You say the only way to prove BT’s conclusively is through genetics—why not through brain imaging via PET, fMRI, or the like?

It’s recently become an irrefutable fact that genes heavily influence behavior and intelligence. Therefore, each of our minds and brains are directed by genetic components. The key to understanding why each Brain Type does what it does is by deciphering its respective genome, identifying those DNA characteristics that make it unique. Conversely, imaging the brain is still a highly crude way of determining inborn attributes in this year of 2003. Yes, neuroscience has come a long way, and neuroimaging techniques reveal much of how the brain operates. Nonetheless, there is much more that we don’t “see” or understand regarding how the brain operates than we do. As the years pass by, the greater the probability that cerebral imaging will not only reveal BT but other inborn traits as well. This isn’t to say that the task of identifying BT at this time via brain imaging shouldn’t be tried. The costs are high, especially without federal grants. If anyone would like to contribute to this cause by providing funds or free access to imaging equipment, please let us know. We are continually looking for more ways to expand our studies and research. In the meantime, let’s consider some basic facts and reasons why brain imaging cannot compare with genetic methods of determining BT.

Atypical Cerebral Dominance

It is believed that the majority of people have left-hemisphere language specialization, activated by inborn genetic factors. Thus, when you are asked to explain the meanings of gratitude or ingratitude, your left posterior hemisphere takes charge and renders the final explanation. Yet, not all people utilize the left-brain as their primary language center; a minority utilizes the right. This is not a conscious choice but an inherent determination. It has been estimated that as many as 30% of people have a right-hemisphere language specialization. It’s generally believed to be lower, but since it has not been possible to scientifically determine this exact figure, we must give at least some consideration to this outside number.

The vast majority of those who use the right hemisphere as their primary language base are classified as having “atypical cerebral dominance” or reversed laterality. (In layman’s terms, their hemispheres are “flip flopped”.) Atypical dominance is defined by a strongly lateralized, mirrored dominance that entails a reversal of dominance with normal levels of bihemispheric function. (This is not to be confused with anomalous dominance which refers to increased bihemispheric dominance, or cooperation and sharing of function of the two hemispheres.) And by the way, there is strong evidence that a genetic component of left-handedness is linked to reversed cerebral laterality and atypical dominance (though not all left-handers have reversed laterality).

Therefore, to decipher Brain Type via brain imaging, each person would need to be “scientifically” tested for hemisphere dominance. This is not a simple task at the moment (or risk-free if the Wada test is employed).

Anomalous Dominance

As stated above, anomalous dominance refers to increased bihemispheric dominance, or cooperation and sharing of function of the two hemispheres. Nurture can influence nature, and a person—who from a young age—works hard to develop his or her non-dominant hemisphere, can bring about in it greater cerebral metabolism or activation. Two people sharing the same BT can have different cerebral/cognitive/mental/emotional abilities based upon how much they’ve utilized or developed their brains over a lifetime. An ESFJ (FEAL--front, empirical, animate, left brain) who went to Harvard will have greater cerebral capacity and proficiency with his brain than another ESFJ-FEAL reared in the bush of Africa—uneducated and malnourished.

Hemisphere Efficiency

The better one gets at any given task, the more efficiently one’s brain works. In this case, brain metabolism actually decreases rather than increases. This has been proven via brain imaging. Therefore, an INTJ proficient in the left posterior’s Wernicke’s region can actually demonstrate less brain activity in this area than another BT who’s attempting to use it. In fact, 5 people highly gifted and in Wernicke’s region (and with the same Brain Type) can showing varying amounts of cerebral activation undergoing the same task—based upon “nurturing” influences.

Another dimension of “hemisphere efficiency” stems from the following example.

Brain Activities in a Skilled versus a Novice Artist:
An fMRI Study

Robert L. Solso

Manuscript received 26 October 1999

Abstract excerpts

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scans of a skilled portrait artist and of a non-artist were made as each drew a series of faces. There was a discernible increase in blood flow in the right-posterior parietal region of the brain for both the artist and non-artist during the task, a site normally associated with facial perception and processing. However, the level of activation appeared lower in the expert than in the novice, suggesting that a skilled artist may process facial information more efficiently. In addition, the skilled artist showed greater activation in the right frontal area of the brain than did the novice, which the author posits indicates that such an artist uses "higher-order" cognitive functions, such as the formation of associations and planning motor movements, when viewing and drawing a face.

This paper and the following paper by Chris Miall and John Tchalenko report on a project that was undertaken to study the physiological and psychological functions of a leading British portrait artist, Humphrey Ocean, as he rendered a drawing. In one study, conducted by myself and my associates then at Stanford University, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scans were taken of Ocean's brain as he sketched drawings of faces; in another study, conducted by Miall of the University of Oxford and Tchalenko of Camberwell College of Arts, the same artist's eye and hand movements were monitored as he drew a sketch of a model. In both instances, Ocean's brain and eye/hand movements were contrasted with those of novice artists.

In the brain scan procedure, the artist showed activation of an area of the brain that is implicated in facial processing; somewhat surprisingly, however, his activity level appeared to be less than that of the novice. Also, it appeared that the artist engaged parts of the brain that dealt with "higher order cognition." In the eye movement procedure, Miall and Tchalenko found that the fixations of the artist while drawing were twice the duration of those when he was not, and that his patterns of cerebral activity (and other patterns) differed from those of novice painters. Other differences were noted between Ocean's hand movements and those of novice artists.

BTI:

Brain imaging has demonstrated for years that the more proficient one becomes at a task, the more the brain shuts DOWN—even in the cortical area(s) that is most used/necessary. For example, the better students perform on SAT tests, the more efficiently they use their brains and their cerebral metabolic activity actually lessens in many instances. Among other things, they use fewer neural circuits.

As we witnessed in the above study at Stanford and Oxford Universities, the skilled artist’s right parietal lobe revealed a lower metabolism than the novice, while the right anterior cortex became more activated.

The fact that a skilled artist (or athlete) demonstrates lower cerebral activation than the novice in a specific brain region does NOT mean that it is less utilized. In many instances, especially proved by PET scans, the skilled person is actually using the brain more effectively and efficiently.

Male Female Differences

Neuroscientific evidence clearly reveals females have a greater capacity than males to use the right hemisphere, since, for one, it develops sooner from birth than the male’s. Though men and women all share the same Brain Types, gender genetic and hormonal differences between the sexes provide other variations within each inborn design.

Genetic Differences Within Each Brain Type

Inborn genetic differences within two people of the same BT also affect brain metabolism/activity. BTI’s (and others’) studies of neurotransmitters reveal additional explanations for varying levels of brain metabolism—even those who share the same BT.

Age

Numerous studies also reveal age plays a role in brain metabolism-activation and its locale. Consider this example:

Why smart teenagers can still be very silly
By Mara Rose Williams in Kansas City, Missouri
26sep00

On the outside, teen-agers appear to be nearly grown up. But inside the skull a vital part of their brain is closer to a child's than an adult's.

New findings in neuroscience and pediatric psychiatry link brain immaturity to teens making foolish judgments and reckless decisions. Some teens have sex too soon. Some experiment with drugs and alcohol. Some see how fast they can drive a car.

Adults have long been puzzled about why otherwise "good" kids – smart kids – take deadly chances. But now scientists have made a connection.

They discovered that one of the last parts of the brain to mature is the prefrontal cortex – the part responsible for self-control, judgment, emotional regulation, organisation and planning. "The teenage brain is a work in progress," said neuroscientist Sandra Witelson, of McMaster University in Ontario.

The old belief was that by the time a child reached the age of puberty and pimples, his brain's hardware was completely connected.

But by using magnetic resonance imaging, researchers showed that the brain had a lot of developing to do well beyond the start of adolescence. The brain reaches about 95 per cent of its maturation by the age of five years. But the corpus callosum, a cable of nerves connecting the right and left halves of the brain, continues growing beyond 20-something. The corpus callosum is linked to intelligence and self-awareness.

The prefrontal cortex matures most between the ages of 12 and 20. Add to this brew of disconnected neurons a dose of active hormones spiked with the power of peer pressure and a need for autonomy. That is a recipe for sometimes risky teenage behavior.

The brain research suggests that teenagers must be trained to handle the freedoms they demand.

Researchers say that, after puberty, a pruning process takes place in the prefrontal cortex. About the age of 10, the prefrontal cortex goes through a growth spurt when neurons grow new connections. But these die off if they are not used.

BTI:

Other Age Factors

It’s also known that as a person ages, he or she more heavily utilizes and develops certain regions of the brain. Those familiar with BT have witnessed this in themselves and others. For example, an ISFP (BEAR—back, empirical, animate, right brain) at age 60 will have developed his non-dominant Thinking function far more than when he was 20 years of age. If this person’s brain were scanned at age 20 and again at age 60, his cerebral activity-metabolism would vary. This would all occur in the same person and the same BT.

Ethics/lying

Though this is a lesser consideration, even such things as being honest or attentive in the brain-imaging study/task makes a difference. Brain scans have now been shown to reveal whether someone is lying or telling the truth, US researchers have discovered. When people lied, fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans revealed significant increases in activity in several brain regions.

Daniel Langleben and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania employed fMRI to detect lies. Eighteen people were given an object to hide in their pockets. They were then shown a series of pictures, including one of the object itself. As each picture was presented, the participants were instructed to deny that it matched their hidden object. When there was a match, and the person was lying, activity in several regions increased. This included the anterior cinglate, which is associated with response inhibition and error monitoring, and the adjacent right superior frontal gyrus, which plays a key role in attention.

The results suggest there is a "localized brain correlate of deception", the research team concluded. Langleben stated "The main strength of our study was adapting a simple and very well known test that has been used forensically and in research to detect deception with polygraphs and EEGs since the 1950s."

Using fMRI also involves using large, expensive scanners, making it much less practical to use than a polygraph test. Langleben presented his work at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in San Diego.

Other Factors

Though there are other factors that could be discussed regarding this issue, these are some of the credible explanations why deciphering BT through 2003 brain imaging is a very difficult task at this juncture. Though complete genetic verification is also a difficult task for identifying BT, this process can be measured MUCH more objectively. We will keep you updated.


How does JN do what he does and how did he develop what he labels BT?

This question might best be answered from a past speech of Jon Niednagel’s. Perhaps it can provide you a better understanding of his unique ability to assess the Brain Types of others and how he developed this one-of-a-kind insight.

Three Empirical ways to BT

Besides the neuroscientific and genetic methods for scrutinizing Brain Types, there are 3 basic ways to Brain Type people through observation or listening, taking a more empirical approach. This old-fashioned style that relies on our God-given skills is how’ve I had to evaluate from the beginning of my Brain Typing (BT) pursuits; there was no other way. Now with the advent of scientific measurements, the outmoded way will soon be somewhat obsolete, yet it will always be around since everyone won’t want to be evaluated voluntarily—such as criminals and other categories of people.

Think of all the assessment methods of which you are aware. How many can appraise a person’s innate cerebral abilities simply by observing one’s motor skills? You say what?? I’ll repeat, how many assessment methods can evaluate a person’s cerebral abilities simply by observing motor skills?

I know of only one, and if you can find another, please let me know. I believe Brain Types is the only one with this ability. Since the other methods appear to be limited to the psychological realm, they don’t see or understand the brains connection between mind and body.

Let me briefly illustrate how I, and you, can Brain Type by observing motor skills. Each Type has a specific area of the brain in which it excels—both in the cerebral and motor cortexes. For example, from my way of evaluating people, I believe the Brain Type of former pro football great, QB Joe Montana, specializes in the right hemisphere, which is highly adaptable as well as adept at spatial acuity. That’s a major reason why Joe pulled a rabbit out of the hat so many times at the end of games, carrying his team to victory.

Joe Montana also has an area of the motor cortex in which he most excels. And by the way, so do you. The primary motor cortex is responsible for our voluntary motor movements. If you wiggle your finger right now, you can thank God and the specific locale on the motor cortex for enabling you to perform this function.

Well, it just so happens that we believe there are 4 Brain Types that are hard-wired to excel in the finger region of the motor cortex; this area also specializes in hand-eye coordination and fine motor dominance—enabling Joe to throw the ball as well as he did. And by the way, Joe Montana’s Brain Type can be the best at throwing off balance and on the run. This is why his inborn wiring is the top Type for quarterback in the NFL or National Football League. Some other QBs who’ve also been born with that inherent design, from my perspective, include the names of Namath, Stabler, Bradshaw, Marino, Elway, Favre, and Aikman. To say this Brain Type can be the best in playoff pressure is an understatement. And by the way, this quarterback Brain Type, as well as the other 15, can be Brain Typed the empirical way as youngsters (in most cases)—a parent needn’t wait until high school. In fact, the sooner we can give a concerted effort to understand our children biologically, the more effective we can become as parents.

Let me illustrate how Brain Types enabled me to make a highly controversial yet accurate prediction about quarterbacks in 1998. My work and I were profiled in a positive light on an ABC TV Saturday night news special, focusing on scientific achievements. It was broadcast nationally in America. Regarding my work in professional sports, I was put on the spot and asked to forecast how highly-touted quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf would fare in their upcoming NFL rookie seasons. I stated, yet in a low-keyed way, that only one of the two had the “top” Brain Type for QB, but was not at liberty to tell the viewing audience which. Behind the scenes, I told the NFL team which hired me, and was looking to draft one of the two, much more in detail as to the sharp contrast between the QBs (based on inborn Brain Type). After the 2 quarterbacks were drafted, some pro football teams and their brass finally heard the dramatic contrast I’d made between these supposed future superstars, and they thought I was nuts. After all, no respected evaluator of football talent had made the radical distinctions I had; the universal belief was that both guys were guaranteed stars of the future. Well, years have since passed, and needless to say, my once-maligned prediction proved uncannily true. If you follow professional football, you’ll know what I mean. The QB I rated far below the other has already retired (after only 4 years) and was recently cited in a sports media poll as the biggest bust in NFL history. And by the way, the quarterback who didn’t fare so well, he didn’t have to fall so low. Applying Brain Types could have saved much of the grief he experienced. The college QB I rated as having the top wiring at his NFL position was named to this year’s Pro Bowl team.

Among the common venues I attend—to assess athletes by viewing their motor skills, are the pre-draft camps of the NFL and NBA. The NFL Combine and NBA camps enable me to Brain Type players without interviewing them. I often assess over 100 players a day at these locales. I must say that by the end of the day my brain is often overloaded and fried. It requires a significant amount of concentration and mental energy. I also commonly evaluate baseball players seeking to play professionally by videotape or CD. In fact, most of my evaluations are done by video or CD rather than in person; it’s more difficult in sports to do it this manner, but it’s hard to be 5 venues at once.

And by the way, people often ask me how I read others so quickly. Well for one, I’ve had many years and many opportunities to sharpen my skills. But more importantly, you might say I have a nose for Brain Typing. Speaking of noses, did you know that a bloodhound’s nose is believed to be 3 million times more sensitive than a human’s? That’s why they’re used in law enforcement to track down criminals. Comparatively, Brain Types classifies my inborn design (1 of the 16) as a researcher and investigator, with an extra-sensitive nose for picking up on all the minor nuances and idiosyncrasies about me. I’ve been this way my whole life. It wasn’t until I was exposed to typology that I turned my nose in that direction (like typology matriarch, Isabel Myers)—a direction that I can’t seem to get away from. I’ve still got people and nuances to track down, including some of those lawbreakers that my bloodhound cousins are presently pursuing. My goal, however, is to pass on to you and others what I’ve learned to do, to see as I see, looking for the same things I look for. I’ll spare you the years of studies I’ve endured, compiling and simplifying for you the subtleties and information I’ve gathered. You won’t need my bloodhound nose to apply Brain Types in your everyday life. The ABCs of Brain Typing are within your grasp, and you can spend a lifetime enjoying and improving upon your evaluations of others. Each person you meet will be a unique person with some basic similarities, a new puzzle to unravel, if you are so inclined.

This concludes only one of the empirical approaches to Brain Types. Of course Brain Typing isn't limited to observing body movements.

A second empirical method for identifying BT’s also relies upon sight. Yet rather than focusing upon motor movements, it just observes people—standing, sitting, walking; they needn’t be participating in a sport. For instance, each Brain Type has a stereotypical look. Usually 5-6 out of 10 people with the same inborn design, and from the same culture or part of the world, share a very common look. The atypical ones for each Type, the other 4-5 out of 10, take a little more effort and sophistication to assess. Among the many body areas in which to focus, one is the face. Types have their respective looks.

Some you can identify through their eyes, others their smiles or lack thereof. All Brain Types are proficient in a specific yet different area of the motor cortex and these regions of the cortex affect even their facial appearances. Picture and compare in your mind television’s Oprah Winfrey with England’s Queen Elizabeth. Though their roles in life have affected their individual personas, the main reason for their diametrically-opposed facial expressions and smiles, is their opposite Brain Types—from my perception.

Believe it or not, I can go to the shopping mall or walk down the street and Brain Type quite a few people who pass me by. I’m normally dealing with only seconds for each person, but sometimes that is enough. Needless to say, this ability has been invaluable in my many contacts and travels. In some instances, it’s even spared me bodily harm. If you think you don’t want to leave home without your American Express Card, wait until you can Brain Type effectively; you’ll use it everywhere you go.

A third way to evaluate from the empirical school is simply through speech, particularly one’s diction, syntax, and voice inflection. These aspects of language enable me to assess people since each Brain Type normally speaks a distinct way—considering it is proficient in a particular region of the brain. For instance, four of the 16 BT’s are Introverted and left-brained dominant. They generally speak the slowest, attempting to carefully enunciate their words. These folks also speak with the most flattened voice inflection—usually speaking in a monotone. Can you think of anyone you know who speaks this way? If you pay close attention, you’ll start noticing them. Though there are additional indicators helpful for identifying these 4 Introverted and energy-conserving Brain Types, this example should give you a small idea of how assessing can be done through language and voice.

By the way, though I am able to assess many people rather quickly, this is not to say that some aren’t much harder to read and assess than others. Some people can take me 5-10 minutes when I speak with them (or hear them speak). Less often, it can take me 15-30 minutes. And yes, I have been stumped before. These rare cases seem to come after long days of work and my brain basically shuts down; none of these situations were for hire, but I still gave them rain checks—if we ever met again. Evaluating Brain Types can be very hard on my brain; it requires great concentration in trying to catch a person’s every nuance and idiosyncrasy. I’m not a machine or computer, but like them, I am susceptible to break downs. To this point in my life, however, God has still allowed my brain to function adequately in order to do my work and be certain when I have to.

These empiric approaches enable me to evaluate those about me in whom I have special interest—even in foreign countries where I don’t understand the language. Prior to a firm grasp of Brain Types, I had few clues as to “reading” people with any accuracy. My ability has improved dramatically.


Scientific ways to consider BT

Let’s now briefly consider some scientific methods for attempting to decipher Brain Types. I’ve developed an awareness of how Jungian typology relates to the brain through neuroscientific studies these past couple of decades. The scientific community at large has gathered much information during this period, more than in all the previous years of man’s existence—combined. Unfortunately, most of what is talked about in society regarding the brain is either incorrect or outdated. Many of the popular books discussing the brain have spread much misinformation. For one, they say the left brain is the logical hemisphere and the right brain the creative side. This is not a correct perspective; actually, the two hemispheres are equally logical and creative. The left brain, however, specializes in the logic and creativity of “language”, as well as “numbers,” and the right hemisphere excels in “spatial” logic and creativity.

For instance, perhaps half of the American populace is born with adeptness for logic—regardless of gender. These people, known as “Thinkers”, come in 8 varieties of Type. From my perspective, Hillary Clinton and the late Albert Einstein represent 2 of the 8 Thinking Brain Types. If you have noticed Mrs. Clinton’s communication style, she consciously and carefully chooses each word, attempting to present her syntax—or sentence flow—in a logically consistent manner; she epitomizes left-hemisphere logic. Conversely, Mr. Einstein, one of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers, was surprisingly known for his “inability” to put his logical acumen into words or formulas. Late in his life and after his scientific discoveries, Albert Einstein said:

The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mecha­nism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be “volun­tarily” reproduced and combined.4

Suffice it to say, Einstein was best at utilizing his Thinking and iNtuition in the spatial realm of the right hemisphere. He, as have the great innovators in the precise and abstract science of mathematics, relied heavily on visualization thinking.

So the next time someone tells you that logic is only a left-brained function, you can now help this person to understand how it also is utilized in the right lobe. In addition, if you pursue Brain Types and listen carefully to the speech of others, you too, can learn to identify where people are most proficient, and deficient, within their individual brains.

Knowledge of the brain has changed monumentally over the past few decades. Neuroscience, which studies the nerves and nervous system, has found new doors for researching the brain’s untold mysteries. Through the use of sophisticated brain-mapping instruments and other high-tech monitoring devices, scientists are achieving remarkable insight into cerebral activity. The latest findings supply critical data for those involved in applying this information to everyday life.

Brain-imaging devices include such names as CATs, MRIs, PETs, SQUIDs, SPECTs, and EEGs. Many of the breakthroughs in brain awareness have come from the recent advances in PET technology. PET, which stands for positron emission tomography, is presently used by some 70 centers in the United States, for both re­search and diagnostic purposes. The technique was originally developed in the early 1970s, yet only since the late 1980s have new meth­ods been used to accelerate our understanding of the brain. Neuroscientists are now able to conduct experiments with fully conscious patients, indicating which areas of the brain are most active for each task assigned.

PET imaging is able to pinpoint in the brain’s cerebral cortex (as well as underlying brain regions) the specific mental processes associated with Brain Types. These processes are represented by 8 different letters that you’ll learn in a little while—if you don’t already know them. For now, allow me to mention some of these letter combinations and their locales in the brain. Whether it be the E_TJ’s verbal logic in the left anterior region—specifically Broca’s area, the IN_J’s superior abstract comprehension in Wernicke’s of the left posterior forebrain, the E__P’s remarkable spatial/visualization adeptness of the right brain—including the right prefrontal cortex, or the I__FP’s highly-sensitive feelings of the posterior’s right amygdala, each of the 16 designs has a unique circuitry specializing in various regions of the brain. But remember, too, that even though these brain regions activate these specific mental processes, some other areas of the brain can also assist in these same mental processes—usually to a lesser degree.

Please understand, to apply Brain Types you don’t need to learn such matters as this, unless you care to. You can keep it as simple as you want. I know some 7-year olds who are very adept at understanding and applying certain aspects of Brain Types, and most of the adults I’ve trained know nothing about the brain—except that is about the size of a grapefruit. I only share this cerebral information to help you see its correlation with Brain Types.

A final thought for you to consider regarding the most complex object in the universe—residing between your ears—is that surgical procedures related to the brain have also taught us much regarding its function. Actually, as far back as some 150 years ago, the unfortunate Phineas Gage had a steel rod accidentally go through his skull, lodging in his brain. Miraculously, it was removed and he recovered to normal health except for his “personality” and certain cerebral skills. (Phineas’ skull was recovered and is in safekeeping today. In fact, computer graphics and neural imaging techniques have been employed to plot the trajectory of the steel rod as it coursed through Gage's brain.)

Some time after his accident, Phineas felt strong enough to resume work. But because his personality had changed so much, the contractors who had employed him would not give him his place again. Before the accident he had been their most capable and efficient foreman, one with a well-balanced mind, and who was looked on as a shrewd and smart businessman. He was now fitful, irreverent, and grossly profane, showing little deference for his fellows. He was also impatient and obstinate, yet whimsical and vacillating, unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for future action. His friends said he was "no longer Gage." Phineas Gage has become a classical case in the textbooks of neurology.

It is now believed that Gage’s “personality” changed so radically because of extensive damage to his left frontal lobe. By studying JN’s BT’s beliefs and system, you’ll have an excellent understanding of why Gage’s behavior changed as it did.

Genetic science is also shedding light upon Brain Types. My personal studies and collaborative research have made me convinced that each of the 16 Brain Types has its own unique DNA. Yet this genetic uniqueness of each Type is only a small fraction of the total human genome shared by all Types; nonetheless, these minor genetic variations among the different inborn designs make each of the 16 what it uniquely is, cerebrally and physically. My goal is to prove this.

In just the past decade, genetic technology has improved as dramatically as transportation technology did in the 20th century, from horse-drawn buggies to supersonic aircraft. I began my collaborative genetic studies at an American university where only a few neurological genes were studied in relationship to certain Brain Types. This project, along with my decades of empirical studies, convinced me early on, along with some highly-respected scientific minds, that Brain Types were inborn and DNA driven.

Now many years later and for the first time in the history of mankind, 21st century computer and genetic science, along with the worldwide Human Genome Project, have made it possible to identify most of the genetic intricacies of each person—with all their distinguishing characteristics. Brain Types fall somewhere within these characteristics. Yet identifying each genetic component and matching it to its respective bodily function are two different issues. Though geneticists have identified most genes and most of their individual characteristics, they still do not know what most genes do. The race is on, however.

Having the technology available to decipher these genetic characteristics and gaining access to it is another huge issue. The bottom line is money, much money. Though the expenses of completing such a monumental Brain Type project are high, they pale in comparison to the future benefits for mankind. Therefore, the costs are worth bearing—if they can be raised.

The second hurdle and most looming obstacle for me thus far, has been from an ethical perspective; You see, I strongly attempt to operate in ways that are upright according to Christian, Judeo principles. In my formative years of identifying distinctions of Brain Types, I soon realized they were in and of themselves, morally neutral. Like most things in life, Brain Types can be used constructively or destructively. When used positively, Brain Types’ benefits are immeasurable. They can also be applied improperly. Therefore, I’ve strongly attempted to promote the ethical use of inborn designs and have been much encouraged to see others applying it properly.

If you’ve followed recent genetic events in the media, you’re quite familiar with many of the scientific and ethical dilemmas facing our world. It’s one thing to clone sheep; it’s another issue to clone humans. Many more genetic issues pose ethical difficulties. This is why I have cautiously proceeded in the genetic aspects of BT. I would not want to see misguided scientists and world leaders use this technology improperly. Therefore, I’ve guarded my genetic pursuits, including a specific effort to hold on to some proprietary Brain Type information.

The point of all this is to say that science and Brain Types are not mutually exclusive. My goal is to scrutinize BT with every scientific means available. I desire that any representation made of God-given designs be researched with the latest in 21st century technology. If what I’m saying is true, then I know the proof will be forthcoming. Yet like the many legitimate who came before me with their “discoveries,” they took some time to authenticate scientifically. I personally believe I’m far more than half way home.

For you in my listening audience, however, I’m most enthused how laypeople like yourselves can use this invaluable insight, knowing your applications for it will be in the areas that will benefit society. If you only devote a little effort to further understand Brain Types, I believe you will quickly see its validity for identifying both inborn cerebral and physical attributes. You could easily get hooked on using this information to help guide you the rest of your life.

And by the way, other genetic examinations by researchers around the world are confirming the correlation between behavior and DNA. For instance, making one of the first links between a gene that affects brain chemistry and a normal aspect of personality were independent projects undertaken in 1996 by genetic researchers from both Israel and the United States. The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health tested 315 Americans. They discovered that people with long sequences of repeated DNA in their D4DR gene (or the 4th dopamine receptor) scored higher on such areas as extroversion, excitement-seeking and risk taking, quick-tempers, positive emotions, extravagance and disorderliness. My genetic pursuits have linked certain Brain Types as the most likely to possess the 7-repeat D4DR gene. We’re continuing to gather additional samples to validate these initial findings.

Those with shorter repeat sequences scored significantly lower. Their behavioral traits tended to be reflective, stoic, rigid, slow-tempered, and frugal. My studies have also linked certain inborn designs to these characteristics precipitated by the shorter-segment D4 gene.

The point is that the new field of molecular personality research is validating the link between behavior and genetics. We at BTI are also attempting to make a connection between genes and brain and body skills.

A final thought regarding how Brain Types can be constructively construed is by its firm belief that all people are created equal—with minor genetic variations. Just as our forefathers declared equality “for” all in the Declaration of Independence, we’re now discovering equality “in” all. Brain Types demonstrate the intellectual equality of all gender and racial groups, for the 16 designs are found in all groups of people, regardless of ethnicity or skin color. We believe each of the 16 B. Types has an IQ of 150, a genius intelligence specializing in a specific area unique to its design. It just so happens that depending upon the era in which you live, some designs are regarded by their current society as more useful and intelligent. In an agrarian culture, the pragmatic farmer would be esteemed. In the present high-tech era, computer wizzes get the nod. And remember, some Brain Types have logical intelligence while others have acumen relating to people, and so on. We believe genetics will prove our position.

Genetic science has also found amazing similarity in all human groups. In a collaborative effort, researchers at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago have traced the genetic roots of the human family, and despite the racial and ethnic differences, all share the same basic genetic makeup. Viewing one section of the chromosome that makes a person male, men from all parts of the globe were virtually identical. To quote one of the researchers, “we were terribly surprised.” A striking message from these DNA studies is how closely all humans are related. Researchers had expected much wider variations in mankind considering predicted mutational changes over evolutionary history. It seems, however, they hadn’t figured in the Creator’s more recent and special designs of people.


HOW I DEVELOPED BRAIN TYPING

In the mid 1970s, I developed a keen interest in why people do what they do. To be quite honest, I was especially frustrated at the behavior of many—world leaders, politicians, criminals (who sometimes aren’t that far removed from politicians), enemies, friends, family members, well-known athletes—you name them, virtually every category of people one can think of were hard for me deal with at times. How about you, have any of these kinds of people brought you frustration and perplexity?

I believed that if I could better understand people, especially why they do what they do, then I’d be much better equipped do communicate with and persuade them. I also figured it would help me to see why they couldn’t or wouldn’t change. Little did I realize what I was about to encounter.

I began my pilgrimage by reading psychology/typology books and collecting psychological/typological profiles or tests. I collected countless approaches to understanding people. (As an aside, for those who don’t know me, one area I tend to go overboard in is detail and perseverance. Don’t ask me what time it is without wanting to know how the watch is built.) So when I say I studied numerous approaches to better understanding people, I really did.

Unfortunately, virtually every personality or psychological profile I evaluated disappointed me. They seemed so trite and unscientific, as well as impractical. That was until I started looking more carefully at Carl Jung’s ideas on psychological type. Though I discovered some problems with this renowned Swiss psychiatrist’s ideas and those who promoted them, I could clearly see that he was on to something substantial. Not only was he a man of erudition, but also through a lifetime of studying people, he had discovered some noticeable and measurable “personality” traits among all people. He didn’t know if they were inborn or not, but that they were obvious (to him) and in many instances, predictable.

Jung’s many disciples carried on his work after his death in 1961, and two of them developed a personality questionnaire that has become quite popular in America, as well as other parts of the world. It is called, after it’s authors, the Myers/Briggs Type Indicator—or MBTI®. It’s reported that a few million Americans take the MBTI each year along with other personality quizzes based upon the Jung/Myers types.

Let me make two brief points from what I’ve just shared: First, the validity of Jung’s ideas and second, the validity of the questionnaires spawned by those ideas. Since the 1970’s I have been researching the beliefs of Jung and his followers; I can tell you they are on the right path of proper human understanding, but they have also failed in developing an accurate way to measure man’s behavioral characteristics. The questionnaires are highly inaccurate I believe, reliable some 50% of the time. If being 50% certain, or for that matter 70-75% as the MBTI supporters say, about a person meets your standards for evaluation, then you’ll want to use their questionnaires. In my life and line of work, I need complete accuracy.

To put it in economic terms and my vocation, when I have to tell a professional sports team whether to draft or trade for a guy who will soon be paid as much as $100 million, or more, I need to be right. If I’m wrong, not only will the team I represent lose a boatload of money, but I’ll lose financially and damage my reputation beyond repair. If I used the MBTI or any other personality questionnaire in my line of consulting, I’d quickly be out of work. This is why the MBTI and others are given little, if any, consideration in professional sports.

In my personal life, I want to be certain as well in my assessments. I identified my youngest son’s Brain Type when he was very young. I realized at that time many of Jordan’s innate and undeveloped gifts, in life and sports. I believed by my studies that his Brain Type could be an exceptional composer of music. Therefore, unlike my other children, my wife and I strongly encouraged his innate musical giftedness. As he grew up, however, he didn’t seem enamored with music nor did he like to practice his piano, But we nudged him gently to hang in there, believing someday he’d value his God-given talent—which still wasn’t obvious. Well, as he now approaches his 20th year on earth, he’s become very talented musically and has written and performed his own melodious CD on the keyboard. Jordan now loves his music, and values his ability to compose both in words and music. He’s very grateful his parents attempted to identify and develop one of his inherent talents.

Had I been incorrect assessing my son, his ultimate experience with music could have been disappointing; he feeling many hours had been wasted that could have gone to something more suited to, and productive for himself.

Well after that rabbit trail, let’s get back to how Brain Types came about. As I was getting a fairly good handle on the practical aspects of type theory, I attempted to apply it in sports, youth sports at first. Over a decade, I coached some 50 youth teams as my children grew up. Watching kids play in baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, and other youth sports really opened my eyes. Not only did I recognize distinct personality traits in kids, but I started observing motor skill traits which matched their personalities. You heard me correctly. I began seeing certain personalities demonstrate identical physical movements. As crazy as it seems, I knew there was something to what I was seeing; it wasn’t a fluke. Knowing that these physical traits had to be regulated by the brain, I began studying the field of neuroscience, trying to better understand how the mental and motor skills were triggered and acted in unison. This officially began my Thomas Edison approach and as I documented my never-ending findings and wrote out my observations. This research culminated in the publishing of my 400-page sports book in 1992.

Back to my youth coaching, when I started winning more than I should, fellow coaches and competitors wondered what I was up to. They couldn’t figure out why my teams performed so well. They knew it couldn’t be my coaching genius—and they were right. It was my ability to Brain Type the thousands of kids who tried out for youth sports and draft them according to the best Types for each sport, as well as develop them according to individual inborn characteristics. You say “that wasn’t fair.” Well as the old saying goes, all’s fair in love, war, and Little League. I’ve applied these same techniques as I now work with professional teams and athletes. I’m not out to toot my horn, but I believe that Brain Types will put you ahead in any venture you pursue—on or off the field; your competition will not be able to keep up.

Well, I’m now in my third decade of studying, researching, and applying Brain Types and it only gets better. If I never learn one more thing about how we’re designed to operate, I still have more than I can handle the rest of my life. The insights are so vast and comprehensive. Yet the information keeps coming, particularly as we progress into the genetic and high-tech age of the 21st century. Though I’ve originated and trademarked Brain Types, without Carl Jung, Katherine Briggs, Isabel Myers and other protagonists of psychological type theory, I’d still be in the dark regarding why folks do what they do. Just as these renowned type pioneers piggybacked on the findings of those who came before them, I have benefited likewise. Therefore, I’m forever grateful for their efforts that enlightened me. My hope, however, is that those who have now filled their shoes in the leadership of psychological type, will apply 21st century scientific principles to bring their theories up to date.

End of excerpt


What Empirical Studies Have Been Done on JN and Brain Typing?

Vic Braden, the sagacious and revered tennis teacher of many, many years—who also happens to be a psychologist and sports scientist—took a very careful look at BT. (Even Time magazine has extolled Braden’s virtues.) Mr. Braden has been involved in sports research and science for half a century. His extensive video and tape library going back years and years is one of a kind. After thoroughly researching BT, Braden became convinced they were genuine. What would cause this icon to endorse BT? Would he, of all people, quickly jump to some new sports fad after having spent his adult life painstakingly researching sports (especially tennis) intricacies with the latest technology in his million-dollar research/video studio?

Being the vigilant researcher that he always has been, Mr. Braden decided to carefully scrutinize this new insight that was called Brain Typing (BT). Living in the Southern California as did JN, Braden arranged to have him JN and his methodology thoroughly critiqued. For some three years, whenever they could coordinate schedules, Braden had JN assess people he had never seen before (usually amateur tennis players). This was done by face to face, one-on-one interviews (often videotaped for further reference) and watching each subject briefly play tennis. In many cases, JN would only have a ten-minute interview. He would not talk to the subjects about anything to do with their tennis game. Yet when each interview was done, he would apprise Braden (and any staff attending the evaluation session at the Vic Braden Tennis College) on how he believed each subject would play tennis (before they played!)—primarily addressing which muscle groups would be most and least used. JN would also notify Braden whether each player would demonstrate more mechanical left-brained movements or fluid and loose right-brained tendencies. The evaluations were more thorough than this brief explanation, but this provides a simple understanding of what transpired. In many cases, JN would just watch subjects play first and then tell the Braden (or staff) of their cerebral attributes before they ever had dialogue.

At the end of each session, JN would also provide a rather comprehensive explanation of his findings to both the subject and Braden. Though JN doesn’t remember how many cases he actually took part in (he was apprised it was in the vicinity of 100 over some 3 years), the subjects routinely said he was “amazingly accurate” with his insights—often insights that he should not even know about the people. They also couldn’t believe how he could peg their motor attributes before they even played. To say the least, the feedback was exceptional.

In addition, Braden verified Niednagel's findings by digitizing the subjects in the Coto Research Center in California with a biomechanist and Ph.D. Further, Braden contacted several neuroscientists, clinical psychologists and Dr. Arthur Kornberg, founder of DNA, to verify the potential of Brain Typing and not surprisingly, he was encouraged by all to continue his experimentation that would one day lead to a scientific study. Braden was cautioned by the majority of experts, however, that “psychology”, at best, was a soft science and a pure scientific study would probably never be a possibility unless it came within the field of genetics.

Nonetheless, after years of meticulous scrutiny of JN and BT, Braden came to a firm conclusion. He said he had never seen anything like it—that BT transcended all sports evaluation and development information he had ever heard of. Braden also said he would not be surprised to see BT and JN receive the Nobel Prize someday! For a person of Braden’s stature to make such claims was either the onset of losing his sanity or that he was convinced of something profound after 3 years of punctilious probing. We might add that nearly a decade has since passed since Mr. Braden did his comprehensive analysis, and by the accounts of those who know him best, he’s as cogent as ever.


How does BT in sports compare to the work of sports psychologists?

The vast majority of what Brain Types/Typing (BT) does, especially in sports, is not competitive to other similar professions, including sports psychology. The fact that both JN and sports psychologists work in sports and that they both attempt to help athletes perform better gives them similarity (along with team coaches, too). On the other hand, JN and BT go to a much different level than any sports psychologists of which we are aware. JN speaks of individual and specific motor skills with EACH sports client he has. This is JN’s principle focus, to help athletes understand how their individual and inborn motor skills affect every dimension of their athletic performance.

On the other hand, JN has never met a sports psychologist who has this emphasis—unless he’s already been trained by JN and embraces BT. Rather, our familiarity with sports psychologists is that they stress the “psychological” aspects of athletic performance. We have been told by teams that others lack the depth of physical (and cerebral) insight necessary to ‘convince’ them to select high draft choices. Teams rarely, if ever, rely on a sports psychologist’s insight alone to draft a high-paid player. (We’ve never heard of such a case.) Instead, they rely on scouts, player personnel, coaching staff, the GM, and the like for their decisions. This is not to say that some teams won’t do “psychological” testing or use sports psychologists as one of their lesser pieces in the decision-making process. JN knows and has worked alongside sports psychologists in pro sports--some of whom he greatly admires, and their insights. Nonetheless, he and they work from two different perspectives.

Our clients regularly tell us that Brain Typing transcends even their teams’ top talent evaluators (scouts, etc.) by having the best insight (regarding brain and body) and probability for accuracy regarding draft selections or trades. This helps explain why JN is sought out more for his insight among sports professionals than anyone that we know (and from what we’ve been told), and why numerous pro teams have used JN’s input as the major or only determination for a draft pick or trade. (Also, each year JN generally works for only one team per pro sport in order to give them the advantage over their competition.)


Does BTI welcome skepticism?

Absolutely! But we do have some qualifiers. Consider the following points:

Number1: Good Skeptics

We realize skeptics/critics come in many shapes and sizes. Some have legitimate questions and concerns. On the positive side, we all should approach EVERY issue of life with discernment and caution. Unfortunately, our world is in a tragic state, largely in part to people not giving enough thought and attention to the issues and beliefs they embrace. Naiveté runs rampant, even among world leaders and professionals who oversee society. Therefore, BTI encourages everyone to cautiously approach Brain Typing as they should other matters. If they choose to delve into BT, they will soon see that it is a very powerful tool. Its applications in the decades ahead foster for BTI great excitement but great hesitancy as well. So do the thousands of other genetic applications scientists are now strategizing. Unethical persons in power will soon be implementing more and more inappropriate applications to modern science. With this in mind, BTI has been quite cautious to this point in finalizing genetic discoveries with Brain Types. But to sum up the point of this paragraph, ALL of us should approach issues with caution—including Brain Typing.

Number 2: Unprofessional and Unethical Critics

We have all had our critics, at home and in the work place. Some are well intentioned with upright motives, and some are not, with ulterior schemes. In order for us to deal properly with those who challenge, it’s a good practice to not only hear what they’re stating, but also how they’re conveying it. With a little attentiveness to their approach, it usually is not too difficult to “read” the critique. Despite how critiquing is conveyed, BTI believes that it is always best to separate the complaint from the way in which it was communicated. Thus, if there is any truth to a criticism, we want to do all within our power to rectify any legitimate problem that may exist. As we tend to that kind of issue responsibly, we also need to turn our attention to those who seek to harm or render damage in an unethical manner. Not only must we defend our reputation but also, in extreme cases, we may need to expose mean-spirited critics (and their ways) who seek to destroy rather than to pursue truth and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Number 3: Skepticism—yes, Cynicism—no

A skeptic is defined (by the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary) as a “person who questions the validity, authenticity, or truth of something purporting to be factual.” Though skepticism can obviously be carried too far, it is a healthy practice to question each matter that comes before us (which hasn’t been already resolved.) Brain Typing, macro-evolution, typology/psychology, facts that can be twisted, etc., should all be carefully scrutinized. Thus, we at BTI welcome skepticism but not cynicism.

A Cynic is defined (by the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary) as “a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions, and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.” Unfortunately, this trait usually accompanies caustic critics. Judging another’s motives or criticizing his or her work, especially when one has had no contact with a person or has not attempted to understand the scope of someone’s work is not only improper but also unscientific.

Number 4: Hidden Agendas

Next we approach the critics with hidden agendas. The persons in this category are NOT interested in seeking “objective” truth and civility; rather ulterior motives often accompany their excessively critiquing ways. For instance, BTI was recently told by a reliable media source that a sports psychology critic of JN had his book rejected for publication because it could not compete with JN’s book, "Your Key to Sports Success.” We were also told a sports psychologist was out to gain national recognition by publicly criticizing JN and BTI (since we were already recognized nationally and he wasn’t). Not hearing either of these complaints first hand, we hope they are untrue. We know these tactics are often used in politics, but it is a sad day when persons cannot make a name for themselves, due to their own attributes and contributions, rather than at the callous expense of others. Hopefully, there is room for all of us in athletics who have valid, usable methods—even theories—as there are multitudes of teams and athletes.

Number 5: Criticism Always Precedes (and Accompanies) Great Discoveries

Unethical critics prefer to lob stones from their safe abodes, where they think they can’t be put to the test of scrutiny. It is comforting to know, however, that since the days of Adam and Eve, this kind of criticism has been brought on every new and major discovery; it’s extremely difficult to think of any that weren’t “raked over the coals.”

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.

Number 6: Straw Man and Other Spurious Arguments

BTI has one critic in particular who has attempted to undermine our work by conveying to others specious reasoning barbs. Attempting to get his colleagues to join in with his seemingly self-promoting agenda, he states numerous “straw man” arguments. For those who don’t remember, a “straw man” argument is when someone changes or exaggerates an opponent’s position or argument in order to make it easier to refute. Some of this critic’s charges are semi-close to the truth but enough removed to distort JN’s or BTI’s position. When a critic can’t get others to jump on board his bandwagon, he usually needs to embellish matters to get attention. Such has been the case. For instance, the critic likes to disparagingly tell others that JN claims to be able to eyeball anyone and then can BT him or her and tell all about how his/her brain functions.

Yes, there is partial truth in this statement, but it’s not in its proper context. We’ve not heard of the critic putting it in its proper context. JN even wrote him and said he’d be happy to qualify any statement or assertion he’s made in order help him better understand BT. Not surprisingly, no word back. This doesn’t seem to reveal a desire to understand.

As it has already been communicated, it is true that JN can look at many, many people and assess them rather quickly. Just as a botanist can look at certain plants and tell you quickly what they are, so, too, can JN with BT. Yet, as JN tells others almost daily, not everyone is an easy read. Half of the Americans JN views or meets are more difficult for him to evaluate. These vary in levels of difficulty. Therefore, JN has NEVER said that he can just look at “anyone” and decipher in seconds their BT. Unfortunately, some media people have stated this—since they wanted to hook people into viewing their coverage of JN and BT. These same media people have also regularly “cut out” JN’s refutations of their misleading statements. (Most interviews give only 5-10% of what JN communicates to them.) For anyone who’s been covered by the media, this is simple to understand. The psychology critic who charges JN with this false representation has never met or heard JN speak. He knowingly uses his “straw man” arguments in order to improve his position with others. If anyone should be fair and ethical in “judging” another, it should be a (and this) psychologist.

Also, JN has never said or implied he can tell anyone how his/her brain works—in general. What he can do is tell someone he’s assessed where he believes they are generally strongest cerebrally/cognitively and in motor movements. For instance, INTJs are cerebrally adept in Wernicke’s area of the left posterior forebrain. They can excel (and usually do) with abstract understanding in language. (For more info, read JN’s INTJ description.) INTJs are also far more fine- than gross-motor adept. Their gross motors are their least natural body movements. Regardless of the sport, INTJ’s will need help in this area. Additionally, INTJs have poor peripheral vision in sports—especially when experiencing pressure. This is why JN has never found them at point guard in the modern games of the NBA or quarterback in the NFL.

Therefore, ethical critiquing is fine, but when numerous distortions are employed (straw man arguments and tactics), ulterior motives may not be far away.


More coming soon ...