The first mode is “intuition”, or “concrete intuition” in Aeolitalk. It is a two-step process of starting from the answer, then applying counterfactual simulation to fill in the details.
Counterfactual Simulation is applied imagination: consciously asking a “what if” question, and letting your mind imagine the rest.
Based on the stored Patterns, Associations and Interpretations, your brain will produce what it believes is the most likely scenario.
Counterfactuals are very useful because of their flexibility: you can simulate anything you want.
When you use Counterfactual Simulation, you assume the event or state you’re simulating is already true. The mind then fills the gaps between A (where you are) and B (where you want to be).
Josh Kaufman
Counterfactual Simulation
The initial step is achieved either via dogma or aesthetics. In the latter case, it is as if one “smells” or “feels” their way to the most viable answer (via subconscious path-optimizing heuristics). This is an occipital function. The best example is the latter portion of this comment.
The second mode is henceforth called “multithreading”, which is the ability to follow multiple lines of thought at once. This is a parietal function, optimized for navigating logical systems.
The superstar posters at Vox Popoli tend to report this ability, although some are better at describing it than others.
Instead of going from point a to point b to point z, point a doesn’t lead to point b, but to track a, track b, track c. And each track has its own sub tracks. And you can go from point a to point z on each track simultaneously.
Josh
Comment on The Excluded
That comment thread is absolutely fantastic. I’ve read it several times and there’s always more to find. (The automatthew quote suggests he applies intuition to each branch of his multithreading process simultaneously.)
The third mode is abstract intuition, which applies concrete intuition to the aesthetic properties of ideas produced by synesthesia. I won’t be able to trace this one back until I find a good book about synesthesia, but it clearly has something to do with the temporal lobe.
There are probably more modes than this, but these are the ones I’ve identified so far. Everyone has a little bit of each, but what characterizes IQs above 130 is how dominant these processes become.
Aeoli Pera 
Hey, maybe my synaesthetic-like experiences at peak capacity are due to temporal bulges. Primarily parietal, of course.
I think it has something to do with white matter linking the frontal and temporal, and the increased associative horizon that accompanies high mental energy states (see https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/associative-horizon-is-in-the-frontal-lobe-80-due-white-matter-abundance-and-low-latent-inhibition/).
So essentially, your white matter is firing at such a high rate that the neurons in the front are syncing up with the temporal. Or at least that’s my ignorant working theory. It would explain my reaction to marijuana.
Perhaps. Your head does bulge out quite a bit at the sides. Interestingly, classic Neanderthals had intense temporal and parietal bulging as well, making their heads flare out at the sides like your head does.
I think the cognitive correlates of this sort of bulging among non-Starchildren are underinvestigated in the Edenism community and merit more consideration.
One of these days, I’ll get around to analyzing Neanderthal endocasts. There are a number of good studies on them, which should provide insight into their brain anatomy, including aforementioned lateral cranial bulging.
I agree Nottuh. Is there any physiognomic difference between Starchild and Neanderthal temporal bulges? Perhaps positioning?
My prediction is that there will be a little bit, because it has to grow into a differently shaped head and body, but ultimately the en bombe is an SC atavism.
I agree on the importance, and I consider the sideward-flaring to be as important as occipital bulge in T-back typing. /opinion
As is usual, I think you have some interesting thoughts which you’ve tried to fit into your worldview using faulty assumptions.
The idea that each of these three cognitive modes corresponds to one of our brain lobes has no evidence to support it. Let alone setting up a study, even trying to find anecdotes to support the idea would be problematic, seeing as we can not reliably identify brain shape and we can not reliably distinguish between these cognitive modes.
In my experience, most people with IQ’s of 130 are complete normalfags who act and speak in a way that is very similar to your average Joe on the street. It’s difficult to imagine that such people think in a way characterized by these fancy-schmancy modes that are totally different from the “normal” way of thinking.
>The idea that each of these three cognitive modes corresponds to one of our brain lobes has no evidence to support it.
This is an essay, not a typology system.
>In my experience, most people with IQ’s of 130 are complete normalfags who act and speak in a way that is very similar to your average Joe on the street.
That’s the high end of neurotypical cognitive style and the very low end of modal divergence, so any qualitative differences are (generally!) going to be very slight.
>It’s difficult to imagine that such people think in a way characterized by these fancy-schmancy modes that are totally different from the “normal” way of thinking.
Noted. This is to be expected, and the specific line of argument is treated in the comment thread linked in the post.
Hehe. I always thought I was the only the who experienced this.
Wow. Formatting here makes it look like this was a response to the second comment. It was meant to be a reply to your first remark.
I’m not a big fan of the design.
I should have figured. Actually, in this case I had predicted that you do this.
“Instead of going from point a to point b to point z, point a doesn’t lead to point b, but to track a, track b, track c. And each track has its own sub tracks. And you can go from point a to point z on each track simultaneously.”
This sounds a lot like my own thinking. Except I would use a web as the example. In my case it seems that every point is linked to each other by a strand that in turn forms an information system that checks on itself leading to self-correction. I am not sure how smart I am, but I can learn things just by reading them or watching someone do something once.
Couldn’t say from that description. It seems that most people who do this have a very difficult time describing it.
That is a perfect example of legit synesthesia. Not surprising that you experience this, because drugs.
Now that you mention it I probably do this a little bit in conversation as well. I think it’s necessary to performing word choice. However, it’s a very, very weak function in me (if I have this right).
Suspect it has something to do with a synergy between the two intuitive functions, with the limiting factor being whichever one is your weakest. Not a suspicion I’d be willing to bet anything on just yet, however.
Do you mean the abstract and concrete types or something else?
Jungian ones. Extroverted intuition/introverted intuition.
Ah, okay.
Here I thought that was just me.
What I imagine it’s like in the head of someone fluent in all three modes of thought.
Typing up post on type 3…
“I wonder if I can do the other two”
…I can do type 3 for sure…
“lets test type 1”
*tests type 1*
¥¥ TYPE 1 ENGAGE BRAIN TAKEOVER – PAUSE ALL SYSTEMS ¥¥
¥¥ BEGIN THE SIMULATION ¥¥
¥¥ THIS SHITPOST INVOLVES TOO MUCH WORK ¥¥
¥¥ END SIMULATION – BEGIN ALL SYSTEMS ¥¥
“well that was quick”
…where was I- oh yes, I can do type 1 and 3…
“wow, typing is so boring, what was type 2 again?”
…lets write up why we cant do type 2 now…
“Oh yes you can, nitwit”
…completes post on all-type master race.
WTF bro.
It looks/works waaaay cooler than I can explain.
The idea that there are three modes of higher cognitive thinking enters the brain of someone who is fluent in all three. She immediately understands type three, that is her primary method of thinking. The proof is the fact that the idea of three mdes of thought appears brightly colored and has its own shape that fits in with the other colored shapes that she knows to be true.
Whilst thinking about how true these methods of thinking are she simultaneously runs the type one method in her head, she picks up multiple colored shapes and throws them around, jumbling them up, changing the particulars, running scenarios on whether they work with different colors or more sides, etc. She finds that she is able to build new microcosms with these altered shapes and she has no trouble understanding why these microcosms are false, unable to work in reality. Now she is aware that she is capable of type one and type three modes of thought.
As she mulls over the implications she realizes that she has been thinking about all of these things at the same time, at once seperate tracks yet allowing these tracks to run at the same time. Ergo, she is able to think in all three types and realizes she is a super genius. Her brain releases dopamine and all is right in the world.
Two minutes later she realizes she will be late to a job interview because she has been sidetracked by her (brilliant!) mind yet again. Lol
Pingback: On European Jews (part 1) | Aeoli Pera
Pingback: On owl melons | Aeoli Pera
Pingback: Commentary: The IQ delta | Aeoli Pera