Experience A is a new experience.

It reminds Mercy thought of memories B and C.

B feels fairly good. C feels very bad.

Experience A ends up feeling fairly bad.

A is stored with this emotional label.

A now helps evaluate other experiences.

Three requirements for a working ‘storage shed’ of automatic thought.

·       It must have content.

·       The content must be useful.

·       The organization must be appropriate.

Experiences enter the Mercy internal world through identification.

·       Experiences with excessive emotion force their way in.

·       If internal feeling is high, then identification is voluntary.

A defining experience sets the standard for rating similar experiences.

     This is the event about which I have the strongest feelings.

e.g. A holiday for me may be the week of glorious weather at the cabin by the lake.

     All other holidays are compared to this single experience.

e.g. A car may be that old rusty ‘lemon’ which continually broke down.

     Say the word ‘car,’ and this memory comes to mind.

Suppressing memories leads to schizophrenia or multiple personalities.

·       In schizophrenia, mental segments remain partially connected.

·       In multiple personalities, thinking fissures into separate ‘persons.’

The Mercy person is most susceptible to these two conditions.

Both Mercy and Perceiver persons think associatively.

·       The Mercy associates between experiences with emotional labels.

·       The Perceiver associates between facts with labels of confidence.

Mercy emotion and Perceiver confidence can be positive or negative.

·       Mercy thought can feel good or bad about an experience.

·       Perceiver mode can know a fact is true or know it is false.

Mercy feelings and Perceiver confidence can both vary in strength.

·       Mercy thought can have deep emotions or shallow feelings.

·       Perceiver thought can be totally confident or else uncertain.

Perceiver Automatic Thought

All of us have a Mercy part which can feel. Similarly, each person can know facts with the help of Perceiver thought. However, I suggest that the knowing of the Perceiver person has an added advantage. In the same way that the Mercy person is consciously aware of a mental storage shed of experiences, so the Perceiver person has conscious access to a mental storage shed of facts. As a Perceiver person, I have discovered over the years that I have a natural ability to work with uncertain information. I simply ‘reach’ into the mental storage shed of facts located within automatic Perceiver thought and out pops the appropriate piece of information, along with a label of certainty. I suggest that the name which we give to this Perceiver storage shed is intuition.[JJ]

Intuition[KK] is the Perceiver analog to Mercy ‘doctoring.’ Just as the Mercy storage shed allows the Mercy person to come up with strange solutions that work, so the Perceiver storage shed helps the Perceiver person to develop unusual ideas that make sense.

Perceiver intuition gives us a sense for what is reasonable. The Perceiver person lives within the Perceiver ‘room’; the rest of us have this mode of thought available under the surface. We all use Perceiver reasonableness, for instance, when checking and comparing prices. For example, we expect the cost of gasoline to vary by a few pennies between service stations—this is reasonable. But if one station were to charge three times the price of the other stations, or if the price of gasoline went up overnight by two hundred percent, we would all consider this to be completely unreasonable.

Intuition can be very helpful, but it can also be very wrong. How does one build an accurate intuition? I suggest that the same three principles for building a good Mercy storage shed of experience apply to the Perceiver storage shed of facts: First, a mental storage shed only works effectively when it is filled. The more facts I know, the more raw material there is for intuition. For instance, my own personal storage shed of facts started filling quite early—I read the encyclopedia even before I began school. I have always read a lot and years of working together with my Teacher brother have forced me to broaden my intellectual diet. Every time he came up with a new theory, I would have to learn more facts in order to know whether his ideas were right or wrong.

Reasonableness falls apart when Perceiver thought encounters a fact that is completely new. Perceiver strategy puts its hand into the ‘storage shed’ and comes up with a blank: The new data does not remind Perceiver strategy of any other facts, and therefore it cannot know whether this fact is right, wrong, reasonable, or ‘out to lunch.’ As a result, the Perceiver person is often a conservative thinker. He prefers to stick with ideas which are tried and true; he feels disoriented when he has to expand this base of knowledge. When he encounters something genuinely original, the temptation is for him to zero in on some error—real or perceived, and use this as an excuse to label the material wrong and to reject it. Just as the Mercy person can have problems with shyness, so the Perceiver individual may hang on to the ‘apron strings’ of limited knowledge. As a Perceiver person, I can state that my intellectual horizons have generally been expanded by other people. They prodded me over the initial hump of uncertainty. Once I acquired a sense of reasonableness, then I could usually motivate myself to study further.

Second, the mental storage shed of facts must contain material which is useful. Suppose that a person absorbs facts about hockey players and Star Trek episodes. His Perceiver storage shed may contain reams of information, but it is helpful only at hockey games and Trekkie conventions. Unfortunately, the mind seems naturally to avoid facts which apply to the present and to focus instead on information which relates to other times, other people, and other places.[LL] The Perceiver person, in particular, can fall into this trap. He will know all of the facts and rules that pertain to others, and be able to judge exactly what they should do and what they should believe, but turn strangely silent when it comes to his own home, his personal beliefs, and his own actions.

Finally, any information which is placed into the Perceiver storage shed will need to be labeled properly. The Mercy storage shed labels experiences with a feeling of appropriateness. In contrast, the contents of the Perceiver storage shed acquire labels of reasonableness. These tags, as they link, allow the mind to judge whether a particular fact is possible, impossible, reasonable, unreasonable, likely, unlikely, common or rare.

It is easy for us to feed our Perceiver storage sheds with inaccurate labels. Suppose, for instance, that I ‘suspend feelings of disbelief’ while watching a movie or reading a novel. Or suppose that I swallow facts from others without checking them. This programs Perceiver automatic thought with spurious information. Intuitive thought becomes less dependable. As the old computer adage says: “Garbage In; Garbage Out.”

In the same way that the Mercy storage shed is responsible for certain traits in the Mercy person, so I suggest that the Perceiver storage shed also influences the Perceiver person. First, there is a strong desire for brevity. Just as the Mercy person finds it distasteful to deal too bluntly with experiences and emotions, so the Perceiver person hates to have facts explained in excruciating detail. He dislikes longwinded explanations. State the information once, clearly; that is enough. While writing this book, I had to learn how to use more words and more illustrations. I found out that it is sometimes necessary to state things two or even three times before the point is sufficiently understood. Even now, I am sure that some readers will accuse me of being too terse. I’m sorry. But there are so many ideas, and I refuse to devote my entire life to writing them down.

The need for brevity extends to the humor of the Perceiver person. His jokes tend to be one-liners—short, pithy statements. He cringes at the endless ‘shaggy dog story’ type of joke preferred at times by the Exhorter person (who, by the way, finds it difficult to stop talking). If the Perceiver person retells the long tale, he will throw away the unnecessary bits and reduce the story to its essential core.

The Mercy person needs sincerity and dislikes insincerity. I suggest that the corresponding trait in the Perceiver person is a desire for integrity and a hatred of hypocrisy. The person who is insincerebroadcasts inconsistent emotional messages which confuse Mercy automatic thought. In contrast, the individual who is hypocriticalmakes it difficult for the Perceiver storage shed to come up with a reasonable set of facts. How do you describe a person who talks one way and acts another, who communicates one set of facts with his lips, and broadcasts completely different information with his body? If you listen to what he says, you reach one conclusion. On the other hand, if you watch what he does, then you come up with a totally different result. If the facts about this two-faced individual are accepted in totality without questioning, then Perceiver thought itself becomes fragmented. Consequently, the natural reaction of the Perceiver person is to despise the hypocrite, and to reject him as ‘wrong.’

For example, I remember having a deep conversation with a girl recently married. I gathered that she was a person of real integrity. Imagine my disgust when, several weeks later, I discovered that she had run off and abandoned her husband. I wasn’t so much annoyed at her. Rather, I began to doubt my ability to detect integrity. And without an accurate, operating ‘hypocrisy detector,’ I felt vulnerable.[MM]

Unfortunately, the Perceiver person himself is often somewhat of a hypocrite. I suggest that the blame for this state of affairs can be laid at the feet of two culprits: The first is associative thought. Remember that the thinking of the Perceiver person is naturally scattered. Gathering of thoughts is a lifelong process. Obviously, with this type of memory organization, inconsistencies can sometimes be overlooked.

The second culprit is the interaction between confidence and emotion. Perceiver strategy may be totally confident about right and wrong—as long as the emotional pressure is not too severe. However, once personal feelings enter, then confidence can crumble. The Perceiver person is famous for boldly saying “This is the truth,” and then adding a meek “I think” as others turn to listen. He often recognizes this trait within himself and may struggle to avoid ‘being a hypocrite like all the others.’ Later on, we will examine ways in which Perceiver strategy can gain lasting integrity.

Finally, I suggest that the Perceiver person’s mental storage shed creates a real hunger for new ideas. The Perceiver person hates clichés—statements which have been repeated so often that they have lost their meaning. For the Perceiver, hearing a cliché is like turning on the television set and seeing reruns. It channels his mind back to information which he already knows by heart.

In the same way that the Mercy person may use inappropriate behavior in order to open up channels of emotional communication, so the Perceiver person can use deliberate nonsense to start the flow of facts. For instance, while the Perceiver individual detests the well-worn phrase, he loves the modified cliché. His version might go: “Roses are red, violets are blue. Most poems rhyme, this one doesn’t.” Hewill respond to “Hello, how are you?” with something like “Dreadful, my great-grandfather is dead.” When discussion is going nowhere, he will make the extreme statement just to get people talking.[NN]

The Perceiver Internal World

So far, we have emphasized the thinking which occurs within automatic Perceiver strategy. Let us turn our attention now to the internal world of Perceiver thought. With Mercy mode, I suggested that it was identification which moved an experience from automatic memory to the inner world. In the case of Perceiver strategy, I suggest that the critical component is belief. Automatic Perceiver thought deals, we said, with reasonableness. It decides which facts make sense and which ones do not. Belief, however, goes further than reasonableness. A fact which is reasonable could be true, it is probably correct, itseems to make sense. In contrast, when I believe a piece of information, I am stating that it is true, that it is certainly correct, and that it definitely makes sense. Of course, believing that something is true does not make it true, but it does take the information from the ‘storage shed’ of automatic Perceiver thought and move it into the ‘house’ of the internal Perceiver world.

Memories which enter the internal world have the potential of becoming ‘alive.’ We saw how experiences which exist within the Mercy inner world can combine together and start to ‘live.’ In a similar way, I suggest that Perceiver principles can coalesce together to form a living system of belief. Any mental network which begins to ‘live’ will want to stay ‘alive.’ Therefore, any system of belief which develops a life of its own will try to protect itself from being attacked.

Mercy fragments grow around defining experiences. I suggest that Perceiver belief systems are based upon absolutes. An absolute is simply a core belief which exists within the Perceiver inner world. The average person in our western society tends to find the concept of an absolute somewhat frightening. It is of course scary—by definition. Imagine believing in an idea so strongly that it affects how you approach other facts. In the middle ages, for example, people used to believe that the sun moved around the earth. This one piece of information warped their entire world view. That is the power of an absolute.

Let me see if I can demystify this explosive subject of absolutes. We will start by reviewing how Mercy thinking operates: Each Mercy experience which enters the mind is associated with a certain feeling of physical pain or pleasure. This incoming experience reminds Mercy strategy of relatedexperiences from the past, each with an associated emotional label. The sum of these emotional influences determines how Mercy thought feels about the present situation. Mercy memories which are located in the internal world of Mercy strategy have the greatest impact upon this calculation of feeling simply because they have the strongest emotional labels—they act as emotional ‘absolutes’ which guide how Mercy strategy feels about other experiences.

I suggest that Perceiver thought operates in the same way: A fact enters Perceiver strategy. This incoming fact reminds Perceiver thought of relatedfacts from the past, each with an associated label of confidence. All of these influences add together and determine the label which is given to the new information. Perceiver facts which are located in theinternal world of Perceiver strategy have the greatest effect upon this calculation of confidence simply because they have the strongest labels—they are the absolutes which determine whether other facts are labeled right or wrong.

Let me illustrate. In the past, when I introduced people to the concept of cognitive styles, I often received the following reaction: “Oh, personality types. That reminds me of horoscopes. Well, I know that horoscopes are wrong, therefore your theory must be incorrect as well.” Notice what was happening. Perceiver thought encountered a new fact about cognitive styles. The labeling for this novel concept depended upon which related ideas came to mind and how they were labeled. If Perceiver strategy was reminded of horoscopes and if Perceiver thought knew that horoscopes were wrong, then cognitive styles would also be labeled as wrong.[OO]

After several years of research, the typical reaction changed. First, my description of cognitive styles tended to remind Perceiver strategy of different facts. Because the theory had become more sophisticated, people were now reminded of television programs which they had seen about the mind and not fortunes which they had pulled out of cookies. Second, not only had the connections changed, but the labeling appeared to be different as well. People who did associate mentally to the idea of horoscopes now tended to label my theory as right and not wrong. New Age thinking had spread, and the general population had started to see the whole topic of horoscopes in a different light.

Perceiver Assumptions and Axioms

We have looked at the similarities between Mercy and Perceiver labeling. However, I suggest that there is also a major contrast between these two. Mercy experiences enter the mind accompanied with an emotional label suggested by physical pain or pleasure. Perceiver facts, on the other hand, come into Perceiver thought without an accompanying sense of rightor wrong. Any label of confidence which a fact receives comes purely from the mind. How does the mind generate this label? That is a good question which we will be examining in a few pages.[PP]

Let me state this in another way. As babies, we automatically knew which Mercy experiences to love and which ones to hate: We loved pleasure and we hated pain. As Mercy strategy grew and memories begin to shape emotions, Mercy thought gained the ability to modify these internal feelings. As adults, we have probably developed areas in which physical and mental feelings diverge completely. For instance, we go out into the middle of the forest, swat mosquitoes, eat burnt hot dogs, endure pouring rain, crawl into damp sleeping bags and declare that we are enjoying ourselves. Or, we state in the middle of a party, at which there is lots of tasty food, fun games, exciting music, and good friendship, that we want to go home to bed.

In contrast to Mercy thought, Perceiver strategy is stuck with a sort of ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem: Eggs are laid by chickens, but without eggs, no chickens will hatch. Which then comes first, the chicken or the egg? How can the cycle of chicken and egg start without having both a chicken and an egg?

This is the situation faced by Perceiver thought. In order to know what to believe, Perceiver thinking compares new facts with the existing system of beliefs already residing within the internal Perceiver world. But, a system of belief can only be constructed by putting together a number of individual beliefs. So what comes first, the system of belief or the belief? How can the cycle of evaluating and testing new beliefs start without an already operational belief system? Hmmm. For the Perceiver person, this is not just a theoretical problem. He lives within the Perceiver ‘room.’ Conscious thought in him requires an operating internal world of beliefs.[QQ]

Wow! We have barely started this book and already we are into heavy questions of metaphysics and philosophy. Let us step around some of the mental minefields and approach this loaded topic from the viewpoint of programming a computer. After all, this is a Programmer’s Guide to the Mind, right?

We will start with a simple fact. Suppose I believe that ‘2 + 2 = 4.’ Why do I think this is true? Because I learned it in school. Why is the school correct? Because the information came from a book of mathematics. Why is mathematics correct? Because someone decided that the symbol ‘2’ would represent two of something and he discovered that if he gathered two of something twice, then he would end up with something which he decided to call ‘4.’ But why is this so? Because the world happens to be that way. But why is the world that way? Because! Now quit bugging your mother and go play with your toys.

Notice how each fact is labeled right or wrong because it brings to mind another fact which Perceiver strategy knows is either right or wrong. Notice also how the string of questions ends with a ‘Because!’ I suggest that this illustrates the core challenge in programming Perceiver thought. On the one hand, Perceiver strategy is not told which facts are true and which are false—facts do not come with built-in knowing. On the other hand, Perceiver thought can only operate by assuming that some facts are true and that others are false—the big ‘Because!’ In fact, it has been proven logically that the need for absolutes, assumptions, or axioms is universal. Mathematics itself has shown that every system of logic must assume a certain set of core facts.

So why do we need absolutes? Why not live without them? First, what are we going to do with the poor Perceiver person? After all, he lives in the room which contains Perceiver thought. If we give up the search for absolutes, we lock the door to the Perceiver ‘room,’ board it up, and then, in big red letters, scrawl ‘Condemned’ on the plywood sheet nailed over the entrance. How could we do that? Try telling an Exhorter person that he may not get excited, or try denying love to a Mercy person. This obviously is not going to work.

Second, I suggest that the human mind in fact always operates with some set of absolutes. During the late twentieth century it has become fashionable to elevate relativism and to question the existence of absolutes—we put on an air of ‘free thinking’ to complete the ‘look’ of bell bottoms, wide ties, leisure suits and platform shoes. However, seldom have we lived in an environment with so many absolutes! We receive ‘absolute’ guarantees from manufacturers: “If you are not absolutely satisfied with our product, we will refund your money without question.” We are ‘absolutely’ sure that government or science can solve all of our problems. We are ‘absolutely’ convinced that next year’s product will be new and improved. We are ‘absolutely’ positive that we can go to the store and find cereal, milk and cheese to buy. We have ‘absolute’ confidence that the little rectangles of printed wood pulp which we stick in our wallets with so much pride can be exchanged for items of value. For a time, we even became ‘absolutely certain’ that there were no absolutes. If a person came in from the jungle to observe our activity, he would be amazed at our high level of belief.

Now, at the beginning of the millennium, as our absolutes of prosperity, progress, guaranteed employment, civilized behavior, and ‘satisfaction or your money back’ are beginning to slip, we are becoming more aware of our innate need for ‘absolutes.’ Of course, maybe there really are no absolutes. Who knows. However, it appears that Perceiver strategy can only function properly if it assumes some set of facts as absolute.[RR]

If the human mind requires absolutes in order to operate, then the basic question changes. It does not matter whether absolutes exist or not, because if they didn’t, we would be mentally driven to create them. Therefore, the puzzle now involves finding the best set of absolutes.[SS] Let us approach this challenge by playing our ‘why’ game one more time. This time we will start with the statement: “Stealing is wrong.” “But why is stealing wrong,” responds the obnoxious child.

One possible answer is: Because I say so. But why should I believe you? Because! I might be clever and add: Because it says so in my Holy Book. Here. See? It’s one of the Ten Commandments. But why is your Holy Book correct? Because it is the Word of God. But why is it the Word of God? Again, because!

As we examine this approach, we see that the ultimate ‘Because!’ is rooted always in the statements of some person or religion. This reminds us of the traditional approach to questions of ‘morality.’ However, we have now learned that ‘absolutes’ involve Perceiver thought and we also know that Perceiver strategy views a ‘fact’ as a set of elements which are connected: A fact is ‘true’ if the various elements belong together, and it is ‘false’ if the various pieces do not fit together.

With this definition of ‘truth,’ let us try again to come up with an answer: Stealing is wrong because it takes things without working for them. But why is it wrong to take things without working? Because if others take what you make, then you will never make anything. But why must people make things? Because unless people make things, there will be nothing to steal. Q.E.D.

Notice that this second line of reasoning is different from the first. Why did we conclude that stealing is ‘wrong’ or ‘false’? Because if everyone steals, then there will be nothing left to steal. In other words, stealing is ‘wrong’ because the various bits of this composite fact do not belong together in a permanent way: Over the long term, the two fragments of ‘taking’ and ‘object’ cannot remain connected. If you do not believe me, look at a country in which people steal from each other, or where the government steals from the people. You will find that, ultimately, there is nothing left to steal.[TT]

‘Schizophrenia’ and ‘Multiple Personalities’

When we looked at Mercy strategy, we saw that the Mercy person can use conscious control to withdraw from hurtful experiences—he constructs a wall across the Mercy room of thought. If this mental wall is erected early in life, then the result can be multiple personalities. On the other hand, if the wall is constructed later on, when most of the other rooms are also functional, then symptoms of schizophrenia may emerge.

Mercy experiences come with feelings already attached. Therefore, the Mercy person faces the challenge of dealing with strong emotions: Multiple personalities are caused by excessive emotional pressure. Schizophrenia, similarly, seems to be a defense against overwhelming emotional hurt. Perceiver facts, in contrast, come without any suggested label of confidence. Therefore, I suggest that the Perceiver person must learn how to handle a lack of confidence. It is when the environment denies him absolutes that he is tempted to put up a mental wall and retreat to a safe portion of his conscious room of Perceiver thought.

Mercy denial early in life can lead to multiple personalities. Similarly, I suggest that the Perceiver person with an underdeveloped thought life, who rejects topics or people, can turn into a cynic. Major portions of Perceiver thought will be blocked off and rejected wholesale: “They are lying, cheating, stealing idiots who wouldn’t recognize truth if it hit them over the head with a sledgehammer. Everythingthey say and do is hypocrisy. They haven’t got an honest bone in their body.” A group of people may be rejected. It can also be a topic, an organization, or a religion which gets the cold shoulder.

The cynic blocks off a region of Perceiver memories, and then retreats to a safe area of truth and absolutes: “They may be idiots, but at least I have principles.” Unfortunately, living as a Perceiver person in today’s Western World is rather difficult. It is hard not to be cynical, just as it is difficult for the Mercy person not to become desensitized by the senseless and gratuitous violence that seems to accompany a lack of absolutes.

Let me give you a personal example of Perceiver cynicism. My research on the mind started as graduate work in Electrical Engineering.[UU] To make a long story short, I found myself spending three years poring through the neurological literature. Eventually I was asked to give a graduate seminar on the work which I had done thus far. As a Perceiver person, I assumed that if I came up with facts which were sufficiently interesting, then my research would be accepted. Instead, I found to my surprise that the response to my presentation centered around the philosophical question of whether or not it waspossible for a person to discover facts about the human mind. While I was trying to use Perceiver strategy to build a system of facts, those around me were not even convinced that Perceiver thought was a valid option. The shock to my mental system was so great that I went home and banged my head against the floor in frustration.[VV] It took me some time to emerge from my feelings of cynicism.

Notice the essential similarity between Mercy multiple personalities and Perceiver cynicism. In both cases, a person is subjected to an environment which hinders conscious thought from developing normally. The abused Mercy child is bombarded with emotional experiences which stop his internal Mercy world from forming. Me is actually torn apart with conflicting defining experiences. Similarly, the Perceiver person turns into the cynic when his environment lacks absolutes; he is surrounded by individuals who act as if the contents of his Perceiver internal world are irrelevant and that Perceiver truth can be created or destroyed at will.[WW]

I have compared cynicism to multiple personalities. I suggest that the Perceiver analog to schizophrenia is the leap of faith. The Mercy person who tries to suppress an operating mind discovers that any segment of thought which he quarantines continues to work under the surface. In the same way, the Perceiver person who knows enough facts and has sufficient understanding is no longer able to turn into a cynic. He cannot write ‘them’ off completely, for he knows that ‘they’ accept some Perceiver facts which he knows to be correct. But, he still wants to get away from ‘them’ and their hypocrisy. Therefore, he proves logically that ‘they’ and their beliefs are inadequate. Once he has shown the inconsistencies in ‘their’ way of thinking, then he uses conscious control of Perceiver strategy to jump from their facts to his set of beliefs.

Let me give you an example. I talked once to a Perceiver person who is well known in Protestant Christian circles for his intellectual acumen. Over the years he has discovered many shortcomings with ‘the church’ and can describe these hypocrisies with great precision. As a result, he took a ‘leap of faith’ and became a convert to the Greek Orthodox faith. When you talk with him, he uses logic to try to convince you of the futility of following Protestant Christianity and then mentally jumps to the conclusion that the real truth is found in the icons, rituals and writings of the Orthodox Church.[XX]

Oh no! Not another heavy subject. First philosophy, then university, now religion. Let us see if we can use our understanding of Perceiver thought to cut through this tangle of emotional information. Remember that a Perceiver fact is a set of connections. A fact is ‘true’ if connections exist and ‘false’ if they do not exist. But, notice that cynicism and the ‘leap of faith’ both involve the breaking of connections—they put up a mental wall which separates one set of facts from another. Since both of these mental strategies involve the denial of connections, I suggest that they are by definition ‘wrong.’ One need not get sidetracked by questions of philosophy or religion. Rather, one simply looks for the existence of lasting connections.[YY] In order to discover ‘truth,’ one must build connections. Attacking connections leads only to a knowledge of ‘error.’

Notice also that both Mercy schizophrenia and the Perceiver ‘leap of faith’ involve an essential contradiction. On the one hand, mental thought is allowed to operate: The schizophrenic emotionally identifies with his internal world of safe Mercy experiences. Similarly, the ‘faith leaper’ uses Perceiver logic and internalized beliefs. On the other hand, both of these individuals are very selective about whenand where they allow this thought to function. The schizophrenic identifies with a limited set of Mercy memories and uses conscious control to prevent Mercy thought from expanding into other areas. In the same way, the ‘faith leaper’ restricts his Perceiver logic to a limited number of facts and uses conscious control to freeze the rest of his Perceiver internal world.

Notice, in a final related point, the interaction between conscious thought and the mental ‘room’ which is under conscious control. As I mentioned before, it appears that these two are different: For instance, the Mercy person has a Mercy ‘room’ just like any other cognitive style. However, he is also conscious in the Mercy ‘room’—that is what makes him a Mercy person. Conscious thought, it appears, is a sort of extra module of thought which is tacked on to a certain mental ‘room.’ The ‘room’ to which the conscious module is attached determines a person’s cognitive style. In schizophrenia and in the ‘leap of faith,’ the conscious mental room is being allowed to operate some of the time, while at other times, conscious control takes over and suppresses the operation of this room.[ZZ]

Mercy plus Perceiver

Let us review where we have come thus far in our journey through the mind. First, we scanned the seascape of Mercy strategy. We saw how thundering storms of experience could generate deep rolling waves of emotion. Making our way across these changing contours, we peered into the roiling emotional whirlpools of multiple personalities and schizophrenia.

We then made our way through the terrain of Perceiver thought. Here we found a landscape covered with the pebbles of information and shaped by the mountain peaks of truth and confidence. Strangely enough, despite surface differences between these two areas, we kept noticing similarities of underlying shape. Even the emotional abysses which we uncovered in Mercy thought had their analogs in the deep chasms and uncrossable gulfs of Perceiver cynicism and ‘the leap of faith.’

We will now turn our attention to the interaction between these two mental contours. Just as water and land together sustain plant and animal life, so I suggest that tying together Mercy and Perceiver strategies will generate an entire ecosystem of trees, flowers, grasses, and animals that feed upon them. What type of system? Well, we know that Mercy strategy remembers experiences and emotions and that Perceiver thought works with facts and confidence. Think of the many different ways in which facts and feelings can and do interact. Sparks of life from this mental interplay are sufficient to generate a rich bio-diversity of inter-dependent personality traits. So, let us shift our attention from the imagery of poetry to the language of logic and see what we can discover.

I suggest first that the diagram of mental symmetry provides a major clue about interaction between Mercy and Perceiver thought. If you examine this diagram, you will notice that there is an arrow from ‘Mercy’ up to ‘Perceiver.’ This arrow indicates a unidirectional flow of information from Mercy mode to Perceiver mode. You could think of this connection as a sort of one-way mirror connecting these two rooms in the mental house: Perceiver thought is aware of Mercy experiences—in this direction the glass is transparent, while Mercy strategy cannot see Perceiver facts—in this direction the glass is a mirror; all that Mercy thought can see is its own reflection. However, this mental one-way glass is very peculiar, because as Perceiver strategy works with facts, the shape of the mirror changes and the image which is seen by Mercy thought becomes altered and warped, like one of those curved mirrors which you see at the circus, that make you look ‘bent out of shape.’ Therefore, whereas Perceiver strategy can seeMercy memories, Mercy images are altered by Perceiver thought.

Who does What

Now that we have a general idea about how Mercy and Perceiver thought interact, let us look at the details. We will start with the path from Mercy to Perceiver strategy—the ability of Perceiver thought to see Mercy memories. Remember that I defined a Perceiver fact as a group of elements which are connected together. I would now like to refine that definition. I suggest that the elements which make up a fact are located in Mercy strategy and that Perceiver mode works only with the connections. In terms of our analogy, Perceiver thought looks through the one-way glass into the room of Mercy strategy and searches for relations. When a connection is discovered, then Perceiver thought remembers it as a fact. Perceiver strategy is therefore somewhat like a psychologist observing a patient through the glass: It does not get directly involved with the action and with experiences. Rather it observes through the window and silently takes notes.[AAA]

Let us see if we can clarify the distinction between Mercy items and Perceiver connections with the help of our road map illustration. Remember that a map contains two main parts. There are the dotsrepresenting the towns and cities and there are the lines indicating roads between the different places. Now erase all the dots and leave only the lines. These form a set of connections with a specific shape. Suppose we did this with the major roads and cities of Britain. We would end up with a triangle connecting London, Bristol, and Birmingham and a straight line going from Birmingham up to Manchester, just like a pyramid with a flagpole at the top. It is this set of connections which is remembered by Perceiver thought as a fact. When Perceiver strategy works with facts, it works with connections and disregards Mercy experiences which were the source of those connections.

That is why the Perceiver person can jump in one sentence from the topic of motorways and driving on the left side of the road to the subject of pyramids with flagpoles. Within his mental room of Perceiver thought, he sees these two asdirectly related, because they have similar connections. The experiences may be totally different; Perceiver strategy does not mind, it is concerned only with connections.

Here is another example. When Perceiver strategy thinks of a ‘car,’ it pictures a group of wheels, doors, engine, seats and body placed together in a specific way. Perceiver thought does not care about which wheels or doors are being used. It only remembers the way in which the various bits are connected.

This emphasis shows up in the approach of the Perceiver person. He generally tries to avoid the individual and to deal rather with the problem. Of course, people and problems tend to go together and the attitude of the Perceiver person sometimes reminds one of a horse-mounted knight bound by rules of chivalry: “I must kill you. I have nothing against you personally. You are simply a problem which needs to be addressed. Would you please step out of the way while I hack you to pieces.”

Mercy strategy, in contrast, deals with the individual experiences. Mercy thought cares very much about which specific wheels and doors are in the car, because some wheels and doors are much nicer than other wheels and doors. Mercy strategy would probably find touring the motorways of Britain much more interestingthan visiting pyramids with flagpoles.

Notice how Mercy and Perceiver thought view the same objects in completely different ways. Mercy strategy sees the 1973 green Honda Civic with the dent in the fender. If this car is associated with enough emotion, then it can become the defining experience by which all other cars are evaluated. Perceiver thought, in contrast, simply sees each specific vehicle as another example of the species ‘automobilis Nippon.’ The color and the make of each individual car are not as easily remembered.

I suggest that many of the problems which come up in the marriage between a Mercy person and a Perceiver person can be explained by looking at the interaction between Mercy thought and Perceiverthought.[BBB] For example, I have just mentioned that the Perceiver person thinks in terms of facts and tends to ignore individual experiences. In contrast, the Mercy person will usually focus on the personand the specific incident. This differing approach can lead to some profound clashes of opinion.

Suppose that the Perceiver husband sticks only with ‘the facts and nothing but the facts, ma’am.’ Eventually, his Mercy wife will get frustrated at his lack of emotion and erupt in an outburst—just to get some feelings back into the relationship. He will listen to the torrent of words tumbling from the lips of his Mercy wife and interpret them as logical facts—now he knows what she really thinks about him. He may decide that if she believes such terrible things, then he is justified in pulling out his sword of ‘truth’ and slashing without mercy at his opponent: “Well if that is your honest opinion about me, then let me tell you this and that and…” The emotions associated with his brutal statements enter deep into her heart and fester.

Or, suppose that the Mercy wife follows her emotions completely and ignores Perceiver facts which lie behind individual Mercy experiences. Eventually, her Perceiver husband will become disgusted at the lack of factual content in their relationship and start to preach information at her, or make extreme statements to trigger her sense of reasonableness. She will interpret his remarks as a lack of personalrespect for her, and feel that he is trying to belittle her emotionally. Coldly, she will block off her feelings towards him. Perceiver thought in him will become convinced that the connection between them has now been broken. His preaching will gain an air of finality, and cement the separation.

This leads us to a general rule. Whenever we look at the interaction between parts of the mind, I suggest that the same principles can be applied to the relationship between corresponding people. For instance, if certain conflicts can occur between Exhorter strategy and Contributor strategy, then the same incompatibilities can appear between an Exhorter person and a Contributor person. In addition, I suggest that when some individual is unwilling to deal with internal mental conflict, then there will be no way to resolve the corresponding external interpersonal strife that results.

Finally, I would like to make a brief comment about marriage between Mercy person and Perceiver person. Because conscious thought in each partner interacts strongly with conscious thought in the other, Mercy persons and Perceiver persons who meet will tend to feel a mental bond. As a result, it is common for individuals with these two cognitive styles to marry each other.

So, who does get married? Our observations about married couples and their cognitive styles suggest the following principles: First, people with the same cognitive style will not get married (with the occasional exception of Contributor persons). This would be like marrying a mirror image of your own self. Look too closely and you start to see all of your own wrinkles and shortcomings. Yuck!

Second, people with the opposite cognitive styles also will not be attracted to each other. By opposite, I mean on opposite corners of the diagram of mental symmetry. Therefore, Teacher and Mercy persons almost never get married to each other, and Perceiver and Server persons very seldom tie the knot.[CCC] People who do get married seem to be conscious in mental rooms which are ‘adjacent’ to each other—by working together these individuals complete mental circuits. Therefore, with the simple styles, the combination of Perceiver and Mercy is very common, as is Teacher and Server. Composite styles tend to marry other composite styles, with Exhorter-Contributor and Contributor-Facilitator being most likely, since these combinations tie together stages one and two, or stages two and three of the mental loop of drive and imagination.

The Definition of a Fact

We have compared Mercy thinking with Perceiver thought. We have seen how Mercy and Perceiver strategies divide the task of working with experiences and facts. I would now like to examine exactly how Perceiver thought takes Mercy experiences and transforms them into facts. If our discussion seems to be a little dry and esoteric at the moment, I assure you that several extremely emotional topics are looming just over the hill. Therefore, it is important for us to lay a solid foundation so that we can traverse these issues without slipping in the mire of wishful thinking or getting splattered by the muck of controversy.

I have mentioned that Perceiver thought can observe Mercy experiences by looking through a sort of one-way glass which separates the two rooms—Perceiver strategy sees Mercy thought with all of its individual experiences. As situations occur within the Mercy room, Perceiver strategy will pay special attention to the connections which form between them. Each link that is noted by Perceiver strategy will be stored as a fact within the Perceiver storage shed of automatic thought.

Over time, Perceiver mode will begin to notice certain patterns—connections which are repeated. It will discover, for instance, that there are many experiences within Mercy memory which contain doors, wheels, engines, seats, etc. in a similar arrangement. As a specific pattern repeats, Perceiver thought will start to gain confidence in this fact. It will become reasonable that it is correct. Notice that we have discovered one way in which Perceiver strategy can discover labels of confidence: Perceiver thought will place greater trust in connections which are repeated—they will become labeled as ‘right.’ Similarly, Perceiver strategy will also conclude that connections which never occur are ‘false.’ On the one hand, if a connection is repeated enough times, Perceiver thought may decide to pull the information into the Perceiver internal world and believe that it istrue. On the other hand, if a connection does not occur for enough incidents, Perceiver strategy may choose to pull this fact into the Perceiver internal world and believe that it is false.

For example, staring at roads for long enough will convince Perceiver strategy that there is a fact called ‘car’ which is true. Whenever Perceiver thought sees another metal box with four wheels on the ground, it will gain more confidence that this fact, or network of connections, is actually correct. On the other hand, if Perceiver mode encounters a metal box moving down the highway with no wheels, it will have confidence that this fact is wrong—Perceiver thought will know that experiences do not connect together in this way. Similarly, a metal box with three or six wheels may attract attention as being unusual or unreasonable.

These Perceiver connections have an impact upon Mercy thought. You will recall that there is a one-way path from Mercy strategy to Perceiver mode. Therefore, Mercy thought is unable to see the development of Perceiver strategy. What Mercy thought will notice is that some unseen influence is changing the way in which experiences connect. In other words, Perceiver links bend the mirror in which Mercy strategy sees its reflection. Notice exactly what shifts. The Mercy experiences are the same—they always remain within Mercy memory. It is only the connections between these Mercy experiences which are altered.

For instance, suppose that a person is bitten by a dog: In Mercy strategy, the experience of ‘dog’ and ‘bite’ occur together. Perceiver thought, looking in from next door, notes the connection between these two elements, and stores this connection as a fact within the Perceiver storage shed of information. If Perceiver strategy reaches into its storage shed for facts about dogs, it will come up with this connection between ‘dogs’ and ‘bites.’ The label of confidence associated with this Perceiver fact will probably be ‘quite certain.’

Now suppose that several more incidents with dogs occur in which a person is not bitten. As usual, these facts will be noticed by Perceiver strategy and deposited within its storage shed. However, as each fact is remembered, the label of certainty associated with this collection of facts will change. After the twentieth encounter with a friendly dog, a search by Perceiver strategy within the storage shed for facts about dogs would probably retrieve the item: “ ‘Dogs’ and ‘friendly’ go together; probability: reasonable.”

Mercy strategy, of course, does not have conscious access to this mental library of factual Perceiver information. What will happen is that as Perceiver facts grow, Mercy associations change. Initially, the image of a dog reminded Mercy strategy of the memory of being bitten. However, as the fact which is stored within Perceiver thought changes, the sight of a dog will begin to trigger memories of wagging tails and friendly licks. The memories within Mercy strategy have not been altered. Only the Perceiver connections have changed.

Altering the connections between individual Mercy experiences will have an indirect effect upon Mercy emotions. If thinking of a dog reminds Mercy strategy of the experience of being bitten, then obviously this memory will feel unpleasant. However, if wagging tails and friendly licks come to mind, then Mercy feelings about dogs will change as well.

Over time, as Perceiver thought places confidence in facts which are repeated, Mercy strategy will notice that associations start to be based in common sense. I suggest that this is the mental transition which begins in the average child at about the age of six, when he enters school. Piaget, the Swiss child psychologist, studied these types of mental transitions in great detail.

Whenever Perceiver thought places confidence in a fact, this connects many isolated experiences within Mercy strategy—events from different places and various times. For instance, think of the fact of a ‘car.’ This set of links can refer to a Cadillac in America, a Lada in Russia, a Toyota in Japan, or even a buggy on the moon. All of these various places become related by the single fact of a ‘car.’ The Perceiver fact of ‘car’ also ties together individual experiences from different times: A Model T of the 1920s is just as much a ‘car’ as a Ford Mustang of the 1960s. And, we will probably find that there continue to be ‘cars’ in the 21st Century.

If the label of Perceiver confidence is related to repetition, then a fact with greater confidence will obviously tie together more individual Mercy situations. In other words, this fact will apply in more places and more times.[DDD]Following this logic, a Perceiver absolute is simply a fact which can be applied in allplaces and at all times.[EEE] For example, the fact of a ‘car’ cannot be regarded as a true absolute, because there were no cars before the end of the nineteenth century, and though there are a few abandoned vehicles on the moon, you will not find cars on any of the other planets. In contrast, the fact of an ‘atom’ appears to be much more universal. Everywhere you look, you see evidence that atoms exist. Even the light which reaches our planet from a distant star gives indication that the same types of atoms exist over there as here.[FFF]

At this point, our discussion about absolutes may seem a little strange. Many of us probably have not thought much about them, and if we have, quite possibly we have associated ‘absolutes’ with dogmatism, conservatism, religious fervor, and other forms of emotional excess. I suggest that we are confusing absolutes with the method by which they are often propagated. Obviously, if a person wearing a bright orange tie with lime polka-dots comes to my door selling insurance, I will tend to forget about the product and remember the tie. Similarly, if ‘absolute truth’ comes to me clothed usually in emotional robes, I will probably forget about the facts and remember only the feelings. Don’t worry. We will dip our intellectual toes into the goo of emotion soon enough and examine the connection between ‘truth’ and ‘feelings’ in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail.

We have been looking at some of the distinctions between Mercy mode and Perceiver strategy. We have seen that experiences are stored within the Mercy room, whereas the connections between these experiences are worked out by Perceiver thought and stored within the Perceiver room. We learned that a kind of one-way mirror is located in the ‘wall’ which separates these two mental rooms. This means that whenever Perceiver strategy works with facts, it can always lift its head, look through the mental ‘window,’ and see the Mercy experiences which are being affected by these facts.

Thus, I suggest that when a Perceiver person tries to limit his thinking to ‘the facts and nothing but the facts,’ he is actually putting a mental ‘curtain’ over the window which ‘overlooks’ Mercy strategy, and pretending that experiences and feelings do not exist. He usually does this because he finds it easier to think without the distraction of feelings emanating from the room next door. However, I suggest that this strategy is self-defeating, because the only way that Perceiver thought can come up with facts is by opening the curtain, looking through the window into Mercy thought, and searching for patterns and connections. Therefore, the Perceiver individual who limits himself to facts will usually spend more time adjusting mental curtains than working out facts—he will close the curtains when the glare of Mercy emotion gets too bright, and he will reopen them when the room darkens again with shadows of Perceiver confusion.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong

The fact that Perceiver strategy is aware of both Perceiver and Mercy memories also has an effect upon Perceiver labeling. Remember that Mercy experiences are identified with emotions, whereas Perceiver facts acquire labels of confidence. If Perceiver mode can see both the Perceiver facts within its own room, and the related Mercy experiences in the room next door, this means that all Perceiver facts can become associated with two labels, one a label of confidence from Perceiver thought, and the other a label of emotion from Mercy strategy.

Let us compare these two types of labels. The first one is direct: Every Perceiver fact receives a label of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based upon Perceiver confidence. The second label is indirect: Every Perceiver fact acquires a label of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending upon the Mercy feelings associated with the Mercy experiences which are tied together by this Perceiver fact. In other words, if Perceiver strategy looks down at the facts themselves, it sees labels of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’—a way of measuring connections. On the other hand, if it lifts its head and peers at the Mercy experiences moving by the window, in the room next door, it sees labels of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ determined by Mercy emotion.

I suggest that it is very easy to mix these two sets of labels—to confuse ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ While ‘good’ is often ‘right’ and ‘bad’ is generally ‘wrong,’ it is not that difficult to find situations in which these two methods of labeling are completely opposed. For example, suppose that a teacher tells his students, “There will be a surprise examination in class today.” Being acquainted with the habits of the instructor, Perceiver strategy in the students will know that this fact is right. But if they have not studied, then this ‘right’ fact will also be very bad.

It can also work the other way. Consider the statement, “I have won a million dollars in the lottery.” This fact is good. But it is only possible that it is right if I have bought a lottery ticket. Otherwise it is obviously wrong, and believing it to be right would only be wishful thinking. Businesses such as lotteries depend upon our confusing ‘good’ with ‘right.’ They make their money assuming that if they come up with a fact which is sufficiently good, people will think that it is ‘right’ and plunk down their hard earned cash. Similarly, most governments have learned by now that facts which are ‘bad’ will not always be accepted by the voting public as ‘true.’ Why do we tend to confuse these two sets of labels? We will answer that question as soon as we have finished laying a proper foundation.

Object Detection

We have only few more pages of dry information to get through before we get into the ‘juicy emotional stuff.’ Just wait. As soon as we start slogging through some heavy feelings, you will probably long again for the solid ground of abstract logic. Oh well, one can’t win. Sometimes we really do act like the cows who ignore grass under their noses and long for the succulent shoots tantalizing them just out of reach on the other side of the fence.

In the last section, we saw how Perceiver strategy can connect together Mercy experiences. I suggest that a Perceiver collection of Mercy experiences is called an object. Thinking in terms of objects comes so naturally to us that we tend to forget how much work is involved in building these mental concepts. It was only when engineers began to build object recognition into robots that the immense mental processing involved in distinguishing a fridge from a teacup, from Aunt Agatha standing in front of the fridge and holding the teacup, became evident.

For instance, let us look at the pair of scissors which Aunt Agatha has just laid down on the kitchen table and see if we can understand how our mind distinguishes them from the knives which are lying beside them.

When we look at a pair of scissors, we see two round handles connected with two blades. In contrast, a knife has only one blade and one long handle. Mercy strategy notices the images of blades and handles; these memories enter the Mercy room, quite possibly bringing to mind other experiences and their feelings: “Don’t run with a pair of scissors. My second-cousin-once-removed Herman ran with a pair of scissors, tripped over the family dog and gouged his left eye.” Second, Perceiver thought looks into the Mercy room from its vantage point next door and notices connections: “Hmmm. That is the 327th time that I have seen two blades and two handles hinged together. Maybe they really are connected.” [GGG]

What about the knife? Lay two knives side by side and they can look an awful lot like a pair of scissors (this thought has obviously gone through peoples’ minds, or else why would they be called a pairof scissors). I suggest that the distinction lies in Perceiver repetition. When Perceiver strategy observes Mercy images of knives, it notices that while one blade and one handle always occur together, two blades and two handles only go together occasionally. Therefore, Perceiver thought will decide that with knives, the connection between one blade and one handle is ‘right,’ and the connection between several blades and several handles is ‘probably wrong.’ Notice that the label of ‘wrong’ is less certain, because when we open the drawer in which the cutlery is stored, we do see several knives lying together.

The result is object detection. Mercy strategy is constantly encountering experiences and Perceiver thought is continually trying to figure out which experiences belong together and which do not. But, doesn’t all of this processing occur automatically within the mind? Exactly. I suggest that it is the interaction between automatic Mercy thought and automatic Perceiver mode which is responsible for recognizing objects. In other words, the Mercy and the Perceiver mental storage sheds are physically hooked together in precisely the way that we described earlier when we looked at the interaction between Mercy and Perceiver thought.

If it is automatic Mercy and Perceiver thought which handles the everyday down-to-earth job of distinguishing kitchen knives from scissors, then I suggest that we have discovered a way to combine deep philosophical questions with everyday life. We often seem to have the impression that ‘normal’ thinking is appropriate for average existence whereas the pondering of important questions requires that we sit down, put on a long face and wear a mask of deep concern. However, I suggest that it is one mental strategy—Mercy thought, which works with all experiences: images of scissors, memories of mother, love of country, religious ecstasy or the sticky mess of taking out the garbage. Similarly, it is one mental room—Perceiver thought, which handles all facts and connections: scientific facts, moral truth, information about the stock market, facts about cups and saucers, and even the fact that I stubbed my toe this morning.

Let me state it in a different way. When my mind is trying to decipher images of scissors, cups, knives, and saucers, automatic Mercy strategy is being filled with experiences, and automatic Perceiver thought is working out how to connect these experiences. Similarly, when my mind is trying to decipher deep moral and philosophical questions of right and wrong, my internal world of Mercy strategy is being filled with experiences, and my internal world of Perceiver thought is working out how to connect these experiences. In both cases, an interaction is occurring between Perceiver and Mercy strategy.

Automatic Thought versus Internal World

While automatic thought and the internal world operate in the same way, there is a major difference in the method by which information enters these two aspects of thought: Automatic thinking appears to have an ‘open door policy.’ Any sensation which walks by the gates to the mind is welcomed into the ‘storage shed’ of thought and placed within the appropriate niche. In contrast, entrance into the internal world is ‘by invitation only.’ Here, a watchman stands at the door and carefully scrutinizes each item which is asking to gain entrance. For Mercy strategy, this watchman is identification, whereas belief stands guard over the door to the internal Perceiver world.

Each of these options has its pros and cons. The benefit of keeping the mental gate open at all times is that mental organization can occur automatically and effortlessly. The disadvantage is that there is no way to screen who and what enters the mind. If most of the situations walking by on the street of life are fairly civilized, then keeping the door open is not a problem. I suggest that this is why people in our modern Western world tend to ignore the deep questions of the internal world and instead allow automatic thought to work out facts and principles: A civilized world screens out nasty experiences and dangerous people, and therefore the automatic organizing of automatic thought is good enough.

On the other hand, it takes effort to build an internal world. Each Mercy experience and each Perceiver fact must be ushered in personally by the guard at the door. Anyone who has gone through the struggle of constructing a comfortable internal world of belief and identity knows that it involves a lot of hard work. However, I would like to mention two benefits that make this labor worthwhile.

First, building an internal world makes it possible for me to become unique. If I rely on automatic thought for my personality, then chances are that I am replaceable. There are probably thousands of other people with my cognitive style who have grown up in similar cultures, gone to the same kinds of schools, and therefore acquired a storage shed full of Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences which are essentially identical to mine. The only real difference between me and these other people is the size, shape and color of the physical body which contains these mental storage sheds. For instance, suppose that I as a Perceiver person base my identity in an ability to make puns and deliver one-liners. Time and again I meet people who tell me that they have a friend who is ‘just like me,’ and they are probably right. As long as I rest in automatic thought, there will be many others who are ‘just like me.’

In contrast, suppose that I build an internal world of Perceiver belief and Mercy identification. Now I can choose what goes into the structure, and this freedom of choice allows me to becomemy ownperson. This is how an individual can survive in a sea of billions of people. By specializing, he develops some area in which he is unique, where he does or knows something which others do not.[HHH]

Second, building an internal world allows me to choose my building material. Let us suppose that I was building a real house and decided to use the following method: Each morning a truck would pull up onto my driveway loaded with workers and material. Each laborer would take a handful of boards and nails from the truck and tack this wood onto my house. He would then go back to the vehicle, get another collection of material and add it to whichever part of my house caught his fancy. The process would continue until bedtime. The workers would then go home and come back the next morning for another day of work. This cycle would repeat itself every day for as long as I lived in the house. I would hate to think what my house would look like, or whether it would even be a house, or how long I could stand living amidst the noise and the dust. However, this is the method by which automatic thought is programmed. You see now why I refer to this aspect of thought as a storage shed and not a house.

Now suppose that the same truck came to my door with the same workers and the identical material and I told everyone to carry all of the stuff into the storage shed out back. Suppose that I then went into the shed, pulled out what I liked and gave it to the workers to place where they saw fit.[III] Obviously, the results would be much better. The final structure would have quality, and I would probably enjoy living in it. This is what it is like to build an internal world. Of course, the downside is that I have to sort through the material and I have to decide which elements are needed for each stage of construction.

So, how does one build an internal world? What are the rules of mental construction? How does one sort through building material and how does one know what goes where? The reason I chose to call this volume A Programmer’s Guide to the Mind isbecause these are the types of questions which I would like to answer. Now that we understand enough about the mind to define the problem, we can start casting about for a solution.

The Role of Cognitive Style

How does cognitive style fit into this picture? It appears that, regardless of my personality type, I have two abilities: First, I can decide what is allowed into my internal world. While it is possible to place a guard at the door, it does not seem possible for me to control where this information is placed. Second, I can choose what material is appropriate for my current stage of building. Again, while I can decide which ‘board’ to use, I do not seem to have control over where this ‘board’ is placed within the ‘house.’ These two abilities of guarding and choosing appear to be present in every person.

In other words, every individual can control his mental context, and can give instructions to the ‘gatekeeper’ standing guard over the entrance to his internal worlds. For instance, when I identify with a situation, I am telling my Mercy ‘watchman’ to allow this experience to enter Mercy internal thought. Similarly, when I suspend disbelief, I am telling the Perceiver ‘guard’ to give the green light to all potential facts.

In addition, the conscious control of cognitive style gives each individual the ability to ‘build’ within the room in which he lives. In that one room, he can decide where each board is placed and how it is fitted into the existing structure. For instance, I suggest that every person can choose what he believes and which of his beliefs apply to any given situation. However, it appears that only the Perceiverperson is capable of using conscious thought to assemble a system of belief one brick and board at a time.

While conscious thought gives each cognitive style power over his own room, I suggest that this power is limited. A person trying to rearrange the physical furniture in a real room has only so many arms and legs. Therefore, he has to do things one step at a time, and move objects around one piece at a time. Similarly, conscious thought cannot remodel the conscious room instantaneously. Major renovation takes time. It requires planning and effort.

Perceiver Strategy and the Brain

If you examine neurology, you find that the distinction between Mercy experiences and the Perceiver connections between those experiences is seen physically within the structure of the brain. I have mentioned that automatic Mercy thought is located within the right temporal lobe. I suggest that automatic Perceiver processing occurs higher up, in what is called the right parietallobe.

This region of the cortex is essential for processing connections between individual experiences. As one author states, “dealing with the spatial relations of objects is believed to be a right parietal function.” “The right parietal zone is specialized for processing the spatial characteristics of sensory input.” 2 Damage here impairs this ability: “Spatial neglect on drawing and constructional apraxia [an inability to build with objects][JJJ] correlates with right parietal damage.” 4

As long as the flow of Mercy experiences remains fairly predictable, Perceiver thought can ‘watch’ passively through the mental window. However, when situations are twisted or incomplete, then Perceiver strategy must manipulate connections in order to rearrange Mercy experiences or remind Mercy thought of experiences which can complete the puzzle. It is during these types of situations that damage to automatic Perceiver strategy becomes most evident: “Right parietal [damaged] patients are impaired at recognizing familiar objects from unfamiliar angles.” “Identifying an incomplete representation of a face or object is especially sensitive to right parietal damage.” 2

Neurology tells us that the right parietal lobe of the brain is strongly interconnected with the dorsolateral [top half] right frontal cortex. This suggests that the right dorsolateral frontal cortex contains theinternal world for Perceiver thought. Unfortunately, because most neurological papers treat the right and left dorsolateral frontal cortices as a single system, it makes it difficult to distinguish between the two. Some specific evidence, though, does exist. For instance, it has been found that “right frontal and right frontocentral patients were significantly inferior in the ease of production of drawings.” 4 In other words, patients with a damaged internal Perceiver world lose the ability to create and manipulate mental objects.

As I mentioned before, viewing the right and left dorsolateral frontal cortices as a single structure actually makes sense from a behavioral standpoint. The superior (top half) frontal cortex operates as an interconnected system, since the Perceiver internal world (on the right side) interacts heavily with the Server internal world (on the left). I suggest that this is because Contributor strategy builds mental connections between individual Perceiver and Server memories. This interaction can be seen in the behavior of the typical Perceiver person. When he thinks, he often makes nervous or repetitive movements with his hands, indicating that conscious Perceiver processing is spilling over into subconscious Server actions.

Having said this, let us examine what neurology in fact has discovered about the dorsolateral frontal lobes. I should mention first that the overall distinction between orbitofrontal cortex (associated with Teacher and Mercy emotional thought) and dorsolateral frontal cortex (connected with the internal world of Perceiver and Server modes) is well established: “In general terms, ablation studies indicate that the cortex of the dorsal and lateral prefrontal surface is primarily involved in cognitive aspects of behavior. The rest of the prefrontal cortex, medial and ventral [middle and bottom], appears to be mostly involved in affective [emotional] and motivational functions.” 7

Normal behavior involves the interaction of these two aspects of the internal world. This is illustrated by the case of a gentleman who had much of his orbitofrontal cortex removed because of a cancerous growth. The operation completely changed his personality. His ability to plan was still present—because dorsolateral frontal cortex was reasonably intact. However, these schemes lacked emotional depth—because orbitofrontal cortex was missing. For example, soon after he returned to work, he “established a partnership with a man of questionable reputation and went into business, against sound advice. The venture proved catastrophic. He had to declare bankruptcy and lost his entire personal investment…His wife left home with the children and filed for divorce…He married within a month after his first divorce, against the advice of his relatives. The second marriage ended in divorce two years later.” Ten years further on, at the time when this paper was written, he was “considering a third marriage to a woman 14 years his senior and planned to establish a luxury travel business in which he would drive vacationing persons around the country in a motor home.” 5 Notice that his internal world was full of Perceiver facts, Server actions, and Contributor plans. These entities, though, were unaccompanied by either Mercy feelings of appropriateness or by Teacher understanding, and he completely ignored the Mercy feelings and Teacher words of those who were close to him.

Researchers have discovered two behavioral tests which can only be completed with an intact dorsolateral frontal cortex. The first is a simple one that researchers use on monkeys, called delayed response. An animal is placed in front of two covered containers. The monkey watches as a person lifts up one of the lids, puts some food in the container, and then replaces the lid. After a delay of a few moments, during which the animal is forced to look away from the containers, the monkey is then permitted to reach for the food, which requires remembering in which container it was placed. If the monkey finds the morsel, then for the next test, the food is placed in the other container.

“Delayed Response performance in monkeys has been shown to depend upon dorsolateral prefrontal [another word for frontal] cortex…The association between Delayed Response and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is one of the best established brain-behavior relations in the study of cortical localization.” 8

I suggest that the delayed response test depends upon the knowing of the Perceiver internal world. Remember that a Perceiver fact is a set of connections between Mercy experiences. In this case, Perceiver strategy must know which container is connected with the food, and which is not connected with the food. The alternation and distraction ensures that automatic Perceiver thought is insufficient: The location of the food alternates, therefore repetition cannot be used to build up a sense of reasonableness. Moreover, the location of the food must be remembered. Thus, the visual object recognition provided by automatic Perceiver cortex is inadequate. In order to remember the current location of the food, the monkey must observe where it is placed and pull this connection between food and container into the internal Perceiver world as a belief.[KKK]

This connection between belief and behavior is seen clearly in the second test, called the Wisconsin card sort, which is given to humans. Performance of this task also depends upon the integrity of the dorsolateral frontal cortex. The test uses a set of cards similar to a normal deck of cards. Each card has symbols printed on it, which vary in number, shape and color. The subject is given the deck, and told to sort the cards, but not given any instructions on how they should be sorted. Instead, after the subject makes some particular choice, the examiner tells him whether his sorting decision has been right or wrong. Whenever a person has made ten correct decisions, the examiner then changes the criterion for judging, also without telling the subject. For instance, the tester may begin by expecting the subject to sort the cards according to color. He may then change to accepting decisions based upon shape.

In order to complete this task successfully, a person must use Perceiver thought to decide how Mercy experiences are connected, believe in those facts, and then on his own initiative, change these beliefs when they are no longer correct. It is this altering of belief which humans with dorsolateral frontal damage find especially difficult. Instead, they tend to stick with the first sorting rule that they discover. Amazingly, when the criterion for sorting changes, they may even tell the examiner the new rule while simultaneously continuing to sort by the old one, even saying “This is wrong, and this is wrong,” while repeatedly making those same incorrect decisions.8

We have looked at the brain locations for Perceiver automatic thought and for the Perceiver internal world. I suggest that the brain also contains a processor which handles Perceiver thought, called thehippocampus. There are two of these brain centers, one located underneath each temporal lobe, behind and above the amygdala.

The neurological evidence connecting Perceiver thought with the right hippocampus is quite clear. In fact, some researchers even make a distinction between the right and left hippocampi, associating Perceiver-like thinking with the former and Server-like thought with the latter: “Evidence from single unit and lesion studies suggests that the hippocampal formation acts as a spatial or cognitive map…Computations within this framework enable the animal to identify its location within an environment, to predict the location which will be reached as a result of any specific movement from that location, and conversely, to calculate the spatial transformation necessary to go from the current location to a desired location…In infra-human species such as the rat, the cognitive map is confined to the analysis and manipulation of spatial information; but for the human the concept is broadened to include the notion of a semantic map in the left hippocampus. This map acts to organize abstract linguistic material into a map-like narrative. The right human hippocampus is held to function as a purely spatial system.” 9

Objects in Space and Time

Let us review. We started this section by looking at object recognition. I suggested that this task is performed by automatic Perceiver strategy working together with automatic Mercy thought. I then suggested that automatic Perceiver and Mercy thought and the internal world of Perceiver and Mercy thinking operate in exactly the same way, and that the only difference between these two aspects of thought lies in the method by which information is allowed to enter. We then compared the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two methods. Finally, we took a detour into neurology.

If automatic thought and the internal world operate in the same way, then we can gain some clues about how one works by looking at the operation of the other. Therefore, I would like to take another look at the topic of object recognition,the simplest form of Mercy-Perceiver interaction.

Normally, when we think of an object, we are reminded of some specific thing which just ‘sits there’: a car, a knife, a pair of scissors—in other words, a collection of bits which is spatially related. You can see this type of fact illustrated by the diagram of the ‘car.’ Notice how the Perceiver fact of ‘car’ ties together the individual Mercy elements of wheels, motor, steering wheel, doors and seats. All of these Mercy experiences are connected by space: The wheels are at the bottom, the engine is (usually) at the front, the doors are on the outside, and the steering wheel is somewhere in the middle.

When we discussed facts and Perceiver processing, however, we said only that Perceiver thought notices connections between individual Mercy experiences; it looks for events which belong together. We did not say anything about space. We only assumed that these connections involved space—that the various bits were above, below, inside and behind each other.[LLL]

It is also possible for Perceiver processing to tie together Mercy experiences which are connected by time. Analyze, for instance, the process of jumping off a cliff. First a person jumps, then his body sails through the air, and finally it goes ‘splat’ at the bottom of the slope. Unlike the Mercy experiences which make up the fact of a ‘car,’ these Mercy experiences do not occur at the same time. Rather, one event occurs, and then the next.

As far as Perceiver thought is concerned, however, all that matters is connections. Are individual experiences linked? If they are, then Perceiver strategy has discovered a fact. Therefore, if ‘jumping off the cliff’ is always connected with ‘going splat,’ then Perceiver mode will decide that a fact exists about ‘falling.’ We give many names to Perceiver facts which involve time: cause and effect, sowing and reaping, cost/benefit, work and wages. In each case, Perceiver strategy tries to connect Mercy experiences which are separated by intervals of time.

 Actually, I suggest that the division between space and time is somewhat artificial. Events which are connected over time are generally related spatially as well. The bottom of the cliff, for example, always lies below the top where the jump occurred. A similar ambiguity occurs with space: The mind seems to be incapable of grasping all of a spatial object at the same time. Rather, the eye scans a scene and focuses upon one aspect after another, building up a mental image over time. Advertising makes a science out of guiding what the eye sees when. Even physicists have given up referring to space and time as separate entities and now speak of a ‘space-time continuum.’

Art and Belief

We have come up with a few principles about Mercy and Perceiver strategies. First, we learned that object recognition is carried out by automatic Mercy and Perceiver thought. Then, we realized that automatic thought and the internal world both operate in similar ways. Finally, we saw that objects actually come in the two flavors of spatial objects and temporal objects. If automatic Perceiver and Mercy strategy work with two types of objects, then we should also find these same two kinds of structures present within the internal world. What are these mental objects? Let us use logic to construct an answer out of our existing pieces of information.

First, we know that Mercy experiences enter the internal Mercy world either because of their innate overwhelming emotion, or else through a willing identification with an experience. Second, we also know that Perceiver facts are ushered in through the step of belief.[MMM] Third, we have learned that Perceiver facts build connections between Mercy experiences. Therefore, we conclude that the interaction between the internal worlds of Perceiver and Mercy thought will involve Perceiver systems of belief tying together individual Mercy experiences related to feelings and to identity. And, we should also find that these mental structures come in two flavors—one related to space and the other to time.

Now that we have come up with a theoretical idea, let us see if we can find some examples which can lasso this ‘castle in the air’ and bring it down to the solid earth of real experience. We will start by expanding upon the idea of a ‘spatial’ internal object.[NNN]

Think, for instance, of a picture hanging on a wall, or a sculpture sitting in a museum. These definitely are spatial objects—they sit there and do nothing. But, they are usually more than just objects. Rather, the artist or sculptor is attempting to say something: First, he is trying to tell us about his system of belief. If he puts a soup can on top of a pile of garbage, he is making a statement about consumerism. He believes that there is a Perceiver connection between trash, food, and society.

Second, not only is the artist telling us about his beliefs, but his identity and his feelings are usually involved as well. Have you ever tried to criticize a work of art? The average artist takes this as apersonal attack.[OOO] When you condemn what he has produced, he thinks that you are condemning him. The relationship between art, identity and emotions is so strong that it has become almost taboo to denigrate the work of an artist. These days, in fact, one can produce just about anything without being condemned as long as it is called art.

I suggest that another example of an object living within the internal world of Mercy and Perceiver thought is religion. First, every religion is based upon some set of beliefs—a group of Perceiver facts which fill the internal world of Perceiver thought. Second, religion is strongly related to identity. It touches meand tells me what I should think, say, do, and so on. Finally, religion definitely addresses emotional topics. If some person wants to know facts about issues such as life, sickness, death, morality and God, he turns traditionally to religion for answers.

I suggest that religion and morality are often viewed as something static—like a picture hanging on the wall. We speak of attaining a ‘state of perfection’ as if it is some location or place to be reached. We ‘quiet our hearts’ and ‘become still’ so that we can ‘meditate on God.’ We view God as Someone who is ‘sitting’ on a throne. Art and religion themselves are related. Many religions use static art as an aid in worshipping a static God.

The Greek Stoic philosophers took this idea of static religion and carried it to its logical extreme. If perfection was a passive state, then God had to be immovable, since any shift would take Him away from His state of perfection. Changing matter became evil, by definition, since anything which moved obviously did not staywithin a perfect place.

The problem with static objects is that they are ‘dead.’ An object just sits there; it does nothing; it is not alive. When a body does not move or breathe, we conclude that it is a corpse and we bury it. I suggest that the same principle appears to apply to systems of belief. When they become static, they also ‘die.’

I suggest that we have stumbled across something which is quite significant. Remember that the goal of this book is not just to understand the mind. Rather, we want to build an understanding which can guide us in programming the mind. Therefore, when we come up with a relationship involving ‘static lack of motion’ and ‘death,’ we need to examine the topic further. So, let us look at the interaction between time, movement and life. I suggest that we will discover insights which are not found within the average book or news magazine, even if the name claims a connection with time or life.