Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

masterpeach

Debunking the Hemispheres: The Cognitive Mode Theory

A New Map of How We Think: Top Brain/Bottom Brain

Our theory has emerged from the field of neuropsychology, the study of higher cognitive functioning—thoughts, wishes, hopes, desires and all other aspects of mental life. Higher cognitive functioning is seated in the cerebral cortex, the rind-like outer layer of the brain that consists of four lobes.

[...]

The top- and bottom-brain systems always work together, just as the hemispheres always do. Our brains are not engaged in some sort of constant cerebral tug of war, with one part seeking dominance over another.

[...]

Our theory predicts that people fit into one of four groups, based on their typical use of the two brain systems. Depending on the degree to which a person uses the top and bottom systems in optional ways, he or she will operate in one of four cognitive modes: Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator and Adaptor.

Read on: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304410204579139423079198270

Yet another 4-types system that reminds me of temperament theory, albeit scientifically "proven".

Edited by masterpeach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our brains are not engaged in some sort of constant cerebral tug of war, with one part seeking dominance over another.

Who's suggested a 'tug of war' ?

It seems to me, just the newest perspective trying to make a living by hyping what they see differently.

I don't see much value in the perspective from a broad view. Sure, in a small view, it's likely to have some value.

Edited by RBM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's suggested a 'tug of way' ?

MBTI, Jung, Big Five are personality theories based on preference dominance

HBDI (Herman Brain Dominance Model which is based on the hemisphere theory)

Edited by masterpeach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mover mode results when the top- and bottom-brain systems are both highly utilized in optional ways.
Finally, there is Adaptor mode, which results when neither the top- nor the bottom-brain system is highly utilized in optional ways.

How does someone utilize or not utilize their brain in an "optional" way? Unless it was a typo and they meant "optimal."

Individuals who operate in different modes can complement each other to form a successful team. Consider, say, a mayor who has an efficient staff. Her policy experts may be people who habitually operate in Perceiver mode; the person answering phone calls from constituents perhaps habitually uses Adaptor mode; the chief of staff might be someone who often operates in Mover or Stimulator mode (but, if the latter, someone will need to exert quality control on the ideas). All the while, the mayor could be operating in Mover mode. She is at the center, drawing on help as needed.
No one mode is "better" than the others. Each is more or less useful in different circumstances, and each contributes something useful to a team.

Much as dislike elitism and want to believe that, I can't help but think people are going to find the "Mover mode" much more appealing than the "Adaptor mode."

Edited by thebrainpolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does someone utilize or not utilize their brain in an "optional" way?

I had the same question. Maybe the authors belong to the "adaptor mode" group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read on: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304410204579139423079198270

Yet another 4-types system that reminds me of temperament theory, albeit scientifically "proven".

Just for fun; I attempted to map it to the MBTI and came up with the following:

Mover: J

Perceiver: (I)NP

Stimulator: "irrational/failed" J; perhaps more likely to be S than N (although I might just be biased ;D)

Adaptor: SP

The adaptor does certainly fit SP very well. The mover made me first think of NJ, but it should fit SJ as well. Perceiver does sound sort of introverted.

EDIT: I got stimulator from the test. I might just have labeled myself a failure. ;)

Edited by Hariar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The adaptor does certainly fit SP very well. The mover made me first think of NJ, but it should fit SJ as well. Perceiver does sound sort of introverted.

Interesting. Been trying to do the same, and yes, I thought of SPs when I read the adaptors' description.

Movers sound like NJs (visionaries with a strong drive to implement their vision).

Stimulator sounds very T-ish to me (cerebral types), not necessarily N nor S. Perceivers could be related to Si-doms.

Edited by masterpeach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't help but think people are going to find the "Mover mode" much more appealing than the "Adaptor mode."
the test.

:sulk:

You Have

Tendency Not To Rely on Top/Tendency Not To Rely on Bottom

Which Means

You think in situational Adaptor Mode: you are open to being absorbed by local events, are action-oriented and responsive to ongoing situations, but you are particularly context dependent.

As for what MBTI types the modes correlate with, I don't really disagree with anything that's been said so far.

Perceiver mode results when the bottom-brain system is highly utilized in optional ways but the top is not. Think of the Dalai Lama or Emily Dickinson. People who habitually rely on Perceiver mode try to make sense in depth of what they perceive; they interpret their experiences, place them in context and try to understand the implications.

That does seem to match the Si descriptions I've seen.

But they don't make and execute grand plans. By definition, such people—including naturalists, pastors, novelists—typically lead lives away from the limelight. Those who rely on this mode often play a crucial role in a group; they can make sense of events and provide a bigger picture. In business, they are key members of teams, providing perspective and wisdom but not always getting credit.

Could be INP as well.

Then there is Stimulator mode... Such people may be creative and original, able to think outside the box even when everybody around them has a fixed way of approaching an issue. At the same time, they may not always note when enough is enough. Their actions can be disruptive, and they may not adjust their behavior appropriately.

Sounds like my brother and every other male EXTP I've met irl. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but here's my quick take:

They start out by noting that a lot of the pop-psych stuff you read about left/right brain "has no solid basis in science." So far, so good, as far as I know.

Then they explain that, based on respectable studies, it appears that various mental processes can fairly be said to be "top brain" or "bottom brain" things. Again, so far, so good, as far as I know.

But then... they introduce this "theory" they have that "predicts that people fit into one of four groups, based on their typical use of the two brain systems. Depending on the degree to which a person uses the top and bottom systems in optional ways, he or she will operate in one of four cognitive modes: Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator and Adaptor." And if, at this point, there's any "solid basis in science" — i.e., any confirming evidence — that people tend to be hard-wired to favor their top/bottom brains in the ways (and with the personality ramifications) that their theory suggests, they fail to mention it.

And if there's no real evidence yet for their theory, it seems to me like publishing a book about it at this point smacks more of economic motivations than scientific motivations.

I also think it's kind of odd that the authors make no mention of the Big Five and how they think their theory relates to it. Perhaps that's in their book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this:

You Have

Tendency To Rely on Top/Tendency To Rely on Bottom

Which Means

You think in situational Mover Mode: You tend to make and act on plans, register consequences, and adjust plans accordingly, but are particularly context dependent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now