what are brain types - james dobson · isfp, for example, is considered to be an individual who is...

Th is book is devoted to helping you know and understand

your children and yourself more fully. By discovering your

child’s inborn God-given design, you will understand why his

or her mind works as it does—why children view matters and

make decisions as they do. You will also better understand

your child’s emotional makeup. Presented with the physical

and athletic perspective, you will know what your child’s body

is capable of doing and to what degree. Socially, you will have

a better handle on why your children tend to regard others as

they do, and, spiritually, you may better grasp how each child

relates to God.

Th e study of human behavior has attracted many theorists

over the course of time. Th e fi eld of psychology is more

than simply the study of the psyche or mind; it is primarily

the investigation of human behavior—yet from a limited

perspective. Th ose who study the behavior of others have

tried for ages to explain both the rational and irrational acts of

What areBrain Types®?

2

16 • BRAIN TYPES® AND PARENTING

humankind. Or, as someone put it, “Psychology is the study

of what makes people tick—and what ticks them off .”

Most of us tend to have questions about the area of

“personality.” What do I mean by personality? It is the sum

total of the various traits, attitudes and characteristics of an

individual that can be identifi ed and described. Th ere are

defi nite patterns of behavior among people. Th ese traits set

people apart from others who demonstrate a diff erent set

or pattern of behavior. Yet, as we look more carefully, what

appears to be random behavior in people is, in fact, quite

orderly and predictable. Dr. Walter Lowen, behavioral scientist

and engineer, once stated:

I marvel at the order in nature. Whenever some new secret of nature is revealed, what is uncovered is a new, beautiful, simple ordering scheme, be it a periodic table, the structure of crystals, the atom, or DNA. I believe intelligence, too, has its explanation in some basic order.1

Over time, researchers “determined” that these patterns

translate into “personality types” or “psychological types.”

However, almost four decades of empirical research and

advances in modern science in the 21st century have

demonstrated that Brain Types® is the most accurate way to

classify people and understand their behavior. Rather than

categorizing people by vague personality nuances, which are

impacted by both nature and nurture, Brain Typing relies

upon inborn traits—both mental and physical. Th ese traits

are predetermined and fi xed, making them easier to identify.

A word of caution: Do you sense that ascribing specifi c

genetic, inborn Brain Types to people is like putting them

in boxes, providing them little or no room for growth or

WHAT ARE BRAIN TYPES? • 17

flexibility? Do you suspect the practice could become

demeaning or restricting? It is true that categorizing can be

counterproductive; therefore, two questions must be asked:

(1) Is the categorization true and accurate, and (2) is it used

in a constructive way? One of the biggest and quite legitimate

complaints with modern-day “personality” testing has to do

with inaccuracy, evidenced by the fact that many people test

out as a diff erent “personality” when taking the same test

multiple times.

Have you ever considered how you might classify people?

After all, most everyone does. Many use cultural distinctions

such as social, fi nancial, and educational status, or religion. It

has become common in today’s society to make distinctions

based upon superfi cial factors such as skin color, gender, and

stature. Many people even place mental labels on others daily,

like “smart,” “dumb,” and “average.”

Brain Typing is solely intended for constructive use with

the goal that we are all able to view others in an educated,

rational, appreciative fashion, without making disparaging

conclusions.

Jung-Myers Typology

We owe much of what we know about individual

diff erences to the late Swiss psychiatrist and psychologist,

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, who is regarded as the founder of the

modern theory of psychological type, or typology. Jung said:

It was one of the greatest experiences of my life to discover how enormously diff erent people’s psyches are.2

Jung believed that specifi c patterns, types, or combinations

of preferences in humans could be described and categorized.


Please note that I am referring to Jung’s typology as opposed

to his psychology—of which I am not an advocate.

Th ere are pairs of preferences which he, and later, Isabel

Myers, explained and developed. A preference, they concurred,

is the conscious or unconscious choice an individual makes

in a certain designated realm. Th ese eight preferences are

Extraversion (E), Introversion (I), Sensation (S), iNtuition

(N), Th inking (T), Feeling (F), Judging (J), and Perceiving (P).

Each preference is paired with its opposite. Th us an individual

is considered to be either Extraverted or Introverted, Sensing

or iNtuitive, Th inking or Feeling, and Judging or Perceiving.

Every individual’s personality is represented by a combination

of four preferences, expressed as a series of four letters. An

ISFP, for example, is considered to be an individual who is an

Introvert, Sensate, Feeler, and is Perceptive. In all, there are

16 diff erent combinations of the preferences making up the

diff erent Jung-Myers personality types, each with a unique

description.

Th is preference analysis does not involve questions of

good and bad. Th ere are no superior personality types and

no inferior types. Rather, Jung and later Myers pointed out

major diff erences in people’s perspectives, shedding substantial

light on why people behave as they do.

It is interesting to note that, while much of “personality”

research over the years involved study of the behavior of

“abnormal” people (schizophrenics, mentally ill, etc.), Carl

Jung’s discerning personality evaluations were based upon

observing “normal” behavior in thousands of people over the

course of his lifetime.

In the same way, the uncovering of Brain Types stems

from a detailed, intense evaluation of “normal” behavior of


tens of thousands of individuals. In the year 1973, just a few

years after graduating from college, I seriously considered the

study of human behavior for the fi rst time. Th is pursuit has

preoccupied me to this day, and surely will for the rest of my

life. It began as a necessity for hiring, but it did not take long

before I was enthralled with the variations in people’s conduct.

Not only did I want to know why they were the way they

were, but I felt compelled to seek some order in their many

mannerisms. Motivated by how this could enhance my life

personally and professionally, I also saw it as an intellectual

project, a way my curious and analytic mind could be engaged

in the process of making order out of chaos. How could

an accurate and structured system be derived from such a

hodgepodge of personas?

As I became exposed to the world of “personality” or

“psychological” types in the 1970s, I was greatly frustrated by

their strong link to the abstract and ethereal “mind.” Having

a “concrete” and “tangible” mindset, I was compelled to take

this conceptual typology and give it fl esh—to establish a

biological basis if at all possible. I had previously demonstrated

a penchant for trying to fi nd order in other facets of life’s

ambiguities, but this new undertaking seemed overwhelming.

I was not afraid of the time commitment or the mental

gymnastics that might be required, but the formidable task

of fi nding reliable classifi cations among the thousands of

personalities I had already experienced with others, as well as

the millions and billions I had not was certainly daunting.

In an eff ort to better understand, I attended numerous

meetings and seminars (both local and national) relating to

typological theory. I soon realized that the vast majority of

“typology experts” speaking on the subject were abstract,


conceptual people, who were signifi cantly lacking in practical

application. While they possessed a thorough theoretical

understanding of “Type,” my common sense persuaded

me that they were quite defi cient in identifying its specifi c

attributes in people. Th e result was that they came to rely on

subjective questionnaires to provide results. Because people

of diff erent mindsets and experiences are inclined to interpret

and thus, respond to questionnaires diff erently (and have blind

spots regarding their behavior), it is inevitable that the results

are inconsistent and unreliable.

Typology Limitati ons and Flaws

In her insightful book, Th e Cult of Personality Testing, Annie

Murphy Paul points out that:

“One investigation (conducted by [MBTI] proponents, no less) found that the percentage of people who achieved the same four-part type across two administrations of the test was only 47 percent. In other words, more than half of those who took the Myers-Briggs were given a diff erent type when they took the same questionnaire a short while later.” She goes on to write, “Another study discovered that individuals’ types may change even according to the time of day. Its authors described one subject, for example, who ‘was a good intuitive thinker in the afternoon but not in the morning.’ One of the most thorough appraisals of the Myers-Briggs appears in ‘In the Mind’s Eye,’ an evaluation of ‘performance-enhancing techniques’ commissioned by the National Research Council. Published in 1991, the report notes that a variety of studies have found that 24 to


61 percent of test takers receive the same Myers-Briggs type when reexamined at intervals ranging from fi ve weeks to six years. Th at means, of course, that 39 to 76 percent are assigned a diff erent type.” 3

Even back in the ’70s, I could see that ineff ectual testing

procedures and the inability to accurately identify the traits

in people were skewing the proper and consistent application

of typology. To convince myself (and others), I knew it had

to be measured tangibly and accurately.

Going back to Carl Jung, it is important to understand

that he coined “function types” and “psychological types,”

being quite precise in his labels. He knew that he had

identifi ed commonly shared, yet distinguishable behavioral

characteristics in the thousands of people he had studied. His

era did not possess 21st century neuroscientifi c and genetic

evidence; therefore he had to rely on ideas of psychology (the

study of the mind), and his empirical observations of people

(as I do empirically observe others, yet with an emphasis on

modern-day scientifi c understanding). Th us, “psychological

types” was a most appropriate label for Jung. Before long,

however, people started using personality types to describe

Jung’s classifi cations, rendering a vernacular more relevant

to the layperson, removing it from the mysterious and often

abstract world of psychological theories.

“Personality” to the layperson conveys the sum total of the

mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.

Th e term “personality,” however, originates from the Latin

“persona.” It corresponds to the Greek word for face. Actors

in ancient Greece could perform more than one role on stage

by donning diff erent personas or masks. But type behavior

is not dictated primarily by the faces we randomly choose to


wear.

As I studied this intensely, both through my empirical

observation and through modern-day advances in neuroscience,

genetics, and biomechanics, I came to the conclusion that there

had to be a stronger association between one’s preprogrammed

brain and body traits than anyone ever imagined. In other

words, individual inborn genetics regulated most of our mental

and physical behaviors throughout an entire lifetime! In

addition, since I was not a psychologist nor did I want to be

connected to humanistic psychology, I consciously attempted

to distance myself—seeking only scientifi c explanations.

I sought to fi gure out for myself, without pre-existing bias,

what was at work here. Now, generally noticing how each

person around you speaks, looks, and moves is not a diffi cult

task. Meticulously and painstakingly noticing each person in

your presence daily is much more overwhelming. Hindsight

has convinced me that only a person heavily engaged in the

back of the brain (true Introversion), one who is left-brain


dominant—the conscious and methodical hemisphere, having

a mind fi xated on “what is” (Sensing), more than “what could

be,” and being more predisposed to logic (Th inking) than

feelings is best suited for the task and could actually endure

this grueling venture over a number of decades. While I did

not consciously realize it at the time (though I am quite sure

it is what led me to walk this road), I was innately (and if I

may humbly say providentially) designed for the job.

A New Challenge

Before I knew it, fi fteen years of primarily empirical

research had been spent delving deeply into human behavior.

During this time period (the early ’80s), I published the

fi ndings in my fi rst book. I had also already explored the

scientifi c connections to personality and behavior and found

them to be few and superficial, even among academics.

Psychology continued to be immersed in theory, while science

was making no serious attempt to quantify human behavior.

Needless to say, neither of them considered the mind-motor

connection. So a new challenge confronted me—that of taking

it to another level.

Th roughout my empirical studies, I had become convinced

that there were signifi cant scientifi c reasons behind behavior,

and they needed to be unveiled; there was far more than

“nurture” or environmental infl uences at work. If academia

failed to have answers, I felt driven to strike out on my own

search. Th ough they had the funding and latest in technology,

I realized that what I had gleaned in my years of athletic

behavior and research, combined with my inborn predilection

for studying people, provided me a uniquely advantageous

framework with which to proceed.


In previous years I had sought the insight and teaching

of those within neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology, so I

returned to them for counsel. Th ey had become supportive of

my research and fi ndings, and believed scientifi c explanations

would prove them someday. Th ey knew that their academic

disciplines lagged behind what I had uncovered, that there was

no curriculum leading in this direction, and that scientifi c (and

psychological) orthodoxy was not yet prepared to accept my

conclusions; too many political hurdles had to be overcome.

Th e consensus of their counsel was for me to go at it alone,

outside the confi nes of restrictive academia, though this would

ensure diffi culty. Th ey encouraged me to also take the best

from each of their fi elds and continue assembling the pieces

of this new human understanding.

Looking back on their counsel reminds me today of

scientifi c pioneer and Nobel Prize winner, geneticist Sydney

Brenner. Born to uneducated parents, he taught himself to

read and even established a mini-laboratory in his garage by

age 10. In 2002, at age 75, he was one of three recipients of

the world’s most prestigious award in Medicine. A founder

of modern molecular genetics, he proved the existence of

messenger RNA and demonstrated the genetic code. Brenner,

founder of the Molecular Sciences Institute, has been known

for stating that one should consider being trained outside

the fi eld of discovery in order to approach a new exploration

without bias and restraints.

Consider Roger Brent, President and CEO of the Molecular

Sciences Institute, who was challenged by Brenner to venture

outside the box and how it made a dramatic 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 scientifi c risk-taker,

but needed that push from Brenner to make it work.”4

Brent’s extensive writings and intensive investigations into

predictive biology have rewarded him with genetic acclaim,

including numerous U.S. Patents. He and many other wise

pioneers through the ages have learned that to make avant-

garde discoveries, one often needs to enter uncharted waters—

not staying within “system,” or academic orthodoxy.

Th ough I had been both graduated from college and

married nearly twenty years by this time, with three young

children to raise and feed, I opted to curtail my income-

producing eff orts and devote time to intensive scientifi c

research. Fortunately, I could live off investments for a while.

Five years fl ew by like one. Finally my labors brought results

and meaningful new answers (though my funds were nearly

depleted). I had attained another level of understanding,

especially regarding the brain, genetics, and biomechanic

movements in relationship to Brain Types.

By 1992, I was able to encapsulate my years of evidence and

publish a dissertation. Th ough I had much to convey regarding

brain and body science, the majority was devoted to how

signifi cantly Brain Types aff ected all athletic endeavors. My

nearly 400-page, 8½x11 book was titled Your Best Sport: How to Choose and Play it (later it was changed to Your Key to Sports Success). Some twenty of America’s top sports were covered,

describing in detail how the 16 Brain Types performed in each

and how they could achieve optimal sports success based upon

their individual inborn giftedness. Virtually every year since

’92, I have published new editions of this book, updating it


with the most recent athletes and Brain Type fi ndings.

Upon completing my sports book, I knew I had a good

handle on each of the Brain Types, both mentally and

physically. Yet around that period I met a person who would

put my new understanding to the test like never before. Not

only was he a psychologist, but also an accomplished sports

scientist and legendary tennis coach. If anyone knew how

both mind and body were linked, it was internationally known

Vic Braden. We lived within a half hour of one another in

Southern California, and he invited me to participate in

a research project at his tennis college. As someone who

was originally a skeptic of Brain Types, Braden wanted to

objectively and scientifi cally test both this new science and

my ability to apply it. Th ough it would take a few years to

complete and involve 100 test subjects I had never met before,

I agreed to the challenge.

In a nutshell, I would briefl y meet each test subject and

then tell Braden his or her Brain Type and how they would

perform on the tennis court or any other physical exercise he

chose to put them through—and this was without them telling

me anything about their athletic abilities or watching them

move in any way. Basically everything that was done was video

recorded for validation purposes. At the end of each testing

session, I would then give the participant a rather lengthy

rundown on his or her abilities and off -the-court behavior

that had never been shown to me or spoken about. Time and

again I was told I had to be psychic, that there was no way I

could know all the things about them that I did. For those

who get to know me, I am the least psychic person they will

likely ever meet. In fact, Vic Braden is on record saying that

he has more intuitive abilities in his armpit than I have in my


brain!

After a few years of this rigorous testing, both Braden and

all test subjects stated I was right on target—beyond their

expectations. In fact, one test subject outside the original

100 was a Ph.D. research scientist. We spoke for one minute

before I was able to tell him about himself and his Brain Type

for at least a half hour—mentally and physically, without ever

moving him from his chair. Th ough reticent to comment

for professional reasons, he went on record and said that I

was “remarkably and disturbingly accurate”—that there was

seemingly no way I could have known such things about him,

without Brain Typing having validity. Th is kind of reaction is

often expressed when I Type someone. My assessments seem

miraculous to those without Brain Type awareness, but to those

who do understand this insightful science, the evaluations are

as easy to understand as a botanist with a plant, an arborist

with a tree, or a veterinarian with an animal.

Also in the mid-1990s, Brain Typing achieved the next

level of understanding. My genetic testing of hundreds of

people opened another doorway. Yet another decade would

pass before genetic sophistication could fi nally help to classify

Brain Types in the human genome. Th ough the costs have

been exorbitant to test large groups of people (which is

necessary, considering there are 16 dissimilar Brain Types)

and genetic testing is still limited, signifi cant strides have been

made in identifying the various inborn designs. Our goal is to

make available to the public a saliva diagnostic test that will

distinguish all 16 designs.

During the past few decades I have additionally collaborated

with and been mentored by neuroscientists, learning how to

study brain imaging techniques—such as fMRI, PET, and


SPECT scans—and relate them to the various Brain Types.

I have also been trained in QEEG, often taking my portable

unit when traveling, testing willing subjects along the way. My

knowledge of Brain Types and these experiences have provided

me an advantage over other researchers when reviewing data

from a person who has been imaged or mapped.

A prime reason for confl icting brain study results among

academics and clinicians is the lack of awareness of inborn

neurological differences with test subjects. As a result,

cognitive research done without the knowledge of Brain Types

is limited and often misleading. Brain Types can bring clarity

to many contradictory studies, though it usually will not

account for cerebral patterns and problems incurred during a

person’s lifetime. Knowing a test subject’s Brain Type enables

a researcher to more easily classify and comprehend each

case. For example, when two subjects have Front Right brain

dysfunction in the same Broadmann’s area, and it adversely

aff ects Brain Type #9 more than #4 (a signifi cant diff erence

you will learn more about in the pages ahead), Brain Types

provides the optimal explanation, and will likely off er the

best counsel to the patient— custom tailoring it based upon

genetic uniqueness.

A Diff erent Kind of Obstacle One fi nal aspect of this journey is noteworthy. For the

fi rst 25 years of my research and consulting eff orts, I found

little resistance. It certainly wasn’t that I avoided skepticism

by some along the way, but the dubious were civil, and a

number of them were open-minded; with time and dialogue,

the latter became convinced and are still on board today. (In all the decades I have conveyed my research to others, I have yet


to meet someone who has carefully looked into Brain Types and rejected it.) In the latter 1990s, after I had received national

recognition, a few psychologists sought to discredit me. Th is

was in contrast to the many psychologists who were supportive

of Brain Typing—knowing it was not only useful to their

practice, but it would also help bring psychology scientifi c

credibility.

Th e few outspoken critics neither contacted me nor sought

to gain an understanding of Brain Types. Rather, they spent

their time employing red herring, ad hominem, and straw man

attacks. Th e science of Brain Types was not challenged; only

misleading issues were raised. In fact, one said as a point of

contention, “Nothing like this has ever been achieved before.”

Just think, if society employed this kind of rationale to all

discoveries, would not human progress be impeded?

Th ese antagonists also attacked the scientists who had

publicly supported my research, attempting to intimidate them

within their academic circles. Many in science were surprised

at the psychologists’ unprofessional antics. For me personally,

I learned some valuable lessons—one of which was to proceed

more cautiously with what I disclose and its timing. I was

also reminded that, unfortunately—for some people, agendas

trump truth-seeking.

In summary, my nearly four-decade journey trying to

quantify some typological theories with the hard sciences

has been arduous but well worth it. Little did I realize the

depth of understanding that would be uncovered regarding

inborn human designs. I can assure you that my Brain Type

would have much preferred an easier route, operating within

the jurisdiction of orthodoxy. Th ose who know me loudly


attest I am among the staunchest defenders of tradition and

boundaries, but not when I believe that truth has been set

aside for the sake of conformity.

Gregor Mendel

Consider the story of Gregor Mendel, a 19th century

monk and amateur botanist, whose work regarding plants and

principles of heredity was scientifi cally rejected at the time

it was revealed. Only decades after he died did his theories

become widely accepted to the point that he is considered

today by many to be the “father of modern genetics.”

M.D. and Ph.D. Nancy Andreasen highlighted the story

of Mendel in her book, Brave New Brain: Conquering Mental Illness in the Era of the Genome.

Human beings have observed for many years that normal and abnormal traits are transmitted within families—e.g., eye color, hair color,... Th e process by which much of this transmission occurs was formalized through the painstaking observations of Gregor Mendel... In the mid-1860s, he conducted meticulous experiments... on plant life. Mendel’s observations, which we now refer to as “classic Mendelian patterns of transmission,” created the framework within which genes and genetic transmission are currently understood. Mendel did not know he was studying the

eff ects of genes because the word ‘gene’ had not yet been coined. He was observing “traits” or “factors.”

This Austrian monk was able to simply observe what happened to his pea plants based on experimental manipulation, and to deduce the principles of genetics...


when he did not know that genes existed! All he could see

were plants that varied on multiple traits.

We can summarize Mendel’s observations and

conclusions by using modern terminology. Mendel was

observing the phenotype, but behind the phenotype was

a genotype... Mendel could not see the genotype—only

the phenotype. Nonetheless, he inferred the presence

of something that must represent a genotype, since this was the most plausible explanation of the patterns of

transmission that he was observing.5

Gregor Mendel was an amazing and exceptional monk. His

longtime fascination with plants resulted in observations

never before noticed. His empirical approach provided the

foundation for modern genetics.

Similarly, I have not come to the conclusions that I have

regarding the mind and body easily. It is only after 30-plus

years of painstakingly scrutinizing individual and inborn

human traits—cognitive, motor and spatial—that I have come

to a novel understanding of what is at work.

Just as Mendel “saw” only what is now known to be a

“phenotype,” he “inferred the presence of something that

must represent a genotype, since this was the most plausible

explanation of the patterns of transmission that he was

observing.” In a similar way, I deduced (fi rst, more than 30

years ago) from what is now called Brain Types “the presence

of something that must represent a genotype, since this was the

most plausible explanation of the patterns” I was continually

observing.

I discovered that for the mental, motor, and spatial skills

to be regularly repeated by those of the same Brain Type,

yet having diff erent ages, sexes, and (what many incorrectly


describe as) races, it mandated a genetic basis.

Mendel and Me

Whereas Gregor Mendel studied nearly 30,000 pea

plants over a 7-year period (during part of Abraham Lincoln’s

presidency) to reach his major conclusions, it has been

estimated that I have made over 50,000 human assessments

during three decades—and each additional evaluation only

continues to reinforce earlier conclusions. Please do not

misunderstand. I continue to observe and learn more Brain

Type nuances virtually every day, but they only serve to further

expand and support facts I gathered previously. Th e body and

mind connections became apparent to me early in the process,

and I became convinced of the intrinsic genetic components

of Brain Types during the 1980s—a little more than a century

after Mendel’s research.

Succinctly stated, my empirical studies quantifying human

behavior are extensive. Th ey accelerated appreciably when

I began coaching my children in youth sports in the early

1980s. From their peewee ball up through high school, my

late afternoons and weekends were nearly non-stop coaching

baseball, basketball, and soccer (exceeding 50 teams) for over a

decade. Observing up close and interacting with these young

athletes became my fi rst comprehensive laboratory, and here

I was able to ascertain the astounding link between behavior

and motor movements.

Not only was I able to carefully evaluate and develop each

player on my team(s), but I was able to view and monitor

the thousands of youngsters we competed against (yet I did

not consider those to be offi cial assessments). It did not take

long to Brain Type and discover specifi c idiosyncrasies of


competitors we faced and then pass along some of this helpful

information to my young players.

I especially did this with my two sons, who I could teach

on a daily basis. In baseball, for example, by the time my

oldest son, Jeremy, was 12 years old, he knew the Brain Type

of most opposing hitters he faced while on the mound. Armed

with this understanding, he proceeded to throw pitches that

would expose their specifi c Brain Type weaknesses. (Isn’t all

fair in war, politics, and youth sports?)

Please allow me to get briefly sidetracked. In all

seriousness, I do not approve of the “all’s fair” philosophy—

and this includes in war, politics, and youth sports; I cannot

condone violating the Golden Rule or implementing deception

in any form, except by legitimate rules and principles in

sports, recreational games, and so on. I do, however, believe

it acceptable to use the latest technology or insight to one’s

advantage when implemented ethically. In addition, I

have always tried to off er my insights to others, including

competitors.

In my college and professional sports consulting to this

day, I continue to off er these insights to my clients, as they

seek the greatest competitive edge. I not only still try to off er

Brain Types to everyone in my sphere of relationships, but

for the fi rst time in my life I am striving to bring it to the

masses—both at home and abroad.

Sometimes a consulting contract will not allow me to off er

my services to competitors, and this is understandable and

ethical. With all the scientifi c advances and benefi ts in Brain

Types, however, I expect it will not be long before it becomes

universally known. As with the embracing of computers, there

will be strong needs, both “felt” and “real,” for people to gain


a heightened understanding of inborn human behavior with

Brain Types.

Now back to my youth coaching: My boys and I soon

realized it was a lot easier to identify a competitor’s Brain

Type than it was to remember his name; it became a means

of mental “pegging.” Th e way each child moved, acted, and

looked provided a quick reminder again of his respective Brain

Type.

My coaching success at the youth level (a result of

implementing Brain Type analysis) brought many inquiries

from the higher levels, all the way up to the pros. Word of

mouth and media exposure brought attention from many

sources. It did not take long before I was teaching Brain Typing

to teams and athletes at both the collegiate and professional

levels. Soon working in America’s Big Th ree—the highest

levels of pro baseball, basketball, and football, I was now

evaluating and Brain Typing over a thousand athletes a year,

especially as they performed prior to the annual drafts in each

sport. Th e NFL Combine, NBA pre-draft camps and MLB

pre-draft workouts were events of special interest for me. Th ese

venues often brought the greatest young athletes in the world

to one location for workouts; my laboratory was expanding.

Now even extending around the world, for example, I usually

travel to Italy yearly, where I am able to watch the top young

foreign basketball players, just prior to the annual NBA Draft.

I have also watched thousands of aspiring pro athletes on

video and television. Th ough this approach is not as insightful

as being there in person, it nonetheless can provide valuable

information. Particularly with recent technological advances

in HD (digital high-defi nition), I am now able to assess more

athletes and others than ever before, without ever leaving my


offi ce.

Whether Brain Typing athletes and sports management,

business people, students and teachers, politicians, or down-

and-outers on street corners, I see the world (home and abroad)

as my expanded laboratory. No matter whether in a formal

offi ce setting or meeting someone on-the-go who has time to

chat—whenever a special opportunity presents itself—I feel

the need to take it. Who knows what I may learn next, or

who I might meet?

Gregor Mendel has been an inspiration for me, and I only

wish he could have received due praise for his remarkable

insights and honorable eff orts while he was still alive. Sadly,

it was decades following his death that the world fi nally

began to acknowledge his invaluable contributions. He

died a discouraged man, unsupported in his unfathomable

unearthing. Yet, like so many accomplished pioneers before

him, he was ahead of his time, misunderstood, unappreciated,

and yes, even ridiculed by the closed-minded, mean-spirited,

highly educated, and insecure of his day.

Where Mendel only had thousands of impersonal pea

plants to interface with in his extended research, I have been

immensely privileged to have so many wonderful interviews

with thousands of personable people, whom I never would

have appreciated sooo much without the marvelous insight of

human heavenly creations, or Brain Types.


BRAIN TYPES®

Defi ned

Brain Types is the new science of classifying all people

the world over into 16 genetic groupings, each masters of

specifi c inborn mental and physical skills.

While independent studies and experiences led me to

concur that there are sixteen basic “types” (with additional

sub-classifi cations), my understanding concerning the various

types came to be quite diff erent from the norm. I distinguish

these diff ering designs as Brain Types—found in all people the

world over—each with unique and inborn mental/cognitive,

physical/motor and visual/spatial profi ciencies.

Th ough personas can vary signifi cantly within individuals

of each Brain Type (due to nurture: parenting, upbringing,

etc., and nature: genetic variances, etc.), my years of research

have led me to an undeniable conclusion. Th at is, diff ering inborn neural networks in each Brain Type aff ect specifi c cognitive, physical, and spatial skills, and similarities within each design are due to genetic hardwiring—nature. I have built upon the empirical data collected by Jung and

subsequent protagonists of his by applying neuroscientifi c,

genetic, biomechanic, and vision studies implemented by

others, those with whom I have collaborated, and myself.

My attempt has been to take Jung’s “soft” typological fi ndings

into the 21st century “hard” sciences for verifi cation. Th ese

eff orts have left me with no doubt that Jung (and his modern-

day devotees) was (and are) on the right track. I believe,

however, they are far removed from the accuracy and scientifi c

understanding now available for evaluating human behavior

(cognitive, physical, and spatial).

Not only do I believe that Jung’s original “type” preferences


and functions can be attributed to specifi c regions of the

brain, but they can be directly linked to specifi c motor and

spatial skills, especially via the brain’s motor cortex. Whereas

Jung’s followers have devoted their attentions to outward

personality characteristics, my studies and experience have

led me to minimize outward persona and focus instead on

internal biological and physical characteristics that dictate

cognitive, physical, and spatial behaviors. I am most interested

in the quantifi able and verifi able physiological behavioral

dimensions—to be applied pragmatically to living life.

As I stated earlier, I am not a psychologist, nor do I practice psychology. In that vein, Brain Typing is not a form of psychology. Rather, it is a maturing science devoted to identifying and

understanding inborn traits/skills—mental (cognitive),

physical (motor), and spatial (visual). Because each Brain Type

is most profi cient in its brain regions of uniqueness, all people

the world over—sharing the same Brain Type—have similar

tendencies in these three signifi cant areas. Th erefore, Brain

Typing does not specifi cally measure someone’s personality

or psychological bent (though it often reveals persona traits

common to each Type); rather it reveals an understanding of

what is considered “Nature” (vs. “Nurture”). In the Appendix

at the end of this book, however, an explanation is provided

that should help you to better understand the many diff ering

looks within each Brain Type.

I have found Brain Typing to be the most accurate

methodology for evaluating and describing man’s inborn

“normal” behavior—mentally and physically. I strongly

suspect that each of the 16 Brain Types will one day have

comprehensive sub-classifications—based upon other

variables, especially genetic. In the mid-1990s, I collaborated


on a genetic study regarding particular brain neurotransmitters.

With similar results, outside studies demonstrated that various

neurotransmitter polymorphisms (transmitters having many

forms) aff ect personality and behavior. Consequently, since

that time I have pursued this course—examining diff erences

within like Brain Types.

Identifying the DNA components of each Brain Type in

the 21st century is a far more arduous task than examining

Mendel’s plant traits. Nonetheless, my collaboration with

geneticists for over 15 years has furthered my resolve to give

greater credence to the genetic diversity within each Brain

Type. Th is has helped to give an account for the relatively

minor diff erences (in most cases) I fi nd within each inborn

design—though I continue to believe that all people clearly fall

into one and only one of the 16 Brain Types. In considering

what I espouse, I encourage you to also keep abreast of

published genetic studies that increasingly demonstrate the

idea that man’s “normal” behavior is genetically-based. Recent

studies have even placed the ratio at two-thirds “nature” to

one-third “nurture” impacting human behavior—a ratio I

postulated decades ago (when it was very unpopular).

On the following page is the similar yet distinct

nomenclature that Brain Types uses to provide a greater, deeper

understanding of and appreciation for our inherent designs

over traditional Jung-Myers terminology.


Brain Types® Terminology(F) Front-brain dominant – similar to “Extraversion”: anterior,

forepart, energy-expending, external, expressive, broad, many

(B) Back-brain dominant – similar to “Introversion”: posterior,

rear, energy-conserving, internal, refl ective, deep, few

(E) Empirical – similar to “Sensing”: observe, experience, literal,

concrete, actual, realistic, 5 senses, pragmatic, “what is”

(C) Conceptual – similar to “iNtuitive”: imagine, envision,

fi gurative, abstract, theoretical, idealistic, “sixth” sense,

visionary, “what could be”

(A) Animate – similar to “Feeling”: living, persons, emotion,

compassion, encourage, feelings, subjective, relational

(I) Inanimate – similar to “Th inking”: non-living, things, logic,

justice, critique, issues, objective, systematic

(L) Left-brain dominant – similar to “Judging”: analytic,

divisible, local, ordered, sequential, mechanical, detailed,

speech-skilled, exact solution, resistant to interruptions,

skilled at reading and writing, numerical and verbal logic,

work-oriented

(R) Right-brain dominant – similar to “Perceiving”: synthetic,

holistic, universal, adaptable, multiple, graceful, artistic,

spatial adeptness—peripherally, etc., pattern-skilled,

suffi cient solution, welcoming of interruptions, skilled at

drawing and sculpting, spatial and visual logic, play-oriented


WHAT ARE BRAIN TYPES?summary

• Brain Types is the new science of classifying all people the

world over into 16 genetic groupings, each masters of

specifi c inborn mental and physical skills.

• It was developed by Jonathan P. Niednagel with a method

of empirical research similar to that of amateur botanist,

Gregor Mendel.

• It has its roots in extensive observational research fi rst

conducted by Dr. Carl Jung and later expanded upon

by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers.

• Jonathan Niednagel has refi ned this methodology and

cultivated Brain Types through his personal empirical

study of over an estimated 50,000 people. In addition,

he has collaborated with top experts in the fi elds of

neuroscience, genetics, biomechanics, and vision.

• Brain Types utilizes four basic dichotomies:

Front-brain dominant (F) vs. Back-brain dominant (B)

Empirical (E) vs. Conceptual (C)

Animate (A) vs. Inanimate (I)

Left-brain dominant (L) vs. Right-brain dominant (R)

what are brain types - james dobson · isfp, for example, is considered to be an individual who is...

Documents