How have JN and Brain Typing become so well known?

Now in his third decade of Brain Typing, JN has always taken a low-keyed approach with his work. He has not sought to advertise himself. Rather, as his positive reputation has spread by word of mouth, people and the media have sought him out. JN and BTI have sidestepped many media opportunities, not wanting to promote JN as the “guru.” When JN does speak to the media, he conveys that Brain Typing in “far bigger than himself.” Unfortunately, TV gets higher ratings when they hone in on JN’s unparalleled abilities, or take something poignant he says out of its proper context. What he wants to convey is that this is the wave of the future regarding human understanding, on and off the field. He and BTI firmly believe that Brain Types will be around and permeating society a long time after JN has left this earth (though it may have a different name). Just as Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs further developed and used Jungian typology to influence mutual understanding and development, so BTI takes Jung/Myers typology to a higher level in order for people to find even greater relevance and application.

JN is regularly sought out by the top athletes (primarily professional) in America. This year JN helped an athlete earning in excess of $100 million and he has also assisted many others approaching $100 million on their contracts. He recently consulted for one of the greatest tennis players in history and has frequently coached world-class performers in baseball, basketball, football, golf, and tennis. Add to this JN’s history of working with world-class performers in swimming, diving, skating, snow skiing—even such remote sports as motocross, drag racing, and surfing. It’s hard to find a sport in which JN hasn’t helped to take athletes to their highest level. We know of no other sports consultant who is as much in demand and has JN’s abilities or reputation. As a result, many in the public sector have heard of JN and BT.


Is JN one to jump to quick conclusions or to subscribe to fanciful ideas?

JN is one of the most cautious and conservative men you will ever meet. The LAST thing he does is jump to hasty conclusions. For those who know him well, the joke is that he is always implored by others to “give birth.” Until every stone is overturned, he will not quit. He must get to the bottom of whatever he values, and BT has been his passion since the 1970s. It is safe to assert that Jon cannot be accused of being superficial, or that he doesn’t thoroughly research his interests.

Another positive characteristic of JN, as recognized and often expressed by those with whom he works, can be summarized in the words super-star Sammy Sosa shared with the media, Jon “is a good person.”


Wouldn’t the ultimate skeptics say that BT’s seem unfathomable?

BTI and JN are the first to say that Brain Types initially seem unfathomable—beyond belief. This is why Jon scrutinized people for as long as he did before he finally came to his startling conclusions. As a skeptic once said, “it’s never been done before.” Well, it’s not only never been done, few have ever imagined it before! Since the beginning of creation, mankind has not thought that people could be categorized based upon what we call Brain Types (not personality or psychological types—which have been developed). It was incomprehensible to imagine people fitting into 16 different categories—each with distinct inborn cerebral, motor, and spatial skill traits—regardless of one’s race. (BT dispel the controversial “Bell Curve” book) Not only that, it couldn’t be imagined that each Type has an opposite Type which shares few cerebral and motor skill similarities with itself (yet these opposite designs are a great balance to one another). If we were to give this deep thought—these specific designs, all complementary to one another and bringing about the common good—the notion of an All-mighty Creator in this process comes into play. Thoroughly studying BT over these past few decades has made us convinced they are real, as well as immensely beneficial for personal growth.

Actually, we cannot think of any area of society, including science, where there isn’t controversy regarding what is truly valid. Every day we become aware of another new research project that undermines something we were told to scientifically believe only 10 years (or sooner) before.

Today, 9-23-02, we read in USA Today that protons are no longer round, they are elliptical. “So what?” you say. Well, believe it or not, this is a major discovery, contradicting the past 40 years of scientists’ beliefs and textbooks in America! Consider the following newspaper excerpts:


“Physicists thrown for a loop”

By Dan Vergano
USA TODAY
9-23-02

The humble proton, an atomic particle with mysteries long thought solved, turns out to have a hidden secret, scientists report.

Experimental results released this year by the Department of energy’s Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., have upturned the normally placid world of nuclear physics with the suggestion that protons, the positively charged particles found in the center of every atom, aren’t round. Instead they are somewhat elliptical.

The round proton has been a staple of textbooks for 40 years, tied to the theory that protons and neutrons are built of three smaller particles called “quarks” slowly bubbling inside their interiors.

What difference does it make whether protons are round or elliptical? Plenty, physicists say. Adjustments in protons and neutrons could affect scientific understanding of the magnetic “spin” of atoms. Scientists hope to use “spintronics” in future computers and tiny “nano-scale” devices. Understanding the fundamental shape of particles will affect those application’s success.

At a Jefferson Lab meeting in May, about 60 nuclear physicists met to debate the “crisis,” in the words of John Ralston of the University of Kansas, over the odd shape of the proton.

end of excerpts.................

We’re not advocating that truth cannot be identified (like some scientists claim), but we are saying that solid science today is often soft science tomorrow. We’re beyond convinced that BT will be authenticated in upcoming genetic studies. Though other scientific and empirical tools can provide support for BT, DNA inspection is the only way for unequivocal confirmation.

Let’s consider one final angle of the aforementioned skeptic’s comment on Brain Typing: “It can NOT be true since it has NEVER been done before.” Think about this statement; if those who’ve come before us applied this misdirected logic, we would not have any of our modern conveniences or inventions of the 21st century. Not only would no one be able to read the enclosed information from a computer, but also one could very well be without his or her high tech, adjustable, micro-fiber chair at this very moment.

We all now revere the famous Wright brothers but consider what it was like for them in their day. AFTER their Kitty Hawk success, the Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and the renowned “Scientific American Magazine” published stories about “The Lying Brothers.” Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local “crazies” who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, and others. Virtually every significant discovery made throughout man’s existence has met with improper criticism—especially from the scientific community!

Of course proper science is able to provide meaningful insight and direction. Unfortunately, what is considered solid science today is often considered outdated or misdirected science tomorrow. Just read your newspaper, and you’ll witness this fact on a weekly basis. But with the advent of genetic analysis, society can rest much easier regarding factual reality and science.


What are the implications if Brain Types are true?

For those who haven’t had the privilege of experiencing the manifold benefits of BT, we understand your enthusiasm level isn’t on the level of those who have. We completely understand your position(s)—especially those of unbiased people. Regardless of your stance toward Brain Typing, for five minutes please attempt the following exercise. Just suppose for only these few minutes that BT’s are true—that each person in the world is born with only 1 of 16 indelible designs that dictate their cerebral/mental, motor, and spatial skills from birth to death. These inherent traits can be measured and applied throughout life—regardless of the direction one would want to apply them. If this were possible, what implications would this hold for yourself, spouse, child, work associate, congressperson—whomever? If one were to give this some serious thought, the implications would be profound—to say the least! Perhaps this gives you a little better understanding of why BTI is so enthused about God’s special creations for mankind. Of course, if Brain Typing is not true, then BTI should rightfully incur scorn.

We firmly believe that Brain Typing will be genetically proven, and when it is it will have worldwide acknowledgment. Its implications will be profound enough that all major and recognized publications and media sources will tout this unparalleled insight. Regardless of whether BTI is the first to bring about this revelation, society will soon witness that all people around the world are born with explicit genetically-induced cerebral and physical traits—classifying them into specific designs.


Is Brain Typing Going Outside the Box?

Consider the following event.

If anyone out there is a scientific pioneer, it’s recent Nobel Prize winner, geneticist Sydney Brenner. In October of 2002, he was one of three recipients of the world’s most prestigious award in Medicine. One of the founders of modern molecular genetics, he proved the existence of messenger RNA and demonstrated the genetic code, both important discoveries leading to the establishment of modern gene technology.

Brenner, founder of the Molecular Science Institute, is known for saying that to make a great discovery, one should be trained outside the field of discovery in order to approach cutting-edge exploration without bias and restraints.

Brenner, 75, is credited with pioneering the field of C. elegans biology at Cambridge University, UK in the 1960s. He chose the worm because it was more complex than other well-understood organisms, such as bacteria, yet still simple enough to study in depth. "It took great foresight to go into this brand new field back in the 1960s" says Geneticist Michael Stern of Yale University.

Consider Roger Brent, President and CEO of the Molecular Sciences Institute, an independent non-profit organizaton dedicated to interdisciplinary biological research that combines genomics with computer modeling. Brenner’s challenge to him of going outside the box made a drastic and positive change in his life.

Quoting Brent: "I started corresponding with Sydney Brenner, who founded the Institute in June 1996. He had a very similar take on things. Sydney bluntly told me that to pursue my interests, I would have to step outside the system. I was then about 40 years old and a scientific risk-taker, but needed that push from Brenner to make it work."

Brent's institution is no ivory tower. Rigorous investigations into predictive biology have landed the institute extensive funding, including a roughly $15.5 million NIH grant, because its research holds the promise of everything from a better understanding and treatment of disease to improvements in agriculture and the environment.

A futurist, Brent has an uncanny ability to step away from his specific research areas and understand the implications of new technologies and business models. As such, Brent has become a valued adviser to the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, the public sector and the fourth estate. He has advised various government bodies worldwide, including the National Institutes of Health, about issues in functional genomics and computational biology.

A prolific writer, Brent is one of the authors of Current Protocols, lab manuals of basic methodology, including Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Brent has been named an inventor on 11 issued and several pending U.S. patents.

The moral of the story: To make an avant-garde discovery, one often needs to enter uncharted waters—not stay within academia orthodoxy.


Are there any other ways to understand the differences between BT and what others often label "typologies", especially Jung/Myers?

The Brain Typing system is far different than any other assessment methodology we’ve ever encountered. Of course, there are two sides to this issue as there are to all issues. (And by the way, if someone wants to be argumentative, one could debate any issue under the sun—regardless of position—and speak some truth into the argument.) One side of the coin is how BT resembles many typological approaches, especially Jung-Myers. We couldn’t agree more. If it weren’t for Jung, Briggs, Myers and other disciples of this form of typology, BT would not exist. The 8 letters we have shared with the public prior to 2003 are the same that scores of variations within Jungian typology employ. (We also have other terminology for a deeper and more scientific understanding of BT--some of which we have recently made public.) We, like all others who support the 8 mental preferences, owe complete gratitude to Carl Jung for 6 of them, and 2 to Myers and Briggs—neither of whom were psychologists. These three people and many thereafter, have provided a rich understanding of what the preferences mean as well as how each of the 16 Jung/Myers types generally operate.

Before moving to the other side of the coin, let’s take a slight diversion and consider Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, mother and daughter. Speaking of Katherine Briggs in Isabel Myers’ book “Gifts Differing” (p. x):

“Katherine, a thinker, a reader, a quiet observer became intrigued with similarities and differences in human personality about the time of World War I. She began to develop her typology, largely through the study of biography, and she then discovered that Jung had evolved a similar system which she quickly accepted and began to explore and elaborate.”

It goes on to speak of daughter Isabel:

“With no formal training in psychology or statistics, with no academic sponsorship or research grants, Myers began the painstaking task of developing an item pool that would tap the attitudes, feelings, perceptions, and behaviors of the different psychological types as she and her mother had come to understand them.”

JN can strongly relate to the experiences of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers.

Renowned temperament and personality type expert—and clinical psychologist, David Keirsey, Ph.D, writes in his best-selling book “Please Understand Me” (p. 15):

(some 5 years out of graduate school)

“And along comes a little old lady from Princeton New Jersey, Isabel Myers, to tell me about myself, about who I was and what I was good for. Oh, I already knew some of that stuff about myself, but I didn’t know that I was a kind or type of person, and that therefore there had to be others just like me.”

Briggs and Myers have passed along numerous examples and benefits to us all.

Back to the other side of the coin, there are numerous dissimilarities (in Brain Typing) to the understanding that millions of Jung-Myers advocates have on typology. Each of the 8 preferences we have attempted to take out of the ethereal realm of the mind and provide a basic cerebral understanding (cognitively, physically, and spatially). In this respect, BT’s definitions go further into each of the 8 preferences than any Jung-Myers supporters of which we are aware. For instance, rather than saying Judging (J) seeks closure, order, structure and so on, and Perceiving (P) is open-ended, adaptable, and non-judgmental, we try to help people see that “J” essentially describes the left brain and “P” correlates with the right hemisphere. (Actually lesser degrees of J and P are within both hemispheres but that is a more cavernous discussion and not relevant to this explanation.) So if Jung-Myers’ devotees can understand the basic right and left brain processes, they, too, can better comprehend why the aforementioned definitions of J and P make sense—even scientifically. Better yet, however, is that they can acquire a much deeper understanding of J and P by seeing how much more comprehensive they are from a cerebral perspective—far more than they ever imagined.

From an athletic standpoint, right-brained P’s have much better [natural] spatial acuity—3 dimensional vision and peripheral awareness (especially when experiencing pressure in competition). For example, after having assessed (or Brain Typed) one of the top picks in a forthcoming draft a few years ago, JN was told by the team’s GM that the athlete scored in the top few of all time with a high-tech vision test (administered by an renowned eye specialist and professional)! The exam was especially designed to evaluate athletes requiring optimal vision. This covered all facets of sight, especially peripheral and stereoscopic vision. This highly regarded athlete was found to have “superior peripheral vision.” Also, His report read “He can physically adapt himself to visual changes as quickly and as well as anyone tested.” “His vision-motor performance was high in critical areas for a (his playing position.)” Understandably (for those who don’t comprehend BT), JN was told that if there was anything the team DIDN’T need to concern themselves with it was the young man’s visual giftedness—straight ahead and sideways.

Knowing, however, the athlete’s specific Brain Type (which JN told the team but not the public) and that he was inherently heavily left-brained, JN told the team that the athlete would function poorly with the spatial awareness necessary for this man’s playing position. With all due respect, JN told them he didn’t care how well the young man “tested” in every area of vision; his inborn BT would never allow him to perform as they expected—physically and spatially. It would be equivalent to putting a 150-pound lineman in the NFL and expecting him to play all season against 300 lb. (and over) brutes. He just wouldn’t hold up over time and especially when the 300 pounders were mad and wanted to win—like in the playoffs. And by the way, the athlete under consideration—JN has never found his BT at point guard in the NBA.

Well, sure enough, the young man with professionally-tested and supposed superior visual acuity was drafted—very high. The team paid a boat load of money for him, and guess what happened? Not only did he fail miserably at his position but he failed primarily because he couldn’t see the field or court before him! His peripheral vision was dreadful—especially under pressure. As he tried to direct his team, he became known as a gifted athlete yet one that resembled a “deer in headlights.” He repeatedly passed the ball into heavy defensive coverage. He couldn’t see the whole field/court of play. As far as BTI knows, only Brain Typing can point out this kind of limitation BEFORE it occurs—especially in pro ball. Yet, this gifted athlete was a STAR in college. Did his vision go bad all of a sudden? No, the pro game is much quicker and sophisticated than college ball and some problems do not manifest themselves until the highest levels of competition—all the more reason for knowing and applying Brain Typing (especially if you own or coach the team).

JN’s book, “Your Key to Sports Success” goes to great length in explaining the much deeper aspects of Brain Typing as compared to Jung-Myers typology; 400 pages clearly demonstrate Brain Typing’s uniqueness and scientific emphasis.


Why call it Brain Types® rather than personality or psychological types?

Many typology advocates have loosely used the terms “personality or psychological types” to describe the 16 different kinds of people. JN is very uncomfortable with these expressions. When he first became exposed to the Jung-Myers theories, as a young disciple he tried to help others understand and identify the 16 “personality” or “psychological” types. Inevitably, many became confused when two persons JN was comparing (identified by type “experts” at the time) fell within the same Jung-Myers type—yet they appeared to have very differing personalities.

Jung coined “function types” and “psychological types,” being quite precise in his label­s. He knew he had identified commonly shared yet distinguishable behavioral characteristics in the thousands of people he had studied. His era did not possess 21st century neuroscientif­ic and genetic evidence; therefore, he had to rely on older ideas of psychology (the study of the mind), and his empirical observations of people (as does JN empirically observe others, yet with an emphasis on modern-day scientific understanding). Thus, “psychological types" was a most appropriate label for Jung. Before long, however, people started using personality types to describe Jung’s classifications, rendering a vernacular more relevant to the layperson, removing it from the mysterious and often abstract world of psychological theories.

“Personality” to the layperson conveys the sum total of the mental, emo­tion­al, and social characteristics of an individual. The term “personality,” however, originates from the Latin “persona.” It corresponds to the Greek word for face. Actors in an­cient Greece could perform more than one role on stage by donning different personas or masks. But type behav­ior is not dictated primarily by the faces we randomly choose to wear. Instead, BTI and others (including neuroscientists and geneticists) believe it is driven by the orderly and systematic func­tion of the brain, which controls not only our mental skills, but motor skills, as well. Jonathan Niednagel therefore coined and much prefers the term Brain Types to both “personality” and “psychological” types. He wants others to think of Brain Typing as describing the internal workings of the brain, an objective and tangible schematic allowing us to understand the neural regions/circuits that regulate our cerebral/mental/emotional and body actions. JN wants you to focus more on “why” you (or others) do what you do—from inborn neuroscientific and genetic perspectives. This doesn’t mean you need to know scientific intricacies but by just comprehending the raw basics, you’ll have a much greater understanding, appreciation, and tolerance for why folks (including yourself) do what they do. If cognitive traits have a significant and inborn biological basis, they are much easier to accept as “normal.”

What greatly frustrated JN regarding “personality” or “psychological” types following his first serious exposure to them in the 1970s was their strong link to the abstract and ethereal “mind”. Having a “concrete” and “tangible” mindset, JN was compelled to take this conceptual typology and give it flesh—establishing a biological basis if possible. To convince himself and others, he knew it had to be measured tangibly and accurately. After studying this area intensively, JN believed there was a strong association to the brain and body. In addition, since he wasn’t a psychologist nor did he want to be connected in any way to psychology (even for personal spiritual reasons), JN attempted to distance himself as far as possible. He went through the time-consuming and costly process of Trademarking ® Brain Types and began publishing his findings regarding the brain and body. Much of JN’s findings have not been published, especially as they relate to genetics. Since there are those who have attempted to steal as well as undermine JN’s work, he is saving his proprietary information until completing his genetic studies—where he hopes and intends to establish patents on each Brain Type. For most this seems improbable, but for JN it seems a near reality.

Consider some excerpts from this 2003 article in USA Today:

BLUEPRINT FOR LIFE
1-27-03
page 1D

Had enough human cloning nonsense? If you want something genuine to fret about, experts suggest considering what already is occurring at the local in vitro fertilization clinic.

Aided by advances in a variety of diagnostic screening technologies and the rapidly expanding knowledge of human genes, fertility experts are able to screen test-tube embryos for a wide variety of genetic diseases and create healthy babies.

Of course, that’s a good thing. But the same progress could lead to screening embryos for characteristics that extend far beyond health. Sooner or later, the stork will be able to carry babies that were screened as embryos and selected for birth because they possess genetic profiles linked with traits such as intelligence, personality, a specific aptitude and physical beauty . . . .

But as scientists begin to learn how particular groups of genes and patterns of gene activity are associated with specific personalities and traits, parents will be able to use in vitro fertilization to create and screen embryos for desired attributes. Only the desirable embryos are implanted, and troublesome Billy is never born . . . .

The federally funded Human Genome Project, which is decoding the human genetic instruction manual, is revolutionizing the understanding of human disease and many behavioral traits. It has given birth to a dynamic field of population genetics in which the DNA of thousands of people can be analyzed for a wide variety of predispositions and characteristics . . . .

Biotechnology and computing are converging in many ways, Stock says, including the ability to create pocket-sized “gene chips” that may soon read a person’s entire genetic profile . . . .

Gene-expression profiles are identifiable through a technology called the gene chip, a tiny device that can read information on thousands of genes. Gene-expression profiles from the chips can then be analyzed by computer. Scientists can compare known expression profiles to DNA from a person or even an embryo. The information could be adapted for genetic screening tests . . . .

End of article excerpts

By looking at the major differences within people from a Brain Type perspective rather than a personality or psychological type, we believe you’ll better understand why people with the same BT can look so different at times (though not so much with their motor skills). Can you see why two INFP Brain Types with the same sex and age can be very different from one another in “personality” or “psychological” makeup—if their life-long environments have been opposite? Suppose one INFP was raised in a Republican and Introverted family, and the other INFP had Democrat and Extraverted parents. One INFP graduated from medical school and is now an M.D., and the other INFP works at the car wash, having dropped out of high school. How much do you think their personality or psychological types would differ? Obviously, these two INFPs would have radically distinct personalities. Now let’s suppose you tried to explain to someone that these two INFPs had the same “personality” or “psychological” type. Your audience would think you’re possibly nuts or that you have no ability to see the noticeable persona differences between the two.

But let’s suppose you understood Brain Types and could adequately explain the INFPs’ inborn similarities. Simplistically stated, you could explain, yes, one is fairly outgoing and the other is reserved (based upon opposing environments), but notice how they are both energy conservers—not expenders, neither is a pushy or a take charge person, but rather they are both good listeners. Though their educational and literary experiences are quite opposite, they both are conceptual/iNtuitive people—they’re poetic in how they communicate though one has much richer diction. They both focus on the forest, not the trees. Fascinatingly, they are both very kind and sensitive to others—yet the Republican, or is it the Democrat, is much more emotional—quick to vent pent-up feelings. And lastly, they both are easy-going, not often argumentative or dogmatic; they’re very much go-with-the-flow.

Their facial expressions are warm and sort of timid; neither dresses in an orthodox way. And what I find most amazing about these two is that I’ve seen them both play tennis and golf. Their swings are very fluid and smooth, almost like silk. It’s also apparent they have very good body flexibility; I couldn’t believe how far their shoulders turned in their golf swings—especially back swings. They both used more of their arms and upper body swinging through the ball than the torso and lower body like some other people do. They’re both quite wristy in fact. (Refer to “Your Key to Sports Success” for further INFP inborn physical skills.) They also get very focused when they play. Though they show good sportsmanship and extend much deference, they don’t like to lose or play poorly; actually for being as nice as they are, it’s sort of surprising to see their levels of intensity.

Though this was a quick illustration, can you see some of these basic similarities between the two INFPs? The deeper you look into the cerebral/cognitive/emotional and physical nuances of Brain Types, the more you’ll be convinced of how people are truly wired, and you’ll find it much easier to explain why two people with the same inherent design can give you much different looks.

So as we have witnessed, JN uses the terminology of Brain Types since there are many personalities or psychological looks within each of the 16 designs. Certainly not all INFPs, ENFPs, ISTJs or any other Types act just alike—and in many cases not even close to one another. There can be vast distinctions within each Jung-Myers personality or psychological type. Therefore, by looking at each design from an inborn perspective, brain and body, we can better understand them by considering the terminology, Brain Types. Don’t forget, too, that Brain Types reveal many of the nuances within a persona, even differentiating how such functions as Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking, and Feelings vary between the right and left hemispheres—based upon the latest in neuroscientific and genetic studies.

Jung coined Introversion from the Latin, meaning turning inward. Neuroscience tells us that an Introvert's brain is physiologically and neurologically programmed to reflect more than act on matters. Therefore, regardless of whether ISTPs are more on the outgoing or reserved side, they are far more reflective than their closest cousins, the ESTPs. One way this is manifested is that ISTPs normally find it more difficult than ESTPs to shut their brains off when trying to sleep at night. And finally, to help us better understand and identify the differences found in people of the same Brain Type, such as ISTPs, JN has developed learning aids to illustrate the basic 3 or 4 looks within each design.

It is true that all people on the earth are like snow flakes, unique and one of a kind. No two people are identical—even identical twins. Yet on the other side of the coin, as snowflakes have similarities—being six-sided (within certain temperatures)—humans share at least eight inborn cerebral/cognitive/emotional processes. Jung and Briggs-Myers gave us rudimentary handles for these processes (E,I,S,N,T,F,J,P). People also share similarities with innate motor skills.

So in contrast with the Jung-Myers model of personality theory, BTI believes Brain Typing is able to:

1/ identify the 16 different designs with greater accuracy (explained cerebrally, biologically, and physically),

2/ demonstrate through empirical studies (and hopefully soon, genetics) they are inborn, indelible traits,

3/ show the differences within each of the cerebral-mental processes and how they vary in function depending upon the brain hemisphere in which they reside,

4/ empirically (including video digitization) measure the inborn motor skill proficiencies and deficiencies for each Type,

5/ explain and demonstrate logically the reasons for variations within each Type, both cerebrally and physically.

Though there are more contrasts than these 5 areas between the 2 methodologies, this should suffice for now. The distinctions between the 2 approaches are quite significant, to say the least.


Nature versus Nurture

BTI has already touched on this issue, but we’d like to break it down even a little further. Succinctly stated, our belief is that there are four basic dimensions as to why "normal" people do what they do. There is nurture, the spiritual realm, and two aspects of genetics that dictate human behavior. Let’s briefly consider these 4:

Nature = inborn Brain Type

Nurture = Upbringing, experiences, education, coaching, values, ethics, and so on—all

make up the nurture component

Spiritual = inherent soul

Nature = other genetic components unrelated to BT


Expanding further:

Nature = inborn Brain Type

We believe one’s indelible Brain Type is the single greatest determinant for each person’s cerebral/cognitive and physical/motor abilities. And as you have probably gathered by now, we also believe that each of the 16 Brain Types is determined solely by genetics.

Nurture = environmental influences, etc.

We also believe that one’s nurturing is also significant, though not primary, in determining cerebral and physical behavior. Upbringing, experiences, education, coaching, values, ethics, and so on are all part of nurture’s components. Nurture plays a major role in the varying personalities within each Brain Type.

Spiritual = inherent soul

BTI believes that each person possesses a spiritual soul. We also believe this soul can be regenerated by an infinite and omnipotent God to bring about greater moral and ethical character.

Nature = other genetic components unrelated to BT

Not only can nurture and spiritual create different looks within each BT but so can other genetic factors beyond those that determine BT. BTI has taken a special interest in genetically researching specific neurotransmitters which have also been shown by recognized neuroscientific studies to have direct influence on behavior—including energy levels. Our studies have convinced us that other genetic components independent of BT manifest other individual differences among people of the same BT. For example, due to individual genetic differences, some ENTPs are more “energized” than others. Also, inborn gender differences provide for varying behaviors among males and females sharing the same BT.

Therefore, we believe that individual cerebral and physical behavior is determined by two sets of genetic components, as well as nurture and the spiritual condition.


What can you tell us of genetic influences on behavior, cognition, and intelligence?

When Jon Niednagel first recognized the Brain Type motor/mental skill connection decades ago, he knew there HAD to be a genetic connection. Yet at that time, few psychologists were giving credence to the innate aspects of mental behavior (including intelligence), much less the physical. As JN became involved in typological circles, its leadership steered far from "inborn" connections to personality or psychological types (they basically still do). People could be who they wanted to be (similar to cat saying he’d like to be (and is) a dog). In fact, people in typology often changed from one type to another as they “mentally evolved” over the years.

Virtually all were stressing that “we were products of our environment”—the ageless mantra. Of course we’re products of our environment, but our behaviors are dynamically affected by our INBORN designs. This input was largely rejected. (To say that our indelible designs also triggered specific physical skills was complete “heresy.” Nonetheless, JN tactfully shared with those who would listen. Slowly but surely, he began finding converts—especially with those who would take the time (and had the ability) to empirically witness these physical traits. Thus, most of the early supporters were coaches and athletes.

Now we come to the early 2000s, and guess what? Geneticists are telling us there is a sizeable influence of genes on behavior!! Story after story is conveying this FACT. Let’s consider a few examples of what “solid” science is telling us. The following article from late 2000 would have been unfathomable (like Brain Types) only 30 years ago. Orthodoxy has espoused seemingly forever that people start off with a blank slate, and that environmental influences determine who we are. Yet in recent decades, this erroneous thinking has not only been challenged but also solidly refuted, scientifically. With each passing day, the evidence becomes clearer concerning the influence of genes on behavior—including cognition. Body skill behavior will come next.


Biologically determining intelligence
By: Roxane Tracey, August 10, 2000

“As researchers in labs all over the world pour over genetic information and make scientific strides in decoding the human genome, they raise hopes of unraveling the mysteries of human life - including intelligence. Now it seems as though the inevitable has finally come to light. Scientists working for the U.S. National Institutes of Health believe they may have identified the parts of the human genome that are responsible for developing a person's intelligence.

The researchers analyzed the DNA of 200 of the most intelligent children in America and compared the results with the genetic information that was obtained from ordinary children. Although the detailed results of the research will not formally be released until next year, the team of scientists believes that a number of genes are largely responsible for one's level of intelligence.

Robert Plomin, professor with the Institute of Psychiatry in London, is leading the team responsible for the research. Plomin was unavailable for an interview but he was reported as saying that genetic influences are a key factor in determining intelligence and that each genetic discovery the research team makes will help them to predict key sources of intelligence.

But even if the source of intelligence is discovered, there is still the critical question of, "How should intelligence be defined?" Abby Lippman, a professor with the department of human genetics at McGill University believes that this kind of research makes a statement about how intelligence is defined and viewed in the Western world.”

______________________

For your information, Robert Plomin is one of the world's leading figures in behavior genetics. Plomin is MRC Research Professor in Behavioral Genetics, and deputy director of Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre at the University of London's Institute of Psychiatry. Professor Plomin believes that nightmare scenarios will only come to pass if this kind of research is suppressed or banned. "Some people say this kind of research should not be done because of the questions it raises and the difficulties it raises are not worth having to deal with," he said. "You could continue with the comfortable view that assumes people are blank slates on which the environment writes. But surely it is better to know the truth."

Sounds like something BTI has been saying for some time!

Consider a few other reports that involved the world-renowned Plomin:

______________________

Annu Rev Psychol 2002 Aug 6; [epub ahead of print]

Psychopathology in the Postgenomic Era.

Plomin R, McGuffin P.

Psychopathology in the Postgenomic Era Robert Plomin (1) Peter McGuffin (2) (1) Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK (2) Institute of Psychiatry. We are rapidly approaching the postgenomic era in which we will know all of the 3 billion DNA bases in the human genome sequence and all of the variations in the genome sequence that are ultimately responsible for genetic influence on behavior. These ongoing advances and new techniques will make it easier to identify genes associated with psychopathology. Progress in identifying such genes has been slower than some experts expected, probably because many genes are involved for each phenotype, which means the effect of any one gene is small. Nonetheless, replicated linkages and associations are being found, for example, for dementia, reading disability, and hyperactivity. The future of genetic research lies in finding out how genes work (functional genomics). It is important for the future of psychology that pathways between genes and behavior be examined at the top-down psychological level of analysis (behavioral genomics), as well as at the bottom-up molecular biological level of cells or the neuroscience level of the brain. DNA will revolutionize psychological research and treatment during the coming decades.

______________________

Psychol Bull 2000 Nov;126(6):806-28

DNA.

Plomin R, Crabbe J.

Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre, King's College London, United Kingdom.

The authors predict that in a few years, many areas of psychology will be awash in specific genes responsible for the widespread influence of genetics on behavior. As the focus shifts from finding genes (genomics) to understanding how genes affect behavior (behavioral genomics), it is important for the future of psychology as a science that pathways between genes and behavior be examined not only at the molecular biological level of cells or the neuroscience level of the brain but also at the psychological level of analysis. After a brief overview of quantitative genetic research, the authors describe how genes that influence complex traits like behavioral dimensions and disorders in human and nonhuman animals are being found. Finally, the authors discuss behavioral genomics and predict that DNA will revolutionize psychological research and treatment early in the 21st century.


Why do you believe BT is the most scientific of what some describe as “typology,” as well as easiest to prove?

Again, let’s consider 2 sides of the coin. First, we believe the MBTI® is the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched questionnaire (by far) within Jungian typology. The people responsible, not only for its development but ongoing refinement, are to be highly commended. They’ve done an extraordinary task. Despite these praiseworthy efforts, the MBTI and other questionnaire variations within Jungian type are far from foolproof. We believe, as do others, including Jungian type and temperament expert, renowned clinical psychologist David Keirsey—author of the best selling “Please Understand Me,” that all Jungian related questionnaires are approximately 50% accurate. (Promoters of the MBTI have suggested it is near 70%.) The primary reason we agree with Keirsey and others that these questionnaires are only half accurate is by comparing them to the BT assessment approach. We have evaluated many, many people who have taken the various Jungian “type” questionnaires.

How can one test the MBTI (or other “type” questionnaires) for accuracy? There is no tangible way, scientifically. It is a highly subjective exercise that relies upon the self-evaluation of one’s personality. On the other hand, though BT cannot be proven "scientifically" yet either, BT goes much deeper into its explanation of who you truly are—not only cerebrally but physically (which no other assessment does--of which we know). BT can be physically and empirically measured not only through video digitization but also with the naked eye (with some experience and practice). The reason many professional and college coaches—who are considered “experts” in their respective sports—wholeheartedly embrace BT in their work is that they can “see it” for themselves. Looking carefully at body movements virtually every day of their adult lives, they are BEST qualified (with the naked eye) to empirically judge BT’s physical nuances. Generally speaking, these sports experts spend as much time observing athletes as scientists do viewing their interests in the laboratory.

We have discovered that BT can be tested in a more tangible and objective fashion than any other form of typology. For example, let’s suppose a 20 year-old man scores as an ENFP on the MBTI (or some similar questionnaire) and yet is Brain Typed as an ISFJ. (By the way, this does happen.) And let’s suppose you (the one reading this material) meet this person for the first time and find his personality around you is rather outgoing, friendly, cheerful, and seemingly intelligent. How do you really know what his Type is? Of course you can talk to him and suppose you do for as long as 3 hours. Yet, at the end of this time you’re still confused. He keeps saying things that seemingly contradict—yet certainly not intentionally. Is there any way for you (or anyone) to truly know?

With the questionnaire approach, you have NO tangible way to measure your accuracy (other than a self-evaluation on a piece of paper.). What about BT? Let’s consider only ‘one’ way to measure its ISFJ perspective of this hypothetical person—starting with the physical. First, we have found that every authentic Sensing Feeler (SF) in the world, regardless of race, is gross motor dominant. (This includes ISFJs.) Yes, we believe that EVERY SF is genetically hardwired to excel in big muscle movements! (View this belief from a neuroscientific perspective here.) You’d have to agree that anyone making this claim would either be delusional or on to something staggering—to say the least. Continuing, SFs especially utilize the large muscle groups. Consider Jesse Owens or Michael Johnson in track, running with their feet barely above the ground and those overt big muscle movements, or Magic Johnson shooting a basketball like he was heaving a shotput (unlike the ST’s fine motor emphasis—such as Larry Bird and MJ). Or how about recently retired QB Randall Cunningham and his once long-armed and gross motor throwing motion? “Your Key to Sports Success” explains these SF body movements in great detail (as well as ST, NF, and NT body skills). So whether swinging a baseball bat or tennis racket, or throwing a football, or shooting a basketball, ISFJs demonstrate whole body movements. Rather than relying on loose wrists and primarily arm movements, ISFJs use the gross motors and with a more mechanical motion—considering they are left-brained dominant. Anyone with a measure of adeptness at BT can readily see the ISFJ’s body movements when performing certain athletic movements. As an aside, of the thousands and thousands of highly skilled athletes BTI has Brain Typed over the past few decades, we have never found one ISFJ to excel at the highest levels in any sport—except for bowling. We never find ISFJs in the upper echelon in skating, gymnastics, diving—any of the “graceful” sports.

Far different are the body movements of an ENFP—the Type we said tested via the hypothetical questionnaire. ENFPs are arguably the most acrobatic of all Brain Types; they’re the natural gymnasts. They coordinate gross and fine motor movements better than any; that’s why they have dominated figure skating and diving. JN’s book, “YKtoSS” lists the many superb ENFP athletes. Unfortunately, few ISFJs are listed excelling in sport. Please understand, however, that not every ENFP is a world-class gymnast either. Obviously, much training needs to go into developing and refining their inborn giftedness. Nonetheless, semi-adept Brain Typists (which can even be a mother or father) can empirically see, with their own eyes, the radical motor differences between ENFPs and ISFJs. Additionally, ENFPs are far more fine motor than gross motor skilled. This is why JN helped home-run legend and perennial All-Star, ENFP Sammy Sosa, hit the ball more with his gross motors rather than his dominant fine motors—which had inhibited his performance.

To answer the original question, we know of no other assessment methodology but BT that can test its findings through body movements. This is why if we were to read someone as an ENFP via his verbal syntax, diction, voice inflection, and so on, and then he were to physically demonstrate motor movements contrary to ENFPs, we would be clearly and dead wrong in our non-body movement assessment. If this were to happen, we would obviously lose all credibility. JN is tested over a thousand times per year in this capacity. Who else in the world is tested in such a manner? How are the MBTI or similar questionnaires double-checked? Many, many areas of typology (and for that matter, psychology) cannot be scientifically measured—nor can they be viewed with the naked eye. Short of proving something undeniably via a brain scan or genetically, we’ll rely on BT for what we empirically assess in people.

The last angle to the ENFP-ISFJ dilemma (in this explanation) is that Brain Typing demonstrates that outward personas often do NOT accurately reflect or identify the inborn cerebral and motor design. One’s life nurturing or environment plays a major role in outward personality and can often mask inborn biological factors. In this example, some ISFJs have ENFP personalities. Not only can environment shape this but so can such factors as cerebral neurotransmitter polymorphisms make some people—of the same Brain Type—more “animated” or “energized” than others of their inborn design. BTI has been studying this particular area for over 5 years. For example, some people do not absorb and metabolize dopamine as efficiently as others. This can have a significant affect on one’s “personality”—regardless of inborn Brain Type.

JN is asked to assess and Brain Type athletes all the time via body movements alone. When he evaluates at the exclusive NFL Combine in Indianapolis or NBA pre-draft camp in Chicago—where it’s highly restricted and only limited team staff can attend—JN evaluates 95% of the athletes on motor movements alone! He then makes detailed reports, verbally and written of not only their physical attributes but cerebral ones as well! JN knows virtually none of these athletes personally and has no other information on them other than sports statistics. How in the world can he know their cognitive/emotional state—which of the 16 Brain Types (not personality or psychological types) they are by body movements alone? Other than being psychic, which he isn’t, there must be a connection between mental and motor skills for each Brain Type. Coaches and scouts know these players very well; the scouts spend the whole year getting to know these athletes. They watch their practices and games, speak to them and their coaches. They know these guys as well as virtually anyone knows them (outside of their families). If JN gives a report contrary to what the scout knows about a player, Jon would be out on his ear in an instant. He doesn’t have the luxury of most others who assess people. JN is arguably the most scrutinized evaluator of athletes in the world.

By the way, numerous pro scouts (and coaches and GMs) use Jon’s book all the time. Often times they will seek Jon out, seeking his input while showing him their tattered books.

And yet here is JN, going from sport to sport. He’s usually embarrassed when he shows up and a coach will ask him what he thinks of a certain player at a pre-draft workout. Jon will often say that he doesn’t know to whom he’s referring, but if he’d kindly point the athlete out, JN will watch him closely to convey his Brain Type. When you evaluate over a thousand players a year in America’s top 3 sports—as Jon does—plus work in many other sports as well, the names all turn into a blur, unless they’re exceptional athletes. Nonetheless, JN can assess most athletes in most “moving” sports on body movement alone—while also telling you many dimensions of his or her cerebral makeup.

In conclusion, Brain Typing enables one to evaluate others either via speech, appearance, and so on, or, by body movements alone. We welcome any challengers (of high credibility--regardless of the their profession), who want to match their skills with ours, in assessing cerebral skills by watching ONLY ATHLETIC MOVEMENTS, or by talking to someone and measuring motor skills. We believe BT provides an unparalleled empirical methodology for discovering innate cerebral and physical attributes. Just as a botanist can determine plants through observation, we believe a person skilled in Brain Typing can identify the 16 inborn designs.


Though you illustrate on your website BT’s relationship to motor skills, can you explain this further?

If you have a copy of “Your Key to Sports Success,” you’ll notice a drawing of the brain that illustrates an area called the primary motor cortex. (You can also view it here.)This region of the brain is responsible for our voluntary motor movements, a site devoted to commanding the muscles in various parts of the body. If you decide to raise your hand right now, your motor cortex directs this movement. If you notice the brain illustration, you will see that the primary motor cortex regulates three major areas of the body. Beginning with the area near the top and center of the brain, the motor cortex directs the large muscles that control gross motor skills. These muscles regulate such areas as the legs, trunk or torso, and upper arm.

The Brain Types that are most adept in this highest segment of the motor cortex are the 4 Sensing Feelers, or SF’s. These people have the greatest proficiency with the gross motor skills, or large muscle groups of the body. There are two major aspects of body coordination, which all Types have, yet the SFs are best at these. First, there is body “control,” which comes from the left brain and tends to specialize in the separate parts in a movement; the SFJ’s master this ability. Second there is body “rhythm,” a product of the right brain which processes multiple parts of movement into an artistic, graceful flow. The SFP’s are masters here.

Athletes with the 4 SF Brain Types normally show strong manifestations of these characteristics as they engage the large muscles groups with either “control” or “rhythm.” Picture in your mind such performers and SFPs, as basketball's Magic Johnson and Dennis Rodman, baseball's Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds, golf's Lee Trevino, tennis’ Lindsay Davenport, and track's Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson and Marion Jones.

The Sensing Thinkers or STs specialize in the second region of the motor cortex as we move away from the cerebral core and down the cortex; this area is responsible for fine motor skills. It covers the elbow to the fingertips and also the eye area. This helps explain why the 4 ST’s have a special inborn ability to master fine motor skills, especially as they relate to hand-eye coordina­tion. Two significant aspects are associated with hand-eye coordination: Calculated dexterity is the special skill or adroitness in using the hands to manipulate objects in a controlled fashion. This ability to handle detailed movements comes principally from the left brain. Here the STJ’s excel.

The other major aspect of hand-eye coordination involves spontaneous positioning, or placing the hand in the proper loca­tion at a given moment. The right brain primarily regulates this skill. Therefore, it now makes sense why the STP’s are masterful here. Some of the STP’s who’ve perfected fine motor movements are hockey’s Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Brett Hull, baseball’s Ted Williams and Henry Aaron, basketball’s John Stockton, Larry Bird and a guy named Michael Jordan. And by the way, the ST’s are only once removed from the SF’s on the motor cortex; thus they’re blessed with big muscle movements, but not as gifted as the SF’s. Conversely, the SF’s are very good with fine motors but not as expert as the ST’s.

The third and final region down the motor cortex is mastered by the 4 iNtuitive Feelers, or NFs. Here we see the face and mouth's area of control (such as language and hearing skills). Therefore, NFs specialize in the verbal and the auditory. Yet, they’re also adept with motor skills, able to coordinate gross and fine motor movements better than other Types. The left-brained NFJs coordinate the 2 muscle groups methodically and the 2 right-brained NFP’s synchronize the gross and fine motors with fluidity and grace. This demonstrates why ENFPs are the top figure skaters and divers in the world. Some NFP’s have included Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan, golf’s Tiger Woods and David Duval, basketball’s Kevin Garnett, and diving’s Greg Louganis.

And last, we come to the 4 iNtuitive Thinkers or NTs, who excel in the cerebral rather than motor cortex. NTs are adept at logical abstrac­tion skills, mastering inanimate reasoning. They, too, can be excellent athletes but not because of dominant gross- or fine-motor skills. The 4 NT’s do rely on big and small muscle movements, but not as much as the other 12 Brain Types. In fact, many times NT’s excel in sports because their muscles aren’t so dominant. For instance, a baseball pitcher gets more movement on the ball when his grip is light rather than strong. This is why ENTP pitchers can create the most movement on a fastball.

Since the NT’s are farthest removed of the Types from the gross motor region, they are naturally better with fine motor movements. JN works with NT athletes all the time and their greatest physical hindrance is mastery over the large muscle groups, especially the lower body. ENTPs, for example, find tremendous benefit by widening their stances in such sports as baseball and golf—proving them the necessary balance to hit the ball most effectively. The 2 left-brained NTJ’s are more mechanical in their motor movements while the 2 right-brained NTP’s are smoother—even though their movements are often disjointed. Some left-brained NTJ athletes have included baseball’s Randy Johnson and golf’s Hale Irwin and Tom Kite. Right-brained NTP athletes have included baseball’s Kevin Brown and tennis’ Pete Sampras.

Please take note, the better an athlete gets, the less obvious are some of his or her body movements to the naked eye. That’s why it requires some practice for one to Brain Type people by body movements alone. Virtually every day of JN’s life he assesses people in and out of sports—and often just by body nuances or movements.

So now it should make a little sense to you when we say that every “nice and amiable” person (a genuine “F”) on the planet, who is in the here-and-now—not a big picture person—is a gross-motor skilled SF. Whether they swing a tennis racket, golf club, or fly swatter, you’ll see them accentuate the big muscles of the body. That’s a pretty amazing revelation, wouldn’t you say? Continue this Type journey we’re on and you’ll be amazed every day for the rest of your life.

A final thought on those SF’s just mentioned, before you try to think of all the SF’s you know, remember that it may take a little while to know for sure whether or not they’re truly Sensing Feelers. This is where we hope you continue to learn the nuances of BT.


What’s the latest evidence for suggesting people can be identified via motor movements?

For those who don’t believe people can be identified by how they move, consider the recent article of 5-20-03:

Pentagon System Hopes to Identify Walks

Monday May 19, 2003 9:09 PM

Pentagon system hopes to identify walks<< Pentagon anti-terror surveillance system hopes to identify people by the way they walk

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Watch your step! The Pentagon is developing a radar-based device that can identify people by the way they walk, for use in a new antiterrorist surveillance system.

Operating on the theory that an individual's walk is as unique as a signature, the Pentagon has financed a research project at the Georgia Institute of Technology that has been 80 to 95 percent successful in identifying people.

If the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, orders a prototype, the individual "gait signatures'' of people could become part of the data to be linked together in a vast surveillance system the Pentagon agency calls Total Information Awareness. . . .


For those familiar with BT and the brain’s motor cortex’s influence over voluntary motor movements, this article is completely understandable and believable. JN has observed this for decades and has made motor skill movements a part of the foundation for BT. Fortunately, what the government hasn’t realized yet is that the way a person walks also relates to his cognitive and spatial skills. Someday, when governments across the world finally understand BT and its astounding influence on why people do what they do, our civil liberties will soberly become threatened. This has been BTI’s fear for years, but painfully it’s an inevitable future happening. In the meantime, we will continue trying to promote the ethical application of this powerful tool.


How often is JN put to the test concerning the mental and physical links to BT?

Virtually every week/month of the year, JN is tested repeatedly by professional teams. Not only do the world’s most respected coaches critique his assessments, but also strength and conditioning coaches, trainers, team doctors, scouts—virtually every hands-on personnel affiliated with the teams. Those who are most involved in pro sports from a health and physical perspective routinely oversee JN’s remarkable assessments and tips for maximum development. To say that he is JN is highly and professionally competent in what he does is certainly not an overstatement.

Danny Ainge, a popular basketball analyst for TNT television, is a former star athlete who played both pro baseball and basketball and was even an all-star football player in high school. He was once the Phoenix Suns head basketball and is a former NBA All-Star (14-year career). Consider his words: "If I were ever a general manager in ANY professional sport, Jon Niednagel would be my first hire, because he would give me an advantage that no one else would have.” If these words came from a guy on the street corner, they wouldn’t hold credibility. But when they come from a former super-star in America’s top 3 sports, as well as an adult whose living has been immersed in evaluating and developing professional athletes, they need to be seriously considered.