The story of Phineas Gage is now regularly included in textbooks about the brain, usually to illustrate functions of the parts of the frontal lobe and their specific contributions to personality. Rarely do textbooks note that the consequences of this damage arose because the top-brain and bottom-brain systems no longer interacted appropriately. We have focused on this fact.
But more than that, we explain the effects of Phineas Gage’s injury in a new way, through the lens of the Theory of Cognitive Modes: When the tamping iron ripped up part of his brain, it changed his dominant cognitive mode, changing how he approached the world and interacted with other people.
Differences in how well the top-brain and bottom-brain systems interact do not arise only after a brain injury. Although all of us use both systems of our brains (if we didn’t, we couldn’t function in daily life), within the normal bounds some people may rely on each system to greater or lesser degrees. People differ in how much they rely on the two systems, and hence how the two systems interact. And differences in the interactions between the top- and bottom-brain systems produce different cognitive modes.
Our theory does not posit that people differ in the sizes of their top or bottom brains. Moreover, the fact that someone often relies on a brain system does not imply that he or she uses that system effectively. For instance, he or she may often rely on the top-brain system, devising many plans—but the plans may not be very good. How effectively a person uses the top-brain system is probably related to intelligence, which is distinct from the modes. People may in fact differ in the sizes of the top brain and bottom brain, and they may in fact differ in how effectively they use one or the other system—but this is not what the Theory of Cognitive Modes is about.
Rather, the cognitive modes emerge from the degree to which a person relies on the top- and bottom-brain systems. As noted earlier, we all constantly rely on both the top and the bottom systems, but we may often engage in only the minimal amount of processing necessary to respond to a situation. At other times, we engage the systems in optional ways. By analogy, we may need to walk to get somewhere (the brain responds to the situation with minimal processing), but we never need to dance (dancing involves an optional use of the brain). It is the optional sort of utilization that we focus on here—the extent to which a person uses a brain system not when forced to do so by the situation, but rather because he or she has developed ways of relating to the world and others that depend on using one or both brain systems.
In what follows, when we talk of the top- or bottom-brain system’s being utilized or relied upon, we mean in this second way—optionally, when others might not use the system in this way.
The degree to which the systems are utilized in this second sort of way forms a continuum—ranging from highly utilized to minimally utilized—but for practical purposes, we can divide the continuum into “high” and “low” categories. As we will discuss in the following chapter, these differences (like most other cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics) probably arise from an interplay of inherited characteristics and personal experience.
With two brain systems and two possibilities for each of them, we can thus identify four different cognitive modes—four different ways of interacting with people and responding to situations that arise in the world:
|
Highly Utilized Top |
Minimally Utilized Top |
Highly Utilized Bottom |
Mover Mode |
Perceiver Mode |
Minimally Utilized Bottom |
Stimulator Mode |
Adaptor Mode |
Mover Mode results when the top- and bottom-brain systems are both highly utilized.
According to our theory, when people think in this mode, they are inclined both to implement plans (using the top-brain system) and to register the consequences of doing so (using the bottom-brain system), subsequently adjusting plans on the basis of feedback. The evidence suggests that prior to his injury, Phineas Gage often relied on this mode when he was at work; he probably could not have risen so far so fast if he had not. But after his accident he could no longer operate in this mode.
People who habitually operate in Mover Mode tend to be well suited to being leaders. They might head a company, act as a principal of a school, or take charge of revising a church afterschool program. According to our theory, people who habitually operate in this mode should be most comfortable when in positions that allow them to plan, act, and see the consequences of their actions.
You may know someone who habitually operates in Mover Mode. Perhaps she is the head of a neighborhood association. This person consistently looks ahead and devises plans, which she puts into action. For example, she may be the one who comes up with a clever way to get businesses to donate services for the annual fund-raising auction. But she does not blindly charge ahead. If a plan to have this fund-raiser falters, for example, she would be the first one to think about what went wrong and how to do it better next time.
Perceiver Mode results when the bottom-brain system is highly utilized but the top-brain system is not.
People who highly utilize the bottom-brain system try to make sense in depth of what they perceive; they interpret what they experience, put it in context, and try to understand the implications. They may use the top-brain system to generate narratives that make sense of what the bottom brain registers, but they do not use the top brain to initiate complex or detailed plans; the top brain is largely used in the service of the bottom brain. Gage would have been better off post-accident if his top-brain system had been better able to sort the inputs from his bottom-brain system.
Among others, many librarians, naturalists, and pastors appear to rely habitually on Perceiver Mode. If the Theory of Cognitive Modes is correct, people who are relying on this mode often play a crucial role in a group; they can make sense of events and provide a bigger-picture perspective. In business, they are often crucial members of teams, providing perspective and wisdom but not always getting credit.
To use our neighborhood association example, someone operating in this mode may be quiet during the meeting—but she is listening intently, and clearly tracking what’s going on. Until she has something well founded to say, she keeps her own counsel—but she isn’t shy about speaking up, once she’s sure she has something to say. And because she deeply understands what she hears, she’s often worth listening to. For example, when she does speak about the fund-raiser plans, everyone listens; if she thinks she’s spotted a flaw (for example, she thinks that the marketing message might alienate some families), she probably has good reason to think so.
Stimulator Mode results when the top-brain system is highly utilized but the bottom-brain system is not.
People interacting with the world in Stimulator Mode often create and execute plans (using the top-brain system) but fail to register consistently and accurately the consequences of acting on those plans (using the bottom-brain system). They may be creative and original, and may be able to think outside the box even when everybody around them has a fixed way of approaching an issue or situation. But, at the same time, these people may not always note when enough is enough—their actions can be disruptive and they may not adjust their behavior appropriately. Gage’s problem was not so much in registering the consequences of his actions but in too freely allowing ongoing situations to interrupt his plans; the damage disrupted the usual interactions between his top-brain and bottom-brain systems.
In general, when people think in Stimulator Mode, they should be able to play a crucial role as a team member; however, to be most successful, they should not be the sole leader but would be better off working with others who can help them adjust their plans as events unfold.
You may know someone who habitually operates in this mode. She may be a member of a neighborhood association committee—the woman who throws out an idea a minute with happy abandon. You might be tempted to dismiss her out of hand, but some of the ideas are good—even though she herself makes little effort to sort through them. If she is put in charge of a project, she probably is as likely to fail as to succeed—not necessarily because the basic idea of the plan is bad, but rather because she doesn’t stay on top of fine-tuning it as events unfold.
Adaptor Mode results when neither the top- nor the bottom-brain system is highly utilized.
People who are thinking in this mode are not caught up in initiating plans, nor are they fully focused on classifying and interpreting what they experience; instead, they are open to becoming absorbed by local events and the immediate requirements of the situation. If the Theory of Cognitive Modes is correct, they often are “action-oriented” and responsive. In addition, people who habitually operate in this mode often “go with the flow” and may tend to be seen as free-spirited and fun to be with. (Gage would have been better off if he had been able to adopt this mode and let others define his agenda.)
People who are thinking in this mode should be valuable team members because they can easily adapt to plans. In business, people who typically operate in Adaptor Mode would often form the backbone of the organization, carrying out the essential operations.
Someone who habitually thinks in Adaptor Mode will not dominate formulating strategy during the neighborhood association meeting and may not have much to contribute during this planning stage. But once plans are in place, she embraces the assignment and works hard to carry it out. If asked to go door-to-door to solicit services from businesses for the fund-raising auction, she typically will be happy to do this. If the plan doesn’t work so well (few businesses respond positively), she won’t make much of an effort to figure out how to fix the problem—she’s already carried out her role.
We now must note some caveats regarding the four modes of thinking.
First, it’s important to realize that although the predictions we just summarized flow naturally from the theory, we have not directly tested them. Nevertheless, the questionnaire that assesses dominant mode, presented in chapter 13, has been shown to be reliable (comparable scores are usually obtained when people take it a second time)—and its reliability suggests that people do in fact behave consistently in many situations and that each of us does have a dominant mode. And, as we summarize later, the test has easily interpretable statistical relations to other, well-validated tests.
Second, as we noted earlier, the habitual mode of thinking generally should not be related to intelligence. Intelligence is about how quickly and easily a person can solve difficult problems and understand complex material. People who rely predominantly on one or another of the modes can be very intelligent, not very intelligent, or anywhere in between. The modes are about how you approach or interact with other people and situations that arise in the world; they do not reflect your ability either to solve problems or to understand complex material.
Another caveat is that we do not expect people who habitually operate in any particular mode to be more or less prone to be emotional or to have better or worse mental health; for instance, people who habitually operate in any of the four modes should be equally inclined to become angry or depressed.
Furthermore, even though we may habitually rely on one mode, each of us nevertheless may sometimes adopt different modes in different contexts. For example, if you were ever head of a neighborhood association, in that context you may have adopted Mover Mode. But if you were thrown into an unusual situation (such as being asked to devise a new way to motivate your neighbors to recycle their trash), you may have slid into Stimulator Mode—throwing out ideas without a clear way of knowing how to react to the results. To deal with complications, you may have adopted Perceiver Mode and sat back to observe before deciding to do anything. Finally, in certain situations, such as those dominated by other people who were very effective in Mover Mode, you may have decided to be a good team player—and relied on Adaptor Mode.
As we’ve noted before, according to the Theory of Cognitive Modes you are not “trapped” by your dominant mode, even though it is the mode you are most comfortable using (because it is most consistent with your temperament and experience, as we discuss in the following chapter). Nevertheless, we will argue that although people sometimes operate in different modes in different circumstances, we each have a dominant habitual cognitive mode that guides much of how we approach life and behave.
—
Identifying which mode you typically operate in can lead to self-insight. However, we are not suggesting that you try to change yourself based on these insights; rather, it might be best to use them to improve how you relate to your work and life more generally.
Because the theory we present here should help you to identify another person’s dominant cognitive mode by observing his or her behaviors, this theory can also help you better understand how and why others act as they do. This could be of practical benefit to you in a relationship, at home, in social circumstances, and on the job.
Let’s say you work in the production department of a medium-size advertising firm. Your company has hired a new head of social media, Sara. Sara seems frequently to operate in Perceiver Mode: She is an acute observer and has a keen understanding of human nature, as her tweets and Facebook wall postings confirm. But she’s having difficulty putting all this together into a coherent campaign for the cable TV account your company has just landed. You, on the other hand, have identified yourself as typically operating in Stimulator Mode: You’re good at drawing up plans, though not as good at reacting and adjusting wisely as your plans are put into action. So far, the company president has not paired you and Sara on the cable TV account. But wouldn’t that pairing make sense for each of you—and your firm? Maybe you and Sara should present yourselves to the president as a team. By combining forces and drawing on your respective strengths in Perceiver and Stimulator modes, you might be able to make the whole more than the sum of its parts.
Or let’s say you’re someone who typically thinks and behaves in Adaptor Mode. People like hanging around with you because you often seem to live in the moment. You’re easygoing and fun. What hasn’t been so much fun, however, is the relationship with your partner, who also typically relies on Adaptor Mode. You have just broken up, again, in part because the two of you have difficulty making plans—and, frankly, trouble figuring out just where you are headed. Your disagreements ended in more disagreements, not lessons learned, at least until now, when you have finally agreed to go your separate ways. When you are ready for another relationship, it might be wise to consider more carefully someone whose dominant cognitive mode is not the same as yours—perhaps someone who habitually relies on Mover or Perceiver mode.
Note that we are not recommending that you use our theory to guide your life—only that you use it as an impetus to consider situations from new perspectives. As these examples illustrate, the Theory of Cognitive Modes should help you reflect and consider your options. In later chapters, we describe possible strategies for coping if you find yourself having to function with someone whose dominant cognitive mode rubs you the wrong way, whether at work or in a personal relationship. We hope that such speculations will help you see new ways to think about yourself (such as the sorts of situations in which you might need help, and to whom to turn for particular kinds of help), the way you relate to work, and the nature of your relationships with other people. The simple act of thinking about such things from a new perspective could prove illuminating.
—
But what if you don’t like your dominant mode of thinking and want to change? How difficult would that be? In order to answer this question, we need to consider why people develop the dominant cognitive mode they do.