Pod'Lair review

[BigApplePi]

What happens though is that the word 'type' can lead people to think of type as a box, ...

Boxes, like all symbols, are good handles to grab onto for subsequent pragmatic usage. A metaphor that might need work is:

A type has a center that radiates outward like the Sun. As we move away from the center the central strength becomes weaker and weaker and harder to identify as it meets other suns.

I'd like to see a better metaphor Architect but this one ain't bad.

 

[Reluctantly]

Agreed. Folks, conduct the infighting elsewhere. This thread is for a fair and rational investigation of PL.

I was being fair and rational. In fact, I was trying to help her. All Lyra had to do was explain why or how what I said wasn't the case. And she did not, but attacked me instead. This is extremely irrational and if you can't show that you understand that, I will not respect your wishes.

 

[BigApplePi]

crippli

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” ― Ansel Adams

Aw. Gee.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...175&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:189

 

[Lyra]

@Reluctantly

Refusing to answer endless repetition of essentially the same shallow critiques addressed elsewhere isn't irrational. It's a concession of finite resources (patience, for one).

Oh, by the way, it seems that you're incompetent, a lazy thinker, and haven't done your research. Please see this. It will answer your questions about empiricism, motivation, rationality, etc.

 

[Reluctantly]

Someone please tell me something, has Lyra EVER admitted she/he was wrong about anything in regards to Pod'Lair? If so, what was it? If not, why do you think she/he IS being "fair" and "rational"?

 

[Architect]

I was being fair and rational. In fact, I was trying to help her. All Lyra had to do was explain why or how what I said wasn't the case. And she did not, but attacked me instead. This is extremely irrational and if you can't show that you understand that, I will not respect your wishes.

Lyra is a 'him' and my comment applies to him also, I'm not singling out anybody here either, including you

 

[Lyra]

Someone please tell me something, has Lyra EVER admitted she/he was wrong about anything in regards to Pod'Lair? If so, what was it? If not, why do you think she/he IS being "fair" and "rational"?

I think you'll find that my willingness to entertain different perspectives/angles increases in direct proportion to the amount of research the counterparty has put in. A biologist could live in a nation of creationists and fossil-deniers (thought experiment!) and it wouldn't make his refusal to budge any less rational or more insane. Only a stupid person would make the kind of argument you're making here.

Oh, by the way, it seems that you're incompetent and haven't done your research. Please see this before spewing more irrelevant, uninformed bullshit.

 

[BigApplePi]

Typology Critique

This is a representative critique new people and old people might make which applies to any moron (Lyra's word) out there. It doesn't mean answers aren't out there. Is there any one place where answers can be found (especially to the paragraphs at the end)? As long as we have no confirmation of Pod'Lair, we remain morons in the chief representative's eyes.

Okay children, back to the topic.

Childhood is a necessary precedent to adulthood.

PL has definitely got something here that is worth investigating. Typing a person is extremely difficult in MBTI.

Typing a person assumes there IS such a thing. When a tiger mates with a lion what type do you have?

You need a database of past behaviors to reliably do this, and even then people modulate their behaviors in different ways which makes it more difficult.

For MBTI that is difficult. Defining behavior is inherently fuzzy.

I had independently discovered, however, the people do throw off cues and physical characteristics they can give you insight into their type. I just hadn't realized how explicit it is.

Pod'Lair formalizes this and for some reason gives no credit to its predecessors. History provides a foundation and a natural flow of trust. The representative here got off to a good start by fooling us as to his sex and now we are still uncertain. Given this history, how are we to trust?

Using the insights from PL it begins to become obvious what a person's type is, because you see it. You can see them using their functions, or powers – whatever you want to call it – in real-time. This actually makes perfect sense also, either through natural inclination or cultural miens it is very natural to make these gestures.

What is obvious? What does classifying Stage 1 external cues have to do with internal temperament?

For example, the forward head thrust. This is an example of Fe, the PL people would say the person is accessing their pod power for Xyy. The MBTI people would say you are displaying your Fe. It's the same concept, regardless if you are the person who is trying to emphasize a point is a natural thrust her head forward? If you are INTP isn't that exactly the behavior you would exhibit when you bring out your Fe? Yes of course.

This observation goes beyond correspondence. It is identity.

So I don't know whether these physical memes are just naturally evolved or culturally derived. For example, how many times have you seen a mad scientist walking around gesticulating with his hands? Isn't that spider hands? How is it then I see my INTP son gesticulating using spider hands when trying to make a point? Maybe he saw a movie or show with a mad scientist doing that, or more likely it seems to me the icon for mad scientist derives from the natural habit of an INTP who wants to fluently make a point by separating his fingers.

This critique applies to all behavior, not just typology.

At any rate this first gear of reading doesn't seem to be a mechanical solution for reading a person, which is why they invented the other four gears. Regardless I can see that it already has improved my knowledge of typology and ability to type/Read other people.

Now we come to something which concerns me. How do we know how much physical cues match up with behavior if we don't define the behavior? How would we match, for example, Zai cues with "Perfectionistic" (Pod'Lair concept) behavior? Furthermore how do we know whether perfectionistic behavior is for the moment or enduring or stable without further observation? Same for "Thinking" (MBTI concept) behavior. Note that thinking and perfectionism definitions might need some care to see how they correspond.

Sample behavior: I observe someone singing. Are they singers or are they lip-syncing? I go to a baseball game. I see the batter swing. How do I know he is a professional batter? He might be the pitcher (they can't bat).

What does Pod'Lair use to type people? If Stage 1 is in doubt and we have to go to later Stage behavior, might as well live with MBTI and give a test to confirm behavior is truly a type and not momentary.

Pod'Lair might give a certainty number in its Readings. If the Einstein reading was in doubt, so others will be. Estimate what extent. This is what scientists do.

I'm just reporting critiques here. If you wish to shoot the messenger, feel free to go to Lyra as a backup.

 

[Reluctantly]

@Reluctantly

Refusing to answer endless repetition of essentially the same shallow critiques addressed elsewhere isn't irrational. It's a concession of finite resources (patience, for one).

You may have addressed them for yourself, but that doesn't mean you did a good job of addressing them for other people.

Oh, by the way, it seems that you're incompetent, a lazy thinker, and haven't done your research. Please see this. It will answer your questions about empiricism, motivation, rationality, etc.

I'm not anything, but yet everything. So, lucky for you, your insults are quite meaningless to me. And funny how you refer the same post, a post that basically tells everyone any attempt to understand is flawed, but yet you want people to understand and appreciate your ...whatever is it that we can't dare describe.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, huh? Real nice.

What exactly is your aim here then?

 

[Lyra]

Jung talks about this. Ti gets so caught up in dichotomizing that it starts to believe it has figured everything out and everyone is stupid and wrong that disagrees, even if (or perhaps BECAUSE) no one else can see the same potential value you see in it. It's a form of neurosis.

See Jung isn't always so bad guys...

Nope. That would actually be a trait of Nai ignoring irrelevant noise as it traces the signals of the case it's working on. But, honestly, try dealing with the sheer amount of facile, unthought-through responses I get. Eventually you have to just brush them aside. I'm 1 person and I'm dealing with a good few dozen idiots at once at any one time, none of whom who has done anywhere near as much research or thought this through with anywhere near the precision I have. And none of whom addresses the more important and substantial parts of my archive. That's why I'm setting minimum standards for a serious response.

You haven't met them. Because you're stupid! Here's how you can begin to remedy that situation.

 

[Lyra]

You may have addressed them for yourself, but that doesn't mean you did a good job of addressing them for other people.

Well, reading the posts and studying the material would probably be a prerequisite to figuring that out. You haven't done that because you're intellectually incompetent and lazy. Please see this for further information.

 

[Reluctantly]

Nope. That would actually be a trait of Nai ignoring irrelevant noise as it traces the signals of the case it's working on. But, honestly, try dealing with the sheer amount of facile, unthought-through responses I get. Eventually you have to just brush them aside. I'm 1 person and I'm dealing with a good few dozen idiots at once at any one time, none of whom who has done anywhere near as much research or thought this through with anywhere near the precision I have. And none of whom addresses the more important and substantial parts of my archive. That's why I'm setting minimum standards for a serious response.

Interesting. If I was right, I suppose now that's nullified. Psychology might be a game, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun.

You haven't met them. Because you're stupid! Here's how you can begin to remedy that situation.

Nope, garbage in, garbage out. That's on your end, sorry. You could try to keep posting that however, but the fact that you don't seem interested in how I understand and know makes me think you have very little idea about me to begin with to change my mind. Funny then, with all this Pod'Lair business that's supposed to teach people about one another.

Maybe it's like the saying "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one." Well, yes, maybe.

Well, reading the posts and studying the material would probably be a prerequisite to figuring that out. You haven't done that because you're intellectually incompetent and lazy. Please see this for further information.

I did it at first. Then I found problems. Problems that you wouldn't address. So rather than "stir the pot" I left it alone in the hopes that other people would clear things up. Well, they haven't and are just as baffled as me and you seem to be making an enemy out of everyone. In fact, instead of addressing each person's individual problem adequately, you suggest to learn more. It's like Christianity where any questioning of the religion just means they don't know enough. Well, hey, that could be; but you could also be deluded.

And what concerns me the most about you, however, is that you don't seem to be interested in how others think to deal with their concerns adequately; but you believe you know better. Hmmm.

 

[Lyra]

I addressed your concerns above in my replies to Auburn about synthesis of Subjecivity/Objectivity, and additionally in the HDM thread when dealing with Pi's harassment. And in most other threads. Everything you're saying is tired and old. It's not that I'm not interested in you-- just not interested in dealing with your particular incarnation of the cultural tropes I've addressed before and you're recapitulating. Reading and working in-depth with individuals takes a great deal of time and care, and I'm only going to do that for you if you take the time to see why I'm saying what I am, and what I'm actually saying. As I've explained, many times, before. That's why I try my best with Architect, but not with the other fuckwits who frequent this thread.

Oh btw it seems you don't know what you're talking about. Please see this for details.

Initiate irrelevant word-swamp in 5, 4, 3...

 

[Reluctantly]

I addressed your concerns above in my replies to Auburn about synthesis of Subjecivity/Objectivity, and additionally in the HDM thread when dealing with Pi's harassment. And in most other threads. Everything you're saying is tired and old. It's not that I'm not interested in you-- just not interested in dealing with your particular incarnation of the cultural tropes I've addressed before and you're recapitulating. Reading and working individuals takes a great deal of time and care, and I'm only going to do that for you if you take the time to see why I'm saying what I am, and what I'm actually saying. As I've explained, many times, before.

Oh btw it seems you don't know what you're talking about. Please see this for details.

Initiate irrelevant word-swamp in 5, 4, 3...

Being that you aim to change minds, it's funny how easily you disregard them.

Anyway,
If what you say is true, you could post links. In fact, if you were organized enough, you could deal with everyone's concerns efficiently without expecting them to do all the effort on good faith, especially when their concerns were not dealt with before.
And if you are fair, you should be prepared for the fact that you may still have problems with any previous criticism. Just because you address criticism doesn't mean there aren't still problems with that criticism that you haven't addressed.

 

[Lyra]

How about fuck that. Almost every post I have to address ignores what was posted on the very same page. What's happening is not me not dealing with critiques adequately-- it's people not reading or thinking with the time and care that's required for a fruitful dialectic. You're straw-manning what I'm actually doing. Go back to the start of the 'Fallen Adymus' thread and work forwards to this post-- during that course I have answered rationally and considerately and with great care far too many times, and with far too little reciprocation, for you to be giving me the lecture you're trying to.

You are a total waste of my time. I will not be responding to you any further.

 

[Reluctantly]

How about fuck that. Almost every post I have to address ignores what was posted on the very same page. What's happening is not me not dealing with critiques adequately-- it's people not reading or thinking with the time and care that's required for a fruitful dialectic. You're straw-manning what I'm actually doing.

You are a total waste of my time. I will not be responding to you any further.

I awaken,
I'm sailing out in the blue ocean.
Lost,
not knowing where to go,
Asking where to go,
a voice whispers "It's in the ocean, just sail"

A little direction would be nice, is all.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well, alright then. Till next time.

Good luck, Pod'lair.

 

[BigApplePi]

It is useful to note logic is linear. When a statement is made that asserts something about Pod'Lair AND the poster in conjunction, which is to be responded to? If the post contains contains comments about the poster, and it hits hard enough, the comment about Pod'Lair is lost. We go into defensive mode and lose the Pod'Lair logic.

Many things detract from logic. I probably need not list them. That is why I like the Pod'Lair Sourcebook:
http://www.podlair.com/images/PodLair Sourcebook.pdf

It defines, it's categorized, structured. It is limited in its breakdown. But while it provides the skeleton it lacks the flesh.

One-on-one good relations are difficult. How are we to know if pre-conceived notions are to be questioned or assumed? How are we to know if a statement is feeling or logic or fact? Answer: we don't. We have to do the trial and error. We try to avoid going in circles. If we find ourselves in circles, it's time for a change. Maybe a 3rd party's comment or lay back?

How are we to treat new people? Tell them they missed the boat and start over? I think of a book signer. What does he say to people arriving at his table ready to buy his book? Read the book I'm not talking to you?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Again, acceptance in this field isn't the point-- and its supposed leaders and adepts are in no position to judge whether another theory is adequate, given their own track record and lack of epistemological clarity.

If this is what you think then since Pod'lair has a poor track record of understanding it's own theory sufficiently to describe it in depth yet simply, aka epistemological clarity then Pod'lair isn't in a position to judge other theories. It all falls into place, Pod'lair was just telling us all not to listen all along.

Or is this some kind of catch 22 since you said it, then it can't be true? Gee whizz. This is special.

 

[Architect]

Re: Typology Critique

Defining behavior is inherently fuzzy.

Behavior is easily measured and identified, the difficulty is that people change behavior depending on many variables.

What is obvious? What does classifying Stage 1 external cues have to do with internal temperament?

No mystery here. Why do you smile when you're happy? That's not something fundamental like temperament, that's just a mood. Why would one suppose that fundamental psychic forces don't manifest physically?

Now we come to something which concerns me. How do we know how much physical cues match up with behavior if we don't define the behavior? ...

Sample behavior: I observe someone singing. Are they singers or are they lip-syncing? I go to a baseball game. I see the batter swing. How do I know he is a professional batter? He might be the pitcher (they can't bat).

I don't see the problem, seem more like an Epistemological one. The premise is simple; a person accesses or uses Ti, in other words they're thinking, indicated by a directed look right (a check). Easily tested. Video yourself (using your computer, phone or whatever) talking about anything, then see if you find any cues.

When I did that, I didn't notice (was NOT aware of) all the cues I threw off. But later when I saw them I did remember what was going through my head at the time, and it did corrospond to something you could call "accessing the functions" or "powers".

Now I haven't verified all of their cues yet. Basically I've got a fish on the line, but I have yet to reel it in and see how big it is.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Typology Critique

Video yourself (using your computer, phone or whatever) talking about anything, then see if you find any cues.

Here we go with something that doesn't show up on this message Forum. I have never been video'd or seen myself. I am extremely self-conscious in front of strangers and think too much. Even for a private video I would know if it was to be seen by strangers.

At my place of work I was once sent to a retarded class for people who can't speak in front of others. My misfortune. All I wanted to do was escape that class ASAP and barely passed. My boss once asked me if I knew I stuttered. I didn't! That was 35-40 years ago and I suppose I should try again. I have a small still camera that has video. Don't know how many minutes. I would have to practice spontaneity ... and keep practicing until I got it right, lol.

 

[Architect]

Re: Typology Critique

Here we go with something that doesn't show up on this message Forum. I have never been video'd or seen myself. I am extremely self-conscious in front of strangers and think too much. Even for a private video I would know if it was to be seen by strangers.

At my place of work I was once sent to a retarded class for people who can't speak in front of others. My misfortune. All I wanted to do was escape that class ASAP and barely passed. My boss once asked me if I knew I stuttered. I didn't! That was 35-40 years ago and I suppose I should try again. I have a small still camera that has video. Don't know how many minutes. I would have to practice spontaneity ... and keep practicing until I got it right, lol.

You don't have to video yourself, there are plenty of examples of people & celebrities on YouTube, plus PL has examples (which I haven't checked out yet).

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Typology Critique

http://intpforum.com/member.php?u=4157

You don't have to video yourself, there are plenty of examples of people & celebrities on YouTube, plus PL has examples (which I haven't checked out yet).

Okay. Suppose I were to play a utube, learn all the cues and conclude this is, say a VaiSyy with a 70 percent certitude. Now what? Do I replay it ignoring the cues and listening to the content? Do I study up to Gear 5? What have I concluded ... that I've learned the cues? How do I check for VaiSyy without living with this person for a month? A week? An hour? Do I retain that 70 percent certainty or just because you agree as you've seen the same video, it goes to 85 percent?

Couldn't I have tried Gear 5 directly and skipped the earlier stages altogether? Or do I have the satisfaction of knowing Gear 1 is consistent with what my intuition tells me at Gear 5? Suppose I have a match at Gear 1 and Gear 5 and all the other Gears. That still doesn't improve my 70 percent reading, does it?

I'm just asking these questions, but expect rational answers before I take the next step in belief. I suspect I could answer these questions myself or speculate on them and post them, but that would bias the independence of bias which science requires.
http://intpforum.com//member.php?u=2624

 

[Architect]

Gear Two

-Adaptive/Directive – Yang and Yin Gesturing

-Adaptive: - Adaptive Momentum, Innate State Yin Gesturing, and Altered State Yang Gesturing.

-Directive: Directive Momentum, Innate State Yang Gesturing, and Altered State Yin Gesturing.

-Objective/Subjective – Hooded or Unhooded eyes, Objective and Subjective Power Accessing.

-Objective: Unhooded eyes, Innate State Extroverting, Altered State Introverting (Going under water look).

-Subjective: Hooded eyes, Innate State Introverting (Going home look), Altered State Extroverting.

-Lead-Perception/Lead-Discernment – Bifield Face/Unifield Face and Psychic Bandit

-Lead-Perception - Bifield Face, and Psychic Bandit look.

-Lead-Discernment – Unifield Face, Warming or Cooling overtakes the eyes.

-Literal/Interpretive – First Conversation and Second Conversation, Concretizing and Contextualizing.

-Literal – Innate State Concretizing and Altered State Contextualizing, Innate State First Conversation and Altered State Second conversation, Secured Signal.

-Interpretive – Innate State Contextualizing and Altered State Concretizing, Innate State Second Conversation and Altered State First Conversation, Syncopated Signal.

-Logic-Based/Values-Based – Cooling Readiness vs Warming Readiness.

-Logic-Based – Innate State Cooling, Altered State Warming (does not readily pass the midline)

-Values-Based - Innate State Warming (Readily passes the midline), Altered State Cooling.

2nd Gear

Very good, I watched this video. Makes sense, there's a lot to absorb and I haven't gotten a handle on gear one yet.

A note I noticed on a third gear cue

When Zai (=) is impacted with information, it merely shakes off the irrelevant information and only focuses what logically matters.

This is interesting, in the video I made I did this frequently. Lyra mentioned it, whenever I said what I thought was an irrelevant bit of information, such as that 'most investment advisors said you had to own stocks" (direct quote - I was talking about investing), I would make this shrugging off motion with the downturned corners of the mouth.

So here's an example for you. I did that completely unconsciously and wasn't aware that it was a cue. Why did I do it? Because it's obvious! It's a communication cue, a meme, or a way to convey that something was irrelevant. Since I think a lot about what is relevant and irrelevant, this is a natural way to convey it.

But I've never seen my INFJ do that as far as I can recall. She doesn't shrug off logical irrelevancies, it's not how her mind works. Does that makes sense? This is how I'm seeing that cognitive functions/pod powers/whatever manifest themself in physical cues.

On to practicing some 1st gear reading ...

 

[Architect]

Watched this video

Cerebrals Temple

A channel focused on NT/Zai types apparently, or maybe more. As he rattled off the list of celebs who were Zai'nyy I was struck with some of them who certainly did not seem so to me. File away for later investigaion. And more typology bashing, Adymus in particular seems to have it in for them.

Otherwise a dry intro video (sounded like Adymus had a cold). Wait and see if anything else comes out of it.

 

[own8ge]

(sounded like Adymus had a cold).

In all his videos lately he sounds like that. I think he has cancer.

 

[Lyra]

@Architect if you want an idea of the types of content coming on Zai'nyy temple, the in-depth episodes on Nyy'xai and Nai'xyy temple are indications. The most metaphorical/deep/beautiful content in all Pod'Lair's platform etc.

When the Zai'nyy temple does develop properly I think it will amaze you. It tends to be the content in the temples, the depth of the understanding there, that really makes this all real for people.

 

[Architect]

In all his videos lately he sounds like that.

Yeah, tower voice (or well voice), I've got it too.

I think he has cancer.

Ugh, don't say that ...

When the Zai'nyy temple does develop properly I think it will amaze you. It tends to be the content in the temples, the depth of the understanding there, that really makes this all real for people.

OK, looking forward to it

 

[InvisibleJim]

Okay, so I cracked something else about Pod'lair. As a Nai'zyy (INTJ/ILI) I should be paired with a Nyy'Zai (ENTP/ILE). Does Pod'lair have such an individual who can explain to me sufficient depth to understand all of the 5 gears of Pod'lair in a language that I would find compatible?

I would highly recommend someone who won't tell me Pod'lair is the best but instead simply provides the information required for me to generate my own conclusions.

I see you have significant problems with Nai'zyy types. Have you considered why this might be?

 

[Impact Calculus]

Have you considered why this might be?

Not exactly a "problem" per say, but I know why.

The vast majority of typology town is either Ad'Rom or Nai'xyy. (Assuming that you're referencing the consideration that we should be crossing Nai'zyy more often)

 

[Architect]

Checkpoint: I've made some small progress with PL with the first gear of Reading. Thus far the results look promising, at least from a shallow perspective. Now the goal is rather than going further to 2nd gear, I'm going to dive deep with 1st and see how well it holds up. I'll attempt to quantify (1st gear) for different mojos/types cues

• How accurate
• How complete
• How precise

Rather than do all of them which would take a lot of time, I'll dive deep on a representative sample, say the PL equivalents of INTP (my favorite), ENFJ, ISFJ, and ESTP.

@Lyra, you mentioned PL practice videos but I'm having a hard time finding them. If you have any pointers for material that would be appreciated. Otherwise I'll take celebrity examples from the PL lists and go from there.

I think that at the end of this I'll have enough results to the validity of PL and will conclude this public investigation with a writeup. Verifying or falsifying the 1st gear of mojo Reading should be sufficient to show any validity to the PL theory, and the scope of it.

 

[Architect]

I watched this video as a side thing

Zai Unflappable

For INTP Ti dominants this is worth watching. Stick with it, the conversation may seem to wander and not make a lot of sense, but if you try to understand what he's saying, he's trying to show how Ti operates in the world by example.

An example, he mentions how in WWI they invented a system that allowed a machine gun to shoot through an airplane propellor without destroying it (important for WWI/WWII dogfighting). This is an example of how ow Ti/Zai is comfortable with the precision - the firing of the bullets is mechanically coupled to the trigger with a delay for the transit time etc. Ti is unflappable - the laws of physics and the precision are comfortable. Ni, for example, is flappable, i.e. not as comfortable with that. "But what if XYZ ..." would be Ni's retort. Ti says "No, it works, by design"

If you're wondering what Ti is, this may be helpful.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Architect. Good luck with the reading sampling.

I think that at the end of this I'll have enough results to the validity of PL .. Verifying or falsifying the 1st gear of mojo Reading should be sufficient to show any validity to the PL theory, and the scope of it.

BTW you said "validity." Validity (in psychology) means, does the test measure what it is said to measure? This is not the same as consistent results or agreement among different testers.

The question I have to ask is, can the physical cues which are claimed to identify INTP actually identify INTP behavior over time? I don't see how this is easily verified without a behavior followup. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you are looking for. If I have I'd like to know.

I forgot to flag your handle here: Typology Critique. It says approximately the same thing.

 

[Architect]

BTW you said "validity." Validity (in psychology) means, does the test measure what it is said to measure? This is not the same as consistent results or agreement among different testers.

The question I have to ask is, can the physical cues which are claimed to identify INTP actually identify INTP behavior over time? I don't see how this is easily verified without a behavior followup. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you are looking for. If I have I'd like to know.

I'm not going for some absolute validity, really I'm looking for whether it works and makes sense for me. I've presented all my thoughts out on this thread as I've tried different avenues with PL, and at the end will be convinced of something which I'll present. People can take that and decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Someone else reviewed pod'lair too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RIZCPrZnU

 

[Lyra]

Yeah... that was truly terrible.

Also note his justification for MBTI is basically 'institution certificate blargh Jung blargh;. And that he typed ADYMUS AS INFP.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yeah... that was truly terrible.

Also note his justification for MBTI is basically 'institution certificate blargh Jung blargh;. And that he typed ADYMUS AS INFP.

That's right; because he's ENFP, look alikes include somavision, Galen, the indefatigable Elfboy/Swordsman of Mana etc. But mirror types and quasi-identicals are always behaviourally wobbly in all quantification systems including Pod'lair. Theres no shame in that.

 

[redbaron]

Yeah... that was truly terrible.

Also note his justification for MBTI is basically 'institution certificate blargh Jung blargh;. And that he typed ADYMUS AS INFP.

Almost as criminal as PL typing EINSTEIN AS INFJ.

 

[Lyra]

Well, no, because we have many hours of material for Adymus, and because he's claiming it as an absolute.

Also welcome to my stalker club.

 

[BigApplePi]

I wrote this in another context, but thought I'd put it here:

Let's look at Pod'Lair for the moment. I recently told someone I've never been video'd. I'm very self-conscious in front of a camera. Too bad, my problem, but how would I solve it? Answer: practice and experience. But since I'm in a pre-practice, pre-experience stage my learning process would be aware of many of Pod'Lair's Gear 1's cues. So I'm guessing I would put those directly into my in-front-of-the-camera learning of how to behave. Furthermore here's another twist on Pod'Lair. Pod'Lair is supposed to identify temperments, I suppose, and do it via video. But ALL of my persona is non-video. Since when must temperament be tied to a video? Pod'Lair says a person can't hide. Those Gear 1 cues are built in. To repeat, if I were to go in front of a camera, I'd have to create a persona for that from scratch. Can one trust that, especially in my unusual case? How much does persona differ from temperament? Pod'Lair would answer it doesn't.

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I don't know why, but I can pick up and identify visual cues. For example spider hands and directive hands. I know what goes on in my mind ... unless I forget and don't know. I know why those hand movements do what they do and why. I'm perfectly capable of orienting myself to doing all spiderhands or all directives, depending on the theme of my presentation. Now what is Pod'Lair going to do with that?

 

[BigApplePi]

Also welcome to my stalker club.

There is no reason is the world why a person as -self-centered- honored as you are should not have a large following. Like groupies to a rock-star, like tails to a comet, like dogs to another's behind.

 

[Lyra]

@BigApplePi

Your post displays total ignorance of our position. It seems you haven't done your research. See here for details.

 

[Anarkandi]

I too have been exploring PL to find that yes, they've found similarities, but they overemphazise the physiological dimensions of personality, neglecting how people work. This underemphasis of how the functions work in practice, beside the Ni and Fe, and general vagueness in how the functions work make them crossfittable, turning PL into something which you can easily interpret in, but which doesn't work in practice.

Alot of the members in the project exhibit symptoms linked to mental disorders, narcissism, manipulation and psychopathy. They show zero regard for other people around them.

 

[Lyra]

If you think we show zero regard for people, show me an instance in which we have actually damaged somebody. What we show is zero regard for parasites and memetic possessions which waste lives and crush beautiful hearts under the force of their common acceptance-- an acceptance which you are either too unskilled to recognise or too cowardly to act against. We are sacrificing our own public images, careers, livelihoods, and comforts for this because we believe in it. You have explicitly expressed to me before fear about involvement with Pod'Lair because it would damage your desired political career, whilst asking me to teach you independently. You now justify your cowardice as somehow being stronger. You are the one who will not disregard your own comfort and shallow social approval for what is genuinely better for others, here.

@Anarkandi is a wannabe-guru with no understanding, just feeding off drama around Pod'Lair recently to try and grab a totally unearned position of authority by being the reasonable 'middle of the road voice'. Lame position that weak thinkers can easily take to seem stronger than they actually are, to the uninformed, in the midst of an actual intellectual dispute.

All of his reads are wrong (he has a 10% accuracy rating) and he's a coward. He ripped off our material directly, posted it on his website, and now tries to market Pod'Lair's discoveries in a warped, useless, and misconceived form. He has not falsified our claims, provided a useful sample set of his own, presented a workable understanding of his own, or overcome his own over-modulation.

About supposed lack of focus on people and 'vagueness': the material in Nai'xyy or Nyy'xai temple (the first of which you're praised lavishly before), the introductions we've made about modulation, momentum, peaking etc. (listed in detail earlier in this thread) and the very precise power flows all refute this claim. You, contrarily, have provided no similar depth of representation of 'how people work'. Pod'Lair works in practice and can produce results-- you have yet to produce any, and your Reading ability is worse than that of the average totally untrained newbie.

 

[Anarkandi]

Note: A 10% accuracy rating according to PL's system. They can't confirm their reads are accurate, and therefore their rating systems merely show how their system diverges from the MBTI system.

 

[Lyra]

Actually, we can confirm that. You're going to have to deal with the extended and in-depth arguments about falsifiability and Scientific Method that have already occurred on this forum for that kind of assertion to carry any weight.

Better yet, as a would-be guru, you're going to need to prove your own ability to Read, and present a reasoned theoretical argument for why your samples are what they are, that accords with a consistent theory that can be used to identify others similarly. Not agreeing with our Reads doesn't disqualify you from debating them-- not presenting a consistent/developed theory and sample-set of your own that accords with that theory in a demonstrable way does.

Also... I know you're not meant to say this in debates, but... you're just wrong. You can't Read. I can. You couldn't Read back in PHY and you can't now. You're just so damned wrong and incompetent, and time will tell of that. What you are in this is the idiot on the sidelines who tried to pander to the stupid mob and the distorted mores of the time, and smart people researching the history of this will know you as nothing more than that for a long time to come, if they notice you. It's just what you are. The incompetent who couldn't see it, the coward who didn't act, the self-server who let his own desire for shallow popularity get in the way of genius.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Anarkandi and Lyra.
Please define "accuracy reading" please. I'm not sure it's been defined anywhere, ahem, accurately. By this I mean, what are we reading? Consistency with gear cues or temperamental behavior? I've brought this up directly to Architect, but he is still studying.

If you answer, I'll try to elaborate on what I mean with this question.

 

[Lyra]

I'm rating the consistency with which Erik Thor can correctly identify people's configurations, as Architect is learning how to do now. Which is, according to recent evidence, around or under 8%. He is a far less skilled reader than Auburn, even. He has the worst accuracy of anyone who was involved with the PHY project that I'm aware of, including Cheese. This was always just about politics for him-- there is no art or science to his approach, and no skill.

For many months, he also wasn't sure of his own configuration, oscillating between Nai'xyy and Xyy'nai. Within two or three months of his latest choice (he asserted both confidently) he set up shop on his website as a would-be guru, riding the wave of typology town sentiment against Pod'Lair. That's ridiculous.

Here is the video in which he was rated, and which deals with his attempts to deny our accuracy ratings. 'billionpersonalities' referes to Anarandi/Erik Thor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl1CuqC5_7w

 

[BigApplePi]

@Anarkandi and Lyra.
Please define "accuracy reading" please. I'm not sure it's been defined anywhere, ahem, accurately. By this I mean, what are we reading? Consistency with gear cues or temperamental behavior? I've brought this up directly to Architect, but he is still studying.

If you answer, I'll try to elaborate on what I mean with this question.

I guess I'll repeat my question because that answer sure wasn't directed to me. I'm not interested in erik thor's readings until and unless i know him better.

Any INTP's here understand my question because so far no one else does?

 

[Lyra]

As I stated, accuracy of identification of Cognitive Configuration. Look at the video.

Even the most basic research would have revealed this. Would you please stop bothering me with these basic questions and filling the thread with endless expressions of not having done even the slightest bit of work in relation to the topic at hand? Your choice, of course, but I can't understand how the constant and unreserved displaying of your ignorance doesn't embarrass you.