Personality Cafe banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I came across this article recently I thought I would share, to me it is quite interesting with how it relates to general J and P characteristics.

Basically scientist believe that the brain divide of left/right preference is more of a myth than a reality. What data has found is that both sides of the brain tend to be used equally and work together. The differences between the two halves is really quite small.

What they have discovered is that brain activity can be divided by it's top and bottom parts.

"the top part sets up plans and revises those plans when expected events do not occur" (sounds very J like to me)
"the bottom classifies and interprets what we perceive." (like perceivers?)

Perhaps this is where the Jness or Pness of people come from? :p


Here is a link to the article:
Kosslyn and Miller: There Is No Left-Brain/Right-Brain Divide | TIME.com

And here is a like to a top/bottom brain test (always fun):
Top Brain Bottom Brain Quiz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Here's a longer Atlantic article by these guys about their little theory. Maybe I'm missing something, but here's my quick take:

The authors start out by noting that much of the pop-psych stuff you read about left/right brain has failed to stand up to "scientific scrutiny." 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 will tend to be one of four types (Movers, Perceivers, Stimulators and Adaptors) based on whether they "tend to rely heavily on both brain systems" or "rely heavily on the bottom brain system but not the top" or "rely heavily on the top but not the bottom" or "don’t rely heavily on either system."

But here's the thing: They don't cite a single study in support of their "theory." The only studies they describe — both in the Atlantic article I've linked to and this Wall Street Journal article — are studies that support the idea that the top and bottom brains perform different functions, not studies that suggest that someone will have a somewhat hardwired tendency to be a top-brain person or a bottom-brain person or a both-halves person or a neither-half person.

And yet, as I said, they open their article by criticizing left/right brain theories on the grounds that they've failed to withstand "scientific scrutiny." And I'd also say that both articles are written in a way that would lead a casual reader to think that the top brain and bottom brain studies they describe somehow support their "four types" theory.

And in any case, 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. Until they've done some studies, I'd say it's too early to be publishing a book aimed at the general public (like Kosslyn and Miller did) and publishing articles in mass market periodicals and saying things like (see the WSJ article) "Oprah Winfrey is X type" and "Elizabeth Taylor was Y type" and you can take our little test and find out what type you are!

Maybe the real "theory" behind the book is "If that goofball Gladwell can make big bucks writing pop-psych books, why not us?" :tongue:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
Yeah I don't think there is a mutually exclusive dichotomy here.....

I didn't identify with any of it:

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ksara

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Here's a longer Atlantic article by these guys about their little theory. Maybe I'm missing something, but here's my quick take:

The authors start out by noting that much of the pop-psych stuff you read about left/right brain has failed to stand up to "scientific scrutiny." 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 will tend to be one of four types (Movers, Perceivers, Stimulators and Adaptors) based on whether they "tend to rely heavily on both brain systems" or "rely heavily on the bottom brain system but not the top" or "rely heavily on the top but not the bottom" or "don’t rely heavily on either system."

But here's the thing: They don't cite a single study in support of their "theory." The only studies they describe — both in the Atlantic article I've linked to and this Wall Street Journal article — are studies that support the idea that the top and bottom brains perform different functions, not studies that suggest that someone will have a somewhat hardwired tendency to be a top-brain person or a bottom-brain person or a both-halves person or a neither-half person.

And yet, as I said, they open their article by criticizing left/right brain theories on the grounds that they've failed to withstand "scientific scrutiny." And I'd also say that both articles are written in a way that would lead a casual reader to think that the top brain and bottom brain studies they describe somehow support their "four types" theory.

And in any case, 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. Until they've done some studies, I'd say it's too early to be publishing a book aimed at the general public (like Kosslyn and Miller did) and publishing articles in mass market periodicals and saying things like (see the WSJ article) "Oprah Winfrey is X type" and "Elizabeth Taylor was Y type" and you can take our little test and find out what type you are!

Maybe the real "theory" behind the book is "If that goofball Gladwell can make big bucks writing pop-psych books, why not us?" :tongue:

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.

You make a valid point here.

That is, I need to check my sources (...but at 12am I have very little motivation to do a thorough search to cross check the validity of this article...actually I was looking at left vs right brainedness and how this was a misconception when this popped up)

And their real 'theory' isn't a bad idea that could be recycled...disprove their top/bottom brain theory and promote a front/back brain theory haha :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,085 Posts
IMO anyone who says anything about how the brain works isn't going on fact. Everyone we know now is going to be proved wrong (or most of it anyway). Yes, left vs. right is almost definitely a myth as far as actual brain processing, but so is this - sorry - crap this doctor is trying to say. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the idea that we don't know crap about the brain, as much as we try to. This is definitely not the golden age of neuroscience. And I say this as someone with a series of neurological disorders, who has had her brain and study of her brain impact most of her life.

That aside, here's my results
You Have
Tendency To Rely on Top/Tendency Not To Rely on Bottom
Which Means
You think in situational Stimulator Mode: you tend to make and act on plans, but do not always register consequences and adjust plans accordingly, but are particularly context dependent.
It really wasn't anything but a J vs P test. Funny this scientist is so concerned with this and evaluating this when MBTI factors it in already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ksara

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
You tend to think in*Adaptor Mode*(you are open to being absorbed by local events, are action-oriented and responsive to ongoing situations), but sometimes think inStimulator Mode*instead (you make and act on plans, but do not always register consequences and adjust plans accordingly).

Interesting

But yeah I agree could all be codswallop
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
You Have
Very Strong Tendency Not To Rely on Top/Very Strong Tendency Not To Rely on Bottom

Which Means
You usually think in Adaptor Mode: You are open to being absorbed by local events, are action-oriented and responsive to on-going situations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
You Have
Tendency To Rely on Top/Tendency Not To Rely on Bottom

Which Means
You think in situational Stimulator Mode: you tend to make and act on plans, but do not always register consequences and adjust plans accordingly, but are particularly context dependent.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top