Is Ego a Matter of Anatomy?

~photo courtesy of Indiana University

Hi everyone! I'm sorry I've been so scarce in the blogosphere lately. In my absence, I've been blown away with the ideas and insights of Eckhart Tolle and Dr. Jill Bolte-Taylor (thanks, Janey!!!) Both have written books and can be found in various interviews and videos on the web-- so, I've been spending hours soaking it all up.
:)

As I discussed in my last post, Tolle defines the "ego" as the part of us that thinks with words, the voice in our head. He believes that this voice is not our true self. Rather, we are the presence that hears the voice. And, if we consciously turn off the ego's voice and simply be present and aware of our senses, we will find a simple, open state of peace and joy.

One problem that I have is that Tolle's descriptions can come off as having a spiritual, even religious, feeling. He describes this ego-less state as energy which connects us all. Is it a higher plane of existence? Is it a brush with the divine? No. He's not really saying that at all. But as a probable Idealist (one of Keirsey's temperament types), Tolle has some difficulty nailing down his words in black and white. In a more scientific straight-forwardness. That's where Dr. Jill Bolte-Taylor has made a huge contribution.

Dr. Bolte-Taylor is a Harvard-trained neuroanatomist who had a stroke at age 37. And, she remained awake and conscious the entire time and was able to perceive the changes in her brain as they happened! How cool is that?! Her left-sided hemorrhage effectively shut down her entire left hemisphere (language, rational and linear thinking, math skills). So she was living with only the functions of her right brain (intuition, contextual understanding, perception of intonation, spatial skills). She describes the experience in her book My Stroke of Insight.

Check out this incredible video of a talk she gave several years ago:




What I find fascinating, is that when her left hemisphere stopped working, she experienced the awareness of being that Tolle describes. She says that she lost her ego. That her thinking was silenced because the section of the brain that processes language completely shut down.


~excerpt from Oprah's Soul Series radio show (archived at Oprah.com)

So is the ego actually our left hemisphere? It appears so. Our ability to use language seems to be the key to what ego is.

We think in words because we evolved language. And certainly, shared language is a huge advantage for survival. But, this thinking mind is also a bit of a curse.

To think requires words, which are just man-made labels for ideas and concepts. As Tolle teaches, words are just guideposts that point us to the ideas, they are not truth. And this is the curse. Just think of all the thoughts that we have. Aren't we defining our experiences (or limiting them) with thought? And so often, thoughts tend to either amplify emotion or block emotion. This is why some people preach positive thinking as a way to feel happier. But thoughts are not emotions.

Emotion is a physical function. It happens deep in the brain in the amygdala. It is a specific physiologic response that protects us and enhances our survival by, for example, preparing us to fight or flee when fear is triggered, or by creating a desire to attach to a caregiver or loved one when feelings of safety (happiness, joy, etc.) are triggered. Pure emotion (the physiological response) is fleeting. The brain function only lasts from a few minutes to about 20 minutes maximum (for fear and anger). But, thanks to our thinking mind, we continue to experience what we believe is fear or anger for hours, days, even years! In actuality, we trick our brain into triggering the emotional response in the absence of a real life event. By having thoughts. By having an ego that tells us stories.

It's the price we pay for having language.

So, can we stop creating these thought-induced emotional experiences? Yes! As Dr. Bolte-Taylor knows, we can turn off our left-hemisphere. As Tolle teaches, we can silence the ego. And the result is peace, joy, an undefinable (because we can't apply words to it) sense of connection with life. It is pure living, without the curse of false, thought-induced negative emotions.

Dr. Bolte-Taylor calls it Nirvana.

I call it life. And, of course...

Life is Beautiful...
:)

Who I Am

Currently, I'm reading A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle. I've always been curious about books that people claim have changed their lives. And, as you may remember, Oprah was a huge follower of Tolle several years ago. So I decided to see what it was all about.

I am generally a bit skeptical of anything overly spiritual. Although I consider myself spiritual in a sense, I am atheist. And, having studied the hard sciences (biology major) and anthropology in college, I prefer to find physical or rational explanations. That said, I do believe that individuals can affect the quality of their experience in life through thought. And I am always open to hearing how another human has made sense of life, how their thoughts shape their experience. I recognize how my range of thoughts are limited by my individual experience, and I like learning new ways of thinking that I would never have conceived of on my own.

So in this spirit, I started reading A New Earth. And what I found was something fascinating...about me.

First, for those of you who haven't read Tolle, I'll do my best to summarize his ideas as I understand them thus far (I haven't finished the book yet).

Tolle says that a person is comprised of an illusory self which he calls the "ego", and the true self, or "consciousness," which is the presence within you who is hearing the thoughts of the ego. The ego is the speaker who we often think of as "I". But, he asserts that "I" is an illusion because it is given definition through human constructs (such as words). He says, "the greatest miracle is the experiencing of your essential self as prior to any words, thoughts, mental labels, and images. For this to happen you need to disentangle your sense of I, of Beingness, from all the things it has become mixed up with, that is to say, identified with." (A New Earth, page 26.)

This makes sense to me. I have been aware that there is a part of me who can hear myself thinking, that there is indeed a presence separate from and beyond the thoughts in my mind. A presence that doesn't think, it is just aware, it just "is." So, this is my true self listening to my ego. I just didn't define the two so clearly as the "ego" and my "consciousness."

What has amazed me while reading is my realization that I was fully aware of my true self from a very young age.

I remember doing a worksheet in 3rd grade (I was 8) about self identity. We had to answer questions like "my favorite food is...," "my favorite color is...," and "I'm really good at...." It is my first memory of defining my self, comparing myself to others and seeing how I am different. It was my first organized effort to figure out who I am. And I remember having a strong sense of "knowing" things that I couldn't put into words. Clearly, my intuiting function was already well developed. For example, I knew which group of friends the new girl would join upon my first interaction with her. I knew how to change my behavior to fit in with different "types". I had clear visions of how everyone in my world was connected-- I saw the structure of the interrelationships. Some of this was the development of Tolle's ego-- defining myself and the world with words and labels. But I also "knew" that my true self wasn't definable, it just was. And a few years later, that awareness became very strong.

When I was about 14 or 15, I used to wander off into the woods. I had a favorite boulder where I would sit and think. Sometimes I brought a journal. Sometimes I was working through a particular issue in my life (the usual teen situations). And sometimes I just sat to "commune with life" (as I called it then). The forest was filled with white birch trees which I loved, and I would sit and feel like I was one with them. Though my rational mind thought I was a bit bonkers at the time, I was aware of a joy that is beyond description. It was the start of my Life is Beautiful motto. I chose not to analyze it, because it was a source of strength that I knew, even then, was uncommon.

So when I read something in Tolle's book, tears came to my eyes. I felt a sense of validation that I've never felt before. He talks about the "influx of joy" and "inner peace" that fills you when you first experience the separation of the ego self (your thoughts and the content of your mind) from the simple awareness of being. Thoughts are constructs that limit our perceptions. Awareness is not limiting. It just is. This experience "happens in such a subtle way that [people] hardly notice it." (A New Earth, page 30.) This same subtle joy and peace is what came upon me in that forest. The joy of Being can only be felt "when you get out of your head. Being must be felt. It can't be thought." (A New Earth, page 40.)

How is this a strength? I have been told by several people through the years that I have a strength which they admire. In high school, my friends found my optimism curious. They joked about it, but I knew they also wished for the peace that I often felt. In college, my best friend told me I had an amazing "spiritual strength", which I chuckled at because I was on the verge of leaving my faith and embracing atheism. I hadn't considered my way of thinking a strength. To me, it was just the way life is. Just truth, as I saw it. Rational and realistic, not spiritual or some extraordinary ability to see through rosy glasses. And I didn't see myself as "stronger" than anyone else (I still don't.) I've got plenty of weaknesses. So what exactly is my "strength"?

Again, my heart stopped as I read Tolle's discussion on happiness. He says, "the primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation but your thoughts about it. Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking. Separate them from the situation, which is always neutral, which always is as it is." (A new Earth, page 96.) And furthermore, he says, "Don't seek happiness. If you seek it, you won't find it, because seeking is the antithesis of happiness. Happiness is ever elusive, but freedom from unhappiness is attainable now, by facing what is rather than making up stories about it. Unhappiness covers up your natural state of well-being and inner peace, the source of true happiness." (A New Earth, page 96.)

Yes! He has put into words something that I've "known" for all these years, but was unable to explain to others. We all have this ability to become aware of our true essence, by becoming aware of the presence behind our thoughts and emotions. And when we are aware of it, we can't help but sense a deep peace and happiness. Because happiness is our natural state of being, what "is" when we strip away all the thoughts and constructs that we have accumulated through thinking (the ego's function). This was the source of my "strength." I knew how to be free from unhappiness.

There was another reason tears came to my eyes while reading. I realized that at some time through the years I have woefully forgotten to separate my self from my ego. I have fallen into the ego's trap. I have been allowing my thoughts and emotions to define what is, instead of just "being". And as a result, I have caused pain, for myself and others.

So thank you, Eckhart Tolle, for skillfully using words to express what I could not. And for reminding me of who I am.

The Basket Weaver

Sometimes I wonder who is living my life. The life I always envisioned. I hope that she is enjoying it. It was a lovely picture.

I've been challenged with a different life. And sometimes, like today, I feel lost. Not sure what my life should look like. Not sure which colors and strokes I should, or could, be applying to the canvas. All I know is that I don’t know.

I think of the things I would have done differently. But that's not valuable in the now. As Al Turtle says, "Guilt is time travel. It is putting today's wisdom into yesterday's event-- a time at which you only had yesterday's wisdom." I don't regret any of my choices because I know that I've always used the wisdom that was available to me in each moment.

But lately, I find that I don’t trust that I have any wisdom. I feel like a newborn. My eyes have been opened to a new world. One that was unknown to my past self. So nothing I've learned is useful in this new place. I suppose knowing that I don't know is a start. I am open to anything now. Is this an awakening? Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just my self/ego denying my failings, hiding in some esoteric idea about rebirth.

Sometimes I wonder if my tendency to think and explore ideas is a curse. I tried to have a career in which I helped others. Made life a bit sunnier or easier for others. But even as a student, I learned that I had few skills of practical value. During my apprenticeship my mentor said, "Aine, you're a scholar. But, keep your hands off the clients!"

Sometimes I wish I were a basket weaver. I could sit in the sunshine and create something useful, something that people needed and wanted. Life could be simple. I would be happy.

But I'm cursed with this tendency to think and explore ideas. Which I'm not even very good at. I rarely create my own ideas. I just enjoy exploring the genius of others. Alone.

I've been ignored or even ridiculed by all of my loved ones for my passions. But I don't blame them, my passions are all useless, impractical.

Al Turtle also said, "All humans are geniuses (at something.) Look for it."

I am, Al. I'm still looking.

Perhaps my genius is my ability to hope.

But, it's a curse,too. It makes me feel alone. It's impractical, unpopular, and just plain weird, as I've been told again and again. But that's the one thing I'll never give up.

If only I could weave baskets out of it...

Just a Wee Rant (or What's Buggin' Aine?)

A few days ago while browsing Yahoo, I (despite my better judgement) clicked on an article about Jon Gosselin. He probably needs no introduction, but for any fellow hermits, he's the wayward husband from reality TV's "Jon & Kate Plus Eight." In the article, a psychologist is quoted saying that Jon's behavior is due to the fact that he was married too young (he was 22), and so he never had an opportunity to sow his oats.

Whoa! Stop. Back up. Did he just say that?

My first thought was: so, 22 is now considered too young to get married, eh? For most of the past 100 years the average age of marriage ranged from 22 to 24 (for men in the USA). Hmmm.

Even so, maybe Jon Gosselin was too immature to use good judgement or make such a big decision (to get married). After all, I know that some human brains are not developmentally mature until 25. That is, they are incapable of processing higher level cognitive functions such as abstract thought, planning, or predicting consequences. This is why we provide parenting and parental guidance through the teen years. To ensure the survival of our genes, we protect our children until they develop all the skills required to make good decisions. Neuroscience tells us that this brain function doesn't reach full maturity until our early to mid-twenties. So, okay-- maybe Jon Gosselin wasn't developmentally able to make a good decision in choosing a life partner at 22.

And now that he is fully adult, he has chosen to not "own" his past decisions. That's his choice. It simply displays his character.



So, why did this article bother me?

Because a professional psychologist just provided an excuse for poor judgement. Perhaps even normalized it.

I suppose, following this thinking, that I should allow my seven year-old to sing songs about poop in her "outdoor voice" in a restaurant. After all, a seven year-old brain is incapable of impulse control, right?

So, I was bothered because this professional therapist validated poor judgement, effectively bypassing the issue of choice and accountability. Shouldn't a professional psychologist be modeling/teaching a healthier approach to situations? I'm not suggesting that he should've judged Jon's behavior based on some moral code, but he could have used the opportunity to discuss choice, accountability, character, and growth.

And this isn't the first professional counselor who has displayed such a lack of professionalism. I know of a situation where a psychologist told a married man (not a client) that it was okay to be unfaithful, that "it's" called DWM-- dating while married. And encouraged this choice as a method of getting needs met. Yikes!!

Why are people becoming so quick to ignore accountability and responsibility? Where are the role models for good choices?

Sorry. Rant over. As you were....

Fun and Games (or Connect Four!)

(Couldn't resist the continuation of the 4 theme... LOL)




For some reason a memory popped into my head this morning of one of my first therapy clients. So naturally, I decided to share.... :)

When I was a student, one of my term projects involved visiting the home of a disabled person to practice interviewing and building therapeutic rapport. The disabled clients were a group of spinal cord injured patients who, prior to their discharge from a rehab hospital, had signed up to take part in this annual project.

I knew that these willing participants didn't sign up because they desired to be part of the educational experience of young therapy students. And, I doubt that many of them relished the thought of strangers coming into their home to poke and prod into the tragedy that their life had become. They signed up because it was a great way to get continued, free therapy services. So as part of our project, we were to establish one goal that we would work on during our 8-10 visits. That way, the client benefited from our educated creativity (ha!), and we benefited by developing our therapeutic interaction skills.

My client was a young (20 something) African-American man who lived in an undesirable neighborhood of Philadelphia. He was quadriplegic, only able to control his head and neck with a bit of shoulder shrug function, thanks to a gunshot wound. And, he lived with his very supportive mother, girlfriend (also very supportive), and their two young children. I remember thinking to myself, "yikes, how am I going to connect with him?"

First things first, I needed to interview him about his injury. What a way to connect with another human, eh? Turns out there was an unbelievable twist to his tragic story. Embarrassed by my preconceived guesses, I learned that he and his girlfriend were simply stopped at a redlight, when a gunman approached the car and shot him in the neck. It was a case of mistaken identity-- the gunman thought he was someone else.

But the point that I wanted to blog about is the goal he expressed for our time together. He wanted to find activities that he could do with his kids. He simply wanted to interact in more meaningful ways with his children. (Sigh. What a lesson in humility. As a parent now, I think of how we jump through hoops to get our kids engaged in something for 30 minutes so that we can have some "me" time, and here’s a Dad who just wants to be more than a fun wheelchair ride through the house.)

We came up with the idea of card games and board games. His boys were about 6 or 7, so they were old enough to start playing the types of games that actually engage parents, too. And, his mouthstick hadn't gotten much use since inpatient rehab, thanks to the two very loving and well meaning women in his life. (They helped him do everything.)

So, I made a cardholder out of a hunk of wood, and charged him with the task of painting it. And we spent much of our time together playing checkers, chess, connect four, and various card games.

My greatest lesson? Engaging in tasks together is far more rapport building than any conversation. He knew that, but had such limited physical ability to do it. So, we both found new ways to connect with those we love. And, now that I'm a mother, I look back to that experience, and hope that he shared many meaningful activities with his kids.

The Mating Game: Rationals and Idealists

Sorry I've taken so long to post this. I can blame two distractions: children (need I say more?), and the discovery of another personality scholar, Dr. Katherine Benziger. I've been delving into her book and ideas, and I can't wait to share her findings-- very exciting stuff! But for now, here's the post about personality theory I've promised...




I remember when I was young, maybe 11 or 12, how I used to imagine what my "soulmate" would be like. I used to walk through my day, speaking to him in my mind. I used to pretend that he was just outside the window, and that he could hear my thoughts. Naturally, I imagined that he was responding to my needs perfectly. And I intuitively "knew" that I'd know him when I found him.

For Idealists (members of Keirsey's Idealist temperament, or those with NF in their Myers-Briggs personality type), the soulmate bond is more than having common interests, more than enjoying time spent together, more than a chemical attraction, even more than best friends. A soulmate is one's other half. When together, they create a whole. They are part of each other. Once found and devotion confessed, they would be together forever. With undying commitment. Always keeping each other as first priority. (I'm sure you Idealists are vigorously nodding your heads right about now, while others of you are thinking "whoa! I'd be suffocating"...)

And, I always believed (since girlfriends and movies and books all seemed to provide sufficient evidence) that everyone wanted the same thing from their mate. Right??

Wrong!-- wow-- I had no idea how wrong I was!

The truth is that all personality types (Idealists, Rationals, Guardians, and Artisans) are mostly "self" centered. That is, although we recognize that others have different interests, beliefs, and values, we tend to assume that others basically think the same way we do. If we aren't aware there are other ways of seeing the world, what else can we think, really? For example, don’t we all want to be loved? And, we know what that means, right?

Again, wrong! Let's take a look at Idealist and Rational pairings.

Idealists seek "soulmates," while Rationals seek "mindmates."* The Idealist soulmate connection is based on a deep spiritual bond, the search for wholeness, and the merging of two individuals. In contrast, the Rational mindmate connection is based on shared interests, the search for truth, and the connection of two independent individuals. For an Idealist, the bond "is" and always will be, because both partners choose it to "be." For a Rational, the connection is only as real as it is objectively present at any given moment. So, for an Idealist the bond is formed at the start. Subsequent positive interactions simply reinforce that they are soulmates, and negative interactions are brushed off as the imperfection of human nature. Whereas, a Rational uses objective observation to determine whether a relationship achieves mindmate status, and subsequent interactions may reinforce or nullify the bond (clearly they allow for everyday rubs, but the overall belief in the bond is more transient.)

So, what happens when an Idealist and a Rational come together?

This is where things get interesting. They have a common preference for abstract language, so communication feels easy. So easy in fact, that I propose that (thanks to self centered thinking) the Idealist believes that he/she has found another Idealist who is remarkably grounded and has figured out how to translate visions into reality (in other words, a super Idealist!) And the Rational believes that he/she has found another Rational who has mastered the uncomfortable realm of emotion (in other words, a super Rational). Interestingly, I found a theory online called the "Grand Miscommunication Theory" (by IgaNoKami). He rather succinctly sums it up as thus (I changed his terminology to match "Rational" and "Idealist"):

It is my theory that within the relationship between the (Rational) and the (Idealist), there is a grand accident that lends itself to compatibility between the two types.

The (Rational) is most happy when allowed to rationally examine, explore, and explain his motivations and self-analysis and observation to an intimate partner. This is simply because the (Rational) loves self exploration, loves to gather knowledge and insight into his own actions, not for the sake of emotional discovery, simply out of a sense of curiosity and need to analyze and collect data.

The (Rational) unemotionally and detachedly explains why he or she thinks in a certain way - that is what (Rational)s are best at, observation, particularly of themselves - and the (Idealist) then thinks that they are opening up to them, and becomes moved and emotionally attached to the (Rational). The (Rational) sees that their observations are being received and interesting to the (Idealist), so they continue.

A fascinating relationship between two types. A relationship of total mutual miscommunication, the motivations are completely different, but with a reinforcing result. The (Rational) feels the closeness and intimacy of being able to share their scientific self-analysis, and the (Idealist) feels that the (Rational) is sharing their innermost thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and so the cycle of miscommunication keeps them locked together in a positively reenforcing relationship.

And neither is the wiser until the Idealist becomes confused by the Rational's focus on achievement, and the Rational feels uncomfortable with the Idealist's focus on connection. It is then that the two must recognize and accept that their basic fuel for a relationship is different, and that the other will never truly fulfill the concept of mate that each values. In other words, the Idealist is not a mindmate and the Rational is not a soulmate.

So, does that mean we should mate with someone of our own temperament? Not necessarily. Most often, it is our differences that attract us to another. For good reason. Each personality type has strengths and weaknesses. One's strengths can complement the other's weakness. It is easy to see how "self" centered thinking would lead to confusion and misunderstanding between the two mates.

Some lucky couples do find an amazingly compatible mate to share their life with. But for the majority of us, once the romantic love phase of a new relationship fades, we start to experience rubs. And then we start launching our own Pygmalion Projects, each attempting to reform the other into a person more like ourself. Since, naturally, we all believe that our aim in life is the most valuable for everybody. But, as Keirsey points out, others cannot adopt our goals without violating their own character. The key to success, I believe, is maturity, a willingness to learn how others think, and a willingness to embrace others' values as equally valid as our own.

Personality theory experts tell us that any type pairing can be successful. Certainly, any two mature, well adjusted adults can learn to meet each others' needs and make a marriage work. But interestingly, studies have shown that there is a pattern to mating. Keirsey spent 40 years "people watching," and he has documented clear patterns in mating. By far, the most common marriage is between an Artisan and a Guardian. Not surprising, given that Artisans (SPs) and Guardians (SJs) comprise 85% of the population (according to Keirsey). And, though it's difficult for the relatively rare Rationals (NTs) and Idealists (NFs) to find each other, there is a significant frequency of Rational-Idealist marriages. I won't get into the explanation here, but Keirsey has a clear theory about why these pairings occur. It has to do with the preference for abstract vs. concrete use of language (N vs. S), and the preference for using tools in a cooperative manner to pursue goals (SJs and NFs) vs. using tools in a utilitarian (or most effective) manner to pursue goals (SPs and NTs.)

So whether your spouse is an Artisan searching for a playmate, a Guardian searching for a helpmate, an Idealist searching for a soulmate, or a Rational searching for a mindmate, any pairing can be successful. And learning how another sees the world can be a wonderful, lifelong, grand adventure!

(*Guardians seek "helpmates," and Artisans seek "playmates.")

Connecting By Numbers (or FOUR!, part 2...)

(photos by Jason Evans)

This morning I was thinking (or, for those of you who follow my personality theory posts, intuiting) about numbers.

I've always loved numbers. They fascinate me. Each has it's own personality or vibe (in my mind, anyway.) For example, I've always loved 3 and 7-- they are the most magical numbers. And my favorite number when I was a child was 8. Because it is so symmetrical, so balanced. (Not to mention how cool it is that if you lay it on it's side it is infinity!)

But this morning I was reflecting on the significance of 4. I don't remember ever being "taken with" 4. It just had a vibe of solid integrity. Nothing flashy or magical. So I surprised myself as my intuiting led me to some interesting observations about 4. No wonder 4 always felt simply solid-- it is solid. Four creates a base, a square. And each part of the four is necessary for the integrity of the foundation. Take one away and you are left with 3-- a triangle. Triangles are mighty tricky to keep balanced. (Precisely why 3 is so exciting...it's dynamic!)

Anyway, to continue on my dissertation of 4, I (naturally) began thinking of all the 4's I know. There are four elements, four seasons, four Hogwarts houses (you knew I'd go there), four Beatles(!), four temperaments, and... (drumroll)... four cognitive functions in personality theory. Yes! There's the connection! Perhaps because we have four basic ways of thinking, we find four is the number necessary for balance. Now, let me try to put my intuition into words.

The four cognitive functions are thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. We each have a dominant-- our strength. Personality experts tell us that we should not strive to achieve balance by improving our skills in the three non-dominant functions to a level that equals our dominant, because that would leave us without a strength, or a core personality. But, (here's where my love of finding evolutionary connections comes in) to survive as a group, we need the strengths that each cognitive function offers. Perhaps this is why we have evolved different personality types. To ensure that among the group there are some gifted in Thinking, some gifted in Feeling, and others gifted in Sensing and Intuiting. We need specialists. So that when we put those four cognitive strengths together, we have a solid base.

I can see how, as an Idealist, I need to have input from a Rational to keep my visions realistic and logical, otherwise my visions will never have purpose or be useful to others. I need a Guardian to ground me in priorities and integrity, otherwise I can place too much selfish importance in my desires. And, I need an Artisan to remind me that it's important to experience joy from the carefree, playful aspects of life, otherwise my life will become too serious and heavy. A world of Idealists would feel wonderful to me, but it would be a very weak community, indeed!

Personality theory expert Lenore Thomson says, "fourfold schemes in popular culture…seem archetypally perfect and become part of our social mythology. They appear to represent psychological wholeness in ways that we intuitively recognize." She pointed out that the Beatles are comprised of representatives of each of the four functions: John is the acerbic Thinker, George is the mystical Intuitive, Paul is the romantic Feeler, and Ringo is the earthy Sensation type. And I can find the same balance in the four Hogwarts houses: the Idealist Gryffindors, the Rational Ravenclaws, the Guardian Hufflepuffs, and the Artisan Slytherins. Perhaps this is why these pop culture phenomenon have such global appeal. Everyone can relate to one of the four. And all four pieces are necessary for a balanced whole.

My dominant intuitive function is humming happily today...

(But, with no disregard to 4, I still love my favorite warm, yellow, soulful 7 over there....)
:)