Psycholinguistic access to different processing styles?

It may be possible to devise a system for this, given proper inspiration and dedication.

When I write about different processing styles for different parts of the brain, it is with the understanding that we all have a little parietal, temporal, frontal, and occipital in us. (Also limbic system and cerebrospinal, for completeness.) One type tends to dominate because it is stronger. Take polymath as an example: his fauxcippital gives him both occipital inspiration and parietal realism, but he can’t turn off the parietal filter like I…never had to begin with. He is comfortable only with perfectly true statements, and prefers to talk about physical facts rather than modalities and possibilities. This is why I echo his thoughts, but he doesn’t echo mine. His thoughts go through the parietal and deepsock for validation, whereas mine are only filtered through deepishsock.

In reality we ought to exploit all modes of reasoning in their proper environments and pursue extreme interconnectedness between them. So polymath is a more evolved intellectual than I am.

Sleep helps a lot with interconnectedness, and I hear psilocybins are good for this as well. Never tried ’em, but it makes sense that they’d be a longtime part of the neanderthal diet, what with growing on cow dung. Certain brain processes and structures are only adaptive in their corresponding environments. Take attention deficit as a perfect example: great for hunting and war, less great in school and farming. Attention surplus (ADHD-I, my rediagnosed diagnosis) is great for designing and creative writing (or whatever the hell it is I do here), not so great for parties and small talk.

Getting off track. I note in passing that peripatetic, longwinded writing indicates occipital activation. Back to the original idea.

I’ve noticed that people write differently when they are relying on different parts of the brain. I described occipital writing when I predicted the course of the TT theology thread:

-TT argumentative style will be, in exactly one word, verbose. This is because TTs are 1. hyperlexic, 2. occipital, holistic, visual processors, and 3. expressing, in words, things that cannot be exhaustively expressed in words (but not for lack of trying). So one TT will spend several paragraphs describing a few facets of a visuospatial object that only exists in his or her head (humorously, we tend to consider these objects “parsimonious”). The other TTs will read all of this (compulsively), try to faithfully reproduce the whole object from the fragments, and compare this with the object in their own heads. They will describe the differences they’ve found, and the process will repeat.

-I’m genuinely worried that TTs might take this sort of discussion personally. I think most will simply not participate, but instead spectate (occasionally saying something brief like “This was unconvincing.”).

(I’ve left out the first bullet, which incorrectly predicted high Christian representation. These two are now well-established as true predictions.)

Parietal communication is more terse and perfectionist, and tends to demand interpretation on the part of the reader. I think this is because showing weakness gets you eaten by ‘mags. When possible, they prefer cleverness, symbolism, and layers of meaning.

Please note that I am writing descriptively, without qualifiers like maybe, probably, if/then. I am describing models that I see in my mind, even though they may not have anything to do with reality. My instinct is to trust that my audience is individualistic and deep-socketed.

I hope that I’ve given you reason to believe the first idea, which is that writing style indicates thinking style. The question I want to pursue, as indicated by the title, is whether this process can be reversed. That is, whether we can activate modules of the brain by attempting to do the sorts of things those modules do. I’m not hopeful about the daemons running in the unconscious (frontal and occipital), which just do their thing and show up as “inspiration”. But I am very hopeful that 1) we can properly describe the psycholinguistics of each module, 2) we can linguistically access the parietal, temporal, limbic, and to some extent the frontal, and 3) by understanding them we can design a better lifestyle and routine for a holistic processing style, which is by far the most effective sort.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Psycholinguistic access to different processing styles?

  1. heaviside says:

    >So one TT will spend several paragraphs describing a few facets of a visuospatial object that only exists in his or her head

    Why don’t they just draw pictures? Every mathematics book should be 50% pictures.

    >Parietal communication is more terse and perfectionist, and tends to demand interpretation on the part of the reader.

    Ever read any Heidegger?

    >I think this is because showing weakness gets you eaten by ‘mags. When possible, they prefer cleverness, symbolism, and layers of meaning.

    It’s done for several reasons. Not showing your real sources makes you look smarter(in academia you only cite people to create a mafia). Information is power. Reducing to terse statements is a consequence of reducing to general principles. Putting too much effort into explanation puts you in a one-down position and it shows you’re either not playing the game, or playing it badly(if you’re not playing you can’t be used as a reliable ally). Then, of course, there’s also being clever just for the sake of being clever.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Why don’t they just draw pictures? Every mathematics book should be 50% pictures.

      Point taken. I like your blockquote style.

      >Ever read any Heidegger?

      Nope, I’m not at at well-read.

      >It’s done for several reasons…

      Maybe this is another case of lacking some fundamental temperament. But this time I actually understand everything you’ve presented. Even the part about “playing the game”, which makes sense after I think about it a little.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s