Investigative Intelligence Tertiary Mental Body Expression

(formerly known as Scholar, Concrete Knowing or Ray 5)

Known for being an observer. As Tertiary Investigative Intelligence, or Investigators, we seek a sense of structure and concreteness by being able to predict what will happen next. This requires that we become great observer of others and be able to discern what triggers them and in what way. The more we understand the dynamic of potential outcomes, the easier it is to fall prey to our own pride and isolation. What we learn through the Investigative Mental Body is the limit of external prediction. We discover that logic and emotional outbursts only take you so far in understanding humanity. We begin to question that there are absolute solutions or that we can (in fact) be really accurate in our observations.

Though we may continually fail, it does not prevent us from trying again to figure out how things work. Whenever we fail, we search out new sources (information, data, or experts) that can help us to incorporate many of the unknowns we are dealing with. We become aware of how much of our life is actually influenced by the mysteries and limited mastery we experience in our choices. We discover we have a constant drive to understand and yet a limited understanding of how it all works. We also begin to realize that more analysis does not always work. Sometimes we need to punch through the paradigm we are working in and try something else.

We are scientific, objective, detached, and lucid in our observations. We are inductive thinkers who question and investigate everything. We are fact ascertaining and empirical, getting caught up in literal details in ways no other energy can match. We unify and expand information that is complete and balanced between IntentContent, and Context. We are repulsed by and eventually destroy information where the IntentContent, or Context is not in alignment. This Intelligence is called Investigative Intelligence, because we seek to validate (in three ways) the reality of living in the world. These three tests of usefulness reflect the personal relevance of information to serve ContentContext, and Intent.  Investigators focus on the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’. When we know something, we can then recreate and share it, translating it to the needed frequency depending on the receiving Intelligence, so it can be acted upon.

Initially, we operate on a content level by being able to absorb and present memorized information on demand. This assimilation structure reveals our affiliation with our masculine roots, where knowledge is real, when it can help us act effectively. The process deepens when through Investigative Intelligence, we begin to relate pieces of information together, which then prioritizes our interests in where and what we want to explore. As we go further into the intent, we clarify and energize the priorities, establishing a clear sense of relevance. The symbol for the Investigator is a converging spiral that ends up at a point in the middle. We have highly accurate Thoughts that are sharply delineated, particularly in early development. 

The second phase, that of building content understanding of how the world works, can be challenging if we keep the investigation at a literal level. It is advisable that we allow ourselves to become more abstract thinkers and to prioritize our observations through a basic curiosity about what shows up in the world. We move from observations to explicit provable structure, then to abstract theoretical structure, and finally, to principles or themes that guide choices. This is the world of motivation that allows us to explore our Intuitive nature. 

Eventually we integrate our heart into a broader scope and move into the last phase of knowing that is contextually based. While we do not want to be imprecise, we seek to be inclusive of higher principles or observations that seem to align with our insights.

This is where our thinking becomes interrelated with the thinking of others; we move from knowledge structures to self-understanding to acceptance of a deeper wisdom that is the basis for all-human knowing. The more we study a particular subject, the more we come to a place of choice about how we use that knowledge. We either follow the path of reinforcing what we know or maintain an openness that allows us to reexamine how we think rather than what we think. This is how we deepen from knowledge, to understanding, and finally, to wisdom. Changing the thought process is how we shift from exclusive patterns of thinking to inclusive self-unifying processes. 

Overall, the development of our Intelligence is systematic and extremely focused on what we know can be verified. We only change our frameworks of thought when we discover errors in the rationalization process. While intrigued with details, we have mixed Feelings to what degree we should engage them in a particular situation. Most of the time, we focus on what we know rather than expanding our range, unless we have a predefined interest in a new area. We are extremely analytical on physical, emotional, and intellectual levels, even though we do not often talk about emotional perspectives. 

The most important characteristic is our ability to interpret the facts without distorting them. This leads us to want to say exactly, precisely what is known, without over or under-doing it and without exaggerating or oversimplifying the concept. We are particularly attracted to summary tables where conclusions, principles, and objectives can be expressed and clarified. We love to see the assumptions that lead us to certain conclusions articulated so the obvious errors can be easily identified. This relates to our natural skepticism, which asserts that people have the responsibility to prove the positive; we operate from the assumption that others must prove something in the positive before it is accepted. 

Investigative Intelligence treasures the truth above all. We find it extremely wasteful and despicable for people to present themselves in ways that do not fit any objective reality. We are naturally convergent thinkers and can concentrate easily and effectively in a disciplined way. Others may believe that we are too rational, technical, and unimaginative because of how we try to maintain partiality in the way we validate our Thoughts. We are typically convergent decision makers who amplify a skeptical mindset to reveal the underlying basis for what is true. 

Investigator Mental Body individuals protect ourselves by assessing creative differences with people and choosing how much and how we will engage which keeps us from being overwhelmed and allows us to prioritize the problems we experience. Another aspect of our defense is our ability to be detached and separated from the opinions of others. This makes us appear indifferent to the differences we see around us. Others tend to think we are more mature because we act out less and do not get as reactive as other Mental Body Expressions. Sometimes this can be interpreted as being nerdy or caught up in our own heady intellectual perceptions of ourselves. This Mental Body drives us to try to prove our intelligence or that we are smart in a way that is more internalized than externalized. This means we experience more angst when others do not appreciate how much time and effort we put into thinking through what is needed in a process. Often, our attempts at logic are ignored by our family members. The more our family ignores our intellectual gifts, the more likely we feel the world is unfair. Of course, the more we have Investigator Imprinting on top of Investigator Mental Body, the more doubt we will have about our intelligence.

As an Investigator Mental Body, we seek a sense of structure and concreteness by being able to predict what will happen next. This requires that we become great observer of others able to discern what triggers them and in what way. The more we understand the dynamic of potential outcomes, the easier it is to fall prey to our own pride and isolation. What we learn is the limits of external prediction. We discover that logic and emotional outbursts only take you so far in understanding humanity. We begin to question that there are absolute solutions or that we can (in fact) be really accurate in our observations. Though we may continually fail, it does not prevent us from trying again to figure out how things work. Whenever we fail, we search out new sources (information, data, or experts) to help us incorporate many of the unknowns we are dealing with. We become aware of how much of our life is actually influenced by the mysteries and limited mastery we experience in our choices. We discover that we have a constant drive to understand and yet a limited understanding of how it all works. We also begin to realize that more analysis does not always work. Sometimes we need to punch through the paradigm we are working in and try something else.

We are scientific, objective, detached, and lucid in our observations. We are inductive thinkers who question and investigate everything. We are fact ascertaining and empirical, getting caught up in literal details in ways no other energy can match. We have highly accurate thoughts that are sharply delineated, particularly in early development. We move from observations to explicit provable structure, then to abstract theoretical structure, and finally, to principles or themes that guide choices. This is the world of motivation that allows us to explore our intuitive nature. The more we study a particular subject, the more we come to a place of choice about how we use that knowledge. We either follow the path of reinforcing what we know or maintain an openness that allows us to reexamine how we think rather than what we think. This is how we deepen from knowledge, to understanding, and finally, to wisdom. Changing the thought process is how we shift from exclusive patterns of thinking to inclusive self-unifying processes.

Overall, our development is systematic and extremely focused on what we know can be verified. We only change our frameworks of thought when we discover errors in the rationalization process. While intrigued with details, we have mixed feelings about the degree to which we should engage them in a particular situation. Most of the time, we focus on what we know rather than expanding our range, unless we have a predefined interest in a new area. We are extremely analytical on physical, emotional, and intellectual levels, even though we do not often talk about emotional perspectives. Above all, we treasure the truth. We find it extremely wasteful and despicable for people to present themselves in ways that do not fit objective reality. We are convergent thinkers and can concentrate easily and effectively in a disciplined way. Others may believe that we are too rational, technical, and unimaginative because of how we try to maintain partiality in the way we validate our thoughts. We are typically convergent decision makers who amplify a skeptical mindset to reveal the underlying basis for what is true.

It is also important to realize that when others disregard our thoughts we usually try to build structures to prove what we’re thinking is right. This can result in our minimizing our own growth because we become more worried about what others think about us. Sometimes this expands into trying to prove that our ideas can work which disregards whether it is on our path to express them. In effect, our outer experiences then end up defining us inwardly and we end up carrying around a burden which we somehow can’t let go of. This burden shows up as a series of rationalization or explanations about how we are distressed about the way the world works and can’t seem to get the response we want. Since many of these thoughts require us to become more positional and are based on weaknesses we perceive we need to change, they seldom support our growth. It can lead us to temporary, materialistic solutions that diminish our flexibility. For example, we may want to prove something to others that they do not want to accept which puts us in a conversation where we anticipate and prepare layers of conversation we believe should convince them and which never does. Spending our time thinking of potential responses to misperceptions about us takes much out of our creativity and further reinforces our reactivity. As we all know, the more reactive a person is the more we don’t believe or trust them. This undermines our self esteem and self confidence completely. 

Sometimes, we are clinical, quantifying, mathematical, and measuring. Other times, we are questioning, curious, and inquiring about the facts as we see them. Of all the Intelligences, we are most fearful of Emotions, Intuition, Feelings, impulses and impulsiveness, which is why we emphasize our slow and careful deliberation above all else. We love to establish a certain rigor in how we implement a procedure to identify a distortion of someone else's thinking. We despise those who jump to conclusions too quickly. Through detachment, we deepen our appreciation of our intellectual power. 

We are about learning to share what is known so everyone can use it. As long as an individual is attached and withholding information, we do not know how to effectively express our Primary expression. Initially we are at risk of being defined by the information around us. It is hard for us to see ourselves as creators of information rather than recorders of it. This means we have yet to embody that we are thinkers and not the results of our thinking.

We can recognize the importance of Investigative Intelligence by how we overdo, under-do, or react to it. When we overdo this Intelligence, we become pontificating pundits, theoretical, separative, and non-accepting of other’s Thoughts. When we under-do this Intelligence, we become extremely literal, focusing on minutia and unwilling to stretch our perceptions into new areas of thought. When overwhelmed and/or discounted by individuals who do not accept this form of Intelligence (particularly when they do not see the value of the structures we use), we become extremely despondent and/or impatient regarding the views of others. It is interesting to note that while this Intelligence can be rational, it does not want to get lost in rationalizations. When we are hurt, we become overly logical and avoid Emotions as a way to protect ourselves. 

When we protect ourselves using Investigative Intelligence, we make what we perceive with our sense, the only Truth. If we cannot experience it, it must not be the Truth. In this way, we limit the interaction of Thoughts so they can form a bridge to new possibilities in our lives. The reason we do this is that we believe it is too risky to open up our thinking and accept it because we see it is true. It is much easier to use doubt and skepticism to limit our perception of the Truth. It is even more interesting to get caught up in narrow and prejudicial thinking because it is simpler and easier to accept. While no one wants to consciously limit their thinking, unconsciously our ignorance can prevail. 

When we under-do this Intelligence, we become extremely literal, focusing on minutia and unwilling to stretch our perceptions into new areas of thought. As a result, we follow the Thoughts of those who are authorities and use their perceptions as a substitute for our own insights. The key issue about our power is that we like to feel we understand what is going on. When others reflect our perspective it makes us feel more powerful and clear. Most of the time when others do not have a Investigative Intelligence component we feel obligated to explain and only rarely find people willing to accept our intellectual structure as it is. This is because other Intelligences have different priorities and a different way of talking about their experience. 

It is also important to realize that when others disregard our Thoughts we usually try to build structures to prove what we’re thinking is right. This can result in us minimizing our own growth because we become more worried about what others will think about us. Sometimes this expands into trying to prove that our ideas can work which disregards whether it is on our path to express them. In effect, our outer experiences then end up defining us inwardly and we end up carrying around a burden which we somehow can’t let go of. This burden shows up as a series of rationalization or explanations about how we are distressed about the way the world works and can’t seem to get the response we want.

Since many of these Thoughts require us to become more positional and are based on weaknesses we perceive we need to change, they seldom support our growth. It can lead us to temporary, materialistic solutions that diminish our flexibility. For example, we may want to prove something to others that they do not want to accept, which puts us in a conversation where we anticipate and prepare layers of conversation that we believe should convince them, which in fact it never does. Spending our time thinking of potential responses to misperceptions about us takes so much out of our Creativity and further reinforces our reactivity. As we all know, the more reactive a person is the more we don’t believe or trust them. This undermines our self esteem and self confidence completely. 

As parents, we try to rule our children with logic. It is ironic how we believe there is an answer to every problem we may confront. When it comes to children, we believe our instinctive processes are understandable and therefore even predictable. One source of our wisdom concerning children is how we would be better parents than our own parents. Looking back at our childhood, we believe that by correcting the mistakes our parents made with us, we will actually do better. The problem is that many children do not operate from any logical basis. Reading more books about how to raise children does not prepare us for the reality that growing mutually with them provides. The main issue is what we do when our children do not respond to our perfectly rational way of engaging them. Until we give up our need for structure and actually are present with our children where they are, we will either experience greater rebellion or complacency, both of which are problematic.

When we operate from this Mental Body we try to rule our children with logic. It is ironic how we believe there is an answer to every problem we may confront. Our internal goal is to be attentive, compassionate and neutral in our assessments of our children. We diligently research everything we need to know to best support our children. What we often forget is whether or not they are having fun building social capabilities and that they need emotional support. This is because as children we usually did not get much affection, support with our social awkwardness, or appreciation for our emotional dilemmas. Part of the problem is that we most likely believe that because we survived certain awkward development, they will figure it out for themselves as well. When it comes to children, we believe our instinctive processes are understandable and therefore even predictable. This process reflects that we can intellectualize everything that is a mystery to us. While it may not always make sense to our children, as long as it makes sense to us, we feel empowered.

One source of our wisdom concerning children is how we would be better parents than our own parents. More than any other Mental Body, we evaluate every pattern of our parents and reverse those patterns if they did not work for us, with our own children. Some would say that we have the most discriminating pattern of response when children need our help. Like the Inventor Mental Body parent, we encourage our children to speak up in order to address their needs. What is different is that our responses are always consistent, thoughtful and in some degree, unbending. We are also the key Parental Style that loves precociousness in children. The more a child understands the rationale behind something, or how it works, the more it pleases us. The problem is that many children do not operate from any logical basis. This is particularly true with Inventor, Compassionate and Visionary children.

Reading more books about how to raise children does not prepare us for the reality that growing mutually with them provides. In a way, our experience with our children, prepares us to have more children. The main issue is what we do when our children do not respond to our perfectly rational way of engaging them. Sometimes what our children need to know is that we are emotional, irrational and also passionate about what we want to accomplish. If at certain times we show them this side of us, it will make it much easier for us to maintain their respect and interest. Remember, that our children see us as heroes in the world because of what we know and how we can take charge in times of distress. Until we give up our need for structure and actually are present with our children where they are, we will either experience greater rebellion (with Inventor, Visionary, Compassionate children) or complacency (with repressed Inventor or Compassionate, Storyteller, Investigator children) both of which are problematic. It is possible that we can become competitive with willful or talkative children that don’t listen to our explanations (Orchestrator, Implementer, Storyteller children).

Page Author: 
© Copyright 2016, Larry Byram. All Rights Reserved.

Newsletter Subscription

Sign up now to get updates and event notifications, and you will immediately receive a Higher Alignment Mini Creative Assessment that summarizes the seven most important Compatibility Factors.

Go to top