Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurological research has made amazing strides in recent years. Enough is now known about what specific brain areas do to make it possible to start examining how various parts of the brain interact. What is missing is a general theory of cognition to tie all of this information together. Back in the 1980s, a cognitive theory was developed that began with a system of cognitive styles and was expanded through an in-depth study of biographies. It was discovered at that time that this theory mapped in a general way onto the brain. This cognitive theory, known as the theory of mental symmetry, has recently been tested as a meta-theory by using it to analyze a number of fields and theories dealing with human thought and behavior. This paper shows that personality traits that were discovered by mental symmetry correspond in detail to the functioning of brain regions described in current neurological papers. In brief, the cognitive model suggests that there are seven cognitive styles: There are four simple styles, and there are three composite styles that combine the thinking of the simple styles. Two of the simple styles use emotions and emphasize a circuit composed of orbitofrontal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, temporal lobe, and amygdala, with one in the left hemisphere and the other in the right hemisphere. The other two simple styles use confidence and emphasize a circuit consisting of dorsolateral frontal cortex, frontopolar cortex, parietal cortex, and hippocampus, again with one in the left hemisphere and the other in the right hemisphere. The three composite styles form a processing chain. The first composite style combines the two simple emotional styles and emphasizes the ventral striatum, and dopamine. This leads to the second composite style, which combines the two simple confidence styles and emphasizes the anterior cingulate, the dorsal striatum, and serotonin. This is followed by the third composite style which balances the functioning of the mind and emphasizes the thalamus and noradrenaline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".