*Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc., in the United States and other countries.

MBTI^®

So far, the goal of this book has been to describe the consequences of pursuing irrational thought in the subjective. If the split between logic and feeling is so fundamental and so pervasive, then why haven’t others discovered it? The answer is that they have. In fact, this division forms one of the cornerstones of today’s most widely accepted personality scheme. I will refer to this system by the letters ‘MBTI^®,’ which stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.[A] This is a personality test which many companies and organizations use to assist them in placing their employees.

MBTI^® was initially proposed by Carl Jung, back at the beginning of the twentieth century. The theory was then modified by Isabel Myers and her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs, during the Second World War, as a way of improving employee effectiveness. Among other things, they developed a personality test known as the MBTI^® personality inventory, which today is administered by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Since then, the MBTI^® system has been adopted by many other researchers in psychology. In addition, most of the other personality schemes can at least partially be mapped onto MBTI^®. Thus, MBTI^® can be seen as a paradigm for modern category-based systems of personality types. If we can figure this one out, then the others should make sense as well.[B]

My understanding of MBTI^® comes mainly from two sources. The theory was taken from Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers[C] with Peter B. Myers, while the personality descriptions come from Please Understand Meby David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates.

Now that we have dispensed with the formalities, let us get on to the theory. MBTI^® is a ‘pie-slicing’ scheme that divides people into sixteen categories by using four different ‘walls.’ These divisions are Thinking versus Feeling, Perceiving versus Judging, Sensing versus Intuition, and Introverted versus Extraverted. Each person is given a label of four letters, determined by how his behavior is labeled by these four divisions. Thus, for instance, an INTJ would be Introverted rather than Extraverted, iNtuitive[D] instead of Sensing, Thinking and not Feeling, and Judging rather than Perceiving.

MBTI^® divides people into sixteen categories using the four following divisions:

· Thinking versus Feeling, or T/F

· Perceiving versus Judging, or P/J

· Sensing versus iNtuition, or S/N

· Introverted versus Extraverted, or I/E.

Notice that each label divides people into two groups. Therefore, four categories lead to two times two times two times two possibilities—sixteen different personality types.

Notice also that MBTI^® is rooted in the concept of ‘either/or.’ For example, a person uses either Thinking or Feeling. According to MBTI^®, he never uses both Thinking and Feeling. This means that none of the MBTI^® categories stand on their own. Instead, each is defined with respect to its opposite. Briggs-Myers does suggest that both halves of these divisions are mentally present, and that an individual prefers to use one alternative more than the other. However, as they say, “in all our subsequent work with type, Katharine Briggs and I have taken these four pairs of opposites as basic.”

Another point, this time an issue of verbal housekeeping. Both MBTI^® and mental symmetry use the term Perceivingto describe behavior. Unfortunately, these two systems assign almost opposite meanings to this word. Therefore, unless the meaning is clear from the context, I will always group the MBTI^® categories in pairs. For instance, rather than talking about Sensing, I will refer to Sensing versus iNtuition or to Sensing and iNtuition. If I refer to the MBTI^® divisions by using letters, I will usually put them in pairs such as S/N or I/E. Also, when referring to an MBTI^® category, I will always capitalize the term. Thus, for instance, if I use the word thinking, then I am referring to normal thought. In contrast, Thinking is a technical term that describes an MBTI^® category.

The Perceiver person is seldom MBTI^® Perceiving.

· Mental symmetry and MBTI^® assign different meanings to this word.

Finally, I need to address the question of organization. Writing a book about an integrated theory is not easy—especially one about the mind. This is because a general theory is an integrated ‘web’ of concepts, whereas a book is merely a string of words. Somehow the tangled skein of ideas has to be unsnarled into a single thread of thought. The addition of MBTI^® to our presentation makes this process twice as difficult, because now we are trying to explain the mind simultaneously from two different perspectives, all the while maintaining a coherent presentation. As a result, I will have no choice but to get ahead of myself at times and backtrack at others. I apologize in advance for any potential confusion, but I think that the results will be worth the mental effort.

Let us look now at these four different MBTI^® divisions, starting with Thinking and Feeling. Because we are examining a system developed by someone else, I will quote from the descriptions of Briggs-Myers. This also protects me, later on, from being accused of putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

Thinking versus Feeling

According to Briggs-Myers, “Thinking is essentially impersonal. Its goal is objective truth, independent of the personality and wishes of the thinker or anyone else.” In contrast, “People (even thinkers) do not like to be viewed impersonally and relegated to the status of ‘objects.’ Human motives are notably personal. Therefore, in the sympathetic handling of people where personal values are important, feeling is the more effective instrument.”

She says that Thinking types “value logic above sentiment.” They “are usually impersonal, being more interested in things than in human relationships.” They are “naturally brief and businesslike, they often seem to lack friendliness and sociability without knowing or intending it.” Finally, they “suppress, undervalue, and ignore feeling that is incompatible with the thinking judgments.”

In contrast, Feeling types “value sentiment above logic.” They “are usually personal, being more interested in people than in things.” They are “naturally friendly, whether sociable or not, they find it difficult to be brief and businesslike.” Finally, they “suppress, undervalue, and ignore thinking that is offensive to the feeling judgments.”

One can see from these quotes that the MBTI^® split between Thinking and Feeling corresponds precisely to our division between objective and subjective. From a researcher’s viewpoint, this means that we have ‘hit the jackpot.’ We don’t have to study the relationship between objective and subjective all by ourselves. Instead, we can use the information that has already been gathered by MBTI^® in its study of Thinking versus Feeling.

Thinking is objective. Feeling is subjective.

But, MBTI^® talks about three other major splits. Are these as fundamental as the separation between Thinking and Feeling? Let me answer this question by describing my encounter with MBTI^®. While I was working on the rough draft of this book, my brother was putting together a website describing the theory of mental symmetry. When he posted his information, he offered a prize to anyone who could find a critical flaw in the theory. The major challenge came from a researcher in MBTI^®, who claimed that it was more complete than our system. In response, we took several months to analyze MBTI^®.

The correspondence of objective and subjective with Thinking and Feeling was the easiest to notice. As you can see from the material written so far, this division formed a basic part of my analysis. As a person, I had spent years struggling with this separation. As we went further and studied the three other divisions, we saw that they were also fundamental. And when I examined my research and writing in the light of MBTI^®, I noticed that I too had discovered these same basic splits. Therefore, I decided to revise this book in the light of our new understanding.

So, which is the better theory? MBTI^® or mental symmetry? Well, how does one evaluate a theory? With Teacher emotion. And what produces positive Teacher feelings? Order within complexity. Therefore, the theory which manages to tie together more information in a tighter way is the winner. And if one theory can subsume the other—if it is a superset of the other—then its victory is absolute. This I propose to do in this book. Among other things, I will be explaining all of the fundamental aspects of MBTI^® in terms of mental symmetry. Will this mean that MBTI^® is wrong? No, that is a Perceiver question rooted in Mercy divisions. Rather, it will mean that MBTI^® is a Teacher subsetof mental symmetry. Not wrong, but incomplete. What makes a theory incomplete? Usually, faulty assumptions. But what are the faulty assumptions of MBTI^®? Ah, first we have to describe the theory. Then we will look at its assumptions. So, let us move on to the next MBTI^® division of Sensing versus iNtuition.

Sensing versus iNtuition

This dichotomy is a little harder to decipher, partially because we will have to use information that we have not yet discussed in detail. But, let us see if we can put the pieces together.

According to Briggs-Myers, “the sensing types, by definition, depend on their five senses for perception. Whatever comes directly from the senses is part of the sensing types’ own experience and is therefore trustworthy. What comes from other people indirectly through the spoken or written word is less trustworthy. Words are merely symbols that have to be translated into reality before they mean anything, and therefore they carry less conviction than experience.”[E]

From this, we conclude that Sensing is strongly related to the physical body. It is also suspicious of verbal input. Which mode of thought uses words? Teacher mode. And, as we shall see in detail in the next book, Server strategy is the one mode that is able to express itself directly through physical action. Thus, this suggests that Teacher thought is related to iNtuition, and that Server strategy and Sensing are connected.[F] Let us see how far we can take this hypothesis.

Briggs-Myers also states that “the proportion of intuitives varies widely from one educational level to another. It is particularly low among students in vocational and general high school courses, and at least twice as high in academic high school classes, and still higher in college, especially in very selective colleges.” This is consistent with our hypothesis of connecting iNtuition with Teacher thought, because Teacher strategy builds understanding and works with general theories—the foundation of ‘higher learning.’

On the other hand, Sensing individuals have problems going beyond the concrete to the symbol: “Sensing children just out of kindergarten, with no instinct for symbols, are not likely to divine for themselves that a letter means anything beyond what it obviously is—a shape on a page.” In other words, the Sensing person emphasizes concrete thought and is unaware of abstract Teacher Thinking.

The Sensing individual is not the only one doing the avoiding. Intuitive individuals, on their part, stay away from the here-and-now. They “dislike intensely any and every occupation that necessitates sustained concentration on sensing, and are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it.” Our research suggests that it is the Server person who, more than any other style, tends to live in the here-and-now.

So what does attract the attention of the iNtuitive? “The intuitives are comparatively uninterested in sensory reports of things as they are. Instead, intuitives listen for the intuitions that come up from their unconscious with enticing visions of possibilities…The common factor in all these manifestations of intuition is a sort of ski jump—a soaring take-off from the known and established, ending in a swooping arrival at an advanced point, with the intervening steps apparently left out. These steps are not really left out, of course; they are performed in and by the unconscious, often with extraordinary speed, and the result of the unconscious processes pops into the conscious mind with an effect of inspiration and certainty.”

Sensing emphasizes physical perception and movement and is related to Server thought.

Intuition avoids the here-and-now, jumps to conclusions, and is related to Teacher thought.

On the other hand, “the sensing types are not in such close communication with their unconscious. They do not trust an answer that suddenly appears. They do not think it prudent to pounce. They tend to define intelligence as ‘soundness of understanding,’ a sure and solid agreement of conclusions with facts; and how is that possible until the facts have been considered? Therefore in reaching a conclusion they want to make sure of its soundness, like an engineer examining a bridge before deciding how much weight it can safely bear. They will not skim in reading, and they hate to have people skim in conversation.”

These quotes bring out several related points. First, notice the speed of thought. Like the proverbial hare and tortoise, the iNtuitive person jumps to the goal while the Sensing person plods his way step by step. This dichotomy can be understood if we examine the operation of Teacher and Server thought. Teacher theories are mental constructs. They are made out of imaginary materials. Because mental structures do not have to endure the stress of external reality, they can be constructed with flimsy material—Perceiver and Server memories that contain a minimum of inherent confidence. Thus iNtuitive thought leaps lightly to the goal, ignoring the stability of its path because it is only a ‘spirit,’ lacking the ‘weight’ of a physical body. But why is iNtuition running so fast? Because it wants the Teacher joy of the ‘aha’ at the end of the road; it wants the Teacher bliss of contemplating the order-within-complexity of a finished mental structure.

On the other hand, the Sensing person lives in the real world—a realm of hard edges and steep cliffs. Leaping before one looks can lead to horrible consequences which must be avoided at all costs. And who is the person who is in mortal danger? Not the passive individual. The couch potato can stare at the world all he wants without making a mistake. Rather, it is action which makes a person vulnerable to physical harm. The one who does can make mistakes. And which mental strategy is responsible for doing? Server thought. Again, we see a connection between Sensing and Server strategy.

Second, notice the role of the subconscious. Briggs-Myers states that iNtuition is performed by the subconscious. Our model of the mind suggests that each cognitive style is conscious in a different part of the mind. These two viewpoints can be reconciled if one understands the nature of Teacher processing. As I have stated several times, Teacher theories do not come ready-made but must be constructed. Forming and assembling the bricks of Teacher understanding requires the cooperation of several modes of thought. If a person is only conscious in one mental mode, as our theory suggests, and if Teacher understanding requires the help of many modes of thought, then each cognitive style, regardless of where he ‘lives,’ will see that Teacher Thinking is accompanied by subconscious processing.

In contrast, the Sensing individual uses a ready-made body to interact with an already-constructed world. He does not have to worry about the big picture, for it already exists. He must, though, focus on details, for the world is a cruel master and tiny mistakes can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, his thinking tends to ‘narrow down’ and lacks the broad-ranging mental interdependence of the iNtuitive thinker.

Finally, notice that Sensing and iNtuition actually describe two different ways of thinking, two different types of internal sequencing. Mentally speaking, Sensing plods from one thought to another, while iNtuition jumps directly from ‘point A to point B.’ This tells us that we are looking at a lefthemisphere split, for it is analytical thought that works with sequences and processes. In contrast, the separation between Thinking and Feeling involves the right hemisphere, for it deals with facts and experiences, the realm of associative thought.

T/F and S/N are mirror images.

· T/F is a right hemisphere split involving Perceiver and Mercy thought.

· S/N is a left hemisphere division involving Server and Teacher processing.

Thus we have a symmetry between T/F and S/N. Pure Feeling emerges when Mercy thought imposes itself upon Perceiver strategy. In contrast, Thinking appears when Perceiver strategy carves out a region of rational thinking free of Mercy feelings. Similarly, I suggest that iNtuition is the result of Teacher thought unrestricted by independent Server sequences. On the other hand, Sensing emerges when physical action programs Server strategy with sequences and these Server skills impose patterns upon Teacher thinking. We will examine this relationship in detail in the next book.

One last point. We have discovered a connection between Feeling and Mercy strategy, Thinking and Perceiver mode, iNtuition and Teacher strategy, Sensing and Server thought. While these may be related, I suggest that they are not precisely equivalent, because they describe different qualities. Mercy, Perceiver, Teacher and Server are modes of processing. They cooperate to generate intelligence. In contrast, Feeling, Thinking, iNtuition and Sensing are mental splits. They describe how the mind suppresses certain forms of thought in favor of other ways of processing. For instance, MBTI^® Feeling involves both Perceiver and Mercy modes. In Feeling, however, Perceiver strategy is controlled by Mercy emotions and becomes the servant of Mercy thought. This distinction between modes and splits is critical, and we will be returning to it several times.

Let us turn back now to our discussion of the MBTI^® categories.

Perceiving versus Judging

As I have mentioned, MBTI^® uses four divisions to separate people into sixteen different categories. One may have the impression that these four distinctions all have equal status. The theory of MBTI^®, however, states that the four splits fall into two different types. The T/F and S/N splits (the two we have already discussed) are treated as fundamental. In contrast, the P/J and I/E divisions are viewed as modifications that adjust the operation of the two fundamental splits.[G]

A similar distinction exists in the theory of mental symmetry. We have found that the four simple styles (Teacher, Mercy, Perceiver and Server) work with mental content, whereas the three composite styles (Exhorter, Contributor, Facilitator) use this content to operate the mind. Thus, when comparing MBTI^® with mental symmetry we should find that the T/F and S/N splits relate to the simple styles and should discover that the P/J and I/E splits involve the composite styles.

The connection between T/F and S/N and the simple styles has already been discussed. Now we need to examine the other two MBTI^® categories in the light of the composite styles. The problem is that we will only be discussing the Exhorter, Contributor and Facilitator in detail in a later book. So, before we look at the last two MBTI^® categories, I will need to present a ‘sneak preview’ of the composite styles. Obviously, this overview will have to be somewhat sketchy.[H]

The composite styles form three stages of a mental ‘pump.’ Exhorter thought is stage one, tying together Teacher theories with Mercy experiences. The Exhorter person ‘learns from life’ as Mercy situations get linked to Teacher theories, and he demands that Teacher theories be applied to real Mercy experiences, ‘where the rubber meets the road.’

Exhorter strategy works with excitement, a derived sensation built upon Mercy and Teacher feelings. Exhorter thought hates to be frustrated and avoids boredom at all costs. It excels at starting; it is not good at finishing or following through. Finally, Exhorter strategy is imagination. The Exhorter person can daydream for hours and he thrives on vision and possibility.

Contributor thought forms the second stage of this pump. It makes decisions based upon Perceiver facts and Server sequences. As far as the Contributor person is concerned, actions are always considered in the light of Perceiver facts, and facts are not true unless they are or can be applied. Unlike Exhorter strategy, which looks for loose relationships between grand Teacher theories and significant Mercy experiences, Contributor strategy builds specificconnections between individual Perceiver facts and Server sequences.

Contributor strategy works with confidence. It builds upon Perceiver and Server information, which is also based in confidence. But, confidence can be overwhelmed by excessive emotion. The Contributor person is therefore triply vulnerable to losing control, for not only does Contributor mode use confidence, but its supporting strategies of Perceiver and Server thought use confidence as well.[I]

Facilitator mode forms the third and final stage. It fine-tunes the decisions made by Contributor thought. It adds shades of gray to the black-and-white of Contributor confidence. It takes the ‘plan A’ of Contributor choice and supplements it with elements of ‘plan B’ and ‘plan C.’

The subcortical modes combine to form a three stage mental ‘pump.’

· Exhorter strategy provides the drive, imagination, and energy.

· Contributor mode controls, decides, and optimizes.

· Facilitator thought adjusts, blends and fine-tunes.

By the way, I suggest that this fine-tuning function of Facilitator strategy explains the origins of MBTI^®. Our research has discovered that most psychologists and philosophers have the cognitive style of Facilitator.[J] I have just stated that Facilitator strategy blends and averages between the decisions made by Contributor thought. But, MBTI^® describes mental splits, in which people choose to follow one mental path rather than another. And operational choices, by definition, involve Contributor thought. Thus it is natural that Facilitators would turn to a system such as MBTI^® in order to help them to bridge the mental gaps produced by Contributor choices.

Before we return to the MBTI^® categories, we need one more essential piece of information. I have mentioned that Exhorter thought combines Teacher and Mercy memories. Exhorter strategy operates by holding a memory fixed in one of these two modes of thought and using this as a mental anchor for moving through the other. Thus, Exhorter thought, and the Exhorter person, can operate in one of two different modes: In ‘practical’ mode, Exhorter strategy anchors itself in a Teacher theory and finds excitement by moving through Mercy experiences. In contrast, ‘intellectual’ mode roots itself in a Mercy memory and then moves through the world of Teacher theories.[K]

Contributor thought is the second stage of the mental ‘pump’ and is driven by the excitement of Exhorter strategy. Since Exhorter thought has two possible modes, Contributor strategy, and the Contributor person, also tend to fall into either a ‘practical’ or an ‘intellectual’ rut.[L]

Now that we have done our homework, let us analyze the last two MBTI^® categories, starting with a few quotes about Judging versus Perceiving.

Myers-Briggs begins, “The judging types believe that life should be willed and decided, while the perceptive types regard life as something to be experienced and understood. Thus, judging types like to settle things, or at least to have things settled, whereas perceptive types prefer to keep their plans and opinions as open as possible so that no valuable experience or enlightenment will be missed. The contrast in their lives is quite evident. Judgment is eternally coming to conclusions—with the finality the word implies.”

What we have here is a separation between Exhorter and Contributor thought. Contributor mode is the ‘judger’ that wills, decides and comes to conclusions. In contrast, Exhorter strategy is constantly searching for new Mercy experiences and Teacher enlightenment.

Does this mean that all Exhorter persons are Perceiving and all Contributor individuals are Judging? To a first approximation, yes. However, it is possible for a Contributor person to let go of control and allow his mind to be driven by subconscious Exhorter urges. His MBTI^® type would then change from Judging to Perceiving. It is also possible, though rare, for an Exhorter person to become Judging.

It is usually the Facilitator person—stage three of the ‘pump’—who vacillates between Judging and Perceiving. Depending upon his environment and upbringing, his behavior can vary all the way from the Perceiving of the freethinking artist to the Judging of the hidebound bureaucrat.

I should point out again that the word Perceiving now has two opposite meanings. First, there is the cognitive style of Perceiver, a mode of thought that uses associative processing on abstract data. Second, there is the MBTI^® category of Perceiving, a mental bias that avoids solid conclusions. Very seldom does the Perceiver person have the MBTI^® label of Perceiving, because facts lead naturally to conclusions and Judging.

Now that we have linked Exhorter mode to Perceiving and Contributor thought to Judging, let us look at a few more quotes:

“It is natural for a judging type to decide what is the best way of doing a thing and then consistently do it that way.” Contributor strategy makes the decisions. It also reassembles plans in order to make them better, or more efficient. As we will see in another volume, Contributor mode is responsible for optimization.

In contrast, speaking of Perceiving: “Spontaneity is the ability to take whole-heartedly the experience or enlightenment of the present moment, even though some intended thing goes undone.” This describes the behavior of raw Exhorter thought. It is driven by its current enthusiasm. It drops what it is currently doing if something more exciting comes along.

Exhorter strategy is highly motivated by excitement and repelled by boredom. The new is exciting; the old becomes mundane and is quickly abandoned. The Exhorter person is also the ‘instant expert.’ Briggs-Myers describes these traits: “One of the liveliest gifts of the perceptive types is the expectation that what they do not yet know will be interesting. Curiosity leads them into many byways of knowledge and experience and into amassing astonishing stores of information. It also wards off boredom, as it finds something of interest in almost any situation.” Perceptive types “take great pleasure in starting something new, until the newness wears off.”

In contrast, Contributor strategy requires stability. It wants solid, lasting connections between facts and actions. Thus, projects are completed and not left hanging; loose ends are tied up. As Briggs-Myers says, “Having once decided to do a thing, the judging types continue to do it. This application of willpower results in impressive accomplishments. The tortoise in the race was certainly a judging type. The hare, because he liked to operate in tremendous spurts, was probably an extraverted intuitive but lacked adequate judgment.” Judging types “take real pleasure in getting something finished, out of the way, and off their minds.”

By now, I think we have established the connection between Exhorter strategy and MBTI^® Perceiving and between Contributor thought and MBTI^® Judging with sufficient certainty. That brings us to the next question. I have mentioned that Exhorter and Contributor thought can operate in either ‘practical’ or ‘intellectual’ mode. Is the Perceiving/Judging split associated with one of these two modes?

Myers-Briggs answers this question herself: “It is important, especially for introverts, to remember that the JP preference applies to a person’s customary attitude toward the outer world. What shows in most casual contacts with other people (and governs the JP index on the Type Indicator) is the extraverted process, the one usually relied on for the conduct of outer life.” And what is the ‘outer world’? It is a realm of Perceiver objects, and Mercy experiences and feelings. In other words, the P/J split involves the practical side of Exhorter and Contributor thought.

As further confirmation, Briggs-Myers defines the P/J split in terms of practical experiences, not intellectual theories. For instance, judging types “depend on reasoned judgments…to protect them from unnecessary undesirable experiences.” In contrast, perceptive types desire “a constant flow of new experience—much more than they can digest or use.”[M]

P/J is a secondary division that involves practical thought.

· Exhorter strategy emphasizes Perceiving—when living with experiences.

· Contributor thought emphasizes Judging—when working with experiences.

The distinction between ‘practical’ and ‘intellectual’ thought could be stated in another way. Practical thought involves the real world of experiences and facts—the realm of Mercy and Perceiver thought. Because these two operate in the right hemisphere, we could refer to T/F and P/J as righthemisphere divisions. What is the difference between these two? T/F is a cortical split, describing two different ways of organizing mental content. In contrast, P/J is a subcortical separation, describing two distinct ways of operating.

While there is a correspondence between the MBTI^® divisions and brain regions, it is probably best not to emphasize this relationship too strongly. That is because these two are fundamentally opposed to one another. MBTI^® describes mental walls whereas the brain is a device that operates. Using walls to describe operation is like equating a dam to a river. A dam stops water whereas a river, by definition, involves the flow of water.

MBTI^® versus Mental Symmetry

We have looked at three of the four MBTI^® categories. The remaining split between Introverted and Extraverted is easy to describe. In the words of Briggs-Myers, “the introvert’s main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas, while the extravert is more involved with the outer world of people and things. Therefore, when circumstances permit, the introvert concentrates perception and judgment upon ideas, while the extravert likes to focus them on the outside environment.”

“This is not to say that anyone is limited either to the inner world or to the outer. Well-developed introverts can deal ably with the world around them when necessary, but they do their best work inside their heads, in reflection. Similarly well-developed extraverts can deal effectively with ideas, but they do their best work externally, in action.”[N]

While this division is simple to describe, analyzing it is much more involved. What exactly causes a person to focus upon either the internal or the external world? In order to answer this question, we must first compare MBTI^® with mental symmetry and work out the theory that ties the two together. This will then give us the structure that is needed to analyze the I/E split.

MBTI^® and mental symmetry both use divisions to classify humanity into different categories. Both claim that their way of ‘cutting the pie’ is the correct method, but each uses a different ‘cutting scheme.’ How does one resolve this apparent contradiction?

One could compare this dilemma to the predicament of a person trying to obey two masters. Both have authority, and yet the instructions given by one may contradict the commands of the other. In this type of situation, I suggest that there are three possibilities.

First, the two bosses may be completely independent. In this case, no resolution is possible. Ultimately, one must choose between serving one or the other. Second, one of the managers can be subordinate to the other. Here, it is possible to bring peace. Normally, I follow the sub-manager, because he spends more time handling the details in which I live. However, the big boss has final authority, and his opinion overrides the plans of the sub-manager. The third possibility is for both of the leaders to be sub-managers, and for the big boss to be some other person whose identity is not yet known. In this type of situation, resolution requires learning more about the third and higher authority.

How can one tell what is the final authority when looking at theories of the mind? I suggest that ‘hardware’ takes precedence over ‘software.’ We can understand this distinction by looking at a computer example. Suppose that I want to read the information stored on a floppy disk. Performing this task will face me with various splits or divisions. First, I will have to deal with incompatible disk formats. For instance, my computer may be an Apple Mac, whereas my floppy might be formatted for an IBM PC. Second, I have to worry about differing physical characteristics. For example, my disk may be of the ancient 5 ¼ inch variety, but I have only a 3 ½ inch drive. Which of these two problems is more severe? The hardware one. With the right software, Mac users can read IBM disks, and vice versa. However, no amount of trying, shoving, or even cutting will allow a 3 ½ inch drive to read 5 ¼ inch floppies. Similarly, I suggest that any personality scheme which relates to brain ‘hardware’ is more fundamental—a bigger boss—than one which talks only about behavior or ‘software.’ In fact, we can conclude that the ‘hardware’ based scheme is the final boss, and that the ‘software’ systems are all sub-managers, in the same way that the software which I can run on my computer is determined ultimately by the hardware that I possess.

Hardware is more basic than software.

In my first volume, I described the relationship between mental symmetry and the human brain. I showed that each mode of thought corresponds to the function of a specific region of the physical brain. MBTI^® does not make this claim, and does not even talk about neurology. Therefore, we conclude that mental symmetry is the ‘big boss.’ It describes the mental ‘hardware’ upon which all of the software, including MBTI^®, is based.

But, MBTI^® also claims that its categories are fundamental. As Briggs-Myers says, “in all our subsequent work with type, Katharine Briggs and I have taken these four pairs of opposites as basic.” Similarly, Keirsey say in his book, Please Understand Me: “The point of this book is that people are different from each other, and that no amount of getting after them is going to change them…People can’t change form no matter how much and in what manner we require them to. Form is inherent, ingrained, indelible. Ask a snake to swallow itself. Ask a person to change form—think or want differently—and you ask the impossible, for it is the thinking and wanting that is required to change the thinking and wanting. Form cannot be self-changing.”

But are the MBTI^® categories really fixed and unalterable? In the first volume of A Programmer’s Guide to the Mind, we examined the Thinking/Feeling split in detail,[O] and described the process of integrating this mental split. We also saw that it is universally assumed that this split is irreconcilable. Therefore, if that volume is accurate, then at least one MBTI^® category is not solid. It is determined by mental software, and it can be changed.

But what about Keirsey’s statement that “form cannot be self-changing”? We learned in the first volume that there are two types of feeling—Mercy and Teacher emotions—and that it is possible to use one to change the other. Thus, the childish ‘thinking and wanting’ rooted in Mercy feelings can be reprogrammed by using Teacher emotions to build a different type of ‘thinking and wanting.’

Is this reprogramming easy? No, it literally involves tearing down and rebuilding personal identity. Me feels as if it is being ‘killed’ and ‘resurrected.’ And, completing this process requires the presence of a universal Teacher theory that explains human personality, a theory which, until now, has not existed. Therefore, we conclude that if mental transformation is impossible, and if a general theory of the mind does not exist, then the MBTI^® categories are fundamental and unchangeable.[P] On the other hand, if the human mind can be transformed, then the theory of mental symmetry is truly fundamental, and other theories, such as MBTI^®, are secondary.[Q]

But who cares which theory is more fundamental? This is just an egghead argument between two rival intellectual camps, right? Wrong. This book has described, extensively, the pain and suffering that result from a split between objective and subjective. Therefore, if the T/F category really is fundamental and unchangeable, then we as a human race are doomed to the torment of inescapable personal anguish and agony. Thus it is absolutely vital for us to find a theory of personality that is more fundamental than MBTI^®.[R]

If T/F cannot be integrated, then personal transformation is impossible.

If personal transformation is not possible, then throw away this book. It is wrong.

Does this mean that MBTI^® is wrong? No. The theory is valuable as a catalogue of human incompleteness and inadequacy. It describes naturally occurring mental splits which can only be integrated in a certain order and with great difficulty.

An Analysis of the MBTI^® splits

I mentioned earlier that Exhorter thought can operate in one of two modes. Exhorter thinking, though, produces the drive, imagination, and excitement for the entire mind. The result is that the Exhorter dichotomy leads to two different mental circuits.[S] In one circuit, mental modes of thought cooperate to produce practical thinking. In the other circuit, the same mental strategies cooperate in a different way to produce intellectual thought.[T] If we understand these two mental circuits, then I suggest that we will be able to explain the MBTI^® divisions. In addition, I suggest that these two circuits can only operate freely as the MBTI^® splits become integrated. Let us begin by analyzing practical thought. We will refer heavily in this discussion to the diagram of mental symmetry.

Practical thinking begins with emotional Mercy experiences. These are provided naturally by the external world, which fills Mercy mode with memories, each with an associated emotion. For instance, cookies taste good, but a spanking feels bad. These raw Mercy experiences are seen by both Perceiver and Exhorter strategies. Perceiver thought looks for repeatable connections between Mercy memories. For example, Perceiver strategy may notice a relationship between cookies cooling on the kitchen table and spankings received from a baking mother. As Perceiver facts connect Mercy experiences, the result is a mental map of experiences with emotional highs and lows. This interaction between Perceiver and Mercy thought was discussed extensively in the previous volume.

Emotional Mercy experiences, however, can also be seen by Exhorter strategy, which views them as potential sources of excitement. Whenever a strong emotion appears, Exhorter mode heads for it, like a dog running after a treat. If something more emotional comes along, then Exhorter strategy will drop its current ‘bone’ and head for what is new. Any excitement that does not change will slowly lose its Exhorter attraction. This Exhorter movement provides the drive for human thought.[U]

Exhorter strategy is the first stage in the mental pump; Contributor thought is the second. Thus, Exhorter drive, energy, and imagination push and prod Contributor thinking. Contributor strategy, in practical thought, directs this Mercy-based internal flow by combining Perceiver facts with Server actions.

Contributor thought approaches the internal landscape of experiences in the same way that a tourist deals with a new external landscape. First, the traveler gets out a map, then he begins driving. Internally, practical thought begins by building Perceiver connections between Mercy experiences and then uses Server actions to reach the desired Mercy goal.

Notice that, when dealing with Mercy experiences, Perceiver comes before Server. Those who start driving before looking at the map tend to get lost.[V] This relationship can be seen in the diagram of mental symmetry. There is a direct connection between Mercy experiences and Perceiver facts, as well as a connection (through Contributor thought) between Perceiver facts and Server sequences. But, there is no direct link between Mercy experiences and Server sequences. Thus, Contributor strategy is responsible for figuring out which Perceiver fact belongs with what Server action. In this way, Contributor thought harnesses Exhorter drive by channeling it to produce goal-oriented behavior. If Exhorter energy is like steam, then Perceiver facts are the boiler that encloses the steam, Server actions are the wheels that move the locomotive, and Contributor plans are the machinery that translates steam pressure into wheel movement.

Now that we understand the circuit behind practical thought, let us return to the MBTI^® categories. Two of the MBTI^® splits, I suggest, disable practical thinking: First, the T/F division ruins the content required for practical thought. Second, the P/J split cripples the operation of practical thought. Let us examine this, beginning with the T/F division.

Remember that practical thinking requires the cooperation of two separate mental paths. Perceiver strategy examines Mercy memories for connections, and Exhorter thought searches Mercy mode for memories with strong emotions. Therefore, if practical thought is to operate correctly, then Mercy memories must both have strong feelings and be connected by solid Perceiver facts. The T/F split asserts that this is impossible. It states that experiences which are analyzed factually cannot contain strong feelings, and that experiences which have strong feelings cannot be evaluated factually.

Two of the MBTI^® splits disable practical thought.

· T/F ruins the content required for practical thought.

· P/J warps the operation of practical thought.

We could compare this situation to that of an inadequate road map. Suppose that I visit a foreign country, want to see the interesting sights, and bring along a map with a built-in T/F split. Such a map would have a peculiar property. If a location were interesting, then the map would be fuzzy. If the place were boring and totally uninteresting, then the map would be crystal clear. This describes precisely the T/F division. It says that you can either know or feel, but you cannot know and feel.

One can see why today’s typical individual acts lost while appearing to be found. When his environment is non-threatening, then he has a precise mental map that allows him to approach life rationally and factually. However, put him under emotional pressure and his mental map goes fuzzy.

But if practical thought requires both MBTI^® Thinking and MBTI^® Feeling, and if Thinking and Feeling are always separated, then how is thought possible? The answer is that Thinking and Feeling both artificially generate what is lacking.[W] On the one hand, Feeling creates Perceiver facts by mesmerizing Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is 'true.' This replaces ‘what is right’ with ‘who is right.’ The map cannot be vague, for the experts have spoken, and the experts must be right! But what if their version of reality does not match true reality? There is no way of knowing, for such a map contains only one map—the opinions of the experts. Unfortunately, as we saw earlier in this book, when emotional 'truth' rules, then it is usually the insane who end up becoming the experts. Thus the blind lead the blind, and they both fall into the ditch.

On the other hand, Thinking can make up for a lack of Mercy emotion by creating imaginary Mercy experiences with synthetic feelings. We can see how this works by looking at the example of business. Buying and selling—the essence of business—require Perceiver thought. I look at the facts of each product. I compare the facts of one product with those of another. In most stores, this Perceiver ‘map’ of products is made crystal clear by the way they are displayed: The articles are laid out plainly and the features of each article are described carefully.[X]

MBTI^® Feeling creates its own 'facts' by mesmerizing Perceiver thought.

MBTI^® Thinking deceives Mercy strategy with synthetic feelings.

But where are the Mercy feelings in business? They come from the imaginary object called ‘money.’ Money is more than a physical object such as a bill, coin, or credit card. These Mercy objects generally have little or no intrinsic value. Instead, money is an imaginaryMercy object created as a mental byproduct of buying and selling. Using Perceiver strategy to buy and sell gradually builds a Mercy picture of the ideal transaction as Perceiver facts link together bits and pieces of Mercy experiences from each business exchange. This idealized experience then becomes a source of Mercy emotions.[Y] Thus, Mercy strategy looks at a crumpled piece of paper with a few numbers on it, Perceiver triggers to the concept of money, Mercy thought is reminded of an imaginary image of ‘money,’ and Exhorter strategy gets excited.

But where is the emotion in money? You can’t eat it, sleep in it, or drive it. In fact, you can’t do anything with money. It only becomes useful as it is exchanged for something else. If the economy is sound, for instance, then money can be used to buy food, which can be eaten. This principle may seem obvious, but it is seldom applied. Those who work with money generally ascribe far more emotion to the money itself than to the valuable objects or services that can be purchased with that money. Why? Because business involves Thinking and not Feeling. Thus, the emotions associated with the objects being traded are suppressed and this emotional vacuum is filled by the artificial feeling of ‘money.’ The result is that those who are good at making money hoard the stuff, destroying its use as a medium of exchange for others.

A split between Thinking and feelings distorts the content used by practical thought. In contrast, a separation between Perceiving and Judging warps its operation. We saw earlier that Perceiving versus Judging describes a struggle between Exhorter drive and Contributor control. The Perceiving person wants excitement and energy, and avoids commitment and decisions. In contrast, the Judging individual wants control and stability. He makes choices and brings closure to what he is doing.

In essence, Perceiving emphasizes the direct aspect of practical thought, heading from emotional experiences in Mercy thought to Exhorter excitement. In contrast, Judging uses the indirect aspect of practical thought, in which Perceiver facts, which tie together Mercy experiences, give ammunition to Contributor decisions.[Z] Notice that Perceiving and Judging each emphasize one aspect of practical thought. The Perceiving individual focuses upon Mercy emotions and Exhorter excitement. In contrast, the Judging person uses Perceiver facts to enable Contributor choices.[AA]

While Perceiving and Judging emphasize different aspects of practical thought, both of them still use the same mental circuit. With Perceiving, Exhorter strategy is in charge. Contributor thought automatically chooses the path which Exhorter strategy finds the most exciting. Contributor choices, however, are still present. The Perceiving individual must choose to continue with his current enthusiasm, and choose to move on to the next excitement. In contrast, Contributor strategy is in charge of Judging. Only options with solid Perceiver facts and Server skills are allowed to pass the mental ‘gate’ of Contributor decision. But, Exhorter excitement is still required. Without the proper motivation, there is no reason to make any choices, no mental ‘steam’ to drive the engine of thought.

The P/J split is quite pervasive in our world. During the week, for example, we work at a job, where decisions take priority over excitement. Then, during the week-end, we escape from rules and have some fun. For most of us, the external environment supports this split. Normally we live at home, where spouse and family provide excitement and feeling. We then commute to work, forsaking our family in order to enter an environment of MBTI^® Judging.

Some professions force a person to deal mentally with the P/J division. Think, for instance, of the individual who has a job in entertainment. His work provides fun for others. Therefore, is it fun, or is it work? My experience as a professional violinist suggests that it is very difficult to reconcile this dilemma. The tendency is for art or music to turn into ‘just another job,’ unless you are good enough for others to take care of the work and let you concentrate on the art.

The struggle between Perceiving and Judging shows up especially in the interaction between the typical Exhorter person and the average Perceiver individual. The Exhorter enthuses, exaggerates, and moves on continually to greener pastures. In contrast, the Perceiver reigns in his feelings, understates, and becomes the conservative who holds on to tested values. The Exhorter views the Perceiver as a prison guard who specializes in locking up Exhorters, whereas the Perceiver regards the Exhorter as a barbarian trying to breach walls that protect civilization.

T/F and P/J

We have looked at T/F and P/J. Let us now examine the relationship between these two. At first glance, it may appear that these two splits are identical. After all, using Feeling to build up Mercy emotions should lead naturally to an emphasis upon Exhorter strategy and Perceiving. Similarly, the Perceiver facts of Thinking should predispose one to an attitude of Judging.

However, we have seen that Thinking generates its own emotional Mercy experiences. Similarly, Feeling mesmerizes Perceiver thought with its own version of 'truth.' Thus, for instance, it is possible for a person to use Thinking to build a world of mental content, and then find excitement in the artificial emotions generated by these dry facts. This combination describes the businessman. He begins with pure factual numbers of accounting, comparing cost with benefit. Soon, though, he ‘sees dollar signs’ and his Exhorter strategy becomes emotionally driven by visions of financial prosperity. Research from MBTI^® suggests that the two MBTI^® types who apply a combination of Thinking and Perceiving to the external world make the best businessmen.[BB]

Earlier on, I mentioned that Myers and Briggs state that the P/J and I/E divisions are secondary ones, modifying the fundamental splits of T/F and S/N.[CC] We can now understand the relationship between T/F and P/J. Both involve the same mental circuit of practical thought. T/F, though, affects thecontent of this circuit, whereas P/J alters its operation. Which is more basic? Content. In order to build a house, for instance, one must first acquire building material. Without these resources, construction is impossible. In other words, without content, the mind cannot operate. Thus, P/J depends upon T/F.

P/J is a secondary split that depends upon T/F.

· T/F must be integrated before P/J can be tackled.

The dependency of P/J upon T/F becomes evident when one attempts to integrate Perceiving and Judging. In practical terms, combining P/J means living within the rules. ‘Perceiving’ is driven by Exhorter excitement. It looks for the latest enthusiasm. ‘Judging,’ in contrast, is an expression of Contributor control. It abhors uncertainty and spontaneity. Imagine putting these two together: “Please sir, give me more rules. I love being controlled. It is so exciting to feel boxed in and restricted.” This certainly does not describe today’s mindset. Give us rules and we run from them. As far as we are concerned, excitement means freedom, and freedom means rebellion from rules.

Is this attitude inevitable? It depends upon the rules. And which MBTI^® division deals with rules? The T/F split. By definition, rules are facts—the realm of Thinking—that impact upon emotional experiences—the domain of Feeling. Therefore, if facts and feelings remain separate, then it makes sense that rules will be warped. Thus, in order to deal with the P/J split, we must first address the T/F division.

But is there really a connection between rules and excitement? Let me answer this with an example from the world of music. Suppose that my parents tell me to practice the piano. Practice is usually a Judging type of activity. It involves endless repetition and boring scales. The Perceiving mindset takes one glance and heads for the hills. However, let us fast-forward the clock about ten years. The one who has faithfully practiced finds a whole musical world opening up to him. His proficiency unlocks the door to many possibilities. In contrast, the one who ran away to freedom actually finds himself locked in a musical prison, because he knows only a few chords and a few songs. Somehow, he must derive excitement from this limited repertoire. In other words, the one who followed the rules ended up with excitement, whereas the one who suppressed the rules lost the excitement as well. So, the two are related.

So, how can one combine rules with excitement? Simple. By defining rules in terms of excitement. What makes something exciting? Novelty and unpredictability. What makes a situation boring? Repetition and predictability. In other words, if Perceiver strategy could figure out what makes a situation boring and what makes it exciting, then it would be possible for Perceiver and Exhorter modes to get along, and the P/J split would be resolved.

Notice that we are really dealing with a question of life versus death. Death is the ultimate predictability, the final boredom. A dead body just sits there and does nothing.[DD] In contrast, life is the greatest unpredictability and the source of all novelty. This principle applies to both physical and mental living. Boring people are not mentally ‘alive.’ Their bodies may be animated, but their minds ‘gave up the ghost’ long ago. In contrast, a person with mental ‘life’ is exciting, a wellspring of individuality.

The relationship between Perceiving, Judging, and ‘life’ is obvious when applied to the physical body. What happens when life-force becomes separated from the body? A person dies. Thus, we have filled our modern world with rules designed to ensure that life-force and body are never separated—that the ‘Perceiving’ of life-force always remains boxed in within the ‘Judging’ of the physical body. We in the West may like to pretend, in our entertainment fantasies,that we can live outside of our bodies, but we do everything in our power to prevent this fantasy from turning into reality. Why? Because we know that, when it comes to our physical bodies, excitement is always found within the rules.

Physical life itself demonstrates that P/J can be integrated.

· We stay alive by keeping the ‘Perceiving’ of life-force within the ‘Judging’ of the physical body.

Thus, we conclude that the whole concept of a P/J split is actually a myth of wishful thinking, contradicted by the reality of physical life and the protection of modern civilization. What perpetuates this fantasy? The division between the me of the physical body and the me of Mercy identification. In the physical me, common sense has integrated P/J. In contrast, mental idolatry perpetuates the division between P and J within the me of Mercy identification. But then, we already knew this, didn’t we?

So, what are the Perceiver rules for life? We will be looking at this question in more detail in a later volume. However, let me suggest two basic principles.

First, lasting excitement is impossible when Mercy strategy mesmerizes Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is true. This is because emotional 'truth' is rooted in specific Mercy events, and any single experience will always become boring. For instance, visit a small town where Perceiver ‘rules’ are all defined by tradition, or attend a religious ritual in which tradition determines 'truth.' How much excitement and unpredictability will you find? One can answer this by observing the behavior of the local teenagers, especially those with the cognitive style of Exhorter. Most of them are doing their best to run away from the stifling hand of emotional 'truth.'[EE]

In contrast, Perceiver confidence makes novelty possible. This is because Perceiver strategy learns facts by looking for connections between many Mercy situations. This gives Exhorter thought the freedom to choose between multiple Mercy experiences. North American multiculturalism provides an example. As long as we have lived under the rule of law, we have been able to enjoy the excitement of multiple cultures. As this rule of law is being replaced by distinct societies and political correctness, we are losing the ability to appreciate other cultures. Our world is becoming boring and predictable.

Second, excitement within rules is impossible if rules are designed to avoid strong feelings. Exhorter excitement requires intense emotions; without feelings there can be no excitement.[FF] Thus, if Perceiver thought is programmed with rules that avoid any contact with emotional situations, then Exhorter strategy will be forced to find excitement by rebelling from these rules.

Today’s infatuation with political correctness provides a good example. If my words offend someone, then these terms must be struck from my vocabulary. If my actions threaten someone, then this response, and any other any actions even remotely resembling it, must be completely avoided. Thus, each emotional issue is increasingly quarantined by a barbed-wire fence of taboo and quickly surrounded by a no-man’s land of disapproval. Both speech and interaction are sanitized of emotional intensity, all in the name of protecting people.

But, how on earth can Exhorter strategy ever live within rules that block off all strong feelings and declare them to be off-limits? They force Exhorter thought to choose between mental death and rebellion. When a society practices taboos, be they of the ‘new and improved’ politically correct variety, the ‘classic’ version produced by fundamentalist religion, or the ‘original’ primitive society brand, the end result is to drive all excitement underground.

Notice the relationship between these two basic life principles and the T/F split. The first describes MBTI^® Feeling, in which Mercy feelings determine Perceiver 'facts.' The second summarizes the opposing worldview of MBTI^® Thinking, which protects Perceiver logic by avoiding Mercy feelings. In both cases, a reconciliation between MBTI^® Perceiving and Judging is impossible. Thus, as we said before, if one wants to reconcile Perceiving and Judging, one must first integrate Thinking and Feeling. How can Thinking and Feeling be brought together? We answered that question in the first volume.

Distorted Thought

So who cares if practical thought is distorted? Does it really matter? Our society is surviving quite nicely, isn’t it? Let me answer this with an analogy. Imagine driving a car with a windshield through which you can see only bright lights. You aren’t able to view the road, the ditch, or the center line, only bright lights. Now try driving. Your only hope would be to follow the red taillights of the car in front of you and try to avoid focusing on the headlights of the oncoming cars. Then, you might get to your destination, or rather, to the destination of the car you are following.

I suggest that this describes the situation in which practical thought operates upon a basis of Feeling. In essence, Feeling is like the proverbial deer on the road mesmerized by the lights of passing cars. Feeling fixates the mind upon the ‘bright lights’ of society. Does this strategy work? Yes, as long as there are good role models to follow and bad ones to avoid. Then, the average person can make some progress without either ending in the ditch or colliding with an oncoming car. But, when the role models themselves lose their way, then human existence becomes a chronicling of human collisions and personal ditches—the type we see paraded on television talk shows and headlined at grocery checkout counters.

Now let us alter our imaginary windshield into one that shows only roads, but not cars, lights or road signs. Avoiding the ditch or the oncoming lane would no longer be a problem. Instead, the difficulty would lie with motivation. First, where would you go, if you could see only a network of roads, leading who-knows-where? You would have to assume that the roads were built to connect interesting locations. But, what if road-building took over and people began to construct massive freeways simply because the technology was there? Then, the roads would be full of vehicles travelling everywhere, but going nowhere.

Second, someone who can see the road but not the cars will assume that he is driving on an empty highway. If you are continually faced with the headlights of oncoming vehicles, then you will try to stay on your side of the road. But, if you cannot see other traffic, you will eventually lose respect for the rules of the road and begin to take shortcuts by cutting across other lanes. Obviously, an accident will not be far away.

I suggest that this describes mental operation based upon Thinking. The ‘roads’ of skill and logic are all well-defined. But, all of the emotional traffic has been eliminated from consideration. Thinking, therefore, becomes its own reason for existence, and the societal landscape is soon littered with roads going everywhere. Why? Because those who suppress feelings easily conclude that feelings can be ignored. But people do have feelings, there is an emotional landscape, and there are oncoming cars.[GG]

For an example, we can turn to the world of economics. Business began as a way of facilitating the exchange of goods. This purpose has been all but forgotten. We spend billions developing new ‘highways’ of commerce. Do they head anywhere or serve any purpose? We don’t care. Instead, we are enthralled with the wheeling and dealing, the shuffling of billions between national boundaries—wealth that is only remotely connected with the goods upon which it is based. And, those who get rich the quickest are generally those who take all the shortcuts—until they have an ‘accident’ and wonder what hit them.

Even those who stay within the economic ‘lanes’ lose out on much of the enjoyment. Suppose that I spend all of my time driving from one vaguely defined point to another. How much fun will I have? Not much, because I never get anywhere. All of my hours are spent whizzing by a faraway landscape on the other side of metal and concrete barriers. Similarly, those who wheel and deal are so busy exchanging one item for another that they never have any time to enjoy the wealth that they supposedly possess.

Earlier on, I suggested that emotional 'truth' leads to pain and suffering. This section reiterates that message. Feeling and Thinking persons may be diametrically opposed in their method of operation, but they do agree on one basic issue. Both are convinced that Perceiver logic is impossible in an environment of strong emotions. Therefore, both end up paying the price in personal pain and suffering.

The I/E Split

Let us step back now from the Mercy goo of personal involvement and turn to the rarified Teacher air of theory. We have seen that T/F and P/J are both distortions of practical thought. We have also learned that Exhorter strategy, which drives the mind, can operate in either practical or intellectual mode. Therefore, if T/F and P/J are related to practical thought, then symmetry would suggest that S/N and I/E are related to intellectual thought.[HH] Let us pursue this concept and see where it leads.

We will begin by clarifying the concept of mental symmetry. In essence, a vertical ‘mirror’ is used to divide the diagram of mental symmetry in two. Whenever a trait or interaction is found, one looks for its mirror-image on the other side.[II] For instance, practical thought is centered upon Mercy experiences and Mercy feelings. The mirror-image of Mercy is Teacher. Therefore, if intellectual thought is the mirror-image of practical thought, then intellectual thinking should focus upon Teacher memories and Teacher emotions.

Our analysis of MBTI^® has already uncovered one symmetry: The T/F split results from a conflict between Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences, and the S/N split comes from a separation between Server actions and Teacher words. Our ‘mirror’ of symmetry shows us that Server is the opposite of Perceiver, Teacher the opposite of Mercy, and that interaction between Server and Teacher modes is the ‘opposite’ of interaction between Perceiver and Mercy modes. This tells us that T/F and S/N are mirror-images, because they result from mirror-image conflicts.

So where does this endless ‘reflection’ lead us? It predicts the nature of the I/E split. On the one hand, we have the mental circuit of practical thought. The T/F split distorts its content, whereas the P/J split warps its operation. On the other hand, there is the mental circuit of intellectual thought—which we are still trying to figure out. By symmetry, the S/N split should be a distortion of the content of intellectual thought, whereas the I/E division should warp its operation. In addition, the I/E split should be secondary, dependent upon S/N, in the same way that P/J is a secondary separation that depends upon T/F.

I/E is a secondary split that depends upon the primary division of S/N.

· S/N must be integrated before I/E can be brought together.

Let us look at this second point. What exactly is the difference between the internal and the external world? How do I know if a certain sensation comes from inside or outside my mind? I suggest that it is my physical body that tells me the difference. When I hear a real voice, for instance, it comes from sound waves impinging upon my ears. This auditory input is produced by a person or machine that I can see with my eyes and touch with my hands. It is this hearing, seeing, and touching that lets me know that I have experienced something from the external world. In contrast, internally generated speech lacks these signs. Nothing is heard by my ears, and no sound is being generated by either a person or a machine. In other words, without a physical body, I cannot distinguish between internal and external.

But what is the S/N split? It is a separation between Sensing—which comes from the physical body—and iNtuition—which struggles to stay free of the limitations imposed by physical sensation. Thus we see that there definitely is a relationship between S/N and I/E, and that S/N is the more fundamental of the two.

By the way, what would be required to integrate these two splits? First, the words of iNtuition would have to become compatible with the actions of Sensing. That would mean removing the hypocrisy between what I say and what I do. No longer would I be able to speak one message with my lips while broadcasting another with my actions. Second, internal imagination would have to become compatible with external reality. No more escapism or wishful thinking.This would make it possible to integrate I with E. Are these two requirements difficult? Very. Are they impossible? No.

Let us turn now to the first point—that S/N distorts the content of intellectual thought, and I/E warps its operation.[JJ] In order to see how the MBTI^® splits distort intellectual thought we first have to understand how this thinking works. And herein lies a problem. Our bodies and our natural world force us to develop practical thinking. Therefore, we find practical thought easy to comprehend. In contrast, intellectual development occurs only as we suffer through school and other ‘artificial’ environments. However, this supposedly ‘artificial’ environment has created our modern world of science and technology. And here we can find concrete expressions of intellectual thought.[KK] We will look at two illustrations, the first guided by Server strategy and the second by Teacher thinking.

Practical thought, as we know, is centered upon Mercy feelings. Intellectual thought, in contrast, is guided by Teacher emotion—the mirror-image of Mercy feelings. What makes Teacher mode feel good? Order-within-complexity. A machine, I suggest, is a prime example of order-within-complexity. Every machine has a function: a stove cooks, a car drives, a radio communicates, and so on. In other words, each machine carries out some Serveraction—it has a Server skill.

How is a machine formed? First, it is constructed out of parts—which also have functions. A car, for instance, contains wheels that turn around, pistons which go up and down, and shafts that spin. Thus, both a machine, and the parts of a machine, carry out Server functions. Second, individual parts are assembled to create the machine. In other words, Perceiver connections are made between the various components: the knob on part A is inserted into the hole in part C, part B is bolted onto the flange extending from part A, etc. The end result is a whirring order-within-complexity that gives joy to Teacher strategy.

A machine creates order-within-complexity by tying together elements with Server functions. In contrast, mathematics is a form of intellectual thought that uses Teacher words. Math is built upon letters, numbers, and other symbols. Each of these elements is associated with a visual outline and a sound, both of which are interpreted by Teacher thought.[LL] Mathematics is the practice of arranging symbols into equations—stringing together individual Teacher elements to form Server sequences. How are these equations constructed? Through the use of logic. What drives logic? Perceiver truth and Perceiver rules. Thus, just as machines contain Server functions that are assembled into a Perceiver object, so mathematics uses Perceiver logic to assemble Server equations.

Machines and mathematics are both examples of Teacher order-within-complexity.

· A machine integrates elements which each have a Server function.

· Mathematics ties together equations that use Teacher words.

So where are the splits? Doesn’t the theory of MBTI^® imply a conflict between Teacher and Server thought? It does. First, there is the S/N split, a struggle between Teacher and Server thought. On the one hand, Teacher-based iNtuition such as mathematics has a tendency to overwhelm Server confidence, just as Mercy-based Feeling attacks Perceiver knowing. This explains the ‘absent-minded professor.’ His mind is so full of general Teacher theories that he literally loses the ability to carry out Server actions. He becomes physically clumsy.

On the other hand, the person who constantly repeats Server actions ends up creating artificial general Teacher feelings, just as the Perceiver facts of business produce the imaginary Mercy feelings of money. This mental effect is illustrated by the behavior of the artist and the athlete. They literally fool themselves into feeling that their petty actions hold the key to comprehending life, the universe, and everything. Thus, the Server ‘machinery’ of physical movement takes over Teacher processing.

Second, there is the E/I division, a conflict between Contributor confidence and Exhorter excitement. When dealing with the external world, every idea and plan must be screened through the filter of practicality and doability. As the Engineer’s joke goes, you cannot build an object out of ‘unobtainium.’ It doesn’t exist. Similarly, you cannot carry out an action which is undoable. You will fail. Thus, the real world forces external thought into a type of ‘Judging’[MM] mode, in which Contributor thought takes precedence over Exhorter excitement. Of course, those who are in marketing and management often like to pretend that anything is possible, but that is simply wishful thinking.

Speaking of wishful thinking, I suggest that this describes the internal world of most individuals. Here, reality usually gives way to fantasy, and Exhorter excitement takes precedence over Contributor decisions. Do internal fantasy and external reality collide? Frequently. This inherent incompatibility can be seen by comparing NASA space footage with the typical Star Trek episode. In the real world of space travel, Contributor decisions rule supreme. Every action and plan is repeatedly studied and practiced. Nothing is spontaneous. Everything proceeds cautiously and carefully. In contrast, Star Trek is ruled by Exhorter excitement. Almost every episode contains a crisis of cosmic proportions, in which the crew meet a new race of beings, encounter some god-man, evolve into new beings, or suffer from some deadly disease. Similarly, the solution to the problem is inevitably worked out on the spur-of-the-moment and implemented between commercial breaks. This externalization of mental fantasy is a left-hemisphere parody of the ‘Perceiving’ mindset, in which every situation is tapped for maximum Exhorter excitement, regardless of Perceiver or Server content.

Mental Life

So far, our discussion of MBTI^® has looked at the individual splits. Now, we will turn our attention to the theory of MBTI^®. We begin by describing this theory as presented by Briggs-Myers—without any extra commentary. Then, we will use our understanding of the mind to analyze these statements. Let me repeat. The following paragraphs reflect the view of Briggs-Myers. The concepts originate with her.

As we already know, two of the splits—T/F and S/N—are regarded as fundamental. MBTI^® calls one of these two categories the ‘dominant’ and the other is referred to as the ‘auxiliary.’ The dominant is in charge, while the auxiliary acts as its assistant. Briggs-Myers compares this relationship to that of a general and his aide. One of these two modes handles the external environment, whereas the other deals with the internal world. A person can be either Extraverted or Introverted. If he is Extraverted, then the externally facing mode is the dominant one and the internally facing one is the auxiliary. For the Introverted, the situation is reversed and the inward-facing one is dominant.[NN]

Each of the sixteen MBTI^® types has a dominant category and an auxiliary category.

· One of the two primary splits (T/F or S/N) is dominant while the other is auxiliary.

· The dominant split may express itself either externally or internally.

This leads again to the sixteen possible MBTI^® categories: First, a person may use either Thinking or Feeling. Second, he may combine this with either Sensing or iNtuition. Third, either the first (T or F) or the second (S or N) category is dominant. Fourth, either the first or the second category deals with the external environment. Two choices times two choices times two choices times two choices equals sixteen possibilities.

So how does one know which of the two basic categories of T/F or S/N is dominant and which faces the external world? This information is provided by the secondary categories of P/J and I/E. First, Briggs-Myers states that the P and J division describes the external behavior of a person. She further states that external behavior will appear Judging if either T or F handle the external world. In contrast, if S or N deal with the external environment, then behavior will appear Perceiving. In other words, T/F is Judging and S/N is Perceiving.[OO]

According to MBTI^®, T/F is ‘Judging’ and S/N is ‘Perceiving.’

Let us tie this concept down with a few examples. Suppose that a person is STJ—Sensing plus Thinking plus Judging. Judging means that he presents either T or F to the external world. The ‘T’ tells us which of these two it is. The other basic category, in this case ‘S’, faces inward. Thus we conclude that he combines Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing.

Here is another example: SFP. Perceiving means that either S or N faces externally. In this case it is S. The other main category, F, here deals with the internal world. So, SFP combines Extraverted Sensing with Introverted Feeling.

One more example: NTP. Here the P tells us that N faces externally. That leaves T for the internal world. Thus we have Extraverted iNtuition and Introverted Thinking.

Moving on now to our second point, I or E indicates which of the two primary modes is dominant. ‘I’ means that the Introverted one is dominant and the Extraverted one auxiliary. In contrast, ‘E’ indicates that it is the Extraverted split that is dominant.[PP]

For instance, let us decipher ENTJ. First, the ‘J’ shows that ‘T’ is facing the external world. Thus we have Extraverted Thinking combined with Introverted iNtuition. Second, the ‘E’ tells us that the Extraverted mode is dominant. This describes dominant Extraverted Thinking combined with auxiliary Introverted iNtuition.

How about INFP? The ‘P’ says that iNtuition is Extraverted. Thus, Feeling is Introverted. And, the ‘I’ tells us Introverted Feeling is dominant and supported by auxiliary Extraverted iNtuition.

Now that we know how the system works, let us analyze it, beginning with the interpretation given to P/J.[QQ] The key is to realize, in the words of Briggs-Myers, that “JP reflects only the process used in dealing with the outside world.” But what is the ‘outside world’? It is filled with Mercy experiences and Mercy feelings. In other words, as I stated a few paragraphs ago, P/J describes the operation of practical thought. Over the years, psychologists have observed how people respond to their surroundings and have slapped a label of ‘P’ or ‘J’ upon this behavior.

But, we have just analyzed the operation of practical thought. It combines two aspects—map and road. First, Perceiver strategy learns how Mercy experiences are connected. Then, Server mode uses actions to reach the desired goal. In essence, Perceiver thought handles the map while Server mode drives the car. Or, one could say that Perceiver thought is the navigator and Server strategy is the pilot.

I have suggested that the MBTI^® categories describe distortions of normal mental processing. So, let us suppose that our map keeper, for some reason, has to navigate with a distorted map. We can imagine the possible result: “The map says that you need to take the third exit. No, wait. Cancel that. Now it says to take the next exit. Stop. Change in plans. We are going the wrong way. We should actually be going north, not south.”

Now let us invite our psychologist to observe. He will see a person obsessed with making decisions, who needs and wants closure. In other words, he will see Judging behavior. And which MBTI^® division messes up the mental map? The T/F split. Thus, we can conclude that Judging and T/F are related.

On the other hand, suppose that the driver has the following problem: He tries to turn left and the car keeps going straight ahead. He pushes on the accelerator and the motor coughs and sputters. He slams on the brakes and he veers to the right. What type of road do you think that this driver will prefer? One without lanes, without ditches, and without turnoffs. In fact, given the condition of his car, he would prefer a dry lake bed upon which he could drive anywhere. Our wise psychologist will respond by calling him Perceiving: “He wants to keep his options open; he does not like to make decisions.” And which MBTI^® split affects the action circuitry? The S/N split. Thus, we can say that S/N is related to Perceiving.

That is the negative reason. There is also a positive side. Someone who specializes in map-keeping is probably going to spend most of his time deciding where he wants to go. Thus the one who uses T or F to deal with the external world will behave in a Judging way. In contrast, someone who prefers to drive will tend to avoid deciding where to go and simply try to continue moving. Therefore, applying N or S to the external world will produce Perceiving-like traits.

Now that we have dealt with the P/J issue let us examine the distinction between dominant and auxiliary. If we understand the requirements for mental life, then I suggest that we can decipher Briggs-Myers’ concepts. I have mentioned several times that any network of memories which extends to all foursimple styles will become ‘alive.’ In other words, mental life requires the cooperation of Teacher, Perceiver, Server and Mercy thought. Mental ‘life’ has one primary characteristic. It tries to stay alive. It wants to be ‘fed’ with compatible input and it resists being ‘killed’ through disintegration.

This fundamental drive leads naturally to conflict between competing life ‘forms.’ Suppose that two ‘living’ mental networks both inhabit the same mental region. The very existence of one will tend to attack the other, because each will want to be ‘fed’ with its own diet and will feel threatened if it is exposed to the ‘food’ of the other.

By the way, notice the parallel between ‘life’ and general Teacher understanding. Teacher theories begin by explaining everything, just as petty monarchs think that they rule the entire inhabited world. In a similar way, Mercy-based life begins in blissful ignorance of any other forms of existence. The prime example is the baby. Unaware of the very concept of person, he is absolute ruler over his own tiny world.

The problems begin when general Teacher theories, mental life forms, petty monarchs, and growing infants discover the existence of others. Now there is conflict, because what one wants generally differs from what the otherdesires. Is this conflict the final stage? For many, yes. However, I suggest that a further stage of mutual cooperation can be reached, in which individuals accomplish more by combining their efforts. This is where Teacher thought encounters order-within-complexity, Mercy strategy learns about love, countries discover trade, and toddlers become friends.

Let us return now to the issue of mental life. I have suggested that conflict is inevitable when ‘life-forms’ overlap. Every human, as it turns out, is faced with two competing worlds. On the one hand, our physical bodies live within a solid, functioning, natural environment. Interacting with this external world programs our minds with a ‘living’ network. On the other hand, we also have a thought life driven by the internal pump of Exhorter to Contributor to Facilitator. Coping with this internal pressure also builds a ‘living’ mental network. Our imagination directs our thoughts in one direction, and our environment pushes them in another.

How can we stay mentally alive and avoid internal conflict, with a minimum of effort, when there are two sources of ‘life’? Well, we know that life requires the cooperation of all four simple styles. Two of these strategies, Perceiver and Mercy, reside in the right hemisphere, while the other two, Teacher and Server, use the left hemisphere. Suppose that we use the two styles of one hemisphere—either Perceiver and Mercy, or Teacher and Server—to deal with the external environment, and the other two to interact with the internal world.[RR] All of our requirements have now been met. There is an operating mental network, both internal and external worlds are being handled, and there is no mental overlap.

The MBTI^® categories describe the absolute minimum requirements for mental life.

· Mental life emerges when Mercy and Perceiver cooperate with Server and Teacher.

· Mental life must cope with both the internal world and the external environment.

· In minimal life, one pair of modes works internally, while the other pair deals with externals.

I suggest that we have just analyzed the theory of MBTI^®. What it describes is the absolute minimum requirements for mental life. It says that each person uses his preferred side of the S/N split (which involves Server and Teacher[SS]) to handle either the internal or external world, and then assigns one side of the T/F division (involving Perceiver and Mercy[TT]) to face the other direction. Is it possible to live life ‘more abundantly’? Of course. But that would require tearing down the existing mental ‘life’ in order to rebuild it at a higher level. In other words, it would take personal transformation—the topic of the previous volume.

If this interpretation is valid, then MBTI^® personality ‘types’ describe the assumptions that any one individual makes on his way to building mental ‘life.’ This mental building, I suggest, occurs in the same way that a physical building is constructed. First, a foundation is laid, then the superstructure is assembled. One does not live in the foundation—rather, one lives in the structure that is placed upon the foundation. In MBTI^® terms, therefore, I suggest that the auxiliary mode describes a person’s underlying assumption, whereas the dominant mode reflects his operating assumption.

Minimal life is based heavily upon assumptions.

· The MBTI^® dominant describes a person’s operating assumptions.

· The MBTI^® auxiliary summarizes his underlying assumptions.

Let me give you an example. Suppose that a person is an ESFP. ‘P’ means that Sensing is Extraverted. ‘E’ tells us that the Extraverted mode (Sensing) is dominant. So, the ESFP has a dominant Extraverted Sensing combined with an auxiliary Introverted Feeling. Let us begin our analysis with the auxiliary. Introverted Feeling means that the ESFP assumes an internal world of Mercy feelings free of Perceiver logic. This provides his mental foundation.

Based upon this internal foundation, he operates in the external world. Here, he assumes that he can always remain in the here-and-now of Sensing, and that he can avoid the theories and ideas of iNtuition. If you compare David Keirsey’s portrayal of the ESFP with Lane Friesen’s descriptions of the seven cognitive styles, you will see that the ESFP corresponds to what we call the undisciplined Exhorter. He ignores theories and ideas and uses his physical body to involve himself in the latest fad and enthusiasm. That is his external behavior—what we observe. Underneath the surface, however, lies a hidden foundation of personal Mercy feelings. These emotions are protected from Perceiver logic at all costs. This foundational assumption is guarded by either auxiliary or dominant thought, as the situation requires. If the auxiliary is used, then facts, consequences, and guilt are ‘partied away,’ using Mercy feelings to re-mesmerize Perceiver thought into acquiescence. In contrast, the dominant mode of Sensing separates the Exhorter person from Mercy hurt by moving his physical body. Thus, friends who condemn the undisciplined Exhorter are dropped, and situations that constrict are left behind.

Why are most ESFPs Exhorter persons? Because Exhorter strategy demands excitement, excitement demands strong feelings, and the only instant strong feelings are Mercy ones. In addition, the Exhorter person’s conscious control of Exhorter strategy allows him to tiptoe through the minefield of strong feelings without getting blown up by random obsessions or compulsions. Therefore, the tendency is for an Exhorter person to become the typical ESFP and for other styles to pursue other shortcuts to mental life.

Related to the ESFP is the ENFP. Both share the same fundamental assumption of Introverted Feeling. Thus, according to the previous paragraph, both ESFP and ENFP would tend to describe primarily the Exhorter individual. However, the ESFP is dominant in Sensing, whereas the ENFP has a dominant of iNtuition. This, I suggest, corresponds to the type we call the visionary Exhorter. I have mentioned that the undisciplined Exhorter handles problems by ‘moving on.’ This locks his mind into practical thought, because he is continually following an external stream of Mercy-based excitement. Now, suppose that this undisciplined individual is forced to stick with some unpleasant situation. Eventually, Exhorter strategy will flip modes, anchor itself in the now-solid Mercy crisis, and begin moving through the rarified air of Teacher theory. Thus, the Exhorter person will discover intellectual thought. Has his auxiliary foundation changed? No. He is still rooted in an internal world of Mercy feelings. But, his dominant mode of thought has flipped[UU] from the practical world of Sensing to the intellectual realm of iNtuition. Thus, he will be an ENFP rather than an ESFP.[VV]

I mention these two examples for two reasons. First, they are the easiest to analyze. The typical Exhorter person is an open book. He airs his dirty laundry in public, with gusto. Second, this volume looks at the simple styles—which concentrate on mental content. Therefore, we will only be looking in detail at four of the Introverted MBTI^® types, leaving the other types for a later volume. Thus, I present these two examples in order to give us a flavor of Extraverted thought.

The Two Meanings of P/J and I/E

Now that we understand the four letter labels used by MBTI^® to classify people, we need to go back and add more detail to our explanation about the P/J and I/E splits. Notice that MBTI^® actually assigns two different meanings to these two divisions. Initially, we learned that P/J refers to a split between Perceiving and Judging, whereas I/E describes the division between Introverted and Extraverted. Now we see that these same splits are used as ‘helpers’ to decode the four letter labels. What is the connection between these two meanings, and is MBTI^® justified in taking this approach?

Let me start by giving you my final conclusion. In essence, I suggest that this arrangement makes sense as long as we are talking about normal people living in a typical natural environment. Now that I have given you this cryptic answer, let us look at the details, beginning with P/J.

First, we have P/J as a division. I have suggested that this describes two different ways in which practical thought can operate. When Perceiving is emphasized, Exhorter drive and excitement guide Contributor choices. In Judging, Contributor thought controls and channels Exhorter motivation. Thus, Perceiving is spontaneous while Judging makes decisions.

But why does the P/J division apply to practical thought? Because that is how Briggs-Myers defined this split. And why did she define it this way? Because we humans live in an external world of concrete objects, experiences and emotions, and this world imposes itself upon our minds.

One could compare the P/J relationship to the flow of a river. What forms a river? The combination of flowing water and a landscape full of hills and valleys. Perceiving looks for the excitement and novelty of finding mental ‘canyons’ down which attention can ‘flow.’Judging, in contrast, controls mental flow by building ‘dams’ of decision, in order to achieve the mental stability of controlling when and where the ‘water’ will travel. But what is the ultimate source of this mental topography? The physical world, with its physical objects. Thus, it is the landscape of the external world, both literally and figuratively, as it is recorded in Mercy and Perceiver thought, that makes it possible to think of practical experiences in terms of Perceiving versus Judging.

MBTI^® assigns two different meanings to P/J.

· P/J describes a split between Perceiving and Judging.

· P/J also categorizes the primary MBTI^® splits: S/N is Perceiving; T/F is Judging.

Consider, though, the person who works in a big office or bureaucracy. He spends very little time worrying about physical location. Instead, he traverses a verbal landscape full of procedures and protocols. Such an individual can choose either the excitement of ‘flowing’ with the procedures that he encounters throughout his working day, or else the control of choosing which regulation to enforce. This too is a separation between Perceiving and Judging, but in this case it involves abstract thought—left hemisphere processing. Is this a natural situation? No. The world of bureaucracy is a man-made one. It is far more natural for Perceiving and Judging to involve the practical world of concrete Mercy experiences. But, as red-tape gradually envelops the natural world, then an intellectual form of Perceiving versus Judging becomes increasingly prevalent.

Therefore, when Briggs-Myers states that P/J involves the world of experiences, she is assuming the presence of a natural world. In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, this book will explicitly define P/J as a separation between Exhorter excitement and Contributor control involving practical thought.

Now let us turn our attention to the second definition which MBTI^® gives to P/J—the meaning used to decipher the four letter codes. This states that S/N are Perceiving and that T/F are Judging. This definition is also explicitly given by Briggs-Myers with respect to the external world. For instance, if a person is an INTP, this means that his external behavior is iNtuitive. Why? Because the ‘P’ in this label refers to S or N, and the presence of a ‘P’ means that his behavior appears Perceiving. As I mentioned in a previous section, it is the external world that is responsible for making S/N appear Perceiving and T/F looking like Judging. Why? In simple terms, ‘sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me.’ Thus, I am free to choose Teacher words without fear of consequence. In contrast, if I choose the wrong Mercy experiences, I could end up dead. Similarly, my Server actions do not have to be part of some overall Teacher plan, but they must take into account Mercy consequences. As a result, thephysical world forces T/F to be Judging, while giving S/N the freedom of Perceiving.

But, as with the first definition given to P/J, it is also possible for this meaning to be overruled by human interference. In today’s media-driven politically-correct Western world, it is no longer possible to speak whatever one chooses. As most politicians know, talk is not cheap. Instead, one must be very careful about what one says.[WW] In contrast, civilization has removed most of the consequences from our actions. Even if we hurt ourselves and destroy our environment, society usually steps in, patches up our wounds, and pays for the damages. Thus, current modern society forces us to use Judging with Teacher words, while allowing us at the same time to become increasingly Perceiving[XX] with Mercy experiences. In such an artificial world, S/N corresponds to J, and T/F to P.

Notice that with both MBTI^® definitions of P/J, the external world is responsible for determining this relationship. But, it is possible to set up an artificial world which contradicts these definitions. Because of these potential ambiguities, I repeat again that we will use P only to describe practical thought that is Exhorter driven, and J to label practical thought controlled by Contributor strategy.

This book will not assume that S/N is Perceiving and T/F is Judging.

· Civilization can create an artificial world in which S/N is Judging and T/F is Perceiving.

In contrast, we will not ascribe to the MBTI^® practice of calling T/F Judging and S/N Perceiving, because this definition contradicts the purpose of this book.[YY] The person who integrates T/F through personal transformation discovers that he no longer needs to control his Exhorter urges. Instead, he can allow attention and motivation to flow naturally along the mental landscape that he has constructed. Thus, by focusing upon T/F to the extent of undergoing personal transformation, a person breaks through MBTI^® Judging into MBTI^® Perceiving. This sort of ‘breakthrough’ can be seen whenever a skill is learned. When a person practices, Judging is in charge. Actions that are wrong are stopped and movement which is correct is repeated. During a performance, though, Perceiving takes over, as the mind is allowed to flow along channels that have been perfected through practice.[ZZ]

As for the suggestion that S/N is Perceiving, this book hopes to demonstrate the the world of thought and action is not a ‘blank slate’ in which anything is possible. Instead, both individuals and society go through stages, and whenever a person or group makes a transition from one stage to another, then certain doors open and others close—in a very Judging-like manner.

Now that we have finished discussing P/J, let us turn our attention to I/E. I suggest that an ambiguity exists here as well. As with P/J, we will begin by looking at the I/E division itself. Why is there a struggle between the Internal and theExternal worlds? Because we live in a world full of specific Mercy experiences that barge their way into our minds, but we are not told how to put these various pieces together. This leaves us with two choices. We can either use Serveractions to bring order to our external world, or we can use Perceiverfacts to put the puzzle pieces together internally.

Why is there a conflict between these two methods? Because the external world forces us to use Server actions that are physically possible. In contrast, the internal world does not have to concern itself with questions of doability, but can follow imagination wherever it leads.

By the way, this means that E of I/E is the analog to J of P/J. With Judging, Contributor thought is continually making choices based upon Perceiver facts. Similarly, the Extraverted mindset makes decisions on the basis of Serverskills.[AAA] In contrast, I corresponds to P, because both allow themselves to be directed by Exhorter excitement wherever it leads.

Why is the I/E conflict an intellectual struggle? Because of the structure of the external world. It feeds our minds with concrete ‘bricks,’ forcing us to put them together using abstract Teacher thinking. And, as the struggle between philosophy and science illustrates, the type of general Teacher structure that is developed depends strongly upon the presence or absence of Server confidence.[BBB]

Consider, however, the modern world of high-tech gadgets. Each device contains its own tiny electronic world of general Teacher order that enables it to carry out amazing Server functions. In mental terms, it is a Server ‘brick.’ Everywhere we turn, we find such gadgets.[CCC] Somehow, we must make sense of this new world. Is this a Teacher dilemma? No. These gadgets are all full of Teacher order, backed up by the general Teacher understanding of science. Instead, both they and we lack Mercypurpose. As I mentioned in the previous book, objective science has turned us into idiot-savants, who fill Teacher wonders with infantile Mercy content.

Thus, consumer technology turns the I/E dilemma from a Teacher problem into a Mercy crisis. How do we make sense of our high-tech world? One way is to embrace the external Mercy icons, advertising, gimmicks, and fads that fill our world. The other option is to enter the world of internal Mercy thought, and to work out how the tools of high-tech could be used to produce a better society.

Is there a conflict between these two methods? Yes. That is because the external method surrenders to the mesmerism of the crowd, while the internal method uses Perceiver confidence to construct a mental world of what could be.

Because technology has the power to change the nature of I/E, this book will explicitly assign to this division the meaning given by the natural world. Thus, whenever talking about I/E, we will be referring to a conflict involving generality—anintellectual struggle between two possible worldviews.

Let us move now to the second meaning that MBTI^® gives to I/E. When used as part of the four letter code, it determines which of the two primary divisions is dominant and which is auxiliary. For instance, in ESTP, the P tells us that S operates externally, and that T functions internally. Then, the E informs us that External Sensing is dominant, and Internal Thinking is auxiliary.

The unstated assumption of MBTI^® is that every person is caught in a struggle between the internal and external worlds, and that he is forced to survive by balancing the demands of these two. But why must a person be caught dangling between these two? Because we assume that there will always be a balance of power between the internal and external realms.

MBTI^® assigns two different meanings to I/E.

· I/E is a division between Introverted and Extraverted.

· I/E also describes dominant and auxiliary. If the dominant is I, the auxiliary is E (and vice-versa).

On the one hand, we are driven to control our external natural world, but we assume that we will never completely succeed. Our physical vulnerability motivates these efforts, our physical body allows us to act, and our finiteness[DDD] limits the effect of these actions. Thus, there is a balance between the parts of nature that have been tamed by man and the ‘wild nature’ which remains beyond human control.

On the other hand, we also are driven to understand our internal personal experiences. Here too, we assume that our efforts will be only partially successful. In this case, it is our emotional vulnerability that motivates us, Perceiver facts are the tools we use to bring stability to the sea of internal feelings, and our task is limited by inadequate Perceiver confidence and limited Teacher understanding.

The end result is a balance of power between internal and external—a cold war which neither combatant can win.

But, suppose that we gained mastery over the forces of nature. To a large extent, this has happened today. Those of us who grow up in such groomed surroundings can enjoy our physical surroundings without fearing personal harm from natural forces. In addition, we no longer need to learn the ‘survival skills’ of coping with nature. As a result, both dominant andauxiliary modes can be Extraverted. A solid internal world is not required. Instead, we can depend entirely upon our external surroundings to provide the structure for our minds.

Looking at the opposite extreme, suppose that an individual managed to come up with a Teacher theory which included all subjective Mercy experiences, and that he gained sufficient Perceiver confidence to hold on to this understanding in all situations. For him, both dominant and auxiliary would be Introverted. This would not mean that he ignored the external world. However, he would be able to construct an internal world—or dominant, based upon an auxiliary of internalcontent.[EEE]

Let us summarize, beginning with the MBTI^® division of I/E. If the natural environment becomes sufficiently manicured and civilized through societal transformation, it is then possible to approach the external world using the type of wishful thinking that is normally reserved for the internal world, causing the distinction between I and E to vanish in favor of external structure. In contrast, the individual who rebuilds his mind using Perceiver and Server confidence can approach his internal world with the same rigor that is normally reserved for the external world. In this case, it would be internal content that would bridge the I/E division.

It is this struggle between I and E which forms the core topic of this book. As knowledge and technology grow, we are increasingly being forced to choose between one of two paths. Either we can use knowledge to construct a mentalfoundation for existence, or else we can build our minds upon the external foundation of technology. I suggest that the one who builds internally will find that he is increasingly unable to participate in the mindless activities of today’s society. Thus, an auxiliary that is truly Introverted will lead, in today’s world, to a dominant that is also Introverted. In contrast, I suggest that the one who builds his mind upon external structure will find himself immersed within a system that increasingly discourages independent thought. Thus, he will discover that an auxiliary that is Extraverted leads inevitably to a dominant that is also Extraverted.

This book will not use I/E as a means of organizing dominant and auxiliary.

· When civilization grooms the world, both dominant and auxiliary can be Extraverted.

· With personal transformation, both dominant and auxiliary can be Introverted.

Therefore, this book will not use I/E as a means for classifying dominant and auxiliary, because our society is changing into a form in which this relationship, is no longer valid. Does this mean that the concept of dominant and auxiliary is wrong? No. I have mentioned that Exhorter thought always moves through one hemisphere in the light of a mental ‘anchor’ located in the other hemisphere. But, the relationship between dominant and auxiliary does not have to involve internal and external. Instead, it is the combination of incomplete knowledge and inadequate technology that creates the struggle between internal and external environments which allows MBTI^® to assume that the I/E division can be used to classify dominant and auxiliary. These conditions, though, are no longer present. Technology spans the globe, and mental symmetry describes the mind.

Identity and the MBTI^® Splits

In the first volume, I talked extensively about personal transformation. We saw that there is an internal conflict between two different me’s, one defined by the physical body, and the other the result of Mercy imagination. At the end of that volume, I suggested that mental growth involves moving these two me’s forward one at a time—a process I compared to walking. This chapter has introduced the four MBTI^® categories, and I have suggested that mental growth involves integrating these four splits. These two concepts, I suggest, describe the same thing from a different viewpoint.[FFF]

Suppose that I want to integrate the MBTI^® splits. Where should I start? Well, we already know that T/F must be tackling before dealing with P/J and that S/N must be handled before I/E. This tells us that I could start with either T/F or S/N.

Which of these two should I choose? I suggest that it depends on whether I want to approach change as an individual or as a member of a group. This is because of the nature of my physical body and the physical world. As I have mentioned before, the natural world fills my mind with emotional Mercy experiences. Thus, bridging Thinking and Feeling means honestly facing my personal experiences, a process which I can and must do individually and privately. And, when I have accomplished this task, I can rebuild my external environment in the light of my internal visions by using my body to perform Server actions. Thus, the individual has everything that is needed to deal with the T/F split.

On the other hand, the S/N division must be tackled as a group. This is because the human body has no way of directly sensing Teacher emotion. Instead, it is only as I encounter order-within-complexity that I become aware of Teacher feelings. And how can a single individual create such feelings of unity combined with diversity? By cooperating with other humans. Because many people are working together, there is a sense of complexity. And because many people are working together, there is an order which ties together this complexity. This produces feelings of Teacher generality.[GGG] Similarly, individual Server actions cannot change the Teacher order of the natural world. But, if enough individuals work together, they can produce a civilization with its own artificial Teacher order.

We conclude that there are two possible ways of integrating the MBTI^® splits. If I want to start with T/F, I must change myself through the narrow path of individualism. On the other hand, I can integrate S/N by travelling the broad road with others.

Transformation can follow two possible paths.

· Personal transformation integrates T/F then P/J, followed by S/N and finally I/E.

· Social transformation integrates S/N then I/E, followed by T/F and finally P/J.

What is the narrow path followed by the individual? Personal transformation. What defines me as an individual person? My identity. Thus, personal transformation means redefining and changing me. Let us take a few paragraphs to outline this process in MBTI^® terms.

Initially, I have no identity. Me is not yet defined. Why? Because me contains emotional Mercy experiences, and the definition of me is provided by Perceiver facts, and these both take time to develop. However, if there is a T/F split, then me will remain separate from the definition of me. This is because facts and feelings do not get together when T/F is divided. Thus, the big battle in combining Thinking and Feeling is the struggle to define me and to accept an accurate definition of me.

The result of this struggle for self-definition is not just one me but two. This is because two conflicting forces are at work, each trying to shape my identity. One of these forces is natural cause and effect from the external world, the other is my Mercy desire for pleasant experiences. This leads to the twome’s described in the previous volume: the me of the physical body, and the me of Mercy identification.

But why are there two me’s? Because of the other fundamental MBTI^® split—the S/N division between Sensing and iNtuition. Sensing involves my physical body. Perceiver thought looks at experiences that result from the demands of Sensing and decides that they belong together. This ends up defining the me of the physical body. In contrast, iNtuition is continually being attracted to new ideas and exciting situations. It jumps from here to the desired goal. Perceiver strategy observes the mental flow of Mercy experiences and notices repeated patterns. The resulting Perceiver facts describe the me of Mercy identification.

Notice exactly what is happening. Me resides within Mercy thought. Self-image emerges as Perceiver thought observes the Mercy experiences of me and learns facts about them. The left hemisphere split of S/N causes identity to operate along two different channels. This left hemisphere separation is only revealed when the T/F right hemisphere split is tackled and Perceiver strategy has sufficient confidence to analyze emotional Mercy experiences and to define me. Let me restate this. The right hemisphere defines me, whereas the left hemisphere is responsible for the operation of me. If T/F is integrated before S/N, then as me becomes defined, it will become obvious that the operation of me is split.

Integrating T/F causes personal identity to be defined.

· The S/N division causes identity to operate in two different ways.

· The result of personal transformation is two me’s: the emotional me and the physical me.

Integrating T/F defines the two me’s. It then becomes possible to deal with the P/J split. Integrating Perceiving and Judging, I suggest, will make these two me’s compatible with one another. Let me explain. I have mentioned that the conflict between P and J is a struggle between rules and excitement. The me of the physical body has an excess of rules, imposed upon identity by natural feedback from the external environment. In contrast, the me of Mercy identification is characterized by uncontrolled excitement. It constantly jumps internally to the latest enthusiasm, regardless of the rules. These two me’s cannot be reconciled until they become compatible. And that means relating rules with excitement, or in other words, defining J in terms of P, and using J to guide P.

Linking P with J makes the two me’s compatible, but it still does not tie them together. Let me give you an illustration of what this is like. I live in Canada close to the United States border. Just outside of my home town is a road called Avenue Zero that runs along the Canadian side of the Canadian-American border. For several miles, this Canadian road travels beside another road that lies just inside the United States. These two roads are divided by only a small ditch, across which a person could easily jump. Despite this, they remain totally separate. Why are they not connected? Because they belong to different domains—one is not supposed to go directly between the United States and Canada without passing through a checkpoint.

This describes the situation with the two me’s after T/F and P/J have been integrated. Sensing and iNtuition are now compatible, but they are not yet connected. Instead, the mind is filled with unrelated parallel paths, each belonging to different mental domains.[HHH] The right hemisphere, observing the resulting experiences, concludes that there are still two me’s. These two me’s were initially defined when T/F became integrated, and they continue to function separately as long as S/N remains split.

Integrating P/J makes the emotional me compatible with the physical me.

· They may be compatible but they still remain separate.

How then does one integrate S/N? We can answer this by examining our border road analogy. Suppose that one of the two parallel roads were destroyed. Vehicles would then be forced to reach their destination by crossing the ditch and using the road on the other side. Would this be difficult? Physically, no. Filling in the ditch to allow vehicular traffic would be quite simple. This trivial action, though, would have major international repercussions, and would in fact threaten the whole concept of national integrity. Similarly, integrating S/N is not that difficult—once the T/F and P/J homework has been done.[III] But, this simple change will cause major shock waves in a person’s worldview. What type of repercussions? We will give a partial answer to this question when we look at science and technology. For now, let me just say that truly integrating S/N means redefining the relationship between the individual and the corporate, between the doable and the impossible.[JJJ]

Once the S/N battle has been won, then the I/E split between internal and external can be tackled. Rather than analyzing this split, let me describe what it feels like when the split is present and when it is absent. When there is a division between I and E, progressing through personal transformation produces increasing feelings of culture shock. My mental concept of life appears alienated from external reality. This struggle intensifies as the other divisions are integrated and reaches a peak when I tackle the I/E separation.

What does it feel like when I and E come together? The alienation vanishes. In fact, I cannot conceive of anything other than my present way of doing things. How can alienation be transformed into inevitability? Through one of two ways. First, I may become so swept up in the external world that my mind loses the ability to conceive of any other possible existence. Second, I may become so convinced about internal principles of societal cause and effect that my mind rejects all other possible worlds as wishful thinking. In the first case, I become a slavish creature of my environment. In the second, I become its master, and I direct all of my efforts towards changing its character. In both situations, the split between internal and external vanishes.

In contrast, if S/N is tackled before T/F, then me will function in an integrated manner, but there will actually be two different me’s, one associated with Thinking and the other with Feeling. Will people notice this discrepancy? No. This is because me only becomes defined as T/F is integrated.[KKK]

Before we go on, I would like to look briefly at the mirror-image of personal transformation. Suppose that one begins by integrating S/N as a society. What emerges then is not two me’s, but rather two areas of personal operation—one associated with Thinking and the other with Feeling. The operation ofme becomes unified, but personal experiences remain separated into two different groups. This is because S/N is being integrated by individuals who suffer from a T/F split. This experiential separation is illustrated by Western society. On the one hand, our personal world is split by divisions such as objective and subjective, Thinking and Feeling, work and home, colleagues and family, labor and entertainment. On the other hand, our society has worked out smooth ways of travelling between these two realms, tying them together, and operating in an integrated way.

In social transformation, S/N is integrated while T/F remains distinct.

· The operation of me becomes integrated.

· Personal experiences remain split into objective and subjective, and self-image is undefined.

Will people notice this experiential inconsistency? Of course not. The mind cannot form an accurate self-image when Thinking and Feeling are split. However, people will function in a way that assumes that presenceof these two me’s. In addition, individuals who are pursuing personal transformation willnotice the personal split and be affected by it. On the one hand, they have the mental equipment to analyze personal behavior. On the other hand, their attempts to live within a single unified world of personal experiences will be labeled as inappropriate by others, because they add too much feeling to the objective, and too much analysis to the subjective.

In conclusion, we see that there are two kinds of transformation. Personal transformation is applied by the individual and begins by tackling the T/Fsplit. Social transformation involves the group and starts by integrating the S/Ndivision.[LLL] Thus, when this book talks about personal transformation, it will be referring to one of two related concepts. First, personal transformation may describe an individual tackling the specific task of integrating the T/F division. Second, personal transformation may also refer to a path in which an individual integrates T/F, followed by P/J, then S/N, and finally I/E. Similarly, we will use the term social transformation either to describe how a society bridges S/N, or else to refer to a path which a society can follow, in which S/N is tackled first, followed by I/E, then T/F and finally P/J.

For an example of social transformation, one only needs to look around. Through science (an iNtuitive approach to Nature) and technology (a Sensing application), our modern civilization has integrated S/N.[MMM] The result, as described at the end of the first volume, is a world of idiot savants. For instance, we make ‘smart bombs,’ applying incredible technology (in the realm of objective thinking) to carry out brutal destruction (in the realm of subjective feeling). We build communications satellites to beam soap operas into every home. Wherever we go, we bring our schizophrenic approach that combines scintillating brilliance with pigheaded stupidity. But then, didn’t I suggest earlier that technology amplifies the personal suffering of emotional 'truth'?

So what about I/E? If our society has integrated S/N, then it should also be possible to bridge the gap between I and E? Right? Of course. The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century brought Sensing and iNtuition together. Today’s computer revolution is bridging I and E. For the first time, we have external objects that can mimic the operation of internal thought.

During the industrial revolution, society began to integrate S/N.

In today’s computer revolution, society is starting to bridge I/E.

Now, let us apply one more dose of mental symmetry. I have suggested that integrating T/F and P/J makes it possible to tie S and N together, because it builds two parallel domains. To go further, one only has to make a short jump ‘across the ditch’ to the other ‘road.’ If symmetry holds, then the S/N and I/E integration which we have achieved as a society should make it possible for us to tackle T/F. In fact, there should be a whole parallel world out there only a short hop away. So why aren’t we jumping across? Because of the implications. For the individual, crossing the border to travel a road on the other side is a simple Server step, but it has major general Teacher ramifications. Similarly, we would predict that the Perceiver facts needed for our society to tackle T/F are quite straightforward, but hidden within these simple facts would be a major personal Mercy crisis…

Oh, by the way. At the end of the first volume, we talked about moving the ‘right foot forward’ versus moving the ‘wrong foot forward.’ I suggest that we have now expanded upon this topic. If a person wants to develop as an individual, he must integrate T/F. This involves reprogramming his me of Mercy identification. Because this leads to personal improvement I call it ‘moving the right foot forward.’ Why is there personal change? Because the me of Mercy identification is a hidden me which cannot be seen by others. In contrast, if people cooperate to improve the me of their physical bodies, then they will also make progress. But, this progress will be limited to external growth, because people are using their physical bodies to cooperate in the physical world. Why is this moving the wrong foot forward? Because civilization improves while people stay the same. The end result is a world like ours, full of clever fools who use modern technology to satisfy primitive desires.

This ends our first look at MBTI^®. We will be returning to the topic, and we will see the MBTI^® splits turning up wherever we look. Also, we will be analyzing the four Introverted iNtuitive types at appropriate locations in this book.

Perceiver and Teacher Interaction

Before we introduced MBTI^®, I described the type of general Teacher theory that would be needed to begin personal transformation. That discussion centered on the issue of Perceiver truth and included a heavy dose of Mercy feelings. Let us now step away from the mud of personal involvement and turn to the rarified air of Teacher theory. Specifically, let us look at the relationship between Teacher strategy and Perceiver thought.

If you examine the diagram of mental symmetry, shown in Appendix A, you will notice that Perceiver and Teacher modes are the two mental strategies that work with abstract thought. You could compare their relationship to a necklace composed of beads. Perceiver facts are the individual beads; they are little chunks of information. A Teacher theory, in contrast, is the thread; it is a sequence that strings together a number of elements. In the same way that a necklace can be seen either as a collection of beads or as a string of jewelry, so the ‘necklace’ of abstract thought can be viewed either as a collection of Perceiver objects, or as a Teacher sequence.

Teacher and Perceiver strategies cooperate to handle abstract thought.

· Teacher mode deals with strings, sequences, or ‘waves.’

· Perceiver thought works with facts, objects, or ‘particles.’

It is interesting that we find exactly the same type of interaction in the world of physics. For instance, researchers tried for years to determine whether light is a wave or a particle. On the one hand, some experiments showed that light is a wave, because interacting beams of light produced exactly the type of interference pattern that we see when the waves generated by two moving boats overlap with each other. On the other hand, light does not flow in smooth quantities, but is emitted and absorbed in chunks of energy called photons. So is light a wave or a particle? Scientists, in their infinite wisdom, have come up with the answer of ‘Yes.’ If you look for waves you will find them, but if you search for particles you will discover them as well.

I have already mentioned that much of the initial thinking on this subject was done by my brother, a Teacher person, in conjunction with myself, a Perceiver person. Both of us approached the topic from a different viewpoint: My brother was building a general understanding, whereas I was trying to put together a collection of facts. Though our approaches were entirely different, for some reason we managed to cooperate. Why? Because general understanding is both a big picture for Perceiver thought and a sequence of ideas for Teacher strategy.[NNN]

A combination of Teacher and Perceiver thought is very effective in developing an understanding, because it tackles the same problem from two completely different angles, almost like the warp and the woof of a fabric. Each partner builds from his own direction and the result is the cloth of a general theory. As my brother and I worked together, we realized that he was better at ‘stitching,’ whereas my particular talent lay in discovering ‘holes.’ In addition, I was good at fine-tuning each ‘thread’ of thought, whereas my brother had a knack for pointing out mismatches between one ‘thread’ and another.

We also discovered that this relationship is full of sparks. I finally concluded that “the product of our frustration is a constant.” In other words, whenever I was cruising along with a great idea, my brother was struggling in confusion, and when he was pursuing a brilliant concept, I felt like tearing out my hair. Curiously enough, this frustration seems to parallel another discovery of twentieth century physics, called the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

This law states that you cannot simultaneously measure both position and velocity with total accuracy. If you try to pin down the position of something, its velocity becomes uncertain. Similarly, if you measure its velocity, then you will no longer know its exact position.[OOO]

A similar uncertainty appeared in our research. My brother thought in terms of Teacher ‘waves,’ whereas I approached topics from the angle of Perceiver ‘particles.’ Whenever we got to the edge of our understanding, it seemed that we could not nail down both ‘waves’ and ‘particles’ at the same time. It was as if a version of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle limited our ability.

Why do I mention this?[PPP] First, I want to show that effectiveness often goes together with frustration. However, I also want to suggest that if the theory of the mind being presented in this book is to become a universal theory of understanding, then it is essential to find connections such as these between thought and natural law. Does this mean that we can use our minds to control nature? I leave that question for magicians and mystics to answer.[QQQ] However, if it is possible to lay laws of physics alongside a model of the mind and summarize both with the same type of general Teacher theory, then this has major implications for personal transformation. Why? Because Teacher thought and emotion provide the ‘wings’ that make it possible to let go of the old me and make a transition to a new identity. Mentally speaking, personal transformation can only go as far as the generality of my Teacher understanding.

Speech

Let us move on from the general to the particular. We have examined the overall relationship between Teacher and Perceiver thought. Now we will look at specifics. I suggest that speech is an area in which it is easy to see the interaction between Teacher and Perceiver thought. On the one hand, speech is constructed out of words—waves of sound. On the other hand, speech communicates concepts—particles of meaning. Therefore, is speech a ‘wave’ or is it a ‘particle’? The answer, of course, is ‘Yes.’

As we learned in the previous book, Teacher thought is responsible for producing words. A word is a sequence of sounds. Words are assembled into sequences called sentences, and sentences themselves are strung together to form paragraphs, chapters and books. Teacher thought, however, does not appear to be directly connected with the meaning of words. This is illustrated by the behavior of the Teacher person. He is good at coming up with general theories, but can find it hard to work out the precise meaning of his often rather vague concepts. Perceiver strategy, in contrast, does work with meaning. The Perceiver person is the ‘expert’ on truth, and he can be very stubborn about honesty in speech.

This means that the part of the mind which remembers words is different from the part of the mind which gives meaning to these words. In other words, speech is not the same as communication. Speech involves a movement of Teacher sequences of sound from the mouth of the speaker to the ear of the listener. It is a transfer of data from Teacher strategy in one individual to Teacher mode in another. In contrast, communication involves a movement of Perceiver concepts from Perceiver strategy in one individual to Perceiver thought in another. Most of us have learned, often at substantial cost, that speech can be entirely devoid of communication. Similarly, it is possible to communicate without the use of speech.[RRR]

Effective language skills require both speech and communication. First, Teacher mode must be able to produce and to recognize the noises that we call words. This produces speech. Second, each word must refer to the appropriate Perceiver fact. This allows communication.[SSS]

The separation between words and meanings becomes especially clear when one is trying to learn a new language. First, one must begin to distinguish the different sounds. It seems, initially, as if everyone is talking too fast, and that everything that is said sounds the same. This is because Teacher thought does not know how to classify the noises of that language. Over time, the jumble of sounds gradually sorts itself into words. Once the mind can separate one word from another, then it is possible for Perceiver strategy to begin the task of working out specific meanings for these words.[TTT]

As we learn a language, we find ourselves alternating between Perceiver and Teacher thought. If we listen too much, then speech turns into a jumble of sounds with uncertain meaning. To progress further, we must bring stability to Teacher thought by memorizing the definitions of more words. Similarly, if we concentrate fully on meanings, then we lose the ability to produce continuous speech, and we may need to practice listening and talking in order to go on.

Curiously enough, have you ever noticed that it is rather difficult to concentrate on both meaning and words at the same time? Some people use such big words that we forget what they are trying to say. Other times, we are so engrossed in the concepts being communicated that we overlook the words that are being used. Is Heisenberg striking again?

In the previous book, I mentioned that each of the four simple modes of thought has an automatic region which cooperates with an internal world. These two distinctions show up in the Perceiver meanings of words. First, a meaning may be determined by facts within automatic Perceiver thought. This allows us to decipher what the other individual is probably trying to say, but there is no definite meaning. Think, for instance, of the following conversation: “Hello, how are you, I am fine; Isn’t it a beautiful day; Yes the weather is lovely today but I hear that it will be raining; What did you think of the game last night; Oh it was exciting,” and so on. Was anything definite said? No. Does each word have a meaning? Yes, approximately.

This type of speech is emerging increasingly in today’s society. The average citizen is so afraid of offending some person or group that he avoids all definite statements. Therefore, the latest version of greeting is, “Have a good one.” This solves the problem of political correctness by avoiding the use of a noun altogether, replacing it with the generic ‘one.’

As soon as the Perceiver internal world gets involved, then belief and truth enter into the conversation. Whether we are talking about the weather, politics, or your job, something solid will be said. For instance, we might hear: “At two o’clock in the morning, there was a major earthquake centered 23 miles southeast of San Francisco.” With this type of statement, we know what the speaker is trying to communicate. Of course, it sometimes makes us feel better when we do not know exactly what the other person wants to say. That is one major reason why we shy away from definite statements, especially when Mercy emotions are involved: “I mustn’t say that. I might insult him.”

Speech consists of two parts:

· The sounds of speech are remembered and produced by Teacher thought.

· The meanings of the words are remembered by Perceiver mode.

Speech can have different effects on the mind.

· Words will have precise meanings if Perceiver thought has confidence in facts.

· Words will produce a specific emotional reaction if Perceiver thought is programmed with 'facts.'

· Words will leave no lasting impression if meaning is provided by automatic Perceiver thought.

By now I have probably opened up a big enough can of worms to start a reasonable discussion. How do we communicate? What do we say? When do we talk and when should we keep our mouths shut? How do we stop from offending people? These are all questions that must be faced when we talk with others.

I suggest that the answer to these questions depends upon our definition of Perceiver truth. If Perceiver strategy bases itself in Perceiver confidence, then we will pursue one course. On the other hand, if we 'believe' in emotional 'facts,' then our verbal tactics will be quite different.

Rational Communication

When Perceiver meaning is rooted in Perceiver logic and confidence, then the goal of speech is communication. I talk to another person in order to get my idea across. I attempt to transfer a Perceiver fact from my mind to the mind of the listener. This goal will affect my speech in several ways. First, I will only talk when I know the facts. Otherwise, I will shut up and listen. If my knowledge is so limited that I can get nothing out of the other person’s words, then I will stop listening and move on to another topic or to another conversation. Similarly, if I sense that the other person does not grasp my meaning, then I will alter my verbal tactics or else change the subject.

Second, I will try to base my conversation upon Perceiver facts that are held in common. This is because the mental effort required to follow Perceiver logic and build Perceiver facts has taught me that communication is not automatic. Instead, comprehension requires bridges of common belief. This struggle for ‘common ground’ is particularly obvious when I try to communicate in a foreign country where I do not know the language. I talk slowly, use the easiest words possible, point to objects, act out responses, do almostanything to find some way of triggering in the listener the same Perceiver meaning that is in my mind. Since Perceiver strategy looks for solid connections between individual experiences, it is usually possible, eventually, for rational communication to find this ‘common ground.’

Finally, I limit my speech to subjects in which both of us have sufficient Perceiver confidence to handle the Mercy emotions associated with the topic. What is the point of talking if I cannot communicate? Therefore, if I know that Mercy feelings will overwhelm Perceiver thought in the listener, then I will not say anything. Instead, I will find other ways of communicating.

Here is where objective thinking and rational thought[UUU] diverge in their tactics. The objective thinker preserves meaning by avoiding emotional subjects. If he writes a book about psychology, for instance, it will be couched in technical language, and use euphemisms and medical terms. This strategy, of course, is self-defeating, because using a word associates it with Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences. Thus, a term that starts out emotionally free gradually becomes ‘contaminated’ with emotional connotations, and must be replaced, in turn, by other new, ‘clean,’ objective words. We see this progression, for instance, in the succession of terms used to describe stupid people.[VVV] First, they were called ‘retarded,’ then ‘mentally handicapped,’ and then ‘mentally challenged.’

The rational thinker, in contrast, always tries to come as close to the core of an emotional topic as possible, because he knows that Perceiver confidence can only grow as it survives various encounters with emotion—meaning must therefore include feelings. His long-term goal is to avoid euphemisms and verbal detours completely, but he knows that it will take time to gain the required Perceiver confidence. Until then, he will ‘beat around the bush’ if it is necessary for communication, but each time the topic comes up again, he will try to be a little more direct and include a little more emotion. As for offending someone, what is least offensive? Is it to avoid the issue and allow the other individual to suffer the consequences of ignorance, is it to dump 'truth' on him in the vain hope that Perceiver strategy will somehow survive the onslaught, or is it rather to guide him towards a more accuratepicture of the facts?

Talking at One Another

Strange, isn’t it? If we know how the mind operates, then questions of verbal etiquette suddenly seem to have solid answers. Let us look now at how a me that is rooted in emotional 'facts' affects communication. As you can probably guess, things become a little more complicated.

These difficulties arise because Perceiver information, emotional Mercy experiences, and self-image are all intertwined: The same defining experiences that determine Perceiver 'truth' also establish Mercy feelings, and give approval to me. With this type of mental ‘stew,’ the primary goal of speech is notcommunication. Rather, the desire to transfer Perceiver information will always be accompanied by a need to influence and to control Mercy feelings.[WWW]

This type of speech is not based upon common ground, but rather upon common experts, idols, and defining experiences. Remember that you and I can successfully communicate only if we use the same Perceiver facts to give meaning to our Teacher words. But, with emotional 'truth,' 'facts' are rooted inisolated incidents and individual people, and not in connections which are common to many situations. Therefore, if those who are conversing do not accept the same experts or defining experiences, then communication only becomes possible if one person succeeds in imposing his emotional 'absolutes' upon the other. Unless we have the same defining experiences, or agree temporarily that one person’s achievements and idols supersede another’s, communication breaks down. I may hear your words, but the Perceiver meaning which I place upon those words will be different than the Perceiver meaning within your head. Conversation between strangers is thus preceded by a kind of ‘tip toe dance’ in which resumés are given, achievements and rewards listed, and stories told—to establish a pecking order, and thus a priority of idols.

If the other person does not understand my words, then I will notback off and stick with facts which we have in common, as before, but rather my instincts will tell me to ‘go in for the kill.’ With rational facts, I guide a person to a greater level of Perceiver confidence. With emotional 'truth,' on the other hand, I impress the listener, or if that fails, I create an emotional experience that will mesmerize him into 'knowing' the 'truth': “This will convince you. Look, here is the article in the New York Times. Read it. It proves that I am right.”

In addition, I suggest that self-image enters into the picture. Remember that when Perceiver 'facts' are programmed by defining experiences, then every 'fact' has its source in some significant person or emotional experience. When I talk, speech comes from my mouth, words are being put together by my brain, the direction of the conversation is being guided by my thoughts, and it is me who is trying to produce emotional experiences. Therefore, Mercy strategy within me will conclude that the 'facts' which I present come from me. I become a source of 'truth.'

This makes it difficult for me to stop talking and to start listening, because 'facts' are associated with personal status. If I teach others, then my emotional status is above theirs. Whenever others instruct me, then they become superior. If I get stuck in a conversation in which I comprehend nothing, then I must put on a brave face and pretend that it all makes perfect sense, because admitting that everything is ‘Greek’ to me would drop my rank in the pecking order. On the other hand, to the extent that the other person does not understand what I am saying, I can continue talking and luxuriate in the satisfaction of knowing that I am above him.

Sounds pretty nasty, doesn’t it? Most people think so, and modern society therefore tries to regulate speech by getting me out of the conversation. But how can this be done if every 'fact' comes ultimately from some individual?[XXX] The answer is to accept the 'facts' of some other person. If I see it on television, hear it on the radio, read it in the newspaper, or receive it from some other ‘accepted’ expert, then I will 'believe' it. Then, if you and I 'believe' in the same experts, we can discuss things with each other in a calm voice without getting into an argument. But, most of us do read the same papers and books, and do watch the same stations. Therefore, it is the mass media of today that allow people to 'believe' in emotional 'truth' and to carry on civilized conversations.

Under emotional 'truth,' speech requires common experts and common idols.

This ‘solution’ works as long as none of us talks too much about any particular subject, because the more talking and discussing a person does, the more his Mercy strategy will decide that his me is also an expert. Eventually, the communication problem will start again, except that this time it will be the experts who have the shouting match. This is how schools of thought are developed.

Modern mass media get around this problem as well. First, broadcasting and publishing networks are generally large enough to overshadow the significance of any specific individual.[YYY] And, given the attention span of the average viewer, there is no danger of spending too much time on any specific subject. Thus, modern society can follow emotional 'truth' while avoiding societal confusion or mental chaos. But, haven’t I stated that emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering? Yes, I have. And, recent history suggests that it is only one short step from mass media to government controlled propaganda, and from there it is only a small jump to full fledged dictatorship, and dictators have a knack for imposing personal suffering upon their citizens. We will look at this progression in detail later on.

Using Experts

Let us step back for a moment to a world without global news networks, to a civilization that does not have six billion potential television viewers. How would a pre-telecommunications society solve the problem of confused communication? They also would try to agree upon the opinions of a single mega-expert and accept his words as absolute 'truth.' But, how could his 'facts' be taught to the general population? They could not be spread by word-of-mouth. First, the ideas would be distorted, and second, emotional importance would be given to the human carriers of information, bringing us back to a multiplicity of opinions. Today, this public dissemination can be done instantly by having everyone tune in to the same television station. Back then, the only solid option was to write the words of this ultra-expert down in a book. Then, everyone could agree that these written words were the final and authoritative definition of 'truth.' The only remaining problem would be the expert himself. Why would people want to read his written words if he were alive and they could physically see him and hear his words?[ZZZ] Historically speaking, this problem has been solved by waiting until the expert dies. We all 'know' that experts become much more significant when they have given up the ghost. Therefore, we write down the words of a mega-expert, wait for him to move on, and then we accept his book as a solid, unassailable source of emotional 'truth.' Of course, as long as the coming expert is still alive and trying to talk with us, most of us will probably reject his words—but that is generally the price for becoming a true ‘expert.’

We are now back to the idea of revealed 'truth,' school texts—and Holy Books. Among other things, authoritative books excel at removing mental confusion and making communication possible. They are also indispensable tools for teaching Perceiver thought how to operate. First, a book is solid, its content does not change over time. This provides the factual stability which Perceiver strategy requires to develop. Second, a book is non-visual. The reader must use his imagination[AAAA] to turn verbal symbols into mental images. This limits direct Mercy input and gives developing Perceiver thought a chance to go beyond immediate experience to general facts. Third, a book separates the emotional source of truth from his words, allowing Perceiver thought to become independent of Mercy feelings.

It is this combination of Mercy importance and Perceiver stability that allows revealed 'truth' to educate its followers. Because revelation is ultimately based in Mercy importance, it can be taught to people whose minds are rooted in Mercy idolatry. But, because it is compatible with Perceiver stability and encourages the development of Perceiver thought, it helps to wean such 'believers' from their Mercy idolatry.

Revealed 'truth'—in book form—is ideal for education.

· Books can be given to students who are rooted in Mercy idolatry.

· Studying a book helps to develop Perceiver thought.

By the way, notice that television has none of these attributes. It is not solid, but rather it provides a constant flow of changing information. It is also highly visual and bombards the mind continually with Mercy images. In addition, it strongly links a person with his words. Obviously, staring at this type of input for hours on end would not help an immature mind to develop Perceiver thinking, especially in light of the irrationality and disconnectedness of most present-day television programming. Is it any wonder that rational thought is an increasingly scarce commodity in today’s world?

Notice also that we have discovered a way of moving from idolatry to revealed 'truth.' Idolatry, on its part, mesmerizes the mind by imposing emotional experiences and important people directly upon Mercy thought. In contrast, revealed 'truth' requires emotional distance combined with factual stability. With revelation, the emotional importance is no longer ‘in your face,’ but rather ‘around the corner.’

If revealed 'truth' uses emotional importance to force its 'beliefs' upon others, then it will turn into idolatry. Conversely, a system of idolatry that survives for several generations can grow its own revealed 'truth.' When the original experts die, then it is no longer possible to talk to the ultimate sources of 'truth.' Therefore, if the original 'facts' are to be accurately preserved, then they must be written down, as has happened with Confucianism in China. Later generations will view this written record as revealed 'truth.' The time lapse provides the emotional distance, whereas the written word provides the stability.

I suggest that Japanese education is another good example of idolatry turned into revealed 'truth.' It has taken the ‘Japanese way’ and turned it into an entire school curriculum. A major portion of school time and energy is devoted towards teaching Japanese students how to act and think like Japanese adults.

I suggested earlier that revealed 'truth' has a finite lifetime. Even if its 'facts' are totally accurate, a system of revealed 'truth' will eventually collapse—unless it is continually renewed. I would like to go further and suggest that the development of global mass media mean the end of traditional revealed 'truth.' Everything that revealed 'truth' can do, the mass media can do bigger, better, and faster; it is the ‘new and improved’ version of revealed 'truth' for it reveals 'truth' directly, efficiently, and with entertainment. Why publish and distribute books when television can provide instant, global 'knowing'? Why exalt heroes from the past when media can make people larger than life and turn fantasy into virtual reality? Why worry about guilt and forgiveness when talk shows offer public confession and rationalization? Why talk about ‘God’ when the massive scale of global communications itself provides sufficient feelings of universal awe and wonder? Why even learn to read when one only needs to watch the screen?

The mass media has made written revelation obsolete.

· It is much more exciting to have 'truth' revealed live through multimedia.

Even those who teach revealed 'truth' have discovered that it has lost its appeal. Today’s citizens reject a government that preaches duty. Worshippers shy away from churches that teach obedience and commitment. Students rebel from rote learning. In response, revealed 'truth' has remolded itself into the image of its successor. It now attracts its audience by acting and looking like mass media. Think, for instance, of the marketing motto used by the US Marines: “There’s no life like it.” Duty to country is downplayed, self-sacrifice is glossed over. Instead, recruits are attracted with exciting images of fun and adventure. Similarly, schools have discovered ‘edutainment,’ and now package learning with the glitz of entertainment.

The most enthusiastic convert to mass media, though, is probably the Protestant church, that former bastion of revealed 'truth.' For many adherents, ‘worshipping God’ is now a media event, choreographed in front of thousands and broadcast to millions. New ‘converts’ are gained by putting on massive, expensive, Hollywood-like productions. For instance, I remember seeing at the front of one church, hanging where one would expect to see a cross, a beautifully rendered copy of a ‘Planet Hollywood’ sign. Why was it there? It was part of a special promotion designed to attract new people to the church. For these people, the mass media has taken over; it is the new religion.[BBBB]

That leaves us with a choice. We can either allow global media to complete their process of killing revealed 'truth' and usher in a worldwide dictatorship, or else we can use logical thinking—while we still possess some aspect of it—to graduate from revealed 'truth.' What we cannot do is hang onto the traditional forms of revealed 'truth,' for they no longer exist. They are outmoded; they are obsolete; they are on their way out. The content may still be correct and even up-to-date, but the method of delivery has been superseded, just as the slide rule has been replaced by the electronic calculator. Is the slide rule wrong? No, in some cases it is faster to work out the answer on a slide rule than it is to punch the numbers into a calculator. Has the math changed? No. Both tools come up with the same answer. But the electronic number-cruncher is high-tech, built out of programmable electronics. Similarly, why would people try to decipher words of some book from the past when they can get an instant, relevant answer in the present?

If this conclusion is valid, then we have to analyze the whole concept of revealed 'truth' in some depth. We will attempt to do that in the rest of this volume. And, if some of our conclusions are unsettling, then don’t blame me, blame the media. They destroyed revealed 'truth' and left us with no choice but to move on, quickly, to something more solid.

Accidental Education

Why do educators embrace mass media, anyway? Because the nature of revealed 'truth' makes them predisposed to accept it. First, this 'truth' is rooted in the words of a specific person. Some teacher, prophet, guru, or expert spoke a set of words which were then ‘carved into stone’ and declared to be more important than the words of any other individual. Second, this 'truth' is acquired hypnotically. The strong emotions associated with the source of 'truth' mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what to 'believe.' And this 'knowing' occurs instantaneously whenever Mercy strategy succeeds in blasting its way into the Perceiver internal world.[CCCC]

Thus, those who teach revealed 'truth' think that the goal is to take the words of their expert and to impose those words upon as wide an audience as possible. According to them, 'truth' comes from a single person whose importance overshadows all competition. Therefore, it is ‘right’ and ‘proper’ for them to interrupt what you are doing. And, because 'truth' uses Mercy importance to impose itself upon Perceiver thought, it makes sense for them, having interrupted you, to impose the expert’s words upon you. Finally, because emotional 'truth' is learned instantly, they are convinced that one ‘successful’ encounter with 'truth' can be sufficient to turn even the most cynical skeptic into an ardent 'believer.'

And what do the mass media do? They take the words and images of a single situation and blast it into the homes of millions of readers and viewers, adding as much emotional ‘zip’ to the package as they can. Therefore, those who spread 'truth' are instinctively attracted to the method of mass media—it fits their style.

But what if the message of revealed 'truth' preaches against practicing coercive methods of conversion? It does not matter.[DDDD] The nature of revelation will take precedence over its content. Unless a teacher of 'truth' himself graduates from blind 'faith,' he will be convinced that 'belief' is imposed, regardless of what this 'truth' actually says.[EEEE]

How then have people in the past managed to graduate from blind 'faith'? I suggest that limited technology in two main areas has made it possible for 'believers' to graduate, almost by accident. First, there is the technology of limited travel. Suppose that some teacher, priest or guru introduces me to revealed 'truth.' Mercy strategy in me will be mesmerized into 'knowing' what is 'true.' Now suppose that I travel away from my emotional source. I may move to another city, head out into the wilderness, or even travel to a foreign country as a missionary or a teacher of 'truth.' This physical movement will disconnect me from my source of 'truth.' The resulting drop in Mercy feelings will allow Perceiver strategy to ‘wake up’ and I will begin to think for myself. If the 'truth' that I was taught has a basis in reality, then Perceiver thought will examine the fading 'truth' and find it to be accurate. As a result, I will end up believing the same facts, but for a different reason. I will have graduated from emotional 'truth.'

Written revelation has educated its followers through the ‘accident’ of limited technology.

· When travel is limited, 'believers' must test 'facts' for themselves.

· When mass media is limited, 'believers' must spread their message through the written word.

Notice that this mental effect can only occur under conditions of limited travel. On the one hand, it must be possible for me to move far away from home. On the other hand, once I have reached my destination, I must remain disconnected from home. This type of situation was especially prevalent during the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries. Large ships allowed the Europeans, and others, to colonize the entire planet. But the wind-driven tempo of sailing vessels meant that news and control traveled very slowly. Thus, the colonist or missionary who left home was truly on his own and had to learn how to think for himself. This situation no longer applies. The web of worldwide communications means that no one ever truly leaves home. Thus, the source of 'truth' is always present, ready to re-hypnotize any fading 'beliefs.'

Second, there is the technology of limited mass communication. We have already discussed the mental effects of learning from a book. Do teachers of revealed 'truth' choose books for this reason? No, they have always tried to get their message across by using the latest means of communication. Martin Luther was successful in sparking the Reformation largely because of the development of the printing press. It was this technology that permitted him to spread his words to the masses. Similarly, literacy and printing historically have played a major role in helping us to ‘graduate’ from the revealed 'truth' of monarchy and dictatorship. This window of opportunity, though, is now closing. As I mentioned before, the instant visual experience of television has supplanted the delayed verbal medium of books. Thus, accidental graduation is now much more difficult.

The Fatal Flaws of Revelation

Both revealed 'truth' and mass media, I suggest, suffer from two fatal flaws. First, as I have mentioned before, revealed 'truth' tends to degenerate into Mercy idolatry. It is easy to forget about the message and concentrate upon the emotional experiences supporting this 'truth.' However, while revealed 'truth' may lapse into idolatry, mass media seldom go beyond idolatry. With television and cinema, the source of 'truth' is right there—in living Mercy color.

Second, both revealed 'truth' and mass media are very hard on me—in several ways. We touched upon this idea earlier on. If 'truth' comes from some important person, then these 'facts' will remain solid only if the source of 'truth' continues to be much more important than me. If I ever begin to think that me is someone, then I will start to doubt my 'truth.' Thus, self-denial is an inevitable side effect of revealed 'truth.' On the whole, Western society has rejected Holy Books for precisely this reason: “How can I follow a religion which says that I am nothing, a worm, and a sinner?” However, I suggest that mass media have the same effect. The more that the media exalt the lives of famous individuals, the more the average person thinks that his personal life is unimportant and meaningless. When Princess Diana went to a fitness club to exercise, for instance, it became a worldwide media event. Meanwhile, the personal lives and hopes of billions of other individuals were ignored as unworthy of attention.[FFFF]

Not only must me stay insignificant, but it must also remain irrational. Suppose that I begin to redefine me using Perceiver logic. Me and 'truth' will then be on opposite sides of the threshold of confusion—me will be on the side of Perceiver logic, and revealed 'truth' will be on the side of emotional 'truth.' This mental gap will prevent 'truth' from affecting me. The typical North American, as one illustration of this effect, is so busy living normal life that he has no time for religion. The growth of secular thought has crowded out revealed 'truth' and its associated experiences and rituals. How does religious revealed 'truth' protect itself from this mental incursion? By calling on its followers to lay aside secular life at least once a week in order to reconnect emotionally with their ultimate source of 'truth.'

Me suffers when revealed 'truth' and mass media are absolute.

· The audience must forget about itself in order to focus upon what is being revealed.

· The audience must remain dumb in order to swallow what it is being fed.

Mass media suffer from the same problem. People who have their own lives are far too busy to watch television. For them, it is a mindless waste of time. Therefore, mass entertainment must constantly find new ways of attracting an audience, new methods of encouraging the viewer to lay aside his personal life and to identify with the events on the screen.

Suppose that revealed 'truth' wins the battle and gains a full emotional grip upon its subjects. What type of social system does this produce? A society of martyrs. We all hear about religious martyrs, but secular government also excels at martyring its citizens. How many hundreds of millions of people have ‘died for their country,’ denying their personal existence in order to exalt and to protect their government—their source of revealed 'truth.'[GGGG] Similarly, while the couch potato may not be ‘suffering for his country’ he certainly has sacrificed his personal initiative upon the altar of entertainment.

When revealed 'truth' is absolute, then people become unable to think for themselves. Even the supposed experts lose the ability to perform rational analysis, and any mental processing that does occur is limited to rearranging and collating the words of the mega-expert, regardless of evidence from the real world. For instance, medieval physicians taught anatomy from the texts of the ancient Greeks, oblivious to discrepancies between these words and the dissected corpses that lay open in front of them. According to them, if Galen said that the heart had a hole in it, then it had a hole, regardless of what they saw with their own eyes. Likewise, while religious scholars of Holy Books are generally willing to quote passages about ‘truth’ and ‘morality,’ they often seem unable to use their minds to make moral conclusions. If some scientific study does come out which happens to back up their claim, they often view this more as an invasion of secular thought into their religious domain than as a support for the moral principle.

On the other hand, if some 'believer' of 'truth' ever does decide to think for himself, then it is only a matter of time before he questions the revealed 'truth' of the mega-expert.[HHHH] As a result, a system of revealed 'truth' soon concludes that rational thought lead always to apostasy, that it is ‘right’ to resist new ideas, and that too much thinking will eventually destroy the meanings even of words.[IIII]

Mass media suffer from a similar dilemma. Suppose that everyone watches television. When people accept all that they see or hear from the media, then they become unable to think for themselves. The result is a nation of couch-potatoes who completely ignore theirpersonal lives. Even for the media experts, thought is limited to a rearranging and collating of media facts and events. Sports broadcasters provide a perfect example of this type of un-thought, serving up endless statistics about which athlete did what when, or comparing the short-handed goals of one player with the penalty-fighting minutes of another. The so-called news about the lives and statements of movie stars is equally uninspiring. Most of it has nothing to do with the real world.

Like religious 'believers' who leave the system when they think for themselves, viewers who ‘get a life of their own’ spend less time sitting around watching television. Therefore, mass media also conclude that rational thought leads to a loss of market share, and that too much thinking will inevitably destroy the industry. Thus, no matter how much the media may claim that they will ‘improve programming’ and ‘deliver intelligent content,’ the method of delivery demands viewers who are stupid, and content which is juvenile. Ultimately, the medium determines the message.[JJJJ]

Hmmm. That leaves us in a quandary. We all begin life as children, mentally integrated around Mercy experiences and people. If we remain in this state of Perceiver hypnosis, then we pay a price in personal pain and suffering. Revealed 'truth' helps us to grow up and to emerge from the cocoon of childish 'trust.' But, revealed 'truth' has been superceded by mass media. Unfortunately, mass media replace Perceiver logic with Mercy idolatry, and exalt escapism over personal integrity.

Logically speaking, this leaves us with only one alternative. Somehow, mass media must be altered so that they teach Perceiver confidence and logic, and build up personal identity. Is this possible? Believe it or not, there actually is one area of mass media in which this transformation already has occurred—the personal computer. Way back in the ‘stone age’ of computers (about thirty years ago), the mainframe ruled supreme. These computing behemoths were housed in air-conditioned ‘shrines’ and attended by a priesthood of specialized technicians. Users would interact with this central controller through rows and rows of ‘dumb terminals’—screens and keyboards with no local intelligence or identity.[KKKK] Then along came the personal computer. Now, each individual has his own computing station, with its own identity and its own intelligence.

But what do computers have to do with mass media? Everything. Since the spread of the Internet, the personal computer has transformed itself into the latest form of mass media. However, this is not a medium in which one source of information broadcasts to thousands of passive viewers. Rather, the Internet allows anyone to talk to everyone, anywhere in the world. Joe common citizen can set up his own web page, and the possibility exists for everyone to access his personal site.

Why is the Internet so important? Because, for the first time in history, human individuals are able to overcome spatial limitations. Until now, this has never been possible. Radio and television impose the message of a few upon a passive viewing audience. Telephone allows individual interaction, but only with talking. Using the emerging tools of the Internet, though, one person can interact or collaborate with another person, regardless of their respective physical locations, almost as if the two of them were sitting in the same room.

But isn’t the Internet just a passing fad? Possibly. Who knows what form it will take in another twenty years. However, we are in the midst of a computer revolution that is transforming our world and this revolution does give unprecedented powers to the individual. What we do with this opportunity, only time will tell.

At the moment, the Internet is in a form that is consistent with individual importance and rational thinking. Therefore, it makes sense that it is a good medium for conveying information. But, how can revealed 'truth' and mass media themselves be forced to acknowledge the individual and encourage logic.

I suggest that this attitude occurs naturally whenever revealed 'truth' and mass media view themselves as messengers conveying information about another realm. For instance, a ‘how to’ video gives instructions about working with real objects, which exist outside of the world of media. Similarly, a Holy Book may tell a person how to develop his mind—the internal world which belongs to the individual.

Will revelation and media develop this attitude on their own? No. We have just seen that both revelation and media prefer an audience that is selfless and unthinking. When media rules supreme, then it likes to pretend that it oversees the events of the external world. Similarly, when revealed 'truth' is in charge, then it tries to control the internal world of thought.

Therefore, one concludes that media and revelation will only view themselves as messengers of another realm if this other realm exists, and they will only see themselves as servants of this other realm if it is more important and more permanent—in other words, if it is more real. Revelation and media will then become educators which teach their followers about this otherrealm and lead them to it. Media will stop putting its ‘spin’ on events and instead will attempt to portray reality as accurately as possible. Similarly, revelation will no longer attempt to rule the mind of the individual but instead give each person freedom to develop as a person.

Let me tie this down with an example. Recently, television aired a series called ‘Survivor’ in which contestants attempted to survive living on a deserted island. The one who lastest the longest received the prize money. At first glance, one would think this is an illustration of the media conveying information about the real world. After all, these contestants came face-to-face with nature in all of its primitive fury. However, this contest was arranged and presented in such a way that politics, infighting and backstabbing took center stage. Thus, the media was not the servant of another reality, but rather attempted to mold reality into the image of itself, replacing natural cause and effect with the opinions of people.

Because ‘Survivor’ was such a popular program, other networks have put on similar contests. One of these is a Canadian version in which two couples live as pioneers and homestead on the prairies using only nineteenth century tools and resources. If they survive for a year, then they receive a prize. In this case, the main goal of the program is not to pit the contestants against each other, but rather to show viewers what life was really like for our pioneering ancestors. This, I suggest, is an example of media beingthe servant of another reality.

The INFP

We have looked in some detail at revealed 'truth.' Using our knowledge of MBTI^®, we can work out fairly easily which MBTI^® type is associated with revelation. As usual, we will start our analysis by figuring out which MBTI^® mode forms the auxiliary. How is 'truth' normally revealed? Through the written pages of a physical book. This book takes precedence over all other source of learning. The student of revealed 'truth' knows that his special Book is more reliable than anything that he perceives directly through his five senses.

In other words, revealed 'truth' epitomizes the MBTI^® S/N division. It exalts words—the realm of iNtuition, and downplays Sensing. Distinctions between now and then, and between here and there, play a major role in revealed 'truth.' Successful revelation always comes from then and there, it never arrives in the here-and-now of Sensing. As the saying goes, a prophet is not honored in his home town; experts, be they religious, political, financial, or social, always come from out-of-town. We conclude, therefore, that revelation is associated with an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition.[LLLL]

But, why does the revelation have to arrive in the form of a book? Why couldn’t it come through television or some other visual medium? Because, seeing the source of 'truth' creates emotional Mercy experiences. This type of ‘learning’ leads naturally to an auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling. In order to create an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition, words have to be emphasized instead of people, and this can only occur if words are separated from the person who spoke those words. Thus, the learning will usually occur in book form.[MMMM]

I suggest that any group or individual based in Extraverted iNtuition that attempts to take past revelation and make it up-to-date using words delivered here-and-now by living persons will end up changing their auxiliary mode. This is because of the strong influence which the physical body has upon mental programming. If I can hear revelation delivered ‘in the flesh’ by real people in real situations, then the tendency will be for me to choose Extraverted Sensing for my mental foundation rather than Extraverted iNtuition. One can see this transition illustrated by religious denominations. Whenever ‘words of prophecy’ and ‘words from the Lord’ are emphasized, then practical action and physical structures soon take priority over abstract doctrine and esoteric ‘belief.’ Is this good or bad? That is not the issue. The point is that an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition is hard to maintain in the presence of competition from either external Feeling or external Sensing.[NNNN]

Notice that we are looking here at two related issues. On the one hand, there is the survival of revealed 'truth.' As I suggested before, 'truth' works best when delivered in written form by a distant expert. When other modes of delivery are used, the system of revealed 'truth' may not survive. On the other hand, there is the MBTI^® label assigned to those who operate according to a system of revealed 'truth.' They will develop an auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition.

How does the mind interpret the words of revealed 'truth'? That is determined by the dominant mode of thought. According to MBTI^®, Extraverted iNtuition can be associated with either Introverted Feeling or Introverted Thinking. The first choice produces the INFP, the second leads to the INTP. We will examine the INTP later on when we discuss science. Right now, let us focus upon the INFP, who combines an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition with a dominant of Introverted Feeling.

What is Introverted Feeling? It is my Mercy internal world, which contains my identity, my heroes, my hopes, my fears, and my idols. If I read books and apply these words to the world of internal feeling, then I am using words to build my personal emotional identity. But how does Mercy strategyinterpret words? In personal terms. In other words, Mercy strategy will believe that the external books actually describe the character of some person. What type of person? Obviously ‘someone’ who is non-physical, because an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition suppresses the Sensing world and its physical components. And, because the auxiliary is Extraverted, Mercy mode will believe that this ‘person’ inhabits the external world. Likewise, because books use verbal terms to describe general concepts, Mercy thought will believe that this ‘person’ lives in generality and that ‘he’ interacts with humanity through verbal communication.

The INFP uses the mental circuit of religious revealed 'truth.'

· His auxiliary is Extraverted iNtuition—provided by written words.

· His dominant is Introverted Feeling—which applies these words internally to me.

The name we normally give to such an individual is ‘God.’ Does God exist? As far as our current discussion is concerned, we do not have to struggle with that question. The point is that the mode of INFP thought leads inexorably to the concept of a Deity—whether or not one really exists.

But how can Mercy thought be so stupid as to confuse a book with a living, breathing person? Through a juxtaposition of three factors. First, the T/F split divides the world of experiences into objective and subjective. Experiences with feelings belong to the subjective and thus are assumed to be produced by subjects. Within this realm, all 'facts' are dependent upon people and their opinions. Thus, the personal rules supreme, and everything is interpreted in terms of people. Second, emotion can be generated by either Teacher or Mercy thought. The INFP combines these two. Extraverted iNtuition develops Teacher emotions, and Introverted Feeling works with Mercy emotions. Thus, Mercy strategy feels justified in approaching a book in personal terms, because this book creates Teacher feelings and Mercy thought ‘knows’ that anything that feels is a person. But why can’t Mercy strategy distinguish between Mercy and Teacher feelings? Because of the third factor. Mercy mode cannot see the rest of the mind. It can only view its own world of Mercy experiences. This limited vision causes Mercy strategy to interpret everything in terms of its own personal limited world.

But why do I use the word ‘person’ in the singular. Why not ‘persons’? Because Teacher strategy does not like competing theories. It prefers to hold on to one single general understanding, which is then used to explain the others. Therefore, the tendency will be for one image of ‘God’ to take precedence over its competition.

By now I have opened a huge can of worms, full of thick, juicy, theological questions. Who, what, why, when, where, huh? Patience, we will deal with some of these issues later in the book. Here, we will make a few basic statements and focus upon the traits of the INFP.

An image of ‘God’ forms whenever a general Teacher theory impinges upon subjective Mercy identity.

· Because this is a mental image, we put the word ‘God’ in quotes.

· The theory of mental symmetry can be used to analyze an image of ‘God.’

If a real God exists, He may or may not be the same as my image of ‘God.’

By the way, you can see now why revealed 'truth' has such religious overtones. Anything which produces a mental image of ‘God’ turns naturally into a religion. And, because revealed 'truth' is rooted in defining experiences with strong Mercy feelings, it is natural to use MBTI^® Feeling to analyze this 'truth,' and this analysis generates a mental image of ‘God.’

What kind of image? Book learning, by its very nature, introduces two critical elements. First, a book is written with symbols. It uses squiggles of ink to represents sounds of speech. These strings are then organized into words and sentences. As we shall see in a later volume, this structure is handled by Server thought. Second, words in a book all have meanings, which, as we know, are interpreted by Perceiver strategy.

Let me tie this down with an illustration. Imagine the following text appearing in a book: Het jig enty xes trimer en toh jupppec! Would anyone understand this book, buy it, believe it, or exalt it as a source of absolute 'truth'? Of course not. Words must have meanings, and these are provided by Perceiver strategy.

Thus, we can make two conclusions about any image of ‘God’ produced by the words of a book. First, Mercy strategy will believe that this Deity represents ‘Himself’[OOOO] through the use of religious symbols. Second, Mercy thought will also believe that this ‘God’ can be known and comprehended. Why? Because it is possible to understand a book by knowing which meanings to assign to the words.

But why will Mercy thought do all of this believing? Because belief occurs whenever Perceiver facts build solid connections between Mercy experiences, and that is precisely what occurs when one reads a book. Teacher words trigger Perceiver meanings which relink Mercy memories. Thus, external words build internal images. And this precisely describes the INFP—external iNtuition leading to internal Feeling.

Can an image of ‘God’ be formed only through book learning? No, we will see later that other methods will also work. But, I suggest that written revealed 'truth' does create an image of ‘God,’ and that this image naturally possesses specific attributes.

Let us turn briefly now to some of the other traits of the INFP. And, just to show you that I am not making things up, I will quote from the book Please Understand Me by Keirsey. Remember, the explanation is mine, but the quotes are not.

I have mentioned that the auxiliary of the INFP is strongly attracted to books and symbols. According to Keirsey, “INFPs have a gift for interpreting symbols, as well as creating them, and thus often write in lyric fashion.”

Symbols and words form the first stage of reading, which is interpreted by the auxiliary of the INFP. The second stage of reading uses Perceiver meanings to create internal Mercy images. Mercy strategy interprets these images in personal terms. Because the INFP’s dominant mode is Introverted Feeling, he lives in these emotional, personal, imaginary Mercy images. In the words of Keirsey, INFPs “care deeply—indeed, passionately—about a few special persons or a cause. One word that captures this type is idealistic.”

As I have mentioned before, the INFP views Perceiver logic as an intermediate step. Perceiver meanings must be used to interpret books, and Perceiver facts are required to build internal Mercy images, but once these emotional images have been constructed, the INFP goes ‘beyond’ Perceiver facts to Mercy feelings. It is these feelings that then determine how he responds to facts and situations. The result is an emotional decision involving internal, imaginary experiences, tinged with Perceiver facts and Teacher feelings. Therefore, the INFP thinks in terms of Mercy-oriented good and bad, rather than Perceiver-based right and wrong. Similarly, true and false are expanded into moral and immoral. Correct and incorrect become beautiful and ugly. As Keirsey states, “INFPs prefer the valuing process over the purely logical. They respond to the beautiful versus the ugly, the good versus the bad, and the moral versus the immoral…They may demonstrate a tendency to take deliberate liberties with logic. Unlike the NT, they see logic as something optional.”

A few paragraphs earlier, I suggested that revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to both Extraverted Sensing and Extraverted Feeling, because these have the power to overturn an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition. Both of these limitations show up in the character of the INFP. In the words of Keirsey, “As mates, the INFPs have a deep commitment to their pledges…They are sensitive to the feelings of others and enjoy pleasing those they care for. They may find it difficult to reconcile a romantic, idealized concept of conjugal life with the realities of everyday living with another person. At times, in fact, INFPs may seem fearful of exuberant attainment, afraid that current advances may have to be paid for with later sacrifices. The devil is sure to get his due if the INFP experiences too freely of success, or beauty, or health, or wealth or knowledge. And thus, INFPs guard against giving way to relaxing in the happiness of mating.”

Let us analyze this statement. On the one hand, the INFP is emotionally attached to his idealistic internal Mercy images of personal interaction, because he lives in Introverted Feeling. But, if these internal emotions are ever expressed with too much external Sensation or external Feeling, then he pulls back. Why? Because his auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition is being threatened. And, like all aspects of Extraverted iNtuition, the INFP will also interpret this threat in personal moral terms.

How can this mental foundation of Extraverted iNtuition be restored? By downplaying external sensation and external feelings. In other words, by denying the physical body and by turning one’s back on physical pleasure. Thus, the INFP often chooses a career associated with self-denial: “Often they hear a calling to go forth into the world to help others; they seem willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices involved in responding to that call, even if it means asking others to do likewise.” Why are others pulled in to their lifestyle? Because the Mercy memories of the INFP are being manipulated by Perceiver 'truth,' and 'truth,' by definition, applies to everyone.

But, we all live in physical bodies with physical feelings which cannot be totally denied. Thus, in the words of Keirsey, “INFPs may live a paradox, drawn toward purity and unity but looking over the shoulder toward the sullied and desecrated.”

Let us leave the INFP now and build a foundation that will allow us to look at other modes of learning. As we continue, we will encounter forms of Extraverted iNtuition that go beyond revealed 'truth,' and we will discover non-religious ways to form a mental image of ‘God.’ We will discuss these various types of thinking, and look also at the relationship between them.

[A] I will use the term ‘mental symmetry’ to refer to the system described in this book.

[B] The Enneagram system does not map directly on to MBTI^®. This is because it takes a different approach to human thought. Preliminary analysis suggests, though, that mental symmetry can be used to explain the Enneagram. That relationship, however, will have to be discussed in another book. As you will see later, the MBTI^® categories turn out to be very useful for handling the material discussed in this volume.

[C] Her family name is Briggs Myers. However, the system itself is called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

[D] Both Introverted and Intuitive begin with the letter I. Therefore, MBTI^® capitalizes the second letter of iNtuitive, and represents it with an N.

[E] The italics are in the original.

[F] Here is a case where the letters actually coincide. Thus, S is related to ‘S.’

[G] MBTI^® is based upon mental splits. Yet, it uses these divisions to build a theory of mental operation. This inherent contradiction between separation and integration means that neither side of MBTI^® can be fully developed without running into problems. If one understands the mind more thoroughly, though, it is possible to put both of these aspects upon a solid footing.

[H] I should mention that we developed our theory independently of MBTI^®. We did not ‘steal’ from them or adjust our theory to fit their information. Rather, it was only after we fully developed our theory that we studied MBTI^® and discovered that we had sufficient tools to analyze it effectively. As we shall see later, whenever one theory can ‘swallow up’ another without modifying either of them, this is a sign that soft science is turning into hard science.

[I] Mentally speaking, he is only consciously aware of Contributor confidence. In contrast, he assumes the presence of Perceiver and Contributor confidence. If it ever ‘cracks,’ then, like a person skating on thin ice, he ‘falls through’ into the ‘cold water’ of raw experience.

[J] The few who are not Facilitators by style still make heavy use of subconscious Facilitator thought and probably spend most of their time interacting with Facilitator persons.

[K] This little fact is extremely significant and has major implications upon mental processing. We will use it extensively in the next book when we talk about ‘flipping modes.’

[L] Another major point over which we are just skimming.

[M] Could the P/J split involve abstract thought? Yes, under certain conditions. We will examine this issue in a few more pages.

[N] Here is an example of what happens when you build a theory of mental operation upon a system of splits. In order to describe how the mind functions, you have to weaken the splits into mere preferences.

[O] Under the heading of objective versus subjective.

[P] Of course, if one holds on to the general Teacher theory that change is impossible, then change truly becomes impossible, for the only possible avenue of change has been blocked.

[Q] So far, we have only looked in depth at the T/F split between objective and subjective. Later in this book we will examine the S/N split. These are the two fundamental categories of MBTI^®. We will also discuss the other two splits in lesser detail.

[R] As far as I can tell, the splits described by MBTI^® really do appear to be almost universally accepted—with the one major exception of S/N in the realm of technology and science. Everywhere I look, similar assumptions are being made. Thus, I view MBTI^® as a paradigm of the typical worldview.

[S] This dichotomy of operation is reflected in the MBTI^® four letter labeling system, which we will analyze in a few pages.

[T] Thus, the two Exhorter modes do not reflect a mental ‘split’ but rather a different flow of thought.

[U] Right now I am just giving an overview of thought. This circuit contains many subtleties that we will be examining in a later volume. Among other things, we will look at how mental development alters Exhorter mode’s view of excitement and boredom.

[V] But what about those who ignore maps and just follow road signs? Ah, road signs are a concrete example of intellectual thought, in which Teacher words hold sway. Here we are examining practical thought. As we shall see in a few pages, it is possible for humans to create artificial environments that operate differently than the natural world.

[W] This is how a catalog of internal splits can turn into a theory of mental operation.

[X] It is also possible for buying to be driven by feeling. The person who follows this type of approach usually spends his money fairly quickly, which explains why advertising tries to promote it.

[Y] How can something non-emotional acquire emotion? First, through repetition, in the same way that an old shoe feels comfortable. Second, by triggering Teacher thought, which notices the order-within-complexity and feels good. Third, by tying together many Mercy experiences of beneficial interaction. We will look at this factor in the next book when analyzing the source of Mercy feelings.

[Z] Neurological literature about the basal ganglia (the brain location for Exhorter and Contributor strategies) talks about a ‘direct’ and an ‘indirect’ path, in which the flow of information through the direct path is controlled by the indirect path.

[AA] Just to remind you: the MBTI^® split of Perceiving is associated with Exhorter thought whereas the cognitive style of Perceiver is behind the MBTI^® category of Judging.

[BB] The ESTP is the practical businessman, whereas the ENTP works more with the world of ‘high finance.’

[CC] In the book Gifts Differing, Myers-Briggs gives no reason for her basic premises but simply states them without explanation. However, it appears that her principles are accurate and can be analyzed.

[DD] OK. Maybe there is a non-physical part that goes somewhere. But, the physical body sure is stuck in a rut—about six feet under.

[EE] The visitor finds it exciting because, for him, it is novel and exotic. But, try living in it and then see how long the excitement lasts.

[FF] Feelings are primary and are provided by Mercy and Teacher thought. Exhorter excitement is secondary and derives from feelings. In essence, excitement is strength of feeling modified by novelty. Anything sufficiently new will be exciting, even if its inherent feeling is shallow. In contrast, even the deepest feelings will lose their excitement if they contain no novelty.

[GG] I suggest that this is an accurate analogy, because Perceiver facts, like roads, are not independent entities. Instead, all facts connect Mercy experiences, just as all roads connect places.

[HH] In all of my research, I have never yet found a situation in which there is not a symmetry between analytical and associative thought—between ‘left brain and right brain’ thinking. For those who have problems with double negatives, I just suggested that symmetry always works.

[II] This is the primary symmetry. Other symmetries exist as well.

[JJ] In terms of neurology, S/N is a left hemisphere split involving cortical thought, whereas I/E is a left hemisphere split that affects subcortical operation.

[KK] Remember my previous footnote about traffic signs being a concrete example of artificially created intellectual thought?

[LL] We saw in the first book that Teacher strategy interprets words, visual outlines, rhythm and movement path.

[MM] I put the word ‘Judging’ in quotes, because we are looking here at left-hemisphere thought, whereas Judging describes a right-hemisphere split. We will expand on this relationship in a few pages.

[NN] This use of Extraversion and Introversion describes something different than the I/E split we have examined so far. We will be comparing these two usages in the next section.

[OO] In the book Gifts Differing, she states this without explanation. We will provide a possible reason for her conclusions in just a moment.

[PP] By the way, if you understand this symbolic manipulation, you have grasped the most complicated aspect of MBTI^® theory.

[QQ] Notice that MBTI^® assigns two different meanings to P/J and I/E. On the one hand, both are primary splits. On the other hand, P/J is used to classify T/F and S/N, and I/E describes dominant and auxiliary. We will discuss this in the next section.

[RR] Teacher and Server interact extensively, as do Perceiver and Mercy. Thus it makes most sense to use these styles in pairs. It is also quite easy for Mercy and Perceiver thought to cooperatively ‘face’ in one mental ‘direction,’ and for the Teacher/Server pair to ‘face’ the other. As an external illustration of this mental compatibility, it is common for a Teacher person to marry a Server person, or for a Perceiver person to marry a Mercy person.

[SS] Sensing uses Server content to build general Teacher theories, whereas iNtuition uses Teacher thought to fill Server strategy with content.

[TT] Thinking uses Perceiver facts to create artificial Mercy experiences, whereas Feeling uses Mercy emotions to mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'believing' what is 'true.'

[UU] This ‘flipping of modes’ is an extremely important concept, which we will be using extensively in a later book.

[VV] Remember that Exhorter mode moves through one hemisphere in the light of a fixed anchor in the other hemisphere. The undisciplined Exhorter finds his excitement in the external world. In an almost Pavlovian manner, he moves his body to where experiences are most exciting, therefore his dominant is Sensing. However, because he is an Exhorter by style, his mind links Mercy and Teacher thought. Thus he is also usually talking—this talk, however, is generally emotionally manipulative and lacking in content. He ‘works with his mouth,’ as an aid to Sensing. In the visionary Exhorter, the mental focus switches to the other hemisphere, in particular to iNtuition. His talk now presents steps of action to the ‘maturity’ he has discovered.

[WW] In Canada, a politician can have a ‘private life’ full of strange experiences, and argue that this has ‘nothing to do with his public office.’ But, he can be forced to resign if he makes a disparaging comment about some ethnic group or lifestyle.

[XX] Just reminding you that the word ‘Perceiving’ here refers to the MBTI^® split of Perceiving, not the mental strategy of Perceiver.

[YY] I am not saying that it is wrong to call T/F Judging and S/N Perceiving. For the average person in a natural environment, this description is valid. However, we are attempting to go beyond average in an environment which is becoming increasingly unnatural.

[ZZ] The last rehearsal before a performance is usually a dress rehearsal, in which the entire presentation is done in the order and manner in which it will be performed, making as few stops as possible. In essence, a dress rehearsal signifies the transition from Judging to Perceiving.

[AAA] But if the external world is composed of Perceiver objects, doesn’t this also limit the Extraverted mindset? This, I suggest, is a secondary limitation. As war, violence, and bad habits demonstrate, any action that can be done, will be done, regardless of the effect that this has upon Perceiver objects.

[BBB] Remember that Server sequences shape Teacher theories in the same way that Perceiver facts organize Mercy experiences.

[CCC] If we look at how people lived at the beginning of the twentieth century, we can see how prevalent technology has become since that time.

[DDD] Our physical bodies have limited awareness and occupy a specific location, restricting our range of Mercy experiences. And, our limited strength and partial skills restrict the Server actions that we can perform.

[EEE] In other words, his thinking would be free of both Mercy and Teacher idolatry. In addition, his thinking would go beyond the 16 types described by MBTI^®.

[FFF] When I wrote the first book, we had not yet made an analysis of MBTI^®. Therefore, if the two theories can be integrated retroactively, as we appear to be doing now, this indicates that both sides are doing accurate and careful research.

[GGG] But couldn’t a single individual create feelings of Teacher generality by combining his actions into a general plan? Theoretically, yes. However, because of the S/N split, a person tends to focus either on his present actions or on the general plan. Seldom does he combine the two. It is working together with other individuals that forces the mind to consider simultaneously both order and complexity.

[HHH] In other words, the two me’s may be functioning in similar ways, but their operationhas not yet been integrated.

[III] In other words, I suggest that it is possible for an individual to tackle the S/N split after he has integratedT/F and P/J. In contrast, a society can approach S/N directly, without dealing first with the other splits.

[JJJ] After all, if a society can tackle S/N directly, then an individual who works his way through to this level will have to reconcile his personal path with the corporate road taken by others. Similarly, if people co-operate in social transformation to produce results that are impossible for any one person to achieve, then an individual integrating S/N would also have to experience something similar.

[KKK] Many people find my first book incomprehensible, even though others tell me that it is really very simple to understand. This is because the previous volume deals with the topic of integrating T/F and defining me. Such material only makes sense to those who have already had some practice with tying together facts and feelings.

[LLL] This book uses social transformation and societal transformation as synonyms.

[MMM] By the way, this is one of the strongest argument against the primacy of the MBTI^® categories. The emergence of science and technology shows that one of the MBTI^® splits (in this case S/N) can be integrated. Why hasn’t MBTI^® picked up on this? Because social transformation works with theobjective and MBTI^® studies the subjective. And, we just saw that when T/F remains divided, then behavior in the objective (which integrates S/N) will not be related to subjective behavior (in which S/N remains distinct).

[NNN] An interesting example of this difference emerged during the editing of this book. I tend to say, “Speech is an area where it is easy…”, while Lane prefers, “Speech is an area in which it is easy…” In other words, I think in terms of mental ‘beads,’ relating where one concept is in connection to another. In contrast, my brother thinks in terms of entire ‘necklaces,’ and describes the necklace in which a specific concept is contained. My final decision was to use ‘in which’ in all cases, except for those which definitely related to spatial location.

[OOO] This dichotomy is not evident in normal life. However, it becomes a major factor when small particles are being studied.

[PPP] I should add that these ideas are original with me. My physicist brother (I am an electrical engineer) is very hesitant about making these extensions. But, if you think about it, that itself illustrates my point.

[QQQ] The physicist who reads this section may be disturbed at my lack of ‘scientific rigor.’ However, many researchers are beginning to view the human mind/brain as a form of quantum computer. This suggests that there may actually be something behind my musings.

[RRR] I include sign language as a variation of speech. This is because Server thought seems to provide the grammatical structure behind speech. In verbal speech, the presence of Server strategy is implicit, whereas in sign language, the participation of Server skills is explicit.

[SSS] As usual, we are not yet describing the complete picture. This is because Server strategy gives stability to words and Contributor thought builds the connections between words and their meanings.

[TTT] Technically speaking, this ‘sorting into words’ occurs as Server strategy decides which Teacher sounds are the same and which are different, in the same way that Perceiver thought separates Mercy experiences into distinct objects.

[UUU] In this book, I use ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ as synonyms. Both describe a form of Perceiver processing that can and should be applied to all situations. ‘Rational’ focuses upon the Teacher aspect of this thought, whereas ‘logical’ emphasizes the Perceiver processing that is being used.

[VVV] Notice the Mercy feelings that are triggered when one avoids euphemisms. However, all these synonyms have the same Perceiver meaning, and all will eventually acquire the same emotional baggage.

[WWW] Mercy feelings are also influenced by the Perceiver logic of rational speech, but this occurs indirectly as facts build new connections between Mercy experiences. In contrast, speech that is based in Perceiver 'facts' tries to affect feelings directly. Its 'logic' is based upon feelings, and if emotions run into unexpected channels, then 'logic' is lost.

[XXX] A 'fact' may come from an emotional experience, but Mercy strategy will still tend to interpret this incident as a personal attack. Therefore, if I am struck by lightning, then I will blame fate, ‘the gods,’ bad luck, or some other pseudo-person.

[YYY] The death of princess Diana in 1997 suggests that when the media do focus upon the personal life of a specific individual, that person is overwhelmed by the magnitude of the system.

[ZZZ] With mass media, everyone—at the same time—can hear the expert live.

[AAAA] We will examine how imagination operates in a coming volume. For our present discussion, the critical aspect is that the same Perceiver facts which define Teacher words also create imaginary objects in Mercy thought, providing a potential source of excitement for Exhorter strategy—which drives imagination.

[BBBB] Yeah, I know. Our discussion about revealed 'truth' continually drifts away from textbooks and schools and heads back to Holy Books and religion. But, isn’t that what always happens? When we examine religion, we will see why the current educational system pretends to be secular, and why this is only a temporary state of affairs.

[CCCC] Revealed 'truth' begins by mesmerizing its audience. However, it is possible for a listener to escape this ‘hypnosis’ by testing the facts for himself. Those who understandthe limitations of education struggle to lead their students beyond childish trust to intelligent comprehension. In contrast, those who lead their followers through blind 'faith' will be insulted at me for suggesting that they are teaching by ‘hypnosis.’

[DDDD] If the hero of some Holy Book refused to impose either his 'truth' or his person upon others, then his non-verbal Mercy example can help to dissuade 'believers' from practicing the more blatant forms of propagandizing.

[EEEE] The greater the emotional source, the stronger the effect. Thus, it is fairly easy to ‘graduate’ from 'truth' that is taught by friends. However, if one 'believes' that the words came directly from God Himself, then blind 'faith' can become almost inescapable.

[FFFF] On the other hand, rational thinking and individual importance can be preserved if revealed 'truth' and mass media view themselves as messengers conveying information about another realm. For instance, the ‘how to’ video gives instructions about working with real objects, which exist outside of the world of media. Similarly, a Holy Book may tell you how to develop your mind. However, if mass media or revealed 'truth' view themselves as the ultimate reality, then their audience must remain selfless and stupid. Again we see the relationship between media and education. Media and revelation must view themselves as servants of reality, and strive to lead their audience to this reality.

[GGGG] There have also been wars in which people fought for personal survival. In those cases the goal is to save me and not to suppress it.

[HHHH] What he does with his revealed 'truth' will depend upon the sort of answers that he finds to his questions.

[IIII] How will the 'believer' in revealed 'truth' react to the information in this book? Good question. I’m glad you asked.

[JJJJ] This is a twist on the statement that ‘the medium is the message.’ I suggest, in contrast, that the medium often becomes the message.

[KKKK] Before terminals there were punch cards. Thankfully, those were before my time.

[LLLL] We will look later on at the connection between revealed 'truth' and the T/F split. Initially, that connection may appear to contradict what is written here. However, the key is to realize that revealed 'truth' is a transitional form that leads from an S/N split to a T/F division. In other words, it begins with an S/N auxiliary and lead to a T/F dominant. We shall also see this transition appearing when we look at history and holiness.

[MMMM] There may be other ways of stimulating Extraverted iNtuition, but this one is the most obvious in today’s world.

[NNNN] Science also teaches with books. But, it maintains its emphasis upon Extraverted iNtuition by placing a heavy emphasis upon mathematics—an external world of iNtuition. It is therefore not generally as troubled by heresy as is religion.

[OOOO] But why will this image of ‘God’ be labeled ‘He’? That is such a loaded question that I will not even attempt to answer it. However, if we know the mental differences between male and female thought, and if we know the method by which an image of ‘God’ is formed, then I suggest that a logical answer can be worked out.