You know the rules; here’s the quote. This week’s reading is from Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America again (see also Over My Shoulder #15, on the early modern English mad doctors). This passage was reading from the ride home from work and the walk home from the bus stop. I wish I had something to say, but it’s really too awful to bear comment. Here’s the quote:

For hospitals, the main drawback with insulin-coma therapy was that it was expensive and time-consuming. By one estimate, patients treated in this maner received 100 times the attention from medical staff as did other patients, and this greatly limited its use. In contrast, metrazol convulsive therapy, which was introduced into U.S. asylums shortly after Sakel’s insulin treatment arrived, could be administered quickly and easily, with one physician able to treat fifty or more patients in a single morning.

Although hailed as innovative in 1935, when Hungarian Ladislas von Meduna first announced its benefits, metrazol therapy was actually a remedy that could be traced back to the 1700s. European texts from that period tell of using camphor, an extract from the laurel bush, to induce seizures in the mad. Meduna was inspired to revisit this therapy by speculation, which wasn’t his alone, that epilepsy and schizophrenia were antagonistic to each other. One disease helped to drive out the other. Epileptics who developed schizophrenia appeared to have fewer seizures, while schizophrenics who suffered seizures saw their psychosis remit. If that was so, Meduna reasoned, perhaps he could deliberately induce epileptic seizures as a remedy for schizophrenia. With faint hope and trembling desire, he later recalled, the inexpressible feeling arose in me that perhaps I could use this antagonism, if not for curative purposes, at least to arrest or modify the course of schizophrenia.

After testing various poisons in animal experiments, Meduna settled on camphor as the seizure-inducing drug of choice. On January 23, 1934, he injected it into a catatonic schizophrenic, and soon Meduna, like Klaesi and Sakel, was telling a captivating story of a life reborn. After a series of camphor-induced seizures, L. Z., a thirty-three year old man who had been hospitalized for four years, suddenly rose from his bed, alive and lucid, and asked the doctors how long he had been sick. It was a story of a miraculous rebirth, with L. Z. soon sent on his way home. Five other patients treated with camphor also quickly recovered, filling Meduna with a sense of great hope: I feel elated and I knew I had discovered a new treatment. I felt happy beyond words.

As he honed his treatment, Meduna switched to metrazol, a synthetic preparation of camphor. His tally of successes rapidly grew: Of his first 110 patients, some who had been ill as long as ten years, metrazol-induced convulsions freed half from their psychosis.

Although metrazol treatment quickly spread throughout European and American asylums, it did so under a cloud of great controversy. As other physicians tried it, they published recovery rates that were wildly different. One would find that it helped 70 percent of schizophrenic patients. The next wouldfind that it didn’t appear to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia at all but was useful for treating manic-depressive psychosis. Others would find it helped almost no one. Rockland State Hospital in New York announced that it didn’t produce a single recovery among 275 psychotic patients, perhaps the poorest reported outcome in all of psychiatric literature to that time. Was it a totally dreadful drug, as some doctors argued? Or was it, as one physician wrote, the elixir of life to a hitherto doomed race?

A physician’s answer to that question depended, in large measure, on subjective values. Metrazol did change a person’s behavior and moods, and in fairly predictable ways. Physicians simply varied greatly in their beliefs about whether that change should be deemed an improvement. Their judgment was also colored by their own emotional response to administering it, as it involved forcing a violent treatment on utterly terrified patients.

Metrazol triggered an explosive seizure. About a minute after the injection, the patient would arch into a convulsion so severe it could fracture bones, tear muscles, and loosen teeth. In 1939, the New York State Psychiatric Institute found that 43 percent of state hospital patients treated with metrazol had suffered spinal fractures. Other complications included fractures of the humerus, femur, pelvic, scapula, and clavicle bones, dislocations of the shoulder and jaw, and broken teeth. Animal studies and autopsies revealed that metrazol-induced seizures caused hemorrhages in various organs, such as the lungs, kidney, and spleen, and in the brain, with the brain trauma leading to the waste of neurons in the cerebral cortex. Even Meduna acknowledged that his treatment, much like insulin-coma therapy, made brutal inroads into the organism.

We act with both methods as with dynamite, endeavoring to blow asunder the pathological sequences and restore the diseased organism to normal functioning … beyond all doubt, from biological and therapeutic points of view, we are undertaking a violent onslaught with either method we choose, because at present nothing less than such a shock to the organism is powerful enough to break the chain of noxious processes that leads to schizophrenia.

As with insulin, metrazol shock therapy needed to be administered multiple times to produce the desired lasting effect. A complete course of treatment might involve twenty, thirty, or forty or more injections of metrazol, which were typically given at a pace of two or three a week. To a certain degree, the trauma so inflicted also produced a change in behavior similar to that seen with insulin. As patients regained consciousness, they would be dazed and disoriented—Meduna described it as a confused twilight state. Vomiting and nausea were common. Many would beg doctors and nurses not to leave, calling for their mothers, wanting to be hugged, kissed and petted. Some would masturbate, some would become amorous toward the medical staff, and some would play with their own feces. All of this was seen as evidence of a desired regression to a childish level, of a loss of control of the higher centres of intelligence. Moreover, in this traumatized state, many showed much greater friendliness, accessibility, and willingness to cooperate, which was seen as evidence of their improvement. The hope was that with repeated treatments, such friendly, cooperative behavior would become more permanent.

The lifting in mood experienced by many patients, possibly resulting from the release of stress-fighting hormones like epinephrine, led some physicians to find metrazol therapy particularly useful for manic-depressive psychosis. However, as patients recovered from the brain trauma, they typically slid back into agitated, psychotic states. Relapse with metrazol was even more problematic than with insulin therapy, leading numerous physicians to conclude that metrazol shock therapy does not seem to produce permanent and lasting recovery.

Metrazol’s other shortcoming was that after a first injection, patients would invariably resist another and have to be forcibly treated. Asylum psychiatrists, writing in the American Journal of Psychiatry and other medical journals, described how patients would cry, plead that they didn’t want to die, and beg them in the name of humanity to stop the injections. Why, some patients would wail, did the hospital want to kill them? Doctor, one woman pitifully asked, is there no cure for this treatment? Even military men who had borne with comparative fortitude and bravery the brunt of enemy action were said to cower in terror at the prospect of a metrazol injection. One patient described it as akin to being roasted alive in a white-hot furnace; another as if the skull bones were about to be rent open and the brain on the point of bursting through them. The one theme common to nearly all patients, Katzenelbogen concluded in 1940, was a feeling of being excessively frightened, tortured, and overwhelmed by fear of impending death.

The patients’ terror was so palpable that it led to speculation whether fear, as in the days of old, was the therapeutic agent. Said one doctor:

No reasonable explanation of the action of hypoglycemic shock or of epileptic fits in the cure of schizophrenia is forthcoming, and I would suggest as a possibility that as with the surprise bath and the swinging bed, the modus operandi may be the bringing of the patient into touch with reality through the strong stimulation of the emotion of fear, and that the intense apprehension felt by the patient after an injection of cardiazol [metrazol] and so feared by the patient, may be akin to the apprehension of a patient threatened with the swinging bed. The exponents of the latter pointed out that fear of repetition was an important element in its success.

Advocates of metrazol were naturally eager to distinguish it from the old barbaric shock practices and even conducted studies to prove that fear was not the healing agent. In their search for a scientific explanation, many put a Freudian spin on the healing psychology at work. One popular notion, discussed by Chicago psychotherapist Roy Grinker at an American Psychiatric Association meeting in 1942, was that it put the mentally ill through a near-death experience that was strangely liberating. The patient, Grinker said, experiences the treatment as a sadistic punishing attack which satisfies his unconscious sense of guilt. Abram Bennett, a psychiatrist at the University of Nebraska, suggested that a mental patient, by undergoing the painful convulsive therapy, has proved himself willing to take punishment. His conscience is then freed, and he can allow himself to start life over again free from the compulsive pangs of conscience.

As can be seen by the physicians’ comments, metrazol created a new emotional tenor within asylum medicine. Physicians may have reasoned that terror, punishment, and physical pain were good for the mentally ill, but the mentally ill, unschooled in Freudian theories, saw it quite less abstractly. They now perceived themselves as confined in hospitals where doctors, rather than trying to comfort them, physically assaulted them in the most awful way. Doctors, in their eyes, became their torturers. Hospitals became places of torment. This was the beginning of a profound rift in the doctor-patient relationship in American psychiatry, one that put the severely mentally ill ever more at odds with society.

Even though studies didn’t provide evidence of any long-term benefit, metrazol quickly became a staple of American medicine, with 70 percent of the nation’s hospitals using it by 1939. From 1936 to 1941, nearly 37,000 mentally ill patients underwent this treatment, which meant that they received multiple injections of the drug. Brain-damaging therapeutics—a term coined in 1941 by a proponent of such treatments—were now being regularly administered to the hospitalized mentally ill, and being done so against their will.

—Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill (2002), pp. 91–96.

It’s revealed in a footnote (and mentioned later in the book) that the proponent who coined the term brain-damaging therapeutics was none other than Walter Freeman, the pioneer of the icepick lobotomy, in Brain-Damaging Therapeutics, Diseases of the Nervous System 2 (1940): 83.

BTI has not needed to defend itself against anyone; for the many years we’ve been in existence, we’ve lived peaceably and harmoniously with our clients, as well as those with whom we associated. If someone was skeptical of our work, we went out of our way to gently help him or her with whatever reservations they had. (As we’ve grown, we unfortunately no longer have as many chances for this meaningful opportunity.) Though JN has been dealing with and teaching BT to doctors and scientists since the early 80’s, he’s remained essentially free from criticism. He has been able to intelligently answer the questions raised, but more importantly, demonstrate the visual proofs of BT. Of course, some people along the way have shown skepticism but never was anyone overt in their criticism—until recently. In fact, numerous early skeptics have since joined ranks and strongly support Brain Typing. But as the old saying goes, the higher up the ladder of success you go—especially in an avant-garde and cutting edge field/science—the more you expose yourself and bring out the vitriolic and self-serving critics.

It wasn’t until 2002 that we heard from combative critics. What’s more remarkable is that only ONE person, a sports psychologist (wouldn’t you know?), instigated this condemnation. On a national television sports program, JN and BT were touted as being highly influential in professional sports. In the spirit of a “balanced” perspective (which the show mandated), this critic was asked to share his opposing views. BTI had no problem with opposing views, but when they were shared from a critic with virtually no understanding of BT, good journalism was lost. What seemed to be a blow to the critic’s esteem was when sports scientist, psychologist, and tennis legend Vic Braden challenged the critic–even challenging the primary position of critic’s published research as being scientifically invalid (according to the vast majority of neuroscientific evidence). Though JN had no part in this “live” TV discussion, the critic began a seemingly vindictive plan of attack against Braden and BTI–following the program. Our hope and prayer is that someday this man can approach BT objectively and seek to better understand its merits. We would be happy to accommodate him.

For those interested, here’s a little deeper insight to the TV broadcast. Two psychologists were asked by the TV program to criticize JN and BT. The first man was the founder of the “Sacramento Skeptics Society” and president of “Skeptics Links Society.” With a perspective like this, it is doubtful that he has approached Brain Typing open-mindedly. He also received his psychology degree from Fuller Seminary. His religious bias is apparent in material located by BTI, with a noticeable aversion to the works of Carl Jung. Though BTI rejects the vast beliefs of Jung, we objectively realize and accept that he was the first to identify and label (using his terminology) 6 mental processes in “normal’ people. These processes have since been viewed by modern brain-imaging techniques as authentic cerebral functions. Perhaps in the future, both critics will become aware of this neuroscientific fact.

Neither critic made one specific refutation of BT. The Skeptics Society president said “it’s never been done before”—thus implying it can’t be done now. This illogic would not win a debate at any level. The other, the antagonistic critic, fixated on saying that since he hadn’t seen any published research papers by JN in scientific journals, BT had to be bogus. Also, he said there is no scientific proof one can eyeball others and read their brains. We couldn’t agree more. Of course one can’t scientifically prove this. Nor can a psychologist prove it “scientifically” when he or she is observing or “reading” a client/patient and rendering a judgment—to be filed away or passed along to the client or others. (We’re not speaking of the rarer instances when some people have fMRI’s or PET’s [for example] to identify biological maladies.) You can’t scientifically prove it when a huckster is “lying”, when he’s trying to sell you a widget, yet you “know” he is. One could think of a thousand/million? examples of things that can’t be proven—yet when people interact with one another they know certain observations are true.

As the host said on the TV show after interviewing a neuroscientist earlier in the week, the scientist stated that some people have extraordinary abilities to read others. Yes, JN has this ability in reference to BT, but JN also goes to great length to help objective people understand “how” he does it. He devotes 400 pages in his “YKtSS” book to help the layperson or professional do it as well. He also explains both cerebral and motor skill links to the brain.

Ask yourself this question, do you ever meet someone and get a fairly quick “read” on him/her in some fashion? Perhaps you sense he’s nice since he doesn’t speak judgmentally of others and that he also has a relaxed smile—which he does a lot, or, perhaps you notice another person’s wandering and sneaky eyes, and his conversation seems highly evasive and disingenuous. This person you do not trust. Now, can you prove this scientifically? Obviously not, but you KNOW it’s true. Yet, you can also study papers on the brain and learn how neuroscience has discovered where some of these cerebral or mental processes/functions take place. JN has not only identified where neuroscience has pinpointed the Jung and Myers processes, but he’s also shown where the unique motor skills for each BT are locate along the various regions of the brain’s primary motor cortex. (He‘s also shown much more than this.)

Had either critic said anything objective or positive regarding BT, they would have demonstrated much greater credibility. Neither psychologist had researched the Jungian mental processes in light of brain function. (If they had, they didn’t want to admit JN was right.) As psychologists especially, in order to refute BT, they should have attempted to view brain research to dispute JN’s brain/Jungian typology assertions. Had they done so, their arguments on television would have acknowledged these neuroscientific facts and they wouldn’t have spoken so erroneously.

A final note to this story concerns two university neuroscientists and Ph.Ds who were prepared to come on the TV program to support JN and Brain Typing. Only 3 days before the broadcast, they were dropped because the producers were concerned the “hard” science experts would make JN and BT the winners of the live debate. Despite the neuroscientists’ pleas and efforts to share their scientific views, they were turned away—though they had been told for over a month they could participate.

The TV host of the live program posed the question to the chief critic, “Is it possible that there is a little bit of professional jealousy here (on your side)?” Though circumstantial evidence may suggest this, we hope this is not the case. JN and BTI only desire to promote BT as ethically and truthfully as we know how. Until science has the technology to prove BT, psychology, education, or any other field, we should all seek to understand one another’s efforts openly, objectively, and comprehensively before rendering any kind of harsh verdict.

Back to the main discussion. Millions of people have now heard of BT over the past decade, so BTI has been fortunate and blessed with the ethical attitudes any skeptics displayed. This all changed, however, with the recent slanderous efforts, and the spreading of mistruths, by one person in particular. (We see no value in publicly sharing this specific slanderous info, nor would it not be edifying to the critic or his cause.)

The first thing we want to say is that we believe ethical critics should “do unto others as they would want done unto themselves.” We believe any decent person would agree with this Biblical principle. And of course, even an unethical critic would want this fair treatment if someone were vindictively attacking him. But the unethical critic is not interested in approaching matters the proper way when he’s on the attack. He obviously has a higher view of himself than his opponent—and most often, all other people.

Almost astonishingly, this sports psychology critic began his attack by knowing virtually nothing of Brain Typing. Nonetheless, he chose to disparage a new methodology of assessing and developing athletes and to assail its protagonist, JN. After all, we can only suppose, as a sports psychologist he believed he knew what was currently in and accepted among his peers—a result of his sports psychology education and personal experience. This new approach he had never heard of before or been trained in; therefore it did not fit into standard protocol; it was something obviously outside his realm (and essentially the realm of sports psychology). Sports experts, teams, and athletes were seeking out this cutting edge know-how. How could some new and revolutionary sports approach been developed outside sports psychology with its discoverer having a university degree in business finance, not psychology?! It almost sounds as heretical as the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison—both of whom had virtually no formal education. Nonetheless, these two scientific pillars, like many others throughout history, made fantastic discoveries without being “officially” trained or educated in an “orthodox” field of study or manner. In fact, when an intelligent person gives it thought, great discoveries require thinking OUTSIDE the box—going where none has gone before. If this weren’t the case, we’d still be living as they did even before the “Dark Ages.”

Have you heard of Jane Goodall? You sure have if you’re into science. Goodall, turning 70 in 2003, is known around the world as the intrepid female who penetrated the deep jungles of Africa in her early 20s, alone, studying the lifestyles of chimpanzees on the shore of Lake Tanganyika in East Africa. It’s hard to imagine anyone with more knowledge regarding the behaviors and idiosyncrasies of the chimp. Goodall’s Gombe Stream Research Centre in Tanzania originated in 1964 and still stands today where her wildlife research continues. She also has her Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation in Washington D.C. Goodall has always held a passion for knowledge and science but was educated, of all places, in a secretarial school in London (before heading to Africa). This former non-scientist began her scientific journey through diligent observations and research—far removed from a university setting. Among many findings, Goodall discovered how chimps use tools and possess various “personalities”. Her in-depth insights have been unparalleled.

Goodall, like Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, didn’t let the fact that she wasn’t university trained or officially degreed in the area of her interest deter her. Instead, as all inborn researchers, she pursued an irresistible course to better understand the interests and objects of her passion. (Goodall later degreed in ethology—the study of animal behavior with emphasis on the patterns that occur in natural environments.) With this in mind, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to those who consider JN’s decades of efforts to better understand the inborn and DNA-driven cerebral, motor, and spatial behaviors of mankind.

Goodall recalled her early days in Africa. “My childhood dream was as strong as ever: Somehow I must find a way to watch free, wild animals living their own, undisturbed lives. I wanted to learn things that no one else knew, uncover secrets through patient observation. I wanted to come as close to talking to animals as I could.”

The far-reaching Introverted and empirical observations of people like Jane Goodall (INTP-BCIR) and Jonathan Niednagel (ISTJ-BEIL) have brought them a dimension of reality not journeyed by others before them. Since the beginning of creation, each year brings a select group of explorers and risk-takers who are willing to venture into the thrills and chills of virgin territory.

JN never had a strong desire to be degreed in psychology, neuroscience, or genetics—especially psychology. Save for Jung and his type theories, the realm of psychology actually ran contrary to JN’s personal and spiritual beliefs. Whereas psychology emphasized man’s solutions for life and problems—rather than God’s—and it was often involved in questionable theories rather than solid empirical or scientific data, this “soft” science held little interest for JN. Though JN has been strongly supportive of the “hard-science” efforts of neuroscience and genetics, he didn’t pursue these professions since they didn’t provide enough emphasis to the areas associated with BT. Thus, JN decided to pioneer the field of BT with the hope of making it a science of the 21st century. Though BT has been used in college curriculum, JN desires to see it become one of the prominent sciences over the next decade. We believe genetics in particular can make this a reality.

To amplify JN’s educational pursuits in his early years of BT, you might find the following of interest. JN set financial goals for himself shortly out of college in California; having received a degree in business finance in the early 1970’s, this came naturally. To his surprise, he achieved his lifetime financial goals by age 28. JN specialized in commodity futures trading in college and took his expertise to the Mecca of commodities trading, the Chicago Board of Trade. Having spent a few years there working for one company, he was asked to set up an office in California for futures trading and research—on behalf of another larger company—one of the world’s top futures companies, which up to that time only had offices in London, Paris, New York, and Chicago. Out of hundreds of employees, JN was told he was the only “outsider” they had hired in their ranks. He had impressed the brass in Chicago and New York with his one-of-a kind deep research habits.

Having returned to California to hire new employees, JN knew that people looked their best in resumes and obituary pages. He wanted to delve deeper, to have greater confidence in ascertaining their true abilities and character. Thus, in his research tradition, he began collecting personality/psychological profiles and researching why people do what they do. This began his pursuit of BT. Not only did this endeavor help him in reading people better, but it helped him better understand himself and ultimately make wiser decisions. His successful choices enabled him to reach financial goals he thought improbable. Yet, JN was left with an empty and meaningless feeling after hitting his materialistic goals. He realized he was drawn far more to understanding and helping people than pursing financial successes.

With his wife’s permission, JN dropped his successful business pursuits, cold turkey, and began his long pilgrimage of better understanding people. Since universities only offered courses on personality/psychological types, and not on Brain Typing (which emphasized brain and body functions/skills), JN opted to pursue this unexplored field on his own. He was well content with what he had already learned from the writings of Jung, Briggs, and Myers, and so he spent the next 5 years in doing independent studies regarding the brain and motor skills. He spent countless hours in university science-medical libraries and spoke to Ph.D.s whenever he could in the realm of Brain Types. Fortunately for JN, he had made and saved just enough money before to support his family over this long study process. During this time he accumulated reams of data and material for his future sports book, but he also put together his findings of the inborn differences of people in the business world, later publishing this 230-page book in the early 1980’s.

JN has proven his research proclivities throughout his life, and the publishing of “Your Key to Sports Success” in the early 90’s was no exception. His 400-page book is only one of his written dissertations for Brain Typing. The latest proof of his endless study of brain and body behavior is coming in the form of his most valued work yet, a new book and CD on how BT relates to virtually every phase of life. Though JN is a university graduate with 16 years of formal education, his only advanced degree comes in the world of hard knocks, from pursuing and pioneering over the course of nearly 30 years what he has called BT. JN is confidant that universities will someday offer Ph.D.s in Brain Typing (or the same by another name) and that his relentless efforts will allow others after him to pursue this fascinating area with credentials—if they so choose.

JN never sought the security of a Ph.D. from another subject for his specific passion and field of interest. Like many explorers before him, seeking the truth—even if it ran contrary to established thought and was “outside the box”—was more important. It’s difficult to imagine anyone anywhere who better understands the connection between personality traits and the brain and body, and has spent more time researching this area, than JN. Moving on.

Did you know our notions of “science” and “scientists” date only to the 19th century? Until then, “science” meant simply knowledge and the label of “scientist” did not exist. In our present generation, the four-step cycle that defines the “scientific method” of knowing is observation, synthesis, hypothesis, and testable prediction. JN has diligently applied this model over the past few decades. As it’s hard to imagine anyone who’s observed chimpanzees more than Jane Goodall, it’s also difficult to comprehend anyone who’s scrutinized more people in the cerebral/physical dimension than JN. His unprecedented success in the eyes of his clients attests to his unique ability to read and develop people. Just as Goodall found favor and unparalleled acceptance among the primates as she convinced them of her abilities to be understanding, earning their acceptance, so too has JN among people with whom he’s worked. They’ve quickly learned he understands them in a one-of-kind and accurate way, according to empirical and scientific principles.

BTI and JN are extremely grateful for the support we’ve had over these last couple of decades promoting the notion of Brain Types. Not only have thousands of lay people embraced our beliefs but countless professionals as well. JN speaks regularly to M.D.’s and Ph.D’s and many of these professionals have enthusiastically accepted BT in their practices and personal lives. BTI’s short-term goal, however, is to bring about the genetic confirmation of our beliefs—allowing all professionals (including our critic) and laity to acknowledge the process of identifying the individual and inborn designs in all people—which regulate specific cerebral and motor skills.

How do you plan on handing unethical and uncivil criticism?

Have you ever been unfairly or maliciously maligned in print for the world to see and consider? Maybe it’s been with verbal slander and lie-slinging that your hard-earned reputation has been assaulted. First you’re saddened, then confused, and then you realize your most valuable treasure, your integrity, has been assaulted.

You ask yourself, is it responsible just to ignore the “unprofessional” and seemingly envious opposition? Is it fair to your above-board work and your supporters and coworkers? Is it fair to those who have just tuned in to Brain Types, are getting interested, and could ultimately be significantly helped by it? Finally, you ask yourself, are you just lending credibility and recognition to those who need to be silenced and not be given an audience, if your go ahead and defend yourself?

We at BTI would like to take moderate action, acknowledging that highly erroneous accusations have been cast, denying their validity, identifying some of the many distortions, and then moving on with the positive use of Brain Types. We are, thank goodness, too busy right now to spend much time in self-defense. The proof of BT has been in the pudding, and has been well documented. Teams, corporations, and families are needing and using BTs more and more. When these God-given and inborn designs are genetically validated, few will not want BT to be a part of their everyday lives.

BTI is keeping a list of those who attack Brain Typing in an “unquestionably” inappropriate manner. (Inappropriate will be amplified herein). This list will be placed on our website and in certain upcoming materials we publish. We will also make available this list of names (or organizations) and their comments to the many in the media who cover our work. Though we already have credible, including withheld (deliberately), evidence to support our BT beliefs, and to rebut unethical and unfair criticism, we are waiting until our genetic research and findings irrefutably support us. If (which we know it’s not a matter of) and when these conclusions come, they will be shared with the scientific community for validation.

We have reluctantly chosen this course of action in order to expose mean-spirited critics who are, sad as it is to say, also debilitating to society. We believe that those who demonstrate this unprofessional and degrading behavior in our direction must also manifest these traits elsewhere—within their professions as well as home lives. Not only do we understand this from our decades of study into aberrant human behavior, but it’s also been recently confirmed to us by associates/acquaintances of our critics; caustic and heavy-handed natures seem to be their common denominator.

By making these names and slanderous statements available for all to see, we believe it will serve a lesson to not only present-day maligners but for others to come. Just as people of this sort seek to unfairly injure others, they will be recompensed by their own unethical actions. What goes around comes around. (Fortunately, the list we presently have is quite limited.)

As we’ve stated multiple times, we welcome objective, civil, truthful and ethical critiquing, when considering Brain Types, or any subject for that matter—even issues that are already accepted as fact, normal, or sound science. After all, what is regarded as fact today, can and is often proved erroneous tomorrow. When facts are distorted and untruths propagated, we are obligated to expose them.

New and Highly Deceptive Attack

Birds of a feather flock together and BTI’s prime critic has found another like-minded person to join him. The two have mounted a new attack on BTI in 2003. Critic number-2 has authored a highly deceptive, defamatory, and fact-distorting 40-page paper on BT—attempting to get others to join the seeming lynch party.

Not only is the paper libelous and ripe for litigators to pursue, but it parallels the spurious and notorious writings of the New York Times’ Jayson Blair—who recently came to America’s attention. Academic degrees or affiliating with a renowned company or organization do not ensure integrity of authors or critics. In fact, such things are often hindrances to honest dealings.

BTI recently became aware of this unethical paper against us and we’ve not had time to sift through all the misinformation and deceptive, self-serving prose. The distortions of fact are honestly too many to count in the initial reading. We and those who represent us will soon delve into this untruthful report.

Closing this sad chapter into an aspect of human nature, there is a story in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, in the book of Esther, that comes to mind when considering spiteful people. Like the story illustrates, what they don’t realize is that their actions will eventually bring unwanted shame upon themselves. Haman, the mean-spirited and envious right-hand man to King Ahasuerus (approximately 450 B.C.) attempted to destroy the upright and mild-mannered Mordecai—Esther’s beloved cousin. Yet Haman’s self-constructed and wicked devices, which he set up for Mordecai’s demise, actually brought about his own tragic ruin. We’re hopeful, however, that BTI’s two over-the-line critics and others of their kind will learn how to be professional and civil before they disgrace themselves further—treating others as they would want to be scrutinized and spoken of.

BTI’s mission in life has been to understand why unimpaired people do what they do. We believe we have a solid grasp on this subject, including why some unprofessional people hope to elevate themselves by attempting to deceptively bring others down. Though we cognitively “understand” these actions and people, we’re saddened for them, and those upon whom they prey.

Perhaps it’s helpful to remember Dr. Brenner’s suggestion again:

Is Brain Typing Going Outside the Box?

Consider the following event.

If anyone out there is a scientific pioneer, it’s recent Nobel Prize winner, geneticist Sydney Brenner. In October of 2002, he was one of three recipients of the world’s most prestigious award in Medicine. One of the founders of modern molecular genetics, he proved the existence of messenger RNA and demonstrated the genetic code, both important discoveries leading to the establishment of modern gene technology.

Brenner, founder of the Molecular Science Institute, is known for saying that to make a great discovery, one should be trained outside the field of discovery in order to approach cutting-edge exploration without bias and restraints.

Brenner, 75, is credited with pioneering the field of C. elegans biology at Cambridge University, UK in the 1960s. He chose the worm because it was more complex than other well-understood organisms, such as bacteria, yet still simple enough to study in depth. “It took great foresight to go into this brand new field back in the 1960s” says Geneticist Michael Stern of Yale University.

Consider Roger Brent, President and CEO of the Molecular Sciences Institute, an independent non-profit organizaton dedicated to interdisciplinary biological research that combines genomics with computer modeling. Brenner’s challenge to him of going outside the box made a drastic and positive change in his life.

Quoting Brent: “I started corresponding with Sydney Brenner, who founded the Institute in June 1996. He had a very similar take on things. Sydney bluntly told me that to pursue my interests, I would have to step outside the system. I was then about 40 years old and a scientific risk-taker, but needed that push from Brenner to make it work.”

Brent’s institution is no ivory tower. Rigorous investigations into predictive biology have landed the institute extensive funding, including a roughly $15.5 million NIH grant, because its research holds the promise of everything from a better understanding and treatment of disease to improvements in agriculture and the environment.

A futurist, Brent has an uncanny ability to step away from his specific research areas and understand the implications of new technologies and business models. As such, Brent has become a valued adviser to the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, the public sector and the fourth estate. He has advised various government bodies worldwide, including the National Institutes of Health, about issues in functional genomics and computational biology.

A prolific writer, Brent is one of the authors of Current Protocols, lab manuals of basic methodology, including Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Brent has been named an inventor on 11 issued and several pending U.S. patents.

The moral of the story: To make an avant-garde discovery, one often needs to enter uncharted waters—not stay within academia orthodoxy.

Do you believe that these inborn BT’s are a result of Intelligent Design?

If you keep up with news, you’ve probably read or heard of intelligent design (ID), but what exactly is it? ID is rooted in observation. The world looks very much as if an intelligent being created it. ID contends that living organisms appear designed because they ARE designed—manifesting features that natural processes cannot mimic. Scientific advances, especially in molecular biology, have only strengthened this impression. Intelligent design advocates have made important gains in intellectual circles and the culture at large. Many media reports have covered ID, including front-page articles in the L.A Times and the New York Times in 2001.

Just as there is purpose and design throughout the whole universe, so too, there is with people—far more than what any of us ever imagined. We at BTI subscribe to ID. Intricate studies of the human brain and eye alone convince us of a master designer. BTI feels an obligation to tell others of their God-given designs. If most of us in America are working for the common good, then why wouldn’t we at BTI try to reveal a “good” that surpasses every other “understanding” when it comes to “why people do what they do?”

We have a mission to tell others of God’s special handiwork in their individual makeups. From all the empirical and scientific evidence, we believe that an omnipotent and loving Creator has fashioned us all—with purpose and design. Understanding God’s special and different configurations for people—heretofore unknown—prompts us to tell them of these inborn variations and how best to develop them as Deity designed. We would be remiss in our duties if we did not make this information known. To this point in human history, we are not aware of anyone who has identified the inborn matrices of people to the extent of JN and Brain Typing.

If you were to go to a destitute area of the third world, would it be right to withhold the knowledge of proper sanitation practices and nutrition if they didn’t know better? Though people can exist and function without the knowledge of Brain Types (and sanitation and nutrition), with it we believe they can find much greater significance and benefit to life.

Most of us are quick to tell others we love or care about if something can benefit their lives—especially in an appreciable way. After all, genuine love is “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If after carefully evaluating Brain Types and finding that they’re real, and immensely beneficial to self and others we love, it’s only natural to want to tell others of how they can find similar benefit.

In addition, we believe mankind has a greater responsibility to his Creator, and his fellow man, than he’s previously demonstrated. The Christian/Jewish scriptures convey that man has an obligation to seek greater understanding and harmony with his fellow beings. And just as typology matriarchs Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs implored us to seek better understanding among ourselves, so echoes BTI. With the advent of new technologies, we believe Brain Typing offers much more insight into man’s inborn makeup than ever before.

Compare the empirical and scientific soundness between BT and psychology and its psychotherapies?

We know of no beliefs that BT espouses which do not have empirical soundness or a scientific basis. Whether it is the cerebral functions that can be shown by brain imaging as valid neurological processes (such as verbal or spatial inanimate logic “T”) facilitated in specific regions of the brain, or that these cerebral functions (and designs) are inborn—which genetic intelligence experts are now recognizing more and more, or that one’s voluntary motor skills are triggered via the primary motor cortex, we and many scientists believe BT’s beliefs are rooted in substance. We are quick to say, however, the conclusive “scientific” proof is yet to happen, but this doesn’t mean BT is without a rational foundation. We believe it is soundly cogent.

Regarding the soundness of psychology and its many therapies, others are more capable of handing this question than we. Over the years, we have conversed with scores of neuroscientists, some who’ve also had degrees in psychology. They have provided BTI with many neuroscientific research reports and articles that proclaim as unscientific numerous psychotherapies currently in use within the profession. These scientists with whom we conferred found it ironic that BT would be challenged by some psychologists as unscientific when all the while their profession practices many therapies and theories that can’t approach the scientific or empirical soundness of BT.

We at BTI are greatly pleased with those within the psychological profession who seek to find empirical or scientific evidence for their beliefs and practices. The field of neuropsychology especially holds much promise. BTI has as its goal to tell others of how God has wonderfully wired them with specific inborn designs, not to announce and denounce any shortcomings of psychology. Yet when those from that profession challenge us, we only ask them to look first at themselves, and then at us, objectively.

Yet for those who desire to further compare BT with psychology, or for those who want to become better acquainted with psychological terminology, the following may enlighten you a bit more with some of the therapies and terms within the profession.

Consider some of the treatments employed by the psychological and psychiatric professions:

psychiatric care, drug treatment, psychotropic drug, psychosurgery, leucotomy, prefrontal leucotomy (or lobotomy), cingulectomy, amygdalectomy, stereotaxy, psychoanalysis, analysis, ego analysis, Freudian analysis, psychoanalytic method, the couch, James-Lange theory, transactional analysis (TA), assertiveness training, psychotherapeutics, psychotherapy, behaviour modification, behaviour therapy, New Consciousness, bioenergetics, autosuggestion, biofeedback, client-centred therapy, aversion therapy, confrontation therapy, desensitization, conditioning, relaxation therapy, counselling, psychological counselling, pastoral counselling, directive therapy, ego therapy, est (Erhard seminars training), existential therapy, evocative psychotherapy, Gestalt therapy, group psychotherapy, group dynamics, marathon group, family therapy, family training, conjoint therapy, co-counselling, encounter group, consciousness raising, sensitivity training, sensitivity training group (or T-group), group relations training, sensory awareness training (SAT), marriage encounter, marriage guidance, humanistic therapy, logotherapy, mind cure, modelling, nondirective therapy, occupational therapy, play therapy, recreational therapy, primal therapy, regression therapy, scream therapy, psychodrama, drama therapy, radical therapy, feminist therapy, rational-emotive therapy, reality therapy, release therapy, abreaction, catharsis, psychocatharsis, reminiscence therapy, Rogerian therapy, role-playing, sex therapy, supportive theory, token economy, transcendental meditation (TM), transpersonal theory, Arica movement, vocational therapy, suggestion therapy, suggestionism, hypnotherapy, hypnotic suggestion, post-hypnotic suggestion, narcohypnosis, autohypnosis, self-hypnosis, sleep treatment, sleep therapy, narcotherapy, pentothal interview, narcoanalysis, shock treatment, shock therapy, convulsive therapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), electroconvulsive shock therapy (EST), electroshock, electroshock therapy, electronarcosis, metrazol shock therapy, hypoglycaemic shock therapy, insulin shock therapy, nonconvulsive electric treatment