTJs forms due to systematization (The Scientific approach) of observable connections and the time available to spend thinking about these through intra/introversion.

These connections are what I term patterns. The more patterns you can see the better your intuitive capabilities and (interestingly) your innovative tendencies.

Most people see big patterns. A to B to C. But like anything the more you analyze the greater the granularity and detail you can see and interpret. Even perhaps more importantly you intuitively realise patterns in situations where nobody else is looking for them or they are indeed not even necessary. I do attribute a large amount of this to an orientation where learning is by association rather than the linear mindset where information is discrete unconnected reference points. (Pattern forming is divergent, discrete linear recollection is convergent).

The flip side to seeing patterns is that you become adept at seeing differences. You see inconsistencies. You develop intuitive gut reactions that if you then sit back and consciously work through why your reaction was such, you can see the logic. With patterns as well you can make projections; intuitive foresight.

Patterns form parameters. Like building blocks they can leverage and gear thought process to rapid outcomes.

For someone who doesn’t quite understand pattern forming mindset, all as I would say is think of looking into a kaleidoscope where you see patterns, and then think of that in reality looking around you and in visual imagination. All conceivable attributes have potential connective capabilities, sound, shape, colour etc etc.

So why would pattern forming / intuition be better at innovation? From my perspective its one of randomization. Seemingly random items can be connected on certain attributes and all these lightening second type observations can occasionally throw up novel solutions. It’s a strong reason why such mindsets should be exposed to information and knowledge across wide areas of education, as an example, patterns/cycles in ecology have similarities in other fields of knowledge like economics etc.


Posted in Intuition | Leave a comment

Psychology tribe back in business….

Well, this site went down a few years back when I unsuccessfully updated a vbulletin board which crashed and I hadn’t saved.. so I basically hashed it all up.

Anyway, now back with a wordpress blog so it should make life easier and also help deal with the infinite masses of spam that tries to find its ways onto online sites.

Over time I will rebuild some of the articles I wrote as I still have all the images sitting on the server and so should prompt me on what I talked about at the time.

I might have some bug IE exploit sitting on the personality matrix page but it seems such an old one that its easily side stepped by online security such as AVG. Destroys my page rank and listing in the search engines though. Will see if I can fix that.

What else? Guess I’ll write a short piece on pattern forming and how that relates to intuition. Without being arrogant I have probably one of the most pattern forming minds that I have ever met, so perhaps that might give some other insight for other intuitives. (I’ve just pushed further down that road).

Anyway, need to start writing….

Posted in Adminstrative | Leave a comment