Apparently MBTI has been "dismantled" by the pod'lair team

[Auburn]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

1. Your data will come up with groupings. But I don't think those groups will necessarily be natural. It is up to the observers (as you) to decide perhaps how many groups you would like depending on how "alike" the data is. To one person the data may look like 10,000 patterns; to another only 20 or 16. It's partly up to the observer to decide what number is useful and handy.

Right. The threshold percentile of compatibility can be moved up or down and the data would spit out a different number of motus signatures. But that's not to be confused with saying the data concludes arbitrarily.

The data can be viewed at different thresholds just like how you can change the contrast of a picture in Photoshop. But the picture it would generate would still be real. Or another way to look at it is like an elevation-map of a terrain. As you adjust the altitude, the picture you get is different --- but all of those individual altitude marks are vertical slices of the same real landscape.

The data could be displayed three-dimensionally like a geographical map to see what landscape it forms and how many "peaks" exist at all different elevations (thresholds). So the formation of Motus types *does* emerge entirely naturally. There are just different ways of looking at it which are all part of the same whole picture.

2. Apparently to date, brain scans are too unrefined to draw refined conclusions from. Not so the converse. Run a test and see what brain scan you get to verify the setup. Great test for verification.

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Selecting the right EEG equipment and deciding on a functional setup (and things like interview questions/activities) to use will all be discussed extensively before we begin that stage. As well as looking at the research that exists out there already on what brain scans can tell and what signal means what.

3. I posted this not realizing it was in the Forum Lounge. It belongs under MBTI & Typology. I wonder if you saw it? It raises the question of whether a type belongs to a person or to a "mood" of a person. I may have missed it, but do you intend to run your tests on the same person over a period of time to see if they test the same? Set up different conditions or wait until the person is in a different state and see if that changes the visuals. My guess is it sure would. Consider: happy/sad, laid back/eager, needy/ satisfied ... things like that.

....I can't even begin to address why this isn't even a question. o.o;

I just replayed your video and ask this question: Are you free of assumptions? If your data is derived from a snapshot of a person, that snapshot need not be representative of the person. That is an assumption. To say people are the same under different circumstances would be a false assumption. (It's motion. Motion is one of the six tools for understanding.)

It *is* representative of the person. Just not the whole person in every possible situation. Which is fine because if we wanted to catalog every possible situation we'd literally have to record their whole life! O:

We also have to think practically here. In science, it's standard to create studies that have the least number of loose variables as possible. And it's just realistic to repeat this whole study when a person is mad, repeat it again when each person is sad, and again when they're happy, etc etc. We'd be at this for centuries.

We can do it once when they're relatively neutral in mood - and honor that limitation of the study. That doesn't mean the data that emerges is tainted. Partial truth is different from lies.

Personally.... I really don't think people's mood changes their signals all that much. And if there really is a noteworthy parallel anyhow, then it would have to be stronger and more consistent than simple mood. If mood alone can dismantle the correlations then they're pretty weak correlations. But that doesn't seem to be the case so far.

[PhoenixRising]

Originally Posted by Architect

Neither is PL of course.



You know that Einstein was a Deist, don't you?

Indeed, there is no human theory or process that is 100 percent accurate at predicting the behavior of complex systems of any type. Perhaps someday we will understand chaos theory and all of it's implications, and then we will be able to be more accurate.

Yes, Einstein had beliefs somewhat like my own. I have added some subtleties to the clockwork universe theory from my own observations. People would like God to be responsible for everything, but this is certainly not the case. I do believe in Divine inspiration and prophecy, but I have never seen God go against the way the universe works.

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by Auburn

Err... not that I don't like how this thread has become a conversation about cyber-culture and inter-forum etiquette , rather than the actual OP, :P but perhaps I can bring the conversation back around.

Now I'm neither for nor against Podlair, but I agree with pretty much everything Adymus said about present typology - and I think that his criticism is really just being circumvented in this thread.

If this community has totally lost the will to debate the legitimacy of the concept their forum revolves around, then all that remains here-on is returning to vomit. The same cycle of reinforced misconceptions because nobody is concerned enough to actually confront these issues.

All the hundreds of typology topics that will follow now (and so long as this is ignored) will be a total and utter waste of time. Of Life. Just as it has been for decades. Before another "INTP" thread is opened, it should be priority to unearth the reality of this - take it to it's extreme and debate it to the death. Anything else is regress.

I agree with Adymus that no substantial progress has been made in the past 90 years, and I find it sad also. It's not really all that difficult to formulate some more empirical studies to test these things.


This is what this thread looks like to me:

"Apparently MBTI has been dismantled, but we're just going to sit here anyways and ignore the critique because it's some crazies that are saying it and it doesn't matter what the crazies say, they're crazy."

"Plus I don't even really care about MBTI and haven't for ages, so I don't care if it was dismantled, I'm just here for the free cookies, and amusing, vague stereotypes (even tho I know they're not real) that are like the glue and common meme that binds this forum together and gives a reason to talk."

That doesn't have to be what happens. We can, and ought to, advance forward. Make progress and new discoveries.

Good plan, but there isn't any way of doing that without ditching jung.


EDIT:

Oh, and I found something in the related videos box.
It addresses your video.

YouTube

YouTube

[Anarkandi]

Interesting video, Adymus. You spent alot of time making this considering you "didn't find us even worth the bother." as you mentioned in the video. (I'd say it's because Adymus does feel threathened by our project.) ...and the remark to run.. abandon ship.. oh my. This video is kinda brutal. :P

I made some notes, we are not planning any response videos, but if anybody watches the video we do not consider ourselves dismantled or broken down in any way and will continue releasing content as we know that we are on to something and that our method of approaching the theory of cognitive functions will lead us somewhere.

(0.)We have not made any claims, but we do believe we are on to something, and that we're seeing consistency, and we are actively learning more and more throughout the course of this project, and we are constantly theoretising on our boards. This could be mentioned more clearly in our videos in the future, we missed out on that point with our first video.

1. We have not elliminated Qualia. This is a baseless claim.
We only accept motions that the entire group can catch with the eye, the definition of our motions are only accepted if they can be seen.
2. Our "irrelevant details" have so far proved useful. We are slowly reaching closer and closer to consensus, and I think everybody here are starting to notice this.
3. If they are different, we will continue to separate them. This can be done easily, if people can catch them as different, our project will naturally evolve past the criticism that we are missing out on a signals "uniqueness"
4. We do not only look at the cues, we will naturally evolve to catch elements and type reading and similar occurances. And we will have the statistics and the data. Podlair will not have this.
5. We follow the empirical scientifical approach. They don't, and they state so themselves.
6. We do not make any of the first six assumptions. We just follow a model which is efficient and within our capacity. We do assume that people will act within a similar pattern, regardless of their energy or their feelings or their cultural background at the time, however. But if this is proven wrong, then we will need to find another route, and we are aware of this.
We have not seen Adymus break out of a pattern of what we believe a Ti(Ne) to be, though he says he could do it 100% of the time. But he does not do this conciously.
We only use the first 5-10 minutes of footage because using more would be too time consuming, but we welcome and will not mind if people do more in depth analysis.
7. We do more reading than we do in the breakdown section, they are making the assumption that the only reading we are doing is the one in the Microscopics section.
8. They are ignoring the fact that they cannot backtrack or prove what they are seeing in a scientifical way.
9. We have not seen any proof in Pod'Lairs videos, and therefore we made the statement that we did. We have read through their pages, and we have watched their videos. It does not hold up.
10. The samples are not evidence. You cannot say "the video in itself" is the evidence... You must show and be able to explain "what" in the video is "what" you are seeing. You do not have a written down model or method of testing type, you are just using your eyes, your qualia, you are not giving out their qualia. You do not have a measurment system, you only make yourself the measurment system and tell people to come to you. What we hold in our heads is valuable, sure, and very interesting to listen to - but if you cannot translate it.. it's just in your head. We ofcourse believe that we can translate what we are seeing.
11. We look and we welcome any theories or ideas or discussions about typology, visual typing or similar, and we hold such discussions on our board daily.

And Auburns note:

So it's self-confirming. "The model cannot be wrong because the model... cannot be wrong. Any data that looks wrong is just my shortsightedness and blindness." It is very fallacious reasoning.

Isn't it funny how they can claim to have 100% consistency, yet not 100% accuracy?

It is a bold face lie.

[Architect]

It is untrue that MBTI hasn't developed in the last 90 years, and besides which that is no argument, General Relativity hasn't developed much further in 90 years either, because it was right to begin with.

[Auburn]

Oh my...
Um, I'll just quote myself here.

....it's not that we here are entirely ignoring "qualia" -- that's what Floor 2 is for; the discussion of how a perception influences you and how you gague their whole person -- but that we're making an attempt to establish something more scientifically.

The full version video of the Motus Project Overview would talk about that nuanced dimension too, and acknowledge that human consciousness is a very complex thing to try and quantify. I was thinking about putting that in the preview video but there just wasn't enough time for everything.

But yeah, I don't think they're doing too much more than forming a very big web of confirmation bias (100%? srsly???) which is a massive pitfall because -- as you pointed out elsewhere Erik -- you miss out on things. When we do bitting we come across details we may have subconsciously ignored and are forced to examine them.

With them, they can potentially write-off any discrepancy in their data by using Qualia as an excuse.

For example, if I tell them to give me a solid timeframe visual of what "unaware" mouths look then I find within their own samples a Xyy (Fe) user who gives off that exact timeframe they'll tell me I'm not taking the context into consideration and that that particular stillframe, though it may resemble the other, emerged from a different situation and is still Unaware. They'll tell me that I'm being reductionist and not looking for truth.

This is how/why they can believe (to themselves) that they have 100% consistency. It is because they explain away any potential holes in their model by thinking to themselves "you're just not seeing it" or "yes it looks like [insert signal] but it isn't because of [nuance]". Coming up with excuses at infinitum as to why a contradiction simply can't happen. If they come across a potential contradiction, rather than embracing it, they actively try to look for a way to explain it away within the context of the principles they already formed.

So it's self-confirming. "The model cannot be wrong because the model... cannot be wrong. Any data that looks wrong is just my shortsightedness and blindness." It is very fallacious reasoning.

Isn't it funny how they can claim to have 100% consistency, yet not 100% accuracy? o.o It is a bold face lie.

If their accuracy (such as adymus' self-professed 85%+) isn't at 100% that is because they fail sometimes, even at their own model, at identifying things correctly. This wouldn't happen unless they mistook signals. Meaning they do not have 100% consistency in their signals.

I actually sort of agree that reductionism is a methodology which is unfit for certain fields of study, and even agree that it may be ill-fit for studying elements of consciousness. And I also agree that truth doesn't tailor to our convenience... nor does it makes itself easy to find or adjust to our instruments. It may very well be that our instruments cannot grasp it, but they aren't really fixing this either since there are weaknesses in their approach too.

So this becomes an epistemological debate.

It has to be properly appreciated that elements of consciousness are probably the most difficult to quantify - and we have yet to find a clear window into a person's subjective experience. This doesn't mean the best our data will give is "0%" chance of success - if the patterns are there, they will leak leave some sort of trail in an approach like Motus. Even if it is not the full story, it's not meant to be. That's why other projects will also help created a bigger picture.

It's not even about the discovery of the functions. Subjectively and personally, I already know the functions are real and I *can* read people's type through qualia like Adymus. Instead the point is to develop an objective method by which the reality of this discovery will be unveiled on its own; an angle of research that can identify it outside of my own, or anyone else's, anecdotal data. And being open and modest enough to being wrong, when attempting to formulate a study.

Um, so it's really a totally different approach from Podlair who desires instead to instill each person with an anecdotal template, then have that replicated. This is kind of ok, and I think in some way it's nice to tutor a person regarding a certain subtle/nuanced skillset (just like learning sign language or lip reading) - but it doesn't give credence to the model beyond that...


edit: Also, I don't mean this to get so gloomy.
Sorry if I've made this thread heavy.

[BigApplePi]

Auburn to me your thread is fine. Question. Is it too early to check on film stars? For good ones, say Meryl Streep or even dead ones like Jimmy Stewart, we might know the plot of the film and therefore can ID what is going on to check against your visuals. This wouldn't be a part of your study, just a check on it. Film people have the advantage you can evaluate the same person under different circumstances.

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by Anarkandi

Interesting video, Adymus. You spent alot of time making this considering you "didn't find us even worth the bother." as you mentioned in the video. (I'd say it's because Adymus does feel threathened by our project.) ...and the remark to run.. abandon ship.. oh my. This video is kinda brutal. :P

I don't mean to offend you, but I actually agree with everything that he points out about physiognomy.me.

Also, you do understand you attacked them first right? I'm not sure they're the ones who feel threatened. I mean, don't get me wrong, It's perfectly cool to objectively work through a theory. But when you make a long list of claims that you can't verify, answer his video with a longer list of claims that aren't parallel with what he's saying, and continue to ignore what's being presented, then you don't get to insult them and claim that they "feel threatened".

I made some notes, we are not planning any response videos, but if anybody watches the video we do not consider ourselves dismantled or broken down in any way and will continue releasing content as we know that we are on to something and that our method of approaching the theory of cognitive functions will lead us somewhere.

Then you've both failed to correctly interpret this video and are being ignorant.

I mean, seriously, do you even understand the meaning of the word methodology?

You're seriously assuming that your stereotyped understanding of what is "scientifical" must be parallel with reality.

(0.)We have not made any claims, but we do believe we are on to something, and that we're seeing consistency, and we are actively learning more and more throughout the course of this project, and we are constantly theoretising on our boards. This could be mentioned more clearly in our videos in the future, we missed out on that point with our first video.

Yes, he explains in this video as to why this is a bad thing. You're only reaffirming the opposing side here.

We have not elliminated Qualia. This is a baseless claim.
We only accept motions that the entire group can catch with the eye, the definition of our motions are only accepted if they can be seen.

Good, please continue to ignore his arguments explaining why you're eliminating necessary qualia, and keep living inside your own little box of reality.

Our "irrelevant details" have so far proved useful. We are slowly reaching closer and closer to consensus, and I think everybody here are starting to notice this.

Still don't see any dismantling of his arguments. He's just as right when you factor this in.

If they are different, we will continue to separate them. This can be done easily, if people can catch them as different, our project will naturally evolve past the criticism that we are missing out on a signals "uniqueness"

There are limitations to completely taking things out of context, you know.

We do not only look at the cues, we will naturally evolve to catch elements and type reading and similar occurances. And we will have the statistics and the data. Podlair will not have this.

Does it bother you when somebody gives a logical explanation as to why your data is completely useless? Really, dude? Really?

"Naturally evolving" involves tearing down the walls of your model. If you plan to do that, then you have nothing to defend and his claims are true.

We follow the empirical scientifical approach. They don't, and they state so themselves.

Your model doesn't fit the definition of empirical, and he accurately explains this.

Considering you continue to fail to address his arguments, I'm going to ask you to please watch the video before you decide to send a rebuttal my way, thanks.

We do not make any of the first six assumptions. We just follow a model which is efficient and within our capacity. We do assume that people will act within a similar pattern, regardless of their energy or their feelings or their cultural background at the time, however. But if this is proven wrong, then we will need to find another route, and we are aware of this.
We have not seen Adymus break out of a pattern of what we believe a Ti(Ne) to be, though he says he could do it 100% of the time. But he does not do this conciously.
We only use the first 5-10 minutes of footage because using more would be too time consuming, but we welcome and will not mind if people do more in depth analysis.

Thank you, you've finally decided to address his arguments. Oh, but look, you appear to be unable to back yourself up. What a shame.

He explains why your model sucks, but you simply restate that it's good.

Oh, look, so you are going off of stereotyped patterns then.. Nice.

We do more reading than we do in the breakdown section, they are making the assumption that the only reading we are doing is the one in the Microscopics section.

You couldn't possibly know that. This is especially true considering that you haven't even watched the video.

They are ignoring the fact that they cannot backtrack or prove what they are seeing in a scientifical way.

So we should all live under your definition of "what is scientifical"?

Do you understand how stereotyped that is? "Scientifical" methodologies are demonstrated to be hogwash all of the time.

We have not seen any proof in Pod'Lairs videos, and therefore we made the statement that we did. We have read through their pages, and we have watched their videos. It does not hold up.

But you didn't watch any of the hours and hours of footage of these individuals, now did you?

The samples are not evidence. You cannot say "the video in itself" is the evidence... You must show and be able to explain "what" in the video is "what" you are seeing. You do not have a written down model or method of testing type, you are just using your eyes, your qualia, you are not giving out their qualia. You do not have a measurment system, you only make yourself the measurment system and tell people to come to you. What we hold in our heads is valuable, sure, and very interesting to listen to - but if you cannot translate it.. it's just in your head. We ofcourse believe that we can translate what we are seeing.

Umm.. They kind of did. You might want to look at their i don't know.. claims.

They don't identify the mojos as types, friend.

Here you go again. You're continuing to demand for quantitative evidence.

Well guess what? (your mind is about to be blown) Qualitative evidence is just as empirical.

We look and we welcome any theories or ideas or discussions about typology, visual typing or similar, and we hold such discussions on our board daily.

Yes, because forum discussions lead to consensus under a flawed model.

So it's self-confirming. "The model cannot be wrong because the model... cannot be wrong. Any data that looks wrong is just my shortsightedness and blindness." It is very fallacious reasoning.

Isn't it funny how they can claim to have 100% consistency, yet not 100% accuracy?

It is a bold face lie.

From what I see, just at the end of your post, Auburn hasn't read up on pod'lair. Therefore, he should be considered wrong in his assumption that the tool has to be 100% accurate for the signals itself to be 100% consistent. I mean, seriously, If you're going to criticize something, at least learn the basics of the theory being presented.

If you don't know how the human psyche is supposed to operate in a given theory, then you're in no position to criticize it.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

Therefore, he [Auburn] should be considered wrong in his assumption that the tool has to be 100% accurate for the signals itself to be 100% consistent. I mean, seriously, If you're going to criticize something, at least learn the basics of the theory being presented.

ImpactC. I still am only 50% done viewing the Adymus video. My bad.
When you have a system of assumptions, accuracy and consistency are different animals. One can have a consistent system which is loaded with inaccuracies when compared to the outside world, not fitting it at all.

One can also have a very accurate system, but without identifying what the heck exactly the assumptions are that are being observed.

[EyeSeeCold]

In response to [MENTION=6741]Impact Calculus[/MENTION] post # 58:

considering this eager involvement(spoilered):

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

Spoiler:

I don't mean to offend you, but I actually agree with everything that he points out about physiognomy.me.

...

Then you've both failed to correctly interpret this video and are being ignorant.

I mean, seriously, do you even understand the meaning of the word methodology?


Good, please continue to ignore his arguments explaining why you're eliminating necessary qualia, and keep living inside your own little box of reality.


Still don't see any dismantling of his arguments. He's just as right when you factor this in.


Does it bother you when somebody gives a logical explanation as to why your data is completely useless? Really, dude? Really?

"Naturally evolving" involves tearing down the walls of your model. If you plan to do that, then you have nothing to defend and his claims are true.

Your model doesn't fit the definition of empirical, and he accurately explains this.

Considering you continue to fail to address his arguments, I'm going to ask you to please watch the video before you decide to send a rebuttal my way, thanks.


Thank you, you've finally decided to address his arguments. Oh, but look, you appear to be unable to back yourself up. What a shame.

He explains why your model sucks, but you simply restate that it's good.

Oh, look, so you are going off of stereotyped patterns then.. Nice.



You couldn't possibly know that. This is especially true considering that you haven't even watched the video.




So we should all live under your definition of "what is scientifical"?

Do you understand how stereotyped that is? "Scientifical" methodologies are demonstrated to be hogwash all of the time.



But you didn't watch any of the hours and hours of footage of these individuals, now did you?




Umm.. They kind of did. You might want to look at their i don't know.. claims.

They don't identify the mojos as types, friend.

Here you go again. You're continuing to demand for quantitative evidence.

Well guess what? (your mind is about to be blown) Qualitative evidence is just as empirical.




Yes, because forum discussions lead to consensus under a flawed model.



From what I see, just at the end of your post, Auburn hasn't read up on pod'lair. Therefore, he should be considered wrong in his assumption that the tool has to be 100% accurate for the signals itself to be 100% consistent. I mean, seriously, If you're going to criticize something, at least learn the basics of the theory being presented.

If you don't know how the human psyche is supposed to operate in a given theory, then you're in no position to criticize it.

and your previous statements:

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

I support the MBTI, not pod'lair.
*

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

Now all they need is a pool of people who're willing to read this garbage.

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

nor do I support his little "Empire of Enlightenment".

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

Oh, and I found something in the related videos box.*
It addresses your video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1uQyjdXyEE

So much for not supporting a garbage theory.

[Auburn]

Well, it seems like you've blown your cover... ^^;
(not that it wasn't obvious from the start)

From what I see, just at the end of your post, Auburn hasn't read up on pod'lair. Therefore, he should be considered wrong...

Well, it is never an *absolute* requirement for anybody to have investigated every facet of a theory to criticize it or part of it -- nor are they automatically wrong (wrong by default) for it.

The only requirement is to have sound deduction abilities and criticize each part accurately. All one needs to know is the universal logic principles that at are work, and whether they are being violated.

I don't have to read the whole Qu'ran before I can debunk it, nor are Muslims right by default until I do. If I can dismantle/expose the fallacies at the core of a beliefs system with just two or three logic principles, that in itself suffices.

So it is irrelevant that you say I have not studied up on podlair (though i have), that is a nonsensical argument, what you should be doing is debating the points instead. My points don't vanish until they're deconstructed with logic, not with ad hominem attacks about my supposed ignorance.

Instead of telling me I haven't studied up on podlair, tell me which principle it is (if i had studied up) that podlair believes would address those concerns, then we can battle out which logic is more sound.

...in his assumption that the tool has to be 100% accurate for the signals itself to be 100% consistent. I mean, seriously, If you're going to criticize something, at least learn the basics of the theory being presented.

We simply *cannot know* if something is 100% consistent if we don't have a 100% accurate instrument of measurement. Because then we cannot objectively determine whether an error belongs to a fault in the instrument or discrepancy in the data itself.

If Podlair acknowledges that there is "noise" in the process of people-reading (which it does), then they admit that people-reading is not a surefire methodology. And since it is the only methodology they use, until a better methodology exists, they cannot wave a banner of 100% consistency. That is unjustified.

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

ImpactC. I still am only 50% done viewing the Adymus video. My bad.
When you have a system of assumptions, accuracy and consistency are different animals. One can have a consistent system which is loaded with inaccuracies when compared to the outside world, not fitting it at all.

One can also have a very accurate system, but without identifying what the heck exactly the assumptions are that are being observed.

Correct. This means that you could easily see if something didn't fit, demonstrate it, then falsify the theory.

Originally Posted by Auburn

Well, it seems like you've blown your cover... ^^;
(not that it wasn't obvious from the start)

I didn't want to light up this thread too quickly. People tend to not listen when they're angry.

Well, it is never an *absolute* requirement for anybody to have investigated every facet of a theory to criticize it or part of it -- nor are they automatically wrong (wrong by default) for it.

You're right, you aren't automatically wrong. But when not knowing much of the basics leads you to establish false warrants in your arguments, you're in not much of a position to make claims like that. E.g I can see the things you've gotten wrong, figure out the extent of which you have an understanding, then stack that up with what you are claiming.

The only requirement is to have sound deduction abilities and criticize each part accurately. All one needs to know is the universal logic principles that at are work, and whether they are being violated.

Well you've already demonstrated that you aren't accurate about what you are criticizing. This means that you don't meet "the only requirement".

I don't have to read the whole Qu'ran before I can debunk it, nor are Muslims right by default until I do. If I can dismantle/expose the fallacies at the core of a beliefs system with just two or three logic principles, that in itself suffices.

Yes, but you do need to understand the basics of mojo reading in this theory.

E.g just because the universe is consistent does not mean that a human is going to automagically know how to mojo read. You learn it and get better and better. Once you know somebody's mojo, you can see the phenomenon explicitly.

So it is irrelevant that you say I have not studied up on podlair (though i have), that is a nonsensical argument, what you should be doing is debating the points instead. My points don't vanish until they're deconstructed with logic, not with ad hominem attacks about my supposed ignorance.

Learning about mojo reading is a requirement to have any sense of what you are talking about.

Furthermore, You're acting as if qualitative evidence exists on this logical plane that can only be reasoned out without actually interpreting it first.

So yes, both of your claims are irrelevant and haven't considered the theory itself. I also highly doubt that you've made any attempt to look at the evidence.

Instead of telling me I haven't studied up on podlair, tell me which principle it is (if i had studied up) that podlair believes would address those concerns, then we can battle out which logic is more sound.

Humans don't automagically know how to read mojo. This is very basic.

We simply *cannot know* if something is 100% consistent if we don't have a 100% accurate instrument of measurement. Because then we cannot objectively determine whether an error belongs to a fault in the instrument or discrepancy in the data itself.

Everyone can see it. You being unwilling to inform yourself of the theory and look at the samples has nothing to do with any possible fallacies of the theory. Those potential fallacies could just as easily be observed. It's 100% falsifiable because of this.

Example:

Eight people can visibly see that there is a tree in my back yard and my front yard. They are achieving 100% consistent results in their methodology of how to interpret a tree. We cannot know if there is really a tree in my back yard due to the human instrument being susceptible to defect. We need to pull out our brain scanners and start nitpicking at out of context gif images to interpret this situation.

If Podlair acknowledges that there is "noise" in the process of people-reading (which it does), then they admit that people-reading is not a surefire methodology. And since it is the only methodology they use, until a better methodology exists, they cannot wave a banner of 100% consistency. That is unjustified.

Nobody has pointed out anything inconsistent with reality. Until somebody does, I do believe that they do get to wave that flag.

P.S if you want to take our email debate (regarding your similar post on Physiognomy.me) to this thread, I'd be more than willing to continue where we left off. It's not that I don't want to respond to the rest of your points, but that I pretty much already have.

[Auburn]

Oh. o.o it really is teskeyben,

P.S if you want to take our email debate (regarding your similar post on Physiognomy.me) to this thread, I'd be more than willing to continue where we left off. It's not that I don't want to respond to the rest of your points, but that I pretty much already have.

no.. I'd rather not. I too feel I've iterated the points that really mattered and if we can't get past those, the rest is futile. i doubt we'd ever come to an accord.

[BigApplePi]

Comments and Reflections ... on Adymus's video.

Certainly is a forceful video. Reminds me of INTJ behavior, though we "know" Adymus is INTP.

Hi ZN'NYY Adymus. Are you the same Adymus I met on the INTP Forum in 2010? I hope so because that ZNNYY sounds like some demon. I'm sure you are not that. I was glad to play your video courtesy of Impact Calculus who provided the link. Thank you. You don't mind if I make some comments?

1. My overall impression is you've made a lot of assumptions. It reminds me of the 100 Cognitive Functions you wrote in 2010. That is, the style, not the content. You speak in Ne generalities and not with linear reasoning with what you are saying. That is fine for the video but it opens me to questions.

2. I know you pronounced your first name but I don't get that from the speling. Cute but disconcerting.

3. You said something about "types people versus reading people." What does that mean?

4. You say we are all wired differently. Well, is that heredity or early environment? Environment can change one, including brain scans.

4a. You say type is biological, not psychological. That is an assumption.

5. You list some historical typologies. My view is to learn from these, not put any into disrepute. Astrology, for example, has a social function. It remains to establish the other ones. Your Pod'Liar seems closed while astrology is open.

6. You say MBTI relies on tests taken by oneself. That sounds right. Please note how practical that is. One can easily take such a test and get a type clue even if inaccurate versus going to another method of typing. If this changes for Pod'Lair, let us know.

7. My notes say a person is conscious of 4 of the 8 cognitive functions. I would strongly dispute this in the sense I can force awareness of the other four although that effort may not rise to a level to be called a cognitive function. see Eight Cognitive Functions or Just Four

8. Your attempt to critique MBTI put a great deal of effort into MBTI's errors. You say, "Half-baked ideas of Carl Jung." You refer to questionable "Mah'zutes" as overgeneralized types. While there is truth to that, there are other points to be made. Carl Jung did not make his types up from thin air. He used his experience to come up with great ideas and those ideas are used in MBTI and Pod'Lair as well (You do have 16 categories that roughly match up with MBTI's, don't you?). Let's give Jung credit where it is due.

Let me introduce you to one of the six types for understanding. It's called, "fuzziness." MBTI's 16 types are NOT precise and you are correct in calling attention to that. But they do do something. They provide a central idea for each type. They are practical because we do wish to understand ourselves. There is more to this fuzziness than just the failure to define the types. The tests are fuzzy. Our interpretations are fuzzy. This is what your critique is about. It remains to be seen specifically what Pod'Lair can do because it doesn't show up in your video.

9. You say, "Jung made up rules and parameters for CF's." My understanding is brain scans have now roughly matched these up by testing people. Not sure how well this is going. A rather good intuition on the part of Carl Jung.

10. Adymus: have you responded to this?
MBTI is NOT a pseudoscience. Check your facts, nay-sayers!

There is a professor researching brain scans for MBTI types. It was on this Forum but can't find the link. Don't recall the thread title either.

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

4. You say we are all wired differently. Well, is that heredity or early environment? Environment can change one, including brain scans.

Inherent, Fundamentally

4a. You say type is biological, not psychological. That is an assumption.

It's not one or the other. It's both.

5. You list some historical typologies. My view is to learn from these, not put any into disrepute. Astrology, for example, has a social function. It remains to establish the other ones. Your Pod'Liar seems closed while astrology is open.

Why do you think that is?

6. You say MBTI relies on tests taken by oneself. That sounds right. Please note how practical that is. One can easily take such a test and get a type clue even if inaccurate versus going to another method of typing. If this changes for Pod'Lair, let us know.

One can answer every question randomly and still get the same clue.

7. My notes say a person is conscious of 4 of the 8 cognitive functions. I would strongly dispute this in the sense I can force awareness of the other four although that effort may not rise to a level to be called a cognitive function. see Eight Cognitive Functions or Just Four

Pod'lair claims that you can connect with your unconscious powers or your Uthur. You just don't directly access them as you would with your conscious.

8. Your attempt to critique MBTI put a great deal of effort into MBTI's errors. You say, "Half-baked ideas of Carl Jung." You refer to questionable "Mah'zutes" as overgeneralized types. While there is truth to that, there are other points to be made. Carl Jung did not make his types up from thin air. He used his experience to come up with great ideas and those ideas are used in MBTI and Pod'Lair as well (You do have 16 categories that roughly match up with MBTI's, don't you?). Let's give Jung credit where it is due.

I don't care if jung did this or that. He saw where this was all really coming from, yet he wimped out and settled with what academia had to offer.

Let me introduce you to one of the six types for understanding. It's called, "fuzziness." MBTI's 16 types are NOT precise and you are correct in calling attention to that. But they do do something. They provide a central idea for each type. They are practical because we do wish to understand ourselves. There is more to this fuzziness than just the failure to define the types. The tests are fuzzy. Our interpretations are fuzzy. This is what your critique is about. It remains to be seen specifically what Pod'Lair can do because it doesn't show up in your video.

It isn't "fuzziness". It's "Nobody knows what Ti really means".

Lol, and if you actually bothered to look at his arguments, you might just be able to respond to them. Trying to sum up all of those attacks in one word is going to get you nowhere.

9. You say, "Jung made up rules and parameters for CF's." My understanding is brain scans have now roughly matched these up by testing people. Not sure how well this is going. A rather good intuition on the part of Carl Jung.

The EEG machines are irrelevant. He is still basing type on what people scored on the test, with no way to tell the difference between misreads and non-misreads, which is pretty bad considering he is claiming to be able to type people with EEG machines, but then makes zero mentions of people misreading themselves. Really? So all 60 of his samples got themselves right, yeah, I don't think so. He is also assuming that the Cognitive functions = Activities that could be done with any kind of Cognitive Function configuration. Such as Mathematics = Ti, Listening to people = Fi, Planning and Organizing things = Te, it is just ridiculously sloppy. Furthermore, he hasn't proven anything with his work, all he is saying is "Hey certain types make the blinky lights blink in certain patterns some of the time!" Even though that claim isn't even consistent all of the time, and he has absolutely no way of knowing if his samples are clean, so his claims are meaningless.

10. Adymus: have you responded to this?
MBTI is NOT a pseudoscience. Check your facts, nay-sayers!

There is a professor researching brain scans for MBTI types. It was on this Forum but can't find the link. Don't recall the thread title either.

Lol, brain scans. (see reply to point 9)

Also, is hiding behind a wall of irrelevant statistics a hobby around here?

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Impact Calculus

Inherent, Fundamentally
It's not one or the other. It's both.

I'm fond of saying heredity is the container; environment is what one puts in it. Brain scans have shown (I don't have the reference) London cab drivers have larger spacial areas. This sounds like environment ... unless those with larger areas were the ones who applied to be cabbies in the first place.

Why do you think that is?

Not sure of your Q. Why do I think Pod'Lair is closed and astrology is open? I meant socially. Astrology is not a science in its conclusions though it has a structure. It's open so it can do its thing to make social connections. It outputs random conclusions which is besides its point. Pod'Liar I'm guessing is closed (socially) because it wishes to be left alone to do professional scientific work. If an engineer is going to build a bridge, they wish privacy to get things right.

One can answer every question randomly and still get the same clue.

I make no sense of this statement. The results of taking an MBTI test is not random though it may not measure what we think it does.

Pod'lair claims that you can connect with your unconscious powers or your Uthur. You just don't directly access them as you would with your conscious.

Good if it can get at the unconscious. Uthur? Do I need to know the meaning of this word? You've created a meaning.

I don't care if jung did this or that. He saw where this was all really coming from, yet he wimped out and settled with what academia had to offer.

I'm interested in what he did do and less how he failed. Freud was not a sterling character either, but he accomplished something.

It isn't "fuzziness". It's "Nobody knows what Ti really means".

Izzat so? Disappointment in not finding a hard and fast meaning should not be a total loss. I treat words as having central meaning we try to get near with looser and more vague meaning as we distance ourselves. Ti is associated with introverted thinking (internal world logic) as opposed to crowing roosters.

Lol, and if you actually bothered to look at his arguments, you might just be able to respond to them. Trying to sum up all of those attacks in one word is going to get you nowhere.

Argument is a word I'm not fond of; data is. It would be nice to have a good Pod'Lair data link.

The EEG machines are irrelevant. He is still basing type on what people scored on the test, with no way to tell the difference between misreads and non-misreads, which is pretty bad considering he is claiming to be able to type people with EEG machines, but then makes zero mentions of people misreading themselves. Really? So all 60 of his samples got themselves right, yeah, I don't think so.

I don't like misreads either. Define "he." I don't think we're talking about the same professor but I haven't found him.

He is also assuming that the Cognitive functions = Activities that could be done with any kind of Cognitive Function configuration. Such as Mathematics = Ti, Listening to people = Fi, Planning and Organizing things = Te, it is just ridiculously sloppy. Furthermore, he hasn't proven anything with his work, all he is saying is "Hey certain types make the blinky lights blink in certain patterns some of the time!" Even though that claim isn't even consistent all of the time, and he has absolutely no way of knowing if his samples are clean, so his claims are meaningless.

I like those words, "ridiculously sloppy", lol. Mathematics is all 8 CF's. (I've been there, lol.) What mathematics? So is listening to people and organizing (believe it or not). What are we observing here?

Also, is hiding behind a wall of irrelevant statistics a hobby around here?

Maybe I should have stayed with pure mathematics. But getting down and dirty is the real world. It should be cleaned up. Pure mathematics is already clean ... or cleaner. There is a book: "How to Lie with Statistics." Are we going to clean up our act, or shall I visit my astrologer?

[BigApplePi]

@Impact Calculus.
I started reading a new thread of ElvenVeil's and as soon as I saw the name Dario Nardi I recognized that was the Personality Professor I wanted to refer to you in my long post, item #10.

Spoiler:

YouTube

YouTube

Don't know if you know the name, so if you don't no need to bother with the link. Just wondered if he would be in your disfavor.

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I'm fond of saying heredity is the container; environment is what one puts in it. Brain scans have shown (I don't have the reference) London cab drivers have larger spacial areas. This sounds like environment ... unless those with larger areas were the ones who applied to be cabbies in the first place.

One's mojo is the container, social alchemy is the environment.

Not sure of your Q. Why do I think Pod'Lair is closed and astrology is open? I meant socially. Astrology is not a science in its conclusions though it has a structure. It's open so it can do its thing to make social connections. It outputs random conclusions which is besides its point. Pod'Liar I'm guessing is closed (socially) because it wishes to be left alone to do professional scientific work. If an engineer is going to build a bridge, they wish privacy to get things right.

Okay. So what significance does this have?

I make no sense of this statement. The results of taking an MBTI test is not random though it may not measure what we think it does.

People don't make sense of what the test says about them, they make sense of how they interpret Fi, Ti, Fe, feeling, thinking, extraversion, introversion, Ne, Ni, Perceiving, Judging, Te, etc.

Good if it can get at the unconscious. Uthur? Do I need to know the meaning of this word? You've created a meaning.

You don't actually. Unless, of course, you don't believe that humans have an unconscious.

I'm interested in what he did do and less how he failed. Freud was not a sterling character either, but he accomplished something.

It would be inappropriate to call a branch a tree or call a wing a bird. Okay, and let's say for a second that we can all agree that pod'lair is right n' stuff. What does this say about all of the people who thought they were looking at functions, but in reality, they were looking at something much bigger? Meaningful, yes, but he misrepresented it.

Izzat so? Disappointment in not finding a hard and fast meaning should not be a total loss. I treat words as having central meaning we try to get near with looser and more vague meaning as we distance ourselves. Ti is associated with introverted thinking (internal world logic) as opposed to crowing roosters.

I didn't say you couldn't define Ti, I said that nobody knew what it meant. A definition means nothing if I still have no idea what that means for a person.

Argument is a word I'm not fond of; data is. It would be nice to have a good Pod'Lair data link.

You automatically limit to quantities. It's not my problem if evidence is not enough for you. MBTI has no clean data btw.

I don't like misreads either. Define "he." I don't think we're talking about the same professor but I haven't found him.

Dardio Nardi. (He's the dude with 60 samples)

I like those words, "ridiculously sloppy", lol. Mathematics is all 8 CF's. (I've been there, lol.) What mathematics? So is listening to people and organizing (believe it or not). What are we observing here?

You clearly didn't read much of what I wrote. That's Dardio Nardi's interpretation that you're criticizing. Tyvm.

Maybe I should have stayed with pure mathematics. But getting down and dirty is the real world. It should be cleaned up. Pure mathematics is already clean ... or cleaner. There is a book: "How to Lie with Statistics." Are we going to clean up our act, or shall I visit my astrologer?

Origins of math /college course.

Personally, I'd avoid going to astrology. "Bullshit" goes about interpreting the theor(y/ies) rather well.

Don't know if you know the name, so if you don't no need to bother with the link. Just wondered if he would be in your disfavor.

Yep, that's the dude that I thought you were referring to. He's also who I was talking about when I said "he".

[tikru]

these pod people are insufferable... truly annoying... insane little children trying to make sense of the world. An angry, condescending mob of pseudointellectuals who think they've got the golden ticket to the chocolate factory. Gene wilder ain't as wild as these bitches...

I mean come on, that first video... it's like a parody of a conspiracy theory video. The tone is laughably pompous to the point where I have to wonder... What's up with this dude?

As for the rest of the videos... the cult imagery disguised as 'synomia' for your better education, made-up nonsense words and subliminal messaging interacting with the odd -> odd seen as different -> trying to understand the different -> getting stuck in their weird zone of mind-bending psychedelia.

And then the infiltration of online communities, wearing shadowy masks to hide their true intent, and then confusion and anger over the negative backlash, or maybe a giddiness that comes with any kind of emotional reaction towards them because reaction means attention and isn't attention what they really want? any publicity is good publicity, but stupid people are still stupid people are still people.

This cult is weird and sad, like all cults... discovering new values and scientific breakthroughs... 'scientific' redefined and twisted to suit certain purposes... shallow thoughts disguised as deep language used to provoke the slightly irrational or slightly insane

Young men lacking maturity flaunting their imaginary power over people who don't care about them or their ideas. Their interesting and seemingly valid ideas that provoke thought... thoughts which might widen certain worldviews or push them into the deep end. Old recycled ideas labeled as new and other unique new ideas coming straight from the godly source, the one man powerhouse in this dreamteam, wearing that scuzzy beard and ponytail, the keys to the kingdom janglin' in his denim pocket.

Men and women from the past who worked hard to understand themselves and the world... scorned by the children of the future, disregarded as images in time without any meaning because the only meaning to these children is themselves. "Old man Jung don't know nothin' cuz he missed this and that according to our gospel"

Unable to look past their one-sided bias, they make claims for certain groups that certain groups wouldn't claim, transforming complicated abstractions into shallow inanities and then scoffing at (their own) stupidity.

Their sense of humor is stupid and silly, finding comedy in the ignorance of the plebians or laughing about how ridiculous it is that we don't know certain things and becoming elated that they have the answers... Their laughter sounds insane because it's the laughter of being included in something powerful... it's that tingly feeling of being a Hero. A hero that no one wants and no one deserves...

[BigApplePi]

tikru. Wow! That's some piece of writing you have there. You must have some powerful Ni. Me? My intention is to look for the best in stuff and keep all emotion out. But that's not important to what you just wrote. Good Ni writing!

Makes me want to assign a temperament, not to the individual, but to the whole (Pod) group and judge them by that temperament to be fair. All 16 get an equal break, don't they?

To me the word, "cult" smacks of name-calling. That is, it is political. A cult is bad if it has bad influence. A "cult" is good if it has something to say and wants to get off the ground. It has the right to try and we (outsiders) have the right to judge. If the medium it chooses is too much of the message, (ESFP?) ... well what about the idea of defining "group temperaments"? Or has that already been done?

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by tikru

these pod people are insufferable... truly annoying... insane little children trying to make sense of the world. An angry, condescending mob of pseudointellectuals who think they've got the golden ticket to the chocolate factory. Gene wilder ain't as wild as these @#!*% ...

Your statements are indicative of arrogance. You make claims founded upon pure assumption and put yourself in a position of superiority from those assumptions. Ironically, this is arrogant, "childish" and condescending.

You don't get to call it a pseudoscience until you find anything wrong with the data. I only become condescending when people arrogantly pretend they're standing upon something when they really aren't. Arrogance only happens when you're inflating from virtually nothing.

I mean come on, that first video... it's like my corrupt judgement of arbitrary, social stereotypes, dude. When I apply this corrupt judgement, I notice that the tone is laughably pompous... What's up with my straw-man arguments?

Fix'd

As for the rest of the videos... the cult imagery disguised as 'synomia' for your better education, made-up nonsense words and subliminal messaging interacting with the odd -> odd seen as different -> trying to understand the different -> getting stuck in their weird zone of mind-bending psychedelia.

Thank you. This is proof enough that the social stereotypes, that you've built up throughout your life, are preventing you from learning the basics of a theory that you're trying to argue against.

And then the infiltration of online communities, wearing shadowy masks to hide their true intent,

Lol, people with an understanding that contradicts your beliefs aren't allowed here? That sounds oddly familiar.

and then confusion and anger over the negative backlash, or maybe a giddiness that comes with any kind of emotional reaction towards them because reaction means attention and isn't attention what they really want? any publicity is good publicity, but stupid people are still stupid people are still people.

I'm not confused. This is especially true when considering that my "negativity" here tends to originate from a lack of canvassing done by other people.

This cult is weird and sad, like all cults... discovering new values and scientific breakthroughs... 'scientific' redefined and twisted to suit certain purposes...

If you identify empirical, clean evidence as "scientifical", then we meet your definition.

shallow thoughts disguised as deep language used to provoke the slightly irrational or slightly insane

When you have no data, you don't get to critique how the information is being represented. This is especially true when your concrete arguments are of scraps and straw-men.

Young men lacking maturity flaunting their imaginary power over people who don't care about them or their ideas. Their interesting and seemingly valid ideas that provoke thought... thoughts which might widen certain worldviews or push them into the deep end.

That's it.. Keep reaffirming my points, won't you?

Old recycled ideas labeled as new and other unique new ideas coming straight from the godly source,

Yes, because pod'lair is generic, right? Is that what you're saying? Haha

the one man powerhouse in this dreamteam, wearing that scuzzy beard and ponytail, the keys to the kingdom janglin' in his denim pocket.

Each of all of the 5 gears has now been released, explained and demonstrated on MRR. You now don't even have a fraction of a doubt that this is 100% falsifiable.

Men and women from the past who worked hard to understand themselves and the world... scorned by the children of the future, disregarded as images in time without any meaning because the only meaning to these children is themselves. "Old man Jung don't know nothin' cuz he missed this and that according to our gospel"

You see, I can tell the difference between Self-Serving Belief and information proven by data. I believe you have it wrong my friend. MBTI is gospel.

Unable to look past their one-sided bias, they make claims for certain groups that certain groups wouldn't claim, transforming complicated abstractions into shallow inanities and then scoffing at (their own) stupidity.

It's so funny to watch people project their own insecurities onto others.

If any of this had actually been true, you could base your arguments upon more than assumption, right? Oh.. But you can't.

Their sense of humor is stupid and silly, finding comedy in the ignorance of the plebians or laughing about how ridiculous it is that we don't know certain things and becoming elated that they have the answers... Their laughter sounds insane because it's the laughter of being included in something powerful... it's that tingly feeling of being a Hero. A hero that no one wants and no one deserves...

@#!*% . I was hoping to find at least one argument in this paragraph to be worth something.

Oh, well. Let me know when you want to frame your argument on things that are worth more than stereotype, misrepresentation and ignorance.

[tikru]

[Impact Calculus]

Originally Posted by tikru

I appreciate your enthusiasm