The four quadrants of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) explain cerebral and limbic thinking preferences. That is, when we process information by actively thinking, we tend to develop specific processing styles which become our default settings in life.
However, this is the processing story without the overlay of the control mechanism or ‘wisdom centre’. This function seems to be supplied by the development (or not) of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex. I believe that this is an exciting new area of knowledge which adds to our thinking about preference. Think of it as if the four quadrants constitute the computer programme and the prefrontal lobes contribute the operator of the computer.
Many of us using the HBDI have experienced that situation when someone has asked why two people with exactly the same profile can be such different people. I used to reply that this was the result of different aspects of thinking within each thinking quadrant, e.g. strong red indicates a range of preferences including emotional, interpersonal, musical, kinesthetic and spiritual. Introvert or extrovert personality also impacts on the expression of the profile and so does the interaction of red with other preferences – so strong red accompanied by strong yellow impacts very differently from strong red combined with strong green. The influence of optimism or pessimism also contributes. So the message I have given is that the instrument is deceptively simple, but the depth is in the interpretation of many variables implicit in the individual’s profile. Thus no two profiles are ever likely to be the same.
However, over the past 10 years I had started to question this answer myself. There seemed to be more going on here. For instance, most of us are aware of red ‘going bad’; a situation, for instance, where empathy is used to manipulate and control others. In my view, both Mother Teresa and Hitler could have had strong red preferences – one used this focus to try to rule the world and the other to love and save individuals. I don’t believe that this had much to do with extroversion or introversion – or the combination of their preferences – but it could have come from the influence over these preferences by their PFC. So although I believe that all of the above is true, I have also come to the conclusion that there is another factor; that is the overlay of the PFC ‘wisdom centre’.
When Ned developed the instrument there was little or no research into the frontal lobes of the brain. In fact, most of this has happened in the past few years, and neuroscientists are now beginning to realize how much influence this slow growing and powerful part of the brain has. Naturally, the Whole Brain Model is a metaphor and so it is not useful to delve into too much functional detail. Having said that, I believe that the HBDI represents the underlying processing preferences of a human brain but is also influenced by the overlay of a person’s PFC development. This doesn’t mean that I think that the HBDI is wrong – quite the opposite. I have concluded that it is right as a basis for understanding differences in thinking but not sufficient for understanding a person’s use of that thinking style. To be fair, Ned never claimed that the instrument would offer this level of understanding. It is interesting to imagine how he might have interpreted the latest knowledge of the brain; he might have added another level of development to the HBDI, or he might have stayed with simplicity and encouraged others add to it.
In simple terms (I am not a neuroscientist) I gather that this part of the brain controls a person’s character – that is: judgment (the ability to reach the right decision in the circumstances), emotional control (the basis of Emotional Intelligence), and altruism (greater good rather than selfishness). In order to reach an advanced state of human development this part of the brain also enables consciousness, and connectivity. It helps us to become aware of our personal responsibilities through awareness of our impact on others and a development of ethics. It also gives us the capacity to engage in future planning through an awareness of consequences. It controls the development of the rest of our brain (which is extremely plastic) by putting a conscious focus on certain types of thinking – particularly connecting the existing knowledge base. This enables the brain to prune and connect in a particular way that enables physiological ‘wisdom’ to develop (the capacity to synergise existing knowledge and experience into a more accessible format). In other words, this part of the brain becomes both the conscience and the coach for development of the rest of the brain. It becomes the operator of the human computer. It is our executive function.
So what? Well, different people have different levels of PFC development. Some have frontal lobe damage. Let’s take the extremes. A person with damage to their PFC, whatever their profile, could act out of poor judgment with little or no concern for others. They may have ‘no conscience’ and no awareness of consequences. They may have no empathy at all or use their empathy to manipulate others for their own purposes. They may find it hard to make decisions or to take responsibility for them. According to Richard Restak, neuroscientist, many prisoners suffer from damaged frontal lobes. If you are wondering about your teenage son, this part of the brain develops slowly and is often simply not available to adolescents. This may explain some of the difficult behaviour that emerges as a boy begins to grow up – but that’s another story!
On the other hand, a person with a well developed PFC can become a great leader – able to make the right decision at the right time in the right way. They will be able to balance empathy for the individual with greater good of the whole group. Finally, they will have the ability to utilize all of their years of knowledge and experience through the function of a brain that has become ‘wired’ to maximize its creative potential. This is unlikely to occur physiologically before the age of 45, and there is no guarantee that it will occur in everyone! According to Elkhonon Goldberg, it depends how a person develops their brain during the preceding years.
I like this extra overlay – because it means that we can believe (as well as claim) that both cerebral and limbic profiles are equally great. Mother Teresa would probably be a good example of a highly developed limbic profile and Einstein an example of a highly developed cerebral. Both had wisdom, both operated with a very different processing style. It does mean, however, that extreme left or right profiles (with opposite avoidances) have an enormous challenge of integration. Without the application of a strong prefrontal ‘wisdom centre’ these profiles could lack the connectedness through one processing style overpowering the other. Both pattern and linear thinking are needed to ‘wire’ a great brain! Whole brain thinking capability matters, whatever the preference.
If you would like to read about this subject, I can recommend two books: ‘Think Smart’ by Richard Restak and ‘The Wisdom Paradox’ by Elkhonon Goldberg. These are easier to read than many of the ‘hardcore’ neuro-science books available.
I am interested in having a conversation around this to help develop my own thinking on the subject if you are interested. I would especially like people to challenge this approach or parts of it.