Pod'Lair VS MBTI/JCF

[TruthSeeker]

Judah Folkman was forced out of Harvard when he first proposed angiogenesis as a necessary process for the growth of tumors beyond the size of about a million cancer cells, his colleagues accusing him of pseudoscience (because, of course, they already knew everything important about cancer), and it was only Boston's Women's and Children's hospital donating a floor to his lab that enabled him to continue his research...which has now been bastardized by the drug companies attempting, with woeful results, to translate the proteins he discovered into cheap, cheap, cheap-to-manufacture organic chemical drugs. The suffering is vast, horrifying, and Folkman's work was almost destroyed by this tactic of attacking it by calling it pseudoscience, and the mainstream continues to fuck up his work by attempting to commercialize it solely for the largest profit possible.

One wonders what some people's definition of "real science" is. Something that supports the drug companies making a profit, perhaps? Something that doesn't subvert the current order and the entitled institutions associated with it?

Needless to say, I despise the medical industry as it's run today. There was never an act as evil as the privatization of saving human lives if you ask me.

We NEED more people like you in the medical industry, Synchro; the sooner the better, I say.

 

[Fukyo]

I am going to throw out some points for the sake of discussion. I want to hear what others think.

Phenomenon vs. The perception of the Phenomenon

Most of you have seen videos that Adymus and others have posted. Videos that exemplify certain dynamics and movements of the face, eyes, mouth. You've also been told which "cues" correspond with which function.

Let's assume cues are a constant and that we all can see them. The facial movements are the phenomenon. The association between a function and the phenomenon, is in fact interpretation of said phenomenon.

The question is posed, is the proposed interpretation correct? How do we know this?

The empiricism of Pod'lair.

Pod'lair claims that it has empirical evidence. The evidence are the cues we can see.

We can see the cues, and we know they are a certain function, because we have been told this by someone. Does this constitute empiricism?

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer.[1] For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence.[2]By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. [3]Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.

Lets review the highlighted points, and put them in context of Pod'lair.

[1] Do mojos and pod powers appear the same regardless of the observer?

The organization claims so, but I call your attention to these instances.

1) Reading people is a skill which you must obtain via training. There are different levels of training and different percentages of accuracy when reading people.

2) Error in reading exists.

• Shoeless was originally read as INTP by Adymus, which some months later he corrected to ENTP.
• Anamalech has been read as ISFJ by Adymus, Anamlech asked for the opinion of Thoms Chenault and was read as INFJ, to which Adymus conceded.
• IrishPenguin has been read as INTP by Adymus, later to be read as INFJ after seeking consultation on their main site.

As you can see there were discrepancies in the reading of these people, and the final authority was upon the read of Thomas Chenault.

[2] The quote demonstrates that we need an external standard of reference that is not based on human perception, in order to call this data empirical.

Does Pod'lair have this? It appears this standard comes in the form of Chenault, a human.

[3] Is the reading in fact, not done by humans, who are fallible, subjective and prone to error? Mind you, I know that even the scientific method is fallible, but the probability of human perception being fallible is probably greater.

What is the basis for Pod'lair's interpretation of the phenomenon?

Whether Chenault ripped off Jung is a moot point. (Yes, I am talking about Jung, not MBTI, and I am also talking about other Jung's concepts which are not limited to just his cognitive functions)

What spurred Chenault into noticing this pattern? Surely he had to see a lot of correlation between cues and certain elements of the psyche to make this connection. But what did he see, where did he learn it? Where is the origin and starting point, and why is the organization shying away from elaborating more about it?

***​

I am not trying to debunk Pod'lair, I am trying to learn more about it. I acknowledge the possibility of truth existing in it, but I also acknowledge the possibility of interpretative bias. I am not trying to shove Pod'lair into a scientific evaluation either, but lets face it, using the word empirical is almost asking for it. Regardless of whether of not you think it's empirical or scientific, it could still be valid. I want to reach the point where this becomes clear.

 

[snafupants]

I am going to throw out some points for the sake of discussion. I want to hear what others think.

Phenomenon vs. The perception of the Phenomenon

Most of you have seen videos that Adymus and others have posted. Videos that exemplify certain dynamics and movements of the face, eyes, mouth. You've also been told which "cues" correspond with which function.

Let's assume cues are a constant and that we all can see them. The facial movements are the phenomenon. The association between a function and the phenomenon, is in fact interpretation of said phenomenon.

The question is posed, is the proposed interpretation correct? How do we know this?

The empiricism of Pod'lair.

Pod'lair claims that it has empirical evidence. The evidence are the cues we can see.

We can see the cues, and we know they are a certain function, because we have been told this by someone. Does this constitute empiricism?



Lets review the highlighted points, and put them in context of Pod'lair.

[1] Do mojos and pod powers appear the same regardless of the observer?

The organization claims so, but I call your attention to these instances.

1) Reading people is a skill which you must obtain via training. There are different levels of training and different percentages of accuracy when reading people.

2) Error in reading exists.

• Shoeless was originally read as INTP by Adymus, which some months later he corrected to ENTP.
• Anamalech has been read as ISFJ by Adymus, Anamlech asked for the opinion of Thoms Chenault and was read as INFJ, to which Adymus conceded.
• IrishPenguin has been read as INTP by Adymus, later to be read as INFJ after seeking consultation on their main site.

As you can see there were discrepancies in the reading of these people, and the final authority was upon the read of Thomas Chenault.

[2] The quote demonstrates that we need an external standard of reference that is not based on human perception, in order to call this data empirical.

Does Pod'lair have this? It appears this standard comes in the form of Chenault, a human.

[3] Is the reading in fact, not done by humans, who are fallible, subjective and prone to error? Mind you, I know that even the scientific method is fallible, but the probability of human perception being fallible is probably greater.

What is the basis for Pod'lair's interpretation of the phenomenon?

Whether Chenault ripped off Jung is a moot point. (Yes, I am talking about Jung, not MBTI, and I am also talking about other Jung's concepts which are not limited to just his cognitive functions)

What spurred Chenault into noticing this pattern? Surely he had to see a lot of correlation between cues and certain elements of the psyche to make this connection. But what did he see, where did he learn it? Where is the origin and starting point, and why is the organization shying away from elaborating more about it?

***​

I am not trying to debunk Pod'lair, I am trying to learn more about it. I acknowledge the possibility of truth existing in it, but I also acknowledge th
e possibility of interpretative bias. I am not trying to shove Pod'lair into a scientific evaluation either, but lets face it, using the word empirical is almost asking for it. Regardless of whether of not you think it's empirical or scientific, it could still be valid. I want to reach the point where this becomes clear.

Is this the longest post you have ever made? And with colors!

 

[Fukyo]

Is this the longest post you have ever made? And with colors!

Not sure if you're making fun of me.

 

[Cavallier]

Regardless of whether or not Snaffypants is mocking you I thank you for your post. It asks the questions I myself have. ...why can I no longer format my comments? hmmmm...

Edit: Apparently I can modify my posts in IE but not Firefox...huh.

 

[Ska]

Relating eye movements to cognitive processes is not a new phenomenon.

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php

Spoiler

When asked a question a "normally organized" right-handed person looks (from your viewpoint, looking at them):


Up and to the Left
Indicates: Visually Constructed Images (Vc)
If you asked someone to "Imagine a purple buffalo", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Constructed" a purple buffalo in their mind.


Up and to the Right
Indicates: Visually Remembered Images (Vr)
If you asked someone to "What color was the first house you lived in?", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Remembered" the color of their childhood home.


To the Left
Indicates: Auditory Constructed (Ac)
If you asked someone to "Try and create the highest the sound of the pitch possible in your head", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Constructed" this this sound that they have never heard of.

To the Right
Indicates: Auditory Remembered (Ar)
If you asked someone to "Remember what their mother's voice sounds like ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Remembered " this sound.


Down and to the Left
Indicates: Feeling / Kinesthetic (F)
If you asked someone to "Can you remember the smell of a campfire? ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they used recalled a smell, feeling, or taste.


Down and To the Right
Indicates: Internal Dialog (Ai)
This is the direction of someone eyes as they "talk to themselves".

http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/classes/ariew/slat596/rayner.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...F59B5FA9B?doi=10.1.1.64.150&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Spoiler

The wealth of eye-movement studies in past decades has provided solid evidence that
eye movements can reveal a great deal about underlying cognitive processes (Just & Carpenter,
1984; Rayner, 1995). Researchers have successfully utilized eye-movement data to study
cognition in a variety of domains, a number of which are listed in Table 2.1. Although some
have expressed pessimism over relating eye movements and mental processes (e.g., Viviani,
1990; Harris et al., 1988), these numerous studies have undeniably made significant
contributions to their fields through the study of eye movements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070924122919.htm


Relating it to typology probably is, though.

 

[Fukyo]

Relating eye movements to cognitive processes is not a new phenomenon.

Relating it to typology probably is, though.

You think so?

One of the first things I realized after my “insight” was that peering eye movement corresponds positionaly to the location of the cognitive functions. That is when someone consciously retrieves a stored memory they may for different lengths of time change their eye position in an attempt to “peer” into their mind.

http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/Eye.htm

 

[Anthile]

You think so?



http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/Eye.htm

It's funny. When you put all of them together it looks a lot like me right now:

 

[kibou]

I feel like most of the accusations here about Pod'lair, other than it having a marketing style of a cult, could equally be applied to JCE or MBTI. If self-confirmation bias is a problem with a system that uses physiological cues, than what degree of self-confirmation bias does that imply for systems like MBTI that says the person themselves can ultimately be the only ones that determine their type? Most of these points just goes to debunk all of the Jungian stuff.


@Fukyo From your link: "A good friend of mine is ISFJ and while she was talking about going back to Japan I noticed her look down to her left which would correspond with her dominant function of introverted sensing. I stopped her and asked her what she was looking at and she said a mental image of her house. Oh, spooky. I told her with enough practice it was like reading someone’s mind. I think I read that Carl Jung after years of counseling people became capable of finishing people’s sentences for them."

Although the other aspects don't correspond, interestingly, this is very similar to Pod'lair's eye cue for introverted sensing, which is a left eye check (frequently downward left). Ni is also done as a left check, but the quality and affect are different.

 

[snafupants]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Podlair-MBTI

 

[cheese]

Thanks, Cheese! I needed that! Yes, I am precisely 30 in my mind, and I gaze at the fine wrinkles starting to appear in my skin with horror and the knowledge that I need to get my final research question answered on my stem cells very soon, very soon indeed...(it's a good thing Federal law specifically excludes laboratory rats from any regulations whatsoever - not that I would hurt a rat, but getting IRB's for experiments on rats would be beyond my means)

Cool I had a feeling you'd say that about your mental age. Predicted the rats too, but that's just because I'm creepy.

SHARE YOUR ANTI-AGING SECRETS ONCE YOU FIND THEM. Or at least give us discounts.

 

[Nysamis]

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.

I bring this up because I think these words have been glossed over and haven't sunken in. Most good skeptical people today see any system that has initiation rituals and hierarchical advancement and automatically think that system is a dangerous cult that should not be examined. This is a smart defense mechanism to have in a society where some people are seriously out to hurt you (even if they themselves do not think that way.) But it is just that, a "better safe than sorry" defense mechanism that does not work all the time. If you see that the system in question is based on something that sounds plausible and is likely legitimate, why wouldn't you at least give that system a chance? Try its methods out to see if they have merit, like any good scientist would do with an idea that sounds plausible but might not be true. If the idea the "cult-like" system is based around is bullshit, you will only truly find out if you stop to consider the idea and do some experiments of your own. It seems that too many of you guys blow this entire idea off due to the cognitive dissonance that would ensue if Pod'Lair is legitimate. To accept the visual cues of people reading as a fact, one must discard older paradigms that were very helpful in understanding people, but not completely accurate. I could see the hostility erupting to an even greater degree if they say you are a Mojo you do not see yourself as. Believe me, no one wants to hear that they made a mistake in understanding themselves. (Humans don't and can't fully understand themselves anyway; there are entire industries that strive to override conscious human thought - advertising comes to mind.)

Carl Sagan sings the praises of healthy skepticism in his excellent book The Demon Haunted World. But unlike the most hardcore skeptics, he also emphasizes the power of wonder. Science is like the fragile yet powerful double-helix strand of DNA - the twin threads of skepticism and wonder are woven together with a powerful method that brings life to new theories and understandings. Take out either of the helices and the entire venture of science crumbles into dust. Excise skepticism and science would lose its rigor and drive to find the truth (which is NOT a democracy.) Most scientists who are active in the fight against pseudoscience seethe in deep rage when they imagine a future in which truth is considered a subjective matter. But many of them do hurl their choicest invectives at the opposite scenario - a society that has stagnated. For that is what life would become if wonder was to be discarded. Many new scientific discoveries that derive their truth from Natural Law sound counterintuitive, batshit crazy, or even criminally insane. What would science look like today if no one listened to Darwin because they were already creationists? If scientists were so obstinate in protecting the status-quo, quantum mechanics would be immediately discarded as magical hokum. Since science (often begrudgingly) listened to these wacky ideas, it has been able to build new understandings and create entire fields of study dedicated to gleaming more information from these understandings. Without both skepticism and wonder, science would die, as the essence of life is change (which includes novelty). So why would you not even listen to the core of Pod'Lair's message? It's not like they send you a pixellated Kool-Aid you must drink the moment they read you. Just GO and LOOK for yourself using your skeptical toolkit and your childlike sense of wonder as your guide.

But first of all, I must go back to the idea that Pod'Lair is a "cult." Adymus nailed it already, but perhaps more examples are needed. Consider this: reality is very chaotic, but it has rules. We shall call that "Natural Law." Natural Law itself has a structure to it. If you try to circumvent it, you will be ineffective, fail, or cause damage to yourself or others.

Education is a paradigm of Natural Law that surrounds us daily. Humans are not the only animals that must educate their young in order for the young to end up as productive adults who are talented at living the life they were best designed for. (No creationist sentiment is implied here. It's hard to convey thought like that without making an unimplied teleological claim.) A newborn cheetah can't automatically sprint at 60MPH right after popping out of its mother's womb and giving its mother the cute baby animal stare. It's not how nature works. The baby cheetah needs to learn how to be a cheetah from a guide or mentor of some sort, in this case its mother. It can't even eat meat right away, let alone sprint at fast enough distances to catch and eat Usain Bolt for dinner, let alone those faster (and much less gamey) gazelles.

Education amongst humans is like this too, and education systems have always been hierarchical in nature. As you can see from the example of the adorable but rather incompetent baby cheetah above, going against educational hierarchy would be like expecting a kindergartner to be able to tackle trigonometry. Even if some brilliant savant of a 5 year old was able to learn trigonometry, s/he would be building on previous knowledge. And learning facts and concepts in a disorderly sequence does not knowledge make. Pod'Lair practitioners do need to pass certain criteria in order to advance, this is true. This is like starting out in kindergarten and moving to first grade. Any decent kindergarten teacher worth hir salt will see a struggling kindergarten student and try hir best to make the student pass. If that doesn't happen, the student repeats the grade. Why? The answer is obvious to everyone who has ever been in a school environment. The student is not ready for first grade. Putting a student who is struggling with mere kindergarten stuff would do even worse in the much more challenging environment of first grade. Failing to hold the student back would result in damaging the student's self-esteem and drive to learn, which would lead to more problems later in life. The answer as to why Pod'Lair also conducts its education in this manner should be as self-evident as this example.

There are many more examples of this, like medieval crafters' guilds, video game guilds, and even climbing the corporate ladder. An apprentice metalsmith would be incompetent at creating high quality chainmail, and that is unacceptable. A noob rogue won't be able to stab the biggest and baddest bosses an MMO can throw at a player if he doesn't have good armor and weapons. Also unacceptable. An intern or entry-level worker does not know enough about running a business, company culture, and product R&D to be CEO material. Unacceptable. These systems are set up to reward success with greater challenges. With training and challenges appropriate for their level, these apprentices would become better and better at doing what they do, and they would gain confidence because the challenges aren't so mind-blowingly hard that the apprentice/noob/intern would just say "screw this" and quit.

To suggest [that Pod'Lair is a cult] 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.

This is why I have mentioned other systems in which there are challenges. It is because Pod'Lair is challenging. Most people either do not see these patterns of human body language that is impossible to fake. Or they see glimpses, but not enough to fit it into a system of thought. A Nai'xyy (INFJ) friend of mine posted some self portraits he took when he was very angry with himself. His friends all noted the frustration, intensity, and anger in his eyes, and reacted to that in their own ways. They are seeing something that is real, but they do not see it all the time. (No one mentions it on my friend's smiling pictures.) It takes time to go from the "sporadically notices nameless patterns" stage to the stage where you can take one glance at any given person and know instantly what their Mojo is. That is why practitioners have induction rituals.

Perhaps lots of people are getting up in arms because they are actually called "rituals." But this is what life is. From the previous examples, it should be obvious that graduation ceremonies are rituals. Brewing yourself a cup of coffee every morning to wake yourself up so you can properly function is a ritual. Stretching before you go out jogging is a ritual. Spending quality time with your family/partner/friends is a ritual. Heck, even what humans do in private are rituals. Sexually relieving yourself in front of the computer screen is a ritual, for instance. All of these habitual scripts help humans do other things, put a human in a better state of mind, and/or celebrate life's milestones. The best things in life are rituals, and the best rituals reach out to many human desires. Eating is a ritual for example, and more people rave about the café experience in Paris than rave about the wonders of going through the drive-thru at McDonald's. Any decent Parisian café serves delicious food that contains ingredients that were most definitely alive very recently. It is filled with interesting people, and there are interesting passerby on the street to watch. The waiters don't generally look stressed, as it is okay to savor time as well as food there, as if the environment itself is whispering "slow down and relax." This resonates more with what people desire than the McDonald's eating experience does, and this is one of the reasons people love going to Paris on vacation.

Likewise, there are Rituals of Understanding that are better than others. People who are not deranged psychopaths will agree that learning to put out fires is better than studying the art of arson (and getting away with it). Studying astronomy is more useful that studying astrology, though both could lead to a productive career. Why? Because astronomy is an exiting, expanding field, awaiting further discoveries of Natural Law that may also tie into new research in other fields of science. In contrast, astrology has already been defined. What is innovation in astrology if there is no objective way to test your theory? "Discoveries" will not help scientists uncover potential new avenues of research. It is a dead paradigm. It is McDonald's, while astronomy is the Parisian café.

If Pod'Lair is correct and it does have an objective system, then MBTI, JCF, Socionics, etc are wrong. There might be some truth in them, but if your method of finding the truth is wrong, you will not get truth out of those inquiries on a reliable basis. If there is no way of knowing you are wrong, how do you know if you are right? Even if JCF helped Thomas develop his theory in the same vein as astrology birthed astronomy, Pod'Lair does not need to say it is an improvement to these dead paradigms. You can go to a science museum, and many of them mention humankind's first attempts to understand the cosmos. The museum mentions these flawed ways of understanding, as well as showing the museumgoer a historical timeline. What the curators of such exhibits do not do is say that astronomy is a useful, practical addendum to astrology. Astronomy is not Astrology 2.0 because the methods are radically different. While they try to explain the same phenomenon, one is succeeding and finding new ways of explaining things in the cosmos that astrologers didn't know even existed. The other one is dead. Astronomy does not need to acknowledge astrology because astronomy is right.

If you are curious, just try it. If Pod'Lair is false, it will fall on its own demerits. It might end up being the quirky woo-woo bunkum du jour in peyote smoking, sprit animal huggng, homeopathy pill chugging, alien abductee, New Age circles. But if it is false, it will die a death of natural causes because no one of merit will take it seriously. It would not need outside help to die. But if this pattern is there, cannot be unseen, and can be pointed out to others to the extent they can't help but see it too? (I am an example of this - I can't help but see these patterns.) Well, then you have something that is real, no matter how unscientific the terminology sounds. For what is science other than a method - a tool to help one attain better knowledge of the natural patterns around us?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Way to diverge from the issues.

 

[Adymus]

What Pod'Lair does not do:
Diverge from MBTI's fundamentals
Get rid of "boxes"

Here is a thought, why don't you explain to me in what way Pod'Lair does not do any of these things. Then I'll address your accusations as they come.

(Btw, I am calling you on this because I know you haven't actually read anything on Pod'Lair aside from what you have seen here and wouldn't actually have a back up plan if I did call you on this, so it should be fun to see what you come up with. I get the feeling you didn't think I would have a come back, but boy are you in for a treat!)

Pod'Lair adds to MBTI not rewrites it. If it did, Pod'Lair reasoning would be incompatible with MBTI. Pod'Lair's mojo reading makes identification of its subjective understanding of types 100%, supposedly. "Supposedly" because mojo reading is not an exact Science. It is pseudo-science.

Okay there a lot of things wrong with this:

a.) Pod'Lair does not simply add to MBTI, we will get more into that in a minute.
b.) It also wouldn't rewrite it anyway, because it isn't trying to rewrite it.
c.) Two or more Theories with correlations does not mean they are based on each other, but that they cover some of the same phenomenon. We will get more into that later.


Pod'Lair does not simply add to MBTI

No, and in many ways the two systems are actually not compatable, even though they are technically addressing some of the same phenomenon. For instance, if you want to start reading people, you are going to have to let go of your preconceived notions of how the MBTI configurations are supposed to act (because Pod'Lair does not read people with Boxes ;D.)

The main reason these theories are not simply extensions of each other is in this principle: The point of view. All theories must begin with a starting point of view, and then their theory will extrapolate from this point of view. Now some different theories might extrapolate and then touch up on the phenomenon that were covered by other theories, but it is crucial to understand that if you are not seeing these phenomenon from the same point of view, then they are not actually of the same understanding.
There are many new theories that look at Phenomena covered in older and different theories from their own point of view, but none of them claim to be based on those older theories because that would just be not true. There are many theories other than the Jungian model that we can explain from the Pod'Lair perspective, such as NLP for instance. Now even though we might be addressing the same pattern, we have no reason to give NLP credit for our work just because we cover the phenomenon of eye movement and its connection to cognition, I don't even know anything about NLP.

You see MBTI starts with, there are 16 types that act like this and that and the other thing. That is their starting Point of view.

While Pod'Lair's Pathway of Mojo Dojo* begins from the point of view that all humans are giving off distinct signals, in certain patterns that can be read and captured in 16 Mojo configurations. The behavior pattern and lifestyles that MBTI uses as a basis to type people is irrelevant to identifying their Mojo Configuration.

So Mojo Dojo Starts with Physically seeing the phenomenon and then seeking to understand it, while MBTI starts with assumptions (called "types") of what the phenomena are supposed to look like, and then trying to fit these phenomena into types, hence it's closed and boxy nature.

However, there are many principles within Mojo Dojo that technically do share correlations with the Jungian principles, as there is a universal pattern to the natural law of the phenomenon of human behavior that both Jung and Pod'lair are making references to, so some correlations are to be expected.
However Pod'Lair has captured this phenomenon, and developed an understanding of in a way that is different, and I would say more accurate than Jung ever did, as our point of view is from a vantage point or "root" that is much deeper than Jungs. When you start by percieving a Phenomenon from a different point of view, you must also have different understanding to explain the principles to said phenomenon, which is why even though there might be certain correlations, the principles themselves are actually quite different. And if you held the Jungian Model and Mojo Dojo side by side, you would find many contradictions.

Pod'Lair's mojo reading makes identification of its subjective understanding of types 100%

Okay there is kind of a contradiction here, if you are physically reading a person, then you are not actually seeing something subjective, because you are noticing something that is actually there and can be observed by everyone. Even our understanding of the 16 Mojo Configurations are based on the objective phenomenon, because when we want to explain one of the Mojos, instead of just describing it, we can point to many different versions of these Mojos and say "That!" So you don't end up with everyone having their own idea of what the 16 Mojo Configurations are supposed to look like, as you have that problem in the Jungian models because all you have to go by are descriptions which yield purely subjective understandings.

So even if you have preconceived notions of how certain Mojos are supposed to behave, their Identification itself is done visually, based on the distinct signals and cues the person is giving off and how they are structured, so any preconceived notions of how one of the Mojos is supposed to behaving like is rendered Moot and irrelevant to their read. The result of this is Quasi-death, and you having to slap yourself and update your understanding of how said Mojo could possibly act like.



Also, I might as well just keep posting here, so TIME IN!

Fukyo: do you mind if I post some of the conversation we PMed?

As for the the Pseudoscience card, that is such a bullshit card to play and you know it, ESC. Especially because every other model we are talking about is also technically pseudoscience. There is always a point where new ideas are not regarded as the current "Science", and if you are using the logic, "if something is not scientific then it must be wrong", then new ideas can never possibly emerge, because they can't be taken seriously if they are not science and they cannot be science if they are not taken seriously. So it is like Synchro illustrated, all you have left is a Catch-22 for anything that challenges the status quo.

*Notice when I am comparing MBTI with Mojo Dojo I am saying Mojo Dojo and not Pod'Lair. Pod'lair is in itself a massive omnitheory that extends far behind the phenomenon of the 16 Cognitive configurations, so to compare the two is actually kind of ridiculous. Mojo Dojo is the pathway that addresses the Phenomenon of Mojo and Mojo reading which is roughly 1/8 of Pod'Lair as a whole.

 

[Adymus]

Way to diverge from the issues.

Are you serious? She covered almost every issue that has been raised in this thread, she even covered issues that you yourself brought up.

 

[Glordag]

I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that Pod'Lair doesn't present a potentially useful and interesting framework with which people might improve their lives. I think the general area of concern is that the large volume of claims about Pod'Lair are unsupported. The burden of proof is on Pod'Lair to show the world how they present the world with new information that is highly reproducible and consistent. Instead, we are barraged with a multitude of new and unnecessary terms, require photos or videos to access the full extent of supporting information, and are told that we just don't have the required "vision" when we ask for supporting evidence.

Adymus, how do you expect us to open our minds to Pod'Lair when Pod'Lair will not accept open minded inquiry? As INTPs, you are unlikely to find a more willing and accepting group of open minded individuals. If we are having issues with Pod'Lair, you can bet that a good many others will, as well.

You maintain an aggressive demeanor towards our inquiry, and I genuinely think that most of the people here are trying to help.

 

[Adymus]

Instead, we are barraged with a multitude of new and unnecessary terms, require photos or videos to access the full extent of supporting information, and are told that we just don't have the required "vision" when we ask for supporting evidence.

Pod'Lair lexicon is new, yes, but unnecessary? That is the complete opposite of the case. To suggest that a term is unnecessary is to suggest that a better term could have been used, that there is a more accurate term that already exists, and that to invent an entirely new terms is pointless. The Principles that are symbolized by the Pod'Lair Lexicon are entirely new principles that are tied to previously undiscovered phenomenon, and when a new phenomenon is a discovered, it needs to be named, very much in the same way that when a new star is discovered it gets to be named, simply using a name of another and older concept will not do at all.

The similarities between Pod'Lair principles and some of the principles in the Jungian Model are irrelevant, they are not the same and thus using Jungian words cannot suffice. Words are a very powerful tool, when you hear a word spoken a geyser of understanding springs forth from the mind. If you want to reference a specific phenomenon you must use a very specific word, and if a word does not exist for said phenomenon, a new word must be created.

The Pod'Lair lexicon are the only words in existence that describe the principles that they symbolize.

Furthermore, you actually do have the required "vision" to see the phenomenon Pod'Lair is pointing out, as humans we all have it. However, what needs to be honed is your ability to know the difference between one signal from another. They are all perceivable, and you are actually already seeing them, but what is required is a tuned pallet that can spot these signals when they are present.

Bloodhounds can be trained to sniff out drugs or firearms, and while the Bloodhound can perceive the smells the Drugs and weapons are giving off inherently, they don't inherently know how to know that this specific scent is the scent of cocaine or what have you. They have to go through training to get the sent of these chemicals on their pallet. That does not mean the scents of these chemicals are subjective, because they are all releasing a distinct sensual pattern, however the Dog must first learn how to tell the difference between those patterns and other patterns.

As with humans, reading people the Pod'Lair way is something people are just not used to doing, they are used to reading people other ways, through various memes and such. So even though all of the 16 configurations are releasing distinct signals that we are already perceiving and being impacted by, we are not used to reading them in this way, so you first need to learn how to tell these signals apart from other signals. Although, humans are naturally equipped with the abilities to sniff out these signals in the same way the Bloodhound is naturally gifted with the ability to be a drug sniffing dog. We are actually already being impacted by these signals and cues that we teach people about, and many of us note that and are used to noticing how the signals and energies of others are impacting them, which is why People reading comes a little more naturally to the Romantics than it does for others. Although everyone is equipped to do it.

In Audio Engineering, there is a certain tacit skill set that is gained by years of Audio engineer experience called "The Golden Ears." Basically that just means the Audio Engineer has so much experience in that field, that they can hear ultra nuanced details in sound that any other mere mortal would overlook, like a 1 db increase in amplitude on the 3000hz band. This is a tacit level knowledge that requires the engineer to hear many different signals of sound while having an understanding of what is being changed in the sound, what these signals mean. Maybe a few years and about a hundred sessions later, they acquire the Golden ears. Now if you said to an Audio Engineer, "I don't hear anything, how do you know the Toms are out of Phase?" The Engineer will say, "because I can hear it out of phase." and if you follow that up with "Well I don't hear anything" then the Audio engineer will just look at you like you're an idiot and go back to hir fader moving and pot tweaking. The Golden Ears is a highly respected ability.

So yes, you do have to have a very similar tacit knowledge to be able to discern one signal from another in reading people, and I am sorry if you don't like the idea of having to put forth a certain effort to gain an ability that you are not sure exists, but it is what it is. Tacit level abilities, such reading people, martial arts, or even audio engineering require more than simply having a theoretical understanding of how it works, you actually have to try it out and hone the ability. But once you do that it becomes far more reliable and powerful than simply having a theoretical knowledge of how something is supposed to work, and there will be no question as to whether you are actually doing or seeing something or not. Not in you anyway.

Adymus, how do you expect us to open our minds to Pod'Lair when Pod'Lair will not accept open minded inquiry? As INTPs, you are unlikely to find a more willing and accepting group of open minded individuals. If we are having issues with Pod'Lair, you can bet that a good many others will, as well.

You maintain an aggressive demeanor towards our inquiry, and I genuinely think that most of the people here are trying to help.

After all I am defending a theory that I know is valid, however I am not suppressing inquiry, I am just clarifying what it means to actually inquire in the case of this theory. I am protecting the theory from erroneous dismissal, which is a likely outcome if your idea of inquiry is the expectation of the Phenomenon to be right in your face when you do not inherently know how to tell when it is or is not right in your face.

So I invite you to try it yourself, and I can tell you that you'll begin to see the patterns we are talking about over a little time and with a little effort. And if you don't feel that you see anything at all, you can be on your way. However it is going to be very difficult if you insist on standing still with the expectation that I will be able to make very nuanced patterns in humans jump out at you when your pallet is not set to know when they are ever present or not. If you prefer neat little empirical statistics and numbers that can act as a safety net that reassures you that there really is a pattern there, then you'll have to wait. Quantification of these patterns are certainly possible as they are an objectively occurring phenomenon, although it may take some time before we are equipped to take these measurements. I can't be of much help to you if that is the case, but ultimately that is your call to make.

As INTPs, you are unlikely to find a more willing and accepting group of open minded individuals.

And I am going to have to respectfully disagree with that, as our forum being full of mainly Nai'xyy and Nyy'xai demonstrates that is probably not the case (although a significant portion of both Mojos once thought they were INTPs, so maybe you are on to something), but that is for another discussion entirely.

 

[Glordag]

I'm skeptical about the claim that the words that have been chosen are truly the "only" words that can be used. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you claim that you can't use certain words because of their relation to MBTI, but then proceed to use words that are completely loaded in their own right like "mojo".

I completely accept that reading physical traits can give indications as to what a person may or may not be thinking, how they are feeling, and how they might act at a given point in time. However, you continually maintain that this is not a subjective property. How can you make that claim without any supporting data? Yes, the physical traits and gestures that a person exudes are objective properties. The act of reading and interpreting these properties, however, is completely subjective. There is simply no way around this. I don't understand how you can make the claim otherwise.

For example, if you claim that each particular property means a very rigid thing (or possible set of things), then you completely discount the possibility of variance within each of these properties. The same person can reveal the same expression and mean two different things. Even more likely is that two different people can exhibit the same expression (often as a result of adaptation) and mean two completely different things. Now clearly there might be some slight variation in length of smile, how wide open the eyes are, etc., but these cannot account for the underarching differences in the overall expression.

The point I'm trying to get across, of course, is that there is going to be subjectivity in these readings, whether it's due to the subjective nature of the expressions or the subjective nature in reading them. Unless you can give us a set of reproducible test cases with which these things can be verified, there's no way to remove subjectivity. Yet, you still claim that what you are doing is not subjective. It just doesn't jive.

I guess all I'm saying is that you're claiming more validity than the whole thing deserves at this point. If you claim to be an objective, scientific, logical, and "better" process, you have to support that claim. Otherwise, you are going to lose credibility with anyone that has a rational mind.

 

[cheese]

Adymus, the need for training is understandable. Trying to explain *why* someone's pitch is off or their playing uneven is difficult if they're not able/trained to hear it. The only thing that bugs me is that instead of a tuner or a metronome - a truly objective standard to measure against - you have Thomas. Why is he the final arbiter? (Aside from the fact that he came up with this stuff.) Back when you 'misread' Dormouse, Shoeless, Anamalech, etc, you had what appeared to be perfectly sound reasons and backing for what you saw. You predicted and explained behaviour based on the cognitive functions you thought you saw, and were pretty much 100% sure of your read. How does someone else overturn that? Don't they just convert you to their subjective interpretation of the physiological cues? Like I said, (at least some) musical training is accomplished through the use of objective, non-human standards. But Pod'lair training relies solely on one guy. Even if it relied on 10 guys, it's still not really an external, objective standard. Once he teaches you to see what he sees - or rather, interpret what you see the way he does, since like you say the cues are there anyway - you'll simply shift to his paradigm, and explain and predict behaviour from that with the same confidence you had in your previous reads. What I mean is, how do you know your training, and reliance on Thomas, actually gets you any closer to accuracy, rather than just shifting perspectives?

I'm definitely not closed to an explanation, I'm actually really interested in this stuff. Do Thomas's reads have more predictive power, perhaps? I know body language experts are able to produce more accurate reads of emotional states than lay men. In the police force for example they're better able to crack suspects based on signals they give off that indicate emotional responses to different lines of questioning, trigger words, etc. What makes the reads of those at "100% accuracy" more reliable?

 

[Adymus]

The act of reading and interpreting these properties, however, is completely subjective. There is simply no way around this. I don't understand how you can make the claim otherwise.

Yes that is correct, an objective interpretation is an oxymoron, although I did not say the ability to know which signals mean what is an objective ability, but that when one is reading a person they are looking at objective signals that the person is giving off. It is then up to them to interpret them correctly, and as I said doing so needs training.

The point I'm trying to get across, of course, is that there is going to be subjectivity in these readings, whether it's due to the subjective nature of the expressions or the subjective nature in reading them. Unless you can give us a set of reproducible test cases with which these things can be verified, there's no way to remove subjectivity. Yet, you still claim that what you are doing is not subjective. It just doesn't jive.

This is correct, but what is your point? Subjectivity will always be present, even in "empirical" and "Scientific" data, you need a subjective rationalization to make sense of everything, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that, a subjective understanding is always necessary to make sense of any objective phenomena, whether it be an MRI scan, the stars, a chemical reaction, or a Mojo read, and there is no escaping that. The reason I raise Objectivity in the first place is because in other models, you don't even get the option of basing a read off any standard of any kind. You begin with a subjective understanding, and then you subjectively try to fit people into that understanding. The fact that it takes a subjective understanding to be able to make sense of the phenomenon is irrelevant, it is still being based off of something that actually is distinctive and works a certain way.

Otherwise, you are going to lose credibility with anyone that has a rational mind.

Then bring on the irrational minds.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, the need for training is understandable. Trying to explain *why* someone's pitch is off or their playing uneven is difficult if they're not able/trained to hear it. The only thing that bugs me is that instead of a tuner or a metronome - a truly objective standard to measure against - you have Thomas. Why is he the final arbiter? (Aside from the fact that he came up with this stuff.) Back when you 'misread' Dormouse, Shoeless, Anamalech, etc, you had what appeared to be perfectly sound reasons and backing for what you saw. You predicted and explained behaviour based on the cognitive functions you thought you saw, and were pretty much 100% sure of your read. How does someone else overturn that? Don't they just convert you to their subjective interpretation of the physiological cues? Like I said, (at least some) musical training is accomplished through the use of objective, non-human standards. But Pod'lair training relies solely on one guy. Even if it relied on 10 guys, it's still not really an external, objective standard. Once he teaches you to see what he sees - or rather, interpret what you see the way he does, since like you say the cues are there anyway - you'll simply shift to his paradigm, and explain and predict behavior from that with the same confidence you had in your previous reads. What I mean is, how do you know your training, and reliance on Thomas, actually gets you any closer to accuracy, rather than just shifting perspectives?

I'm definitely not closed to an explanation, I'm actually really interested in this stuff. Do Thomas's reads have more predictive power, perhaps? I know body language experts are able to produce more accurate reads of emotional states than lay men. In the police force for example they're better able to crack suspects based on signals they give off that indicate emotional responses to different lines of questioning, trigger words, etc. What makes the reads of those at "100% accuracy" more reliable?

I like your music example, I can play on that.

Music theory did not just come out of no where, and not unlike Pod'Lair Music was already a functioning phenomenon of natural law that humans merely discovered, and learned from. Before anyone decided that an A was an A, or a Bb was a Bb, they were just unnamed frequencies in the ambient airwaves.

Somebody actually had to pick up a string instrument or something, give it a pluck, and then say "Okay everyone, from now on, that pitch is an A."

Similarly, Thomas had to go up to people and say "Okay everyone, from now on, these are Nyy Dancing eyes." This creates an objective standard of what Dancing eyes are and look like, much like that tuning fork tells you what an A sounds like. Like sound, people give off distinctive patterns and signals, and if you point to one of these patterns and name it, then you will have an objective representation of it.

Who came up with the name of the pattern, or if the pattern was discovered by a human is irrelevant, because once you name a pattern that objectively represents itself in natural law then you have a constant that you can reference.

Thomas is the undisputed greatest Mojo reader on the planet, which is to be expected considering it was him that discovered the Mojo phenomenon in the first place.
However, Thomas himself is not the objective Standard, and he does not need to be, the objective standard is already existent in natural law. The Objective standard is whoever Thomas has read, as I said before, someone needs to come forward, find an objective representation of said standard, and then name the standard if you want to have one at all. The fact that it was done with human eyes is irrelevant when you now have an objective representation to work with.

I am an Objective standard of Zai'nyy, I am ever resonant with the natural tune of Zai'nyy frequencies, so if you want to know what a Zai'nyy looks like, look no fucking further. If you want to know what the Zai'nyy flavor of unflappability looks like, I can be your tuning fork. Nysamis is an Objective standard of Nyy'xai, if you want Nyy'xai Buoyancy she is your lady.

One of the most important tools necessary in Mojo Reading is having what we call "People Pools." Essentially a People Pool is your own personal reference of all of the clean and certain Mojo reads. You can always go back to these people, drink in their signals and cues, and then cross-contextualize them when you see the same patterns being played on other people. Your people pools can be your family, close friends (given that both were actually read correctly), or even the celebrities that Pod'Lair has on their Visitor and Guest People Pool lists. But it is a very important part to the Mojo Reading training, as these are the objective standards that will be tuning your Mojo Reading instrument.

Why is Thomas the Final Arbiter of Mojo Reading? Because he is better than me, you, and your Mom at reading mojo. There is no other person that is better suited to be the final Authority on Mojo Reading, and usually when the grand master of a certain art or skill wants to give you feedback on your work, you tend listen. When Thomas had corrected my work in the past, he showed me what I misread and why I misread it when I explained my results, and I saw this and acknowledged it, and came out with an understanding of what I did wrong.

How do I know Being corrected is not simply shifting my perspective and not actually bringing me closer to accuracy?

Because we test ourselves, we measure our accuracy, and right now I read at +85%

The odds of me being that accurate on a consistent basis are extremely low, unless I was actually improving.

Nuff said.

 

[Nyxyia]

Mojo reading is both an art and a science and recent developments in the scientific and philosophy worlds are trending toward more of a continuum or spectrum understanding of epistemic debates such as those we are having here.

Part of the trouble lies in the fact that these discussions take place within the framework of a dominant old guard mechanistic view of the universe that is very western, very impoverished and limited in scope, very archaic (I would argue) and very pervasive in many scientific circles - ironically as many scientists throughout history have arrived at their discoveries through what is often considered less than scientific means, which gives them a hypothesis or theory to work from, which they then present in empirical terms because that is what the dominant acceptable standard has been for the past few centuries in the western world. This is changing in more progressive circles with more of a spectrum and skill-based understanding of things but discovery and technology are always light years ahead of mainstream understanding or even acceptance of it.

Thomas Chenault did not arrive at his theories by studying Jung or NLP or any number of disciplines that happen to have overlap. If you really want to know, unlike most four year olds his mind was observing patterns in people and grouping those patterns accordingly, which were then stored up over the course of several decades, when it became apparent that other theorists (such as Jung) had been working on similar problems and arrived at similar math – for the reasons Jonathan points out above as the fact that a bunch of brilliant minds scrutinizing natural law would have to be really idiotic not to at least come to some similar conclusions – and it is the differences that determine the superior theories in terms of demonstrable evidence, power of explanatory scope, etc. which Pod’Lair has.

As mentioned before, with Mojo there is blurring between art and science – this is as it should be as it is a reflection of reality. “Art” and “Science” are delineations of reality – as a whole, reality is *seamless* but for our finite limited understanding of it, we have had to develop markers or tags referring to what we have singled out as discrete phenomena for the sake of reference (language, naming), much like we refer to parts of the body as “hand” or “wrist,” though the exact border between these entities is not technically definable in “empirical” terms - there are empirical measurements we could arguably use, because that is what is acceptable in dominant (mechanistic) scientific discourses. People had to be taught to see the difference between a hand and a wrist, and they were taught to do so by being shown examples of body parts and having attention called to them. Previously people had not thought to look for them, because they were focused on other things or didn’t know it was important etc. It is said that genius is the ability to scrutinize the obvious, which is precisely what Thomas Chenault has done – he has observed patterns over the course of his life that either no one has thought to look for, or came to wrong or incomplete conclusions about (and by the way the premise behind “everything is energy evolving” is that no one’s understanding is *complete* per se, and that theories must constantly be updating themselves to remain valid, which is arguably the central tenet of the theory). The current project of Pod’Lair in its beta phases is to collect samples to present as empirical evidence because that is the term used and these phenomena fall within the category of empirical in the same way the hand/wrist example does, or when it comes to measuring “tricky” things like color, music, or other energic phenomena – after all, everything boils down to energy if you zoom in to the subatomic level. So this is not just a matter of presenting evidence on the terms of the dominant (but receding) paradigm, but involves challenges to that paradigm itself. It takes a sophisticated mind to take into account the complexity of these issues, but we are boiling it down as simply as possible for those who are… having difficulty as this is meant to benefit as many people as possible.

So at this phase we have invited fortunate individuals to participate in a ground breaking project, the presentation of which is still a bit raw (debating the finer points of low budget guerilla style web design is MASSIVELY missing the point), but those in a position to know, who have used their own critical thinking skills to give it more than a cursory dismissal, can clearly see that it is superior to what others working on similar problems have proposed, in ways you will be kicking yourselves for missing down the road…

You have every right as free individuals to reject this theory, our input was a free gift since many of you are doing yourselves the disservice of walking around thinking you are someone you are not, but our materials are copyright protected and not for dissemination without permission, such as has occurred on this forum because of a personal vendetta of some Nai’xyy who was rejected because we would not give him advice on how to manipulate his Nyy’xai girlfriend into getting back together with him.

According to the INTP forum administration:

“You will find 'Report' links in many places throughout the board. These links allow you to alert the board staff to anything which you find to be offensive, objectionable or illegal.”

“Any images, music files, etc. may be uploaded here; but the responsibility is that of the poster, and the administration will remove anything in copyright immediately when properly notified by the original copyright holders.”

I’m not sure what this person’s accomplices thought they were doing, stamping out the evil menace that is Pod’Lair - Incalculable damage could be done telling people they are SUPER HEROES meandering at half power! SAVE US FROM THE SINISTER FATE OF PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND BEING TALENTED AND HAPPIER AND BREAKING RECORDS AND IMPROVING THE WORLD AND SUCH. Oh, the harm, the tragedy…

So by all means think what you want but be cool and take down our copyrighted materials – you’ll get a gold star and some much needed good karma

 

[Fukyo]

I’m not sure what this person’s accomplices thought they were doing, stamping out the evil menace that is Pod’Lair - Incalculable damage could be done telling people they are SUPER HEROES meandering at half power! SAVE US FROM THE SINISTER FATE OF PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND BEING TALENTED AND HAPPIER AND BREAKING RECORDS AND IMPROVING THE WORLD AND SUCH. Oh, the harm, the tragedy…

So by all means think what you want but be cool and take down our copyrighted materials – you’ll get a gold star and some much needed good karma

My, oh my. Why so condescending?

The irony of Pod'lair and everything written here is incredible... Everyone outside of your little tightly knit circle is lost, unaware of the great Natural Law! Poor, miserable wretched creatures, meandering the world without your great insight. For an organization preaching about how it's going to to cure the horrors of the human condition, you sure are arrogant and exclusive. I thought we were all going to get enlightenment and have our lives improved?

Why do you people reek of so much defensiveness? From the posts here to your home page - "Frankly we don’t give a shit about validation from conventional circles". You'll have so much more scrutiny to take as you expand than just the posts of a few internet goers on some inconsequential forum.

Y'know, I heard a Nai'xyy say once that there is no such thing as altruism in their mojo; everything is done for the sake of satisfying their ego. Can I get your professional opinion on this?

 

[Auburn]

And I'd also like to add something regarding the presentation of Podlair - regardless of whether it is truth or not.

As Adymus has said before, the presentation of a theory has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself. And since the presentation itself is irrelevant to the validity/invalidity of a concept - the choice of presentation is therefore a matter of preference.

So why use those names? Why use the word "Mojo"? Doesn't it ultimately come down to personal taste? Because they sound awesome, yes? This is not really a discussion of logic as much as just aesthete.. ..but I must once again quote this as I feel it still hasn't been taken into consideration~

As you've already witnessed, the forum didn't take it too well, and I'm quite confident it won't only be INTP forum that is repulsed by it.

The names chosen clearly have obvious associations with a lot of other bogus new-agey philosophies, and that has to be taken into account.

There are implications to every action/word we say/do, and those who are wise take caution to understand ahead of time what those implications are, to what extent they reach, and whether or not that effect is really what one desires.

I know, what one chooses to call a concept has nothing to do with the concepts' validity itself. However, rare is he who is mature enough and openminded enough to give everything that is presented in front of them a fair and neutral chance to express itself - and I sure can't blame those that don't.

Sure, Pod'Lair could choose to shrug off those who judge it by it's cover, but by doing so it is robbing many people of a great opportunity and self-development who, if Pod'Lair had been presented in a more appealing light, might have fully embraced Thomas' concepts.

Cognitive theory aside, presentation is something entirely different, and I sincerely think Podlair could use some pointers on it. >.>

Presentation is an art form. Like all art forms it has it's own set of dynamics which affect, much more subtly, the reaction the art form receives. The right timing makes a punch line hilarious, the wrong timing kills it. The right chords bring about strong emotion, or sour looks. The right wording, the right tones, the right colors - all have varied effects which I'd argue is also an aspect of 'natural law' in relation to humanity.

Natural Law itself has a structure to it. If you try to circumvent it, you will be ineffective, fail, or cause damage to yourself or others.

Agreed.

Thus, if Podlair's presentation is off-putting and fails to invite inquiring minds to it's learning process - (having failed to properly assess it's audience) - then Podlair is the one at fault, since it is the one who is seeking to prove itself. It falls on Podlair to gain reception and attention from others, not the other way around, just like it falls on the speaker/preacher to captivate it's audience.

I can't blame those who do not choose to dig deeply into something if that something is portrayed in a way they find repulsive. I commend those who do choose to dig deeper, despite the outward appearance being repelling to their own taste; such people are admirable, but it's unrealistic to hold people to that standard.

I honestly thought that people who claim to have such awareness of the human psyche wouldn't overlook this very basic understanding.

If Podlair wishes to reach the heights that it does, it should be presented in a way that functions intuitively and in harmony with it's audience. At present, I feel it's doing a poor job of this. This forum is just a miniature sample of academia as a whole - which I suspect will have the same reaction.

If the theory itself is not really dependent on the presentation, and that presentation is negatively affecting the reception of the theory, why not change it?​

 

[Fukyo]

Oh and in regards to the copyrighted material, it might be in your interest to remove terms "Anima/Animus" and "Collective Subconsciousness" from your site, seeing as they are native concepts of Carl Jung, and likely copyrighted by someone out there. Changing the "dar'yu" to something else that doesn't make it blatantly clear you are talking about Jung's Shadow archetype might be a good idea too.

 

[Auburn]

"We like our names and we think they're awesome, and screw those who don't like them (even if it's like 95% of people) we'll continue using them because our theory is 100% true and eventually it'll have to be accepted, names and all.. and then the whole world will love our names, mwahaha!"

 

[XXXX]

@Auburn

It has been mentioned in this thread that Pod'lair doesn't intend to target the scientific community directly - it's primary goal is to target pop culture first, because doing otherwise would be an inefficient way to spread the theory.

I think if it can strike a chord with pop culture on a widespread enough level with enough momentum behind it, it will eventually garner attention of the scientific community.

I agree that some people may see the terms as off-putting, but plenty of others will see them as interesting, unique, enchanting, attention grabbing and worthy of further exploration (it also serves the purpose of dissociating and distinguishing the theory from its counterparts).

I think the terms will particularly appeal to the NF/Romantic crowd who are naturally the most interested in people-orientated theories in the first place (particularly Nai'xyy/INFJ and Nyy'xai/ENFP as the forum composition thus far indicates) and are also the most heavily represented in popular culture according to Pod'lair's early stage of research (which will help Pod'lair spread the theory).

 

[Nysamis]

The irony of Pod'lair and everything written here is incredible... Everyone outside of your little tightly knit circle is lost, unaware of the great Natural Law! Poor, miserable wretched creatures, meandering the world without your great insight. For an organization preaching about how it's going to to cure the horrors of the human condition, you sure are arrogant and exclusive. I thought we were all going to get enlightenment and have our lives improved?

She's using sarcasm and wit, one of the ways both the Nyy'Alpha (Ne doms) communicate. (Watch The Colbert Report to see one of the ways a Nyy'zai wields sarcasm for more than just comedic effect.) To me it's quite clear, because I am also Nyy'xai. Language is kinda funny like that. So much gets lost in translation sometimes, but less gets lost if you are naturally attuned to how someone will express themselves. One of the nifty things about Pod'Lair is once you read a person, you can see how they communicate, both on the internet and in real life. You cross-contextualize it with the examples of the same Mojo you've seen, and you discover more and more new patterns you didn't see before. I'm not saying you didn't understand what she said; that is most definitely not what I am saying. Sarcasm can be hard to detect on the internet, which has caused some great (unnecessary) drama over the years. If there is a devil, s/he created expression on the internet and its oft disastrous effects.

If she, Adymus, myself, or anyone else who has argued in favor of Pod'Lair on this forum were being exclusive, do you think we would be reaching out to people in our different ways? No, they would be keeping the knowledge to themselves, and no one on this forum would even know about it. Heck, Thomas could have kept the theory to himself. It is a lot easier that way. Anyone who has made art for a decent enough time can tell you about one or many times where they couldn't find any inspiration, and their canvas/material of choice just sat there. Once an artist gets out of that phase, it takes time, often a lot of time, to "translate" the idea in hir head into a finished piece that the artist is happy with. Oftentimes, it takes way more time and energy than expected. Making art can drain you if you are giving it your all. The life of an artist is hard. Doing a cost-benefit analysis, it would be hard not to see the benefits of giving up and doing something easier. Just keeping the beautiful images in one's own head would be simpler, and the artistically-inclined person would still reap the benefits of being able to go into hir head and see beauty. But people don't work that way - art would call out to the person, demanding that person's attention. Likewise, ideas do not want to stay hidden. Even bad ideas. But all ideas have one thing in common: the people who first postulated them all believed in them, and because of that, they felt the deep hunger to spread them. Almost no one likes or can even tolerate "God Hates Fags" Reverend Fred Phelps. But because he is human and has an ego, he will automatically ally himself with what he thinks the best and strongest idea out there is, even if he has to make it himself. He thinks he's a hero, even though almost no one does. If he or anyone who had an idea they though was brilliant (Pablo Picasso, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Louis Pasteur, Dmitri Mendeleev, list goes on a very long ways) just stopped and didn't share hir ideas, they would be taking the easy road out. That is not a way to be a hero, and such a person would feel mediocre.

This is how Thomas would feel if he didn't share his theory and give it form outside of his own mind. Naturally, he will still want the theory he teaches others to be essentially the same as the seed of the idea that is in his Nai. Otherwise, to Thomas, the theory would lose some of its essence. It's hard to get exited about spreading the Reader's Digest Condensed Books version of your theory. (As an aside, this is why people like Alan Moore get really pissed off that some halfwit hack of a director turned a brilliant masterpiece into a steaming pile of malodorous canine feces.) Theories are born and theories die; while they are intangible, they are intricately intertwined with humanity. Like humans, theories and ideas have form. A theory will start to take shape in the mind of its creator, just like a fetus gestates in its mother's womb. And any Nai'Alpha will want their original theory to shine in the full glory they see it as in their Nai. This means they have to honor the look and feel/design and structure of the theory. To do otherwise would be akin to some sort of self-betrayal for the Nai'Alpha. I'm sure the Nai'xyy (and Nai'zyy) on this forum who are open about their Nai'Alpha-ness could give many concrete examples of this from their own lives. This is why the terminology looks weird. But think of the days before Jung. He coined many terms like "introversion" and "extraversion." They may have sounded bizarre to the people who were dealing with his original theories. (Few people push out the welcome wagon for an original theory. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, either. It's how humanity works.)

Before Carl Linnaeus came around, there was no standard way of naming a new species that was useful for scientists. Nowadays, people are used to seeing a Latin scientific name for an organism. But it didn't necessarily need to be that way. If Linnaeus were Chinese instead of Danish, the naming conventions would have sounded much more Chinese, because his culture would have effected young 林奈乌斯, giving his idea a Chinese/Eastern form to it instead of a Swedish/Western European form to it. There is no reason why the names need to be in Latin, other than that is what made sense to Linnaeus. He honored his vision by giving it the form he saw it having in his mind. And it has since benefited many people. A Swedish botanist could visit a botanical garden in China, and he won't be able to read any of the signs on the plants, save for the scientific name, which is a constant. A lay passerby could walk by a tree, and both the Swedish botanist and her Chinese counterpart would tell the person the same scientific name. Names are an extremely powerful tool for standardization, but that is all they are. Naming something is the first cry of battle in a fight to understand a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Once you name a phenomenon, there is still a phenomenal amount of work that remains. The names are just the starting point to understand something.

This doesn't mean that people don't notice patterns that still do not have a name. There are many words that don't yet exist that would be useful. (Douglas Adams' attempt to humorously coin new terms for things we all experience like "a plastic packet containing shampoo, mustard, etc., which is impossible to open except by biting off the corners" is a good example.)

Likewise, people are generally aware that they are a lot like some people and really different from other people. They often make good decisions on what to do with their lives, who to marry, etc without Pod'Lair's help. I don't think anyone is saying that people are blind to the fact that there is a Natural Law phenomenon going on unless they've studied Pod'Lair. People unacquainted with the theory might not know how the phenomenon works, let alone that people are constantly sending out signals that show how their brain is wired. But they are not stupid by any means. What would anyone who hasn't noticed the phenomenon of human personality differences have to gain from Pod'Lair? They wouldn't understand it at all, because they aren't even seeing the actual phenomena Pod'Lair was created to explain. I don't think either Adymus or Nyxyia are even insinuating that people are unobservant and stupid before Pod'Lair "enlightens" them.

What Pod'Lair does do is provide a service to help people know themselves as they are actually configured. Knowing that brings power to know yourself better. And people generally are happier when they know their true selves. Imagine a Zyy'nai female who grew up in a patriarchal society, for instance. Imagine the affirmation she would get from other people telling her her true directive and logic-based nature. Finally, some people who get it! They don't see her weak, pitiful female body which is only good for being in a near-constant state of pregnancy, childbirth and sexy time with her husband (for making more children). They see her potential to be more confident at using what she already has. And that's empowering.

And that is where the community aspect of it comes in. Being around others like you who are definitely configured in the same way or similar is very awesome. Creativity and happiness do not exist in a void. People are happier when the people around them are too, whereas some tailgating road rage maniac jerk on the freeway could sour up part of your day. And people can and do ask challenging questions to the interns there, as long as they play nicely and don't give them unsolicited concern trolling-esque advice. (Concern, just like any other emotion could be played in helpful or unhelpful ways.) It is only exclusive of people who are not playing well with others. (Auburn, this is not a dig at you - you seem pretty nice in general. But you could have voiced your concern regarding Pod'Lair's correlation to earlier theories a lot better.)

Y'know, I heard a Nai'xyy say once that there is no such thing as altruism in their mojo; everything is done for the sake of satisfying their ego. Can I get your professional opinion on this?

It's not just a Nai'xyy thing. Doing things for the sake of satisfying one's ego is a human thing. People do what they do because it personally benefits them. Nai'xyy will come up with original theories for society because that is what satisfies their ego. Zai'nyy will point out the logical flaws that need to be corrected in an argument, because that satisfies their ego. I will show people a whole bunch of abstractions I think are important, because I am a Nyy'xai and it satisfies my ego.

Ego is not a dirty word, however. Having an ego does not mean altruism in the sense of doing good things to help others is impossible. People are wired to feel good when they get recognition from what they are best at doing. The recognition part requires other people, as humans are social animals. People want to help other people, because it makes them feel heroic. It's a win-win proposition that is probably the reason we're such a successful species. It's kind of like having sex - you stimulate your partner and your partner does likewise for you at the same time. When you help out others, you help yourself, and you get much more satisfaction that way than by just helping yourself. As mentioned previously, a Nai'xyy gets more satisfaction from bringing their idea out in the daylight of reality than just letting the idea roll around in circles in their Nai. But the general public don't like theories that don't better humanity or aren't useful. A successful Nai'xyy has to consider others. It's not pure altruism, as that doesn't exist. (No, not even in religion. "Altruistic" gods always ask for your devotion, which is a pretty big sacrifice, in return. The obeisance would stroke the ego of the god/s.) People need to accept the idea that it's fine and natural to have an ego and admit that they have one. Like many things out there, it is a fine-tuned tool. It's how you use it that counts.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It has been mentioned in this thread that Pod'lair doesn't intend to target the scientific community directly - it's primary goal is to target pop culture first, because doing otherwise would be an inefficient way to spread the theory.

I think if it can strike a chord with pop culture on a widespread enough level with enough momentum behind it, it will eventually garner attention of the scientific community.

That's not the way it works though. And it wouldn't make sense to develop a pseudo-science to pop culture status just to have it ripped to shreds by the scientific method. It's better to have open access to Pod'Lair sources and material now, so progression won't turn into regression in the future, due to actual science.

 

[XXXX]

That's not the way it works though. And it wouldn't make sense to develop a pseudo-science to pop culture status just to have it ripped to shreds by the scientific method. It's better to have open access to Pod'Lair sources and material now, so progression won't turn into regression in the future, due to actual science.

The creator of the theory believes he has the required objective evidence to show the world that theory is valid and effective.

If the theory is valid and effective then it will be accepted by the people - progression won't turn into regression instead the whole process of spreading the theory to the world will be sped up and more economical.

If it is invalid and ineffective it won't prosper in the long-term irrelevant to whether it attempts to receive affirmation by the scientific community first or after developing a substantial following in pop culture.

Also, at this stage it isn't difficult to get access to basic Pod'lair material - it's fair enough for them to withold more advanced content for those that have demonstrated basic proficiency or more - just like you don't give a student a calculus book if they haven't learnt how to count.

 

[Adymus]

That's not the way it works though. And it wouldn't make sense to develop a pseudo-science to pop culture status just to have it ripped to shreds by the scientific method. It's better to have open access to Pod'Lair sources and material now, so progression won't turn into regression in the future, due to actual science.

Actually ESC that is the way it works, it has worked that way long before you were born, and as long as humans remain human, it will continue to work that way long after you leave this life.

The idea that humans must "play by certain man-made rules" just to gain knowledge of the universe is fairly new, and if the art of Mojo Reading has taught me anything, it is that idea is complete bullshit. Many if not most of the important human breakthroughs in science and understanding of natural laws were done long before the Scientific method, and through very mystical means and minds the Scientific Eye of today would probably disapprove of.

Academia has very little connection to the popular culture as a whole, if you want a new idea to be received by the people, Academia is probably the worst rout you could possibly choose. Firstly you will have to gut the idea just so it can be easily consumed by the the ultra draconian, anti-tacit, anti-imaginative, anti-anything-even-close-to resembling-something-spiritual, scientific authority, lest you want them to completely ignore you.
Jung went with that path, and obviously he had to leave out his mystical experiences and the parts where he saw visions, wouldn't want the eye of science to think he was some kind of crazy! I imagine he was not very happy about having to leave out parts of his vision so it could be accepted easier by a very intolerant audience. If the Scientific Authority had more respect for the creative, tacit, artistic, spiritual, and most importantly human, process one must go through when they speculate the unknowns of the universe, he would have gone much further than he did. and what happened in the end? Mainstream Psychology still does not take him seriously, so a lot of good Academia did on that one, and we have learned from his mistakes.

Academia is actually very distanced from the community at large, and it is an unnecessary middle-man if your intention is to reach the people of the world. Getting the attention of Academia through a popular culture phenomenon is exactly what we want, and you cannot tear a theory apart if that theory is actually right. By then, we will already have so many people Mojo Reading, so many lives improved, so much proof of concept stacked on top of more proof of concept, all they can rationally do is acknowledge it as a truth that they did not see first.

 

[Nyxyia]

Fukyo, not sure where your last post disappeared to, as this was intended to follow it.

Condescension was not intended; humor was, although I owe it to my fellow Nyy'alpha to get the jokes and translate for me
You'd be surprised how ugly people get when you tell them they are much more gifted and talented than they know themselves to be, no matter how it is said - we put our videos up for people to read us, our energy is public for all the world to see, and our intentional community is for heroic people not to get sucked into the sort of vicious dialogues and constant personal attacks that happen out here and that have been happening since day one of the launch of our project, for no other reason than being "weird."

The best way to learn a language is by immersion in the native culture. Americans often go abroad and then surround themselves with other English speakers, getting little to no practice outside their comfort zone, wasting the time, effort, and cost involved in going abroad, and defeating the purpose. Our community allows everyone to practice without people "speaking English" and interfering with other peoples' training, which is why we try to get people familiar with the terminology without depending overly even on rough equivalents, points of reference though they may be, as much gets lost in translation.

The kinds of languages we are pointing out are very primal; it is peculiar that verbal articulation (again, academic) trumps the nonverbal signals people give off all the time. They read them in other animals, such as if an angry dog comes running up to you, you are attentive to the "visual cues" which are indicative of mental states, such as aggression, fear, etc. that point to certain cognitive processes that are running (it will be interesting to do further research on the topic of animal Mojos, which we discuss at times on our forums). This is meant to illustrate a connection between observable changes in energy and mental processes, which is the first thing to grasp before getting into the more complex topic of human cognitive configuration, which can be arrived at by similar means.

Regarding Thomas, note that it was not claimed that he had a full blown "theory" at age four, rather observation of humans began at a very young age, as well as doing something with those patterns as a wunderkind/child prodigy does, much like Beethoven and Mozart played with music in their early years, and were composing complete symphonies by age 6 (I'd have to check on the exact age but you get the idea). Even the playing phases before the actual symphony was light years above the average child's dabblings in music (we would like to change this so that the average child's dabblings in whatever it desires to dabble in (based on its cognitive configuration) more resemble a child prodigy - and we will!). In Thomas' case, I'm not referring to academic theories - here is where we are trying to clear up the difference between academic understanding, which children learn much later, and is arguably a corruption of their more native processes which are much more raw and involving a totality of processes (not intentionally so, academics are trying to draw out genius, they ironically end up watering it down and killing most of it instead). Later the refinement and articulation processes are important, but must be done correctly to preserve the prize cargo instead of losing the bulk of it. It is our intention to enable *every human being* to at least have the conditions for achieving what has up to now been thought of as elite level accomplishments, breakthroughs, and the like.

I think this thread is in need of a comedic elephant, don't you?

 

[cheese]

Adymus,

I can definitely accept that someone may be naturally more in tune with other people's frequencies, and especially after extensive study. And the concept of names being arbitrary signifiers of objective phenomenon - or cue clusters, in this case - is also perfectly understood. What I want to know is how we can tell if these cues are efficiently clustered, and how we can verify that what Thomas reads as a specific cue is truly caused by the same physiological processes each time he reads it, ie how we can test for underlying physiological consistency.

What I mean by efficient clustering is whether the cues Pod'lair attributes to Nyy for example are genuinely manifestations of one function. (Once Thomas's ability as an accurate measuring system has been verified, this should be a little simpler.) Has every cue been catalogued and then cross-referenced with all the others to determine correlations? How certain are you that no cues have been missed, or are actually combinations/hybrids (which would affect the resulting theory)? [I remember you saying that going off 'cues' is lower-level mojo reading, but the higher levels involving intuition (in the general sense of the word) are even more resistant to testing than these so I'll stick here for a while.] Once correlates have been determined I assume some mathematical work (lol, math genius here) could accurately identify which cues could be meaningfully clustered and from there derive categories (such as Nyy, Xai, etc). I understand Thomas has done this naturally and instinctively over a long period of observation and consequently derived 16 categories, but as one, human, instrument he is subject to error and confirmation bias, so more rigorous testing and analysis is required. (Even as a group I'd say it's insufficient.)
It would be pretty tough though, considering - according to pod'lair -

1. Everyone has four clusters/functions going at once
2. Any one read depends on the number of functions in use at that specific time (presumably affecting correlate strength, though a sufficiently large sample size would correct for that - I'm not very sure of this point, really )

Going back to the music example - sure, what we refer to now as particular pitches were once just unnamed frequencies. But the intervals between each (named) pitch are discrete and equal - ie there is structural integrity in the naming system that reflects actual degrees of difference in frequencies. It's not quite the same to extract particular facial configurations from a seamless display of cognitive output and assign them names and then derive categories from them - because how do you know you're seeing one 'note' and not a 'chord'? Just as it'd be much harder to name notes we are familiar with if we were to slide up one string passing through a range of frequencies that are unnamed - or even to write out all the parts of a symphony by ear. How do we identify discrete variables and efficiently attribute them to particular functions?

Testing for underlying physiological consistency in Pod'lair reads will likely require extensive analysis of muscle contraction, pupil dilation, voice modulation and stress patterns - cross-analysed to determine correlations and (perhaps allowing for a range of variation in manifestation) the actual level of consistency in reads (rather than judging accuracy by one person who could even be inconsistent himself). (And probably a bunch of other stuff I can't think of.) Yes, a lot of human communication is non-verbal, but reading levels are rarely (if ever) at 100% accuracy - this is demonstrated in tests studying the average person's ability to judge facial expressions/body language correctly, the results being that as a whole, we're prone to error. "Human lie detectors" who use a range of mostly intuitive skills to cross-analyse a range of cues (including words) are a miniscule portion of the population, and even they aren't 100% accurate. Judging deception isn't quite the same as Mojo reading of course, but my point is that even those most naturally attuned to human signals (the HLDs were lay people, whose accuracy levels soared above trained agents) are not totally reliable and so long-term, claiming 100% off Thomas doesn't seem quite right. [I had a friend with apparently reliable perfect/absolute pitch (as opposed to relative). I remember one time he was convinced one note was something it was not - he argued vehemently with a couple of other perfects till they settled it with a piano. Even with ears accustomed to identifying differences of only semitones (which is a difference significantly less than what the human ear can actually perceive), we are prone to mistakes.]

For the time being though, in the absence of this level of proof we can look at what Pod'lair can predict based off its reads to guess at the degree of underlying consistency - allowing for a reasonable range of variation in the way cognitive makeups manifest. (Although I'm not sure how to determine that range, outside of detailed neuropsychological knowledge, without being subject to confirmation bias.) How do you constantly test your accuracy, as you said? (I'm hoping it's not solely by Thomas.) Even if it's something as simple as comparing the subject to others and realising they're indisputably alike, although hopefully you're also able to make reliable predictions of behaviour/motivation/something, based off a read, since identifying similarities is (perhaps) more susceptible to confirmation bias.

Without a kind of external standard that can be read off by anyone (although I do understand this takes time to develop), or significant and reliable correlates, it's a bit hard to fully trust Mojo reads. But I know verification is difficult/tedious/time-consuming, and considering Pod'lair is still fairly new that lack is understandable. Without confirmation outside my own/others' perception of similarity I won't ever be fully certain, but I'm definitely open to trying it out and learning more.

Last note:
What is Sarah Lancaster's mojo? I just realised there is something incredibly similar between her and Katee Sackhoff (Kara Thrace from BSG). They do this intense-eye mouth-tightening thing. What is that?! Tell me! Please! Are they the same (or related?) or is it my imagination?

Also, Justin Long - what is he? I just realised I know a doctor who has the same vibe as him.

Also, isn't it more or less impossible for an INTP male to find an ENTJ female? Seems that way, anyway. What's the second best match according to Pod'lair? INTJ? ENTP?

 

[cheese]

Yeah, honestly speaking there is a definite somethingsomething going on here. When you first posted that thread about common manifestations of the different functions, I was amazed by how much I recognised - it described some people in my life perfectly, and explained some of the similarities in vibe I'd noticed on a subconscious level before (even if they were different mojo configurations and simply shared some functions, or were ordered differently).

But there are some people I just can't get a handle on. Why is this? How come some seem to give really strong signals and others seem a little more subtle? Is this a result of the type of function involved, or life experience? It could just be my own lack of training and experience, but I'm curious if there's an explanation for it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The creator of the theory believes he has the required objective evidence to show the world that theory is valid and effective.

Belief does not always reflect the reality of rationality.

If the theory is valid and effective then it will be accepted by the people - progression won't turn into regression instead the whole process of spreading the theory to the world will be sped up and more economical.

Theories are never proven 100% true/accurate(see appeal to ignorance). They just have to survive being proven false/inaccurate. So yes progress may happen now, until one day a massive realization of errors is made. Pod'Lair is not above this, it is the problem of induction.

Effectiveness is relative.

If it is invalid and ineffective it won't prosper in the long-term irrelevant to whether it attempts to receive affirmation by the scientific community first or after developing a substantial following in pop culture.

Determinism is a cop out in the name of productivity. I say buckle down and take responsibility for the logical consistency and integrity of your own theory.

Also, at this stage it isn't difficult to get access to basic Pod'lair material - it's fair enough for them to withold more advanced content for those that have demonstrated basic proficiency or more - just like you don't give a student a calculus book if they haven't learnt how to count.

Yes but you also don't keep it away from them until they prove themselves worthy. You effectively limit growth. Who are you to decide what someone can or cannot learn?

Actually ESC that is the way it works, it has worked that way long before you were born, and as long as humans remain human, it will continue to work that way long after you leave this life.

The idea that humans must "play by certain man-made rules" just to gain knowledge of the universe is fairly new, and if the art of Mojo Reading has taught me anything, it is that idea is complete bullshit. Many if not most of the important human breakthroughs in science and understanding of natural laws were done long before the Scientific method, and through very mystical means and minds the Scientific Eye of today would probably disapprove of.

Academia has very little connection to the popular culture as a whole, if you want a new idea to be received by the people, Academia is probably the worst rout you could possibly choose. Firstly you will have to gut the idea just so it can be easily consumed by the the ultra draconian, anti-tacit, anti-imaginative, anti-anything-even-close-to resembling-something-spiritual, scientific authority, lest you want them to completely ignore you.


Jung went with that path, and obviously he had to leave out his mystical experiences and the parts where he saw visions, wouldn't want the eye of science to think he was some kind of crazy! I imagine he was not very happy about having to leave out parts of his vision so it could be accepted easier by a very intolerant audience. If the Scientific Authority had more respect for the creative, tacit, artistic, spiritual, and most importantly human, process one must go through when they speculate the unknowns of the universe, he would have gone much further than he did. and what happened in the end? Mainstream Psychology still does not take him seriously, so a lot of good Academia did on that one, and we have learned from his mistakes.

Academia is actually very distanced from the community at large, and it is an unnecessary middle-man if your intention is to reach the people of the world. Getting the attention of Academia through a popular culture phenomenon is exactly what we want, and you cannot tear a theory apart if that theory is actually right. By then, we will already have so many people Mojo Reading, so many lives improved, so much proof of concept stacked on top of more proof of concept, all they can rationally do is acknowledge it as a truth that they did not see first.

Pet theories, and ideas in general, do not need scientific consideration. But if you plan on entering the scientific realm, you cannot ignore the quality of the packages you're sending out for the sake of return quantity. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. Someday Pod'Lair will have to answer to that. Why delay it?

 

[Adymus]

Unfortunately Cheese, all that you have been exposed to on this forum in terms of Mojo Reading material has been very low level material, comparatively speaking. I don't know if I have ever explained to you the Five Gears of Reading People in its entirety, or if you have taken a look at the full explanation on our website, but what I wrote in that thread two years ago only briefly covered some of the cues in Gears one and two. Gear one is the observation of the many concrete cues as single cues. For instance, a right eye drift/check. Now if you are trying to read peopling using only concrete cues, then you are not really reading them. Truly reading a person does not actually begin to take place until you begin using Gear three and above. However that does not mean learning Gears one and two are a waste of time, many people will need to practice with the Concrete and Component levels of cues in order for their tacit psyche to attune themselves with the more distinct and higher level signals a person is giving off. It also gives you a way to reverse engineer a higher level gear read and check your work.

An eye moving to the left can mean many things if you are only noticing that. So if you think this is all we are seeing, then your concern is well justified, that wouldn't work as a people reading method at all, if you only know up to gear one, you are simply not reading people.

High level Mojo Readers use far more than gear one, and the further in gears you increase, the more tacit the process becomes, and the more you will be looking at a conflagration of cues all happening at once, and not just singles. It is when you see these cues that you begin to feel much more confident that what you are seeing is actually accurate, because you know when all of these many signals are happening in this specific pattern then they can only be manifested in this way by a certain kind of Mojo Configuration.
This is analogous to learning Martial Arts, painting, drawing, or any other kind of art form, in the beginning you must learn many basic and concrete maneuvers or skills, that as stand alone skills do not work very well. If all you know in Kung Fu are a few basic punches, kicks, and throws, you would not stand a chance against a black belt. However, that is the path you must start on if you would like to get to black belt.
The human brain is naturally designed to group many components of information together into small packages. For example, we do not identify a creature by counting how many claws is has, but by tacitly identifying its characteristics all at once through a single pattern. When a black belt is in a fight, they don't have to think about each maneuver they use at a time, they body has been tuned to tacit move in the way it is supposed to move.

A high level Mojo Reader is never only seeing one signal at a time, we are always seeing multiple patterns occurring at once, and it in is the way these multiple patterns occur that you can see the very nuanced distinctions between Mojos or Powers.

The intervals between two pitches are actually not perfectly discrete and equal (unless we are talking about Digital audio), it takes human perception to be able to tune an instrument and know when a pitch has hit the right interval. So naturally there will always be several cents that it might be off, but that does not stop them from making music. The natural law behind Acoustics is actually very similar to the natural law behind Mojo Reading. Every sound is made up of a fundamental sinewave, and many other Sinewave above the fundamental called Overtones. Pure Sinewaves simply do not occur in nature, so every harmonic sound is a fundamental sinewave, which determines its pitch, and then a certain number of overtones which alter the shape of the sound wave and determine its timbre. When you hear a violin and a clarinet, there is no hard time making the distinction between the two, even if they are playing the exact same pitch. A Violin and Clarinet both have distinct timbres because they release overtones in distinct patterns. If filtered off all but the fundamental sinewave, it might be difficult to tell the difference, but pure sinewaves do not occur in nature anyway, so that is never the case.

Similarly in Mojo Reading, pure cues never occur in nature, ever signal a person is giving off is painted by their configuration, and when that happens you will see patterns, distinct patterns being repeated by multiple people of the same Mojo, as these configurations will have a similar "Timbre"

(Damn I love natural law metaphors.)

You don't have to have faith in our theory to be able to see these patterns, the only thing you should have faith in is that the human body and mind are capable of doing magnificent things.

Cheese, you especially I think should be taking your Mojo Reading training a step further on the Pod'Lair Forums, staying on this forum for you will be like repeating kindergarten over and over again.

 

[passingby]

Just signed up to post this, I just want to point out a flaw in their (Pod'Lair's) reading abilities, as they read me wrong because of it. This flaw is in regards to Fe and Fi. I'm going to keep this short and to the point because this thread has too many mindnumbingly long posts, specifically from Adymus, and they're filled with 90% judging/projecting vomit, and 10% rhetoric, much like the emails I received from the team.

I was read as INFJ when I submitted my video (common, I take t?), and right away I knew it was a mistake. So I offered my reaction, willingly using their terminology at their insistence (with what I could work with based on their site). My curiousity goes as far as knowing there are personality definitions out there and wanting to define my own, so for the sake of understanding myself I proceeded to identify the connections between 'powers' and cog. functions (don't kid yourself, they're the same thing), because that's what I was familiar with, and Ni, Te, etc tells me more than 'Nai'zyy' or whatever. They didn't understand that this was my main motivation, and wrapping my head around their entire theory came second to my limited curiousity of identifying facial cues. They then resorted to ad hominem attacks, basically calling me unintelligent, close-minded, and reprimanded me repeatedly for 'not letting go of inferior models'. The whole exchange was an ordeal, much like Adymus' responses in this thread. It turned me off completely.

Anyways, I'm really INTJ (through and through) and my Fi was mistaken for Fe. The problem is facial expressions are not concrete physiological cues of cog. funtions the same way an eye drift in a certain direction is. Because whether Fi or Fe, on the surface a smile is a smile, you can't 100% type one as Fi or Fe, and this is especially true when a subject to be read is alone (which I was in my video submission). I was using emotive expression, they mistakenly interpreted it as my desire to benefit/engage the listener, when really my expressions were in spite of myself, and brought about by internal feelings rather than a need to project my feelings on others.

The best way to solve this would be to ask the subject to actively identify the motivations behind their expressions during the interview process. Or exclude interpretations made when a subject is solo altogether. I believe you are able to tell Fi/Fe apart during social interaction; my sister would be influenced by Fe given she's ENFJ, and I can definitely see how she projects her emotions when talking. I am 100% sure I am aware of the differences and can fairly assess myself, and my Fi is glaringly obvious in contrast. This resulted in a flawed evaluation of my type, and most likely many others, and it needs to be corrected before you can tout 100% accuracy.

This is a fact I observed, and now I'm just offering a good natured critique, but I don't doubt these insufferable, hive minded (like someone coined ITT), NFs will take it as an attack on their entire belief system. (sorry, I still have a bad taste in my mouth from our brief exchange)

 

[passingby]

Just signed up to post this, I just want to point out a flaw in their (Pod'Lair's) reading abilities, as they read me wrong because of it. This flaw is in regards to Fe and Fi. I'm going to keep this short and to the point because this thread has too many mindnumbingly long posts, specifically from Adymus, and they're filled with 90% judging/projecting vomit, and 10% rhetoric, much like the emails I received from the team.

I was read as INFJ when I submitted my video (common, I take t?), and right away I knew it was a mistake. So I offered my reaction, willingly using their terminology at their insistence (with what I could work with based on their site). My curiousity goes as far as knowing there are personality definitions out there and wanting to define my own, so for the sake of understanding myself I proceeded to identify the connections between 'powers' and cog. functions (don't kid yourself, they're the same thing), because that's what I was familiar with, and Ni, Te, etc tells me more than 'Nai'zyy' or whatever. They didn't understand that this was my main motivation, and wrapping my head around their entire theory came second to my limited curiousity of identifying facial cues. They then resorted to ad hominem attacks, basically calling me unintelligent, close-minded, and reprimanded me repeatedly for 'not letting go of inferior models'. The whole exchange was an ordeal, much like Adymus' responses in this thread. It turned me off completely.

Anyways, I'm really INTJ (through and through) and my Fi was mistaken for Fe. The problem is facial expressions are not concrete physiological cues of cog. funtions the same way an eye drift in a certain direction is. Because whether Fi or Fe, on the surface a smile is a smile, you can't 100% type one as Fi or Fe, and this is especially true when a subject to be read is alone (which I was in my video submission). I was using emotive expression, they mistakenly interpreted it as my desire to benefit/engage the listener, when really my expressions were in spite of myself, and brought about by internal feelings rather than a need to project my feelings on others.

The best way to solve this would be to ask the subject to identify the motivations behind their expressions during the reading process. Or exclude interpretations made when a subject is solo altogether. I believe you are able to tell Fi/Fe apart during social interaction, my sister would be influenced by Fe given she's an ENFJ, and I can definitely see how she projects her emotions when talking (I am 100% sure I am aware of the differences and can fairly assess myself). This resulted in a flawed evaluation of my type, and most likely many others, and it needs to be corrected before you can tout 100% accuracy.

This is a fact I observed, and now I'm just offering a good natured critique, but I don't doubt these insufferable, hive minded (like someone coined ITT), NFs will take it as an attack on their entire belief system. (sorry, I still have a bad taste in my mouth from our brief exchange)

 

[Bird]

It takes me two hours to read this thread.

 

[Adymus]

Belief does not always reflect the reality of rationality.

Theories are never proven 100% true/accurate(see appeal to ignorance). They just have to survive being proven false/inaccurate. So yes progress may happen now, until one day a massive realization of errors is made. Pod'Lair is not above this, it is the problem of induction.

Effectiveness is relative.

Determinism is a cop out in the name of productivity. I say buckle down and take responsibility for the logical consistency and integrity of your own theory.

Yes but you also don't keep it away from them until they prove themselves worthy. You effectively limit growth. Who are you to decide what someone can or cannot learn?





Pet theories, and ideas in general, do not need scientific consideration. But if you plan on entering the scientific realm, you cannot ignore the quality of the packages you're sending out for the sake of return quantity. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. Someday Pod'Lair will have to answer to that. Why delay it?

ESC, you are being a complete hypocrite. You are the biggest Fundamentalist Jungian I have ever seen on this forum. For three days we debated Socionics vs Pod'Lair back and forth, and the only back up argument you could muster was "Jung didn't say that, therefor it must be wrong." You had different wording, but that was the over all essence of your premise.
If you have truly taken into consideration the fact that theories are almost never perfectly accurate right out of the oven, then why do you defend a 100 year old theory tooth and nail? Why are you not applying your own standards to your own "pet theories" as you call them?

Of course no theory is 100% complete from the get go, that is obvious, but that doesn't mean we should be scared to death to try something new, or wonder what else there could be. It is for this exact reason that Socionics, MBTI, and Jung are flawed models, I was saying this in our little debate.

(and by the way the premise behind “everything is energy evolving” is that no one’s understanding is *complete* per se, and that theories must constantly be updating themselves to remain valid, which is arguably the central tenet of the theory)

We readily embrace and anticipate having to update our model, incompleteness of a model is no new obstacle, however Jung, Socionics, MBTI do not have the luxury of doing this. The way the "16 types" are designed, everything about them is always assumed to be understood, so no new information can be gained, no growth in understanding is possible when you think you already have the answer. All you can do is put people in Boxes, ESC. Boxes that you have already assumed are correct.

Also, there is always training that must be done at certain levels, certain criteria needs to be met before you can progress. Would you pit a Kung Fu Novice against a Black Belt? No, they will be daunted, overwhelmed, probably get hurt, and it would just be a very inefficient way of learning.

And lastly, we do not and should not have to cater to the scientific community, if they want our model, they come to us. Until then, we'll be doing our thing, breaking records and taking names and all that good stuff.

 

[Anthile]

"It's magic. We don't have to explain it."

 

[EyeSeeCold]

ESC, you are being a complete hypocrite. You are the biggest Fundamentalist Jungian I have ever seen on this forum.

For three days we debated Socionics vs Pod'Lair back and forth, and the only back up argument you could muster was "Jung didn't say that, therefor it must be wrong." You had different wording, but that was the over all essence of your premise.

With your acknowledged strawman argument, I have a reason for referring to Jung. His observations were just that observations. He spent years collecting information firsthand, unlike most people who practice typology. I don't know the statistics, but I'm sure over 3/4 of people who are interested in typology do not reason with their own observations, rather they rely on interpretors, and self-indulgent theorizing without witnessing the phenomena themselves.

By returning to Jung we see these 16 types/4 functions before they were bastardized, modified, reinterpreted and misconceived a hundred times over in later descriptions. The only thing better than returning to Jung is to psychoanalyze people yourself and come to your own conclusions about types and functions.

The more we build upon theory, the less accurate it is to reality.

If you have truly taken into consideration the fact that theories are almost never perfectly accurate right out of the oven, then why do you defend a 100 year old theory tooth and nail? Why are you not applying your own standards to your own "pet theories" as you call them?

I don't consider the Jungian system to be perfect, but it makes more sense to study the roots, instead of the fruit, to understand the tree you're witnessing. MBTT was not developed from years of observation, it was picked up from Jung. Socionics was developed from observation. Keirsey Temperament Sorter was not. Pod'Lair, I do not know, but it seems awfully similar to MBTT.

Of course no theory is 100% complete from the get go, that is obvious, but that doesn't mean we should be scared to death to try something new, or wonder what else there could be. It is for this exact reason that Socionics, MBTI, and Jung are flawed models, I was saying this in our little debate.

They are flawed because people are scared to death? Where's the logic in that? Also, I cannot speak for everyone else, but I'm not afraid of Pod'Lair nor its community. Exclusivity and arrogance that is uncalled and unnecessary is off-putting.

We readily embrace and anticipate having to update our model, incompleteness of a model is no new obstacle, however Jung, Socionics, MBTI do not have the luxury of doing this.

You said yourself you haven't studied Socionics. If you did you probably know that its conceptions are being challenged internally and externally. In contrast, Pod'Lair is restricted and protected from external criticism, and, apparently, its internal integrity is judged by oppressive leaders.

The way the "16 types" are designed, everything about them is always assumed to be understood, so no new information can be gained, no growth in understanding is possible when you think you already have the answer. All you can do is put people in Boxes, ESC. Boxes that you have already assumed are correct.

As I've said before, the moment you define something, you put it into a box. Acknowledge Pod'Lair's own boxing.

Also, there is always training that must be done at certain levels, certain criteria needs to be met before you can progress. Would you pit a Kung Fu Novice against a Black Belt? No, they will be daunted, overwhelmed, probably get hurt, and it would just be a very inefficient way of learning.

Typology does not involve physical pain...weak analogy. Still, people have the freedom to learn, to try, to accomplish.

And lastly, we do not and should not have to cater to the scientific community, if they want our model, they come to us. Until then, we'll be doing our thing, breaking records and taking names and all that good stuff.

Yes, by all means do your thing. Claim science and expect to be criticized.

 

[Adymus]

The only thing better than returning to Jung is to psychoanalyze people yourself and come to your own conclusions about types and functions.

Then by your own Logic, what Pod'Lair offers is better than returning to Jung.

They are flawed because people are scared to death? Where's the logic in that? Also, I cannot speak for everyone else, but I'm not afraid of Pod'Lair nor its community. Exclusivity and arrogance that is uncalled and unnecessary is off-putting.

Mmm, no. I meant they were flawed for the following reasons I stated after quoting Nyxyia.

You said yourself you haven't studied Socionics. If you did you probably know that its conceptions are being challenged internally and externally. In contrast, Pod'Lair is restricted and protected from external criticism, and, apparently, its internal integrity is judged by oppressive leaders.

Criticism is worthless if the critic lacks the right kind of perception to inform their discernment. Which is exactly why the "People reading cannot work because this and that" does not hold any bearing, none of you actually understand what we are doing and how we are doing it, so knowing if it is possible or not is beyond your current scope of perception.

As I've said before, the moment you define something, you put it into a box. Acknowledge Pod'Lair's own boxing.

The difference is, Socionics and the other Jungian Models make boxes out of human behavior and lifestyle itself. In Pod'Lair, we do not put theoretical restrictions on lifestyle choices and superficial behavior to define each Mojo, so the study of human behavior is not boxed in by flawed paradigms.

Typology does not involve physical pain...weak analogy. Still, people have the freedom to learn, to try, to accomplish.

We are not talking about Typology, the fact that you think we are talking about typology demonstrates my point that you lack the right perception to make any relevant discernment. We are talking about a process that involves self-mastery, much like martial arts, the analogy is more than appropriate.

 

[passingby]

Criticism is worthless if the critic lacks the right kind of perception to inform their discernment. Which is exactly why the "People reading cannot work because this and that" does not hold any bearing, none of you actually understand what we are doing and how we are doing it, so knowing if it is possible or not is beyond your current scope of perception.

I assume this would be your response to my post. I hope you didn't actually dismiss it as quickly as that, you're on a fine line between having something legitimate to introduce and crashing and burning before you even take off. This makes me think you've passed the point of no return.

Matter of fact, I don't even care. Continue on your merry way and see how it goes.

 

[Adymus]

I assume this would be your response to my post. I hope you didn't actually dismiss it as quickly as that, you're on a fine line between having something legitimate to introduce and crashing and burning before you even take off. This makes me think you've passed the point of no return.

Matter of fact, I don't even care. Continue on your merry way and see how it goes.

Actually that wasn't my response to you, although I suppose it does apply.

This is my response to you:

Passingby, you have demonstrated two of my major points that I have been referencing through out this thread, so thank you for that.

1. People are not capable of Reading themselves

In your case, you seem to have some kind of perceived stigma to being Values-based, but that is just judging from the way you use "NF" as if it were an insult. Perhaps it was from your sister if she is in fact what you say she is, comparing your Zai offside to her Zai polar. The Point is, you have something at stake, you are not going to take into consideration the possibility that you might just be a Nai'xyy, because you do not want to be one. Not because it does not make sense.
Being a Nai'xyy does not mean that you are supposed to like being an INFJ (I switched to MBTI terms for a reason, you'll see in a bit), in fact it doesn't even mean you will identify with your Xyy, especially if you have been over-modulating it with your Zai like you have. You are going to have a very hard time finding the truth when you demand the truth be a certain answer, or rather, not be a certain answer.

2. Pod'Lair is not equal to MBTI, and should not be cross referenced

This is one we actually warned you about in that Email, we were not just being anal retentive you know. You were insisting on us telling you your MBTI, because you wanted to go google INFJ, read some descriptions, and see if that resonated with you. There are two problems with that, a.) if you are read as a certain Mojo, it is irrelevant if you don't agree, it is not up to you to decide that. b.) MBTI has no idea what hell a Nai'xyy is in the first place.

In some way there is a correlation between the INFJ and the Nai'xyy, but they are definitely not the same. You could argue that an INFJ is a Nai'xyy perhaps, but it does not work the other way around. What you'll read in a description for INFJ is light-years off the mark from what the Nai'xyy actually are. The people that come from MBTI and are read as Nai'xyy have been typed by MBTI as INTPs, INTJs, ENFPs, ENTPs, and INFJs, and many more as well, but those are the most common. So if these people are identifying as all of these MBTI types, then clearly we are going off of different criteria. In our case, it is physiological manifestations of Pod Powers that cannot be masked and/or hidden by anything, and in the case of MBTI the criteria is either a test, or whatever you decide you are.

Therefor, MBTI cannot be used to correct Pod'lair's work, doing so is just plain illogical as your subjective understanding of your MBTI type and what that means has no bearing over the signals your body is naturally giving off. That is what we are basing our read off of, not the lame descriptions you'll see in MBTI.

 

[Cogwulf]

Adymus, you should be a politician, you are a master of talking your way around questions and criticism.
You are just repeating the same dogma again and again, you tell us why pod'lair is correct yet won't help us to decide for ourselves.
Your whole defence towards all of our criticisms is basically just "you are not one of us, therefore your argument is invalid"
You claim none of us understand the theory well enough to criticise it, if that is the case then the only people who are qualified to criticise the theory are the people so heavily involved in it that their viewpoint will be biased.

You can't do it like this. Criticism is just as important to the development of theory as anything else but you have implied that all external criticism is automatically invalid. How can you really develop the theory any further if the only valid opinion is that the theory is correct.


This thread is just going round in circles anyway

 

[Moocow]

Is relentless filibuster one of those amazing pod powers we can learn?

I don't think the heroic example you're setting for pod'lair is impressing anyone here.

But I know what a rebounding relief it can be to fill yourself up with enthusiasm and conviction with the wake of your friends' swollen pride, especially if you just feel so lost and confused the rest of the time. With pod'lair, you never have to return to ambiguity again!

 

[Adymus]

"It's magic. We don't have to explain it."

The Magicians, Mystics, Wizards, Alchemists, and witches of the past were once known to be practitioners of supernatural crafts and could perform feats that confounded the layman. The reality of this magic was not at all that it was supernatural, on the contrary it was as natural as nature gets, but that feats that the practitioners could perform took advantage of certain natural laws that the layperson did not even know existed. It was sorcery back then, because such things were out of the common scope of perception, as it is very difficult to imagine how something could be possible if you are not aware that the laws of nature that permit it exist in the first place, although much of the magic of the past is now considered hard concrete science.

With that understanding in mind, you are correct Anthile, magic is precisely what this is.

Although we can explain it, and we have been explaining it throughout this thread as well as on our site. But if you cannot wrap your head around that, well, then I guess it will just have to remain magic for you.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, you should be a politician, you are a master of talking your way around questions and criticism.
You are just repeating the same dogma again and again, you tell us why pod'lair is correct yet won't help us to decide for ourselves.
Your whole defence towards all of our criticisms is basically just "you are not one of us, therefore your argument is invalid"
You claim none of us understand the theory well enough to criticise it, if that is the case then the only people who are qualified to criticise the theory are the people so heavily involved in it that their viewpoint will be biased.

You can't do it like this. Criticism is just as important to the development of theory as anything else but you have implied that all external criticism is automatically invalid. How can you really develop the theory any further if the only valid opinion is that the theory is correct.


This thread is just going round in circles anyway

I am answering your questions and concerns, how am I not helping you decide for yourselves?

You cannot debunk an idea if you don't know what the idea is in the first place, that is just a fact. The criticism that I am receiving in this thread is just shots in the dark, "I don't see how that could work if you are doing *blank*" there hasn't been a single time where that blank was actually on the mark.

Have you ever heard some of the criticism fundamentalist Christians sometimes use on evolution?

"If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"

When you hear garbage like that, do you actually take it seriously? Hell no, and you would have a very valid reason not to, the person is not well informed enough to make a valid decision on the matter. It is like giving a review for a movie when all you have seen is the trailor.
Similarly, criticism of Pod'lair is completely worthless if the critic does not have the lens to see how it could work and does work, and words can only explain so much, eventually you have to look for yourself.

 

[cheese]

Unfortunately Cheese, all that you have been exposed to on this forum in terms of Mojo Reading material has been very low level material, comparatively speaking. I don't know if I have ever explained to you the Five Gears of Reading People in its entirety, or if you have taken a look at the full explanation on our website, but what I wrote in that thread two years ago only briefly covered some of the cues in Gears one and two. Gear one is the observation of the many concrete cues as single cues. For instance, a right eye drift/check. Now if you are trying to read peopling using only concrete cues, then you are not really reading them. Truly reading a person does not actually begin to take place until you begin using Gear three and above. However that does not mean learning Gears one and two are a waste of time, many people will need to practice with the Concrete and Component levels of cues in order for their tacit psyche to attune themselves with the more distinct and higher level signals a person is giving off. It also gives you a way to reverse engineer a higher level gear read and check your work.

An eye moving to the left can mean many things if you are only noticing that. So if you think this is all we are seeing, then your concern is well justified, that wouldn't work as a people reading method at all, if you only know up to gear one, you are simply not reading people.

High level Mojo Readers use far more than gear one, and the further in gears you increase, the more tacit the process becomes, and the more you will be looking at a conflagration of cues all happening at once, and not just singles. It is when you see these cues that you begin to feel much more confident that what you are seeing is actually accurate, because you know when all of these many signals are happening in this specific pattern then they can only be manifested in this way by a certain kind of Mojo Configuration.
This is analogous to learning Martial Arts, painting, drawing, or any other kind of art form, in the beginning you must learn many basic and concrete maneuvers or skills, that as stand alone skills do not work very well. If all you know in Kung Fu are a few basic punches, kicks, and throws, you would not stand a chance against a black belt. However, that is the path you must start on if you would like to get to black belt.
The human brain is naturally designed to group many components of information together into small packages. For example, we do not identify a creature by counting how many claws is has, but by tacitly identifying its characteristics all at once through a single pattern. When a black belt is in a fight, they don't have to think about each maneuver they use at a time, they body has been tuned to tacit move in the way it is supposed to move.

A high level Mojo Reader is never only seeing one signal at a time, we are always seeing multiple patterns occurring at once, and it in is the way these multiple patterns occur that you can see the very nuanced distinctions between Mojos or Powers.

The intervals between two pitches are actually not perfectly discrete and equal (unless we are talking about Digital audio), it takes human perception to be able to tune an instrument and know when a pitch has hit the right interval. So naturally there will always be several cents that it might be off, but that does not stop them from making music. The natural law behind Acoustics is actually very similar to the natural law behind Mojo Reading. Every sound is made up of a fundamental sinewave, and many other Sinewave above the fundamental called Overtones. Pure Sinewaves simply do not occur in nature, so every harmonic sound is a fundamental sinewave, which determines its pitch, and then a certain number of overtones which alter the shape of the sound wave and determine its timbre. When you hear a violin and a clarinet, there is no hard time making the distinction between the two, even if they are playing the exact same pitch. A Violin and Clarinet both have distinct timbres because they release overtones in distinct patterns. If filtered off all but the fundamental sinewave, it might be difficult to tell the difference, but pure sinewaves do not occur in nature anyway, so that is never the case.

Similarly in Mojo Reading, pure cues never occur in nature, ever signal a person is giving off is painted by their configuration, and when that happens you will see patterns, distinct patterns being repeated by multiple people of the same Mojo, as these configurations will have a similar "Timbre"

(Damn I love natural law metaphors.)

You don't have to have faith in our theory to be able to see these patterns, the only thing you should have faith in is that the human body and mind are capable of doing magnificent things.

Cheese, you especially I think should be taking your Mojo Reading training a step further on the Pod'Lair Forums, staying on this forum for you will be like repeating kindergarten over and over again.

No no no, you must answer about Sarah Lancaster - Katee Sackhoff, and Justin Long! Please!

Ok, going on to the actual message -

That's what I was talking about - as you go up the gears it becomes more intuitive, and less easy to measure. If different mojos really do manifest in a distinctive way, this will be controlled by the brain, and the physiological changes will be measurable (at some stage). That's not how Pod'lair reads are meant to be (that mechanistic) and indeed it's not how humans generally read each other - it's much more holistic and intuitive, because consciously doing the legwork involved in what is usually an automatic/instant read of a person's mood would be tedious and time-consuming. But intuitive reads are subject to error (actually I'd say all reads are) so in order for verification we'd need to identify all the physiological changes taking place (because if you're reading something off them it has to be something that's actually there, and if it *is* there it's being produced by the brain and will involve measurable changes), and at a lower level at least need some reliable correlates.

So I'm asking: what are your correlates? How do you know you're right, aside from comparing your read of one to a group of 'established' reads? What do they have in common, aside from their reads? What can you predict from those reads?

Isn't each tuning system defined by a particular ratio (in equal temperament for instance 1 semitone = 100 cents, and this can be measured and determined by a tuner)? The human ear may not be able to detect pitch changes to absolute accuracy, but we've got other instruments for that purpose. Just as perception of pitch may be influenced by overtones, perception of signals may also be influenced (perhaps even more likely at the higher gears?), especially if the topography of pod power manifestation isn't fully mapped out and understood. Without being able to measure the fundamental frequency which is what pitch approximates, you might only be measuring MBTI-esque external appearances - approximate, subjective understanding of an underlying physical phenomenon. Sure, you could make music out of tune, but isn't that the same difference as signals given off that aren't actually coming from where you thought they were? Or an INFJ acting like an ESTP? The appearance may be similar but at absolute accuracy they're not the same. Of course in the latter case any confusion only arises from ignorance and mojo reading provides a way to tell the difference - but how is that accuracy attained?

Anyway that argument might be getting a little off-track, because my intention isn't to attempt to debunk anything. I'm just wondering how you judge accuracy, preferably apart from established reads. I don't really expect a break-down of muscle movements, though that might be useful in the future.

Also, I don't have enough damn privileges to see that article , but yeah you did give me a brief overview of the five gears before. The higher levels don't seem conducive to study though, and are likely unconscious extensions of the lower ones.