Prism
Take Full Prism

The Codex

Every mind is built from six engines. No one runs all six hot.

This is the map of how minds are built, all of them, including the ones around you. It is a way of seeing rather than a test. Read it slowly.

Intelligence is not one dial. It is not a single quantity you have more or less of, a number that settles the question of how clever you are. That picture is tidy, and it is wrong. A mind is a shape, not a level.

Every mind runs on six cognitive engines. There is the engine that finds the rule, the one that thinks in language, the one that builds in the mind's eye, the one that holds the load, the one that thinks in quantity, and the one that sets the tempo. Six distinct ways of processing the world. Every person has all six.

Nobody runs all six hot. This is the sentence the rest of the Codex turns on. Every mind has engines that run hot and engines that run cool, without exception, including the minds you think of as brilliant. Running cool on an engine is not damage and it is not a deficit. It is the normal, universal shape of a mind. You were never supposed to be strong at all six. No one is.

Your two hottest engines decide your shape. The pair of engines that runs hottest in you is what gives your mind its character: its instincts, its gifts, the work it was built for. And there are exactly sixteen ways that pair can land. Sixteen shapes. One of them is yours.

“Once you can see the six engines, you cannot stop seeing them: in yourself, in your closest people, in the stranger across the table.”

Start with the engines themselves: what each one is, and how it feels from the inside.

Layer Two

The six engines

Six cognitive engines, each one defined here, and, more to the point, how it feels from the inside when it runs hot, and how it feels when it runs cool.

Gf

Pattern Recognition

Fluid Reasoning: the engine that finds the rule

The engine that sees the rule before anyone explains it.

Pattern recognition is the ability to find the regularity inside something new — to take information you have never met before and feel, underneath the surface, the rule it obeys. It is reasoning with no instructions: you are not recalling an answer, you are deriving one. It works on shapes, on systems, on arguments, on people. Wherever there is a structure to be found, this is the engine that finds it.

Running hot: from the inside

You meet a new system and, before anyone has finished explaining it, you have already guessed how it ends. You learn games by playing one round badly and then never losing again. When three things break at once, you are the one who says "these aren't three problems, they're one" — and you are usually right.

It feels less like effort and more like noticing. The rule was always there; you simply could not not see it. The frustration that comes with this engine is the opposite of struggle: it is impatience. Information that refuses to resolve into a pattern feels almost physically uncomfortable to hold.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, a new system stays a new system for longer. You learn it the honest way — by being shown, by doing it, by building the rule from the ground up instead of guessing it from the air. The instruction-free leap that pattern-hot minds make can look like magic, and standing next to it can make you feel slow.

You are not slow. You are building on a different foundation. A mind that runs cool on pattern often runs hot somewhere else — on language, on memory, on craft — and reaches the same understanding by a route that holds more solidly once it arrives. The pattern-hot mind guesses the rule fast and sometimes guesses wrong. The mind that built the rule knows exactly why it is true. That is not a lesser way to know a thing.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose pattern engine runs hot — the one who finishes the puzzle while you are still reading the instructions, who saw the plot twist in act one, who cannot sit through a meeting that is going nowhere obvious. You probably just pictured them.

Gc

Verbal Reasoning

Crystallized Intelligence: the engine that thinks in language

The engine that thinks in language, not just speaks it.

Verbal reasoning is the depth of what you know expressed through words — and, more than that, the ability to think *with* words. It is vocabulary as a set of precise tools, the reflex for analogy that lets one idea explain another, and the capacity to follow a long argument without losing the thread. Unlike the rule-finding engine, this one is built over a lifetime: every book, every conversation, every careful sentence adds to it.

Running hot: from the inside

You reach for the exact word and it is there. You can feel the difference between two phrasings that mean almost the same thing, and you know the gap matters. When someone's argument has a hidden flaw, you hear it the way a musician hears a wrong note — before you could explain why, you already know something is off.

Thinking, for you, often happens in sentences. You do not fully know what you believe until you have said it well. Writing is not a translation of finished thoughts; it is where the thoughts get finished. A muddled paragraph is a signal that the idea underneath it is still muddled too.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, the right word is a beat slower to arrive, and a dense block of text asks for a second read. The understanding is there — it simply does not always convert into language on the first pass. You may know a thing clearly and still find that explaining it is its own separate task.

That gap is not a gap in intelligence. It is a gap between knowing and narrating, and they are different skills. A mind that runs cool on verbal reasoning often thinks in pictures, in structures, in quantities — and grasps things that words are clumsy at holding anyway. Some of the clearest minds in any room are the quietest, because their understanding lives in a form that speech compresses badly.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose verbal engine runs hot — the one who wins the argument by finding the one word that reframes it, who reads the contract everyone else skimmed, whose texts somehow always land exactly right. You probably just pictured them.

Gv

Spatial Reasoning

Visual-Spatial Processing: the engine that builds in the mind's eye

The engine that builds in the mind's eye.

Spatial reasoning is the capacity to make and move pictures in your head — to take an object, a layout, or a structure and rotate it, unfold it, walk through it without anything physical existing yet. It is how a mind sees the finished room from the floor plan, how it knows whether the furniture will fit before lifting it, how it imagines a machine working before a single part is built.

Running hot: from the inside

You can see the thing before it exists. You read a blueprint and the building stands up in your head, full-size. You pack the car and everything fits, because you solved it as a picture first. When someone describes a layout in words, you have already drawn it — and you get quietly impatient with the words, because the picture was faster.

It feels like having a private workshop behind your eyes. You assemble there, test there, break things there where breaking is free. Abstract talk with no shape to it leaves you cold; you keep reaching for the diagram, the model, the picture, because that is where the thinking actually happens for you.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, the mind's-eye picture is fainter or slower to build. You navigate by directions rather than by a map that rotates with you; you solve the shape problem on paper rather than in your head. Watching someone mentally rotate a structure with no effort can make you feel like you are missing a sense.

You are not missing a sense. You are using a different one. A mind that runs cool on spatial reasoning often runs hot on language or logic or sequence — and gets to the same answer by reasoning it through step by step instead of seeing it whole. The world is full of brilliant work done by people who never pictured it first and built it correctly anyway.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose spatial engine runs hot — the one who reverses the trailer in one clean movement, who sketches the idea instead of describing it, who can tell you the new sofa will not fit through the door. You probably just pictured them.

Gsm

Working Memory

Short-Term Memory: the engine that holds the load

The engine that holds the whole problem in the air at once.

Working memory is not storage — it is juggling. It is the ability to hold several live pieces of information in mind *and keep working with them* at the same time. Track a conversation across five people while forming your own reply. Hold three variables steady while you solve for the fourth. It is the mental desk space available for hard thinking, and it has a hard edge.

Running hot: from the inside

You hold the whole thing without writing it down. The multi-step instruction, the branching conversation, the problem with six moving parts — you keep them all live at once and turn them over together. People hand you complexity and watch you not drop it, and they assume it costs you nothing.

It feels like having a wide desk. You can lay everything out, keep it all in view, and see how the far-left piece relates to the far-right one without clearing space. The strain only shows when the desk is genuinely overloaded — and then it is not slow thinking, it is a clean cliff: past a point, one more item and something falls.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, the desk is smaller — and that is one of the most common shapes a mind can have. You lose the thread mid-sentence. You walk into the room and the reason is gone. A six-step instruction needs to be written down or it will not survive to step four. None of this is a flaw in your reasoning.

It is a bottleneck, not a deficit — and it has workarounds the way a small desk has shelves. Write it down. Break it into pieces. Externalise the load and the cliff disappears. A mind that runs cool on working memory often runs hot on pattern or insight: it cannot hold ten things at once, but it frequently finds the one idea that means it only ever needed to hold three.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose working memory runs hot — the one who keeps four conversations straight at the dinner table, who does the long arithmetic in their head, who never needs the instruction repeated. You probably just pictured them.

Gq

Numerical Reasoning

Quantitative Reasoning: the engine that thinks in quantity

The engine that thinks in quantity.

Numerical reasoning is fluency with quantity — not arithmetic speed, but a feel for how numbers behave. It is the sense that tells you a figure is wrong before you have checked it, that estimates the answer's rough size instantly, that reads a proportion or a rate the way a verbal mind reads a sentence. It is thinking in numbers the way other engines think in words or pictures.

Running hot: from the inside

You see a statistic in an article and something snags — the number does not sit right, and a moment later you know why. You estimate the bill before the app does. You read a financial line and the story jumps out: not the figures themselves, but what they imply, what is being hidden, what does not add up.

It feels like numbers being legible rather than effortful. A ratio is not a calculation to grind through; it is a thing you can simply see the shape of. The arithmetic was never the hard part for you — the reasoning is the part you enjoy, and you reach for a quantity the way other minds reach for a metaphor.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, numbers stay a slightly foreign language. You can do the maths — but it is translation work, deliberate rather than automatic, and a page of figures does not tell you a story at a glance. Sitting next to someone who reads quantity instantly can make you feel as if you skipped a year of school.

You did not. Numerical intuition is a specific, separable engine — plenty of genuinely sharp minds run cool on it and hot on language, on pattern, on space. And it is the engine most easily supported from outside: a calculator, a spreadsheet, a second pair of eyes close the gap completely. Running cool here costs you nothing that a tool cannot give straight back.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose numerical engine runs hot — the one who catches the pricing error on the menu, who knows whether the deal is good without a spreadsheet, who sees a chart and immediately says "that's not right." You probably just pictured them.

Gs

Processing Speed

Processing Speed: the engine that sets the tempo

The engine that sets the tempo.

Processing speed is the rate at which the simple cognitive operations happen — scanning, comparing, matching, deciding which thing is which. It is not the same as being clever and it is not about rushing. It is throughput: how fast the basic machinery runs underneath the hard thinking. When it runs fast, the simple steps cost almost nothing, which leaves more room for everything else.

Running hot: from the inside

You keep up with the fast-moving conversation without effort and have your reply ready while it is still your turn to listen. You scan the crowded page, the busy car park, the long list, and the thing you need surfaces almost at once. You finish the timed task with margin to spare.

It feels like the world running at a comfortable speed rather than a demanding one. Because the simple operations are nearly free, you have spare attention for the harder layer — you can think *and* keep pace at the same time. The cost is a low tolerance for things that crawl: a slow process can feel genuinely hard to sit inside.

Running cool: from the inside

When this engine runs cool, the tempo is slower — and the world is built, unfairly, for the fast. The quick-fire conversation moves on before your point is ready. The timed test ends with good thinking still unspent on the page. It is easy to read this as not being smart enough. It is not that.

Speed and depth are different engines, and they trade off more often than they travel together. A mind that runs cool on processing speed is frequently a mind that runs deep — it arrives later because it went further, weighed more, missed less. Given its own time, the slower engine often produces the better answer. The clock measures tempo. It does not measure thinking.

You'll recognise this in others

You know someone whose processing-speed engine runs hot — the one who answers before you have finished the question, who spots the typo as the page loads, who is three clicks ahead of the conversation. And you know someone who runs cool — slower to the table, and worth the wait every time. You probably just pictured both.

You already feel which engines run hot in you. The assessment is how you find out for certain, and by how much.

Layer Three

Why exactly sixteen.

Sixteen is not a number someone chose because it sounded right. It is the number the arithmetic produces, and the arithmetic runs like this.

Six engines. Your two hottest define your shape. So the question “what shape is a mind?” becomes a much smaller question: which two of the six engines run hottest?

Six things, choose two. Count them yourself. Pattern can pair with Verbal, Spatial, Working Memory, Numerical, or Processing Speed. That is five. Verbal can pair with the four it has not already met. Four more, nine. Spatial adds three, Working Memory adds two, Numerical adds the last one. Five plus four plus three plus two plus one. That is fifteen pairs. Each pair is one archetype.

And then one more. There is a mind with no single hot pair: the genuinely balanced mind, strong across the board with no two engines pulling away from the rest. That is the sixteenth shape. Fifteen pairs, plus one balanced mind, is sixteen. The map is complete. There is no seventeenth. There is no gap.

6 engines, choose 2 = 15 pairs. Plus the balanced mind = 16.

Numerical Reasoning +

No single hot pairOdysseus→
“This is not sixteen options someone chose. It is every shape the maths allows. There is no seventeenth mind.”

Sixteen shapes. One of them is the way your mind is built. The map can't tell you which. Only a measurement can.

Find which shape is yours

Sixteen shapes, each one in full below.

Layer Four

The sixteen

Grouped by the engine they share. Every archetype appears under both of its hot engines. That is correct, and it is the point: it shows you how the shapes connect. Open any one to read its full Codex entry.

Gf

Minds that run hot on Pattern Recognition

Gc

Minds that run hot on Verbal Reasoning

Gv

Minds that run hot on Spatial Reasoning

Gsm

Minds that run hot on Working Memory

Gq

Minds that run hot on Numerical Reasoning

Gs

Minds that run hot on Processing Speed

Sixteen portraits. Next, the room they all stand in: how the shapes sit against each other.

Layer Five

How the sixteen minds sit together.

By now you have probably placed a few people you know on this map. Here is how to read what their shapes mean: next to each other, and next to yours.

Four relationships connect every mind to the others. Pairs withis the shape whose strengths cover this one's blind spot: the mind you work best beside. Clashes with is the shape you keep misunderstanding, the one whose hot engines are your cool ones. Nearest neighbour is the shape most like yours, the one you are most often confused with. Opposite is the mind that works the way yours simply does not. Together they are the vocabulary for reading the people in your life.

Pick an archetype to see its four relationships.

Reading the people you know

Think about the manager you never quite click with. The odds are good that they are close to your oppositeon this map: a mind built from the engines that run cool in you. The friction was never about effort or goodwill. Two differently-shaped minds were reaching for different tools, and each found the other's obvious move strange.

Think about the friend you finish sentences with. Often that is a nearest neighbour: a mind that shares one of your hot engines, so a great deal feels self-evident between you. And the colleague who makes your work better without trying is frequently the one who pairs with you: their strengths land exactly where yours run thin.

This is a way of understanding people, never a way of judging or boxing them. The point of the map is the opposite of a verdict: it is to leave you with less blame for a difficult person, not more, because friction between two minds is two shapes meeting, not a fault in either.

These are tendencies, not verdicts. A real person is more than a shape, but the shape explains more of the friction than you'd think.

You can see everyone else's shape on this map. Your own is the one place still blank. The assessment fills it in.

Put yourself on the map

Layer Six

The deeper read

Four essays for the questions the rest of the Codex will have raised. The deepest plunge, and the only place the Codex asks anything of you outright.

Essay 1

Why minds differ

A group of specialists beats a group of identical generalists. Cognitive diversity is not an accident — it is the robust outcome.

Here is a question worth sitting with. If one cognitive shape were simply better than the others, evolution had a very long time to make everyone that shape. It did not. The species kept producing minds that run hot on different engines — minds that see rules, minds that hold language, minds that build in space, minds that endure, minds that move fast. That is not noise in the system. That is the system.

Think about what a group actually needs. It needs someone who spots the pattern early and someone who remembers what happened last time. It needs someone who can hold the whole tangled problem in the air and someone who can find the one clean lever to move it. It needs the mind that reads the room in a heartbeat and the mind that thinks slowly and misses nothing. A group where every member is the same kind of clever has a blind spot every member shares. A group of specialists, between them, has no blind spot at all.

This is why a population of varied minds outperforms a population of identical ones — not on any single task, but across the full range of tasks a group has to survive. The variety is the strength. Each mind is a specialist, and the specialism only looks like a limitation if you forget that it sits inside a group.

It reframes your own profile completely. The engines that run cool in you are not a tax you pay. They are the half of the range that someone near you was built to cover — and the engines that run hot in you are your half of theirs. You were never supposed to run all six hot. No one is. You were built to be one excellent instrument in an orchestra, and an orchestra of sixteen identical instruments is not richer. It is just louder.

Which sets up the harder claim, the one the next essay makes outright: if cognitive diversity is the robust outcome, then no single shape inside that diversity can be the best one. There is no top of this. There is only the range — and your place in it.

“A group where everyone is the same kind of clever shares one blind spot. A group of specialists has none.”

Essay 2

Why no mind is best

There is no ranking of the sixteen. A mind built for one kind of problem is not a worse mind — it is a different instrument.

Somewhere early, most of us absorbed the idea that intelligence is a line — that minds can be set end to end from less to more, and that the only honest question is where on the line you fall. The Codex is built on the claim that the line is the wrong shape. Intelligence is not a line. It is a space with six dimensions, and a space has no top.

Picture the actual claim that a ranking would require. To say a Pattern-and-Spatial mind is better than a Working-Memory-and-Processing-Speed mind, you would have to name the problem they are being ranked on. For designing a system nobody has built before, the first mind wins easily. For holding a fast, chaotic, high-load situation together in real time, the second mind wins just as easily. There is no problem-free vantage point from which to rank them — because the ranking always smuggles in a particular kind of problem, and the universe does not only contain that kind.

This is also why rarity is not value. Some of the sixteen shapes are less common than others. That is a fact about distribution, not about worth — a rare shape is rare the way left-handedness is rare, and no one thinks left-handers are better people. A common shape is common because it is useful in a very wide range of rooms. If anything, that is the opposite of a weakness. The Codex shows all sixteen at the same size on purpose. There is no premium tier of mind.

Now the part that matters most, the reason this essay exists. If you arrived at the Codex carrying a quiet verdict on yourself — slow, scattered, not as sharp as the people around you — that verdict was generated by the line. It is what the single-number model does: it takes a shape and flattens it into a position, and any position that is not near the top reads as a failing. But you do not have a position. You have a shape. The engines that run cool in you are not evidence against your intelligence; they are the contour of a specific, real, useful mind.

Replace the verdict with the shape and the shame has nowhere to stand. You are not behind. You were never in the race the line invented. You are one of sixteen ways a mind can be built, and the only honest thing left to ask is not how high you score — it is which shape is actually yours.

“You do not have a position on a line. You have a shape. And a shape cannot be behind.”

Essay 3

The honest take — Prism, IQ, and MBTI

You have already met the IQ test and the personality quiz. Here is exactly where Prism sits between them — and what it honestly is not.

You did not arrive at the Codex with an empty mind about all this. You have met the two things it sits between. You have probably taken an IQ test, or seen the number treated as a verdict. You have almost certainly taken a sixteen-type personality quiz and been handed a four-letter code. Prism is most honestly understood by saying plainly how it relates to each — including where it concedes ground.

Start with the IQ test. Its core move is compression: it takes everything a mind can do and collapses it into a single number. That number is not meaningless — it does capture something real and broadly shared across the cognitive engines. But IQ is an average. Averages lie. An average of six very different scores describes a mind that may not exist: it tells you the mean and deletes the spikes, and the spikes are the part that actually shapes a life. Prism's claim against the IQ test is not that the number is fake. It is that the shape carries information the number throws away.

And here is the honest concession, the one a marketing page would skip. Prism also produces a composite — a single overall figure. We do not pretend otherwise. The difference is what we put in front of it: the composite is the footnote, and the six-engine shape is the headline. An IQ test makes the number the whole story. Prism makes it the smallest part of the story. That is a real difference, but it is a difference of emphasis and structure, not a claim to have escaped single numbers entirely.

Now the personality quiz. What the sixteen-type personality test gets genuinely right is the format: sixteen types is memorable, shareable, and it gives people a real vocabulary for talking about how they differ. What it lacks is a mechanism underneath — the types are assigned from self-report, from you reporting how you think you are, with nothing measured. Prism keeps the shareable sixteen-type structure and puts measured cognitive performance under it: tasks with right and wrong answers, not a questionnaire about your own habits.

And again, the honest concession. Prism's archetype — your place among the sixteen — is not itself a lab result. It is an interpretive layer built on top of the measurement. The six engine scores are measured. The archetype is the meaningful, carefully-built story Prism tells about the pattern of those scores. We think that story is genuinely useful, which is why the Codex exists. But we are not going to dress an interpretation up as a raw reading. The measurement is measured. The archetype is read.

So the honest position is this. Prism is the credible middle. It has the real cognitive measurement the personality quiz lacks, and it has the rich, shareable shape the IQ number deletes. It is not a clinical instrument and it is not pretending to be one — and it earns your trust precisely by telling you that, rather than hoping you do not ask.

“IQ is an average. Averages lie. The shape carries what the number throws away.”

Essay 4

The science, and its edges

The real framework Prism is built on, and an honest account of where its edges currently are.

The Codex describes minds as six engines because that maps onto a genuine scientific framework. The framework is CHC theory — the most widely used model of cognitive abilities in the field, built over decades from the work of researchers including Cattell, Horn, and Carroll. CHC describes intelligence not as one thing but as a structured set of broad abilities. Prism's six engines are aligned to six of those broad abilities: fluid reasoning, crystallized intelligence, visual-spatial processing, short-term and working memory, quantitative reasoning, and processing speed.

The items that measure them are built on public-domain cognitive paradigms — the progressive-matrix style of reasoning task, the verbal-analogy style, the mental-rotation style, span-style memory tasks, number-series reasoning, and rapid symbol-comparison. These are established families of cognitive task, used in the research literature for many years. Prism's items are original and written in-house. Prism does not reproduce, copy, or norm against any proprietary or trademarked test.

That is the legitimate lineage. Now the edges — stated plainly, because a page that hides its limitations has not earned the word honest.

First: Prism's alignment to CHC is exactly that — an alignment. The six engines are mapped to CHC broad abilities by construct, on the basis of what each task is designed to measure. That mapping has not yet been confirmed by a factor analysis on Prism's own data. It is a principled label, not a validated structural finding, and we call it a label.

Second: the scoring does not yet use item-response-theory parameter estimation. The harder calibration — modelling each item's exact difficulty and discrimination from large-scale response data — is future work, not a current claim.

Third: the percentile norms are placeholders. Real norms require a large, demographically representative sample, and until that sample exists the percentile figures should be read as provisional. We will not publish reliability statistics — the formal measures of how consistent the assessment is — until enough real assessments have been completed to compute them honestly. An estimate dressed as a finding is not something the Codex will do.

Fourth, and the Codex has already said this in plain words: the archetype layer is the most interpretive part of the system. The six engine scores are a measurement. The sixteen-archetype identity built on top of them is a careful, deliberate interpretation of the shape those scores make — not a fifth measured quantity.

None of this is written to undersell Prism. It is written because the credible thing and the honest thing are the same thing. Prism is a real, structured cognitive assessment built on a legitimate framework, and it is a young one with named edges it is openly working on. Both halves of that sentence are true, and you deserve both.

For self-insight and entertainment. Not a clinical or diagnostic assessment.

“A page that hides its limitations has not earned the word honest.”

The one thing the Codex can't tell you

You've seen all sixteen. You still don't know which one is yours.

The Codex is the whole map. Every engine, every shape, every mind. The one place it stays blank is you. The assessment is how the map gets your name on it: six engines measured, your shape named, in about 25 minutes. Free. No card.

Find your place in the Codex

Free. No credit card. Instant result.