Book Size:7.85x10.




Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997, 2006 by Lane and Lise Friesen. All commercial rights reserved worldwide. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written prior permission of the author. First Edition, 1986. Second Edition, 1995. Third Edition, 2006. First Printing, 1986. Second Printing, 1997. Third Printing, 2006. Cover and interior graphics by Cyanotype Book Architects ( Note for Librarians: A cataloguing record for this book is available from Library and Archives Canada at ISBN 1-4120-8941-7

Printed in Victoria, BC, Canada. Printed on paper with minimum 30% recycled fibre. Trafford’s print shop runs on “green energy” from solar, wind and other environmentally-friendly power sources.

Offices in Canada, USA, Ireland and UK Book sales for North America and international: Trafford Publishing, 6E–2333 Government St., Victoria, BC V8T 4P4 CANADA phone 250 383 6864 (toll-free 1 888 232 4444) fax 250 383 6804; email to Book sales in Europe: Trafford Publishing (uk) Limited, 9 Park End Street, 2nd Floor Oxford, UK OX1 1HH UNITED KINGDOM phone +44 (0)1865 722 113 (local rate 0845 230 9601) facsimile +44 (0)1865 722 868; Order online at: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

“Lane is a first class researcher. This is a scientific work of the very highest calibre.” – engineer in Germany. “Lane Friesen’s approach to the subject has been an interdisciplinary one. It has been undertaken with painstaking care and attention to detail and is the most complete presentation yet available on this theory of personality.” – financial analyst, Victoria, BC, Canada. “Your books have been an asset to me personally and professionally.” – family counselor, Georgia, USA. “We have identified each member in our company, and his/her spouse as well. My wife and co-worker are both Exhorters… you can imagine what my life is like—never dull!” – businessman, Pakistan. “We have identified our four children. I am so thankful for the understanding your research has given us as parents.” – filmmaker in the Phillippines. “This is my favorite book—thank you for your work!” – reader in Illinois, USA. “I think the book is most impressive, and a remarkable achievement.” – lawyer, Victoria, BC, Canada. “This is the best material we’ve ever read on the subject.” – reader from Nebraska, USA. “I have found it most helpful and informative. I have recommended it to many of my friends.” – reader in Arizona, USA. “I’ve left my copy in the library. It’s almost totally in pieces from use!” – lecturer in Thailand.

Table of Contents
Personality Profiles ................................... 9 Foibles of the famous. .......................... 9 A step back to the Big Picture. ............ 9 The Perceiver ......................................... 12 The Server .............................................. 13 The Teacher............................................ 14 The Mercy .............................................. 15 Historical proof for Exhorter............. 16 Internal proof for Exhorter. ............... 17 The Exhorter........................................... 19 What is ‘Me’?....................................... 20 The Contributor .................................... 20 Exhorter & Contributor interact. ...... 22 Exhorter under Contributor. ............. 23 Chemicals in the brain. ...................... 23 The Contributor and hypnosis.......... 24 Variations in behavior........................ 24 Personality Profiles - More Detail ........ 26 Contributor Traits................................. 26 Exhorter Traits ....................................... 27 Exhorter or Contributor ....................... 29 Perceiver Traits...................................... 31 Perceiver or Contributor...................... 33 Mercy Traits ...........................................39 Perceiver or Mercy ................................44 The Teacher ............................................51 Curiosity...............................................51 Concentration. .....................................53 An intellectual loner. ..........................54 The Teacher is his understanding.....55 Conflicting emotions. .........................55 Many books, few externals, a simple life. ..............................................................57 Conflicts with natural family. ...........59 At times a dictator...............................60 Humor and relaxation. .......................60 Teacher and Facilitator.......................61 The Teacher-terrorist. .........................61 Bibliography ........................................64 Teacher or Perceiver..............................64 Contributor or Teacher.........................70 Server Traits ...........................................75 Server or Mercy .....................................80 Server or Contributor ...........................85 The Facilitator ........................................91 In Closing .............................................116

Personality Profiles
I am going to tell you about your personality style. You may find yourself described very closely. Then, I am going to move to MBNI.1 I will describe the theory. I will tell you what causes the traits. Again, you might see yourself depicted. I am going to connect the mind and the brain. I will move from history, to personality, to an exploration of neurology, to psychology, and on to maturity. You will see who you can marry. I will describe the compatibilities and conflicts between you and your marriage partner, and between the two of you and your children. So, let us begin… previous question, it seemed, was now answered: I should help others to reach their own particular personal potential. However, I would need to work first with myself. But what is the potential of an individual, exactly? How does one person differ in potential from another? Some years later I determined to settle these questions conclusively. How was I to do research? I decided on an unusual approach: I would study historical biographies. I knew it was fashionable to expose the foibles of the well known. I would extract this information and collate it, treating it as hard scientific data. Surely if anyone had developed personal potential, it would be the person who was famous. The project took three years, and involved the study of over 200 different individuals. I found patterns, and a structure. Oh, and incidentally, I discovered that ‘cognitive styles’ were all the rage in education and psychology. People in these disciplines knew, in a broad way, that their students approached learning differently one from another—some liked to begin a course by reading the text, for example, while others preferred to start with experiments—they didn’t know the precise nature, though, of these differences. In studying history, I concluded, I was learning about cognitive styles. As I uncovered details in history, I was discovering the precise nature of each cognitive style! How was I to test this model, now that it was complete? I decided to give seminars to small groups. I developed a 10-hour presentation and gave it a total of 26 times over two years. Sometimes there were 15 people in attendance, other times 45; every time I talked individually to each person, during breaks in the seminar, to help identify his or her particular cognitive style. Never once did I meet someone who said, “You haven’t described me in your presentation.” It was an important confirmation, because patterns of thought were given in great detail, with many specifics. More meaningfully, never did someone tell me that he or she was a mixture of two styles. This truly was significant: it meant that I probably had the descriptions right. At that point I wrote the first edition of this book.

I was born into an ethnic Dutch Mennonite background. My parents were fairly religious. Entrance to university, where I studied math and physics, was the opportunity for me to break away and to think for myself. I enjoyed my studies, and the climbing and skiing available throughout the Seattle area. Then, in my senior year, I began to look more closely at my cultural roots. Later, during graduate studies in physics, and as a member of a campus organization, I worked also with fellow students, trying to ‘help’ them. The question formed in me slowly, “What is my goal in counseling and helping others?” “Your goal is to make them members of our organization,” I was told by those who worked with me. I couldn’t live with that. Soon after receiving an MSc in physics, I experienced for myself the results of this philosophy. “Trust us to plan for you,” I was told, “or leave.” It dawned on me slowly that I had been involved with a kind of cult. Over the next months, I experienced many cult withdrawal symptoms. However, one thing remained with me: I enjoyed helping others. To what? Search for personal stability took precedence over this question, and for a time set it aside. During this vulnerable period I came across the idea of personality differences—in a set of notes from a popular seminar. The concept struck me with force: could it be that some people loved to study, as I did? Was it normal to have this kind of seemingly abnormal emphasis? My MBTI® and MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR® are registered trademarks and MYERS-BRIGGS™ is a trademark of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., the publisher of the MBTI instrument. We are not affiliated with and are not a licensee of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. For legal reasons, we call our theory MBNI, or “Multiple Branched Nodes, Interacting.” It describes a “Mind to Brain Neural Interface.” ‘NI’ is MB New and Improved—the base has not been altered.

Some of you may be interested in what happened after I finished writing in 1986, and why it took so long to bring out this further revision. In brief, I was curious about what caused these traits. I started to look at the structure of the brain. Occasionally brain tissue is destroyed in some individual—perhaps a blood vessel bursts, or in war a bullet passes through a part of the head. Always there is a corresponding loss of ability or some change in personality.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Educators talked about cognitive styles; neurologists also had a theory. The mind, they said, was composed of a small number of interacting ‘modules.’ We knew now what those modules were—and we had a good feeling for their probable location. Suddenly it seemed so obvious: everyone has approximately the same brain. It consists of seven modules working together. These interact to generate speech, music appreciation, writing, art—we worked out in detail how it was done; wiring between different parts was consistent. However, any one particular individual is conscious in only one of these seven parts; this pattern of consciousness defines his cognitive style. It causes him to emphasize some strategies at the expense of others. At this point, I’d like to tell you the story of my brother—trust me, it’s connected. He graduated as the top engineering student of his year from the University of Saskatchewan. It earned him a full scholarship in graduate studies. He decided to enroll at the University of Victoria, in their newly founded Graduate Department of Electrical Engineering. What would he study? This daring individual chose to research the circuits for cognitive styles, which at that time I was beginning to extract from history. He read over 1000 scientific papers! I tried to keep up with what he was doing, but it soon became completely impossible. Imagine how difficult it was for his supervising professor—the man, however, graciously allowed him to continue. Three years later, his course work for a doctorate was done. The last step was to present his doctoral research. He had worked out symmetries between modules of thought, tentatively identified locations, and come up with plausible mechanisms for things such as hypnosis, multiple personalities, and some diseases. It was quite incredible! What happened? Well, the day came for him to make his presentation. Every professor was in attendance. Before he could begin, though, an argument broke out: was it really possible to discover the mechanism for the mind from the wiring of the brain? Professor argued with professor; my brother could not present his research. The meeting ended. He had not been allowed to speak. Well, this was quite a situation. The word came down that he would have to transfer to psychology. He refused, and demanded that his work be evaluated. An impasse. Then, slowly, the professors came forward, one after another, and stated that they were not qualified to evaluate his research. Again, an impasse. Finally, they said they would do him a favor. He would be allowed to exit with a Master’s degree, based on his completed PhD course work and excluding his groundbreaking PhD research. But he would have to do a short project. This stubborn Perceiver chose to develop a program to determine cognitive style—the algorithm is currently the basis for the JAVA personality program on my website at His professors were furious, but as a final act of kindness, decided to accept his

People write about the results of these kinds of ‘lesions.’ I looked at what was written, to see if I could identify parts of the brain responsible for the different groupings of behavior. It didn’t take long to link two of the thinking patterns with the right and the left temporal regions of the cortex. Could this be correct? If so, it was amazing! My brother was at that time a graduate student in Engineering at the University of Victoria. He decided to investigate the subject further. “No,” he told me. “It’s not just the temporal lobe or back of the brain. The bottom back, or temporal, works together with the bottom front, or orbitofrontal region. Back and front work together as a system.” My brother gained fluency in neurology. I had done the easy part; it was more difficult for him to locate another two of the thinking patterns—in the parietal and the superior frontal regions, parts of the cortex closer to the top of the head. Now we had four. Where were the others? The cortex is a thin sheet, perhaps two square feet in area and an eighth of an inch thick. It’s all squeezed together into folds; it’s the part you see when you look at a picture of the brain. Underneath, nearer the center, are other parts. The four cognitive styles we had located took up most of the cortical sheet; the three others had to be located underneath, in those ‘sub-cortical’ regions. You can’t imagine the sort of research that’s done by scientists nowadays. They work with mice, rats, cats, dogs, monkeys—each animal has a different brain structure. They slice brains, stain them with chemicals, trace connections, cut out parts, inject other chemicals and then write papers. It’s all quite convoluted and hard to follow. Sometimes there are disagreements, “I didn’t find that connection in the brains of my animals!” or “You got the mouse mixed up with the cat!” But when enough is read, one gets a feel, gradually, for what is right. And of course more is published every month. My brother worked his way through it. “I think I’ve figured out imagination,” he told me one day. “Two of these remaining three thinking patterns are working together in the sub-cortex.” Well, that was nice. The third of these three patterns of thought, I knew from history, was like a central telephone switchboard. It coordinated things. We tentatively identified it in the reticular nucleus of the thalamus, a central facilitating structure for input and output of thought, linked to imagination, tied to the entire cortex—I know now this isn’t correct. It took 20 more years to accurately work out the various locations—my brother in the meantime moved on to other interests, I picked up the neurology, the field advanced—it appears clear, in the light of present research, that Facilitator thought involves a ‘working memory circuit’ that includes the anterior cingulate, and weaves through the entire brain. But more on that later.

Personality Profiles
work—even though it would have to go into the University of Victoria library under their imprimatur—and let him go. So, that is the story of his adventures. Moving back now to education, Piaget and others described the process of development in a child’s mind as it grew up from babyhood. We used their information to identify and to track the order in which various modules began to operate and to interact in a baby. The sequence of development was consistent with our theory. Still other educators described a total of three learning styles, as opposed to cognitive styles: some children picked up information largely from visual experiences; others mainly from books and facts; still others by touching, feeling, and exploring. According to our theory, there were three modules that had direct ‘doors’ to the outside world, through the senses. These three parts processed respectively visual experiences; and facts; and sensory exploration of touching, feeling and exploring! Cognitive style was consistent, therefore, with learning style: cognitive style—one of seven which makes up the mind—was the module which was conscious; learning style—one of three with connections to the outside—was the module used most often to input information into the mind. One would expect that individuals with a cognitive style characterized by consciousness in one of the three modules involved in learning styles would tend to use that module, in which they were conscious, to interact with the world; learning style and cognitive style, in them, would be the same. This appeared to be the case. Children with other cognitive styles were more flexible. For example, a parent who read books to a child whose cognitive style differed from all three learning styles could bias him to begin drawing in facts through the module that processed facts; he would develop one kind of learning style, different from his cognitive style. In contrast, the same child, brought up in the countryside, and thus exposed to visual experiences, might grow in quite a different direction. He would probably develop the learning style that drew in information through visual experience, while of course still retaining the same cognitive style. These differences in learning style could obviously cause great variation in the expression of some of the cognitive styles—the Contributor for instance. Here they were, answers to the puzzle of Nature versus Nurture. And there was more: causes for differences due to birth order became clear as well. They had to do with parental endurance. The first-born received the full brunt of parents’ expectations, with strict upbringing and high standards. This pushed development of one mode of thought. The last-born was generally more spoiled, the ‘baby’ of the family. Another mode developed to take advantage of this. Then there was the middle-born, suspended between the two. The older sibling was treated strictly, the younger more loosely—a third module surfaced in the middle-born’s mind to handle these contradictory demands from parents, and to synthesize them.


The distinction between ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’ also became clear. We had assumed consciousness in one of the seven modules. Obviously, the others to some extent were then subconscious. If consciousness differed from one cognitive style to another, then the subconscious, the part that was outside consciousness, would differ as well. That was why it seemed so mysterious. The mind in its totality—conscious with subconscious—could thus be studied by looking at all seven cognitive styles, and then putting the jigsaw together. We did it. It fit. Incidentally, during seminars I had found that some people were particularly difficult to identify—teenagers who watched extensive television, for example, or children that had been pushed strongly by parents, or sometimes ‘henpecked’ husbands and wives. The explanation had to do with this division into conscious and subconscious. Environment had caused certain modes of thought in these individuals to become programmed. These modes happened in these ‘hard-to-identify’ individuals to be subconscious. The module that was conscious, which defined their cognitive style, in contrast was not really operating. Sometimes it seemed that ‘no one was home.’ Other times there was deep underlying frustration or depression, with little knowledge of the cause. In every case, the cognitive style of these individuals was hard to identify. Incidentally, we will see later that in these cases the MBNI scheme is the one to use— we will also find out why this is so. Earlier, in studying historical biographies, I had been puzzled by the fact that there was, say, Cognitive Style A, and Cognitive Style B, and then another style which was always ‘A plus B,’ that is, always a certain interlocking of traits found in A and in B. I found this type of interaction in three of the seven styles; the other four had independent sets of traits. I recorded it, without understanding. Neurology now gave us the answer. It was the three ‘subcortical’ styles that turned out to have these kinds of interlocking interactions; they coordinated what was going on in several regions of the cortex—they plugged into memory located there, and built on processing done there. One of these ‘sub-cortical’ styles linked left and right temporal and lower frontal areas; it was the source of drive and excitement. The second of the three linked parietal and higher frontal regions; it coordinated optimization and planning. Together, these two generated imagination. The third of the three—the telephone switchboard—coordinated things and handled multitasking, adjusted the strength of sensory input, and also filtered the imagination. By now we had a fairly detailed model, consistent with history, psychology, education, neurology, and engineering—yes, this is what my brother was not able to discuss! Things we never expected began to drop out: for example, we saw mechanisms of mental illnesses. Parkinson’s disease became particularly clear; we caught tanta-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
scious thought, it happens automatically. You may form various matching words into puns or short jokes. Often, you are a ‘black and white’ person. Principles sort into ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ everything you see is compared to them, and you judge accordingly. Threedimensional images form within you as moral decisions become visual structures in your mind. You speak, and you become the conservative watchman on walls of thinking around you. You are usually able to deflate people’s ideas with short humorous comments. They almost say themselves. In subtle ways, you use these pointed remarks to make other people face reality. Even as you speak out, though, you wish profoundly that you could be less outspoken and more gentle—less of the fool tilting at every windmill. You admire those able to compromise on method while guarding principle. Yet you also hate dishonesty and hypocrisy. If someone is wrong, and you know it, but he acts consistently with his beliefs, you will respect him. At least he has a conscience. When some individual continually violates his own beliefs, however, it becomes impossible to discuss things with him any further—even if you could convince him that he was wrong, nothing would change! You may speak very forcefully to him; you know how to use sarcasm effectively. You may complain about his behavior to others. At some point, though, he suddenly ceases, for you, to be a ‘person,’ and you ignore him. When you see such a one hurting others, though— violating their personalities, restricting their personal freedoms—then disgust flames up again into white-hot outrage and moral indignation. Suddenly, ‘conservative you’ turns into the crusader, the knight of old, the gunslinger on the white horse enforcing law, order, and justice, calling for repentance or reform. You have a very strong sense of duty. When something needs to be done, and can be done, then it should be done. If you sense, however, that your effort is almost certain not to change anything, then suddenly you too can live with doing nothing—“Nobody can expect me to do the impossible!” It eats at you, though, and you may become quite cynical. You like to be a pioneer, away from the group, working on the new and exciting. When you are out on the frontiers, then you know that what you are doing is important. You can even live without acceptance or approval from others, if you must, as long as you see results from your efforts. You are one who makes quick decisions based on the available information, and makes them now, yet one who can also make other varying or even opposing decisions when new information comes in. You tend to become many-sided as you implement widely divergent ideas. Implementation excites you; cohesiveness can be secondary. The fact that all of the many

lizing glimpses of its possible causes. Multiple personalities, schizophrenia, Tourette’s syndrome, panic attacks, and obsessive-compulsive behavior also began to come into some sort of focus. We have looked at the Big Picture—and you have been very patient as we discussed some of its more complicated aspects. Let us look at the styles now in more detail, and see if we can discover you.

You have strong principles. Your convictions are not affected by peer pressure, opposition or the opinions of experts. You become even more determined when people put pressure on you. Only facts will change your mind. These facts, however, can come from anyone, even from a five-year-old. When facts are reasonable and make sense to you, then it does not matter who has said them, you must accept them—even when no one else does. You have a good memory for trivia and statistics, especially in your area of interest. Somehow you remember the small and unrelated things. For example: you might just happen to know how many pounds of apples were sold in America in 1976. You heard it, knew it was true, and accepted it without thinking. For some reason, it stuck. You are probably not that good with names, though, for they link words and faces. Often, your thoughts come together in strange ways to produce new ideas. You think of one thing, then another; suddenly it all fits together in a novel way. “Aha,” you say. It surprises you. You find it easy to tell the extent to which ideas or experiences are feasible or possible. In your mind there are circles of reasonableness: when things are out near the edges, you might say, “I suppose this could be possible.” As things link to more things that you know are right, you become increasingly certain. When something new seems like something else that you know is wrong, you may reject it without thinking. When facts that are right become similar to facts that are wrong, you find it hard to tell them apart. You have to see the Big Picture before you can understand and evaluate ideas. Often you learn in multiple passes—major principles first, then details. You may skim through points to get a general idea, then look at them more carefully. It makes it hard for you to learn something completely new, such as this. You look for facts that are wrong; they become labeled as bad. People sometimes accuse you of being negative: you are simply very good at seeing the problem; it is harder for you to come up with a solution. You think associatively. One word triggers others that sound the same and are spelled differently. You think of alternate meanings of the same word. It doesn’t take con-

Personality Profiles
sides find union in your thinking is for you often sufficient unity, adequate organization. Your speaking, similarly, is off-the-cuff, triggered by the environment. It is as everything hangs in mid-air before you that one idea sparks another, that you can respond to the comments or asides of others, and create the Big Picture that says it clearly and concisely. When someone asks you to repeat the same talk again later, you may not be able to do it: “I can’t perform on demand.” There is a secret admiration for those with the patience to formulate effective long-range plans, and the discipline to communicate them and to see them brought into reality. You procrastinate easily. You hate the little details: they are not worth the effort, and so they pile up. They nag at you; finally you give up: “I can’t do it all.” Perhaps you have learned not to procrastinate—it takes effort to maintain your discipline. You can be a real ‘pack rat.’ Again, it takes effort to throw things away. Even when something is useless, you hate to get rid of it, because it might become useful in the future. You may have multiple bank accounts in many banks. You can have relationships with very differing groups and kinds of people; each may be quite unaware of your connections with the others. If work is boring or your principles are not working— or if your procrastination and the mess around you push you into a mental hole—you can escape to an alternate world. You may get involved in things like science fiction, westerns, medieval chivalry, or computers. It is a world in which principles really work, where the hero stands against all odds, and single-handedly saves the world. Success comes without much preparation, results are almost instant, and there are multiple ‘personhood’ expanders such as horses, cars, communicating computers, rockets, tanks, and jet fighters. In all of this, one thing is sure: you are very sensitive to personal criticism. It is not fair, for you speak always to the problem, not to the person. Also, you cannot repent of what you are, and to become something else would be hypocrisy, on your part. Your conscience is highly developed. And you know it, for you can suffer terribly from self-condemnation. Mistakes on your part are associated naturally with judgment. To link in a balanced way with mercy, and to receive forgiveness from those whom you have hurt, is not always easy. Yes, you are innovative, and conservative, as well as very sensitive. Yet you are also naturally optimistic, for action rooted in right principle must in the final analysis produce right result. And you carry that optimism to others around you.


The Server is generally a practical, down-to-earth and emotionally stable individual. He is easy going by nature. Life has fewer ‘ups and downs’ for him than it seems to have for others. Indeed, he may actually find himself acting as a buffer for the instabilities of others. He usually has a place for everything and puts everything in its place. A ‘messy room’ in his living area therefore disturbs him greatly, for he sees exactly what is out of place and how it could be fixed. Wherever he finds himself, he brings order to his immediate surroundings. A physical move can be a traumatic experience. He likes to put his roots down in one place. As far as learning is concerned, he usually restricts himself to those skills and techniques that will be useful to him. The impractical is simply a waste of time. Often he copies what he sees others doing, or finds an example somewhere. Even the reading that he does probably centers on true stories, practical books and biographies of real individuals. Certainly he likes to work with his hands. The woman probably can easily get into a routine of cooking and baking, and likes to make gifts for her friends: quilting, embroidery, candles, perhaps even pottery. The man may be a do-it-yourself expert, mechanically inclined, with hobbies such as auto-repair, photography, or artwork. He tends to do a task the way he was taught, without changing it or experimenting with it. For example, when he cooks, he probably sticks with the recipes he knows best. He is a comfortable person to be with, a real ‘homebody,’ and people like to be around him. On the other hand, he also enjoys social interaction and those special times of visiting with a close circle of friends. As a husband, he is wonderful with his children. What a help around the house. As a wife and mother, she is naturally domestic-minded, and loves to stay home and look after her family. A home business such as a ‘bed and breakfast,’ or direct sales involving home parties would appeal to her. The steady nature of the Server also makes him or her an excellent nurse, schoolteacher or teacher’s aide, especially with the very old or the very young. Their adaptability under life’s varying demands makes them a tremendous stabilizing force in all of these professions. Like all of us, the Server likes to know the overall plan and can enjoy sitting in on organizational meetings. Yet his focus on the practical narrows his interest to the next step. He wants to get his teeth in, chew off the first bite, and get started. However, it has to be by himself, in his own way, and in his own time! He is one who starts and finishes. He does it right the first time, and doesn’t get others to do the work for him.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Teacher, in contrast, can maintain an entire internal system of understanding that differs completely from that of those around him. Quietly, without a fuss, he just sees things differently. If he does communicate, it tends to be more by the lecture method. Even as the Server likes to see practical order, so the Teacher needs intellectual order. Therefore, he can become a natural scholar. Again, he is not unique in this activity. Others like to study as well. They do it, however, in different ways. The Contributor learns in order to gain some area of expertise in which he will be respected, and to reach an intellectual goal. The Facilitator has an insatiable curiosity about the world around him, and loves to chronicle the thinking of his age, and interpret the lives and thoughts of others. The Teacher studies because he feels emotionally inadequate when he cannot explain specific events and facts in terms of general laws. This goes beyond curiosity. He looks for the most elegant explanation, even when it differs diametrically from the prevailing mindset. This comprehension defines him as a person. He is that understanding. He likes to work with general laws. He wants to identify with a unified, coherent mental frame of reference, from which he can make accurate deductions and predictions. Automatically, he filters and evaluates everything in the light of his theory. The Teacher’s main strength is an ability to concentrate. He can focus on one subject and dig away at it, like a tenacious badger, for weeks, months, or years. He locks out the distractions, with the exception perhaps of strong rhythms, which tend to disturb him. He will ask the question ‘why,’ in order to fit new facts in with the known. The Facilitator also asks many questions, and expands those specifics into generalities. The Teacher differs in that he can form an assumption which appears to violate reality, generate an understanding that is based upon this foundation, and then hold the resulting structure of thought together in his mind as he checks to see how well it describes the world around him. Einstein assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant in every frame of reference—this was counterintuitive. Then, he put together the theory of special relativity, and lo and behold, found that it described experience. The Facilitator would not have been able to maintain this solitary existence in an alternate world, for multiple years, while things were slowly being built. Einstein probably went through many false starts before he found the correct path. This process is seen by others as confabulation, and the construction of ‘castles in the air.’ The Teacher is so intense that he can push himself to the point of a nervous or physical breakdown. He works even harder as he gets tired. It’s a part of him that isn’t always evident to outsiders, until they touch areas that matter to him—suddenly, an intensity shines through, and it frightens them. Then, they think he’s strong like the Contributor, and they argue. They are surprised again

He wants to please others, sometimes even at the expense of things that he himself needs to do. He is very loyal to those with whom he is working. Yet that by no means implies that he will serve others in their way, or in just any way. He does what he wants to do, the way he sees that it needs to be done. He can be incredibly stubborn in protecting himself from the interference that transforms activity into busy-work. His practicality and narrow focus on the present mean that he is not generally very good as an administrator. He is not visualizing the entire project, and so how can he delegate tasks? Others are better suited for that. But he will work efficiently with someone to get a job done. He is also generally not a public speaker. Rather, he is one of these rare individuals who prefers to listen. The Server person is easy to live with, and finds it easy to live with himself. He is not one to pick a fight. He lives in the present and enjoys the momentary. Consequently, he lacks many of the ‘hang ups’ that seem to burden others—he demonstrates a sensible lifestyle. If as a classroom teacher you encounter this kind of a child, he will never give you any trouble. He is generally quiet and gets on with the task at hand, without disturbing the rest of the children. He is diligent by nature, and does his work carefully. We’ve now examined two of the seven styles. Very different, aren’t they? They don’t marry, you know. In fact, I’ve had Perceivers look at the description of the Server and tell me, “You need to change what you have written! No one in their right mind would ever admit to being like that.” But they do. People frequently come to me with pride and say, “I’m a Server.” Of course, it goes the other way as well. Most Servers consider Perceivers to be interesting but really rather ‘wacky.’ Let’s look at another pair of styles—these two concentrate much more on the emotions.

We tend to link the name Teacher with ‘Professor.’ Personality style, however, is an approach to life, and not directly related to any particular activity. It is true that the Teacher may instruct others, but there are others who can be just as good, if not much better, at the activity of teaching. The Contributor, for instance, tells wonderful stories as he moves within his sphere of expertise. The Facilitator loves the profession of teaching and the science of education, and is great at sharing practical skills and philosophical structures of thought. The Teacher is unique in that he has the latent ability to break away from accepted understanding, and then, step by step, walk intellectually towards something that is completely new. The Perceiver may stand strongly for a particular principle that he ‘knows’ is right; the

Personality Profiles
to find that the emotion of confrontation confuses the Teacher. He finds it hard to think, goes quiet, and leaves. Unlike the Perceiver, the Teacher is sensitive to order, not to what is wrong. Each confabulation is seen therefore by the Teacher as totally correct, and the unique explanation to every riddle in the entire universe. Then, as he confronts life and his own thoughts, he narrows down the area of application for the construction until it matches reality and the rest of his understanding. If we could say that a general law was an ‘elephant’ and the specific fact a ‘gnat,’ then the Teacher is one who plays with elephants and gnats. Gnats are expanded to elephants, to see how far they can be applied. Societally accepted elephants for a time may become gnats. Gnats can be created temporarily from thin air, expanded into elephants, and as quickly dissolved. Those who observe this massive questioning of assumptions may see it as a form of temporary insanity. The Perceiver thinks in terms of circles of reasonableness; the Teacher does not—for him something is either ordered or disordered. He likes therefore to learn from first sources, so that he can be sure that at least his facts are correct. Most Teacher people live with an inadequate system of understanding—they have formed things that are truly gnats into elephants. Since the Teacher is his understanding, he feels emotionally threatened when you point out his error. The child in particular may be a ‘puffed-upknow-it-all.’ This book will be a challenge to most Teachers. Many problems are eliminated when the Teacher and the Perceiver work together. Like warp and woof, they construct an accurate theory or explanation. But there can also be real sparks. The Teacher does not like to be interrupted in his train of thought. Yet, it is the nature of the Perceiver to interject periodically. When the Perceiver gets tired, his mind begins to free wheel. The Teacher in contrast narrows down more and more as he tires, and may ‘drive’ the exhausted Perceiver until he explodes. The Teacher finds it emotionally hard to face mistakes in his theory. However, it is even more difficult on him emotionally to live with those errors. So, eventually, when a theory is flawed, he is forced to throw it away and start over. Similarly, he will discard possessions that are no longer needed. He is not usually an avid collector, with the exception perhaps of serious reference books. The Teacher is usually not too conscious of the details of his past history. His living environment can be quite simple. He relates instead to a world of facts, concepts, and theory, and to those who inhabit that world with him. Conscious thought may actually shut down the part of his mind that senses external beauty—when he is concentrating, he may not appreciate the splendor of Nature around him. The Teacher finds it therapeutic to work with his hands when he is mentally tired.


You remember a great deal about your own childhood—your mother, your toys, your first birthdays, your friends. You recall experiences—you live in a sea of them—and they link to the emotions you felt when you lived them. If something happens that is similar to what occurred before, back come those original feelings, sometimes good, sometimes bad. You are especially skilled at remembering faces. You drive through the country, see a barn, and suddenly the side becomes a one-eyed grimace winking back at you. You interpret facial expression: every wrinkle and twist becomes a clue to the feelings of the person behind the face. When you enter a room, you easily sense the emotional state of people. You pick up attitudes that everyone else seems to ignore—you remember these rather than the color of the rug. Frequently you leave, without saying anything. You may wait until you get home before you comment. You are very sensitive to others’ non-verbal communication—their tone of voice, the things they don’t say. You can choose just the right gift for them, based on these hints. At times you are so aware of what people are not saying that you don’t even hear their words. You are especially disturbed when someone is insincere, or putting on a false front. His body movement, facial expression and tone of voice are not saying the same thing as his words; he doesn’t believe his message. You can live with a person, even when he is wrong, if only he is sincere. You expect the same sensitivity from others. You drop hints, or talk around a subject—people’s feelings are involved; it would be much too blunt to say things directly. You hint some more, in different ways; they still don’t understand. Sometimes you feel that nobody in the world can comprehend you. You get embarrassed easily. You may wonder about what you said ten minutes ago, “Did I make the right comment? Should I have said it differently?” Someone makes a remark and suddenly you are back in a previous situation, reliving the embarrassment, with all of its feelings. It affects your sense of humor. With those close to you, you may joke about what is inappropriate—for example, what happens in the bathroom. But I’ve embarrassed you. I shouldn’t be so blunt! You ‘feel with’ others—their problems become your problems. If you see a dog trying to scratch some part of his body that he can’t reach, then you may find yourself wanting to reach that place for him. When watching a movie, you suddenly become one of the characters, probably the one who is being mistreated. You do it naturally; it takes effort not to identify.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
they left it behind—they could, they weren’t conscious there. You in contrast remain tied to those memories and feelings. You may decide, “I too will leave it behind.” Consciously, you close up your emotions. Perhaps you turn into the outward ‘toughie.’ No one can touch you; you make sure that they won’t. But slowly your world turns gray—there are those depressions, those headaches. Perhaps you eat, to get some comfort. Chocolate, cookies and cakes become the love-substitute, and you get bigger. You may watch soap operas on television; vicariously, you live the lives of those with whom you identify. You can leave this path of escapism, you know—but it means facing those memories from the past, and the hurts, and bringing them back into your person. You have to open up. True, you remain tied to your childhood and its emotions, but other parts of your mind now develop as well. You aren’t conscious of them; you notice only that your world is suddenly richer and fuller. You are becoming more capable. Your style as a Mercy remains to color your thought—as a scientist, for example, you learn by experiment, the experiential side of science. You develop intuition based on past behavior—of circuits, for example, and test instruments. Often, you become quite ‘spiritually sensitive.’ Something from outside of ‘yourself,’ you are aware, is influencing you—it is the rest of your mind, slowly developing, but you don’t know that. You reach out in prayer to ‘God,’ outside you, or sometimes, when you have closed up, to darker powers. As it turns out, your style is one of the easiest to live with—when past experience has been healthy, and you can manage to be yourself. Everyone seems to like you— so much so that your biggest problem may well be, “People need me.” They are drawn by your spontaneity and warmth to come to you for counsel. They know that you will be a sympathetic listener. You can temper what needs to be said with graciousness, sensitivity and kindness. Your sympathy extends to ‘losers,’ the bird with the broken wing, the one whom no one else will help. You do for them what you would do for yourself in their situation. You soon learn: you need time by yourself on a regular basis. It is exhausting to be with people. Time alone in Nature is especially soothing; it restores your energy. As a woman you may not wish to ‘rough it’—you probably hate getting dirty. But you appreciate the outdoors. If this sounds like you, it may be that you have the traits of a Mercy.

When you read or hear something hurtful, you may remember it for months. A serious car accident, or a violent television program can haunt you—you feel with each person who experiences hurt. You may have nightmares in which you relive the violence. For you, the world is full of insensitive people; they step on others. And there you are, stuck in the middle. When others hurt you emotionally, you may find it hard to defend yourself. You are suddenly at a complete loss for words, even when you are right and the facts seem obvious. It’s as if you’ve lost the ability to speak. Strangely, when others are accused, you can find it much easier to defend them. You have a few close friends; it hurts too much to give your heart to everyone. Friends are ‘kindred spirits’; they remain with you for always. Even when they end up hurting you, you still can’t forget them. Conflict between your own close friends, or between family members, can actually make you ill. You hate it when those around you don’t get along—you may hurt more than they do; you may hurt even after they have resolved things. You do what you can to bring sanity into your world. You learn rules of etiquette, and you keep them. Politeness protects the feelings of others; it prevents unpleasantness. You dress correctly; you may bring flowers when you visit. You have table manners, and know how to make conversation. You make it a priority to teach your children how to behave correctly. Special occasions like birthdays and holidays are very important to you. You love being together with your family. You may have special traditions and rituals; they recreate pleasant experiences from the past: “We go to this restaurant, and sing these songs.” You like to get the red heart-shaped box of chocolates, the little ‘nothing’ love letters. You sense the atmosphere. You want people to feel good. Sometimes you go shopping. You probably have your favorite clothing stores and brand names. At times you dress flamboyantly, other times every color is carefully coordinated. It depends on how you feel. But people are so insensitive! Sometimes you have to lose your temper in order to get them to pay attention. Your anger is like a summer storm, short but intense. When you get upset, you communicate things that normally could not be said. You state things bluntly, you make sure that your message gets across—and hopefully, you get the other person to be emotionally honest as well. You do not want your anger to affect the relationship; certainly you are not thinking of getting even, or of plotting revenge. The other person may brood over what was said, or do a slow burn that lasts for years; you are different. When your anger is over, you forgive and forget. But slowly it sinks in: society does not accept emotion, or tears. It doesn’t accept you. Other individuals, as babies, developed the part in which you live, and then

I have talked to psychologists, and they love some of the profiles I present here. I then point out that there is a cognitive style that is ‘embodied energy.’ They will not even look at the evidence—I suspect they are afraid that its existence might threaten their current theories. They

Personality Profiles
need not worry, Exhorter thinking connects intricately to MBNI, for one thing. I digress at this point, therefore, to give some historical examples—we will present a much more detailed analysis in a later section. I might add that the logic in these sections is also excerpted from the research that my brother was unable to present. So, let us begin. Historians are struck by the excessive ‘energy’ of Exhorters. Peter the Great had a “mercurial and restless energy, which in his early youth had been spontaneous....By the time he was twenty, he began to suffer from a nervous twitch of the head; and when he was lost in thought, or during moments of emotional stress, his round, handsome face became distorted with convulsions....He could not sit still for long, and at banquets he would jump out of his chair and run into the next room in order to stretch his legs.” Ferdinand de Lesseps, similarly, “was always on the move or in conference, at high pressure, boiling, feverish, tired, but obstinate.” Churchill’s dancing teacher considered him “the naughtiest small boy in the world.” He “could always cram into one day what no other man could do; what few other men could do in two days or even three....many activities have remained massive energy but no touch. He is basically a rammer and a pounder.” All three were men of vision and imagination. Ferdinand de Lesseps “discovered Lepere’s paper on the Canal des Deux Mers, a long memorandum prepared for Napoleon....It fired Ferdinand’s imagination, burning deep. He saw the canal not in terms of politics or commerce, still less as personal gain. His was a spiritual concept, a dedication, an immortality.” Peter the Great: “The chance discovery of this old boat and Peter’s first sailing lessons on the Yauza were the beginning of two compulsive themes in his personality and his life: his obsession for the sea and his desire to learn from the West....It was strange and yet it was also partly inevitable. No great nation has survived and flourished without access to the sea. What is remarkable is that the drive sprang from the dream of an adolescent boy.” Churchill revealed: “Where my reason, imagination, or interest were not engaged, I would not or I could not learn.” “To have an exciting story told you by someone who is a great authority, especially if he has a magic lantern, is for me the best way of learning.” “Some day when my ship comes home, I am going to have all [the tunes I know] collected in gramophone records, and then I will sit in a chair and smoke my cigar, while pictures and faces, moods and sensations long vanished return; and pale but true there gleams the light of other days.” All three were experts at pushing others. Of Churchill, by his secretary: “The most overworked word in Mr. Churchill’s vocabulary is—significantly I think—the


word ‘prod.’ He was always talking about being prodded by doctors, prodding cabinet ministers, prodding his lawyers, publishers and political rivals. Undoubtedly he has prodded the British Empire as it has not been prodded for generations.” Peter the Great “encouraged, scolded, nagged, quarreled with all and sundry, hung defaulters, and traveled from one end of the country to another....He could not wait patiently for natural improvement; he required rapid action and immediate results; at every delay or difficulty he would goad the officials with the threats which he used so often.” Ferdinand de Lesseps: “Not the least remarkable quality of Ferdinand de Lesseps was his ability to get things done. Once a decision had been taken he put his whole force into its application, and, as though he were a shunting locomotive, men soon found themselves being marshalled like trucks to the train of his intention. In a word, the power of Lesseps was momentum, and nowhere was it more difficult to get things moving than in Egypt.” One subordinate stated: “The word religion is not too strong to express the enthusiasm which you engendered .” All three individuals dealt with transitions between states or movements, not details: “People say Churchill was and is a master of detail. This is not true. He is impatient and even contemptuous of it. But he never misses an element in the continuity of function....To be assigned to Churchill is a strain. He will move at a moment’s notice. He will move without notice. He is an animal. In war he is particularly feral. Tensions increase around him.” Peter the Great: “Before Poltava, Peter dealt with each new demand, whether created by the war or by administrative shortcomings and abuses, by a hurried letter or ukaze [edict] which indicated the ad-hoc measures to be taken; and in this way he dealt with affairs in all departments of government....Every reform was accomplished piecemeal, intermittently, depending upon the exigencies and requirements of the moment.” Ferdinand de Lesseps: “Above all he was not a plodder, but had the intuitive, emotional temperament which is concerned with principles and qualities rather than the counting of quantities. The tendency of such men is not to work out the answer to a problem but to guess what the answer ought to be. Then, if they must calculate, they do so only in order to justify their original inspiration.”

Exhorter strategy is the source of personal energy: it is present in all persons, but outside of consciousness for those who are not Exhorters by style. This can cause mental problems. One sees it strikingly in Tourette’s syndrome. In this disease, Exhorter thought appears to disengage partially from the rest of the mind, and to operate semi-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
tion to the diagnosis of Parkinson’s is denial, which may lead the individual to get a second opinion. Others may superficially accept the diagnosis but remain unwilling to learn about the problems associated with the disease or think about the need for future adjustment.” Researchers speak of “poverty of imagination.” The Exhorter pushes and prods others; the Parkinson’s patient is deficient in this: “Many studies attempt to identify a premorbid personality type in Parkinson’s. All are retrospective and therefore subject to criticism, but there is a great deal of agreement. The Parkinson’s patient is usually depicted as diffident, introspective, passive, and lacking emotional and moral flexibility.” “Recent studies have focused on the protean neurobehavioral abnormalities in Parkinson’s, such as apathy, fearfulness, anxiety, emotional lability, social withdrawal, increasing dependency, depression...” Exhortations from others can sometimes make up for the lack of an internal strategy. In mild cases of Parkinson’s disease, “[motor and speech] difficulties are all intermittent and can be corrected temporarily by will power or by external exhortation.” The Parkinson’s patient is unable to generate motor and speech transitions: “The patient may be walking along very nicely when suddenly one foot seems to stick to the floor, firmly glued. After a few seconds it is suddenly loose again. This occurs especially in doorways, while crossing the street, and on turns.” “Bradykinesia or slowness of movement, is often used interchangeably with hypokinesia (poverty of movement) and akinesia (absence of movement). It includes a delay in initiation, and slowness of execution; delay in arresting movement, a decrementing amplitude and speed of repetitive movement, freezing, and an inability to execute simultaneous or sequential actions.” “The simple motor program to execute a fast ballistic movement is intact [in the brain], but it fails because the initial agonist burst [provided by Exhorter strategy] is insufficient....Parkinson’s patients fail to produce the pauses or stop gaps normally found between words in connected speech and within words for the acoustic production of stop-plosive consonants. Speech articulation is usually slurred.” Tourette’s syndrome and Parkinson’s disease, we conclude, are related disorders: one is associated with overactivation of Exhorter strategy, the other reflects underactivation. Treatment is opposite: Tourette patients are helped by haloperidol, which inhibits the brain neuromodulater dopamine. Parkinson’s patients are treated rather with Ldopa, which increases brain levels of dopamine. Tourette patients on haloperidol suffer from reduced drive and mental energy; Exhorter analysis, it appears, is inhibited. One person found that “extreme cognitive blunting, lack of motivation, and diffuse lethargy produced [as a side effect] by haloperidol proved intolerable.

autonomously. Symptoms parallel the characteristics of the Exhorter as a person. There is excessive energy: “It is widely accepted that many children who progress to Tourette’s syndrome first manifest hyperactivity. One patient by age three was in non-stop motion; by age five the tics started.” “Motor incoordination,” Tourette stated, “is the first indication of disease. This starts most often in the face or upper extremities. Teachers and parents notice arms that shake, fingers that extend and flex, and shoulders that flinch, making work difficult. Almost at the same time facial movements appear. These movements are rapid and appear abruptly.” There may be vivid visual and verbal imagination— which the Tourette patient, unlike the Exhorter, cannot always control: “Her secret was that she had fantasies— internal movie pictures—that remained with her for hours daily and over many years.” One person claimed “the urge to pronounce out loud a word or phrase that had drawn all his attention...obsessed all his thoughts to such an extent as to cause him to lose the thread and the sense [of what he was saying].” The Exhorter prods others. The Tourette patient is prodded by another part of his mind: “Brad felt trapped within his body, a victim to urges and impulsions which he recognized originated from somewhere in his own mind but which were, at the same time, inexplicable, alien, and humiliating.” Urges can be very strong: “Most patients report that tics are immediately preceded by an irresistible urge to perform the vocal or motor act, and that its execution is followed by a feeling of relief. It is not possible to suppress them indefinitely, and they must be released within a short period of time, usually in a torrent.” Most tics are related to verbal and motor transitions: “Tics are normally lightning-like, brief....Many of the verbal tics consist of barks, grunts, shrieks.” “Tics primarily occur at phrase junctures in speech....Many [patients] have dysfluencies characterized by repetitions of utterances, hesitations, and false starts.” We postulate that Tourette’s syndrome is caused by an overactive and semi-autonomous Exhorter strategy. This generates transitions in speech and motor action— they appear as tics and grunts, unmodified by other motor or speech activity. As Tourette’s syndrome is related to an overactive Exhorter strategy, so Parkinson’s disease appears to be linked to an underactive strategy. Those with the disease lack energy: “There may be persistent tiredness, minor aches and pains, or a vague sense of malaise, of just not feeling well. The patient may feel a lack of energy or a sense of nervousness and irritability. The patient may notice that things which were formerly done easily, without a thought, now require some effort.” Parkinson’s patients do not have sufficient imagination to visualize themselves as victims: “A common reac-

Personality Profiles
He could not bear sitting at home, and could not function at his work, although he appreciated the reduction in motor symptoms.” When doses of haloperidol are increased, Exhorter strategy can shut down completely: “There is a tendency to switch from a Tourette state to an almost Parkinsonian state.” Parkinson’s patients on L-dopa in contrast experience sudden rushes of imagination: “Side effects of L-dopa include vivid dreams, nightmares, disturbed sleep pattern, visual illusions, and pseudohallucinations....True visual hallucinations may also occur.” Exhorter thought is enhanced. In later stages of Parkinson’s, treatment with L-dopa can trigger actual Tourette-like symptoms: “Later on, dyskinesias [movement problems] may be an inevitable accompaniment of ‘on periods’ [periods when movement is made possible by L-dopa] which the patient must accept as the price of mobility....The most extreme involuntary movements seen in Parkinson’s occur with a beginning and/or end of dose pattern. They are usually violent, dramatic and disabling.” Exhorter thought appears to disengage, as in Tourette’s, from the rest of the mind. Alright, now that we have had an introduction, and we are all persuaded that he does exist, let us examine the Exhorter.


As an Exhorter, you get excited about whatever has the highest emotion. You are subject to real enthusiasms—what you are doing now is always the best and the most important. You get totally involved in it; you put your whole effort into it. You can go from enthusiasm to enthusiasm. Each time you drop what you are doing and move on to what is more exciting. You seem to have boundless energy. You are having so much fun that you can keep going long after everyone else is exhausted. True, it may take some time for you to get started in the morning, but you continue late into the night. Others get their energy from you. As a child, incidentally, you were probably into everything. You were the one who played the trumpet and the saxophone; you had the loud voice and the loud noise. There was also the bubbly smile and the happy disposition, but your parents despaired—you bounced off the walls; nothing they said had any effect. Even now, you do what is important. Everything that you do is important, or you wouldn’t be doing it. You simply don’t notice the minor details, until they intrude on your thinking. Somehow you know which details are important—the rest you ignore, and leave for others. You are moving on! Actually, it would be a major miracle if you were reading this, starting from the beginning of the book! You

learn from experience, watching what works and what doesn’t work. Abstract theory, such as we covered in the last sections—Yuck!—I would have lost you for sure! You’ll be interested only when others start analyzing you, based on what I’m going to say. You seldom get depressed or discouraged—or bogged down in theory. You won’t let it happen. When you feel low, then off you go to a party, or to your friends. You’ll ‘paint the town red.’ For some reason, you seem to have a peculiarly high tolerance for alcohol; you can drink others ‘under the table.’ The next morning, you don’t seem to have much of a hangover. You are very persuasive; others might call it manipulative. You know precisely the right emotional ‘hot buttons’ to push in order to get people around you to do for you what you do not wish to do for yourself. You use this information to tease and to push others—your friends, your kids, your dog—and your zest for living and sense of humor let you get away with it. Those around you love you, even when you eat their candy after eating and sharing yours. You can always think of something to say. It is not necessary for you to know a lot about a subject in order to start talking—you could give a speech on almost anything. It takes effort to stop talking; if there is nothing to interrupt you, you naturally keep going. In public, you could easily talk for an extra half hour, or even an hour, if you weren’t careful. You find it easy to exaggerate. You say it the way it could or should be. You want to arouse enthusiasm—the important thing is the decision that people will make, not necessarily the facts. When others get involved, then your statements will become true. You may try to control your exaggeration, but it takes effort; your imagination always makes things bigger than they are. You are a great salesman—you could sell refrigerators to Eskimos. You are totally sold on your present product. You know that everyone should buy it. You are good at sharing your enthusiasm with others. You tell them what they need, and then you push for a decision. Up and down go your eyebrows as you make your points. It is easy for you to sell over the telephone—listeners can find it hard to resist your warm persuasiveness. You hate the ‘red tape,’ though, that is associated with selling. Filling in forms, typing letters, spelling words correctly, and horrors—dealing with government regulations—you get the secretary to do that. Even with mechanical things, you are often clumsy with your hands. Things seem to break around you. When forced to do something boring—homework, for instance, or ‘red tape’—you are strongly tempted to daydream. You stare into space, and you escape into worlds of your own imagination. You can live in ‘what could be’ for hours. You also make sure, if you’re near water, that you spend at least some of your time at the beach, preferably


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
you ever setting yourself up for a terrific mid-life crisis. Other times you develop in character. Soon you are sharing ‘decision points’ to personal maturity. You encourage others to ‘stick with it’ in difficult situations, so that they too can learn. In your speaking, you notice the individual with potential. Before, you saw the one person who was not paying attention to your words. Now, you are aware also of the individual who can make choices, as you have, and develop in character. You give personal interviews before others join your group; it can strike terror into subordinates. Character is the essential: when someone close to you is disloyal, you may not ever trust him again. You are immensely disciplined: up at 5 am, reading books, memorizing essential points. You change lives. You give ‘hope’ in situations that seem hopeless. You thrive in times of crisis.

out on the water boating or sailing. You find it mentally relaxing to travel on the water; it frees up your imagination. Others may sit in one place and fish; you prefer to keep moving—it is a world without limits. I am certain those of you who read this, who are not Exhorters, may be asking, “Doesn’t he like Exhorters?” Sure I do. But you, as an Exhorter, know very well that it’s not possible to ‘get through’ to you unless I speak very plainly. When those close to you ask you to do, yourself, what you want them to do, your first response is often, “You don’t love me!” Usually you are offended, very deeply, long before you are affected personally. But sometimes you dig in your heels and stop ‘moving on.’ Now, you have a ‘vision.’ You’re going to see some changes! Perhaps you want to help the ‘down and out’ in the city core; maybe you wish to start a new ‘computer education’ program. It’s really exciting! You, Mr. Charisma, begin to gather an ‘in-group’ of like-minded individuals around you. They believe in you, and in your vision. They insulate you from a cold and uncaring world. You promote. You speak. You motivate. You gather in more excited people. Enthusiastically, you get started, without checking everything out. You stir up excitement and action, in exactly those areas where nobody is doing anything: “Let’s get going!” You will deal with problems as they arise. You quickly act like an expert, even in areas where you have very little experience. You learn the right ‘buzz words,’ the official terms. In a short time you may even be telling others, who have done it much longer, what to do. This can in fact be a great skill. As for you, you’re having more fun than you ever thought possible. What you do, in your role, is what other people would like to do for a vacation. You maintain a very fine line between work and play: for example, your staff meeting may be held at the pool or on a speedboat. Others don’t notice how hard they’re working for you; they’re caught up in the fun of it all. You increase effort when you meet opposition; you don’t usually alter strategy. If things don’t work, then you do the same thing at twice the intensity, working your staff three or four times as hard. You meet problems head on, and you defeat them. The shortest distance between two points, for you, is a straight line—even when it cuts across what others are doing. Let me say to those of you who are not Exhorters: he packages things beautifully. Suppose he starts a business—he gets lovely letterhead, and a big sign. Developing a computer education program, he has the latest machines, networked together. But the contents are often missing: shelves in the store on opening day, for example, are decorated, but somewhat empty; software is not always there for the computer. And so things don’t work out. Sometimes you take the same vision and try it in another location; you don’t notice that it’s the identical thing all over again—my, are

Alright, that’s a brief introduction to the Exhorter— we haven’t even begun to emphasize how much fun it is to be around him. Let’s digress for a moment now to consider an important question. This book is about you. Let’s ask ourselves, “What really is me?” Well, it is the part that is separate from everything else around us. Stated differently, it is that upon which we choose to concentrate. Did you know that only Teacher strategy and Mercy analysis, and one other module, which we are about to discuss, have the ability to concentrate? These three regions are the centers of our personhood. Moreover, Teacher and Mercy strategies are emotional. The concentration of these regions is pulled or drawn—it turns out to be done by Exhorter thought and its excitement—to that which is high in feeling; it means that we can grow to resemble what we love, or hate. Mercy and Teacher modes of thought also identify— the Mercy is his experience, the Teacher is his understanding. They are two of the three major inputs to the mind. When Mercy analysis identifies with some other person, and Teacher thought ties into his words, the result is hypnosis. Personhood dissipates in hypnosis, and the hypnotist takes over. This state of affairs cannot occur, it turns out, without the cooperation of the module we will cover next. As we might expect, the individual with this cognitive style happens to be the best hypnotic subject of them all. Let’s look at him.

The Contributor lives at the very pinnacle of mental processing. Others find him extremely complex; they may despair of ever understanding him. He himself can feel scattered, or fragmented. He is strong-willed and stubborn. When he meets another like himself, there can be real conflict.

Personality Profiles
He is very aware of small, personal expenses. He may shop around for specials, trying to save a few pennies. Big expenses are numbers, they may not bother him; small expenses are real. He may give away a million dollars, but drive all the way around the block to find a parking spot for which the meter has not yet expired. He often compares himself to others. When he meets a new group of people, he tends to work out the pecking order, and where he fits in. He demonstrates the ‘right stuff’ and looks for it in those around him. He likes a challenging mental problem or puzzle. If someone shares a riddle with him, he has to try to work it out himself. He may enjoy jigsaw and crossword puzzles, and chess, if he is good at these activities. He is great at winning an argument. Confrontation itself is not pleasant, but he likes a good verbal contest. An argument can be like a game; he likes the challenge of winning. It tests his intelligence. He may actually switch sides to get something going. Losing affects his self-image and his confidence; he will refuse to compete if he feels that his chances of winning are too low. Fear of losing can actually cause him to sit back and do nothing at all! The Contributor finds it hard to apologize. An admission of guilt puts another higher in the pecking order. Apologizing affects his confidence, and he doesn’t want to risk losing that. He will often specialize into some narrow region of expertise. “This is where I’m good! Don’t compare me to others except in this area.” Here, in his chosen field, he becomes the expert. Underneath that professional exterior, however, lies the same fragile self-image. He wishes he was confident enough to relax and to be himself. He is the one who makes long-range plans. He probably knows already what he might be doing five years from now. His actions are usually compared mentally to his goal or ‘bottom line.’ He looks for opportunities—things he can do to reach his goal. Perhaps he wants to make money—this turns out to be the easiest way to keep score—or maybe he wants to be well known intellectually. Opportunities pop out at him. He wonders, “Why are other people so blind?” Faced with projects that originate from others— schoolwork or chores, for example—he can be unbelievably lazy. But with personal plans, the ‘carrot’ of vision and the ‘stick’ of conscience drive him to work harder. He feels guilty sitting around and doing nothing. He usually feels that he could have done a better job. He likes to keep his projects secret, until he knows that they will succeed. He doesn’t want others to alter his plans, or to start making decisions for him. He doesn’t want his ideas stolen. If he is going to fail, he won’t do it in public. If people ask him about his project, he won’t give the details. He wants to be responsible for his own


success. When everything is ready, then he will unveil the finished product. He actually ‘sees’ himself advancing through the steps of his plans. It is the same ability that allows him to practice a task in his head. He can imagine himself, for instance, skiing down a ski slope. He closes his eyes and visualizes his body traversing through every little twist and turn. He can both fantasize and control this inner picture. The Perceiver thinks geometrically, but lacks the Contributor’s vivid imagination. Every picture for the Contributor seems to include both a ‘mental grid’ and the image itself. He has the ability to write in a straight line, for example, and to lay things out without much help from rulers and yardsticks. It’s there in his head. He is good at calligraphy or drawing signs and posters. If he wishes, he can have beautiful handwriting. As he plans, he covers his bases. He tries to protect himself from possible failures. He thinks of all the things that might go wrong, and of what he would do in each case: “If this happens, then I will…” Others may feel that he is a gambler. He disagrees. As far as he is concerned, he has covered every possible problem. Whatever he cannot do successfully he avoids in the future. In this way, his plans improve. It really bothers him when other people help him or do things for him. He feels indebted to them and under their control until he can ‘even the score.’ It is no problem, of course, if things are part of a business deal. Every interaction, though, must balance out; he likes to be selfsufficient. If others have given to him and he remains obligated to them—for success, in particular—it can affect his self-esteem. He makes a sharp distinction between what is his and what belongs to someone else. He has a strong sense of ownership. Every object is connected in his mind with some person: “This belongs to me, that is yours.” It does not mean that he does not give. He knows precisely, though, when something stops being his and starts belonging to someone else.1 At the same time, he likes to join in partnership with others, sharing the profit and the risks. He respects those who can make decisions; he wants to work with them. Each partner has control over part of the project. If he took complete control, then the others wouldn’t be his partners; he couldn’t respect them as equals. As a result,

Because he knows this consciously, he can also manipulate and ‘overwrite’ the information. For instance, if a less mature Contributor gives us something, and we really show appreciation, then it might suddenly become much more valuable in his mind, and he could resent having given it. He might ask to have it back, or, if we do keep it, then we will really owe him a lot, and he’ll bring it up in the future, or expect ongoing favors in return!



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
sure; he could easily spend a good part of his life visiting one country after another. When he returns, he may tell stories about his experiences. He shows souvenirs and pictures to friends. The Contributor lives at the top levels of thought; the rest of his mind is necessary, in his subconscious, to give him the tools he needs to think and to be successful. If he is on good terms with his mind, then he may believe in a ‘God of miracles,’ who helps to make him successful. If in contrast he has shut out parts of his thinking, especially Mercy strategy—then he can become his own god. If he feels confident and in control of his life, he may see the outside world as ruled by some External Presence in a similar manner—he might believe in fate or predestination. If life has been less kind to him, then he is possibly more superstitious, or a believer in ‘luck.’ In both cases, he ‘believes’; he becomes a person of real ‘faith.’

control is shared. If he has had a bad experience with partnerships, then now he probably avoids them. Optimization is a major part of his planning: he does things as quickly as possible, and tries to get rid of unnecessary steps. Once he has improved his method as much as he can, then he will no longer change it. In particular, he eliminates social small talk. Perhaps he tells stories. This would have a goal—it lets others know about adventures he has experienced, deals he made that were successful, or enemies he defeated. It gains their respect. He may talk—with prospective customers—about the weather, or sports. Again, this has a purpose. But if he were to sit down with his marriage partner or children, just to talk about nothing, they would probably be suspicious—“All right, what is it you want now?” He goes out of his way to help others stand on their own two feet—he funds the gifted individual who lacks money, he invests with the visionary who needs capital, he gives so that the handicapped child can have a brighter future. He does not worry about his peers—they can fend for themselves. However, he hates to see his tax dollars going to support the ‘bums on welfare’! He doesn’t want the government to take money that he has earned, and give it to people who have not worked for it. He likely has a large house, and perhaps a summer cottage. His home is his castle, and a center of hospitality. He loves to have friends over for dinner. Deep inside his person, hidden away, is a darker side. He experiences real fears and anxieties: “The airplane will crash! In some way I will lose control!” His anxieties are generally very private—he shares them only with close friends and family. He probably enjoys reading mystery, suspense, escape and possibly horror stories. These play with his fears and his curiosity. He reads them to relax, after a long day’s work. He enjoys searching for the villain in a whodunit. He likes to see characters in an escape story faced with a challenge: “How will they respond?” Real problems are being discussed—he can learn something, and sharpen his skills. The Contributor is particularly attracted to challenge and adventure. Danger, for him, can be the spice of life. There must be the possibility that something could go wrong—it plays with his fears, and generates drive that brings him alive. At the same time, he must be absolutely certain that he has guarded against accidents, and that nothing can go wrong. He plans carefully, and then he climbs the mountain, flies the balloon, races the car, or perhaps, joins the space program. He explores, everywhere, the outer limits of experience. He travels more than others, and enjoys the experiences that come with travel so much that he can handle living out of a suitcase, and sleeping in a different bed each night. He loves to see the world, and how other people are living. Travel allows him to escape from pres-

The Exhorter module, it turns out, works together with Contributor strategy to generate imagination—it is a broad form of thought, running all the way from motor movement to abstract reasoning. Exhorter analysis is responsible for initial coarse beginnings of this imagination: as a person, the Exhorter, in both thought and action, is really rather ‘clumsy.’ Of course, he also gets things started. Contributor strategy adds the fine movements, and optimizes things: a person conscious in this module is the athlete, the artisan, the airline pilot—he doesn’t begin until everything is ready, and he knows he won’t fail. The Exhorter daydreams; the Contributor forms Exhorter dreams—subconscious in him—into plans. He can close his eyes, stand still, and ski down the hill ‘in his head.’ Flying a jet fighter, he becomes ‘one with his machine.’ The Exhorter, we said, loves the water—that is because it is two-dimensional. Exhorter strategy appears to take care of two of the dimensions of space; Contributor thinking adds the third. Persons conscious here like to fly, in the three dimensions of space, rather than sail. They dive beneath the water, in a SCUBA outfit, from the boat on the surface. The Exhorter uses his face a lot, especially his eyes and eyebrows; there is that famous ‘Exhorter wink.’ Presumably, the Exhorter module is responsible for facial movement. In contrast, the Contributor handles the rest of the body. The person conscious here is the expert in mime—his face can remain frozen as his body moves. Alcohol, incidentally, appears to affect these two parts very differently. Observation tells us, first of all, that the Exhorter as a person has an unusually high tolerance for alcohol; very often, he can drink others under the table. If we turn from the Exhorter then to those drinking around him, we notice tongues loosening, volume increasing, and conversation becoming less refined. Eye-

Personality Profiles
brows rise and fall; faces show expression. These are Exhorter traits—we conclude therefore, from what we see in the Exhorter and his non-Exhorter companions, that alcohol enhances internal Exhorter analysis. Contributor thought in contrast is inhibited—for most people, fine motor movement and planning dissipate; they get clumsy and knock things over, it becomes dangerous to drive a car. We might expect, as a first guess, that the undisciplined Exhorter, who does not rely that much on Contributor thought, might not notice the inhibition of his internal Contributor strategy under the influence of alcohol. However, it appears to go beyond that. There is something further, in the Exhorter person, as part of his conscious control of Exhorter strategy, that allows him to shrug off the effects of this Contributor inhibition—he just doesn’t seem to be affected as are others. His tolerance for alcohol is surprisingly high—we’ll examine the factors behind this later.


horter analysis, which thrives in crisis; this gives him energy. The Contributor individual makes sure that everything is planned, though, so that nothing ever truly goes wrong. If it did, his subconscious Exhorter analysis would take over and generate ‘transitions,’ in thought and action. The Contributor person hates this. He sees it as ‘losing control.’ For example, I was watching a Contributor child on the swing. A friend was pushing her. Suddenly he gave her a larger push than usual. She tensed up and cried, “Oh! Don’t do that again. I almost lost control!”

It is interesting to compare the human brain with that of lower animals—several things change as one goes down the ladder of intelligence. For one thing, chemicals known as neuromodulators increasingly guide and direct mental activity. In some animals they appear to control the brain almost entirely. Humans, at the highest level of thought, in contrast can break free from the influence of these chemicals. Although thought in humans is not dominated by chemicals, as it is in lower animals, we have nevertheless found the various locations of chemical neuromodulator receptor sites in the brain to be of tremendous help in understanding cognitive styles and conscious thought. Serotonin, a major neuromodulator, is for example the ‘confidence’ chemical. It is found in high concentrations in the brains of ‘top dog’ monkeys. In other ways, it is connected with Contributor-like behavior. To a first approximation, we found that any brain region with serotonin receptors is linked to the Contributor module, and is required for Contributor strategy to operate! The drug cocaine, for instance, works by enhancing brain serotonin. In this way, it creates a false sense of confidence. The Contributor person, who so values confidence, is particularly prone to cocaine addiction. Similarly, dopamine in its various forms is the ‘energy’ chemical. When added to the brain, it enhances Exhorterlike behavior. We found that any area with dopamine receptors is usually linked to the Exhorter module. There is one more cognitive style yet to be discussed, the ‘telephone switchboard’ of the brain—it is a ‘Siamese twin’ combination of ‘anxiety manager that reduces mental distress or pain’ with ‘multi-tasker that balances actions.’ Its indicator is the neuromodulator noradrenaline. In summary, serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline, three major neuromodulators, appear to link to the three subcortical styles. There is another important chemical— acetylcholine. We found that it’s linked to ‘concentration.’ Teacher and Mercy modules, we recall, can concentrate; the locations where this occurs can be tagged by the acetylcholine receptors. The third style able to concentrate is the Contributor; he has a sort of ‘contextual concentration’: he can hold on to a specific Exhorter urge, it

The Contributor person is strongly dependent upon his subconscious Exhorter strategy. To see this, we can look at the Exhorter as a person, and then imagine his traits being made available to the Contributor individual, from the Contributor person’s subconscious. The Exhorter as a person formulates hopes and visions; the Contributor sees these coming to him from another part of his mind—he calls it his imagination. The Exhorter as an individual has unlimited energy; the Contributor can be very lazy. He taps into the energy of his subconscious Exhorter analysis as he implements a plan. His energies are husbanded, so that they will not run out. The Exhorter person daydreams at will; the Contributor fears the loss of his imaginative creativity—it comes from somewhere else, outside of ‘him.’ The Exhorter individual prods others, but won’t decide for them; the Contributor is strong-willed, and makes the final decision, based on options made available to him from his subconscious. The Exhorter person drives others; the Contributor feels driven, and can become the workaholic. Exhorter and Contributor strategies cooperate in generating speech and action. The Exhorter person, for example, thrives in crisis and is always moving on. The Contributor intercepts what his subconscious Exhorter strategy would like to do and weaves it into a plan. He practices it in his head. He perfects it, before any action is done. The Exhorter individual is clumsy, for he is conscious in the beginning stages of movement, and implements things from that stage; the Contributor has excellent hand-eye coordination, and is very skilled with his fingers. The Exhorter person is the ultimate ad-lib speaker; the Contributor cuts out what is unnecessary— small talk, for example—and limits himself to what is important. The Contributor person loves challenge and adventure. Danger, first of all, challenges his underlying Ex-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
The first-born child often experiences strong pressure. There is expectation from parents and sometimes anger on their part; barriers between self and others are broken down in the child’s Mercy strategy—he becomes, in a sense, his parents. A similar thing happens with parents’ words. They force themselves on the child’s Teacher analysis; he identifies, whether he wishes to do so or not. The only aspect of personhood left to him is in Contributor thought; it develops in a state of partial hypnosis. The first-born, therefore, often has strong Contributor-like traits. He is a leader. He dresses smartly, professionally. He is a perfectionist. At the same time, he is strangely vulnerable to the ‘great white shark,’ the person who will take advantage of him. When he reaches adulthood, he seems almost to look for people to take the place of his parents, and to tell him again what to do. I know. In my case, as a first-born, it cost me several years of my life, and $10,000! I should mention that the Contributor, so often hypnotized, also makes the greatest hypnotist. Historical examples are Adolph Hitler, Rev. Jim Jones, and many of today’s televangelists. Alright, that’s the Contributor. In theory, we should look at the final cognitive style of ‘Facilitator’ now. I’m not going to do that, though—there are too many factors involved. To give you an idea of the issues, I’ll focus on one final question. Then, in coming sections, we’ll move back to the beginning, and then build, point upon point, until we finally have the tools to address the Facilitator himself.

seems, and force the rest of the mind to flow around this desire. This also appears to be acetylcholine related. The ability to concentrate, we said, links to personhood. Teacher, Mercy, and Contributor, therefore, are the three centers of personhood in the mind.

Teacher and Mercy modules not only concentrate, but also identify. When this ability is used to focus very narrowly on some external person and also on his words, the result, as we said, is hypnosis. We’ve implied that it requires the cooperation of the Contributor module, the third center of personhood. We would expect, therefore, that the Contributor person would be the worst possible hypnotic subject. He wouldn’t ever allow it to happen. The exact opposite is true! The Contributor can concentrate on context; he often uses this ability to ensure that hypnosis does occur—we see it, for instance, in MBNI ISFP thought. Many Contributors, in fact, go through their entire lives in a state of partial hypnosis! From the Contributor person’s viewpoint, it makes good sense. Hypnosis opens doors to the external world in Teacher and Mercy strategies; it brings the external closer to where he lives, at the core of the mind. Hypnosis also destroys personhood in the rest of the Contributor’s mind—it leaves him in sole charge. He likes that. We might look, for example, at the businessman. He is his business; his Mercy analysis identifies with the sum total of those experiences. As his bank balance increases, he becomes more of a ‘person’; the Teacher module, to the extent it is operative, is the numbers. Contributor strategy, where he is conscious, restricts excitement— during working hours at least—to the making of money. Hypnosis—into which he slips whenever life touches the context of business—is complete, and unbreakable! He feels that as President and Founder of a large company, he will be happy. But he is not his company! Here, finally, the Mercy person has his revenge. Of all people, it is the Contributor individual who most often abandons and despises his Mercy sensitivity—ruined Mercy thought becomes, then, the source of his ‘darkside’—he is the one who causes the Mercy person the most misery. But it is Mercy analysis in the Contributor that filters experiences. The Contributor person with a deficient Mercy strategy thus finds it almost impossible to escape his hypnosis. He leaves one project—“That wasn’t me. I’m going to do something meaningful this time”—only to fall, hypnotized, into another. When he does succeed, then he cannot enjoy his success, for it is his Mercy analysis that generates feelings from experiences. We’ve mentioned that birth order can influence personality; the last-born child, for example, often has Exhorter-like traits. As it turns out, the first-born can have Contributor-like traits. This also is hypnosis related.

You may be asking, “Why has no one seen this structure of cognitive style before?” It is probably because some styles, the Contributor and the Facilitator in particular, have a great range of expression. Contributor strategy cannot ‘kick in,’ it turns out, until there is a partially functioning Server module and Perceiver thought—it uses these portions of the mind. Often development stops at some intermediate point—the various possible ‘resonant modes’ are described by the MBNI scheme; we will see the reasons for this later in the book. I have met individuals who are Contributors by style, for example, who seem in behavior almost like Servers. Their subconscious Server part developed; they used this in their activity, and they never grew further. I know they are Contributors because I see characteristic traits, in an underdeveloped form. As I describe areas of potential to them, I find them becoming very excited, agreeing with me about themselves, and then soon developing a fuller expression of traits. Contributors can also seem like Perceivers, as their subconscious Perceiver module begins to function. There is that same negativity and sarcasm. Responses become black and white: “I hate that food. Don’t ever give it to me again.” There seems to be no limit to their procrasti-

Personality Profiles
nation. Some Contributor persons never progress beyond this point. MBNI has four-letter codes that describe these individuals—it will all eventually make sense. Because Server and Perceiver strategies are subconscious in the Contributor, there is not an adequate ability to control their operation. Server and Perceiver traits in the Contributor person, when they occur, are therefore exaggerated; they are almost a caricature of what would occur in the Server person and the Perceiver person. When Contributor analysis finally does start to work, in the Contributor person, then there is strong pressure to shut down internal Teacher and Mercy thought. The Contributor person fights for control, internally—he wants to be the one ‘person’ alive. This again causes quite a change in the expression of traits. In particular, the Contributor person loses the ability to ‘see around corners.’ He still knows how to make money: Contributor individuals, it seems, own much of the wealth in our society. Now, though, he invests in stocks because of past trends in prices, for example, not because of fundamentals—“Stock prices went up. Therefore they will continue to go up.” Lemming-like, he pours his dollars into the market. When many Contributors act in this manner, the result can be a stock market crash. Sometimes, the Contributor becomes an intellectual— facts are processed rather than plans; he seems much like a Teacher. I have in fact found very, very few Teachers in this world—that is, in the North American world; there are many of them here where we now live in Korea— when someone seems like a Teacher, he is almost always a Contributor or a Facilitator. The Contributor intellectual can have the same limitations as his colleague in business—he does not ‘see around intellectual corners.’ Variations in behavior can also result from the way in which the Contributor person links to subconscious strategies. For example, the Contributor individual with Perceiver-like traits often ties into subconscious ‘undisciplined Exhorter’ mode. He becomes the ‘snake oil salesman,’ or populist politician, hypnotic in his persuasiveness. In contrast, the Contributor person with Server-like traits links more often to subconscious Facilitator mode. Now he is the businessman, implementing plans, working with the Facilitator person executive secretary.1 Just for fun, I’ll analyze the mechanisms behind this, using language we will eventually learn to follow. Right hemisphere Perceiver-mediated ‘belief’ transfers information from Introverted Thinking to Extraverted Thinking; the ‘Judging’ segment of Facilitator ‘working memory’ moves this from Extraverted Thinking to Introverted Feeling, and MBNI ‘undisciplined Exhorter’ ESFP, or the Extraversion leg of Facilitator ‘working memory,’ takes things further. Alternatively, left hemisphere Server ‘decision’ transfers data from Introverted Sensing to Extraverted Sensing, the ‘Perceiving’ segment of Facilitator ‘working memory’ moves this from Extra1


Traits in each individual are influenced, finally, by the state of society. This is particularly evident in the Facilitator—and now we will begin to see why I don’t want to discuss him immediately. When a community has clear standards, the Facilitator person is highly moral; he ‘knows’ what is right and wrong. When society begins to change its principles, though, then he is the first to be confused, and to ask questions. He searches for mental stability, but rejects information that is ‘stuffed down his throat,’ for he is no longer sure that ‘accepted authorities’ are correct. It makes him into a libertarian, fighting for academic freedom. Standards are obstacles to thought, and he urges their removal. Propelled in large part by the Facilitator’s persistent questioning, society becomes more liberal. Mental confusion forced the Facilitator to start thinking; other styles now begin to sense the prevailing uncertainty, and they turn to him for answers—he moves into positions of great responsibility, to generate replacements for what is being set aside. We find him, for example, in education and journalism. He uses dialectic thought—we’ll find out what that is soon enough. He may respect Mother Nature, evolution, eastern religion, and self-analysis. He can develop solutions that are synthesized ‘averages’ of prevailing ideas, excluding input, of course, from ‘bigots’ who support the old values, and from extremists. Standards in this way become highly relative. As society loses its moorings, the Facilitator person becomes muddled. He casts around for something solid: “The old ways don’t work. Abandon them! Let’s try something new.” There is massive experimentation, especially in education. Journalism becomes much more selective in its coverage, to encourage the development of what is novel, even as it guards ‘political correctness.’ Any idea is permissible, as long as certain words are not employed inappropriately—to link with the old moral standards, for example. These expressions, used wrongly, become painful to the Facilitator person. They trigger too many diverse emotions; they disorient him. When words cannot be used as words, then ideas can no longer be expressed. The Facilitator person—in a desperate attempt to maintain balance, and to reduce the pain of conflicting emotion—in effect has become the censor of society. Strangely, the Facilitator who can discern and hold on to principles that accurately describe cause and effect, within this chaotic kind of an environment, is the one most likely to develop wisdom.

verted Sensing to Introverted iNtuition, and MBNI ENTJ or the Introversion planning leg of Facilitator ‘working memory’ takes it further. All of this intricate machinery is subconscious in the Contributor person, along with Exhorter ‘working memory,’ which we will also discuss in detail.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
Personality differences between individuals do exist. There are various classification schemes that attempt to describe these distinctions. Some are better than others; most to a limited extent are helpful, in that whenever a difference is recognized, there is often a corresponding suggestion. Overall accuracy of description, though, is quite low, even in the best schemes. In the next section of this book, we will describe in as complete a way as possible the traits characteristic of each style. Unlike other schemes, we will not be giving many suggestions, or solutions to problems. It is enough, at this point, to understand the differences. The emphasis will be on characteristics, not on links between traits, or on their causes. For the sake of clarity these descriptions will be numbered; one point will not always be connected in context very closely with the next. It is probably best to read this part of the book through in sequence—traits mentioned in each section do assume a knowledge of those listed in previous descriptions. As much as possible, one style is compared with another; these contrasts also build on what has been said before. It would be helpful for you to know who you are, before you read further. If you feel that you may have identified yourself, but are not sure of your choice, you might wish to try the tests at Some of the information in this interactive JAVA-based website has been transcribed to the Appendix of this book—tests there can be taken without a computer. Alright, so you wish to continue. The following profiles will present the complete spectrum of traits possible for each cognitive style. You should identify strongly with some of the characteristics. Others may be undeveloped—if you tried them, they would bring you success and fulfillment. Still others will not fit you at all: “That does not describe me!” Perhaps you have fought a negative trait and won; you may have chosen to suppress a positive—your decisiveness in each case demonstrates that you have control in this area. It is what you could be. If you are reading this for the first time, then you will probably wish to look initially at the summaries placed at the beginnings of chapters. Numbering of points in the summaries matches that of expanded descriptions of these points in the following text—this allows you to look more closely at particular areas of interest, as you feel ready. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. can be a philanthropist. loves to travel and explore. hates small talk. weighs costs against benefits. may be careful with small personal expenses. wants activity to be meaningful. sees how others should fit into his Plan. covers his bases. may not start at all if he cannot do it well. can study, to bring the unknown into the known. does not like to speak unless he is prepared. loves the feeling of confidence that comes with success. does not like acceptance to be based upon performance. feels that each should pay his own way. will do everything possible to avoid personal bankruptcy. can be very hospitable. appreciates the practical joke. may enjoy crossword puzzles and games. can read detective novels or watch theater, mime and ballet. has a powerful imagination. likes to win an argument. may find it difficult to apologize or admit that he was wrong. likes to be fair in the way that he treats others. can draw friends into partnerships. believes easily in Faith, or in Fate and Luck.

Let’s look at the details. 1. You are aware of opportunities around you; you see ways in which needs can be met at a profit. At times you wonder why others seem so blind to these things. 2. Philanthropy or giving comes naturally to you— especially to those who are themselves giving to others. 3. You love travel. You climb the mountain, you fly the airplane, you visit the jungle village. Always you are exploring the outer limits. 4. You hate small talk. It leads nowhere! 5. You weigh costs against benefits; everything, according to some measure, must be profitable. The time and energy that you invest must itself yield results. 6. You tend to be careful with small personal expenses. You buy an expensive home or car, for instance, then balk at paying for a quart of milk, a pair of shoes. In other ways you save money—shopping perhaps at garage sales or second-hand stores.

The Contributor: 1. is aware of opportunities.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
7. Activity for you must be worth doing. At times you say to others: “What will you give me if I do that?” or “If you do this—then I will do that,” or perhaps even, “You do the dishes, and I’ll clean up the living room.” 8. You see opportunity as a sort of Inter-Connected Plan. You know what you must do, and how you will react as things develop. You see also the part that others must play. 9. You cover your bases; you prepare for contingencies before you start. The tool kit, for instance, is there in the trunk of your car, you have cash in your wallet, your home is insured. You love skiing, scuba diving, hiking, hunting, sports—but before you start, you guard against that which might go wrong. 10. You have high internal standards—for yourself, and for others. You are determined to be the best—to run the fastest mile, to be the most successful businessman, the most respected author. You simply will not start if you cannot do it well. 11. At times it makes you into a terrific scholar. You study to bring the unknown into the known, where it can be controlled. You learn that which is useful. You encourage your children to get an education. Your home is filled with scores of books—on every conceivable subject. 12. Public speaking can be difficult, especially when you are not quite sure of your subject. Here also you cover your bases; you prepare for every possible question or point of discussion. 13. You love that inner feeling of confidence that comes with success—the assurance that you are in control, that nothing can happen for which you do not have an answer. By the same token, you fear the unknown, the unanticipated. 14. You particularly abhor conditional acceptance: “Here are goals for the week. The one at the bottom gets no bonus.” Others can motivate you greatly by withholding acceptance in this way; you hate them for doing it. It tears you up inside. 15. You feel that each should pay his own way. You yourself, for instance, would never go on welfare. You particularly hate to see your hard-earned tax dollars distributed to others who do not share these inhibitions! 16. Bankruptcy for you is the ultimate dishonor. It locks failure in concrete; it brands you forever as a loser—you will do everything possible to avoid it. (Modern laws have modified this: a declaration of bankruptcy can at times be part of sound financial management; true bankruptcy lies several stages beyond this point!) 17. A good part of your life centers on hospitality. Your home, to the extent that you can afford it, is spacious and luxurious; it has extra room for guests.


18. You are drawn to the practical joke, especially with close friends. You carefully rig up the bed, then watch with delight as it collapses—just after someone has crawled in. You may put the pail of water on top of the door, to see another react. 19. You enjoy crossword puzzles and games—when you are equipped to compete and feel that you might win. Losing is no fun; you will not play at all when others consistently show you up. 20. You read detective novels, escape stories, tales at times of the macabre. You love to watch athletes excel in baseball, golf, the Olympics. You admire the professionalism of theater, mime or ballet. If you know music, then you appreciate concerts and classical performances; if not, then you are drawn perhaps to country-and-western. 21. Your imagination is unbelievable; you make a wonderful storyteller. 22. You have strong opinions as well. At times you get into arguments, and then you like to win! 23. You find it difficult, in these times, to apologize or to admit that you were wrong. 24. At the same time you have a strong sense of social justice. It disturbs you when right effort receives wrong result. You like to be fair in the way that you treat others. 25. You can be very supportive of those whom you admire. Friends, for instance, are drawn into partnerships, or in other ways allowed to share in the dividends of your investments. 26. You are, finally, a man of Faith. You may trust in Fate, Astrology, Predestination or Luck. You can have confidence in your own abilities, or those of your organization. You may, on the other hand, know a ‘Higher Power.’ This Faith, of whatever kind, is very important to you. Clue: If your marriage partner or best friend is a Contributor, but you are not, then you yourself are probably an Exhorter, a Facilitator or a Mercy. Just possibly, you might be a Server or even a Teacher.

The Exhorter: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. can sell refrigerators to Eskimos, when he gets excited. is very skilled at motivating others. does not like theory for its own sake. is good at leading small group discussions. wants the attention of every person when he speaks. is often surrounded by an ‘in-group.’ may start something, then let others finish. abhors ‘red tape.’


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
9. learns from life. 10. quickly becomes the ‘expert,’ telling others what to do. 11. makes a great ad-lib speaker. 12. is an excellent crisis-manager. 13. sees life through rose-colored glasses. 14. can pay a real price to see goals realized. 15. may exaggerate or overstate to get things moving. 16. can be somewhat clumsy with his hands. 17. sees the potential in people or situations. 18. worries about external appearances—calling cards, stationery. 19. can be late for appointments. 20. knows just how to poke at others. 21. moves to the center of excitement, where work is fun and play is useful. Let’s look at the details. 1. You are a terrific salesman—you can sell refrigerators to Eskimos, when you get excited. Enthusiasm, moreover, comes easily; always you are describing things as the best, the most valuable, the most important. 2. You are highly skilled also at motivating others. You project achievement, you form goals. You jump yourself into the middle of things. Somehow, you inject that air of inspiration that gets things going. 3. Theory for its own sake does not interest you; you want to be ‘where the rubber meets the road.’ In your speaking you tell stories of past experience, you use examples from life. 4. You are particularly good at leading small group discussions. You encourage participation; you extract lessons from dialogue. At times, when things get staid, you drop the verbal bomb—then draw together the reactions that come from others. 5. You want the attention of every person when you speak. The vast majority may be fastened to your words; you notice the one whose interest is elsewhere. 6. You love life, you are fun to be around—and you like to make life enjoyable also for others. A sort of ‘in-group’ often forms around you. 7. You are decision- and goal-oriented. At the same time you are not a detail person—in fact, you forget the details. You get things started, then let others— members perhaps of your ‘in-group’—pick up the pieces and keep them going. You don’t care: “I’m moving on!” 8. You abhor ‘red tape’—regulations by smallminded ‘pencil pushers.’ You cut through it and push forward, leaving a mess behind you. 9. You learn from life, seeing what works and what doesn’t work. When you must, then you find reasons for these lessons in theory. 10. No one can keep you from the center of action: you learn ‘buzz words,’ you grasp the essentials of operation, then you jump in with both feet. Quickly you become the ‘expert,’ telling others what to do. 11. Your speaking, similarly, is ad-lib. You seem never to be at a loss for words. 12. You make an excellent crisis-manager. You sense what is needed for continuity of function; you attack the obstacle. You inject vision and excitement. You communicate goals. You prod for decision and action. You get things done! 13. You see the difficulty through rose-colored glasses; you bring hope in the midst of hopelessness. The greatest tragedy for you, in fact, is to lose this hope; suddenly there is nothing in life worth living for. 14. You yourself can pay a terrific price to see goals actualized; there is in you the potential for an awesome patience and perseverance. 15. Others accuse you at times of exaggeration or overstatement. This is not your intention—you are simply describing things as they could be, or perhaps should be. 16. You are not at your best, it might be added, with things mechanical. Your hands at times seem all thumbs as you work the tape recorder, or struggle with the carburetor in the car. When things finally break, then you don’t repair them; you buy replacements. At the same time you love gadgets: the latest quartz watches, computers, stereo sets, microwave ovens—you delight in pushing the buttons and running them through their paces. 17. You see the potential in people and situations— then you poke and prod until there is change. You project achievement. You push for decision. You provide steps of action. 18. Something in you is highly sensitive to appearances. When externals are right, in your opinion, then substance quickly follows. Starting a business, for instance, you print calling cards and stationery, you put up the sign outside (you may not always spell the words correctly), you formulate merchandising plans. Only then do you determine lines of stock, and order your wares. 19. You have a great regard for punctuality—in others! Somehow, no matter how hard you try, you yourself are often late for those appointments. At the same time you apologize so profusely, you are so likeable, that others quickly forgive and forget. 20. You are a terrific tease. You know just how to poke at others. 21. You are one who mixes work and play; work must be enjoyable, play must be useful. Generally, we find you at the center of excitement: you travel, you talk to people who are interesting, you do the new and the novel—and you let us follow!

Personality Profiles - More Detail
Clue: If your marriage partner or best friend is an Exhorter, but you are not, then you yourself could be a Contributor or a Mercy. Just possibly, you might be a Facilitator or a Teacher.


Initially, Contributor and Exhorter can seem somewhat similar. Let us contrast them and pick out some of the differences: Exhorter or Contributor: 1. E(xhorter) - sees potential in people. C(ontributor) - looks for opportunity in situations. Er - thrives in crisis. C - loves a challenge. Er - enjoys life and likes to do his best. C - likes to win. Er - can sacrifice to reach his goals. C - thinks naturally in terms of sowing and reaping. Er - makes friends easily. C - can learn to be cautious of others. Er - gets you to share his excitement—it makes him a great salesman. C - looks for ‘self-sellers’—he is also a great salesman. Er - easily exaggerates. C - may end up being a slave of his reputation. Er - loves to use the telephone. C - is often more of a listener on the telephone. Er - may have trouble handling money. C - makes a clear distinction between business and philanthropy. Er - is a natural ad-lib speaker. C - makes sure he is prepared before he speaks. Er - wants every person to pay attention. C - likes to maintain control when speaking to a crowd. Er - is willing to start on projects immediately. C - is not afraid to take risks to exploit opportunity. Er - starts, and lets others finish. C - associates himself with ‘winners,’ who become partners. Er - is surrounded by an ‘in-group’ that helps. C - is a natural leader—he shares the Plan. Er - can be very undisciplined, or in contrast highly disciplined. C - may lose sight of the Plan, and allow the means to become the end. Er - gets things moving. C - enjoys adventure, games and puzzles.

17. Er - pokes at opposition. C - fights back in the face of adversity. 18. Er - sees life through rose-colored glasses. C - is supportive of others, both personally and financially. 19. Er - learns lessons primarily from life, and leads others to maturity. C - is a great project-manager and man of Faith. Let’s look at the details. 1. E(xhorter) - He sees the potential in the individual and the situation: he visualizes achievement, he presents steps of action, he confronts resistance. C(ontributor) - He sees the opportunity, the potential result of investing himself or his money. He gives to those themselves giving out to others. He encourages others to match his gifts. In word as well as lifestyle he proclaims the effectiveness of directed investment. 2. Er - He thinks in terms of crisis because this often brings decision. Trials are opportunities to develop potential. C - He thinks in terms of challenge because this often accompanies opportunity. He exploits opportunity to its full potential in spite of crisis and opposition. 3. Er - He loves to tease; he enjoys life immensely— and often makes only a vague distinction between work and play. In particular he loves competitive sport in which he can excel and break down the opposition; he may change sides to the weaker team in order to ensure a more even contest. His enthusiasm at times can be greater than his ability—it does not matter, the important thing is to do his best. C - He loves to mimic, to play practical jokes, to be ‘the life of the party.’ He also enjoys competitive sport—when he can win, and beat the opposition. He on his part will usually not get involved unless he can do well, and has the tools to compete effectively. 4. Er - The breadth of his style, from sensitivity through to involvement, makes it natural for him to think in terms of hope–sacrifice–fulfillment, of goals– self-actualization–achievement, of Birth-of-a-Vision– Death-of-a-Vision–Rebirth-of-a-Vision. C - The complexity of his style, from perception of the need of others to formulation of opportunity and an awareness of ‘business method,’ makes it easy for him to think in terms of a ‘giving that produces,’ of the cash flow involved in ensuring full productivity and effectiveness, then on to management by objectives, and the vertical integration and consolidation that guards against surprises. 5. Er - He is essentially a trusting person, open and personable, often a much better talker than he is a listener. It can be hard for him to comprehend disloyalty—he himself, in maturity, will continue until goals

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11.



14. 15.



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
are accomplished. C - Underneath that gregarious and outgoing exterior can be a somewhat more private and suspicious individual, even cynical—for others never seem to respond quite as they should, and even if he could guard against them, how can he be expected to guard against Fate, the Unforeseen! In some cases there seems always to be that stone in the sling—for disloyalty and opposition when it appears in those around him. Other times he moves in the opposite direction: he becomes very supportive, both personally and financially; he is a man of faith—in ‘God,’ and in others—open, personable, and hospitable. 6. Er - He is a super-salesman. He has a fantastic ability to establish rapport, persuade others to take his advice, sell them on the value of his product—and their need for it. C - He has a terrific ability to identify the evolving needs of those around him, to perceive opportunities inherent in those needs, adapt products to the opportunities, and thus to come up with ‘self-sellers.’ In this sense he also is a super-salesman. 7. Er - He can carry us away in his enthusiasm, exaggerating the value of his product to convince us, building a huge edifice on a very small base. The result can be a gap between promise and performance, leading eventually to disappointment. C - He can adapt not only his product but also his own personality to meet our need—in effect marketing himself—his history adjusted to meet our expectations, his past related through the eyes of imagination. The result can be a gap between reputation and inner personality, leading eventually to disorientation and a need for privacy. In success there is fear: “Others overestimate me; they must not find me out!” 8. Er - He is an inveterate user of the telephone: he can convince, exhort, encourage, sell as easily by voice as through face-to-face contact. C - He places more emphasis on face-to-face interaction—for he must first of all sense the need. Only then can he provide the product that will meet that need. 9. Er - He loves life—and often is not too concerned about finances, as long as he has enough to get by. When he borrows your car, it comes back with an empty gas tank—and perhaps an unpaid parking ticket. C - Large business losses are absorbed as part of the fortunes of war. Similarly, he can be generous in giving large amounts, especially when he sees them going to effective causes. The two, incidentally, are kept very separate: he will maximize his earnings, or give generously—not both at the same time. He is often tight when it comes to small personal or family expenses. 10. Er - He is remarkably skilled at ad-libbing, often accompanying his message with illustrations from life, sometimes unconsciously exaggerated. He likes to walk and move as he talks. His face is alive; it reveals his feelings and thoughts. Almost instantly, he establishes rapport. C - His message is prepared more carefully, at times even memorized (he loves the theater with its prepared lines) and accompanied often by unconscious mime, or small hand and body gestures. His stories are imaginative adaptations based in reality, meant to entertain. He is skilled at controlling facial expression. He can be an excellent actor. 11. Er - He often loves the acclaim of a crowd, for it indicates that every individual is supporting him. C - He may well love the acclaim of a crowd, for it provides emotional support while allowing for personal privacy. He is particularly attracted to the structured media of television, movies or theater. 12. Er - He can move forward precipitately, on the basis of seemingly insufficient ability, to exploit present potential and to reach goals: he ad-libs, he uses and adapts little things he has learned from others, he ‘wings it,’ he trusts that others will somehow cover for him, that he will learn as he goes. Rules and regulations are for others, not for him. C - He can take what seem to be desperate risks—when he himself is confident that he has covered the angles—in order to exploit present opportunity. He borrows heavily, he extends himself to the limit in order to implement his Vision. Rules are observed by him as long as they are enforced by others; he may ignore them if he thinks he can get away with it. 13. Er - He may lead ‘by irresponsibility.’ He starts, rough-shapes, then lets those around him complete. He seems always in a hurry, yet strangely never on time—and we lend a hand. C - He may have high expectations, yet only hint at his desires. He gives incomplete instructions: it is a puzzle to unravel, a detective story to solve, a challenge to test his listeners. He works with those who prove themselves. 14. Er - He can find himself ‘using’ others. It is easier than developing and practicing personal discipline. He is so likeable, so friendly, that others often do not realize what is happening until later. C - He can find himself using and ‘managing’ people—like pawns in his Plan. He is so sure he is right, and so conscious of the importance of what he sees, that he forgets that others too have valid goals and desires. He is loyal and supportive to subordinates; he provides well for them financially, even emotionally—as long as they do not threaten his control—it can be some time before they realize what is happening.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
15. Er - He can be careless about the means in order to reach a chosen end; shortcuts are taken in particular around needs for personal character development. At the same time he is capable of an incredible discipline—surpassing every other style—when he walks in maturity. C - A honing of the means to meet every conceivable challenge or opportunity can become the end; he can move in ‘white anger’ to the end using every means. His thinking at times lacks analysis of the need as part of a broader picture, or the symptom of some other problem. This single-minded determination is his strength—when accompanied by knowledge, and a willingness to use means that are right. 16. Er - He is a warrior for a cause, one who will not quit; he can move forward in a vacuum. He possesses incredible endurance; he is able to overcome tremendous handicaps. He identifies with others, and loves therefore to read stories of those who also fought for goals, especially when these tales contain lessons from which he can learn, and are spiced with real-life comedy. He appreciates history as a whole—tales of other places, people, and times. C - The Exhorter often takes the initiative, the Contributor is more response-oriented. He is a fighter in the face of challenge, highly competitive, absolutely refusing to lose. And, therefore, he enjoys reading the detective story, the ‘whodunit,’ the escape story; he is strongly drawn to games and puzzles— when he can win. Without a doubt, he loves the adventure of travel. 17. Er - He is apt to poke at the sore point—the center of opposition—until he provokes crisis and right decision. C - He can build counterweights to those who challenge and oppose—then wait for the right time to counterattack and win. 18. Er - He tends to be very positive: he sees problems through rose-colored glasses, he gives hope in the midst of hopelessness. He focuses energies and brings excitement—“Someone needs to do this,” he says, and those around him work harder than they have ever worked before— he gets the job done in time of crisis. C - He can complain when solutions are not yet apparent: “Someone ought to do something!” He scans thoughts and writings of others for ideas. When finally he sees what needs to be done, then he can be incredibly supportive, both personally and financially. He injects humor into tight or awkward situations, he urges a walk in Faith, he gives leadership in the face of challenge or social need. 19. Er - The Exhorter who is disciplined works effectively with the Teacher: this style of thought reaches from a base of study into theory and finally involvement; the disciplined Exhorter moves from involve-


ment into ‘lessons from life’ and finally study. The partnership is powerful. Seen more often is the combination with the Contributor; it is effective as well, and less demanding on the Exhorter. C - He is highly effective with the Facilitator: this pattern of thought brings skills in man-management, the Contributor provides Vision and controlling direction. (Both Exhorter and Contributor appreciate the Mercy as well—so sensitive, potentially, to the subtleties of inter-personal relationship.)

The Perceiver: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. is an associative thinker—he links facts with principles. thinks in terms of black and white. looks for the Big Picture. sees the thing that does not fit. senses what is unnecessary. looks for absolutes. remembers facts and statistics. hates hypocrisy. has a strong conscience. can struggle with anger. may enjoy computer programming, science fiction, and westerns. knows the meaning of duty, honor and loyalty. has a strong sense of justice. is outspoken at times, calling for repentance. has a strong feeling for self-image. can be shy until he has proven himself. prefers others to criticize his principles rather than his person. will fight against injustice, when sure he is right. has a dry sense of humor, makes puns easily. does not appreciate indecision in others. can be many-sided. easily procrastinates. likes to see results from his work. evaluates others according to what they have done. is often a pioneer.

Let’s look at the details. 1. You are a strongly associative person. Always you are saying, “That reminds me—” as one concept triggers another in your thinking. You come up with ideas. They are new to you, and so you share them with others as well. 2. You often think in terms of blacks and whites; whenever you meet the new, you ask yourself, “Am I for it, or against it?” Your opinions are strong, and stated in no uncertain terms: “I hate relish in my hot dog!”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
3. You learn from the top down, beginning with the Big Picture, then working down to details. The overall view must be right before you are willing to look further; it means that you must know what this view is! When someone broaches a new topic, for instance, your first response is often, “Huh?” Questions follow until you have the Picture, the context: “All right. Now I’ve got it. Go ahead.” You find it hard to follow thinking that is ‘bottom-up’ (beginning with details)—to you it seems like waffling. There is an almost irresistible temptation to jump in and get some basic principle accepted. 4. You look for the contradiction, the discrepancy. When you find it, then you know that some fact is wrong. In the absence of error you often cannot tell: “Let’s give it the benefit of the doubt for now and see what happens.” You watch as links develop between the new and the rest of what you know—conviction of ‘truth’ grows as contradiction remains absent. 5. You are sensitive also to the redundancy: clichés, hackneyed phrases, unnecessary words. You appreciate remarks that are pithy, concepts that are elegant. With things as well, you like compact objects that do a lot—hand-held computers, adjustable cameras. You dislike excess weight and waste space—in old ‘clunker cars’ or computer monitors, for example. 6. You look always for absolutes: “What do I know for sure?” It makes sense: thought in you extracts discrepancy through a comparison of fact with fact; the result depends upon which facts are held fixed. A knowledge of absolutes eliminates uncertainties. It enables you to make solid decisions, and to stick with them in the face of opposition. 7. You have a deep love for history. It is a record of past events, in this sense it also is absolute. You are a master of trivia as well: no one can argue about the ‘truth’ of numbers and statistics. 8. You hate hypocrisy—discrepancy between belief and lifestyle. Interestingly, you can accept persons whose principles are wrong, when they live out these errors without contradiction, and are quiet about their beliefs. What can you say? They are following the ‘truth’ that they know! Whenever beliefs are verbalized, though, then you begin to watch. Things are now in the open: “Will these persons live up to their convictions? Will their principles stand the test of cause and effect?” You look for discrepancies. And when they appear, you act quickly—for this is hypocrisy! 9. You have a strong conscience. ‘Truth’ is black and white, right as opposed to wrong—your duty is to serve it. 10. One of your greatest struggles, as it turns out, is with Anger, and to develop its opposite of Patience. Anger because you want to see problems dealt with immediately; Patience because it is easier to be angry than to find solutions. 11. You probably enjoy science fiction, westerns and video games—especially those with good graphics, in which you eliminate the aliens. Military hardware fascinates you—the strength of guns, tanks, planes, ships. You like computer simulations and adventure games. 12. Duty, honor and loyalty mean much to you. You yourself are the servant of ‘truth’; it is your duty to do that which is right. Honor is the recognition of duty performed in the face of crisis or adversity. Loyalty maintains the honor of another—against those who would bring humiliation. 13. You have a strong sense of justice. Right action must yield right result; you are enough of a fool to believe that this is the way it should be. Exceptions of course exist; ‘Truth’ does not always win, people thwart it—and you can live with that, provided right wins often enough to maintain those inner beliefs. 14. You are outspoken; you say it the way it is. You poke at hypocrisy. You call for repentance and change. At times—be honest—you can be a real ‘motor-mouth.’ Of course, when others listen, then something in you backs off and says: “Am I ready to be responsible for my words?” 15. You think in terms of self-image—that which you and others have done and can do. Your duty is to live up to this image; honor and ‘personhood’ result when it is demonstrated in crisis.1 ‘Personhood,’ once acquired, remains for always. Medals, degrees, badges, positions—all are evidence of this change in status. You look for them, therefore, in those you meet: “Are they worthy?” You let them know in subtle ways that you yourself are also a person. 16. You can be shy around those with authority: “Who am I to disturb them?” You do not want to impose on their freedom, or to appear yourself to be shirking your duties. It is especially difficult for you to use the telephone: “What do I say? What if I have nothing to say?” The lack of visual clues leaves you without a feeling of reasonableness. As ‘personhood’ in you develops, you learn to move beyond the externals—clothes, titles, honors—to deal with the real person in others as well. 17. You hate personal criticism; it hits below the belt. You in fact will say it first to prevent others from saying it. Comments that strike home can throw you into a deep mood. 18. Injustice outrages you. When many people are being hurt, then you know that you are right: sudWe use ‘personhood’ in this book in two senses. First, there are three centres of personhood, based on the ability to concentrate. Second, Perceiver strategy contains self-image, and this generates a feeling for ‘personhood.’

Personality Profiles - More Detail
denly ‘Quiet You’ turns into the ‘Knight on the White Horse’ and charges into battle. You fight, though, under rules of chivalry—meaning the elimination of the personal from the conflict. When you can, you speak to the problem and not the person. 19. Buffering all of this is a strong sense of humor— based in the false association. Often you are punning. You modify clichés: “Never put off until tomorrow what can be done the day after!” You are a master of lampoon and satire. You dig at others—carefully adjusting the reasonableness of your comments so that the hearer works things out for himself: the joke about the fat person, for instance, is given to one who is thin. Just within hearing range, though, is the fat person at whom you wish to poke—he will not know for sure whether he was actually meant to hear. You personify animals or things to exhibit the foibles of people. You tell stories. You poke dryly at bubbles; you puncture pretensions of those in office. You must speak; there is no choice, the pill of ‘truth’ must be swallowed—it can be coated, though, with humor! Humor in fact substitutes in you for gentleness. 20. You hate transition—decisions must be implemented immediately. You dislike standing in line, for instance, or driving to work. You avoid bureaucracy: it makes you fill in forms that are unfamiliar. It immerses you for hours in the meaningless; it wastes your time. Often your defense is to do tasks in parallel—when one is blocked, then you can emphasize others. (You may find yourself, in this regard, reading on the toilet.) 21. In areas of interest that differ radically one from another—hobbies and work, for instance—it is easy for you to schedule conflicting activity. You arrange an evening, for example, to meet with staff and colleagues at work, forgetting until later that neighbors had been invited to your home for that time to visit. More generally, you might accept cognitive styles as a ‘truth’ of psychology, yet never think of applying this information in life’s situations, or searching further for a scientific explanation. 22. Procrastination is a major problem. Why close your options? Why decide before it is necessary? Decision that is postponed in fact reduces transition— people follow better when forced for a time to wait. You sense the important; little things are below your dignity—and so they pile up. Sometimes they must come collectively to a point of crisis before you finally act. 23. You want activity to be useful. You sense possible result—given an object, for instance, you can often determine its probable purpose or function. You sit on the verge of action: your hands are always moving—you smoke a pipe, perhaps, or play with a pencil.


24. Relationships for you involve projects; friends are those with whom you can do something. You respect those who stand up, at the level of principle, for what they believe—they help you to fine-tune your own principles. These kinds of people can become your closest companions. 25. You look in particular for activity that develops and demonstrates ‘personhood.’ You like independent responsibility; you hate to be given freedom, then have it taken away—it humiliates you, then it abandons you to uselessness. Often you are the pioneer on the frontiers, implementing ideas, responding to crises, making decisions. You are happiest when issues have been reduced to moral terms, and when many others think as you do—then you can be sure that you are right. Clue One: If your marriage partner or best friend is a Perceiver, but you are not, then you yourself are probably a Facilitator or a Mercy. Possibly you may be a Teacher. Clue Two: If you see in yourself many of the traits of the Perceiver, then look also at the Server. If this describes you as well, then you are a Contributor, not a Perceiver.

The Perceiver has a narrower range of ability than the Contributor; the two in most cases can be separated rather easily. The exception (in a minority of cases) is the Contributor who chooses to become like a Perceiver, and who restricts other, more Contributor-like, parts of his personality. The Perceiver as a general rule is very subtle in his behavior (historians often do not understand him); the Perceiver-oriented Contributor in contrast is more blatant and obvious. The result is somewhat paradoxical: if a person is too much like a Perceiver, then he should check whether he might not perhaps be a Contributor—we describe his circuits, later, in our analysis of the ISTP. Perceiver or Contributor: 1. 2. P(erceiver) - bubbles with ideas and insights. C(ontributor) - sees plans and opportunities. Pr - may be serious, then suddenly fun loving and childlike. C - can develop in many differing directions. Pr - needs to know the context in conversation. C - knows how to adapt the Plan to the situation. Pr - can have a number of differing interests. C - narrows down in general to one interest at a time. Pr - is motivated strongly by internal self-image. C - is motivated by external challenge. Pr - considers honor, when he wins it, to be permanent.

3. 4.

5. 6.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
C - can feel that he must continually prove himself. Pr - wants to see each person free to develop in his own direction. C - helps others to identify opportunity and to reach self-sufficiency. Pr - does not appreciate it when others criticize his person. C - does not like it when others give him acceptance based upon performance. Pr - appreciates meaningful conversation. C - loves hospitality—the opportunity to visit with others in his home. Pr - speaks off-the-cuff, needs to be sparked by others. C - prepares carefully before he speaks. Pr - loves puns, quips and sly digs. C - mimics mannerisms and plays practical jokes. Pr - checks ideas against more basic principles. C - restricts himself to some area of expertise, then covers his bases. Pr - tries his ideas to see if they will work. C - shifts his tactics in response to changing circumstances. Pr - is a conservative and a radical at the same time. C - can often be recognized by his confidence. Pr - may write stories in which the hero reveals duty, honor, loyalty and ‘personhood.’ C - has a great imagination and may be a prolific writer, of both fact and fiction. Pr - makes decisions quickly, based on the available information. C - does not start until everything is ready. Pr - has a strong conscience. C - feels anxiety and conviction when faced with the unexpected. Pr - can feel he is too much of a sinner to come to ‘God.’ C - may feel that faith in ‘God’ would cause him to lose control. Pr - is not afraid to take authority in time of turmoil. C - can be a real professional, desiring high standards also in those around him. Pr - senses ‘personhood’ in others, and chooses his friends accordingly. C - fits ‘persons’ who are capable into his Plan. quotable quote. Behind his speech is generally some moral lesson—you either take it or else you leave it. C(ontributor) - Ideas for him are rooted much more in the practical: he sees the opportunity. He is aware of the evolving needs and desires of those around him. He has a gut feeling for the form that those needs may take in the future, a knack for selecting as his goals those projects which are ripe for realization. He can be highly imaginative as he shares with you what is seen, or implements it himself. 2. Pr - He has two sides to his person: a serious, analytical part, and another almost childish, humorloving, visual side. Emotional sensitivity is also present, just below the surface—like Spock of Star Trek, he succeeds generally in keeping it under control. He is open about himself and transparent. C - He feels scattered, parts of his person here, parts there. He can in fact develop in a number of differing directions. As an individual he may seem rather like the Perceiver, for example, or like the Server. He may become sensitive like the Mercy, or an intellectual like the Teacher. Unlike the Teacher, Mercy, Server and Perceiver, he can move between these various parts of his person (given time and training). In addition to this, he can also develop traits that are unique to him as a Contributor. It makes him difficult to describe. The Contributor himself, we might add, senses his breadth of potential—he may speak of himself in the third person: “Children, your father is not feeling well today. He did not sleep properly last night.” There can be a sense of mystery about him, almost an aura. Others do not always see beneath his often sober, business-like exterior. 3. Pr - He is one who thinks in terms of the Big Picture—the way in which facts fit together. When you explain something new to him, he looks puzzled for a time. Suddenly he says, “Now I’ve got it.” A visual picture forms in his head, an idea, suddenly; he uses it to check the rest of what you say. C - Opportunity appears to him as a Big Picture, an Inter-Connected Plan. He actually sees in his head the ways in which needs can be met, and others benefited—at a profit. Essentials come to him in a sort of flash; thought is necessary to determine the order in which these elements should be implemented. 4. Pr - He has a wide variety of interests. At the same time he knows precisely what those interests are; he feels disoriented in the genuinely new. When he lacks associations, then he easily procrastinates. C - His interests range potentially from business, politics and religion to theater, mime, ballet, and the media in general. He can be an adventurer, a man of Faith, a university professor, a humorist, a writer or editor, an architect, an accountant, an athlete. The list is broad. The Perceiver follows interests in parallel; the Contributor tends to narrow down to one at a





11. 12.









Let’s examine the details. 1. P(erceiver) - He is a man of ideas, nostalgic reminiscences reflecting the mood, and true comments. His conversation sparkles, it jumps to and fro in response to the thoughts of others, it confronts you. He says it as it is, or actually understates, to avoid the sin of exaggeration. He is a master of the perceptive

Personality Profiles - More Detail
time. He knows the particular realm in which he is skilled to compete, and he may stay there. From time to time he gets bored and develops skills elsewhere; his profession changes. The old is often dropped, though, as he moves on to the new. At the same time, in each particular stage, he is many-activitied. He can have his finger in a number of pies. 5. Pr - He knows the things that he has done and can do—it is his self-image. If he responds rightly in crisis, then he becomes a ‘person.’ He is motivated internally—by concepts such as duty, justice, honor and loyalty. C - He is sensitive rather to failure; it slaps him in the face. Fear of failing in fact helps him to narrow down in his interests. Its opposite, a love of success, urges him to genuine professionalism in this area of expertise. Standards of success, unlike the Perceiver, are generally external: financial profit, a medal in sports, intellectual prowess, the size of his home or business, clothes, physical beauty or strength, the extent of his influence and control; then, knowledge of ‘God’ through signs and wonders, the people he has helped. 6. Pr - The Perceiver, when he wins honor, considers it his for keeps. We see him reflected in various fairy tales. He, in the person of the Knight, rescues the princess, wins her hand in marriage to become King, then lives happily ever after—he never needs to prove himself again. As the samurai warrior, he wins the battle and is memorialized for centuries in song. Honor of this kind is passed down to offspring throughout the generations: the Perceiver thinks easily in terms of the hereditary monarchy—and of course hates the sham. A similar thing happens with dishonor: the Perceivers of society will punish the son for the sins of the father. C - The Contributor is sensitive to pecking order among ‘persons.’ He loves to be known, in the secular world, as Founder and President of the Company, or in the religious, as Pioneer and Pastor of the MegaChurch. ‘Founder and Pioneer’ is desirable because it makes him the source of the success; he has not inherited it, or received it from another. Similarly, the title of President or Pastor implies that he is still in control, and can be judged by the success of his organization. For him the ladder is always slippery: he proves himself continually, or else he loses his place—if not before others, then in his own thought. When he compares, it is often ‘upward’; his accomplishments mean little to him if another can do it better. 7. Pr - He fights against injustice, and for the rights of the common man. He values ‘personhood,’ and therefore democracy. At the same time it is hard for him to be around the lowly loser; somehow he identifies and begins himself to feel poorly. C - He struggles for social justice; he resists those


who would deny opportunity to their fellow man. He values self-sufficiency—historically, he is the founder of Western Capitalism (Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes), as well as its counterpart in Communism of central planning (Marx, Lenin). He on his part reaches easily in sympathetic concern to the down-and-out; he is a natural philanthropist. Difficulty comes, though, when the lowly reach his own level, and especially as they begin slowly to surpass him. Suddenly that competitive side is aroused; he can turn swiftly from helping them to slapping them back down. 8. Pr - He cringes under personal criticism: it humiliates him, dishonors his ‘personhood’ and attacks his self-esteem. He has a strong internal sense of right and wrong, it makes him a servant of ‘truth’—he does not need others adding to that pressure. C - He hates conditional acceptance: “I will give you my approval as soon as you do what I wish, or when you live according to my standards.” It changes the rules by which success is measured—to motivate him to action. The salesman, for instance, is given an artificially high quota, then mocked as he falls below it. This sort of thing attacks his self-esteem, and he may compensate by making life miserable for those around him. 9. Pr - He likes to be around people; at the same time it is an effort for him to have them in his home. C - A good part of his life is oriented around hospitality. Guests bring excitement; the provision of food is a form of giving. He retains control when events take place in his home. He is highly sensitive, moreover, to social obligation: dinner engagements elsewhere are carefully reciprocated, and this keeps things going. 10. Pr - He often speaks off-the-cuff, using a few notes at most. It is as everything hangs in mid-air before him that one idea is able to spark another, that he can respond to the comments or asides of others and communicate the Big Picture. The quality of his presentation varies greatly—much depends on audience reaction and the local ambiance. It is especially difficult for him to repeat a brilliant talk previously given extemporaneously. C - His habit is to adapt that which he prepares to the needs of his recipients; he is terrified, therefore, by the thought of truly extemporaneous speaking before large, unfamiliar crowds. Speeches are carefully developed—tried out beforehand on small groups, perhaps, or written out and even memorized. He has answers for each possible question, responses for every conceivable eventuality. Unlike the Perceiver, he does not mind saying the same thing over and over again—when it is effective. 11. Pr - His sense of humor is associative and verbal: the pun, the dig or lampoon, irony, the spoof that


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
pokes at pompousness or hypocrisy. He may extrapolate your words into absurdity; he can reflect them back at you in ways that touch your self-image, or give you important-sounding statements that lack content, then wait with a smile for you to catch on. C - His sense of humor is oriented more towards action: mime that throws your mannerism back at you, the practical joke probing your ability to handle the unexpected, the hint or puzzle testing your powers of analysis, the unexpected action maintaining that sense of mystery. It is a side of him seen especially by family and close friends. 12. Pr - He is black and white in his thinking; he needs absolutes. They order his reactions to life experiences. They save him from useless mental activity, they give certainty to his deliberations. He himself, though, is not equipped to generate them, for he is sensitive to the discrepancy rather than to order. He has a deep need to be rooted, therefore, in something external to himself, immovable, able to give him principles that can be trusted. At times the Perceiveroriented individual deifies his own insight—it is rooted in other parts of his personality, it can seem to be external to his own person. C - The Perceiver is black or white to facts and ideas; the Contributor polarizes just as strongly towards Plans and Opportunities. The Perceiver is open initially to everything; the Contributor ensures first that some Plan lies within realms of expertise. Delving within himself, he asks: “Is it me? Am I equipped to compete?” If the answer is in the affirmative, he then weighs Costs against Benefits to check that the Plan is also an Opportunity. Confronting himself once more, he asks: “Will I win? Will this be profitable according to my measures of success?” At this stage, he becomes much like the Perceiver. As the Perceiver has principles that govern his thinking, so the Contributor, in turn, has Contingency Plan Analysis frameworks, each with a separate set of entries. They generate counter-responses for possible problems; they eliminate risks: “If this happened, then I would—” He can lose greatly when he moves on gut feeling alone! When all is done, he may talk about it, like the Perceiver: “Someone could do well here,” or he may step in himself and actually do it! We see him easily as a gambler. He would reject this analysis, for ‘risk’ that was not factored into his thinking does not, for him, exist. 13. Pr - Ideas are checked first internally, against principle, then in the world of cause and effect. He loves a battle of words—when it avoids the personal. Those who fine-tune his ideas become at times his closest friends. He likes also to have physical tools around him, just in case he needs them, to try something. He can seem in activity, at times, almost like a Server. C - Opportunity is implemented in a real world where things go wrong; it makes him more the pragmatist—he shifts his tactics for changing circumstances. As necessary, he implements contingency planning. Skills are honed in conversational debate (in which he desires to win) or with puzzles, detective stories and mysteries. Plans, and the skill to make Plans, are to the Contributor like tools to the Perceiver; he never knows when he might need them. 14. Pr - He is a conservative radical: he guards Sources for his principles, he implements right ideas. He can be highly optimistic, even in the face of opposition—action rooted in right principle, he feels, must in the final analysis produce right result. C - He also is a combination of opposites. He can be very generous with large amounts, yet stingy with small personal expenditures. He pushes as the businessman for profit, then turns around as the philanthropist and gives it back again. As a politician he is the nationalist-internationalist. He is the entrepreneurial adventurer, the risk-taker who watches carefully all the way. We recognize him by his confidence—he is convinced that the Plan, when it is complete, must be successful. 15. Pr - The Perceiver-oriented individual has terrific potential as a writer. True, at times he moves from insight directly to action, avoiding paper! Other times, though, he feels impelled to write. He is the faithful scribe of what is Eternal and True. His work can vary from the religious proclamation (Knox, Wycliffe), to apologetics (C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer), to the muckraking that exposes (Benito Mussolini at one extreme, Ralph Nader at the other), to the parable and the personification of ‘truth’ (John Bunyan, Cervantes, C. S. Lewis, Tolkien). He excels also in fiction—often some variation of the Knight on the White Horse (the cowboy with the six-gun, the Jedi in his spaceship), fighting against Evil, alone, unique, against great odds, with major issues hanging on his decisions— and ‘truth’ prevailing at the end. His is the hero with instant knowledge and power, who follows the demands of duty, and meets with enough crisis to bring meaning and significance. At the end of the story the gallant fellow wins honor and rides off into the sunset (in science fiction, he gets a medal from the Emperor). If, tragically, he somehow dies, it is with many around him, and with meaning and dignity. C - The Contributor has terrific potential also as an author. Paper allows him to plan and to coordinate things; every piece of the mental puzzle can be put into its proper place. Writing varies from the scholarly treatise (Samuel Johnson, Adam Smith, Henry Kissinger), to philosophy (Nietzsche), to the macabre (Edgar Allan Poe, Alfred Hitchcock), to entertainment (Charles Dickens, Walt Disney) to the detective and adventure tale (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha

Personality Profiles - More Detail
Christie). As speech includes mime, so writing reaches to music and the arts (Bach, Beethoven, Pablo Picasso). It includes humor (Stephen Leacock, Mark Twain), and often brings ‘salvation,’ of various varieties (Calvin, Lenin, Joseph Smith, Hitler). Fiction for the Perceiver-oriented (in contrast to the Contributor) is often an altered reality in which ‘truth’ operates, consistently, according to its own laws. At the hero’s fingertips are power, knowledge, technology (horses, spaceships, computers)—often acquired instantly. The Contributor, in his fiction, links much more closely to the actual world. He uses real-life techniques attained through ‘guts’ and sheer hard work— he scorns Perceiver-shortcuts. The hero is the Horatio Alger, the self-made man, the one who makes good against odds. In place of expanding ‘personhood’ externally (by access to guns, horses or spaceships), the Contributor often alters the person inside, making him clever or physically strong, even ‘bionic.’ Along with the power, though, are fears, for experience teaches that real people do not always win. Therefore, he writes the tragedy, with the bad ending (Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe)—at times taking almost a perverse delight in frightening his readers. 16. Pr - The Perceiver makes quick decisions based on the available information, and makes them now: “Let’s go for it. Let’s see what happens.” He knows for certain, even as he acts, that he has not included everything; he cannot help it: “I will revise my decisions when there is new information.” It makes him very flexible while at the same time highly incisive. When he lacks absolutes, then the very desire for rapid action can make him into a man of reaction as he responds to the changes, or even a man of inaction, as he backs away in frustration, and drops the whole thing. C - The Contributor ties things down, he will not start until all is ready—he does not like to make the same mistake twice. The Perceiver on his part falls prey to moods when errors of judgment enter moral realms—associative links quickly spread the badness throughout his person; he tends to repent, though, and emerge again into that natural optimism. The Contributor is more complex. Perceiver-conviction is there, but present also are other fears and anxieties, the downside of an ability to plan and to optimize. He dreads the dark street at night, the mechanical breakdown for which he is unprepared, the sudden leap in interest rates, the new tactic by the opposing team in sports. This anxiety mixes with the proddings of conscience—lack of preparedness, as a result, is colored in hues of morality. Conviction comes to him from all sides, from every seeming inadequacy, real or imagined. He feels guilty even when he is relaxing—he could in fact be busy! When underlying moral error— the sort of thing that disturbs the Perceiver—remains


unresolved, then he may become the workaholic, the perfectionist, demanding even more of perfection from those around him, actually accusing them of violating his own standards, and possessing his personal shortcomings. No matter how he prepares and condemns, though, guilt does not go away—its source is conscience, not lack of foresight—in response, internal self-image begins to crumble. Those close to him pay the price; they may suffer from a seemingly permanent lack of acceptance. 17. Pr - His conscience is strong. ‘White’ consequence for ‘black’ action, as far as he is concerned, would be hypocrisy on the part of any ‘Higher Power.’ An awesome judgment looms for him over every personal transgression. C - Sensitivity to condemnation is similar; the result of this conviction, though, is often very different. The Perceiver may repent; the Contributor is confused by the presence of those additional fears and anxieties. He interprets conviction as a lack of preparedness and responds, not with repentance, but with an attempt at reinforced professionalism. The circuit completes itself: “Can I get away with it? Will it work?”—and when the answer is yes, then he feels it must be right. Moral error or lack of self-control is not resolved—he finds it hard in any case to admit mistakes—it continues, therefore, to generate guilt. Selfimage drops further. Anxiety attacks him, especially at night. The result can be an angry drive for control of self and surroundings—to guard against the inevitable results of wrong. He can criticize those around him of being guilty of the things that he himself is doing. Often there is bitterness as well—against a presumed ‘God’ and an implacable ‘Fate.’ There may be a pre-occupation with the gory, the occult, the macabre, for he ‘knows’ that this is where he belongs. We see few of these battles, unless we are very close to him; they remain hidden behind that jovial exterior. 18. Pr - His conscience can be stronger than his will. His mind tells him what is right; he cannot do it. In despair, he gives up. Still hating hypocrisy, he turns to activity outside of his principles, following it wholly. C - The Contributor may not respond to sensitivity and kind concern from others because that would place him under obligation. He would have to admit his faults—and that he himself may actually be guilty of those very things which he is accusing others of doing.1 He would lose control; he would open himself to I know by experience that some Contributors, faced with this information, will flip to the opposite extreme: “Well, there it is. That’s what I’m like. So, live with it!” We’ll see eventually that this kind of an attitude can lead to Parkinson’s disease. Alternatively, taking initiative to alter behavior can actually optimize happiness itself!


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
manipulation. Nothing is free, and this includes the love of those close to him! He is alone—he accepts this; he will be independent, needing no help. He builds around himself a security net to guard against the consequences of this independence—and thus cuts himself off further from others. His outgoing personality becomes a defense. His home, potentially such a center of hospitality, becomes his castle, his fortress, a secondary protection reinforcing that already erected within. 19. Pr - Unless his Source for balancing insight is highly objective and completely external to himself, the Perceiver (and especially the Perceiver-oriented Contributor) may well attract sycophancy and ‘yesmen’—for he is the source of the ideas, all of their many sides find union only in his mind. There is nothing objective, nothing external to himself to which others can pledge their allegiance. To work around him, people must maintain a working relationship with him. In fact, they must remain on his ‘good’ side—the walls of which are determined by his subjective perception and intuition, not objective analysis. Others somehow sense that inquiry into his personal insights is criticism of principle on which that perception is based—dangerous enough in itself—and could even be read as personal criticism, inviting harsh reaction, and a blunting of possible future effectiveness on their part. They are unconsciously pressured into becoming flatterers, and the Perceiver, who believes strongly in freedom, becomes an unwilling autocrat. (The Perceiver-oriented Contributor pursues authority more actively than the Perceiver: he can become the populist demagogue who attacks vested interests, and helps the common man, to gain personal power—Julius Caesar, Joseph McCarthy.) The Perceiver feels that he is the one with ‘personhood’; the masses around him are leaderless— it is his duty to speak to them the message. C - The Contributor-god (as we feel compelled to call him) is also very difficult to serve. Outwardly he appears confident; inside he feels soiled. He strives to be the best, yet oddly, when he wins against you, then he loses respect for you. When you win, then he feels distraught, and sees you as the cause. He judges ‘persons’ by performance, and insists, therefore, that you walk independently, yet feels belittled when it appears that you might succeed. Others play out their part in his Plan: they are cared for, financially and physically, as long as they perform. He is convinced that ‘God’ must operate in a similar way—and so he develops a preoccupation with Fate, an Eternal Predestination which he cannot fight or alter. As he desires to control, so he is being controlled! He becomes superstitious—confusing Effect with Cause, or searching for Cause, when all he can see about him is Effect. Effort is useless, yet he continues. The goal becomes victory itself, through any means! He strives for status, influence, money, possessions; sentimentality is for bleeding hearts. He guards against those who would abuse his generosity or play him false—are they not, in their hearts, just like him? He pokes and provokes what he knows must be there. Others may feel that it is hopeless ever to please him. 20. Pr - The Perceiver runs everything through filters of reasonableness. He looks for exceptions, for departures from the expected. When something wanders too far from the norms, then it fits nowhere. A moving car without lights at dusk, for instance, is a ‘noncar’; he may not even see it. It happens with people as well. Those who lack a sense of honor and duty, who do not possess principles or think in terms of selfimage, can become ‘non-persons’ to him, human nonentities. He has no interest in them; he does not even see them. C - The Contributor, as it turns out, can also ‘deperson’ others. He on his part ignores those who do not demonstrate the ‘right stuff.’ There must be a certain aloofness in others; somewhat of a sense of mystery—he expects them to keep up their guard. When people do something for him, simply to be helpful, and for no other reason, he finds it difficult not to step on them. One sees many examples in the religious world: Contributors are the ones with the immense centrally-organized administrative structures, men of Faith with large bank accounts, church buildings, and television ministries—for whom others are pawns fulfilling ‘purposes of God’ as the Contributor-leader envisions them. 21. Pr - The Perceiver, all things considered, has a vast, albeit subtle, influence in society. His visual mind, first of all, leads him often into engineering, mathematics, computer science—it is amazing how often he is left-handed. He gets the Big Picture—in logic and theology as well. A good memory for facts leads him then into medicine: he picks areas that are non-critical—General Practice, Dentistry, Nursing, etc.—somehow he knows that he is not equipped to optimize things: “What if I did something stupid and killed someone!” In technical realms, similarly, he is the captain of the ship perhaps (there is margin for error), not as often the airline pilot. His writing (with that of the Perceiver-oriented Contributor) pops bubbles of pretension and hypocrisy, he eliminates factual and verbal redundancies; he is a great journalist. Ideas at times bubble over to make him also the radio talk-show host, the preacher, the propagandist. Add a sense of justice and you find the lawyer and union leader (the Perceiver himself avoids corruption, the Perceiver-oriented Contributor does not generally

Personality Profiles - More Detail
have these same inhibitions1). He is the policeman, the whistleblower in industry and government. He becomes easily a politician, or a dictator. Moving elsewhere, he is response-oriented, yet decides quickly— and so he is the referee in sports, the general of armies (the Perceiver-oriented individual is the best strategist—Patton, Montgomery, Douglas MacArthur, Julius Caesar). The Perceiver himself, internally, operates in a world of ‘truth’: he speaks therefore of the rule of law and proclaims repentance, or he develops alternate mental realities—science fiction, westerns, video games—and retreats to live passively in those other worlds inside. The Perceiver-oriented, when he gives himself to action, develops a concern for the common man, becoming the founder of democracy, the warring revolutionary; or in contrast the cynical blackmailer. When he has absolutes, then he is the prophet; he becomes the conscience of society, he is the dissident in the totalitarian State. He operates in realms of justice, ‘truth,’ self-esteem, duty, initiative, loyalty, chivalry, tradition—and he demonstrates these qualities to others in his ‘personhood.’ He is not afraid to stand alone; he needs in fact to be unique. C - The Perceiver eliminates redundancies in the theoretical; the Contributor does this in the practical—he goes through activity again and again in his mind until it is optimized. In business, for instance, he ensures that things operate effectively and profitably. He formulates the Plan to meet a need, he calculates the risks, and then he guards against Contingencies. It is important—the Communist Bloc, for example, eliminated the Contributor as a small-businessman, and we see the result. In other fields he sets standards as well—aviation for instance. The Perceiver on his part would like to fly; he senses, though, that he could kill himself as he forgot some little thing. The Facilitator pilots multi-engine craft; he enjoys the complex. The Contributor in contrast is challenged by the single-engine jet; he is the test pilot or astronaut, exploring outer limits. None can equal him in mental dexterity and skill. In medicine, similarly, he is the specialist—particularly in critical areas such as brain surgery, open-heart surgery, organ transplant medicine. In sum, he formulates techniques—in business, aviation and medicine, then also in sports, science, technology, art, music, journalism, wherever there is challenge. The Facilitator joins him, when limits are identified, in fine-tuning these techniques. It is the Contributor, though, who tries it initially; he tells us what is possible and useful, and how to do it safely. He is particularly concerned when things go wrong: he sees, for example, that the accident is investigated. He
1 This indicates that the Perceiver-oriented Contributor is utilizing the Perceiver circuits, but he doesn’t ‘live’ in them. It will make more sense later.


ensures that automobile and food safety standards are implemented; the Perceiver-oriented and others then oversee their enforcement. The Contributor makes hospitals safe. Because of him we have hotels, inns and restaurants—Contributor-drive for hospitality, again, is what makes it happen. We enjoy theaters and opera houses—they are funded by Contributorphilanthropists and politicians; a Contributorcomposer, such as Andrew Lloyd Webber, sets the standards. We have cars, computers, Disneyland for the common man—all popularized by Contributors who sensed the need and took a ‘gamble.’ In summary, the Contributor explores outer dimensions of living; he makes things exciting as well as comfortable for the rest of us. It happens in the internal as well—in the world of character and personality. Here too he develops techniques and standards—this time in the pursuit of excellence: we are awed by his capacity for work, and we strive to follow.

The Mercy: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. brings color and excitement to his environment. thinks often of past experience. senses atmosphere. treasures tradition and memories of family occasions. hates disharmony. leaves one task for another as his priorities shift. is aware of faces and expressions. learns from life. enjoys word games and stories. has a broad range of interests. lives in a sea of his own personal past history. does not ever forget anything that he has experienced. is especially alive to memories of childhood. senses when action is inappropriate. is strong in ‘prayer,’ or drawn to the occult. can read the attitudes and feelings of others. uses ‘buzz words.’ finds it hard to defend himself against accusation. hates insincerity. likes to relax in Nature. needs on a regular basis to give and to receive love. can suffer from depression. conforms at times to the desires of others. identifies with others—feels what they feel. does for others what he would do for himself in their situation. can at times manipulate those around him. respects etiquette and politeness.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
28. needs variety in relationship. 29. can require inner healing from past hurts. 30. may attempt to justify his actions when he is wrong. 31. can see riches and fame as the road to personal appreciation. 32. has a sensitive self-esteem, easily damaged by others. 33. is tempted at times to close up as a defense against hurt. 34. may turn to food as a ‘love substitute.’ 35. can also give his affection to animals, or retreat to do manual labor. 36. suffers easily from self-condemnation. 37. may wonder why others are less sensitive. 38. suffers inside when there is family conflict. 39. can enforce ‘conscience’ on others. 40. in maturity, can spread sensitivity to others. 41. learns in maturity to avoid experience that is unhealthy. Let’s look at the details. 1. You bubble and sparkle; you bring excitement to your environment. People like to be around you. 2. You bring the past to bear on the present— always you are evaluating things in the light of previous experience, the demands of etiquette, the known opinions of those who are respected, the lessons of life. You are very sensitive to that which is appropriate in a particular situation. You think about the right things to say and to do. 3. You are particularly aware of atmosphere. You drive past the restaurant where the family had their Christmas dinner, and suddenly you feel lifted and happy—memories and past experiences color that which appears before you. You sense also, in visits with others, when there is suppressed conflict or unhappiness, and that is what you remember—not necessarily the color of the rug or furniture. You collect these kinds of impressions. Ceremonies, songs, scents, brand names, a tone of voice, the varied expressions of a loved one—all become rich over time in associations and feelings. 4. You delight in re-creating past times of happiness. Most effective is to reproduce the experience itself—you go back to the restaurant; you celebrate the birthday; the Christmas ceremony becomes a tradition. Other times you cozy up in a chair by the fire with friends and let the memories roll by—you tell stories from time to time, or perhaps listen to those of others. Back come the feelings, like old friends. 5. You sense the discrepancy, the discordant note, the thing that does not fit. Harmony is not especially noticed, you take it for granted; it is disharmony that you hate. You see the tie that is off-color, the pillow out of shape on the couch, the dirt on the window, the point of disagreement between friends—and it is this to which you respond. 6. You are easily interrupted in your activity as priorities change around you—and you interrupt others as well. Should you be working in the kitchen, and decide to get something from the basement, then you may do two or three things on the way down—and can forget what you came for when you finally arrive. If you wish to be organized, then it helps to write things down: groceries, chores, people to have over, books you have read, things to take camping; it is hard to decide what to do first. 7. You always remember a face, not necessarily a name. You can put things away, then forget where they were placed. You are sensitive to externals: as a housewife, for instance, you might have a ‘hypocrite cupboard’—the outside row of towels is nice, behind it you hide the rags and clothes to be mended.1 8. You learn primarily from life, not from books or theory. You sense the essence of human experience. You pick up interactions between events, the ways in which they link together. Let us suppose, for instance, that your hobby is electronics: you go to your workshop and start playing with old television sets. Wires are pulled off here and there, they are put elsewhere, voltages are checked, then you try it again. Gradually you get a feel for things: you assimilate links between these events; you get the Big Picture. When you encounter problems (and say, you make a great diagnostician, sensitive as you are to the discrepancy) then past trials come immediately to mind: “This worked before. Let’s try it.” When something is new, then you play with it until it also links to the known. You are the one, therefore, who becomes the practical expert. At times you move far beyond the limitations of theory: you didn’t know that it was impossible, and so you find suddenly that you have done it! One thinks for instance of the accomplishment of Stephen Wozniak in designing the original Apple II personal computer. 9. The Contributor loves games and puzzles; it is an extension of his ability to plan for contingencies. You on your part enjoy word games, practical puzzles, stories that need to be interpreted for understanding—it is a diversion of your ability to form a ‘Big Practical Picture.’ Like the Perceiver, you sense the extraneous and the redundant—as the engineer, therefore, you alter circuit connections to reduce the chip count on a computer board. 10. You can be a voracious reader—you picture events as you read, it is almost as if you were personally living in them. Your interests are broad—biology
1 This section is highly colored by experience gleaned from close Mercy relatives. A good part of it generalizes to Mercy individuals in general; some details may not.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
and especially nursing, psychology, sociology, law, music, politics, the externals of a language, whatever can be visualized and personally experienced. Your mind links it all together, then it draws its own very practical conclusions. 11. Everything is drawn in, good as well as bad. The useless or harmful of course is quarantined in your mind: “I don’t like that. I don’t feel good about it. Get me out of here”—it may enter memory, though, all the same. Even when you don’t wish it! You live in a sea of your own past history—all of it linking in intimate ways to the Here and Now. 12. Alongside personal experience is that experienced from books, television, movies, newspapers, the conversation of others. You remember the stories, and easily supply the missing visual details. None of it, seemingly, is ever forgotten. You must be especially careful, therefore, of the input that you allow yourself—a past that is wrong, you soon learn, distorts your view of the present. 13. Your childhood is very alive to you. The happy times—and the hurts. Always a part of you remains young; from time to time you slip back in your mind and live there in those memories. In your counseling as well, you move easily from identification with the sorrow of others to an almost child-like joy. 14. These memories, along with a sensitivity to the discrepancy, make you very sensitive to errors in Lifestyle: it is a sort of non-verbal analogue to conscience in the Perceiver. You know when things are inappropriate or wrong, even when you do not know why. The externals of life—etiquette, attitudes, actions—are important. 15. You are particularly sensitive to the ‘spiritual world.’ You pick up links between events in the external; you ‘see’ easily the workings, therefore, of ‘powers that operate behind the scenes.’ If you ‘know God,’ then you may be the ‘prayer warrior’; you sense the moving of ‘God’s Spirit.’ In some cases, you may be drawn to the occult. 16. Others to you are like an open book. You watch body language, you relate it to speech—and suddenly you sense unspoken feelings, you catch emotional inflections, you hear hidden wishes and desires. You yourself communicate heart to heart; these deeper meanings are present also, therefore, in your replies— in tone of voice and expression, in the stories, in the pauses and the things remaining unsaid. Your words are graphic and concrete. You love emotional and experiential metaphors and expressions. 17. You are attracted to ‘buzz words’—terms describing the essence of something. You actually see them in your mind. As an electronics genius with your latest device, for instance, you mutter words perhaps about ‘non-essential singularities of the second kind’ as the glitch appears. Asked what it means,


you wave your hands and respond, “Questions, questions.” You know it describes something important, and that it is causing what is happening—who needs more! In a similar way you may remember the punch line of the joke; the rest is easily scrambled. 18. Should you be asked to defend yourself— particularly against personal injustice, and especially when you are partly in the wrong—you can easily become speechless; emotions and attempts at justification roil around your inner person, they stop your mouth. These are the times when you must have friends around you, and others to say it for you. 19. You sense insincerity—discrepancy between speech, tone of voice, facial expression and body movement. When something is wrong, then you get up and leave—if you can muster up the courage—or you stop thinking about what you are hearing. 20. You learn, in this regard, from those who are sincere and worthy of respect: right Lifestyle in them, as far as you are concerned, implies right theory. You learn their proverbs and sayings; you assimilate lessons from their experiences, you react to their expectations. A good part of your life, in fact, can be lived in response to their desires. Your favorite teacher, it might be added, is Nature. There you relax: you love to be alone among the trees, birds and flowers. You can regain your perspective. 21. At the same time, you are very much a social creature—you need on a regular basis to give and to receive love. Physical touch is particularly important; children sense it and are attracted to you. As a child you crawl onto the lap of your parents; you love to cuddle. You cry when they push you away or leave the house; even now you can get ill from aloneness. When you find friends (‘kindred spirits,’ as in Anne of Green Gables), it can be for life. 22. You are not always happy, it should be added, with your style. When times are good, then of course it is wonderful—you warm others with your excitement, you bubble over with the joys of living. When life goes poorly, in contrast, then this same sensitivity brings you depression. Emotions that before were enjoyable now drag you down, they bring tears in front of others. These are the times when you say, “I do not want to be a creature of my feelings!” You may try to close up in self-defense. In maturity, we might add, you use that sensitivity to make yourself a part of the solution. 23. The art of being yourself is not easy. You live in Experience; you want to be loved. Your interests, furthermore, are broad. The result is that you do often what others want you to do, not that which flows from your own heart. You conform—for the sake of peace and acceptance—you give up creative selfexpression, at times even your ‘moral purity.’ Then


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
you wonder why you fall into moods and depressions. 24. You assimilate Experience, and, as we saw, this carries with it a price. There is more. Experience at times becomes you! You see another suffer, and suddenly you yourself are suffering; it is you who is standing in their shoes. You watch a dog trying to scratch some inaccessible place and find yourself twisting up and scratching in empathy, on your own body. Your person pours itself out, strangely, into the environment—like a bag of water with holes in it. You ask: “Who am I? Where is the real me?” 25. The ability to identify is also part of something positive. This is what enables you to reach out to others with help. You do for them what you yourself would appreciate, if you were in their situation. You bring in the wounded, the abandoned, the bird with the broken wing. You must—it hurts to see them hurt. And of course you reap the benefits. Others flock to you. They trust you. They tell you their secrets. Richly they share with you the love that you yourself so deeply need. 26. You can also walk a different path. At times you try rather to put ‘self’ back in the box. The external is made to conform to what is inside, you become a dictator. Family members are forced, perhaps, to go through the motions at Christmas and on birthdays; unspoken anger on your part ensures always that there are the kinds of verbal noises which make you feel good. In other ways you expand your control, then you live in this world that is safe. From it you reach out elsewhere. As a mother, for example, you spur your child to become the violin virtuoso—in expectation of the time when you yourself will receive, through him, the applause and recognition that you crave. You give to him your heart and your soul for the sake of a love that is sure, and vicarious honor and fame. You would deny these motives; the child, when he finally flees from your world, knows better. 27. More generally, you observe rules of etiquette and appropriateness—and you project these to others. Behavior, controlled in this way, does not disturb. Again, this region of regulation becomes your home. Others have similar needs, you assume, and so you try yourself to be polite in their sphere of operation. You barter and trade acceptance, based upon behavior, for acceptance! In moderation this of course is part of the joy of living: we watch, for example, as you get your child ready for some special occasion. Personally you coordinate the colors of his outfit, you remove dirt and lint. All is poked and pushed until the little creature is perfect, a fit specimen by which you yourself are willing to be judged. And things stay that way: “Don’t mess it up. What will people think?” Your child behaves politely and appropriately in company—he had better—even as you talk and smile with others there is that eye ready always to dart a warning glance of reproof. 28. We said previously that you are a source of excitement; the opposite is also true—you need excitement! Relationships in particular must have something in them of the new and interesting. You tune out easily, in this regard, those whom you already know (your spouse and family, for instance), when their behavior is predictable and stereotyped. At the same time you retain a need to give and to receive love. The result can be extensive involvement with those outside of the home, for good causes—and an ignoring of those within. 29. Let us move further now, to other areas, below the surface of your personality. We notice in particular here that past events are remembered for always; they influence your interpretation of the present—it is especially important, therefore, that these memories be healthy and balanced. Otherwise, discernment on your part will not be accurate—your view of the present, in subtle ways, will be distorted. Hurts and embarrassments of course are experienced continually. You know in maturity that these memories must be healed; they should not be left to fester. At times you go back in your mind and think them through again from a differing perspective. You may actually re-live some events, doing things in a different way. This effort is not wasted: when you yourself have been hurt and healed, then you know how to aid others. Altered orientations that have helped you become the basis of your counseling. 30. There is another side to the coin. When you are in the wrong and do not make things right, then those same circuits mull things over until you have justified your position mentally, and placed the blame on others. It is the opposite of inner healing; one might call it ‘inner decay.’ Guilt remains, accompanied now by blame—you live with both. People scratch their heads as they listen to you, and wonder if you know that you are lying. No, you don’t! These unresolved events in time become Black Holes of memory. They draw attention, yet give out nothing that is positive. In subtle ways they generate insensitivity. 31. You have a deep need to be appreciated. It makes sense: you cannot help others unless they are open first of all to your influence! Respect comes quickly when memories are healthy; you do for others what you would do for yourself in their situation—and they respond. When hurt or guilt from the past is unhealed, though, then you judge things incorrectly, and act inappropriately. Others in response begin to reject your person. You sense this—and react with a longing for acceptance by the group rather than by individuals: “When I am rich and famous, then I will be honored.” In the background is still the thought, “Then I can help.” In time you may forget about others, and

Personality Profiles - More Detail
the desire for fame can guide your actions. It is an illusion; your true need is, and remains, inner healing. Then you will have friends. 32. Self-esteem is damaged by unresolved guilt; it can be attacked also by the actions of others. When you are treated poorly, then you learn to expect it. You conclude easily when you are hurt, for instance, that you are unlovable: “It must be so, or they would not have done it.” Turning to others, you re-evaluate acts of kindness on their part in the light of this unlovability, and question their sincerity: “They can’t be serious. After all, I am unlovable. Just wait and their true nature will emerge. They’ll mistreat me as did the others.” Natural responses of those who are spurned link further to the original hurt; they reinforce it. You yourself must consciously break the cycle; you must want to do it. You need to remove yourself, as you can, from the abrasive environment; it is not where you belong! Then, as hurt remains, in family or marriage for instance, learn to forgive! A healthy self-concept will follow. 33. Often you are tempted rather to hide behind internal barriers. People are insensitive and cruel—why put up with it? Why get trampled? The interesting thing is, it works! You can guard yourself from the hurts of life—it cuts you off also, though, from the joys. Creativity dries up within. Your person becomes disoriented, two-dimensional—the sun may be shining outside, you don’t see it; you notice only the dirty window. There are moods. You act inappropriately. Finally, you may end up with a kind of manicdepressive personality: emotional highs as you reach out to others, yet without the proper knowledge of appropriateness, then depressed lows as you close up in response to their reaction. And depression, whatever its cause, is no fun. Agnes Sanford, who happens to be a Mercy, relates in her book Sealed Orders (Logos, 1972): “I reached the place where the sunlight was as the dark to me. I would go out to my garden and look upon the small, enquiring faces of pansies and up to the towering blue glory of delphiniums, and would feel nothing...I even know the occasional moments when one’s thoughts are like two piles of books that begin to slide into each other, so that one cannot quite catch them as they go.” Migraine headaches or illness may accompany this darkness.1 34. Food can become the ‘love substitute.’ Cakes and candies provide those good feelings that are missing from others. It is the extreme of a very real joy—the box of chocolates received on Valentine’s Day, in a red heart-shaped container, from someone who is special, with a card saying: “I love you.” As you eat, If we wish to get rid of headaches and depressions, then we will need to learn about underlying Facilitator strategy, and how to respect it.


at times compulsively, you watch soap operas and movies on television; you identify with their joys and sorrows. Life for you becomes something vicarious; your taste in colors may change as well from the well coordinated to the somewhat more garish. 35. There are parallel avenues of escape. You can channel your affection to animals—you identify with them, you care for them. At times you become the janitor, the garbage collector removing external discrepancy, the manual laborer. It is where you belong—self-esteem in you refuses to move further. You will not be budged! 36. With this is a strong sensitivity to the inappropriate: “There, now I did it! See! What a terrible person I am to have done that!” Self-esteem, under these attacks, crumbles further. 37. You pick up hints and nuances: you can expect others therefore—loved ones in particular—to have that same quality of perception towards you. But they do not have your style; their ability lies in another direction!2 They pick up only your attitude—a sort of generalized expectation in which sensitivity has become sensitiveness. Inside you shout, without words: “You’re not listening. You’re violating my rights! You don’t care!”—they pick up the anger. And of course they react. 38. The result is conflict. You expect it—a distorted self-esteem in you would not trust real love. Yet you hate disharmony, especially with loved ones—it hurts inside, it cuts like a knife. 39. Conscience becomes strangely tender as you harden your position. It makes sense: you project expectations to others; you form a ‘God,’ therefore, in your image. He also expects you to read his mind. You become hypersensitive—a rule keeper who strives to do what is ‘good.’ At the same time you identify with those around you; when you see them doing ‘wrong,’ then it is you who does it, and you tell them also. You become, in effect, the Conscience of those around you—it adds fuel to the fires of conflict. 40. In maturity you are flamboyant, exciting and volatile, at the same time gracious and strangely vulnerable. You read moods and atmosphere; your kind heart eases embarrassment. You sense the feelings of those around you and make them feel comfortable and special. You free the oppressed—you, the one who finds it hard to defend yourself. Others are drawn to you; they find it soothing to be around you. To them you are a source of excitement. Children in particular appreciate your stories, your bright colors, your jewelry. You in turn make life special for them. The Facilitator is particularly confused. He needs things stated clearly; he finds it hard to read hints, especially when they are laced with what he sees to be irrational bursts of emotion.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
41. At the core of your being, we should add, is an incredible strength—you simply will not walk in that which lacks health. You resist the oppressor, you react quickly to the insincere. You reach out to the hearts of others; you draw them in to listen, even those who are unable or unwilling to think. When times demand it, then you are a master also of nonviolent resistance—and you triumph! You are loved for your sensitivity, your ability to heal and to unify. Life apart from you is somehow drab and gray. M - recalls past experiences that taught him lessons. Pr - has a good memory for facts and numbers. M - remembers past events. Pr - finds it easy to use acronyms. M - is good at inventing nicknames. Pr - is disoriented by new information, when it is too unfamiliar. M - can be devastated by the death of a loved one. Pr - hates hypocrisy. M - hates insincerity. Pr - pokes at intellectual ‘castles in the air.’ M - pokes at those who try to be what they are not. Pr - exposes error and shares ‘truth.’ M - attacks cruelty and comforts the defenseless. Pr - can be intellectually many-sided. M - can be good at many differing activities. Pr - defends his principles. M - defends his actions. Pr - in old age, can tell stories over and over again. M - in old age, can revert again to his childhood. Pr - looks at inner qualities of others. M - is more sensitive to dress, title and reputation. Pr - wants the freedom to obey ‘truth’ and duty, as he sees it. M - wants the freedom to act as he deems appropriate. Pr - speaks in terms of opposites and extremes. M - can turn suddenly from being one hundred percent in favor of something to completely against. Pr - can be afraid to accept ‘truth’ when it approaches too closely to error. M - recalls situations that were similar and what went wrong, and wonders if it might happen again. Pr - thinks naturally in terms of a class structure. M - is sensitive to the social standing of others. Pr - loves quips, puns and dry digs. M - loves to tell stories of past events. Pr - may choose to turn his feelings off, especially when he is angry. M - may keep quiet for a time, then suddenly let it all come out in a burst of emotion. Pr - is oriented towards groups. M - senses the atmosphere of a group, but identifies with the individual. Pr - can be shy with those in authority. M - may close up to control his feelings. Pr - easily procrastinates. M - can be lazy.

11. 12. 13.

14. Clue One: If your marriage partner or best friend is a Mercy, but you are not, then you yourself are probably a Perceiver, Contributor or Exhorter. Just possibly, you might be a Facilitator. Clue Two: If you see in yourself many of the traits of the Mercy, then look also at the Teacher. Should this describe a part of you as well, then you are an Exhorter, not a Mercy. You alternate between various modes of thought—they all link to Mercy- and Teacher-strategy. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

The Perceiver is subtle, the Mercy communicates indirectly—this chapter presents traits that neither would dream of discussing openly and directly. My apologies to both individuals; in defense I maintain only that it must, ultimately, be said. Perceiver or Mercy: 1. P(erceiver) - is sensitive to facts. M(ercy) - evaluates experience. 2. Pr - is black and white. M - feels good or bad about situations. 3. Pr - associates facts with principles. M - associates the present with past memories. 4. Pr - needs to know the context. M - wants to know ‘who’ you are talking about. 5. Pr - requires absolutes. M - senses what is appropriate. 6. Pr - is motivated by self-image, duty, honor, and loyalty. M - is motivated by etiquette, expectations and events. 7. Pr - is humiliated when others ignore his ability. M - is embarrassed when others do what is inappropriate. 8. Pr - loves history. M - values tradition and ceremony. 9. Pr - needs honor, but wants it to be earned. M - loves appreciation, whether it is earned or not. 10. Pr - orders mental principles according to their importance.





24. 25. 26.


28. 29.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
30. Pr - values ‘personhood.’ M - hates disharmony. 31. Pr - needs absolutes of Truth. M - needs examples of Lifestyle. 32. Pr - can retreat, under pressure, to alternate realities. M - can suffer in varying degrees from schizophrenia. Let’s examine the details. 1. P(erceiver) - He thinks in terms of facts and principles. Facts are examined in the light of principles; he looks for the discrepancy. M(ercy) - He thinks in terms of experiences and events. The present is interpreted in the light of the past; he looks for that which is inappropriate or out of place. 2. Pr - He works most easily with concepts as he finds them, and discerns relationships. When he leaves concepts unchanged, as he so often does, then he gives himself no alternative but to accept them as good and part of the structure of ‘truth,’ or to reject them as bad. In this way he becomes black and white. There are those to whom it is obvious that ‘truth’ can be fine-tuned for consistency; to the Perceiver it is often just as evident that this is simply not so. M - He senses impressions, atmosphere and links between events. He also finds it easiest to be black and white. Either he feels good about that which occurs around him, or he feels bad about it. 3. Pr - He is highly associative. One fact links to other facts; experience itself triggers principles. M - He links between the present and the past. Objects are colored by feelings and atmosphere; the sight of a souvenir at home, for instance, places him suddenly again in the exotic environment in which it was purchased. I am reminded of the Mercy-teenager, for instance, who portrayed a doll dancer in a high school play. In the performance, as she whirled gracefully on stage, her costume began slowly to separate in the back. The audience snickered—she did not know why. The experience devastated her! Years later her fiancé took her on a dinner date, then on a stroll hand-in-hand past shop windows. In the middle of laughter and conversation they stumbled suddenly across a doll in a display that looked similar to the one she had played. Instantly she was back in the past: “Take me home! I don’t feel good.” 4. Pr - He wants to know the context when you broach a subject: “What are you talking about?” If suddenly you change the topic, then his inner Picture of the context must change with it—or there is instant inner chaos. New facts are put into the old Picture; things mentally do not make sense. Immediately he stops you to ask clarifying questions. M - The Mercy relates everything to himself as a


person—or to others, with whom he then identifies. He wants to know ‘Who’ therefore, rather than ‘What.’ He finds it difficult to comprehend that some people make statements that are abstract, and true in general. He assumes easily that he is the subject, and when this does not make sense, that it is someone else. “Who is it?” he wants to know. 5. Pr - He is by nature a man of principle. He thinks naturally in terms of absolutes. Within him is an inbuilt optimism: action rooted in right fact must in the final analysis produce right result. M - He on his part has a highly developed sense of etiquette and social decorum. Within him is that same optimism: “If I act appropriately, then people will feel good. There will be the right atmosphere.” This feeling for appropriateness expands then to a knowledge of those things which must be seen and done to heal discrepancy, disharmony, pain and suffering—the nurse prescribes the right treatment; the diesel mechanic discerns the problem and correctly replaces the worn-out bearing. 6. Pr - Internal realities often motivate him: selfimage, duty, honor, loyalty. He is a servant of ‘truth,’ with a very strong conscience – he will want to do what is right even when no one is watching. M - He is motivated more often by externals: events, demands of decorum and etiquette, the expectations of others—these lead to duty and loyalty of a very different kind. Conscience easily becomes a desire for approval; it may emphasize action at the expense of underlying motivation. When no one is watching, then this conviction can actually disappear. 7. Pr - He is humiliated when others ignore his abilities and accomplishments, or give him tasks that are below his dignity. He does not like to be around those with a poor self-concept, or without a sense of honor: he identifies and it makes him feel bad. M - He is embarrassed when others do that which is inappropriate. He does not like to be around the one who is boorish and insensitive: he identifies and it makes him feel poorly as well. 8. Pr - He has a great interest in history: the past is fixed, honor is apportioned according to what has been done. He is the one, therefore, who establishes the hereditary aristocracy, who loves the monarchy— and of course hates the false pretender. He ranks himself at times loyally under the banner of the great; he defends the associative continuity of past honor, and guards against desecration of achievement. At the same time he hates that which has lost its meaning. M - The Mercy loves tradition as well: the birthday of each loved one, for instance, over the years develops a particular flavor as he senses what is appreciated. Christmas and holidays are observed in ways that are personal and unique. These times recreate the happiness of the past; they demonstrate continuity of


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
relationship, especially with family. Religious ceremony, a birthday cake, ethnic dancing, the Christmas tree—all can find their place in this cycle of celebration. Once included, they tend to remain. They are held fixed; if at first they aided in the creation of atmosphere, then why change things? 9. Pr - Honor for him must be earned. He is not one to flatter others, nor does he appreciate flowery words from them in return. At the same time he values praise—when he is worthy, and he believes that you are serious. M - He tends to esteem honor for its own sake, whether it is earned or not. It indicates acceptance and social approval. At times he envies the Perceiver—he seems to win honor so easily, then almost to scorn it. 10. Pr - He is sensitive to importance, not sequence of time; once the order of principles and concepts is determined, then it often remains fixed. When something is ready for implementation, then execution should be immediate. He is a master of the quotable quote; he makes pithy comments—one thinks of the salty seaman. ‘Truth’ applies everywhere, even to you, and so he shares it. M - He senses essentials of experience; he moves from one happening to another. It makes him into a great storyteller. His tales and accounts, interestingly, seem often unrelated to the present: if we check closely, however, we will find that the non-verbal implications are similar. Some stories become to him almost what principles are to the Perceiver: “Don’t forget Uncle Peter. He used to joke about having one lung and his wife got tuberculosis, so watch what you say!” Significance is appreciated in taste as well: he likes hot coffee or soup, cold ice cream, pastries with lots of icing; he is disturbed, in contrast, by the loud noise. 11. Pr - He has a terrific memory for numbers, statistics and trivia. He can be a pack rat when it comes to things as well: the old refrigerator is placed into the storage room or closet, the boat or old car goes into the back yard, and there it remains. M - He has a great memory for events and experiences, nothing is forgotten. He also can be a pack rat when it comes to things: they represent memories, so why throw them away. 12. Pr - He is sensitive to the beginning of a word; he loves acronyms: TTL, FFT in engineering, ASAT and AWOL in the military. He easily does visual rotations (it helps him to find the beginning)—the word ‘Canada’ for instance, might be inverted to form the name for a street: ‘Adanac Avenue.’ Names reflect reality, and may include a bit of a dig: Foul Bay Road, a flipflop circuit; Point No-Point for a small peninsula. He cannot think when there is a steady drone: a lawnmower outside, a hedge clipper. M - He has a feel for the end of a word, rhyme, words that sound similar. Long expressions are abbreviated, and given a personal tone: a Charles River Data Systems computer, for instance, might be rechristened ‘Chuck.’ As a child he produces nicknames that characterize appearance: blockhead, tubby, crabhands, bottle-eyes, or he distorts the name. Exhorterhumorist Bob Hope as a youth, for instance, was known as Lesley Hope: His teacher when taking the roll call read this as ‘Hope, Les.’ Soon he was known as ‘Hopeless’; when the instructor attempted to correct it by reading ‘Hope, Lesley,’ this expanded to ‘Hopelessly.’ The Mercy-parent who has suffered from this will choose names for his children that are not easily distorted by Mercy-oriented peers into nicknames. The Perceiver senses visual orientation, the Mercy in contrast looks at size: what is small, a child for instance, is cute and adorable; when he gets excited, then he can exaggerate. Unlike the Perceiver, he is bothered by the voice rising periodically above the mutter of low-level conversation, or by melody in background music. 13. Pr - He can be disoriented by a genuinely new fact, especially when it seems important: “Is it right or wrong? How does it fit into the Big Picture?” If he can get away with it, he may procrastinate until things clarify. If he must commit himself, then at times he is the pioneer. Alternatively, he may focus on negative aspects. He tries, in every way possible, to acquire quickly the associations to label things correctly. M - He can be disoriented by an unfamiliar event: “How do I respond? What is appropriate in these circumstances?” A move to a new locality, for instance, is difficult. The death of a loved one can be devastating. On occasion he withdraws into himself: his eyes glaze over; he goes through the motions, doing what is expected, whether it seems to him appropriate or not. Other times he grabs control and attempts to force things back to the familiar. Often he withdraws into Nature—plants, animals, mountains, lakes— things don’t change here; it can be drawn deep into his soul, he fills his home with greenery. 14. Pr - He is highly sensitive to hypocrisy. M - He is sensitive rather to insincerity. The words of another must not contradict his tone of voice, facial expression and body movement; all must say the same thing. He can usually tell when some person is trying to deceive. It is so obvious to him that he freezes up, waiting for others to see it also. He cannot believe his eyes when things carry on as usual, and the message in fact is accepted! 15. Pr - He pricks bubbles of hypocrisy and pretension around him. He pokes at intellectual castles in the air; he sees the lack of an underlying foundation of principle. Externals must not be inconsistent with inner reality.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
M - He pokes at those who ‘put on airs’—who pretend by clothing or mannerism to be what they are not. Externals must not be inconsistent with one another, people should know how to carry themselves. He scorns those in authority who cannot manage to be sincere. 16. Pr - He hates injustice—action rooted in wrong principle. He identifies the error behind wrong activity and confronts it, almost surgically. ‘Truth’ is shared, he calls for repentance. When falsehood is eliminated, then right action, in his opinion, will follow. Personal criticism is avoided—except of course for the false prophet, who must be stopped, through verbal attacks, in every way possible. M - Injustice for him involves wrong action— “Stop it!” He hates cruelty and the infliction of suffering; he defends the defenseless. The Perceiver in such cases attacks underlying falsehood, the Mercy moves directly against the act itself—that is enough of a principle. It is strange: he finds it hard to defend himself, yet for others he has an awesome strength! His criticism of another, in contrast to the Perceiver, can be very personal—it is the person who is the problem, he is the one who must change. Feelings of mercy for the afflicted can be so strong that he becomes unmerciful to the oppressor. 17. Pr - The Perceiver may be intellectually manysided: he follows interests in parallel; each can develop separately from others. He senses discrepancy more easily than order; in general he must be given clues to the Big Picture by someone else in order to tie things together. If he defers this input and tries to formulate and integrate ‘truth’ by himself, without the help of others, then he can turn over time into the narrow nit-picking man of logic. M - The Mercy is many-activitied: he can, for example, be good at tennis, swimming, skiing, riding, flying, nursing, entertaining, selling, writing, teaching, engineering, constructing homes. He is responseoriented, with an awesome stamina, and sensitive to the expectations of others—the religious leader may feel, for instance, that he must do everything; when others want room for expression, then he can interpret this as criticism and do more himself. The concerned layman who begins to teach, for instance, can spur the religious professional Mercy to set up his own teaching program, leaving the other idle. 18. Pr - He is strong in standing for right: “I know my principles. Don’t talk to me about results; things will work out in the end.” This is his strength. It is also his weakness—when conviction is wrong. M - He too is strong for right: “I know what needs to be done. Don’t confuse me with principles; things will work out fine in the end.” This is his strength— action at times must cut through argument and intel-


lectual excuses. As you might imagine, it can also be his weakness. 19. Pr - The Perceiver who remains many-sided, and seldom re-evaluates in the face of opposition, ends up in old age with a score of principles that describe everything. Touch on one of them and he starts a monologue: he reminisces, he illustrates his points, he speaks of injustice. It does not seem to matter that you have heard it many times already—one is reminded of the ‘old boys,’ meeting at the Veteran’s Club for instance, to relive old battles. M - The Mercy in a similar way can leave reality, in old age, and live in the past. Experience is related again and again, especially to loved ones. The mind is not operating; the time in life at which it stopped can be determined quite accurately—stories that are told deal with events that occurred previous to this point. Often some traumatic experience, with a wrong response, can be pinpointed as the cause. The Mercy in middle-age should analyze himself: he remembers what is important; if stories are old, then his life is not going anywhere—he had better do something about it! 20. Pr - Friends of the Perceiver possess principles, and have proven themselves in past action. He probes below titles and clothing to interact with their real person. With objects as well, he admires quality, and will sacrifice looks for serviceability when he must. He hates hypocrisy of function—things must do what they were designed to do. M - The Mercy often makes friends with those who are socially accepted. He is sensitive to externals of dress and title, and respects rules of etiquette and decorum. The Perceiver can dress below his station at times, daring you to go beyond the clothing to interact with his real person; the Mercy dresses usually in line with self-concept. Colors, when he feels good about himself, are well coordinated, he bears himself with dignity. A focus on sensory input can cause him to fear physical pain; worse than suffering, though, is a loss of his dignity—in old age, for instance, with respect to bathroom functions. With objects, unlike the Perceiver, he is sensitive to externals. When he finds furniture that looks nice, he may buy it—even when it is made of pressboard. His car is pleasing in appearance—mechanical reliability at times can come a distant second in priority. Should he purchase quality, it is often because he learns this is expected—and then he may look at price or brand name, rather than the underlying workmanship. In other words, the price for him denotes the quality: “If it’s expensive, then it must be good!”1
1 This mindset is very prevalent in parts of Asia, where we currently live. Clothing, for instance, is either very inexpensive and also relatively low in quality, or else


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
21. Pr - The Perceiver values personal freedom: he does not want to have to do even that which he wants to do. This liberty is not license, but rather the freedom to serve his own particular ‘truth.’ You can influence him, therefore, in spite of that streak of independence, by pointing out contradiction in his principles, then giving him facts to replace what is wrong. He needs, of course, to think it through for himself. It can take time for him to change direction—his thought is associative, it has a momentum. When thinking alters, though, then action changes as well— at times radically. M - The Mercy also values personal freedom. Again, this is not license, but rather the liberty to do what seems right. Knowledge for him is experiential; you will not easily change him, therefore, by sharing principle: “Don’t push facts down my throat. I’ll do what is appropriate without your interference. And why don’t you deal with your pride!” He is sensitive to Lifestyle, not words. When standards of appropriateness alter in his environment, then thinking in him changes as well—he begins to open up his mind to those with a different message. If he remains linked to very different groups, and does not choose between them, then things become right or wrong depending upon the context. 22. Pr - The Perceiver runs everything through filters of reasonableness. He compares like things with like, and looks for the exception. The result is that similar concepts are easily confused. The more nearly things are comparable without being identical, the greater is the danger of actually equating them. He assumes that others are the same; the result is that he speaks often of opposites and contrasts. He builds walls of extremes, then he says, “What I really mean is in the middle!” Listeners are helped, in this way, to match concepts correctly. M - The Mercy moves, in a similar manner, from one interpretation of an event to another. Mercyhumorist Erma Bombeck tells for instance of seeing the varicosed veins of a woman change abruptly in her mind into mesh stockings, then back again to blood vessels. Slight variations in circumstances can call up very different memories and associations, and alter perception accordingly. Small factors can turn him suddenly, in fact, from being one hundred percent in favor of something to completely against. The deciding element can be the ability to identify. He assumes others are similar: he may make comments, or give bribes—not to get others to change their minds, oh no, but to encourage them to make an exception, for his sake, just this once. 23. Pr - The Contributor has fears, the Perceiver also. Facts that are near are seen as the same; he is afraid to accept Truth, therefore, when it approaches too closely to Error: “How can I tell the two apart?” The one who has suffered from Legalism, for instance, finds it difficult to administer Justice—it matches in his mind with harshness—in response he may overemphasize Mercy. His Perceiver-successor reverts then to the other extreme—he equates Mercy with Latitude, and therefore exalts Justice. A similar tension exists between aristocratic authority and democracy. Britain, a nation with many Perceivers, has found a balance in the constitutional monarchy. M - The Mercy fears consequences of wrong behavior. Each event has its story—he sees the discrepancy, he senses the significant—these tales represent the ultimate, therefore, of what can go wrong. The child, for instance, is observed standing in front of an open window; immediately he remembers another who did so and who tumbled out—and he quickly moves him away. A colleague experiences success; he identifies and warns: “Pride comes before a fall!” The Contributor has reasons for his anxiety; fears for the Mercy, based as they are on personal history, can seem irrational to others. The uneducated Mercyparent, playing on the imagination of a Contributorchild, is especially devastating. 24. Pr - His sense of justice contends for the ‘personhood’ of others. At the same time he feels poorly around the seeming ‘non-person.’ The result is that he can speak of democracy, yet accept as peers only those of his own rank. One can see it in the upper class of Britain, or the Prussian warrior class of (former East) Germany. M - The Mercy identifies with others, yet is sensitive to etiquette and reputation. He can be drawn, therefore, to the hurting and the underdog, with an inner reserve that comes down only among his own social peers. One thinks for instance of sewing circles that produce clothing for the needy in Africa, but exclude from their fellowship those from the poorer side of the tracks in their own town.1 25. Pr - He has a terrific sense of humor, based in the false association. Comments are dry and subtle; heaven help if you took those remarks directly to heart—it would be too close to personal criticism! M - The Perceiver plays with facts. The Mercy laughs at his comments, then responds with something based in events. For example: I lived as a teenager in western Canada. Often the family went shopping south of the border in the United States; my
1 We’ll see later that these reactions are part of what we call the Katrina Effect.

nice and brand name, but also priced at four times its true value. Clothing which is high in quality, and priced slightly above the minimum, as a reflection of its superior intrinsic worth, simply will not be purchased until the price is raised.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
Mercy-mother in consequence developed associations there that were good. My toddler-brother for some reason, though, seemed regularly to dirty his pants at the border. This in contrast was bad. Eventually the associations themselves linked together. It happened one day at home, as my mother was changing diapers. She sniffed the odor and remarked, “It smells like the United States.” We repeated it for years. It was funny—not least because it touched on the indelicate and the inappropriate. The Perceiver is subtle in his remarks; the Mercy hides thoughts between the lines, in these kinds of stories. It would be saying things much too loudly to state them directly. 26. Pr - The Perceiver does not like to be manipulated. When he is pushed emotionally by others, confronted by injustice, or—horrors—faced by the false prophet, then he can suddenly go as cold as ice. Feelings turn off and out come the facts—no longer veiled by humor. Pithy quips strip away the skin; sarcasm strikes at ‘personhood.’1 Everything is stated: “I’ve started, I might as well finish.” The recipient of this anger is usually quarantined afterwards—the Perceiver for a time ceases to consider him as a person. He feels guilty about it, but what can he do—he must live up to his words! A knowledge of cognitive styles broadens definitions of ‘personhood’; the Perceiver can become more tolerant. In maturity, Anger becomes Outrage that brings solutions; it is moderated by Patience. M - The Perceiver can turn his inner feelings off selectively; the Mercy cannot, he is those feelings. To guard against hurt, the Mercy must ultimately shut down personality itself. The result is disorientation and depression. He learns this; at the same time he sees others who seem themselves to be unfeeling. He wonders if they have closed up to him—as he himself is tempted to do with them. If so, then this is truly manipulation! He must remain open; they are closed—it is also insincere. He feels angry. For a time he is quiet; he hints, he makes indirect statements. When this is ineffective, then anger emerges suddenly into the open. Gusts of emotion overwhelm those around him; past incidents are recounted, there are personal accusations. This anger though, unlike that of the Perceiver, is like a summer storm—words are not meant by the Mercy to be taken seriously; he wants only to share his concerns. Seldom does he realize how deeply others are affected. 27. Pr - Individuals as well as facts are put into groups—he speaks therefore to crowds. The Perceiver-oriented individual who knows a Big Picture is the best communicator of them all: one thinks of Ar1 If it is not possible to say what he thinks, then he may retreat behind a formal civility which masks a deep impersonal cynicism.


nold Toynbee in history, or Richard Feynman in physics. M - He thinks also of groups—at the same time, he identifies with the individual. The Mercy who dares to become ‘himself’ can be unexcelled as a platform performer. One is reminded of Will Rogers, for instance, sharing with us, from his wealth of experience, the deepest thoughts of our hearts. Of President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address. Or in another realm: Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Glenn Gould. 28. Pr - The Perceiver can be shy with those in Authority. He feels somehow unworthy as he contemplates their office—they formulate his deadlines and duties, he easily assumes that they are unapproachable. He goes business-like, therefore, as he interacts with them; he becomes a mere communicator of information. Shyness springs also from another source—an ironclad determination to keep that inner environment under control. He will not gush! For him to gush would make him like the others who gush, and use those emotions to manipulate. And there is one thing that he has fully determined: “I will never be like that.” M - It is not unusual for parents of a Mercy-child to despise his sensitivity: “Grow up and be a man!” If the youngster does not find comfort for a time in Nature, or share love in some meaningful way with peers or pets, then this rejection can generate a hard outer shell around him as he grows older: he cries at the sad movies, but he’ll never let his family see it! He is lonely—no one, though, is allowed into his world! His lack of healthy experience, as he gains independence, impairs his judgment; should he open up away from parents, without a healing of the past, then he becomes vulnerable in turn to peers. They exploit him; they fit him into their mold—creativity dries up, and he slips again into depression. The Mercy-wife can live in her own alternate world. Her children, as they grow into independence and adulthood, remain fixed in her mind as they were when they were little, when she could love them freely—they are still babies when they reach 40 and 50 years of age! In contrast, the Mercy who allows past hurts to be healed, and who dares to be himself, can be incredibly strong for good—a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King, an Abraham Lincoln. Sensitivity remains; it becomes discernment. 29. Pr - It is always easy for the Perceiver to procrastinate. M - The Mercy can be lazy as well. At first it seems unlikely. He does for others what he would do for himself in their situation: he is very active, therefore, in the presence of suffering. He sees, then, what is out of place: the housewife may clean the window, vacuum the mud on the rug, smooth the bed—a hundred and one things, in parallel, with one task started long before the previous one is finished. The Mercy


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
who projects expectation to others, finally, can seem like a super-Server, responding always to the desire of those around him. At the same time there is laziness. The Mercy senses associative continuity, and it takes effort to get started. At times it is easier to eat than to work. 30. Pr - The Perceiver wants ‘personhood’: the various parts of ‘him’ must come into unity. He requires, first and foremost, a Big Picture of Truth. His life must line up, then, with these principles. He needs a ‘clear conscience’—words must not contradict actions to make him the hypocrite. His own concept of Good and Bad, finally, must line up with that which works and does not work in the outside world; it is necessary for a sense of Justice. M - The Mercy senses disharmony around him. He identifies with both sides in a conflict: the disagreement, as it were, enters his own soul, and tears him apart. He can stand for years in the gap, grieving, holding out his hands to those on both sides. If he does not leave those who reject what is right, then ultimately he himself can be destroyed. 31. Pr - The Perceiver hungers for basic principles; he needs exposure as a youth to moral absolutes, of some kind. The one who lacks this training can grow up passive, dictatorial or cynical—in each case a man of reaction rather than action. This pattern of thought, in adulthood, proves difficult to change. Principles must be re-formed—it is not easy, the Perceiver is disoriented in the new. Strangely, the one who grows up with ‘absolutes’ from the Bible (in Western Reformation-based society, a primary source of axioms) may reject completely what is said here about absolutes: “You’re talking about psychology and history. Get into ‘Scripture’! That is all you need!” M - The Mercy hungers for examples; he needs exposure as a youth to a healthy lifestyle, of some kind. Parents have real influence—it is evident: he cries when they fight, or when for a time they leave him with a caretaker. A good part of the home school movement, in our day, is probably a response to this desire. Under the guidance of parents, preferably near Nature, the Mercy-oriented child most easily develops his true self. Parents who care for their child particularly need to control television and movies—the Mercy absorbs whole what he sees, these scenes are raw material for future decisions. The influence of an unhealthy childhood is far-reaching: the Mercy, this one who feels so deeply, becomes insensitive! He must—there is not the basis in memory for appropriate action. Insensitivity brings further hurt. He closes up—to emerge as a creature of his emotions, perhaps, violent at times and destructive. It is a pattern of thought, again, that proves difficult to change. The Mercy must re-evaluate the past, with its hurt and rejection. It is disorienting, it reproduces feeling; at times it violates self-concept. Strangely, the one who grows up in a supposedly healthy religious environment (historically a foundation, through the Reformation, of Western society) may reject completely what is said here about healthy living: “You’re talking about psychology and history. Look at ‘the example of Jesus’! That is all you need!” 32. Pr - The Perceiver is uniquely able to stand apart from reality in the external and to uphold that which is right, even in the face of opposition—he is oriented, that is, to ‘guard Truth.’ By the same token, when he lacks absolutes, then he can slip into alternate reality. The present is unendurable—Truth is lacking—the ability to uphold it remains; he exploits this to move mentally to other worlds. Here he finds absolutes, right wins in spite of a mixed-up world; he can gain honor and be significant. In science fiction he looks to the future: knowledge is instant, he is the hero on the spaceship. In westerns he reverts to the past—he is the rider on the white horse, fighting Evil, then riding victoriously into the sunset. He turns to real-time strategy computer war games: Age of Empires, StarCraft, Command & Conquer. Duty carries him dully through the mundane in work and marriage—he lives for the cowboy clothes and boots he will wear in the evening, the programs he will write on his computer, the music and lyrics for his guitar. These are times when he jokes again, there is that dry wit—for a time he forgets that life lacks meaning. Should he emerge from his world of illusions, it can be as the dictator: alternate reality within becomes the standard to which you also must conform. One sees this domineering spirit especially in the Perceiver-oriented Contributor. M - The Mercy is uniquely able to stand apart from the perception of others and do that which is right, even in the face of opposition—he is oriented, that is, to demonstrate healthy living. One thinks of Abraham Lincoln, for instance, upholding the integrity of the Union even when it meant war, yet speaking also, as war became more terrible, for reconciliation and healing; he seemed always to act correctly. By the same token, when a healthy lifestyle has not been experienced, then discernment breaks down. What is right? The Mercy does not know. He looks to feelings. He does what appears to be right at the moment, then changes his mind. Hurts result. In response he may try to stabilize his environment—he pushes for control in the home, perhaps, or immerses himself in electronics or etiquette. When this fails, then he escapes mentally! The present is unendurable. The ability is there to walk apart from the perception of others—he exploits this to move in his mind to memories of a better past, or to expectations of a different future. His body goes through the motions; he himself lives elsewhere: the psychologists call it

Personality Profiles - More Detail
schizophrenia. It is an imagined world in which he has fame and success—if he has money, he may implement this existence in the external (Howard Hughes, Elvis Presley). Here he is ‘appreciated’ and ‘loved.’ He handles things appropriately, without embarrassment—that’s because he, in this alternate world, is the person who defines what is appropriate. When he emerges to the real world, it may be to find ways to feel good. He overdoses on sensory experience: he may drink, ‘get stoned’ on drugs, celebrate at the local rock concert or movie theater, and have sex, in the same evening. The gentle side of his person is scorned—he learns to hate it in others as well. His self is dying—it still identifies with others—why should they remain alive? He becomes violent, and finally a murderer (Stalin, Idi Amin, ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier).1


You may ask, “How did you discover these traits?” Originally, I found them by looking at historical personalities. In this chapter, I’ll illustrate the process by examining two well-known individuals: Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Both were Teachers by style. This chapter is composed largely of quotes excerpted from historical biographies of Newton and Einstein. No quote has been altered. Quotes are collated together, with connecting comments, in such a way as to form an integrated description—we can see what is hidden in history if we are willing to look for it. The Teacher is not a common cognitive style in North America. Also, the Teacher part of the mind is one of the later ones to develop, in a child; in many Teachers it never develops—these facts together limit the number of examples that stand out in history. In the biographical literature from which I did my research, I found only two Teachers in all! Even with these two individuals, though, we’ll notice the beginnings of a spectrum of behavior. This type of historical treatment is developed more broadly later, for the Exhorter and the Mercy. In both cases, there is much more detail.

The Teacher seems to have a built-in curiosity. Isaac Newton (as described by historians, see bibliography at the end of this chapter): “I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary while the great ocean of Truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

1 Now that we’ve seen the end result of this path, let’s move forward to the historical descriptions and explore a more happy existence.

Albert Einstein: “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day. Never lose a holy curiosity.” Teacher curiosity seeks an overall structure of thought. Of Einstein: “Einstein, not concerned with specific experiments, or with philosophy, had a grander aim: to penetrate the fog and discern more clearly the principles on which the material world had been built. Asked how the Theory of Relativity had been arrived at, he ‘replied that he had discovered it because he was so firmly convinced of the harmony of the universe.’ ” “He devoted his life to finding a unified concept of the physical world.” “Newton at 44 and Einstein at 37 completed the greatest works of abstract thought created by man. Newton founded theoretical physics. Einstein made theoretical physics inseparable from advanced mathematics. Both were interested primarily in gravity and light.” This overall structure of thought is very general. Isaac Newton: “He was in reality born a philosopher, learning, accident and industry pointed out to his discerning eye, some few, simple and universal truths: these by time and reflection, he gradually extended one from another, one beyond another; till he unfolded the economy of the macrocosm.” Albert Einstein: “Einstein wanted to find a formulation that would unite in one concept the workings of nature on both a molecular and a cosmic scale.” Einstein defined generality as ‘order within complexity’: “A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended is its area of applicability.” Generality brings order to the complexity of what is observed. Einstein: “Thus it was to physics to which he turned, working ‘most of the time in the physical laboratory, fascinated by the direct contact with experience.’ This ‘contact with experience’ was in strange contrast with the period when he would answer a question about his laboratory by pointing to his head and a question about his tools by pointing to his fountain pen. Yet despite this he never ceased to emphasize that the bulk of his work sprang directly and naturally from observed facts; the coordinating theory explaining them might arise from an inspired gleam of intuition, but the need for it arose only after observation.” Often the Teacher brings order to the observations of others. Einstein: “My power, my particular ability, lies in visualizing the effects, consequences, and possibilities, and the bearings on present thought of the discoveries of others. I grasp things in a broad way easily. I cannot do mathematical calculations easily.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
scholars would have been capable of so long and so systematic an intellectual exercise. But for Einstein it was obviously commonplace.’ ” “After he derived an equation, he checked and rechecked his work to make sure that each step followed in a rigorous, logical sequence. He was so dedicated to truth that he did not object to being shown his own mistakes.” Everything must fit. Isaac Newton: “If a single mistake in the presentation of his material was detected, the whole structure would collapse.” This conceptual structure is not mathematical. Einstein: “I grasp things in a broad way easily. I cannot do mathematical calculations easily. I do them not willingly and not readily. Others perform these details better.” “All physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description ‘that even a child could understand them.’ ” The Teacher is so good at discovering order that he can see order where none exists; that is, he easily confabulates. Einstein: “His father [said his son] was always willing to exaggerate in order to explain, and would at times delight in making up a story to please an audience.” The Teacher’s understanding may be completed through confabulation, apart from evidence. Newton: “To force everything in the heavens and on earth into one rigid, tight frame from which the most minuscule detail would not be allowed to escape free and random was an underlying need of this anxiety-ridden man. And with rare exceptions, his fantasy wish was fulfilled during the course of his lifetime. The system was complete in both its physical and historical dimensions. A structuring of the world in so absolutist a manner that every event, the closest and the most remote, fits neatly into an imaginary system has been called a symptom of illness, especially when others refuse to join in the grand obsessive design. It was Newton’s fortune that a large portion of his total system was acceptable to European society as a perfect representation of reality, and his name was attached to the age.” Teacher understanding, when it is based upon confabulation, can affect relationships: “Newton’s cunning, structure-making capacity exercised itself in inventing for others a schema of motives from minute details and suppositions or possibilities which then became certainties.” The Teacher is sure that order exists; his search is based on this faith—he may actually use the language of religion. Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” “Einstein believed that the universe had been designed so that its workings could be comprehensible; therefore these workings must conform to discoverable laws; thus there was no room for chance and indeterminacy—God, after all, did not play the game that way.”

“The genius of Einstein consists in taking up the uninterpreted experiments and scattered suggestions of his predecessors, and welding them into a comprehensive scheme that wins universal admiration by its simplicity and beauty.” The Teacher may update theory put together previously by another Teacher: “ ‘The Newtonian framework, as was natural after 250 years, had been found too crude to accommodate the new observational knowledge which was being acquired. In default of a better framework, it was still used, but definitions were strained to purposes for which they were never intended. We were in the position of a librarian whose books were still being arranged according to a subject scheme drawn up a hundred years ago, trying to find the right place for books on Hollywood, the Air Force, and detective novels.’ Einstein had altered all of that.” In time, the thinking of the Teacher can be based almost completely on the results of his own previous thought. Isaac Newton: “By mid-1665, one short crowded year after his first beginnings, the urge to learn from the work of others was largely abated. It was time for him to go his own way in earnest and thereafter, though he continued to draw in detail on the ideas of others, Newton took his real inspiration from the workings of his own fertile mind.” Albert Einstein: “It was a characteristic of Einstein’s whole scientific life that most of his main achievements sprang directly from their predecessors. Each advance was first consolidated and then used as a base for a fresh move into unexplored territory.” “After 1925 he departed from the work of most theoretical physicists and, for the next 30 years, worked on his own developing a unified field concept. Never again did he join the mainstream.” The Teacher looks for a unified frame of understanding. Isaac Newton: “There was no aspect of creation that would be hidden from him—the inventions of mathematics, the composition of light, the movement of the planets, the elements of chemistry, the history of antiquity, the nature of God, the true meaning of the divine word in Scripture.” New facts, as they are encountered, fit into this unified structure—the Teacher’s ‘internal order’ is used to interpret ‘external complexity.’ A colleague of Einstein, sharing a new theory: “In two hours I had explained all the essentials to him; and now Einstein began the process of turning the information to his own use. One can describe this process as the organic absorption of new information into an already existing uniform picture of nature.” “Discussion continued after dinner. ‘Finally at two in the morning the discussion ended; everything was settled, all doubts had been cleared up. Once again, a piece had been fitted into the contradictory jigsaw which was Einstein’s picture of the world. Neither I nor many other

Personality Profiles - More Detail
Order, as Einstein implies, is personified, and for the Teacher in fact can be God. “Einstein’s God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go on searching for them.” It is therefore natural for the Teacher to break down the distinction between religious and secular, or in MBNI terms, Feeling and Thinking: “Newton, well-schooled in Latin and knowing Greek and Hebrew, had a sound basis for theological study. John Locke wrote, ‘Mr. Newton is a very valuable man, not only for his wonderful skill in mathematics, but in divinity too, and his great knowledge of the Scriptures, wherein I know few his equals.’ ” “History sacred and profane was part of one divine order and the world physical and the world historical were not essentially different in nature.” The external world does not know what to do with the Teacher. Young Einstein: “Einstein the scientist built up his connections with Europe’s leading physicists and Einstein the Patent Office employee played the role of minor civil servant. The situation was growing more incongruous. But the reflection was not on Einstein so much as on a system which could apparently find no place for him in the academic world.” It is the Teacher’s research that makes a way for him: “Newton was saved from the tragedy of a painter in an island of blind men, [which would have been his fate] if the wider world in which he grew up could not have been assimilated to his inner experience.”


Isaac Newton, asked how he made his discoveries, spoke of narrowing down his attention: “I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the first dawnings open slowly by little and little into the full and clear light.” This ‘narrowing of attention’ is the essence of concentration. Newton: “He had an unusual ability to concentrate even at an early age. Often he forgot about the sheep and they wandered away from the farm. One evening during a severe storm, the family worried about the animals and the barn. But Isaac was not interested in that part of the problem; he was trying to find a way to measure the speed of the wind.” “A phenomenal ability to concentrate protected him against distraction.” Einstein, similarly: “The only hint that the potential genius might be the real Einstein came from his ferocious concentration on the task to be done and his determination that nothing should be allowed to divert him from it.” Of Newton and Einstein: “A great ability to concentrate existed throughout their lives.” The Teacher concentrates on abstract theories. Newton: “One of the stereotypes of his boyhood is his ab-

stracted behavior, a subject of derision among the servants.” Albert Einstein: “He was enchanted to find that the compass needle always pointed in one direction and played with it for weeks. He persistently questioned how it worked and remained deeply impressed. He could also sit by the hour and watch an ant colony at work. Much of the time he daydreamed and thought.” As we said, the Teacher attempts to find an explanation for what he observes. Einstein: “Although he had no use for gadgets, he was immensely interested in the principles on which they operated.” “His reaction to the living world was illustrated one day as he stood with a friend watching flocks of emigrating birds flying overhead: ‘I think it is easily possible that they follow beams which are so far unknown to us.’ ” Concentration can be maintained almost indefinitely. Albert Einstein: “He had the determination, persistence, and talent to stay with a problem until he got the solution.” “Einstein sticks fearfully to his problems. I have never before seen him so engrossed in his work. Even at night he is without rest and his problems plague him.” “When he was deep into a problem [said his wife], ‘there is no day and no night.’ ” Isaac Newton was similar: “He would skip supper and sleep and stay with a problem until he had the solution.” Concentration at times can become almost obsessive. Newton: “He always did a thorough job. His endurance, persistence, and attention to minute details were remarkable. He attributed much of his success to staying with a problem until it was finished. At one time he wrote 18 drafts of a report before accepting one as final, although the last version did not differ much from the others.” Concentration ignores everything except that upon which attention is focused. Newton: “I never knew him to take any recreation or pastime either in riding out to take the air, walking, bowling, or any other exercise whatever, thinking all hours lost that were not spent in his studies, to which he kept so close that he seldom left his chamber unless at term time, when he read in the schools as being Lucasianus Professor, where so few went to hear him, and fewer understood him, that ofttimes he did in a manner, for want of hearers read to the walls. So intent, so serious upon his studies that he ate very sparingly, nay, ofttimes he has forgot to eat at all, so that, going into his chamber, I have found his mess untouched, of which, when I have reminded him he would reply—‘Have I!’ and then making to the table, would eat a bit or two standing, for I cannot say I ever saw him sit at table by himself.” Those who do not appreciate abstract thought may despair of the Teacher. Of Einstein: “ ‘When I was a very young man,’ he once confided to an old friend, ‘I visited overnight at the home of friends. In the morning I left,


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
lives. No German has such a liberty. Anyone other than he would suffer by being so isolated in his thoughts during this terrible year. Not he, however. He laughs.” The Teacher is repelled by those who cannot think for themselves, as he does. Einstein: “He was suspicious of authority and had an aversion to the herd instinct. Seeing men march to band music [in Hitler’s Germany before World War II] disturbed him. ‘When a person can march with pleasure in the ranks in step to a piece of music, I have the greatest contempt for him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; his spinal cord would have amply sufficed him.’ ” As a child, the Teacher does not enjoy competitive sport—why should he try to impress others? Albert Einstein: “He had no interest in competitive sports.” Of Newton and Einstein: “Both were quiet and independent, kept to themselves and loved solitude. Neither played with boys his own age, and both avoided competitive sports.” Einstein sailed, but not for competition: “ ‘The natural counterplay of wind and water delighted him most,’ says Bucky, who often sailed with him. ‘Speed, records, and above all competition were against his nature. He had a childlike delight when there was a calm and the boat came to a standstill, or when the boat ran aground.’ ” Certain factors, however, can arouse a Teacher to compete—it is the first hint of a potentially dangerous aspect to his personality. Isaac Newton: “Competitive sports did not interest him. At King’s School he ranked next to the bottom in the lowest form. Once an older boy punched him in the stomach. After classes, Isaac challenged the bully to a fight and beat him. Not only did he triumph over the boy physically, but he made up his mind to surpass him scholastically. Without much effort, Isaac rapidly rose to be the top student.” As in sports, so in education—exams, the normal way for a school to induce excellence in its students, simply do not motivate the Teacher.2 Einstein: “He deemphasized exams, neither worrying about them nor cramming for them. Newton: “He worked hard and independently, but not for grades. When he became involved with a problem, he eliminated sleep and worked around the clock.” Of Newton and Einstein: “Neither one worked for grades or established any scholastic records, and their parents could not brag about their sons’ achievements. They were graduate-type students from the day they entered college and became immersed in self-education.”

forgetting my valise. My host said, to my parents: “That young man will never amount to anything because he can’t remember anything.” And he would often forget his key and have to wake up his landlady late at night, calling: ‘It’s Einstein—I’ve forgotten my key again.’ ” Isaac Newton was also misunderstood: “On going home from Grantham, ‘tis usual at the town end to lead a horse up Stittlegate hill, being very steep. Sir Isaac has been so intent in his meditations, that he never thought of remounting, at the top of the hill, and so has led his horse home all the way, being 5 miles. And once, they say, going home in this contemplative way, the horse by chance slipt his bridle and went home; but Sir Isaac walked on with the bridle in his hand, never missing the horse.’ ” “His mother, as well as the servants, were somewhat offended at this bookishness of his: the latter would say the lad is foolish, and will never be fit for business.” With Einstein, abstracted thought may have been misinterpreted as courage: “Friends who sailed with him” spoke of his “fearlessness of rough weather” and “that more than once he had to be towed in after his mast had been blown down.” Concentration can lead to a nervous breakdown. Isaac Newton: “He suffered his first breakdown during his last year at college.” “Before his fiftieth birthday, he suffered a[nother] severe nervous breakdown.” The Teacher’s ability to concentrate can damage his body. Of Newton by a doctor, treating his stomach troubles: “As his mind knows no limits, so his body follows no set rules. He sleeps until he is wakened; he stays awake until he is told to go to bed; he will go hungry until he is given something to eat; and then he eats until he is stopped.”1 The Teacher may in time learn to pace himself. Newton: “When he became involved with a project, he eliminated sleep and worked around the clock. But after the emotional breakdown, he forced himself to get some sleep every evening.”

The Teacher—seeking order within the complexity of life, and concentrating upon its development—tends to be somewhat of a loner. Of Newton and Einstein: “Both were quiet and independent, kept to themselves and loved solitude. Neither played with boys his own age.” Einstein: “When he won his freedom, he still preferred to be a loner.” The Teacher-loner is intellectually independent. Einstein in Germany during World War I: “Einstein is unbelievably free in his judgments on Germany where he Teacher lack of understanding throws his mind into ‘cognitive emergency’ mode, and this ‘hijacks’ Facilitator ‘working memory,’ along with its control of autonomic functions. His health is affected—it will make sense later.

The Contributor intellectual will often compare his grades to those of others—the Teacher is less prone to do this. However, if approval from parents is linked to exam results, and he loves his parents, then for their sake he too might be motivated to respond. The best of course is to trigger his curiosity—then no effort is too much.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
When the Teacher is placed into a normal school environment, he will probably go in one of two directions. Both are illustrated in the life of Einstein. In high school: “Einstein was summarily expelled on the grounds that ‘your presence in the class is disruptive and affects the other students.’ Einstein was the boy who knew not merely which monkey wrench to throw in the works, but also how best to throw it. This may explain why the Gymnasium [German high school] sent him packing.” However, in later education: “Einstein would have developed his original mind whatever happened; but the conformity [of his Institute physics teacher], the pervasive air of a science learned for examination rather than for probing into the natural world, speeded up the process.” Einstein began mentally to order those very concepts that were being so abused by his instructor. The world, as it turned out, would appreciate his work; Einstein did not care—again, we see a hint of something that might have dangerous implications. Einstein: “He did not do well at school. His work was superior in science and mathematics but just passing in other subjects. He hated the rigidity of the Prussian educational system and refused to conform.”


The ‘person’ of the Teacher lives in the structure of thought that he is building. Einstein: “When Einstein wished, he could ‘speak of basic metaphysical concepts such as time or space as matter-of-factly as others speak of sandwiches or potatoes.’ ” When understanding is ordered, then the Teacher’s ‘person’ is self-assured. Einstein: “Among colleagues he moved with a calm assurance and a quizzical smile; both came, for all his innate humbleness, from an inner certainty of being right.” When internal understanding is attacked, then the Teacher feels personally threatened. Isaac Newton: “Newton was constantly torn between the dread of involvement in the rough and tumble of conflict with other men and the need to defend his person and what was his—the theoretical structures which he had built around himself.” “If any bureaucratic principle or customary arrangement was violated, the infraction was conceived as an attack directed against his person in an almost literal sense.” For the Teacher, his understanding, in which his person lives, is more real than the outside world. Einstein: “If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle. Don’t listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds. To the discoverer in this field the products of his imagination appear so necessary and natural that he regards them, and would have them regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities.”

“ ’It is a magnificent feeling to recognize the unity of a complex of phenomena which appear to be things quite apart from the direct visible truth.’ Einstein revealed two aspects of his approach to science which became the keys to his work: the search for a unity behind disparate phenomena, and the acceptance of a reality ‘apart from the direct visible truth.’ ” The Teacher lives in understanding; if he thinks independently, he may develop a poor memory for his own personal past. Of Albert Einstein (by his personal physician): “ ’It has always struck me as singular,’ he wrote, ‘that the marvelous memory of Einstein for scientific matters does not extend to other fields. I don’t believe that Einstein could forget anything that interested him scientifically, but matters relating to his childhood, his scientific beginnings, and his development are in a different category, and he rarely talks about them—not because they don’t interest him but simply because he doesn’t remember them well enough.’ Einstein agreed, commenting: ‘You’re quite right about my bad memory for personal things. It’s really quite astounding. Something for psychoanalysts—if there really are such people.’ ” When he wishes, the Teacher can use concentration to retreat to his inner world of abstract understanding, which is him. Einstein: “It is true that Einstein could always isolate himself from surrounding trivia with an enviable ease. In a mob, at a concert, listening to speeches; he could follow the exterior pattern of events while an essential part of his mind worked away at the problem of the moment.”1

It is important for others to realize that the Teacher’s inner world of understanding contains emotions—again we see a hint of possible danger, if this is not respected. Einstein: “It is a magnificent feeling to recognize the unity of a complex of phenomena—” The struggle for understanding is an emotional journey. Albert Einstein: “Once the validities of this mode of thought had been recognized, the final results appear almost simple; any intelligent undergraduate can understand them without much trouble. But the years of searching in the dark for a truth that one feels, but cannot express; the intense desire and the alternations of confidence and misgiving, until one breaks through to clarity and understanding, are only known to him who has himself experienced them.” Newton: “Scholarly analysis of Newton’s manuscripts has disclosed that his process of discovery was often tortuous; that while the story of the apple may be true, it was a long way from the initial insight in his mother’s garden to the finished proofs of the Principia.”

1 He is tying into the Facilitator ‘working memory’ ‘detached and observing’ mode—it will make sense later.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
To stay away from conflict, the Teacher may retreat back into his monastery. Newton, for example, resigned when criticized: “The real reason for his resignation, however, becomes apparent in a letter to Collins where he complains of the rudeness1 shown him and resolves to ‘prevent accidents of that nature for the future.’ ” “I am now sensible that I must withdraw from your acquaintance, and see neither you nor the rest of my friends any more,2 if I may but leave them quietly.” “Newton drew back into his shell for a time to avoid being seen or heard from in further controversy.” If the pain of being alone is too great, then the Teacher in contrast may break for a time with his understanding.3 Newton: “He promised to ignore the ill-usage of which he had been a victim, but formally broke with natural philosophy, one of many periodic denials of his destiny: ‘I intend to be no further solicitous about matters of Philosophy [meaning physics]. And therefore I hope you will not take it ill if you find me ever refusing doing any thing more in that kind, or rather that you will favor me in my determination by preventing so far as you can conveniently any objections or other philosophical letters that may concern me.’ ” If he returns to understanding, the Teacher may break with those who ask him to defend it. Newton: “He would not become ‘a slave to philosophy’ by defending himself, and brushed aside all theoretical objections.” He may not share with others until understanding is complete.4 Isaac Newton: “He kept the law of gravitation to himself for many years until he could prove that the gravitational pull of a spherical earth is the same as it would be if the whole mass were concentrated at the center.” When he does share, his writing may be purposely obtuse. Newton: “He intentionally wrote in a cryptic and
1 Perceiver strategy gains its circles of reasonableness from Facilitator analysis. The Teacher is highly dependent upon this Perceiver-Facilitator fine-tuning circuit when he is finalizing his theory. The Facilitator as a person turns out to be the most sensitive to discourtesy— this tendency would now strongly affect the Teacher as well.

Teacher understanding, as it develops, builds a home for his person, and generates emotional stability; this is so important to the Teacher that he is hesitant to trust others to help him in the process of building. To Albert Einstein, by a physics teacher in college: “You are a very clever boy, Einstein, an extremely clever boy, but you have one great fault: you never let yourself be told anything.” Of him, by an understudent: “The discussions we had were unforgettable. He took nothing as certain truth merely because it was written in books, and he was always asking questions which led to a deeper understanding of the problem.” The Teacher-loner, hesitant as he is to trust others, often studies by himself. Einstein: “From 1902 until 1905 Einstein worked on his own, an outsider of outsiders, scientifically provincial and having few links with the main body of contemporary physics. This isolation accounts for his broad view of specific scientific problems— he ignored the detailed arguments of others because he was unaware of them.” Of Newton and Einstein: “When their graduate work was interrupted, they studied alone, developed independent ideas, and persisted with and completed selfassigned projects in conceptual thought.” “The hallmark of genius—the ability to teach oneself—was evident early. Both were unusually inquisitive. They read much and often were seen with book in hand.” “During their exile from university life, totally on their own and away from help and stimulation by others, the creativity of these two giants soared.” We emphasize again that the Teacher identifies very strongly and emotionally with the truth that he discovers in these times apart. Newton: “Corruption of a Scriptural text and the faking of an experiment, or slovenliness in its interpretation, were not only violations of scientific method, but sins, like the bearing of false witness. Such lies were in many respects the blackest of crimes because they violated and distorted the truth of God’s creation.” It can be very difficult for the Teacher-loner to rejoin the company of others—they do not think as he does, and this may be taken personally, as an emotional attack. Newton: “If a casual acquaintance like John Millington could observe that Newton lay ‘neglected by those in power,’ Newton himself would have felt the snub much more keenly. To be rejected when he had risked advances was a terrible blow: such events were easily structured into a pattern that made them appear to be a concerted repudiation of his person. The crisis occurred as his great expectations collapsed and life began to fall back into the old routine.” The Teacher hates conflict, for it involves emotion, and muddies his thought, which also uses emotion. Newton: “Easily irritated and offended, he replied quickly and bluntly. He disliked arguments and went to extremes to avoid them.”

Like the Facilitator, the Teacher may break previous commitments—he feels suffocated and must get away! The breaks from society are temporary; others should leave him alone, until he can regain his perspective. Unlike other styles, the Teacher won’t usually compromise. However, he may choose to allow the theory to defend itself, without his open support. Understanding gives the Teacher pleasure—he needs this drug. If he’s not sure that things are correct, then he’ll keep quiet, and enjoy his ‘bubble’—it’s like the Facilitator who can be quite content with the illusion of freedom. The Teacher will share only when he’s sure that things are truly solid and can’t be ‘popped’ by others.
4 3


Personality Profiles - More Detail
complicated manner, as he told William Derham, to discourage ignorant quibblers.” He may try to remain ‘objective’—this means that he works with the emotion of theory and avoids the emotion of people and relationships. Newton: “From the beginning there is a certain tendency to denigrate the subjective witness of the senses and to seek refuge in truths derived solely from investigating and measuring the operations of bodies upon each other. He prefers to deal with things and to avoid persons and feelings.” When conflict of emotion with emotion cannot be avoided, then Teacher-thought will become imbalanced. Newton: “The overwhelming fears, doubts, and insecurities of his early life, which have left indelible telltale marks in the notebooks, gave his science a particular style and on occasion tended to push him in one or another direction.” We have seen that Teacher-study is motivated, not by competition or exams, but rather by a struggle to develop self. It is an emotional journey, but with a feeling that is not inherently common to the rest of humanity. Conflict with people distorts this thought—so does honor; it is another kind of trap. Einstein: “I do not care for money. Decorations, titles, or distinctions mean nothing to me. I do not crave praise.” The Teacher’s reward is the emotion—a strange new feeling that comes from theory and not from people—that defines self, and that flows from the discovery itself. Einstein: “Speaking to the National Academy of Sciences, he said that ‘when a man after long years of searching chances upon a thought which discloses something of the beauty of this mysterious universe he should not therefore be personally celebrated. He is already sufficiently paid by his experience of seeking and finding.’ ” Knowing the emotional penalty that can come from sharing this self-defining truth, and happy with the emotional experience of discovery, the Teacher may be tempted to keep his findings to himself. Newton: “Although he required no stimulus to complete a project and write it up in a notebook, he usually had to be persuaded to make the information available to others.” “When Newton had the truth he felt no need to share it. His initial insights came easily; they poured out like a flood; and then he let the papers lie about.”


The Teacher tends to interact with the external world through books. Isaac Newton: His scientific “papers throb with energy and imagination but yet convey the claustrophobic air of a man completely wrapped up in himself, whose only real contact with the external world was through his books.” Albert Einstein: “He never read light literature, not even a novel. He remained aloof and absorbed in books

on mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Music was his recreation.” Einstein, contemplating different job offers: “In one way Einstein was like many another man—he kept an eye on the main chance. Only in his case the objective was not making a fortune but keeping close to the resources which would stimulate him most. He liked Zurich and the Swiss: but what was that against ‘a fine institute with a magnificent library.’ ” Of Newton and Einstein: “They read much and were often seen with book in hand.” The Teacher interacts with himself as well through books; he writes down his thoughts on paper, so that he can read them later, and draw them again into his mind. Isaac Newton as a boy: “His notes included such odds and ends as career possibilities, linguistics and phonetics, geometrical problems, and recipes for homemade medicines and chemicals.” “Taken together, the notebooks disclose the grand universality of Newton’s inquiries, though he has begun to make certain choices: natural philosophy and mathematics rather than psychology or the passions of the soul; alchemy, chemistry, and medicine intermingled, rather than botany.” Einstein, like Newton: “He, too, wrote letters and made notes about his work on used paper.” “Newton had time, Einstein made time. Each man wrote constantly, committing his thoughts to paper in an organized manner. A major difference was that Einstein published unhesitatingly, Newton did not.”1 The Teacher writes in order to unify his thoughts; he is not always that interested in corresponding with other people—this diverts him from his purpose. Einstein: “A colleague, entering Einstein’s study, saw hanging from the ceiling a large meat hook bearing a thick sheaf of letters. These, Einstein explained, he had no time to answer. Freundlich, asking what he did when the hook was filled up, was answered by two words, ‘Burn them.’ ” In every way, the Teacher tries to eliminate emotional distraction. Einstein: “It is true that I always knew how to arrange things so that I remained unburdened. I wanted to have time free for thinking.” “In order to preserve my rights as a thinker, I have to stay quiet in order to work.” If the Teacher-thinker does attempt to emerge into the external world, then he may not be prepared for what he encounters. Einstein: “In science he had achieved almost transcendental success by paring problems down to their simplest terms. Surely the same process would work in national politics and international affairs. Einstein walked into the lion’s den devoutly believing this was so.” Newton published into a world that had no idea of the concept of a natural law. Because of Newton’s pioneering effort, Einstein did not have these same difficulties. Thus, he published more readily.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
quisite things in the world and they don’t know how to appreciate them.” “He had no interest in formal affairs. ‘Feeding time at the zoo’ was his description of banquets. Yet he allowed himself to be used ‘for table decoration’ in situations where he could be helpful.” Social functions, as far as the Teacher is concerned, should be short and sweet. Einstein: “One flower is beautiful, a surfeit of flowers is vulgar.” Isaac Newton: “Of his first and only evening at an opera, he remarked, ‘There was too much of a good thing; it was like a surfeit of dinner. The first act I heard with pleasure; the second stretched my patience; at the third I ran away.’ ” If the Teacher wishes to be polite, he will stay physically, but use concentration to run away mentally. Einstein: “Of academic dinners he confessed to one of his stepsons-in-law: ‘On occasions like this I retire to the back of my mind and there I am happy.’ ” The Teacher, in contrast to these formal types of dinners, values highly a ‘social environment’ of research into understanding. Albert Einstein: “He was, as he often said, the kind of man who did not work well in a team. Furthermore, his mental stature was such that he needed little stimulation from other workers in his own field. At the same time he preferred to work in a congenial intellectual climate. He liked being near the places where, as he once put it in a letter, ‘the future was being brewed.’ ”1 Isaac Newton: “If Cambridge after Barrow’s death became an intellectual desert in which a solitary man constructed a system of the world, the scientists of the Society in London were the spiritual brotherhood to which he belonged.” Here, in this ‘society,’ the Teacher makes his friends. Einstein, to a colleague: “ ‘Nature made us for each other. I find it difficult to find a human contact beneficial to me. I need your friendship perhaps more urgently than you need mine.’ What he had found was another man to whom physics was the whole of life and who put everything else firmly in its place.” To fellow Germans: “Is not that small group of scholars and intellectuals the only ‘Fatherland’ which is worthy of serious concern to people like ourselves?” A Teacher is often very happy married to a Server— here is a faithful and a loyal companion who will accept his world and allow him to become himself. Einstein: “The physicist who in later life was to discard socks as unnecessary complications and who insisted that washThe Facilitator is effective at the center of activity, coordinating things; the Teacher in contrast likes to sit externally in the background. However, the Teacher can do useful thinking only if he taps into his underlying Facilitator ‘working memory,’ and this places him close enough to the center, from his position on the sidelines, to observe it.

His conclusion: “All my life I have dealt with objective matters hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions.” “When one has dedicated one’s whole life to thought, and is capable only of that, one should stick to it and should leave the ‘worldlier’ things to those who are better equipped to understand them.” The Teacher may feel that he will be more successful if he can work through others. Isaac Newton: “Newton was not very good at expounding in nonmathematical prose his general ideas about God and the universe, time and space. There was a certain reluctance on his part to philosophize publicly about these ultimate questions, and he usually preferred to let others speak for him on religious subjects.” The Teacher’s preference, however, may be to stay away from the external world—its ‘people-emotional’ side in particular. Einstein: “All my life I have dealt with objective matters.” The Teacher’s personal surroundings may become very simple. Isaac Newton: “His personal needs were few. He was not interested in elaborate dress, food, alcohol, or smoking. Sometimes he forgot to eat, or he might have for breakfast the supper he missed the previous night. He did not like to waste working time by stopping for meals and frequently ate standing.” “He very rarely went to dine in the hall, except on some public days, and then if he had not been minded, would go very carelessly, with shoes down at heels, stockings untied, surplice on, and his head scarcely combed.” Albert Einstein: “He wanted everything around him to be plain. His room was as bare as possible.” “He resigned himself to the necessary priorities; first research, second Einstein. Bertrand Russell said: ‘Personal matters never occupied more than odd nooks and crannies in his thoughts.’ ” “He was indifferent to material comforts and I once heard him say: ‘What more does a human being want? Manuscript, violin, bed, table, and chair, that is enough.’ ” A colleague of his: “We are slaves of bathrooms, Frigidaires, cars, radios, and millions of other things. Einstein tried to reduce them to the absolute minimum. Long hair minimizes the need for the barber. Socks can be done without. One leather jacket solves the coat problem for many years. Suspenders are superfluous, as are nightshirts and pajamas. It is a minimum problem which Einstein has solved, and shoes, trousers, shirt, jacket are the very necessary things; it would be difficult to reduce them further.” The Teacher does not always have much appreciation for social functions. Einstein, offered caviar at a dinner, while discussing Galilean inertia with a colleague: “It’s all the same to me. You can offer bumpkins the most ex-

Personality Profiles - More Detail
ing and shaving with the same soap made life that much simpler, had one basic desire, even in the early 1900s: to transfer to other shoulders the tiresome tasks which diverted time from more important things. Many men have married for worse reasons.”


The Teacher is a loner, we conclude, not from choice, but from necessity. He desperately wants friends—for him this means those who think as he does, who value his kind of emotion. Einstein: “I do not care for money. Decorations, titles, or distinctions mean nothing to me. I do not crave praise. The only thing that gives me pleasure, apart from my work, my violin, and my sailboat, is the appreciation of my fellow workers.” “I value friends more highly than mathematical discoveries.” “Einstein developed rich correspondence with any scientist who had similar interests.” “Everyone who met Einstein on a professional basis was drawn into an obsessional discussion that soon rose and swamped everything else.” The Teacher is very loyal to those who do gain his friendship. Albert Einstein, of the possibility of leaving Berlin to work elsewhere: “It would be doubly wrong of me if, just when my political hopes are being realized, I were to walk out unnecessarily, and perhaps in part for my material advantage, on the very people who have surrounded me with love and friendship, and to whom my departure would be doubly painful at this time of supposed humiliation.” This loyalty is a characteristic of Teacher personality; it makes him very willing to become an ‘intellectual servant’—just as the Server aids others with his hands, so the Teacher would like to help with his theories. Albert Einstein: “You have no idea with what affection I am surrounded here; not all of them try only to catch the drops which my brain sweats out.” Isaac Newton in later life: “He was a great servant of the Crown, who performed his tasks as precisely as he conducted a scientific experiment or interpreted a corrupt text in Scripture.” Newton and Einstein: “Both committed themselves deeply to public service during the last third of their lives.” The Teacher makes friends with those who think as he does, and is a loyal servant to them; he deeply desires this to include his own natural family. Albert Einstein: “Such a man as myself considers it an ideal to be at home somewhere with his dear ones.” “He was a happy man when he took Ehrenfest’s children and their companions down to the seacoast dunes a few miles away and let them bury him up to the neck in the sands without a trace of concern.” Family relationships for the Teacher, however, are founded upon common understanding—his understand-

ing—it is obvious to him that this must be so. Einstein: “He made no bones about voicing his personal opinions whether they offended or not. This courageous love of truth gave his whole personality a certain cachet which in the long run was bound to impress even his opponents.” Most people do not build relationship upon common understanding; the discovery of this fact can be a real surprise to the Teacher. Newton: “Though he was easy to admire and respect, he was not easy to get along with. Quickly nettled, he needed little provocation to express himself bluntly.” The Teacher builds theory upon a certain kind of emotion; ‘natural family,’ however, is based in a different type of emotion; the Teacher cannot always tell the two apart. Isaac Newton: “The loss of his mother to another man was a traumatic event in Newton’s life from which he never recovered. And at any moment in his later experience when he was confronted by the possibility of being robbed of what was his, he reacted with a violence commensurate with his terror and anger generated by this first searing deprivation.” When family does not understand the Teacher and his primary emotional attachment to theory, and the Teacher in turn does not understand himself and his secondary need for the emotion of personal interaction, the result is often conflict: “Newton remained close to his immediate family and had several lasting friends. Yet he was sensitive, suspicious, and secretive.” The Teacher, in generating understanding, has discovered a new kind of emotion; he may be tempted to respond to conflict with natural family by completely cutting off the old. Isaac Newton: “Though for decades he inhabited a monastic cell in Trinity, permitting few outsiders to invade his privacy, the isolation was of his own making.” Similarly, “Einstein appeared to a colleague to be living in a universe of his own creation, and almost to need protection when he touched the mundane sphere.” The Teacher discovers that isolation has its advantages. Newton: “I lived in solitude in the country and noticed how the monotony of a quiet life stimulates the creative mind.” Conflicts with natural family who live outside of this ‘theory-emotional bubble’ are kept to a minimum. Einstein, of his ex-wife: “The story [of his first marriage, with a Contributor-colleague possessing strong views of her own] is of incompatibility rather than conflict; of a couple who respected one another as long as they did not have to live together.” “If he had not had the strength of mind to keep her at a distance, out of sight and out of mind, he would, he said, have been worn out physically and morally.” Of a job offer in her home town: “If he came to Zurich, he said [his first wife] would demand to see him and he would have to refuse, partly because of his earlier decision [not to see her], partly to avoid emotional scenes.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
became an administrator in London, with power in his hands that was real, palpable, immediate. The price he paid for this about-face was to cut himself off in large measure from the boundless inner world which had sustained him with new creations ever since his boyhood. To the extent that he became a successful manipulator of men he was alienated from himself.” And again, we see danger: “The discovery of his mathematical genius was his salvation; that the world obeyed mathematical laws was his security. But there were moments when the mathematical encasement of his thought was not strong enough to preserve him from the volcanic outburst of destructive forces long repressed.”

The boys would think he was being callous, and he really thought no good would come of it.” Natural family, however, wants the Teacher’s body to be present occasionally for those social events. The Teacher may be afraid of these times. Newton: “He advised his kinsmen not to approach him too directly lest he give offense.” He may attempt to interact, with family and others as well, through intermediaries. To a colleague during one time of stress: “He requested that if their correspondence were ever published Oldenberg should ‘mitigate any expressions that seem harsh.’ From the beginning Newton was fully aware of his capacity for hurting, and he imposed an external restraint upon himself in the form of Oldenberg’s censorship.” If his body must be present at social occasions, then he will try to control himself. Newton: “He constantly admonished himself to forbear when provoked because he knew and feared the consequence of his temper.”

The Teacher uses emotion to do his analysis; he sits always on the edge of another kind of emotion oriented around experience. His sense of humor, therefore, can involve the ‘subjectivity push’—he nudges another to the brink of ‘people-based emotion,’ but not over the edge. He looks to see if the other, under this pressure, can retain the ability to think using ‘theory-based emotion.’ Einstein: “ ‘Once when out sailing with him,’ writes Watters, ‘and while we were engaged in an interesting conversation, I suddenly cried out “Achtung” for we were almost upon another boat. He veered away with excellent control and when I remarked what a close call we had had, he started to laugh and sailed directly toward one boat after another, much to my horror; but he always veered off in time, and then laughed like a naughty boy.’ On another occasion Watters pointed out that they had sailed too close to a group of projecting rocks; Einstein replied by skimming the boat across a barely submerged reef.” “He was the Einstein who delighted in taking control of the elevator in his Haberlandstrasse block and manipulating the buttons so that guests were whisked up, back, then up and down again past the floor at which they wished to alight.” Isaac Newton as a boy: “He first made lanterns of paper crimpled, which he used to go to school by, in winter mornings, with a candle and tied them to the tails of the kites in a dark night, which at first affrighted the country people exceedingly, thinking they were comets.” Teacher-humor is quite willing to be undignified, for dignity is part of the ‘people emotion’ that is not part of ‘him.’ Einstein: “His humor was of the quiet, throwaway kind which illustrated points in his thesis, a sometimes quixotic, frequently irreverent humor which delighted his students.” “He retained the mixture of clown and small boy delighted with simple jokes, engrossed by absurdities. He was always ready to respond to the ridiculous challenge, and when a group of eminent friends called for him one evening, he accepted a bet to take off his waistcoat without first removing his coat.”

Outside of natural family, in those places where ‘personal interaction’ emotion is not present to snare and to wound him, the Teacher can become a dictator—we will see more of this dangerous aspect of his person soon—it is a new and a different way to bring order to complexity. Newton, after his success: “Almost everybody in Newton’s circle felt at least an occasional flick of the whip. The thwarting of his will in the slightest matter was punished with ostracism. Favorites were summarily dropped. He had no charitableness, though he distributed charity to relatives for whom he felt responsible; a single fault and a friend was rejected. He had a mission to extirpate evil, and he sat in constant judgment upon his fellowmen. The fonts of love had been all but dammed up.” Those who violate standards of the Teacher-dictator are cut off. Newton: “There were men who overcame his mistrust by devoting themselves totally to him but one transgression and he thrust them into the ranks of the enemy. He was forever testing them, and there were moments when even the most loyal failed him because they fell short of the perfection he demanded.” This kind of dictatorship, however, is not really natural for the Teacher. Einstein, of those opposing his theory: “So long as they don’t get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me.” “It is true that I always knew how to arrange things so that I remained unburdened. I wanted to have time free for thinking and I had no wish to dictate other people’s actions.” Newton, who indulged in dictatorship, paid a penalty: “Newton’s crisis was followed by a dramatic reorganization of his personality and a rechanneling of his capacities that enabled him to manage his existence successfully for more than three decades. The lone scientist

Personality Profiles - More Detail
When he is tired, the Teacher escapes from ‘theory emotion’ with music; the melody of music is interpreted by ‘people emotion,’ and for him this is a refreshing change. Einstein: “From the age of six he began to learn the violin. The enthusiasm this evoked did not come quickly. He was taught by rote rather than inspiration, and seven years passed before he was roused by Mozart into an awareness of the mathematical structure of music. Yet his delight in the instrument grew steadily and became a psychological safety valve; it was never quite matched by performance.” “He remained aloof and absorbed in books on mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Music was his recreation.” “He genuinely needed music.” The Teacher also enjoys simple physical activity—it is an escape now into the realm of his Server partner, and MBNI Sensing. Einstein, of his work in the patent office: “A practical profession is a salvation for a man of my type.” “There was also his sailing, and here a remark by his second wife is pertinent: ‘He is so much on the water that people cannot easily reach him.’ His son: ‘He needed this kind of relaxation from his intense work.’ And with relaxation there would often come the solution. For his work needed neither laboratory nor equipment.” Walking gives special pleasure. Einstein: “He needed no more than pencil, paper, and pipe, peace for relaxation with his violin, a nearby lake to sail on, the opportunity for an occasional not-too-strenuous stroll in pleasant scenery.” “Except for long walks, he did not exercise.” Of Newton and Einstein: “Newton paced the floor in his room; Einstein went for long walks.”


Facilitator and Teacher, as it turns out, can have real conflicts. Albert Einstein: “I have little patience with scientists who take a board of wood, look for its thinnest part [as does the Facilitator experimentalist], and drill a great number of holes where drilling is easiest.” “His own view was thus opposed to Mach’s [another Facilitator], because Mach assumed that the laws of science were only an economical way of describing a large collection of facts.” “An academic career,” added Einstein, “compels a young man to scientific production, and only strong characters can resist the temptation of superficial analysis.” Facilitator and Teacher can work together. Isaac Newton was encouraged by Halley, a Facilitator-colleague, to complete his work: “He would not have published the Principia, for which he labored very hard for 18 months, if his friend Halley had not urged him repeatedly to do so.” “When Newton had the truth he felt no need to share it. His initial insights came easily; they poured out like a flood; and then he let the papers lie about. By the time Halley appeared the most difficult questions in the problem of gravity had been resolved to Newton’s satisfaction, and what lay ahead were the elegant systematization, the proofs, and the structuring of the materials into an architectonic whole. But it required young Halley’s encouragement and reassuring affection for Newton to surmount the last hurdles.”1 “But the provocation of Hooke [also a Facilitator], the desire to trounce him, to crush him once and for all, also stung Newton into action. For so great a creation as the Principia two midwives were necessary, each assisting at the birth in a unique fashion.”

The Facilitator differs from the Teacher: he spreads his attention to many areas, he collects facts. “Robert Hooke [a Facilitator-contemporary of Newton, respected at the time as the leading scientific authority] still operated in the earlier Baconian tradition [Bacon was another Facilitator], in quest of a plenitude of discoveries rather than a few unifying, mathematical principles.” “In Hooke [a Facilitator] and Newton [a Teacher] two different scientific styles confronted each other. While neither devoted his entire life to one subject, their versatility served different ends. Hooke allowed his insights to crowd in upon one another, a Don Juan of science who made quick and easy conquests; Newton, once fixed upon an idea, pursued it relentlessly until it surrendered its full secret or sheer exhaustion forced him to relinquish his hold for a time, when he turned to something else for what he called ‘divertisement.’ From the five or six inquiries into which Newton plunged, he returned each time with a heroic discovery; only in alchemy did he fail.”

Physics uses mathematics to describe the real world; we see with Newton and Einstein that it is an acceptable release for Teacher thought. But what if the Teacher is not a scientist? What if in fact he wishes to order the complexity of society itself? We will understand by now that the Teacher is driven to form an understanding—it defines his person. Yet his kind of ‘theory emotion’ is not the feeling that society normally emphasizes—it will be blind to his needs. The results of our neglect towards the Teacher’s needs can be very dangerous. Let’s look first at Theodore Kaczynski, the wellknown Unabomber. If we examine the Manifesto of this apparent Teacher, we see immediately that he hated mod-

When the Facilitator sees that the Teacher has somehow managed to discover a new continent, then he may help the Teacher to construct a solid bridge to this new location, so that everyone can travel over and enjoy it. Halley did this for Newton.



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.” What was Kaczynski’s solution? He demands that we destroy technology—hence the bombs—and then return to ‘wild Nature.’ What does he mean by this? He wants to eliminate the external manifestations of the strange new emotion within him, Teacher feeling, which desires order within complexity, and which he does not understand3— even as he also, paradoxically, advocates the destruction of those ‘leftists’ who use this same emotion in a ‘heretical’ manner—and then he wishes to return to the other emotion, Mercy feeling, which is based in people, relationships and Nature. In this way he thinks that perhaps he may find order within complexity. And for this twisted theory he kills. What if a Teacher has no theory? If he is sufficiently frustrated, he may still kill. Frontline on the Internet has a three-hour streaming video documentary of Lee Harvey Oswald. Here we see a Teacher without love, reading extensively in libraries as a youth, looking for order within complexity in the military, shopping then for a ‘pre-formed frame of reference’ in communism, attempting to become an intellectual servant to the Soviet Union as a spy, acquiring weapons and playing with the idea of dictatorship, seeking companionship of mind with those who love Cuba, and also with those who hate it, and finally, when nothing is working out, shooting his president. Was it a conspiracy? Probably not. It was an opportunistic primal scream by a disillusioned and completely thwarted Teacher-loner. What if the Teacher’s theory is that his enemies are out to kill him? Let us listen to Osama bin Laden (2004), apparently another Teacher: “But I am amazed at you even though we are in the 4th year after the events of Sept. Kaczynski was apparently a Teacher, and conscious therefore in Teacher strategy. If he could not tolerate the birthing of emotional Teacher thought within himself, in a region of his mind where he was conscious, then how will the reader react, in particular if he is not a Teacher by style? I know by experience that the material presented in this book will most certainly awaken underlying Teacher analysis in the mind—the process takes about five months, and it occurs automatically.

ern ‘new age’1 thought, as we suggested would be typical. He depicts it, for lack of a better word, as ‘leftism.’ Let’s listen to him for a minute: “What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.” The ‘new age’ ‘leftist,’ according to Kaczynski, is not like the Teacher; he does not walk alone: “The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them.” ‘Leftism,’ says Kaczynski, uses Teacher-emotion in a wrong way; it averages facts to get truths, it does not generate general laws. This hijacking of emotion, according to Kaczynski, is heresy: “Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.”2 So, what does the Unabomber do? Let him tell us: “As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is a very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with

1 The ‘new age’ thinker lacks Perceiver axioms, and this destroys Perceiver thought. He then replaces an isolated Teacher analysis with synthesis and philosophy.

We’ll see later that the Facilitator feels pain when Mercy and Teacher emotions diverge. So, the Unabomber is correct—the thinking of the ‘new age’ Facilitator is at its root highly emotional. This agony is caused by a lack of relevant axioms; this deficiency deactivates Perceiver thought, and that decouples the emotions. In a reflexive survival response, the ‘new age’ Facilitator takes over— internally in his mind, and then in society—however, this ‘hijacking of activity’ destroys standards further, and that increases the pain. Like an animal thrashing about in a cage that is too small for him, the ‘new age’ Facilitator feels ever more suffocated—eventually, his frantic efforts to survive form Kaczynski into his enemy.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
11th. Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider.” “The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced. I couldn’t forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our homes without mercy. The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn’t include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but didn’t respond. In those difficult moments, many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy.” As Einstein formulated E=mc2, so bin Laden also generalized. In his case, he theorized that ‘America likes to kill innocent women and children.’ Let’s think of the implications. When a Teacher finds understanding—the example is Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity—the Teacher’s mind tells him that it applies everywhere; there are no exceptions. Well, a Teacher like Osama lives in a different kind of emotion. He doesn’t truly need our kind of feeling—his ‘person’ will not fall apart if he lacks it, but ours will. And so, when people who speak of relationships, and love, do not with their actions respect this very emotion—based on relationships, love for people, and Mercy feeling—that seems vital to their existence, then the Teacher, who uses another kind of emotion and does not in any case care that much for our kind of feeling, generalizes finally that this is the way it will always be. He is free therefore to destroy what is important to us, and what is a hindrance to him, because we don’t care for it either. This is the law in all its generality—ultimate order within complexity. The Teacher gains calm certainty and deep inner freedom of spirit. Here truly is raw material for a religious war! Osama’s conflict, in its own way, is strangely righteous and logical. If we do not respect the emotion that is fundamental to our existence, then Osama will be an in-


tellectual servant to us, and he will help us to die. If we are disturbed at our plight, then he may find this funny; it is a ‘subjectivity push’ on his part to continue. He laughs at us as he destroys us. Let us read the story of Timothy McVeigh (Hussein Ibish, columnist), and see how society feels about this: “Timothy McVeigh [probably again a Teacher], who is scheduled to be executed May 16, has solidified his position as the poster boy of cold-blooded villainy. The Oklahoma City bomber has once again outraged the American public when he described the 19 dead children among his 168 victims as ‘collateral damage’ in an interview.” “Although it scarcely seemed possible, this appalling comment has made McVeigh an even more despised figure in American society. It produced widespread and justified expressions of revulsion and anger at his lack of regard for even the most innocent of his victims.” “McVeigh was a gunner on a Bradley fighting vehicle during the Gulf War and told his relatives that ‘after the first time, it got easy’ to kill Iraqis. It is possible that by invoking the awful phrase ‘collateral damage,’ McVeigh is not only repeating a rhetorical device for denial he learned in the military service, but he is actually taunting the government, and even society at large, for its own propensity for callous indifference.” Bin Laden, similarly, taunting the Americans: “All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.” In the midst of his mockery, Osama the Teacher begins to teach—and to truly madden his hearers: “Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.” “Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say: ‘How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision.’ “ “It is as if they were telling you, the people of America: ‘Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others’ mistakes.’ “ “And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry. ‘Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny.’ “ “As has been said: ‘An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.’ “ “And know that: ‘It is better to return to the truth than persist in error.’ ” We conclude that society ignores


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
6. Tr - works from the bottom up—formulates facts into general laws. Pr - works from the top down—uses principles to evaluate facts. Tr - builds theory step by step. Pr - learns in multiple passes. Tr - needs others to tell him where his theory is wrong. Pr - needs others to fine-tune his perception of the context. Tr - lives in generalities. Pr - is aware of details and specifics. Tr - is gullible to the pre-packaged frame-ofreference. Pr - may accept wrong facts when he lacks relevant principles. Tr - is his understanding. Pr - has a strong conscience. Tr - thinks mentally in two dimensions. Pr - can visualize facts—graphs, maps—in three dimensions. Tr - senses sequence, rhythm and the edges of objects. Pr - sees similarities, associations and orientations. Tr - maintains a distance between himself and the outside world. Pr - must separate himself physically from people who are wrong. Tr - can easily have a somewhat restricted frameof-thought. Pr - can become intellectually many-sided. Tr - feels personally disoriented when his understanding cannot explain what is observed. Pr - is disoriented by fact that lies too far outside of his associations. Tr - applies understanding in his own person. Pr - is disturbed when understanding seems right, but does not yield good results when applied. Tr - may live in a kind of ‘monastery’ as a strategist. Pr - may be a ‘watchman on the walls,’ and an excellent tactician. Tr - does not push to see his understanding implemented. Pr - gets his most foundational principles or absolutes from others. Tr - throws away that which is no longer useful. Pr - can be a terrific pack rat. Tr - is an original thinker, but not really a leader. Pr - is a natural leader, but not really an original thinker. Tr - works on projects in sequence, one thing at a time.

the Teacher, and his emotional quest for order within complexity, at its peril. Here is a comment to Osama and his colleagues. We read in the Koran, his Holy Book: “There was a time when mankind were but one community. Then they disagreed among themselves: and but for a Word from your Lord, long since decreed, their differences would have been firmly resolved.” “And they ask, ‘Why has no sign been sent down to him by his Lord?’ “ “Say: ‘God alone has knowledge of what is hidden. Wait if you will: I too am waiting.’ ” A knowledge of personality styles is a word that resolves differences—it recreates community; it integrates those who walk in it. For a long time, it was hidden, and now it is decreed. If we wish, it may be a sign for which those who follow the Koran are waiting. This is the way to win a war against terror—not with bullets and suicide bombs, but with respect for others as human beings, and by “hurling Truth at falsehood until only Truth remains supreme.”

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

The historical material on the Teacher is excerpted from the following sources:


14. CLARK, RONALD WILLIAM Einstein: the life and times. New York, World Publishing Co. 1971. LERNER, AARON B. Einstein and Newton. Minneapolis, Lerner Publications Co. 1973. MANUEL, FRANK EDWARD A portrait of Isaac Newton. Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1968. PBS FRONTLINE: frontline/shows/oswald/view/



Teacher or Perceiver: 1. T(eacher) - concentrates more intensely as he tires. P(erceiver) - his thought free-associates and scatters as he gets tired. Tr - is emotional about his understanding. Pr - becomes non-emotional as he stands for principle. Tr - makes sweeping statements and ‘castles in the air.’ Pr - is more cautious and usually understates to avoid exaggeration. Tr - sees order—how facts fit together. Pr - sees disorder—facts that are out of place. Tr - tests sources of ‘truth,’ and learns that which seems correct. Pr - is open initially to all that seems useful.






20. 21.

4. 5.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
Pr - can do and learn a number of things in parallel. Tr - can continue, once he has started, until he literally ‘burns out.’ Pr - may procrastinate, or learn facts by rote. Tr - hates direct confrontation, but may take vengeance from a position in the background. Pr - welcomes conflict when it is forced upon him; suddenly everything is crystal clear. Tr - does not like to be interrupted until he has made his point. Pr - moves easily from subject to subject and can better tolerate interruptions. Tr - may prefer to use the telephone. Pr - would like a visual phone, in a soundproof booth. Tr - does not delegate his thinking to others. Pr - delegates meaningfully to those who agree with his principles. Tr - can appear proud to others, yet may work for years without recognition. Pr - generally appears humble, but hungers inside for honor and recognition. Tr - frustration can be accompanied by moods. Pr - bad self-image and conviction from conscience can also cause deep moods. Tr - seems intense and serious, but can be a real tease. Pr - may hide behind a screen of puns and humor. Tr - communicates theory primarily by lecture. Pr - shares the Big Picture of principle. Tr - leaves application to his listeners. Pr - calls for repentance that is demonstrated by action—now! Tr - works best in deep background, through others, perhaps as a theoretical strategist. Pr - responds to moral crisis; discerns tactics that defend Truth and Conscience.










31. 32.


Let’s look at the details. 1. T(eacher) - A strong innate ability to concentrate strengthens rather than weakens as he tires—hard focused study draws him eventually into a whirlpool of ever-increasing narrowness. P(erceiver) - As he becomes tired, thought in him ultimately free-associates and scatters—he loses the ability to focus his attention effectively. 2. Tr - A general understanding for him always involves feeling. When he is at his most theoretical, then he is potentially also most emotional—he finds delight in the elegant mathematical proof, the general law that explains complexity. This is a feeling which is quite different from the emotion of people and relationships. Pr - His thought becomes cold, clean, pure—and

totally non-emotional—whenever he stands most strongly for what is right. He is separate in these times from the emotion of people and relationships; he is no longer muddied by its influence. 3. Tr - He may make sweeping statements, especially when he is ignorant. Scattered facts are easily confabulated into grand ‘castles in the air.’ Pr - He is generally cautious, especially when he knows little. He will actually understate to avoid the sin of exaggeration. 4. Tr - He searches for order and consistency. He sees how things fit together. Pr - He looks for the discrepancy, the contradiction—the piece that does not fit. 5. Tr - He checks the sources of fact. Everything is filtered in the light of his internal general theories— only the good is accepted into his mind. Pr - He is open initially to everything. He can learn even from a five-year-old, if what is said appears to be useful, and he has not been let down by that individual in the past. 6. Tr - He is a ‘bottom-up’ thinker. He starts with fact, and from it he formulates theory that is more general. Here’s how it works. Suppose the Teacher knows nothing at all; perhaps he is a baby. He learns something—suppose the word ‘Mama.’ This word becomes a general theory that describes everything. The whole world is ‘Mama.’ Then he discovers that there is a person—Papa—that is not described by this theory. He responds by narrowing down the application of ‘Mama’ until it fits reality. It’s the same when he forms theories, except that his theories don’t need words—we might verbalize it as “A certain race rules the world,” or, “Big government is always out to get us.” He watches to see if the theory fits. When it doesn’t, then he feels emotionally bad. He is driven by this feeling to narrow down the application of the theory until there is order within complexity. Add recursion—the fact that theories themselves are generalized—and you have it. Pr - He is by nature a ‘top-down’ thinker.1 He uses the Big Picture—he needs to know it—to evaluate the accuracy of facts. He associates facts with principles; a kind of Lego-block structure pops into ‘view’ in his mind, and he plays with its pieces. When an overall Picture is lacking, then, if he is disciplined, he will turn to ‘bottom-up’ logic. Artificially he simuFacilitator strategy is ‘top-down’ in that it sets an orientation for attention, and filters Sensory Input in the light of the current pattern of thought. Perceiver analysis is ‘top-down’ in that it fits the current idea into a larger structure of thought—just as we place a jigsaw piece into its proper location in the puzzle. It’s evident that Facilitator strategy is well-suited to generate circles of reasonableness for Perceiver analysis.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
lates what comes naturally to the Teacher. Step by step, blindly, he puts pieces together, then he looks for the contradiction—this is the part that comes very easily to him. When things do not fit, then he tries again—and again. When discrepancy finally is absent, then he leaves it: “Let’s see if it stands the test of time.” He cannot believe that there are those—the Teacher in particular—who would operate in this mode of thought easily, consciously, by choice. 7. Tr - He thinks from the bottom up—he develops and builds things therefore in a linear fashion, piece by piece, step by step. He accepts only what fits into his generalizations: everything that he knows, therefore—as far as he is concerned—is accurate. Pr - He thinks from the top down—he learns therefore in multiple passes. The forest is evaluated first of all: “Is it wrong, or is it right?” He separates out smaller and smaller subsections, until finally he gets to the trees. He accepts everything: the wrong remains in the structure of his thought as a source for telling in the future what else is wrong; the moral good and right becomes a candidate for further subdivision. 8. Tr - He checks to see whether his frame-ofreference generates facts that are encountered in daily living; he senses when there is inadequacy. In response, he reduces the generality of concepts by restricting the range of application. When this does not help, then he looks for underlying misconceptions— he needs assistance at this point—he strips down the structure of thought to the place at which error has occurred, he removes what is wrong, and then he begins to build again at that point. Pr - He is often black and white. He labels facts; he has a strong sense of morals and ethics. If he senses discrepancy, then these labels are altered—we call it repentance. When this does not lead to healthy living, then he looks for lack of order in the Big Picture— here he needs help—he begins to alter his network of associations. Then, in the light of this knowledge, he re-labels principles—right becomes wrong, and he may admit that what appeared wrong in fact was right—there is repentance which now is more intelligent and meaningful.1 9. Tr - He lives in generalities; details to him are not that important. When he knows that he can generate things again from higher laws, then he feels free to forget them. At the same time, strangely, he often cannot see the forest for the trees. Pr - He lives in details; he evaluates them in the light of the Big Picture. He is therefore a master of trivia—every little fact is remembered. At the same time, he is the one who often knows the overall view. 10. Tr - He is gullible, as it turns out, to the prepackaged frame-of-reference. It provides a readymade mental home; he does not worry about details—he may not ever think it through for himself! Pr - He on his part is gullible to facts. Everything is accepted initially, it remains good until discrepancy is apparent—when the Big Picture is inadequate, then wrong is easily retained. This input in turn modifies the Picture; in time he cannot think accurately at all! 11. Tr - He is his ‘truth’; criticize his generalities and you touch his person, and this ‘self’ is emotional. It can make it difficult for him to learn from others. Pr - He is judged by his ‘truth’; he has a strong conscience. Interestingly, he welcomes criticism of his principles, when you do not move further to attack his person, for this immerses him in emotion.2 Alterations to the Big Picture, though, must be instant: he does not appreciate those who point out problems and leave him hanging—it abandons him to a state of transition. He does not always respond well, therefore, to the comments of another Perceiver—sensitive, like him, primarily to the discrepancy. 12. Tr - His thinking is abstract, non-pictorial; he cannot visualize things in more than two dimensions. Rotations and translations confuse him: “Let’s see. That’s at an angle of 145 degrees, and if we flip it and straighten it, then it looks like...hmmm, I’m not sure.” He easily writes things down on paper, therefore—it is two-dimensional—he would as soon watch something on a video screen as see it personally. Pr - He has a highly visual mind: he loves maps, charts and graphs. Geometry with its rotations and translations comes to him quickly; he makes an excellent engineer, medical doctor and computer scientist. It can be difficult for him, by the same token, to descend from mental three-dimensional views to the realm of paper—why not move directly from insight to action? 13. Tr - His mind breaks things down very naturally into primary components. It does this by noting change: he senses rhythm in music, for instance—it is a periodic alteration in volume; he appreciates pictures in which the edges of objects are sharply outlined. These elements, the segments between change, are mixed. Then, like the cars in a train, they are placed again into sequence. As a child, for instance, he learns to read best by Phonetics—sounds represent We’ll analyze this behavior more closely in our discussion of the ENTP. We’ll notice that criticism of the Perceiver’s most basic principles by definition is always personal; however, he enjoys playing mental games with less important axioms.

We will see later that if we do not develop and use the ‘repentance circuit,’ then we will become vulnerable to the ‘defining experience.’ This is a hypnotic takeover, by some event in the external world, of those parts of the mind which define ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’


Personality Profiles - More Detail
letters that join into generalizations that are words, which generalize further to sentences and paragraphs. On a higher level, he is good at picking out individual voices from among the many conversations in a noisy crowd. On yet another level, he breaks intellectual projects into tasks, chains them into a sequence—then does them, one at a time. He knows the order; he may be very wrong on the scale of the timing. Pr - His mind is sensitive to the association. It sees the similarity between one thing and another: in music, for instance, he appreciates harmony; he loves puns and other plays on words. He thinks therefore in parallel; he considers a number of concepts at once— he looks here for significance, rather than sequence as does the Teacher. The Perceiver-child, as a result, learns to read rather easily by the method of Look and Say—although he is thrown by inconsistency between overall spelling and phonetics. On a higher level, he can keep track of a number of conversations at the same time, although he tends to confuse them as voices vary in loudness. On yet a higher level, he operates on tasks in parallel, but concentrates on that which seems most essential at the moment. 14. Tr - Let us descend for a moment to sensory processing, prior to conscious thought. The Teacher, without knowing why, rejects facts from outside that are bad: he senses inconsistency between facts and theory. Why do we say ‘bad’ rather than ‘wrong’? Because facts that do not fit generate unpleasant emotion—it is the converse of the delight experienced when contemplating an elegant mathematical proof. It is this feeling that makes them bad. Consciously, as we have said, he thinks then in terms of order. Theory is fine-tuned until it is able to generate every fact that he knows. Pr - The Perceiver, without knowing why, rejects facts that are inconsistent with other facts and with past experience: “That is outside of the circle of possibility. I have never heard it before” and “I won’t listen to him; he let me down in the past.” Facts that pass through this filter are then placed into the Big Picture and checked, consciously, for discrepancy. In the absence of obvious contradiction he maintains circles of reasonableness: “This could be right. That is probably correct. I know this for sure!” He is not one who falls, therefore, for humor that leads him along—another may say, “There, I fooled you,” he responds, “I saw exactly the point at which your story became unreasonable. I was tracking it all the time.” 15. Tr - He is sensitive to order: it means that he can easily formulate a frame-of-reference that is too narrow, or which contains the redundant. To fix it, he would need to sense the discrepancy, and that is not his primary ability. If he defers challenges to this mindset, from those who are able to repair it, then he can cut himself off from whole sections of under-


standing. Pr - He senses discrepancy: he does it by comparing like things with like, and by looking at links. What if order is lacking, and there are no links? In the absence of mental association he cannot see the contradiction—sections of the Big Picture that are separate, therefore, develop in different directions. When this is not corrected, then over time he becomes intellectually many-sided; thoughts from different segments may actually begin to contradict each other. As we said, he is not sensitive to this lack of order. Interestingly, should a Big Picture be rejected in initial stages of analysis, then he can also cut himself off from whole sections of understanding. Teacher and Perceiver, as you may begin to conclude at this point, need each other. This material, for instance, is the result of interaction between myself and my Perceiverbrother. I explored facts, he generated related facts and altered what I said. I formed a principle, he noted discrepancy. I corrected the error and generated a theory, he pointed out the subtle redundancy. I dismantled my understanding to eliminate the error, and began again to rebuild. Neither of us could have done it alone. 16. Tr - He is disoriented by fact that cannot be explained by his mindset, and especially by the exposure of error in underlying presupposition. It is an emotional attack on him by the real world. Society in our day, though—outside of physics and mathematics—does not teach order within complexity; the Teacher therefore is often characterized by very deep frustrations. Pr - He is disoriented when he encounters fact for which he lacks a Big Picture—it causes him to procrastinate in his decisions. Going further, when a principle is shown to be wrong, then conscience is triggered. Society in our day, however, lacks absolutes and in fact teaches moral relativism; it means that the Perceiver is often characterized by serious procrastination and very deep guilt. His conscience cannot be eliminated, for it is part of the structure of his thought; it must develop, and so it forms in a twisted manner. Still, it is an internal taskmaster; this means that he can make his peace with it only if he resolves his moral dilemmas by himself. He cannot do it, and so he descends into cynicism. Yet even as he becomes certain that there are no rational answers, he will still react strongly when others try to do his thinking for him! 17. Tr - He applies understanding in his own person—the Teacher is not usually a hypocrite—he wants to see it implemented also in the external world, by others. It disturbs him when this is not possible. Pr - He checks fact in the light of the Big Picture, then in external cause and effect. When understand-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
ing and the real world are not in agreement, then it becomes his duty to act—to relabel fact, to fight Evil. His sense of justice is violated when things seem right in the light of understanding, yet externally they do not bring the correct result. True, he himself is sometimes a hypocrite; he wishes it were not so, but at least he can make sure that things match up in the external.1 The cynic is the one who loses faith that this correspondence is possible. 18. Tr - He sits in a kind of monastery, implementing intellectual goals and generating strategy; friends point out error; they implement his thought. His closest companions help to formulate his theory. Pr - He is a ‘watchman on the walls’ who knows which tactics will be most effective in the fight against Error. His friends are not hypocrites; they aid him in acquiring the Big Picture. He is closest to those who at some time have demonstrated ‘personhood’ in the ongoing struggle. 19. Tr - He is not one to implement his own theory— action extends to personal application, then to speech. Others apply things in the external; it is a safeguard— physical castles in the air can fall on people and hurt them. He responds with further thought as he sees others act. Pr - He is not one to formulate his own theory— his principles are ordered (unless he reverts to logic) by Teachers, Contributors and Facilitators. He finds it difficult, in fact, to shut out what they say. This also is a safeguard: if he could consciously formulate complexity into order, in place of getting it from others, then he might choose to leave this undone2 and lock himself away completely from a Big Picture. He responds as others share theory—he looks for the contradiction; he talks, then he initiates action. 20. Tr - He generally throws away that which becomes useless. Bank accounts are closed when they serve no purpose. Written material, when it is out-ofdate, goes into the wastebasket. Pr - He can be a terrific pack rat; he hates to throw things away. Perhaps there will be a use for it in the future: “Why close my options?” He can have multiple bank accounts. Notes are scattered here, there and everywhere. Things pile up in the attic, behind closed doors; somehow he feels that the useless will disappear over time by itself. Periodically he is overwhelmed by the mess, and then he may clean up— even ruthlessly. 21. Tr - Internally he is independent. He can operate in isolation for extended periods of time, and come up with theory that is genuinely new and different. Externally, he functions behind the scenes; he lacks the stamina to be a hands-on leader of people and projects. Pr - He is externally a natural leader and a pioneer. He sparkles with ideas and insights—he likes to see them tried. At the same time he is internally an associative thinker; he looks back to that which has already been done, or learned from others—his thought, therefore, is never truly original. 22. Tr - He usually narrows down to one specific area of interest at a time, in a search for order within complexity. Here, he works with facts that are consistent. He creates a generality that simplifies. This field of interest, at the same time, can straddle a number of otherwise separate disciplines. Pr - He studies things in parallel: music, engineering, theology, language families. He is open initially to all that seems useful. Areas of interest often line up, though, with normally recognized disciplines—this is especially true of the Perceiver who is many-sided. He is highly eclectic—his thinking ranges much more broadly than that of the Teacher. 23. Tr - He is capable of a genuine diligence; he continues until he burns out. By the same token he may do nothing at all—if the ‘emotion of theory’ has never been triggered in him. Occasionally one meets him: the street person with no real education, the clerk or assembly line worker in a boring or a repetitive job. Pr - Duty for him is a stern taskmaster; at the same time he easily procrastinates. His defense may be to subject himself to a rigid schedule—the clock forces him to act. There is a further side: he is good at remembering facts, our present educators teach him that this is his duty, and so he learns things by rote. He is not given the Big Picture—absolutes do not exist in our day—and thus he lacks the tools to think things through for himself. He becomes in consequence the highly disciplined intellectual genius, and the moral idiot. 24. Tr - He cannot think when the ‘emotion of people and relationships’ is stormy; it mixes with his ‘emotion of theory’ and confuses it.3 Thus, he hates conPure Teacher strategy is capable of unbelievable cruelty—it can literally dismember us, and laugh in mockery at our pain. However, the ‘Achilles heel’ of a Teacher person, which protects us from a full expression of this innate tendency, is his underlying Mercy sensitivity. If a Teacher person—who like all of us possesses six subconscious strategies in addition to the area where he

This is the mechanism behind religious compensation. For instance, the religious leader who has a secret addiction to explicit material is generally the person who most vociferously demands laws that restrict it. If control is conscious, then the choice is there to not do something. If the subconscious handles some activity, then the ‘action control switch’ is safely kept away from the conscious mind—the activity may not be done well, but at least it will get done.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
flict, and may lash out at those who involve him in it. Anger in him is a slow burn. He can cut people off for years. As a strategist, he may formulate complex plans of revenge—he hides in the background; you won’t know from where the blow originated. Pr - He upholds principle—when convinced that he is right, and that he will be effective. Often he stands at the center of conflict. He does it, though, with humor and charm: “What can I do in the face of Truth? It applies everywhere, you know—even to you.” He on his part feels anger when attacks become personal, and especially when he faces the false prophet. If you lack ‘personhood,’ then he may feel free to verbally destroy you. 25. Tr - He communicates whole concepts in his speaking; he does not like to be interrupted, therefore, before he has finished his point. He appreciates those who keep to the topic at hand. Pr - He can be like the owl on the fence: he watches and observes but says little. Other times he is a real ‘motor mouth.’ Speaking in some way helps him to think. He interjects things, he moves from topic to topic: if he does not say it, then he might forget it. He loves a genuine debate, with claims and counter-claims, as long as it stays away from the personal—this is how he fine-tunes principle. 26. Tr - He is very comfortable using the telephone. It takes away the need for face-to-face interaction, which is the realm of Mercy strategy, and reduces communication to Teacher words. He thinks more clearly when he is removed somewhat from the action. Pr - He is not at all comfortable with the telephone—the Perceiver-oriented Contributor, we should add, does not always have the same hesitancy. The Perceiver’s thinking operates in quick, intense bursts; it is three-dimensional—he feels restricted by a phone. Visual input from around him, moreover, conflicts with what is happening at the other end—it triggers the wrong associations, he is distracted. His dream would be a visual phone, in a soundproof booth. 27. Tr - He finds it difficult to delegate intellectual tasks to others. In the practical as well, he is not an effective man-manager. Pr - The giving to others of simple tasks is easy: is conscious—is cruel, then Mercy hurt under the surface of his person literally dissolves his ability to think. Incidentally, we see that non-violent resistance, employed against the cruelty of Teacher strategy, truly can be effective. For instance, young Israelis who have been brutal to Palestinians flee to beaches in Thailand, or to gurus in India; they are ‘scratched,’ and will not easily be cruel again. This linkage between Teacher and Mercy thought is the cause for their condition.


“Why should I be burdened by busy-work?” More difficult is the delegation of goals: “Get to here, I don’t care how!”—and especially the delegation of goal formulation itself. This is granted only to ‘persons’—who have assimilated his principles, and have proven themselves in experience. They receive as much liberty as they can handle, provided always that in exercising it they do not violate his principles. Should they fail, then he may step in quickly. He feels that he himself knows the point at which he must take initiative or even rebel—after all, he is sensitive to the discrepancy and the exception—yet he detests this independence when he encounters it in others. He understates his own ability; he can be taken in therefore by someone like the Exhorter, and then react with a distrust of all who are similar. Things around him are never truly organized, he has an inbuilt suspicion of the world of the bureaucrat. 28. Tr - He can appear proud: he walks independently, he applies what he knows, his attitude projects expectation. At the same time he can work alone for years when he must, without recognition. Pr - In contrast to the Teacher, the Perceiver, even the dictator, appears generally to be humble—he is only the messenger, it is the message that is important. At the same time he hungers for honor. Selfimage demands that in some way he accomplish that which is useful and significant—and have it recognized as such. It does not need to happen all the time, but it should occur often enough to sustain inner conviction. 29. Tr - He can fall into moods when his frame-ofreference is challenged, when he cannot apply what he knows, or when understanding is not implemented by others. He is frustrated at times by his own bent towards introversion. Past foolishness in particular can overwhelm him; he might mutter to himself and repeat words which he said. These moods and frustrations last for days and weeks; the antidote is an extended diligence that searches for order within complexity. Pr - He also falls into moods. At times they are triggered by some small incident of personal criticism or failure, an offhand feeling of uselessness. Perhaps self-image or a refusal to compromise principle are keeping him for a time from creative self-expression. However it happens, when one area is bad, then this badness spreads quickly, through associative links, to other sections. Suddenly he is no longer ‘OK’ inside. Black clouds descend onto his head; there are feelings of unworthiness, looming convictions of his own imperfection. At times these moods sustain themselves—as he slips into procrastination, for example, itself causing a sense of uselessness. Usually they give way rather quickly to his normal optimism, though, as he moves to other avenues of activity.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
30. Tr - He can be very intense and serious. Sometimes he will say what he thinks; other times he limits himself to the prevailing frame-of-thought—“Why should I fight with them? It will just stop me from thinking. I’ll shape my comments to their limited frame of thought”—or, if this is not possible, he may go quiet. Teasing and humor for him are escapes from frustration; those close to him are generally the ones who experience this side of his person. Pr - He also is preoccupied with ‘truth’: his interests are broad, he thinks in intense bursts. He can actually seem shy when confronted by facts that are new. You wouldn’t guess it; his seriousness is masked by a thin screen of puns and humor. He runs through his string of jokes, he searches for points of contact. He tells stories—then suddenly a comment is made. He connects, and he mounts his White Horse in preparation for verbal combat. 31. Tr - The one with understanding is highly skilled at presenting general explanations in a consistent and logical form. He communicates usually by lecture. His presentation tends to be somewhat theoretical and dry; at the same time his person is strong with some strange kind of new emotion, and he commands respect. Pr - The Teacher may not be able to reach you from his ‘monastery’ way out in the distance; the Perceiver from his place ‘on the walls’ is more able to give the overall view, the Big Picture. The one with wide networks of association—linking also between the separate compartments of his interests—is the best communicator of them all. He begins with facts that are accepted, then he links them in ways that are new. His focus on the discrepancy—it initially can make him appear negative—is countered now by positive solutions, and an optimism based in reality. He shares moral implications. He is a preacher, a reformer—and at times a revolutionary. 32. Tr - He leaves implementation of understanding to his listeners—he himself applies what he knows; they will also, presumably, without his help! He needs to think things through for himself; he passes on this freedom to his hearers. They may actually choose to do what is wrong—once ‘truth’ has been shared, then he will probably keep his silence. Pr - When a person’s lifestyle is based in wrong principle, without hypocrisy, then the Perceiver also keeps silent. What can he say? As understanding and application begin to diverge, though, he calls for change. He points out error; he urges repentance that is demonstrated by action—now! Others of course are free to choose as they wish; he will not violate ‘personhood,’ to the degree it is present. He retains the right to act himself, though, to fight what is wrong—if opponents get in the way, and they are hurt, then that is their problem. The false prophet who deceives others is defamed by him in every way possible—even publicly.1 It is his duty! 33. Tr - He realizes finally that he has a unique ability to study. It is something that others do not have. If the world lacks order, then it is his job to solve the problem and to generalize this complexity. He is the one who must abandon people-emotion, for another kind of theory-feeling, in order to find laws that will ultimately preserve the emotion of people and of relationships. He begins to work in deep background, through others, as a strategist. Pr - He realizes finally that he can do moral arithmetic; he is the arbiter of Conscience. If the absolute of society is that there are no absolutes, then personal survival demands that he confront this mindset and establish healthy axioms of thought—even when this is completely incorrect politically. He surrounds himself with issues and individuals that are moving in the same direction; he guides them tactically as the battle moves to and fro. He is a defender of Truth and ‘Personhood,’ a Knight in shining armor—fighting against Error and Evil. His warnings reinforce Conscience in the adversary, and this conviction itself turns into a kind of ‘fifth column’ that fights for him; it aids him. He knows that Truth, eventually, will win.

Contributor or Teacher: 1. 2. C(ontributor) - often feels scattered. T(eacher) - is highly unidirectional. C - has a memory like an elephant. Tr - has a poor memory for his past personal history. C - develops an area of expertise, extending at times into the intellectual. Tr - desires above all a unified mental frame-ofreference. C - loves hospitality. Tr - prefers a simple environment, and a few intimate friends. C - responds to challenge and adventure. Tr - loves routine. C - can be a real actor and mimic. Tr - can seem somewhat reserved.



5. 6.

I know by experience that a Perceiver can accept, as his most basic axiom, the ‘new age’ mantra that ‘the most basic principle is that there are no principles.’ This of course completely destroys his ability to think independently. A person with principles can be seen as a ‘false prophet,’ and attacked viciously. It’s like an ‘autoimmune disease,’ in which the body turns against itself!


Personality Profiles - More Detail
7. 8. C - loves puzzles and games. Tr - relaxes often by working with his hands. C - can enjoy telling the ghost story, or reading the detective novel. Tr - avoids that which is truly spooky or emotional. C - enjoys theater, ballet and symphony. Tr - does not generally have a deep appreciation for the fine arts. C - is a great practical joker. Tr - teases by pushing you toward subjectivity. C - dislikes small talk. Tr - appreciates meaningful conversation. C - can procrastinate with problems. Tr - cannot think properly when something needs doing. C - hates conditional acceptance. Tr – can be stifled by political correctness. C - finds it difficult to admit that he is wrong. Tr - can look objectively at his error, and admit it. C - can study a number of related topics in parallel. Tr - works on one thing at a time. C - strives to implement that which he has learned. Tr - leaves actual implementation of his thought to others. C - values education and is quick with facts. Tr - learns when his curiosity is aroused, and is slow in remembering facts. C - recognizes his position intellectually with respect to others. Tr - resists intellectual peer pressure. C - becomes a real professional in his field of expertise. Tr - lives according to his own internal standards. C - finds it easy to be himself. Tr - may try to act like those whom he admires, and never discover personhood. C - is highly competitive. Tr - may have an extremely challenging childhood. C - does not like to lead small group discussions. Tr - is not gifted at prodding the unmotivated. C - tells parables, illustrations, personal experiences and stories. Tr - gives illustrations from primary sources or from general laws. C - optimizes and explores that which others have developed. Tr - formulates understanding that is internally self-consistent. C - uses ideas in a variety of situations. Tr – continues to refine his theories. C - draws friends into partnerships. Tr - needs friends who share his thoughts.



10. 11. 12.

27. C - may be a loner in the midst of crowds. Tr - may retreat for a time to his ‘monastery.’ 28. C - can emphasize clothing and appearance. Tr - is generally utilitarian in his dress. 29. C - can suffer from poor self-image and drive in response for success. Tr - may at times be moody, frustrated and withdrawn. 30. C - is a natural leader and project-manager. Tr - is a frame-of-reference formulator. 31. C - may become a man of Faith. Tr - develops goals that deliver him, then others, from frustration. Let’s look at the details. 1. C(ontributor) - His personality is complex, and he knows it. Often he feels scattered—one part of his person here, another there. T(eacher) - He is highly unidirectional. Other than the fact that emotion within him fights with emotion, he has no such feelings. 2. C - He has a memory like an elephant. Events, conversations, facts, past experiences—all are accessed easily. At times it seems as if there is a camera hidden in his head—he knows precisely when someone has moved something on his desk. In the abstract as well, he recalls the details of business experience, and especially what everything cost. He may remember a small act of kindness for years. Tr - He has a poor sense of his own past history—all of it sits in a bag, as it were, with little feeling for sequence of time. The details of his childhood are vague, especially when his frame-of-reference has experienced changes. In place of memory for past events, he has an excellent sense for theoretical context. 3. C - He is disoriented around new techniques or conditions; he fears the unknown. He narrows down his interest to those areas in which he has expertise and ability: “Why should I learn something that I don’t need!” He wants to be useful and to experience success; he hates above all to fail. Tr - He is disturbed by facts that cannot be explained by his mental frame-of-reference. He concentrates on the precise issue that is not understood: “I don’t care whether or not I make money; I have to work it out.” He wants a unified understanding, and can see how facts might fit together to form theory. 4. C - A good part of his life is oriented around hospitality. His home is large—as finances allow it—and he loves to have people visiting for dinner. He may volunteer to host the office staff party, or the club or group social event. Tr - He prefers a simple environment, and a few intimate friends. Social events for him, when he is trying to think, can be somewhat distracting.

13. 14. 15.







22. 23.


25. 26.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
12. C - He can procrastinate with problems—the pain of involving himself somehow outweighs the benefits. Perhaps there is no apparent solution: “Whatever I do, I become a loser. If I leave things, then they may get better by themselves”—the business investment is left in limbo, he removes himself from the conflict with his mate or child. He can remain passive even when a solution is apparent: to fix things, he would have to admit past failure. In response, he may work hard in other areas, or perhaps try to buy his way out with gifts. Sometimes he just feels lazy: “I’ll work really hard in ten more minutes.” But those ten minutes never come! Tr - He prefers to live in a simple, relatively static environment: “If it isn’t broken, then don’t fix it. Leave it alone. Don’t go making work for me to do!” At the same time, if his mind is operating at all with theory-emotion, then he deals quickly with practical problems: he cannot think properly when something needs doing. The mess is cleaned up, and the broken repaired, so that he can get back to what is important. 13. C - He has a strong sense of social justice.1 He hates conditional acceptance. Tr - He cannot tolerate double-mindedness based upon political correctness; he stays away from those whose ‘truth’ depends upon circumstances or public opinion, and who cannot think for themselves. 14. C - He finds it difficult to apologize or to admit that he was wrong. He’ll argue with you; he may accuse you of the very thing that he himself is doing—on the theory that the best defense is a good offense. He may complain that you don’t care about him; you are hurting his feelings. Often, he has to learn things the hard way. People may call this pride; it isn’t—rather, it is a deep fear of personal rejection.2

5. C - He loves challenge and adventure; he enjoys seeing different places during travel. When excited about something, he can work from 16 to 20 hours a day. The housewife thinks often in terms of a career. Tr - He is a lover of routine. It is in the midst of the mundane that he gets the most things done. His diligence can be greater than his stamina—to avoid ‘burn-out,’ he may need others to inject variety into his life. 6. C - He is potentially a great actor, a master of mime; he knows exactly how to caricature the essence of another’s action or mannerism. It is a side of his person that is seen most often by those who are close to him. Tr - He shares meaningfully, when in a crowd, or he goes quiet. With friends he is ‘homey’; he can be a real tease. 7. C - He loves crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, and associative mental reaction games—when he wants to relax, and feels that he has the tools to compete effectively. If he lacks expertise, then of course he will not play at all. Tr - He is not generally one for games—especially puzzles. Physically his reflexes are surprisingly quick, but mentally he is slow—particularly where associative analysis is required. 8. C - He appreciates the detective story, the escape or adventure tale, the travelogue and Nature show, the macabre—again, to relax. He is the one who tells the best ghost stories around the campfire. Tr - He also appreciates the story with action—sirens wailing, police cars colliding. Destruction and mayhem, in which no one is hurt, is compatible with his sense of humor. He is not one, though, for the truly spooky or the highly emotional—it is too subjective. He laughs and thinks he is ‘OK,’ then suddenly he is not. 9. C - He enjoys theater, ballet and symphony. He also appreciates the escapism of the Perceiver: westerns, science fiction, computer programming and games. Tr - He likes the first act of a play, as a way to relax, and then he may be ready to go home. The whole performance can be entirely too much of a good thing. Good classical music, on the other hand, is often very relaxing. If he wrestles with a stubborn computer program late at night, then he may not be able to get to sleep. 10. C - He is a great practical joker; he faces you with a situation to see how you will respond. Tr - His teasing tends to be more verbal. He pushes you towards subjectivity. Both Contributor- and Teacherchildren can seem quite cruel. 11. C - He dislikes small talk, it has no result. He can also defer insignificant action: “What do I get for washing the dishes?” Tr - He appreciates talk that is meaningful—it is a sensitivity to the presence of meaning, rather than to the absence of usefulness, as in the Contributor. When interaction lacks meaning, then the Teacher goes passively quiet; his mind wanders elsewhere.

The Perceiver is most intimately linked to principles; however, he is quite willing to extend these standards into alternate reality. Contributor thought then builds upon this Perceiver analysis. It adapts underlying Perceiver principles into plans—this may partially destroy them, but it also links them very closely to reality. Thus, the Contributor as a cognitive style cares for social justice, in which Perceiver ‘truth’ is applied in the real world. There is some highly profound neurology here, and it won’t even begin to make sense until later. There are two ‘me’s—a ‘me of action’ in the temporoparietal junction, which works with the Contributor dorsolateral prefrontal, and a ‘me of identification’ which links to underlying Mercy strategy. In his planning, the Contributor is ‘dragging’ the ‘me of action’ away from the external; this creates a gap between the two ‘me’s, and this generates unhappiness, which is sensed by the insula. The Contributor in response wants others to treat him ‘nicely,’ no matter how he behaves, so that the two


Personality Profiles - More Detail
Tr - Theory-emotion in him feels really bad when his understanding is not able to predict and explain what is happening around him. He becomes disoriented. If you break through those ‘castles in the air’ and bring him face-to-face with disorder within complexity, then his very person will crumble. He will retreat into a corner; he won’t argue. People often feel that the Teacher is proud; you can see here that he isn’t—rather, he has the humility to search for ‘truth’ and then submit to it. 15. C - He is many-sided in his thought; he can investigate a number of theories at the same time, or even delegate this work to others. Opportunity, of every kind, must be brought to its full potential. He may feel guilty when he is not doing something. Tr - He is much more sensitive to sequence—he breaks intellectual projects into their component parts. These tasks line up one behind the other in his head; the order is right, the timing may be very wrong.1 He can ‘burn out’ as he analyzes them, step by step, without the help of others. 16. C - He can be a real intellectual, and seem much like a Teacher—in the movies he is caricatured as the leaderlogician with the white hair. He learns for a reason, though—to bring the unknown into the known where it can be controlled, to win renown in a field, to change the thinking of others. He covers his bases. Then, when he is finished, he fights to implement what is revealed: we see it in someone like Calvin of Geneva, for instance, or in a different field, Lenin of Russia. Tr - He learns facts and theory for their own sake—to acquire within himself a unified, self-consistent frame-ofreference. He will usually not take the offensive in a fight. Once something is developed, then it may be left on the shelf. 17. C - He values the acquisition of knowledge; in sheer weight of learning he easily outshines the Teacher. In games such as ‘Reach for the Top’ he is very fast with facts, even better than the Perceiver. Foreign languages, once he has acquired initial associations, come to him quickly; he learns a language as he is exposed to it, he can find it hard to study things in an abstract way. His home at times contains row upon row of books—on every conceivable subject. His children are taught the importance of an education. Tr - Curiosity must be triggered in him before he will learn. Languages do not come easily at all, he must work for what he gains—the fact that he must study makes him ‘me’s can again converge; when others don’t comply, then he senses this as personal rejection. The problem is actually within the Contributor himself, and in planning which is not consistent with sensitivity—if the Contributor ever realizes this fact, then it can be incredibly life-changing.
1 Teacher generalizations orient Contributor planning—we cover this in Compatibilities and Conflicts. Facilitator strategy then determines the timing.


an eventual master of grammar and spelling. When he is comfortable mentally, and in a safe environment, then he may actually cease his independent studies completely. His home contains fewer books; the ones that he does have tend to be more specialized and of higher quality. 18. C - He thinks naturally in terms of a pecking order; it makes him very aware of his position, intellectually, with respect to others. Interestingly, he compares up, not down—it doesn’t matter that he may be better than most others; he notices those who surpass him. When he has no education, then he feels insecure; he has a poor selfimage. When education is extensive and he truly is a leader in his field, then he can give off an air of superiority: Kissinger of the United States and Trudeau of Canada are examples. He would like to be known as a Teacher: the label sounds to him like a stamp of approval. Tr - He resists intellectual peer pressure; he will not play games of political correctness. On occasion he interacts with those who actually de-emphasize learning— even as he relaxes by working with his hands. True, the force of ‘who he is’ does project expectation to others, yet this is not consciously meant—it is not open as with the Contributor. Confronted by a child with a poor report card, for instance, the Teacher may easily assume that a drive for intellectual order will take over in time. He is willing to wait for it. The Contributor in contrast experiences vicarious failure in the person of his child—he may get quite concerned. 19. C - He is generally a professional in his field of expertise—be this literature, aviation, business, medicine, politics, theater, outdoor adventure, journalism, religion, sports or music. His standards are high—for himself, and for others. He senses pecking order, and rejoices therefore when he has joined the fraternity of those with the ‘right stuff.’ Often he is reluctant initially, for this reason, to identify himself as a Contributor. Will he be in good company? Can he be proud of his label? Tr - His standards are internal: he wants intellectual order. In maturity he identifies with his understanding— alone when he must, surrounded then by those who are like-minded. Adherents of pecking order may say that a person who stands apart from them is proud, and then give the Teacher as an example; he would disagree: “Pride,” he says, “is group-thinking that is too highminded to submit to the ‘truth’ of order within complexity. Pecking order,” he continues, “uses a feeling that is completely incompatible with the theory-emotion that I value. I despise it.” 20. C - He has little problem becoming himself in at least some area of his potential. It is in fact this very predictability, as documented in history, that allows the details of his style to be delineated so clearly. The range is wide—from the classic description of the Contributor as given thus far, in its extreme turning into the Contributor-god, to something more like the Perceiver, or the Server, or even the Teacher, as we have seen in this sec-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
22. C - It takes effort for him to adjust to the words of another. He assumes that others have similar problems: when he has something to say, therefore, he ‘sits them down and discusses’ things. He wants their full attention so that they will be free to adjust to his words and to think. He finds it particularly difficult to lead small group discussions—the continual shifting of attention exhausts him. Tr - He finds it relatively easy to shift attention between concepts—as long as each thought is considered properly, and communicated in its entirety. He can do well at leading small group discussions—when interest is present, and all are talking about the same thing. Unlike the Exhorter, he is not gifted at prodding the unmotivated. 23. C - Public speaking ability, like language itself, is picked up over time through experience. The Contributor can be a scintillating lecturer and instructor—when he is prepared, and in a controlled situation. He tells parables, illustrations, personal experiences; in relating stories he is excelled only by the Mercy. He knows how to work a crowd: he senses the need and he speaks to it. The Contributor-scholar, in contrast, if he has learned without a corresponding freedom to share, can be somewhat distant, plodding and halting in speech, even when his notes are excellent. The lecturer who takes a sabbatical may need to practice his presentation again; if he feels insecure, then he can find himself becoming a writer. Tr - He has a highly developed sense of analysis: he can order things so that the complex becomes simple. His illustrations are usually from primary sources; his words are based in general laws. The Contributor worries about the reaction of others; the Teacher concerns himself more with the accuracy of what he is saying—he can be totally oblivious of his listeners. He is not a natural writer: it is difficult for him to state things succinctly, and eliminate the extraneous. 24. C - The Contributor, like the Perceiver, is an associative thinker: he looks for links between things—‘facts’ of the Perceiver in him become raw material for interconnected Plans. He gathers thoughts and concepts from everywhere, and puts them together in ways that are more efficient—it means that he is never genuinely original; he is rather a collector and optimizer of that which others have done. He looks for implications; he checks aspects that remain unexplored. Tr - He can formulate theory that departs radically from current understanding. The old may be dismantled completely and built up again into something utterly novel. 25. C - His work in the intellectual can remain frozen once it is formulated: Calvin, for instance, took his Institutes through many revisions, yet never, in his lifetime, altered its basic form. The Contributor likes to ‘use up’ his ideas: he may quote himself from one book to another; Bach in music, for example, used similar themes in

tion. The breadth of this control enables the Contributor to be uniquely passive as well, as we will see in our comparison of the Contributor and the Server. Tr - The Teacher develops his person as he discovers order within complexity, using a different kind of emotion—it has not been done thus far outside of physics and mathematics. Details of his style, for this reason, have been derived to some extent from symmetries and theoretical considerations. 21. C - He is highly competitive. In the face of opposition he emerges from his corner and fights. He can be argumentative; he demands the last word. You can imagine the tensions that this might generate in the Contributor-child. He wants always to win, yet initially he needs the guidance and care of his parents—and knows therefore that for a time he must lose, to them. Parents who are wise in fact set limits, even artificial ones, as targets for the child to attack. You can count on it: the child will test them, methodically, in every conceivable way. Parents watch. Each violation receives specific, measurable, predictable, consistent and reasonable consequences, carefully set out beforehand, administered with love and a gentle firmness. When guidelines are seen truly to be child-proof, then the youngster begins to respect those who are formulating them; he becomes secure under their protection—parents, it might be added, learn to keep these rules to a minimum, and to avoid fights where possible. Handled unwisely, the Contributor-child is uncontrollable—it happens easily when one of the parents is also a Contributor. This kind of a youngster may choose finally, when nothing else works, to fail in his studies, or to sacrifice what parents consider to be ‘moral purity,’ on purpose, in order to humiliate his parent-competitor. The Contributor-child can also be a deep joy, as I know personally: tender self-image, when it is healthy, brings great sensitivity. Tr - He has strong opinions and is independent—but in a more passive way. As a child he can also be a trial. He is easily frustrated—it takes time to learn the theory that sustains him in his adult life—his response may be to poke at siblings in ways that seem cruel. You reach him by logic; he hates emotional subjectivity, yet at the same time he needs genuine relationships of closeness. It is a fine balance. If parents step outside of it, then he can cut them off and behave independently—and thus at his age, inappropriately. Family conflict generates long-term problems: a healthy lifestyle is difficult to assimilate, especially for the male, when he does not respect the example of parents. It may be relevant at this point, incidentally, to insert what could be a genetic quirk: we have observed that the Teacher child often seems to have a Mercy parent—in many cases it is the mother. Now think about that! The Teacher uses one kind of emotion to develop theory; the person who most strongly uses the other kind of feeling is the Mercy, and a woman possesses it most strongly. That is a very volatile mix!

Personality Profiles - More Detail
many variations and situations. Tr - He may continue to refine his theories. A single fact that does not fit can alter the form of everything else; he may not ever get finished. 26. C - He draws friends into partnerships. They become equals, and benefit with him from opportunity. Tr - Friends are those who share his ideas. They become like Family. 27. C - He can become a loner in the midst of crowds, especially when underlying guilt is not resolved. If he opened up, then he might get hurt and lose. An aura of mystery gives him power over others—his actions are not understood: he is unpredictable, and therefore he must be taken into account. Tr - The one who walks alone mentally can for a time be isolated physically as well, off in a corner by himself. He studies—or else he reverts to passivity, within the emotion of people and relationships, like the others. Natural family is always delighted when the Teacher gives up—finally he is becoming ‘normal.’ They are kind to him and include him in social events; they set him up in their pecking order, they ask his opinion in conversation that is politically correct. It enrages the Teacher: “How could they be so disrespectful of theory-emotion? It is my person, and I am hurting. Don’t they care?” He in response may be unkind back to them. This is not understood. 28. C - He can dress ‘to the hilt’—when strength, looks or beauty are his measure of success. His appearance is ‘bionic’: the latest fashions, hair done impeccably, and above all, that supreme air of confidence. He likes the ‘fast life,’ and when things pall, then he is the one who takes cocaine—he trades feelings of confidence, in an altered world of illusion, for their lack in reality! At the same time he despises himself for losing control. Tr - He is generally utilitarian in his dress. He has a few good clothes; it is enough. If he finds a shirt or pants that he likes, he may buy several, exactly the same. 29. C - He can have the most terrible self-image. He suffers at times from real feelings of inadequacy. Every failure leaves its scar. He blames himself for the mistakes of others as well: the child whose parents get divorced, for example, can feel himself as the cause. Sensitivity to pecking order amplifies this: he is crushed, especially when he is young, by the rejection of those who seem more able; he may obey peer pressure rather than parents to gain acceptance. The Contributor-youngster, for these reasons, requires continuing affirmation—along with those precisely defined limits. He may need, like the Mercy, to be protected for a time from peers: this could perhaps mean home schooling in early years. When the right environment is lacking, then he can withdraw into himself, away from people into Nature, or compensate perhaps with a fascination for dangerous adventure—almost a daring of death. He may become the workaholic as well, driven by


ambition, determined to succeed in his chosen field.1 Tr - The Contributor, when he fails, hides within and heads for success. The Teacher may be pressured by moods and frustrations into ‘self-censorship’—he will cut himself off from involvement. Generally, he cannot emerge until he has dealt with the theory-emotional causes. 30. C - He is a natural leader; he likes to be in control. He must choose: he can guard the sensitivity of peopleemotion and the understanding that comes from theoryemotion—yes, these things are in him, and they are at the root of his person; when he does this, he will gain confidence. Or, he can fight for control2—seemingly god-like, often angry—and turn eventually into a Napoleon, Nietzsche or Hitler. Tr - He works best behind the scenes, in and through others. He can do his homework and find purpose. Or he can make sweeping statements from an inadequate base, cut off those who resist him, and then withdraw into himself. 31. C - He becomes a man of Faith. He projects almost a ‘reality distortion field’; it draws others into its influence: “You too can succeed!” Tr - He becomes strong in ‘Hope’—it is a strange kind of expectation, which uses excitement that is based in theory-emotion. Self-assigned intellectual projects sustain him; they deliver him from frustration. Study on his part lays foundations of understanding that enable others also to advance further. They implement his understanding in action!

The Server, and he would be the first to admit it, is not a natural leader—his abilities lie elsewhere. One unfortunate result is that we cannot learn about him from history. Server-traits were derived, therefore, from an examination of the Contributor and the Facilitator, who
1 These descriptions were written in 1986, before we encountered MBNI. It’s evident in this paragraph that we are mixing together a number of different MBNI modes. It’s the reverse problem to MBNI—that theory doesn’t know what to do with varying cognitive styles. The two approaches of cognitive style and MBNI in fact interlock intimately. Only when they are considered together in combination, as is done in this book, is it possible to generate a complete picture.

‘Fighting for control’ means forcing everything in the environment to alter so that the Contributor’s ‘me of identification,’ as it links to the external, can move closer to his ‘me of action,’ so that he may be happy. Anger is ‘brute force’ hypnosis—it takes over Exhorter drives in others, and inserts ‘post hypnotic suggestions.’ Yes, we will cover all of this eventually.



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. likes to be part of another’s success. has strong emotional stability. makes a great companion. feels disoriented in the face of long-term challenge. does not always know how to say ‘no.’ is not a fighter. does not generally like to do public speaking. relaxes often with light reading. finds it easy to become himself. can find it difficult, in contrast, to develop his entire personality. may not seem very intellectual. can decide to finish a task even when the need has changed. eventually makes people more important than tasks.

in part exploit Server-thought, and from a comparison with the Teacher, who in some ways is similar. These characteristics were confirmed by observing Serverpersons in real life. The Contributor, as it turns out, can restrict his personality to an expression of Server-traits. The Server is quite happy being what he is; the Server-oriented Contributor definitely is not—and of course can do something about it, if he wishes. We’ll discuss this further in the ISFJ section. The Server: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. likes to have a place for everything, everything in its place. enjoys working with his hands. learns skills and techniques. likes things to be tidy. wants to know the ‘reason why’ for his actions. likes to be prepared, in a general sort of way, for what may come up. hates moving. sees things that need doing. responds well to authority. learns by example. has a good memory for his own personal past history. is curious about his surroundings. asks for illustrations. is quite adaptable. goes to the expert when something is not turning out right. needs appreciation. is not generally a leader or project-manager. lives in the present. is attracted to groups. has a high tolerance for the repetitive task, when it is appreciated. needs to feel that he is a part of the group. is very loyal. does tasks one at a time. can be rather quiet. has real physical stamina. does not like to be disturbed in the middle of a task. may choose to do what is necessary rather than what is enjoyable. likes to do a task in his own way. does not delegate. likes to have others over to visit. does not experiment with something that is working. can feel ‘black and white’ about things. has a quiet ‘presence’ that demands respect. can be jealous of his ‘own’ room or working area. may hesitate to re-evaluate his commitments. enjoys the honor that comes with appreciation.

Let’s look at the details. 1. The Teacher needs a unified mental frame-ofreference. You in contrast want a place for everything, and everything in its place. The items in your home or workshop must be tidy and ordered—or you feel messy inside. Unlike the Exhorter, you seldom lose something completely; at most you misplace it: you know exactly where to begin looking for it when it is gone. 2. You like to work with your hands. When you are visiting someone else, for example, and cannot help, then you feel frustrated. If something needs doing, and you cannot get to it right away, then it disturbs you all day. It is almost as if a part of your mind has locked up and cannot think. 3. The Teacher when he is young has a real curiosity: he collects facts and more facts until he has enough to build general principles. In maturity he lives in those generalities; he enjoys making deductions and predictions. You as a youngster learn skills and techniques. You collect tools; you use your hands, you try things. Your dream, as an adult, is to have a fully equipped tool shed, kitchen or garden of your own. From this base of service you reach out, like the Teacher, to meet the needs of others. 4. The Teacher rethinks theory when there is inadequacy; you are similar in realms of the practical. When the order in your home, workshop or place of service falls below a certain point, then suddenly it is time to clean up. You move from one section or room to the next; it feels good to look at it when it is done. 5. The Teacher applies what he knows—theory is implemented in his person into action. Similarly, something in you wants to know the ‘why’ for what you do—personal action must have a basis in theory. You are not interested, though, in learning the useless. When someone gives you fact that you feel is

Personality Profiles - More Detail
unnecessary, then you tune it out: “Don’t bother me with that. I will never need it!” 6. The Teacher pulls back from involvement when understanding is not ‘OK.’ In a similar way you also can stop helping others, when you encounter a lack of preparedness in your home or workshop. “Don’t bother me now,” you say even to those with needs, “Can’t you see that I’m busy. I’ll help you when I’m ready, after I’m finished.” If things continue in disorder over time, then you also are affected emotionally; you too find it hard to look others in the face. 7. The Teacher is disoriented when his frame-ofreference is challenged; you on your part hate moving. The thought of a relocation of your things to some other place, even when it is nearby, can make you physically ill. 8. You are always sensing things that need to be done. You look. You see what should be. You come up with a step of action to restore what is lacking, you do it, then you look again. Wherever you are placed, you reach out from your base of service—and bring your own particular kind of practical order. 9. The Teacher tests his sources; you like to be under the guidance of those whose example you can respect. You respond well to authority. Those over you sense it: as a child you can easily become the teacher’s pet. 10. You learn by example. You watch another working with his hands, and your mind formulates his action into steps that you yourself can follow. Before you know it, you have acquired his skills. You pick up and play tunes easily by ear; you develop musical style as you listen to those with expertise. 11. The Teacher remembers the essence of what he has heard or said; you recall what you have seen and done—not details, but the essentials. It makes you very aware of your own past, especially as it relates to tasks. History as an abstract subject, we might add, becomes enjoyable as you experience it personally: field trips in school are important. 12. The Teacher explores concepts in the intellectual; you discover what is new in the world around you. When your home base is ordered, then perhaps you think about traveling. You may learn a new skill or acquire another tool. 13. You find it difficult to learn consciously apart from examples. You need to see things—should someone give you a principle or a theoretical statement, then your immediate response is: “Show me! Give me an illustration!” 14. It makes you very adaptable: you move easily in directions suggested by others. You are, in fact, an ideal marriage partner—you can make a success of it with just about anyone! The Teacher who has you as a mate is particularly fortunate. You add balance and variety to his life.


15. Interestingly, you find it hard to diagnose your own mistakes. When someone shows you how to use a breadmaker, for instance, and you feel it is not turning out, then you go back to your instructor and ask, “Why? Show me!” You cannot always figure it out for yourself. 16. You find it difficult also to sense the importance of your own contribution. You have a desire to please, yet others must tell you that this is helpful. You need from them the Big Picture, and the part that you have played—it is the way in which they show their appreciation. 17. The result is interesting: you do not rise above your examples—you are not capable of it (unless you yield control to subconscious modes of thought), nor do you wish it. You are the unsung hero of history; like the Teacher, you operate behind the scenes. Balancing this, as we will see, is a tremendous emotional stability. 18. You live in the Here and Now. The Teacher thinks in terms of present theory, and is known therefore as a long-range thinker: analysis on his part is inherently timeless. It is strange, for he himself ignores past history, practical details of his present existence, or even future projects—except as they relate to present thought. You on your part, in a similar way, are conscious of current tasks and needs. Others see you therefore as a short-range thinker—or at times, when they do not understand you, even as a non-thinker. It again is strange, for you are always learning skills and acquiring tools that will increase your effectiveness in the future. 19. Like all of us, you need excitement and challenge. You are not equipped, though, to generate these for yourself—you live in the Here and Now, you look to examples; you deal with what is, not what could be— others need to provide it for you. You are attracted therefore to groups: those in authority become your examples, you watch at the same time and learn from your peers. In a group you are useful—you receive appreciation there as well. 20. You are not easily bored. You do not consciously learn from your activity—it does not matter, therefore, when your actions teach you nothing new! Activity becomes different for you when the need is different: you love Nature for this reason, people, farming—you can repeat the seemingly repetitive task for days and months and never get tired of it. The same task is meeting differing needs, and this is sufficient variety. Details of housework—when they must be done, your effort is appreciated, and the family is moving with purpose—are not as abhorrent to you as they might be to others.1 By the same token, you do
1 It’s like the Exhorter. If he can teach the same thing to different people, then it is different. Similarly, if you


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
not appreciate tedious work with computers or technology: environment as well as task remains fixed. 21. Appreciation is particularly important. When others forget to communicate the importance of your contribution, then suddenly you feel used, no longer essential. The group of which you are a part is going its own direction and leaving you behind—to do the busy-work! Suddenly you are very sensitive to the mundane! 22. You yourself are very loyal to those you serve— when they are worthy of respect, and part of a group with purpose. You give commitment, like the Teacher, that ‘signs in blood’; once you become a part, then you find it hard to say ‘no.’ 23. Like the Teacher, you have a sense of sequence— you easily work out the order in which things must be done. You visualize the example, you look at what is before you, and suddenly you know what is next. Often you write a do-list; it feels good to check things off when they are finished. You are good at arithmetic—not logic, calculus or geometry, but numbers. You cannot imaginatively alter the real, as can the Contributor, but you can set it forward or back in time: if you are planning a trip, then the history of places you will see becomes suddenly enjoyable. 24. As in the Teacher, this sense of sequence is derived from a feeling for transition and change: you are aware of the outlines of objects, for instance; you like silhouettes. As a child you learn quickly to draw within the lines. You are oriented towards Vision rather than Hearing; at times you can be very quiet. 25. The Teacher is diligent; you have a physical stamina that can keep you going for hours—in combination with a practical mind and a tolerance for the mundane, it makes you, under competent supervision, into a great elementary school teacher. Other tasks are there in your thought, or on your do-list, but you work on the one at hand until it is completed. Your standards are high: deadlines will suffer when quality is genuinely at stake. Like the Teacher, you wonder why others are so lazy: “If only they would get busy, things would take care of themselves.” 26. Like the Teacher, you do not like to be disturbed in the middle of something. You have your own way of working; you can be very stubborn in resisting the interference of others. Certainly you do not like things sprung on you suddenly; it violates what is in your mind. Between projects, though, you are flexible— you can be persuaded easily, in times of transition, to do the entirely new. 27. A desire to finish what you start generates a sense of duty. If something on your list needs doing, it can keep you from other activity that is more enjoyable. You see the short-term: you may work on smaller tasks first, and leave the bigger job for last. 28. You communicate through the completed task. The Teacher does not like to be interrupted when he is thinking or talking; he feels used when people ask for information but defer his analysis of it. You feel something similar when people want your help, but do not give you the freedom to apply your own individualized skills and methods. As with the Teacher, this kind of interference quickly transforms meaningful activity into busy-work. 29. Like the Teacher, you find it difficult to delegate. If your own hands have not done something, then you are not sufficiently familiar with it. It is as you do things that your mind moves further: it would be impossible for you to stand back and to communicate the required steps of action in advance to others. 30. Your home can be a real center of social interaction. You join groups elsewhere; you bring selected individuals back to you. You are prepared to serve visitors—you appreciate it when others come over, you include those with needs. Guests keep you in touch with the outside world; they bring excitement, they give you a feeling for the overall flow of events. You especially like to share with your small circle of close companions. Hospitality on your part is meaningful—and it is always appreciated by others. 31. You are not one, though, to experiment on your guests. As a housewife, for instance, you may have a fixed number of recipes; unlike the Facilitator, you do not alter them—you simply are not equipped to finetune the results. What you know is learned from others or from cookbooks, then tried personally on the family and proven reliable before it is used elsewhere. As a husband, similarly, you have tools in your workshop that are ‘tried and true.’ The fancy and gadgetfull machine does not attract you; should you be forced in any case to buy it, then you get lessons on its use before you make it available to others. 32. Let us digress for a moment. The Teacher, we have said, is sensitive, he hates conflict—under the surface of his person, that is, lie Mercy-traits! That is what we mean when we speak of the emotion of people and relationships, and contrast it with theoryemotion—people- and relationship-emotion is Mercy feeling. The Mercy studies widely, he learns from those he respects—under the level of his awareness are Teacher-traits. It means, parenthetically, that the world cannot eliminate the Teacher and his theoryemotion without also destroying a part of its own subconscious. The Perceiver, beneath the surface, has Server-traits; his hands are often playing with something—concepts must be useful; he can hurt himself, in fact, as he moves strongly, apart from conscious thought, to implement ideas. You, below the surface, have Perceiver-traits. They come across as aspects of

need to do the same actions repeatedly, to help some group progress forward, these also are seen as different.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
confidence; you cannot reason with them or turn them off. They are trained over time, by your environment. 33. Like the Perceiver you are sensitive, for instance, to ‘personhood’—others are awed at times by your quiet ‘presence.’ You feel duty to those you serve, it adds to duty that finishes the task; there is loyalty towards friends—no one gets between you and your companions. The other side is there as well: the Perceiver lives easily in alternate realities; you can restrict yourself to spheres of service that are comfortable. You may be the mechanic, for instance, living for the cars that you renovate in your garage, tuning out the needs of others. The Perceiver does not always think, he may procrastinate: you, the potential ‘neat freak,’ can live passively in the midst of a mess, or float through life as a responder. It takes effort to think; you may choose not to be tidy. 34. The Teacher narrows down as necessary in a search for order; you consciously choose practical neatness in some restricted sphere. At the same time, below the surface of your awareness, is many-sided Perceiver strategy. It wants to roam and to pioneer further. Yes, you hate moving, but you also love the occasional trip, when your base is secure. 35. The Perceiver and the Mercy become manysided, and even fragmented, when there are too few links and associations. You and the Teacher, in a parallel manner, can shop for the ‘pre-packaged frame of thought.’ Just as the Teacher confabulates so that he can bring order to completion, so loyalty on your part may be unthinking; you can hesitate to re-evaluate your commitment. You want to be useful, and so you may end up being ‘used.’ 36. Appreciation for you, we have said, is the communication of the Big Picture and your value within it. Reinforcing this, from below your awareness, is a desire for honor. You genuinely need to be recognized. It gives you the potential for a strong selfesteem. 37. The Perceiver is ambitious; he wants ‘personhood’ and uniqueness. In you this is released in a different way. You do not want to be in charge: it would be life without an example. You long to be a part, rather, of some other person’s significance and success. Let me add that this is why there are so few Servers who excel in history! And I’m going to add a further parenthetical aside: The Server’s part of the mind, in the Contributor, is the segment that does the highest kind of abstract mathematics. It is fully involved in the Teacher’s theorizing. Why is it restricted to practical tasks in the Server? Why does it operate in him at seemingly such a basic level? Here is my guess. There are two modes of Server thought. We are looking at one here. The other can only be entered through a long process in which subconscious modes


of thought are trained in sequence, one after the other. The Server is so tied to the practical by his current mode of thought—the situation is so stable—that he simply will not allow it to happen. If it was done, however, then suddenly the lights would turn on in the Server, and the world might see something that it has never seen before. 38. You do not wish to rise above your examples— yes, that is exactly the problem—it frees you from many of the worries of others. You like what you are; it gives you a strong emotional stability. 39. Interestingly, this stability means that you do not have much of an inherent sense of humor—for we play in humor with areas that are sensitive, and you lack these. At the same time you are a great companion. Your relaxed solidness acts often to buffer the instabilities of those around you. 40. Stability in you, though, is not absolute. You hate moving. Family members that are untidy disturb you—as wrong thinking in family does the Teacher. You are disoriented by a lack of skills or tools—it keeps you from putting things into order. You feel abandoned, moreover, when one who is an example proves suddenly unworthy. You are especially affected by the death of a capable marriage partner. Suddenly you are faced with long-term challenges— you, who operates in the Here and Now, and trusts others to make those decisions for you. For a time you may not know how to cope! 41. You can also experience frustration. You follow others, you want to please them, you desire appreciation—you are driven easily, therefore, by expectation. You refuse to say ‘no,’ then you feel pressured as things pile up. You work madly to finish assignments; it leaves you no time to watch and to copy. Duty becomes your taskmaster—you may actually stop learning! A highly competitive environment, for this reason—a university for example—can actually retard your education. Your employer needs to be sensitive to your limitations. Parents or your marriage partner at times may need to protect you. Another aside: How is the Server to be educated into a further mode of thought when he is so difficult to train, and it is so easy and pleasant for the rest of us simply to ‘let him be’? It will be a real challenge for educators. 42. Like the Teacher, you do not take the offensive in a fight. You project expectations of tidiness, yet you do not force the issue. When the sight of another’s ‘mess’ becomes too painful, then you move elsewhere. Or, when this is impossible, you establish order in some smaller area that is especially ‘yours.’ 43. You are not one for public speaking. With guests you can be vocal enough, but you do not like to be the Authority, especially when it involves speaking. Your talking therefore, when you do it, is based in the instruction of others, it gives examples and ‘how-to’s


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
that are tested, it shares personal experience. Others, for this reason, find it very easy to listen! 44. The Teacher rests by working with his hands. You in contrast relax with light reading or study— biographies of real individuals, ‘how-to’ books, personal experiences and testimonies, stories that are true. You may even involve yourself briefly in theory, especially as it relates to the practical—and look for a time almost like a Teacher. When you are rested, though, an extension of this work in the theoretical becomes abhorrent to you—there is no conscious analysis, and thus no long-term fulfillment. 45. The Teacher can imitate others in his environment; he finds it hard to become himself. You have a strong, Perceiver-like self-image under the surface—it gives to you a sense of your own ‘personhood.’ You look to the example of others—as the Teacher is tempted to do—then you duplicate their actions. You are oriented towards the practical; it is easy for you to become yourself. 46. This can be a disadvantage. The Teacher, in times of passivity and frustration, develops underlying parts of his person—as he copies others, perhaps— when he finally becomes active, he retains what was learned. You must work harder to develop, and then maintain, those parts of you that are submerged. 47. People do not generally understand the Teacher as a servant: formation of theory and its communication to others is not considered to be activity—the assumption is that service involves action. Similarly, you are not always understood as a Thinker. Discernment of needs, and the formulation of steps to meet those needs, is not seen as intellectual! 48. To begin with, you can be somewhat pushy—you see needs and meet them, whether or not recipients desire this service. You finish tasks, even when the needs change: “Don’t disturb me in the middle of something.” 49. In maturity, people are more important than tasks. A quiet strength develops, beneath the surface, which is seen by others. It demands appreciation; in subtle ways it lends dignity and keeps you from being used. You become sensitive to the real need, you pick and choose among tasks—and when for some reason appreciation is lacking, then you are able to accept this as well. Others view you, like the Teacher, as a source of stability: “I can trust him. He is solid.” tion of yourself rather in the Teacher, then you may be a Facilitator, not a Server.

Server or Mercy: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S(erver) - thinks in terms of the practical. M(ercy) - thinks visually, in pictures. Sr - likes to see everything in its place—order. M - sees the thing that is out of place—disorder. Sr - senses practical needs of others. M - identifies with others. Sr - lives easily with a bit of disorder. M - can be meticulously clean, a perfectionist. Sr - hates moving. M - does not like to leave familiar surroundings. Sr - asks for illustrations. M - wants to know ‘who’ you are talking about. Sr - likes to try something before he learns about it. M - learns from experience. Sr - does one thing at a time. M - can do a number of tasks at once. Sr - hates to be interrupted in the middle of something. M - leaves one task for another, when it becomes more important. Sr - works well without supervision. M - can be lazy when there is no pressure. Sr - does not experiment with something when it is working. M - may find it difficult to adjust to what is new. Sr - asks for advice when something goes wrong. M - thinks back, when something goes wrong, to what worked before. Sr - is emotionally stable. M - can become emotionally involved. Sr - needs others to provide excitement and purpose. M - is himself a real source of excitement. Sr - has a sense of delight rather than a sense of humor. M - loves to laugh and to tell stories to friends. Sr - likes to be part of another’s success. M - can hunger for personal fame and recognition. Sr - does not delegate. M - finds it difficult to delegate in a balanced way. Sr - cannot always say ‘no.’ M - may find it hard to defend himself against those who find fault. Sr - has a real respect for the one whose life is an example. M - learns from the example of those he respects.

8. 9.

10. 11.


13. 14.



17. Clue One: If your marriage partner or best friend is a Server, but you are not, then you yourself may be a Teacher, Facilitator, Contributor or Mercy. You are probably not a Perceiver or an Exhorter. Clue Two: If you see in yourself many of the traits of the Server, then look also at the Perceiver and the Teacher. If Perceiver-personality describes a part of you, then you are a Contributor, not a Server. If you see a por-



Personality Profiles - More Detail
20. Sr - learns best as part of a group. M - responds to the environment surrounding a group. 21. Sr - sees what needs doing. M - can develop high standards that keep him continually busy. 22. Sr - has a high tolerance for repetitive tasks, when they are necessary and appreciated. M - identifies with others and does for them what is necessary. 23. Sr - does not like to be manipulated by ‘false’ appreciation. M - wants appreciation to come from the heart. 24. Sr - develops in self-esteem as he experiences success. M - has a sensitive self-concept, and can feel ‘unlovable’ when he is hurt. 25. Sr - enjoys the relaxation of dining out. M - loves the atmosphere of dining in a restaurant. 26. Sr - can be somewhat stodgy or ‘dowdy’ in his dress—it’s comfortable. M - may respond strongly to changing fashions. 27. Sr - is able to detach himself from another’s ‘mess.’ M - must remove himself physically from those who act inappropriately. 28. Sr - responds well to authority. M - can rebel against those who seem to do what is wrong. 29. Sr - finds it easy to become himself. M - varies widely in the level of his maturity. 30. Sr - does not generally think of himself as a public speaker. M - can be a scintillating platform performer. 31. Sr - relaxes with practical books and light reading. M - relaxes often in Nature. 32. Sr - lives in the present. M - can withdraw mentally to the past or the future. 33. Sr - rises easily above an unhappy childhood. M - may need extensive inner healing when childhood experience has been unhealthy. 34. Sr – is practical, and creates emotional stability. M – is emotionally volatile, and potentially a source of sensitivity. Let’s look at the details. 1. S(erver) - He has a visual mind in the sense that he thinks in terms of the practical. He is very aware of objects: there is a place for everything, and everything in its place. M(ercy) - He actually sees mental pictures; he can close his eyes and experience flashbacks of events and happenings. He knows what facial or physical expres-


sions will characterize feeling. The present is evaluated in the light of the past; he senses atmosphere. 2. Sr - He likes to work with his hands. His mind senses the breakdown in order—to him it is an ‘eyesore’—he puts things back in their places. It feels good to look again when he is done. The development of this order is itself fulfilling. M - He too works with his hands. His mind takes in the room or situation as a whole, he sees various things that do not fit—the pillow that is out of position, the engine with a funny sound, the color that is not coordinated, the wrong voltage level on the circuit board—he eliminates what is wrong. Links develop between these events that help him to evaluate things in the future, and to avoid unpleasantness. 3. Sr - He senses the practical needs of those around him; he likes to please: “I’ll do this for you.” M - He identifies with others; they are hurting, he knows what it is like, and so he does for them what he himself would appreciate in their situation: “I’ll do this for you.” 4. Sr - He lives easily with a bit of disorder: the house is meant to be lived in; the workshop should be used. At the same time he has a threshold of tolerance: when enough objects are out of place, then suddenly he is disturbed. M - The Mercy has a similar threshold—when a sufficient number of experiences indicate discrepancy, then he is troubled. He may not do anything about it; he can be lazy. He can also become a perfectionist, especially in areas where he has many associations. The Mercy-wife can make her living room into a showpiece, for instance, and use it only for guests. Her standards rise as she continues to fuss; she worries about ever-smaller pieces of disorder and dirt until finally she is preoccupied with germs, things so small they cannot even be seen. 5. Sr - He is disoriented by a physical move. A house or a workshop has its counterpart inside his head—it is mind wrenching to alter the place in which his things are located. M - A home develops memories over time; it becomes comfortable, like an old shoe. A physical move to some location nearby is tolerable—he retains friends, shopping habits, restaurants. Relocation to another city, though, can be frightening. Atmosphere in the house seems oddly wrong. Doors and hallways are different; floors and walls creak at night—he imagines things. The Server is fine when places have been found for all of his objects; the Mercy suffers for some time thereafter. 6. Sr - The Server, given an abstract statement, will ask for an example: “What are you talking about? How is it useful?” M - The Mercy, given theory, is more likely to ask: “Who is it? How does it affect me?”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
7. Sr - Instruction for him is preceded by the example: “Don’t tell me,” he says, “Show me! I’ll watch and try it, then I’ll understand.” The university student appreciates laboratory experience before classroom teaching. He likes to try things with his own hands—he knows then what is useful to learn. The Teacher, we might add, is just the opposite: he reads instructions before trying things out; he on his part might choose to eliminate the laboratory completely, if he could. M - Examples for him are themselves instructive: “Don’t give me principle. Let me see for myself!” He compares the present with the past, he forms attitudes, and then he acts. Study can be in response to the expectation of others; he has awesome stamina. Actual words of the instructor are visually recalled and associated. The university student, especially the male, can be a real intellectual—here again you see, parenthetically, that theory-emotion, in the Mercy, lies deep under the surface of people-feeling. As a professor he gives practical projects, so that you also can learn from experience. 8. Sr - He senses sequence of time: he knows the progression of steps necessary to accomplish a given result. These segments line up in his head, one behind the other, in the order in which they must be done. M - He senses importance or priority. Like the Perceiver he can be black and white: whatever he is doing has his whole attention; it is the most important thing—for now. One task is dropped for another, though, when the second suddenly seems more significant. He finds it hard, in this regard, to get the punch line right on a joke, the moral correct in a story: it is the most essential part and so it comes out first, or in some other way it is flubbed. 9. Sr - He does not like to be interrupted in the middle of a task. M - He on his part is easily interrupted. He quickly drops what he is doing when you have something important to say; he feels free in turn to disturb you. He starts for the basement, does several things on the way, then forgets what he came for when he arrives. 10. Sr - He works well without supervision. It frustrates him to be pushed. M - He works best under moderate pressure. He can be lazy, in fact, when there are no deadlines, no people that are hurting. Should he start in spite of laziness, then he can become the perfectionist: every minor flaw is sensed and corrected. The mother of the bride-to-be will spend many hours decorating the wedding cake. The university student edits and reedits the paper—only as deadlines draw near does he hand it in. 11. Sr - He likes the simple that is ‘tried and true’— he is not one to experiment. M - He finds it difficult to adjust to the new. Selfprogramming aspects of the VCR machine, for instance, can remain unused—they are too ‘newfangled.’ The computer initially is left alone; he has no previous associations. If he is forced by circumstances to face the unfamiliar, then he may not be able to sleep for worrying about it. 12. Sr - He finds it hard to learn from his own mistakes. The cook, because of this, may not feel the need to taste his own cooking: “If I follow the recipe, then it will all turn out.” M - When something goes wrong, then he remembers what worked in the past, and he tries it. He senses the problem: the Mercy-cook easily judges himself and others by the ability to rescue a bad dish. He loves food, and hates germs: he is surrounded, in a culinary crisis, by a number of tasting spoons, each used once, then discarded. 13. Sr - He is generally very stable emotionally. M - He easily becomes emotionally involved, especially when there is hurt or conflict. At the same time he can move directly from empathy to action, apart from emotion—it requires strong Perceiver-like conviction based in clear principles (Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King). 14. Sr - He is not equipped to generate excitement and purpose, yet at the same time he needs these challenges. He brings guests, therefore, into his home—they keep him in touch with what is happening elsewhere. He commits himself to groups and projects; they give to him a sense of significance and belonging. M - He is a real source of excitement; people like to be around him. Like the Server, he is grouporiented: he identifies with others, and appreciates meaningful interaction. In consequence, he loves hospitality, and he does it with ‘class.’ Birthdays and holidays are special times of fun and fellowship. The Server loves to join in. 15. Sr - He is a wonderful companion: he is gracious, he laughs, he relates examples. He has more of a sense of delight, though, than a sense of humor. M - He has a scintillating sense of humor, based often in the false association or embarrassing situation. He laughs, he tells stories—and of course flubs the canned jokes. The Server feels intimidated; it is not in him to follow suit. 16. Sr - Often you find him operating behind the scenes. He is highly supportive of others—when he knows that action is meaningful, and that he is being appreciated. M - He is sensitive to relationships. To be effective with others, he must be appreciated: he yearns at times, therefore, for fame, recognition and honor, the outward trappings of success. He receives the love he needs when he learns to give of himself to others.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
17. Sr - Like the Teacher, he finds it difficult to delegate. He does things one step at a time; how is he to communicate this to others? M - Like the Perceiver, he finds it difficult to delegate in ways that are balanced. It makes sense: tasks are not the issue, you are as a person. If you are sincere, and have succeeded before, then he stands back: “Surely you will know, with your experience, what to do and how to act.” He shares examples from his own past; they are not directly task-related. He fits you into the atmosphere. If you succeed, then he may praise you excessively, so that you become dependent upon him for your approval. When you fail, then he criticizes your person: “Change!—and your work will as well.” For a time he might withhold his approval; to motivate you he could give the same job to someone else in parallel. If this does not affect you—as might, for instance, be the case with the Teacher— then he can become disoriented and stop working with you entirely. He expects you to react as he would in your situation—freedom is given, in fact, to enable this conformity—should you think or act differently, then you can find yourself moved to a lesser position, quietly, without explanation. He senses the exception: if you complain or apologize, then he may break the rules, just this once, for you; if he does it too often, with too many people, then administrative order can break down completely. 18. Sr - It can be hard for him to say ‘no.’ He goes at times until he drops. M - He cannot always defend himself against those who find fault, especially when there is partial truth to what they say—his mouth will close and he simply will not know what to say. He may for a time try to conform—he has an awesome stamina—then suddenly explode into anger. 19. Sr - He needs an example, so that he can copy. Action for him can speak much more clearly than words. M - He is sensitive also to the example—he stops listening when a person’s life is inconsistent with his words. He on his part can be taken in, when people are silent, by their dress and titles; the Server looks further for deeper qualities. 20. Sr - He moves best as part of a group—he cannot grow or develop in a corner like the Teacher. M - His thinking is influenced by his environment: it makes him group-oriented as well. The Server looks for facts that lie behind examples—he learns them from those whose life is ordered—the Mercy in contrast eliminates the Lie behind disharmony.1 When conflict is absent, then the Mercy easily
1 Why ‘Lie,’ with a capital ‘L’? Perceiver strategy sees the Form behind the external, the Ideal of what is seen. It is underlying Perceiver thought, and its sensitivity for the


assumes that underlying facts are correct. When leaders seem sincere and loving, then he can accept their words. ‘Truth’ is judged by this feeling for environment; for some, in fact, ‘truth’ is the environment—it is a place that is non-abrasive, in which emotional warning systems stop ringing.2 21. Sr - He cannot rest when there is something that needs doing, and he is not working on it. He looks, though, at needs in the real world: when his home or workshop is tidy, and his do-list is clear, then he feels free to relax. M - Expectations of others can become a part of conscience: “I must do this; it is my duty.” He may actually become his own taskmaster, driving himself to action—when approval from those who have expectations is the goal, then he can eliminate every speck of dust and germs, so that they will gain the right impression. It can make him seem at times like a superServer. Parenthetically, do you begin to see that Server and Mercy thought work together in the mind? We said before that the Server operates generally at a very practical level, and that this is a highly stable form of thought, and that it is very, very hard to push him beyond it—I would like to add now that it involves Server and Mercy mental strategies working together. Here you see what it looks like from the Mercy side of the equation. The Mercy, like the Server, finds a degree of emotional stability in this kind of thinking, though not as much as does the Server—it can also be difficult to push him to move further. 22. Sr - Thought in him compares examples, from watching others, with situations—it determines need, then action to resolve that need. He is thus not one to experiment with something that works; he looks for variety in the environment, not in his techniques. It is easy for him, therefore, to do the repetitive—when it is necessary, leading somewhere, and appreciated. M - Thought in him evaluates the present in the light of the past. He identifies with others—their needs become his. Similar tasks done for different people, in varying situations, are seen, therefore, as different! He also can handle the repetitive! At the same time he is sensitive to the expectation of others: he will do the boring when it is required, but he hates it.3

‘puzzle piece’ that doesn’t fit, which is the engine behind Mercy discernment, just as Teacher analysis and its ordering mechanism is the foundation for Server thought. Mercy strategy is thus a natural base for INFJ thought and its ‘approval conscience.’
3 Both Server and Mercy can easily access the ISFJ stimulus-response mechanism. The Server is conscious at the response end—thus, he doesn’t mind if the stimulus is 2


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
23. Sr - Appreciation for him is largely verbal—the ‘reason why’ for what he is doing, and how it fits into the Big Picture. You can’t fool him: he does things in his own way, his service is intelligent—if you try to ‘use’ him by giving him a false picture, then he will find you out. M - Appreciation is a matter of the heart; it honors him as a person. Flowers, notes, public acknowledgements—all communicate this. The important thing with gifts, though, is the motive: expensive items given without thought mean little. Simple things chosen with care mean much—they can be treasured for years. 24. Sr - Self-esteem is based often in personal past success, and the appreciation of those he respects. It develops over time as action is seen to yield results. M - Self-concept is based to a larger degree in the acts, words and reactions of others. A healthy past, or one that is healed, generates actions to which others can respond positively. 25. Sr - He likes to go out for dinner—it feels good, on occasion, to be served by others. M - He also appreciates going out: food is the ‘love substitute’; interaction with others, in a healthy atmosphere, raises his self-concept; the experience itself is a memory to be treasured. 26. Sr - He can be somewhat stodgy or ‘dowdy’ in his dress; it’s ‘comfortable,’ and he stays with this image. M - When he is ‘OK,’ then he responds quickly to changing fashion: he wears what is ‘in,’ he coordinates colors. When life is lived vicariously, then this sensitivity dissipates—he may begin to buy the garish, or stick with the out-of-date. 27. Sr - The Server, like the Teacher, detaches himself from the ‘mess’ of another. He needs freedom to do things his own way; he gives this liberty also to others. Should they choose to live in disorder, then ultimately it is none of his business. M - The Mercy identifies with others; he hates to see them acting inappropriately. It is almost as if he himself is doing it; he cannot remain detached. Either he helps, or else he moves quickly away. 28. Sr - He respects those with authority. He can give them a piece of his mind at times, but ultimately he is not a rebel or a revolutionary. M - The immature Mercy, convinced that he is right, and another wrong, is a law to himself. To the degree that he can get others to approve of his attitudes, he may feel free to spread this rebellion: “Do as I say, and things will work out.” Those who disagree with this perception are labeled as ‘proud.’ You cannot reason with him; words spoken here will not help either. He changes when he is placed into a healthy environment. 29. Sr - His personality is down-to-earth; it is easy for him to become himself. M - Personal development varies more widely in the Mercy than in the Server. He can close up, hide behind etiquette, become very intellectual, or lose himself in manual work. He can also spread sensitivity to others—as his memories are healed, and he learns to share himself, his human side. 30. Sr - He does not usually think of himself as a public speaker: “What have I got to say?” Others at the same time enjoy listening: his talk is full of examples; he shares skills and techniques that are proven. M - He can be a scintillating platform performer, the most effective of them all (Will Rogers). He identifies with his listeners, he communicates feeling, he compares like things with like, he tells stories. He says what no one else could say—and he gets away with it! 31. Sr - He relaxes with books that are practical, or by talking with visitors. He gravitates towards excitement. M - The Server reads quietly to himself, the Mercy in contrast may like to read out loud. If he is tired, then he relaxes by ‘getting away from it all.’ He goes to some place that is quiet, where his mind can stop its continuing associative analysis. Nature refreshes him—it is always healthy, always the same, yet somehow always different. 32. Sr - He lives in the Here and Now; it can overwhelm him to be forced suddenly to look into the future. M - He on his part can escape mentally from the present, into the past or the future. Suddenly, when he is tired, or a comment is made, he goes quiet. You ask: “What is wrong?” “Nothing,” he replies. You ask again and he withdraws further: “Nothing, I’m alright.” He lives for a time in that other world, inside—then he emerges, when he is rested. 33. Sr - It is easy for him to rise above an unhappy childhood: one good example, somewhere, and he follows. The leader he picks, though, had better be strong: the Server can wrestle for years with residual feelings of loyalty towards those with whom he was previously involved. M - It takes effort for him to rise above the past. He learns from events, not facts—one wonders in particular at the effect of television, over the long term, on this kind of a mind! 34. Sr - The Server is a source of order in the practical. Emotionally he is stable. He needs others to pro-

repetitive, as long as he is appreciated and doing something meaningful. The Mercy is conscious rather at the stimulus end—there must be differing ‘identification,’ from one repetition to the next, or he will be ‘bored.’ INFJ approval can push him into the boring, but he won’t enjoy it.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
vide excitement and purpose. M - The Mercy is a source of excitement. Emotionally he is volatile. Initially he needs others to demonstrate right living. We might add: the Mercyparent who is continually nagging his Mercy-child, teaching him, by words rather than example, how to act appropriately, is not being a good example to the child. Life elsewhere is not like that! The Mercy who emerges from this kind of background forms conflicts, when they are healed, into a foundation for deep sensitivity.


Server or Contributor: 1. 2. S(erver) - is unidirectional. C(ontributor) - feels scattered. Sr - does not want to be anything other than a Server. C - often wishes to develop more of his personality. Sr - is not a fighter. C - can be quite argumentative. Sr - does not really enjoy games. C - may love games and puzzles. Sr - reads true stories and biographies. C - can like mysteries and detective novels. Sr - has a sense of delight rather than a sense of humor. C - is a mimic and practical joker. Sr - prefers to work under others. C - is a natural leader. Sr - is somewhat of a ‘homebody.’ C - loves to explore and to travel. Sr - draws easily within the lines. C - can be great at calligraphy. Sr - learns from watching the example of others. C - is able to learn from a description, apart from examples. Sr - needs to see for himself what you are talking about. C - has a great imagination. Sr - does not consider himself a public speaker. C - can be a very effective speaker and writer. Sr - leaves long-range planning to others. C - forms long-term plans and objectives. Sr - gets started on the task immediately. C - does not like to start until everything is ready. Sr - is not comfortable with concepts that are too abstract. C - can be curious about anything and everything. Sr - finds it difficult to delegate. C - hates to lose control.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.


12. 13. 14. 15.


17. Sr - does not like to be interrupted in the middle of a task. C - does not like to encounter the unexpected. 18. Sr - prefers to do things himself. C - finds it difficult to alter direction once he has started. 19. Sr - can relax when his work is done. C - can always think of something else that needs doing. 20. Sr - is emotionally stable. C - may have deep fears and anxieties. 21. Sr - has real physical stamina. C - can become a real professional. 22. Sr - brings order into his kitchen or working area. C - develops an area of expertise. 23. Sr - does not spread himself too thin. C - can have skills in a number of inter-related areas. 24. Sr - cannot learn theory that seems useless. C - may on occasion stay stubbornly away from all that is theoretical. 25. Sr – remembers his own personal past history. C - enjoys history as a whole. 26. Sr - can easily retain the unnecessary step. C - optimizes action to eliminate the nonessential. 27. Sr - looks to the expert when something goes wrong. C - discovers what he is doing wrong and fixes it. 28. Sr - does not experiment when something is working. C - seeks out challenge and adventure. 29. Sr - is group-oriented. C - is quite independent and can at times walk alone. 30. Sr - likes to acquire tools and learn new techniques. C - likes to collect objects: paintings, coins. 31. Sr - does not wish to rise above his superiors. C - senses pecking order and is able to become the leader. 32. Sr - readily admits his mistakes. C - finds it difficult to apologize or to admit that he was wrong. 33. Sr - needs appreciation from others. C - likes to be recognized as having the ‘right stuff.’ 34. Sr - has a high tolerance for repetitive tasks. C - is bored once things are fully developed. 35. Sr - hates to move. C - may change his profession every few years. 36. Sr - does not like to be manipulated. C - hates conditional acceptance. 37. Sr - may wonder inside why others are so ‘messy.’


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
C - may lead others through hints and vague instructions. Sr - is a great companion. C - finds his place readily in the organization. Sr - can be rather staid in the way that he dresses. C - may judge others by the way that they dress. Sr - demonstrates a classy steadiness. C - seems to be surrounded by a sort of ‘aura.’ Sr - is similar in personality to other Servers. C - can differ radically in personality from other Contributors. Sr - is always open to learn. C - is not generally open to those he considers less qualified. Sr - works well without supervision. C - can choose to be totally passive. Sr - keeps to a schedule and is generally quite predictable. C - in passivity, becomes ultimately stereotyped. Sr - responds to those around him. C - is vulnerable, in passivity, to the unscrupulous promoter. Sr - can be very loyal. C - analyzes the Plan for the bottom line. Sr - tends to relax by doing something different within the home. C - can easily relax by pursuing challenge outside of the home. Sr - likes to have people share with him what is happening. C - finds hospitality natural and enjoyable. Sr - finds it easy to listen. C - does not appreciate small talk. Sr - has a small circle of close friends. C - may draw friends in as partners. Sr - buys what is necessary. C - may be stingy with small personal expenses. Sr - sees needs of others and meets them. C - can emphasize the importance of financial giving. Suppose he falls behind in his education. He sees all the people who are better than he is, and it discourages him. It damages his self-esteem. Sometimes, he may mistreat family members, because their excellence in his perception is making him feel bad. Other times he can retreat to the one sanctuary that is left to him—practical action. Here at least it is the world with which he is competing, and not people. Still, he feels repressed, and driven to move further. He is the one who will study this section, not the Server. 3. Sr - He will not generally take the offensive in a fight. C - He can be highly argumentative: he may fight for months to resolve a small credit-card overcharge. 4. Sr - He does not really enjoy games. He joins in when others insist, then moves on quickly to meet a practical need: “Now, who will have coffee, and who will have tea?” C - He is highly competitive—he takes the time that is necessary, when it is his turn, to make the best move; he strives to win. 5. Sr - He tends to read true stories and biographies of real people. C - He may like mysteries, detective novels, escape narratives, tales of the macabre. 6. Sr - He has a sense of delight rather than a sense of humor. C - He is a mimic and a practical joker. His poking at times can be cruel. 7. Sr - He works behind the scenes, and under others. C - He is a natural leader: self-image suffers when he is not in a position of influence. 8. Sr - He is a ‘homebody.’ He likes to explore and to learn what is new, but from a secure base, with a guide. C - He loves to travel and to see things for himself. He sets his own itinerary. He can live for months, when he must, from a suitcase. 9. Sr - When it comes to pencil and paper, he easily draws a straight line on blank paper. In a similar way, he can tell when a picture is hanging properly on the wall. C - The Perceiver is an excellent draftsman—to orient a straight line, though, he needs a ruler; without help he begins to wander up or down. The Contributor has the ability to rotate things, like the Perceiver, then freeze at that orientation and draw, like the Server: it makes him great at calligraphy. He is unexcelled at judging angles and distances. 10. Sr - He learns from watching examples; his hands duplicate what is seen. C - He can visualize examples internally from spoken descriptions. It is an ability that is developed, interestingly, at the expense of manual dexterity. The one who is Server-oriented needs directions that are

38. 39. 40. 41.


43. 44.


46. 47.


49. 50. 51. 52.

Let’s look at the details. 1. S(erver) - He is highly unidirectional. C(ontributor) - He feels scattered: he alternates in his thinking between one mode in which he seems like a Server, and another in which he feels like a Perceiver. He is influenced by the part of him that is sensitive like the Mercy to people-emotion, and a conflicting part that is based in theory-emotion, like the Teacher. 2. Sr - He likes what he is; he does not want to be anything else. He is completely unaware that, far above him, there may be another level of personality. C - The Contributor can refuse to develop outside of a Server-like personality. Why? You will recall that the Contributor generally compares up, not down.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
simple—he implements them, once they are understood, with skill. The Contributor-intellectual, in contrast, deciphers instructions easily, then can find his hands all thumbs as he moves to carry them out. 11. Sr - He cannot modify experience, in abstract ways, in his head. Things change as he works with his hands, then looks again with his eyes. C - He is able to experience things vicariously; he has a great imagination. This involves a lot of processing, it cannot be turned off—he adjusts with effort, therefore, to the words of others. He is exhausted by those who move quickly from subject to subject.1 12. Sr - He considers himself to be a poor speaker— he is more talented than he thinks. C - He can be a highly effective and imaginative speaker and writer. It is an ability that takes practice to develop; he may hesitate to start, from initial fear of failure. 13. Sr - He sees a need, formulates a response, implements it, looks at the results, then puts together another step. Long-range planning is left to others. C - He can formulate and link steps—and implement them—in his head, apart from the real world. The movie director, for instance, can shoot scenes mentally before he does camera work; the bobsled athlete is able to run through the course in his imagination—and decide what he will do at each point— before he arrives at the starting gate. These steps form themselves in him into Plans; it makes him very selfcontained. 14. Sr - He gets started immediately: “I’ll do what I know to do, and the rest will take care of itself.” C - He may not start until every conceivable possibility has been explored. The Plan is formulated, and the part that others must play—it makes him into a great project manager. Like the Perceiver, though, he can procrastinate: he is an associative thinker, and it takes effort to get started. 15. Sr - He explores the real, not the abstract; he thinks as he sees needs and examples. C - He can be incredibly curious—he observes people and situations, he reads books, he has a real memory for trivia. A part of him works also from the top down, like the Perceiver: he cannot wait to open Facilitators, Perceivers and Teachers need to realize that the Contributor is a practical, long-term planner. Tentative philosophizing and speculating on their part can be taken very seriously by the Contributor—he may begin to invest mental energy into working out the implications. When the Contributor protests at the direction of a conversation, therefore, he is not always being obnoxious; idle conjecture ‘whipsaws’ him from point to point, and may actually ‘rupture’ his ability to think. It may be better to ‘brainstorm’ in private first, and agree on a direction, before involving the Contributor.


presents. The Contributor child, in this regard, will generally find a way to tell in advance what is in the gifts under the Christmas tree. 16. Sr - He finds it difficult to delegate. The Servermother, for instance, does the cooking herself; her daughter generally has to learn from others how to prepare the food. C - He drives for control. The Plan is his, he formulated it—things must not change unexpectedly; pawns on his board must not move independently!2 In areas of cooking, he becomes the gourmet chef with the recipes; others take care of details for him. 17. Sr - He does not like his schedule altered abruptly when he is in the middle of something. C - He does not like to be faced suddenly by that which is new. We see it, for instance, in the way that he emerges from sleep: there may be a quick gasp— “Oh, what’s going on!”—before he enters into awareness. Dreams, in that time of transition, can become very real: “The curtains are burning! I see snakes in the rug!” 18. Sr - He does not appreciate interference when he is busy: the housewife chases you from the kitchen, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” C - He finds it difficult to alter direction once he has started. Plans acquire momentum; often he must experience consequences before he is willing to change. It is this impetus, incidentally, that causes swings in business averages: “Stocks have been going up, I should buy. Real estate has been dropping, I wouldn’t touch it.” A focus on movement, rather than fundamentals, causes the market to overshoot proper levels—as many Contributors react in ways that are similar—until consequences crash in, and then there is panic! Waves of realization and liquidation sweep through the business community; there is turmoil for a time, then the cycle begins to reverse itself. 19. Sr - When objects are ordered, then he is able to relax: “Out of sight, out of mind.” At times he may actually have nothing to do. C - He visualizes things internally; he can always think of something to do. Guilt, a Plan that is incomplete, or an encounter with the unexpected, can keep his mind going for hours.3 Of course, like the Per-

Here is one reason why the Contributor may choose to become intellectually passive—pawns on the board do not need to be controlled when the plan is that there is no plan! Contributor strategy ties intimately into the Reticular Activating System, and this enables consciousness and its opposite of sleep. Facilitator strategy monitors planning and feels pain when problems cannot be balanced with contingency possibilities—interaction



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
ceiver, to some extent he is also response-oriented; if his superiors have not assigned work for him to do, then he may find himself playing games, going fishing or planning a vacation. 20. Sr - He is emotionally stable. C - He can have deep fears and anxieties: “Have I forgotten something?” These misgivings drive him to eliminate the unknown; they cause him to fight for control. His stories of warning sound at times like those of the Mercy—it turns out that Mercy thought in the Contributor is not that far below the surface; he can release it, or in contrast he can choose to suppress it, in which case happiness suffers. 21. Sr - He is capable of an incredible diligence—he does what is necessary to bring his work up to the quality of the example. C - He on his part can alter the example internally! Initially he is like the Server—his standards rise, though, as he optimizes Plans and methods. Eventually, he may move far beyond the initial example. 22. Sr - His kitchen, garden or workshop is ordered; he surrounds himself with tools and techniques that are tried and true. C - He includes principles that enable him to maintain control; he has an area of expertise. 23. Sr - His base of service is a single, integrated entity. C - He can have several workshops in related fields. The filmmaker, for instance, may be proficient in photography, electronics, music, business—at the same time, with a complete working area for each field. He looks for self-sufficiency and vertical integration; he optimizes in those realms that are necessary for him to survive. 24. Sr - He cannot learn theory that seems useless. He admires those who can, and tries at times to follow—it is not in him, though, to visualize the abstract. To do so, he would have to make a huge, almost immeasurable leap in development; even I am not fully sure that it is possible. C - The Server-oriented Contributor is much more stubborn than the Server: he chooses, consciously, to ignore theory. When others push, then he complains about his lack of intellect. At the same time he yearns to bring the unknown into the known, where it can be controlled. Potentially he is a terrific scholar—he could in fact choose to become a Contributor-intellectual—it is evident from the way that this self-restricted, Server-oriented individual educates his children. 25. Sr - He has an excellent memory for the essence of previous examples, and the essentials of his own personal past. History with its unrelated names and dates, though, is not a favorite—it bears little relation to what he knows. C - He has a memory that is almost photographic; he recalls all of the past—abstract as well as experiential—and can change the personal past. Examples are altered: he writes the historical novel, for instance, the docudrama, the past as it should be, optimized, not as it was. His own personal history may be edited. 26. Sr - He often retains the unnecessary step: “I do it the way that I was shown.” C - He optimizes everything, and eliminates the non-essential—small talk is avoided, as is ‘small doing’: “What will I get from that?” Movement is evaluated as well: the housewife, for example, makes the bed in the least possible number of steps. A desire to eliminate delay, paradoxically, can make him late at the airport or the meeting—he waits until the last possible minute, then rushes to his destination in panic. No time is left in reserve for the unexpected. 27. Sr - He is not equipped consciously to diagnose his errors; he knows only that something went wrong: “I had better get advice from others before I do it again.” C - He discovers the precise element or step that is wrong and fixes it. 28. Sr - He is attracted to the practical, and tends to copy what others are doing; this naturally narrows down his activity. C - He restricts himself to areas of expertise, where he can excel. Here he seeks the new: he is the mountain climber who attempts the higher peak, the harder route, the technique that is more difficult. He loves challenge and adventure. Balance between manual dexterity and the ability to understand instruction itself rises over time: he becomes the jet pilot—highly coordinated, very intellectual—the master jugglershowman. 29. Sr - He duplicates the action of others; it means that he must be around those who are respected. The daring or different is done under the guidance of an expert, often a Contributor or a Facilitator. C - He formulates and fine-tunes things himself, internally, before they are implemented—this process must not break down, he must not ‘lose control.’ The child, for instance, does not like to be thrown into the air, the pilot practices until skills are perfected for every emergency. The act of marriage, with its need to cooperate with a partner, can itself be difficult for some—the male would want to control everything and would tend to dominate; the female might fear the loss of control. 30. Sr - He collects tools and techniques: “I need this.” C - He looks to the future as well as to the present: “This might be useful. I had better get it.” In the trunk of his car is a tool kit; an extra credit card is

between the two strategies of Contributor and Facilitator, when there are problems in a plan, can generate insomnia.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
hidden under the spare tire. He collects objects: paintings, books, artifacts, coins, items connected with other times and events. It may be a bent harpoon, a rusty sword, an electrical insulator—he identifies with its history: “That harpoon, I am sure, was used by Eric the Red! The sword came from the Napoleonic Wars—the stories it could tell! Oh, that carving? It came from the Middle East—it was given to me by an Arab sheik!” The personal is injected, through these objects, into history; he visualizes and optimizes from these small beginnings, then travels to see things for himself. 31. Sr - He respects his superiors; he does not wish to rise above them. C - He can optimize and experience things mentally, apart from the real world. It means that he can himself become the example, in his sphere of expertise! He senses pecking order; he needs to control the unexpected—those with more experience, presumably, have this need as well, it is something to which he should defer; the Perceiver in him rewards success on their part with honor, the Server looks to their example—the one whose measure is strictest, and whose skills most highly developed, can find himself pushed quickly to the top. Suddenly he is the expert—one sees it in the world of the jet pilot, then in medicine, politics, entertainment, music—words and actions of this leader are duplicated, his mannerisms actually mimicked. The top of the ladder, though, is slippery: subordinates learn over time, the leader loses abilities with age. Suddenly, the one at the top is replaced by another. Candidates for a position of leadership are never lacking; the Contributor is easily mesmerized by pecking order—he looks for his place. Then, he quickly moves up. Those who succumb to this mentality, we might add, experience mental turmoil: pecking order is a subtle form of conditional acceptance. Success in turn brings further pressure—a growing horror of vulnerability from illness, mental disability, loss of physical attractiveness, and old age. 32. Sr - He goes naturally to the proper authority when something goes wrong. C - He can find it impossible to admit error; it acknowledges that another is superior. He drives rather for success, in a sort of ‘white anger.’ 33. Sr - He needs appreciation and honor. C - He likes to be recognized as having the ‘right stuff.’ The airline pilot who has handled the emergency, for instance, will walk quietly—when the plane has landed and people are leaving—through the exit reception lounge: passengers rise spontaneously and give him applause. Colleagues begin to treat him, subtly, in ways that are different; he shrugs it off: “I did what I had to do. There is nothing to say.” Inside, though, he senses his new position; it feels good.


34. Sr - He easily does the repetitive, when it is important and appreciated. C - He is bored once things are fully developed. The sports commentator on television, for instance, will interject—as one team or the other develops a lead: “Stay with us folks. It could still go the other way.” He tries to maintain the suspense! If he is not himself a Contributor, doing for you what he himself would appreciate, then he has been taught to do this by Contributor-colleagues: they fill the media! The Contributor, easily bored as he is, cannot always replicate previous accomplishment. The businessman who establishes a successful company, for instance, may be put in charge of another which is similar— and fail! The gifted child in school can find it difficult to learn, when lessons are too easy! 35. Sr - He is disoriented by a physical move. C - He does not like to operate outside of his specialty. At the same time he needs challenge. The result can be a periodic change in vocation—perhaps every ten years. 36. Sr - He loses respect for those who manipulate by false appreciation, or give a Big Picture that is wrong—he feels used. C - He formulates a Big Picture of his own, composed of Plans, and wants to see it implemented. He on his part hates conditional acceptance—a revision of his internal standards by others in order to manipulate. It makes him the natural enemy of pecking order, when subconscious styles of emotional thought—Teacher and Mercy—begin to operate! 37. Sr - His ‘neat freak’ manner can project expectations of tidiness. He usually will not force the issue. C - He can give hints, parables or puzzles to test you—you show you have the ‘right stuff’ as you successfully visualize them, optimize them, and come up with solutions. Directions and instructions—how to get somewhere, how to do something—can purposely be left vague to allow you to prove your ability. It is a technique used by some to recruit members: the highIQ society of MENSA, for instance, invites you to demonstrate through a facility with puzzles that you are worthy. You comply, for a fee, pass their test— and find that you have joined! 38. Sr - He is group-oriented; he finds examples in the organization. C - He is attracted to groups with a pecking order: it sustains Legalism in religion—“I rise in God’s esteem as I keep the rules”—and the corporate ladder in business. Legalism can become a Faith: “All sowing is followed by reaping; I am judged, therefore, by results, as are others; the one with the most is therefore the best, and able to give the most reliable verdict concerning the status of others. I need to accept his opinion regarding my own personal worth.” The Contributor in these groups, unlike the Server, is often the


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
loner: his attention is limited to equals, and conversation, even with these peers, is guarded: “They must not understand me; they might see through me, or replace me.” Wife and children are taught not to breach this isolation; his home can become a gilded prison. 39. Sr - He can be rather staid in the way that he dresses. C - Dress reflects self-image and his respect for those he encounters: the businessman, for instance, demonstrates confidence, and interest, by his suit and tie. A drop in self-image is seen first of all in body movement—it is the reverse of mime—then in clothing as well: “It would be presumptuous of me to look better.” There may also be a reaction to the other extreme: he over-dresses, or makes clothes his measure of success. Links between clothing and self-image are not easily broken: Russia, for instance, directed the lay-Contributor away from business into hockey, chess, science—persons in these fields, at least in the 1980s, projected status by dressing in Western-style blue-jeans! They showed in this way that they were qualified to shop in the restricted stores for the elite— the only place, essentially, where these jeans could be found. They were part of the ruling class. They had the ‘right stuff.’ 40. Sr - He demonstrates a classy steadiness. C - One senses about him a sort of aura—that internal world seeps out. 41. Sr - He easily becomes himself; he is similar in externals to others who are Servers. C - His ability is awesome and extends to many fields. It is generally realized, though, in some restricted realm—he differs greatly in externals, therefore, from others with his style. 42. Sr - He is always open to learn, “I am sure that someone could show me how to do it better.” C - He will generally not learn from those he considers less qualified; he can be closed to the better informed as well. The reason is interesting: a refusal to reevaluate his thought leads to inner peace! Optimization and conscience in the Contributor are linked: problems can be solved and guilt eliminated, or optimization itself can be shut down—the result is the same! The Contributor who tires of Legalism, therefore, rejoices to learn License: “We are not judged by results. Sowing, therefore, is not necessary!” It is a Faith that also comes naturally. It may begin with positive thinking that defers the hypothetical—fear, surprisingly, is displaced by confidence. This lassitude extends further, then, to realms of the merely possible, then to what is actually probable: “Don’t worry about it. It may never happen!” When problems arise, then ethics can be squeezed out as well: “It must be right—I get away with it!” As consequences finally rush in, the Contributor closes his ears: “I don’t want to hear; it will make me feel bad.” One is reminded of the lotus-eater of legend—free, artificially, from worry. This passivity is addictive: the businessman who ‘retires’ must be careful; bouts of unemployment can be devastating—they set up a cycle of failure. 43. Sr - As long as there is something to do, he keeps himself busy; Perceiver-duty under the surface drives him on. C - He has conscious control of circuits that optimize: if he turns them off, then guilt disappears as well. It enables the ultimate in laziness: “Let experts do the thinking. I will enjoy life. I can coast on what I already know.” His talent is awesome—he can get away with it! He is the one, then, who blames others: “This is terrible! Somebody should do something!” Measures of excellence focus on possessions: “I drive a Mercedes!” He may even boast of the color of his skin—it happened in former South Africa: “I was born with the right stuff!”1 Those with less are scorned—they should ‘work’ as he does. Contributormemory, potentially, is excellent; the passive Contributor may in time lose all ability to memorize—it reveals the extent to which his mental circuits have been shut down. In old age he becomes like the Perceiver with stories, forgetting that he has said it before. 44. Sr - He orders his environment; it becomes predictable. C - Contributor thought is responsible for optimizing responses. If the Contributor remains passive, then over time he becomes ultimately stereotyped—a living cliché. Memory of past learning and experience itself breaks down in old age. Parenthetically again, I think you are beginning to see that conscious thought, which defines cognitive style, involves not only awareness, but also control. This can lead to excellence. As in the Contributor, it can also result in very extreme mental passivity—we will see in another section that control, present in humans but not to the same degree in animals, is in fact a factor in many human mental diseases. 45. Sr - He tends to follow the direction set by those in his current surroundings, even when he knows that other sources elsewhere might be more reliable. C - He is vulnerable, in passivity, to the fly-bynight scheme. He knows that it violates right business principle, yet it sounds so good! Others have anaAt present, in 2006, unemployment is a major problem in the former white middle class. Blacks are now in charge, and the whites who used to rule will not be hired, in spite of their skills. So, there they sit, in exclusive neighborhoods and lovely homes, without any possibility of employment! Some are forced, eventually, to get their food from welfare food kitchens—it’s a new lower class.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
lyzed it—he chooses to believe, it feels great to be a part of something that is moving: “Let’s be positive!” It happens in the spiritual as well: he can live for signs and wonders, and give, richly, to those who seem to supply them: “God is working! I want more!” License, the religion which neglects sowing, matures in him finally into Presumption—he wishes now to reap, without first having sowed. 46. Sr - His nature, under the surface, is black and white—it comes out in the form of loyalty and duty. C - The Contributor has more control over the subconscious Perceiver-part: decisions are black and white, ‘go’ or ‘no go’; he analyzes Plans for the bottom line. The passive Contributor can swing between extremes: he argues about details, without a feel for the Big Picture, then suddenly he accepts things by faith, and ‘blathers’ about the opportunity. 47. Sr - He searches for practical order. This is active. To relax, he does something active in another sphere—his mind cannot do two things at once—he involves himself with Teacher-activity: he does light study or reading. C - He can always escape to the Perceiver-part—it is response-oriented, and monitors things passively. Fishing is a favorite: he sits and waits, in readiness for a bite. Golf is enjoyable: it is competitive, he travels, activity comes in bursts. Alternate reality in theater and mystery is entertaining as well—he can be active vicariously, with the wrong kind of input. Music appreciation in the Contributor, we should add, is in large part conscious, part of his style. With training, he is a superb musician. Lack of guidance in contrast leaves musical ability undeveloped—the passive Contributor may enjoy country-and-western music, or jazz with its lack of rules. The catnap is refreshing; he falls asleep almost at will! 48. Sr - He likes to have people over: they share what is happening, and make him a part. C - The Contributor in general is a born host: he entertains, he tells stories that indicate his place in the pecking order, he shares the Plan. 49. Sr - He is a great listener and companion. C - Small talk for him is generally the prelude to something more important: the salesman uses it, for example, to determine needs. The urge for purpose in light conversation can in fact disturb a marriage partner: “You always have an ulterior motive when you want to talk.” Desire for meaning in conversation, when the Contributor has the appropriate experience, can make him into a terrific counselor. 50. Sr – He is very loyal to friends. C - The Contributor-god in particular oscillates between extremes: he pulls in others as partners, at times to his own hurt, or he uses them as pawns, to implement the Plan. The partner is not consciously trained—the Contributor deals with peers; instruction


on his part would lower an equal to the level of a subordinate, and he does not work with these kinds of people. Underlings are never true friends—as ‘persons’ they might demand their freedom. Some situations lie in the middle: the Contributor can hate to fire the loyal employee, for example, or to discipline his child. To impose consequences might make him responsible, and that would limit his freedom! 51. Sr - He buys what is necessary: need is the focus, not money. C - He looks for the best possible deal, especially with small purchases. Unnecessary items may be bought as well, when they are on special: “I might want them in the future.” Large expenses are not as well analyzed. They cannot be visualized, dollars become numbers: the politician can get into trouble with mega-projects. 52. Sr - He sees needs and meets them, personally. C - He abstracts to see the Plan, and can help indirectly, through finances. It makes him into the philanthropist: he gives to those themselves helping others—they have the ‘right stuff.’ He attempts to bring something to independence—financial sowing on his part should be followed by reaping; the Perceiverpart wants a permanent result. He may ask for matching gifts—the recipient should also put in some effort, this multiplies the number of supporters. Philanthropy releases underlying Mercy-sensitivity. As with Scrooge, it can show compassion to inferiors, and attempt to buy acceptance—it’s an alternate method of control. The Contributor becomes the most selfless when you manage to touch his ‘heart.’

This is the final chapter of descriptions—here, at long last, we cover the Facilitator. It can be a very subtle style; traits may easily be submerged by subconscious strategies. In a seminar, for instance, I would occasionally meet someone who appeared to be an Exhorter. A few months after the seminar was finished, he would come back to me and say, “No, I am a Facilitator! I was sitting back and watching myself. It wasn’t me. Now I know what I am.” He emerged then into something more fulfilling. I have also seen it happen with those who seemed to be Mercies by style. It occurred quite often with apparent Servers and Teachers—I learned to check carefully for the Facilitator before I identified anyone as one of those two styles. Traits for the Facilitator were found from history. However, here also things were not what I expected. It turns out that the Facilitator can walk in one of two directions, and the person who develops in the higher direction would never revert to the ways of those submerged


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
26. may become hyperactive if things get boring. 27. often doesn’t like facts ‘stuffed down his throat.’ 28. may lack operative ‘circles of reasonableness’ and be a poor judge of character. 29. thinks rather in terms of what is ‘beneficial’ than what is ‘right or wrong.’ 30. feels that people must inevitably choose what is beneficial, if given the choice. 31. may find himself a moral trendsetter. 32. can have hundreds of ‘acquaintances.’ 33. may interpret the significance of people’s words based on their emotional importance. 34. may suffer physical problems if various groups diverge too much in their directions. 35. can feel manipulated by others’ praise. 36. looks for those who will take responsibility for their actions. 37. may feel that ‘reduction of pain’ is more important than ‘freedom of action.’ 38. may take the burdens and responsibilities of others upon himself. 39. may start many things but not finish them. 40. can feel that it is a matter of ‘life and death’ for him to take charge. 41. has a deep sense of responsibility. 42. is often a ‘child of his age.’ 43. may selectively ‘turn off his curiosity.’ 44. may feel that the main principle is that ‘there are no principles.’ 45. will find aspects of his thought described very accurately by the MBNI scheme. 46. may notice that ‘formation of theory’ in him occurs subconsciously. 47. can operate in the light of a hidden breadth of insight. 48. may be disturbed by a gap between theory and action only when this affects ‘real life.’ 49. easily accepts that theory may never be reconciled with action. 50. can seem like a combination of the Server and the Teacher. 51. communicates most easily the emotion of gratefulness. 52. sees that many aspects of modern thought are deeply ‘split’ and divided. 53. can act and talk about what he is doing simultaneously. 54. may find himself generating convoluted ‘bureaucratese.’ 55. feels deeply accountable for the society of which he is a part. 56. can enter fully into the scientific method. 57. may form knowledge into proverbs. 58. can be the ‘oil in the organization.’ 59. greatly admires those who specialize and excel. 60. abhors rebellion and revolution.

within the lower path—he sees through them, and regards them with pity.1 However, he notices also that within their utter confusion, they are at least trying to be ‘responsible,’ and that’s more than can be said of the complete barbarians— the rest of us—who inhabit the remainder of this earth. Now, before we all rush out to strangle this seemingly arrogant individual, let me state that he appears to have excellent grounds for his opinions. Come, I will show you… The Facilitator: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. may choose what is completely false rather than what is partially true. assumes others are like him, and if they’re not, they’re being obnoxious. coordinates and controls what happens in the mind. can be ‘fully involved,’ or ‘detached and observing.’ feels pain when there are ‘mixed emotions.’ tries to ‘tone things down’ when they become emotionally unbalanced. is a ‘generalist’ rather than a ‘specialist.’ likes to touch and be touched. can be very sensitive to good or bad smells. may be convinced that dreams have meaning. can ‘observe’ objectively even in the midst of very subjective experiences. can always report, accurately, the current state of his mind. depends heavily on those parts of the mind which he observes. can feel that he needs to ‘take control’ if he is to avoid disaster. is very curious. may sense a lack of internal fences or landmarks. appreciates that which is beautiful and welldesigned. may be seen by others as vivacious and bubbly, but suffer inside from melancholy. works with details. is highly adaptable. may be sympathetic to many different sides of a situation. can ‘censor’ experiences with strong emotions. may be seen as ‘weak’ in some areas of character. can use ‘touch’ as a sensory shortcut to ‘knowing.’ may be frightened or appalled at the behavior of others, and wonder if they are animals.

1 The potential is there for him to develop well beyond the scope of these descriptions, in unforeseen ways.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
61. distributes his attention—a little to this project, some to that person. 62. can live very comfortably in a bureaucracy. 63. makes an excellent executive secretary, or chief of staff. 64. is mentally equipped to handle the details of implementation. 65. introduces others to one and another and to those he respects. 66. always likes to keep his options open. 67. is very ‘open-minded’ to anything that is not ‘pushed on him.’ 68. likes to keep a daybook or ‘do-list.’ 69. may find that writing things in a diary helps to process the experience. 70. classifies large numbers of facts into groups. 71. feels overwhelmed when there are many facts and they cannot be organized. 72. can deeply love and appreciate music and art. 73. can feel that Beauty is Truth. 74. may blend what he can in an organization, and then eliminate the ‘outliers.’ 75. can follow forcefully from up front. 76. may remove the independent thinker from the organization. 77. can at times become a ‘political animal.’ 78. can be fascinated by psychology and selfanalysis. 79. may think in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. 80. can like to ‘bounce ideas’ off of those he respects. 81. is able to talk at length with people he dislikes strongly. 82. can become a very lonely person, in the midst of crowds. 83. may share absolutely everything with certain selected persons. 84. can talk with certainty to help one part of him persuade another. 85. does not like ideas sprung on him suddenly. 86. may feel remorse, but not usually regret. 87. can become quite amoral. 88. does not insist that his philosophy be applied. 89. may be attracted to Mother Nature, evolution and eastern religions. 90. is often attracted to education. 91. feels disoriented and muddled when Authority breaks down. 92. can be willing to work with Authority even when it is very imperfect. 93. is sometimes a skilled political infighter. 94. may struggle for the approval of those in Authority. 95. does not respond well to a lack of acceptance. 96. can find himself implementing the unimportant. 97. fine-tunes projects to correspond with the aspirations of those involved. 98. is unexcelled at picking up the pieces after organizational disaster. 99. appears extensively in history. Let’s look at the details.


1. I approach my description of you with caution. This is because you have an unusual characteristic. Given a choice between something that is almost completely true of you, and something else that is much less true, you often choose what is not so true! It is because the more accurate description has something slightly wrong with it; it is not stated, perhaps, in quite the right language. We wrote a computer program to determine cognitive style; we found it necessary, in this computer program, to ‘poison’ the alternative that was less true, to push you back to the right choice—we had to do it in such a way that the individual who should choose the second alternative would not be repelled. In this profile there is no second choice; you will have to guard against this characteristic yourself. Also, I have found personally, over the years, that it is necessary to give you a massive amount of information immediately, the first time I talk with you. In a sense, I must overwhelm you. If I don’t do this, you may not accept the truth about yourself: “Oh, it’s just another theory. Be careful. Don’t get too excited about it.” After that first exposure, you simply won’t examine the facts further!1 2. More than others, you assume the Isoneural Principle: “Everyone is just like me, and if they’re not, they’re being obnoxious.” You sit at the center of the mind, observing activity that goes on elsewhere. You see a bit of yourself in the Mercy, in the Teacher, in the Server, and even perhaps in the Perceiver. You are aware of a part with energy like the Exhorter, and see parts of the optimization done by the Contributor.2 You assume others are exactly the same: “We’re all a mixture of everything, and it’s our job to balance the pieces.”3 Then you wonder, “Why aren’t others doing their job? How could they, knowingly, act in such a barbaric manner?” Slowly, a dim realization triggers In the neurological sections that follow, we will see this is because Facilitator ‘working memory,’ as it passes through the superior temporal node, does not easily engage the ‘me of action’ in the temporoparietal junction. This will make sense later. I state it here very openly, but this in fact is your deep secret—others seem to lack your vision, and you wonder, mistakenly, if there is something wrong with you.
3 What you really mean, when you say that others are the same, is that you are not different. 2 1


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
within you that you must be different—you have vision that others lack. It becomes something that you hide, “Others must not find out! If they did, they would surely harm me.” However, even as you realize that you are different, the idea that others actually may have a separate, more restricted consciousness is so utterly bizarre to you that you will not even begin to entertain it. It simply couldn’t be true! But it is. There is only one style that is such a seeming ‘hodge-podge’ of other styles, and that is you! You are the one who sits at the center. You are the one with complete vision. If you get enough information, then in contrast you become intensely interested, in a sort of abstract manner that is devoid of application.1 You often analyze yourself; it is one of the ways in which you bring stability into your life. And so you look at the various alternatives: “Maybe I am a Teacher.” You think of your love for education and instruction. That must be it! You wish it were so. But no, you can also be very emotional—you are a Mercy. Maybe that’s it. One person told me, “If you stay up all night trying to figure out what you are, and you still can’t decide, then you are probably a Facilitator.” So, let’s look at you. 3. The cortex is thought to be the most important part of the brain. We have come to the conclusion that you, the Facilitator, coordinate and control this region. Let me explain. Each cognitive style is a circuit in which signals reverberate and maintain a ‘working memory.’ Some of these regions are more obvious than others. Neurologists have identified the ‘Extraversion circuit,’ for instance, as including MOC 13 (Area 13 of the medial orbital frontal), a portion of the Nucleus Accumbens, and the ventral tegmental area in both hemispheres. The excitement chemical dopamine rules here. This circuit deals with rewards. It determines when some strategy is not working, and should be replaced by another. This is obviously part of Exhorter thought. Similarly, area 9 with area 46 of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is the executive of the brain. It does planning. It makes final decisions. Again, it doesn’t work alone. The circuit runs through the associative region of the striatum, interacts strongly with the pedunculopontine tegmental area, sets the ‘drivers’ for evaluating Sensory Input through signals to the reticular nucleus of the thalamus, and then returns to the pre-supplementary motor area of the cortex. You will find comments in the literature such as: “Neurons in the striatum, in the supplementary motor area and in the dorsolateral premotor cortex show enhanced activity for up to 3 seconds before internally initiated movements,” or, “In the human, the supplementary motor area and nearby regions have been shown to be active in subjects thinking about but not actually making movements.” This is evidently Contributor thought. A major node of imagination is the substantia nigra—when the dopamine-generating neurons here die, we get Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s patients do not even have sufficient imagination to visualize themselves as victims: “A common reaction to the diagnosis of Parkinson’s is denial, which may lead the individual to get a second opinion. Others may superficially accept the diagnosis but remain unwilling to learn about the problems associated with the disease or think about the need for future adjustment.” Researchers speak of “poverty of imagination.” The substantia nigra, among other things, handles optical information. If we touch it, we get hallucinations: “This syndrome, termed ‘peduncular hallucinosis,’ most often involves seeing fully formed images of people or animals and occurs on a background of intact attention and arousal.” Neurologists report a chaining of information through this segment, from emotional to associative to motor areas of the striatum—or from Exhorter thought, to Contributor strategy, and on to action. Habits are formed here. You as the Facilitator coordinate all of this, as well as everything that happens in the cortex—you do it from a ‘working memory’ circuit that includes the anterior cingulate. Since you see everything, and sit in the center of it all, you will of course find it very difficult to identify yourself. 4. Here is one important thing that you can do which no one else can emulate. You can be fully involved in an experience. You can also be quite analytical, in a sort of ‘detached and observing’ manner. Both of these modes of thought are highly emotional. “How do I relate my internal with the external world?” you ask with the philosophers. “How do I integrate my senses with my thoughts?” 5. We need to emphasize—you are aware of both Teacher theory-emotion and Mercy personalexperiential feelings: the ‘mixed emotions’ that result when these two parts disagree can disorient you. They may actually cause mental pain or anxiety. Small things may prompt you to shift from one kind of ‘feeling’ to the other: at a party, for example, you could ask yourself, “Am I enjoying myself?” and if the an-

This is the ‘philosophy circuit’ within you trying to synthesize the facts into some overall picture. It can’t be done that way. You will need the help of subconscious Teacher strategy, and it works in cooperation with underlying Perceiver analysis. I’ve described these strategies in the book thus far—you can identify them in your mind. To release this circuit, you will need to step aside from ‘approval conscience,’ and give way to ‘natural conscience.’ This builds a ‘golden thread’ in your mind, and it will lead you further.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
swer was ‘no,’ then you might suddenly detach from the experience, even as you continued to laugh and talk. You might then move from Mercy ‘subjective’ emotion to ‘objective’ Teacher feeling—both aspects are emotional—and try to ‘understand.’ Neurologists will recognize that this is the way it has to be: the anterior cingulate, among other things, is the controller for the amygdalae in both hemispheres—the amygdala in the left hemisphere generates Teacher feeling, the amygdala in the right mediates Mercy emotion. 6. It appears that one of the major functions of Facilitator strategy is to bring balance to the various parts of the mind, and to enable multi-tasking. It does this in part by ‘adjusting the volume control’ on the other mental strategies—neurologists will recognize that this would involve connections between the cortex and the thalamus. Certainly this is evident in Facilitator personality. It monitors everything, and maintains equilibrium, particularly between the two kinds of emotion—for the Facilitator this is ‘courtesy.’ It is different from Mercy-emphasis on politeness and appropriateness: it values those who avoid extremes, who can make small talk easily, who steer clear of conflict and subjects that are sensitive, who can be trusted to conciliate a disagreement—that is, it values those who think similarly. The Facilitator becomes involved in many activities; no single one carries him away. His tone of voice is balanced; he tries to maintain a relationship with all of the persons involved in a quarrel, and to ‘keep things even.’ With maturity, the Facilitator may learn to supplement this ‘courtesy’ with insight and discretion, which respects the personhood of others even as it deals firmly and frankly with root issues. He becomes more willing to welcome the diversity and excitement of extremes—he has confidence in his ability to sense the correct response and to navigate around the dangers. The danger, it turns out, is now at the other extreme—if he doesn’t listen carefully to counsel from others, he may have problems with an unfeeling rigidity. 7. The Server has a real tolerance for the mundane, when it is important and leads somewhere—not you. Action without change for you is like a living death! You expand therefore from one area to another—it forms you into a generalist, a Leonardo da Vinci, a Galileo, a Thomas Edison—you must do it to survive. You are a great experimentalist, always trying something new, and playing with the details. As a housewife you alter your recipes; you do things differently. Techniques are made more efficient, you ask for ‘reasons why.’ Theory is implemented; things are taken apart to see how they work. As a child you become hyperactive, in fact, when you lack this variety! Unlike the Server, you learn from your actions, you abstract things in your head—and so you build models; you touch them, look at them, and then you build


them differently. You appreciate the Montessori type of learning experience. 8. You are highly aware of the senses—it is another aspect of your extensive involvement in the cortex. It is upon this sensory foundation that you build emotion and become ‘fully involved.’ Sight and touch are particularly important: you like to handle the beautiful; you examine that about which you read. At the ocean you may go barefoot through the water; you like to touch and to be touched. 9. Smell for you is different from the other senses; you cannot adjust its intensity, or block it out. Odors, good and bad, bring back memories and past experiences. It happens outside of your conscious control.1 10. Imagination, we said earlier, results from interaction between Exhorter and Contributor strategies— you are at the end of the chain. Dreaming uses portions of the imagination circuit: you are easily convinced that your dreams might have meaning, and you may try to interpret them. 11. We turn now for a time to the part of you that is ‘detached and observing.’ You as the Facilitator oversee the imagination; that is, you keep your eye on the ‘little internal man’—you observe the observer! In hypnosis, when external people or things take over the imagination, the part where you are conscious watches abstractly and analyzes. In these times, you become completely ‘detached and observing.’ Therapists who use hypnosis in individuals whose personality has fragmented may actually try to access the part where you are conscious: “Many personalities know information that is inaccessible to the patient, but a few personalities are remarkably omniscient. They are insightful psychiatrists without any recourse to texts. These superb allies are not always present, but those whom I have encountered have been immeasurably helpful and instructive.” Neurologists tell us that the anterior cingulate divides into an upper and a lower segment, or a dorsal and a ventral part. The dorsal is cognitive and handles pain; the ventral breaks away during hypnosis. This ventral portion, along with the back of the cingulate, or posterior cingulate, is most active when the mind is resting or ‘idling’: “Functional imaging studies have shown that certain brain regions, including posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC), consistently show greater activity during resting states than during cognitive tasks. This finding led to the hypothesis that these regions constitute a network supporting a default mode of brain function.” This is the part that you are observing when you detach. We’ll see later that neurologists can actually locate the region of the cortex
1 However, it is brought under control by subconscious strategies, as you develop them.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
from which ‘you’ do this observing—it’s in the paracingulate area 32 region. 12. The fact that you ‘observe’ internally means that you can always analyze yourself, abstractly, objectively. The apparent ‘maturity’ or ‘immaturity’ of the rest of your mind—your subconscious—seems to have no bearing at all on your ability to watch. You can always report, accurately, your current state of mind. Those with other styles will be astonished at some of the directions in which Facilitator thought can travel, as we discuss them in the coming points— you might be quite disappointed if I didn’t describe them. 13. You easily become the observer; this means that your character, intelligence, memories, and personal interests—everything that makes you a person—is determined primarily by your subconscious, which does the functioning that you observe. Personhood— defined by the ability to concentrate—is itself outside of ‘you.’ To understand yourself completely, therefore, you must read the previous chapters; they describe the regions that you are observing. To become mature, you need to facilitate the operation, in your mind, of these portions of your thought. As we’ve said several times, the Facilitator who values this kind of maturity walks at a level much higher than much of what we are about to discuss. He ‘sees through’ the complexities, and sympathizes with the weaknesses and fears—this wise insight strengthens his resolve to be strong and steadfast. We honor this Facilitator with a deep bow, point him to the previous chapters, which he will be able to confirm are accurate, and leave him to his lonely and honorable ways. We turn now again to you, the ‘new age’ Facilitator—you are the one who is ‘stuck’ in a lower path.1 14. Like the Facilitator who values wisdom, you also see the ‘barbarians,’ and you notice their thought structures resonating within your mind. You too wish to be ‘responsible,’2 and you have your own unique way of expressing it. From your position in the center, quietly so that no one is disturbed, you begin to ‘hijack’ your cortex—Mercy, Server, Perceiver, and Teacher parts—from where you live. Imagination— Exhorter and Contributor thought—itself becomes subservient to you as you take over control, for imagination can function independently only when the cortex is free to develop its own content. Now, why would you do such a seemingly terrible thing as ‘hijack the cortex’? We will soon see that our current society, in combination with your lack of wisdom, leaves you with very few alternatives—“At least I will be civilized,” you think. 15. With that as a background, let’s move back now to childhood and its state of semi-hypnotic ‘full involvement.’ This is where you begin. You can be very curious. As a child you ask, “Why, daddy? How? Let me try it, mommy!” Even now you touch things with your hands—walking off the path, in fact, to do so. You are good at inventing names, and learning the vocabulary of a language. You say ‘Hi’ to strangers; you are friendly. When visitors come, then suddenly there you are, in the middle of things. As a ‘new age’ adult, we might add, your intense curiosity can be much more channeled or even suppressed—if something is too extreme, then you may adjust the volume control internally so that it is ignored or ‘censored.’ 16. Content of your mind is within your cortex, subconscious to ‘you’; when your cortex is poorly programmed, then you may lack a feeling for ‘personal location.’ Where do ‘you’ fit? What is ‘your’ place? As a young child, you may have wandered outside of boundaries: parents, to their horror, found you exploring things blocks away from home. As an adult who uses ‘new age’ thought, there is a similar lack of internal fences and landmarks. Your attention responds easily to the environment. 17. You have always appreciated that which is beautiful and well designed. As a boy you collect frogs, snakes, birds, leaves; you carve the piece of hardwood, you paint what you see. Objects in your home, when you grow up, are beautiful externally, then intricate and expensive as well. You notice details: others might say, “Look at the beautiful landscape”; you exclaim, “See the crimson color of the leaves on that tree.” An important aspect of Beauty for you, incidentally, may be symmetry. Things also need to be genuine—the pendulum clock in your house is made of real brass, not imitation plastic; rugs and furniture are high in quality. Your home has a view—when you can afford it—you feed and watch the birds, you enjoy a garden; you admire at night the splendor of the stars or city lights. 18. Even now as an adult, you may still live totally in the present—cortical content is acquired by you, almost hypnotically, from the environment; consciously, then, you begin to adjust the details. Others see you as vivacious and bubbly, full of life and en-

1 We’ll soon discover that the middle-born of a family can develop Facilitator traits. Also, a society that loses its bearings is hurled bodily into completely unbalanced Facilitator thought, at the expense of the other strategies needed for the brain to function in a balanced manner. Thus, although we speak in our descriptions of the ‘new age’ Facilitator, we are really talking more generally about ‘new age’ thought itself. From time to time, we will emphasize this aspect by speaking of ‘new age’ thinkers, rather than the ‘new age’ Facilitator—he turns out to be the trendsetter for a much larger group. 2 You fear the long-term consequences of actions, and sense the pain of diverging emotions.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
ergy—it is the part of you that they remember. You savor each experience; you extract from it the maximum possible enjoyment. As a teenager this can actually throw you into a kind of melancholy: you read about everything, you adapt to the wishes of your peers, you get completely involved in that which they are doing, and then you move on to something else. By the end of the day you feel as though you have been whirled in a washing machine: “Who am I?” You feel disoriented—as the ‘detached and observing’ part of you struggles to make sense of it all—and drained for a time, adrift. Try as you may, you simply cannot get to sleep. 19. We emphasize that in maintaining equilibrium, you work with details—the rest of your mind suggests the context and the content of the Big Picture. But in you, the ‘new age’ Facilitator, the remainder of your mind is largely subject to your control. That means it is not operating independently to help you. You are thus dependent upon the outside world for your context. Think of it! You want to adjust and balance everything, so as to eliminate the internal anguish of conflicting emotion—completely everything, external as well as internal—yet your breadth of thinking as a generalist is parasitically dependent upon those external things that do not conform. You pull them into your mind, and you then average these pieces together to form a composite. Averaging by definition operates within limits; it means that you, the ‘new age’ Facilitator, cannot get beyond extremes of thought in your mind and in your world. To explore outside of the boundaries, you may join in the adventure of the Contributor or the Exhorter. Or, you may walk in a certain direction in the external world—I mean physically, as in taking a walk in Nature or in flying to some lesser known country—and you keep moving, until you reach edges, which you then explore. 20. You are at the center of activity in the mind— you mix and match mental content with Mercy-based experiential memory. One consequence is that you are highly adaptable. You pick up quickly on another person’s interests or areas of expertise, and you ask questions regarding these. You move from person to person in a group, adjusting all the time—although you find it hard to handle two very different individuals at once. 21. In particular, you may find yourself at times sympathetic to many of the different sides in a particular situation. The fact that each of the separate arguments ‘resonates’ very strongly with your ‘person’ indicates that your subconscious is at best multifaceted, and perhaps even somewhat fragmented.1 Each separate network becomes the basis for a ‘per1 We’ll see later that ‘natural conscience’ has a unified view which can integrate the pieces, and act accordingly.


sonality multiple’ in you with its own special viewpoint—the environment, and the people with whom you talk, push you from one ‘side’ of the question, or ‘homunculus multiple,’ to the next. 22. Fragmentation can result because you like to use your control over the cortex to ‘censor’ experiences that have strong emotions—you find these overwhelming, and you often don’t want to ‘think about them.’ So, down goes the volume control. Mercy strategy in you, however, integrates around events with deep feelings—it must experience these to become unified. When you ‘censor’ what is emotional, therefore, you keep Mercy thought undeveloped! Separate networks of thought, within you, develop then in parallel—each from a base in some strongly emotional childhood experience in Mercy strategy, which came in before you learned to ‘censor.’ As the generalist who coordinates emotions, and enables multi-tasking, you blend these compartmentalized segments, and you balance between them. 23. ‘Censorship’ of emotion has another consequence. Perceiver strategy, in you as in others, gains confidence in facts as it maintains them against emotional pressure—it is like a muscle that is strengthened from exercise. When you avoid emotion, then your Perceiver thinking in certain areas becomes ‘flabby’—it is quite tentative in its conclusions. You are not seen in realms of principle, therefore, as a ‘strong’ personality. This is precisely the difference between you and the Facilitator who walks in wisdom— he is muscular where you are fragile. 24. As usual, because you can analyze yourself, you sense this weakness. You may use ‘touch’ as a sensory shortcut to Perceiver ‘knowing.’ It happens in four ways: you in the anterior cingulate ‘working memory’ circuit are aware of Sensory Input, including pain; your Perceiver strategy handles kinesthetic feedback and thus gains confidence from touching; the action of touching generates further Server confidence; and finally, when touching involves strong emotion, then Mercy thought can reinforce ‘knowledge’ gained by Perceiver analysis and make things truly solid. The first of these four ways gives you the sensation that comes from touch; the last three generate corresponding ‘confidence’ within your subconscious and help you to ‘know’ that what you feel is actually ‘true.’ 25. The Isoneural Principle—“Everyone is just like me, and if they’re not, they’re being obnoxious”—at this point can create deep fears within you. You see your mind, and you flee from its darker corners. You conclude, therefore, that those who actually carry out their urges must either be animals or else terribly evil—it makes you lose faith in humanity. As a girl, you may read in the newspaper about some act of violence to women, and assume immediately that you also are in mortal danger of the same thing. You look


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
at people on the street, and wonder which one of them is a potential predator. I’ll say it again—other personalities simply do not have your breadth of internal vision. They see very restricted parts of their thought. Sometimes, one piece doesn’t even know what the other is doing. The person who carried out that violent deed was probably enslaved in a multiple1 by some kind of a habit. He certainly didn’t bring his whole mind to bear on the action, as you could have done. 26. Let’s move now to parenting. With the Perceiver, even sporadic discipline is effective—enough to reinforce internal standards—with you, however, as a young child, your parents can spank you silly, and it does not seem to help. The ‘pain’ is felt, and you may cry because of it, but until about the age of six, you simply have not developed the mental integration to comprehend that it results from the thing you did, or that it might apply to other cases. The problem has two aspects: first, you don’t yet connect through time. The gentle spank for riding the tricycle outside of limits is completely forgotten as soon as you get back on and smell the fresh air and see the inviting countryside around you. I remember when my preschool-aged Facilitator daughter did this fifteen times in one day! Fortunately, I knew what was going on in her little head, and responded with an admonition, and the same gentle spank each time. Second, you don’t yet connect through generality. If you are reproved for jumping on the couch, then you may avoid jumping on that particular location of that one couch in the future, but you won’t realize that it also applies to beds and the sofa in the other room. Then, when you jump on those other regions, and you are punished, you will be shocked that you were not warned. There is another aspect as well. Your hyperactivity is not always naughtiness: it is also your way of learning natural cause and effect. Parents for this reason should ask why you did something, before they punish you. For instance, if your father sees you, as a four- or five-year-old, dropping his favorite mug over the balcony so that it shatters into pieces, he might explode: “You horrid beast! Look, my mug is down there, in fragments!” What he may not realize is that you are just as stunned as he is! You’ve already been punished by the fact that the mug broke. You hadn’t expected that! If he fumes for a short time in the other room, and then sits down quietly, and asks, “Why did you wreck my mug?” then eventually he may be able to elicit the surprising response that, “I dropped it because I wanted to see it become smaller and smaller. Then, I was going to go down, get it, and throw it in another direction, to see how it looked from that perspective. I had no idea it would break!” Obviously, this sort of thing requires no action from parents other than a word of reassurance to their bewildered child that he is loved in this unforgiving world. Of course, it is also quite appropriate to add: “It was a mug I liked, and now it’s broken, and I’m sorry, so don’t do it again, because then it would be naughtiness, and I would have to discipline you for it.” If parents are too heavy with discipline, without setting and communicating clear limits beforehand, then you will learn that the result of spontaneity and experimentation on your part is to receive disapproval, and you will quickly develop what we term an ‘approval conscience,’ instead of the much more desirable ‘natural conscience.’ Parents who are wise will kid-proof the house and allow you to develop your creativity; they will read you books. They’ll give you plenty of time out-of-doors. And, they will give you principles that make sense, so that you do not enter into ‘new age’ thought: “Look, let’s try dropping a ball from the balcony. See, things that are dropped get smaller. They also go faster and faster. Now, let’s try it with a feather. See what air does—it slows things down. In outer space, there is no air, and a ball goes just as fast as a feather. Did you know that? In fact, if they both go fast enough, in a sideways direction, then they can fall around the earth, and that’s called ‘orbiting’ the earth.” This next point is subtle, and I will summarize the principle first—excitement is found within the rules. Applying this, parents may find it helpful to point out to you what you can do, rather than what you are forbidden to explore. In other words, “Play inside these boundaries,” is more effective than “Don’t go outside these limits.” A Facilitator child tends to pursue his inner focus of attention, and a positively oriented admonition directs his ‘eyes’ to what is allowed and beneficial—he will want to follow. There will be times when you do need discipline, and then they can put you, as a youngster, alone in the crib or in a corner; you hate it. These limits, though, should not be overdone: the problem for a Facilitator in maturity is not submission, but rather its opposite—the courage to stand openly for his beliefs. 27. Convictions in you, as in others, flow from axioms that are considered foundational by your Perceiver strategy. In theory, these beliefs or axioms should be passed on to you from the previous generation—it is a major goal of education. However, you don’t like facts—standards that would program your Perceiver thought—‘stuffed down your throat,’ even by parents; you like to be able to learn them for yourself, from the evidence around you. It means that you pick up things most easily from your environment. The result is that you end up often—especially if your era has clearly defined axioms—as the product of

1 A multiple is weak, and can often be overruled by your command of the situation.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
your age. If you grew up in a rigid, puritanical society, then as a child you assumed as true the prevailing, generally accepted moral standards around you—regardless of what your parents taught you— you may call now for intellectual freedom, but in your own life you are very moral. Your Perceiver analysis, in which these axioms have come to reside, is left alone, provided that its standards do not contradict the evidence of your senses. In contrast, if you grew up in a freer and more ‘new age’ social setting, such as we have today, then you probably lack internal anchor points for your personality—they were not programmed into your Perceiver mode; if your parents had standards, you were most likely hesitant to accept them, for they violated prevailing thought. Now, as an adult, you may spend time searching for ‘things that are solid,’ and finding external substitutes for them. You remain at the core, however, essentially amoral. 28. Let’s look at it more closely. Why specifically is it that you do not like to have things ‘stuffed down your throat’? Surprisingly, the answer involves Perceiver thought: the Perceiver individual who moves beyond ‘black and white’ analysis operates, we have said, with ‘circles of reasonableness.’ What is their source? They come from you, from the ‘working memory’ circuit in which you happen to be conscious—which in him is part of his subconscious. Why does he have what you lack, when he uses information that comes from you? Because for you to have operative ‘circles of reasonableness,’ as he does, you would not only need to become ‘cognitively alive’ in the part where you are conscious, but you would also need to defer to Perceiver strategy until it too jumped into life—then things could go from you, to it, and back to you, and you would have a feeling for reasonableness. But that would require axioms—Perceiver thought develops from the top down—and you don’t want things ‘stuffed down your throat.’ Again, why don’t you want this? Almost certainly because as a child you were given Perceiver facts. You accepted them, hypnotically, blindly, as you did everything at that stage of development. Teacher thought in you then shaped these principles—as it does all Perceiver facts—into Teacher theories. But you noticed that the theories were twisted. How did you know? Because their theoryemotion contradicted the personal-experiential feeling that came from events around you, and you were thrown into feelings of melancholy. As a result, you have lost faith in everyone, including those you trusted before: “It will never happen to me again. Not ever will anything be ‘stuffed down my throat.’” Therefore, you are currently a poor judge of character, and easily deceived—because you lack ‘circles of reasonableness’— and it is now something that no one can fix.


29. As one who lacks a feeling for reasonableness, but does sense the full range of emotion, you don’t usually think in terms of Mercy ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ or Perceiver ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Rather, you use language that expresses what is beneficial. Your religion is ‘kindness with responsibility.’ True, Teacher thought within you finds great pleasure in ‘order within complexity,’ but you temper this ‘desire for order’ with another kind of emotion—that from personal experiences and Mercy thought. Complexity for you is thus ordered in ways that are beneficial—you recognize this state of affairs when the various factors do not cause mental distress. 30. One thing you do see very clearly, because you are sensitive to the full range of emotions—you discern the potential in people and situations. It is evident to you that this could be either terrible or wonderful. Given the choice, you feel that people would inevitably choose the wonderful, for surely they would not desire pain. If the criminal is given a chance, for instance, you assume that he will make a better life for himself. You could easily agree with a Chamberlain that a Hitler should be appeased: “Give him some land, and we can prevent a war.” Here also you are wrong about character, but this time for a very different reason. You don’t realize that when Facilitator strategy is subconscious, as it is in others, then its pain is not truly sensed by them. They have a much narrower window on emotion than you do; in them, Exhorter strategy may actually take precedence, and this can twist things around completely. How? Exhorter thought loves crisis; when there is enough suffering in the environment, or when personal actions are sufficiently evil, then it may start to focus on the negative rather than the positive—it doesn’t care; it gravitates towards the excitement. But Exhorter strategy is the part of the mind that determines reward! When Exhorter-focus alters polarity, then the mind switches suddenly to what we call ‘dark-side’ thought—good becomes evil, and evil good. Exhorter thinking provides the drive for the mind—it therefore begins to urge actions that are evil, and this prompting will always be stronger than the consequent Facilitator-pain that is not being sensed. You hate selfishness and deliberate discourtesy in others—it infuriates you—you cannot understand it. It is almost impossible for you to accept that some people might actually choose to do evil, and act in ways that are anti-beneficial. 31. We’ve seen that you tend to choose the effect that is beneficial, rather than the principle that is more abstractly ‘true.’ There is more. You coordinate and balance things—externally and internally—you can only do this when you are involved. If someone says to you, “I don’t like you; I won’t work with you...”, then you have lost your position in the center, and can no


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
with that same smile. You can hate this doublemindedness, when you see it in others; you may long for a ‘more even response.’ 34. In our current society, you may find yourself moving from group to group—to radicals, to conservatives, and back again. You want to moderate the extremes. It may at times be a vicious circle. One moment you are completely passionate, totally unrestrained, ‘fully involved.’ You get close to people— they let you down—you realize that you have judged things incorrectly, and you pull back. Now you are ‘detached and observing’—“Who knows what would happen if I really showed my feelings.” You suffer from anxiety. “Why don’t I feel?” you wonder, “Am I a real person?” Perhaps you discover the Mercy individual—he shares emotion and identifies so easily—it ‘wakes things up’ within you. However, he may be giving to you only for what he can get in return. When you discover this, the result can be devastating. You slip finally into depression—the state that results when there is an irresolvable difference between theory-emotion and personal-experiential feeling—you stop trying to balance things, and you find that the pain is not as sharp. Neurologists confirm that it is the posterior cingulate and the precuneus, the part in you that is ‘fully involved,’ which stops working in depression: “Depressed subjects showed posterior cingulate and precuneus hypoactivity [‘hypoactivity’ means lowering of activity]...this study highlights the importance of depression severity, anxiety, and melancholic features in patterns of brain activity accompanying depression.” But now there are physical problems, because this region manages the autonomic portions of the body. Perhaps you no longer digest food properly; physical senses are dulled, sleep patterns become irregular. 35. You still function better than do many others; they look to you for leadership. They compliment you on your abilities, but you hate this praise: “They don’t understand who I really am. They are trying to manipulate me. If they really understood me, then they would see through me, and they might not like me.” You lack a sense of reasonableness—it’s a consequence of rejecting what was ‘stuffed down your throat’—how are you supposed to know where things will stop! Others in turn admire your reserve. The more they gush, the more you pull back—it’s one way, at least, in which you can bring balance. The whole thing is so tiring—you’re trying to help others to be ‘responsible,’ and for your efforts you get praise and expectations of further ‘responsibility’ on your part—where will it all end? 36. You may decide: “If my empathy and desire to bring what is beneficial is not acceptable to humanity in general, then perhaps I can help starving children, or animals in Nature. They at least obey a natural law,

longer be a part of the solution.1 Therefore, to retain your ability to be effective, you as a ‘new age’ thinker may compromise. It adds to the seeming ‘amorality.’ Sometimes, if you lack solid principles, you may actually become a trendsetter in areas of sensual exploration. You do it because you wish to control the implications. You feel intrigue and discontent; you want to understand and explore. It may shock you, then, to find things moving further under your apparent leadership, and soon, you left behind. The worse things get, the more tactful you become. Desperately, you attempt to steer society away from the abyss that you see, and it apparently cannot discern. The ground shakes under your feet. Your joy dissipates. You lose faith in your ability to moderate. 32. Let’s move elsewhere. Evidence from personality as well as from history indicates that ‘people’ are sensed and understood by Mercy strategy. You are aware of Mercy processing of ‘people,’ but you see also the results of Exhorter and Contributor analysis of this Mercy information. One result: you can have hundreds of acquaintances. You distribute your intimacy, efficiently, in order to accomplish the task. Perhaps you feel guilty about it, “I don’t have any close friends.” On the other hand you may insist, “Of course I have friends. Many of them!” Like it or not, you are one who knows people—you appreciate the excitement and mental stimulation they bring. Your office at times is like Grand Central Station as they phone to touch base, or call in person—of course, your home may be kept more private, unless you are married to a Contributor or a Server who does the catering, in which case it can become a center of hospitality. 33. Mercy strategy works with people; Teacher analysis is aware of their words. You yourself mix these emotions; you can separate them only with independent subconscious Mercy and Teacher thought. In you as the ‘new age’ Facilitator, this may be lacking; it leaves you in a state—permanently—which is similar to that of a Teacher caught in an interpersonal conflict. How do you resolve it? You interpret the significance of people’s words based upon the emotional importance of their person. You pick up the opinions of the latest book you have read, the last person to whom you have talked. You bounce these ideas off of others, discover that they disagree, and then you change your mind. When you admire persons, then you easily accept that which they have to say—often too easily. When for some reason this respect is lost, then you may overcompensate by rejecting everything—all Removal from the center could also be seen as a ‘promotion downwards,’ to a focus on inner character development which can then expand outwards. Historically, influence is always more effective than authority.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
and there is Beauty there.” You long for a relationship with someone who has firm principles, and who will take steady responsibility for his actions, so that you can relax again into ‘full involvement,’ and don’t need to be continually on your guard. 37. You still want the freedom to discover things by yourself—this liberty, though, need no longer be genuine; it is enough to have the illusion of freedom. Conscious thought for you involves details: your subconscious, which deals with content of thought, may know that your organization, culture or religion is somehow incomplete; you are conscious of restriction only as this lack of liberty extends down to finer points of implementation, where ‘you’ operate. There is the illusion of freedom, therefore—it mediates the anxiety—when you remain at liberty to facilitate details. 38. You may feel that you must solve all the problems around you: “It’s my responsibility!” As the wife in a family experiencing financial pressure, for instance, you may pick up extra work, and take on emotional burdens. Your husband steps back, and lets you take over. Your marriage suffers. Alternatively, you might decide to give yourself to some highly altruistic goal: “I will become a doctor, and help those who are suffering.” You might decide to remain single, and not get married, in order to give yourself more completely to a particular cause. You feel so accountable that you find it hard to sleep at night.1 Or, looking at yet another alternative, you might decide to be a ‘busybody,’ and help in subtle ways to arrange the marriages of your single friends: “I’m not interfering, oh no, I’m simply introducing people to one another.” You want them to be happy. 39. Self-initiated action requires, among other things, an active Perceiver strategy. But, as a detailoriented thinker, you may lack broad Perceiver axiHere are three factors to keep in mind. First, if a chicken is pecking its way out of its shell, and you help it by breaking the shell for it, then it will usually die—in a parallel way, if you step in to meet problems around you, then you may be doing much more harm than good. Second, are you not a person in need yourself? Why don’t you spend your altruistic energies developing your own subconscious? When an axe is sharp—or, applying the figure, when your mind thinks clearly—then it takes a lot less effort to cut down a tree. Third, the best way to help some people, especially Contributors, is to become ‘wise’ yourself, and thus confident and successful, and then to spread this ‘wisdom’ to those around you through your example—it sets up a ‘peer pressure’ situation that allows them first to observe, and then to follow. However, you must remain firmly focused on ‘wisdom,’ and not on those who are starting to watch—that’s how you keep things going!


oms—it thus becomes hard for you to push things through to completion. You remain sensitive and intelligent—but you turn now into a generalist who begins many things, and lacks the drive to finish. You withdraw, rather, and live below your potential for a time—it happens often. You make the best of what is possible in your current environment, working with the details, then turning to something new. Day adds, though, to day. In time, you as the housewife can become the ‘mouse’ with the vacuous face. As the husband you may turn into the vacillating ‘wimp.’ The Mercy-person who becomes a ‘mouse’ explodes into anger, or slips into depression. In contrast, you simply exist, with that same smile, from day to day, hiding the depression within. You desperately need variety, at this point, yet you can fight for the status quo: “If things around me are left unchanged, then perhaps I myself will be more solid.” Then, it happens! You realize finally and irrevocably that things are not being programmed correctly. And no one is doing anything about it! Internal anguish is displaced by something worse—a fear of the abyss. It is now a matter of life and death—neurologists will recognize that this truly would trigger the posterior cingulate and precuneus region: “Trauma victims with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often experience ‘flashbacks’…during [this] fearful recall there were significant activations of right precuneus,” and “threat-related stimuli consistently activate the posterior cingulate cortex,” and “viewing TV violence selectively recruited right precuneus, right posterior cingulate, right amygdala, bilateral hippocampus and parahippocampus, bilateral pulvinar, right inferior parietal and prefrontal, and right premotor cortex.” And so you, this time fully as the ‘detached observer,’ decide that you will do something about it. What can you do, with your conscious thought? You work with details—that’s what you can do! And so at the level of detail, where you live, doing your best, you ‘hijack the cortex,’ and begin to put things together—in the wrong way. Why is it wrong? It seems that the world was formed so that the true Big Picture of thought happens to be ‘top-down,’ upon a foundation of Perceiver thought and repentance; rather than ‘top-down,’ as you are assuming, upon a basis of Facilitator self-analysis. Sure, the Perceivers of society may be playing games with ‘alternate realities’— they are often not doing their job, and that’s why things are ‘going downhill,’ but that doesn’t change the fact that they are the only ones who can initiate a solution. If you are doing it wrong, then something has to ‘give,’ and what suffers is freedom—it’s due to the absence of logical Perceiver strategy; the Perceiver has given you nothing to work with, and now he’s off there in his little alternate worlds, and the real world is falling apart, and you have to pick up the pieces, and as a reward


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
the valuable. Here at least you can guard things properly. “Don’t pick the wild orchid,” you say, “Leave the spider’s web alone. Don’t waste the potential of a child. Recycle your garbage. How could you pollute the environment!” You see people who are living below their potential and are heavy in your heart: “What a society to allow this to happen! What a waste!” 42. There’s another path of ‘partial wisdom,’ and you may enter it as well. You take care of your family, and become highly responsible in your profession, and then you turn off any curiosity that extends outside of these limits. If your eyes don’t see, then you can’t be held responsible.2 43. As we have hinted thus far, you tend to be somewhat cautious about emotion; our current fragmented world can force you to turn ‘objective’—you may then actually become quite emotional, with Teacher theory-emotion, as you struggle to maintain this Mercy personal-emotional ‘objectivity.’ You cannot avoid the fact, though, that you were once a child. Because you grew up as a child, personal-emotional experiences—often unanalyzed and undigested, because you avoid personal-emotional subjects—are at the core of your mental integration. Why is this? Because that is the way personal development works—it roots itself, in a baby, within personal-emotional events. Since you began your development from a foundation of personal experience, these personalemotional events and their associated feelings may end up guiding your everyday personal actions, even when you are grown up. On the ‘objective’ side, you feel very strongly and emotionally, in a sort of abstract intellectual way, that your understanding should be free of personal emotion; words and their associated theory-emotions can actually develop stronger feelings for you than the personal experiences which they are trying to protect or to describe. Over against this very impressive and sometimes aggressive rationality, and forming it sometimes into rationalization, is an ‘irrational subjective core.’ Where does it come from? It flows from your childhood and its undigested personal-emotional, Mercy-thought-based experiences. Why is it irrational? Because Perceiver thought within you is not allowed by you to ‘touch’ it with facts, for that would generate emotion. What kind of feeling? Melancholy. Remorse. You don’t want anyone, including your own subconscious, stuffing principles down your throat, and in this way generating any sort of unpleasantness. How do you stop it? By making sure Benjamin Franklin, a widely influential Facilitator, suggested that it is prudent to be a ‘jack of all trades, but master of one.’ The specialist in our current point has done the latter but is neglecting his own unique ability to also be a generalist.

for your ‘responsibility,’ you earn the Perceiver’s hatred for being a ‘mindless bureaucrat.’ But you don’t ‘understand’ any of this, and so you continue.1 The illusion of liberty remains for you when you are free to facilitate details, and to experiment—which of course you will continue to do, for as long as there is any freedom left in this world. 40. It’s an example of your deeply embedded sense of responsibility. If you are a girl, and meet a fellow with problems, then you may interact with him, to help him, and then suddenly feel accountable for what happens to him. You don’t know how to get yourself out of the situation. Here also, in ‘hijacking the cortex,’ you see a world with problems, and you get involved, because it seems that no one else cares. Then, you don’t dare to let go. 41. Let’s pull back for a moment. If in contrast you have grown up in an environment that assumes absolutes, then as the child of that age you may exhibit some traits that might normally be more characteristic of a Perceiver. You believe in the rule of law, for instance, and aspects of justice that seem obvious to the Perceiver—you can be very steadfast in your convictions. I add again that if Perceiver thought in you ever does learn to operate intelligently and independently, then you will walk in that higher direction—so mysterious to the ‘new age’ thinker—in which you facilitate the rest of your mind, submit yourself to its guidance, and enjoy its direction. More usually, however, your deep desire for integration in this confused world leads you to hold on to your inadequate current understanding very tightly, until such a time as something better can come along—in sheer self-defense, that is, you guard the status quo. Reflexively, then, you extend this to people and insist upon fairness—“Everyone must be treated exactly the same!” It sounds wonderful in theory, but it’s actually not helpful at all. Why not? Because Perceiver thought senses distinctions; it determines differences; it declares that everything in fact is not identical. Fairness, therefore, is irrevocably opposed to Perceiver analysis, and Perceiver strategy is at the vital core of mental reprogramming. But you shoved this strategy aside when you moved in with your own particular brand of ‘top-down’ analysis, and now you are destroying it further. Do you see how you, the person who has finally decided to help, are now actually beginning to close the door firmly against a solution? We might add that in both cases—in full wisdom, and when emphasizing fairness—you hate to see ignorance and cruelty damaging the intricate and The Facilitator who can manage somehow to extract solid principles, from some kind of a Perceiver source, is the individual who will start to walk in ‘wisdom.’ Now he can be an integral part of a lasting solution!

Personality Profiles - More Detail
that Perceiver thought within you, when it comes to anything that involves ‘you,’ remains uneducated. How do you do that? By ensuring that the major principle in this world is the belief that ‘there are no principles.’ And by policing fairness and political correctness among those who might feel otherwise—the symmetry of this societal Beauty for you becomes your ‘truth.’ In our current social order, you have largely succeeded, and thus the subjective core within you remains truly ‘subjective.’ However, you’re not too disturbed, for everything is OK at the level of details. You try your best, then—from your base in this low-level stability—to help those around you, and to solve the problems that are being caused by their irresponsibility, and aggravated by your ‘new age’ leadership. 44. At this point, the various splits in the MBNI scheme describe you exactly. For those who desire an overview of how to proceed with MBNI, here are the essentials: MBNI Sensing is not equivalent to the Server; rather, it is Teacher and Server thought interacting, with Server strategy in charge. MBNI iNtuition is similar, but with Teacher thought in control. MBNI Feeling is Mercy and Perceiver thought interacting, with Mercy strategy in charge. MBNI Thinking in contrast is Mercy and Perceiver thought interacting, but this time under the direction of Perceiver processing. If we wish a quick bridge to neurology, Teacher and Server strategies are in the left hemisphere, and represent the left hemisphere ventral and dorsal sensory streams respectively. Mercy and Perceiver thought play a corresponding role in the right hemisphere. These four strategies mix massively and bilaterally in the hippocamposeptal structure: we can track Mercy and Teacher ventral streams up to the superior temporal and the perirhinal of the right and left hemispheres respectively, and Perceiver and Server to the superior parietal and the parahippocampal of the right and left hemispheres respectively, and then it all interacts in multiple ways in the entorhinal and the hippocampus itself—within layers II, III, V and VI as well—to generate memory. A disease such as Alzheimer’s can result if we don’t use the machine in a balanced manner. The perirhinal, a final way station of the ventral stream—making it a part of Mercy and Teacher objectprocessing thought—links to the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala. This body gives emotional labels to Teacher- and Mercy-processed objects based on the labels of what was previously emotional. It does so under the control of Facilitator processing in the anterior cingulate—we can see how things interweave. The right hemisphere, where Mercy thought is located, imparts feelings to experiences; the left in contrast gives emotions to words—it’s evident that there really is a distinction between theory-emotion and personal-


experiential-emotion. To a rough approximation, we can think of the Exhorter as building upon a foundation of Teacher and Mercy thought, and adding excitement to the emotion—as we’ve said, this excitement is generated chemically, through dopamine. The Contributor in turn develops upon a foundation of Server and Perceiver strategies, and is related to the neuromodulator serotonin. It does planning and makes decisions, based upon Exhorter urges. Facilitator strategy and its controlling noradrenaline weave in and through everything. ‘Working memory’ circuits for the Exhorter, Contributor, and Facilitator involve subcortical regions that have very extensive connections between the hemispheres. That is why the ventral tegmental area in the two hemispheres, for instance, is part of one Exhorter strategy. It’s a single form of thought, I might add, but with two aspects, and we can know what they are from history: Biographies indicate that Exhorters hold some things fixed while they alter others. Theory, for instance, is often formed from ‘proof by example’—that is, the Exhorter fixates on some experience, and from it generates theory. Similarly, he can speak the same thing, over and over again, holding it fixed, as long as he is saying it to different groups of people— it makes him into a great counselor. We can switch now to neurology, and link this to brain hemispheres: theory, we know, is Teacher in the left hemisphere, experience is Mercy in the right; each has its own emotion. It means that Exhorter thought works with Teacher and Mercy concepts and feelings, and holds one side fixed while it operates on the other—it fits. How do the cortical styles—Teacher, Mercy, Server, and Perceiver—interact with the subcortical styles of Exhorter, Contributor and Facilitator? In many ways. Theta oscillations, for instance, switch between input and output in the hippocampus, among other things. Neuromodulators influence various ‘working memory’ circuits. Here’s an interesting one: “Common efferent projections of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [Contributor, area 46] and posterior parietal cortex [Perceiver in the right hemisphere and Server in the left hemisphere] were examined in 3 rhesus monkeys by placing injections of tritiated amino acids and HRP in frontal and parietal cortices, respectively, of the same hemisphere. Terminal labeling originating from both frontal [Contributor] and parietal [Perceiver] injection sites was found to be in apposition [right next to each other] in 15 ipsilateral [in the same hemisphere] cortical areas: the supplementary motor cortex, the dorsal premotor cortex, the ventral premotor cortex, the anterior arcuate cortex (including the frontal eye fields), the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior and posterior cingulate cortices, the frontoparietal operculum, the insular cortex, the medial parietal cor-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
analysis which are objective and cannot ‘shine’ on ‘subjective me’; here it is ‘safe’ to enable MBNI Thinking. 46. Looking at it in more detail, the split between Thinking and Feeling means that the ‘fact that is logical’ usually lacks emotion, and the ‘feeling which is personal’ is not generally understood. What about MBNI itself? Is it not a set of principles that deals with the subjective? And does that not bridge the gap between Thinking and Feeling? Not according to the Facilitator psychologist. MBNI, he tells us, is an illogical theory. No one can explain it. Somehow, it exists. Why? No one knows. It describes things. That’s all. Here again he is completely correct. MBNI as a theory was not formed by MBNI Thinking—if it had been, then it would be subject to logical explanation. Neither did it involve Teacher strategy and MBNI Introversion—as one eminent psychologist informed me quite pointedly, “We don’t want a unified theory.” It was developed in a different way—it happens to be outside of current MBNI theory. How? We’ve mentioned that the Facilitator can retreat from one mode of thought in which he is ‘fully involved’ into another in which he is ‘detached and observing.’ What does this mean? It signifies that he can either immerse himself in the MBNI structure, and use it to interpret the world, or else he can stand apart from it and observe it— circuits in the anterior and posterior cingulate do suggest that circumvention of the hippocampus is a possibility—and it is this ability to watch that allowed him to understand. Why has the Facilitator not shared this aspect of MBNI with us? There are two reasons. First of all, he notices vaguely that others do not have his breadth of internal vision, and he assumes, mistakenly, that something might therefore be wrong with him—thus, he’s a bit nervous about it. Second, he sees people continually acting in ways that are cruel to his ‘working memory.’ It causes him anguish and anxiety. He has an excruciating desire for mental integration, but all too often others make choices which damage what he values: “Do they not see? Don’t they care?” So, to protect himself and others from hurt, he decides that the wisest course of action is to hide his inner vision— he won’t talk about it, and he won’t even admit it when others mention it! What he will do is use it to attempt to orient circumstances so that others may be able to make better ‘long-term’ responses—that’s the ‘responsible’ course of action. He’s not sure how they would react if they realized what he was doing ‘behind the scenes.’ However, is it his fault that he sees things, and that people are so predictable? Even MBNI, in its current form without a description of his inner integrating vision, is thus a kind of security measure—it holds together a world of ‘barbarians’ that is locked into splits, and it guards the status quo until

tex, the superior temporal cortex, the parahippocampal gyrus, the presubiculum, the caudomedial lobule, and the medial prestriate cortex. Convergent terminal labeling was observed in the contralateral hemisphere as well, most prominently in the principal sulcal cortex, the superior arcuate cortex, and the superior temporal cortex. In certain common target areas, as for example the cingulate cortices, frontal and parietal efferents terminate in an array of interdigitating columns...” There are a number of independent modules in parietal cortex—one of these regions, the superior parietal, is cognitive, and is Server thought in the left hemisphere and Perceiver analysis in the right; we can see how tightly it links with another cognitive module, called Contributor, in the frontal lobes. 45. Moving further, MBNI speaks of Introversion and Judging. Introversion is Perceiver strategy working with Teacher thought—this is what my brother and I did when we formed the initial theory for this book. He is a Perceiver person, and thus conscious in Perceiver thought; I am a Teacher and therefore conscious in Teacher thought. We worked together; our partnership simulated what happens within the mind of each person in MBNI Introversion. Judging in contrast is Perceiver thought working with Mercy strategy—it generates conscience.

I’m now going to introduce a diagram. To make sense of it, we need to realize that Mercy strategy lives in Introverted Feeling, or ‘IF.’ Teacher strategy resides in Introverted iNtuition, or ‘IN.’ Perceiver analysis is located in Introverted Thinking, or ‘IT,’ and Server thought in Introverted Sensing, or ‘IS.’ Exhorter thought resides in both EF and EN, or Extraverted Feeling and Extraverted iNtuition. Contributor analysis uses both ES and ET, or Extraverted Sensing and Extraverted Thinking, for planning buffers. Finally, Facilitator thought represents the ‘working memory’ circuit composed of the four legs of Judging, Extraversion, Perceiving and Introversion. MBNI splits Judging further into MBNI Feeling and Thinking. Feeling, as we said, is Mercy and Perceiver analysis working together, with the Mercy part in charge. This analysis is preferred in dealing with the subjective—it avoids conscience. Logic forms then in those regions of Perceiver

Personality Profiles - More Detail
something better can come along. The psychologist who said to me, “We don’t want a theory!” was likely terrified that a full explanation would blow things apart, irretrievably, into fragments that could never be reassembled. But, the cat is now out of the bag1—I assure the Facilitator that we have done our very best to present this information in a beneficial manner. Our goal is to put things together. 47. Let’s complete MBNI at this time. In the same way that Perceiver strategy generates MBNI Introversion and Judging, so Server mode is the source of MBNI Extraversion and Perceiving. On one side of this distinction, Server thought interacts with Mercy strategy to generate action: Server ‘steps of action,’ it turns out, correspond to Mercy links between experiences. That is Extraversion. On the other side of the dichotomy, Server analysis cooperates with Teacher strategy to generate connected speech and higher mathematics. This is Perceiving. In both cases, isolated elements are chained together in the Server part and ordered into longer sequences. Server thought is non-associative and thus not prone to fragmenting—it would like to form these two processes into a more general sequence. However, it is not able to do so by itself—‘mathematics’ and ‘actions’ are ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’; they cannot be compared. The two sets of sequences are therefore of necessity kept quite separate in the Server module: it is an open secret in science, for example, that pure mathematicians are often the most impractical of people; they don’t seem to know how to act. By the same token, one never sees ordinary people explaining their deeds through the use of mathematical formulae—the very concept seems ludicrous! Thus, the dichotomy is perpetuated—Server with Teacher generates one network of thought in the Server part, dealing with intellectual concepts; Server with Mercy generates another network in the Server part, dealing with actions. The Facilitator often brings opposing things together; he The Facilitator lives in the midst of a world that has not yet developed Facilitator strategy—in other words, it has not come up to the level of ‘mental idling mode.’ The Facilitator, however, ‘lives’ in this circuit, and he sees the violence that people do to it. He feels, therefore, that if they knew him for what he truly was, they would be violent to him as well. Thus, he hides his ability to see. It’s time for us to realize that the entire structure of human thought builds upon mental ‘idling mode,’ and this is the area where the Facilitator is conscious. Civilization is thus impossible without the Facilitator. If we wish to know what the world would be like without operative Facilitator thought, then we need only look at the nation of Iraq, at time of writing in 2006. Bureaucrats have run for cover; beneficial action is dead, and specialists have taken over—the country really has regressed back to barbarism.


could do it here by encouraging his highly associative Perceiver analysis to come up with common structure behind ‘action’ and behind ‘mathematics’—the meaning of activity, for example, or the application for understanding. Generally, though, he won’t do this. He simply doesn’t see the importance of this task. 48. Certainly the Facilitator psychologist is aware of this ‘Server split.’ He roots it in a distinction between iNtuition and Sensing, says that it is irresolvable, and states that people choose always to live on one or the other side of this divide. Parenthetically, let me say in conclusion that we have studied the MBNI scheme, and have found no error in it at all—nothing whatsoever. As always, the Facilitator analyzes his mind correctly. Each of the sixteen patterns of thought, it turns out, describes a resonant mode of mental operation in which portions of ‘working memory’ circuits interact—we will soon see it demonstrated in the wiring of the hippocamposeptal circuits. In contrast, cognitive styles become more relevant when ‘working memory’ circuits begin to interact as unfragmented units. This typically occurs as personhood develops to maturity, and it is why we were able to discover characteristics of cognitive style from individuals in history who excelled. 49. But back to you as the ‘new age’ Facilitator. Your Mercy and Server strategies together generate action; given a choice, therefore, you gravitate from the Mercy module towards Server strategy—active analysis here keeps Mercy mode, with its emotions, under control. It’s that same form of thought which makes the Server so dependable—we’ll study it later as MBNI ISFJ—we see it here again in you. Your Teacher and Server strategies in turn work with speech and mathematics; when you can, you move here to Teacher analysis, to counteract Mercy feeling with another emotion—we’re speaking now of ‘detached thought,’ which is actually an aspect of MBNI Introversion. Control of Mercy feelings in these ways is important to you. One consequence: your character seems often to be a mix of Server and Teacher traits. It is not really natural, but rather the result of an attempt to stabilize your emotions. 50. Parenthetically, when it comes to emotion, the feeling you communicate best is probably that of gratefulness. You tend to show love in marriage by doing things for your partner—it’s an attempt to get beyond empty words by showing that you really care. Feelings often remain under the surface of your person, where others cannot see them; you may occasionally talk calmly and rationally, for example, about some highly emotional subject, then suddenly find yourself overcome and unable to continue. 51. OK, back briefly to MBNI, and one of its least understood areas: Just as Judging splits into Feeling and Thinking, so Perceiving divides into iNtuition


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
control the theory-emotions of the words, and then also to protect ‘subjective’ experience-based preconceptions from emotional attack. Demands in this battle for survival can be contradictory—people ask: “What are you trying to say?” As part of political correctness you may ‘sanitize’ certain concepts: the term ‘cripple’ with its negative emotion, for instance, is replaced by ‘disabled person.’ This in turn acquires bad connotations, and so you introduce the phrase ‘physically challenged individual.’ 54. We have implied that Perceiver analysis either is programmed by axioms—beliefs, absolutes—or it is not. In fact it is not quite so simple; the division in subtle ways is actually somewhat different. My brother speaks, for instance, of two types of Perceiver ‘knowing’: by repetition, or by emotion. Let’s follow his logic, for this is important. If on the one hand Perceiver analysis assumes as axiomatic that which continues to be repeated—an example might be the apple that always drops from the tree, or that I always fall and hurt myself when I jump from something tall— then it becomes equipped to learn axioms from careful observation of the ‘hard knocks of life.’ It may notice, for instance, that honesty often pays off. We might add that of course it is more efficient for honesty to be assumed by a society, programmed into the Perceiver strategy of each child through education, and then confirmed by him through observation. This biases his Perceiver analysis towards knowing by repetition; more principles can be taught, more accurately, more quickly. The end result of course is MBNI Thinking, in which Perceiver and Mercy strategies work together, with Perceiver thought in charge. Let’s turn now to the second type of ‘knowing’—namely, by emotion. If Perceiver analysis assumes as solid that which has strong emotion, rather than that which is repeated, then it more usually copies into itself those experiences with strong personal-emotional feelings, as found in Mercy thought. Perceiver strategy then becomes at its foundation a duplicate of Mercy analysis—this is what MBNI calls Feeling. In contrast to Thinking, Feeling occurs when Mercy and Perceiver modes work together, but with Mercy strategy in charge. We have implied that Feeling lacks axioms. That is not really true. It in fact is programmed with ‘absolutes’ or ‘axioms.’ They are adaptations of the strongest or ‘defining’ Mercy experiences, however, and add nothing new. There are strange crossovers: a society such as Confucian China may teach moral absolutes, yet not believe in ‘knowing’ by repetition— principles are accepted blindly, whether they work or not, and passed on blindly, because they came originally from a Mercy-important person. Less commonly, a society may be relatively poor in axioms, yet come gradually to believe in ‘knowing’ by repetition. This process, in the West, came to fruition in the Ref-

and Sensing. In iNtuition, Teacher strategy uses Server thinking to chain together words into sentences, or perhaps propositions into proofs. Everything in iNtuition, as opposed to Introversion, is nonvisual; when it is visual, so that things can be rotated or reflected, then the work is being done rather by Perceiver strategy, working with Teacher thought in MBNI Introversion. Sensing, in contrast to iNtuition, uses Server strategy to form Server ‘steps of action’ into Teachertheories—these would be general rules of craftsmanship, perhaps, or standards of excellence. We recall that in Sensing, Server thought is in charge, rather than Teacher thinking. However, Teacher theories are still being formed, and they are emotional—this is the source of the craftsman’s intellectual pride in his work, and the ever-increasing joy as he generates elegant works of art. Just as Thinking and Feeling are kept separate, so also iNtuition and Sensing are very carefully kept disconnected. Why? To the extent that intellectual propositions intersect with pride of workmanship, there will be responsibility—it is a positive ‘conviction’ this time, rather than a negative such as conscience. Once more, though, other styles—it is precisely what forms them into ‘barbarians’—will do almost anything to avoid this accountability. Again, you as the Facilitator sit at the top of the ‘mess,’ you observe it, and you try somehow to manage it. 52. At a lower level, you find it easy to synthesize or ‘average’ the two aspects of iNtuition and Sensing. In particular, you can do things with your hands, and talk about what you are doing—simultaneously.1 We usually see this when you are trying to explain some very practical subject. You may appear, for example, as the gourmet cook on television—you work creatively and intricately with food even as you give a detailed running commentary. 53. You remain the one who manages emotions, and that includes speech. The left hemisphere forms words into sentences—these may have theoryemotion. The right hemisphere adds non-verbal components of feeling such as tone of voice or perhaps excitement or anger. To protect yourself in this mix, you may at times find yourself generating ‘bureaucratese.’ You chain together words and circumlocutions—rationalizations fight on these occasions with rationality. Your goal is no longer necessarily to communicate meaning, but rather to manage and to However, you may be uncomfortable, for example, at repetitive pre-planned get-togethers, particularly when people begin to compare trivial things such as catering, carpets and careers. In these occasions you pull back into ‘detached thought,’ and it may become rather hard for you to serve and at the same time to carry on creative and intelligent conversation.

Personality Profiles - More Detail
ormation: a consensus developed finally, during the time of Luther, that each individual could and should develop his own set of beliefs—in other words, there were Perceiver axioms, and they could be discovered. However, the field of investigation, from which axioms were extracted, changed over the years. In every case, the bias of the Facilitator away from the Mercy to the Server, and away from the Server to the Teacher, helped in the development of Western civilization. 55. In earlier stages of societal growth, after the Reformation, Perceiver axioms were extracted mainly from experiences—which we have said are interpreted largely by Mercy analysis. Axioms were Perceiver principles that would predict how and whether experiences might repeat themselves. A Facilitator such as Captain Cook might begin, for example, as an explorer—his Server thought worked with Mercy strategy to generate action to assimilate experience; it is a mode of analysis, as we said, that gives great emotional stability. In his later life, emphasis shifted then to his Teacher strategy—in line with the innate biases of the Facilitator—and he became a geographer. Similarly with society as a whole, under the direction of the many Facilitators who lived in it. Over time, more and more principles were discovered. Eventually, Teacher thought itself began to operate—Newton the Teacher of course triggered it. People who followed his example noticed that Perceiver axioms, and even Teacher general laws, could be found simply by observing other principles—that is, principles about experiences acted in ways that were repeatable, and those ways generated more principles and even laws. A Facilitator such as Linnaeus, in this new environment, learned facts about biological discoveries of others; his mind bridged across like Cook’s, then, to Teacher analysis, and with its help he eventually developed the modern classification scheme for biology. Like Cook, he was a child of his more advanced age, and it formed him more easily into a theoretician. Principles that made up the growing Body of Knowledge coalesced increasingly—often with the help of Facilitators—into Teacher-mediated theories. It happened first in physics, then in other fields as well. It was soon noticed that these theories repeatedly predicted similar Perceiver principles; it was a new and even richer source of axioms. Again, the Facilitator became a child of this age as well. He entered fully now into the scientific method. Often, he was the experimentalist—working with experiences, doing actions, forming principles from what was repeatable, and discovering laws. It was, however, becoming the scientific method—its scope in society was being restricted. The influence of the Reformation had dissipated; its principles no longer applied everywhere. Logical thought was separating itself, increasingly, from the real world—in this realm external to science,


the ‘subjective’ in contrast was beginning to rule. ‘Truth’ was based more and more, outside of science, in ‘emotional knowing’ and the opinions of important people. How has this ‘new age’ breakdown of a societal consensus on ‘what is true’ affected Facilitators? Well, as we have seen in detail thus far, they are standing over the abyss. They feel terror, angst! To defend themselves1 and save the world from disaster, the Facilitators of society have taken over, ‘new age’ political correctness is gaining in influence, and progress, even in science, is starting to halt. 56. You, the Facilitator, if you are a child of this modern ‘new age’ era, hunger for wisdom, as long as it is self-discovered, and not ‘pushed down your throat.’ You are aware of many aspects of thought. Knowledge forms in your mind therefore into proverbs—often disconnected, and oriented around plans for self-improvement or self-understanding. You cannot think about concepts unless they are stated in words—and it must be the right words. Like Benjamin Franklin, Confucius, or Solomon, your proverbs can make you into a great counselor. You are attracted especially to education—your heart-felt desire is to teach the coming generation in ways that will help them to choose for themselves what is beneficial, so that society can begin again from a new foundation. 57. You are the oil in the organization, the born diplomat. You conciliate, you reconcile, you defer to those with influence. You adapt to the present, then you say and do what is necessary to move things further. You avoid extremes; others can trust you to discover and to adopt the consensus. Let me say it again. You, the ‘new age’ thinker who has taken over, are the most adaptable individual in society.2 You as the leader tend to adjust—courteously, decently, graciously—to what others are doing. Let’s think about that for a moment. If we feel that our current society is drifting, rudderless, perhaps we begin to see why. 58. Let talk about what goes on inside your mind as you adapt, but also lead. You see someone who is excelling in some area, and are truly impressed. You’re aware of the whole mental circuit, and are amazed that someone would take the meticulous care to develop some portion of it so well, as this person evidently has done—you want to emulate him. That’s one of the factors that makes you adaptable! But, you are also threatened, because you can’t fully duplicate what the

An intermediate defense is to specialize, and to stop being curious. However, that works for only so long. Notice that we did not say, “You as a Facilitator are the most adaptable cognitive style.” It is ‘new age’ thinking that makes a Facilitator become pliant—and then absolutely rigid to anyone who would attempt to cure the malleability.



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
into a Big Picture in your mind; you break them into segments with respect to time, you see the different people who would be great for each part—the resident authorities or examples in each particular field— and you get them involved.3 Soon it is easy—why should you do the repetitive when you can delegate it to others? Before you know it, you are a manmanager. 62. In an organization, you do not mind working under the control of others, if they are competent. When your ‘boss’ knows what he is doing, then you will accept his decisions. You are willing to let him come up with the plan, and to fit you into it—in particular, you make an excellent executive secretary or chief of staff; you can become a very effective team player. Personal independence is not really a major concern: you would hesitate, for example, to give up the security of a good job, just to be self-employed. 63. When you as the manager accept leadership, therefore, it is most naturally as the Number Two person, under intelligent and competent Authority. You are mentally equipped to facilitate the goals of others, and to handle the details of implementation; as a ‘new age’ thinker you find it difficult in contrast to formulate, in isolation, that which is truly original. A major temptation, in fact, is to step back from the challenge: “Who am I to tell others what to do?” Often you need to be called forward, in very specific ways, before you will take responsibility within a position of leadership.4 64. You tell others about what is happening; you introduce them to one another and to those you respect. Since project flows from relationship, things just seem to happen around you. You are a real source of excitement, unlike the Server—or perhaps better, you are friends of leaders with challenging and exciting plans. You integrate their involvement with each other and with those around you. 65. I should add: you can on occasion find it hard to make a decision—you always like to keep your op-

other did. You don’t realize at all that he excels in some area because that is his only region of consciousness. 59. You want social and organizational order. You especially abhor rebellion and revolution—it makes you the rule-keeper as a child; you remind siblings of the regulations of parents. You try things yourself— you must, you require constant variety—but experimentally, in ways that are evolutionary. You seek the middle, the path of general agreement.1 Perhaps you say: “I love changes that are radical. I fight for them”—you quickly turn back when you see anarchy, heads rolling, blood on the streets—“No, not that!” 60. Your mind at times is incredibly active—threads of thought are interrupted, modified, and then picked up again. You distribute your attention: a little to this project, some to that person. It can be a major defense against those persons with disturbing ideas: “If I responded completely to you, then I would be ignoring the opinions of many others who are also important. Surely you don’t wish me to be discourteous!”2 Pictures and scenes of your own subjective past flicker within you and fade, as you listen to what is said—if a person really tried to change your ways, then he could make you feel very bad. And let me tell you, when it comes to guarding your position in an organization against this kind of an attack, you can learn how to defend yourself! 61. Let’s look at you for a moment in your role as a bureaucrat. You are unexcelled, potentially, in the art of delegation; you can supervise a number of projects at once. You may start as a younger person, perhaps, like the Server, unable to say ‘no.’ There is in fact a label that describes you, at this point, along with other styles who never progress further—MBNI depicts it as ISFJ thought. As things pile up and the pressure builds, though, you may find yourself forced increasingly into higher modes of thinking. Projects form

1 I emphasize again that the Facilitator child who is given freedom as a child, and who learns to trust his world, may explore the multiple extremes of beneficial existence—then, as he discovers wisdom, he will narrow down to that which is truly beneficial. If he is always seeking the middle, it is because he is frightened of what might happen if he innovated. Since he is the generalist who puts things together, a middle path on his part is bad for the rest of us.

3 This uses ENTJ, which is an aspect of ‘detached thought’ and of the Introversion leg of Facilitator ‘working memory.’

The Facilitator is wary of us ‘barbarians,’ and so he uses his generalized vision to hold us at bay. Do we think he is being obnoxious? Listen, if he wanted to, he could really misuse his abilities, in order to manipulate us. He’s not doing that. He’s at least trying to be responsible— unlike the rest of us, who through our moral passivity have let him down completely.


You may be hesitant: “I don’t know what they want, and I don’t know the reasonableness of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ and if I get involved I will surely make mistakes. Well, at least I know how to avoid what is ‘wrong’—I’ll give it a nice wide margin. Bye, I’m off to my insulated world, with my fellow Facilitators.” What you probably don’t realize is that mental ‘idling mode,’ or Facilitator thought, in isolation from the other strategies is unstable. If you abdicate your responsibility to spread civilization to those around you, then willy-nilly you will condemn yourself to ‘new age’ thought and its consequences.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
tions open, and ‘deciding’ by definition closes options. As a child, your parents may have offered you a dish of candy: “Take one.” You reached for a big one. But no, if you took it, then you wouldn’t be able to take the other. Others were also very nice. Your hand hovered, and perhaps you touched the candies; you couldn’t decide. Finally, in frustration, your parents said you couldn’t have any! 66. As a decision-maker, similarly, you may pride yourself on being ‘open-minded.’ You as a ‘new age’ thinker are willing to consider anything, with one condition—it must not be forced on you. There was possibly a time, in your teens, when you were hurt by inconsistencies in what was taught.1 You responded: “Was it ‘pushed down my throat?’ ” Wherever the answer was yes, you rejected what was forced on you, and you started again. If you did this, then you probably do the same now: you reject without thought that which is presented discourteously, or pushed on you.2 Then, in an ‘open-minded’ and very conciliatory manner, you look at alternatives. 67. We have said that you work with details. One consequence can be that things which were said, or tasks that were delegated, must be written down, then placed in external filing systems, or they may be lost forever. You recall the specifics when reminded, but you may not know how to ‘relocate attention’ to get to them again by yourself—when cortical content is poor, it generates the adaptability that we saw, then vulnerability to the influence of others. Some kind of daybook or ‘do-list’ is a vital part of your life. You look to externals, like a schedule, for structure.3 When absolutes are completely lacking, then you may fight for the status quo.4 It’s the same problem—you don’t have easy access to your conscience. You wish you did; it would make things easier. But you don’t. So, if things go wrong, and there are inconsistencies, then you must move far away from whatever may have caused it. So, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You may later, in wisdom, seek out and hold fast to principles, yet despise the method by which they were taught. You would never revert to being part of ‘that system’—you can now see through its pitiful limitations, and you dislike it. However, you will hold on to right principles, no matter what their source. This need for a diary or written schedule is greatly reduced when subconscious Teacher and Perceiver strategies begin to operate. Neurologically, we deduce from this that the Papez circuit, to which the anterior cingulate links, is broadened by superior temporal and superior parietal involvement—it will make sense later.
4 As the ‘barbarians’ become increasingly bestial in their behavior, you do your best to keep things from 3 2 1


68. Often you keep a personal diary or notebook—if not actually on paper, then in your head, in the form of memories linked to photos around the house, perhaps, or to souvenirs that remind. It intensifies the experience. When the past is recorded in this way, then it can always be brought into the present again— you look at things, touch them, and suddenly there you are. In a reverse way, your diary helps you also to process the present, and to relegate it to the past. Thoughts race through your head at the end of the day. Somehow it is calming to put them down on paper—tomorrow, when you wake up, is new again, free from the influence of the past. At times you put down notes of self-analysis; you jot down points for self-improvement. You determine to delegate a task. Here and there are jobs, do-lists, things to remember. You may say things on paper that you would never dare to state in public. Your diary for this reason—or the scattered notes that substitute for it—is personal; sections may be coded to make sure that this remains so. Or, you tidy up and throw segments away. 69. When you must learn a large number of facts, then you look for a method to sort these facts into groups. One common classification scheme deals with living organisms—genus and species, with names in Latin. Most people hate to learn these foreign sounds. If you enjoy plants or animals, you will find the labels useful. They help to keep things straight. 70. You feel overwhelmed when you are introduced to too many new facts or experiences, and cannot sort or file them away. Experience becomes meaningful as you find a name for it; these labels are organized to form the basis for a mental filing system. You collect facts, on anything and everything—they might be useful in the future. This also is written down, sorted and filed away. With things as well, you can be a pack rat. Your possessions are generally organized though, and put in places—it may not be very tidy.5 Then they are left, perhaps, to gather dust. Periodically you sort through it all and throw away the superfluous. 71. Along with an ability to get things done, you are artistically inclined. The Contributor is the pioneer; you explore what he has outlined, you experiment with technique. You emulate the sculpture of a Picasso, for instance; you paint lovely scenes of Nature. In music, you may learn tunes by ear like the Server, but then play the theme with variations. We might add, parenthetically, that the volume of your playing may not be adjusted as easily—in religious circles flying apart completely—you may not know how to fix the situation, but you can at least keep it from getting worse. When everything can be seen—as in ‘scattered around the house or office’—then you know that you own it, and that it is available for use. It’s an external ‘map’ that substitutes for the lack of internal strategies.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Roman society failed to respond to them; the challenges grew stronger, and finally the civilization collapsed. One continually sees similar mini-universal states set up under ‘new age’ Facilitator administrators—in business organizations, for example, or among religious bodies: the process begins with a lack of Perceiver axioms, and with conflict between similar entities; ‘war’ increases in severity, there is exhaustion, Facilitators side with the winner, a particular ‘new age’ Facilitator synthesizes to generate growth, and then he eliminates outliers. Finally, things freeze. 74. You, the Facilitator leader of a mini-universal state, often turn into a ‘wimp’—I suggest a definition: a wimp is one who follows forcefully from up front. You are forceful because you are a decent individual who sees all of the aspects in their details, and you truly wish to be a part of the solution. Others want you as a leader; you graciously respond. You are a follower then because you do not dare to move beyond the consensus—surely, you feel, if you are flexible and adaptable, and implement the wishes of the majority, then things will work out. Initiative by individuals, apart from the group, is seen as rebellion—it is extreme, you will not approve it. If these persons talk with others, then that bypasses your reservations, threatens your place at the center, attacks organizational integrity, and is seen by you as revolution. Initiative by others is therefore instinctively stifled,3 even as you encourage education and progress; you follow the consensus that remains—this becomes, through your elimination of the novel elements, a desire for the status quo. People look to you for leadership; you look to them for input. Things deadlock— and you turn to the outside expert: “Nobody here has any ideas!”4 Parenthetically, we might add that in a

particularly, you can be a ‘piano basher.’1 It is an attempt by you to ‘know,’ through volume of noise— especially in ‘worship’—the ‘truth’ of related religious facts, so that you can then work with their details. You read music by sight, then you adapt what is written. You make a competent orchestra conductor. Your poetry illustrates personal experience—in blank verse at times, without rhyme or meter. 72. We have said that you appreciate symmetry. This kind of Beauty can actually substitute in you for Truth. Surprisingly, it’s a strong safeguard for society. The Teacher person on his part might discern order within the complexity of powerful weapons of war— he could become emotionally involved in destruction. You would sense the lack of symmetry in this negative activity, along with the imbalance in comparison to Mercy emotion, and would strongly oppose it. 73. Now let us again look further. Western civilization developed, we saw, from a generalized consensus that Perceiver axioms could be ‘known’ by repetition. The Facilitator in that case, with his peculiar biases, became a catalyst for development. Another path is possible; we see it in the Greco-Roman Civilization. This began with city-states in the Grecian peninsula, each with its own unique culture. Thought here was organized, as in other primitive populations, around Mercy analysis; this is intolerant of any culture but its own—the result was war between citystates. Conflict, as it continued, created interaction and a rich learning environment: people compared their own culture with variants in other cities; Perceiver principles formed in their minds to describe what was common, or ‘Grecian.’ Facilitators of course suffered greatly in the wars; they hate rebellion and revolution. Conflicts became more devastating as learning developed and the means of war became more destructive. Finally there was exhaustion, with one city-state temporarily in the ascendance—it was Rome. Peace came, and now the Facilitators of the society emerged into their element. It was Facilitatorthought, then, that set up the machinery for the Roman universal state and its ‘civilization’ of the former ‘barbarian’ elements. First, it blended component segments of society; this caused massive initial growth. Then, when all that was important had been assimilated, elements or ‘outliers’ that remained resistant to assimilation were subjugated by force. At this point growth ceased, because raw material was no longer available for synthesis; it was being eliminated.2 Challenges came, the increasingly ‘new age’

‘barbaric,’ then the gut reaction is either to control it, or else to suppress it. It turns out that there is another path—the ‘outlier’ can be convicted through principles, co-opted by true wisdom, and transformed.
3 It’s another consequence of the Isoneural Principle— you just can’t believe that others are different. You are quite certain that ‘barbarians’ lack your vision not because their consciousness differs, but rather because they have not developed their mind as you have—it is thus obvious to you that you should remain in charge, so that you can teach them. However, the Facilitator ‘working memory’ circuit where you are conscious is the mind’s ‘idling mode’—things can never excel if you hold on exclusively to the reins, without input from others.

The more mature Facilitator will attempt to weave depth and sensitivity into his music.
2 It’s an external duplication of what is often done internally, in ‘hijacking the cortex’—if something is too


If you trusted the laws of cause and effect to the extent that you stopped trying to uphold everything together on your own, then you as a generalist could really become a source of inspiration for others. Selective and


Personality Profiles - More Detail
society-wide universal state, there is of course no such ‘outside expert,’ acceptable at least to you.1 Other things happen, though, to generate change. Arnold Toynbee, a British historian, speaks of the internal and the external proletariat, and of the rise during this time of higher religions. 75. The independent thinker may be removed from your organization, courteously, with grief at the waste of potential. Then he is free to walk alone—as long as he does not do ‘his own thing’ on ‘your turf,’ for that is rebellion. Or cause subordinates to follow him, for that would be revolution. He is not in a position of responsibility—you removed him—you see him therefore as incompetent.2 76. Moving yet further, Western society at time of writing has entered a post-Christian, or more accurately ‘post-Reformation’ period; the consensus that Perceiver axioms can be discovered by repetition is dissipating. Perceiver-respect for the rule of law, and even for facts of science, is breaking down, and is being replaced by a feeling for the personal-emotional Mercy-strategy based importance of people. You the Facilitator, in response, are turning from the man of knowledge with proverbs, a creation of the modern, scientific era, into more of a ‘religious’ or ‘mystic’ leader-philosopher who maintains his position at all costs—the ‘political animal’ who must be what he is if the ‘new age’ world is not to collapse. Desperately, calmly—analytically—you look for things that are solid, upon which you can place your tottering feet, as you hold the weight of the unprincipled world on your shoulders.


intelligent withdrawal on your part would encourage others to do their best and be their best, in those areas where they can excel; it would facilitate their interaction. What would it take for you to do this? A realization that people are different according to a very solid and predictable pattern would be enough. That’s a changeless principle, and its implications would trigger independent Perceiver analysis, and generate ‘natural conscience’ that would quickly replace your current ‘approval conscience.’ Of course, it would also form you into an active opponent of our current ‘new age’ system. I might add that the ‘wise’ Facilitator leader also ‘follows from up front.’ However, in his case he is listening to his own subconscious, as it operates under the intelligent tutelage of internal ‘natural conscience.’ He allows this inner guidance system, then, to be supplemented, and thus trained, by counsel from others. In this profile, I am presenting things in the most positive light. However, as Gandhi said of the British in India, “You can wake a man only if he is really asleep; no effort that you may make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep.”
2 1

77. And, again, this is where it can happen. You, the ‘new age’ Facilitator, have always asked deep questions about the meaning of life. Now, as reference points in the external increasingly let you down, you may turn to the internal—perhaps you can find what is solid there. And then it comes to you, a flash from the dark: “This is solid,” you exclaim, “when all else collapses. My rule continues. My form of thought remains. I am solid.”3 You are particularly fascinated by the ‘irrational subjective core’ in your personal-experiential childhood past, and the habits that flow from it, for this is the most solid thing of all—you made it that way, of course, when you inadvertently removed any opportunity for principles to take root, enforced fairness, established political correctness and stifled initiative. Now, this becomes the focus of your attention. But, the ‘idol’ must first be polished. You wish to contemplate it with the sheer joy of pure Teacherbased theory-emotion—only then can it be the general solution for every problem around you in your external. This means that the ‘subjective irrational’ within you must not be tarnished by any vestige of conscience. You want pure MBNI Feeling, in your ‘subjective,’ with no hint of Thinking—value must rule absolutely over confidence; Perceiver logic needs to be dominated completely by Mercy-based defining experiences. How is this to happen? You discover that emotion can be examined without remorse if the related experiences are considered to be fixed and unchangeable. You thus expand political correctness to exclude any form of labeling—prisons, for instance, are for rehabilitation, not punishment; mental illnesses become ‘syndromes’ for which no one is responsible; ‘obese’ people do not cause their condition, and must not be humiliated by criticism; those who ‘leave the closet’ must be free to shape all social institutions into the image of that which they themselves desire to abandon. Now the ‘idol’ can be worshiped in its full glory. Uncertainties are stilled—there are no distractions. You admire the elegance of what has become fully fixed, and is within.4 Surely this will solve the world’s ‘new age’ problems. You absorb psychology and philosophy—the ‘pre-formed frames of reference’ of

Pain has continued for so long that your mind has integrated around it. Now, finally, you embrace this stability; you hold on to it. Life may hurt, terribly, but at least you as a rock are fixed firmly, in the midst of the agony. That is something which is solid! If there is no fixed relationship between cause and effect, then there is no need for people to take responsibility, and you can again sleep at night, and enter back into a semi-normal existence. It’s the counterpart of the Contributor who relaxes into apathy through a decision that his plan will be that there is no plan.



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
extension of what you did before, when you averaged the opinions of those you respected. 79. You bounce things, as the philosopher, off those within your ‘school of thought’—these persons do not need to be your superiors. Failing this you work through committees, the feedback of constituents, or opinion polls. You assume that others are similar: you can be offended when they do not ask your opinions as well—it implies that you are not being respected by their ‘school of thought.’ You go through the forms with them—anything else would be discourteous— but mentally you may reject everything that they say.3 As the bureaucrat you place subtle blocks in their paths. 80. We should mention in this regard that you can talk at length with people whom you very strongly dislike, and you never allow this aversion to affect the conversation. You hover there at the edge of the bad feelings—they are hidden, perhaps even from yourself, behind a subtle veil of ambiguity. Easily you maintain the forms of proper interaction. In only one way can others tell your real attitude: you almost never take the advice of those you dislike.4 81. You look often at the recommendations of others, and move when they do. In spite of this you can be gullible, like the Server, to those who appear to be examples, but are not. You pull back sharply, then, when you discover your error. At times you overreact and trust nobody; it can make you—even in the midst of crowds—into a very lonely person. 82. A need for verbal feedback may form you at times, with those you respect, into a real ‘motormouth.’ You mix and match between talking and doing; your mouth can actually disengage from your thought and emotions! As a child, you found it difficult for this reason to stop crying—parents had to get your attention and distract you! You say it now— when you can relax and be ‘fully involved’—as it is, without the subtlety of the Perceiver or the Mercy.

other Facilitators who have also marveled at their internal ‘subjective selves.’ You write down ideas and feelings, point by point, on notes or in your diary. As this touches realms of health, it can turn you into a hypochondriac. Our ‘new age’ world, of course, has not yet fully excluded science. If you live in this endangered form of intellectual thought, then certainly you will scorn the encroaching ‘soft sciences’—some sanity remains within you. If you are ‘religious,’ in contrast, you might consider science itself—along with psychology and philosophy—to be suspect.1 Parenthetically, we notice that the Facilitators of society no more all think in the same way—thought is fragmenting. There is no longer one age of which all can be children. You think it is a good sign? It is not. The ‘man on the white horse’ sits in the wings—he is the Contributor-dictator, and his time is coming. 78. Incidentally, how do you as a Facilitator cope when there are diverging schools of thought within society, with no single set of principles that you can hold onto and trust as absolute and solid? In this case, you start to see ‘truth’ more fully in terms of dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Let’s examine this process. Thesis, first of all. If it is generally accepted in some portion of society that something is true, then that is the thesis. However, perhaps a group of people has come up with something else. They are also important—their opinion is the antithesis. You yourself generate a synthesis: you blend the two ‘schools of thought’ together, in the light of things that have been said elsewhere. For you, this becomes ‘truth.’2 It’s an

Suppose that you are at this point, and wish to recover. It may perhaps be possible for you to do so if you grasp the ‘golden thread’ of time and sequence, and consider that to be the unchanging entity. In other words, you alter your assumptions diametrically, and realize that your responses to experience can in fact be optimized, according to certain set rules, and you are at a certain stage in the process, and can choose your direction. You now wish to leave where you are, and progress to an alternate and higher path—hand over hand, you begin to advance, gripping to the lifeline of this INTJ ‘golden thread.’ Syndromes become illnesses for which we as individuals are responsible; ‘barbarians’ morph slowly in your mind into flawed human beings of differing cognitive styles with undeveloped innate abilities, for whom you feel compassion. Fear becomes a tool for optimizing your responses. You use dialectic synthesis because you have lost all hope that any other method could possibly integrate things in your mind. The fact that hope is absent means that you have broken away internally from Exhorter strategy—it is now present in your mind as a multiple.


3 Democracy is based upon freedom of speech. Dictators stop people from talking; you as the ‘new age’ thinker teach people not to listen to what is spoken. We conclude that, along with the fascist and the communist dictators, you too are an enemy of democratic institutions.

We conclude that it is impossible to enter into constructive dialogue with the fully-fledged and unrepentant ‘new age’ thinker. How will we recognize him? He will block us from acting upon the fact that people differ in cognitive style. This really leaves only one course of action for those who do recognize the differences—we cease to cooperate further with ‘new age’ institutions, and we choose to cultivate, through nonviolent resistance, an alternative lifestyle based upon ever-developing intelligence and mutual interaction.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
Occasionally you may go on, with those whom you highly respect, for hours. Add finally the fact that you have a need for self-analysis—and we may hear all of your inner doubts and uncertainties; there are no secrets. Honesty impels me to say that the Facilitator who values his mind, and the privacy of those around him, can find it more difficult to talk to others: “I don’t want to bother them.” He may actually swing to the other extreme and under-communicate. 83. Verbal feedback can be used to manipulate others, when there is something you want done. You talk with certainty—to let one part of you persuade the other, and those around you. You may listen to yourself as you talk, you gauge the reaction of others, then you decide. As certainty fades, you do it again, or perhaps you change your mind—it is the verbal analog to musical ‘piano bashing.’ When you are ‘sure,’ then those who disagree may be pushed to join your consensus. The one who resists this ‘new age’ pressure is labeled as extreme. In subtle ways he is ostracized! 84. Ideas and projects come to you through bureaucratic channels; you formulate procedures that guard consensus. Things in this way are never sprung on you suddenly—you know how easily you could be influenced. The Perceiver-subordinate, with his certainties and disrespect for your ‘irrational subjective core,’ is eliminated almost completely: no wonder he hates your world!1 85. You remain eager to learn something, try something or meet someone new—if you can do it without being influenced or pushed into something rash. You join further in the adventure of the Contributor, the excitement of the Exhorter—bouncing away quickly from the Exhorter, sometimes, as you encounter harmful extremes in his lifestyle. Everything is preparation for something else. When something goes wrong, then you may feel remorse, you do not usually feel regret. 86. The ‘new age’ thinker could really become quite amoral at this point. The best is to give an example from recent history: What do we think of Mengele? He did terrible medical experiments on Jews. Would he consider himself to be an evil man? Let’s put ourselves into the mind of this ‘new age’ Facilitator. Jews It may be a ‘new age’ world, and it’s obvious that the Perceiver would hate that unprincipled entity. However, the ‘somewhat wiser’ Facilitator, through fear, may surround himself with fellow Facilitators, and attempt by means of this kind of an insulated bubble of ‘civilization’ to protect himself from the ‘strange world of barbarians’ that surrounds him, and which has let him down. His lack of knowledge and courage to tackle root problems end up excluding the immature Perceiver with his alternate realities, and that also is hated.


were being killed; that was certain. There was no way that Mengele as an individual could stop it. As always, he was a child of his age;2 to him it eventually became normal. In the midst of this insanity, at the level of details, he then did what he could to make things better. In his tiny compound—with people who in any case were going to die—he did careful experiments that he felt would lead to an improved world, and a reputation for himself. Personally, I suspect that Mengele considered himself to be highly decent and very honorable—certainly this would have been the case if ‘dark-side’ thought ruled in his mind. Hitler in Germany could not have succeeded without the help of many who were like him—I tell you, the ‘man on the white horse’ will be welcomed. ‘New age’ thinkers, with the very best of intentions, have taken charge, and soon they will usher him in to his position, so that he can solve ‘new age’ problems. And then we will all truly suffer.3 87. You, the ‘new age’ Facilitator, continue to analyze your Mercy ‘subjective core.’ It is the one thing in your mind that you will not change—because of the emotional cost and its associated pain—and so for you it becomes the most solid and dependable. Immense theory-emotion-based analytical structures can develop on this inadequate foundation. Of course, you still have to live in the real world: your philosophy is therefore never really applied, except when it happens to coincide with the consensus around you— that would be too uncomfortable.4

A ‘wise’ Facilitator with any sort of Perceiver principles could never revert to this kind of a mindset. It is only the ‘new age’ thinker, who bases his entire thought upon the idea that ‘the most basic principle is that there are no principles,’ who could make a ‘Mengele response’ to unspeakable evil. Unfortunately, this kind of individual is now all too common in our regions of North America.
3 We might ask, “Can it be prevented?” I would suggest probably not. ‘New age’ thought develops in a kind of ratcheting manner which is not easily reversed.


If iNtuition is based around Feeling and its urges, as it is in philosophy, then the nodes of Introverted iNtuition and Introverted Feeling can again communicate. If principles are also denied, then Perceiver strategy no longer blocks thought from flowing smoothly through Extraverted Thinking—that links up three of the four nodes in Facilitator ‘working memory.’ The problem now, of course, is that this whole system is completely divorced from the real world and its Sensing. However, in view of the limited ‘Perceiver tools’ that we have given the Facilitator, he really has done an admirable job of ‘patching things up’—the fourth node of Sensing will be fine if we ‘sit him in a corner,’ with his head in his hands,



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
90. Emotional stability in you can come and go. When you are safe organizationally, and you are part of a sensible and logical Plan, then you are strong. You are sensitive to your environment, though, especially to a breakdown in law, order and channels of Authority. Emotions stir in you when things become chaotic: you can no longer look people in the face; you feel disoriented and muddled, you cry easily. The Teacher can remove himself in these cases and work for solutions in a corner. You find this much more difficult4—you care about what happens in your world; your removal would not only be uncomfortable personally, but it would contribute to the breakdown of your society. You won’t want this to happen. 91. Let us look more closely at our current societal breakdown. Respect for the rule of law, and a consensus that ‘knowing’ is by repetition of natural cause and effect, formed Western society originally—North America in particular—into a ‘melting pot’ of immigrant cultures. Conversely, the loss of this respect for the rule of law, and of this consensus, is now generating a desire, within each cultural fragment that remains, for ‘cultural preservation.’ Like Quebec inside Canada, distinct peoples fight for control of the machinery of the state. Why do they require this autonomy? They need it in order more efficiently to promote their own distinctive culture and to suppress other minorities. For instance, Quebec in Canada wanted independence. Why? It felt suppressed within Canada. How did it treat the native population that in turn lived within Quebec? It suppressed it—how dare they break solidarity with the province!5 And so the natives also struggled for political autonomy, for the

88. You are connected very directly to Sensory Input; the external world may seem to intermingle with your own person. Yet it is somehow separate from you. If it is not you, yet still connected to you, then perhaps it is ‘God.’ You may therefore venerate Mother Nature—“Save the environment; guard the Brazilian rain forest. Don’t kill seals, whales, wolves, owls, and other endangered species.” You ask deep questions about the origins of things.1 You blend ideas, and generate smooth changes. You see sequences. The biological classification scheme for animals and plants changes easily in your mind, therefore, into a time sequence—you are a natural believer in evolution. It is the obvious way in which ‘Mother Nature’ must have originated all things. You see everything that goes on in the mind. It is you, in some way, and yet it is not you. You believe naturally therefore in a ‘God’ who is ‘one’ with you and with everything; you are thus drawn to eastern religions, especially Buddhism. 89. You believe strongly in the importance of educating your children; as I have said repeatedly, you might therefore be attracted to the profession of teaching.2 You are sensitive to the need for a right ‘scope and sequence,’ and an orderly progression of curriculum. You love to be at the center of the class, giving knowledge to those who are curious. You probably feel that if children were given the opportunity to handle and examine things, they wouldn’t need to be taught—they could discover things for themselves. You yourself learned best when you experienced things. Children should have the same privilege; facts should not be forced on them. They should play with objects, feel various shapes, pour things from one container to another, build things, and place things inside other things—it will help them to think in a ‘new age’ way, and to ask the ‘right’ questions.3

as the ‘proverbial thinker.’ Again, these ideas will make more sense as we continue our discussion. The goal of this philosophy is to enable Facilitator ‘working memory’ to continue to operate, in the face of sand that is getting into the gears. It will make sense as we continue into MBNI and the associated neurology. ‘New age’ thought will therefore predominate in the educational institutions of a ‘new age’ society, and it is precisely here that the first skirmishes of non-cooperation and non-violent resistance will occur. The Montessori experience is a terrific supplement for a child, but if he lacks it, he will make up for it through normal activities in a three dimensional world. Much more critically essential, and almost impossible for the child to develop on his own, is the imparting of wise principles of cause and effect.
3 2 1

If a ‘wiser’ Facilitator does remove himself to a corner, as the thinker who wants real solutions, then he may suffer digestive and sleep problems. The anterior cingulate, where he ‘lives,’ manages many of the autonomic functions of the body, and internal cognitive discord will therefore influence his health. He cannot in fact separate himself from society as can the Teacher, because Facilitator ‘working memory’ is the ‘top-down’ mental monitoring mode for Sensory Input. He cares deeply, because Facilitator mode is intimately involved in basal ganglia Contributor optimization. He wants ‘longterm’ responsible solutions, because he’s connected to the centromedian rather than the parafascicular nucleus— this, and much more, will make sense over time. The philosopher, in contrast, has long ago given up on anything that might actually be applied to the real world of hurting people. This was true when I initially wrote this material. Quebec has become more sensitive to this hypocrisy, and is now treating its native peoples differently. The principle remains valid.


Personality Profiles - More Detail
same reasons as did Quebec. Peaceful coexistence in this way is replaced by war—it is a kind of Balkanized fragmenting of what used to be commonality and a melting pot. To maintain internal unity, you may now pick one of the sides, and stick with it. However, in doing so, you confirm the separation. 92. You want control of the organizational center,1 where details are implemented. You respond to Authority, you do not wish to set the overall direction— woe to the one, though, who would take your place as implementer and man-manager! Or set up separate channels, committees and chains of command. Conflicts between you and another ‘new age’ Facilitator— especially one who thinks as you do, and who could therefore replace you—can be terrible, like cats in a bag! And yet it’s all so controlled and civilized—the weapons are interdepartmental memos, and the interpretations of procedures. You as the loser feel disoriented, muddled and weepy. You analyze faults through eyes of imagination—there is hypochondria, self-pity, a closed-in kind of melancholy. It is something that you despise especially in your competitor when you win! 93. You need competent Authority; this Authority must also need you. Approval is important to you; you require it—only then will the ‘powers that be’ work through you, and give you Authority of your own. Should circumstances for a time deny you this acceptance—perhaps because of the seniority of others, the color of your skin, your social standing, your culture, your gender—then you can focus increasingly on your need for it, eventually to the exclusion of almost everything else. Activity can become motivated by a desire for position and title—as a church minister you want ordination, as the businessman in Britain you seek to be knighted—when you finally get what you want, you feel drained, directionless. You may slip for months into a sort of lassitude. 94. I should add that you do not respond well to a lack of acceptance. Like the Teacher, you value this respect in particular from those who are personal family. Parents who reject you, or your activity, can drive you to prove yourself—you may spend years striving for the title or position that will change their minds. For you it is especially tempting to make that final move to the Number One position in an organization—what an opportunity to prove yourself! 95. The Perceiver senses the important; he eliminates non-essentials—it is a strength that you do not This demand for control of the center is not innate to Facilitators in general. It is true rather of the individual who has built his life around some position, and is now afraid that he will lose it—that’s our current context. We cover more of the nuances in our coming discussion of Compatibilities and Conflicts.


inherently have. You as the ‘new age’ thinker work rather with the sequencing and blending of details. Especially as Number One, you can find yourself implementing the unimportant—you don’t mean to do it, it just happens.2 When something is working, then you say: “Leave well enough alone.” You may not reevaluate goals or priorities. The subordinate is protected who gets things done, even when in other ways he is less than effective: “Leave him.” Action in this way develops momentum, broken only by your craving for change. And so you adapt in small ways: you fine-tune, you experiment with details. You solicit the input of others—even as you resist responses that are significant. Useless activity is masked, therefore, by a great deal of bureaucracy, diplomacy, and consultation. It can be years before subordinates—even you yourself—catch on. 96. In maturity, criticism of your person by others is seen as a cry from them for recognition and further involvement, and you respond accordingly. You share the Big Picture; you present the importance of each person’s contribution. Projects themselves are fine-tuned to bring them into line with the aspirations of those involved. You govern diligently, and people benefit from your guidance.3

In contrast, if you have become one of those ‘wise’ Facilitators who trains his subconscious, and who operates under the guidance of its ‘natural conscience,’ then you are already Number Two internally. In this case, you are fully equipped to become Number One externally, and you will do an excellent job in leadership—on the executive side of governing in particular. The human mind cannot operate effectively unless its ‘idling mode’ is working—this circuit is conscious in the Facilitator person, and we call it Facilitator strategy. Since the Facilitator is consciously aware of this region, he is more likely than others to develop it, and thus for a long time he will be the most mature person in the society—it draws him into many positions of leadership. From these vantage points, he can educate others, to bring them up to his own level of ‘idling mode mediocrity’—it’s a very good thing! However, those who are conscious in other parts of the brain must eventually and inevitably move beyond ‘idling mode.’ This will lead them into narrow and much more restricted areas of excellence, which the Facilitator as an innate ‘idling mode’ generalist cannot ever duplicate. Will he now become a budding ‘new age’ thinker and suppress further development? Not if he is ‘wise,’ and admits that the differences exist. Rather, he will allow the thought of the former ‘barbarians’—whom he himself raised to ‘mental idling mode,’ and who are now surpassing him—to resonate within corresponding subconscious regions of his own mind, and in this way also to draw him up further, along with them. He of course



Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
dominant mode of thought—in everyone, Facilitator as well as non-Facilitator—in the absence of standards, there is no alternative. Facilitator-synthesis, such as occurs in the middle-born, and in our present society, eliminates the rest of the mind; it is a shortcircuit of mental operation. It ‘kicks in’ when the Perceiver module, which does logic, can no longer operate, because of a lack of consistent internal axioms or absolutes. Facilitators hate rebellion; in eliminating societal standards, however—“They were shoved down my throat!”—they have unwittingly unleashed rebellion throughout society against the operation of the rest of the mind, in themselves and in others! Human personhood—the ability to concentrate, subconscious to Facilitatorthought—is itself being dissolved, as this revolution progresses!

97. You are unexcelled, for instance, at picking up the pieces and rebuilding after organizational disaster.1 You develop support at the grass-roots level. You bring opposing views into consensus—all have a wide constituency and thus command your respect. You recognize leadership; you integrate activity. Canada, for example, at one time had a Facilitator-leader in both major political parties. Joe Clark of the Conservatives prepared organizationally for victory in Quebec, then gave way to Contributor-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—Clark served for years then as Mulroney’s right hand man. John Turner rebuilt the Liberals, and was replaced himself when he was done by Jean Chrétien, a Perceiver. 98. As a Facilitator, you may wish to know more about your style—you will discover traits, and a great deal of positive potential, which has not been given here, because it is not truly common in our time. I would suggest that you study some of the following: Francis Bacon, Alexander Graham Bell, Buddha, George Bush #41, Neville Chamberlain, Confucius, Captain James Cook, Darwin, John Dewey, Mary Baker Eddy, Edison, Adolf Eichmann, Eisenhower, Friedrich Engels, Henry Ford, Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, Freud, Galileo, Goethe, Gilbert Grosvener, Hegel, Henry VIII, Hussein of Jordan, Aldous Huxley, Edward Kennedy, Robert E. Lee, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Linnaeus, King Louis XIV, Mendelssohn, Joseph Mengele, A. A. Milne, Maria Montessori, Florence Nightingale, Piaget, Beatrix Potter, Rousseau, Marquis de Sade, Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, George Stephenson, Tallyrand, Leonardo da Vinci, George Washington, James Watt, John Wesley, William Wilberforce, and William Wordsworth.

I wonder what would happen if some Facilitator—a young person, with no history of philosophy—chose to discover the decision points of his mind. He could do it, you know—he sees everything. Suppose then that he concentrated on the details of facilitating this process. He would ignore the external, and others, and focus rather on his own internal, and make it solid through a dependence upon valid external axioms. Eventually, he would have six sturdy companions at his side— components of his mature subconscious—and they would honor him with their service. What could he do in this world?

We have looked at birth order differences, and said that the middle-born often develops Facilitator-like traits. It is because the older and the younger siblings are treated differently—there are no absolutes of behavior— and so Facilitator-dialectic takes over, in the middle-born, and generates a synthesis. A similar thing to what occurs with the middleborn is happening in our Western society today. Standards are dissolving. ‘New age’ Facilitator-synthesis is therefore becoming the will always remain a generalist, with a very broad vision, and thus able uniquely to oversee and facilitate the growing civilization.
1 Current ‘new age’ thought and its spread throughout society has generated organizational disaster. It’s going to be a real challenge.

Table of Contents
ENERGY....................................................................... 123 CHARISMA. ................................................................ 124 POPULAR WITH OPPOSITE SEX. .................................. 125 PRODUCTIVE. ............................................................. 126 AN IMAGINATIVE DREAMER...................................... 127 MAY BE MERELY A DAYDREAMER............................... 128 WORK AND PLAY COMBINE. ...................................... 128 A NIGHT PERSON. ...................................................... 130 ALWAYS TALKING. ...................................................... 131 AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATOR. .............................. 131 AN OPTIMISTIC ENTHUSIAST..................................... 133 EASILY EXAGGERATES. ............................................... 134 ATTRACTED TO CRISIS............................................... 136 WALKS AND DRIVES FAST. ......................................... 137 LOUD, BRASH AND GARISH....................................... 138 GREAT IN AN EMERGENCY. ........................................ 138 CREATING CRISIS. ...................................................... 139 LEADING BY EXAMPLE................................................ 140 NOT CONSCIOUS OF RANK. ....................................... 141 AN INSPIRATION TO OTHERS..................................... 142 RELIGIOUS FERVOR IN FOLLOWERS........................... 142 BEST WHEN THINGS ARE WORST. .............................. 143 DEFEAT GENERATES CHARACTER. ............................. 144 DISORGANIZED.......................................................... 144 NOT PUNCTUAL. ........................................................ 145 UNAWARE OF DIET...................................................... 145 CRUDE AND THOUGHTLESS. ..................................... 146 A SENSE OF HUMOR. .................................................. 146 LOVES PARTIES. .......................................................... 147 A TOLERANCE FOR ALCOHOL.................................... 147 A DESIRE FOR APPROVAL........................................... 148 MAY ENTER POLITICS................................................. 150 AN ‘UPWARDS SNOB.’ ................................................ 150 CARES FOR APPEARANCES......................................... 151 A PERSONAL ‘FAN CLUB.’........................................... 153 NOT EASILY REPROVED.............................................. 153 HATES RULES AND RED TAPE. .................................... 155 ORIENTED AROUND EXPERIENCES. ........................... 158 HATES ABSTRACT SUBJECTS AND PEOPLE................. 159 THE TEACHER PART AND WORDS.............................. 161 SOMETIMES A PRODIGIOUS READER......................... 163 MATHEMATICS........................................................... 164 FORMULATION OF VISION. ........................................ 165 FROM VISION TO ‘TRUTH.’ ........................................ 166 AN EMOTIONAL MANIPULATOR................................ 170 A PERSONAL, ‘TOUCHY-FEELY’ STYLE. ...................... 173 A VERY PERSUASIVE SALESMAN................................ 173 HYPNOTIC IDENTIFICATION. ..................................... 176 THE PARANORMAL..................................................... 182 POLARIZING SOCIETY. ............................................... 182 AN ‘IN-GROUP.’..........................................................185 THE EXHORTER ‘DISAPPEARS’ PEOPLE. .....................188 TWO KINDS OF EMOTION...........................................193 ‘TEASING’ OTHERS. ....................................................194 A PERSONAL INTERVIEW. ...........................................195 ‘LOYALTY.’...................................................................199 A REFORMER. ..............................................................203 REFORM IS ALWAYS OPPOSED.....................................204 ‘SPINNING’ THE FACTS...............................................205 REDEFINING HIS PSYCHE............................................206 EXHORTER REFORM IN CRISIS. ...................................207 A SENSE OF MOTION. .................................................209 A PERSON OF ACTION. ...............................................212 CAN GET MARRIED QUICKLY......................................213 MAY HAVE FRUSTRATIONS AND MOODS...................214 SUBCONSCIOUS MERCY THOUGHT. ..........................216 SELF-INITIATED ACTION. ...........................................217 FORMULATING THE NEXT STEP...................................218 IMPROVISING TACTICS...............................................219 PRODDING OTHERS....................................................221 MOVING DIRECTLY TO THE GOAL. ............................223 TWO-DIMENSIONAL THOUGHT. ................................226 SOLVES PROBLEMS BY INCREASED EFFORT. ...............227 SOMETIMES A MOMENTUM IN ACTION.....................228 POOR AT HANDLING MONEY......................................230 POOR SENSE OF OWNERSHIP. .....................................231 POOR MOTOR COORDINATION. .................................233 SUBCONSCIOUS CONTRIBUTOR TRAITS....................233 CONTRIBUTOR OPTIMIZATION. .................................234 DEFERRING DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY. .....................237 MANIPULATES FOR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY. ...............239 THE ‘INSTANT EXPERT.’...............................................240 NOT A DETAIL PERSON. ..............................................243 “WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE...?” ................................245 “COME ON, LET’S GET GOING...”...............................246 MERCHANDISING OF EXTERNALS..............................248 ELIMINATING INDEPENDENT THINKERS. ..................249 MONITORING THE CRISIS. .........................................250 INTER-PERSONAL CONFLICTS. ...................................252 FALL OF INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY. ..................254 SUBCONSCIOUS PERCEIVER TRAITS. .........................256 HOPE. ..........................................................................256 HIGH STANDARDS FOR SELF.......................................258 HIGH STANDARDS FOR FAMILY..................................259 AN EMPHASIS ON CHARACTER. .................................261 PRODS OTHERS TO DO THEIR BEST. ...........................263 BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................265

Introduction to Mr. Excitement
In this section, we will follow Mr. Excitement through the various byways of his meandering magical tours. We will examine in particular the destination to which his boundless enthusiasms lead us. I don’t want you to think that I’m making this up, so I’ll use only direct quotes, from biographies of famous individuals. For legal purposes, we include this caveat: This work takes liberal advantage of the ‘fair use for research’ provision of copyright laws. What choice is there? Authors of biographies are generally of a style compatible with that of their subject, thus qualified as interpreters. By paraphrasing their work, I would be corrupting it with my own style. Quotes in some cases are extensive because evidence cannot be excluded: If something does not fit, then you as the reader must be able to judge. History to date, I might add, has been an art, not a science. If the historian is suddenly to become a chronicler of neurological structure, then his work must be subject to rules of scientific research. It is common, in science, to review the literature. That is precisely the goal of this work. We won’t have to worry about making it interesting. The Exhorter himself takes care of that.

Biographical Sketches
Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), Turkish soldier, nationalist leader, and statesman, founder of Turkey and its first president. Brunel, Isambard Kingdom (1806-59), noted for engineering and construction of tunnels, canals, bridges, railways and ships. Churchill, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer (1874-1965), British statesman, known for his courageous leadership during World War II. Crosby, Bing (1904-77), American singer and film actor. Drake, Sir Francis (1540?-96), English navigator and explorer who commanded privateering expeditions against the Spanish. Fisher, John Arbuthnot (1841-1920), admiral who modernized the British navy and commanded it during World War I. Graham, William Franklin (1918- ), American evangelist and a leading spokesman for fundamentalism. Hope, Bob (1903-2003), American comedian and film actor, famous for entertaining military troops overseas. Johnson, Lyndon Baines (1908-73), 36th president of the United States, spokesman for the Great Society and the Vietnamese War. Kennedy, John Fitzgerald (1917-63), 35th president of the United States who set the goal of landing on the moon. Khrushchev, Nikita (1894-1971), Soviet Communist leader who followed Stalin and denounced him. Lesseps, Ferdinand Marie (1805-94), French diplomat and engineer who constructed the Suez Canal and began the Panama Canal. Lombardi, Vince (1913-1970), highly successful football coach who inspired and motivated his players. Luther, Martin (1483-1546), German theologian who initiated the Protestant Reformation. Mitchell, William (1879-1936), American army officer who advocated the use of air power. Nelson, Horatio (1758-1805), British naval commander whose victories made him a national hero. Peron, Juan (1895-1974), president of Argentina who greatly influenced the character of his country. Peter the Great (1672-1725), tsar of Russia who brought his country into the modern age. Rasputin, Grigory (1872-1916), Russian mystic who acquired a pervasive influence over the royal family in prerevolutionary Russia. Rhodes, Cecil (1853-1902), British colonial statesman and financier who promoted British rule in southern Africa. Rickover, Hyman (1900-86), U.S. naval officer responsible for developing the nuclear-powered submarine. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (1882-1945), 32nd US president, who led his nation out of the Great Depression and through World War II. Sukarno (1901-1970), leader of Indonesia’s nationalist movement and the country’s first president.

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Magical. They are a witch’s brew of ingredients from the environment around them. Mystery—participants who were confused at the beginning remain baffled at the end. Tours. Movement. Always, there is motion. The pot bubbles and foams. Excitement. We watch in wonder, for we are sure that something very important is happening. stress, his round, handsome face became distorted with convulsions.” 1 Lyndon Johnson: “One newsman called him ‘a sight to see. While talking, he may, among other things, move from chair to chair around the room, pace the floor, puff cigarettes endlessly, rub salve on his hands, take a digestion tablet, gulp water, and use an inhaler in his nose. He’s just too nervous to remain still.’ ” “Observers who watched the President and Vice President [Kennedy and Johnson, both Exhorters] in their offices and at meetings noted few similarities between the two men. One likeness was that both were highly nervous; Johnson had pocket cases of salve to rub on his skin rashes and inhalers to inject into his nostrils, while Kennedy was forever adjusting his belt, pushing his hair off his forehead, running a hand down his tie, and hitting his teeth with a finger nail to show impatience with a speaker...” Billy Graham: “During the afternoons, he would stalk and pace about in his pajamas in the panoramic litter of his motel rooms, constantly snapping his fingers, gnawing at his nails, a green baseball cap wedged on his head.” When he became famous in 1949: “He would manage to take, compulsively, four or five showers or baths each day: ‘It gets the poison out.’ ” Rasputin, adviser to the Russian Tsar, after a religious experience: “An eyewitness recalls that he conversed not in sentences but in disjointed, syntactically incomplete fragments, and as he talked he twisted his fingers nervously through his sparse beard and kept casting glances at his listeners, all characteristics he would retain for the rest of his life.” “His personality was altered in other respects; no longer consistently wild and lecherous, he seems to have taken a manic turn, with rapidly alternating moods of nervous exaltation and deep depression, as if he were permanently under some kind of stress while experiencing the urgent need to come to terms with himself.” Behavior at times can border on the inappropriate. Lyndon Johnson: “...his colleagues, who knew him as a man who scratched himself and belched whenever the impulse overtook him and as a man on the make with loud profanity and impatience...”

The Exhorter seems to be always full of energy. Lyndon Johnson, American president during the Vietnam War era: “His teachers found him so bursting with energy that, to contain it and prevent pranks, he was loaded with the extra tasks of cleaning blackboards, bringing in firewood, and clapping erasers clean of their chalk dust. Even so, the best grade ever given him for deportment was a ‘B.’ ” Billy Mitchell, American Air Force officer: “Mary Alexander, a Scotch governess, was put in charge of Willie, as the future airman was called by his family, and spent ‘the most hectic years’ of her life trying to control him. He was small, wiry and utterly fearless. When he was forbidden to climb on the greenhouse he made it a daily practice to scale it, by some miracle never falling or breaking a pane of glass. He was not a joy to Mary: ‘He absolutely never stopped.’ ” “He was charged with ‘talking before grace in the dining room, boisterous conduct at the table and disorder in the dormitory.’ ” Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia: “The mercurial and restless energy, which in his early youth had been spontaneous...” Billy Graham, Christian evangelist: “He seemed then so inordinately and lavishly energied that, in his early teens, his parents actually took him to be examined by a doctor. One of his relatives asserts that ‘even way back when he was just a little thing, as soon as he learned how to work a tricycle, he would ride that thing fifty miles an hour up and down that hallway in his house. I have never seen a small child actually move that fast—I mean he would zoom.’ ” The Exhorter often cannot seem to remain quiet. Peter the Great: “He could not sit still for long, and at banquets he would jump out of his chair and run into the next room in order to stretch his legs.” “Very soon, by the time he was twenty, he began to suffer from a nervous twitch of the head; and when he was lost in thought, or during moments of emotional


This behavior is found also in individuals who suffer from Tourette’s Syndrome. The Exhorter lives in the mode of thought that does this internal pushing and prodding.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Sukarno, leader in Indonesia: “One of the sons of...Anwar—who was about ten years younger than Sukarno, describes him as a huilebalk (cry-baby) liable to throw tantrums whenever he did not get his own way.” Brunel, British railroad engineer: “The two Miss Brunels had just left school by this time and were described as ‘models of everything young ladies should be,’ but their young brother was far less inhibited. Whenever a party or some game or charade was in the air he was the ring-leader; he loved to walk along the top of the high garden wall so that he could joke and gossip with the Miss Mannings who lived next door. In summer there was swimming in the river from the steps below the house, and exciting excursions to town, then still remote from the rural quiet of Chelsea, made almost invariably by boat.” The Exhorter’s energy can be seen by those who are less free-spirited as outright rebellion. Lord Fisher, British naval admiral: “I have been fighting from my earliest youth. In fact it was reported to me by my godfather, Major Thurlow, that I fought against being weaned!” Juan Peron: “An adolescent-like rebelliousness simmered not far below the surface of his genial exterior.” Rasputin: “The picture they paint [of him as a child] is of a turbulent, dirty and sexually precocious boy, unruly, disagreeable, and widely known as soplyak, or ‘snotnose.’ As adolescence came on, Rasputin grew wilder still, began to drink and tumble girls, and fast acquired the reputation of a drunk and a lecher.” Hyman Rickover, American architect of the nuclear submarine: “Babies are appealing little creatures, but, truth to way, barbarian, self-centered, and the world’s worst tyrants if you let them have their own way. Raising them means guiding them toward more mature and responsible conduct. I was like that.” “Slight of build, he was a stubborn child. Once his father had to chip away his front teeth in order to force medicine down his throat.”

People often consider the Exhorter to be mischievous. Churchill, British prime minister during the Second World War: “His dancing teacher considered him ‘the naughtiest small boy in the world.’ ” “I was now seven years old, and I was what grownup people in their off-hand way called ‘a troublesome boy.’ ” Billy Graham: “Billy was a bit too prankish to be of much use at first. Whether for pulling up lettuce heads, tugging Catherine’s hair, teasing her, or endangering his girl cousins’ safety in daring escapades, off came his father’s belt, or out came his mother’s long hickory switch.” “He would skulk low in the pews with a rubber band to twang paper pellets at the bonnets of matrons already ensconced there.” Billy Mitchell: “ ’You know, he said, ‘when I was a kid I jumped off a barn roof with an umbrella for a chute...’ ” De Lesseps, builder of the Suez Canal: “On one occasion, probably for a ‘dare,’ he swam the Seine rather than take the ferry with the other boys.” Juan Peron, leader of Argentina, winning the Presidency: “It was not until the next day that Peron and Evita roamed through the palatial mansion that would be their official residence. In a burst of boyish irreverence, the general slid down the banister and made one of his associates race him to the bottom of the grand staircase.” The Exhorter as a child doesn’t usually care what others think about this behavior. Bing Crosby, American entertainer: “He wasn’t a bad student, just free-spirited and not easily motivated.” “Sometimes he was disciplined for scholastic reasons, but more often than not, it was because of deportment. There seemed no defiance in his offenses, simply a lack of concern about them.” Peter the Great: “Peter and his friends were more intent on playing the fool than in causing trouble. They made fun of everything, ignoring tradition, popular feeling, and their own self-respect...” The Exhorter may use his energy to manipulate others. Bob Hope, American comedian: “When the Hope children were taken to visit their great-great-aunt Polly, who lived nearby, Leslie (i.e. Bob Hope) could make her laugh. She was one-hundred and two and lived alone in a tiny cottage since her husband, a whaling sailor, had died at ninety-seven. Leslie, short-legged and tubby, would imitate someone he had seen by putting his hands into the pockets of his abbreviated pants, and then push them out beyond his stomach. His reward was a cookie.” Billy Mitchell: “Patrick sometimes spoke to Mitchell severely and thought him ‘a sort of spoiled brat.’ ” Billy Graham: “Billy Frank was always getting us into trouble, far more trouble than he’d ever get caught in himself somehow. He always liked to have us skirt just a little close to danger.”

The Exhorter’s energy can be sensed. Billy Mitchell: “There was about him, even in repose, an air of vital animal energy, and an infectious enthusiasm in his speech.” Vince Lombardi, American football coach: “Even as a young fellow, he had that special ability of being able to electrify a room.” Ataturk, who led Turkey into the modern era: “Commenting upon Mustafa Kemal’s physical magnetism, Mrs. Ayda noted that even in an adjoining room his presence could be felt, and when he entered a room, he was too awesome to look at directly.” Brunel: “ unmistakable figure in a tall stove-pipe hat, cigar in mouth and hands thrust in breeches pockets.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Billy Graham: “ ’He thoroughly enjoyed living,’ is the memory of one. ‘He could walk in to a crowd, and within a few seconds it seemed that every eye would be upon him. Whereas I could walk through the crowd and step on their toes or kick their shins and no one would ever notice me.” Juan Peron: “He had a big, perfectly controlled voice, a rolling tone and a remarkable presence.” Energy that is noticed by others is defined as charisma. Lord Fisher: “He had a peculiarly open frankness of manner, a ready fund of humor, and a strong personality which combined to make him irresistible when he desired to please.” Drake, British naval hero and privateer: “He had an infectious vitality, humor, and a resilient character. He had also that quality which Nelson possessed—an indefinable charm that made men follow him whatever his faults.” Bing Crosby: “There was a charisma about him that was different than that of any other screen star.” Brunel: “Brunel, in fact, was more than a great engineer: he was an artist and a visionary, a great man with a strangely magnetic personality which uniquely distinguished him even in that age of powerful individualism in which he moved.” Billy Graham: “ ’Billy was rowdy, mischievous,’ sums up an older cousin, ‘but on the other hand, he was soft and gentle and loving and understanding. He was a very sweet, likable person.’ ” “One called him a ‘typical, unpredictable, gangling tall young man,’ though with ‘great personality. He was a most likable person.’ ” “He just liked everybody so enthusiastically that everybody had to like him. It was just this lovable feeling that he himself seemed to have for everybody. You couldn’t resist him.” “Billy was no genius, by any stretch of the imagination. Yet he had a—a magic about him. I was—we all were—charmed by his youthful nature.” Of him, by a staff member of one religious organization that became jealous of his influence: “He just had too much charisma for one body. He was charming, overwhelming, irresistible. And it began to be recognized that he was beginning to have too much influence on the other students.” Martin Luther, leader during the Reformation: “...personal magnetism, passionate earnestness...all these he had.” Billy Mitchell: “...with his ‘magnificent sense of humor and magnetic, dynamic personality; he was great fun to be with, always the center of attraction.’ ” Horatio Nelson, British naval hero: “The inescapable fact, which can be proved again and again, is that Nelson did possess a special quality which endeared him, despite his many faults, to superiors and subordinates alike. To


call it charm would be superficial, although charm was some part of it, but there was also an evident element of courage, enthusiasm and energy which did appeal to and work its magic on adamantine old admirals as well as on simple seamen.” Juan Peron: “ ’Peron had great magnetism,’ he recalled, ‘and really cared for his men.’ ” In old age: “The fabled Peron charisma had lost none of its magic. ‘All of us in the march had the feeling he was looking right at us as we passed’ was the way one participant described it.” As we will see, this charisma is often used by the Exhorter to influence others. Rasputin: “Rasputin was possessed from the outset of a remarkable capacity to impress his authority as spiritual guide and mentor, now in the first instance, upon his fellow villagers.” Lyndon Johnson: “One of his editorials noted that ‘personality is power: the man with a strong personality can accomplish greater deeds in life than a man of equal abilities but less personality...’ ”

This charismatic and energetic individual, as a male, is appreciated by women. Cecil Rhodes, British pioneer in Africa: “He was much sought after by every one. He was a great favorite with ladies, many of whom were among the highest in the land.” “He was the recipient of many most extraordinary letters from lady hero-worshippers. I am sorry now that I did not preserve some of them. One lady, who was the wife of a British officer stationed in China, wrote regularly to him. She called him her Prince, her Emperor, and her hero. It was purely hero-worship, and she always seemed most anxious about his health.” Billy Mitchell: “There was something so strongly magnetic about him that he drew attention, no matter where he was. Especially women were attracted. They couldn’t keep their eyes off him.” Rasputin: “He would always be attractive to women, projecting an immediate and unspoken authority over members of the opposite sex, making them feel that compliance to his demands was a pleasure in itself.” Sukarno: “Sukarno was a very handsome man who had a great attraction for women.” Juan Peron, even as an older man: “Despite his age, Juan Peron still projected a physical presence many women found attractive. His fame and the residual aura of power still lingering about him no doubt were at the core of this magnetism. The sex appeal that had served him well a decade earlier had not totally lost its vitality.” The Exhorter as a male finds it easy to return this interest. Juan Peron: “ ’I like women,’ he once said, ‘I could never live without one. I have always needed a woman.’ The implication here is that it made little difference which woman he had at his side.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal fought like a man possessed. He was everywhere, indefatigable despite flareups of the malaria he had contracted while in Egypt en route to Libya.” Bob Hope: “Probably the most persistent cliché in the media’s coverage of Hope, particularly in the early fifties, was that of his unrelenting life-style. It was one thing for him to demonstrate during World War II that he could drive himself to exhaustion making GIs laugh, but in the ten years that followed, he stayed on the merry-go-round, loving every turn, and for him there never seemed to be enough brass rings.” Billy Graham as a boy: “He reveled in sweat and exertion, whether cleaning out cow stalls, forking manure or pitching hay.” Lyndon Johnson: “The other subcommittee members were relatively contented men, unlike Johnson who was a bundle of nerves and was bursting with energy and ambition.” “He unquestionably had a capacity for tireless striving...” Nikita Khrushchev: “At 61 he was bursting out all over with a vitality which seemed only to have gathered strength from a lifetime of strain and stress and peril and from the complex and taxing maneuvers through which, less than two years after Stalin’s death, he had subdued his seniors as well as his only dangerous rival.” De Lesseps: “...always on the move or in conference, at high pressure, boiling, feverish, tired, but obstinate.” Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Rhodes’s physical strength and powers of endurance were phenomenal at this time. Sometimes the morning ride extended from five a.m. until twelve noon, and when it is considered that at that time of the year the rays of the sun beat down very fiercely from nine o’clock in the morning, increasing in intensity as the day advances, some idea can be formed of Mr. Rhodes’s stamina.” Horatio Nelson: “There is an outstanding impression of energy and activity, for he was commanding his own squadron and also overseeing the landing and sighting of guns.” Martin Luther: “His superior saw that only training to become a Doctor of Theology would bring forth all his reserves and occupy fully his dynamic energy.” Drake: “Drake’s place in history is marked by a fiery star. He burned his way upward like a rocket, impelled by the fuel of ambition and boisterous energy.” Peter the Great: “As he grew older, and left his unruly youth behind him, he became more anxious than any other Tsar had been for the welfare of his people, and he directed the whole of his forceful energy to its improvement.” The Exhorter can be very persistent. Brunel: “Macfarlane could never have guessed that the ready wit and the gaiety concealed a fire and a power which would

Energy can be channeled into sexual exploits. Rasputin: “ is perfectly clear that he presented himself, exercised his authority as a spiritual leader, in a way that impressed women more than men, inspiring a submissive trust that had a sexual basis.” Of Ataturk: “Our respected leader has one habit. He loved women, but he does not love one woman. He has to change them rapidly. He must be the chief court taster.” “It is clear that he wished to be ‘number one’ among his loose women. Evidence of this is embodied in a story about a visit he made to Istanbul when he was president of the country. At that time, he fell into discussion with his drinking companions concerning which of the group was the most virile. Challenged to prove his prowess, he had the city’s red-light district blocked off from its usual traffic and went there with his challengers to look for a certain Madame Katrina, whom he had known in his younger years. She testified to the group that he was the best man she had ever known.” “Seeking to protect himself from the onslaught of depressive feelings and a sense of low self-esteem, Mustafa Kemal frantically sought the admiration of many loose women.”

Energy in the Exhorter can also be channeled into an ability to get things done. Billy Mitchell: “I can recall how quiet and modest Billy Mitchell seemed to me. There was something boyish about him. He had no feeling of his own importance, but he was burning with zeal.” In one evaluation: “This officer is an exceptionally able one, enthusiastic, energetic and full of initiative...” Brunel: “Brunel, perpetually on the move, shows us how much ground an active young man could cover in the heyday of the turnpikes provided he could put up with little sleep, and could afford the high fares.” Lord Fisher: “He was possessed of a wonderful vitality which showed itself continually in force of argument, in debate, in gesture, and in broad splashes of underlining in his writing.” “John Arbuthnot Fisher, a man unique among men, the embodiment of fiery energy which knew no bounds, an energy that ran riot in his daily work, his conversations, and his writings. He has been described as ‘a tornado with a nib at the end of it.’ This well describes his writings. In conversations he might equally well be described as a ‘fist-shaking whirlwind’; he was, in fact, a cyclone both in conversation and with his pen, and indeed, a curiously unconventional cyclone.” “His extraordinary energy at this period struck all those associated with him. He constantly got up as early as four in the morning; and it was his invariable habit to keep a paper and pencil at his bedside; so that, when he woke in the night, as he often did, he could at once make a note of anything that came into his ever-active brain.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
drive him, undeterred by repeated disappointments, to achieve within a decade a degree of fame and fortune such as his father had never enjoyed.” Bob Hope: “Practically everyone who has worked with Hope during the past two years had made a similar observation. It is impossible to watch the unrelenting way he drives himself without nervously wondering when the breaking point will come.” A persistence in channeling his energy can make the Exhorter extremely productive. Hyman Rickover: “Work, he believed, was the reason for existence. ‘Having a vocation,’ he would say years later, ‘is somewhat of a miracle, like falling in love.’ ” “On Okinawa he preached and practiced the gospel of work.” “Dedicated to a life of hard work and scholarly pursuit...” Cecil Rhodes: “Rhodes had an extraordinary capacity for work, and when he had an important matter to put through he was at it day and night, and did not rest till it was brought to a successful issue.” Bob Hope: “Bob has three writers who work for him. Early on Monday mornings they bring the prepared script to his apartment and the four of them go over it together. Sometimes it’s swell and sometimes it isn’t, and when it isn’t they often stay up all night Monday and Tuesday trying to re-write it. They dig into Hope’s collection of eighty thousand jokes for ideas, they try to rehash old material, to think up new stuff. By Wednesday morning the sponsor must have a copy of the script. By Wednesday night he OK’s it or doesn’t OK it. If he doesn’t Bob and his writers have got to work all day and night Thursday re-writing it again. Friday it’s rehearsed and changed and shaped up. Saturday it’s rehearsed some more. Saturday night it goes on the air, and Monday the whole procedure starts over again.” “If working that hard wasn’t enough, Hope managed to fill some of his late week nights, and almost all of his Sunday nights, with benefits.” Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson could handle more work than most of his House colleagues...” Lord Fisher: “...he was placed in charge of torpedo instruction...he entered on his new work with a vigor which much impressed all who passed through the various courses.” “He applied himself vigorously to work.” Martin Luther: “The energy of the man in acquiring two new languages while in the midst of the active work of teaching and preaching was genuinely characteristic.” Churchill: “He could always cram into one day what no other man could do; what few other men could do in two days, or even three.” Brunel: “Brunel accepted immediately, took a coach for Lincoln and set to work with his usual energy and


thoroughness, cramming more work into two days than most men would have accomplished in a week.”

The Exhorter can dream in his imagination about what he will do in the future. Ataturk: “In his fantasies he was the reigning figure. He was the hero of adventures to come and a savior of the troubled country.” De Lesseps: “He preferred exploring walks, solitary adventure; and even at that early age, began to yearn for deserts, a notion apparently implanted by his first sight of camels: ‘those fine creatures which I was to meet so often in Africa...’ ” Brunel: “ ’What will become of me?’ he asks, and then his dreams begin. He will build a fleet of ships and storm Algiers; build a new London Bridge with an arch of 300-ft span; build new tunnels at Gravesend and Liverpool and ‘at last be rich, have a house built, of which I have even made the drawings, etc., be the first engineer and an example for future ones.’ ” Bing Crosby: “In 1922 he decided to become a lawyer. He was a good orator, he was fascinated with criminal law—he could see himself arguing dramatically before the bench—and he was of the opinion that all lawyers made good money. He soon learned otherwise.” Drake: “Soon, [Drake] poured out all his dreams and ambitions to him—and in particular that dream, and that vow he had made, one day to sail an English ship into the Pacific.” Imagination can identify with what others have done. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American president during the Second World War: “His vivid imagination and sympathy helped him to ‘see’ from a word picture.” Sukarno: “Like any young boy in any part of the world Sukarno tried to identify himself with some of the heroes.” De Lesseps: “M. Mimaut, the Consul-General, brought him books out of the official library, and among them Ferdinand discovered Lepere’s paper on the Canal des Deux Mers, a long memorandum prepared for Napoleon...It fired Ferdinand’s imagination, burning deep. He saw the canal not in terms of politics or commerce, still less as personal gain. His was a spiritual concept, a dedication, an immortality...” Billy Mitchell, visiting old battlefields with his father: “Ruth had the idea that Willie could see the old battles going on as if they were unfolding before his eyes.” Through painting, the Exhorter may enjoy what he has imagined. Brunel: “He was more than a painstaking and ingenious craftsman; he was also an artist of remarkable versatility and vivid imagination.” “...have a house build, of which I have even made the drawings...” “Young Isambard began to display his talent for drawing when he was only four years old.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
going to have them all collected in gramophone records, and then I will sit in a chair and smoke my cigar, while pictures and faces, moods and sensations long vanished return; and pale but true there gleams the light of other days.”

Churchill: “He paints almost anything except people and violence.”

It is not always possible for the Exhorter to channel his imagination; he can easily daydream. Brunel: “ ’Here I am at Rotherhithe,’ he wrote on April 4th, 1829, ‘renewing experiments on gas—been getting the apparatus up for the last six months!! Is it possible? A 1/40 of the remainder of my life—what a life, the life of a dreamer— am always building castles in the air, what time I waste!” Rasputin: “Hermogenes ordered an allegedly reluctant Iliodor to prepare Rasputin for ordination; instruction was to begin at once. Unfortunately, it became clear almost immediately that Rasputin was incapable of any concentration. Unable to follow the text of the most basic prayers, consistently slipping in his own variants, his mind wandered and he soon began to daydream.” Sukarno: “Unlike the village days, there was very little opportunity in the Dutch schools for Sukarno to play the leading role which he seems to have believed was his natural prerogative, so he simply retired into a world of his own—as so many Javanese had done before him— and dreamt about the great deeds which fate had destined him to perform. This capacity for day dreaming and thinking up fantastic and world-shattering schemes remained with Sukarno until the bitter end.” Even realistic dreams for the future, when not accompanied by effort, may degenerate into daydreams. Bing Crosby: “His firm resolve to make good and prove the local scoffers wrong had withered with the realization that the burden of proof lay squarely on him and that it was easier to shrug the burden off than to carry it off.” The Exhorter who is willing to work can consciously choose, in contrast, to avoid daydreaming. Brunel: “For his prophetic vision of the line to Bristol, not as the overambitious project which others saw, but as a mere sapling which would grow into a mighty trunk with widespreading branches, was already beginning to take shape.” De Lesseps: “Though focused by intellect and controlled by will, his tremendous driving-power derived from deep emotion, strong feelings, which, often contrary to common sense, demanded that what ought to be must be.” “Before Ferdinand de Lesseps, many men had thought along similar lines; it was his genius to condense their ideas into reality. Behind that was a more unusual quality, the capacity to inspire idealism and devotion.” When work is over, then it may be time to dream. Churchill: “Nothing recalls the past so potently as a smell. In default of a smell the next best mnemonic is a tune. I have got tunes in my head for every war I have been to, and indeed for every critical and exciting phase in my life. Some day when my ship comes home, I am

The fun-loving Exhorter appears to do his hard work with circuits that are used by others for play and relaxation. Lyndon Johnson: “In a sense, every day was an adventure for those covering the Johnson White House. Some reporters were invited, on the spur of the moment, to go skinny-dipping in the pool. Others were summoned to lunch in the family dining room. I found myself a guest at several state luncheons, invited on five or ten minutes’ notice to fill in for someone who could not be present.” F. D. Roosevelt: “People were amazed at his governmental habits—at his way of running through a series of wholly unrelated conferences like a child in a playroom turning from toy to toy...” Horatio Nelson: “I hope my simple narration may, in a faint degree, describe his Lordship’s excellent manner of making his young men fancy that attaining nautical perfection was much more of a play than a task.” Bob Hope and Bing Crosby: “They played games with each other, and for each other, like little boys, never ceasing to find delight in each other’s company, wondering constantly that this sort of game could and would continue to be a job of work.” Martin Luther: “I only preached and wrote God’s word and did nothing else. But this accomplished so much that while I slept and while I drank Wittenberg beer with Philip and Armsdorf, the papacy grew weaker and suffered more damage than any prince or emperor ever inflicted. I did nothing; the word did it all.” Ataturk: “ was at his dining table that Mustafa Kemal’s creative urges first found expression. Regression and reorganization alternated under his absolute control. He was like a child at play.” The Exhorter with his energy, charisma and imaginative dreams gravitates usually to the most enjoyable part of some task. Churchill: “He wanted to be in the cavalry. ‘I had already formed a definite opinion upon the relative advantages of riding and walking. What fun it would be having a horse!’ ” “I knew all the generals and other swells, had access to everyone, and was everywhere well received. We lived in great comfort in the open air, with cool nights and bright sunshine, with plenty of meat, chickens and beer.” Others reacted to Churchill’s love for fun: “Who the devil is this fellow? How has he managed to get to these different campaigns? Why should he write for the papers and serve as an officer at the same time? Why should a subaltern praise or criticize his senior officers? Why

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
should Generals show him favor? How does he get so much leave from his regiment? Look at all the hardworking men who have never stirred an inch from the daily round and common task. We have had quite enough of him—too much indeed. He is very young, and later on he may be all right; but now a long period of discipline and routine is what 2nd Lieutenant Churchill requires.” Billy Graham, beginning to sell Fuller brushes: “ ’Billy just couldn’t wait to get out of Charlotte and see a little bit of the world,’ said a friend, ‘and that was one way he figured he could do it.’ ” De Lesseps: “Left to himself there is no doubt but that he would have spent most of his time out of doors, preferably on a horse.” Bing Crosby: “He was a man described from childhood as indolent and who never worked a hard day in his life unless the work was fun to do. “His interest in horses and racing was consuming.” “He loved sports and was quite good at them in grade school. And when the class was called upon to sing, he was outstanding. With all else, he simply endured, impatient to get into the high-school division at Gonzaga, where he hoped to excel in football, basketball, and any other sport they offered.” Bob Hope: “...Hope’s glib explanation of why he did the tours: ‘I looked at them, they laughed at me, and it was love at first sight.’ ” At age 70 he was asked: “But you will quit?” “Never. Listen, I only do the things I want to do.” If work must be done that is really work, then the Exhorter may mix it with play. Cecil Rhodes: “He dictated hundreds of telegrams and letters to me whilst at dinner with a full table of guests. Whilst talking to his guests ideas would occur to him, and he would raise his voice so that I could hear him and say, ‘Jourdan, you might send the following telegram tomorrow,’ and before I could produce my notebook he would go on: ‘Rhodes to —,’ (whoever the addressee might be), and then continue his message. Very often, at eleven or twelve o’clock at night, during a game of pyramids, he would call to me across the table, sometimes whilst in the act of making a stroke, and dictate a letter or a telegram on some business matter which he had just been discussing with one of his guests.” “Notwithstanding all the riding he had whilst trekking on the veldt, when he was in the towns he hardly ever missed his morning or afternoon ride. He seldom took one without an object; whether it was to see a public work, an enterprising settler, a neighboring farm, a good plantation, or some good live stock, he always arranged it so that he derived some benefit from his ride apart from the actual exercise.” “As we drove home in the hansom he was as happy and as gay as a young school lad, and repeatedly referred


to the several good points of the pony [he had just acquired]...That night and for several succeeding nights, although he had men of note and the most prominent London financiers as his guests to dinner, he talked of nothing else but his wonderful pony. That was Rhodes all over. Little episodes such as I have just related for a time brought absolute and unalloyed happiness to him. They were opportune diversions in his strenuous life and did him a world of good. They served as his recreation, in that they interrupted his brain from constantly thinking and deliberating.” Brunel: “He could enter into the most boyish pranks and fun, without in the least distracting his attention from the matter of business.” “He was evidently fond of pulling their legs so that they were never sure when to take him seriously.” Lord Fisher: “Humor was the breath of life to him, and he would, in the midst of the most relentless pursuit of an idea, break out into a waywardness, enhanced by his childlike joy in shocking or surprising people. He kept the heart of a child, and it was the secret of that amazing vitality and freshness that was always his.” Churchill: “I know that Churchill could sit still for two hours looking at a film, know in some detail what he’s looked at, but come away from the session with a brand-new, full-blown revolutionary war plan in his mind. He would then take it directly to one of his secretaries and set it down in detail while its images were as sharp edged and clean surfaced as shells on a sandbar.” Bob Hope: “I don’t know anyone with such a terrific capacity for work and play at the same time. No matter how hard we’re working, nothing interferes with his love of fun.” Of Ataturk: “Psychoanalysts know, especially from the work of D. W. Winnicott and Erik Erikson, of the interplay between play and creativity.” John F. Kennedy, popular American president: “Separating the business and personal lives of John Kennedy is, in the journalistic world, as difficult as splitting the atom in the realm of physics. In the course of a normal day it is virtually impossible. It is as accurate to say that he plays golf while he works as it is to say that he works while he plays golf. He may grant an interview while he swims, and the number of sun-lighted conferences on his patio or on one of his boats are so many they have gone uncalculated. Yet they have been as vital as any other conferences. He recharges himself at the same time that he expends energy.” If the Exhorter must make others work, then he may arrange things so that he himself can play. Lord Fisher: “Occasionally one of the barbette guns of a ship required replacing. The time taken for this work he considered to be too long; so, the next time a ship came in for this change, he had a chair brought on to the barbette and expressed his intention of remaining there until the


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
mans, which he foresaw]; one day it would be the gunnery brains, the next torpedo, and so on. Then in his quiet moments, 4 a.m., or thereabouts, he would put everything down that he had collected...” “ was his invariable habit to keep a paper and pencil at his bedside; so that, when he woke in the night, as he often did, he could at once make a note of anything that came into his ever-active brain.” Bob Hope: “He was a night person. He liked staying up until two or three in the morning and then being able to sleep until noon.” “Actually, those same writers expected to be awakened in the middle of the night by Hope...” Lyndon Johnson: “Good fellowship talk went on almost the entire night.” “Because he worked late, Johnson had a ready excuse for avoiding the Washington cocktail circuit...” Rasputin: “Rasputin loved night life, and in the latter years it became his main amusement...He loved to sit the night through [at the Villa Rhode], often drinking himself into a stupor, a process that required an alarming number of bottles of Madeira...” It is not uncommon for the Exhorter also to get up late in the morning. Ataturk: “Life had settled into some sort of routine for the Ghazi. He usually rose between two and four in the afternoon.” Churchill: “His habit was to work in bed all morning.” “During the war he would get to 10 Downing St. at 7:30 a.m., go into the basement to the heavily reinforced cellar, immediately undress and get back into bed, eat a hearty breakfast, dictate letters, and then dress again for a meeting of the Cabinet at 11:30.” Billy Graham: “Billy had a habit of getting up early, shaving, and then returning to bed for another half hour or so...” “During the afternoons, he would stalk and pace about in his pajamas...” Bob Hope: “...forced to rise early (something he abhorred)...” Sometimes the Exhorter, in contrast, can stay up late and get up early—he does not appear to need a lot of sleep. Cecil Rhodes: “We were roused every morning at five o’clock to go for a ride with him.” Juan Peron: “He rose at six and arrived at the Casa Rosada by seven. He returned to the residence for lunch with Evita in the early afternoon and then was chauffeured back to his office, where he worked until ten or eleven in the evening.” Churchill: “Usually he worked till 3 a.m., often till 4 a.m., sometimes clear through the night. He was awake at 8 a.m., never needing to be called. He read papers while he ate breakfast in silence. This was a main meal to him. After he’d often return to bed, leaning against a wall of pillows that he kept plopping into more accommodating

change was effected. He had a table brought and his lunch served...” Others at times can motivate the Exhorter to work by rewarding him with ‘fun.’ Bing Crosby: “He joined the band and was given a snare drum to beat on, and he did so with far more enthusiasm than technique. The fact that he never really applied himself to learning proper technique early on is probably owing to his motivation for taking it up in the first place; it was his ticket to all the varsity football games.” “He was motivated to study only when told that to participate in organized sports he had to have good grades.” If work is truly emphasized, then play may be eliminated entirely. Hyman Rickover: “ ’I don’t want you to leave the job behind when you knock off at the end of the day,’ Rickover said in a speech to...workers. ‘I want you to spend your spare time figuring out ways of improving the work.’ ” “And they did. ‘I never saw men work like that before,’ Charles Farrell, Electric Boat personnel manager, said later, ‘and I don’t know if I ever will again. We developed a technique of working relationships that was, in some ways, more revolutionary than the [nuclear] sub [that was being designed] itself. The men threw away their clocks and worked up to fourteen hours a day, including weekends, when needed.’ ” “ ’If you really want to get a big job done,’ [Rickover] once said, ‘you do not need a large group of people. If you do, the first thing you know your time gets taken up arranging for baseball games, picnics, and Easter parties for your employees; worrying about their morale rather than getting them to do the job for which they are paid. People who are doing useful work do not need these trivia for satisfaction.’ ”

The fun-loving yet hard-working Exhorter can enjoy staying up late at nights—if he truly is imagination personified, as appears to be the case, and if dreams for him really are conscious, as history seems to indicate, then he might find it invigorating to be awake during those times when other styles are dreaming. Ataturk: “He was a ‘night person,’ who could outdrink and outlast everyone else.” “The Ghazi enjoyed playing poker, often straight through the night into the early hours of the morning.” Lord Fisher: “Fisher was most erratic in his meals and in the rest he took at night. He would dine at any hour between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., and frequently not at all. On other occasions, most especially when he gave dinner parties, he fed sumptuously and was a most generous host. He used to sit up and work very late...” “Hardly a day passed that he did not send for the brains of the Fleet to help him make some machine against der Tag [‘the Day’ of coming battle with the Ger-

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
shapes. Most of the morning he spent right there in bed, working.” Horatio Nelson: “In an attempt to shake his Commander-in-Chief out of his lethargy Nelson reported his arrival, and announced that he would wait upon his superior the next morning for orders after breakfast which to Nelson, always an early riser, meant 8 o’clock in the morning.” “He possessed such a wonderful activity of mind, as even prevented him from taking ordinary repose, seldom enjoying two hours of uninterrupted sleep; and on several occasions he did not quit the deck during the whole night.” Ataturk: “...he amazed his fellow officers with his ability to work during the day, stay up late drinking and arguing, and still report for duty earlier than anyone else, ready for whatever the day would bring.” Brunel: “These were such hectic days that he scarcely ever found time to sleep for more than an odd hour or so at a time. The Committee had ordered the completion of the preliminary survey by May at the latest. His days were spent in traveling about in coaches or on horseback, while by night he worked on his reports, estimates and calculations.” “No one could have supposed that during the night he had been poring over plans and estimates, and engrossed in serious labors, which to most men would have proved destructive of their energies during the following day; but I never saw him otherwise than full of gaiety, and apparently as ready for work as though he had been sleeping through the night.”


The Exhorter seems always to be talking. Sukarno: “His greatest strength lay in his tremendous speaking talent and his charismatic power over the masses.” Juan Peron: “For more than a decade the opportunity to commune with a mass audience had been like mother’s milk to him...” Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal’s refusal to hold his tongue had resulted in his being packed off to Sofia.” Churchill: “...the greatest talker in the world...” F. D. Roosevelt: “The truth is that he liked to broadcast to ‘my friends.’ He would rather talk to people than sit at his desk and be President.” “He outtalked his advisers, outtalked the cabinet, and even outtalked visiting senators.” Lyndon Johnson: “As a compulsive talker, Johnson turned his guided tours into long monologues.” Elected Vice President under Kennedy: “...he compensated for his reduced status by enlarging his speaking volume and dominating the two-day session with his compulsive talking.”

“The big man, hunched forward in his chair, talking, talking, talking, with hardly an interruption in the dimly lighted little study.” “Lyndon got me by the lapels and put his face on top of mine and he talked and talked and talked...” Lord Fisher: “He...pours out that astonishing stream of talk...” Sukarno: “...on average no more than two cabinet meetings were held per month and even then he tried to subject his ministers for hours to expositions of his revolutionary theories.” Nikita Khrushchev, Russian leader, before coming to power: “He talked all the time (even during the purges). He has talked without stopping ever since anyone knew him. Sometimes he talked out of turn and was slapped down. Often he jumped the gun. But Stalin let him talk and found him useful. The only thing was that in those days he wasn’t much reported.” Brunel: “He loved to walk along the top of the high garden wall so that he could joke and gossip with the Miss Mannings who lived next door.” Martin Luther: “He was a lovable, companionable fellow, witty and talkative.” Billy Mitchell, in one evaluation: “[This officer] is fond of publicity, more or less indiscreet as to speech, and rather difficult to control as a subordinate.” De Lesseps: “His output of words...[was] prodigious.” Talk may extend into singing. Bing Crosby: “Bing was outgoing. He could talk...” “Even when he reached grade school, he would sing before anyone, anytime, anyplace, without the slightest compunction, embarrassment, or self-consciousness.” If the Exhorter’s speech does not produce results, then he increases his effort—it’s easier to do when the listener is tied to a telephone receiver. Of Lyndon Johnson, by a friend: “ ’Leave Lyndon Johnson in a room with a telephone, and he will make a long-distance call.’ The walls of his Washington and Austin homes were studded with telephone outlets, in case he felt the urge to make a call.” Bob Hope: “But Hope was the master publicist. He never refused a request for an interview, talked on the telephone for hours with columnists in distant cities and had almost daily conversations with people...” Hyman Rickover: “His phone seems to ring constantly. The conversations usually last less than a minute, and his side of them does not include a hello or a goodbye. He receives and makes many phone calls. They are all done hurriedly. Sometimes too hurriedly.”

The Exhorter doesn’t need a lot of time to prepare for his speaking. Churchill: “Seeing a book labeled Speakers Wanted, he gazed with wonder. Do you mean to say there are a lot of meetings which want speakers?”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
cherishes the image of the Ghazi lying on a huge white bearskin rug in his library, smoking a cigarette, sipping his Turkish coffee, and going over dozens of documents while he dictated or put his thoughts down on paper himself.” Bob Hope: “Bob has three writers who work for him. Early on Monday mornings they bring the prepared script to his apartment and the four of them go over it together. Sometimes it’s swell and sometimes it isn’t, and when it isn’t they often stay up all night Monday and Tuesday trying to re-write it...” Martin Luther: “All he wrote flowed from his pen without effort. He once informed a friend that he kept three presses going all the time. It was his habit to send copy to the printer day by day, and he was nearly always reading the proof of the earlier pages of a book while writing the later. Often the preface was in type before the work itself was even begun.” The Exhorter, as it turns out, is very aware of the attitudes of those around him. They need to support his efforts. Ataturk: “The Ghazi always stood out in any crowd, and the people of Inebolu fed his narcissistic need for recognition. They showered him with love and affection, which he repaid through several speeches. They hung on his every word, as though each were a drop of milk given by a caring mother.” Brunel, launching his great ship: “...nothing is more essential than perfect silence. I would earnestly request, therefore, that the most positive orders be given to the men not to speak a word, and that every endeavor should be made to prevent a sound being heard, except the simple orders quietly and deliberately given by those few who will direct.” Of life under Sukarno: “The people are used as a mat to wipe one’s feet on. They are considered necessary to applaud after listening to a leader’s fierce speech.” The Exhorter will notice the one person who is not paying attention. John F. Kennedy: “What would remain most unsettling to most reporters was Kennedy’s awareness of every word printed about him. Personal references bothered him much more than did attacks on policy.” Vince Lombardi: “He kept everyone’s attention, he made sure of that. If your attention wandered, he’d throw an eraser or a piece of chalk at you, anything that was in his hands. He was a very basic teacher.” De Lesseps was criticized by Lord Palmerston: “ ’I think I am hardly likely to be wrong when I say that the project is one of those chimeras so often formed to induce English capitalists to part with their money, the end being that these schemes leave them poorer, though they may make others richer.’ The memory of the insult [de Lesseps] could not erase, and it continued to rankle, guiding his policy so that he decided not to attempt to reap the harvest of his hard sowing all over the country. He

Juan Peron: “The teaching experience at the [war] academy was a crucial phase in Peron’s preparation for a political career. It made him comfortable on his feet in front of audiences and effective in conveying his thoughts; he became skilled at extemporization.” “Peron usually improvised his campaign speeches.” Bing Crosby: “He had a good sense of humor, a quick smile, and an even quicker tongue; he was the most articulate member of his crowd.” Exhorter-ability to communicate extends to letter writing, comedy and movie-making. Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Alfred Beit was his great friend and confidant, and periodically he dictated a long letter to him touching on every South African subject that he thought would interest him. I remember one letter extended to some forty pages of closely written foolscap.” Bob Hope: “He learned the discipline of always being ‘up’ for an audience, whether 2 or 20 or 200 people, and keeping up a nonstop pace whatever the audience’s response.” Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, making a movie: “Hope and I tore freewheeling into a scene, ad-libbing and violating all of the acceptable rules of movie-making...” This kind of extemporaneous talk, which for the Exhorter is fun, can become the major aspect of his work. Churchill: “Buying an estate, he began to read whole lists of projects to me. He loved to stand on his porches and shout at us, giving wild and encouraging instructions.” Lyndon Johnson: “No request (from visitors) was too small or too large, and Johnson found that he could perform an inordinate amount of work over the telephone. Besides the legwork it eliminated, the telephone permitted him to sound more authoritative and demanding than he could have been in person with high government officials. As a result, he began spending a larger part of his day as a telephone bloodhound tracking down the civil servant who handled the specific problem he wanted solved.” Running his office with three shifts, around the clock: “At some time during each shift he came dashing through the office rooms and called out like a cheer leader, ‘C’mon, let’s function...let’s function.’ Only after the work cards revealed a decline in office efficiency did he discard this administrative nightmare.” Recovering at home from a heart attack: “An intercom alongside the pool permitted him to be in instant touch with anyone in the house. ‘Bird! Bird!’ he called, whenever he wanted something brought to him. ‘When this is over,’ [his wife Bird] confided to a friend, ‘I want to go off by myself and cry for about two hours.’ ” The Exhorter does what is fun, which for him can be talk, and leaves the rest for others. Ataturk: “He kept three sets of secretaries busy on the speech. When one tired, another would be summoned, and a third might be required to work through the night. Ms. Gokcen still

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
had of course intended, when the time came to open the lists, that England should take up a large block of shares, proportionate to her maritime ascendancy. Now he resolved to consummate the union of the seas without her aid, financial or otherwise.” Lyndon Johnson: “Every vote mattered to him, and he never let his listeners forget it.” “Nights later, after a successful dinner in his honor, Johnson’s reaction was to scream at his assistants: ‘Who was that redheaded son-of-a-b— set two chairs down from me? Whoever he was, I don’t want the goofy s.o.b. setting in the same room with me again. Ruined mah whole night.’ ” “Senator George Smathers, Johnson’s friend and supporter, described Johnson’s reaction to Bobby Kennedy as ‘pathetic.’ Said Smathers in early 1967, ‘Sometimes Lyndon calls me up and asks me to come over for a visit to the White House, and when I walk in I find him sitting there in his chair with his face all screwed up sadly and a fist against his cheek, and he greets me with a sort of cry: ‘Tell me what I ought to do about Bobby, that little blankety-blank.’ ” “He can’t seem to remember that he is President of the United States and Bobby is just a little senator. What he does is react to Bobby for all the mistreatment he got during the three years he was Vice President.”


The Exhorter—always talking, aware of inattention— attempts instinctively to ignore what is negative. Billy Graham: “It is simply his native instinct, as a friend explained once, ‘to ignore everything that doesn’t fit into the pattern of the best and the ideal.’ ” “ ’He has a tendency to just ignore that which doesn’t fit into the pattern of the best,’ one of his associates has said.” Of Billy Graham, by his mother: “Nothing ever seemed to vex or depress him back then.” Lord Fisher: “In war shoot the pessimists—they will lose us the victory.” The Exhorter focuses naturally, in contrast, on the positive. Brunel: “I cannot with all my efforts work myself up to be downhearted.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He called one office ‘Stabilization of Employment’ and not an ‘Unemployment Commission’ because he had already developed what became a consistent attitude, namely, an emphasis on the positive. He did not like to appoint a committee against anything.” Lord Fisher: “While at sea the Fleet ‘wheeled,’ a small Cruiser being the pivot-ship. The maneuver was not carried out well—there were several new Captains in the ships—so a signal was made to the cruiser pivot-ship, ‘Maneuver well executed.’ Since the pivot-ship had to take no action at all beyond reducing speed, the remain-

der of the Fleet drew their own conclusions as to what the signal was intended to convey.” “His spirits were inexhaustible, a born optimist in little as well as great things...” Nikita Khrushchev: “He always projected the future in a wildly optimistic light.” Billy Graham: “He exuded optimism, made the place hum...” Cecil Rhodes: “He had a wonderful way of encouraging people and making them look at things from the brighter side. I noticed this wherever he went.” Horatio Nelson: “Lord Nelson kept pacing the cabin, mortified at everything which savored either of alarm or irresolution.” Lyndon Johnson: “The exhortation follows a familiar pattern. The President reads from reports from his generals in Vietnam. It is an upbeat recital. The war is not stalemated. The enemy is hurting...” Pushing his friends to find their fortune with him in California: “I was very positive...” The Exhorter in fact can use the positive to hide what is negative. He begins to live in what for others would be a ‘daydream.’ Brunel: “For obvious reasons Brunel’s reports to directors seldom erred on the pessimistic side so that, reading between the lines, we can gather from this that things were very far from well.” Brunel: “This unshakable faith in himself, though he sometimes suspected it to be the sin of pride, schooled him, during this time of adversity to hide his feelings behind a bold front of self-confidence and enthusiasm which impressed everyone he met and which, aside from his remarkable abilities, contributed more than anything else to his ultimate success.” Cecil Rhodes: “ ’At any rate, Jameson, death from the heart is clean and quick; there is nothing repulsive or lingering about it; it is a clean death, isn’t it?’ It was not pathetic to see and hear him solemnly utter these words. We all knew he was thinking about his own death. Dr. Jameson had not the heart to meet his eyes. He tried to give a casual reply to the question, but his voice betrayed his emotion. Rhodes noticed it, but, instead of being depressed, by a wonderful exercise of will-power his face lighted up and he laughed away the incident.” Horatio Nelson: “Russia was the enemy, it was the Russian fleet which should be destroyed. If the trunk of the Northern Coalition could be cut through, the branches would wither away. In essence he was right, but Sir Hyde’s counter-argument had considerable force. If the British engaged the Russians and perhaps the Swedes, and suffered loss and damage, what chances would their crippled fleet, endeavoring to make its exit from the Baltic, have against an untouched Danish navy? Nelson conceded the point, but unwillingly. What separated him from the attitude of his superior was that he never thought save in terms of victory.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
the nation.’ Then he concluded his message: ‘I want to tell you here that the high pinnacle on which you stand is not only overlooking a glorious battlefield strewn with the bodies of thousands of the enemy, but from its summit the eye can also discern the horizon of a future for our people and yourself that is respondent with glory.’ ” Billy Graham: “Superlatives also arise because, as Lorne Sanny remarks, ‘Billy is totally absorbed in whatever he is doing. He has great vision for tomorrow but he doesn’t live for tomorrow. He lives for today. I was with him in 24 crusades, and at every crusade there was some reason why this one was the greatest crusade, the most strategic, the one that could start the world-wide revival. He believed it.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover’s contributions...were in five areas: Vision...Energy, drive, and singleness of purpose. Rickover considered the job the most important thing in the world.” Lyndon Johnson: “One time Lyndon and a friend had bowls of chili in a restaurant. The food was not high quality, yet on his way out Lyndon pumped the hand of the proprietress and exclaimed, ‘That was the finest bowl of chili I ever ate!’ ” Lord Fisher: “Far exceeding anything known to history does our future Trafalgar depend on [things he then mentions]...” Billy Mitchell: “We Americans had developed the best system of air fighting that the world had ever seen.” The Exhorter states things the way they could be if optimism were reality. Ataturk: “Along with this premature sense of autonomy went a tendency to hold on to idealized images of himself and significant others in his life, including an idealized image of his father.” De Lesseps: “Typically he had ignored...the realities of the situation for the sake of an ideal; often but not invariably a trait as admirable as it is rare.” Things may be stated the way they should have been if optimism had been reality. Lyndon Johnson, winning an election by only 87 votes: “From the start he disarmed suspicious senators he did not know by sticking out a hand and saying, ‘Howdy, I’m Landslide Lyndon.’ ” Billy Graham: “Billy has a way of making the story better over the years. He starts remembering it the way he’d like it to have been, which isn’t always the way it necessarily was y’know.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He saw little of the war, yet as the years passed his stories of his military experiences and risks overseas became more and more expansive—to the point where he was claiming that he had probably seen more of the war than anyone else.” Things may be over-stated to bring some desired aspect of them into reality. Peter the Great: “...a basic principle of his financial policy was to ask for the impossible in the hope of getting as much as possible.”

Bob Hope: “He learned the discipline of always being ‘up’ for an audience...” “His many walks through hospital wards to cheer the sick and dying were never easy experiences, but he knew instinctively that the only way he could get through an intensive care or burn ward was with gags.” Ataturk: “As at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal’s narcissistic personality organization was an immense asset to him as he personally led the great offensive. His grandiosity allowed him to disregard discouraging ‘realities’ and to envision successes others could not conceive of.” The Exhorter enjoys this use of the positive to disparage the negative so much that he may actually create what is negative in order to overwhelm it with positives. John F. Kennedy: “He wanted the ground properly pessimistic before he started...The technique was called ‘underdoggery.’ If one started low enough, any gain was cheering news.” The Exhorter’s positive words are not an act—he usually believes them himself. Vince Lombardi: “I am not going before that ball-club without being able to exude assurance. I must be the first believer, because there is no way you can hoodwink the players.” Lord Fisher: “If you are a gunnery man, you must believe and teach that the world must be saved by gunnery, and will only be saved by gunnery. If you are a torpedo man, you lecture and teach the same thing about torpedoes. But be in earnest, terribly in earnest. The man who doubts, or who is half-hearted, never does anything for himself or his country. You are missionaries; show the earnestness—if need be, the fanaticism of missionaries.” If something does become undeniably bad, then for the Exhorter it is truly exciting, and that also is very positive. Ataturk: “Those who later recalled that trip speak of how happy Mustafa Kemal seemed to be. Once, when the car broke down, he began to walk and some of the others followed him. As he walked he began to sing and urged everyone to join in...On the other hand, his good cheer may have been the denial of some rather real external dangers.” The Exhorter can learn to guard against his inbuilt optimism. Brunel: “Everything has prospered, everything at this moment is sunshine. I don’t like it—it can’t last—bad weather must surely come. Let me see the storm in time to gather in my sails.”

The activity about which the Exhorter is presently being positive is often the ‘biggest’ and the ‘best.’ Ataturk: “On receipt of the news of the Turkish victory, Mustafa Kemal wired Ismet that his conduct of the battle had been the work of a genius and that rarely in the history of mankind had a commander assumed so heavy a responsibility. He stated: ‘You have not only defeated the enemy, but at the same time have reversed the unhappy fate of

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Things may be over-stated so that people will notice some important aspect of ‘reality.’ Lord Fisher: “If you wish to attract the attention of the public, you must lay the color on thick with broad lights and shadows.” “Fisher was fond of saying things to make them stick without much caring whether his hearers would take him seriously or not.” Horatio Nelson: “...he was not a reserved man, and there would come a time, when he was much older and with much greater worries and responsibilities, when he would not hesitate, indeed could not restrain himself, from putting all his love and passion, in the most exaggerated form, on paper.” Hyman Rickover: “Our fleet today is overorganized, overeducated, overtheorized, overinstructed, overadministrated, overcomplicated...” “Most of the work in the world today is done by those who work too hard; they comprise a ‘nucleus of martyrs.’ The greater part of the remaining workers’ energy goes into complaining.” Martin Luther, about the head of government: “Many things please your prince and glitter in his eyes which displease God and are hold of no account by Him. I do not deny he is exceedingly wise in secular affairs, but in those pertaining to God and the soul’s salvation I consider him, as well as Pfeffinger, sevenfold blind. I do not say this in a corner to malign them, nor do I wish to keep it quiet. I am prepared whenever opportunity occurs to say it to their faces.” “He was better acquainted than most men with the common people of his day, and he knew strong language was needed to move and arouse them. He was working not to win a reputation, but to stir up a nation, and while many others were appealing to a small and select circle of the cultured, vast multitudes were hanging on his words.” Over-statement in most cases does cause people to pay attention. Lyndon Johnson: “...he showed off the scar. He wanted all of us to know that it was no small thing. ‘I hurt good,’ he had told the press pool during the flight to Austin.” “One time when [Lady Bird] was away, she said, their daughter Lynda Bird contracted a very mild childhood disease called impetigo. You would have thought Lynda Bird had cancer the way Lyndon behaved! He called Mrs. Albert Thomas (the wife of the congressman from Houston), who got a doctor, and she came over and helped him out. Lyndon since then considered himself and Lera Thomas veritable lifesavers because that skin eruption didn’t finish her.” Suffering a heart attack: “ ’Tell the wire men I’ve had a heart attack—a real belly buster—and that I won’t be back this session,’ Johnson told Reedy. ‘Don’t tell them I’m here for a rest or a checkup.’ ”


Over-statement also enables the Exhorter to justify giving to something his whole energy. Billy Graham: “Sincerity is the biggest part of selling anything, I found out—including salvation. And I was sure sold that those were the greatest brushes in the whole world.” “Billy just lives totally absorbed in today. That’s why, in every one of the crusades I’ve been with him, this one was the most critical, the one that would start the worldwide revival. He’d work and preach and give himself to that crusade as if he’d never had one before and would never have one again.” Vince Lombardi: “His main objective was to instill in all the guys the feeling that they could win, and to do it, he had to approach every game like it was the Super Bowl. He made us believers.” Lyndon Johnson: “Every job I’ve had is bigger than I am, and I have to work twice as hard as the next man to do it.” Cecil Rhodes: “...that advice which he is said to have frequently given: ‘Have before you one great idea, one great object, which is to be accomplished...’ ” De Lesseps: “Fascinated by the light, he dared not look into the shadows. The future was to be the fulfillment of the vision, to which all facts must conform. Had he been better able to distinguish between the general and the particular, or personal, he might have been happier, his friends more numerous, his enemies fewer; but he would not have built the canal. He selected data with the conviction that success would be achieved in proportion as he believed in it, and communicated that belief to others. So he tended sometimes to be misled, and to mislead his friends.” This over-statement, so necessary to attract attention and to focus energies, is interpreted by others as exaggeration. Lord Fisher: “In his next letter he describes his duties with that suspicion of exaggeration which was, later on, to pervade his correspondence...” “In greater matters he was, as events showed, too confident; he had too great a belief in his powers to demolish obstruction and persuade dissentients. His conversation and writing tended too much towards exaggeration.” Juan Peron: “His many books, pamphlets, articles, speeches, letters and taped conversations are so permeated with contradiction, exaggeration and misstatement that they must be used with extreme caution.” Lyndon Johnson: “We learned very early that you could put yourself in peril if you always accepted LBJ’s pronouncements at face value. Hyperbole was a natural feature of his conversational style, especially when he was in a storytelling mood.” Billy Mitchell: “...Washington placed little value on Mitchell’s views on aviation (even his friend Hap Arnold thought him prone to exaggeration)...” “Mitchell has been a gallant, hard-fighting officer but always with a turn for overstating things.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
ing was grand, very grand. I cannot compare it to anything, cannon can be nothing to it. At last it came bursting through the opening. I was then obliged to be off—but up to that moment, as far as my sensations were concerned, and distinct from the idea of the loss of six poor fellows whose death I could not then foresee, kept there.” “The sight and the whole affair was well worth the risk and I would willingly pay my share, 50 pounds about, of the expenses of such a ‘spectacle.’ Reaching the shaft, I was much too bothered with my knee and some other thumps to remember much.” “If I had been kept under another minute when knocked down I should not have suffered more, and I trust I was tolerably fit to die. If, therefore, the occurrence itself was rather a gratification than otherwise and the consequences in no way unpleasant I need not attempt to avoid such...” Churchill: “Churchill likes to know when he’s in danger. It exhilarates him. He gets extra lively and almost boyishly concerned. The danger simply delights him. So we never tell him.” “I am not up to describing the confusion the General Strike brought to the Treasury. But since Winston loves confusion if he can take charge of it...” Cecil Rhodes: “From the time the smoke was visible [from the enemy’s big gun] it took the shells about seventeen seconds to reach the Sanitarium. We had therefore sufficient time to get under shelter. It was amusing to see Mr. Rhodes bob in and out of the shelter. I thought he would think it a great bore, but on the contrary he made fun of it.” Martin Luther: “You would scarcely believe how pleased I am that enemies rise up against me more than ever. For I am never prouder or bolder than when I dare to displease them. Let them be doctors, bishops, or princes, what difference does it make? If the word of God were not attacked by them it would not be God’s word.” Lyndon Johnson: “ ’There is something about an emergency that puts an extra hunk of steel in his spine,’ said little Jack Valenti, proud of his master.” Horatio Nelson: “It was at this time, as he wrote to his Buckling uncle, that he sustained ‘a severe cut’ in the back as a result of enemy fire. There is hardly a further mention of this wound to anyone. The adrenaline was being pumped into his system by the prospect and experience of action and Nelson was virtually indifferent to his own safety.” De Lesseps: “Mix together the spirit of adventure with incredible courage and invincible tenacity. Add passionate love for the glory of his country, and there you have the man, complete.” Since the Exhorter moves to what is fun, he is actively attracted to crisis. Brunel: “...where there was adventure or danger he was invariably to be found in the thick of it.”

“I cannot always rely upon either his opinions or his judgment. His enthusiasm sometimes carries him away.” De Lesseps: “...some of his contemporaries thought his estimate of canal traffic so exaggerated as to constitute evidence of criminal intent...” When there is an accurate vision, and the discipline of focused energy, the Exhorter’s over-statement can sometimes become reality. Vince Lombardi: “He was the man who built the Green Bay Packers from an uninspired, losing football team into what I will always believe was the greatest football team there ever was. He became the biggest man in the biggest sport in the country.” Brunel: “When he had written, before scarcely a sod had been turned, that he was engineer to the finest work in England he was making no idle boast. He knew that it would be so because, as any artist or craftsman must, he had already conceived the completed work in his imagination.” De Lesseps: “Though some of his contemporaries thought his estimate of canal traffic so exaggerated as to constitute evidence of criminal intent, modern returns far surpass his imagination’s highest flights.”

The Exhorter’s energies are focused in particular by crises—negative situations are undeniably the ‘biggest’ and the ‘best,’ and he sees them in a very positive light. De Lesseps, to his wife: “I could not be better. I am never so calm as at the very center of troubles...” Brunel, when a tunnel collapsed: “I shan’t forget that day in a hurry, very near finished my journey then; when the danger is over, it is rather amusing than otherwise— while it existed I can’t say the feeling was at all uncomfortable. If I was to say the contrary, I should be nearer the truth in this instance. While exertions could still be made and hope remained of stopping the ground it was an excitement which has always been a luxury to me. When we were obliged to run, I felt nothing in particular; I was only thinking of the best way of getting us on and the probable state of the arches. When knocked down, I certainly gave myself up, but I took it very much as a matter of course, which I had expected the moment we quitted the frames, for I never expected we should get out. The instant I disengaged myself and got breath again—all dark—I bolted into the other arch—this saved me by laying hold of the railrope—the engine must have stopped a minute. I stood still nearly a minute. I was anxious for poor Ball and Collins, who I felt too sure had never risen from the fall we had all had and were, as I thought, crushed under the great stage. I kept calling them by name to encourage them and make them also (if still able) come through the opening. While standing there the effect was—grand—the roar of the rushing water in a confined passage, and by its velocity rushing past the open-

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Churchill: “He could no more stay out of an air raid than he could sit still in a debate in Parliament.” Horatio Nelson: “For it seemed that Horatio was determined to seek action wherever it could be found, and risk himself and the whole ship’s company once he had found it.” Bob Hope: “Amazingly, in the midst of the babble of many voices and a scene that resembled total pandemonium, Hope remained calm and professional, ready in his makeup, in his wardrobe, and always line perfect.” Hyman Rickover, of his chosen field of engineering: “ is...often potentially dangerous action.” F. D. Roosevelt: “It must be remembered that from 1933 to 1945 we were always in a crisis.” The Exhorter may exaggerate the ordinary, therefore, to make it critical. Churchill: “He is always thinking about something in the round, but also about some specific aspect of it, and always toward a solution or a crisis. I am certain all his reflections are dramatic, for all living to him is such.” Billy Graham, by an associate: “Graham personally operates on a constant sense of crisis in his own life. Even the smallest little things he sees and interprets in the most drastic terms—for instance, if he’s riding on an airplane and something begins to sound a little out of the ordinary with the engines, he sits right up, ‘Listen, did you hear that?’ and immediately, we’re all on the brink of disaster in that plane.” Horatio Nelson: “Although Horatio did his best to reassure Fanny about his welfare, their standards were very different. Restraint was never Horatio’s strong point, and what was Fanny to think when almost every letter contained two or three sentences on the subject of her husband’s devotion to the concept of death or glory?” Lord Fisher: “It was not so much the Navy, as the Navy at war, that was ever before Fisher’s eyes. Most officers visualize the Navy as it is in its daily life in peacetime. Fisher had no use for a peace Navy.” Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson could handle more work than most of his House colleagues because he visualized every day as a special crash program.”


The Exhorter, as we see him in history, walks quickly. De Lesseps: “[He was] always on the move or in conference, at high pressure...” Billy Mitchell: “He didn’t walk like other men, and though he was modest and considerate of everybody, there was pride in every movement. Even if he had only eight or ten feet to walk, he went at it as though he were marching a mile, and was late. He moved at top speed.” “I was Mitchell’s aide for one day, and on that one day, I’ve never moved as fast or covered as much country before or since. He was a veritable dynamo of energy. Everything he did, he did just as hard as he could.”

Lyndon Johnson: “William Deason’s view of Lyndon Johnson was that ‘he was always in a hurry on the campus. He never walked with leisure. It was always with long, loping strides, almost like a trot.’ ” Bob Hope: “But his favorite activities involved footraces.” Peter the Great: “The haste with which he did everything was now normal. He had such a long stride and used to walk so quickly that his companions had to run to keep up with him. He could not sit still for long, and at banquets he would jump out of his chair and run into the next room in order to stretch his legs.” Hyman Rickover: “He had been a walker for decades. Walking was a kind of exercise that made sense; it got you somewhere. When he was trapped in an office or in a hotel, he still walked—or, long before the word and act became fashionable, jogged. One time a fellow officer spotted Rickover walking rapidly up and down a hotel corridor, flapping his arms like wings. ‘Aren’t you embarrassed?’ the officer asked. ‘I’m staying alive,’ Rickover replied, and kept on walking in quick, jerky steps.” Billy Graham: “He was happiest back then just hurrying around, in front of those big crowds...” Placed in a car, the Exhorter tends to exceed the speed limit. Lyndon Johnson: “A cream-colored Lincoln Continental driven by the President of the US flashed up a long Texas road, swung into the left lane to pass two cars poking along under 85 m.p.h., and thundered on over the crest of the hill—squarely into the path of an oncoming car. The President charged on, his paper cup of perl beer within easy sipping distance. The other motorist veered off the paved surface to safety on the road’s shoulder.” Billy Graham: “His chief wildness was to borrow his father’s car ‘and drive it as fast as I could get it to go,’ turning curves on two wheels, and racing other boys on the near-empty roads of North Carolina.” Lord Fisher: “Jacky was never satisfied with anything but ‘Full Speed.’ We shoved off from the accommodation ladder at full speed, and went alongside at full speed, then reversed engines also at full speed.” Juan Peron: “The president maintained his keen interest in boxing and was a frequent ringside spectator at Luna Park matches. He also had a passion for riding motorcycles, speedboats and racing cars.” “Motorcycle-riding became a particular addiction. He liked nothing better than to mount an expensive new model and roar off, full throttle, on a test run. He also enjoyed driving race cars and piloting speedboats on the river.” Billy Mitchell: “Mitchell bought a powerful Dusenberg car and drove it like the wind, with Bissell posted in the rear to guard against traffic cops on the high-speed runs to and from Bolling Field.” John F. Kennedy: “I am told, for thank God I never experienced it myself, that their trips to the airport were


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
bombastic—even for a Texan. From Horace Busby and other writers he demanded speeches with remarks ‘that will make me sound goddam humble.’ Disappointed with an aide’s performance, he would utter such scalding jibes as ‘You couldn’t even pour p— out of your boot,’ and ‘You can’t even reach your a— with your right hand.’ ” “Lyndon gravitated toward boys who were loud, brash, and aggressive like himself.” “One friend, on entering the hospital, was told he could visit Johnson because the senator was in a rest period. When he walked into Johnson’s room, he found him watching a baseball game on TV, listening to the news on his transistor radio earphone, and bantering with the head nurse.” Brashness may have emotional causes. Lyndon Johnson, after election victory as Kennedy’s Vice President, at Hyannis Port: “This was Johnson’s first meeting with Kennedy since the convention, and some observers said that he compensated for his reduced status by enlarging his speaking volume and dominating the two-day session with his compulsive talking.” Hyman Rickover: “If I still shout, it is because I am afraid the Navy will not be able to meet the demands which will be placed upon it in the future.” Vince Lombardi: “He never held a grudge against anyone. He never wanted to hurt anyone personally. When he was screaming on the field, I don’t think he ever knew who he was giving hell to.” “Vince was volatile. He was a shouter. In order to express himself, he had to shout. He felt that he had to bawl out the kids to make them better players and to strengthen the team, but I know, from our conversations, that it hurt him to do it.” The Exhorter’s desire for volume may be evident in his writing as well. Lord Fisher: “He spoke, wrote, and thought in large type and italics; when writing he underlined his argument with two, three, or even four strokes with a broad-nibbed pen, and when talking, with blows of his fist on the palm of the other hand. ‘I wish you would stop shaking your fist in my face,’ said King Edward when being subjected to some of Fisher’s forcible arguments; and every one of his many listeners might have made the same remark.” The Exhorter may have bright, even garish, tastes. Cecil Rhodes: “As regards flowers, he liked a blaze of color. He was very proud of his hydrangea field, which was indeed a grand sight about Christmas-time.” Churchill: “He liked marching music. He often marched to it in garish and expensive dressing gowns.”

like riding in a police car on a chase. The Senator liked to take the wheel and race through the streets, barely missing red lights. Cops would whistle, cars would honk, but he ignored everything other than his objective.”

The Exhorter appears to love a noisy environment—it is an auditory crisis. Bob Hope, at Goose Bay, Labrador: “...five thousand people in that tightly packed gym were yelling and screaming, laughing and crying. People were blowing horns, throwing confetti. The stage was overrun. The orchestra was blasting. Everyone was hugging everybody. The din was overwhelming. It was a moment of sheer animal hysteria that I can still hear and see vividly...” Churchill: “Once the Germans appeared, a terrific barrage was put up against the raiders. The din was appalling, but there is nothing Churchill loves like a din. This had a heartening effect upon the whole people.” Bing Crosby: “He joined the band and was given a snare drum to beat on, and he did so with far more enthusiasm than technique.” De Lesseps: “Fortunately for his independent temperament, organized games were not yet in fashion, and he found his combative outlet in fencing [with its clash of swords], which he took up seriously and successfully.” Of Lord Fisher, by one candidate: “He is young, energetic, enthusiastic, and will blow the trumpet of the Board (as well as his own).” Arriving late at a destination: “ ’Blow the siren,’ he said, ‘and keep it going; it will divert their attention.’ ” John F. Kennedy: “He loves politics and all the dazzle that went with it—the motorcades, the crowds, the brass bands and, best of all, shouting hoarsely for the people to vote right.” The Exhorter himself can be rather brash—this time, it’s a kind of visual volume. Nikita Khrushchev: “At 56 he was very much the man the world was soon to know, drunken and coarse and alternately savage and jolly in his moments of relaxation, alternating between bullying and cajolery and jeering towards his own subordinates, ever watchful among his equals, a compulsive talker, a compulsive schemer, a compulsive worker.” Juan Peron: “He does not boast about his physical power, but he shows it. He takes off his jacket and walks up and down with his regulation khaki shirt, exhibiting the pistol in his belt. He bangs the table and does not hesitate when referring to other chiefs and officers, or in stating that he will fix that situation ‘by blows.’ But he does all this laughing. If he becomes flustered over a discussion, it only lasts a second.” Lyndon Johnson: “Wherever he appeared, there was an uproar. Behind the scenes, and sometimes openly, he upbraided his aides because his hotel bed was too short, the food tasteless, the scheduling stupid, the speeches too

The Exhorter comes to the forefront when everything around him is chaotic. Churchill: “The train was upset

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
and Mr. Churchill is described as having rallied the force by calling out ‘Be men! Be men!’ ” Lyndon Johnson: “Besides his burning desire for money, Lyndon also possessed at a green age the knack of turning impending disaster to his advantage.” Lord Fisher: “He never was at a loss in any emergency, and he acted on such occasions with remarkable rapidity.” “Captain Fisher did wonders. I do not know what we should have done without him. It was marvelous the way he managed when Alexandria was handed over to him; he made order and regularity everywhere, where everything before was chaos and confusion.” Ataturk: “They described him as having panic reactions, hitting the palm of one hand with the fist of the other. Appearing nervous and despondent, he would suddenly stand up, as if discharging the panic reaction, and say, ‘Now let us attend to our own tasks.’ After he said this, a complete change would come over him, and he was able to continue with his work without any evidence of panic, suddenly appearing as someone in complete control of himself as well as of others. He had an uncanny ability to move quickly from one level of functioning to another which was more integrated. He could also keep one level uncontaminated by affect that pertained to the first and less controlled level.” De Lesseps: “Again the competent courage of Ferdinand de Lesseps had made the vital difference in a major crisis.” F. D. Roosevelt: “[Roosevelt] demonstrated the ultimate capacity to dominate and control a supreme emergency, which is the rarest and most valuable characteristic of any statesman.”


If crisis does not exist, then the Exhorter may generate it himself. Juan Peron: “It is in the midst of confusion that I handle myself best, and if none exists one must create it. The art of politics is not to govern order but disorder...” Lyndon Johnson, operated on for a kidney stone: “He was hardly into a hospital nightgown before he became the despair of the hospital staff. One distraught nurse reported that while he underwent treatment she could not get him off the long-distance phone. He made so many special demands and used his room, waiting rooms, and the central floor nurse call area so intensively as a temporary campaign headquarters that the hospital staff admitted to exhaustion and bewilderment by the time his kidney stone either dissolved or passed out of his body.” If something needs to be done eventually, then the Exhorter may do it suddenly, to initiate chaos, and a need for him. Juan Peron, contemplating unity with Chile: “In this situation, one must be bold. Create unity, and then solve problems as they arise. Just as when you take a cold

shower, if you stick a finger in the water first, you hesitate. It’s better to put yourself immediately under the shower and adjust afterward.” Ataturk: “Ismet, among the most cautious, felt that it would require at least seven years to change the alphabet. Mustafa Kemal held that the alphabet should be changed within three months if it were to change at all.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He was always willing to try even a risky technique to accomplish things.” The Exhorter may attack the status quo in order to create a crisis. Horatio Nelson: “The overall initiative on land and sea seemed to rest with the enemy, for action would occur only if the French fleet came out, or if the French armies advanced. It was not a situation to Nelson’s liking, waiting upon the enemy did not suit his ardent temperament...” Billy Mitchell developed air power to destroy the status quo for battleships: “He saw the need of some arresting device to win public attention, some way in which air power could be dramatized with appealing simplicity. With the passing months his logical target became clearer—the Navy.” “One day he called Captain C. H. M. Roberts of Ordnance into his office. ‘Do we have a bomb that will sink a battleship?’ ” “No, we don’t...” Peter the Great: “First of all he freed himself from the capital and traveled, visiting the most distant parts of Russia, and causing turmoil wherever he went either by his own furious activity or by the risings it provoked. At the end of a frontier campaign in some distant Province, Peter did not leave it in peace; on the contrary, he at once urged it to some new and arduous enterprise.” The Exhorter may exaggerate problems in order to create a crisis. John F. Kennedy: “He operates better as an under-dog. (Thus even when ahead he must convince himself he is not.) ‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going,’ must have been coined for him.” In his acceptance of the Democratic nomination: “We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier—the frontier of the 1960s—a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils—a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats...The New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises—it is a set of challenges.” Lyndon Johnson: “He insisted that he had been unable to push the budget under the one-hundred-billiondollar mark. But from the look of too great despair on his face, newsmen were certain he was misleading them again. They knew he would send Congress a budget bill below that figure and then tell how much he had agonized to get it down.” “Before the investigation began [of the Soviet sputnik being first in space], Johnson revived his long-time philosophy of the need to turn the United States into an armed camp. At the Rose Festival at Tyler, Texas, on Oc-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
breast to fire and death at the side of those whom one values.” “Each man kept a revolver on his person at all times, and one would guard the other as he slept. Arif was a combination of friend and bodyguard.” Billy Mitchell: “He seemed to attract the most daring spirits, and to find prospective aviators everywhere. One day he had car trouble on a French road, and the Mercedes was quickly repaired by an Army driver who was passing by. When he found that the chauffeur had been a racing driver back home, and wanted to fly, Mitchell helped him into the Air Service. His recruit was Eddie Rickenbacker, soon to become the leading American ace.” Horatio Nelson: “...once again, as Stewart recorded, it was Nelson who had the task of carrying his colleagues with him by his own enthusiasm.” As the Exhorter and his friends fight crisis, the Exhorter himself may be found at the center of danger. Of Vince Lombardi, by a player: “He went into every game with the attitude, ‘I’m here to die, are you?’ ” Brunel: “A man of the highest courage, if he was wrong, he was the first to admit it, nor would he ever commit others to any hazard to which he would not commit himself.” Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal felt that those who were responsible for the organization and execution of any plan that involved danger should themselves be in the actual danger zone.” Drake, against Cape Segres, a major Spanish fortress: “Drake led the attack in person, advancing at the head of the land forces up the steep slope towards the fort. They reached the main gate and, under cover of his musketeer’s fire, Drake and a small body of men began to pile up faggots, pitch, and timber, against the main gate. William Borough might well have contended that this was no task for an admiral—and technically he would have been right—but Drake’s presence at the most dangerous place inspired his men to vie with him in audacity. Before the fire had taken a real hold, the garrison of the fortress asked for terms.” The crisis-loving Exhorter leads easily, therefore, by example. Of Hyman Rickover, by Jimmy Carter: “He expected the maximum from us, but he always contributed more.” Horatio Nelson: “...the timid he never rebuked, but always wished to show them he desired nothing of them that he would not instantly do himself; and I have known him say, ‘Well, Sir, I am going on a race to the mast-head, and beg I may meet you there.’ No denial could be given to such a wish...” Brunel: “Although it was obvious that Brunel was seriously ill and that his leg was giving him acute pain he remained, as usual, quite undaunted and refused to leave the works.”

tober 17, he painted a frightening picture of the horror that would overtake the United States if it did not treat Soviet leadership in missilery as a war. Then at Waxahachie, in a prepared speech, he denounced the forty-hour week as a serious menace. The eight-hour, five-day week, he charged, ‘will not produce intercontinental ballistic missiles.’ The entire nation ‘must go on a full, wartime mobilization schedule.’ ” Juan Peron: “Indeed, Peron needed the [American] ambassador as his main antagonist. He knew the advantages that would accrue from such a match. He insisted that the opposition was Braden’s creation and that the ambassador provided both the brains and the muscle behind the effort to unseat him.” “...periodic denunciations of the opposition remained part of his platform repertoire. The charismatic leader needs to prove himself against apparently fitting adversaries, as Peron had done during the 1946 election campaign ‘against’ [American ambassador] Spruille Braden.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He was cautious—almost superstitious—about assuming victory over Hoover.” The Exhorter may play one thing against another to create a crisis. Juan Peron: “Despite his sermons on the value of organization, in reality Peron cultivated contention and disarray. This was especially true with respect to the Peronist party. He set the labor wing against the political wing, and later when a women’s branch came into being, the inevitable tricornered squabbles that erupted gave him endless delight. ‘I manage things best in a quilombo’ was one of his favorite sayings. (The word quilombo is difficult to translate. Of Brazilian origin, it was a slang expression for a whorehouse, but in the context in which Peron used the word, it connoted perpetual uproar and confusion.)” “Peron’s prescription for maintaining cohesion was the same formula he had applied throughout his political career: preach unity while cultivating chaos. As an astute journalist reported: ‘Nobody can say that Peron hides it. He repeats it frequently. ‘It is in the midst of confusion that I handle myself best, and if none exists one must create it. The art of politics is not to govern order but disorder...’ The divide-and-rule doctrine promoted unity only to the extent that it left loyalty to [Peron] as the only common ground for Peronists.” Hyman Rickover used divide-and-rule: “ ’He wanted bad news,’ a former representative recalled. ‘He would always say, ‘Don’t tell me what’s going on right. I only want to know what’s going on wrong.’ We were simply his spies.”

The Exhorter is happy when others join him in crisis—his enthusiasm carries them along. Ataturk, of fighting next to a friend: “What pleasure it is to expose one’s

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Vince Lombardi: “A lot of people have said that he pushed us, but I’ve been thinking about that, and it’s not really true. He didn’t push; he led. He didn’t force us to do anything he wouldn’t do himself.” Drake: “Late in April they were still off Cape San Antonio, the westernmost point of Cuba, where they were forced to put in to water ship. Here one gets an endearing picture of Drake, something that immediately makes comprehensible the love and devotion he inspired in his men. ‘I do wrong,’ wrote Walter Biggs, ‘if I should forget the good example of the General, who, to encourage others, and to hasten the getting of water aboard, took no less pains than the meanest. Throughout the expedition, indeed, he had everywhere shown so vigilant a care and foresight in the good ordering of his fleet, accompanied with such wonderful travail of body, that doubtless, had he been the meanest person, as he was the chiefest, he had deserved the first place of honor.’ ” Peter the Great: “In order to set an example, and be able to teach others, Peter had served in the ranks of both his army and his tiny navy, thereby gaining much valuable experience.” Lord Fisher: “When the ship took in coal, he went into the coal lighters to work with the men, an innovation that was looked on rather askance in those days, but is now a commonplace occurrence.” Billy Mitchell, in response to a question: “Have you ever asked any perform duties that you were not ready to undertake first yourself?” “None that I know of.” Brunel: “I trust these men will pull all together, but good management will always ensure this—and you must try while you make each man more immediately responsible for his own work to help each other—and to do this it is a good thing occasionally to put your hand to a tool yourself and blow the bellows or any other inferior work, not as a display but on some occasion when it is wanted and thus set an example. I have always found it answer.” Those who follow the Exhorter into crisis love him, and may try to protect him. Drake, returning to the scene of a raid to rescue a wounded colleague: “Here his crew did another of their affectionate mutinies and would not allow him to go ashore...” Recall, incidentally, that we are examining the Exhorter who excels in history; the average Exhorter can be very different. Of Lyndon Johnson, by a friend who knew him in his youth: “Zeke recalled it was customary for truck drivers to back up to dirt piles and then join the crew in shoveling the load into the truck. Lyndon was the exception, he said, because he stayed in his truck and catnapped while the others loaded his truck. ‘Lyndon was no fool,’ said Zeke. ‘He was saving his energy to run this country.’ ”


The Exhorter who leads by example feels often that rank is a hindrance; he does not accept the privileges that might otherwise be due him. Drake: “As a seaman he was the first to realize that there could be no distinction of caste or class aboard ship, but that ‘the gentleman must haul and draw with the mariner, and the mariner with the gentleman.’ He thus anticipated by some 400 years the democratic navies of today.” “ ’By the life of God,’ he thundered, ‘it doth even take my wits from me to think on it! Here is such controversy between the sailors and the gentlemen, and such stomaching between the gentlemen and sailors, that it doth even make me mad to hear it. But, my masters, I must have it left. For I must have the gentlemen to haul and draw with the mariner and the mariner with the gentlemen. What! Let us show ourselves all to be of a company and let us not give occasion to the enemy to rejoice at our decay and overthrow. I would know him, that would refuse to set his hand to a rope, but I know there is not any such here...’ His last words were heavy with irony. His tactics worked.” Lord Fisher: “...he was placed in charge of torpedo instruction...he entered on his new work with a vigor which much impressed all who passed through the various courses. These included officers of Post-Captain’s rank. One of the Captains who took the course records his surprise at the way Fisher inspired these rather dignified personages, making them pull oars like seamen, and handle the wet cables and heavy chain moorings as if once again they were midshipmen; but all his life he was unique in his power of communicating his own enthusiasm to all around him, whether officers or men.” Peter the Great: “A nobleman beginning his service as a private was destined to become an officer; but, by a decree of January 16th, 1721, a private of humble origin who was commissioned because of his abilities was simultaneously created an hereditary nobleman. Peter’s theory was that if a nobleman could become an officer because of his origins, then an officer automatically became a nobleman ‘by right of service’; he laid this rule down as the basis for the organization of military service.” Hyman Rickover: “In the school of the nuc [nuclear navy officer], there was no questioning of authority, no emphasis on educating the professional man. The nuclear power schools turned out technicians, whether they were officers or enlisted men. The only resemblance between them and Rickover’s ideal Annapolis was a disdain for Navy ranks, rules and traditions.” “His would be the only BuShips section that would ignore ranks among workers, that would make ‘education of personnel’ an important task, that would develop


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Lyndon Johnson, with the National Youth Administration: “ ’For a time after we began to work,’ said Johnson, ‘I tried to be the first man on the job every morning, but I found I had just set up a contest.’ ” Nikita Khrushchev: “He had a talent for bullying and cajoling people into tightening their belts. Their children were going to inherit the earth, cost what it might in suffering meanwhile.” Vince Lombardi: “He gave 150 per cent of himself, and he got 150 per cent out of all his players.” “He was so demanding and so short on praise that I would do anything to gain his acceptance, to get a kind word out of him.” “One of the things I liked best about him was that he made us all feel part of the team.” F. D. Roosevelt: “The great lesson he learned during these years was that bureaucrats, workers, and sailors were human beings with human problems and failings. He saw that people wanted recognition as well as promotions or better wages.” Drake: “His character and his actions inspired in them a contempt for their enemies, and led to the feeling that was to linger in their native land for many centuries: ‘One Englishman is worth half-a-dozen foreigners.’ ”

autonomy, and that would employ few Navy men and many civilians.” Billy Mitchell, learning to fly: “Mitchell’s instructor was Jimmy Johnson, who was immediately impressed by his pupil. ‘Let’s get this straight,’ Mitchell said. ‘You forget I’m an Army major, and treat me like anyone else who’s here to learn.’ ” Of Billy Graham, by Governor Clement of Tennessee: “He walks with even step among the humble and moves with towering stature with the mighty.”

The example of the Exhorter is an inspiration to those around him, and the Exhorter knows how to exploit this effect. Lord Fisher: “Fisher had always been unique in the way that he made other men work for him; he was a leader rather than a driver. He knew instinctively the way to get the best out of each subordinate and spur him on to further endeavors; every sort of blandishment and skillful flattery were called into play when required, and, as always was the case, he was successful.” De Lesseps: “It was as though the momentum which Ferdinand had brought to the original plans had endured until it was now shared by everyone connected with the enterprise. The great moment when the two seas should meet could not be long delayed...” Brunel: “Every man from Brunel down to the navvy with shovel and pick was endowed with an astounding capacity for hard work and seems to have been inspired with a determination to see the job through which enabled the work to continue even under the most appalling weather conditions.” “We also know from a number of incidents in his life how Brunel also earned and greatly valued the esteem of those miners, navvies, shipwrights and mechanics who labored under his command.” Horatio Nelson: “Always ready to accept death or wounds in the course of duty, he expected, no doubt over-optimistically, the same attitude from others.” “As a shot passed through the mizzen stay sail, Lord Nelson, patting one of the youngsters on the head, asked him jocularly how he relished the music; and observing something like alarm depicted on his countenance, consoled him with the information that Charles XII ran away from the first shot he heard, though afterwards he was called ‘The Great’ and deservedly, from his bravery. ‘I therefore,’ said Nelson, ‘hope much from you in the future.’ It is easy to see why, though senior officers as different as Troubridge and Keith disapproved of Nelson’s private life, his vanities and his faults, lieutenants, midshipmen and ordinary sailors cared not a damn.” Ataturk: “As usual, when mingling with the people in this way, he was at the peak of his charisma, influencing others to follow him with enthusiasm and excitement on the road to reform.”

The fervor of those who follow the Exhorter is almost religious. Of Vince Lombardi: “He used to tell us the world needs heroes, but I don’t think he ever realized what a big hero he was himself.” De Lesseps, in Panama: “[Absorption of foundering subcontractors in Panama] swelled the administrative staff to something over six hundred, the majority of whom, in spite of all handicaps, resolutely pursued the goal with competence and integrity. This fact is of the greatest importance, for it represents the redeeming feature of the whole story; how Ferdinand de Lesseps still inspired devotion, and how men, touched by the embers of his fire, were still willing to give their lives in the hope that, because of the canal, the world might be a happier place.” “The word religion is not too strong to express the enthusiasm which you engendered.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He has a wide range of interests and is exceedingly human. I have never had contact with a man who was loved as he is.” By one agency chief: “After spending an hour with the President, I could eat nails for lunch.” Of Billy Graham, by Hindus: “We watched Billy Graham when he was preaching and when he was just talking to people. He was always smiling. He was so happy. The thing he has fills him with such joy that we want whatever it is he has, and he says Christ can give it to us.” Drake: “Drake was always loved by the men who served with him...”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
“[Drake’s conduct] induced in his young followers a wholehearted and almost blind devotion to their leader.” Horatio Nelson: “There was something irresistibly pleasing in his address and conversation, and an enthusiasm, when speaking on professional subjects, that showed he was no common being.” Of him, when he was killed: “Our dear Admiral Nelson is killed! So we have paid pretty sharply for licking them. I never set eyes on him, for which I am both sorry and glad; for, to be sure, I should like to have seen him— but then, all the men in our ship who have seen him are such soft toads, they have done nothing but Blast their Eyes, and cry, ever since he was killed. God bless you! Chaps that fought like the Devil sit down and cry like a wench.” “Robert Graves in his poem, 1805, imagines a conversation at Nelson’s funeral between a general and an admiral. The general has heard from one of the admiral’s colleagues that perhaps, in the view of some of the more conservative admirals, ‘Nelson’s exit though to be lamented, falls not inopportunely, in its way.’ The admiral agrees and goes on to list Nelson’s faults and deficiencies, ultimately provoking the general to ask, ‘What then was the secret of his victories?’ To receive the reply, ‘By his unservice-like, familiar ways, Sir, he made the whole Fleet love him, damn his eyes.’ ” Ataturk: “With his troops harassed by air strikes and the hostile local Arab population anxious to join the Arab Revolt, only Mustafa Kemal’s infectious determination enabled the surviving remnant of his Seventh Army to cross the Jordan.” Of Brunel, after Thames mud entered the tunnel and it needed to be repaired: “...the air became so foul that a black deposit formed about the nostrils of the men, who frequently collapsed with violent attacks of giddiness and vomiting. Yet, spurred on by Brunel’s unconquerable determination, the work went forward until, by November 1827, the whole tunnel and the great shield had been completely cleared and restored to order.” Billy Mitchell, after being ousted: “Then, as if it had occurred to him for the first time that he would give these men no more orders, he looked at them and said in a low voice: ‘Who will carry on...when I’m gone?’ ” “There was a long silence. One officer remembers: ‘We obeyed him. We obeyed him the rest of our lives. And long after he was dead.’ ”


The example of the Exhorter, and therefore the fervor of his very closest followers, peaks when he is opposed, and when things are worst. Ataturk: “Exhorting his men to give their all in the ensuing close combat, Mustafa Kemal issued eloquent commands: ‘I am not ordering you to attack, I am ordering you to die. In the time it takes us to die, other forces can come and take our place.’“

Churchill, in an early speech: “I would say to this House, as I have said to those who have joined the government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” To the United States: “Give us your faith and your blessing, and under Providence all will be well. We shall not fail or falter. We shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.” Nikita Khrushchev: “He was the man responsible for the restoration of iron discipline after the terrible summer months of Hitler’s invasion when dazed and bewildered troops, betrayed by inefficient commanders at the front and by Stalin’s inadequacy in the rear, found themselves caught between the German tanks and Stukas and a hostile peasantry, which all too often welcomed the Germans as deliverers from oppression.” Brunel: “It was at this moment of most bitter failure to which all his unwearying efforts had led that Brunel displayed more fully than on any previous occasion those qualities of high courage and unfaltering decision which so distinguished him.” When everything seems impossible, then crisis is permanent, and the Exhorter, paradoxically, can finally relax. Cecil Rhodes: “Nothing was done in Rhodesia without his approval, no law was made without consulting him, and to be bereft of all power and responsibility, as it were by a stroke of the pen, must have been most galling to him. Those were very dark days to him. It seemed almost a human impossibility to extricate himself from the unenviable position in which he was then placed. But his dogged determination and courage urged him onwards, and notwithstanding the dark clouds that had gathered round him he was never faint-hearted.” De Lesseps: “All of which, though true, left him upon a lonely road. He was without official encouragement even from his own country. He had neither rank nor office; in the absence of which all the best doors remained closed. His record was suspect. There had been rumors that he was not quite right in the head, and to many people it must have seemed that he was obsessed with the idea of the canal. Either that, or he must have some dark purpose.” “In later years he was, on this issue as on so many others, accused of cunning and greed; yet it would be absurd to suggest that consciously there was even a trace of either at work in such an idealist. To have lowered the level of his endeavor to that of mere business would have taken from him the saving grace which had survived the death of Agathe [his wife]—his capacity for devotion.” “Outside the close circle of his few intimate friends, it could hardly occur to anyone that Ferdinand de Lesseps wanted to dig his ditch not for power nor money, nor


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Martin Luther: “As Eck mounts opposition, he is obliged to commit the affair to God and like a ship give himself up to tide and waves. ‘I have the idea that an extraordinary storm is coming on me unless God halts Satan...What difference does it make, the word of divine justice could never be set forth without turmoil, uproar, and danger...Therefore in this affair we have to despair of peace and tranquility or the Word will be set at naught.’ ” Billy Graham, when Emily left him: “All, right, Lord! If you want me, you’ve got me. If I’m never to get Emily, I’m going to follow you. No girl or anything else will ever come first in my life again. You can have all of me from now on. I’m gonna follow you at all cost.” F. D. Roosevelt: “The death to his hope of being the peacemaker and mediator of the world had acted like a spiritual purge and left him cleaner, simpler, more singleminded.” ‘Resurrection’ comes when trouble is surmounted. But, when he finally ‘wins through,’ then the Exhorter is bored. Churchill: “Though Churchill in defeat is noble, with nothing to do he is a kicker of wastepaper baskets, with an unbelievably ungoverned bundle of bad temper.”

even out of patriotism, but for love; a motive so unusual as to be unbelievable.” “I am going to accomplish something without expedience, without personal gain. That, thank God, is what has up to now kept my sight clear and my course away from the rocks. I shall be resolute in it, and since no one can make me deviate, I am confident I shall be able to pilot my ship into the port we may well call Said [a terminal of the Suez Canal]...” The Exhorter who seeks crisis, and prepares for it, can end up unconsciously doing a great service to those around him. F. D. Roosevelt: “I don’t think he consciously said to himself that reforms at home would make us a more united people if we had war. Yet the fact is that, quite subconsciously, he was getting us ready for grave tests.”

The Exhorter may eventually learn that defeat itself can be positive—it is a school for character. Brunel experienced setback and initially suffered: “The failure was a blow to his reputation from which he soon recovered but we, knowing those early aspirations which he cherished throughout his life, may realize how much more shrewd and bitter a blow it must have been to his self-esteem.” Nikita Khrushchev learned from defeat: “He was constantly talking about learning from life and he was, indeed, one of life’s most eager and rewarding pupils. He even had the gift, so rare among politicians, of learning from his own mistakes.” Lyndon Johnson knew the right words: “On the green wall of the gallery-floor majority leader’s office, Johnson had a framed quotation from Edmund Burke that caused him to sigh in the presence of those who read it. The quotation read: ‘Those who would carry on great public schemes must be proof against the worst fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults, and worst of all, the presumptuous judgment of the ignorant upon their designs.’ Johnson said that the quotation fitted him perfectly.” De Lesseps, to his wife: “It will not be the first time that I have been alone against the world and have won through. Hitherto, attacks have served my own interests because they compelled the examination of my conduct. Today it will be the same. I well know how to ride out a storm, and that is what one ought to do when one has a clear conscience.” Churchill: “Churchill in defeat is noble...” Since the best is brought out in crisis, and more so in defeat, the Exhorter may eventually come to believe in ‘death and resurrection.’ Churchill: “Churchill, while a nimble enough improviser, was and is a long-term planner. He knew then that we would almost lose the war before winning it; that we’d hang on till we did win.”

Crisis by definition is not organized; things around the Exhorter can therefore be a real mess. Martin Luther: “Before marriage, he had lived very carelessly, often leaving his bed unmade, as he once remarked, for a year at a time, and tumbling into it at night too tired from his strenuous labors to notice the difference. His study was a wilderness of disorder and he often lost things altogether in the confusion of the place.” Billy Graham: “His room was never orderly, he just never seemed conscious of such things. He ate a lot of grapefruits up there—he would suck them like oranges, and then just pitch them into the corner. Along with pecan hulls and everything else imaginable. There would be this heap there after a while, a midden of old grapefruit rinds, banana peels, peanut shells, and he would just leave it there while two, three weeks went by.” “After marriage, despite all Ruth’s persistent gingerly suggestions, he obliviously continued to leave his desk and closet in a ragged dishevelment, used the top of the bathroom door as a rack for his limp damp towels and washcloths.” Churchill: “When [his private secretary] first met him, filing boxes, stationery supplies and piles of correspondence seemed to be heaped on every table and chair.” Lyndon Johnson, unlike Kennedy, at least kept his desk tidy: “Johnson kept his desk and office neat, while Kennedy’s desk and closet were in great disorder.” John F. Kennedy: “The condition of his desk was maddening. It seemed as if someone had taken a waste paper basket and turned it upside down on top of the desk.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
F. D. Roosevelt demonstrated that the disorganized Exhorter can remain quite responsible: “Coats, books, and papers were left around all over the Mansion, giving it that pleasantly occupied look.” “Any room he used invariably got that lived-in and overcrowded look which indicated the complexity and variety of his interests and intentions.” Cecil Rhodes, similarly: “Although Rhodes was not particular as to his appearance and as to the cut of his clothes, he was always scrupulously clean.” Rasputin, in contrast: “Power for Rasputin never went hand in glove with responsibility.” The Exhorter may attack his own disorganization, when it is brought to his attention, with words— ’Somebody should do something!’ Sukarno: “Sukarno hated the discussion of practical problems and on average no more than two cabinet meetings were held per month and even then he tried to subject his ministers for hours to expositions of his revolutionary theories. As soon as the cabinet was allowed to get on with the business of the day, Sukarno lost interest and often handed over the chairmanship to one of his favorite ministers...” Fortunately for the Exhorter, there are often people who respond. Lyndon Johnson’ wife: “Her friends said that when they visited her, Lyndon would rush in from another room and ask, ‘Bird, where’s this?’ or ‘Bird, where’s that?’ and she knew personally where everything was.” “Early each day, after he put on the clothes Lady Bird had laid out for him and finished breakfast...”


to the surface a number of times during Hope’s first flush-of-success period in Hollywood.” Lord Fisher created a distraction: “On one occasion, when, months ahead, he had informed the Quebec authorities that he would arrive at 10:30 a.m. on a certain day, and anchor at a certain place, troubles arose lower down the river which delayed the ship, and she was about three minutes behind time. The time, 10:30 a.m., was reported to him when the ship was still a short distance from her anchorage berth. The heights of Quebec were thronged with spectators, and the Admiral was not going to have them say that he was late. ‘Blow the siren,’ he said, ‘and keep it going; it will divert their attention.’ ” F. D. Roosevelt developed priorities: “He acted instantly, on certain decisions, and unaccountably postponed others for months.” Vince Lombardi came early: “In Green Bay, we lived in two time zones: Central Time and Lombardi Time, which ran fifteen minutes ahead of Central Time.”

The Exhorter doesn’t always notice when or what he eats. Cecil Rhodes: “He was quite indifferent about his food, and when he became interested in a topic of conversation he helped himself mechanically to the dishes offered to him, and had not the remotest idea of what he was eating.” Lyndon Johnson: “ ’If I had left him alone,’ [Lady Bird] said, ‘he wouldn’t have eaten until midnight.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “It was well known that Rickover did not leave his office for lunch, that its ingredients rarely varied, and that he spent at lunch just enough of his valuable time to consume the food.” F. D. Roosevelt: “His personal habits and way of life were simple to the point of bareness. The simplicity of his taste in food is proverbial.” Billy Graham: “He would also pack down four meals daily, never particularly mindful of the cuisine...” At times, the Exhorter seems to find it easy to indulge in ‘junk food.’ Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson relished just about everything that Mrs. Johnson and his doctors tried to keep him from eating.” Martin Luther: “He ate very irregularly, often forgetting his meals altogether. Later on, whatever the condition of his health, and despite Kaethe’s protests, he was apt to eat anything that seized his fancy, bad as it might be for him.” “Possessed of a naturally vigorous constitution, his tremendous labors and careless way of living brought on grave troubles at an early day, from which he was never afterward wholly free, indigestion, gout, rheumatism, sciatica, asthma, headache.” Billy Graham: “He would also pack down four meals daily, never particularly mindful of the cuisine: as one

As part of a generally disorganized nature, the Exhorter is not always very scheduled. Bing Crosby: “Time was a problem. It meant nothing to him, and he was almost always the last one to class and often late.” Lyndon Johnson: “ ’I’m running late,’ he would apologize. ‘I am usually a dollar short and an hour late, but my intentions are good.’ ” John F. Kennedy: “He would stroll out of his office, late as usual for a date.” “Kennedy was habitually tardy.” Churchill: “He is always in a hurry but for some mysterious reason can never get to an appointment on time. He once kept King Edward VII waiting a full 50 minutes. I have often heard him say, ‘Unpunctuality is a vile habit,’ and I believe he has really tried to break himself of it. But I’m afraid this is one thing in which he has been singularly unsuccessful.” Lack of punctuality, when it leads to a crisis, may be solved in various ways. Bob Hope threw away his watch: “ usual he was without a timepiece...” “The thoughtlessness and self-indulgence revealed in this episode (of ignoring schedules and being late) came


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
grace of humor, which guarded him from the danger of taking trivial things too seriously...” De Lesseps: “Though he took his duties seriously enough, he was well content to grasp everything in the way of diversion, of which there was an abundance...” Brunel: “Behind his vast capacity for hard work there was no masochistic notion of duty. His career was to him a tremendous adventure, but when he allowed himself to forget it for a while he was capable of indulging in the fleshpots with the same gusto and with a delight which was quite uninhibited.” The Exhorter is not just fun, but may also be very funny. Churchill: “In the company of his wife and daughter Diana he displays extraordinary streaks of gaiety. I often interrupted Diana putting on a dancing and singing act for Mr. Churchill, or Mr. Churchill singing songs for Diana. Together they used to have a rollicking good time.” Brunel: “Macfarlane could never have guessed that the ready wit and the gaiety...” Bing Crosby: “Bing was outgoing. He could talk and he could move, and he was very witty.” Lord Fisher: “Humor was the breath of life to him...” “His general expression was slightly supercilious, which, however, was constantly changing during conversation to a flickering smile, for an undercurrent of humor always pervaded his general talk.” Billy Graham: “He has a spontaneous sense of humor, which bubbled in private and in spontaneous public comments which often disarmed a hostile audience.” Bob Hope: “No matter how hard we’re working, nothing interferes with his love of fun.” John F. Kennedy: “The Kennedy wit became almost legendary.” Martin Luther: “In company he is a gay and merry jester, alert and good-humored, everywhere and always with a bright and cheerful face, however terribly his enemies threaten him...” “By nature he was a friendly and affable man, but not given to fleshly lust or unseemly pleasures, while his earnestness was so mingled with joy and kindliness that it was a pleasure to live with him.” “Light conversation, jesting, and story-telling he thought especially good for low spirits, and often indulged in them, just on that account.” “Martin was no recluse. He was a lovable, companionable fellow, witty and talkative. Fond of joke and jest he was too...” Juan Peron: “He gives the impression of possession of a permanent sense of humor, and gives the feeling that he does not take things seriously.” Peter the Great: “...they said that he was attractive and witty...” Cecil Rhodes: “When he was away from the towns in the country, free from all worry, his true nature presented

intimate attested then, ‘He never cares what he’s eating— it could all be hamburger for what it matters to him.’ ” Bob Hope: “...Hope sending out for his prime passion, ice cream...”

The Exhorter, brash and loud as he sometimes is, may also seem not to care for what is appropriate. Rasputin: “He constantly infringed on all codes of social behavior, but never appeared to be acting out of a desire to be clever or provocative. He had little rational understanding of the impact of his actions, and gave the impression that he did not consider them to be unusual. He was his own man and did as he pleased, and that was that.” Bob Hope: “[Crosby and Hope] maintained a casual approach to movie-making that was occasionally accompanied by thoughtlessness.” Martin Luther: “He should have obtained permission from his alma mater at Erfurt to obtain his doctorate elsewhere. His failure to do so, probably due to mere carelessness, was thoroughly characteristic, for he often showed a disregard of the conventionalities and proprieties that made him many enemies.” The Exhorter can at times be quite crude as a person. Peter the Great: “...they said that he was attractive and witty, but...his table manners were quite impossible.” At the wedding of an elderly widower: “Glasses of jelly were served on a large tray at the wedding feast, and Peter, knowing that the bride’s father was particularly fond of jelly, made him open his mouth and stuffed jelly after jelly into it; when Prince Golovin tried to close his mouth, Peter wrenched it open again with his own hands.” “It is true that Peter liked to enjoy himself and make jokes, but is also true that these jokes often went too far and were either very cruel or just vulgar.” Rasputin: “He obstinately refused to learn about knives and forks, continuing to eat as he had always eaten, with his fingers. By the end of a meal, moreover, it would be apparent that his beard also had its part to play; Rasputin was not fond of napkins either.” Yet somehow the Exhorter retains his charisma. Bing Crosby: “It was owing only to his ingratiating personality and obvious talent that people put up with his irresponsibility.” “Bing could be so witty, such a good storyteller and listener, so friendly and so pleasant to be with, that one was drawn to him and eager to be among the first to forgive him—even to defend him—for his occasional excesses.”

The Exhorter—full of energy, leading others in crisis, making work into play—is fun to be around. Martin Luther: “Deadly in earnest, and yet with the rare and saving

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
itself. He was then bright and cheerful, full of fun, and disposed to chaff everybody, like a schoolboy enjoying his holiday after three months’ confinement at a boarding-school.” F. D. Roosevelt: “The Roosevelts were hospitable and had many visitors. He unbent, laughed with them, swapped yarns, and began to be as easy and natural as with old friends and neighbors.” “His zest for people would have kept him from becoming a ‘stuffed shirt’ if there ever had been any such danger.” Joking at times can be practical. Of Billy Graham: “He was a totally liberated personality. I mean, he would just do the most unexpected, fascinating things—like once, when he was driving us all back from Charleston, the sun visor kept falling down in front of him, and finally he just reached up and snatched it right off and threw it out the window. Those kinds of little things.” “He was the type who’d have an electric buzzer in his palm when he shook your hand.” “He would smuggle stale biscuits and chicken bones into the jacket pocket of the basketball coach, set a wastebasket ablaze during a school exam and then yell ‘Fire!’ as he vaulted out the window.” Lord Fisher: “It was extraordinary how he could play a practical joke and pass it off as if it were an accident.” “I got on very well except for skylarking in the wardroom, for which I got into trouble.” Whenever something funny is happening, the Exhorter likes to be involved. Churchill: “He hated to miss anything.” Bob Hope: “as for the other motivating force [the first being fear of disapproval], he says, ‘There’s nothing in the world like hearing people laugh. It’s the greatest noise there is...Without live audiences to play to, I’d be cutting out doilies in no time.’ ”


The fun-loving, humorous and energetic Exhorter can find a party particularly enjoyable. Billy Mitchell: “On each visit to an Air Service post Mitchell asked if a party had been planned, and offered to give one himself if it were not scheduled; the hosts always responded with an impromptu gala.” Lyndon Johnson: “ ’I am a fellow that likes small parties,’ the President once told an impromptu news conference.” At his inaugural party: “I hope you have had as much fun as we’ve had today.” “Because he worked late, Johnson had a ready excuse for avoiding the Washington cocktail circuit. Nor did he consider evening parties more than time wasters. Lady Bird experienced difficulty in getting him to attend those functions she considered necessary, yet when he did go, she was invariably embarrassed. ‘I noticed that Lyndon

was usually the hardest one to persuade to leave, after being the hardest one to get there,’ she said dryly.” Juan Peron: “The feature that most attracted him [in the army] was the camaraderie of the barracks.” Martin Luther: “Their home was the center of a very active social life. Not only his colleagues and neighbors were frequently with them, but guests from abroad were numerous...” The Exhorter can enjoy alcohol. Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal was promiscuous, and balanced Ismet’s abstemiousness with his own hard drinking.” “At this point, Mustafa Kemal began drinking regularly every night. It relaxed him and facilitated his social interaction.” The Exhorter may like to dance. Rasputin: “He was the kind of Russian who felt, usually after a glass or two, that although he might be having a good time, that good time was still incomplete, too quiet and inactive. The supreme good time required music and the controlled release of energy combined with a surrender to ecstasy that could be found, as Rasputin puts it, by setting off into dance...” Bob Hope: “When Johnny Root retired from Sojack’s, Les took over his dancing classes...” Lord Fisher: “He persuaded his messmates that it was their duty to give a ball...” “At Halifax in 1877 Fisher developed his liking for dancing, which soon became almost a mania and lasted up to the year of his death.” “He then developed a most extraordinary passion for dancing which I believe he never grew out of.” If the Exhorter cannot dance, then he may perhaps march. Cecil Rhodes: “He was not fond of dancing, but I have known him on a few occasions take part in the lancers, when he seemed to enjoy himself thoroughly and to enter whole-heartedly into the fun. He skipped about and went through the various figures with the hilarity of a schoolboy.” Churchill: “It was his greatest pleasure to have private showings of films in his house. His next greatest pleasure was music. It had to have a hummable tune and it had to have a beat to it. It had to have fixed rhythms. He liked marching music. He often marched to it in garish and expensive dressing gowns.” The Exhorter may be attracted also to gambling—it certainly can create a sudden crisis. Ataturk: “The Ghazi enjoyed playing poker, often straight through the night...”

The Exhorter appears to handle liquor very well. Ataturk, for example, controlled his drinking easily: “ was usual for the Ghazi, whenever he felt that the welfare of his country depended upon his alertness and ability to


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Brunel: “ ’My self-conceit and love of glory, or rather approbation, vie with each other which shall govern me. The latter is so strong that even of a dark night, riding home, when I pass some unknown person, who perhaps does not even look at me, I catch myself trying to look big on my little pony.’ And again: ‘I often do the most silly, useless things to appear to advantage before those whom I care nothing about.’ ” Bing Crosby: “He was super-sensitive about his image and worried about public opinion.” Of Billy Graham, by his pastor at Montreat: “Most politicians and dignitaries admire Billy greatly, but they’re also just a little puzzled by him. They can’t figure out what he’s really after, what he really wants. What they don’t realize is that, for one thing, like any other public figure, like they themselves, he just has this great desire to be liked.” Bob Hope: “His platoon of writers, who spent more time with him than his family, saw a man the public didn’t. It was they who daily fed the showman’s ego and did what they could to feed his hunger for approval (though only an audience could really satisfy that appetite).” Lyndon Johnson: “Most of his stories were harmless and lacked a living target, which was appropriate because he had very limited tolerance for pointed humor at his own expense. He craved affection and applause.” “When he finished [a State of the Union message], he told one enthusiastic senator who congratulated him, ‘Yeah, I know. I was interrupted eighty times by applause.’ A later check of the applause bursts revealed there were exactly that number.” Rasputin: “His object was to be accorded respect; only those who received him rudely or not at all became his enemies.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He wanted to gain the respect of his classmates in general, and of the social elite in particular. Social acceptance was of crucial importance to him.” In order to gain approval, the Exhorter may try to act ‘grown up.’ Of Billy Graham, by a teacher: “I can remember particularly that he always made it a point to sit in the front of the room, just to make sure nobody would think he had anything to do with any of the rowdiness or misbehavior further back in the rows.” Lyndon Johnson: “He had never been comfortable outside the South. As he once told a reporter, in the North, ‘you think we all have tobacco juice on our shirts.’ ” In contrast, to gain attention the Exhorter may also be silly. Billy Graham: “Stories of his pranks at school are numerous. More unusual was the habit, each day before the school bus came, of bicycling slowly down the road followed by a small black goat, a large brown goat, and a collie. If a car passed and the passengers laughed, Billy would be pleased.”

remedy some difficult situation, to refrain from drinking.” “Although he certainly relaxed, and even regressed, in the sociability of such drinking before meals, often becoming nostalgic about his youthful days in Macedonia, he knew when he had had enough, and there are no stories of his making a drunken fool of himself.” When he did decide to drink: “He was a ‘night person,’ who could outdrink and outlast everyone else. Apparently he handled his liquor well. Oskar Weisgert, who was sometimes summoned in the middle of the night for a discussion of labor issues, found him serious and alert, even at those hours. It would, however, be impossible for a man to drink more than a liter of raki every night without incurring some injury.” Of Billy Mitchell, in a psychological report: “The officer is oriented in all spheres...Admits that he likes to take a drink and when with a crowd of congenial companions at times imbibes too freely, but has never been ‘down and out,’ nor does alcohol make him unduly hilarious, irritable or depressed...” Peter the Great: “The company shut themselves up for three days...and, in Prince Boris Kurakin’s words, ‘were drunk beyond description, so that many died of it.’ Those who survived these carouses with ‘Ivashka Khmelnitsky’ were ill for days; yet Peter would get up the following morning completely unaffected, and go to work as if nothing had happened.” Rasputin: “He possessed remarkable powers of physical recuperation [from alcohol], and could always make a respectable showing however thick his head.” Of Cecil Rhodes, similarly: “I am prepared to take my solemn oath that during the eight years that I was associated with him I never saw him the worse for liquor...During all the time that I was with him, only on one particular night did I see him take a little more whiskey than was good for him, and that was during his negotiations with the Matabele in the Matoppos a few days after I had joined his party there. Pure worry was the cause of this. Even then no one would have called him intoxicated. I should say he had taken about half a dozen whiskeys, and he was in the condition that would be described as talkative and jolly. He knew what he was doing, and went to bed quietly and climbed up his wagon unassisted.”

Now let us take a much deeper look at the Exhorter. First of all, he often cares intensely what others think about him, and whether he has friends—it’s the first hint that this strong and charismatic leader is himself being led, by the very ones whom he is attempting to guide. Lord Fisher: “He told me himself, just before the war, there was a time at the Admiralty when he had not a friend in the world, and his voice shook with emotion as he said it.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Lyndon Johnson: “LBJ welcomed love and affection. By the same token, it seemed apparent that when he was hurting he craved sympathy. That was why he showed off the scar. He wanted all of us to know that it was no small thing...” As time goes on, the Exhorter’s energy is often channeled increasingly into those activities that will gain him the most approval. Rasputin: “He wanted not money, but consideration, and the money he took, or distributed, was material proof of the situation he had created for himself.” Drake: “He burned his way upward like a rocket, impelled by the fuel of ambition and boisterous energy.” Brunel, of himself: “For one whose ambition is to distinguish himself in the eyes of the public...” Horatio Nelson: “The attainment of public honors, and the ambition to be distinguished above his fellows, were his master passions.” Of Billy Mitchell: “Mitchell is very likable and has ability; his ego is highly developed and he has an undoubted love for the limelight, a desire to be in the public eye. He is forceful, aggressive, spectacular.” To Bob Hope, by his doctor: “Bob, you must slow down. You’ve been moving too fast.” “I know, but I love it. I love those laughs.” Ataturk, choosing a military career: “On another level [a military education] also won him approval, for in the Ottoman world the military attracted the best society had to offer and rewarded its members not only materially, but with respect as well.” It seems that the Exhorter cannot get enough of approval and honor. Lord Fisher: “...that nature, so stern in many of its public manifestations, never failed to respond to the smallest private sign of affection, admiration, or gratitude.” Hyman Rickover: “ ’Admiral Rickover, an outwardly unemotional man,’ Nixon later wrote, ‘was greatly moved by the reception given him in Poland.’ ” “...A man adept at flattering the Congress or the press, yet unusually susceptible to the most elementary flattery himself.” Horatio Nelson: “His reputation, though in general terms, had become public knowledge. He was now a hero, just as he had wanted to be, and the fact pleased him.” “Few men have pursued honors and glory more assiduously than Nelson, and none have ever admitted so frankly their ambitions. ‘If it be a sin to covet glory,’ he confessed to Lady Hamilton, ‘I am the most offending soul alive.’ ” “ who put decorations and honors before money...” Drake: “Drake’s weaknesses: his love of flattery, and his desire to be well thought of by those who had been born gentlemen.”


“Like Nelson again, he was avaricious of fame, loved display and ostentation, and could not be sickened by any amount of flattery.” Sukarno: “On this first extended overseas trip as head of state, Sukarno was feted and honored and headline news. In the United States and West Germany he was presented with honorary doctorates of law. China and the Soviet Union tried to outdo the glittering reception of the Western countries, playing on the impressionable and vain Sukarno.” The Exhorter may actually sacrifice relationships with those who are close, in order to obtain approval from society in general. Brunel: “To the relentless pursuit of perfection in his work, to the realization of his lofty ambitions, his castles in Spain, it would seem that he deliberately sacrificed the quest for a relationship which might have changed the direction of his life and brought to it fresh meaning and purpose. But if this be true, his loss is our gain.” The Exhorter who does become famous seems to fear that the approval may suddenly be taken away. Horatio Nelson: “...always in search of death or glory...elated in action, but plunged into gloom and plagued by ailments if he was kept out of things, or if his services appeared not to attract official recognition.” Bob Hope: “Jack Hope suggested his brother may never have lost that adolescent fear that ‘this might be his last week’s work, that if he isn’t good, people may not ask him back again.’ ” Bing Crosby: “He couldn’t even deal with a single compliment.” Lyndon Johnson, to newsmen during an election: “ ’You-all say I’ve got no charisma—that crowds don’t respond to me like they did to Kennedy. You fellows stay right here beside me and I’ll show you that you’re wrong!’ and he shook hands with the raving crowd.” If approval is actually removed, the Exhorter may act as if he doesn’t care. Bob Hope: “Hope was hurt by the rejection (of the screen test results), so he immediately adopted the attitude that he was too good for Hollywood.” However, the Exhorter usually does care—very much. He may actually push others down to lift himself up. Horatio Nelson: “Ambitious he certainly was, and contemptuous of others less energetic and less enthusiastically patriotic than himself.” Bob Hope: “Leslie’s early reputation as a scrapper stemmed from his need to strike out at those who teased him about his clothes and his name.” “When his last name was called and he responded with ‘Leslie,’ there was laughter, and when he shortened the name to ‘Les’ there was even more laughter. ‘Hopelessly’ and ‘Hopeless’ echoed through school hallways and out onto the playing field. But he was quick with his fists and could win his own battles.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Lyndon Johnson: “Lyndon loved the taste and odor of politics.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He always loved political campaigning.” During his second re-election campaign: “I am an old campaigner, and I love a good fight.” Brunel: “...he plunged into the election of the first reformed parliament in support of Benjamin Hawes, who successfully contested the Lambeth constituency in the Radical cause...” Sukarno: “Furthermore, his fame as a fiery, flamboyant speaker who could hold the masses entranced was spreading, and his contemporaries admit that he was undoubtedly the most powerful political orator in the country at the time.” In exile: “...the crowds in Java, the shouting, the wild ecstasy of the masses, the great exhilaration of being at the center of things [excited him].” The Exhorter in politics can be jealous of his opponent. Lyndon Johnson: “Jack Kennedy had been a Harvard man and Johnson was envious.” “A man who could pose with Henry Ford II holding up one arm while Walter Reuther held up the other did not have to be too concerned about Barry Goldwater. But he was.” Sukarno: “Sukarno’s self-centeredness and tremendous vanity attracted very few true friends throughout his life.” “He was extremely vain and often vindictive.” Ataturk: “Enormously envious of Enver, Mustafa Kemal nevertheless wrote him a letter in which he congratulated the war minister on his work with army reform.” The Exhorter’s attitude may be noticed by others— suddenly they become aware of his disorganized and slightly boorish ways. Drake: “The Raleighs, Grenvilles and Frobishers always disliked him, not so much for what he had done, or the way in which he had made his fortune—but for the fact that a man of his stamp should have made a fortune at all. Always popular with his subordinates, and sympathetic to the under-dog, Drake had a ‘chip on his shoulder’ towards his superiors. Who knows what cool, insolent English patronage he had had to suffer during his early years, from men who considered themselves his betters? Like so many self-made men, despite his riches and his acquired position in the Establishment, he was never allowed to forget that he did not really ‘belong.’ ”

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby: “Bing, on the air for Kraft Foods since 1935, had started using Hope put-down jokes during the spring of 1938 when Hope was a guest on his show.” Nikita Khrushchev: “Violence, though not the violence of malevolence and spite, came very naturally to him.” Desire for approval, and a willingness to push others down, can affect the Exhorter’s style as a leader. Ataturk: “Lloyd Etheredge, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has described what he calls ‘hardball politics’ as a ‘subculture of the domestic and international political culture, a subculture constructed and sustained by a particular personality type, men with what is known clinically as a narcissistic personality disorder.’ Ataturk may have belonged to such a subculture, but unlike most he would become a mighty, godlike, and immortal leader, reflecting the defensive adaptation of his childhood in the world of public affairs.” “ was rather difficult for Mustafa Kemal, with his inflated self-image, to accept a minor role.” “Those who in childhood develop an inflated selfconcept (grandiose self) grow up to be excessively selfengrossed, with grandiose fantasies accompanied by an overdependence upon acclaim and an insatiable need to attain brilliance, power, and beauty. They may simply seem intensely ambitious, but deeper scrutiny will reveal that they strive toward their goal without the ability to understand and love other people and without any consideration for others. This description fits Ataturk’s personality, with the important reservation that he was capable in his own way of a kind of grand love, caring for his homeland as passionately as a man might love another human being.” Juan Peron: “The oligarchs served as convenient targets for denunciation by Peron and Evita. The Peronists preferred to engage in subtle forms of harassment, best exemplified by the setting up of a smelly fish market on the steps of the exclusive Jockey Club on Florida Street.” Kennedy: “Had he followed a long-range policy plan rather than an understandable concern for his image, as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he might have reduced rather than increased the Vietnam commitment.”

The Exhorter, hungry as he is for approval, may be attracted to politics—an electorate that is not well-informed can be very attracted to his charisma. John F. Kennedy: “He was really a campaigner at heart, and he loved talking to people. Most of all, by getting out among the people he was given the assurance that they approved of what he was trying to do in Washington.” Juan Peron: “I carry in my ears what to me is the most remarkable music of all, the voice of the Argentine people.”

The Exhorter tends to boost his esteem by being around those who are successful. Horatio Nelson: “In an age of snobs, Nelson was no snob. He may have been an ‘upwards’ snob, in the sense that he gloried in his own elevation and was obviously taken with the notion of

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
hobnobbing with Royalty at the Court of Naples. A ‘downwards’ snob, though, he was not. A real snob would never have tolerated Emma Hamilton as an acquaintance, let alone as a mistress...” “Even among his contemporaries he had a very personalized view of the monarchy and saw George III much more as a man than an institution...If Nelson had not been wounded at Tenerife and therefore returned home early, he would have been knighted in the normal course of events by Lord St. Vincent deputizing for the Sovereign. The circumstances were therefore of the happiest, in that Nelson was invested with the honor by the King himself which to other men might have been of little consequence, but to Nelson it obviously mattered.” Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson wanted to take part in all the activities of the House, and he did not consider that he was demeaning himself by taking on even menial assignments if they brought him into association with a widening group of congressmen.” “With a group of state university presidents who met with him, LBJ’s grasp for learned coattails was particularly pathetic.” “[Johnson] was later portrayed by the New York Herald Tribune as a camera hog because he intruded into almost all shots of the Glenns [returning from the first orbit of the earth].” Rasputin: “Just as [expensive clothes] would show the world what he had become, so he could say, ‘See who I am, I am just a simple peasant, but grand dukes and duchesses like me, and I have been to [the palace] and met the tsar and tsarina, and they like me too. That’s the kind of man I am. ‘ ” “He had a genuine need to be close to the high and the mighty, and not necessarily because he stood to gain materially from that proximity. It was in itself the measure of his achievement.” Lord Fisher, as a young officer: “I have nothing to do with anyone on the ship except the Admiral himself, and, no mistake, he keeps me going; he hardly takes his boots off without sending for me and telling me officially of it.” “The old Skipper on board here and myself are great friends. I like him very much. I am tremendously lucky; I manage to get good friends everywhere, somehow or another; you’ll say it is a good deal more than I deserve. I think you are a little right.” Bob Hope, getting a medal: “Thank you for this great honor, Mr. President. I feel very humble, but I think I have the strength of character to fight it...” The Exhorter ‘hob-nobs’ with the mighty because he needs them to remind him that he is worthy. Johnson: “Johnson needed reminding from other people who were formidable that he was formidable.” Bob Hope: “[The film] Singapore did much to foster the Hope-Crosby friendship. It was a symbiosis that


suited each admirably and apparently was a response to a need in both men.” Ataturk: “Although even at this point in his life Mustafa Kemal saw himself as an omnipotent savior, he sometimes resorted to the idealization of another person in order to enhance his own self-esteem through a relationship with someone he could perceive as being of impressive stature and unique endowment. His idealization of Corinne and Hildegard exemplifies this process. It also appeared occasionally in connection with a man in whose reflection he was able to feel greater self-confidence.” Juan Peron: “Peron made every effort to identify himself with successful athletes and share in their glory.” “Argentina’s first worker had always admired successful businessmen, especially of the self-made variety. He never considered them part of the despised oligarchy. Indeed, he sought their counsel in matters of state and was at ease among them.” Billy Graham, talking with President Lyndon Johnson: “When Johnson would tell him those little inside stories, would let him in on state secrets, especially about the war—he’d say, ‘Here’s how I chose those bombing targets, Billy,’ and there’d come this light in Billy’s eyes.” Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Rhodes liked [Major Heany] because he was keen, energetic, wrapped up in his work, and determined to make his mines a success. He was very optimistic as to the prospects of mining in Rhodesia. Mr. Rhodes liked talking to him and hearing him give expression to his optimism about the future of Rhodesia, the country which he (Rhodes) had determined to make a success.” “He was very fond of intellectual and bright women and women with character. I have often heard him say, ‘I like So-and-so, she has character.’ Women with tact also attracted him very much.” “I like Grey. He is a charming character. He is always bright and always fascinates one by his winning ways.” The Exhorter, with his ability to daydream, may fasten on to imaginary heroes, perhaps from history. Lord Fisher: “Throughout his life Fisher loved to be in any way associated with the memory of Nelson.” “He was just beginning to study the character of Nelson, who became his idol and on whom he modeled the whole of his after-life.” Lyndon Johnson: “He thought that Roosevelt was ‘the ablest man we ever had in this town.’ ” Remember that we are talking about the Exhorter as he usually appears in history. There are exceptions to this rule. F. D. Roosevelt: “Roosevelt was born with security, position, status. He had a powerful sense of belonging; he ‘knew who he was.’ ”

The Exhorter, disorganized though he is, can cultivate an appearance of success—it exaggerates his person, to


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
desire to become a millionaire was born in Johnson City. For his father’s lack of earnings in real estate made it necessary for Lyndon and the other children to wear homemade clothes...Lyndon was incredibly damaged by these early privations, and he reacted to the hardships—some real and some magnified—throughout his adult life.” “He could never own enough suits. One time he walked into the house with delivery men bringing nine suits that he had bought at a single fitting, and he told friends that they cost him more than two hundred dollars apiece. He also liked the feel of his silk, monogrammed shirts and liked to run a palm over the solid gold cufflinks that were engraved with a map of Texas.” Juan Peron: “When the occasion demanded, he could bedeck himself in any number of splendid uniforms. He entertained a particular weakness for dashing capes.” Billy Graham: “Billy was always turned out sharp as a tack.” De Lesseps: “...with his usual tact, Ferdinand took care to make his appearance and manner as acceptable as possible.” Drake: “During the night of the 27th, Drake grew delirious, struggled up from his bed, and insisted that he should don his armor so as to ‘die like a soldier.’ ” Sukarno: “In the early 1920s Sukarno had undergone a complete metamorphosis; he was cocky, arrogant, always perfectly dressed in the Western manner and reputedly obsessed with cleanliness. These typically Dutch traits remained with him throughout his life; later during his presidential years he would become livid with rage if an official was not properly attired in suit and tie and if he happened to find a speck of dust in any of the Palace rooms.” Ataturk: “ ‘Is it possible for a nation to be civilized without dressing in a civilized manner?’ he would cry out, and the crowd would answer, ‘Never! Never!’ Then he would persist, ‘Are you ready to be described as uncivilized?’ And again the answer would ring out with even more vigor, ‘Never! Never!’ ” “It was around the age of puberty that Mustafa made a definite commitment to obtain a modern military education. This was in part an implementation of his desire, which one might call a narcissistic desire, to wear a uniform.” “After a century of its assimilation into Islamic culture, Mustafa Kemal proposed to extirpate the fez from Turkish society. He wanted to make his countrymen look properly westernized by giving up their characteristic dress for that of the Europeans.” “He had always had a uniform in which to clothe his grand self-concept. Military authority had been his leverage...the protective and bolstering shell provided by the military uniform that had first captured his imagination as a youngster in Salonika, and the power it had conveyed.”

gain approval. Lyndon Johnson: “In 1952 Johnson’s mind was filled with two other important matters besides the paramount issue of appeasing Allan Shivers [governor of Texas]. One of these efforts was to establish himself as a comfortable Texas rancher, an appearance that he believed vital to his political future. The other was to boost himself from the millionaire to the multimillionaire class.” Rasputin: “Rasputin was indulging in a particular Russian habit, vranye, or creative lying designed to make the liar appear interesting and important.” Brunel: “He was acutely self-conscious and, as we shall see, the private man was a character very different from that of the cold, proud, abundantly self-confident engineer whom he impersonated to such perfection on the public stage.” Bing Crosby: “His image was that of a warm, easygoing gentleman with a bent for self-effacement: a friendly man; a man who once won a Father of the Year award. But the image is transparent under scrutiny.” The Exhorter may use his charisma, his energy and his ability to communicate to gain the ‘appearance of success’ that he needs. Lyndon Johnson: “...worked adroitly to get more than a freshman senator’s appurtenances. The Senate rule was that all freshmen be assigned three-room suites, with the few four-room suites assigned strictly according to seniority. But Johnson fast-talked Joe Duke, the new Senate sergeant-at-arms, into awarding him Suite 231—a four-room office, and he soon wedged twenty employees into three of the rooms. Another supposedly firm rule permitted freshman senators a maximum of three telephone lines. Johnson had four...” “Rumors were that Johnson spent between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers’ money to create a Hollywood setting for himself in the old DC rooms. The glittering office was decorated in royal green and gold with plush furniture, and if visitors were not immediately awed on entering his new headquarters, they generally felt insignificant on entering his inner office...Johnson’s new office became a virulent subject to most of his colleagues, and they jeered at it as the ‘Taj Mahal’ and the ‘Emperor’s Room.’ ” The hard-working Exhorter can sometimes also be subject to Mercy perfectionism, to bring the appearance of success into reality. Brunel: “Brunel decided that the site called for a suspension bridge and he lavished upon his competition designs infinite pains and exquisite draughtsmanship so that they became not merely engineering drawings but works of art.” Billy Graham: “Learning was an insatiable desire with me. I burned to learn, and I felt my limitations of schooling and background so terribly that I determined to try to do all I could...” The Exhorter, in his desire to appear imposing, may wear fancy clothes. Lyndon Johnson: “Lyndon Johnson’s

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Approval is often dispensed at official ceremonies; these public occasions can therefore give the Exhorter great pleasure. Ataturk: “Among some groups dancing became the rage. More and more Turkish women began to attend the increasing number of gala events at which the Ghazi was the main attraction. He derived enormous pleasure and satisfaction from seeing Turks dance and display ‘civilized’ manners.” Lord Fisher: “Fisher was a born stage-manager and excelled in arranging spectacular performances.” Drake: “Drake’s love of ceremonial came to the fore as he had his trumpeters sound out, and the guns of the Hind fired a royal salute, while he himself in his finest clothes received the Sultan’s deputation.”


The Exhorter appreciates it when those who are close to him sing his praises—it adds a personal element to the outward appearance. Horatio Nelson and his mistress: “She goes on cramming Nelson with trowelfuls of flattery, which he goes on taking as quietly as a child does pap. The love she makes to him is not only ridiculous, but disgusting; not only the rooms, but the whole house, staircase and all, are covered with nothing but pictures of her and him, of all sizes and sorts, and representative of his naval actions, coats of arms, pieces of plate in his honor, the flagstaff of L’Orient, etcetera—an excess of vanity which counteracts its own purpose. If it was Lady H’s house there might be a pretense for it; to make his own a mere looking-glass to view himself all day is bad taste.” Juan Peron: “[Evita] never tired of heaping extravagant praise upon him. As she chirped in her autobiography, ‘I was not, nor am I, anything more than a humble woman...a sparrow in an immense flock of sparrows...But Peron was and is a gigantic condor that flies high and sure among the summits and near to God.’ ” The Exhorter may actually endow those who are close to him with attributes of success, so that their praise of him is seen by others as more significant. Brunel: “It was to satisfy his self-confessed ‘love of glory, or rather approbation,’ that he endowed his own wife with something of that same splendor which distinguished his great engineering works.” Juan Peron: “Peron’s handling of his relationship with Evita bordered upon provocation. He appeared in public with her, and she comported herself in an uninhibited, often crude way. Many of his fellow officers were shocked. They felt Peron was setting a bad example for the army. If the colonel’s personal style and direct way of speaking distinguished him as a breath of fresh air to many who encountered him for the first time, his flaunting of Evita went a bit too far. It was in response to criticism by his army colleagues that Peron made his classic

riposte: ‘They reproach me for going with an actress. What do they want me to do? Go with an actor?’ ” Horatio Nelson, of his wife: “...and her personal accomplishments you will suppose I think equal to any person’s I ever saw: but, without vanity, her mental accomplishments are superior to most people’s of either sex; and we shall come together as two persons most sincerely attached to each other from friendship.” Occasionally, some Exhorters see things a little more clearly. Billy Graham: “ ’My name has been printed and publicized until I’m sick of it,’ he would constantly insist. ‘I’m no big person. I’m only a servant of God, unworthy to preach his gospel, but called by his grace. Every time I see my name up in lights, every time I’m praised and patted on the back, it makes me cold at heart. It fills me with horror. Because God said he will share his glory with no man.’ ”

The Exhorter, as he appears in history, is an energetic, fun-loving and hard-working talker. He loves crisis; he exaggerates the ordinary to create crisis—and, boorish though he sometimes is, he hungers for our critical approval. What happens if instead we attempt to correct him? Ataturk: “One evening Munir Nureddin was singing at a party. Ataturk sang along with him, spoiling the professional singer’s rendition of the song. Munir Nureddin could tolerate it no longer and told Ataturk to stop his singing. Ataturk was hurt to the quick...” Lyndon Johnson: “His skin was thin and sensitive.” At the Chamber of Commerce: “Here he frequently had to defend the NYA against smug jibes that it was a costly and meaningless boondoggle and a further intrusion of the federal government into local affairs. Johnson’s typical answer was an emotional retort instead of a wise diplomatic reply that might have gained him the support of the sneering businessman.” Churchill: “Character summaries that imputed wrong motives, such as personal ambition, hurt him deeply.” “He was always easier to offend than to rout.” As these quotes suggest, the Exhorter will usually shut his ears to criticism. Churchill: “While the greatest talker in the world, he is the worst listener.” Bing Crosby: “Bing has an amazing capacity for ignoring all criticism. He just doesn’t hear it. He is so indifferent to the opinions, good and bad, of those with whom he comes in contact that it is surprising that he has so long kept such good public relations.” “He would never admit to needing professional help.” Lyndon Johnson: “If someone said something he did not want to hear, he could say, ‘I don’t always hear too good.’ He would tune out war news that did not fit into his conception of what should be towards the end.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
“Johnson rattled war drums as he shouted, ‘The only thing a bully understands is force, and the only thing he fears is courage.’ ” “When any of [the wives of his workers] had a complaint, it was not wise to confront Johnson, because he was expert at turning the issue around by his own faultfinding and ridicule.” Martin Luther: “He often contented himself with personal abuse instead of reasoned argument. ‘Never,’ he politely assured one of his assailants, ‘have I seen a more ignorant ass than you, though you particularly boast of having studied dialectics for many years. I greatly rejoice to be condemned by so obscure a head. ‘ ” Horatio Nelson: “As will be seen, Nelson under criticism and rebuke became more obstinate...” Vince Lombardi: “His image was a shell to hide his shyness.” As part of his attack, the Exhorter may point out the fault of which he is guilty as it appears in others—“Do as I say, not as I do.” He has learned that he can effectively solve challenges in the external by ‘working with his mouth,’ and getting others to do the job. He feels that he can solve internal problems of character in the same way. Lyndon Johnson: “His most frequent remark was, ‘You don’t learn nuthin’ by talkin’,’ an axiom talkative Lyndon Johnson used on many who tried to interrupt him.” Told to quit smoking after a heart attack: “Johnson set packages of cigarettes about the house to test his own will power, and he lectured company on the dangers of smoking. If he saw Lady Bird smoking a cigarette, he would pull it out of her mouth and crush it.” Bing Crosby: “He was a great one for lecturing and for expecting others to do the right thing, but he did only what he felt like doing. And the nature of his feelings seemed to be, like tactile pleasures, self-limiting.” Churchill: “I have often heard him say, ‘Unpunctuality is a vile habit,’ and I believe he has really tried to break himself of it. But I’m afraid this is one thing in which he has been singularly unsuccessful.” Horatio Nelson: “Horatio Nelson had never possessed a great deal of patience, nor tolerance of the faults of others, though he expected more than Christian charity to be extended to his own.” Once others have been silenced, the Exhorter may put on his rose-colored glasses, focus exaggeration on the problem, and solve it by talk. Lyndon Johnson, as a new Senator who had apparently won by minor fraud to get an 87-vote majority: “If anything, the slurring nicknames and the Stevenson action had the effect of increasing Johnson’s normally aggressive nature. From the start he disarmed suspicious senators he did not know by sticking out a hand and saying, “Howdy, I’m Landslide Lyndon.’ ” Or, the Exhorter may just talk and inundate the problem. Lyndon Johnson: “When criticized, he would come

The Exhorter who is forced by life to listen may shift the blame to others. Bing Crosby: “Bing wouldn’t accept responsibility for his own failures.” “He was talented, but could be very indifferent to his responsibilities.” “He made an art of slipping through life sideways, of never confronting an adverse situation squarely and responsibly.” Churchill: “When he drove he was forever just missing things, or not quite missing them and denting cars— his own and others...In actual collisions, he does not to this day believe any of the damage could have been any of his doing. He does not take blame very well. But then, why should he?” Horatio Nelson: “Nelson was never indifferent to, nor ignorant of, the exercise of interest nor presumably its opposite, official disfavor. Perhaps the explanation lies in one aspect of his character which he preserved to his dying day—a kind of incredible invincible innocence.” Rasputin: “Rasputin too was incapable of learning from his critics; anyone criticizing him was simply a threat.” The Exhorter can seem incapable at times of looking at himself. Rasputin: “...his ego was sufficiently strong for him to be incapable of critical self-awareness; he was convinced that whatever he did was thereby right. He resolved contradictions by ignoring them, saying, ‘Contradictions, what of them, for you they are contradictions, but I am me, Grigorii Rasputin, and that’s what matters; look at me, see what I have become!’ For all his insights, Rasputin lacked the kind of conceptual framework which might occasionally have made him feel at odds with himself.” “Rasputin does not seem to have experienced, or at least expressed, remorse of any kind when considering his behavior. The nearest he ever came to remorse was alcoholic depression. When acquaintances taxed him with stories of his disgraceful doings he no longer even bothered to deny them. ‘Half the tales are lies of course, but as for the rest, we are all human after all,’ was his usual response. His dominant reaction was not remorse, but fear; the fear that he would no longer get away with doing as he pleased while remaining close to the imperial family.” The best defense for the Exhorter may be a good offense— it is a form of ‘brute force’ hypnosis, in which he uses his energy and charisma to bludgeon others into believing his dream. Lyndon Johnson: “As the attacks built up against him, Johnson did not hold his peace but lashed out at his critics in an intemperate display of ridicule and self-justification. If he had done nothing, he insisted, things would have been worse. ‘When you duck, dodge, hesitate, and shimmy, every man and his dog gives you a kick.’ ”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
back with statistics. Measures of quantity were expected to be accepted as guides to quality.” Nikita Khrushchev: “He had always been a doer rather than a debater, and though he was a great talker he favored the monologue, the harangue.” If he must, the Exhorter may attempt to silence the source. Juan Peron: “A disrespect law had been on the books for decades and evidenced the degree to which the cultural value attached to personal dignity outweighed Argentine society’s commitment to free speech. The Peronists decided to strengthen the law by eliminating the legal defense of truth. The penalty was a prison sentence of up to three years.” “The law of disrespect proved to be an effective weapon against opposition politicians who could not restrain their rhetoric when they delivered speeches outside the Congress...A stream of politicians followed [Lima, the first to go] into exile, as it became increasingly unhealthy to engage in aggressive partisan activity.” Rasputin: “Rasputin was confronted with a problem: how to reconcile what he wanted with what he ought to want. The problem was purely practical, conscience had no part to play. Anyone criticizing or disapproving was by definition an enemy, to be done down by whatever means possible. In the meantime he would do all he could to keep his position secure while continuing to act as he pleased.” If criticism reaches a sufficient level, the Exhorter may stop caring and brazenly outface the critics. Juan Peron: “Juan Peron held society’s conventions in flagrant contempt, an attitude manifested by conduct that seemed designed to shock his compatriots. His long affair with and subsequent marriage to Eva Duarte was perhaps the most notorious instance...” Rasputin: “...he drank more and more heavily, and appeared so often in public drunk and in dubious company that Badmaev literally went on his knees to him to beg him to be more discreet. It was as if Rasputin were being defiant. ‘They think I’m a scandal, well I’ll show them how scandalous I can be, and still the tsarina needs me.’ ” In a minority of cases, the Exhorter does seem to be somewhat capable of analyzing his faults. Brunel: “Shall I make a good husband?—Am doubtful—my ambition, or whatever it may be called (it is not the mere wish to be rich) is rather extensive...” The Exhorter may actually ask for criticism. Do we dare, in the light of what we know, to give him an honest answer? Brunel: “The summer of that year found him in a state of great despondency, at odds with himself and much discouraged by his persistent lack of success. ‘Ben,’ he wrote in August to Hawes, ‘I have a painful conviction that I am fast becoming a selfish, cold-hearted brute. Why don’t you see it and warn me and cure me?’ ”


Inability to accept correction—in fact a lack of ability to examine ‘self’ itself—appears to be common to many Exhorters in history. Self-image resides in Perceiver strategy. We gather that Exhorters often have an underutilized or under-programmed Perceiver analysis. Let us check this assumption. If Perceiver ‘principles’ are deemphasized internally by Exhorters, then Exhorters should also hate ‘rules’ in the external. Certainly most Exhorters hate to be told by others what to do. Billy Graham: “He never liked discipline, he never liked to be told what to do. He was just unsurrendered up there [at college]. Especially in his unruly, headstrong going-to-get-the-best-out-of-life nature.” De Lesseps: “For such an ebullient, enthusiastic nature, his life up to now had been unduly circumscribed. He had been resentful of routine, school rules...” Bing Crosby: “He always did exactly what he wanted to whenever he wanted to. Public opinion would not dictate the terms of his personal life.” Rasputin: “Rasputin was incapable of accepting discipline. Throughout his life he arranged to go his own way, and it was inconceivable that he could live by a monastic rule.” “ ’If I want to I can; there is nothing to stop me,’ is the way that a Russian peasant, with lifelong experience of the arbitrary rule of those set above him, interprets notions of freedom won through power. Rasputin conceived of his situation as the license to do what he wanted, and every time he got away with it his self-confidence was further reinforced.” “Rasputin was never one to allow caution to interfere with short-term desires; he was incapable of selfrestraint.” “All Rasputin’s disciples sincerely believed in his power, his teaching and its basic rule that without sin there can be no repentance; repentance is pleasing to God; in order to repent you must sin in the first place.” “Discretion was not in Rasputin’s nature...” “...anything he might want to do was right by definition simply because he wanted to do it; he was incapable of being at odds with himself.” Bing Crosby: “Dixie [his wife] pulled hard on his reins for the first time and found that they weren’t attached. Even if they had been, though, it would have been like trying to rein a mule.” The Exhorter does not like to follow written rules either. Juan Peron: “His fitness reports show ratings in the ‘very good’ category, which was the third-highest grade given. They also record a series of minor infractions of unspecified rules.” Churchill: “Leave the distraction of rules for people who have time for them.” “He ignored any rule he wanted to ignore.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
no distinctions between naval officers and civilians. Among the officers themselves, rank had little meaning. A lieutenant might be a commander’s boss. A new, lowpaid civilian engineer might be giving orders to an officer who had just commanded a warship. The Navy did not visibly exist.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He preferred comfort rather than show in hospitality.” Lord Fisher: “He, however, took the opportunity of receiving and paying the usual official calls. These calls were always a nuisance, in that they often extended over several days. Each Captain had to board the flagship and pay his respects to the Admiral, who in turn had to pay an official visit to each ship. Fisher swept away this waste of time by directing all the Captains to assemble on board his flagship at 10 a.m., and there he received them all together, the whole ceremony lasting only half an hour. He then called in turn, for three minutes only, on board each ship, so that all the official visits were ended and the conventions were satisfied in a single day by 1 p.m.” “In the higher branches his career was remarkable for a disregard of conventions and the introduction of innovations.” The Facilitator creates a comfortable world for himself through rules of bureaucracy. The Exhorter as a crisis manager is particularly wary of this bureaucratic red tape. Martin Luther: “The ceremonies for Doctor of Theology were costly and the elector made funds available for him. He had to walk to Leipzig to fetch the money and almost returned home without it, in his impatience at the redtape involved. Unnecessary formalities always annoyed him, and if he had had his way, he would have made short shrift of the elaborate bureaucratic methods of the day.” Brunel: “Brunel’s special scorn, however, was reserved for government departments and their officials, the Admiralty in particular. The innate caution of the civil service mentality, its inability to take unequivocal decisions or accept personal responsibility represented the very opposite of all that Brunel stood for.” “ ’You assume,’ wrote Brunel, ‘that something has been done or is being done in the matter which I spoke to you about last month—did you not know that it had been brought within the withering influence of the Admiralty and that (of course) therefore, the curtain had dropped upon it and nothing has resulted? It would exercise the intellects of our acutest philosophers to investigate and discover what is the powerful agent which acts upon all matters brought within the range of the mere atmosphere of that department. They have an extraordinary supply of cold water and capacious and heavy extinguishers, but I was prepared for and proof against such coarse offensive measures. But they have an unlimited supply of some negative principle which seems to absorb and eliminate everything that approaches them....It is a curious and

Bing Crosby: “He didn’t break rules indiscriminately or even deliberately, but he simply ignored them if they interfered with something that he wanted to do.” Cecil Rhodes, in war: “He had been accustomed all his life to do whatever he pleased. He had never been subjected to any one’s authority, and to be unexpectedly placed under martial law was most irritating to him.” Drake: “His was a world where violence, quick thinking and the philosophy of ‘every man for himself’ were recognized as not only natural, but right.” The Exhorter may have no patience for legal or financial considerations either. Brunel: “Even in an age of individualism, Brunel’s public life was remarkable for his roundly expressed hatred of government officials, and of any law, rule or regulation which interfered with individual responsibility or initiative. The Patent Laws were one of his anathemas, for it was his belief that, by enabling astute firms or individuals to take out patents of principle, they stifled invention instead of encouraging it. He himself obstinately refused to protect any of his ideas.” “In 1848, when he was asked for his views by the Royal Commission on the Application of Iron to Railway Structures, he was equally forthright. He said: ‘If the Commission is to inquire into the conditions “to be observed,” it is to be presumed that they will...lay down, or at least suggest, “rules” and “conditions” to be observed in the construction of bridges, or, in other words, embarrass and shackle the progress of improvement tomorrow by recording and registering as law the prejudices or errors of today.’ ” De Lesseps, in old age: “Lesseps had no longer the desire, nor the patience, to read the small print at the bottom of the page.” Lyndon Johnson: “In dealing with Congress [and the constitutional balance of power], he simply would not take ‘no’ for an answer.” Sukarno: “Sukarno as constitutional President [with legal limitations] felt in a strait-jacket...” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover’s hatred of lawyers, by his own account, borders on the irrational.” The Exhorter’s hatred for correction and rules, brought on by an unwillingness to respect and program his own subconscious Perceiver strategy, brings him into conflict also with Mercy thought and its love for tradition, protocol and convention. John F. Kennedy: “When the stiff White House protocol made no sense, he simply ignored it.” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover flouted Navy tradition and ridiculed a system that seemed to him to give more weight to an officer’s social accomplishments and willingness to conform than to his practical ability and industry.” “In the Rickover offices at Main Navy there were no uniforms. There were no symbols of status. There were

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
puzzling phenomenon, but in my experience it has always attended every contact with the Admiralty.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “Our fleet today is overorganized, overeducated, overtheorized, overinstructed, overadministrated, overcomplicated...” “Those of us who have an objective, a desire to get something done, cannot possibly compromise and communicate all day long with people who wallow in bureaucracy, who worship rules and ancient routines.” De Lesseps: “...not the smallest indication of Ferdinand’s capacity for organization is the lack of red-tape. Not only because of lack of typewriters but also because of the language difficulty, paper work was avoided as much as possible and initiative allowed on the widest scale consistent with the progress of the work. For instance in the matter of supplies other than rations forming part of the worker’s pay; instead of setting up a Company monopoly, traders were encouraged to go out into the desert, competition between them being relied upon to keep down prices.” Rules for the Exhorter come from many sources—like water on a duck, they flow in most cases off his back. In those few situations where rules cannot be ignored, the Exhorter may, like the Mercy person, want special consideration. Churchill: “After the Nile Expedition the War Office had definitely and finally decided that no soldier could be a correspondent and no correspondent could be a soldier. Here then was the new rule in all its inviolate sanctity, and to make an exception to it on my account above all others—I who had been the chief cause of it— was a very hard proposition. Sir Redvers Buller, long Adjutant-General at the War Office, a man of the world, found it very awkward. He took two or three tours round the room, eyeing me in a droll manner...” Roosevelt: “There’s no rule that doesn’t have an exception.” Lyndon Johnson: “The Senate rule was that all freshmen be assigned three-room suites, with the few fourroom suites assigned strictly according to seniority. But Johnson fast-talked Joe Duke, the new Senate sergeant-atarms, into awarding him Suite 231—a four-room office, and he soon wedged twenty employees into three of the rooms. Another supposedly firm rule permitted freshmen senators a maximum of three telephone lines. Johnson had four...” Horatio Nelson: “...Nelson’s reputation as...someone who interfered unnecessarily in administrative matters, had spread through government circles.” Hyman Rickover: “Recalling that in 1948 the only formal Navy nuclear-propulsion project was a heattransfer effort at Westinghouse, Roth pointed out that by the summer of 1953 there was a full-scale submarine reactor operating in the desert at Arco, Idaho. Rickover’s contributions to shortening that lead time were...The two-hat system. This was a masterpiece for cutting administrative


red-tape; it let Rickover cite Navy rules that were being followed when he ran into trouble with the Atomic Energy Commission, and to cite AEC rules when he ran into trouble with the Navy. ‘It worked both ways—like the old shell and pea game—even when an action was improper by both rules,’ Roth said...” The Exhorter who does do his homework in some area—this means, among other things, that he allows his Perceiver part to be programmed—of course has little patience with the ‘hatred for red tape’ of other Exhorters. He sees it as an attempt on their part to obtain special consideration. Brunel: “Blakewell the canal engineer, a bigoted, obstinate, practical man says the road will make the hill slip, but could not tell us why.” The Exhorter who is placed in charge of something can be counted on to simplify things. F. D. Roosevelt: “We have got to de-institutionalize the institutions.” “He would slash red tape in the navy and eliminate middlemen.” Churchill: “He is always on the lookout for new and efficient ways of getting things done. It was at his express command that the British Civil Service took the revolutionary step of substituting ‘Yes’ for ‘The answer is in the affirmative’ in its official communications.” Lyndon Johnson: “He had a vision of what constituted a perfect speech, and he repeated it to each new person who worked on drafts of all his speeches and messages. ‘I want four-letter words, and I want four words to the sentence, and I want four sentences to the paragraph,’ was his line. ‘Now that’s what I want, and I know you want to give it to me.’ ” Peter the Great: “Titles were not used in the regiments, and Peter once severely rebuked Apraxin for being so formal and using titles in his letters. ‘I do not approve of this,’ wrote Peter, ‘and since you once served in one of my regiments, you should have known this.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover, realizing that their efforts would become the base for future Navy participation in atomic energy, demanded that the reports not be written in jargon and that they be readily understandable by persons with limited technical backgrounds.” “...typical Rickover style—a style that would never vary: to the point, in plain English, not bureaucratese.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He would master reports by simplifying them. That was his technique and he was good at it.” Billy Mitchell: “ ’We Americans had developed the best system of air fighting that the world had ever seen.’ (Mitchell attributed some of this to his use of an anonymous officer he kept at headquarters as a guinea pig. [This officer] read every order to [Mitchell’s] men, and ‘if he could understand them, anybody could. He wasn’t particularly bright, but he was one of my most valuable officers for that reason.’).”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Cecil Rhodes: “He reveled in the open life, and loved having his lunch on the heater where he was always in good spirits and forgot all about his heart trouble.” “Rhodes never studied his comfort at any time, much less on the veldt. He was quite happy as long as he could commune with nature as God made it and breathe the fresh air.” The Exhorter may learn in more formal ways—and even acquire Perceiver principles—if this learning is rooted first and foremost in life. Peter the Great: “When he was young and still inexperienced he could never be shown over a factory or workshop without trying his hand at whatever work was in progress. He found it impossible to remain a mere spectator, particularly if he saw something new going on.” Hyman Rickover: “...the Three Mile Island plant. I want to weigh all aspects of the incident and see if there is anything from it I can learn and incorporate into the naval program. That is the way I have always operated.” “According to recollections of him at that time, he spent most of his off-duty hours curled up with a book or crawling through the ship’s engineering spaces, studying the ship’s steam plant.” Brunel: “In his private journal Brunel afterwards recorded his impressions of his adventures in the diving bell and of this first hazardous voyage through the drowned tunnel...” Billy Graham: “Having accepted India, he characteristically read all he could lay hands on about the country, its peoples and religions.” Churchill: “He had faced every side of life fairly and squarely and had mastered them all, a perfectly rounded man with a hundred horsepower brain and an insatiable zest for living.” The Exhorter may also be forced by the experiences of life to learn. Billy Graham: “At Los Angeles, he ran out of sermons. When Ruth came West she found him ‘really digging into the Scriptures,’ begging outlines from preacher friends, and reading every recommended book he could borrow or buy. ‘I remember his desperate straits in LA, probably the best thing that ever happened to him—this suddenly having to get down and study, especially the Bible. He was thrown back on simple, straight biblical preaching.’ ” Education, however, must be interesting. Lyndon Johnson: “His problems were a lack of interest in various subjects, such as arithmetic, a desire to be outdoors instead of in a schoolroom, and a great restlessness that would never leave him.” De Lesseps: “Less through lack of brains than because of his physical exuberance, Ferdinand was not a distinguished scholar.” Rasputin: “Rasputin had no capacity for learning by heart—the first and most important requirement for the priesthood.”

In place of (Perceiver) principles, the Exhorter, as we see him in history, tends to organize his life around (Mercy) experiences. F. D. Roosevelt: “I learned Roosevelt could ‘get’ a problem infinitely better when he had a vicarious experience through a vivid description of a typical case. Proceeding ‘from the book,’ no matter how logical, never seemed solid to him. His vivid imagination and sympathy helped him to ‘see’ from a word picture. He grasped the concrete and could make the application to an industry on a general basis.” “The core of his character was viability—a capacity for living and growing that remained to his dying day.” “He once said to me, ‘You know, I like to read aloud— I would almost rather read to somebody than read to myself.’ Those words stuck in my mind because they illustrated his capacity to learn while he was taking part in an experience.” “Directing his ambition was a capacity to learn quickly from experience.” Nikita Khrushchev: “Life is a great school. It thrashes you and bangs you about and teaches you.” Martin Luther: “The practical wisdom of the ancients interested him most. He was always a student of life.” “His intimate contact in the confessional with the religious emotions, aspirations, and weaknesses of his fellows had also thrown light upon his own experiences and sharpened his insight into the hearts of men. He had a profound knowledge of human nature, as his letters, sermons, and tracts abundantly show...” Peter the Great: “...he went abroad to learn new techniques, not to admire Western European culture. Over the seal of letters which he wrote from abroad appear the words, ‘From one who would both learn and experience,’ and it was with this object that the tour was organized.” Churchill: “I would far rather have been apprenticed as a bricklayer’s mate, or run errands as a messenger boy, or helped my father to dress the front windows of a grocer’s shop. It would have been real; it would have been natural; it would have taught me more.” Brunel: “Thanks to those acute powers of observation which he acquired under his father’s [a Facilitator] tutelage, everything he undertook contributed something of value to that store of experience which was the secret of his versatility.” Like the Mercy, the Exhorter can benefit from a background in Nature. Billy Graham: “I do seem to remember that I liked to be alone in the woods a lot once at an early age.” “Billy Frank always seemed to have an unusually easy way with animals.” Martin Luther: “He did considerable gardening and took a great interest in getting rare plants from distant parts of the country.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Bing Crosby: “He turned down an opportunity to take piano lessons, however, and bolted from the singing lessons.” Vince Lombardi: “ ’A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall,’ he used to say.” Juan Peron: “The little gaucho grew into a strapping adolescent, big for his age, devoted to sports and barely passing his courses in school.” The Exhorter expects others also to learn from life and its experiences. Martin Luther: “In his methods of teaching he was original and unconventional in the extreme. He was continually referring to the events of the day and viewing them in the light of the particular writer he was interpreting. He drew largely upon the every-day experiences of his students for illustrative material, and even made considerable use of their vernacular speech. The Bible was a practical book to him, and in his interpretation it was always its practical value upon which he laid chief stress.” F. D. Roosevelt, before the war: “Roosevelt felt that events and facts themselves would educate the public. So they did—but not quickly enough.” “Pearl Harbor taught in a few hours the lessons that the President had never quite been able to teach.” The Exhorter’s speech to others is illustrated with examples from life. Rasputin: “He had an original approach, his language was simple, short sentences with lots of images.” Sukarno: “His most successful speeches are those in which he tells the people in simple but vivid language what they want to be told, and it is possible that his undoubtedly great popularity rests on that basis.” Martin Luther: “His wealth of imagery, his command of epigram, and his power of invective, appear very strikingly in this discourse, as also his penchant for homely and coarse figures...” “More and more the proverbial sayings which give such color to his later writings find their way into his sermons. His illustrations show the coarse taste of a generation that took no offense at foul images, a characteristic of his sermons from the beginning.” Hyman Rickover: “Each time he walked into a hearing room and sat at the witness table before a Senate or House committee, he had scrupulously prepared himself—often with learned quotations and epigrams, a tool very few of his admiral colleagues ever employed, and one that tended to add credibility to his conclusions.” “The Department of Defense, he said, ‘is constipated; it must be purged or it will become increasingly torpid...’ ” Lyndon Johnson: “Vinson was a great admirer of the way Lyndon used anecdotes to prove a point.” Of Lyndon Johnson’s use of analogies, by Fulbright: “...the treatment of slight and superficial resemblances as


if they were full-blooded analogies—as instances of history ‘repeating itself’—is a substitute for thinking and a misuse of history...” Lyndon Johnson: “Asked about the US position toward Red China, he replied, ‘I don’t want China to spit in my eye, and I don’t want to spit in China’s eye.’ ” Brunel: “His strength lay rather in that imaginative flair which could seize upon and combine ideas in new ways.” The Exhorter’s examples may themselves be compared one with another. F. D. Roosevelt: “He hated abstractions. Invariably, he answered general questions in terms of examples. His mind sped from topic to topic, picking them up, toying with them, and dropping them. His intellectual habits were not disorderly; they were staccato.” Churchill: “I have noticed in my life deep resemblances between many different kinds of things. Writing a book is not unlike building a house or planning a battle or painting a picture. The technique is different, the materials are different, but the principle is the same. The foundations have to be laid, the data assembled, and the premises must bear the weight of their conclusions.” Ataturk: “...often we compare people to animals, speaking of a lion’s courage, and the like...” Billy Mitchell: “The General Staff knows as much about the air as a hog does about skating.” Hyman Rickover: “...there were two hundred and sixty admirals. In his mind some of them resembled ‘carved figures on the bow of a becalmed ship, the faintly absurd emblems of movement for a regime that will not move.’ ” “A civil service clerk is like a nail without a head. You can stick him somewhere, and then there’s no way to pull him out.” Comparisons between examples can take the place of (Perceiver) principles. Peter the Great: “Peter and his friends were more intent on playing the fool than in causing trouble. They made fun of everything, ignoring tradition, popular feeling, and their own self-respect, in the same way that children imitate the words, actions, and facial expressions of adults, without meaning either to criticize or to insult them.” Horatio Nelson, taking up life with a mistress: “...he managed to get himself into some absurd mental and spiritual contortions which reached their height when he reminded his mistress that their taking the Sacrament together in Merton church bore witness to the essential purity of their relationship.”

The Exhorter hates subjects in school that seem purely abstract. Lyndon Johnson: “Law bored him and he


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
but their spirit was not his. His exclusively practical interest in theology was typical of his general attitude. Speculation as such, science as an end in itself, truth for truth’s sake, never appealed to him; only matters immediately bearing on life and character he felt to be worthy the attention of a serious man.” Speaking of attacks on his work: “You must not get your German from the Latin, as these asses do, but you must get it from the mother in the home, the child in the street, the common man in the market-place.” Billy Graham: “Once in a New York hotel, when Templeton rejected a Biblical doctrine as intellectually untenable, Graham replied that wiser men had not solved the inherent difficulty and he had not the intellect to do so, but that when he took the Bible as God’s Word and used it, his preaching had power. Already he had seen men and women weighted by cares or morally bankrupt made alive and radiant. Templeton could not accept such a pragmatic argument.” “He stopped trying to prove that the Bible was true, and just proclaimed its message.” Cecil Rhodes, in setting up his scholarships: “Rhodes did not want to benefit the mere bookworm. He felt that a man, no matter how talented he might be, or what brilliant examinations he might have passed, could not succeed in life unless he had force of character and physical strength.” The Exhorter, even as he hates what is too abstract, can be quite intimidated by intellectuals. Martin Luther: “He often apologized for the rusticity and barbarity of his Latin style, comparing himself in his correspondence with scholarly friends to a goose among swans.” Lyndon Johnson: “In his face-to-face meetings with the New Dealers in the AAA and other new agencies, Johnson was extremely self-conscious at first. Many of the young men were Ivy League in schooling and smug manner. They were also better dressed than he and apparently were not working for the money.” “The Kennedy crowd and the intellectuals and the fancypants were never going to accept him as President of the United States, he said. They would never let him up, they would never give him a chance. ‘You just wait,’ he said, ‘and see what happens when I put one foot wrong.’ ” “What infuriated Johnson most about Fulbright was the senator’s standing as an intellectual.” Nikita Khrushchev: “He was himself impatient with intellectuals.” Billy Graham, at Cambridge: “I was really feeling boxed in and inadequate. I felt that John [Stott, a Christian intellectual] ought to be the preacher, and I should have been his assistant.” Churchill: “We never set much store by students or their affected superiority, remembering that they were only at their books, while we were commanding men and

dropped it. Russel Morton Brown, who sat next to him in some classes, said that Johnson frequently complained to him that the professor ‘is not telling me anything I don’t know.’ ” Billy Graham: “He was never a notably complicated or thoughtful youth, his grades rather faltering through high school. ‘I could see no point in going to school at all,’ he admits, ‘I asked myself, what do I need to know about science or algebra or all that?’ ” Churchill, wanting to go to Oxford: “I could not contemplate toiling at Greek irregular verbs after having commanded British regular troops; so after much pondering I had to my keen regret to put the plan aside.” This man of action wanted something less abstract: “To have an exciting story told you by someone who is a great authority, especially if he has a magic lantern, is for me the best way of learning.” The Exhorter scorns purely intellectual thought. F. D. Roosevelt: “He disdained elaborate, fine-spun theories; he paid little attention to the long and abstract briefs that academic people were always sending him. He hated abstractions.” “He did not enjoy the intellectual process for its own sake as many educated, perhaps overeducated, men do. He did not enjoy debate and argument based on principles of logic so as to achieve superior position by marshaling facts and overcoming an opponent.” Juan Peron: “Cultivating the image of a serious thinker, he embraced anti-intellectuality all his life.” Hyman Rickover: “I am trapped in a lunatic world where the inhabitants talk sage nonsense to one another. They want to be considered intellectuals without the equipment for it and, as such folk will, have devised a jargon so elusive and standards so arbitrary that there is no way of being found out. They know a little about everything; they have a smattering of ignorance.” Lyndon Johnson: “One of the characteristics Lady Bird noticed in her husband was that he never opened a book or magazine.” Nikita Khrushchev: “At a time when the young revolutionaries were fanatically active educating themselves in political theory (shortly before 1917), in history, in everything, the young Khrushchev seems to have been quite happy without book learning.” Sukarno, meeting with nationalist leaders: “I sat through the hubbub letting everybody say his piece. My hair stood on end listening to them expounding plans worked out to the smallest detail. They brought forth far too many ifs and conjectural problems...” Martin Luther: “More and more as time passed he grew impatient with the prevailing scholastic methods and with the schoolmen themselves, to whom they were due. Theology, he believed, ought to be vital and practical instead of philosophical and speculative, as they had made it. He had no quarrel as yet with their doctrines,

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
guarding the Empire. Nevertheless I had sometimes resented the apt and copious information which some of them seemed to possess, and I now wished I could find a competent teacher whom I could listen to and crossexamine for an hour or so every day.” De Lesseps: “He was not an engineer, and he did not like engineers. He preferred what are called practical men. He never understood that such people have no sure understanding beyond the extent of their personal experience.” When the Exhorter does want to learn, then, amazingly, it appears that he can do so without noticeably studying. Billy Graham: “Dr. Ockenga knows of no one ‘who can grasp more quickly an idea, absorb it, and let it become his own. You can talk with Billy and the next thing you know Billy is using the very idea; it has passed through his personality and has become spoken and expressed in his words. ‘ ” Billy Mitchell: “He had a ready grasp of technical details which even trained engineers did not comprehend so swiftly.” Hyman Rickover: “Mills, who had been Rickover’s wartime boss, knew well the ability of Rickover to take on difficult tasks and quickly absorb technical material.” Of Lyndon Johnson: “Wirtz also considered him to be a man with a sharp mind. ‘I’ve seen engineers and rate experts start explaining a detailed matter to Lyndon,’ Wirtz once said, ‘and he’d show complete understanding before they got halfway through the talking, and he’d be asking for the next problem. He had the quickest, most analytical mind I’ve ever seen.’ ” Churchill: “His manual skill did somewhat improve, to be sure. He had a way of watching other people doing their job and of imitating without revealing ignorance by asking.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He had a strange way of being familiar with and an adherent of enterprises about which he was not technically well informed.” There are hints that the Exhorter’s memory itself is somewhat unusual. Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal’s capacity for recall astonished Falih Rifki when he recollected in detail a chance meeting between them years earlier.” Sukarno: “Sukarno furthered his political education by attending seminars on Marxism conducted by the Dutch socialist C. Hartogh, who taught German at the High School, and who considered Sukarno to be the most intelligent participant and was amazed at his fantastic capacity to memorize facts.” Bob Hope: “...Hope, whose memory has always been unusually accurate about names, places and faces...” Lyndon Johnson, after a State of the Union message: “He told one enthusiastic senator who congratulated him, ‘Yeah, I know. I was interrupted eighty times by applause.’ A later check of the applause bursts revealed there were exactly that number.”


“Wirtz discovered, in going over the complexities of the river projects, that Johnson possessed remarkable ability to memorize figures, dates, and descriptions at first hearing. But unless he had the opportunity to repeat these within the week, his mind erased them entirely.” “He seemed to have a strange ability to learn the enormously complex details of hundreds of bills. An old friend explained this as a memory trick: ‘He told me once that when he had to know the contents of a bill or a report, he could scan it and fix it in his mind so well that if you gave him a sentence from it, he could paraphrase the whole page and everything that followed. But once they’d finished the piece of work, even if it was only a week later, he wouldn’t remember the contents or even the name of the report.’ ” Bob Hope, writing a book: “Several nights he worked very late at his desk reconstructing events, sorting out faces and places and conversations. Fortunately, he had an excellent memory and could separate events by geography and by the sound and texture of an audience.” F. D. Roosevelt: “His memory embraced a vast store of things, not assorted in a systematic, logical way, but extraordinarily responsive to the stimulus of the subject and the key word. It is true that he conveniently forgot a lot of unpleasant things. He forgot attacks growing out of ill will; he forgot defection; he forgot a good many quarrels—not all of them however.”

We have shown that in place of (Perceiver) principles, the Exhorter as found in history tends to build his life upon (Mercy) experiences. What about Teacher strategy in the Exhorter? The Teacher person concentrates upon his intellectual task. He does more and more as he gets tired. Is subconscious Teacher analysis in the Exhorter responsible for the Exhorter’s ability to work? There are hints that in some cases it may help. Churchill: “He is generally depicted as an impatient, erratic genius and temperamentally he is. Intellectually he is a genius that is neither impatient nor erratic but only those close to him have seen this side of the man—the conscientious, prodigious and orderly worker.” Evidence suggests, however, that it is more often desire for approval that is stirring up energy in the Exhorter’s Mercy thought, triggering Mercy-like perfectionism and stamina. Teacher-analysis is involved at most peripherally—this is a cause for the Exhorter’s fear of the intellectual. Brunel, for instance, speaks of being motivated by a Mercy vision: “I have nothing after all so very transcendent as to enable me to rise by my own merit without some such help as the Tunnel. It’s a gloomy perspective and yet bad as it is I cannot with all my efforts work myself up to be downhearted. Well, it’s very fortunate I am so easily pleased...”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Teacher-activity at the level of words is generally pursued not for its own sake, but in service of the Mercyoriented world of experience. Hyman Rickover: “In his crusade against his enduring enemy—stupidity— Rickover wielded the printed word, warning his country of perils, chiding her for shortcomings, denouncing her frivolous ways.” Martin Luther: “I preach as simply as I can, that common men, children, and servants may understand; for the learned already know it all, and I do not preach for them.” Translating the Bible: “He aimed at a people’s book, so idiomatic and modern that its readers might forget it was written in a foreign tongue, in a distant land, and in an age long past.” “He feels no shame addressing the simple man in language which he can understand.” Rasputin: “The secret of Rasputin’s power over his audiences resides in his talent for popularizing God’s truth...” Ataturk: “No longer would the call to prayer come from the minarets in the traditional Arabic, allahu ekber, ‘God is Great.’ The muezzins would now chant the same call in Turkish, tanri uludur. That change can be compared to the profound effect of the introduction of the vernacular mass in churches that had heretofore offered it only in Latin.” The Exhorter can be a good schoolteacher of language arts. Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal was impressed with the fact that in western countries the people’s sharing of a common language was a vital factor in their nationalism. One of his compelling preoccupations after the delivery of his ‘Great Speech’ was the introduction of the Latin alphabet.” “Now he became his nation’s headmaster, teaching the country the new letters. He had blackboards set up around the Dolmabahce Palace, where he gave lessons in the new script to visitors.” “He visited schoolrooms, sitting among the students and listening to the teachers give their lessons. No doubt he terrified the teachers, especially when he gave them impromptu oral examinations in front of their students.” Hyman Rickover: “Every secretary was instructed, under threat of dismissal, to give to Rickover at the end of each working day copies of all correspondence that had passed through her typewriter. Rickover read every word of every pink, and if he spotted a grammatical error or something he did not like, he would call in the author and dress him down...” “By Rickover’s orders, no examinations can contain multiple-choice or true-or-false questions. Each question must ‘involve single and multiple concepts which require essay answers, definitions, statements of facts, or calculations.’ ”

Teacher thought at the lowest level, however, deals with words and grammar. Teacher-activity at this lower level of speech is definitely seen in the Exhorter as he appears in history. The Exhorter, for instance, likes to craft speeches, or write letters. Churchill: “At 22, the desire for learning came upon me. I began to feel myself wanting in even the vaguest knowledge about the many large spheres of thought. I had picked up a wide vocabulary and had a liking for words and for the feel [an emotional word] of words fitting and falling into their places like pennies in the slot.” “He was happy to use words, not knowing from where they had sprung.” “Personal correspondence was a literary pleasure [emotion is again involved, implying use of Teacher strategy] for him.” “I am not up to describing the confusion the General Strike brought to the Treasury. But since Winston loves confusion if he can take charge of it and since he missed his morning newspapers more than he missed his food [emotion], he added the problem of getting news to England to a list already too long. He became an editor.” Drake: “As he was to show in later years, he could write a vigorous and simple English...” Billy Graham: “ ’I’d never been trained as a public speaker. I had to learn in the best way I knew.’ His stock of sermons was small, the outlines generally looted from eminent preachers heard or read, but he knew exactly what he would say, to the last word. He did not write them out except in skeleton, but he practiced them, even to cypress swamps and alligators.” Bob Hope: “Ross was impressed with Hope’s editorial skills, his ability to improve a line or fix a comedy scene.” Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson was one of the best storytellers I ever met, and his fund of tales was rich.” John F. Kennedy: “He sometimes wondered how much of Churchill’s stature was built on the use of words. Often he read the Churchill memos just to savor [emotion] their craftsmanship.” “His book Profiles in Courage won the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1957.” Martin Luther: “A vigorous and flowing power of language made him master of the situation.” Hyman Rickover: “When he spoke, he spoke as a superb practitioner of the English language...” Lord Fisher: “He talks in crisp phrases. ‘Life is full of phrases,’ is a favorite saying of his.” “His physical exuberance developed into literary and conversational profusion; he spoke, wrote, and thought in large type and italics...” “His capacious memory stored anecdote, phrase, and simile, which flashed out at opportune moments.” “He has been described as ‘a tornado with a nib at the end of it.’ This well describes his writings.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
But the emotion of language must be respected. Churchill: “As for the Revised Version of the Bible and the alterations in the Prayer Book and especially in the Marriage Service, they are grievous.” The Exhorter’s emphasis on experience can give deep insights. Martin Luther, translating the Bible: “He had a profound knowledge of human nature, as his letters, sermons, and tracts abundantly show, and it enabled him to understand as few have understood the most widely and variously human of all the world’s books.” “He had an unusual faculty, quite out of proportion to his grammatical attainments, for getting at the meaning of an author and divining the sense of obscure and difficult passages.”


The Exhorter—all the time emphasizing words, not large principles or abstract theories—can read extensively. De Lesseps: “If he studied enough to pass his exams on the broad curriculum of science and literature, he did no more than that; and his bent, oddly enough in the light of his later reputation, was to the latter [that is, to literature].” Hyman Rickover: “Dedicated to a life of hard work and scholarly pursuit, he read almost constantly, storing up odd bits of knowledge.” Billy Graham: “One part of the secret of Graham’s poise is that he is an integrated, balanced personality. Beyond this, he is well-read, with a fund of general knowledge garnered from newspapers, magazines and a wide range of books. Most of the research is done by himself. He has a large and growing library; he spends a remarkable portion of each day in study, digging and analyzing and absorbing until the material is part of him. It is the same when he is in conversation.” “One lifeline to a wider understanding was his interest in current affairs; he was never a Christian who would not read a newspaper. Another lifeline was his zest for educating himself, not only in history. It was at Florida that he first bought a set of encyclopedias—an old set for three or four dollars—and acquired the habit of reading them through.” Billy Mitchell: “Mitchell refused to play card games and frowned on gambling, but despite endless rounds of activities found time to read. He kept several books under way at once, and had three pairs of reading glasses so that he would never be without them.” John F. Kennedy: “He read more than half a dozen newspapers daily in his thirst for knowledge.” Ataturk: “He read a great deal, underlining in pencil whatever he considered important.” Churchill: “From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy.” “Whenever he is sitting, there is a pile of books at his elbow; his bed is always littered with them.”

The Exhorter especially likes history and personal biographies—these subjects link directly to experience. F. D. Roosevelt: “He read a great deal of political history, political memoirs, books of travel. Naval history and naval technical works he had always read, and he continued to read them...He loved detective stories and learned to read himself to sleep on them. I do not think he read much poetry or philosophy.” Cecil Rhodes: “He loved to discuss Egyptian history, and there were very few of the old Egyptian rulers whose lives he had not studied. Of some of them he spoke with the highest admiration, amounting sometimes almost to reverence.” “Although he was always busy he nevertheless got through a fair amount of reading. He made it a rule to read in bed for half an hour every night before putting out his light, and he said it was extraordinary what an amount of reading one got through in that way...He was very fond of ancient history, and very seldom read novels.” “Rhodes loved books. Practically all his time on board he spent in reading. It was one of my duties to see that he had a good supply of reading-matter before he started on a voyage. He was very fond of history, especially ancient history, and he generally read all good books on subjects of South African interest and dealing with political questions of the day...he loved to sit in his cabin and have them scattered on the floor round him. He liked dipping into one and then putting it down and taking up another, and so he went on until he found a volume that interested him, which he immediately took to the captain’s deck and read until he finished it.” Billy Mitchell: “He was a reluctant scholar, but seemed to forget nothing he read of his own accord. He knew the Travels of Marco Polo practically by heart.” Martin Luther: “History and biography he was particularly fond of, and often lamented the small attention given to both in the training of the young.” John F. Kennedy, preparing for a summit with Khrushchev: “In a sense it was a study of history, of great personalities who shape the world. Kennedy loved no subject more.” Lyndon Johnson: “Though he did well in history and political science and the simple education courses...” As a teacher: “He also spent much time presenting his own highly dramatic version of Texas’ early history.” Ataturk: “He began to read widely again and developed a lively, but not uncritical interest in Napoleon.” Billy Graham: “The one redeeming feature of Billy’s early intellectual life was an exceptional love of reading history books. By the time he was fourteen he had read about a hundred.” Churchill: “I had always liked history at school. So I resolved to read history, philosophy, economics, and things like that.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Rasputin: “Although he was not entirely illiterate he found writing and spelling more or less beyond him.” Billy Graham: “Literature in particular gave him a lot of trouble.” Foreign languages, when they are taught from a basis in (Teacher) grammar, are difficult for the Exhorter. Billy Graham: “He suddenly began consuming history books at a ferocious rate, going through 100 volumes before he was fifteen, disposing of ten over one Christmas vacation. Whatever his bafflement before French and algebra and poetry, improbably he had dispatched Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by the time he graduated.” Ataturk: “...French, a subject with which Mustafa Kemal was experiencing difficulties.” But the Exhorter can learn even what is grammatically difficult if it is oriented sufficiently towards experience. De Lesseps, building the Suez Canal in the Middle East: “He seriously studied Arabic and steeped himself in the atmosphere of Islam.” Churchill: “The greatest pleasure I had in those days was reading. Where my reason, imagination, or interest were not engaged, I would not or I could not learn. In all the twelve years I was at school no one ever succeeded in making me write a Latin verse or learn any Greek except the alphabet. Perhaps if I had been introduced to the ancients through their history and customs, instead of through their grammar and syntax, I might have had a better record.”

The Exhorter’s interest in history can extend beyond the simple reading of books. John F. Kennedy: “He was a great movie fan, preferring pictures of adventure and history, with an occasional comedy.” Lyndon Johnson: “Ego, a sense of history and good political practice combined to produce in LBJ an obsessive interest in photographs.” Churchill: “History and biography are his favorite subjects. Military strategy comes next.” Even in history, the Exhorter scorns the theorist. Sukarno: “Sukarno also spent many hours in the library...” “Mentally I talked with Thomas Jefferson, with whom I feel friendly and close because he told me all about the Declaration of Independence he wrote in 1776. I discussed George Washington’s problems with him. I relived Paul Revere’s ride. I deliberately looked for mistakes in the life of Abraham Lincoln so I could argue the points with him...A thousand times, I myself, in my back room save France single-handed. I became emotionally involved with these statesmen...” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover would recommend books to Murrow—a sure sign of friendship, for, to Rickover, a book was a great bond.” “What appalled me when I first began to study the loss of the Maine was how little first-rate historical scholarship has been spent on the subject...Perhaps, to paraphrase, history is too important to be left to ‘professional’ historians.” Generally, there is little desire in the Exhorter to extend Teacher activity in speech and reading to the personal study of spelling or grammar. Churchill: “The Governess apparently attached enormous importance to the answer being exact. If it was not right it was wrong. It was not any use being ‘nearly right.’ These complications cast a steadily gathering shadow over my daily life.” Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal sometimes wrote to Corinne in French, with which he had spelling difficulties, but occasionally he also wrote in Turkish.” Martin Luther: “He never cared as much for form as for substance, and grammar he always found irksome. The way he went about the learning of Hebrew some years later was characteristic of his general attitude, and, it may be added, of his good sense. He paid little attention to grammatical details, but read rapidly and copiously until he entered into the spirit of the language, and could read it with pleasure and sympathy.” Billy Mitchell: “His school letters to ‘Mummy’ revealed him as one of the least inhibited of spellers, but his grades showed a 9.2 average in spelling, a standing of second in his class, and, on one occasion, ‘perfect’ in conduct.” Horatio Nelson: “He had a clear English style, although his punctuation was often haphazard or absent. His spelling was not always consistent...”

Mathematics involves the Server part, in cooperation with Teacher strategy—there is not as much direct interaction with Perceiver thinking. Sometimes the Exhorter does rather well at math. Peter the Great: “Peter, who liked simple mathematical schemes...” Ataturk: “Mustafa developed an interest in mathematics and was good at it.” Brunel: “By the time he was six he had mastered his Euclid.” Lord Fisher: “He came through both examinations with marked success, with first-class certificates; and in mathematics he further obtained the highest marks gained by anyone in that year, and was therefore awarded the Beaufort Testimonial...” Billy Graham: “I think Mr. Graham has more business sense than the average businessman and certainly far more than any preacher I have ever met. He can calculate a budget very carefully. He remembers figures very well.” Lyndon Johnson: “[He] could read a profit and loss statement with as much understanding as the board chairman of General Motors.” The Exhorter may actually enjoy teaching mathematics. Hyman Rickover: “By Rickover’s orders, no examinations can contain multiple-choice or true-or-false ques-

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
tions. Each question must ‘involve single and multiple concepts which require essay answers, definitions, statements of facts, or calculations. ‘ ” As mathematics becomes more abstract, though, the Exhorter tends to do more poorly. Lord Fisher: “...a study of pure mathematics beyond the stage necessary to admit of its practical application is to be deprecated.” Churchill: “I would have liked to have been examined in history, poetry and writing essays. The examiners, on the other hand, were partial to Latin and mathematics.” Lyndon Johnson: “His problems were a lack of interest in various subjects, such as arithmetic...” “Math was like a foreign language to him.”


With this strange and partial use of subconscious Teacher strategy, and without real help from subconscious Perceiver analysis, the Exhorter becomes a slave to his subconscious Mercy thought—it supplies him with imaginative visions of ‘what could be.’ Brunel: “His strength lay rather in that imaginative flair which could seize upon and combine ideas in new ways wherein they became gilded with that magnificence which was to be the hallmark of all that he accomplished.” Ataturk: “He could not stop, even for a day, turning over in his mind projects he felt would benefit the Turkish nation. All sorts of plans for reform, all sorts of images of the new Turkey engaged his attention.” John F. Kennedy: “He was eager to crowd as much living as possible into every single hour, his eyes fixed firmly on the goals—sometimes seemingly impossible goals—he set for himself and all those around him.” The result can be a highly insightful forward vision into the future. Billy Mitchell: “[The Army and the Navy] place everything on precedent. You can’t do that in the air business. You’ve got to look ahead.” Billy Graham: “He has great vision for tomorrow...” John F. Kennedy: “He was always looking forward, never backward.” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover’s contributions...were in...Vision: This was a fundamental ingredient—the vision to see just how important and revolutionary a nuclear-powered submarine might be...” Ataturk: “He was among the very few whose eyes were on the future.” F. D. Roosevelt: “At a time when [people] wanted confidence, he talked bravely, reassuringly about the future; whatever the mistakes, we were ‘Looking Forward,’ we were ‘On the Way,’ the titles of two books he put out in 1933 and 1934.” Cecil Rhodes: “He was thinking of the welfare of the British Empire and the world a hundred years ahead.” It is a future that may be highly optimistic. Ataturk: “ ‘I want to tell you here that the high pinnacle on which you stand is not only overlooking a glorious battlefield strewn

with the bodies of thousands of the enemy, but from its summit the eye can also discern the horizon of a future for our people and yourself that is respondent with glory.’“ Lyndon Johnson, at his inaugural party: “I hope you have had as much fun as we’ve had today. Tomorrow it’s back to work. We’re on our way to the Great Society.” It may also be filled with crisis and its resolution. Kennedy, speaking of the New Frontier: “As Kennedy defined it that night, it referred to the ‘uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. ‘ ” Lord Fisher: “It was not so much the Navy, as the Navy at war, that was ever before Fisher’s eyes...” Drake: “Drake, with that astonishing perspicuity of his (which was a form of genius), had detected where the weakness of the Spanish adversary lay.” Hyman Rickover: “By the following day word of the goings-on got around the operating branch of the Navy, and people began to realize that Rick’s foresight had really saved the Navy’s day.” This vision can be surprisingly accurate. Billy Mitchell, in 1922: “Ben, I’ll bet you there’s some long-haired German scientist working right now in a two-by-four shed of a laboratory, figuring out some new power plant for the next war, fifteen or twenty years from now. I want you to go out and find him for me.” [He went, and discovered initial designs of the turbine engine.] “Bissell and I were flabbergasted. Now, this was in 1922, and taking it right in the middle, 15 or 20 years later would make it 1940, just right for World War II. That’s how Mitchell always was, looking ahead.” Before the Second World War: “He had begun work on a dramatized version of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that was complete even as to the time of day, a fusion of his working knowledge of air power and his imaginative vision. But the strategic concepts growing in his mind were new—applications of his air theories to the vast theater. He was making notes for an outline of a second world war which he foresaw in the Pacific; it was to prove astonishingly accurate and perceptive.” Cecil Rhodes: “He had most extraordinary foresight, and in some things seemed to be able to anticipate future events.” Of Rasputin, by the tsarina to the tsar: “He sees far ahead and therefore his judgment can be relied on.” Results can at times also be quite inaccurate. Sukarno: “Sukarno was often a romantic dreamer who conjured up visions of grandeur for his country and himself...” F. D. Roosevelt, talking about a prediction that France would fall: “Queer thing about hunches, isn’t it? Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are awful. You have to be careful how you rely on them.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
interested in hearing what they had to say. He presented himself to them in their midst, on their ground.” “During these early days in Ankara Mustafa Kemal initiated his habit of gathering people around a table during the night hours for discussions which he himself would dominate. Cynical for a moment, then amusing, and then boringly earnest, even sometimes shy, he charismatically engaged his audience while uncannily assessing the advice given him. Although he believed in the superiority of his own ideas, he was capable of synthesizing what he learned from others into some realityoriented conclusion that was both acceptable and practical.” Peter the Great: “When it was, for instance, urgently necessary to cut the Ladoga Canal in 1718, Peter, not knowing quite how this was to be done, wrote to the Senate, ‘I send you my ideas on this subject, and ask you to discuss them; whether it be done in this, or some other way, it has to be done.’ ” “He studied everything, looked at everything, tested everything, and questioned foreigners about military and European affairs.” Billy Mitchell: “His questions about the air were intelligent and to the point; in fact, it was he who did most of the talking, asking questions only to get concrete facts.” “Mitchell was insatiable in his thirst for information, and air attaches apparently heard more from him than from the Intelligence Section of the General Staff.” Billy Graham: “Billy himself feels that discussion groups at universities were ‘my greatest opportunity. If I have any gift at a university, it’s not so much in the preaching as in the discussion groups.’ ” “Learning was an insatiable desire with me. I burned to learn, and I felt my limitations of schooling and background so terribly that I determined to try to do all I could through conversations, picking everything I could from everybody.” “You can talk with Billy and the next thing you know Billy is using the very idea; it has passed through his personality and has become spoken and expressed in his words. And he can get a point in a meeting, too. He’ll be very intent. You watch him. He’ll be very intent on listening for a moment, but he’ll get that point, and he won’t forget it.” Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Rhodes shone as a conversationalist at dinner. It was then that he banished all business matters from his mind and devoted his whole attention to his guests. He interchanged ideas freely with them and always seemed keen to gain information. He was not in the least overbearing in the opinions he expressed, but encouraged others to voice their views, to which he listened attentively. He was willing to be advised and to be taught by any one.” Bob Hope: “I work best with an audience. I can feel out a response.”

Commenting on harbors created at Normandy by filling old ships with concrete: “You know, that was Churchill’s idea. Just one of those brilliant ideas that he has. He has a hundred a day and about four of them are good.”

The Exhorter—so closed to correction and reproof from others—in contrast is very open to those who first and foremost agree with his vision. He knows that he does not have all of the answers, and he wants their help. John F. Kennedy: “I could tell from his phone conversations as President-elect that he was eager for new ideas, new thoughts, new approaches to problems. He was always looking forward, never backward.” Cecil Rhodes: “He was always ready to learn, and always kept his eyes open with a view to gaining information which might be of benefit to South Africa.” Hyman Rickover: “...guests remembered him as a courteous host, quick with compliments to the ladies and eager for conversation on virtually any subject.” “Teller [a scientist] also recalled Rickover’s selfintroduction when they met: ‘I am Captain Rickover. I am stupid.’ ” The Exhorter sets up situations that enable others to contribute their ideas. Lord Fisher: “One of the qualities that made Fisher so effective as an instructor was the complete absence of any assumption of superior knowledge. He had no hesitation in stating that he himself required information on many points, and in asking for ideas from the officers of his Fleet. This not only stimulated them all to use their brains, but it created a definite bond of fellowship between him and his subordinates.” “No man knew better how to draw out the views of others in conversation, even though they might not be anxious to impart them. Subtle suggestion, combined with an inimitable innocence of features, was certain to lead to retort, and from retort, argument was sure to follow. From these conversations Fisher learnt a good deal...” Drake: “The question was whether he still had enough men with which to carry out this expedition, or, alternatively, whether he should hold Cartagena. He called a council of his military officers and put the problem to them.” Horatio Nelson: “It was a regular occurrence for [captains] to be summoned aboard the flagship to be entertained to a meal, and then to be required to take their part in a tactical discussion. Not so much strategy—where was the French fleet?—but what should be done when it was discovered? What formation should be used against a fleet at sea? and against a fleet at anchor? How best to attack an enemy fleet and destroy it?” Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal had a talent for portraying to the people an image of himself as someone sincerely

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
“The only way you can time a piece of material right is with an audience. Counting their laughs and observing their expressions are both vital to a successful comedy program.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He was capable of almost childish vanity about his skill in catching fish, his seamanship in small boats, his exploits in teasing Churchill and in making Stalin laugh and unbend; and at the same time he could be unself-consciously humble and ask the advice of a most casual visitor about some problem he could not solve.” “Voracious and prehensile in his quest for information, Roosevelt had a startling capacity to soak up notions and facts like a sponge, and to keep this material ready for instant use.” “Roosevelt exploited visitors as more introverted leaders might use books—as sources of information.” The Exhorter has an open personality that encourages contributions. Lord Fisher: “He had a peculiarly open frankness of manner...” Billy Graham: “At the end of the All Scotland Crusade, he made a special visit to sit at the feet of D. P. Thomson, who said, ‘I never met a man who was so open to constructive criticism, fresh suggestions and ideas.’ ” “Billy is the most uncontrived of men. He must be himself and no other.” “Billy was always transparent. He just never knew what dissembling was.” Bob Hope: “Every place I go I tell what’s in my heart and in my head. I don’t adjust for the place. I walk in and tell it like I think it is.” Billy Mitchell, with captured German pilots: “The fliers compared notes enthusiastically, scribbling diagrams of formations and dogfights on the tablecloths. ‘I was struck by their absolute letting down of their hair,’ Verville said. ‘There was a seeming admiration, an affable, amiable feeling on the part of these men toward Mitchell.‘ ” Juan Peron: “He improvises. He says...all that he wants to say...” The Exhorter desires everything to be expressed. Billy Graham, in his first radio broadcast: “Folks, pray for me, this is Billy Graham, and this is the first time I’ve ever done this sort of thing, and my knees are knocking together here.” “Soper, contemptuous of Graham’s whole theology, declined suggestions that he should meet Graham, but Graham, anxious to learn from his critics, went and heard Soper preach.” John F. Kennedy: “He always seemed to get his energy and inspiration from the letters he received, and he always read the ones that criticized him because he felt it was from those that he learned the most.” Churchill: “I knew there would be plenty of rows. Yet always he had come forth to face his accusers, had taken


his whippings, had been in every instance overwhelmingly and disarmingly candid.” Lyndon Johnson: “The President (as Churchill) preferred to skinny-dip, at least in male company.” Hyman Rickover: “Only complete candor and frankness, deep respect for the facts, however unpleasant and uncomfortable, great efforts to know them where they are not readily available, and drawing conclusions guided only by rigorous logic can bring many of today’s problems forward.” “And coupled with his demands for excellence—at virtually any cost—he has also asked for the truth. His almost daily calls from his representatives in shipyards, for example, are to find out the problems. He will not censure someone for telling of a problem—only for not telling him.” Ataturk: “...he did enjoy joking and raillery as long as he himself was not the butt of it. He demanded that gossip or personal criticism be openly expressed rather than hinted at, though it was generally understood that his tolerance of any negative remarks about himself was extremely limited.” The Exhorter may channel his exaggeration into wild overstatements that trigger constructive comments. Lord Fisher: “...his childlike joy in shocking or surprising people.” Martin Luther: “As a rule, he saw only one side of a question, and he instinctively put things in extreme and paradoxical fashion. The careful balancing of opinions, and the drawing of fine distinctions were altogether foreign to his tempestuous genius.” Billy Mitchell: “The General Staff knows as much about the air as a hog does about skating...A standing army that’s stood too long...The war’s over. The generals in Washington got out of their swivel chairs and went over to watch and they’re going back to sit down again. They’ve learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” “Arnold thought the old-timers should be handled more gently: ‘Stop saying all these things about the independent air arm that are driving these old Army and Navy people crazy!’ ” “Mitchell only smiled: ‘When senior officers won’t see the facts, you’ve got to do something unorthodox, perhaps an explosion.’ ” Lord Fisher: “ ’Collingwood ought to have had the moon given to him for his crest, for all his glory was reflected from Nelson, the sun of glory. Collingwood was an old woman.’ This is a good example of Fisher’s method of driving home a point by deliberately indulging in provocative exaggeration.” The Exhorter can be quite brash in the way he solicits comments. Lyndon Johnson, new in government: “[He would gulp his lunch, then] with his lunch already out of the way, he was now free to pump the others about their work and the Congressional routine. If he thought an


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
which he would discuss afterwards with great animation.” “He did more than merely expound his own opinions, for he even invited and welcomed ideas on these subjects from his subordinates.” Nixon about Graham: “To correct his areas of weakness he will draw freely on the advice of experts. He is adept at picking up from the other man what he knows, and he has almost a photographic memory.” Horatio Nelson: “...when he had grave doubts whether to continue the action against very considerable odds he had called a council of war of his officers and taken their opinions. Consultation with subordinates was not part of the method of command of many sea officers, but it was a habit that Nelson was to maintain on other, and more important, occasions.” Lord Fisher: “Soon after the arrival of the Fleet, Fisher called together a Committee to put forward proposals for maneuvers for the Fleet. Such an act was unprecedented in the annals of the Navy. Hitherto the Admiral alone, or at most in consultation with his Flag Captain, had devised the operations of a Fleet; yet Fisher did not hesitate to call together a Committee of Captains and Commanders, but mainly of Commanders, to advise him! This caused considerable heart-burnings, and some of the Captains who were not on the Committee felt themselves aggrieved; for it was brought home to them, for the first time, that the brains which were to be useful to the Commander-in-Chief were not of necessity to be found in the heads of the most senior of the officers.” People in fact are tested by their ability to contribute. F. D. Roosevelt: “Roosevelt’s test of a man was not his basic philosophy, or lack of one, but the sweep of his information, his ability to communicate, and his willingness to share ideas.” Peter the Great: “Peter...went over to Prince Jacob Dolgoruky, who was never afraid of arguing with him in the Senate, and said, ‘You criticize me more than anybody else, and plague me with your arguments until I sometimes feel I could lose my temper with you. But I know that you are sincerely devoted to me and to the State, and that you always speak the truth, for which I am deeply grateful. Now tell me how you estimate my father’s achievements, and what you think of mine. I know you will tell me the truth.’ ” Lord Fisher: “He loved a man to stand up to him.” Hyman Rickover: “When there are questions ‘involving the welfare or survival of the Nation,’ Admiral Hyman G. Rickover once said, ‘it is singularly unfitting to remain evasive. It is not only possible, but in fact the duty of everyone to state precisely what his knowledge and conscience compel him to say. A certain measure of courage in the private citizen is necessary to the good conduct of the State, otherwise men who have power through

answer unclear or silly, he cut in to argue. Said one of the lunchers, Johnson was ‘the greatest argufier any of us had ever seen.’ ” “This process of picking minds continued at night back at the Dodge. One resident said it was ‘like living in a permanent debating society, with Lyndon as the focal point.’ On and on the questions came with an unrelenting intensity. A Congressional press secretary who observed it carefully concluded, ‘This skinny boy was as green as anybody could be, but within a few months he knew how to operate in Washington better than some who had been here twenty years.’ ” Preparing to run for President in 1957: “Johnson’s strange approach to Weisl and the others in the New York set was to pretend that he was a weak, indecisive man who urgently needed their ideas and repetitious beseeching to adopt courses of action that he had already decided to take. So hard did he play at this game that several members of the New York group nicknamed him ‘Yellow-Dog’ Johnson.” Billy Graham: “...he has come to feel comfortable, natural, only before crowds. Even so, he began selecting moderate size communities for his crusades and then televising them widely.” Cecil Rhodes: “Sometimes when [Major Heany] discussed his mines Mr. Rhodes intentionally differed from him and told him that his anticipations were exaggerated. He opposed him in order to draw him and to make him talk all the more.” “Whilst in the country he made it a point to see every one to whom it was worth while talking. Not a night passed but he had two or three of the leading people, in whatever locality he might be, to dinner. When at a mine he always invited the leading officials, and when we happened to camp away from a town or mining camp he asked the wayside storekeeper to the prospector to dine with him, in fact any one from whom he thought he could possibly gain some information about the country. He kept his guests busy until late in the night answering questions.” F. D. Roosevelt: “His principal social talent lay in making people feel at ease in his society and in getting them to talk about the things they knew.” “ ’Young Roosevelt is very promising, but I should think he’d wear himself out in the promiscuous and extended contacts he maintains with people. But as I have observed him, he seems to clarify his ideas and teach himself as he goes along by that very conversational method.’ Yes, it was by people—all sorts—that he continued to be educated in the tough, knotty ways of government.” Ideas can come to the Exhorter from any source, not just from the most senior person. Lord Fisher: “His other passion, so far as I knew, was for sermons! He attended morning and evening service mainly for the sermons,

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
riches, intrigue, or office will administer the State at will and ultimately their private advantage.’ ” As far as the Exhorter himself is concerned, he is not capable of hiding his own reactions. Horatio Nelson: “Once in India Nelson had sat down at a card table and found himself playing for high stakes. That time he had been lucky and won, but he resolved never to play again in such company. He was wise, for he was no dissimulator and his cards would have shown in his face.” De Lesseps: “It has been suggested that greedy Lesseps was sly and calculating with his magnificent patron; but craft was not in his nature, nor in his tradition, nor in his record.” Juan Peron: “There was something refreshingly different about the earthy, unpretentious way he talked.” Peter the Great: “Peter was always honest and direct in his dealings with people, and expected them to be honest and frank with him and he disliked subterfuge of any kind.” ‘Truth’ in a Teacher sense comes out, therefore, as there is interaction—it’s a kind of external counterpart to the Facilitator’s internal dialectic and philosophy. Churchill: “He liked provocative people around him. He liked to be buttressed with opinion. He loved argument in the logical style but he loved it too, in the ready invention of conversation that needed to be maintained on multiphasic levels. He loved the presence and the company of men who also enjoyed the mental endurance race this kind of talking exacted from one’s inventiveness.” Lyndon Johnson: “His demand for foolproof answers from his staff in turn provoked an inquisition of government agencies by his employees, much of it useless and excessive. On one occasion, said Carpenter, Johnson asked an aide to find out when the Army-Navy football game was scheduled. ‘The Navy says the game’s to be played on December 2,’ the assistant told him. ‘That’s fine,’ Johnson roared, ‘but what does the Army say?’ ” Lord Fisher: “He believes that truth comes out in talking.” “Whenever he was preparing for any new evolution, he would call together the officers and petty officers concerned and thresh out every detail. He would ask each and every one to give his experience or an opinion, and if he thought any suggestion better than his own idea, he would always give it a trial, leaving the person whose suggestion it was to arrange the details.” “I shall never forget the Sunday luncheon on the Renown, with most of the Captains present, when I ventured to suggest to the Admiral, in reply to his question as to why I wrote for a halfpenny paper, that the price of a paper had less effect upon the future of mankind than its circulation among people who could think and wished to know the truth about things. He seized the point like lightning...”


“Metaphorically he had acted the part of a huge sifting machine, collecting ideas, separating the crude from the mature, and returning the refined article to the Fleet for the instruction of the officers and men.” John F. Kennedy: “The Senator liked to have close to him people on whom he could test his ideas and get frank and honest replies.” “He also liked to have around people with different views so that he could have the benefit of more than one approach to a subject. He had a way of prodding his staff to see just how firm they were in the thoughts they presented to him. He would say again and again, ‘Are you sure?’ ” Bob Hope: “He needed the best new writers he could find, and ferreted out a group of gag writers that soon were to be known as Hope’s Army...It was going to take an army of funny minds to think up a first-class monologue plus sketch material every week, and Hope liked the idea of hiring a lot of young, ambitious guys all on the make and all in competition with each other. He wasn’t paying them very much, so he could afford a lot of them. He planned to order from each writer a full show and he would take the best from each for a final script.” “At their next meeting, the writers read their material, and Hope selected the best jokes and routines for an extra-long, sixty-to-ninety minute script.” “The following day, the cast did a preview of the longer-than-needed script before an audience at NBC’s Sunset and Vine studios. During that Sunday night preview show, the program was transcribed so that on Monday Hope could listen and decide what material played best and low much of which routine should be cut. The best of the material was selected for the thirty-minute Tuesday night air show.” De Lesseps: “Linant and Moguel [two of the best Egyptian engineers] have asked me always to tell them my observations and opinions. People told me that they might not get on together, and the Viceroy himself suggested that I take only Linant. But in such a matter as this I would rather have the benefit of two opinions even if they are different.” Billy Mitchell: “If an investigation is desired I am eager to have it. But it must be entirely public and all the evidence must be published for the people to know about. The board making it should be composed of representative Americans instead of members of the Army and Navy bureaucracy. Let its members be from the east and west, north and south, men from the fields and factories as well as from the counting houses. Then and only then will we begin to get at the actual facts involved and remove it from petty politics and bureaucratic suppression.” F. D. Roosevelt: “The study of law did not challenge him, yet he enjoyed the practical higgle and haggle of legal negotiation.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
was his idea, he’d accept it. Of course, it had to be a pretty good idea, or he’d know it wasn’t his.” De Lesseps: “When a scientific commission stated his work was feasible, Lesseps walked on air. Though before putting their names forward, presumably he must have been fairly sure of the general views of the delegates, it was wonderful to have this unanimous expert opinion. After all, he was not an engineer...” Lyndon Johnson: “...public officials [were] ordered not to discuss their agencies’ problems with the press. Above all, they were not to bring into the open any troubles they were having with one another, because this would spoil the Johnson image of running a consensus government.” When ideas—based of course in the Exhorter’s initial vision—have survived the crisis of interaction, or for some other reason the Exhorter is sure of them, then he can get others to see things his way.1 Brunel: “The public opinion which he respected was critical and well informed, possessing, in fact, his own standards. To seek to win the acclaim of such an audience was no discreditable ambition.” “ ’Of all the wonderful feats I have performed since I have been in this part of the world,’ he writes, ‘I think yesterday I performed the most wonderful. I produced unanimity amongst fifteen men who were all quarreling about the most ticklish subject—taste.’ ” John F. Kennedy: “Kennedy had never met people with whom he could not establish some understanding. His political success was a monument to persuasion, to ‘reasoning together,’ as Vice President Johnson liked to say. When you sat down with a ‘rational’ person and you both frankly explained your views, it seemed that always there were greater areas of agreement than either party had thought possible.” Ataturk: “As with so many of Mustafa Kemal’s attempts to get others to see events through his eyes...” Billy Graham: “Billy had the whole audience lapping out of the palm of his hand in no time at all. It was the transparency of his spirit, I think. Here was a guy with absolutely no guile, no pretenses or defenses at all. Just this tremendous yearning for lost souls.”

‘Truth’ for the Exhorter in fact can be that which survives interaction. Lord Fisher, building the new dreadnought battleship: “The difficulty then arose, how to get so drastic a change in design adopted...Here Fisher’s extraordinary foresight and shrewdness came in. He instituted a Design Committee. The constitution of the Committee was such as to give to any design that met with its approval an authority that would be beyond reasonable cavil.” Juan Peron: “The Third Position became the cornerstone of Argentina’s foreign policy. Its aim was to steer a middle ground between the contending big-power ideologies...” F. D. Roosevelt: “He had a serene belief that his administration should work like a team and that his associates should find ways of adjusting their problems.” “He was forever acting as umpire between warring administrators or congressmen. When his advisers differed over policy he time and again ordered: ‘Put them in a room together, and tell them no lunch until they agree.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “The freedom of ideas, and the implied freedom to dissent, are at the very foundation of a true system of education.” The Exhorter’s openness can make him seem very accommodating to others. F. D. Roosevelt: “He outtalked his advisers, outtalked the cabinet, and even outtalked visiting senators. It was a leadership of vigor—and a leadership of frankness too.” De Lesseps: “...the cheerful shout of Lesseps: ‘Open the world to the people!’ ” The Exhorter’s quest for input, however, assumes that others first and foremost accept his Mercy-oriented vision. When this acceptance is lacking, then the request for advice becomes a formality; the Exhorter already knows what he is planning to do. Drake: “He had nine or ten gentlemen with him, members of good families in England, who are members of his council. On every occasion, however unimportant, he calls them together and listens to what they have to say before giving his orders— although, in fact, he pays no real attention to any one.” “Drake did indeed have a conference with the other commanders, but as a contemporary remarked, ‘Though a willing hearer of other men’s opinions, he was commonly a follower of his own.’ ” Ataturk: “Sensing that it was important to permit the deputies to discharge their feelings, Mustafa Kemal ‘allowed’ them to speak at the black-draped rostrum of the Grand National Assembly. Afterwards, he would take the rostrum and counter any dissent they had offered, with an adroit alternation of threats and charm, logic and charisma.” Vince Lombardi: “He had a very short memory in some ways, and if you could make him believe something

The Exhorter is tied quite strongly, first of all, to the Mercy side of his person, and then somewhat to the Teacher aspect as well. These modes of thought work with emotions; the Exhorter thus has a strong sensitivity to feelings. As part of this, he easily reads the emotions of others. Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson’s friendly reporting

But the Exhorter’s goal is to gain approval, and thus, as we will see in detail later, the vision sums up the yearnings of those around him. He is persuading people, therefore, to do what they want to do. There is little that is new.

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
crew printed his confession on why he was so superb a majority leader. ‘Sam Rayburn once told me that an effective leader must sense the mood of the Congress. He doesn’t see it, smell it, hear it—he senses it. I usually know what’s going to happen within the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the day.’ ” “Sitting slumped in his aisle seat, he can sense everything that is going on behind him without turning around.” Brunel: “Most of the London men were strangers to Brunel, so he took careful stock of them, recording his impressions as follows: ‘I think I gain ground with Mr. Miles, he seems an amiable man but pig-headed. Fenwick I think is a friend. Gibbs will go with the Bristol Committee. Bettington is a jobber, but probably caring little about anything but his salary and shares. Grenfell must be humored. Gower very doubtful—stupid enough and proportionally suspicious. Hopkins I hardly know. Simonds a hot warm-tempered Tory, just such another as K. Claxton i.e. warm friend but changeable and very capable of being a devil of an opponent.’ ” Vince Lombardi: “He was always a great psychologist, great at analyzing individuals, knowing which players needed to be driven and which ones needed a friendly pat on the fanny.” Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Rhodes was an exceptional judge of human nature...” Rasputin: “...throughout his life Rasputin would possess an uncanny ability to read character and make instant assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of humans.” “...enjoying a knowledge of his fellow men that was tantamount to clairvoyance.” “...relied on an immediate reading of personality.” Of him: “You do not know just how intelligent this remarkable person is. He better than anybody knows Russia, her spirit, moods and direction. He knows it all by some kind of sixth sense.” The Exhorter often uses his knowledge of emotions to manipulate others to conform to his vision—in a sense, he hypnotizes them. Lyndon Johnson: “That was Johnson’s genius, and part of his curse too. When it came to dealing personally, psychologically, with other men, he was like Bach working the organ pipes. But it was also like he knew almost too much about human nature, too much about the way people are, to have that higher perspective to handle it.” “...his personal approach was ‘a rather overwhelming experience. The full treatment is an incredibly potent mixture of persuasion, badgering, flattery, threats, reminders of past favors and future advantages.’ ” Vince Lombardi: “He knew exactly how to motivate. He knew just what buttons to push.” Lord Fisher: “He knew instinctively the way to get the best out of each subordinate and spur him on to further


endeavors; every sort of blandishment and skillful flattery were called into play when required, and, as always was the case, he was successful.” F. D. Roosevelt: “Roosevelt’s leadership talents lay in his ability to shift quickly and gracefully from persuasion to cajolery to flattery to intrigue to diplomacy to promises to horse-trading—or to concoct just that formula which his superb instincts for personal relations told him would bring around the most reluctant congressman.” Exhorter-manipulation uses differing techniques. He may, for instance, alternate threats with rewards. Hyman Rickover: “James described Rickover as ‘an expediter, a person who knew how to twist people’s tails and get the maximum out of them by threatening, more than by leadership...’ ” Ataturk: “His charm is based on his inspiring both awe and love, and occasional glimpses of brutality only heighten it.” “Afterwards, he would take the rostrum and counter any dissent they had offered, with an adroit alternation of threats and charm, logic and charisma.” Lord Fisher: “What you call my truculence is all for peace. If you rub in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war with every unit of your strength in the first line, and intend to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any!), and torture his women and children then people will keep clear of you.” The Exhorter may also stir up fear or hate. Hyman Rickover: “ ’He’d rather arouse a guy by saying something nasty than make a friend,’ Whitney told the authors in sad assessment.” Vince Lombardi, on playing football: “To play this game, you must have that fire in you, and there is nothing that stokes fire like hate.” “Football is a game of emotion, and what the old man excels at is motivation. I maintain that there are two driving forces in football, and one is anger, and the other is fear, and he capitalized on both of them. Either he got us so mad we wanted to prove something to him or we were fearful of being singled out as the one guy who didn’t do the job.” “He taught you to be angry, and to use all your anger against your opponents, and I did.” The Exhorter may exploit embarrassment or shame. Vince Lombardi: “He scared me. He scared me by embarrassing me in front of my friends.” Horatio Nelson: “...the timid he never rebuked, but always wished to show them he desired nothing of them that he would not instantly do himself; and I have known him say, ‘Well, Sir, I am going on a race to the mast-head, and beg I may meet you there.’ No denial could be given to such a wish, and the poor fellow instantly began his march. His Lordship never took the least notice with what alacrity it was done, but when they met at the top,


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
“He had a remarkable way with children too, as he once had with his father’s horses; the same capacity to calm and inspire confidence in a patient.” The Exhorter, with his vision for the future, gives pep talks and encourages. Billy Mitchell: “When most of the men and planes had arrived, and Milling had formed these scatterings into squadrons, Mitchell flew down from Washington to give them a pep talk.” Of Vince Lombardi: “Those pep talks of his! I was 36 years old, and I thought I had a little sophistication, but when I heard those pep talks, I’d cry and go out and try to kill people. Nobody else could ever do that to me.” To Horatio Nelson, on his plan for Trafalgar: “...from admirals downwards it was repeated,—’It must succeed if ever they will allow us to get at them.’ You are, my Lord, surrounded by friends, whom you inspire with confidence.” The opposition to this kind of highly intelligent manipulation can find it very difficult to organize—after all, the Exhorter’s hypnosis is not violating their internal convictions. Brunel: “Major-General C. W. Pasley was invited to inspect the tunnel. The General did so and reported on its safety in such forthright terms that Brunel, who was anxious to dispose of the scare without raising a public controversy, wrote to Saunders, ‘Thank you for General Pasley’s report. As far as we are concerned it is all we could wish...but I regret very much that it is going to be published as there is a decided hit at Buckland [the scaremonger] which will in all probability bring him out and undo all the quiet good that we might have derived from the report.’ ” “Not only had Brunel to superintend the survey, he had also to conciliate the local landowners, a task which was often far from agreeable but which, surprisingly for one of so impulsive and forthright a nature, he handled with great patience, tact and success. In this his ability to size up so rapidly the characters of his fellow men obviously helped him considerably.” A strong emotional bond often develops, in fact, between the Exhorter and those whom he is manipulating. F. D. Roosevelt: “In campaigning, like a good salesman, he brought up his own candidacy only after establishing a bond between his audience and himself on other matters.” Juan Peron: “To opponents of the regime and many foreign observers as well, any attempt to tamper with the 1853 constitution had but one real purpose, the elimination of Article 77, which provided that ‘the president and vice-president...may not be reelected except with an interval of one term.’ They listened skeptically as Peron told the Congress: ‘My opinion is against such a change [in Article 77]...In my view, reelection would be an enormous danger for the political future of the republic.’ As one North American scholar noted, ‘his followers had come to

began instantly speaking in the most cheerful manner, and saying how much a person was to be pitied who could fancy there was any danger, or even anything disagreeable in the attempt.” The Exhorter in contrast may use flattery. Bing Crosby: “It was no accident that...despite his natural indolence, he ingratiated himself with his teachers, with adults in general, and with his mother in particular.” Horatio Nelson: “...he tended to flatter outrageously for his own ends...” Lord Fisher: “...a narrative of the cunning devices he used in order to get the Commander to detail men for gunnery drills instead of employing them in cleaning, painting, and polishing the ship. His method, which was highly entertaining as recounted, consisted chiefly in the artful use of judicious flattery, at which he was a past master.” The Exhorter can divert energies of others into heroworship that also exalts him as the ‘upwards snob’—that is, he is great at ‘hanging on to coat-tails.’ Juan Peron: “There were, of course, other dividends to be gained from sports. Peron made every effort to identify himself with successful athletes and share in their glory. He understood the bread-and-circus aspect of mass psychology, whereby fanatical dedication to a team or individual athlete could serve to absorb energies that might otherwise be directed to politics, and to deflect attention from economic problems that were beginning to buffet the nation.” The Exhorter can mix fear, hate, shame, flattery, and ‘coat-tails’ in order to divide-and-rule. Juan Peron: “Disagreements over strategy and tactics as well as petty feuds kept the Peronist exile colonies in Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and elsewhere in disarray. Despite his constant lip service to the virtues of unity, Peron consciously stimulated this divisiveness and played upon it like a Maestro.” In spite of his manipulating ways, the Exhorter, surprisingly, puts others at ease.1 Ataturk: “...he could always put people at ease, especially the young.” Cecil Rhodes: “He had a knack of making people feel at home, and I could see it gave them great pleasure to talk to him.” Rasputin: “Throughout his life Rasputin had the power to calm troubled minds with a few soothing words and gestures, displaying the kind of gentle authority that wins the trust of a nervous animal even more readily than that of humans.”


The Exhorter himself, as we will see, is hypnotically tied into his environment. He hypnotizes his listeners, therefore, in large part to do what they want to do, and this tends to make them comfortable. It really is a ‘Magical Mystery Tour.’

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
know that when Peron said “no” he occasionally meant “yes.” And this was one of those occasions.’ ” F. D. Roosevelt: “His great strength lay in his own political personality, in the magic spell that he could still cast over the voters.” Billy Graham: “He is vividly aware of the dangers of mass psychosis. He never preaches to evoke a crowd response but selects in his mind one unknown member of the audience...”


Let us look more closely at ways in which the Exhorter generates that emotional bond between himself and the people whom he manipulates. First of all, he gives others personal attention. John F. Kennedy: “He always returned a telephone call, no matter how many there were.” “He preferred to have important letters delivered by hand. He wanted action, and he had found this way he could get it.” Bing Crosby: “He was scrupulous about answering his fan mail, often with personally handwritten notes.” Lyndon Johnson: “Every vote was vital. ‘I wish I could look into every face and shake every hand.’ ” “Johnson is an extraordinary man, and he goes to extraordinary lengths to convert people...” The Exhorter calls individuals by their name. Lord Fisher: “I believe [wrote one shipmate] that Jacky could call every one of the 1,300 men on board by his right name, and not only call him by name, but could tell him where he was born and what his religion was supposed to be.” “One way that he had of encouraging the workmen was to find out quietly from the charge hand the names of one or more of the men who were working on the Royal Sovereign. A little time afterwards he would pass one of them and say, ‘That’s right, Thomas Williamson, glad to see you digging out so well.’ ‘Good gracious me, the Admiral knows my name,’ the man would think, and the report went round the Yard that the Admiral knew the names of all the men.” The Exhorter shares real emotion with others. F. D. Roosevelt: “His voice and his facial expression as he spoke were those of an intimate friend.” “He began his famous ‘fireside chats’ during his first term as governor.” “It was characteristic of the President to think of and speak warmly to people he did not know personally. It was a part of his sense of community of interest.” Churchill: “He will sometimes enter so completely into what he is dictating that tears will sometimes literally stream down his solemn face during the evolving of a particularly dramatic passage.” There is often physical contact between the Exhorter and his listeners. Lyndon Johnson, as assistant to Con-

gressman Kleberg: “An hour after he moved into the Dodge Hotel’s sub-sub-basement, his instant friendship technique made him an old pal of everyone on the floor. There were handshakes and jokes, first-name intimacy and arms around shoulders, loud laughter, and Johnson offers to lend anything he owned. Good fellowship talk went on almost the entire night.” Of him, by one person whom he recruited: “ ’Well, Allan, it’s this way,’ Ramsey said embarrassed, ‘Lyndon got me by the lapels and put his face on top of mine and he talked and talked and talked. I figured it was either getting drowned or joining.’ ” “At the Driskill party [for reporters at the LBJ ranch] Johnson tried instant friendship with the lot, sliding into easy barnyard language, slapping backs, pressing the flesh, and downing a half dozen drinks.” As self-appointed assistant to college president Evans: “Lyndon fairly overwhelmed Evans by his tactics. In front of faculty members he once slapped Evans on the back in jovial greeting, an act that made eyes roll, since no one else dared do this.” Lord Fisher: “He takes you by the arm and pours out that astonishing stream of talk...” “ ’I wish you would stop shaking your fist in my face,’ said King Edward when being subjected to some of Fisher’s forcible arguments; and every one of his many listeners might have made the same remark.” Cecil Rhodes: “He was exceedingly kind and tender towards me. He made me draw up my chair quite close to him, and frequently placed his hand on my shoulder. He used to send for me even when he did not have any work for me. On these occasions he talked to me more as a friend than as my chief. He affected this free and easy style to make me feel at home with him.” Billy Mitchell: “...he’d slap you on the back and hand you a cigar...” Sukarno: “It was these qualities of charm and joviality, which he could turn on at the drop of a hat, that often stood him in good stead during some of the most dangerous and critical moments in his political career. But beneath this charm, this back-slapping friendliness, there was the iron will of a ruthless go-getter.” Rasputin: “His strength derived from the power of his personality, and his ability immediately to assume an attitude of the most extreme familiarity towards any person of the opposite sex who came into contact with him.”

The charismatic and positive-thinking Exhorter uses talk to communicate enthusiasm with others—the emotion of his excitement narrows down the attention of the listener’s Mercy and Teacher strategy, and induces hypnosis. Lord Fisher: “...all his life he was unique in his power of communicating his own enthusiasm to all around him, whether officers or men.”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
hardly escape the conclusion that the inspirer was a man named Johnson.” Lord Fisher: “He was the first of our Admirals to make an intelligent use of the Press for the benefit of the Navy. He was convinced that, in order to get his various reforms understood and appreciated by the country, it was necessary to have the Press primed with the whole truth about them, and not merely with a smattering of half-truths.” Hyman Rickover: “He once was asked, ‘How many public-relations officers do you have?’ ‘Zero,’ he replied, and then he candidly added: ‘I think I am my own best public-relations officer.’ ” Bob Hope: “His instinct for marketing and promotion was acute.” “But Hope himself was the master publicist. He never refused a request for an interview, talked on the telephone for hours with columnists in distant cities and had almost daily conversations...It paid off.” “No one in show business was more skilled in the manipulation of an image.” Churchill: “After escape, I dispatched a continual stream of letters and cables to the Morning Post, and learned from them that all I wrote commanded a wide and influential public.” Skills that extend from the individual to the general media, in combination with emotional sensitivity, make the Exhorter extremely persuasive. Brunel: “He was always a hard man to resist once a new scheme had fired his imagination.” Lyndon Johnson: “Valenti once predicted that history would know Johnson as ‘The Great Persuader.’ The Senate and House approved 68.4% of his 1965 proposals, a record since statistics started in 1954.” Urging friends to join him in California: “I was very positive and a great persuader.” John F. Kennedy: “Kennedy had never met people with whom he could not establish some understanding. His political success was a monument to persuasion...” Billy Mitchell: “Mitchell was quick and self-confident, but Johnson hesitated to let him solo, despite Mitchell’s insistence. One day Johnson was ill and Mitchell was turned over to a new teacher, Walter Lees. As Johnson recalled it, ‘When Mitchell really wanted anything, he could be pretty persuasive,’ and he ‘fast-talked Lees into letting him solo.’ Lees sent Mitchell on two solo flights that day and he did well.” Touring battlefields: “We went by Verdun and Chateau-Thierry and Epernay and other fields, and Mitchell told us what had happened there during the war. He was marvelous, so eloquent and clear and persuasive. If we had only had a tape recorder then!” Cecil Rhodes: “He seemed to have the power of persuading almost any one to think the same as he did.”

“Nothing, of course, could withstand Fisher’s enthusiasm and his unique exposition of his case when he had the opportunity to plead it in person.” De Lesseps: “He was everywhere accepted socially, and his extraordinary capacity for inspiring confidence was soon turning indifference into friendly was from the personality of Lesseps that the indispensable momentum came. Everyone was talking about him, and the papers were full of his canal.” In England: “Lesseps began a tour of the Provinces where, at a series of meetings organized and attended by the chief trading interests in each district, he whipped up something approaching enthusiasm for the canal. Such a response, particularly to a foreigner, represented an extraordinary tribute to his powers of persuasion and the impression of straightforward, honest competence which he made everywhere.” The Exhorter’s personal style makes him especially effective at one-on-one persuasion. Churchill: “The editor of Collier’s said, ‘I have never in my life heard anyone talk as well as Churchill. Only Elihu Root and Newton D. Baker could approach him for amplitude of mind, eloquence and smoothness of finish, and they lacked his fire. His control over thought and feeling and the precision of his language are amazing.’ ” Lord Fisher: “Fisher’s lectures were noted for their humor; he invariably made the driest subject interesting to his listeners.” The Exhorter, so good at speaking with individuals, is quite capable of using the public media as well. F. D. Roosevelt: “When aides mentioned a balking congressman, the big hand would move instantly to the telephone; in a few moments the President would have the congressman on the wire, coaxing him, commanding him, negotiating with him.” Lyndon Johnson: “For Johnson, the telephone was an indispensable means of human contact, whence sprang his power. Any phone at hand became like a growth on his right arm.” Of his approach to newsmen: “ ’The ritual is much the same in each instance,’ reported Childs. ‘The President’s guests are shepherded into the small study off his oval office. It is a windowless room...The exhortation follows a familiar pattern. The President reads from reports from his generals in Vietnam. It is an upbeat recital. The war is not stalemated. The enemy is hurting. The Vietnam critics will be confounded before too long...Other Presidents have had even worse troubles and they have come through and triumphed in the end.’ ” “All this is impressive, earnest, sometimes solemn. The big man, hunched forward in his chair, talking, talking, talking, with hardly an interruption in the dimly lighted little study, is the arch persuader. It all comes out in news stories, the columns, the news weeklies. And while no source is given, even the casual reader can

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
“He had to adopt different tactics with each man according to his character as he read it, and in the end, by his tact, his wonderful judgment of human nature, and his dogged perseverance he succeeded in persuading all interested to his way of thinking, and the great amalgamation [of all the Kimberly Diamond Mines] was carried through.” F. D. Roosevelt: “With few exceptions, even people who regarded themselves as Roosevelt haters felt agreeable toward him in his presence. They could not resist his contagious fondness for people—all kinds of people.” The Exhorter can easily become a top salesman— through hypnosis, he induces people to part with their hard-earned money. Vince Lombardi: “He is a supersalesman, one of the finest salesmen there’s ever been. He has a knack for selling himself and his system and his ideas to football players. He’s able to do this because, first, he believes passionately in what he’s selling—in himself and his system. And, second, he’s a great teacher, both on the field and at the blackboard.” Lyndon Johnson: “I bought socks from him. Everybody did. Lyndon was such a salesman you couldn’t resist him.” “He was a sharp trader, and he knew how to get what he wanted.” Billy Graham: “His boss in the Fuller Brush Company: ‘Fact is, I had a time keeping up with him. Some weeks I couldn’t. He beat any salesman I had.’ He reveled in imparting to South Carolinians the genuine, if very recent, conviction that a Fuller brush was a necessity of life.” “Billy wound up the top Fuller Brush salesman in the two Carolinas that summer.” “He was once feted as America’s ‘Salesman of the Year.’ ” “Certainly the concept of conversion is not unusual in our society. Any good salesman knows that he must convert prospects to his product or his way of thinking. The business of advertising is to convert the buying public from one brand to another.” Exhorter charisma, as we see it in history, can actually take over the personality of the listener and make decisions for him. Martin Luther: “He dominated every circle he belonged to, and his intimates, as time passed, recognizing more and more his superior genius and capacity for leadership, fell naturally, whether older or younger, into the position of followers. To be sure, many were offended by him, and thought him arrogant and overbearing, but in most of those who knew him there was steadily growing affection and loyalty.” Brunel: “What most distinguished him was the force which drove him, so long as life lasted, to the utmost limit of his bent and which charged his personality with that mysterious magnetic power which so often discom-


fited his opponents and which drew lesser men to follow him.” Sukarno: “His attractive personality and his strong personal magnetism had made him a born leader of the masses...” “From his earliest years Sukarno appears to have possessed a tremendous ego. He tried to push himself to the foreground and dominated his friends, which earned him the nickname Djago (fighting cock).” “Sukarno’s greatest asset was his mesmerizing power over the people...” “The power personally vested in Sukarno flowed from his charisma...” Rasputin: “Rasputin did not practice hypnosis as such, did not put his subjects into hypnotic trances...Yet clearly he possessed the power to dominate, render his subject passive and relaxed, ready to surrender his will to the greater strength of Rasputin. If one chooses to term such a power hypnotism, in the broad sense of the word, then he was a hypnotist par excellence.” “The sister of one of Rasputin’s eventual assassins characterizes the mood of Russia: “Rasputin, Rasputin, Rasputin, it was like a refrain: his mistakes, his shocking personal conduct, his mysterious power. This power was tremendous; it was like dusk enveloping all our world eclipsing the sun. How could so pitiful a wretch throw so vast a shadow? It was inexplicable, maddening, almost incredible.” The Exhorter’s eyes are especially noticed. Martin Luther: “When I saw Martin in 1522, in his 41st year, he was moderately fleshy, so upright in carriage that he bent backward rather than forward, with face raised toward heaven, and with deep brown-black eyes, flashing and sparkling like a star, so that you could not easily bear their gaze.” “He was no dry-as-dust scholar as one was accustomed to see under the doctor’s beret, no shouting and hairsplitting sin-at-any-cost, but a vigorous, original personality; from whose bold face a pair of ‘falcon eyes’ shone upon opponents and onlookers.” Rasputin: “He had expressive eyes that seemed to see straight through you...and the [holy man] seemed to exercise a certain hypnotic hold over those who came near him.” “His face was thin and pale, but his eyes were his most extraordinary feature—they were very large and deep set, and so penetrating that they seemed to pierce through and through whoever met his gaze.” “He could make a most powerful impression upon his listeners, staring at them with bright steady eyes that seemed to read their very souls. Everybody who described him in later years agrees that it was the eyes that made the greatest impression, and it was claimed by some that he was able to make his pupils expand and contract at will...”


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
“There is more truth than hyperbole to the popular saying that ‘If Argentina were an orange, Peron would be the juice.’ ” Rasputin: “Cabalistically speaking Rasputin is a vessel like Pandora’s box, which contains all the vices, crimes and filth of the Russian people. Should the vessel be broken we will see its dreadful contents spill themselves across Russia.” Though the Exhorter talks ‘intelligently’ as he sells his vision, he remains rooted to Mercy Feeling and to external experiences. His actions—no matter what he says— begin to express the emotional standards of the group from which he has gathered his ideas. As part of this, brashness begins to develop aspects of politeness. Lyndon Johnson, after Kennedy’s assassination: “In the days that followed, he displayed an instinct for doing the proper thing, for uttering the appropriate word.” Drake: “Hearing that Venta Cruz was used by the ladies of Nombre de Dios as a hospital when it was their time to be confined, he hastened to assure them personally that no harm would befall them so long as he, Captain Drake, was in the town. ‘Surely never was a pirate so tender...’ ” “...he was far in advance of his age in his humanity and compassion.” Cecil Rhodes: “It was foreign to his nature when in ladies’ company to employ ambiguous or equivocal language, or any term of insinuation which might have the effect of embarrassing a delicate and refined mind. He was as a rule very shy, and I have often seen him blush like a boy when conversing with ladies when there was no occasion to be bashful.” The Exhorter’s words and humor express the feelings found in society. Bob Hope: “Hope and his writers elicited both soldier and civilian laughter from instances of simple, harebrained cowardice set against a climate of high seriousness, a stern military regime where ordinary men were being prepared for war. Hope’s exploitation of the soldier’s resentment and at himself as a victim of that environment, while arousing sympathy in the general audience...” In North Africa: “But he touched their particular reality, spoke their language, with lines like, ‘It’s so hot around here I took one look at a pup tent and it was panting,’ or, ‘Those guys out there are really tough! They don’t bother manicuring their nails...they just stick their hands under a rock and let the cobras bite off the cuticle.’ ” “His dumb wise guy, his reluctant hero, his bragging coward are all parts of the genus ‘wise fool,’ the oldest and most persistent comic type in American humor. When he brags about his courage, or his looks, or his sexual powers, or his brains, we laugh because we see our own braggadocio in him. When he takes a pratfall we know we’re in for the same thing...”

The Exhorter learns from the input of those who agree in a general way with his vision. In this way, subconscious Teacher thought in him becomes a composite of Teacher thought in the society to which he belongs. Brunel: “The public opinion which he respected was critical and well informed, possessing, in fact, his own standards.” Nikita Khrushchev: “He had a feeling for the masses. At work as individuals on the bench, they did not exist; they were automatons, and faulty and suspect automatons at that. As a class, seen from his office in the Kremlin, they were dangerous, to be subdued. But when they were in manageable groups, visited off-duty, clustered round him in factories, and drinking in his words, he drew strength from them and felt one with them.” Lord Fisher: “It is beyond question that Fisher’s insight into the problems of the Navy was largely derived from widespread consultation with all classes and ranks in the Service. His memory stored the grains of knowledge so acquired, and prolonged cogitation, aided by his own sure judgment, pieced them together.” Teacher strategy in the mind, working in cooperation with Perceiver analysis, forms unified theories. In the Exhorter as seen in history, Perceiver thought tends to be suppressed, and Teacher theorizing therefore operates under the tutelage of Facilitator ‘working memory.’ Contradictory ideas are seen then by the Exhorter as unified when all are held by some aspect of the group. Sukarno: “ 1926, attempted to convince his readers that it was both possible and feasible to unite the three major streams of thought in Indonesia: Islam, Marxism, and nationalism, into a harmonious whole, without having to suppress any of the ideologies as long as they did not disturb the harmonious order of the whole. Sukarno argued that after all these three major groups were striving for the same objective: the freedom of Indonesia...” F. D. Roosevelt: “He loved to juggle ideas, he hated to antagonize people, he was looking for proposals that would appeal to a wide variety of groups, whatever the lack of internal consistency.” Rasputin: “Rasputin was capable of reconciling attitudes and values that the Western mind might consider incompatible.” Nikita Khrushchev: “He was incapable of an allembracing and coherent design.” Almost hypnotically, the Exhorter fills himself with the totality of what the people are and think. Juan Peron, in exile: “Vandor suddenly turned to Peron and said, ‘Look, General, I understand how sad it must be for you to be here, so far away from the fatherland. ‘ ” “ ’My son,’ Peron replied, ‘I’m like an Indian fakir. Wherever I am at the moment, that is my country.’ ”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Lyndon Johnson: “His humor invariably was folksy, often involving himself or his family or some identifiable episode in his life.” Juan Peron, by a speechwriter: “Peron seemed in a trance in front of a crowd. He could divine what they were feeling and what they wanted. Once, during an antiYankee campaign, he had to give a speech and wanted to shift to a more positive line. Two hours beforehand, he asked me to give him some ideas on improving USArgentina relations. But when he went before the microphones, he delivered a completely opposite speech, attacking the United States. Afterward he walked over to me, shrugged his shoulders, and said: ‘Sorry, but it just came out differently. We’ll have to wait for another opportunity.’ He was like a medium.” The Exhorter actually feels what the people feel. F. D. Roosevelt: “His consummate ability to identify his own feelings with other people’s was, of course, an essential part of his political technique.” Lyndon Johnson: “He sympathized with the aspirations of ‘the folks’... ” Martin Luther: “He took his monastic vows after receiving his Master-of-arts. Though set apart by this vow for more than 15 years, he never lost his touch with human interests. Devout and zealous monk as he was, he was always more a man than a monk.” In particular, the Exhorter embodies in himself the emotional splits of society—Teacher strategy within him feels increasing joy as it begins to comprehend.1 Bing Crosby: “Professionally, Bing was an intelligent, witty, articulate, and enormously talented man. Privately, he was many selves.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He was many things—not clear, not simple, with drives and compulsions in a dozen different directions, with curiosity sending him from one field and experience to another, with imagination making it possible for him to identify himself, at least partly and temporarily, with widely different phenomena and people.” “His emotions, his intuitive understanding, his imagination, his moral and traditional bias, his sense of right and wrong—all entered into his thinking, and unless these flowed freely through his mind as he considered a subject, he was unlikely to come to any clear conclusion or even to a clear understanding.” Sukarno: “In my political ideas I am a nationalist, in my social ideas I am a socialist, in my spiritual life I am completely a theist; I believe in God with my entire being, and I desire to obey God in everything.” Rasputin: “The contradictions of his behavior stem less from hypocrisy than from solipsism, the belief that he alone in the universe was really real. He had a tremenThe Facilitator understands the splits, and develops MBNI. The Exhorter absorbs them into his mind, and becomes a hypnotist.


dous sense of ego; anything he might do was right by definition simply because he wanted to do it; he was incapable of being at odds with himself. This is a trait of character that he shares with political demagogues, martyrs, fanatics, and founders of religions, a trait that can make great men or warped eccentrics.” In his emotional manipulation, the Exhorter brings out that aspect of his person which is relevant to the particular part of society with which he is currently interacting. Lyndon Johnson: “He unquestionably had a capacity for tireless striving and a thorough working knowledge of human nature. He knew how to get along with diverse types of people and, in the process, get ahead.” “In the confines of the cloakroom Johnson gained a reputation as the ‘suave compromiser.’ ” Compromise for the Facilitator is an average between significant opinions, in which ‘extreme outliers’ have been eliminated. For the Exhorter, it is a mosaic that is sufficiently vague to embody the ideas of divergent groupings, to which people can then hypnotically respond with approval. Lyndon Johnson: “After New England the crowds belonged to Johnson, and he was master, brother, friend, teacher, storyteller, man of the cloth, prosecutor, and your ‘umble servant as the mood and occasion demanded.” Bob Hope: “His character is alternately self-confident, self-effacing, impertinent and ingratiating. There is a careful balance between subtle jokes and buffoonery, and a wide range of joke types that would become an integral part of Hope’s versatile style.” Hyman Rickover: “Rickover knew how to tune his presentations to climates of the House and Senate.” Nikita Khrushchev: “His mind was essentially swift in reaction to exterior pressures and stimuli, and when the pressures and stimuli were contradictory, as frequently they were, his reactions were contradictory, too.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He was essentially adaptable to new circumstances, always quick to understand the changing needs and hopes of the people and to vary his action to meet changing situations. He learned to love people and they returned it.” “He was able to compartmentalize his life with ease.” “He learned to love people by trying to understand them and to find the common denominator between him and everyone with whom he had contact.” Sukarno: “Characteristically he seemingly had no difficulty in praising Lincoln in Washington, and lauding Lenin in Moscow, Sun Yat Sen in Peking, and Tito in Belgrade.” The Exhorter can be friends with widely differing elements. F. D. Roosevelt: “The variegated facets of the presidential job called for a multitude of different roles, and Roosevelt moved from part to part with ease and confidence. He was a man of many faces. In all these roles


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Sukarno: “...the ideal of one Indonesian nation, language and culture—for which Sukarno fought most of his life.” The Exhorter himself stands apart, and above the many divisions around him. De Lesseps, speaking of politics: “Desiring in freedom to integrate all the questions by which the parties are divided, I am not in a position to serve any one of them.” Juan Peron: “Peron had always viewed himself as a kind of secular pope. His concept of Holy Fatherhood required him to hold together the disparate elements of an unruly flock. He thought he should rarely, if ever, resort to infallible pronouncements, except in the vaguest of terms. This self-image encouraged him to be all things to all visitors and appear to express agreement with almost anything his followers told him. Since Peronism embraced the entire political spectrum, it would call for extraordinary feats of legerdemain to keep everybody happy.” F. D. Roosevelt: “In economics, a Keynesian solution involved an almost absolute commitment, and Roosevelt was not one to commit himself absolutely to any political or economic method.” Vince Lombardi: “I don’t think Vince was ever unfair to anyone—at least not consciously. He accepted people or rejected them strictly on the basis of their individuality. There were no colors or races or religions. There wasn’t a bigoted bone in his body.” The Exhorter becomes very comfortable speaking to crowds, for these represent society in its full totality. Billy Graham: “In recent years, Graham declares he has found that it has become far easier for him to talk to vast hosts of people than to individuals; he has come to feel comfortable, natural, only before crowds.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He developed the capacity to associate himself with great numbers of people...” Lyndon Johnson: “It became common for him to use the herd technique, a device that robbed others of their dignity. He would announce the appointment of several officials at one time, hold mass swearing-in ceremonies, call droves of congressmen to the East Room for briefings by several officials and pinch off questions by dismissing everyone.” Listeners feel that in the Exhorter they are unified. Ataturk: “To be in the same city with him was to know ecstatic psychological intoxication. The citizens of Ankara were united in a kind of worshipful brotherhood.” Churchill: “More and more the public was looking forward to the words of Winston, for though they always told in harshest truth where we stood, they also lifted our whole population.” Martin Luther: “His writings echo his experience as teacher and confessor in contact with men and women perplexed and terrified in a maze of popular usages and Church teachings and practices. To souls like these he

Roosevelt gave an impression of directness and simplicity, and winning qualities these were.” Billy Graham: “ ’...he just has this great desire to be liked.’ Out of that same avidity for general approval, the impulse of his ministry has always tended toward the maximum adaptability. He remains deathlessly hopeful and cordial with all parties.” Lyndon Johnson: “A man who could pose with Henry Ford II [industrialist] holding up one arm while Walter Reuther [union leader] held up the other...” John F. Kennedy: “He refused to go along with the Democratic leadership if he felt they were wrong, and he voted with the Republicans if he felt they were right." “He wanted to be friendly with everyone who worked for him, and had a way of putting people at ease with his wit.” Martin Luther, to his elector: “I must comfort everybody and harm nobody, if I would be a true Christian.” Often, the Exhorter fights for unity. For him, unity means that society—the single, many-faceted entity from which he has gathered his multiple ideas—should not be split by intellectual differences. Drake: “There must be an end, he said, to the discords and quarreling between two factions; and all must realize that they were engaged on the same task, and must share the burdens.” Lyndon Johnson: “A conciliator by instinct and legislative training, Johnson also seized opportunities to emphasize the community of interests shared by management and labor.” Juan Peron: “Skills at putting and holding together coalitions composed of heterogeneous elements would become a hallmark of Juan Peron’s career.” Peter the Great: “Peter spent his evenings either visiting friends or entertaining himself, and liked being surrounded by a gay [merry] crowd. He did not like anything to break up these gatherings, and would not tolerate malicious gossip, caustic remarks, or brawling.” Billy Graham: “Billy is all the more settled that his ministry should be simply an aid to the churches and never become the basis of a new denomination. ‘I am determined,’ he says, ‘to make whatever contribution I can, in and through the Church as it now exists.’ ” Cecil Rhodes: “...he was inspired by a marvelous sense of the solidarity of humanity. He lived and thought and worked and fought—aye, it may be said that he died—for the unity of all races in South Africa, and it was to be a unity based not on the mere abstract or sentimental equality of the philosopher or philanthropist, but on the higher, deeper, and broader equality of rights, dependent upon equality of responsibility.” “All his life he applied his extraordinary brain power to the interests of the British Empire. His greatest wish was the unification of the Empire. He wanted it to remain the greatest in the world for an unlimited time.”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
speaks with an intimate understanding of their problems. He was well suited for the task of consolation. The optimism of a vigorous personality that was bearing him through so many storms, must have made him a magnetic pole for distressed souls. Strong currents of devotional life flowed from him even in days when he was heaping invectives on his opponents in public prints and private letters.” Juan Peron: “I observed that [he] had the virtue of leaving his audience satisfied without promising them anything...” “Material benefits were not all that was at stake. For the first time a government was treating workers with respect instead of repression. They were beginning to feel like citizens who mattered, and they owed this psychic gratification to the colonel. Peron later referred to this stage of his career as the charismatic period.” Rasputin: “Mental discipline would never be his strong suit, any more than he would prove capable of sustaining a coherent framework of ideas. His talent lay elsewhere, in surges of intuition and healing power, and above all in his capacity to bring comfort and reassurance to others.” The populace wants the Exhorter as its leader.1 Of Martin Luther, by an opponent: “I have...everywhere found a great many adherents of Martin. The clergy’s love for the man is astonishing. They are flying to him in flocks, like jackdaws and starlings. They subscribe to his opinions, they applaud him, they bless him.” Drake: “One thing that Drake did not suffer from— and it was the usual bugbear of Naval commanders in those days—was a shortage of men. Indeed so great was his fame and reputation among sailors, that men flocked to be in a squadron under his command. It was reported in Spain that he could have manned at least 200 ships with volunteers.” Ataturk: “He was once again a bachelor with the kind of charisma that suggested the enormous virility longed for in a leader.” Horatio Nelson: “Nelson was the man to love.” Cecil Rhodes: “I do not know what the garrison would have done without him. His death at that time would have been a terrible blow to the besieged. I am sure they would have lost heart, and probably would have pressed for the surrender of the town. He did a great deal to inspire the people with confidence and to


Teacher strategy feels joy when it discovers order within diversity. Teacher analysis in the Exhorter is therefore highly gratified by this adulation—all of the various pieces in the external are finding their unity in him. Think of the pain he would suffer now if he were to switch to another mode of thought in which Teacher and Perceiver thinking worked together to generate a more permanent, internal order of understanding.

cheer them up. I remember one day, whilst driving from the Kimberly Club to the Sanitarium, where we were staying, remarking to the cabby, who was a colored man, that he appeared very cheerful, considering our precarious position. He laughed heartily, and replied, ‘No, sir, I know we are all right. The big ‘baas’ is happy, and whilst he is happy I know we have nothing to fear. I watch his face daily. We all do, and we will not worry whilst Mr. Rhodes laughs and smiles as he does at the present moment.’ This is an instance of the wonderful hold he had on the affections of the people and of the confidence they had in him.” “I felt that I could do anything for him and developed the strongest imaginable hero-worship for him.” Leader and followers coalesce finally in a mutual hypnotic bond. Juan Peron: “A prerequisite for political leadership is the formation of what he called the mass, the civilian equivalent of the general’s army, a citizenry not merely willing but ready and able to be led.” “No one who ever watched Peron perform in front of a mass audience could miss the symbiotic relationship between them.” “Juan Peron was a distinctly Argentine phenomenon, incomprehensible except in the context from which he emerged. Most misperceptions of him stem from a failure to grasp this truth. Indeed, the relationships between the man and his country often seemed symbiotic. It may not be far from the mark to suggest that Peron was Argentina and Argentina was Peron.” Bob Hope: “ ’The servicemen feel so abandoned,’ he said, ‘they’re so hungry, so desperate for a touch of home, a familiar face, that when they see Bob, a roar goes up, a surge of humanity moves forward, a mass of men cry out in love and friendship. There is something hysterical, religious, fanatical, and overwhelming about their fervor. It happens at every outpost, every camp, every station. And it inspires Bob and the troupe to perform almost beyond endurance. The trips are hell, but every year the same crew of technicians volunteer. They come back battered and beaten, but strangely uplifted. Bob, as you know, is not a religious man. But there is a spiritual, missionary quality to these Christmas trips which is strangely contagious. It has gotten to all the members of his family, and everyone who’s worked with him, which is why we have so many repeaters.’ ” Ataturk: “Indeed, when he arrived in [Istanbul] for the first time in eight years on 1 July 1927, it looked as though the city were being hit by a typhoon. The crowds pressed forward wave after wave to greet their hero. Istanbul had never seen anything like it. One of the city’s newspapers made an effort to calm the hysteria by arguing that Mustafa Kemal was not after all an immortal. The writer was, however, conveying his own ambivalence about the matter. ‘The Ghazi is a person like other persons. He is not a prophet or a superman, but the appear-


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
‘No’ in his own way to every demand for redress, and yet of sending everyone present home pleased with himself.” Rasputin: “He had the rare capacity to love and leave women without making them feel rejected.” The Exhorter leader is swept to success by the popular support of the people. Lord Fisher: “Later on, Fisher would never have secured the reforms he wanted had he not obtained the support of the Press and Parliament.” De Lesseps: “But the enterprises of Ferdinand de Lesseps, as Charles had told him, were not like others. In the last analysis they were sustained not by the cool assessment of technicians, nor by the common sense of shareholders, but by the emotional response to Lesseps himself.” Nothing happens unless he, the Exhorter, approves it—and he approves what is desired by the people. What a lovely, magical world! Billy Mitchell: “I am practically the only one that can bring about a betterment of our national defense at this time.” De Lesseps, famous after his success with the Suez Canal: “Hardly a project of any kind was considered practicable unless Ferdinand de Lesseps had at least cast his eye over it; or its sponsor had been received and encouraged by him. He was a kind of arbiter for all new schemes.” Sukarno: “By 1960 the structure of guided democracy [meaning no limits on himself] was completed and Sukarno after a long and tortuous journey which began in the 1920s had finally achieved his ambition and, as he strongly believed, his destiny, of becoming the great leader of the people: the pivot around which the whole of Indonesian life revolved.” The Exhorter himself now begins to concentrate on maintaining this position. Bing Crosby: “He was a man who, owing to his superb, God-given talent, never had to struggle (connive, yes, but not struggle) to reach the top of his profession.” Lyndon Johnson: “Lyndon used to talk a great deal about his father and the underdog. He doesn’t talk that way any more. He doesn’t seem to care for anything any more except power.” Juan Peron: “He did not follow any ideology, but instead set a strategy that had as its aim the capture of political power.” “The pursuit of power seemed to spur him to greater heights than its exercise.” The Exhorter becomes absolute leader, yet he is not a dictator—he embodies the desires of those around him, and is anxious to retain their approval. Juan Peron: “It is true that he would often close his eyes to brutalities committed by others in his name, and that from time to time he would indulge in inflammatory rhetoric. But he never had the slightest inclination to make violent action

ance of such a person occurs very seldom in history. Such perform miracles.’ The Turkish people had found a new god to believe in. The charismatic, narcissistic leader and his followers had coalesced.” Lyndon Johnson: “He spoke of my Supreme Court, the State of my Union Address.” Martin Luther: “He once said, ‘I was born for my Germans and them I serve.’ ” Sukarno: “Undoubtedly Sukarno was a great orator. I saw him at his best, which was before he became President of the Republic of Indonesia, bewitching whole gatherings with his speeches...In front of the common people he was in his element.” “Sukarno obviously did not fancy becoming the tool of a military junta. He wanted power handed to him on a platter by popular acclamation.” “We had a short debate on the question of Marxism which I believed was incongruous with the religious Indonesian people. His only answer, which I still clearly remember, was that he knew that whatever he believed in, the people would believe in too. His vanity had already taken on such proportions, even then! He said, ‘Bung Abu, do you believe me that in an election where I will put my ideas at stake, that I will win the majority of the people to my side. I don’t need a party at all. The people, whatever party they belong to, will follow me, because I am Sukarno, their real leader.’ ” “He delighted and awed his people with his charismatic speaking talents and linguistic virtuosity; with the brazen way in which he took the great nations of the world to task, his tightrope acts in international politics and with his amatory exploits. Sukarno the great actor, the great poseur, acted out with gusto the roles of great sufferer, clown, hero, and high priest of the Indonesian revolution to the sound of loud applause.” Rasputin: “...when repentant women confessed their sins to him, he took the whole burden of their guilt upon himself. Then in order to test the fullness of their repentance he would invite them to take baths with him and wash him.” “[These women] combed his hair and beard, and were even known to trim his fingernails and toenails, devoutly preserving the parings.” Every aspect of society sees in the Exhorter what it wants to see. Juan Peron: “Peron had incredible success in his use of a political mirror. As one witness described it, ‘People visiting Puerta de Hierro would often stop by my apartment afterward. Many of them had diametrically opposing views, but every one of them would tell me how Peron agreed with them. It was very confusing to my wife.’ ” Cecil Rhodes: “Mr. Rhodes was an exceptional judge of human nature, and had the faculty of facing the most hostile deputations and turbulent meetings and saying

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
a centerpiece of his political philosophy in the manner of Mussolini or Hitler.” Cecil Rhodes: “Rhodes seized the psychological moment, and said words to the following effect:—’I have been painted very black, and have been represented to you as the embodiment of everything that is bad. The worst acts and the most evil designs have been imputed to me; but, gentlemen, I can assure you, although I have my faults, I am incapable of such things.’ He spoke these words with a gravity and solemnity which left an extraordinary impression on every member of his audience.” F. D. Roosevelt: “This quality of his being one with the people, of having no artificial or natural barriers between him and them, made it possible for him to be a leader without ever being or thinking of being a dictator.” Churchill: “He didn’t seem to care too much what people said of him so long as they kept on using him.” The Exhorter uses the divisions in society to further his purposes—he plays with them and adjusts them. F. D. Roosevelt: “In contrast with later periods, Roosevelt’s main job in 1933 and 1934 was not to prod Congress into action, but to ride the congressional whirlwind by disarming the extremists, by seeking unity among the blocs, and by using every presidential weapon of persuasion and power.” “His method through most of his career was to keep open alternative lines of action, to shift from one line to another as conditions demanded, to protect his route to the rear in case he wanted to make a sudden retreat—to hide his real intentions.” “To sum up Roosevelt’s role in the war, I would say that he was the catalytic agent through whose efforts chaotic forces were brought to a point where they could be harnessed creatively. He was a creative and energizing agent rather than a careful, direct-line administrator.” Juan Peron: “The constituent elements of the Peronist movement were constantly competing with one another, encouraged to do so by Peron, who carefully imposed a sense of insecurity upon them as a control mechanism.” Peter the Great: “...the procedure Peter adopted in order to reorganize society and the administration. He accepted the existing systems without trying to put them on any new principles; he merely adjusted and combined the various systems in a different way. He abolished nothing, but modified the laws to make them conform with the new requirements of state. The new combinations may have given the new order an original aspect, but for all that it was based on old forms.” It is hard to distinguish between what is done for society and what is done for the Exhorter himself. Hyman Rickover: “[Mack] had seen Rickover in action before Congress and had been impressed. ‘He gave them attention, but not flattery,’ Mack recalled. ‘He never did anything improper, and he did not lie. But sometimes it was


hard to differentiate between what he had done for the Navy and what he had done for Rickover.’ ” F. D. Roosevelt: “Before the war, he was captive to his habit of mediating among pressures rather than reshaping them, of responding eclectically to all the people around him, of balancing warring groups and leaders against one another, of improvising with brilliance and gusto. Impatient of theory, insatiably curious about people and their ideas, sensitively attuned to the play of forces around him, he lacked that burning and almost fanatic conviction that great leadership demands.” “ ’Nothing is more dangerous in wartime,’ Churchill said (possibly referring to Roosevelt), ‘than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallop poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature...There is only one duty, only one safe course, and that is to try to be right and not to fear to do or say what you believe to be right.’ ” A new division forms in society, based on reaction to the Exhorter leader. Juan Peron: “He has marked Argentina as no one else has, forcing his fellow citizens to define themselves according to their attitudes toward him while remaining ever enigmatic and constantly defying convention.” “...Argentine society, ever prone to divisiveness, would find for itself a new dichotomy, defined by one’s attitude toward Juan Domingo Peron.” “Some called him a saint, other believed him to be the devil incarnate. He viewed himself as transcending good and evil.” De Lesseps: “He was so clever at propaganda that he came close, in that context, to being a knave; but whatever he undertook was in the service of his vision, and there can be no doubt that it shone out of him for those with eyes to see. Nothing else can explain his capacity for inspiring personal devotion, not only in good times but the more so in bad; not only among his own class and kind, but among polyglot workers on the isthmus and the gamut of Europeans of every persuasion. The same quality goes some way to explain the unreasoning hatred which he inspired in some people, who reacted to the same quality in the opposite way.” Hyman Rickover: “The duel between Rickover and Roth [who crossed him unintentionally] foreshadowed the emergence of ‘two navies.’ While Roth was at Portsmouth, for example, any of his ideas or observations about nuclear submarines could not be transmitted from one navy to the other, because of the barrier between him and Rickover. In the Navy’s first nuclear decade, such barriers divided individuals. In the next decade the barriers would divide the US Navy.” F. D. Roosevelt, during his first campaign for reelection: “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
with the President...He has found it increasingly hard to bear the sense of alienation from some in the extreme liberal wing...This situation has borne very heavily, almost crushingly, upon him.” Sukarno: “Psychologically he started to go rapidly downhill. He became listless and moody; his depressions became worse and he began to suffer from severe attacks of malaria which also weakened him physically.” Cecil Rhodes: “His whole soul was rapt in his work; in fact, he had no time to be ill, and therefore sickness could not get a hold on him.” Not only does the Exhorter’s own body respond to his state of mind, but he appears able also to bring healing to the bodies of others. Lord Fisher was attracted to the sick: “He was particularly sympathetic in an unostentatious way with people in distress, especially when they were ill.” Juan Peron, similarly: “...he did have a peculiar attitude toward doctors and medicine. Peron always fancied himself an expert in the healing arts. He insisted again and again that if he had not entered military service, he would have followed in the footsteps of his physiciangrandfather.” Sukarno: “His grandparents—at least so Sukarno tells us—believed he had supernatural powers and he was made to lick the bodies of sick villagers who, to his own amazement, were often cured quickly.” Rasputin: “There are remarkable instances of his working successful cures.” When the tsarina’s best friend was injured and given up for dead, Rasputin healed her: “ ’She’ll recover but will always be a cripple.’ Rasputin proceeded to stagger into the next room, where he fainted. When he came round he felt very weak and had broken out into a heavy sweat.” Another individual described his experience: “[He was sick and] lay on a bed and Rasputin bent over him: ‘I felt a power enter into me sending a warm current through my body. At the same time I was overcome by a general lethargy; my body grew stiff. I tried to talk but my tongue no longer obeyed me and I gradually passed into a kind of sleep, as if I had been given a powerful narcotic. I would only see Rasputin’s eyes shining before me, sending forth two phosphorescent rays which melted into a great luminous circle that drew closer and then fell back again... ‘ ” Drake used this energy on himself: “ soon proved that Drake’s wound was not serious, and his immense vitality and courage soon had him on his feet again.”

They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” Hypnotic identification is hard to oppose; unity in the opposition may in fact depend upon the Exhorter continuing in power. Juan Peron, going temporarily into exile: “Peron told a Peruvian journalist that the Lonardi government would endure for only eighteen months. His prediction was far off the mark. The anti-Peronist opposition had long been able to use hatred of a common enemy to paper over deep divisions. With the man who united them now thousands of kilometers away [in Panama], the coalition burst its main seam much sooner than [Peron] reckoned.”

We have looked at the Exhorter’s eyes and their hypnotic power; there are hints that in other areas as well his abilities can extend into the paranormal. Some books, for instance, speak of telepathy. Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal said, ‘I knew my mother had died,’ and he related a telepathic dream he had had during the night. He and his mother were walking in green fields, when a sudden torrent swept his mother away.” Rasputin: “He had a strange apprehension of the future of the dynasty and the old regime that went beyond ordinary intuition.” The Exhorter’s body—the ‘container’ for this person of great energy—appears to react to his state of mind. In particular, energy and enthusiasm on his part appear to ward off illness. Horatio Nelson: “...when bored or disappointed, Nelson’s mental depression often reflected itself in his physical health.” “...plunged into gloom and plagued by ailments if he was kept out of things...” “His digestion was poor, he complained of pains in his chest, he was often convinced that he suffered from some heart complaint, he could not bear cold weather. It is possible to argue, even from his own words, that perhaps he was something of a hypochondriac, and that some of his ills were induced by mental strife, for certainly his aches and pains did seem to disappear miraculously or be forgotten when a decision had been made, or he had committed himself to action.” “...Lord Nelson, who foresaw every bad consequence from the inactive mode of proceeding owed his bad health more to chagrin than to any other cause.” Lyndon Johnson: “Wirtz was aware that Johnson’s body reacted to the state of his mind. When he was depressed, his sinuses bothered him more than usual; when he was nervous, a skin rash appeared.” Friends blamed his heart attack on criticism: “A sensitive and delicate man...He had been deeply hurt, compounded both of exasperation and sorrow, at the criticisms made so often of him by the advanced liberal Democrats, who have accused him of undue cooperation

The Exhorter, we saw, has an under-developed subconscious Perceiver strategy. Of course, Perceiver thought is not empty—in the absence of dependable ‘axioms’ it fills itself with rationalized or copied Mercy experiences.

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
It then uses Perceiver thought to process those experiences—society is divided by the Exhorter person therefore into ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ friends or enemies. Lyndon Johnson: “Shortly after he took office, heads of foreign governments realized that Johnson was evaluating them entirely in terms of their country’s power and the degree to which they supported his policy in Southeast Asia.” Sukarno: “...he rejected the generally accepted division of the world into a Capitalist, Non-aligned, and Communist bloc and instead superimposed on the international world scene the bipolar division between the Old Established and New Emerging Forces.” “According to sources close to the President at the time, he began to show definite signs of megalomania; the various assassination attempts had left their mark and stories fed to him by some of the Palace clique and the Communists about supposed rightist plots helped to create in his mind the idea that the world was against him.” Hyman Rickover: “He was a man who knew his priorities, who knew what his country needed, who knew his enemies—and her enemies.” Of Ataturk, by a psychologist who attempted to analyze his behavior: “Persons with a narcissistic personality organization lack the capacity for grief as we know it. They are incapable of having appropriate feelings of sadness and regret, for in their attempt to maintain their grandiose selves they keep up the illusion that they have no need of the representation (preserved memory) of the person lost through death.” “The narcissistic person, like Mustafa Kemal, typically exhibits this sort of reaction: assessing his valued objects, he repairs them when necessary in order to make them idealized extensions of himself (so they can minister to his needs). If he senses that they are separated from him, he can still use them as adorers. In addition, he transfers devalued aspects of his own self to a target of which he is always aware about which he develops a tendency toward paranoid ideation.” “Mustafa Kemal’s psychological need to split apart his followers, adorers, and enemies and to influence the immediate environment to fit his psychological makeup did indeed effect a split in the real world.” The Exhorter loves crisis—he is most contented when he can fight against ‘them.’ Churchill: “He was happiest when he had something to fight.” F. D. Roosevelt: “He enjoyed fighting as governor of New York: ‘I am in one continuous glorious fight with the Republican legislative leaders,’ he wrote a friend.” Because conflict is rooted in subconscious Perceiver strategy, divisions in the external for the Exhorter define ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ Rasputin: “His attitude to his enemies was identical to that of his most fervent supporters...It was a simple matter of the confrontation of good and evil...”


The Exhorter identifies emotionally with all of the segments of his society—he thus resonates with both ‘us’ and ‘good,’ and with ‘them’ and ‘bad.’ Billy Mitchell: “His sister Ruth, who was very close to him, remembered that Willie was so moved when he spoke the words ‘America’ or ‘the United States’ [identifying with ‘good’] that his voice changed, became hesitant, with ‘a shy...painful warmth.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “ ’Life,’ he once said, ‘is a constant fight against stupidity’; and in his wearing down [identifying with ‘evil’] of those who opposed him, in his fight against stupidity, there would be one particular target: the admirals.” The Exhorter’s fight against the enemy is thus an externalization of his own internal personal war against ‘evil’—he will get rid of the ‘evil’ within, he feels, only as he eliminates it in the outside world. Drake: “From the moment that he had, as it were, declared a ‘personal war’ against Philip II, he consciously set himself against the largest empire that the world had ever known. He inflicted more damage upon it than whole nations or large armies ever managed to do.” “Drake had seen with his own eyes the massacre of his friends and countrymen. He saw that a Spaniard’s word meant less than the air which voiced it, or the paper upon which it was written. Whatever his father may earlier have taught him about that Antichrist who supposedly dwelled in Rome—but whose principal servant was the king of Spain—it would seem that from now on Drake equated Spain with the Devil. His hatred was implacable, and he was a man who under no circumstance was prepared to forgive an injury. His outlook was Old Testament, not Christian: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!’ ” Martin Luther: “Theological ideas always took a concrete personality in his mind; again and again in his life he strove with theological error in corporeal form as with the Archfiend himself. This rage flamed all the hotter when he heard what he believed to be error defended by the mouth of an opponent or read the written and printed attacks of living men on positions which he held as sacred.” Churchill: “You ask what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air—war with all our might and all the strength God has given us—and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogues of human crime. That is our policy.” Horatio Nelson: “Nelson was on one occasion to adjure one of his young midshipmen to ‘hate a Frenchman as you do the devil...’ ” Expansion of ‘us’ and reduction of ‘them,’ in the external, brings salvation not only internally to the Exhorter, but also externally to the world with which he is mutually


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Removal of someone from ‘us’ to ‘them,’ in the external, in contrast is linked to that person’s internal damnation. Drake: “He had the Chaplain brought forward and padlocked by the leg to one of the hatches, then he summoned the whole ship’s company and passed judgment in the following resounding terms: ‘Francis Fletcher, I do here excommunicate thee out of the Church of God and from all the benefits and graces thereof, and I denounce thee to the Devil and all his angels.’ ” The more the Exhorter is opposed by ‘them,’ the more likely it is, he feels, that he is a force for ‘good.’ Hyman Rickover: “He never would abandon the anticontractor attitude that he acquired in the Electrical Section, an attitude that always would be reciprocated. ‘All industry disliked him,’ Whitney remembered. ‘He loved to make enemies.’ ” “Rickover has many enemies...” Martin Luther: “Who knows whether God has called and awakened me for this? Let them fear Him and beware lest they despise God in me...I do not say I am a prophet, but I do say they have all the greater reason to fear I am one, the more they despise me and esteem themselves.” “If I am not a prophet I am at any rate sure the word of God is with me and not with them, for I always have the Bible on my side, they only their own doctrine. It is on this account I have the courage to fear them so little, much as they despise and persecute me.” The more the Exhorter opposes external ‘evil,’ the more likely it is that people will see this ‘evil’ for what it is. Lyndon Johnson: “At one time he made a proposition to reporters: ‘You-all know a good bit about the Republicans in Congress,’ he declared, ‘and there must be at least a few of them that you think deserve to be defeated. Give me some names and either Hubert or I will try to get into their districts in the next few days and talk against them.’ ” Hyman Rickover: “Wherever the Navy was on any issue, Rickover almost inevitably was 180 degrees away. He never publicly stated that he did this deliberately; nor is he known to have remarked privately that he had opposed merely for the sake of opposing. But an analysis of his actions—and, particularly, of his Congressional testimony—leads inescapably to the conclusion that Rickover’s strategy was based almost entirely on his need to convince the money-dispensers in Congress that he was on their side—against the ‘bureaucracy’—regardless of the issue.” Martin Luther: “It was evidently his deliberate intention to give the German people courage to break with Rome by pouring scorn and contempt upon the papacy.” Here also, in this ‘spiritual warfare,’ the Exhorter is optimistic—’good,’ in the external world of experience, will eventually win over ‘evil.’ De Lesseps: “He expected to meet friends rather than enemies, yet was always

hypnotically bonded.1 Juan Peron, attacking the church: “Peron presented his view of the philosophical aspect of the dispute. He asserted that the state had a legitimate interest in the spiritual well-being of its citizens. ‘The souls of individuals taken together constitute the common soul of our people,’ he intoned.” Hyman Rickover: “Through a political chemistry that is very hard to document but can be strongly sensed, many Congressmen came to think that they had helped Rickover build the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine. They felt they had been part of the process that gave not just money but encouragement—and perhaps even guidance—to a man who would be out of the Navy if it had not been for them. Congress admired Rickover’s image, his style, his apparent honesty, and especially his assaults against what vaguely was ‘the system.’ ” De Lesseps, aiming to improve the lot of Egyptians as a byproduct of the canal: “This vision of a renascent land of Goshen was a potent factor in his imagination. He saw it as something almost as important as the canal itself, a spiritual symbol which would confer material benefits upon humanity.” “Ferdinand discovered Lepere’s paper on the Canal des Deux Mers, a long memorandum prepared for Napoleon...It fired Ferdinand’s imagination, burning deep. He saw the canal not in terms of politics or commerce, still less as personal gain. His was a spiritual concept, a dedication, an immortality. Remembering his father and looking at those around him, he had need of such a concept, in the same way that through the kindling of faith the soul may become aware of ‘salvation’ as experience rather than mere belief.” Lord Fisher: “If you are a gunnery man, you must believe and teach that the world must be saved by gunnery, and will only be saved by gunnery. If you are a torpedo man, you must lecture and teach the same thing about torpedoes. But be in earnest, terribly in earnest. The man who doubts, or who is half-hearted, never does anything for himself or his country. You are missionaries; show the earnestness—if need be, the fanaticism of missionaries.” Billy Mitchell, promoting American air power: “He seemed to have a message for the American people, and was practicing it with the fervor of an evangelist.” Martin Luther: “Before long he was the most powerful influence for righteousness in town and university, as he continued to be to the end of his life.”


‘Them’ can be eliminated either by making it an aspect of a multi-faceted mosaic of ‘us,’ or else by ignoring it and pretending that it does not exist. We will see that the Exhorter uses both methods. The mental progression in the latter case is as follows: Mercy thought ‘closes up’ to ‘them’; Exhorter thought then ‘ignores’ and ‘disappears’; Contributor analysis ultimately ‘attacks and destroys.’

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
sword in hand, ready to defend a personal faith: that men are fundamentally good, that good prevails over evil, that therefore war at last will yield to peace.” “...a particular phrase which I had often heard him use: ‘The one thing which is certain is that good prevails over evil.’ ” Lord Fisher: “He had a firm belief in Divine intervention in the affairs of this life; if he had doubts about justice in this world, he had none about matters being evened out in the next: ‘The Lord God of recompense will surely requite’ was the thought with which he was wont to comfort himself, drawing from it almost Davidian consolation.”


Exhorters as they appear in history are generally leaders of large social groupings. They identify hypnotically with their group; they define it as ‘us,’ and they maintain an attitude of confrontation towards outsiders. The resulting conflict creates an emotional focus which ensures that outsiders are also a part of their system. Of course, no Exhorter is born as the leader of a group; to begin with, he must identify with someone else’s group—his character as the ‘upwards snob’ in fact pushes him in this direction. Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson was a most unusual Congressional clerk, for he asked ‘endlessly varied’ questions that were focused on a single point: ‘Who has the power and how is it exercised?’ ” “As Chairman of the Texas Advisory Board of the NYA, Wirtz soon found himself in frequent meetings with young Johnson to discuss plans and projects. Before long he was flattered to discover that Johnson had adopted him as a ‘political daddy,’ to promote Johnson’s future, just as the young man had adopted Wright Patman, Sam Rayburn, and Maury Maverick as his Washington daddies.” Ataturk: “Until Gallipoli Mustafa Kemal’s psychological makeup had often led him to seek out people he could idealize, those who, in turn, would admire him so greatly that the cohesiveness of his inflated self-concept could remain intact. People not inclined to offer him instant acclaim found themselves faced with an extremely irritated man. Prior to being swept into military exploits at the age of thirty-four, he had consistently beaten on any door in the hope that its opening would provide the adulation he so desperately needed and sought. The following he had succeeded in attracting was limited mostly to women. In return for their compliance with his need for their admiration, he endowed them with impossible virtues.” “One wonders why Mustafa Kemal once more sought out Mehmed VI in view of his intellectual awareness of the sultan’s inability to be effective. Mehmed VI was the only sultan the Ottomans had, and, as is the case of a child, there is only one father, good or bad. Apparently,

Mustafa Kemal was trying to ‘create’ in him strength enough to lead his defeated nation, to protect the democratic parliament and, perhaps above all else, to offer Mustafa Kemal himself the opportunity to repair the nation.” For the Exhorter, membership in someone else’s group is a stage up the ladder. Lyndon Johnson: “While almost all other members of Congress were content to gain power through the usual process of committee seniority, Lyndon Johnson was too impatient to wait the years required. Instead, he based his quicker reach for power on the device of the ‘political Daddy,’ that he perfected.” Juan Peron: “He knew how to choose. He knew precisely where and with whom to position himself [so as to gain personal advantage].” Sukarno, meeting those who had suffered resisting the Japanese during the war: “...that day during the meeting of Sukarno [safe in exile] and General Sudirman [in charge of the resistance], the love and sympathy of the people were more on the side of General Sudirman, but Sukarno nearly stole the show by his seeming gesture of affection and the touching emotion he displayed. At that moment, he identified himself with the heroic figure of the General...I must admit that Sukarno was indeed a man who could adjust himself to all kinds of situations, and come out a winner.” As soon as the Exhorter can, though, he will form his own ‘in-group.’ The basic qualification for membership in this ‘group’ is not necessarily skill, but that an individual fully and unequivocally become part of the Exhorter’s ‘us.’ Billy Graham: “He was just a tall jaunty young man with a loose careless way about him, and he always had a large group of fellows around him, everywhere he went.” Lyndon Johnson: “He soon was part of a gang centered on himself. Lyndon gravitated toward boys who were loud, brash, and aggressive like himself.” Sukarno: “When Sukarno wanted to play football everybody had to play and when he started a stamp collection it became the rage of the village.” Ataturk: “When under stress in the past, he had looked to others, in real life as well as in fantasy, to restore his grandiose image of himself. Now his grandiose self was newly made cohesive. There was no superior being from whom glory could be expected—he must look for it in himself. He was, in fact, to become a savior, and his destiny as such would bring into complete congruence his own concept of himself and the perception others would have of him.” “We know that as an adult Ataturk took the center of any stage and regarded his followers as extensions of himself, and it would appear that he had this proclivity even as a youngster.” “Arif had become familiar with the contours of every hill and valley over which they fought, and the location


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Churchill: “Mr. Churchill always, and at once, knew when he was in the presence of an expert. The few times he was taken in, he was caught in errors of his own, never in a misjudgment of the skills of others.” Lord Fisher: “Fisher did not hesitate to call together a Committee of Captains and Commanders, but mainly of Commanders, to advise him! This caused considerable heart-burnings, and some of the Captains who were not on the Committee felt themselves aggrieved; for it was brought home to them, for the first time, that the brains which were to be useful to the Commander-in-Chief were not of necessity to be found in the heads of the most senior of the officers.” Members of the Exhorter’s group may be told that they can use him as a stage in their own advancement— after all, this is what he did at the beginning. Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal talked openly of his views as he drank. Meeting with his friends and drinking with them, he continued to tell them what he would do if he were in power and to what offices he would assign them. They asked him what position he had reserved for himself, the job of sultan? He replied that he would be greater than the sultan.” Advancement of members, however, is generally far from the Exhorter’s mind; he desires rather the adoration of those who are close to him. Ataturk: “In his fantasies he was the reigning figure. He was the hero of adventures to come and a savior of the troubled country. In reality, he gathered others around him who appeared to be his admirers and to be his extensions.” “Fikriye made Mustafa Kemal the object of her hero worship. Her chief aim in life was to please him. When she took over the work of keeping the little station building clean and its occupants fed and cleanly dressed, he was pleased to find someone who adored him uncritically.” “Mustafa Kemal was more comfortable with Ismet and felt he could control him more effectively.” Rasputin: “ there are millions of wasps who believe that in matters of the soul we must all be trusted friends, a small group perhaps but of one mind while they are many but scattered and their rage shall have no power but the spirit of truth is with us...” Bob Hope: “Hope was bitterly disappointed (at one pan by the critics). Hershfield, however, recognized Hope’s talent and sympathetically tried to bolster his wounded feelings.” Juan Peron: “Fully aware of the mediocrity of those with whom he chose to surround himself, he nonetheless permitted them to deify him with mindless adulation.” The ‘in-group’ becomes a ‘band of brothers’ with the Exhorter at the center. At least, that’s how it appears to others—we’ll see later that the reality can be a little different. Drake: “...the enterprise upon which they were bound called for the same kind of unity that had be-

of each waterhole. This made him invaluable to Mustafa Kemal, but his prime service to the commander in chief was again being his ‘twin brother’ Mustafa Kemal the psychological reassurance he always needed. He used Arif to retain his grandiose cohesiveness by seeing his reflection in his ‘twin’ and by projecting onto him his unwanted impulses.” “He treated Arif as though he were a twin brother, pouring out to him his hopes and fears with very little restraint. Each man kept a revolver on his person at all times, and one would guard the other as he slept. Arif was a combination of friend and bodyguard.” “Corinne’s assessment of him was prophetic and brimming with praise. At one of her soirees attended by Mustafa Kemal, she was at the piano when he happened to leave the room. To the surprise of the gathering, she stopped playing and turned to her guests, asking them if they recognized the man who had just left. ‘He is Mustafa Kemal,’ she announced, ‘He will become a great man, and one renowned not only in Turkey, but throughout the world.’ Such awed devotion, which he had seen in the eyes of Hildegard and Miti upon his recent visit to Sofia, could not satisfy his hunger for general acclaim.” Bob Hope: “Wherever he goes, the whole board of directors ambles right along with him. They not only do all the things that the directors of any company normally do, but in addition they have been trained to laugh in the right places. ‘Oh, that Hope! He kills us,’ the directors say in chorus, laughing fit to kill and slapping their thighs. ‘That’s our boy over there making funnies. Yes, it is! That’s our boy!’ In public, Hope looks like a parade. Even when he goes to the gentleman’s retiring room he looks like a platoon. He is constantly surrounded with busy, worried and preoccupied people, with briefcases, papers and knitted brows.” Rasputin: “A coarse, down-to-earth, and fun-loving man, a heavy drinker to boot, [Komissarov, his new bodyguard] delighted Rasputin from the start. When first introduced to him, Rasputin put up an elaborate smokescreen of unctuousness and pious talk. Komissarov listened for only a few minutes before blowing it away once and for all, interrupting the holy man brutally by saying: ‘Stop the holiness, talk sense and have a drink.’ ” The Exhorter knows how to surround himself with excellent people; they are not always the most senior in rank. Bob Hope: “He needed the best new writers he could find, and ferreted out a group of gag writers that soon were to be known as Hope’s Army...” “Hope found himself leaning on his new friends for support, and they and Cooley formed the nucleus of an ‘in’ group that would remain intimate with Hope for forty years.” Billy Mitchell: “Mitchell surrounded himself with a group of veterans...”

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
longed to Drake’s ‘band of brothers’ in the old days off the Spanish Main.” Hyman Rickover: “While he was complaining to Congress about the way the U. S. Navy interfered in the work of his small, dedicated band of brothers...” Horatio Nelson, of his victory at the Nile: “Nelson summed up what had been the second essential of his success, ‘I had the happiness to command a Band of Brothers.’ ” “In the great cabin of Elephant there was now assembled something akin to the first band of brothers.” “As well as explaining his tactics, Nelson was also engaged in something just as important, the creation of a new band of brothers.” Bob Hope: “His platoon of writers, who spent more time with him than his family...” Juan Peron, in exile: “A new inner circle began to take shape around him...” Rasputin: “He was content to be the center of a tight circle of devout disciples.” Ataturk: “Mustafa Kemal was at the center of everything that evening.” The Exhorter needs the members of his ‘in-group,’ he cannot stand being by himself; there can be strong hypnotic identification. It’s of course because he prefers an auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling, and this can be maintained, in a state that is comfortable for him, only if the outside environment is controlled. Juan Peron: “The relationship between Juan and Eva Peron formed the bedrock upon which rested the latter’s reputation as the most powerful woman in the contemporary world. The president trusted her. He regarded human nature with great cynicism and felt a particular unease toward any Peronist with leadership capabilities. But Evita was in a category of her own. Her influence derived totally from him, to such an extent that she could never threaten his authority nor compete with him. He may have been oversimplifying when he stated that ‘Eva Peron is a product of mine,’ but it was this attitude that permitted him to view with equanimity the political heights to which she scaled.” Ataturk, of those whom he did not choose: “They failed to recognize what Mustafa Kemal knew, albeit unconsciously, that, by placing Ismet ahead of them, he acknowledged the congeniality of Ismet’s personality and affirmed his doubts that any of the other three could function unthreateningly as an extension of himself.” Bob Hope: “Actually, those same writers expected to be awakened in the middle of the night by Hope, they sweated for him, they got ulcers for him, they waited for Christmas presents from him, they idolized him.” Johnson, by Moyer: “Johnson looked on everyone as an extension, a possibility of himself. I even wondered often myself—was I his young protégé, did he look on me as sort of his son, a version of his own youth again, or was I just another pair of hands and feet to him?”


Bing Crosby: “He had the talent and desire, but someone else would have to furnish the initiative and persistence, for these qualities were alien to his nature. He required someone to chart a well-defined course for him and to accompany him every step of the way, prodding, pushing, sometimes dragging him despite himself. Someone had to share the blame or criticism with him, had to take the fall with him if he didn’t succeed. Bing wouldn’t accept responsibility for his own failures.” Of Vince Lombardi, by Max, the club clown: “I could tell when Vince really didn’t want to be mean, when he wanted a way out of a situation. I gave him the way out.” Drake: “Drake was always loved by the men that served with him; he was brave without any shadow of doubt, and brilliant in his capacity as sailor; but it would be hard to maintain that he was invariably ‘honest.’ ” There is of course also the possibility for true friendship. Cecil Rhodes: “Sir Charles Metcalfe was his best and most intimate friend. Theirs was indeed a friendship in the true sense of the word: a mutual respect and affection awakened whilst they were fellow-students at Oxford, which deepened as the years went on, and lasted until his death in his forty-ninth year. Sir Charles probably knew his friend better than anybody. He had made a thorough study of his character, could tell almost to a nicety what would please or displease him, how he would act under certain circumstances, and what his views were on almost any subject, because Rhodes had absolute confidence in him and freely opened his mind to him.” Brunel: “Amid the troubles and disappointments which beset him during 1832 it was delightful of an evening to be able to put them aside for a while and to relax in such congenial surroundings and among such charming companions.” Martin Luther: “His chief relaxation he always found in social intercourse. Particularly when depressed, as he often was, he sought comfort and relief in the society of his friends, and was continually prescribing the same remedy for like depression in others.” Vince Lombardi: “Individually, I don’t think we were a match for several other teams, but, combined, we beat them.” Lord Fisher, conceiving the idea of a battleship with a group of smaller ships supporting it—a metaphor of the Exhorter and his loyal supporters: “[At Admiralty House] the idea first saw light that a ship was no longer a selfcontained unit, completely equipped in itself for both attack and defense; but that the unit had become a cluster of vessels, comprising the battleship for offense with her guns, together with small craft accompanying her, both for attack with torpedoes and for defense of the ship from the torpedoes of the enemy.” At times, there can be a ‘group’ of experts, along with a separate ‘in-group’ of subordinates—these are the ‘guys’


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Vince Lombardi, similarly: “He doesn’t believe in socializing with people who work for him, and I can see why. We spend so much time together, he must get sick of us.” Churchill in contrast worked with similar people, but altered their role in response to the context: “He is wonderful company right after a speech [as people around him are co-opted into an ‘in-group’ of cronies] (he’s hell when he’s on the way) [they now are part of an ‘in-group’ of experts].” The Exhorter’s actions can depend upon which ‘ingroup’ is currently active. Of Horatio Nelson, by the Duke of Wellington: “Lord Nelson was, in different circumstances, two quite different men. I only saw him once in my life and for, perhaps, an hour. It was soon after I returned from India. I went to the Colonial Office in Downing Street, and there I was shown the little waiting room on the right hand, where I found, also waiting to see the Secretary of State, a gentleman whom from his likeness to his pictures and the loss of an arm I immediately recognized as Lord Nelson. He could not know who I was, but he entered at once into conversation with me, if I can call it conversation, for it was almost all on his side, and in, really a style so vain and silly as to surprise and almost disgust me.” “I suppose that something I happened to say may have made him guess that I was somebody, and he went out of the room for a moment, I have no doubt to ask the office-keeper who I was; for when he came back he was altogether a different man, both in manner and in matter. All that I had thought a charlatan style had vanished, and he talked of the state of the country, and of the aspect and probabilities of affairs on the Continent with a good sense, and a knowledge of subjects both at home and abroad that surprised me equally, and more agreeably, than the first part of our interview had done. In fact he talked like an officer and a statesman.” “The Secretary of State kept us long waiting, and certainly for the last half or three quarters of an hour I don’t know that I ever had a conversation that interested me more. Now, if the Secretary of State had been punctual, and admitted Lord Nelson in the first quarter of an hour, I should have had the same impression of a light and trivial character that other people had. But luckily I saw enough to be satisfied that he was really a very superior man. Certainly, a more sudden and complete a metamorphosis I never saw.” Lyndon Johnson: “Like Johnson, Baker divided senators into ‘Whales’ and ‘Minnows,’ and he treated each group accordingly.”

with whom the Exhorter can relax.1 Ataturk: “A closer look at the way in which Mustafa Kemal’s splitting mechanism was reflected in party politics suggests the existence of an even further split — the division of his ‘good’ followers into two groups. One group was composed of Ismet and others who seriously addressed themselves to state affairs and with whom Mustafa Kemal behaved as a shrewd revolutionary politician bent on transforming the Turkish nation in accordance with the highest principles. The other group was made up of uncritical personal friends (many of whom he had known in Salonika), cronies with whom he could find easy gratification, act out his regressed wishes, and defend himself against his intense object need—that is, his search for substitutes for the ever gratifying, good mother.” “He was able to handle contradictions in his life by splitting off what was eccentric and personal from the serious business of the day.” “With such cronies, his ‘twins,’ he would display great nostalgia for the old days, singing the songs of their common childhood, eating the foods he had enjoyed in Salonika. Such regression permitted him to get in touch with, or ‘visit’ unconsciously, the idealized mother. This behavior was performed in the service of gathering strength from his fusion with the idealized mother so that he could be strong enough to perform his national responsibilities as an idealized father.” Billy Graham also appeared to create a group of cronies distinct from his colleagues: “Although he has unquestionable physical charm and is good-looking by any standard, he is primarily a man’s man. All his close personal friends [professional colleagues] are men.” “Billy never could stand to be alone. He thrives on being among people [presumably a wider group of cronies].” Peter the Great, similarly: “Peter spent his evenings either visiting friends [colleagues] or entertaining himself, and liked being surrounded by a gay crowd [a wider group].” Bing Crosby had cronies, but not real colleagues: “I don’t think Bing had any real friends—cronies, yes, but not real friends.” The Exhorter’s two ‘in-groups’ can coexist, or in contrast may be kept quite separate. Ataturk on his part kept the groups distinct: “Even when he became president, he continued to surround himself with rough cronies as well as with statesmen or scholars, adapting himself to the expectations of each group, and keeping them apart.”


We might have expected these two ‘in-groups’: the energetic Exhorter, we stated, can work very hard, but he also loves parties. In many cases, work and play combine—but not always. Sometimes they are maintained as separate external entities which are integrated only in the Exhorter’s mind.

When some member of the ‘in-group’ lets the Exhorter down, then he may find himself ‘disappeared’—in the Exhorter’s eyes, he no longer exists. It can happen to

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
those who are no longer useful. Ataturk: “He invested in whatever line he adopted the same amount of energy as long as he thought that what he currently espoused would benefit him and his cause. He treated those around him in the same manner, accepting them when they served his purpose and dropping them for others, often very different, who might be more useful to him.” “He could be personally close to a man, but he was always able to split his allegiances and turn away from a former confidant when this served his interests in both the real and psychological senses.” “Mustafa Kemal’s personality makeup made it easy for him to rid himself of former associates without significant emotional travail or feelings of guilt.” Bing Crosby: “He was a user, and an insidious one, for he didn’t seem to bear the distinctive marks of a user. When he no longer had a use for people or a need for them, he discarded them, apparently without emotions like remorse. Intellectually, he knew better. Intellectually, he would reach inside himself for the proper emotional response, which was always suppressed beyond his grasp, and he always came up empty-handed.” “If someone helped him along the way during the times in his life when he genuinely needed help, no gratitude was shown. If someone was injured by his actions, the injury was not acknowledged and no apology was offered. If someone was left behind, he or she ceased to exist in Bing’s mind. He never looked back, and it looked as if he just didn’t give a damn.” Juan Peron: “By now Bebe could no longer claim to be Peron’s heir. His enemies circulated rumors that he had been ‘burned’ in Ciudad Trujillo, an expression denoting a loss of favor with [Peron].” Sukarno: “Sukarno, who from the early 1960s onwards had distanced himself from his old comrades in arms...” Bob Hope was offered a huge contract by Texaco if he would fire his old staff and start again: “As expected, there was some bitterness. How could Hope break up the old gang? Hope reasoned, ‘It had to be done, because I thought that, after 25 years, it was time to get a fresh format, some new ideas, a new style. ‘ ” The Exhorter can easily ‘disappear’ those who move from ‘us’ to ‘them.’ Juan Peron: “The officers who are not with us don’t interest us because they are not elements we need for the work to which we have pledged ourselves.” Ataturk, of Arif who attempted to assassinate him, and was then hung: “It was a terrible death for Arif, who had been faithful to Mustafa Kemal throughout all the hazards of the struggle against the Greeks and who had shared intimately in the Ghazi’s life. After Arif’s execution, Mustafa Kemal never again mentioned his name. Arif had become a ‘bad object’ for the Ghazi, and quite


simply he was no more, even in the memory of the man he had served.” “Ali Fuat...explained that he had had no need to take a position opposing Mustafa Kemal, but he had been forced into it. Mustafa Kemal himself related the incident leading to the rift in his ‘Great Speech’ of 1927, hearing that Ali Fuat had arrived in Ankara from Konya, he invited him to dinner at Cankaya, but when Ali Fuat did not appear, he concluded that the missing guest had become an enemy. Ali Fuat told Aydemir that he would have gone to the dinner gladly, but he never received the invitation. Ismet had intercepted it.” Martin Luther: “I have often humbled myself for more than ten years, and used the best language, but have only increased their wrath...Now, however, because they are obdurate and have determined to do nothing good, but only evil, so that there is no longer any hope, I will hereafter heap curses and maledictions upon the villains until I go to my grave, and no good word shall they hear from me again. I will toll them to their tombs with my thunder and lightning.” Hyman Rickover: “While Roth was at Portsmouth, for example, any of his ideas or observations about nuclear submarines would not be transmitted from one navy [nuclear] to the other [conventional], because of the barrier between him and Rickover.” “One of the secretaries who talked about her boss said she still respected him and still remembered happy moments in NRB. ‘I had ten years that were most rewarding,’ she said. ‘But the last nine months, when Admiral Rickover suddenly took a violent dislike to me, were awful. When I left, they took up a collection—to which they would not let him contribute. ‘ ” Sukarno: “Indonesia’s confrontation with Malaysia was condemned by the United Nations, which accepted the new state as a member in November 1964. Angered by the attitude of the United Nations, Sukarno in a fit of rage withdrew Indonesia from the world body in January 1965.” De Lesseps: “In all probability Lesseps now decided that, once quite sure that Said would stand by him under even the most adverse circumstances, he would press on with the canal in defiance of the rest of the world.” In England: “...the diplomats cared nothing for business nor for free-trade neither. Their concern was with peace and war. Ignoring them, Lesseps began a tour of the Provinces where, at a series of meetings organized and attended by the chief trading interests in each district, he whipped up something approaching enthusiasm for the canal.” After being criticized by Palmerston: “He had of course intended, when the time came to open the lists, that England should take up a large block of shares, proportionate to her maritime ascendancy. Now he resolved to consummate the union of the seas without her aid,


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Sukarno trying to stop his so-called “aching loneliness” with a “fatherly feeling” towards a pretty girl. One of my friends said rather crudely: “What he really felt was an ache in his loins.” ’ ” “Inggit, who for some time had suspected—and with cause—that her husband was playing around with various secretaries and was a frequent visitor to geisha houses, finally put her foot down. One night when Sukarno returned home from one of his escapades Inggit made a scene and threw a cup at him, hitting him on the forehead...Finally Inggit agreed to a divorce and went back to her hometown of Bandung. Now the coast was clear for Sukarno to marry Fatmawati...” “One beautiful warm day we were driving Sukarno and Fatmawati back to Djakarta. Every time we saw a pretty woman or girl on the street he would say, ‘Look how pretty that one is, I bet she is not yet twenty,’ or ‘What a mouth, what a bosom.’ I told him smilingly if he wanted so badly to look at girls, why should he look that far because on his right and on his left were the prettiest girls in the world. Sukarno didn’t appreciate the remark, he looked a little crestfallen. Fatmawati said with a teasing smile but seriously enough: ‘Bung Abu, you know [Sukarno]. He never knows what he really wants. He wants to have everything. Yesterday he married an older, experienced woman, today he marries me, an ignorant virgin, God knows what he wants tomorrow.’ ” Bing Crosby: “It didn’t take long for his new bride to figure out the running order: it was Bing first, golf second, and his new bride a distant third. That was bad enough, but when she began running sixth, behind his buddies, booze, and gambling, Dixie pulled hard on his reins for the first time and found that they weren’t attached. Even if they had been, though, it would have been like trying to rein a mule. His firm resolve to make good and prove the local scoffers wrong had withered with the realization that the burden of proof lay squarely on him and that it was easier to shrug the burden off than to carry it.” Ataturk: “Like many husbands unhappy at home, Mustafa Kemal began to stay away more and more from the house in Cankaya, spending an increasing amount of time with his cronies, either playing poker or devoting himself to serious political matters. He was in the habit of talking familiarly with the soldiers who guarded the house, joking with them and watching them wrestle as though he were himself a soldier among them in the barracks. One night as he was engaged in his usual raillery with them, the scolding voice of Latife was heard. She addressed him as Kemal and told him to come in at once and to stop demeaning himself by being familiar with his men. That episode was the last straw for him.” Bob Hope: “...Louise (the girl he lived with for years, then dumped when he married Dolores)...”

financial or otherwise. Alone if need be, he would drive his ditch against the greatest power in the world...” When a bond issue was turned down: “So six Deputies have by their attitude prevented me from going forward, from marching with you to the conquest by France of the Isthmus of Panama! We shall pass over the obstacle. Together we shall go to this second victory. We shall issue the necessary 600 million...The dogs bark: the caravan passes.” Surprisingly, the Exhorter may also ‘disappear’ those who try to move from one group of ‘us’ to another.1 Ataturk: “Neither Arif nor Mustafa Kemal understood the unconscious mechanism of ‘twinship.’ Arif mistook his being cast aside, which was a function of Mustafa Kemal’s narcissistic personality, as a personal affront. Having been one of Mustafa Kemal’s cronies, a member of the inner circle with whom the leader relaxed, Arif expected to become a pasha. Such a promotion would have confused the boundaries Mustafa Kemal maintained between his cronies and his collaborators on national affairs.” “Once, at a ball in Istanbul, a middle-aged man tried to curry favor with him by openly offering him a young woman. Any such undignified behavior in public angered him, in spite of his sometimes indiscreet behavior while among his cronies. He railed against the heavy makeup the young woman was wearing and proceeded to give her one of his famous ‘examinations,’ demanding in front of the entire gathering that she name the cosmetic preparations on her cheeks and lips. The poor girl fainted, and Mustafa Kemal then dismissed her and her sponsor.” “He was always watchful about giving favors to anyone related to him, although he honored long-lasting connections with faithful friends from his Salonika days such as Nuri.” The Exhorter can ‘disappear’ wives who try to restrict him. Sukarno: “Sukarno’s attempt in his autobiography to whitewash his romance...has caused some derisive replies from other Indonesians: ‘In his autobiography Sukarno is a real hypocrite when he remarks: “To me she was just a pretty child” and further on, “to stop the aching loneliness.” When I read this part of the book to a couple of friends they all exploded into loud laughter. Imagine,


The Exhorter who ‘disappears’ individuals obviously breaks external order, and this degrades Teacher pleasure. Why not rather re-package individuals as part of ‘them,’ oppose the new enemies, and in this way continue to include the persons? Or, in this case, accept the transfer from one group to another? The reason is that Perceiver strategy, as part of object recognition, notices when individuals appear repeatedly in certain roles. It classifies the results, and this freezes the links between these and other Mercy-interpreted experiences. The Exhorter finds it much easier to ignore the persons than to alter the links.

The Magical Mystery Tours of Mr. Excitement
Martin Luther: “In advising Philip of Hesse to take a second wife, he was moved not by personal considerations, but by a mistaken regard, at first for the spiritual welfare of the landgrave, and afterward for the public good. His concern for the conscience of the landgrave and for the salvation of his soul blinded him to other evils of far greater consequence.” Horatio Nelson, living with his mistress, and getting a letter from his wife: “My dear Husband: It is some time since I have written to you; the silence you have imposed is more than My affection will allow me and in this instance I hope you will forgive me in not obeying you. One thing I omitted in My letter of July, which I now have to offer for you accommodation a comfortable warm House. Do, my Dear Husband, let us live together, I can never be happy until such an event takes place. I assure you again I have but one wish in the world. To please you. Let everything be buried in oblivion; it will pass away like a dream. I can only now entreat you to believe I am, most sincerely and affectionately, Your wife, Frances H. Nelson.” “The letter was sent back to Fanny, the cruelest gesture of Nelson’s life, endorsed, ‘Opened by mistake by Lord Nelson, but not read’ and it was signed, ‘A. Davison [his clerk].’ ” Wishing to live with his mistress: “...if God, as he imagined he might, removed the ‘impediment’ [Fanny] as a wife...” The Exhorter may be tempted, however, to keep the comfort of his wife. Horatio Nelson, when first moving in with his mistress: “Thus Nelson, the dynamic, impatient leader of men who often talked of the boldest actions being the wisest was in his private affairs incapable of decisive action. He let things drift between his wife and his mistress, hoping that it would be decided for him.” Brunel: “For one whose ambition is to distinguish himself in the eyes of the public, such freedom is almost indispensable—but, on the other hand, in sickness or disappointment, how delightful to have a companion whose sympathy one is sure of possessing!” Rasputin: “He had the gift of making women happy when he was with them, and the still greater gift of soothing away complaints when he moved on.” The Exhorter may ‘disappear’ those who seem to be free of the need to acknowledge him. Juan Peron: “The successes Argentina’s foreign policy achieved during the first half of Peron’s first term must be credited in large part to the work of Foreign Minister Juan Bramuglia, one of the most capable members of the administration...Bramuglia’s ouster was one of a series that would claim as victims most of the truly capable people in the administration as Peron replaced the best and the brightest of his associates with individuals of dubious ability or character.”


Sukarno: “Sukarno was able to impose a pseudopolitical stability on the country by forcing the political factions to kowtow to his ideas and by eliminating those who did not comply.” Ataturk: “He believed he was a unique man above all others and endowed with the right to assert his will. He saw others in two categories—those who were his admirers and followers and those who were not and who therefore had no existence at all as far as he was concerned.” “ was decided to launch the attack early in the morning on 26 August. When some objections to that date were raised, the Ghazi flared up, declaring that ‘Those who don’t have trust should resign. I take all responsibility on myself.’ ” “As Mustafa Kemal basked in the adoration of his followers, he may have been aware of having detractors, but his personality organization made it possible for him to hold them in such contempt that they ceased to exist for him. We can safely assume that he kept the illusion— which was justified to a considerable extent by reality— that he was loved and venerated by everyone of importance. Therefore, he did not consciously feel threatened by the hatred of religious nobodies.” Lyndon Johnson: “Johnson is an extraordinary man, and he goes to extraordinary lengths to convert people, and if not, to neutralize them.” “Doris Fleeson, the astute Washington columnist who had studied Johnson over the Senate years, noted that he ‘keeps books on his helpers and hinderers rather too openly and at first hand.’ Johnson’s book of grievances, which he carried in his head, had a large section for certain Kennedy aides.” “Johnson had special contempt for Schlesinger and was planning unique humiliation for him. [He gave him a position as adviser, then nothing to do—for four months, after which he resigned.]” Bing Crosby: “He had the habit of ‘disappearing’ people whom he used in the process of taking a short cut, or who saw behind his screen. They suddenly ceased to exist in his mind. It was as simple and complex as that.” The Exhorter—so charismatic and manipulative himself—may ‘disappear’ those who do not have a similarly forceful manner.1 Cecil Rhodes: “He seemed to think it a weakness in a man to be overcome by his feelings.” “To those who failed, or who had not sufficient confidence in themselves to overcome difficulties that might present themselves, he never gave a second chance, and they immediately passed out of his life...”


The Exhorter is often hypnotically tied into his environment. This implies that events around him must be strong if they are to influence him. But individuals who succumb to his hypnotic charisma are weak. Thus, they are not noticed.


Ordered Complexity Version 1, August 22, 2006. Commercial rights reserved.
Hyman Rickover: “Rickover and his own key staff members worked continually: days, nights and weekends merged into simply long and then longer ‘days.’ Those who could not keep up the pace, physically or mentally, were shifted out of the Electrical Section.” The Exhorter can fear that others in turn will ‘disappear’ him. F. D. Roosevelt: “ ’Everyone wants to have the sense of belonging, of being on the inside,’ he learned, and ‘no one wants to be left out.’ ” Lyndon Johnson: “He never wanted to be left out of anything.” “An attendant at National Security Council sessions remembered Johnson’s agonizing periods of silence while Kennedy restricted his questioning to his special advisers; Johnson sat with ‘his fingers licked and working together until sometimes the knuckles were white.’ And frequently, Johnson believed he was being sent on busywork errands so that he could not attend critical meetings.” Ataturk: “Suspicious moods often overtook Mustafa Kemal...” Billy Mitchell: “Arnold also thought he detected in Mitchell ‘an undercurrent of angry impatience,’ though it was not yet visible in public. Arnold thought Mitchell overlooked the possibility that most Americans lacked the capacity to grasp his theories of air power. Mitchell also seemed to think that resistance to his ideas was the result of a conspiracy.” Peter the Great: “Sometimes Peter would lose his temper, and would withdraw extremely upset to the ladies’ half of the ship. Whenever this happened he had guards posted at the gangways with instructions that nobody was to leave until he had returned. Until Catherine had succeeded in calming him, and he had had a nap, the guests remained in their places drinking and getting bored.” Sukarno: “He was highly indignant when he was not selected to play soccer for the school, although as one Dutch commentator dryly remarks: Sukarno does not say if he really could play the game well enough.” At the end Sukarno in fact was ‘disappeared’: “ action against Sukarno would be politically dangerous. The Army therefore confined Sukarno to his house in Bogor which was appropriately called...the Cream Palace of the Holy Bima. There the former President was only allowed to dream. The house was strictly guarded to prevent Sukarno from escaping...” The Exhorter who is religious may be afraid that ‘God’ will ‘disappear’ him. Billy Graham: “As he began to prosper in later years, he came to be inordinately haunted by the story of Samson—anointed at birth as a Nazarite to be ‘used mightily of the Lord,’ eventually violating the chastities of that consecration, whereupon the blessing and the power were instantly removed from him; it became an allegory of what, through doubt or vainglory, might

Rasputin: “Rasputin always respected the direct approach, and had more than a little scorn for anyone fool enough to be taken in by him.” “The woman continued to talk with him, asking him why his disciples treated him like a holy man, calling him father. His reply was most revealing: ‘Ask those fools for yourself,’ he said. If they were prepared to take him for what he was not, he was not the man to discourage them.” Ataturk: “His character was such that he had a tendency to feel contempt for the weak.” “Prior to the departure of the Ottoman party for Germany, Mustafa Kemal was granted an audience with the heir apparent, who was then in his fifties. During this, their first meeting, Vahideddin, a somnolent man with sloping shoulders, did little more than raise his eyelids to acknowledge the introduction...He concluded that Vahideddin was a stupid man, and with such a man destined to become sultan the empire’s prospects were bleak.” “Once the two were in the train together en route to Germany, things took a turn for the better. Prince Vahideddin told Mustafa Kemal that he had heard about his military career and his successes at Gallipoli. He was honored to have Mustafa Kemal as his traveling companion and considered himself to be one of his greatest admirers. Thereupon, Mustafa Kemal reversed his judgment of Vahideddin. He could readily overlook any deficiency in a declared admirer, and he devoted h