Investigative Intelligence Secondary Expression

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

Known for collecting insights. As a Secondary Investigative Intelligence, or Investigators, we become enamored of our own ability to figure out the answers to life’s questions. This means that if we do not know the answer, we believe we can find it, so that others will not make poor decisions for lack of information. Therefore, we see our primary contribution as filling in the holes and connecting them to action plans that produce positive results. The strength we have is being able to synthesize information structures to quickly produce answers that others will respect. These individuals accomplish this by having a detailed understanding about how each field of endeavor functions. While this drives us to specialize, we also attempt to find those areas that have common patterns of solution, so that we can plug and play the structure of one situation into any new area we are investigating. What we are seeking is a way to refine our understanding of a situation, and we do this by remaking and rerunning various scenarios based on more complete information. It is important to recognize that developing further expertise is the only way we can build internal confidence about what we know. We succeed only to the degree that others acknowledge our expertise and that we are recognized as being the best source for a particular problem area. 

Energetically, we focus almost completely on thought as a tool for perceiving Truth (80%). Emotions and Feelings complete the perceptive field with 10% of each. We use and build structures for understanding everything, even though we may not particularly enjoy our physical Intelligence. This means that we are mostly unconscious about what is going on with our body as it is not important enough to us to do something differently. We are particularly great at comparing one thought with another and being able to discriminate about which is the strongest or has the greatest potential. Our strength comes from knowing the inner truth or quality of what we are thinking. If we cut ourselves off from our heart's perceptions, i.e., Emotions and Feelings, we cannot reach our full capacity to think beyond our comfort zone. This is because the power of our thinking requires our Emotions to organize, synthesize, and regenerate our thinking over time. We instinctively protect ourselves by distancing ourselves from our Emotions and Feelings, falsely believing this will minimize our pain. 

Secondary Investigators seek to collect information so we will be prepared to provide the knowledge others may need on demand. We struggle to make sure all our information is current and up-to-date because we believe people will lose confidence in us if it is not. We try to prove how much we know to others so we can have more control of any situation. We seek to overwhelm others with our comprehensive understanding so they feel incapable of making decisions. In this way, we can feel needed and valued by the type and depth of information we provide. Investigator Secondaries try to keep up with all the latest developments so when people come to us, we can be the source of power through the information we provide.

The most important thing others can do to honor Investigator Secondaries is to acknowledge our curiosity and our interest in how things work. The more we are encouraged in our exploration and development, the more capably we bring back new perspectives that challenge what is known. It is important for others not to predefine or pre-establish the way we do it. Our own standards of intellectual responsibility, rationality checking, and our desire for accuracy and precision, make us accountable to a higher degree of due diligence than others are typically accustomed to. As an Investigator Secondary, our interest and discoveries are enhanced and greatly focused by our Primary Creative Expression. In today’s knowledge society, we are greatly sought after because we appear to embody the belief that knowledge is power. The gift of Investigator Secondaries is the conviction that whatever we turn our attention to can be mastered and understood.

As Investigator Secondaries, we express our power by embracing seven techniques. First, when we develop constant attentiveness, it stimulates us to notice differences and be more observant. Second, with focus and follow-through, we are able to build structures of thought that have coherence, consistency, and power. Third, the desire for intellectual acknowledgement and stimulating conversation leads us to deepen our thought processes, so we feel we are always on our toes intellectually. It is important that we are always investing in growth because we want to be prepared for the unexpected. By comparison, Investigator Primaries can engage things on the fly and create solutions in the moment. Fourth, it is our lofty, intellectual aspirations that excite us in engaging new possibilities, so we are always growing in some way. Fifth, our use of systematic planning and the constant re-interpretation of our experiences allow us to organize coherent knowledge structures from which others can benefit. Sixth, the more successful we feel, the more flexible we are in how to serve and support others. Seventh, as a way to offset any imbalance between our heart and our knowledge, we learn to listen and invite others to define what is needed so we can respond appropriately.

We are known for our experientially focused acceptance of reality. The more we are attached to what we know, the more detached we are from others. While this detachment can be very diplomatic, it actually keeps us from embracing the larger reality that our intuition, emotions and physical reality represent. What we tend to focus on is how to consciously expand our ideas of what reality is so we are able to express ourselves. We also tend to accumulate knowledge for others so we can appear knowledgeable in any situation. Ultimately, the primary characteristic that defines a fully functioning Investigator secondary is our ability to be with others while simultaneously being with the wisdom of who they are.

Undeveloped, we believe in making responsible observations. We are empiricist by nature, believing only in what our five senses can validate. At this stage, we are usually attempting to find an area of endeavor in which we can specialize so we can be considered the experts. We will explore an area of interest which usually reflects our Primary Creative Expression and where our insights and conclusions can be heard and seen. What we most want to convey is our accuracy and precision so our conclusions are not questioned. We are attached to our theories, which we try to prove in order to gain notoriety. We can easily get lost in our experiments. The key characteristic of this stage is a lack of emotionality, which we believe needs to be sacrificed for the sake of scientific clarity.

Undeveloped, we are easily identified by our attachment to what is provable and commonly accepted by others. Our greatest aspiration is to become an expert seen and valued for what we know. As “concrete thinkers” we demonstrate our value by our knowledge of details. While we have no doubt or skepticism about what we know, we are profoundly skeptical of what others know because we define ourselves in terms of details that are provable through common understanding. The key characteristic that identifies us at this stage is our inability to see our own prejudices and biases.

We are different from Investigator Primaries in that the Secondary Investigators are selective about the information we process. Usually it is the Primary Expression that defines the scope and interests of an Investigator Secondary. Since we tend to get defined by what we know, we are constantly in the process of trying to refresh and update our information, which becomes an easy way to identify us. While we are not as detached or neutral as an Investigator Primary, we are open to discussing all the options we have researched. An undeveloped Secondary becomes a pundit who constantly talks about what we know without relating it to the people we are speaking with. Actualized, we are responsive to what people need to know and when they need to know it and we have no need to prove what we know.

The big issue is that we commonly fail to see the big picture, because we are so caught up in either the details or the theory of what we want to believe is so. The source of our discomfort is that we attempt to make everything fit a rational model for understanding. There is typically an over-focus on the intellectual part of any equation, which limits the use of Emotions. While we may not appreciate it, Emotions empower greater synthesis and a detached sense of knowing, independent of the object under consideration. With emotional presence, our Thoughts become more complete and more spatially mobile. This means we can communicate with others without any demand that they believe us. While we admire objectivity, we are also likely to get caught up in what we know and want others to believe what we say. Ironically, it is the denial of Emotions as part of the truth, which creates intellectual attachment to others believing our truth. What is unsatisfying about this process is that while we may understand the technicalities of any process, when we deny Emotions, we miss the alive and fully vital participation that deepens our experience. 

We tend to specialize and become fully proficient in an area of endeavor before moving to the next one. Unlike Inventive Intelligence, we are more traditional and are not driven to engage multiple areas of expertise simultaneously. In this way, we are more methodical and precise, and we seek out inconsistencies in the thought process itself. Investigative Intelligence individuals experience abstractions of Thoughts in a more linear, layered, and deductive manner. The organizing principles of Investigators are theories or premises about how the world works. Our personal hypotheses are checked every time we make a prediction and then analyze the outcome. In this way the intellectual structure itself becomes a way of prioritizing and synthesizing what is examined. Usually we use details to buttress our assumptions, theories, and conclusions. This is why we are a more bottom up traditional thinker, while the Inventive Intelligence individual is more a top down abstract thinker. 

Our gift is that we can be modeled, transferred, and examined by others with different kinds of Intelligence and still be understood. The more the thought itself is documented, the easier it is for the process itself to reveal information summarized into knowledge and transformed into Wisdom. Only once we are highly evolved do we become aware of the use of Wisdom to make it easier to transfer and empower certain Truths across Intelligence dimensions. A lack of integration in Investigative Intelligence causes us to prove what we know which keeps us from exploring the unknown. Both Inventive and Compassionate Intelligence individuals can see and engage Wisdom more easily than Investigative Intelligence, although Compassionate Intelligence individuals are the best at conveying Wisdom. This reveals that our real gift is enormous concentration and self-organization within a concept itself.   This also points out that the creation and manipulation of intellectual structures is most facilitated by Investigators.  

What shows up as common sense for us, are those things that can be thrown against a particular intellectual structure to determine how well they help explain or deny our current understanding. While Inventive Intelligence individuals tend to have many disparate and conflicting intellectual structures, we attempt to unify and integrate everything into a single view. In this way, distinct structures can be compared to other co-existing frameworks by noticing and defining the differences. By categorizing and calculating the difference between structures, we can discover how far a specific subject deviates from a particular baseline. By avoiding emotional assumptions or other contaminating effects, when we are undeveloped we can appear to operate somewhat objectively. A much harder development process is recognizing that we must balance and integrate a full range of sensory experiences to effectively solve problems. This means we must include Sensations/Feelings/Emotions/ Thoughts and even Intuition to develop greater presence and transparency in our experience. From this exalted state, we can see that everything we do is some form of experiment in which we are constantly refining our picture of the world so that we may more effectively interact with it.

When we do not possess this sensitivity and have not completely embodied our motivations in our heart, our tendency is to define everything in terms of naturally, self-limiting, mechanical concepts and to inadvertently deny the context in which we live. While an important gift of this type of thinking is developing rationale for understanding ourselves and our world, we also can become limited to ordered thinking, which makes us more rigid and linear. One way to combat these types of limitations is to periodically practice thinking outside the box and discover that we can operate spontaneously without preconditioned guidelines or structure. We are particularly responsible for the development of a science of the mind, which naturally occurs if we do not become absorbed with superficial sensory experiences. This is why we focus mostly on the mental appreciation of something and have difficulty in engaging Emotions, Feelings, and Sensations when they serve no intellectual purpose. The more evolved we become, the more clearly we see that these different levels of experience contribute enormously to the depth we seek. 

Investigative Intelligence is concentrated by 80% of its energy going to the intellectual (Thought) process itself. Emotions and Feelings, which are commonly minimized because of the bias we introduce, are typically limited to 10% each. This means there is no internal physical framework to compare our thinking to. The result is a greater reliance on deductive reasoning and logical processing to search for distortions or potential deletions. It should be noted we use symbolic representation to define and model various outer processes so that particular inputs or outputs can be effectively developed. The paradox is that while we attempt to ground our understanding in the real world, we actually symbolically layer our thought process so that what drive our breakthroughs are increasingly abstract considerations or theories. Geniuses use Feelings and Emotions to integrate their experience, making it easier to see the whole picture. It is important to recognize that when Emotions and Feelings are developed and supported, more intuitive depth and understanding will be revealed.

In addition to the distortions caused around emotional denial, there is also an emphasis on the intellectual at the cost of the physical, because it seems easier to understand. While we are very concerned with accuracy, i.e., believing only that which we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell, we frequently become convinced we know something when we do not.  We fall into patterns of ignorance or laziness where we do not question our own assumptions or validate the truth of something if we have the inside track. This further reflects the positive nature of being able to assimilate large amounts of data so we are able to anticipate and reinforce our understanding of what is going on.

Sometimes, it is easy to get caught up in what we think we know so that we do not even notice when changes in our assumptions occur. The key value and contribution is that we can, through deductive reasoning, analyze and/or distinguish various patterns of behavior or Thoughts better than anyone else. The reason we can accomplish this is our neutrality and detachment from what we are thinking. This makes us extremely capable as decision makers or planners, because we can see what works and does not work fairly quickly. As long as we are attached to any particular outcome, the more likely it is that we will miss something or that our understanding is distorted by overlooking what is changing moment-to-moment. 

The most important problem with Investigators on the Secondary level is how much time and energy we place on protecting our positions rather than effectively challenging what is thought. We see this in how defined we become by the Thoughts we have. We also see this by the pursuit of objectivity and the harsh criticism we have when we do not agree with others. This conflict arises from our fear of being proven wrong. The more we cleverly try to prove ourselves, the more we are caught up in our own defensive patterns. Eventually we come to see that we are trapping ourselves in over-analytical frameworks where the truth becomes buried by the need to be right and there is no rest for the weary. What we need to do is see the Truth, not as a fixed thought but as a pulsating energy.

We need to free ourselves from the belief that the Truth can be eternally known when in fact it is constantly evolving. We need to let go of the premise that there is a “right “ and “wrong” or even a “black and white” expression that can be proven or substantiated. Instead the Truth is a moving and ever changing expression. Investigative Intelligence becomes a more fluid experience when we grow beyond our need and attachment to being right. It becomes a transpersonal truth when we are able to talk about it and have it resonate with others around us. It is a motivational experience of wisdom when others align with us and we work together for a common purpose. 

On the Secondary level, we always confront the issue of under doing or over doing our Creative expression. The goal is to find a point of flow within ourselves where we are not imposing ourselves on others nor are we being affected by their response to us. In this middle road, our energy can be expressed without taking a position about what is too little or too much. With Secondary Investigative Intelligence, too little means timid exploration and an unwillingness to speak out for what we see as the Truth. Our need to understand overwhelms our desire to organize and express ourselves. This leads to an ability to take in experience but a reduced ability to synthesize what we know into patterns that would guide future actions. When we under do, we are caught up in definitions and the ways others think, such that we seek to escape their imprinting in order to discover our own.

We frequently make a choice to not impose our Thoughts on others because it could provoke reactions, misunderstanding and judgment. Under doing provides us with a capacity to preserve our value of practical inventiveness without the need for theoretical validation. In effect, we are trying to minimize our intellectual impact so that we can experiment with our thinking rather than fall into the thinking of others. Some reasons for under doing our Secondary Investigative Intelligence are that we are bored with over analysis and more thinking, when in fact, we wish to balance our embodied experience on all levels. Perhaps we are concerned that we will be rejected and become the source of information for others. The underlying fear might be that we do not want to be responsible for the decisions of others. Under doing our Secondary expression prevents others from knowing how and what we contribute. As a result, our Tertiary Intelligence is overtaxed and we are more oriented to self-protection than expression. 

When we over do our Secondary Investigative Intelligence, it is easy to get caught up in believing that there is an external objective truth that everyone believes in. This produces the illusion that our truth should be the truth of others and therefore we have a right to impose our views on others. This leads to greater distortions where we get caught up in what we know and diminishes the knowing of others around us to our detriment. Over doing our Intelligence also leads to an exalted state of self-determined expertise where we believe the lucidity of our analysis makes us more fit to make a decision. The major downside of over doing our Intelligence is that because we cannot see the difference between our experience and the accepted perception of Truth, we come to believe that a common objective, approximated Truth is a better reference than our own experience. In effect, we end up denying our own experience for the collective view of the Truth. 

We mature and find our fulfillment in our contribution by learning how to organize our Secondary expression in terms of our Primary one. Either under and over doing our Secondary Investigative Intelligence minimizes our capacity to be fulfilled in our life work. It should be noted that any use and implementation of our Secondary Intelligence will get us noticed by others. This is a different experience than operating in our Tertiary Intelligence where others accept us but do not see our power. It also different from any Creative expression imprinting that merely irritates others and pushes them to ignore us. When we can find the place of expressing our Secondary Intelligence in a flowing way it automatically re-orients us by organizing our Secondary expression in terms of our Primary. With Secondary Investigative Intelligence, this means that our power to synthesize, detach and understand the principals and priorities of our Primary, take precedence. The power of our Secondary liberates itself by serving the intention of our Primary. In effect, we naturally integrate and centralize the will of the Investigative Intelligence in our Primary Intelligence. In this process, we become more fearless in our expression of our Primary. 

Finally, in a world increasingly dominated by vast amounts of information and where we are not appreciated for the person we want to be, it is possible to get burned out and not trust our own knowing. The denial of our Intelligence in this situation comes from denying the benefits that arise from understanding the options involved. This frequently occurs when we see others processing or preparing for problems by doing more research than we have. If we do not feel we can contribute something unique to the discussion, we could opt out and deny that there was really an upside. What occurs is that we become increasingly focused on what we know and have already proven we can do, which closes us off from any future growth. The way out of this dilemma is through our intellectual curiosity with which we constantly explore new areas and how they may benefit our Self or those around us.

One of the primary indicators when we operate with this level and type of Intelligence is how quickly we assess what we can and cannot contribute in any situation. Unless we have assurances that others will listen and take our advice, it is difficult to keep investing in ourselves so we can continue to find ways of contributing to them. Even if we do not know an area or how to address a particular problem, we still feel compelled to articulate the problem and identify what we need to do to determine an answer. The identifying characteristic to overcome is our need to look good in processing an intellectual question, even if we know nothing about it. 

The more we become convinced that we know more than anyone else, the more likely we will project our superiority onto others and demand their allegiance. This is a common issue in the United States because we value information over anything else. This creates incredible polarization especially when others are not clear about how to express their own Truth. One of the key indicators that we are able to transcend this Subjectification process, is that we no longer need others to believe our perspective over their own. In effect, the more we are confident about our own Truth and do not need others to agree with us, the more effective we will be in expressing our life work. On the other hand, when we are caught up in our thinking, we end up believing that we are much clearer regarding the definition of what is going on. We believe we are able to better diagnose the problems. This ultimately perpetuates our internal beliefs that we can organize “the solution” better than others. 

In conclusion, when we begin to trust our knowing and have no need to push it on others, others become interested in it. Our capacity to suggest things is then more trusted, and even invited, because we don’t have to prove it. When we are balanced in our Secondary Investigative Intelligence, arrogance falls away, fear that others will not hear us or listen to our experience disappears, and we get into flow with our ideas. This is greatly facilitated when we have the ability to share our ideas with others without defenses or unconscious reactions interfering. Our confidence naturally expands and others seek us out for what we have to contribute. The key issue becomes our ability to listen to others so that we can respond quickly to what they actually need.