©Arlene R. Taylor PhD

altSeveral individuals may observe the same incident and yet, if called upon to testify in court, present very different testimony based on each person’s innate brain lead.

At present, the American legal system focuses on trying to determine who is right versus who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is lying. It might be much more helpful if the system, instead, sought for the collective truth based on four different perspectives.

Following is a hypothetical example of testimony provided by four individuals (each with a different brain lead) who witnessed the same incident.

altPrioritizing Division 

altEnvisioning Division


The witness focused on and pointed out problems with signage on a portion of the highway, told the judge he should throw the book at the truck driver,and made mention of the fact that the highway patrol had asked for blood-alcohol tests.


The witness speculated on the possible actions of each driver that had resulted in the wreck, readily teared-up when describing the death of the sports car driver, and suggested ways in which the accident could have potentially been avoided.


altMaintaining Division

altHarmonizing Division


The witness reported conversation that had been overheard at the accident site, included details related to the bounded shapes (e.g., the little red car had virtually been flattened by the semi-truck), cited specific driving rules that had been violated, and provided a precise time line of events.


The witness described the relationship of the vehicles to each other (e.g., the sports car had all but disappeared under the truck), cited the injuries of the victims, mentioned the groans emitted by the wounded, and described the weather (e.g., drizzle, accompanied by biting wind) that made things even more uncomfortable for the victims.