Hemi-Sync® Journal 2008-1&2 (Winter/Spring)

72% will be earning less than $100,000 per year, and nearly 90% will be white Caucasian. Though this is not a market study, I can offer some observations based on the general profile of both groups. In my judgment it is no coincidence that the largest percentage of TMI program participants comes from the 41-60 age groups. These are the age groups that have made it past mid-life and now look beyond the short-term goals that have defined their life - meeting the requirements of a job or career, taking care of a family, and building a position or role in a community. While scanning ahead is always a part of life, it isn’t until a certain foundation has been laid, either in terms of personal success or failure, that a change in perspective emerges and new questions arise from a vantage point that did not exist in one’s 20s or even 30s. It is as if we have received a 9 call that opens us to, what Joseph Campbell described as, “the mystery of transfiguration - a rite, or moment, of spiritual passage, which, when complete, amounts to a dying and a birth. The familiar life horizon has been outgrown; the old concepts, ideals, and emotional patterns no longer fit; the time for the passing of a threshold is at hand” (51). The new questions cannot be answered as easily or with sufficient confidence through traditional sources and so starts the process of widening a circle of inquiry that eventually leads to contact with places like TMI. This is especially true for those who can afford to come to TMI and why I would venture to guess 42% of the Gateway Only group makes less that $50,000 – TMI is an extraordinary gift for the price. That said, TMI also attracts a higher proportion of those earning more than $100,000, based on 2005 census data. The 27.4% and 22.2% for the Multiple Program and Gateway Only groups, respectively, is significant relative to the national norm of 15.8%. For these individuals, who have more discretionary income, TMI could offer a wider array of services, but that is a subject for further research. Section 2 – Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter Analysis The Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter (KBTS) is one of several instruments used to measure personality type preference. Modeled after the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter provides a framework for determining predispositions toward favored or natural tendencies in human behavior. Both instruments seek to determine how people consciously prefer to attend to the world, how they choose to perceive that to which they attend, and how judgments are made about those perceptions. 10 The KBTS dimensions are based on four bipolar scales, Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving that are measured by a series of 10-20 responses. The questions are structured as either/or statements to a wide range of human situations to determine personal preferences. A sample of the types of questions is listed below: 1. Are visionaries (a) somewhat annoying (b) rather fascinating 2. Are you more comfortable with work that is (a) contracted (b) done on a casual basis 3. In relationships should most things be (a) renegotiable (b) random and circumstantial The typology scales are comprised of 8 dimensions, which combine to create one of sixteen different personality typologies: 1. The EI Scale – The focus of attention • Extraversion – People who prefer extraversion tend to get their energy from others and this is where they tend to direct their energy. They need to experience the world in order to understand it and thus tend to like action. • Introversion – People who prefer introversion tend to get their energy from their inner world and this is where they tend to direct their energy. They like to understand the world before experiencing it and so often thing about what they are doing before acting. 2. The SN Scale – The means of acquiring information • Sensing – For these individuals their senses are the means for figuring out what is actually happening inside and outside of themselves. Sensing types tend to accept and work with what is “given” in the here-and-now. • Intuition – For these individuals there is meaning that goes beyond the information from the senses. Intuition looks at the big picture and tries to grasp the essential patterns. 11 3. The TF Scale – How decisions are made • Thinking – These individuals like to consider the logical consequences of any particular choice or action before making decisions. People with a preference for thinking seek an objective standard of truth. • Feeling – These individuals begin with what feels important to themselves or others and make decisions on the basis of person-centered values. When making a decision for themselves, they ask how much they care. Those with a preference for feeling like dealing with people and tend to become sympathetic, appreciative, and tactful. 4. The JP Scale – The orientation toward the outer world • Judgment – Those who take a judging attitude (either thinking or feeling) tend to live in a planned, orderly way, wanting to regulate life and control it. People with a preference for judging like to be structured and organized and want things settled. • Perception – Those who prefer a perceptive process when dealing with the outer world (either sensing or intuiting) likes to live in a flexible, spontaneous way. People with a preference for perceiving seek to understand life rather than control it. The assignment of types is determined by the summation of the responses consistent with the poles of the respective dimensions. For example, an E score of 8 (out of 10) indicates a moderately high extravert whereas a score of 2 indicates a moderately high introvert. Note that the other three dimensions are based on 20 points. Two points are worth stressing about the KBTS data. First, this was an optional section of the survey meant as much as an enticement for respondents to take the survey as for gathering personality typology data. A self-scoring mechanism was included with the survey for those wanting to calculate their KBTS typology. As a consequence of this optional feature there were 112 respondents who did not complete the KBTS. Second, the scale used for determining preferences on each of the 4 dimensions is an even number. The possibility exists, therefore, that respondents could fall in the middle of the scale where assignment of a specific tendency or preference becomes ambiguous. There were 12 164 respondents with one or more dimensions of their typology which were unassignable. This left 418 respondents whose personality typology was assigned (208 for the Gateway Only respondents and 210 for the Multiple Program respondents); still a robust sample size. Overall, the two groups are similar in terms of personality on a per dimension basis. The Multiple Program group is marginally higher on extraversion. Below is a table illustrating the distribution of personality typology by global norms and for each of the populations in the study. TYPE GLOBAL GATEWAY MULTIPLE INDICATOR NORMS ONLY PROGRAMS ESTJ 10% 3.4% 4.3% ENTJ 3% 8.2% 8.1% ISTP 2% - 0.5% INTP 3% 3.4% 1.4% ESFJ 12% 2.4% 2.4% ENFJ 8% 18.3% 18.6% ISFP 3% - - INFP 7% 9.1% 7.6% ESTP 3% - - ESFP 5% - 1.0% ISTJ 10% 7.2% 2.9% ISFJ 10% 1.9% 3.8% ENTP 2% 2.9% 2.9% ENFP 8% 24.5% 26.7% INTJ 6% 6.7% 10.5% INFJ 8% 12.0% 9.5% Sample Size 4,586,300 208 210 Dominant Function S 28% 9.1% 7.7% N 24% 46.1% 49.5% T 18% 15% 14.3% F 30% 29.8% 28.5% 13 Auxiliary Function S 27% 5.8% 7.2% N 21% 39% 35.7% T 21% 16.8% 16.3% F 31% 38.4% 40.8% Source of Energy E 51% 59.7% 64% I 49% 40.3% 36% Number of Inconclusive 87 77 Type Indicator Dominant Function in the table above describes the “favorite” process allocated by type (see Table 1 in the appendix). This indicates whether the favorite preference is a perception or judgment function (sensing/intuition vs. thinking/feeling). The Auxiliary Function is the secondary preference. In personality typology language, both are needed for dealing effectively with the world. One takes the lead – a perception function (sensing or intuiting) or a judgment function (thinking or feeling) – and the other balances this orientation. Extraverts tend to direct their dominant function towards the external world and use their auxiliary function dealing with their internal world. Introverts tend to direct their dominant function towards their internal world and use their auxiliary function dealing with the external world. TMI graduates as a group are primarily different from the global norm in terms of how they like to acquire information. They strongly depend on intuition as the means of discovery and meaning-making, both as their favorite and auxiliary function. One consequence of this orientation is the value placed on imagination and inspiration, which means that TMI graduates tend to be more idealistic and less tolerant of the “way things 14 are.” To reference Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality, TMI graduates strongly gravitate towards Dynamic Quality, “the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new” (133). Further, given their higher extraversion as a group than the general population this intolerance is more often directed to the outside world. The resulting friction is the impetus for what Carl Jung described as the transcendent function, “a tension charged with energy that creates a movement out of the suspension between opposites, a living birth that leads to a new level of being” (298). TMI graduates have a predilection for transformational growth – the radical, vertical leaps in being as opposed to the less risky, more pragmatic, horizontal extensions of being. A challenge of this orientation is finding effective means for managing the tension between what is and what could be. To look too closely for too long at the limitations in “the way things are”, particularly when tolerance is low to begin with, can create bruised sensitivities, alienation, and despair (symptoms made famous by the Romantic poets). In effect, why would people with this orientation find much to be happy about? It is a question to be returned to in the conclusion. Section 3 – Program Effects Analysis Program effects were measured in terms of life satisfaction, job/career satisfaction, quality of life, and overall well-being. A factor analysis of the items in this section of the survey was undertaken to group questions together into subscales based on common response patterns. The analysis determined there were 4 factors which demonstrated better loading patterns than 3 factor or 5 factor solutions. The 4 factors and their accompanying items are: 15 1. Personal efficacy • I am a more effective decision maker • I have a more expansive vision of how the parts of my life relate to a whole • I am more able to surface issues that others are reluctant to talk about • I am more actively involved in my own personal development • I have a clear sense of further development I need to accomplish • I am more composed under pressure • I take actions that are more true to my sense of self • I have more balance among my work, my family, and my community • I am more able to listen nondefensively to criticism • I am able to handle stress more effectively • I act on my values more consistently • I have interest in new things • I have a more open communication with my family • I am more productive at work • I have developed new friends • I have been able to resolve an important issue or challenge in my life • I am more confident in my interaction with others • I have a clear sense of purpose in my life 2. Life satisfaction • The conditions of my life are excellent