A long time ago, I have discussed in one of my articles that ideal critical thinking should be used instead of successful critical thinking. However, there are so many obstacles to reach that potential. This section explains some of them.
Difference in consciousness: After so many attempts trying to classify people into different categories in the past, now we are attempting the opposite, where everyone has the same starting point and same opportunities like everyone else. That was more for a defense mechanism to protect all people to have the same chance to gain something of value in their life. The point is, everyone should gain some value of life, every person has its own potential, own situation, own story that can make an impact to our world. However, if this reason is not genuine and is due to the motivation of protecting from negative implications, then it is just a form of influence using a power that holds us into blind faith. Is it true or is it not true? I, from experience, cannot deny that there is a different consciousness on each person. And a way to understand it better is visibility.
No visibility: The people with no visibility have no visibility at all. When there is no visibility, there is a better (maybe 10 times more than other individuals) to focus as there is nothing else interrupted in their brain. When I mean no visibility, I do not mean other components of the brain do not work, actually they work full time, but there is no awareness of it. They are in other words, encapsulated in its true form, all abstract, to say the least. The people who have no visibility are Mercy and Teacher modes. These modes of thought are the engines of the source of the emotion that correspond to the 2 amygdalae of the brain. They are the main processors of the brain. Our world is filled with Mercy experiences and the abstract mathematical world with Teacher experiences. Being in that mode has an emotional tone to the individual because how else can it be for input to not have any reaction to it? You gain some input and depending of the input, your reaction will be positive or negative. However, although they have good focus or attention span, they are limited to the other modes of the brain. They cannot, in other words, to manually do the full scope of riding the car to its final destination. In that sense, what they can only do is emulate other modes of thought, and as like trying to imagine how someone is in real life without ever meeting the individual itself, discrepancies will always exist as there is no real visibility to it.
Some visibility: These people have some visibility. It is more like an interpersonal communication because they interact with only one other mode of thought. And that mode of thought is a pair up with an engine. The perceiver with mercy. And the server with the teacher. Unlike what it looks like, server mode does not apply mathematical abstract theories, instead it is more of a down to earth doer. For the Perceiver, it wants to put personal experiences into a statistical tool. If you haven’t noticed, Server works concretely, while Perceiver works abstractly (opposite to what the engines do). However, what they share in common is they have confidence. Why? Well, they are “away” or “detached” from the emotional engines, or in other words, away from the input. However, they can observe how the emotional engines work. They do not live on the emotional engines, but they can see those emotional engines what they express and they can filter and categorize them into their respective place in the correct order. They are both organized, but when we say organized, we mean in terms of the world they live (abstract or concrete?). In any case, this flux of input they constantly get from their engines may not be the best to concentrate (Don’t forget those engines are emotional). But still, given that they have to deal with only one thing, they can still keep the tabs and keep organized details under their profile. They can be very good at what they are proficient. However, their scope, although not so limited to the people with no visibility, make them still limited to really ride the car to the final destination.
Full visibility: So now we go to the people with full visibility. The people with full visibility are Contributors and Exhorters. It is orchestrated very nicely. The Contributor interacts with the modes of some visibility (Perceiver and Server) while the Exhorter with the modes of no visibility (Mercy and Teacher). This gives the edge for the Contributor due to having modes that already interacted with other modes, giving more information feedback to the Contributor. However, in some sense, it is an abstraction within an abstraction, that the Contributor will be lost with words on the details. He will be bombarded with two modes of thought and he can only manage to get as much as he can with so many responsibilities for each mode calling out for help. Vision can easily be conceptualized that way due to the Perceiver having the entire facts and Server mode all the possibility of actions. In addition, unlike the exhorter, it has a good sense of focus as the modes that he is interacting are detached of the modes of emotion. However, the Contributor of all, has no interaction other than modes of thought that do not show any reaction and are all pale (= no emotions at all). There is no motivation for him to do anything. It is just echoes of words based on observation of those 2 modes. On the other hand, the Exhorter is involved of the drama of two modes that express the opposite things. No wonder it is very hard to focus on that mode, but he has a more general picture how the abstract can be applied to the real world. But like the Contributor, since he has to interact with two opposing modes of thoughts and pull so many responsibilities under his belt, he can only focus on very little details on his head. The Exhorter engine can help the Contributor to see what is missing as it has a more clear picture what happens under the hood of Perceiver mode and Server mode. Usually, a lot of words from Perceiver and Server mode get lost or interpreted in a different way than the Mercy and Teacher expresses. Exhorter and Contributor modes can really drive the car to the full destination. They are the ones that usually drive the car to the final destination.
Full Scope Visibility: Facilitator mode is probably the one that is overwhelmed as it has access to all modes of thought. In that essence, he is good with collaborating with any people. He is an all around player. That means he will never be specialized like other modes of thought, but his collaboration can help see others look at how he sees things. On the other hand, he can also talk with any other type of modes easily as he has a grasp of how each works. Facilitator mode is the terminal part of the brain where it does the final patching and adjustment of all the processes. As much as Facilitator mode has been treated a very successful personality type, especially a culture asset in many countries, such as Japan, as in being courteous and the emphasis of consensus and group thinking, it lacks what other personalities have more deep to say.
Communication barriers in real life:
Full Scope visibility can talk into any type of people comfortably. If anything, they must have the most acquaintances due to that. Probably they have the least barriers of all personality types.
Full visibility: Good cooperation with Full Visibility types that pair with a different one (Exhorter – Contributor). However, if they want to really grow out, Exhorter mode needs to learn lessons from the Teacher as they associate lot of abuse within Teacher theories by being single oriented to a Mercy direction without the implications of the effects. In addition, Contributor mode needs to learn lessons from the Mercy person as they are too insensitive to the implications of understanding the emotions behind people after only looking how their “numbers” fit into their “plans”. This can go vice versa though. Teacher needs to learn from the Contributor mode how to pull abstract theories into server actions. Mercy needs to learn from the Exhorter mode how to see thing life in more bright colors, to resonate how themselves can fit into the grand scheme of things. In other words, there is a very deep correlation to learn from one another between people with Full Visibility and No Visibility. However, there is a barrier here. People with Full Visibility are very tenacious of having too much superiority as they already have to control two modes of thought. They will not entertain ideas they have any faults, which they are in denial, which the ones with no visibility can see it clear-cut and have the full details than no other mental mode has. For the exhorter, he is very good to move from one thing to another if things do not go into their way while the Contributor is too focused on the planned visualization. These patterns of thought are more of an escape route. It makes the individual less of value. On the other hand, there is another negative thing about people with no visibility. They can literally have no visibility how things go with their life. So, in that essence, it may take years, maybe a decade, to master one or two of their major weaknesses, as there is no aid to visualize things more in their head. Exhorter and Contributor modes cannot see the incapacity of those individuals and do not have the patience to keep long term relationships and understanding the details of the implications and dynamics that take between those mental modes.
Another thing to note: Do not pair up people in terms of same type of full visibility unless they understand each other (don’t try to match the same type in here, as usually same processes with different ideas clash not nicely. That is why Mediterranean and Latin countries always complain and have drama cause of their Exhorter Culture and very developed nations have a lot of competitive environment due to their Contributor Culture). But they can pair up easily with mode of thoughts they already are familiar and are most developed at. For example, if a Contributor is better in his mind with Perceiver mode, he may pair with a Perceiver so he can get a more complete clear picture. If an Exhorter is better in his mind in Mercy mode (usually that is the case), then he will match with a Mercy person. On other occasions, they will try to pair up with what they are not good at. For example, if a Contributor is not at his full potential, such as using only Perceiver mode, the individual may marry a Server to reach his full potential.
Limited Visibility: People with limited visibility pair up well with whatever they are already “visible with”. So a Perceiver mode works well with a Mercy mode while a Teacher mode works well with a Server mode. It gives them a clear picture for the people with Limited Visibility to pair up what they see in their mind in real life too like a Contributor or Exhorter would do. But here it is more personal. That is the only mode they interact unlike Contributors and Exhorters, so they feel more fulfilled.
No visibility: People with no visibility pair up well with people who can see their visibility. For instance, a Facilitator can see how a Mercy mode behaves, the same for the Perceiver and the Exhorter. However, each will take their approach in a different way.
Emphasis on Physical Gender
Also, there is a big gap among gender in the mode of thought people have. Maybe due to the composition of the body. An emphasis is set for the woman to take into consideration more on Mercy and Teacher mode while for the men to take into consideration more on the Perceiver and Server mode. We ask a lot of questions, such as: Why we do not have a lot of women in Science and Technology? One is the mental emphasis. The second is the culture organization being too focused on experimenting only with information (Perceiver Mode) and implementation (Server Mode). There can be a lot of space for those environments to have other modes of thought that can add value within these organizations. Probably that is what makes men and women different. But I only mean in terms of emphasis (not consciousness). Any individual can take any modes of consciousness of the above, regardless if it is man or woman, and history has shown it, like Teacher mode of thought, such as Isaac Newton and Einstein. Given the complexity of the woman having to labor a child, the physical effect of the bonding after the child is born, and the childhood development of all children starting off as Mercy mode (it is evident), just shows that those dynamics and other factors are hard to ignore.
Visibility in Abstractions:
One thing is evident: There is no empirical evidence within this universe that abstractions in the mathematical world make sense. A lot of that stuff cannot be applied in real life. However, they do exist and can be applied within our imagination. How is it possible if it can be done in a universe that is apart from the natural laws of this universe? And what does natural laws means? Imagination takes place with the help of Perceiver and Teacher mode, due to being abstractions. The world right now uses Perceiver and Teacher mode to satisfy the Mercy and Server world.
Here are the people that think abstractly: Teacher, Perceiver
Here are the people that think concretely: Mercy, Server
Here are the people that are all around: Contributor, Exhorter, and Facilitator people
People who take internal operations are the ones who think abstractly. People who want to do operations think concretely. People who want to manage are usually all around people. In essence, the value of internal work, operation work, and management work have the same face value regardless of how it has been a hierarchy for years where management kicks in most of the work. Without operation and internal people, the engine with an organization cannot run. In addition, because life right now looks things more in empirical data more than so ever, abstraction is losing its face value and it is used as a tool for the service of operations. As oppose to have equal value between external operations and internal operations, management or most people are influenced to try to place the abstract world under the hands of the natural laws of the universe. Is this the correct path? To only believe what is visible? That is one of the obstacles to really think about.
Another interesting note: What about the people who start out from the bottom and end up in the top management? Okay, this is how it becomes interesting. Some Exhorter people or Contributor people do not know their full potential yet. They may just be too focused on the Mercy mode like an Exhorter usually does or too much on the Server Mode like a Contributor mode does. It can be the other way around if you started with a degree and then you learn the ropes how you can apply your theories to the rubber of the car. But taking the example we still have right now, they start into normal operations of the business for some years, then they get a degree or college to learn abstract stuff, and then apply them when they become managers. The essence is that not all people are fit to be managers. Some people are good at what they are concretely or abstractly. But if your work doing concrete and abstract stuff is not up to par, seeking management position is better for them not really for the salary, but because it fits them more to be there.
That is just the tip of the iceberg of how all those dynamics work. The essence for the dynamics to work well within a group of people or pair of people is not for only one individual to understand how those dynamics work, but all individuals to know how it works. What is for instance to know a new language when nobody can speak that new language? It has no practicalities. In that essence, this is one of the phase for ideal critical thinking to be effective: To teach others how things work.
Conclusion
Many people look at the details of a problem, but never look how the source of the problem originates. We have to look at the elementary foundations instead of ignoring and looking at safe convincing details that work behind our head on speculated abstractions we do not want to touch (philosophy, the essence of life, and so on). It is good to be foolish foolish in real life to save face, but long term wise, if we keep being foolish foolish we will end up as foolish foolish without having a side track backup plan.
For ideal critical thinking to work, there must be done by looking at the original cause, the foundations of life. Like I have said, with policies and other stuff, things can be patched up, but not fixed. The pattern will come again and again because it is never looked at the original source.
Next On
The other next post of this series will discuss about the types of pain that can make us reach less to the ideal critical thinking. It seems that the Mercy mode is the culprit to focus only on our physical senses. Physical pain, illnesses, and other stuff, can be a huge obstacle to have a more clear vision reaching ideal critical thinking. As like I said before, we are governed by the natural concrete worlds of the universe, not abstract ones, it is not like you can ignore. But that is only one type of pain. We will explain several types of pain on the next series.