Until you're able to build a theoretical personality model that does not rely on subjective observation by a panelists of pseudo experts in order to 'read' or 'type' people then you have no claim as to why your model is better than what was done with MBTI.
I just went to pod'lair and that was not my impression; I have reluctantly come to accept the MBTI as very important for me and especially my relationships with women, but I've always thought the MBTI is "static"...it tells me who I am but it doesn't help me become who I want to be (which is a hero, not another MBTI profile)...the pod'lair seems to have an edgy transformational dialogue going on that seems to promise growth toward greater success...I hope to God it delivers, because otherwise my only hope seems to be finding an ENFJ woman...
Good point on scalability; I had the same thought: "Holy Crap, they're going to review VIDEO TAPES????? For free???? (switch to Seinfeld voice): Oh, yeah, THAT'll work..."
I don't think they've realized they're going to have to charge THOUSANDS...even the Scientologists knew the only place on earth they could make their religion fly was in Hollywood, the only place there were enough RICH CRAZIES to make it fly....
Still, I liked the site, it was fun imagining being morphed into a HERO...
Now see here random noob No. 39, that is where you are wrong. Our reading people methods are not Subjective at all (I'll tell you all about subjectivity in a minute), we base our reads off of physiologically visible objective forensic evidence. Anything we read, we can point out to you, and we can point out to other people, this is exactly what we can train other people to read people, it is something everyone can see on comprehend. Now, you seem to be the type who would reply to that with "Well I don't see anything," and I'll just tell you now that your lack of perception does not mean the phenomenon is not there, you're just blind to it.
Wanna know what Subjectivity is? Subjectivity is when you have a personality typing system based on a person's own assessment on how they see themselves. There is no control, there is no objective evidence to prove anything, there is no way to weed out influence from your own poor development, unawareness of self, healthy development, stress lock, being highly self-aware, Cultural Memes, Gender Memes, etc.
Subjectivity is when all you have to type people with is a stereotype of how said person is supposed to behave or live their life. So you never really see anyone that goes outside of the norm, you never learn if an outside of the norm even exists, because every time someone goes outside of your paradigm, you put them into a different box.
Subjectivity is when every person has a completely different understanding of what it is they are typing people by. That understanding is of course based on their own prejudice, fear, insecurities, etc and you end up with typing people based on completely retarded prejudices like "I don't like this person so they must be an ESFJ." "This person seems stupid so they must be a sensor."
The sad thing is, that is all you got, this is what you are defending when you try and talk trash Pod'Lair, that is what you are defending, completely subjective, improvable, infinitely flawed, garbage. If MBTI/JCE is what you consider a quality model despite all that, you can have it, take it all.
When you base a read on people through Physiological Forensic evidence, you have an objective control. Your prejudices are completely irrelevant, because if you misread a person, you can be objectively proven wrong. All you can do in MBTI/JCE is debate a misread, and of course those debates are all based on the narrow-minded assumptions and poor understanding of the Jungian/MBTI models. MBTI has taken statistics, like accuracy ratings and demographics. Even though they claim about 60% to 75%, there is actually no way to prove that accuracy, because there is no objective control to base it on. The demographic statistics are completely useless, biased by the Memes of the cultures they are in (as well as a multitude of other MBTI test flaws.) We are going to correct all of that crap.
Pseudo Experts? Us? We actually have proof of our concept, that's all the authority we need. If I can see physically see something that you missed, it doesn’t matter how many PhDs you have, I just invalidated all of your credibility. Because according to your theory, what I can point out to you, should not exist. And I just rubbed your face in it. So cling to Jung if you must, but it is an old theory that will soon be very obsolete. Jung couldn't prove his work, we could, that is why we are better.
Actually no, that, and because we can read people with far more accuracy and speed (think Shinigami eyes from deathnote, we're that awesome), we can read a person from any culture or a speaker of any language without having our results tainted by memes, we can train to people to be lightyears beyond Jungian Analysts with Doctorates and Master's degrees in a matter of months to a couple years, we can actually set people up to completely develop themselves and improve every aspect of their lives, and much more. That is why we are Better
Pod'Lair is actually a massive theory (and is ever growing), people reading and cognitive configuration is something its just happens to eclipse. So MBTI vs Pod'Lair is actually pretty unfair for MBTI, its like a mouse vs a fucking dragon.
JCE and MBTI has reached the limits of its theory, it cannot grow any further than this. Not even neuroscience can save it, for reasons I have already outlined Here:
There is an idea that I see perpetuated on the MBTI circuits, and this idea is essentially that Neuroscience will uncover all of the mysteries of MBTI. But to that I say nay, because as long as MBTI theory is dictating the hand that holds the magnifying glass, any data collected will be misplaced and misinterpreted, while critical data will be overlooked. This is of course is not due to the incompetence of Neuroscientists, but rather due to the incompetence of the theory that the research is based on.
Empirical data acquired through testing is not actually irrefutable. The validity of the data one is acquiring is dictated by the theory that is guiding the research taking place. What that means is that one is going to be collecting data in the places that the theory suggests they should be looking, and they will be interpreting this data based on their theory's assumptions. So in other words, if the theory itself is flawed, then all calculations based on the theory will also be flawed, and thus research data acquired within the scope of said theory will be irrelevant. There are a few key places that I expect are completely screwing up any attempts neuroscientists are having in trying to find the neurological source for the personality phenomenon:
A.) It is based on a shitty test
This factor, more than any other factor is why attempting to find empirical neurological correlations for MBTI types is going to produce useless data. The MBTI test is so inaccurate, that we don't even really know exactly how inaccurate it is, because MBTI currently has no constant or control to base it on. Personally I would say it is about 40% accurate, I couldn't know for certain (Accuracy also depends largely on what type you are, what gender you are, what culture you are coming from, and so on and so forth, but that is for another discussion), but for the sake of discussion, let's just say it is. If more than half of your specimens are not what you think they are, then that alone is going cause the majority of results to be irrelevant, make legitimate correlations seem more random, and at the very best validate erroneous correlations. It is for this exact same reason that statistics taken for how, for instance, what ratios MBTI types are distributed in genders and population. In those you will see things like, there are more thinking males than feeling males, but you are not actually measuring the truth of how the two genders are wired, you are measuring a cultural meme, and people have answered questions in their test based on how they think their mind actually works according to that meme, and not how their mind actually works.
B.) It is based on Misconceptions
The bane of MBTI is the fact that it makes simple something that is extremely complex. Occam's Razor suggests that something should not be made more complex than it should be, which is not to be confused with "The more simple something is, the better it is." There are some things that are by nature very complex, and if that complexity is not appreciated, then it will not be understood. MBTI easily falls into this category. There are many examples I can use, but the basic principle behind the vast majority of MBTI misconceptions is usually the same error; When a person is seen doing an activity (Associated with a cognitive function or dichotomy) often, then they must have a preference for said function or dichotomy. The most common example of this is probably the misconception that Extroversion is defined by a person who talks a lot, or is very confident about having a social presence. Extroversion simply means one has a dominant extroverted function, and there is sometimes a correlation to that and how much one is comfortable talking, but it actually not dependent on that alone, which is why there are a significant amount of exceptions. Far to many to simply say the simplification is "close enough."
C.) It is based on poorly defined concepts, specifically the cognitive functions
It is for this reason that I find what is currently being produced by neuroscientists in search of the MBTI-brain correlation to be garbage. The problem with the way Cognitive Function are being defined, is that not unlike the above examples, they are based on misconception. Cognitive functions are defined by the authorities in this field by the results, not by the source. So for example, you will see definitions such as: "Te is used for organizing and planning" or "Se is used for being aware of and present in the outside world." While both of these are technically true for people that actually use Se and Te, not everyone is using Te and Se for these same activities, for instance Planning and organizing can be done with Fe, and being present and aware of the outside world can be done with Ne. It all depends on what functions you have conscious use of. So if an ENFJ is being examined while organizing or planning, the researcher is going to think they are measuring their use of Te, but they are going to see activity in all sorts of regions of the brain because all sorts of cognitive functions such as Fe and Ti are being used, and they will be falsely documenting this as "Te activity." Thus any results produced using their current understanding as a basis are going to look like the Cognitive functions online test does, random cognitive functions being used all over the place with no inherent structure or form.
I am not suggesting that there is no hope when it comes to finding empirical evidence in favor of typology, I am suggesting there is very little hope of finding it if you are using MBTI as a basis. You see, you cannot expect to find what you are looking for if you do not have a complete understanding of what that is. Research without a solid theory to guide it is just blind research. A theory does not necessary need to be 100% spot on in order for it to be able to be properly researched, but it should at least be in the ball park. MBTI is sort of in the ball park when it comes to getting many people to agree that the phenomenon of personality type exists, but the actual phenomenon is so complex that being sort of in the ballpark is not going to cut it when it comes to discovering any neurological foundation through proper interpretation of neurological activity and being able to make reproducible results.
MBTI cannot grow, it is destined for stagnancy just because of its flawed design. When you make a system based on stereotypes, you cannot expand, because in order to expand you must look to phenomenon that are outside of the box. MBTI and JCE, when faced with phenomenon that is outside of their own paradigms, they suppress it, just type it as something that fits close enough. MBTI and JCE is allowing their stupid human paradigms to dictate natural law. You are allowing your flawed human logic to decide what is and is not possible based on your own blind understanding of the universe. I hate to break this to you, but human logic does not get to decide how natural law works, only natural law works. So your only option is to be open to it, if you are not, then no knowledge will be gained, and you just put a golden opportunity to grow in a box and threw away the key. You see, that is the difference between 'typing' and "people reading", they are two entirely different things, and that is why I am always correcting you guys on it. To type a person is exactly as it sounds, you label a person and throw them into a box, case closed. Typing a person marks the end of your journey to understand said person, because the whole point of to just get enough data to put them into a box, and then that is it, no where to go from there. Typing a person suggests that all information relevant to a specific individual is already known. Reading a person's Mojo configuration marks the beginning of your journey to understanding them, honoring their innate gifts and abilities in their full glory. It marks the starting point from where you can manifest as an individual in an infinite amount of possible ways. The superficial behavior that would easily throw off an MBTIer or Jungian is irrelevant when we can physically read what cognitive configuration you are, so anything else about there behavior becomes valuable data that we can use to expand our understanding of each configuration. Hence why our understanding of each of the 16 vastly outmatches MBTIs or JCE.
Thus Pod'Lair can only grow further, we are not at all burdened by the shackles of flawed paradigms that only exist to sustain their own existence like MBTI and JCE is.
It sounds like you are very afraid of things you don't understand, and are suppressing a certain side of your own conscious mind. But the latter is your problem to fix, not mine.
When you have a Model that has a full and expansive grasp on the human mind, self-improvement is the natural and logical progression. Honestly, if your model, and by that I mean MBTI/JCE, cannot improve your life and help develop yourself (which it cannot, there is a reason there are tons of threads here titled "How can I develop my ___" which no MBTIer or Jungian has an answer for, not one that actually works anyway.), then your model has failed at what it was trying to accomplish. Good luck defending that when it is your turn to speak btw
Scalability is not a problem at all when people can be trained in your methodology in relatively short amounts of time. All you need is more hands. Done and done I say. We are already training a number of people in People reading on our site, and btw their accuracy levels have already crushed MBTI/JCE's, even with very little training time.
btw, aren't you the guy that couldn't read his own configuration? How is MBTI/JCE working out for you on that one by the way? You know, we could solve that problem for you in just a few minutes? All you have to do is show us some video.
I mean you obviously think we are frauds right? So then there shouldn't be a problem with letting us read you right? Unless of course you are afraid that we might actually be right, and end up telling you things about yourself you were not ready to see on your own.
The word Cult is so poorly defined that you could argue pretty much anything is a Cult, like a football game or a D&D gaming crew. But since when you use the word "Cult", you are using it as a fear mongering buzzword to conjure visions of glazed eyes and kool-aid, then I'll say no, Pod'Lair is not at all a cult. To suggest it is only shows your ignorance, fear, and intolerance of new ideas that do not conform their names of concepts to the obligatory over intellectualized norm, which really serves no purpose other than looking Sciencey. Although that is not to say the theory is not intellectually rigorous, its not even close to being simple. If simplicity is what you want, go back to MBTI.
I just came across Pod'Lair from some posts at this site. Looks intriguing, some initial comments
Telling somebody's type (or Pod'Lair' equivalent) should be possible through observation, however I'm skeptical that it can be accomplished reliably through a single video watching. I usually can't type people accuratly without getting to know them. Some aspects are difficult, ESFP's are easy to mistake for ENFP's in particular, for example.
MBTI certainly has difficulties. I thought I was an INFJ when I was a teenager (I was exposed to MBTI very early), then an INTJ during my worklife, and it wasn't until recently that I got to the core of it and discovered I was an INTP. There are many flaws that need to be corrected, including the testing methodology.
Getting back to Pod'Lair, the movement will get nowhere with that name I predict. Immediate thought is it sounds like a cult group name, and that it has no scientific exposure guarentees it. Sure psychology is barely a science, but if you want to make a splash you have to rework your image and submit some papers to the journals.
Yes the site does impress me of being an NF driven theory, not that it matters one way or another.
The names should be re-done - 'mojo', seriously?
I wouldn't be surprised of PL has some meat to it, but I won't pursue it as there is apparently some initiation aspects to it, again reminiscent of a cult.
Point me to, or post a paper discussing the idea and I'll read it honestly and fairly. Please keep it to the core theory however, and the theory will have to acknowledge MBTI and expand on it (which I gather PL does.)
EDIT: I see there is some heat in the posts about this - I didn't read all the previous and just found some discussion about the possibility of it being a cult. Understand - I heard about PL last night and took a look at the site, so have no preconceptions. My notes above are my unvarnished initial thoughts, and further I'm open to the ideas. My difficulty is that I couldn't figure them out. The only reason I looked it up is that one of the posters here said some intelligent things about the functions, I saw a sig, and I checked into it.
I like the theory behind pod'lair, but the presentation, well I would go as far as to describe it as painful.
I understand the intention of making it attractive to popular culture, but I think it's just gone way to far. I think the average person will look at that website and instantly begin associating it with things like astrology, just from the presentation of it.
But worst of all is the language used, using symbols instead of words, and the rampant use of words like "mojo" and "spirit" not only reinforces the pseudo-science image, it actually makes it harder to understand. It's unintuitive and creates misconceptions.
Also, I find it very difficult to locate the key ideas and principles behind the theory without wading through lots of muddy writing
The way it is now, I very much doubt it gaining much popularity with anyone.
Most of the people who do follow it will be people who don't understand it correctly.
Take my advice, scale it back a little, make the presentation a little bit more formal, change the language to something a bit more concrete.
I just have to say I agree with wulfie on all points. I was intrigued by pod in the beginning, but seeing the website...... it's awful. And why oh why "mojo"? I mean, Austin Powers anyone?
But worst of all is the language used, using symbols instead of words, and the rampant use of words like "mojo" and "spirit" not only reinforces the pseudo-science image, it actually makes it harder to understand. It's unintuitive and creates misconceptions.
Also, I find it very difficult to locate the key ideas and principles behind the theory without wading through lots of muddy writing.
I most certainly agree. The use of new and confusing thematic names for the theory's concepts gives a similar effect to Anthony Burgess' brainwashing methods in A Clockwork Orange, in which the reader subtly has his perspective manipulated by becoming familiar with the culture of the youth and the slang language of Nadsat.
Now see here random noob No. 39, that is where you are wrong. Our reading people methods are not Subjective at all (I'll tell you all about subjectivity in a minute)... <<more pages of typological intensity>>
From Disclaimer
* Gender Equality, Age Equality, Racial Equality, and Sexual Orientation of all persuasions are part of Natural Law
...
* This is a Vampire-Free Zone
I'm signed with PodLair, so I can say that I agree and am interested in the theory that they present over there.
Their goal seems to be get rid of the misconceptions and errors shown by MBTI. They try to explain the way Pod powers(which could be roughly correlated to the functions)work together, how they influence each other and how can you develop yourself by understanding your natural strenghts and weaknesseses.
The staff that works with them is a very knowledgeable one, and make a good effort to answer our questions the best that they can. And once you get past the first impression, you can learn a lot with the theory.
But not everything is perfect. The design of the site, as Cogwulf and others had commented, kind of makes it harder to believe in the theory. Being the only place where people can get in contact with the theory, an unattractive place can hinder the process to a certain extent.
And even though they depart from JCF/MBTI, there are a lot of correlations with these theories within their own. But they stand out when they actually improve the theory.
As Adymus has said, MBTI/JCF is founded on a lot of misconceptions. That way, it makes types seem to be static. They (whether intentionally or not) claim that a type is only capable of behaving in a certain way. That is actually because MBTI, as we learn, is affected by the self-assessment factor, and being a binary test, results may (and often will) vary.
But even then, I'm not completely disproving the JCF/MBTI. They are a reasonably good way to understand the way people are configurated. But years and years just crystallized the theory, making it very rigid and not accepting. And its popularization over the internet, with simple tests, just made the theory behind it get less known and understood.
The real MBTI is taken in two steps. In the first one, you take a test, where you report your preferences. There, you get a reported type. Then, in the second one, you discuss your results with a certified professional, that explains to you the theory a bit more in depth and checks for inaccuracies and doubts. Only then you'd have your best-fit type.
But most of us have only taken online tests, which gave us a reported type. We never understood the theory behind. Then, we got in a stressful situation, we took another test and guess what? The type changed. Then, we just start to get confused and decided to read on the theory, which is not very friendly, and very conceptual. It makes us confused even more. When we finally identify with a couple of functions, making we 'sure' of our type, we ignore the fact that types can use every preference, and rely only on our top two functions, fulfulling the archetype.
But when we stop fulfilling the archetype, what happens again? More doubt and mistyping ensues.
And there's where PodLair makes itself interesting: It understands that people can come in the most varied ways. That the environment where they're raised may change the way they behave, and therefore, a person may not behave in an archetype as proposed by the descriptions. Another great thing that PodLair makes is removing the self-assessment factor. By recognizing physiological cues, which are given over regardless of the awareness of the person or not, we can know the 'mojo' of the person.
And even though 10 minutes may seem a small amount of time to be completely sure, in 10 minutes, a lot of cues are given, which can make a very solid confirmation.
I like PodLair because it allowed me to broaden my perspectives regarding types and personalities. Of course, you could do the same with MBTI/JCF. But it isn't happening very often, and it doesn't seem likely, as it's too fixed on the personality archetype concept.
Love the idea, don't love the site. Without Adymus's extensive and easy-to-read primers on the forum, I'd never have gotten through that confusing tangle of colour and words. It could definitely be laid out better - more space on each page, perhaps? More categorisation (headings, caps, bold, etc)?
I can't sign in because I haven't provided a video.
Is that the way it is?
Most of the pages, I had no access to.
The real MBTI is taken in two steps. In the first one, you take a test, where you report your preferences. There, you get a reported type. Then, in the second one, you discuss your results with a certified professional, that explains to you the theory a bit more in depth and checks for inaccuracies and doubts. Only then you'd have your best-fit type.
I think both aspects are needed. There has to be some level of self-assessment to correct external error, and some level of exterior assessment to correct internal error.
And there's where PodLair makes itself interesting: It understands that people can come in the most varied ways. That the environment where they're raised may change the way they behave, and therefore, a person may not behave in an archetype as proposed by the descriptions. Another great thing that PodLair makes is removing the self-assessment factor. By recognizing physiological cues, which are given over regardless of the awareness of the person or not, we can know the 'mojo' of the person.
Listen: Psychological models are meant for predicting paths of behavior. That is the only reason they exist.... beacuse otherwise behavior would simply be random.
If a person does not act according to archetype, then the archetype gets adjusted until it then accommodates the possibility of flex and the various patterns. All personality "theories" by definition are standardizing types of personalities so that they can be recognized.
MBTI allows for this and allows for exploration of avenues of change via Shadow work. Enneagram allows for this, and even incorporates the Directions of (Dis)Integration. Now this system does too. Why is it any different than any other personality theory? All it sounds like it is doing is providing yet another framework that takes some of the MBTI concepts (including various characteristics like Directive/Adaptive pairs, Subjective/Objective pairs, etc.) and reworks them, and then tries to incorporate growth possibilities.
(More than that, I cannot tell since I can't actually read anything except for the 16 types definitions... which sound remarkable like the MBTI type descriptions but with an RPG/cartoony twist.)
And even though 10 minutes may seem a small amount of time to be completely sure, in 10 minutes, a lot of cues are given, which can make a very solid confirmation.
So in your opinion, do the assessment based on videos of external behavior actually gauge anything of the subject's internal reality, or will people get readings solely based on external cues? Which will generate errors in themselves, unless of course the theory is based solely on externalized behavior and doesn't see the internal world and motivation as relevant?
I like PodLair because it allowed me to broaden my perspectives regarding types and personalities. Of course, you could do the same with MBTI/JCF. But it isn't happening very often, and it doesn't seem likely, as it's too fixed on the personality archetype concept.
Again, PodLair provides 16 archetypes to the public, and they look a LOT like MBTI. So far, I don't really see a difference. It's just someone else's pet personality theory project that claims it is higher truth, just like someone's pet religion and/or pet RPG they might be developing.
I'd be really impressed if there was actually something new embodied in this theory that isn't just old ground with new labels.
I don't really have a video camera in order to earn access to the "inner sanctum," so I guess that is where my critical exploration will have to end.
I think both aspects are needed. There has to be some level of self-assessment to correct external error, and some level of exterior assessment to correct internal error.
Listen: Psychological models are meant for predicting paths of behavior. That is the only reason they exist.... beacuse otherwise behavior would simply be random.
If a person does not act according to archetype, then the archetype gets adjusted until it then accommodates the possibility of flex and the various patterns. All personality "theories" by definition are standardizing types of personalities so that they can be recognized.
MBTI allows for this and allows for exploration of avenues of change via Shadow work. Enneagram allows for this, and even incorporates the Directions of (Dis)Integration. Now this system does too. Why is it any different than any other personality theory? All it sounds like it is doing is providing yet another framework that takes some of the MBTI concepts (including various characteristics like Directive/Adaptive pairs, Subjective/Objective pairs, etc.) and reworks them, and then tries to incorporate growth possibilities.
(More than that, I cannot tell since I can't actually read anything except for the 16 types definitions... which sound remarkable like the MBTI type descriptions but with an RPG/cartoony twist.)
You're right. Predicting behaviours is the goal of psychological models. I've expressed myself poorly. What I actually meant is that MBTI has narrowed their archetypes to only a certain part of the personality type. So, when a person starts to use traits outside of what's on the archetype, they start doubting if they're being themselves or they've changed their personality. And that's not what happening, they had just accessed different parts of their own personalities.
And being honest, I also find it awfully similar to MBTI. Pod Powers correlate with functions, 16 mojos correlate with 16 types. The Powers Order correlates with the function order. They're very similar.
But for me, PodLair allows a bit more flexibility. Others may disagree with me, but you could dive into PodLair with your JCF/MBTI background and with some acquainting, start exploring it just like an extension of these theories.
But at the same time, they're not the same. If you're willing to be tolerant with the changes, you'll find yourself being able to bring back PodLair concepts to MBTI grounds.
It's like the way Arrhenius acid/base theory fell into Bronsted-Lowry acid/base theory, and later both fell Lewis acid/base theory. We're talking about the same thing, but we're broadening the scope.
So in your opinion, do the assessment based on videos of external behavior actually gauge anything of the subject's internal reality, or will people get readings solely based on external cues? Which will generate errors in themselves, unless of course the theory is based solely on externalized behavior and doesn't see the internal world and motivation as relevant?
I'm not into the reading aspect of PodLair yet, I'm more into the theory part of it. But these cues can be seen as something like body language. When we're outgoing, we open ourselves psychologically and physically, right?
The way PodLair reads can be tackled from a similar aspect. When we're engaging in certain activities in our brain, we display those traits outwardly, just like we do in body language.
I'm sorry I can't explain this in depth, because i'm not acquainted with this yet. Somebody else will need to refute this.
Again, PodLair provides 16 archetypes to the public, and they look a LOT like MBTI. So far, I don't really see a difference. It's just someone else's pet personality theory project that claims it is higher truth, just like someone's pet religion and/or pet RPG they might be developing.
I'd be really impressed if there was actually something new embodied in this theory that isn't just old ground with new labels.
I don't really have a video camera in order to earn access to the "inner sanctum," so I guess that is where my critical exploration will have to end.
Again, I agree with you on some points. It's not the theory, but the attitude that bugs me somewhat. But I'm willing to learn more, as it helped me before. If you want to give it a try, you'll have your opinion.
I'm surprised I'm the first to point out the similarities between EyeNTP and whatisface...it was some sort of bird...Sparrow? (Or whatever the hell he called himself)
If Adymus was a vampire then Sparrow would be Professor Van Helsing. On one side we have vast amounts of knowledge, craftiness, and evil. On the other side we have some raving lunatic trying to save us all from monsters.
edit: -alright that was a bit over the top. It's just too expected that the leader of pod'lair is INFJ, given the volumes of praise Adymus writes of them.
we can train to people to be lightyears beyond Jungian Analysts with Doctorates and Master's degrees in a matter of months to a couple years, we can actually set people up to completely develop themselves and improve every aspect of their lives, and much more. That is why we are Better
I don't see the problem with podlair. If it is really as good as the podlair people say it is, then they will be proven right by the scientific community and then any other typology system will be a relict of the past. If that's not going to happen, then it will remain what is now: mostly hot air.
So far I haven't even seen anything from podlair that even resembles scientific data and I find that odd for a system that claims 100% accuracy. The reasoning behind that seems circular - according to podlair, podlair is right.
Not to mention that serious science doesn't look like that. Why all the bizarre terminology? Why the harsh and dismissive tone?
I don't know if podlair is a cult but all the warning signs are there.
I agree with the point that any personality theory should be able to be used to make predictions about behavior. When two people are friends, they often can guess how one another will behave in certain circumstances and how they will react to various stimuli. I inquired Adymus about this on a different thread and he responded:
We can prescribe how a person can develop their abilities, how they can begin using them in ways that are more efficient and effective, how they can structure their social environments to be more conducive and energy generating. You can learn how to build teams that will be perfectly calibrated for accomplishing certain tasks because we have a very strong understanding on how the different configurations amplify, augment, inspire, and even surpress each other.
What careers they will enjoy, what work environments will be conducive to them, what romantic partner will have the best chemistry with them (a critical prediction MBTI has never gotten right), why their current relationship is not working out and what can be done to help it, and much much much much more. Pretty much we can make anything that involves people, your life, and your environment, better.
I never got around to probing any further at the time, but the full reply raised a few issues.
First, the Pod'lair theory seems based on the school of behaviorism and it's methodology of measuring observable phenomena, where MBTI seems based on structuralism with it's methodology of introspection. This means that both of them are approaching the same basic problem from two different points of view, essentially making this an "apples and oranges" argument. Also, both points of view are not all inclusive, so will only be able to make incomplete models.
Second, Pod'lair seems to be attempting to make a more personalized personality type, where MBTI is attempting to fit everyone into broad groups.
Cognitive functions go much deeper than simply activities people do, and humans are designed to do pretty much anything most other humans can do simply with the four conscious cognitive functions alone.
Actually both are correct. We are reading your cognitive configuration, so we can zoom out to the Macro of how you will behave based on your type, or we can zoom into the micro of how you in particular developed, and make predictions based on your particular variation.
As I said in my reply in the other post, I think part of the rigidity of MBTI is because it attempts to make predictions about behavior, where Pod'lair is attempting to tell you how to work with whatever personality you have developed over top of the cognitive functions (the way your personal cognitive functions manifest themselves). So, essentially, MBTI is attempting to be a predictive model, where Pod'lair seems to be more geared toward development and self-help; MBTI says "this type is good for such-and-such" and Pod'lair says "this is how this type can get better and such-and-such."
We have observed that the same Physiological Manifestations that indicate a person's type are present from the day they are born till they day a person dies. So from that we have reason to believe that one is born a certain type, and that the Physiological cues are not learned behavior.
Your personality is the end result of many different factors, your Cognitive configuration/Personality type/Mojo, what ever you'd like to call it, all of the cultural and genderal memes that have effected you, the way that you have developed, they way that you use your configuration, your current mental state.
So third, the Pod'lair theory seems to take an integrated approach to the nature/nurture aspect of personality development, with cognitive functions being genetically determined, but the way they manifest themselves as a personality is socially constructed.
This is where the potential science behind Pod'lair outshines that of MBTI. There have been numerous threads on this forum about whether someones MBTI type is inherited or learned (from what I've seen, most people around here seem to think it's learned, but I think they are taking a very simplistic view of genetics by saying "my parents aren't INTP, therefore it's not genetic").
A prediction that Pod'lair could potentially make is that a certain set of alleles will express themselves as a certain function, so they could predict that "all people with X set of alleles will have Y cognitive function." Or, more simplistically, using family pedigree's, it could be determined which functions are dominant and which functions are recessive. With a genetic determination of cognitive functions, it could also be correlated with certain mental illnesses - a connection between a mutated version of one cognitive function and the manifestation of a certain mental illness could be made.
As Adymus stated in his other reply, there is also a behaviorist methodology to how personality (the individual expression of cognitive functions) is developed:
Developing a function comes from more than just using it frequently, but from using it frequently and successfully. We are constantly being validated and invalidated by our environment, in how we use our functions. This validation and Invalidation is not necessarily only coming from other people, that is just one source, it is also coming from yourself, we are validated whenever we see ourselves succeed, and we are invalidated when we see ourselves fail. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing because Validation of good use of your functions helps give you confidence in your ability to use them, and encourages you to use them more and increases your mastery over your abilities. Invalidation of how you use your functions can actually be a good thing as well, because it can allow you to recognize what is working and not working in how you use your functions, and thus help you fix these mistakes and therefor improve yourself.
Thus, Pod'lair could be tested in a lab. It would probably be unethical, but theoretically Pod'lair could predict that if you know an infants genetically determined cognitive functions, then they will develop a predictable personality based on whatever stimuli you give them. If you could control the environment of 100 INTP's they will all grow up to have very similar personalities. MBTI fails to give any mechanism for A) the expression of cognitive functions or B) the manifestation of those functions based on the personal experiences of the person.
That all being said, I've yet to see any empirical, scientific validation for Pod'lair, but that could always just be because I haven't looked very hard.
I don't see the problem with podlair. If it is really as good as the podlair people say it is, then they will be proven right by the scientific community and then any other typology system will be a relict of the past. If that's not going to happen, then it will remain what is now: mostly hot air.
So far I haven't even seen anything from podlair that even resembles scientific data and I find that odd for a system that claims 100% accuracy. The reasoning behind that seems circular - according to podlair, podlair is right.
Not to mention that serious science doesn't look like that. Why all the bizarre terminology? Why the harsh and dismissive tone?
I don't know if podlair is a cult but all the warning signs are there.
But they don't care about scientific accuracy; they are carving their own niche.
I'm pretty sure they will deny that it deals with psychology at all. (and their site states that the practitioners aren't trained in psychology) I agree with A.I. about it being like comparing apples and oranges.
Although I must say that people involved with Pod'lair don't know much about MBTI at all, so I gloss over the arguments comparing the two. I presume that the justification for this is that it's unnecessary because Pod'lair is superior after all.
I see both MBTI and Pod'lair as systems with plenty holes and inconsistencies, but arguing about Pod'lair in this instance is entirely futile due to the extreme dogmatic stance of the organization. (make sure not to mention MBTI if you ever register on their forum or you will be banned on sight)
I recommended those who are interested in the system to do their research, to investigate their claims, and to think for themselves above everything.
I think Pod'lair has an admirable purpose, and they've done a good job refining some concepts that were originally introduced in jungian psychology, but I do not agree with their methodology and a handful of claims about it.
My prediction is that they will appeal to a circle of people who are attracted to spirituality and spiritual growth, but they will not make it big as they think they will.
I think both aspects are needed. There has to be some level of self-assessment to correct external error, and some level of exterior assessment to correct internal error.
That is not entirely accurate. One of them, external assessment, is necessary, internal assessment on the other hand is optional, we do not need a person to know themselves for us to be able to read them. Actually, we expect people to not know themselves.
There is no guarantee that you will agree with the natural law of how you are wired. Whether you agree or disagree with it is also irrelevant, your nature does not need to be validated by your awareness, it will still be there even if you cannot acknowledge it.
Listen: Psychological models are meant for predicting paths of behavior. That is the only reason they exist.... because otherwise behavior would simply be random.
If a person does not act according to archetype, then the archetype gets adjusted until it then accommodates the possibility of flex and the various patterns. All personality "theories" by definition are standardizing types of personalities so that they can be recognized.
MBTI allows for this and allows for exploration of avenues of change via Shadow work. Enneagram allows for this, and even incorporates the Directions of (Dis)Integration. Now this system does too. Why is it any different than any other personality theory? All it sounds like it is doing is providing yet another framework that takes some of the MBTI concepts (including various characteristics like Directive/Adaptive pairs, Subjective/Objective pairs, etc.) and reworks them, and then tries to incorporate growth possibilities.
(More than that, I cannot tell since I can't actually read anything except for the 16 types definitions... which sound remarkable like the MBTI type descriptions but with an RPG/cartoony twist.)
The Problem with MBTI and JCE is the Archetypes are concrete and solidified. There is no way to tell if those Archetypes are properly capturing the type you are trying to capture, because every time someone acts outside of the archetype you place them into a different box. The whole theory of the 16 are based on these archetypes, so what you end up with is your boxes defining people, as opposed to real people defining your archetypes.
When you Mojo Read vast amounts of samples, you actually do see many patterns, you will see the same types being played out in many different archetypes, ones the MBTI would have never anticipated in fact, and you get even get a broader understanding of how they work as a whole. Since we do not base our reads on these archetypes, we can actually see how varied they possibly can be. MBTI and JCE does not give you that option.
You say they change the archetype, but that is just complete BS and you know it, when have you ever seen any descriptions being updated? All you have to update is your own subjective understand, which of course you can't actually confirm, so you never really know if you are expanding your understanding of one type, or something else that you have mistaken them for.
How is it any different from any other personality theory?
Other than what I just said, there is this one: It is actually not a personality theory, it is a theory on the natural law of human design.
MBTI/JCE, at the very best can give you a description of what you are like (or think you are like) It pretty much stops there.
When you have your Cognitive configuration read, and with the understanding of how it works and wants to work, the implications behind that are endless. You can optimize yourself for peak performance (we can actually make you a stronger and more successful person, benefiting every aspect of life), you can optimize your relationships (friends, family, romantic partners, teammates, coworkers, etc) for maximum energy outputs, whether that be for reaching a certain goal, or just enjoying yourselves. Entire theories will either have to be revised or dispatched for not taking this into consideration, entire systems (especially education) will need to be reworked to fit into how humans are actually designed to learn and work. Furthermore, we intend to train massive amounts over people in Mojo reading, we are not keeping that skill set for ourselves. You'll be able to spot different configurations on the fly, you will be able to vividly see a whole new dimension of interpersonal dynamics that is currently unavailable to you.
And I have only scratched the surface in this conversation, I haven't even begun to get into the unconscious yet.
So in your opinion, do the assessment based on videos of external behavior actually gauge anything of the subject's internal reality, or will people get readings solely based on external cues? Which will generate errors in themselves, unless of course the theory is based solely on externalized behavior and doesn't see the internal world and motivation as relevant?
Question not aimed toward me, but here is my answer.
It most certainly does, everything you see on the surface is reflective of what is happening behind the curtain. Coming from MBTI you still have the idea that to truly read into how a person is wired, you would have to read their mind, which is understandable, but that is actually not necessary. You are still looking at this from the MBTIesque lens that we are "typing" people, so I am going to try and veer you off of that.
The kinds of cues and signals that we base our reads off of cannot be faked, some of them simply cannot be manifested by anything but what the person naturally is, some cues can manifest in multiple configurations, but when they do they have a distinct "flavor" to them.
You don't need to be able to read a Nai Alpha's mind to know they are Nai Alpha for the same reason you don't need to read a Hawk's mind to know they are a carnivore. In both cases, their biology indicates that they have a certain kind of neurological hardware that is meant to do a certain thing. So while an MBTI practitioner might look at an INFJ who is purposely acting really outgoing, wild and crazy, really kinetic and touchy feely and think "That person must be an ESFP." We could see that exact same thing and our read will be "That is a Nai'xyy who just happens to be acting really outgoiong, and kinetic, etc."
We don't get fooled by things like that, because we are not looking for surface behavior like MBTI is, so what we see is your natural configuration, performing different kinds of archetypes. The archetypes themselves doesn't skew the read, because we are looking beyond that, even when you act a certain way, you are going to do it in a certain pattern based on your Mojo configuration.
Again, PodLair provides 16 archetypes to the public, and they look a LOT like MBTI. So far, I don't really see a difference. It's just someone else's pet personality theory project that claims it is higher truth, just like someone's pet religion and/or pet RPG they might be developing.
I'd be really impressed if there was actually something new embodied in this theory that isn't just old ground with new labels.
I don't really have a video camera in order to earn access to the "inner sanctum," so I guess that is where my critical exploration will have to end.
You haven't gotten very far into the site, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the differences are pretty obvious, so if you later on still feel the same way then you are really just not looking.
We found that people are wary of giving video of themselves, which is the only way we give firm confirmations, so we do soft reads with whatever media they are willing to provide until we eventually get video. So if you send a few pictures of yourself, you will get a soft read as well as guest access to the rest of the site and forum student area.
This is an idiotic personal attack on the creator of the theory, it has no base for accusation what so ever and is really just an ignorant rant against one person as well as an entire configuration.
So unless you have something to say about the theory itself, and not just ad hominem attacks, then you are correct, you will be ignored.
Can you fool the theory with using makeup?(assuming they make an accurate read), and the other personality(if you have a split or multiple personalities). How do you work around distractions such as these?
hmmm..
Vampires...is this the same as witchcraft?
I am intrigued. But vampire free zone sounds a little unwelcoming.
Can you fool the theory with using makeup?(assuming they make an accurate read), and the other personality(if you have a split or multiple personalities). How do you work around distractions such as these?
hmmm..
Vampires...is this the same as witchcraft?
I am intrigued though. But vampire free zone sounds a little unwelcoming.
Can you fool the theory with using makeup?(assuming they make an accurate read), and the other personality(if you have a split or multiple personalities). How do you work around distractions such as these?
hmmm..
Vampires...is this the same as witchcraft?
I am intrigued. But vampire free zone sounds a little unwelcoming.
This is an idiotic personal attack on the creator of the theory, it has no base for accusation what so ever and is really just an ignorant rant against one person as well as an entire configuration.
So unless you have something to say about the theory itself, and not just ad hominem attacks, then you are correct, you will be ignored.
You can try all you want to separate the presentation from the "theory." MBTI itself is just presentation, and so is an autobiographic webpage and all the other fluff on there.
You can try all you want to separate the presentation from the "theory." MBTI itself is just presentation, and so is an autobiographic webpage and all the other fluff on there.
I don't think that's how it's used by most people. I think usually it's interpreted as the time it would take for light to travel a distance of a light-year from our perspective, which we just take for granted as a very long time.
It's too bad Pod'Lair isn't considered a cult. If you become a religious cult, you can dress up for meetings and have pizza parties; and you might even get tax benefits from the government! It's just more fun! You should reconsider.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
