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).