 #17 Neurology of the Scientific Method
from - blip.tv (beta)
April 04, 2008
Welcome to episode 17 of the series Philosophy Unveiled, by the author Lane Friesen. I m Rachel and I m doing the reading today.In the last episode, we examined the Exhorter, and presented some of the circuits or loops involved in visions and dreams, as they organize themselves around Exhorter strategy.I d like to look in this episode at the circuits involved in the scientific method and then move to historical examples. We ll discover that the Exhorter can have a tremendous influence.So, let s move to the scientific method. The core of this thought process is based in three circuits Observation, Reflection and iNtuition. We introduced these in previous episodes. Let s examine their structure, and see how these loops interact in order to enable us to discover science.The Observation loop is the foundation. We see that it processes sensory information that comes into the left hemisphere. We recall that right hemisphere sensory input was related to object recognition, and that it enabled Berkeley s Mercy strategy and Locke s Perceiver analysis to bind together objects.The left hemisphere does something very different, and it s going to take us a while to get a feeling for it. Francis Bacon, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger all talk about this left hemisphere processing, and we ll eventually look at their writings. The point is that the scientific method is based upon this kind of left hemisphere input, and its pre-processing by the Perceiver analysis which is responsible for object binding in the right hemisphere. As we can see from the diagram, Perceiver strategy begins this processing by means of the Observation loop; that is what is triggered in the mind when we observe things.Alright, the next loop is Reflection that s what works when we begin to reflect upon what we have observed. It draws Facilitator strategy, with its one-way connection to Perceiver thought, into the action, and in this way it expands the Observation loop. Facilitator working memory and its Reason loop, which we have drawn in red on the diagram, send data along the leg of ENTJ, which is also one of the legs of Reflection, which we have drawn in blue. The operation of Reason will thus help Reflection, and Reflection in turn, as it works with Observation, can allow Reason and its waking consciousness to observe itself. This multi-faceted aid from Facilitator strategy and its Reason provides Perceiver strategy with circles of reasonableness.It s very elegant. Reflection, we notice, has the ENTP leg in common with Observation. (You ll notice that we have used purple to depict the areas which these red and blue circuits have in common.) The Reflection loop expands from Perceiver thought and its Observation circuit to include Facilitator analysis, and so we see how easy it can be for Descartes Facilitator analysis to provide circles of reasonableness to Perceiver strategy, which is the pre-processor for Observation. It can do it simply by activating Reflection upon a foundation of Observation. There are other loops for generating reasonableness as well, as we will shortly see, but this is the simplest one.Teacher analysis is also involved in Reflection. That brings us to iNtuition. It is the final loop in the three that lie at the core of the scientific method, and Teacher analysis here is the controlling or pre-processing element in the circuit.This new loop of iNtuition shares the leg of ENTJ with Reflection, and so the operation of Reflection will trigger iNtuition, and vice versa, even as the triggering of Observation will start Reflection, because of the common leg of ENTP between Observation and Reflection.Alright, let s move back to iNtuition. We notice that iNtuition involves Contributor strategy in the right hemisphere. We said previously that this is the core of imagination, and the location where objects can depart from experience. We ll examine what Hume has to say about this in a future episode.Now, if Teacher strategy becomes cognitive, then it can break away from this sequence of Observation, Reflection and iNtuition, and operate by itself, using a new loop which we will call Understanding. We ll notice that data in this Understanding circuit flows downwards from Teacher strategy to Exhorter thought, rather than upwards through this Teacher-Exhorter region as it does in Reflection. That s one reason why we associate a reverse flow of information in the left hemisphere - in the downwards direction rather than upwards - with the act of mentally understanding something. I might add that if you have understood what I am saying thus far, then it is precisely this loop in your mind which will have activated you ll observe that successful Understanding always involves very positive emotion.Teacher analysis does its Understanding in cooperation with Perceiver thought, which is the pre-processor for Observation, which we have added in blue, and in this way the bottom-up inductive Teacher-based Understanding end of the scientific method, with its involvement of Contributor thought, can reach down to the very foundations of thought, and affect the Perceiver- and Exhorter-based Observation circuit, through the common leg of INTP.Now, keep your eye fixed on Perceiver strategy at the right of the diagram. The same Perceiver analysis that is the pre-processor for the Observation loop, as we see it on the diagram in purple and blue, is also the pre-processor for the Thinking loop, in which object-binding Perceiver strategy now does top-down deductive logic through its interaction with left hemisphere Contributor and Facilitator thought. I might add that Perceiver philosopher Immanuel Kant has a lot to say about the interaction between Observation and Thinking his terms are different, but that s what he is discussing. Before we move on, I d also like to tag the left hemisphere Contributor and Facilitator region, which is accessed by Perceiver strategy and its Thinking loop, as highly critical it develops very flexibly, and turns out to be the core of Heidegger s world, as well as Hobbes s world, and even Aristotle s world, and will be discussed extensively in future episodes. If we wanted to use a popular but unscientific term, we might label this left hemisphere F(l) - C(l) area as the heart of the mind. Research suggests that this area actually does affect the physical heart of the body: left anterior cingulate [or F(l)] may be involved in producing decreases in heart rate and blood pressure. I d now like to introduce another concept. Sometimes loops are incomplete. In that case, they trigger events one-time short bursts that are not sustained by full working memory circuits. That s how it is with the Understanding event. If we look more carefully at the Understanding event, we will recognize that it is composed of INTP, which it has in common with the Observation loop, followed by ESTP, which is held in common with the Thinking loop. Data in the Understanding event moves downwards in the left hemisphere from Teacher analysis to Exhorter thought, in the backwards direction that we have suggested is associated with understanding, and then through various paths up to Contributor strategy in the left hemisphere, which neurology tells us is located in the dorsolateral prefrontal area 46. Incidentally, we begin to understand why neurological research suggests that this left hemisphere dorsolateral prefrontal area 46 is associated with short-term memory it certainly receives a lot of input. Alright, what s the function of these multiple connections? An important aspect of the scientific method is the Aha event. We think for instance of Archimedes who discovered a way in which to infer the purity of gold by means of alterations in weight when an object formed from a gold alloy was immersed in water. Aha, he is reported to have said. What could cause this kind of a mental surprise reaction?Let s go through it again. The Understanding event is triggered by a short burst of backwards Teacher activity, which is related to understanding. The data travels to Exhorter strategy, which passes it on to Perceiver analysis by means of INTP.Now, if Perceiver strategy is familiar with the specifics that is, if it has maps of related facts, so that it can link the new fact to some already existing network of links, and if Contributor analysis is prepared to handle the information, then the full Understanding loop can be triggered, and Teacher analysis can modify its theory of the world, based upon its new understanding. This will alter Contributor end goals in C(l), and set a new direction for action within the mind it will adjust what Martin Heidegger calls the action background.However, if the understanding generated by Teacher strategy is truly novel, then information will come to Perceiver thought by means of INTP, and then the data will be unable to travel further, except along the path of ESTP to Contributor thought in the left hemisphere. We ll recall that this is a node in the Thinking loop, and Aristotle will demonstrate eventually that the Thinking circuit plays a critical role in syllogistic logic and deductive analysis. However, let us suppose that this Thinking loop also is unable to handle the new Teacher generated concept. That leaves the data stuck at C(l), and its short-term memory.Let s move back to the beginning and see what else could be happening. The initial Teacher understanding is also directed up to Contributor thought by an aspect of what turns out to be the Perceiving loop in the left hemisphere, which we ve drawn in blue and purple the upcoming Teacher data is shown in purple because the Teacher understanding will be modified by whatever meaning happens to be resonating within the Perceiving circuit. Let s suppose that this Teacher input from understanding comes to Contributor strategy in the left hemisphere, but then too it cannot go further, except up along the Perceiving loop, along with the data from ESTP, to Facilitator analysis in the left hemisphere where it is then directed not into Thinking, but into Reason. We have stated previously that Facilitator thought and its Reason loop carry the speech stream. In our current situation, there is a strong temporary flow of data, from the Understanding event, into Facilitatator thought, but there isn t yet much associated content. The only thing the mind can do is to give a short explosive burst of talk, and it comes out as an Aha. This Understanding event, or if we wish, eUreka event (the letter for the occurrence in both cases is U, but the name eUreka makes it more clear that we are speaking of an event rather than a loop) is a critical aspect of the scientific method. Whenever there is a eUreka or Understanding event, then the entire system is jogged, and it may reorder itself into a slightly altered equilibrium.Now, let s apply this to speech. Suppose we used the eUreka event to say the syllable Hi, rather than Aha. Once we had spoken this greeting, the sound would be gone from our mind. Why? It was generated by an event, not a loop. The eUreka happening is not a working memory loop that can allow a syllable to resonate within our mind we don t say Aha, Aha, Aha, Aha. Rather, eUreka is an event we say Aha once. The word is spoken, by means of the eUreka mechanism, and then it disappears forever to be heard, perhaps, by a listener, who can respond in turn. I would suggest that we ve just uncovered the mechanism for speech. When eUreka is exploited by the mind for speech, then words can follow one another in a coordinated sequence each little bit in the flow of a sentence is another little Aha the various words are released, by means of eUreka, syllable after syllable, phrase by phrase, in a serial stream. The words are spoken, by means of eUreka, and then they are gone completely from the mind, to be replaced in turn by others.This speech stream may spring from understanding in Teacher analysis, as we have suggested thus far. It could also originate in Perceiver strategy, which is another node in eUreka let s not forget that all of these nodes can become cognitive, and act on their own initiative. Contributor strategy in the left hemisphere, or C(l), could choose to initiate speech. Speech might in fact originate in any one of the nodes found in the Reason loop, in addition to the Perceiver and the Contributor C(l) section which we have suggested are part of the eUreka event. Each of the mental strategies that are part of consciousness within Reason can modify the verbal stream, as it gains access to the cumulative processing. You ll notice, incidentally, that we have not yet involved C(r), which is Contributor imagination in the right hemisphere. What does it do? It certainly does not speak directly. However, it does have a very profound influence upon speech we ll see how it operates when we examine the structure of iNtuition later in this episode. So, what about Server thought that also hasn t been mentioned. What does it do?Scientists have done neuroimaging of persons who copy down words that are being dictated to them by others. Here s a quote: In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate parietal lobe function during writing to dictation. Significant clusters of activation were observed in left superior parietal lobe (SPL) [which is Server strategy, which we have circled on the diagram] and the dorsal aspects of the inferior parietal cortex (IPC) bordering the SPL No activation cluster was observed in the right hemisphere [which would be Perceiver]. It s not just writing that triggers this left hemisphere superior parietal region, or Server thought. If someone verbalizes or speaks, without developing much content the practice is called glossolalia - then this left superior parietal region triggers preferentially as well: The superior parietal lobes increased with the left having a greater increase. We conclude that a kind of speech envelope is generated by Server analysis, during writing or talking, to supplement the object binding and content creation that is coordinated by right hemisphere Perceiver thought, and to supplement the eUreka events, which originate in Teacher thought, or elsewhere along the eUreka chain such as perhaps within the Understanding loop - which together can add body to the Perceiver content. I would suggest that the Server-based speech envelope could also break away from the circuits of the scientific method that add content to speech, and mix more directly with the actions or habits that are coordinated by left hemisphere C(l). Nietzsche the Contributor philosopher describes this as art it is a method of communication, he says, which goes beyond speech. In art, the Reason loop that handles the speech stream may cut back to the left hemisphere-based Religion loop subset. The Server-generated speech envelope on its part may then blend with C(l) artistic actions such as ecstatic singing and dancing. Nietzsche discusses this as well.Let s move to a related point. Martin Heidegger the Contributor philosopher tells us that the essence of being is for being to take a stand on its being. What might that mean? Well, Heidegger links a stand that is taken by being with the initiation of speech, and the making of an assertion. This implies, first of all, that a stand on one s being involves left hemisphere C(l), where Heidegger as a Contributor is conscious. More particularly, it involves C(l) sending information to F(l), and thus generating speech. Interestingly, this exact same data transfer - which generates speech - can also bring into operation another loop, which I would suggest is the essence of human being. What is that other loop? Well, Heidegger calls it Dasein. This Dasein loop has some interesting characteristics. I d like to cover one of them now. Suppose that C(l) in the left hemisphere takes a stand on its being, by sending information to F(l). Communication can be spoken in words, or it can take the form of actions psychologists speak of speech acts that are meant to communicate something to others. For whatever reason, C(l) decides to send data to F(l). As soon as that happens, I would suggest that C(r) in the other hemisphere will then quickly follow, by sending information on its part from C(r) to F(r). Let s see how it works. It can happen first of all through what I would call the Kinship loop that s easy. As we see in the diagram, both C(l) and C(r) are sending information to Facilitator strategy F(l) and F(r) respectively. It is what must happen, if Kinship is to function as a working circuit. What does Kinship do? It s the default mode of being when tasks are going well, and people are seen as similar.However, there are alternative paths, other than Kinship, that can be triggered by a C(l) stand on its being. Data could flow around Contingency that s nothing new.Information could also move by ISTP to the right hemisphere. OK, let s look at that. At the Perceiver node, data could return to the left hemisphere by means of the path of ESTP. We already know about that it s the Thinking loop.So, let s suppose the information moves up to Contributor analysis C(r) in the right hemisphere, by means of the path of belief. At that point, it could move through the Classification loop. And, that choice sends information from right hemisphere Contributor C(r) to right hemisphere Facilitator F(r), precisely as we predicted would have to happen. A stand taken on its being by C(l) thus forces an identical stand by C(r).Data could also move back to the left hemisphere by means of ISTJ. That s the Dasein loop. What does Dasein do? It triggers when equipment is deficient; it notices that others may have resources that we lack, and vice versa, so that exchanges can be made which benefit both parties. We notice that Dasein continues to pass data in the same direction from Contributor C(r) to Facilitator F(r) there is no direct pathway from C(r) to S. We conclude that when left hemisphere C(l) takes a stand on its being, then right hemisphere C(r) does so as well, and vice versa the two components of Contributor thought act as a single unit. Now, we ll see eventually that in emergencies or in hypnosis, this alters, but what we ve got here is the basic idea of being. OK, let s move back to our current topic, which is the neurology of the scientific method. When a sufficient number of eUreka or Understanding events have occurred, then it appears that a Teacher person comes along Isaac Newton in physics is one example; Albert Einstein is another and he re-orders everything, through the use of the Understanding circuit, in which he as a Teacher person is one of the main drivers. You ll notice that we have extended the circle around T to include C(l) that s because Teacher general theories automatically become the boundaries that C(l) uses to chunk together its actions into habits.Any new Teacher theory is analyzed and confirmed by Observation and its inductive processing, which Teacher philosopher Francis Bacon indicates is based upon input that comes in to the left hemisphere, and then passes up to Teacher strategy the actual checking is done by Reflection, with its reversed flow of data from Exhorter up to Teacher. We notice that this inductive checking involves the Exhorter-controlled segment of Observation, and so the entire scientific cycle can begin again, at a new and higher level. Kuhn, a philosopher of the scientific method, tells us that an ability to work through periodic creative cycles, in which understanding is torn apart and then reborn at a higher level, is a critical element of any true science. There s another critical loop, which brings us to philosophy and its most profound question: How can we know that we know? I call the loop Knowing it s Reflection plus aspects of Judging. There s a huge amount of interaction that centers around this further circuit of Knowing, but it involves philosophy and epistemology quite directly, and is beyond the scope of our current discussion of science. We ll look at the Knowing-related circuits later when we examine Perceiver philosopher Immanuel Kant, and progress further to the work of Max Weber. So, that s an initial overview of the scientific method.I d like to bring in an observation at this point and yes, this will trigger activity in the Observation loop. Our current point will therefore be of special interest to Perceivers, as well as to Exhorters, who in combination control the Observation loop, which we have drawn in red. My observation is that this Observation circuit, which depends upon Perceiver pre-processing, can interact very closely with the blue-colored Exhorter-based Dream circuit. (I might add that we use the words loop and circuit interchangeably; as well as the words strategy, analysis and thought.)How could it happen? Well, let s suppose that data originates in the Perceiver pre-processor for Observation in other words, the Perceiver starts to think or reflect or understand or classify or judge or know something. This will send data down along ENTP, and then up the Sensory region in the left hemisphere, as part of inductive thought, which occurs in this region. It could then be redirected by cognitive left hemisphere Exhorter strategy into INFP, which is part of the Dream circuit. This would present the data to Mercy analysis, where it could then be redirected, if Mercy strategy chose to identify with the thoughts, back to the other segment of Exhorter strategy, in the right hemisphere we recall that identification is a transfer of data in the downwards direction from Mercy to Exhorter in the right hemisphere.Exhorter strategy in the right hemisphere could in turn direct the information flow back to Perceiver analysis in the right hemisphere, by means of the connection which we recall is Locke s substratum - we ve drawn it in green to show that it s not part of either the Observation or the Dream loops. However, look at what can happen now. The information can re-enter Observation through the Perceiver back door, where the data transfer began in the first place, and start another cycle through what has now become a detached hybrid Observation-Dream loop. I ll call it the Dissociative Observation loop and yes, I suspect it is a prime mechanism by which multiple personalities can be generated and sustained. Let me give some examples. An Exhorter individual who stands on a street corner and ogles the passers-by is probably super-imposing his or her own inner semi-lurid mental dream images on what is viewed by the Observation circuit we recall that the right hemisphere orbitofrontal E(r) region, in which the Exhorter is conscious and which we have circled in red on the diagram, is responsible for the cognitive elements of sexual excitement. Likewise, Perceivers who play video games may enter completely into the alternate world that appears on their screens, and they can appreciate the addition of pornography. Mercy individuals, with their ability to identify, are of course vulnerable to Dissociative Observation as well. Perceiver analysis is responsible for conscience, and so Perceivers in particular feel bad about things but in most cases, they continue. Dissociative Observation can hijack the right hemisphere sensory input channel, away from Facilitator strategy in the right hemisphere, which is passing sensory data down to Exhorter thought, in preparation for processing by the right hemisphere circuits which put together objects for the mind. I would suggest that we have just uncovered the mechanism behind alternate reality. Personal observation indicates that Perceivers are highly attracted to alternate reality, of various kinds science fiction, computer games, medieval chivalry, and so on. Exhorters in turn, as we have suggested in the previous episode, tend to sustain the excitement of sporting events, bars and other aspects of alcohol-lubricated night life. Dissociative Observation can of course be the source for a great deal of positive creativity as well, when things are expanded from a base in Dream to a base in Vision.Now, I d like to introduce another circuit, which I will call Weltanschauung, or Worldview. We notice that Weltanschauung has nodes in common with eUreka, which we must remember is an event, not a loop. Weltanschauung or Worldview also has legs and nodes in common with Vision, Judging, Classification, and iNtuition. Weltanschauung or Worldview is based heavily in Teacher analysis and its backwards flow of data which is understanding, and in Mercy thought and its backwards flow of information which is identification.Weltanschauung or Worldview is a circuit which can balance means in the right hemisphere portion of Contributor strategy with ends located in the left hemisphere component. This Weltanschauung loop is the inner model of the world which is currently missing in today s artificial intelligence robots they may have Reason or logic, but they do not have common sense - it is the Weltanschauung circuit that supplies the human mind with a continually updated common sense.Weltanschauung or Worldview can be programmed by Teacher-based understanding, in which case goals or ends in left hemisphere Contributor thought will be intelligent, and consistent with right hemisphere means, or in contrast it can be programmed by Perceiver-based Dissociative Observation and its Dream-influenced alternate realities, in which case the Contributor will be immersed ever more deeply in self-hypnosis, and will be unable to think his way through clearly into intelligent action. This path of escapism is currently fed strongly by television and movies and video games and other forms of alternate reality. The Perceiver with his ability to analyze cause and effect might wish to ponder these mental mechanisms, in the Observation circuit for which he does the pre-processing, and see if he wishes to continue in his current path.Here are some relevant facts. Alternate reality which includes imagined acts of sex or violence can trigger feedback resonance in another loop which I will call Habit. The habits that we said are built up in the Contingency loop in the left hemisphere, as reflex responses to specific requirements, are drawn in along ISFP and then tapped by Exhorter strategy in the right hemisphere in the form of what may actually become a multiple that is driven by Exhorter energy that rides roughshod over Perceiver conscience, and lies beyond the scope of Contributor will in the left hemisphere. Parenthetically, we notice that the gate to Habit is Mercy identification, which we have suggested is a transfer of data in the right hemisphere from M to E in a downwards direction. The fact that identification is a critical component of Habit tells us that we can never develop a habit for some action unless we choose first of all to identify with that act in our own internal Mercy thought. Saying it more clearly, habits do not develop apart from prior Dissociative Observation. By the same token, when there has been extensive prior identification with repeated acts of sex and violence, for instance, as they currently appear in the media then any initial action can explode things suddenly into a full-blown habit that may move rapidly beyond any control of will in C(l). What do I mean by an initial action? Well, let s look at the circuit for Dissociative Identification. In alternate reality, there is no data flowing from P to C(l) along ESTP. There may be strong drives originating in E(r), and the Perceiver may be linking to the mental activity, but he makes sure that it is based in alternate reality, and not released into action.The Perceiver may allow things to progress into Classification and its imagination, but he again does his best to block data from moving into ESTP.Alright, now let s activate ESTP. Usually it s a very small thing that does it. I think for instance of fine upstanding citizens such as clergy or teachers who find themselves arrested suddenly on Dateline as child predators we discover that they started by chatting on the Internet. It was this act which linked up hidden artificial reality with the external world of acceptable action. Perceiver inhibitions crumbled, data began to flood along ESTP, and a monster was unleashed. Something similar was probably behind, for example, the 2008 Northern Illinois University massacre Steven Kazmierczak, the killer, was known as a respected and popular graduate scholar, who also happened to spend a great deal of time playing a video game in which he was the killer. Here s a quote: [He] was obsessed with an ultra-violent video game [said his dorm mates] [He] purchased weapons like those used in [the game] Counter-Strike, including a Glock handgun and a pump-action Remington shotgun. If left hemisphere Contributor C(l) will on its own, after right hemisphere Perceiver barriers have been broached - attempts to suppress the right hemisphere Exhorter urges that accompany these kinds of explosively expanding habits, then it may succeed in only pushing them down into a right hemisphere Exhorter-powered Habit multiple, which begins to operate autonomously outside of left hemisphere C(l) oversight.Here s a second observation, and I d like to introduce it by means of a short illustration. Those who have taken a biology course will know that a microbe on a slide is very difficult to locate when the microscope is set to high magnification. The proper technique is to switch to coarse view in order to locate the object. Then, while still remaining in coarse view, one moves the object to the center of the field. At that point, one switches to medium view, and while remaining in medium view, again moves the object to the center. Finally, one can switch to fine view. The object will be present within the field of vision, and one can examine details carefully.The interesting point is that the circuits of Observation and Reflection and iNtuition are similar to the various magnification scales on a microscope. Observation is the coarse view. Reflection is the medium view. The fact that an alteration from Observation to Reflection both introduces Facilitator strategy, and also zooms in to a more detailed view, explains why the one-way connection from Facilitator thought to Perceiver analysis supplies Perceiver strategy with multiple circles of reasonableness. If the Perceiver wishes, he can choose from among these many Facilitator-dominated spheres of higher focus, and use one of them, so that his Observation for a time becomes more finely tuned.iNtuition is the fine view. We notice in particular that iNtuition once more pivots around Facilitator strategy, as does Reflection; this means that Facilitator analysis can coordinate iNtuition with Reflection.Now, you may be wondering, What is iNtuition? Well, suppose that someone hid an object behind a screen, and then opened a small window to give us a partial view of that object. iNtuition would make a guess about the identity of the object, based upon this incomplete data. Let s apply the metaphor. Right hemisphere Contributor C(r) contains the single object; it is the imaginative result of the very best efforts that can be performed by the right hemisphere. The iNtuition window is INTJ this INTJ path allows Teacher analysis, which is the pre-processor for iNtuition, to see into C(r). Teacher analysis now begins to make some pretty sweeping statements about that C(r) object; it guesses very broad theories these automatically set the action context for the left hemisphere in C(l), which uses Teacher theories as boundaries for action sets; these include acts of speech. The results of this left hemisphere interaction between Teacher strategy and C(l) are then sent back to the right hemisphere by means of the iNtuition return path of ENTJ. Imaginative processing in right hemisphere C(r) may respond by altering its imagined object, in which case Teacher strategy will make another guess at its identity, as this altered result is delivered to it once more by INTJ. It s evident that the right hemisphere and its Cartesian science (based upon Descartes separation of subject from object) uses iNtuition as an extremely fine view - it focuses on the single object that is imagined, and it refines its identity. However, in the Heideggerian left hemisphere (which dissolves the right hemisphere Cartesian distinction between subject and object), iNtuition and its Teacher strategy in contrast are extremely broad and coarse. That s what allows iNtuition to help set the broadest possible overall action context in the left hemisphere in C(l), and to coordinate eUreka and its speech, even as it helps to formulate the fine details of single objects in right hemisphere C(r). OK, so we ve stated that iNtuition is a fine view it focuses always on one single object, and it discovers its fine details. The Facilitator is conscious within this loop of iNtuition, which we have drawn in blue, and also within Reflection, which we have depicted in green, but Facilitator analysis has nothing to do with Observation. That loop lies below the level of its awareness. The Facilitator as a cognitive style will therefore concern himself largely with details. It is an aspect of his personality which he cannot alter he escapes the restriction as he allows Teacher strategy to formulate a general theory in which everything is included as an aspect of one single object.The Perceiver, of course, as the strategy that does the pre-processing for Observation, has control of the coarse view. However, he is aided in his task by means of circles of reasonableness which he receives from Facilitator analysis, which does its analysis through the use of Facilitator working memory, or the Reason loop.Now, let s assemble these additional pieces together with what we learned previously. If Perceiver strategy immerses itself in alternate reality, by means of some kind of Dissociative Observation, then it is automatically setting the microscope of mental thought into a coarse view setting that is not based in events within the real world, and this false setting will travel up through the Observation, Reflection and iNtuition stages of the scientific method, and it will program Facilitator thought, and this programming, as it proceeds, will eventually determine the circles of reasonableness which help the Perceiver decide where to look. Thus, ongoing Perceiver immersion into alternate reality eventually makes it extremely unreasonable for the Perceiver s mind to observe areas which violate his alternate reality.Facilitator thought with its finely-tuned Reason and its associated logic in turn will be unable to see the microbe in the slide, because coarse vision in the Perceiver is way off somewhere in some Dream-based alternate reality, and Facilitator strategy is stuck in the middle of this distorted Perceiver coarse focus. The Facilitator senses that there are problems in his society, and he wants to address them, but he cannot see how to act it s because Perceiver analysis is not altering the mental focus to the appropriate regions of reality, in order to allow Facilitator thought and its Reason to examine the details. In this way, the mind becomes blind, even as it fills ever more completely with anxiety, and with Reason and its logical science. As part of this blindness, a distinction between individuals, composed of cognitive styles as we have described them in our episodes thus far - which to us seems as obvious as the nose on one s face may not only become invisible to those around us, but also completely unreasonable.So, who is going to release mankind from this blindness? I would suggest it will have to be the disciplined Exhorter the very same individual who in the opposing right hemisphere controls some of the most basic human urges. Why does the task fall on the disciplined Exhorter? He has developed cognitive control of one end of the Observation loop, which we have demonstrated lies at the very coarse level of the scientific method, and he can yank the focus of thought away from the Perceiver pre-processor and its escapist alternate reality, so as to adjust the finely-tuned reasoning of the Facilitator, in the Reflection and the iNtuition loops. This will bring reality back into view, so that mankind and Reason can view their society as it really is.Of course, this assumes that the Facilitator will be open enough to allow this influence. OK, that s the end of our second pass through the scientific method there will be more to say in future episodes, when we integrate the right hemisphere Cartesian world of science more fully into the left hemisphere Heideggerian universe of absorbed action. Let s move back now to the Exhorter himself. We ll look in particular at the Exhorter individual who has become cognitive in the left hemisphere portion of his mind, and who is thus disciplined. This discipline, in the mature Exhorter, results from Character. We ll notice that the Character loop is way down at the bottom of the mind; the Exhorter is conscious in this region, and our disciplined Exhorter has chosen to develop it this gives him a unique ability to escape our current distorted Facilitator sense of reasonableness. Let s look in particular at the disciplined Exhorter s ability to become an instant expert. Certainly, he ll need this capability if he is to resolve our current challenges. There is no doubt, first of all, that the Exhorter has great faith in his own competence. Brunel, of a new kind of ship: Now, such a thing will be entirely metal as to all the general forms, arrangements and design; it almost of necessity becomes an Engineering Work, which I am fond, and of course, believe myself fully competent for... Bob Hope, on his first screen test: The act didn t work quite the same without a real audience, yet Hope felt cocky about the test. Billy Mitchell, as a flying student: Mitchell was quick and self-confident, but Johnson hesitated to let him solo, despite Mitchell s insistence. If I ever get a chance in the field I think that I can do something...I am naturally a sort of soldier. Undoubtedly he holds himself and his abilities in no small esteem. He states that he has met many obstacles in his career, but that he has overcome them... Horatio Nelson: Later witnesses were to testify that Nelson s view of his own mastery of seamanship and he was to allude to it on other occasions may perhaps have been somewhat exaggerated. He was evidently proud of it but that is to say very little since he was proud of his own achievements, of his ships, of his officers and men, indeed of himself and everything connected with him. On most occasions in his life he was convinced that he knew better than others sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. The Exhorter, oriented to learning from life, dabbles in many things, and each adds to his experience. F. D. Roosevelt, as Assistant Secretary to the Navy: I get my fingers into everything, and there s no law against it. Lord Fisher: Kelso s accomplishment with the fiddle, especially as he could play many popular airs, led to his playing frequently to the wardroom officers, and as Jack Fisher had a good voice he also joined the musical party. But Jack was not going to be outdone by anybody at anything, so he saved up his money and bought an instrument, got a bandsman to teach him how to play, and soon rivaled Kelso in proficiency. It certainly will be a surprise to most of Lord Fisher s friends to know that at one time he played a violin. Bing Crosby: Until Grillo s arrival [evidently a Contributor] he [Bing] was putting much of his money into highly speculative ventures and nonincome property. Bing was no dummy, and he learned something from the financial wizard in the more than 30 years they were associated. Lyndon Johnson, in Washington: This skinny boy was as green as anybody could be, but within a few months he knew how to operate in Washington better than some who had been here twenty years. Peter the Great: After four months in Holland, Peter thought that he had learned everything a carpenter should know, and concluding that the Dutch had no original theories about naval architecture, left for England... Vince Lombardi: He could join any major corporation and within two or three months, he could be running the organization better than any man who grew up in it. He [had] that knack. Hyman Rickover: As Laning remembers the call, Rickover began by asking: Guess where I am, Obviously in the Vatican, Laning replied. Guess where in the Vatican. I don t know. In the basement, helping to repair a Raphael painting. Did you know [that] I am the only US naval officer qualified to help repair a Raphael painting? Laning side-stepped with an off-hand remark I just read an American Institute of Management study on how the Vatican is run. I read that, said Rickover, who was known by his subordinates to have read everything. I told one of the cardinals here that I could take this place over in six months. The Exhorter, as he dabbles, can quickly grab content from those with ability he surrounds himself with skilled experts. Billy Graham: His stock of sermons was small, the outlines generally looted from eminent preachers heard or read... Bob Hope: This time at the Stratford, Hope was confident of technique, but desperate about material. He was using up too fast whatever he found and always needed more. He lifted routines from other comics and adapted as he saw fit. Not that this was so rare a practice. W. C. Fields was notorious for lifting lines... Juan Peron: Neither originality nor profundity graced Peron s professional writing. Borrowing heavily from other authors (usually foreigners), he refrained from imposing his own intellect upon his material. Rasputin: He was always to remain something of a snapper-up of holy trifles a line or two of the Scriptures here, a flash of wisdom there, developing a ragbag of garbled pieces of theology and doctrine. The Exhorter, if he wishes, can easily remember what is spoken. President Richard Nixon about Billy Graham: He is adept at picking up from the other man what he knows, and he has an almost photographic memory. Cecil Rhodes: He had an extraordinary way of extracting information from people by making them talk. He had an exceptionally retentive memory, and whatever information he gleaned in this way was carefully stored away in his colossal brain and utilized when necessary. Martin Luther: In evidence from the first is a command of Scripture that made him always ready to whip out a quotation to illustrate his point, quite obviously from memory and hence often inexact, but always suited to his purpose. The Exhorter, in spite of an innate hatred for the intellectual, can easily acquire the phrases or buzz words of intellectual talk. Churchill: I had picked up a wide vocabulary and had a liking for words and for the feel of words fitting and falling into their places like pennies in the slot. I caught myself using a good many words the meaning of which I could not define precisely. I admired these words, but was afraid to use them for fear of being absurd. Hyman Rickover: As a student of history, Rickover could draw upon historical examples with the ease of a biblical scholar quoting chapter and verse to win an argument. In a single dazzling Congressional performance, Rickover once referred to or quoted Aristotle, Bismarck, Edmund Burke, Lewis Carroll, Rachel Carson, Catherine the Great, Winston Churchill, Hercules cousin Eurystheus, Frederick the Great, Galileo, George Gallup, Adolf Hitler, Sherlock Holmes, Langston Hughes, William James, Thomas Jefferson, Carl Jung, Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Andre Malraux, George Marshall, William McKinley, Gregor Mendel, Count Metternich, Billy Mitchell, Napoleon, Richard M. Nixon, Hyman G. Rickover, Elihu Root, Matthew Ridgway, Herbert Spencer, Josef Stalin, Voltaire, Max Weber and Woodrow Wilson. The Exhorter of course dislikes this kind of shallow quickness in others. For instance, we read of: ...Rickover s well-staged outbursts against sheepskin economists and instant experts ... The Exhorter, in contrast to his advice for those around him, may start to teach others, long before he has fully comprehended something himself. Churchill: He was a great exhorter of his own crews, often showing them how to lay brick when he did not yet know how to hold a trowel. Peter the Great: He was so proud of his own skill and dexterity as a craftsman that he believed himself to be a good surgeon and dentist as well. Those of his companions who fell ill and needed a doctor were filled with terror lest the Tsar hear of their illness and appear with his instruments to offer his services. It is said that after his death a sackfull of teeth was found a memorial to his dental practice. De Lesseps: ...it was wonderful to have this unanimous expert opinion [from a scientific commission]. After all, he was not an engineer... The Exhorter, in his instruction, may present the special effects, or the most exciting aspects, of action. Lord Fisher: ...he therefore invited politicians and journalists down, and gave them a display of all the scientific tricks that the School could produce. But the officers of the old school disliked these shows. To translate instant expertise into seeming responsibility, the Exhorter may hint vaguely, in a kind of upwards snobbery, at membership in the in-group of some higher person. Lyndon Johnson at college, for instance, was first made garbage man, then janitor, but he remained unhappy: Lyndon returned in a few weeks, barged into Evans office [the school President], and told him he wanted to be of personal help to him. Evans diplomatically pointed out that he already had a full-time secretary, Tom Nichols, to do the office work. But Lyndon was persistent, and in the end Evans wearily agreed that he could become Nichols assistant, working between classes. According to Nichols, what next unfolded was flabbergasting...The notion soon spread that it was necessary to get Lyndon s approval first in order to see Dr. Evans. At the same time, faculty members came to the conclusion that it was essential for them to be friendly to Lyndon, for they believed he could influence the president on their behalf. This erroneous idea developed because the school lacked a telephone system tying Evans office with those of the department heads. Just as at college, where faculty members believed he had influence over Dr. Evans, so congressmen believed he had an inside track with the President of the United States. Rasputin: Because he was close to the tsarina, jealous of his influence, and highly vindictive, no one, not even a minister, could afford to cross him. Yet his political influence was of an essentially personal kind, concerning itself with the granting of favors and the making of appointments. The Exhorter knows how to exaggerate he may actually say and offer things which are not there. Juan Peron: The Third Position became the cornerstone of Argentina s foreign policy. Its aim was to steer a middle ground between the contending big-power ideologies, communism and capitalism, in much the same manner as the economic philosophy Peron had been espousing from his earliest days in public life. Yet as critics have noted, Argentina s voting record at the United Nations during the heyday of the Third Position was totally inconsistent with the doctrine s anti-imperialistic rhetoric. Argentina did not, for example, lend principled support to colonial peoples in their struggles for independence. In reality, the Third Position turned out to be little more than a slogan. What was of the essence to him was not social justice or any of the other slogans... Sukarno: On the surface, Sukarno s diatribes against capitalism, imperialism, and feudalism, sounded revolutionary, but in practice they turned out to be just hollow phrases. Through these various methods, the Exhorter easily convinces himself and others that he is an expert. F. D. Roosevelt: He was capable of almost childish vanity about his skill in catching fish, his seamanship in small boats, his exploits in teasing Churchill and in making Stalin laugh and unbend... Hyman Rickover: He could testify as an expert witness on practically anything. The Exhorter, oriented towards approval, expects others to take him seriously he can be quite offended when he is ignored. Billy Mitchell: Mitchell bombarded the War Department with suggestions he gleaned from his French friends. The United States should build or buy French planes Spads, Brequets and Nieuports. These suggestions were also followed by silence [from Washington], probably because Washington assumed that he had not become an expert on plane performance overnight. But Mitchell was learning quickly. Hopkins to Churchill: Joe (Stalin) is looking very well, Winston, and is sorry he didn t take your advice. Churchill: He should have taken my advice. Everybody should take my advice, he added, At all times. The Exhorter s superiors faced with his instant expertise and a fear perhaps of offending him may run out of excuses not to put him in charge. Drake: Drake was not without many detractors at Court, and particularly among the rich merchants of the City. But the fact was that he was borne forward on such a tide of popular enthusiasm that no group of individuals could stem it. The Spanish ambassador wrote bitterly to his king: Drake has returned to court, where he passes much time with the Queen, by whom he is highly favored and told how great is the service he had rendered her. His name was on every man s lips, books and ballads were written about him, and pictures of his exploits, and portraits of him were to be found in homes all over the country. England was never to have so popular a hero, nor one whose face and figure became so well known, until the days of Nelson. Horatio Nelson: Whatever reservations St. Vincent had about Nelson, and he had some and had expressed them, there was little choice left. An excellent partisan but does not sufficiently weigh consequences Nelson might be, and his zeal does now and then (not often) outrun his discretion but the Commander-in-Chief would have had to find some weightier arguments to have chosen any other man. Of course [Cabinet Ministers] knew, they had seen it proved twice, that as a tactical handler of a fleet Nelson had no equal. If they privately wondered about his regard for strategy when his own conviction that he alone could not only defeat, but destroy, the French fleet was involved, they kept it to themselves. As Nelson wrote to Emma, with considerable truth, Now we are sure of fighting, I am sent for. When it was a joke I was kept in the background. Hyman Rickover: What impressed Mills [his superior] was Rickover s effectiveness: He got the job done. His methods were quite unusual, compared to the conventional and traditional bureau approaches to problems. Mills understood fully the personality problems of Rickover, but also knew his single-mindedness could overcome the interservice, interagency, and Navy bureaucratic problems that would arise as the Navy moved toward nuclear propulsion. Roddis said later that Mills knew the Oak Ridge job would take a guy of great determination. Rickover flouted Navy tradition and ridiculed a system that seemed to him to give more weight to an officer s social accomplishments and willingness to conform than to his practical ability and industry. Mills could guess that once he gave Rickover a free hand, he would outwork, outmaneuver, and outfight the Commission, its laboratories and the Navy. He would threaten, cajole, and even insult those who stood in his way. In the process he would no doubt embarrass Mills and the Navy, but Mills was ready to do what the situation demanded. Sukarno: Sjahrir s kidnapping caused a serious national crisis. And as on earlier occasions of great danger to the state, Sukarno was charged to act as a national savior. Of course, the fact that the Exhorter is now in charge does not change his personality, nor its innate limits. Bing Crosby: He didn t move fast on land, and in almost all sports other than swimming, his enthusiasm was far greater than his ability. Lord Fisher: In greater matters he was, as events showed, too confident; he had too great a belief in his powers... Brunel: If he failed in his adaptation of old styles to new purposes it was not through timidity but through over confidence in his own powers. Juan Peron: ...it was necessary to implement the concept of unity by means of specific policies and programs. In this regard, the Argentine performance merited low marks. Peron was not disposed to take on the task personally and work out a consistent, patient, intelligent strategy but preferred instead to rely upon instinct, which did not serve him well, for he displayed a remarkable proneness to blunder. De Lesseps: Already his over-confidence sometimes tended to deceive himself and others. Exaggerated by old age, past achievements and present adulation, it would prove a primary cause of the failure at Panama. A full book-length description of the Exhorter, as he appears in history, is given in the book Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement, which is part of the document orderedcomplexity.pdf, available for viewing at our website, cognitivestyles.com. We have read one relevant section here, to give you an introduction. And, if we don t think that this brash left hemisphere instant expert, with his right hemisphere connection to the more primal urges, could ever have any influence on the progress of science, then I would remind us that the current explosion of science and scientific method in the Western world followed the Reformation, and that was triggered by an Exhorter, Martin Luther. It could happen again. Somehow, it might be fitting if this individual, who in his undisciplined right hemisphere is a denizen of the Night, should in the more disciplined left hemisphere be a source of light for the Day.And, we shouldn t be surprised if this Exhorter intervention included aspects of religion, as happened with Martin Luther. That s because the disciplined Exhorter s strength is in Character. This Character loop bridges easily into the Religion circuit, through the common leg of INFP. However, Religion in turn is the left hemisphere aspect of the Reason circuit. Thus, Character-motivated Exhorter involvement must eventually stabilize again into a renewed Facilitator-based science and Reason-motivated scientific method, rooted once more in reality.In the next episode, I d like to look at the mental circuits which are responsible for economics, as we see it released in modern Capitalism. Once more, we ll cover foundational aspects of thought. That concludes episode 17. Thank you for listening.
|
