Last week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we took our first look at Emergence Personality Theory's, Social Priority tests, a simple test which could better match students to teachers. The test we looked at was "positively biased." This week, we're going to take a look at the alter ego tests, known simply as the "negatively" biased tests. "Positively biased" versus "negatively biased." What's the difference? Let's see.

Human Motives, Great and SmallAll personality theorists posit motives for human behavior. Specifics aside, these motives could all be split out into only three categories; [1] those meant to avoid pain, [2] those meant to gain rewards, and [3] those meant to lead to self discovery. According to Emergence Personality Theory, the first, "avoid pain," category accounts for about 80% of human motives; the second, "gain rewards," category for 15% of human motives, and the third, "self discovery," category for a mere 5% of human motives. At best.

Now, if we apply these ideas to last week's test, we see that last week's questions clearly fall into the second category of human motive; those meant to lead to rewards. Certainly, this is what is at the heart of a question like, "Which would you rather be, comfortable or neat."

We call personality tests voiced with these kinds of questions, "positively biased" tests. In real life, they account for about 15% of what makes people do and think what they think and do.

This week, we'll be looking at a test which uses questions voiced in the 80% category. We call these tests, "negatively biased" tests. Here, seeing the difference is easy, even with a quick glance at this week's first test question; "Which is harder, being hungry or being ignorant?" "Which is harder ...?" Obviously, the focus here is on avoiding pain.

So why voice these test questions both as positives and as negatives? Again, the answer should be obvious. According to Emergence Personality Theory, by doing this, we've covered 95% of human motives. What is not so obvious, though, is why there are no tests of the third genre. Why not? Because the third genre of test questions, the "self discovery" questions, can potentially generate life changing effects. Not exactly the type of questions you would want to be asking kids on a placement test. Certainly not without being trained in Emergence Therapy. And absolutely not without their parents' fully conscious consent.

Emergence Therapists know this third category of questions by another name as well. They call them, "visual dialogues." In truth, they account for about 80% of an Emergence Therapist's efforts. Interestingly enough, this alone should show you what makes Emergence Therapy so different from most present therapies. The point is, though, that schools are not the place for kids to be subjected to therapies. Certainly not by untrained "therapists." Thus, we have no tests based on self discovery questions.

Finally, before moving on to this week's sample test, know we'll return, in future weeks, to talk more about the 80 / 15 / 5 basis of human motivation. Why? For one thing, because I do not expect you to blindly except what I've just told you about human motive. Second, because matching kids to their teachers is but the first step toward creating better classrooms. We also need to improve the way teachers motivate their kids. Thus, the 80 / 15 / 5 plays a big part in bettering kids' motivation.

This said, let's now take a closer look at this week's test, our first example of a "negatively biased" Social Priority test.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Over the past few weeks, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we've taken our first looks at Emergence Personality Theory's, Social Priority tests. Including how we might use these tests to match students to their teachers. This week, we're going to take a deeper look at the test results; the Personality Fractals. Including how they show both the "light" and "dark" sides of teachers.

Going Over to the Dark Side
No one is without their dark side. Including me. Most teachers openly admit, though, that they fear being seen in this light. By principals, parents, peers and so on. Why? I'd guess this has a lot to do with how they are always under the microscope, and to some degree, this is warranted. After all, we are trusting them with our children. Even so, no teacher is without his or her bad days. This would simply be impossible. And an inhuman expectation to be sure. And realistically, who could please everyone; principals, parents, department chairs, and so on? Anyone you know?

Okay, So we all have bad days. Including teachers. Is there anything we might do, though, to make this easier on those involved?

Actually, there is a lot we could do. For one thing, we could make the Personality Fractals of ALL the educators available to any interested party, staff, parents, kids, and so on. How would this help? We would all know pretty much what to expect from teachers on their bad days. For instance, our imaginary science teacher, Ralph, the Two, is ordinarily a very giving man. Nice. Polite. Genuinely caring. On a bad day, though, he's liable to be obnoxiously giving, a pushy, "I insist," "you must do this," kind of fellow. He might even tell you, it's "for your own good." Yuck.

And our history teacher, Ruth, the Three? Ordinarily, Ruth has a whole different style from Ralph. Not better nor worse, just different. On her bad days, however, Ruth has a lot in common with Ralph. Not everything. But a lot. How can this be? Let's look.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

"Teachers on a Bad Day." What Makes A Teacher Boring?" What topics! What's next? This week, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going to look at how teachers can use the third Social Priority from Emergence Personality Theory's, Personality Fractals, along with imaginary kayaks, to maintain their balance in the classroom. And their sanity. Sound promising? You can't imagine.

Week Twenty Five - January 15
Looking Good - Being Real
Would you rather feel the need to "look good" or to "be real?" Remember, I said, "feel the need."

If you ask me, I'd say, this is a tough question. Why? Because at times, we all need to do these things; both look good and be real. And because doing the right one at the wrong time is still doing the wrong thing.

Some folks would now ask, but what the heck does this have to do with being a teacher? The answer? A whole lot. You see, most teachers, given immunity, would admit to frequently feeling compelled to "look good," even when they know it would be better for the kids to "be real."

I find this an interesting parallel to how kids get graded. What I mean is, aren't kids' grades based more on how good they look on paper (good little parrots) than on how well they have learned what they've been taught? Of course, with teachers, this need to "look good" centers mainly on how they look socially, and with kids, it centers mainly on how they look academically.

"Looking good." Not the best way to prepare kids to live life in the real world. Why not? Because, while "looking good," at times, is a necessary real world skill, there's no greater way to guarantee unhappiness than to feel the need to look good all the time. Conversely, there is no greater way to guarantee happiness than to be real as much as you can. Being yourself simply feels better, all things considered.

My point? Happy teachers teach better. And kids learn better from happy teachers. At the same time, most kids recognize, and feel intolerant of, people who need to look good far more than most adults do. In fact, most adults will tolerate inordinate amounts of phoniness, especially in school environments, and especially when their job may be on the line.

So am I saying teachers should be real all the time? No. I am not. What I am saying though is that "being real" should be the ideal to which all educators aspire. Period. Teachers; principals, the school board, and so on. Moreover, if this were to happen, then kids would see real examples of healthy adults, both on their good days and on their bad.

Of course, I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have a practical way in which teachers could be real on a bad day and still safeguard the kids' well being. And herein lies the focus of this week's discourse. Is there a way teachers could be real on their bad days? Let's take a look.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

All learning centers on one simple question; "How do I know if this is true?" Extending this into the classroom, we might also say, all learning centers on knowing if kids are interested. This week, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going explore how teachers might use the only legitimate small group truth test; "fractals," to better gauge their students' interest. We'll do this by exploring an actual fractal from Emergence Personality Theory, the "Face Fractal."

Fractals! No, Not That Again! Do We Have To?
Okay. I know. I've repeatedly used a rather esoteric term; "fractals." Scientific types might even accuse me of misusing this word. Or at the very least, casually tossing it around like a layman pretending to be a scientist.

In truth, I use this word a lot. Why? Because I have come to love fractals. And because I have come to love what they can do for me. For instance, with fractals, I can often discern the nature of things within small groups. At times, from a single example. For instance, using fractals, I can discern the essential nature of the way a single child learns. Often, by observing nothing more than this one, single child.

Of course, in order to do this, I must be able to see the fractal patterns which underlie this child's nature.

This said, I would still, at this point, guess that for most folks reading this column, the word "fractal" remains a vague and mysterious term. An obscure geometry of dubious value. If this is how you feel, please don't worry. Moreover, if you have, at all, felt like I've been throwing this word around like a braggart tosses bigness, then please, do not trouble yourself one bit. You see, I quite understand.

The problem is, if I cannot get across to you what the word "fractal" means, then you will be unable to see the truth in most of what I've been saying. This is especially true since much of what I've written contradicts accepted beliefs with seemingly counter intuitive statements. Things like that the problems in education lie in what you cannot see (e.g. the fractals) rather than in what you can see (e.g. the statistics).

In addition, you have heard me openly disdain the use of research statistics for exploring the nature of things in small groups (e.g. the grades of a single child, the reason a teacher is boring). Thus, since research statistics are the currently worshipped god of educational truth, in all likelihood, the only way you'll be able to believe what I'm saying will be to learn to see the nature of my research tool; fractals.

For instance, I've told you that blankness is a state of learning (Dead Stops). And that kids drop out of school because schools make information more important than people (Outer Layers vs. Inner Layers). Are these ideas true? In order to know, you'll have to be able to picture these things as visual relationships. Fractal relationships. Not statistical relationships.

I've also claimed that a ten minute test which results in five pieces of information holds the power to significantly raise the overall level of our kids' educations, nationally, in one year (The Emergence Personality Fractal). And that we can consciously improve our kids' chances for learning if we concentrate on how they do and do not connect to their teachers (Layers 9 and 10).

Are these things true? Here again, if you cannot see the fractal relationships behind these ideas, you cannot know.

What, then, can I do to help you to know if these things are true? To be honest, I know of only one thing. I need to take another crack at teaching you to see the nature of fractals. Not just the nature of oak leaves and cumulus clouds, mind you. Rather, I need to teach you the very nature of fractals themselves. A nature so obvious and simple that even the most well meaning complexity scientists have so far missed it. And yes, I know what this statement makes me sound like.

And if you still don't understand what fractals are?

Then I'm afraid you'll have to delve deeper into what prevents you from connecting to me. You see, no connection, no learning. At least, no real learning. And lest you think what I'm saying here is mere hype, consider this. One of the most respected men in educational research, a Harvard man, recently rejected me. And my work. Why? Because he didn't like a word I had used in my e-mail address. An old e-mail address, no less. The word? "Mystical."

Imagine. A world famous educator and researcher with whom thousands of teachers study dismissed my entire life's work because of a word in my e-mail address. Sight unseen. So what does this say about his scientific methods? More important, would you want this man to be your child's teacher? Talk about killing the love of learning.

Fortunately, even if you have these prejudices, if I can get you to understand fractals, you'll have a way to see past them.

This said, now let's take yet one more look at what underlies, and proves, most of what I've been presenting here; fractals. Hopefully, I'll at least spark enough interest in you to permanently arouse your curiosity.

To this end, I'll offer you a useful example, an easy to learn fractal tool which could help you to better understand your students during class work. And most everyone else in your life as well. How? By teaching you to read certain movements within peoples' faces. Mostly, within their eyes.

Are you at least a little curious? Or skeptical, perhaps. Then let's begin.

to read the rest of this article, click here.

While brain researchers wrestle with the physiological secrets of the mind, EPT (Emergence Personality Theory) has already identified the four master fractals. Based on what? Based on the visual intensity of what we picture. This week, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going to look at how these four master fractals dictate what we can and cannot learn.

Making the Mind Visible
Anyone having read James Gleick's book, Chaos, knows why we became aware of fractals when we did. In the late twentieth century, with the help of computers (and Benoit Mandelbrot), we became able to visually map life events. Weather to economics. Eye scan patterns to eureka's. Ironically, many scientists still attempt to interpret this data linearly rather than fractally. In other words, they search within this data for cause and effect relationships, rather than using these patterns as visual maps with which to navigate life.

The problem here is, fractals are, by nature, non linear. Thus, they cannot be interpreted linearly. Certainly not to find cause and effect relationships. To do this is akin to trying to determine the order of Monet's brush strokes, say, in his painting, "Haystack." Are his brush strokes fractally recognizable? Yes. Absolutely. Even by a young child. But knowable as cause and effect events? Of course not. This is simply not possible. Patently absurd even. In fact, Monet himself could not have done this. Nor would he have wanted to.

If we cannot use fractals to determine cause and effect relationships though, why then do scientists still try to use them this way? And what can we use fractals for if not to find cause and effect relationships?

Why do scientists still try to do this? Because finding "cause and effect relationships" is the nature of most of our sciences. And has been ever since Descartes got us to divide what we can measure from what we cannot. Then too, perhaps it is because we human beings still dream that eventually, we'll know enough about our world to predictively prevent suffering.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. Why? Because suffering is fractal; not linear. And because you cannot use a fractal to predict anything other than that these patterns will recur. Other than this, fractals have no predictive power. Not even the timing of these recurrences.

So what good are fractals then? Simple. We can use them to correlate, and visually map, the complexities of our life experiences with analogous non linear visual geometry. Translation. We can use fractals to help us to see our choices and in doing so, make life easier. Especially for our children.

Why am I telling you all this though? Because the four Visual Intensity Fractals I'm about to show you have never been mapped by other than direct observation. Mind you, I and my colleagues have been mapping them for over a decade now, and have mapped them in thousands of observed cases. Even so, as scientific types commonly discount subjective and objective reporting as being unscientific and worse, many scientists would dismiss what I'm about to show you.

Fortunately, as one of my heroes, the psychologist William James, observed, the only proof we need is that these observations can help someone. They need to have a practical use, in other words. So do these fractals pass James' test? Definitely. Especially, with regard to their potential to help our children to love learning.

So how exactly might we use these fractals to help our children learn? The possibilities fall basically into four categories.

First, we gain a picture for the minds of children when they've been overwhelmed. What kids experience in the times wherein teachers make information more important then people. Know these experiences occur in two places within the cycle of the Four States of Learning. One, they occur at the boundary between "Learning by Momentum" (psychological access to the mind) and "Learning by Emergence" (visual access to the mind). Two, they occur at the boundary between "Learning by Extension" (pre visual access to the mind) and "Dead Stops" (no access to the mind).

Second, we get a picture for the minds of children when their ability to learn has become blocked. Something which occurs to children whenever they get startled by a life event. More interesting still, we get to visually recognize the exact point at which the child's access to this learning stops. The precise point at which the child can learn no more, regardless of how hard both the teacher and student try. This is the state in the cycle of learning I call, being at a "Dead Stop." This fractal, in fact, is a map of how Dead Stops occur.

Third, we get a picture for the minds of children when they relive these startling experiences. What a child's mind looks like when he or she repeatedly tries and fails. Here, we get to see visual evidence for what prevents this child from learning. Not just some vague "disintegrative" psychobabble, mind you. Rather, we get to see, in both a general and a specific sense, what leads children to lose their love of learning; visual proof for the existence of "Dead Stops." For educators concerned with sorting out the complexities of learning disabilities, this fractal could be of enormous help.

Fourth, we get a picture for the minds of children when they learn to see past these visual blocks. The fractal which shows us what learning itself looks like. Thus, with this fourth fractal, we get to see the actual visual identity of the states of learning I call, "Learning by Emergence" (visual access to the mind) and "Learning by Extension" (pre-visual access to the mind). Moreover, we also get a tool which could become the basis for real tests for learning in our schools. Not just tests for parroted learning, mind you. Authentic tests for personally integrated learning in children.

Here, then, are the Four Visual Intensity Fractals, the four "VIF's" of Emergence Personality Theory. Certainly these four shapes hold enormous potential, starting with that we can now map out how an individual child's mind moves within the Four States of Learning. Right up to and including the point at which this child became unable to learn something.

Pin pointing these problems could then lead us to new and better ways in which we might restore, and conserve, our childrens' love of learning. One child at a time, rather than with broad brush, big group, impersonal efforts. Are you starting to see the potential here?

We also get a way to visually identify the exact point at which a child's ability to learn becomes unblocked. Subject by subject. Idea by idea. In other words, we get to know with certainty when a child has become open to this once blocked learning again.

Now let's explore how you might learn for yourselves how to see these four fractals. The actual visual patterns underlying the four VIF's; the four "learning to see life" events.

To read the rest of this article, click here.