“Neuro-Typing” The Ultimate Brain Hack?
Neuro-Typing, Biology, and the Search for Alignment
I’ve always been drawn to how people think—how patterns form, how identity shapes behavior, and why we repeat the same actions even when we know better. From a young age, I’ve been intrigued by the vastness of thought and the schematics of the mind.
As I continue transforming my own body and pushing deeper into understanding performance and self, I’ve become increasingly aware that true change doesn’t come from knowledge alone. It comes from understanding the relationship between how we think, how we feel, and how we act.
Neuro-Typing is a concept that builds on a long-standing idea: using personality-based frameworks to better understand human behavior. As a reference point, “The first modern personality test was the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet in 1919, designed to help the United States Army screen recruits susceptible to shell shock.” — Google
In 2020, I was trained to use personality testing to identify specific types of candidates for roles in the workplace. The goal was to intentionally build high-performing teams by understanding how individuals perceive themselves and operate within a system.
Naturally, I began asking:
Why wouldn’t we apply the same concept to health and fitness?
Could identifying a client’s “type” help us better understand their habits?
Could it reduce trial and error in programming?
Could it even help determine whether a coach and client are a good fit from the start?
At a surface level, the answer appears to be yes.
However, in my own experience with personality tests, I noticed something important:
I tend to answer based on who I think I am—not always how I actually behave.
This creates variability.
If a client is not fully honest—or lacks awareness—we are now working with a perceived identity rather than a lived reality. That gap matters.
Because even if we correctly identify a “type,” it does not guarantee execution.
This led me to a deeper question:
How do we bridge the gap between the psychological classification of a person and their actual biological state?
More specifically:
How do we connect personality-based assumptions with real, measurable data like neurotransmitter activity—without relying entirely on physical testing?
To explore this, I decided to run my own comparison.
After completing a Neuro-Type personality test, I ordered a urine neurotransmitter panel to compare the results.
The goal was simple:
Does the personality test reflect biological reality?
How close can we get without physical testing?
Where do these systems align—and where do they break?
I will follow up with a Part Deux sharing those results and comparisons.
Here is where I currently stand:
Neuro-Typing is useful.
Personality testing is useful.
Biological testing is useful.
But they are all tools.
They provide insight—but they do not ensure change.
In my experience, the biggest breakdown does not come from lack of understanding.
It comes from lack of consistent execution.
A client can have the perfect plan, the correct “type,” and supporting biological data—and still fail to follow through.
So while I value these tools and will continue to explore them, I believe the real work lies elsewhere.
Not just in understanding the self—but in building systems that allow the self to act consistently.
Closing Thought
Personality tests and biological panels are not the final authority on who you are.
They are reference points.
The discovery of oneself is ongoing, and human adaptability is far greater than any classification.
Using science, personal development, and self-awareness in harmony is powerful—but without execution, it remains theoretical.
True health is built from the inside out—but it is revealed through what you do, repeatedly.
517 Performance
Drink. Dominate. Daily.™
