What kind of criticism has JN or BTI had the past few decades?
BTI has not needed to defend itself against anyone; for the many years we’ve been in existence, we’ve lived peaceably and harmoniously with our clients, as well as those with whom we associated. If someone was skeptical of our work, we went out of our way to gently help him or her with whatever reservations they had. (As we’ve grown, we unfortunately no longer have as many chances for this meaningful opportunity.)
Though JN has been dealing with and teaching BT to doctors and scientists since the early 80’s, he’s remained essentially free from criticism. He has been able to intelligently answer the questions raised, but more importantly, demonstrate the visual proofs of BT. Of course, some people along the way have shown skepticism but never was anyone overt in their criticism—until recently. In fact, numerous early skeptics have since joined ranks and strongly support Brain Typing.
But as the old saying goes, the higher up the ladder of success you go—especially in an avant-garde and cutting edge field/science—the more you expose yourself and bring out the vitriolic and self-serving critics.
It wasn’t until 2002 that we heard from combative critics. What’s more remarkable is that only ONE person, a sports psychologist (wouldn’t you know?), instigated this condemnation. On a national television sports program, JN and BT were touted as being highly influential in professional sports. In the spirit of a "balanced" perspective (which the show mandated), this critic was asked to share his opposing views. BTI had no problem with opposing views, but when they were shared from a critic with virtually no understanding of BT, good journalism was lost. What seemed to be a blow to the critic's esteem was when sports scientist, psychologist, and tennis legend Vic Braden challenged the critic--even challenging the primary position of critic's published research as being scientifically invalid (according to the vast majority of neuroscientific evidence). Though JN had no part in this "live" TV discussion, the critic began a seemingly vindictive plan of attack against Braden and BTI--following the program. Our hope and prayer is that someday this man can approach BT objectively and seek to better understand its merits. We would be happy to accommodate him.
For those interested, here's a little deeper insight to the TV broadcast. Two psychologists were asked by the TV program to criticize JN and BT. The first man was the founder of the “Sacramento Skeptics Society” and president of “Skeptics Links Society.” With a perspective like this, it is doubtful that he has approached Brain Typing open-mindedly. He also received his psychology degree from Fuller Seminary. His religious bias is apparent in material located by BTI, with a noticeable aversion to the works of Carl Jung. Though BTI rejects the vast beliefs of Jung, we objectively realize and accept that he was the first to identify and label (using his terminology) 6 mental processes in “normal’ people. These processes have since been viewed by modern brain-imaging techniques as authentic cerebral functions. Perhaps in the future, both critics will become aware of this neuroscientific fact.
Neither critic made one specific refutation of BT. The Skeptics Society president said “it’s never been done before”—thus implying it can’t be done now. This illogic would not win a debate at any level. The other, the antagonistic critic, fixated on saying that since he hadn’t seen any published research papers by JN in scientific journals, BT had to be bogus. Also, he said there is no scientific proof one can eyeball others and read their brains. We couldn’t agree more. Of course one can’t scientifically prove this. Nor can a psychologist prove it “scientifically” when he or she is observing or “reading” a client/patient and rendering a judgment—to be filed away or passed along to the client or others. (We're not speaking of the rarer instances when some people have fMRI's or PET's [for example] to identify biological maladies.) You can’t scientifically prove it when a huckster is “lying”, when he’s trying to sell you a widget, yet you “know” he is. One could think of a thousand/million? examples of things that can’t be proven—yet when people interact with one another they know certain observations are true.
As the host said on the TV show after interviewing a neuroscientist earlier in the week, the scientist stated that some people have extraordinary abilities to read others. Yes, JN has this ability in reference to BT, but JN also goes to great length to help objective people understand “how” he does it. He devotes 400 pages in his “YKtSS” book to help the layperson or professional do it as well. He also explains both cerebral and motor skill links to the brain.
Ask yourself this question, do you ever meet someone and get a fairly quick “read” on him/her in some fashion? Perhaps you sense he’s nice since he doesn’t speak judgmentally of others and that he also has a relaxed smile—which he does a lot, or, perhaps you notice another person’s wandering and sneaky eyes, and his conversation seems highly evasive and disingenuous. This person you do not trust. Now, can you prove this scientifically? Obviously not, but you KNOW it’s true. Yet, you can also study papers on the brain and learn how neuroscience has discovered where some of these cerebral or mental processes/functions take place. JN has not only identified where neuroscience has pinpointed the Jung and Myers processes, but he’s also shown where the unique motor skills for each BT are locate along the various regions of the brain’s primary motor cortex. (He‘s also shown much more than this.)
Had either critic said anything objective or positive regarding BT, they would have demonstrated much greater credibility. Neither psychologist had researched the Jungian mental processes in light of brain function. (If they had, they didn't want to admit JN was right.) As psychologists especially, in order to refute BT, they should have attempted to view brain research to dispute JN’s brain/Jungian typology assertions. Had they done so, their arguments on television would have acknowledged these neuroscientific facts and they wouldn’t have spoken so erroneously.
A final note to this story concerns two university
neuroscientists and Ph.Ds who were prepared to come on the TV program to support JN and Brain Typing. Only 3 days before the broadcast, they were dropped because the producers were concerned the “hard” science experts would make JN and BT the winners of the live debate. Despite the neuroscientists’ pleas and efforts to share their scientific views, they were turned away—though they had been told for over a month they could participate.
The TV host of the live program posed the question to the chief critic, “Is it possible that there is a little bit of professional jealousy here (on your side)?” Though circumstantial evidence may suggest this, we hope this is not the case. JN and BTI only desire to promote BT as ethically and truthfully as we know how. Until science has the technology to prove BT, psychology, education, or any other field, we should all seek to understand one another’s efforts openly, objectively, and comprehensively before rendering any kind of harsh verdict.
Back to the main discussion. Millions of people have now heard of BT over the past decade, so BTI has been fortunate and blessed with the ethical attitudes any skeptics displayed. This all changed, however, with the recent slanderous efforts, and the spreading of mistruths, by one person in particular. (We see no value in publicly sharing this specific slanderous info, nor would it not be edifying to the critic or his cause.)
The first thing we want to say is that we believe ethical critics should “do unto others as they would want done unto themselves.” We believe any decent person would agree with this Biblical principle. And of course, even an unethical critic would want this fair treatment if someone were vindictively attacking him. But the unethical critic is not interested in approaching matters the proper way when he’s on the attack. He obviously has a higher view of himself than his opponent—and most often, all other people.
Almost astonishingly, this sports psychology critic began his attack by knowing virtually nothing of Brain Typing. Nonetheless, he chose to disparage a new methodology of assessing and developing athletes and to assail its protagonist, JN. After all, we can only suppose, as a sports psychologist he believed he knew what was currently in and accepted among his peers—a result of his sports psychology education and personal experience.
This new approach he had never heard of before or been trained in; therefore it did not fit into standard protocol; it was something obviously outside his realm (and essentially the realm of sports psychology). Sports experts, teams, and athletes were seeking out this cutting edge know-how. How could some new and revolutionary sports approach been developed outside sports psychology with its discoverer having a university degree in business finance, not psychology?!
It almost sounds as heretical as the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison—both of whom had virtually no formal education. Nonetheless, these two scientific pillars, like many others throughout history, made fantastic discoveries without being “officially” trained or educated in an “orthodox” field of study or manner. In fact, when an intelligent person gives it thought, great discoveries require thinking OUTSIDE the box—going where none has gone before. If this weren’t the case, we’d still be living as they did even before the “Dark Ages.”
Have you heard of
Jane Goodall? You sure have if you’re into science. Goodall, turning 70 in 2003, is known around the world as the intrepid female who penetrated the deep jungles of Africa in her early 20s, alone, studying the lifestyles of chimpanzees on the shore of Lake Tanganyika in East Africa. It’s hard to imagine anyone with more knowledge regarding the behaviors and idiosyncrasies of the chimp. Goodall’s Gombe Stream Research Centre in Tanzania originated in 1964 and still stands today where her wildlife research continues. She also has her Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation in Washington D.C. Goodall has always held a passion for knowledge and science but
was educated, of all places, in a secretarial school in London (before heading to Africa). This former non-scientist began her scientific journey through diligent observations and research—far removed from a university setting. Among many findings, Goodall discovered how chimps use tools and possess various “personalities”. Her in-depth insights have been unparalleled.
Goodall, like Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, didn’t let the fact that she wasn’t university trained or officially degreed in the area of her interest deter her. Instead, as all inborn researchers, she pursued an irresistible course to better understand the interests and objects of her passion. (Goodall later degreed in ethology—the study of animal behavior with emphasis on the patterns that occur in natural environments.) With this in mind, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to those who consider JN’s decades of efforts to better understand the inborn and DNA-driven cerebral, motor, and spatial behaviors of mankind.
Goodall recalled her early days in Africa. “My childhood dream was as strong as ever: Somehow I must find a way to watch free, wild animals living their own, undisturbed lives.
I wanted to learn things that no one else knew, uncover secrets through patient observation. I wanted to come as close to talking to animals as I could."
The far-reaching Introverted and empirical observations of people like Jane Goodall (INTP-BCIR) and Jonathan Niednagel (ISTJ-BEIL) have brought them a dimension of reality not journeyed by others before them. Since the beginning of creation, each year brings a select group of explorers and risk-takers who are willing to venture into the thrills and chills of virgin territory.
JN never had a strong desire to be degreed in psychology, neuroscience, or genetics—especially psychology. Save for Jung and his type theories, the realm of psychology actually ran contrary to JN’s personal and spiritual beliefs. Whereas psychology emphasized man’s solutions for life and problems—rather than God’s—and it was often involved in questionable theories rather than solid empirical or scientific data, this “soft" science held little interest for JN. Though JN has been strongly supportive of the “hard-science” efforts of neuroscience and genetics, he didn’t pursue these professions since they didn’t provide enough emphasis to the areas associated with BT. Thus, JN decided to pioneer the field of BT with the hope of making it a science of the 21st century. Though BT has been used in college curriculum, JN desires to see it become one of the prominent sciences over the next decade. We believe genetics in particular can make this a reality.
To amplify JN’s educational pursuits in his early years of BT, you might find the following of interest. JN set financial goals for himself shortly out of college in California; having received a degree in business finance in the early 1970’s, this came naturally. To his surprise, he achieved his lifetime financial goals by age 28. JN specialized in commodity futures trading in college and took his expertise to the Mecca of commodities trading, the Chicago Board of Trade. Having spent a few years there working for one company, he was asked to set up an office in California for futures trading and research—on behalf of another larger company—one of the world’s top futures companies, which up to that time only had offices in London, Paris, New York, and Chicago. Out of hundreds of employees, JN was told he was the only “outsider” they had hired in their ranks. He had impressed the brass in Chicago and New York with his one-of-a kind deep research habits.
Having returned to California to hire new employees, JN knew that people looked their best in resumes and obituary pages. He wanted to delve deeper, to have greater confidence in ascertaining their true abilities and character. Thus, in his research tradition, he began collecting personality/psychological profiles and researching why people do what they do. This began his pursuit of BT. Not only did this endeavor help him in reading people better, but it helped him better understand himself and ultimately make wiser decisions. His successful choices enabled him to reach financial goals he thought improbable. Yet, JN was left with an empty and meaningless feeling after hitting his materialistic goals. He realized he was drawn far more to understanding and helping people than pursing financial successes.
With his wife’s permission, JN dropped his successful business pursuits, cold turkey, and began his long pilgrimage of better understanding people.
Since universities only offered courses on personality/psychological types, and not on Brain Typing (which emphasized brain and body functions/skills), JN opted to pursue this unexplored field on his own. He was well content with what he had already learned from the writings of Jung, Briggs, and Myers, and so he spent the next 5 years in doing independent studies regarding the brain and motor skills.
He spent countless hours in university science-medical libraries and spoke to Ph.D.s whenever he could in the realm of Brain Types. Fortunately for JN, he had made and saved just enough money before to support his family over this long study process. During this time he accumulated reams of data and material for his future sports book, but he also put together his findings of the inborn differences of people in the business world, later publishing this 230-page book in the early 1980’s.
JN has proven his research proclivities throughout his life, and the publishing of
“Your Key to Sports Success” in the early 90’s was no exception. His 400-page book is only one of his written dissertations for Brain Typing. The latest proof of his endless study of brain and body behavior is coming in the form of his most valued work yet, a new book and CD on how BT relates to virtually every phase of life. Though JN is a university graduate with 16 years of formal education, his only advanced degree comes in the world of hard knocks, from pursuing and pioneering over the course of nearly 30 years what he has called BT. JN is confidant that universities will someday offer Ph.D.s in Brain Typing (or the same by another name) and that his relentless efforts will allow others after him to pursue this fascinating area with credentials—if they so choose.
JN never sought the security of a Ph.D. from another subject for his specific passion and field of interest. Like many explorers before him, seeking the truth—even if it ran contrary to established thought and was “outside the box”—was more important.
It’s difficult to imagine anyone anywhere who better understands the connection between personality traits and the brain and body, and has spent more time researching this area, than JN. Moving on.
Did you know our notions of “science” and “scientists” date only to the 19th century? Until then, “science” meant simply knowledge and the label of “scientist” did not exist. In our present generation, the four-step cycle that defines the “scientific method” of knowing is observation, synthesis, hypothesis, and testable prediction. JN has diligently applied this model over the past few decades. As it’s hard to imagine anyone who’s observed chimpanzees more than Jane Goodall, it’s also difficult to comprehend anyone who’s scrutinized more people in the cerebral/physical dimension than JN. His unprecedented success in the eyes of his clients attests to his unique ability to
read and
develop people. Just as Goodall found favor and unparalleled acceptance among the primates as she convinced them of her abilities to be understanding, earning their acceptance, so too has JN among people with whom he’s worked. They’ve quickly learned he understands them in a one-of-kind and accurate way, according to empirical and scientific principles.
BTI and JN are extremely grateful for the support we’ve had over these last couple of decades promoting the notion of Brain Types. Not only have thousands of lay people embraced our beliefs but countless professionals as well. JN speaks regularly to M.D.’s and Ph.D’s and many of these professionals have enthusiastically accepted BT in their practices and personal lives. BTI’s short-term goal, however, is to bring about the genetic confirmation of our beliefs—allowing all professionals (including our critic) and laity to acknowledge the process of identifying the individual and inborn designs in all people—which regulate specific cerebral and motor skills.
How do you plan on handing unethical and uncivil criticism?
Have you ever been unfairly or maliciously maligned in print for the world to see and consider? Maybe it’s been with verbal slander and lie-slinging that your hard-earned reputation has been assaulted. First you’re saddened, then confused, and then you realize your most valuable treasure, your integrity, has been assaulted.
You ask yourself, is it responsible just to ignore the “unprofessional” and seemingly envious opposition? Is it fair to your above-board work and your supporters and coworkers? Is it fair to those who have just tuned in to Brain Types, are getting interested, and could ultimately be significantly helped by it? Finally, you ask yourself, are you just lending credibility and recognition to those who need to be silenced and not be given an audience, if your go ahead and defend yourself?
We at BTI would like to take moderate action, acknowledging that highly erroneous accusations have been cast, denying their validity, identifying some of the many distortions, and then moving on with the positive use of Brain Types. We are, thank goodness, too busy right now to spend much time in self-defense. The proof of BT has been in the pudding, and has been well documented. Teams, corporations, and families are needing and using BTs more and more. When these God-given and inborn designs are genetically validated, few will not want BT to be a part of their everyday lives.
BTI is keeping a list of those who attack Brain Typing in an “unquestionably” inappropriate manner. (Inappropriate will be amplified herein). This list will be placed on our website and in certain upcoming materials we publish. We will also make available this list of names (or organizations) and their comments to the many in the media who cover our work. Though we already have credible, including withheld (deliberately), evidence to support our BT beliefs, and to rebut unethical and unfair criticism, we are waiting until our genetic research and findings irrefutably support us. If (which we know it’s not a matter of) and when these conclusions come, they will be shared with the scientific community for validation.
We have reluctantly chosen this course of action in order to expose mean-spirited critics who are, sad as it is to say, also debilitating to society. We believe that those who demonstrate this unprofessional and degrading behavior in our direction must also manifest these traits elsewhere—within their professions as well as home lives. Not only do we understand this from our decades of study into aberrant human behavior, but it’s also been recently confirmed to us by associates/acquaintances of our critics; caustic and heavy-handed natures seem to be their common denominator.
By making these names and slanderous statements available for all to see, we believe it will serve a lesson to not only present-day maligners but for others to come. Just as people of this sort seek to unfairly injure others, they will be recompensed by their own unethical actions. What goes around comes around. (Fortunately, the list we presently have is quite limited.)
As we’ve stated multiple times, we welcome objective, civil, truthful and ethical critiquing, when considering Brain Types, or any subject for that matter—even issues that are already accepted as fact, normal, or sound science. After all, what is regarded as fact today, can and is often proved erroneous tomorrow. When facts are distorted and untruths propagated, we are obligated to expose them.
New and Highly Deceptive Attack
Birds of a feather flock together and BTI’s prime critic has found another like-minded person to join him. The two have mounted a new attack on BTI in 2003. Critic number-2 has authored a highly deceptive, defamatory, and fact-distorting 40-page paper on BT—attempting to get others to join the seeming lynch party.
Not only is the paper libelous and ripe for litigators to pursue, but it parallels the spurious and notorious writings of the
New York Times’ Jayson Blair—who recently came to America’s attention. Academic degrees or affiliating with a renowned company or organization do not ensure integrity of authors or critics. In fact, such things are often hindrances to honest dealings.
BTI recently became aware of this unethical paper against us and we’ve not had time to sift through all the misinformation and deceptive, self-serving prose. The distortions of fact are honestly too many to count in the initial reading. We and those who represent us will soon delve into this untruthful report.
Closing this sad chapter into an aspect of human nature, there is a story in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, in
the book of Esther, that comes to mind when considering spiteful people. Like the story illustrates, what they don’t realize is that their actions will eventually bring unwanted shame upon themselves. Haman, the mean-spirited and envious right-hand man to King Ahasuerus (approximately 450 B.C.) attempted to destroy the upright and mild-mannered Mordecai—Esther’s beloved cousin. Yet Haman’s self-constructed and wicked devices, which he set up for Mordecai’s demise, actually brought about his own tragic ruin. We’re hopeful, however, that BTI’s two over-the-line critics and others of their kind will learn how to be professional and civil before they disgrace themselves further—treating others as they would want to be scrutinized and spoken of.
BTI’s mission in life has been to understand why unimpaired people do what they do. We believe we have a solid grasp on this subject, including why some unprofessional people hope to elevate themselves by attempting to deceptively bring others down. Though we cognitively “understand” these actions and people, we’re saddened for them, and those upon whom they prey.
Perhaps it's helpful to remember Dr. Brenner's suggestion again:
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.
Do you believe that these inborn BT’s are a result of Intelligent Design?
If you keep up with news, you’ve probably read or heard of intelligent design (ID), but what exactly is it? ID is rooted in observation. The world looks very much as if an intelligent being created it. ID contends that living organisms appear designed because they ARE designed—manifesting features that natural processes cannot mimic. Scientific advances, especially in molecular biology, have only strengthened this impression. Intelligent design advocates have made important gains in intellectual circles and the culture at large. Many media reports have covered ID, including front-page articles in the
L.A Times and the
New York Times in 2001.
Just as there is purpose and design throughout the whole universe, so too, there is with people—far more than what any of us ever imagined. We at BTI subscribe to ID. Intricate studies of the human brain and eye alone convince us of a master designer. BTI feels an obligation to tell others of their God-given designs.
If most of us in America are working for the common good, then why wouldn’t we at BTI try to reveal a “good” that surpasses every other “understanding” when it comes to “why people do what they do?”
We have a mission to tell others of God’s special handiwork in their individual makeups. From all the empirical and scientific evidence, we believe that an omnipotent and loving Creator has fashioned us all—with purpose and design. Understanding God’s special and different configurations for people—heretofore unknown—prompts us to tell them of these inborn variations and how best to develop them as Deity designed. We would be remiss in our duties if we did not make this information known. To this point in human history, we are not aware of anyone who has identified the inborn matrices of people to the extent of JN and Brain Typing.
If you were to go to a destitute area of the third world, would it be right to withhold the knowledge of proper sanitation practices and nutrition if they didn’t know better? Though people can exist and function without the knowledge of Brain Types (and sanitation and nutrition), with it we believe they can find much greater significance and benefit to life.
Most of us are quick to tell others we love or care about if something can benefit their lives—especially in an appreciable way. After all, genuine love is “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If after carefully evaluating Brain Types and finding that they’re real, and immensely beneficial to self and others we love,
it’s only natural to want to tell others of how they can find similar benefit.
In addition, we believe mankind has a greater responsibility to his Creator, and his fellow man, than he’s previously demonstrated. The Christian/Jewish scriptures convey that man has an obligation to seek greater understanding and harmony with his fellow beings. And just as typology matriarchs Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs implored us to seek better understanding among ourselves, so echoes BTI.
With the advent of new technologies, we believe Brain Typing offers much more insight into man’s inborn makeup than ever before.
Compare the empirical and scientific soundness between BT and psychology and its psychotherapies?
We know of no beliefs that BT espouses which do not have empirical soundness or a scientific basis. Whether it is the cerebral functions that can be shown by brain imaging as valid neurological processes (such as verbal or spatial inanimate logic “T”) facilitated in specific regions of the brain, or that these cerebral functions (and designs) are inborn—which genetic intelligence experts are now recognizing more and more, or that one’s voluntary motor skills are triggered via the primary motor cortex, we and many scientists believe BT’s beliefs are rooted in substance. We are quick to say, however, the conclusive “scientific” proof is yet to happen, but this doesn’t mean BT is without a rational foundation. We believe it is soundly cogent.
Regarding the soundness of psychology and its many therapies, others are more capable of handing this question than we. Over the years, we have conversed with scores of neuroscientists, some who’ve also had degrees in psychology. They have provided BTI with many neuroscientific research reports and articles that proclaim as unscientific numerous psychotherapies currently in use within the profession. These scientists with whom we conferred found it ironic that BT would be challenged by some psychologists as unscientific when all the while their profession practices many therapies and theories that can’t approach the scientific or empirical soundness of BT.
We at BTI are greatly pleased with those within the psychological profession who seek to find empirical or scientific evidence for their beliefs and practices. The field of neuropsychology especially holds much promise. BTI has as its goal to tell others of how God has wonderfully wired them with specific inborn designs, not to announce and denounce any shortcomings of psychology. Yet when those from that profession challenge us, we only ask them to look first at themselves, and then at us, objectively.
Yet for those who desire to further compare BT with psychology, or for those who want to become better acquainted with psychological terminology, the following may enlighten you a bit more with some of the therapies and terms within the profession.
Consider some of the treatments employed by the psychological and psychiatric professions:
psychiatric care, drug treatment, psychotropic drug, psychosurgery, leucotomy, prefrontal leucotomy (or lobotomy), cingulectomy, amygdalectomy, stereotaxy, psychoanalysis, analysis, ego analysis,
Freudian analysis, psychoanalytic method, the couch, James-Lange theory, transactional analysis (TA), assertiveness training, psychotherapeutics, psychotherapy, behaviour modification, behaviour therapy, New Consciousness, bioenergetics, autosuggestion, biofeedback, client-centred therapy, aversion therapy, confrontation therapy, desensitization, conditioning, relaxation therapy, counselling, psychological counselling, pastoral counselling, directive therapy, ego therapy, est (Erhard seminars training), existential therapy, evocative psychotherapy, Gestalt therapy, group psychotherapy, group dynamics, marathon group, family therapy, family training, conjoint therapy, co-counselling, encounter group, consciousness raising, sensitivity training, sensitivity training group (or T-group), group relations training, sensory awareness training (SAT), marriage encounter, marriage guidance, humanistic therapy, logotherapy, mind cure, modelling, nondirective therapy, occupational therapy, play therapy, recreational therapy,
primal therapy, regression therapy,
scream therapy, psychodrama, drama therapy, radical therapy, feminist therapy, rational-emotive therapy, reality therapy, release therapy, abreaction, catharsis, psychocatharsis, reminiscence therapy, Rogerian therapy, role-playing, sex therapy, supportive theory, token economy, transcendental meditation (TM), transpersonal theory, Arica movement, vocational therapy,
suggestion therapy, suggestionism, hypnotherapy, hypnotic suggestion, post-hypnotic suggestion, narcohypnosis, autohypnosis, self-hypnosis, sleep treatment, sleep therapy, narcotherapy, pentothal interview, narcoanalysis, shock treatment, shock therapy, convulsive therapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), electroconvulsive shock therapy (EST), electroshock, electroshock therapy, electronarcosis, metrazol shock therapy, hypoglycaemic shock therapy, insulin shock therapy, nonconvulsive electric treatment
Consider some of the terms used by the psychological community to define their field:
science of the mind, science of human and animal behaviour, abnormal psychology, academic psychology, Freudian psychology, psychoanalysis, Freudianism, psychoanalytic theory, Jungian psychology, analytic(al) psychology, Adlerian psychology, individual psychology, apperceptionism, applied psychology, associationism, association psychology, mental chemistry, animal psychology, ethology, animal behaviour, behavioural psychology, behaviourism, stimulus-response psychology, Skinnerian psychology, Watsonian psychology, Pavlovian psychology, Lacanian psychology, clinical psychology, child psychology, cognitive psychology, comparative psychology, constitutional psychology, criminal psychology, depth psychology, developmental psychology, dianetics, differential psychology, dynamic psychology, ecological psychology, educational psychology, empirical psychology, existential psychology, experimental psychology, faculty psychology, folk psychology, functional psychology, genetic psychology, Gestaltism, Gestalt psychology, Gestalt theory, configurationism, group psychology, hedontics, hormic psychology, Horneyan psychology, humanistic psychology, industrial psychology, introspection psychology, metaphysics, metapsychology, morbid psychology, neuropsychology, object-relations theory, objective psychology, phenomenological psychology, physiological psychology, popular psychology, psychic determinism, psychoacoustics, psychobiochemistry, psychobiology, psychodynamics, psychogenesis, psychogenetics, psychognosis, psychography, psycholinguistics, psychologism, psychometrics, psychometry, psychoneurosis, psychopathology, psychopharmacology, psychophysics, psychophysiology, psychosociology, psychosomatics, psychotechnics, psychotechnology, psychological warfare, psychosexuality, psychosexual development, race psychology, rational psychology, reactology, reflexology, Reichian psychology, orgone theory, self psychology, social psychology, structuralism, structural psychology, parapsychology, psychokinesis (PK)
Lastly, for those who wonder how scientific the
psychological community sees itself, consider the following article that was recently sent to us, evidently written by a
psychologist (with a Ph.D.) to her colleagues
expressing concerns.
Read the following or at least notice the
color-shaded sections.
Split Personality?
Cynthia McLoughlin, Ph.D.
Within Division 39, there has been much debate in recent years about whether psychoanalytic psychologists are psychologists first or psychoanalysts first. While this debate is organizational shorthand for a variety of vexed issues,
it is also closely connected to a much larger and longer-standing debate within the APA over clinical psychologists’ identity as scientists versus practitioners.
In a 1991 article Richard M. McFall remarked that psychology has a “split personality” (see page 6 for extended excerpts from this article). Within the APA, he said, those who see themselves primarily or exclusively as scientists live in an uneasy state of tension with those who see themselves primarily or exclusively as practitioners.
This tension is at least as old as the
Boulder Model—a compromise position on psychological training adopted by the APA in 1949. The Boulder Model asserts that clinical psychologists are and must be both scientists and practitioners. In their recent article, “Integrating Science and Practice,” Kihlstrom and Kihlstrom (1999) (full text available at http://www.institute-shot.com) observed that:
In the early VA system, psychologists were mostly supervised by psychiatrists who had little research training, and whose viewpoint was essentially psychoanalytic…. In the Boulder model, the whole point of clinical psychology was to put psychotherapy...on a firm scientific base…. Clinical practice was to be part of a dialectical enterprise, responding to and contributing to, advances in knowledge of basic psychological processes....All practitioners were to be scientists, and while not all scientists were to be practitioners, at least there was a sense that scientists and practitioners were engaged in a common enterprise.
Despite this integrative ideal, large numbers of psychologists have remained stubbornly divided. The side of the divide more familiar to psychoanalytic psychologists rings, for example, with the complaints of practitioners who say that training programs, accreditation standards, and licensing exams contain too much that is irrelevant to the work they do as therapists. But dissatisfaction among scientifically oriented psychologists is equally strong, including complaints that the Boulder Model reflects a
general compromise within the APA in which science is treated as merely one aspect of psychology as opposed to being seen as the basis of all psychological knowledge. This compromise, some argue,
condemns psychology to permanent second-class status in the scientific community. In 1988 disaffected scientifically oriented psychologists split off from the APA to form the American Psychological Society, which is committed exclusively to research-based psychology “and its applications.”
But the 1988 split by no means carried off all of the disaffected empiricists. Many remain firmly committed to pursuing their goals within the APA. One such group is the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology (or SSCP—Section III of Division 12—Clinical Psychology), which was formed in 1966 as a result of APA debates over the legitimacy of (practitioner-oriented) schools of professional psychology. The stated purpose of the SSCP is to promote the tightest possible connection between science and practice in clinical psychology:
The clinical psychologist is a behavioral scientist, whether he is doing clinical work, research, teaching or consulting. His role is the development of principles and their application in the assessment and modification of human behavior. The validation of the former depends on the latter; the utility of the latter depends on the former. They cannot be separated. (Oltmanns & Krasner,
The Clinical Psychologist, 46:1, 1993)
In the 35 years since its creation, this energetic and committed group has greatly increased its influence. Among other things, it has been successful in changing the standards for accrediting graduate programs in clinical psychology (Kihlstrom & Kihlstrom, 1999); it has become an increasingly powerful voice within Division 12, whose website prominently features the findings of the Task Force on Empirically Supported Treatments and recommends that individuals inquire, when seeking psychotherapy, what diagnosis best fits them and what kinds of therapy have been scientifically proven to be effective in treating persons with that diagnosis; it has argued that government grants and third-party payer monies ought to go only to practitioners of “empirically supported treatments” (EST); and it has undertaken the project of keeping track of research that, according to its standards, has proven one or another form of psychotherapy effective for a particular diagnosis.
With the rise of managed care, with escalating liability risks in our litigious society, and with the growing governmental regulation of psychology as a profession, the view of clinical psychology promulgated by the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology has gained increasing support within the APA. Intense competition among the various mental health professions in the managed care marketplace has led to unprecedented efforts to demonstrate the efficacy of various types of psychotherapy.
A science of clinical psychology that directly parallels the medical sciences is seen by many psychologists as the only way to keep psychology viable against the cheaper and quicker “fixes” of psycho-pharmacology:
The fact is that clinical psychology derives much of its status, including its independence from psychiatry and its claim to third-party payments for services rendered, from the assumption that its practices are firmly based on scientifically validated principles and techniques. Thus, there is—in fact,
there can be—no conflict between science and practice, so long as clinical psychology wishes to retain its identity, autonomy, and status as a profession. (Kihlstrom & Kihlstrom, 1999)
The success of the SSCP and like-minded groups throughout the APA has generated concern among clinicians whose relationship- and/or insight-oriented approaches to psychotherapy do not lend themselves to the methodology of randomized controlled clinical trials, psychotherapy manuals, and treatment guidelines for specific DSM disorders.
Many family-systems, existentialist, humanist, feminist, psychodynamic, and psychoanalytic therapists find their own ways of thinking about human experience incompatible with the model of empirical support used by EST advocates. Increasingly they are wondering, not only how they are going to make a living, but whether the work they do is threatened in more direct ways by the movement toward “empirically supported treatments.”
In a recent
Psychologist-Psychoanalyst article, Karen Shore (the psychoanalyst-activist president of the National Coalition) writes:
There is a major threat both from within and outside our field from many people with influence who strongly believe that there should only be insurance coverage for psychotherapies that are ‘empirically validated’ and conform to research protocols applicable to cognitive-behavioral therapies (manualized treatment, randomized clinical trials, symptom-focused)….
Worse yet...some influential psychologists believe that it should be considered malpractice to do psychoanalysis or psychodynamic therapy with conditions shown to improve quickly through cognitive-behavioral therapy….
The EST movement assumes that the problems that bring people to psychotherapy are “mental disorders” which psychologists seek to alleviate or cure. A recent article in
the APA Monitor highlighted the difficulties of humanistic psychologists (Division 32) who wish to define themselves as practicing something other than medical-model psychotherapy. Maureen M. O’Hara, a past president of Division 32, was quoted as saying,
“We don’t believe the medical system is the right place for people to address questions of meaning, career choice, ethics, values, self-development and improvement. These kinds of questions are best framed in a language that has nothing to do with pathology and cure” (March 2000).
As advocates of EST gain ground, practitioners of traditional talking therapies face a dilemma. Can they, should they attempt to prove the value of their work on the terms provided by medical science? Reactions within the APA Divisions whose members are likely to be negatively affected by widespread acceptance of the EST approach range from (1)arguing that the idea is a good one, but the particular scientific standards used are unfairly weighted against insight-oriented therapies, to (2) arguing that there should be a variety of practice guidelines and approaches to empirical support that reflect the wide variety of existing approaches to therapy, to (3)
arguing that the demand for empirical validation of insight-oriented psychotherapies is equivalent to insisting that English students be subjected to randomized controlled trials to see whether reading Shakespeare is a worthwhile activity (i.e., that if the person doing it finds it worthwhile, it is worthwhile).
The views of most psychoanalytic psychologists probably fall along a broad middle range in the EST debate: trained in Boulder-model programs, many of us are strongly identified both as scientists and practitioners and believe that outcome studies are bound to show the value of what we do because we know what we do is valuable.
Insulated by the very familiarity of psychology’s “split personality” (in which it has been taken for granted, over the years, that scientific types don’t pay much attention to us nor we to them) traditional practitioners have been slow to recognize the direct challenge to their ways of working being posed by advocates of EST.
Leaders of the
EST movement make no apology for their position and they have thrown down the gauntlet:
Prove,
through empirical studies, that the kind of therapy you do is effective in alleviating the symptoms of persons with a given disorder or stop (except under strictly experimental conditions) offering that form of treatment. Anything else, they argue, is harmful to the public and no more to be tolerated in psychology than it would be in cardiology or oncology. Their view is receiving increasing support from government and health-care industry leaders. Clearly, this is a debate to which we need to be attending and one that should prompt each of us to re-visit the questions about what we know and how we know it that lie at the heart of
organized psychology’s “split personality.”
------------------------------
As a university researcher and Ph.D. in psychology (who also works with brain imaging regularly--especially PET scans) recently told BTI, “no psychologist should say that psychology or psychotherapy [in general] is scientifically sound or provable.” This echoes what neuroscientists have communicated as well. We pass along these perspectives not to discredit psychology but to point out that its validity [in general] is not based upon scientific proof.
How hard do you try to separate yourself from “psychology” and psychologists?
Since Brain Types was spawned from typology or personality types, and from protagonist and psychiatrist Carl Jung, there is obviously a link to psychology—the study of how the mind works. Other than that, however,
BT attempts to head in the opposite direction of “psychology” (in general) as it attempts to better understand and explain
how genetics and the brain work to direct cerebral, physical, and spatial behaviors, not to grasp the ethereal mind and its connection to past and present events, and so on. We believe
BT is the logical and scientific link from typology to the hard sciences of genetics and neuroscience. Of course, those in the field of neuropsychology are attempting to connect brain activity to various psychological theories, issues, and maladies—and for this we greatly respect and support them. Yet, we are unfamiliar with any serious attempts beyond ourselves to link personality “types” with genetic design and brain activity. Actually, we’re astounded that others haven’t seriously pursued this course. (If you’re familiar with some who have, please let us know. We’d be pleased to pass along how others can access these people and their findings.)
Brain Typing would prefer to have no connection with psychology if it could—but since the “typological” (not psychological) insights of Jung, Briggs, and Myers spawned BT, it will always have a link to their work. Even when BT is all accomplished through genetic testing someday, it will always have its beginnings in typology. Since we do not use or espouse “psychological” theories, (except the Jung/Myers “typological” theory, believing its mental processes are legit cerebral functions—which takes it out of theory) or therapies, we are certainly distanced from this vocation.
In fact, when asked about our psychology connections, we always separate ourselves from this field and its practitioners—for at least four reasons. We’ll consider them shortly but before we do, let’s ponder the definition of psychology—which is simply the study of the psyche or mind. This study did not begin with modern psychology or psychiatrists. It began with Adam and Eve. Considered by many as the wisest man to ever live, King Solomon of the ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures penned the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Both of these great works challenged mankind to reflect deep within and to apply sound principles and strategies for living life. Later on, Socrates said to “Know Thyself.” The practice of evaluating the mind has continued to the present, with
hundreds of vocations now using “psychological” techniques.
Go to a car lot this weekend and see if the salesperson doesn’t use some “high-powered” psychological methods on you. He may not take you deep into your past (although he or she just might), but he’ll more than likely try to get you into a mindset to buy his vehicle. (If you learn Brain Typing, you can discern his inborn design which will make your discussion and negotiations go much easier—for YOU especially. Some Brain Types, some of whom are natural salespeople, dominate others, and we like to make the playing field fair for all.)
Virtually every vocation applies “psychological” techniques—wittingly or unwittingly—in its attempt to persuade others to seek its services or products.
So psychology is a study of the mind and BTI is trying to get people to realize that the mind can be much better understood when it’s evaluated through the brain. As we’ve said throughout the years, we’re trying to link the “soft science” of typology with the “hard and true sciences” of neuroscience and genetics. Let’s now return to reasons why BTI always distances itself from the field of psychology and its practitioners for at least four reasons.
First, we do not subscribe to the seemingly innumerable psychological theories (which could be argued endlessly as to whether they are useful or harmful, and where they originated—in or out of “psychology”) and,
two, we don’t want to be equated with those who do embrace these numerous theories and therapies. (Actually, BTI embraces spiritual solutions for man’s non-biological problems; more on this later.) When Jon Niednagel works in sports and is occasionally addressed by someone who guesses he’s a sports psychologist, JN immediately identifies he’s not a psychologist in any form and that there is a wide barrier between his consulting-coaching and what sports psychologists (s.p.) do. Yes, JN can encourage “some” athletes (with specific BT’s) to try visualization techniques for performance enhancement (yet visualizing for certain BT’s actually hurts their performances!), like s.p. often do, but JN’s suggestions for improvement are usually far different than what s.p. advocate. Since BT involves motor skills, most of JN’s “coaching” is geared to helping athletes develop the physical. (As a side benefit, the better one’s athletic form and mechanics, the better one’s brain handles competitive thoughts.) This explains a
third reason BTI separates itself from what is commonly regarded as psychology; we believe our coaching/consulting techniques are grounded to one’s innate and individual design (brain and body).
In sports, our input can be demonstrated to work with the naked eye. The ability to “see” each Type’s innate motor skills (good and bad) and then develop them to a higher level is quite impressive—as our clients willingly share.
Fourth, but not least,
BTI does NOT provide “psychological counseling.” Our goal is to try to help people see their inborn designs and then how best to care for and develop them, just as a worker at a nursery would educate you on a “specific” tree you are about to purchase. In this case, you would want to know about optimal amounts of sunshine, fertilizer, water, and so on for the tree. In BTI’s case, if we can help you to discover for yourself who you truly are—which “tree” you are, from an inborn, genetic and physical perspective—then you can even think of strategies on your own for self-improvement. Also, if you’d like to hear some of the self-helps tips we’ve gleaned from the thousands of people with whom we’ve worked, we’ll pass those along, too.
Brain Typing does no more than help the professional, as well as layperson, to better understand and develop one’s (or another’s) inborn makeup (cerebrally and physically).
Brain Typing helps one familiar with Jung/Meyers typology to better understand the various mental typological processes. For instance, rather than just understanding that the Thinking function is concerned with logic, inanimate objects, impersonal reasoning and objectivity, Brain Typing enables one to understand that
Thinking (T) has different forms, depending upon the cerebral hemisphere in which it resides. Thinking in the left brain excels with verbal and numerical logic whereas Thinking (T) in the right brain specializes in spatial logic. If you were playing tennis, you would be heavily relying upon the right hemisphere’s spatial logic to know where best to place your shots. (Regardless of one’s tennis abilities, right-brained Thinkers (_ _TP’s) are at a significant advantage in quickly determining where to place the most logical shot.)
I’ve heard you don’t like to provide psychological solutions to problems; why not?
We espouse the Jewish/Christian Biblical Scriptures and their principles. They claim to provide the direction and answers to man’s life, including his problems. (How often we’ve encouraged the reading of Solomon’s Proverbs!) As long as man’s “psychological” solutions are consistent with these divine principles, we can support them. When they contradict, however, is where we part company. Since many psychological theories and therapies ignore or run contrary to Biblical teaching, we at BTI do not support those that do. In addition, we do not administer psychological therapies, anyway.
We at BTI are neither psychologists nor psychoanalysts. We would approach matters more from the pastor/priest/rabbi role if asked for help with personal problems. By and large, we refer problem people to those who ascribe to Biblical principles—such as those in the ministry. In other cases, we refer people to medical doctors. Though we have no interest in proselytizing people to our spiritual belief system, if they want to have help with life issues beyond understanding their inborn designs—we direct them to search the Scriptures for heavenly guidance, not man’s theories. Our mission is to help others better understand how God has created them (cerebrally and physically), from an inborn perspective.
By giving them this insight, they can implement their own strategies for success. A “light” turns on in their brains, and they can see many of the solutions for themselves.
Perhaps the following will provide a better understanding of our position. Many, if not most of the notions of psychology run contrary to the Jewish/Christian Scriptures. As we’ve already addressed, psychological thought essentially attempts to bring man’s solutions to problems rather than God’s. The most renowned developers of psychological thought throughout human history have not sought Biblical solutions for man’s non-physical problems of the mind. Instead, they have intentionally left God out or diluted His teachings.
Dr. Martin and Deidre Bobgan write extensively in their book,
“The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way,” of psychology’s (in general) distaste and rejection of biblical solutions for man’s life direction and problems. Since Freud and Jung provide much of the foundation for modern psychoanalytic thought, consider the Bobgan’s excerpts:
Freud believed that religious doctrines are all illusions and that religion is “the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.” Jung, on the other hand, viewed all religions as collective mythologies, not real in essence, but real in their effect on the human personality. For Freud religion was the source of mental problems . . . . While Freud argued that all religions are delusionary and therefore evil, Jung contended that all religions are imaginary but good. Both positions are anti-Christian; one denies Christianity and the other mythologizes it. . . . Contemporary psychotherapists have not moved very far from these two positions. They continue to present religion as an illness at worst and as a myth at best. (pp.179-181)
Of course not all people in the “psychological” professions denounce biblical ways and principles, but from all that we have read and heard from those in and closest to the field, this is the leaning. We’re not against psychologists in general, but we do not support many of their theories and humanistic psychotherapies—unless there is scientific or solid empirical evidence accompanying their claims.
Fortunately, the western world has by-and-large adopted the 10 Commandments (not suggestions) in recent history. These righteous standards not only brought about the greatest country and republic (the U.S.) since the time of Christ, but also a revered Constitution and judicial system for the American society that is essentially just and fair.
Laws, principles, standards, and the like can originate from only one of two sources. Either they are spawned by man or from God. When man’s will is exercised, law either comes from a democratic and popular vote, or through some dictatorial edict. Even in a democracy, if the majority wants euthanasia or the killing of innocent children/people as some countries and even wayward religions do, then who’s to say whether this is right or wrong—if we rely on man’s subjective guidelines? Darwin’s “survival of the fittest’ comes into play—which not surprisingly was adopted by the 20th century’s most notorious and evil dictators.
On the other hand, if God exists and He has actually inspired (breathed in) His principles and standards throughout the Jewish/Christian Scriptures, then it would only make sense to adopt His requirements, not man’s. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, but BTI holds to Biblical standards and their “proper” application. (Polls reveal some 85-90% of Americans believe the Bible.) Unfortunately, this position causes us to disavow many psychological theories and remedies. As much as we would like to support anyone attempting to help others, we must draw a line when man’s solutions to problems directly contradict God’s—according to the Scriptures. It is with this in mind that we encourage those seeking help to find answers from above with their non-biological problems—yet only if they are open to it.
Taking just one small portion from the Jewish/Christian Scriptures, consider some of the words of the book of Psalms (also called “The Book of Praises”), chapter 119.
Contrast the psalmist’s words as he speaks of God’s law and standards with man’s ways and therapies in our modern times—which largely oppose God’s.
Psalm 119:
1-5 “How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the way of the Lord, How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, who seek Him with all their heart. They also do no unrighteousness; they walk in His ways.
Thou hast ordained Thy precepts, that we should keep them diligently. Oh that my ways may be established to keep Thy statutes.”
11 “Thy word have I treasured in my heart that I may not sin against Thee.”
16 “I shall delight in Thy statutes; I shall not forget Thy word.”
44 “So
I will keep Thy law continually, forever and ever.”
46 “I will also speak of Thy testimonies before Kings, and shall not be ashamed.”
47 “And I shall delight in Thy commandments, which I love.”
59-60 “I considered Thy ways, and turned my feet to Thy testimonies. I hastened and did not delay to keep Thy commandments.”
80 “
May my heart be blameless in Thy statutes, that I may not be ashamed.”
99-100 “I have more insight than all my teachers, for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, because I have observed Thy precepts.”
104-105 “From Thy precepts I get understanding, therefore I despise every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light to my path”
151-152 “Thou art near, O Lord, And
all Thy commandments are truth, Of old I have known of Thy testimonies, That
Thou hast founded them forever.”
157 “Many are my persecutors and my adversaries, yet I do not turn aside from Thy testimonies.”
160 “The sum of Thy word is truth, and every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”
163-164 “I hate and despise falsehood, but I love Thy law. Seven times a day I praise Thee, because of Thy ordinances.”
If the psalmist was correct concerning the God of the Bible—that “all Thy commandments are truth,” and they have been established from “everlasting,” then it obviously makes sense in following them wholeheartedly, not adopting theories, therapies, and counsel that
contradict Scripture.
On the other hand, if the psalmist and all the other writers throughout Scripture were misguided in their one belief and consistent view of God, then we should be open to embracing all of man’s notions, good and bad. There would be no moral absolutes. Morals and values would change with the culture—for the good and bad (depending on your subjective viewpoint). If it’s “look out for me first” and “do whatever it takes to get to the top” (and hope you don’t get caught) rather than “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 20:26), then we go the way of man being the supreme being and rule maker. Going with the former, just hope you live in a free country (that more than likely was built on Biblical principles). The 10 Commandments and the other commandments of Scripture—when applied in their proper contexts—have revolutionized and enhanced societies throughout the free world.
Consider the Biblical words of King Solomon, known as the wisest man to have ever lived (since the Scriptures say God gave him this extraordinary wisdom):
Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 “In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher [Solomon] also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails;
they are given by one Shepherd [
God]. But beyond this, my son, be warned:
the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. The conclusion, when all has been heard, is:
Fear and revere God—keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”
Though man continues to discover and develop more of God’s creation each passing day, the Scriptures teach that God’s word does not change, His righteous principles, standards, and commandments are timeless and immutable.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate for every good work.”
We must all choose whom we will follow, self/man or God. Our philosophy and solutions to life’s problems will certainly be determined by our directed allegiance. With this in mind, BTI adheres to those solutions that can be physically/athletically demonstrated or proven, or biblically validated.
If “psychological” theories or techniques do not oppose or contradict the Scriptures (or even the hard sciences), we’re open to considering them. Bottom line, BTI hopes to help the whole man (body, soul, and brain) become what God wants him to be. Our intention is not to offend any religious belief or vocational profession. We’re not out to legislate our beliefs on others. But like every person on this planet, we each have our beliefs and it is important to live them out.
We believe an almighty God created us all equal (in position, but with various inborn BT to make the world function properly) and that we each have a responsibility to live as He intended us to.
Lastly, BT also demonstrates the inborn equality of the races. No race is intellectually superior, for all groups have the 16 BT. Though some groups are better educated or nourished and have had better “nurturing”, they do not possess superior inborn designs. All races have those who’ve been born with the Albert Einstein BT. Yet, don’t forget, each BT has a 150 IQ, in its own realm. No realm is better than another, but sometimes society values certain skills over others. Unfortunately, this situation will always be with us.
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.
Conclusion
Yes, BTI is determined to do everything within its power to PROVE scientifically—once and for all—that BT are REAL. We will continue in our efforts, providing even more in the days ahead to bring about validation. In the meantime, however,
the bottom line is—does Brain Typing work? Yes it does, and the testimonials are endless—not only with cerebral facets but body ones as well. For JN to be told nearly daily that he’s “psychic” when demonstrating Brain Typing—something has to be up. And
Jon will be the first to tell you (along with those who know him), he doesn’t have a psychic bone (or gene) in him!
An Animal Story
We’d like to end our time together with a section from Pastor Charles Swindoll's book,
Standing Out. He quotes the following article, printed in the Springfield, Oregon, Public Schools newsletter:
Once upon a time, the animals decided they should do something meaningful to meet the problems of the new world. So they organized a school. They adopted an activity curriculum of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make it easier to administer the curriculum, all the animals took all the subjects.
The
duck was excellent in swimming; in fact, better than his instructor. But he made only passing grades in flying, and was very poor in running. Since he was slow in running, he had to drop swimming and stay after school to practice running. This caused his webbed feet to be badly worn, so he was only average in swimming. But average was quite acceptable, so nobody worried about that—except the duck.
The
rabbit started at the top of his class in running, but developed a nervous twitch in his leg muscles because of so much make‑up work in swimming.
The
squirrel was excellent in climbing, but he encountered constant frustration in flying class because his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of from the treetop down. He developed "Charlie horses" from overexertion, and so only got a "C" in climbing and a "D" in running.
The
eagle was a problem child and was severely disciplined for being a nonconformist. In climbing class, he beat all the others to the top of the tree, but insisted on using his own way to get there.
Pastor Swindoll says that the obvious moral of that story is a simple one—each creature has its own set of capabilities in which it will naturally excel—unless it is expected or forced to fill a mold that doesn't fit. When that happens, frustration, discouragement and even guilt bring overall mediocrity or complete defeat. A duck is a duck, and only a duck. It is built to swim, not to run or fly and certainly not to climb. A squirrel is a squirrel, and only that. To move it out of its forte, climbing, and then expect it to swim or fly will drive a squirrel nuts. Eagles are beautiful creatures in the air but not in a foot race. The rabbit will win every time unless, of course, the eagle gets hungry.
Are we ever to make a conscious attempt to change parts of our “personality”? We think an important word to remember in this connection is "balance." We believe each of us is born with a particular Brain Type. We also believe that no matter what happens throughout life, we will always remain the Brain Type we were born. Yet there is room for balance and growth in all of us, no matter what inborn design we are.
You have been blessed with a unique design from birth. Use your strengths; improve upon your weaknesses. Seek to be balanced. Look to adapt your preferences to others as the need arises. Be the best you can be. Take heart, God has created you wonderfully.
