Mercy Internal

Turning our attention now to the front of the cortex, some evidence specifically linking the right orbitofrontal cortex to the Mercy internal world does exist. For instance, one researcher mentions that “...patients who are restless, impulsive, explosive, self indulgent, inappropriate, sexually disinhibited, little concerned for others…are more likely to have right orbitofrontal lesions.”⁴ These undesirable traits can be summarized as emotional reactions to experiences without the help of a set of emotional guidelines.

Most of the evidence, though, looks at the right and left orbitofrontal cortices as a complete system. For example, “Few patients who sustain major frontal lobe lesions ever engage in creative endeavors or in the pursuit of meaningful interpersonal relationships.

Taste, in the aesthetic and social sense, is a trait that the frontal-lobe- damaged patient will find difficult or impossible to cultivate…We believe this set of behavioral abnormalities is strongly associated with lesions of the orbitofrontal region and not at all with the more superior dorsolateral or mesial lesions.”⁵

We have looked at the content of Mercy thought. Evidence suggests that there is also a specific brain center which does the actual Mercy processing. Neurology has found that buried within the temporal lobe is a nucleus, called the amygdala, which processes feelings. As one researcher states, “the amygdala mediates the encoding into memory of both positive and negative emotional attributes associated with reinforcement contingencies during a specific learning experience. A learning may be encoded into memory by different neural systems, the amygdala encoding the emotional attributes of the experience.” ⁶

This same volume mentions that when the amygdala is removed in humans, “hyperactivity is said to decrease, fear and aggression harder to provoke; emotional control enhanced, resulting in better concentration, a steadier mood, and more rewarding social interactions…There can also be problems: decreased spontaneity, productivity, and elaboration of emotion.

Amygdalectomy does not significantly impair general intellectual or memory function.”

In other words, science, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that humans can survive reasonably well without emotional processing. Scary, isn‟t it? As we go through this book, we will see that this statement is not an academic aberration. Rather, it defines the fundamental premise of modern science: Humans do better without feelings.

Mercy

Coming back to the amygdala. There are in fact two of these almond- shaped centers,^A one buried within each of the two temporal lobes.

Neurological literature generally does not distinguish between them, but rather treats emotional processing as a single entity.

This seemingly insignificant point was actually responsible for a major breakthrough in our research. Initially we thought, like most others, that feelings were synonymous with Mercy processing, and that emotions and experiences always went together. So, it made sense when we read that the right temporal lobe—the storage location for Mercy experiences—

contained an amygdala—the emotional processor.

But, why was there also an amygdala within the left temporal lobe?

Logically speaking, if the right amygdala was responsible for Mercy emotions, then the left amygdala must be adding feelings to Teacher thought. This reasoning led us to examine the traits of the Teacher person for emotional content. To our surprise, we discovered that Teacher thought did operate with feelings—Teacher feelings. What are these Teacher feelings? We will answer that question when we describe Teacher thought.^B

In summary, I suggest that Mercy thought contains three components:

First, the memories of Mercy automatic thought are stored in the right temporal lobe. Second, the Mercy internal world is located in the right orbitofrontal cortex. Third, Mercy processing is done by the right amygdala. Or, in the words of one researcher, “the close anatomical relations between the orbital cortex and temporal lobe structures, the amygdala in particular, suggest that those temporal lobe structures, together with the orbital cortex, form a neural complex essential for the appraisal of the motivational significance of objects, for emotional expression, and for social bonding.”⁷

A Amygdala is Latin for almond-shaped.

B The logical necessity for a connection between the verbal thinking of the left temporal lobe and the feelings of the left amygdala seems rather obvious, and yet I have not found it mentioned anywhere in the neurological literature. There may be a psychological reason for this oversight. Scientific research tries to remain objective and to avoid emotions. Therefore, it would shy away from the idea that the theories of science themselves generate an emotional response.

Perceiver Strategy

We will start our discussion of the Perceiver person by taking another look at the diagram of mental symmetry. Notice that the word „Perceiver‟

is at the top right of the first diagram. The top axis tells us that the Perceiver is associative; the left axis shows that the Perceiver works with abstract data; finally, the diagonal indicates that the Perceiver uses confidence to evaluate information.

Associative Thought

Notice that both the Mercy and the Perceiver persons think associatively. Their thoughts are constantly bouncing from one memory to another. When the analytical person reads a book, he starts from page one and reads through until the end. The associative person, in contrast, may start in the middle, thumb through a few pages here and there, see if the story has a good ending, and then go back to the beginning. This difference in approach became very clear to me during the time that I, an associative Perceiver person, worked together with my brother, an analytical Teacher person. I would typically begin my analysis of a problem at the easiest point, even if it was right in the middle. On the other hand, my brother started at the beginning, regardless of the difficulty.

While the Mercy and Perceiver persons use the same type of thinking, the information which they process is quite different. The Mercy person works with concrete data—images, pictures, and real events. He looks at the windows on a barn, for instance, and sees a face with half-closed eyes leering out at him. He notices the body language of another individual and is reminded of experiences involving personal acceptance and rejection. He plays around with real objects in order to get a feeling for how they interact.

Both Mercy and Perceiver persons think associatively.

 The Mercy associates between experiences with emotional labels.

 The Perceiver associates between facts with labels of confidence.

The Perceiver person, on the other hand, deals with abstract information; he associates between facts and concepts. He does not work with the experience itself, but rather with the idea behind the experience.

Just as the mind of the Mercy individual is constantly jumping from one experience to another, so the Perceiver person‟s mind is continually bouncing between ideas. Let me illustrate with the help of a joke.

Question: “Why are fire trucks red?” Answer: “Because fire trucks have four people and eight wheels. Four plus eight is twelve. There are twelve

inches in a foot. A foot is a ruler. Queen Elizabeth is a Ruler. Queen Elizabeth is also a ship. A ship sails on the ocean. Oceans have fish. Fish have fins. The Finns fought the Russians. Fire trucks are always rushin‟.

Russians are red. Therefore fire trucks are red!” Of course, as the Perceiver person becomes more

educated, his mental connections tend to make a little more sense, but I suggest that

his mind may still go from „a‟ to „b‟ by stumbling through half of the alphabet.

This associativity generally shows up in the speech of the Perceiver person. He bounces from one topic to another. He is often saying: “Oh, that reminds me…” as he begins another chain of associations. It also affects the listening of the Perceiver person. He is tempted to interrupt others before they finish speaking. Why? First, his mind has already jumped ahead of the speaker and completed the sentence. While the talker is wending his way from „d‟ to „e,‟ the Perceiver person has arrived at the destination of „j.‟ Why should he listen further? The Perceiver person also tends to approach reading in the same way. He often skims through a book or article and picks out the essential points. Usually, he arrives at the correct mental destination. But, not always.

Second, the words of the other person probably reminded the Perceiver person of some related idea, and he knows that if he does not say it right now, it will be gone, and he will not know how to bring it back. Besides, since the thinking of the Perceiver person is constantly being dragged from one concept to another, what is the harm of one more interruption?

What the Perceiver person does not realize is that there are people out there who really do think linearly, who actually read books from start to finish and who hate to be interrupted in the middle of a sentence. I learned this principle while working with my analytical brother. I did not barge in when he was talking, and heaven help me if I dared to interrupt his speech with a pun or some other offbeat remark. Oh, the agony that I suffered constantly biting my tongue, keeping my mouth shut, and swallowing scores of brilliant comments, which then died stillborn. I received a plaque once from a group of friends as a moving-away gift. On it was inscribed,

“We will miss you, but not the puns.”

A map provides a perfect illustration of Perceiver processing: First, as I suggested earlier in the book, a map is associative. Symbols indicating names, cities, roads, rivers, and mountains all lie scattered about on a single sheet of paper. This is a good picture of Perceiver memory. His mental room is full of facts strewn here and there with no regard for context—information about mountains lies next to facts about the

„information highway‟ which connect to knowledge about the price of tea in China. If at times the Perceiver person appears to be somewhat

scatterbrained, it is because he is—this is the true nature of raw Perceiver thought.^A

Second, a map is based upon connections. Names, lines and symbols are not just placed randomly on a map. Instead, cities which are linked by roads are shown as dots connected by lines. Locations which are spatially connected in real life are shown close together on a map—it is this relationship which make a map so useful. These links are related to distance: Locations which are not directly connected are further apart.^B For Perceiver strategy, the memory lies in the connections. These are all- important.

Third, a map is abstract. The Mercy person remembers experiences about real rivers, bustling towns, and towering mountains. In contrast, the Perceiver person steps back and looks at the facts behind the experiences.

He actually thinks of towns as little black and red dots, and remembers a freeway as a pair of green lines snaking across a piece of paper. For him, thinking is like playing with Lego blocks: He takes the messy stuff of raw experience and idealizes it into neat, square, well-fitting blocks of information. Then he builds mental objects by playing around with these abstract representations of reality.^C

Fourth, a map represents reality. The dots and lines symbolize real towns and physical roads. The Perceiver may be an abstract thinker, but he does not build castles in the air. He may step back from reality, but he never cuts the link that binds him to the real world. His bricks of thought may seem idealistic, but they still have their basis in the real world. This is because Perceiver thought can take the oozing clay of experience and form it into the bricks of solid facts, but it cannot build memories out of thin air.

It is this mental limitation which forces him to maintain contact with the concrete world.

Finally, a map varies in detail. Maps can be city plans which show all the streets in a certain town, or round globes which depict the entire world.

Similarly, Perceiver thought can look either at the overall picture of the

„forest,‟ or focus on the details of the „trees.‟ Perceiver thought is equally at home with major principles and with small details—mental bricks can

A Notice that I said raw Perceiver thought. The rest of the mind can help to bring order and meaning to Perceiver associations.

B The presence of a road can bring locations close together which are physically far apart, while the absence of a good road can make locations quite far apart, even though they are not separated by great distances. We will see later that this warping of maps occurs when Server strategy influences Perceiver thought.

C In the language of Plato, Perceiver strategy works with the forms of reality, and not reality itself.

be any size. Small bits of information are assembled to form big pictures, and general principles are broken down into their component parts. Just as Mercy strategy is the part of the mind which is responsible for storing memories of experiences, so Perceiver thought is responsible for building the connections between the forest and the trees of mental facts.

The Diagram of Mental Symmetry

We have talked a little about Perceiver thought. I would now like to illustrate Perceiver thinking by looking at the diagram of mental symmetry.

As you know by now, I am a Perceiver person, and I suggest that this diagram provides a picture of my way of thinking. In particular, I would like to tell you why I chose to call it the „diagram of mental symmetry.‟

First of all, what we have is a diagram. I have just stated that Perceiver strategy thinks in terms of mental maps. A diagram is a type of map. It takes words and symbols, and depicts them in a way that shows the connections between these various items. The diagram of mental symmetry labels the major processing modes of the mind, and indicates the connections between these strategies of thought.

As a Perceiver person, I found that my research was usually driven by a search for connections. I developed this theory of the mind by taking the concepts of others, and by connecting them together to form a general understanding. I analyzed the mind by looking at each mode of thought and by seeing how it connected with other ways of thinking.

Second, it is a diagram of mental symmetry. The Perceiver person is naturally attracted to the facts behind experiences. What we are examining here are the general principles which lie behind human thought and action.

I suggest that this approach can be very helpful. We live in a world of complex human interactions, a sea of people and institutions. What lies behind every human interaction is the human mind. Therefore, if we can work out a map of thinking, this can help us to keep our mental directions straight when we interact with other people or with other rooms within our own mind.

For instance, open a newspaper and see how many of our problems involve people and mental conflict: An ex-employee walks into the office and kills six people before committing suicide; a country erupts into ethnic conflict because one group of people hates another; part of a country wants to secede because it either feels that it is being mistreated or else it senses that its culture is being threatened; a terrorist blows up a building or derails a train because of some perceived injustice. The list goes on and on.

Occasionally we read about a real catastrophe like a flood or a hurricane but even here the human element seems to intrude: If a spaceship blows up, then there is a suspicion of improper engineering; if a hurricane strikes, the story centers upon the slow response of the emergency teams. You can see

why I as a Perceiver person would want to study the mind: It connects with so many other topics and situations.

Third, what we are looking at is a diagram of mental symmetry. Over the years, I have discovered that there are amazing symmetries within human thought. My reflection in a mirror provides an example of physical symmetry. The image that I see in a mirror looks just like my body, except that left and right are flipped.^A The same principle seems to apply to cognitive styles. Take the personality traits of one thinking style, „flip‟

them with a certain type of „mirror,‟ and you end up with the traits of another style. For example, there is a symmetry between Perceiver and Mercy thought. Both think associatively—here the mental „image‟ is the same, but one works with abstract facts and the other with concrete experiences—here the image is „flipped.‟ Perceiver thought is always looking for symmetries. This kind of a mind is constantly reflecting mental images and concepts one way and then another in order to try to match them up.

By now some of you may be asking: “If this book is a description of Perceiver thought, why do the rest of us need to read it? Let the Perceivers have their facts and connections. We do not need to bother with all of this esoteric information.” I have often received this type of response, and it needs to be addressed. After all, libraries are full of books written by people trying to impose their mental approach upon other thinking styles.

I would like to suggest two reasons why this book is relevant, even for those who do not have the cognitive style of Perceiver: First, while Perceiver persons like maps, we all need them. It is true that studying the map is not the same as being there, but being there is much more enjoyable with a map. Think of the courage of explorers such as Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan, who sailed off into open sea not knowing when, where and what they would find. In our day of well- marked freeways and established rules and procedures we forget the terror associated with the lack of a map.

I had my own experience recently of wandering around terra incognito without a map. When we go to the store, in North America, we all assume that we will find the corn flakes next to the bran flakes, and that the car tires will be in the section with the car batteries. However, when I visited

A Here is a silly question. Why are left and right reversed in a mirror image but not top and bottom? The answer lies in the fact that a mirror does not flip an image, but reflects it correctly. We, in fact, flip left and right when we turn to face another person in real life. In order to answer this riddle, one must uncover the implicit assumption: We think that standing face to face is normal and not reversed. Time and again I have found that apparent paradoxes resolve themselves when I let go of my assumptions and ask the right questions.