Draft:Mental symmetry

• Comment: Some the publishers are not reliable such as Psyarxiv and Researchgate and http://www.mentalsymmetry.com/ is a personal blog so not a reliable source. Also, much of the content is unsourced. S0091 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Mental symmetry is a meta-theory of human cognition based in cognitive styles that uses analogy to examine the mechanisms driving human thought and behavior. The initial work on cognitive styles was done by Lane Friesen and this was developed into a meta-theory by Lorin Friesen.. Mental symmetry has been applied to a wide variety of fields, including linguistics, economics, neurology, theology, and psychology.

Mental symmetry models the human mind as seven high-level, interacting cognitive modules. Stated simply, it subdivides the mind into seven different parts that function in certain ways. The function of each cognitive module and how they interact is summarized by the diagram of mental symmetry. The names in this diagram are taken from a list of seven spiritual gifts mentioned in Romans 12:6-8. In the 1980s, Lane Friesen developed this list into a system of cognitive styles through an analysis of 150 biographies, and Lorin Friesen discovered that the fundamental character traits of each cognitive style correspond to the function of a major region of the brain. This mapping of cognitive styles onto neurology has recently been updated and expanded. Mental symmetry hypothesizes that cognitive style reflects a difference in awareness and control. For instance, every person has a cognitive module of Exhorter thought, but the Exhorter person has an awareness and control of Exhorter thought that is not shared by other cognitive styles.

Diagram of Mental Symmetry

The theory of mental symmetry can be summarized by the diagram of mental symmetry. The vertical axis of analytical versus associative corresponds roughly to left versus right hemisphere processing. Analytical processing deals with time, sequence, and order while associative processing deals with space, objects, and connections. The horizontal axis of emotion versus confidence corresponds roughly to the neurological distinction between the emotional limbic system and executive function. Emotion adds labels of feeling to information while confidence gains certainty in information. These two axes define the four ‘simple styles’ of Teacher, Server, Mercy, and Perceiver.

The relationship between Exhorter thought and Contributor thought is like a rider on a horse. The Exhorter ‘horse’ provides the motivation and energy while the Contributor ‘rider’ tries to stay on the horse and uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to guide the horse. This combination can be seen in the basal ganglia of the brain. “The basal ganglia bring together the motivational and purpose-driven aspects of successful action plans, as well as playing a critical role in the formation of habits”.

Facilitator thought brings balance to the mind and can be seen in the thalamus of the brain. The thalamus has a “compact ‘miniature map’ of the rest of the brain. Thus, it is well-positioned to integrate a wide variety of cortical computations with sensory inputs and to integrate both of these with limbic activity from the hypothalamus, amygdala, and other subcortical regions”. In other words, Facilitator thought balances and integrates 1) the thinking of the four simple styles in the cortex with 2) the imagination and plans of the Exhorter and Contributor coming from the basal ganglia as well as 3) information coming in from the senses. Facilitator thought requires a combination of freedom and stability, feeling stifled without freedom while feeling muddled without stability.

Modes of Functioning

Mental symmetry suggests that cognitive modules function together in three primary ways, referred to as mental networks, technical thought, and normal thought. A mental network is a collection of emotional memories in Teacher and/or Mercy thought that functions as a unit. Triggering one memory within a mental network will activate the entire mental network which will then use emotional pressure to impose its content upon the mind. For instance, a single knowing glance from a spouse is capable of bringing to mind an entire collection of that person’s likes and dislikes. Similarly, an innocuous experience may trigger a collection of traumatic memories. Mental networks can be thought of as emotional schema and this kind of processing can be seen in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. The mind uses mental networks to represent people and social situations, and mental networks form the mental building blocks for Theory of Mind. Mental networks are expressions of Mercy and Teacher thought, but acquire their accuracy from other cognitive modules.

Technical thought can be illustrated by the game of chess because games are expressions of technical thought. Technical thought works with some limited collection of Perceiver facts and Server sequences that are known with sufficient certainty. For instance, chess is played with a specific set of chess pieces each moving in a specific way. Technical thought then pursues some goal on a limited playing field. For instance, chess is played on a chessboard and the goal is to capture the opposing king. Technical thought spends most of its time using rigorous thought to solve technical puzzles—as illustrated by the chess expert. This kind of limited, rigorous thinking can be seen in businesses, sports, professions, and specializations. Technical thought is an expression of Contributor thought, which uses tools taken from Perceiver and Server thought to improve some goal in Mercy thought or some paradigm within Teacher thought. Thomas Kuhn described the relationship between a paradigm in Teacher thought and the technical puzzle-solving performed by Contributor thought

Normal thought thinks in terms of patterns, similarities, and reasonableness, and is the form of thought that the mind normally uses. Normal thought is less rigorous and more scattered than technical thought. It is also less emotional than mental networks, treating them as schema to guide behavior. Normal thought can be illustrated with the following scenario: You decide to drive to the grocery store to buy some milk. Because the normal route is busy, you take an alternate road. The milk is at the back of the store. While walking through the store, you see a package for taco shells, which triggers a mental network related to Mexican food, and you grab the various ingredients required for tacos on the way to getting the milk. Walking to the checkout counter then triggers the mental network of ‘how to behave when paying for merchandise’. Lakoff & Johnson describe how normal thought affects language in Metaphors We Live By. Normal thought is guided by the facts and sequences of Perceiver and Server thought.

Methodology

Immanuel Kant suggested back in 1781 that the structure of the mind causes people to interpret reality in certain ways. For instance, people believe that reality is composed of space and time because the mind thinks in terms of space and time. Saying this analogically, everyone sees reality through the same ‘eyeglasses’ of mental structure. Thus, what humans mentally ‘see’ may be an accurate picture of reality or it could be merely an artifact produced by the ‘glasses’ of the mind. This mental distortion caused by the structure of the mind is more fundamental and more universal than any mental distortion caused by the ‘eyeglasses’ of some paradigm or worldview. This mental distortion is a handicap when attempting to study reality, but this distortion also makes it possible to indirectly study the mind.

Stated analogically, what is being produced by the glasses can be determined by looking for features that are repeated in every image. Similarly, if the same kind of mental processing is present in many different fields, then this thinking is probably being imposed by the structure of the mind. This method can be improved by comparing ‘images’ of totally different ‘scenes’, because the only thing that these scenes have in common is that they are being viewed through the same glasses. Similarly, searching for mental structure can be made more effective by comparing fields that are totally unrelated. This method can even be used with blank ‘images’ that have no picture because any features on these images will be the result of the glasses. Similarly, this type of analysis can be applied to fields that do not examine reality scientifically or even fields that have nothing to do with reality—as long as the material being analyzed accurately describes the thinking and/or feelings of people within that field.

Summary

Mental symmetry approaches the mind analogically from three different directions, guided by the diagram of mental symmetry: First, the relationship between cognitive modules and cognitive styles makes it possible to study the interaction of cognitive modules by observing people with different cognitive styles and how they interact. Second, the relationship between cognitive modules and brain regions makes it possible to gain a more detailed understanding of cognitive modules by studying neurology. Third, the relationship between cognitive modules and mental bias makes it possible to uncover cognitive mechanisms by comparing how cognitive modules are being used in different fields. These three directions lead to similar conclusions, suggesting that mental symmetry is a valid high-level cognitive model. This also means that mental symmetry is simultaneously a system of cognitive styles, a model of human cognition, and a meta-theory of social and cognitive fields.

Criticism

The primary criticisms of mental symmetry relate to its unusual methodology: Mental symmetry compares different fields for common ways of thinking. This feels scattered to those who are accustomed to doing research within some specialization. The evidence for mental symmetry cannot be tested for statistical significance because it builds up gradually as repeated patterns of thinking are observed in different fields. Mental symmetry starts with a cognitive model, which is contrary to the typical path of starting with empirical data. And mental symmetry is a meta-theory that explains the data and theories of other researchers, which goes against the expectation that researchers should build theories upon their own data, as well as creating the feeling that some outsider to a field is trying to tell the experts of that field how to think.