I spoke with a psychiatrist once who also believed that every part of our brain is used, at one time or another, but that frequently different parts of our brains/minds are in conflict - leading to sub-optimal performance. One way of viewing this might be the "society of mind" model (Minsky?) where the mind, rather than being a single entity, is comprised of a number of intelligent "agents" or units that each interact, the sum total of which is our perception of ourselves. Now, the theory goes, if you have a "self-preservation" unit that kicks in when having to study or problem solve (due to conditioning that ties self-worth into learned material, say), this will compete with the mental resources that are engaged in trying to read or learn. Since it is tied, whether rightly or wrongly, with the survival instinct, its priority has a higher value than the "learning module" that might be running (which is not, in most people, tied to survival so much), effectively disabling it. The notion that we only use 10% (or 3-4%) of our potential might, in actuality, lie in the dominance struggles that occur in our brains between these different "agents".
If ways are found to passivate the "agents" that work contrary to the "agents" that we are trying to use to achieve our goals, then perhaps we can more fully utilize our learning potential. One way of passivating the rogue "agents" would probably include relaxation and positive visualization - both used extensively in accelerated environments. Also, using a sense of play can passivate the "survival agents".
I'd be interested in reading other people's thoughts on this subject - especially Mr. Bissonette's and Mr. Scheele's.
