Pod'Lair

[Yellow]

OMG, I just stumbled across this on their website

The Founder

Pod'Lair Theory comes from the powerfully synesthetic mind of Thomas Chenault, who without academic degrees or professional training, is the undisputed authority on these subjects. This is demonstrated by the unprecedented feats he can perform on video or in person that other humans can’t, but is his goal to teach others to do.

Pod'Lair will be challenging ALL experts from ALL facilities around the world once the Proof-of-Concept has been sufficiently achieved. Thomas Chenault has been solving cases that top facilities around the world have been devoting resources to for the entirety of their existence without being able to solve.

Thomas Chenault, in correlation with his unprecedented level of synomnia, has numerous eccentricities that he wants any potential student to be aware of. You need to be able to interact with an artist and thinker who has lived with issues related to pushing his mind to the utmost in order to bring Pod’Lair theory into fruition despite, or perhaps because of, these inherent eccentricities. These include HSP, OCD, amnesia, voices, intense interactions with imaginary friends, rages, depressions, paranoia, etc. Many a great visionary was very odd (from Daniel Tammet to John Nash, et al.), but that does not change the power of the brilliant contributions their minds have made to science. If you have any problem with this, then Mr. Chenault has no interest in teaching you

 

[Kuu]

Didn't they also lift a bunch of stuff from Socionics?

Here's a bunch of old threads for your descent into madness Yellow:

So what is Podlair?
Response to Pod'lair
Pod'Lair VS MBTI/JCF
Sorry Pod'lair
Pod'lair Xposed
Breaking News from Pod'lair!
Cult initiation by VI video typing is pretty smart
Pod'Lair review
Pod'Lair, socionics type relations

Between Pod'Lair, BAP, and Blob I nearly died just skimming. Why do you do this to yourself...?

 

[cheese]

Thank you, guys. I was trying to sift through their forum and explanations. Cheese, you've given me a bit of a Rosetta stone with the term mappings.

My next question: they seem to separate genders in some of their stuff. Is this for reading purposes (accounting for different pitches and facial muscles), or do they think personality traits present differently in different genders?

I haven't thought about it in depth but I'm pretty sure it's the latter, since they claim each Mojo has a different flavour depending on gender and sexual orientation (all along the spectrum). Also, different pitches/facial muscles wouldn't really matter except at the first couple of levels of reading (basic, visual cues) - you're supposed to move up to reading their overall vibe fairly soon, then reading your own reaction to them.

My question: Why are you looking into them?

 

[Architect]

OMG, I just stumbled across this on their website

He's bragging about his ignorance, personal deficiencies, problems and lack of education. The Trump of Type Theories?

 

[Yellow]

Between Pod'Lair, BAP, and Blob I nearly died just skimming. Why do you do this to yourself...?

My question: Why are you looking into them?

I tell myself that witnessing extremes helps me see the subtle flaws in more reasonable-seeming concepts. Frankly, I think I suffer from a kind of masochism, in which I occasionally immerse myself in occult/insane theories. It's like rotten.com for the brain.

I just couldn't break through the gibberish to make heads or tails of it, and I know you all were assaulted with the theory a few years ago, so I figured you could give me a sensible intro.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I tell myself that witnessing extremes helps me see the subtle flaws in more reasonable-seeming concepts. Frankly, I think I suffer from a kind of masochism, in which I occasionally immerse myself in occult/insane theories. It's like rotten.com for the brain.

I just couldn't break through the gibberish to make heads or tails of it, and I know you all were assaulted with the theory a few years ago, so I figured you could give me a sensible intro.

Nai'Xyy

 

[Yellow]

Nai'Xyy

Ur a Nai'Xyy *snort* I ain't nuffin like that.

Why do they have to do the crazy letters?! I don't even know how to pronounce "Xyy".

 

[Auburn]

@Yellow - I think a neutral approach to this subject is great. it's been over 5 years. so any residual tension likely fizzled out long ago.

Cheese's done a great job of covering the basics. They have 1 other tenant Id mention called "Spirit Forms" which is actually pretty much jungian/analytical psychology with the terms changed around.

Spoiler

The Heroic Journey = Individuation
Shiny Baby/Mergings = The Collective Unconscious
Fu'Masta = The Complete/Messianic Self
Dar'yu = The Shadow
Uthur = The Anima/Animus
Apparatus = The cognitive functions
Mah'zute = Persona(s)
Their literature/ebooks will actually use these parallel terms directly, so less is done to try to obscure the correlation here.

It would be great if somebody independent like Auburn was able to incorporate it as an extension into MBTI. My take was this was the approach they should have taken, if they had wanted it to be successful.

Well in general, that's the plan.

Err, but just to nitpick... Cognitive Type theory is actually more of a sister to MBTI, and is far closer to Socionics in theoretical details. You could say they're all part of a family -- under one umbrella. But MBTI isn't the whole of it, it's just one sibling.

This is inspiring me to make a diagram of the various theories and their breadth.

 

[Yellow]

This is inspiring me to make a diagram of the various theories and their breadth.

Were you around when I was testing out my little theory thing? I'm still half working on it, but I need to do a bit of web development to make the test what I want it to be, so I've stalled. That's part of what's driving me to research the fringe stuff.

I'd love your opinion on it.

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=505691&postcount=28
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23514

 

[Auburn]

I wasn't but I'll check it out!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Before I go any further, I'd just like to stop and make an apology/clarification for this thread.

I don't have a cult, I never asked any Pod'lair members about joining any cult, and for that matter Pod'lair itself is not a cult. Should be obvious enough, but I feel the need to say it for the future's sake.

I wish no ill will towards Pod'lair and it is a mistake that I ever did. Which, yes, I did at certain points. Due to paranoia, giving over to the mob, drunkenness, a grandiose love of chaos, whatever.

I wish to leave that behind me, so I apologise.

 

[QuickTwist]

Err, but just to nitpick... Cognitive Type theory is actually more of a sister to MBTI, and is far closer to Socionics in theoretical details. You could say they're all part of a family -- under one umbrella. But MBTI isn't the whole of it, it's just one sibling.

This is my finding as well.

What's more, is that I feel Typology, in general, is just the tip of the iceberg. To really know something, you have to discover it yourself. I am still trying to figure a lot of it out.

The message, kids is Dogma is bad, Mkay?

 

[Reluctantly]

Err, but just to nitpick... Cognitive Type theory is actually more of a sister to MBTI, and is far closer to Socionics in theoretical details. You could say they're all part of a family -- under one umbrella. But MBTI isn't the whole of it, it's just one sibling.

This is my finding as well.

What's more, is that I feel Typology, in general, is just the tip of the iceberg. To really know something, you have to discover it yourself. I am still trying to figure a lot of it out.

The message, kids is Dogma is bad, Mkay?

So is Jung the father?

Sister Mary of pure Cognitive Type.
Brother Max of gritty MBTI.
Oldest Brother Carlton of the Prep school of Socionics
Jung the father God of analytical psychology.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm gonna make this thread "general thoughts on Pod'lair" now.

First off, is that Pod'lair needs to weaken their claims if they wanna have a claim to truth. The "one person, one type" worldview that they have is wrong, and even the more nuanced "one person, some distribution of the 16 types" worldview has to be addendum'd with "and type only explains part of the person".

Anyway, I was thinking about what Adymus used to say - things like "INFJ is a correlate of Nai'xyy". I had been thinking that, no, they're the same exact thing. But I've changed my stance on that.

See, when I activate INFJ cognition, or Ni-Fe-Ti-Se--Ne-Fi-Te-Si cognition, and then when I activate Nai'xyy cognition, a different thing happens. If they were the same thing, then the same thing would happen, but that's not the case.

When I activate Nai'xyy, or Zyy'nai, or whatever else, my face morphs as I activate each function. My posture changes. With Xai'nyy I go wide-eyed and slack-jawed, and with Nai'xyy I go furrowed-brow, amongst other changes. When activating Ni-Fe-etc. the physiological manifestation is much more subtle. The change occurs more with my overall cognition/behaviour, although there is some level of change to my face, too.

So what we see with MBTI versus Pod'lair, are variations on the theme of the 8 functions. They are actually distinct manifestations of the phenomenon.

When you identify with a Mojo, what happens is that you change your "shape" to reflect what Mojo you're identifying with. I feel like Pod'lair would claim that this is you "realising your true self" but that's not what it is. You're molding yourself into a specific form, and moreover, a form which you did not choose. The 16 Mojos are forms you can take on, and yes it may be the case, in fact it almost surely is, that you resemble one of these 16 forms more than you do the others, but they are nonetheless forms, and you do not perfectly resemble them. They have been created.

Now, maybe it very well is the case that reading a person's facial cues and body language can predict such things as career, but identifying with said form that that has been associated with is not the way to go. Let the data speak for itself, so it is said - don't assume that what has been tagged along with that is also true.

 

[QuickTwist]

This is in response to @Artsu Tharaz llast post.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@QuickTwist you mention that it is the Judging types who want a definitive answer, but then mention that in Jungian terms it is Si. I'm not clear on what your stance is regarding function to type-code correspondance, but a type with strong Si is generally seen as an SJ, with NJs having the weakest Si of any type. So in that respect it would seem strange for an NJ to want a definitive answer if that's a hallmark of Si.

I agree, too, that having a definite answer for something - a stance reflected purely by the facts without need for any kind of associated interpretive of reasoning process - is very much an Si thing, and I do agree that this is part of my attitude with typology - I have wanted to obtain certainty regarding my type*. But this process of obtaining certainty was a very slow process for me. I would posit that I examined typology from many different angles, using many different functions, before I was able to arrive at certainty. And it was partly the search for a definitive answer that led me to stumble upon reasons why a definitive answer in terms of a single type is only part of the truth here - that addendums are required when claiming to be one type or another.

And now I'm trying, at least a bit, to recognise the personality as, like you said, a living breathing thing - trying to learn to what degree the model of 8 functions, as per Jung, can actually describe the person, and thus to hopefully gain clarity in the aspects of the personality which it does not cover.

* and thus, I would expect it do be a part of anyone's type journey who has taken a serious interest in typology: that we all have Si in some form or another, thus all want certainty over this to some extent

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Having said all that, I don't see why Pod'lair, at least the Mojo Reading component, to say nothing of the rest, isn't basically correct. Sure I can say "there's more to it than that", but that would just suggest that some things need to be revised.

The basic theory, and the accumulated data associated with it, seem to me to be very solid.

 

[QuickTwist]

@QuickTwist you mention that it is the Judging types who want a definitive answer, but then mention that in Jungian terms it is Si. I'm not clear on what your stance is regarding function to type-code correspondance, but a type with strong Si is generally seen as an SJ, with NJs having the weakest Si of any type. So in that respect it would seem strange for an NJ to want a definitive answer if that's a hallmark of Si.

I agree, too, that having a definite answer for something - a stance reflected purely by the facts without need for any kind of associated interpretive of reasoning process - is very much an Si thing, and I do agree that this is part of my attitude with typology - I have wanted to obtain certainty regarding my type*. But this process of obtaining certainty was a very slow process for me. I would posit that I examined typology from many different angles, using many different functions, before I was able to arrive at certainty. And it was partly the search for a definitive answer that led me to stumble upon reasons why a definitive answer in terms of a single type is only part of the truth here - that addendums are required when claiming to be one type or another.

And now I'm trying, at least a bit, to recognise the personality as, like you said, a living breathing thing - trying to learn to what degree the model of 8 functions, as per Jung, can actually describe the person, and thus to hopefully gain clarity in the aspects of the personality which it does not cover.

* and thus, I would expect it do be a part of anyone's type journey who has taken a serious interest in typology: that we all have Si in some form or another, thus all want certainty over this to some extent

My stance is that no other dom type cares as much about closure than Si dom types.

You might have Ne based on 2nd-3rd paragraph.

It's good you are thinking critically about this stuff. So many people don't know how to think.

I think it's sublimely obvious you are an introvert. However, you are still pretty pinned to that Si.

Great discussion!

@Artsu Tharaz,
What type would you put me as?

I've found you difficult to type for a few reasons.

1. There's a certain level of knowing a person that is best for being able to type them. Obviously if you know nothing about a person, you have no basis for typing them, but if you know the person on a more individual level, then reducing your knowledge of them to a few dichotomies takes rather counter-intuitive effort. A basic level of knowledge of a person is best for typing. So, with people I know in real life for example, if I don't know a person too well, then I often find it fairly easy to type them, or at least sometimes I do, but the people I know well tend to be far more difficult cases.

2. To type a person via text, I generally need posts that have a few paragraphs, and often your posts are just one paragraph, even just a single line. Though, there are still some multi-paragraph posts scattered amongst there.

3. It may well be the case that you're a more difficult to type individual. Schizoaffective may be a factor there. I recall Auburn stating that you had an interesting vultology and finding it difficult to type you.


Having said all that, what I see in your posts, is that you generally start off with a series of rather short sentences, which strike me as being judgement-based. I do see a similar thing sometimes with INTPs, and I'm inclined to believe, that if it is indeed judgement, then Ti is most likely*.

You then will sometimes do, or sometimes even start off by doing, a sentence which is longer. To me this strikes me as what I call "projection-surfing" (note: not the kind of projecting you would generally think of associated with psychology) which is basically like... you have some object, and you project it outwards to see where it will lead. I associate this with Ne.

So I'm inclined to think you're an INTP, and thus agree with that test I told you about that also suggested that you were INTP. Though it is a fairly shaky read.

* for reasoning as to why, for one introverted judgement often is shorter in its expression because it is a more refined and defining process. For example, consider these two judgements.

a) A dolphin is a mammal.

b) If a dolphin sends out a sonar signal, it is trying to determine the characteristics of what is ahead of it.

I would say the first is Ti, and the second is Te.

Your judgements have the more "A is B" quality rather than the articulated-structure (or whatever) quality.

I also think your judgements generally are more logical. I'm not totally sure how to qualify Fi, but I often see things like emotional references, empathising and personifying, which I'm not really seeing in your posts. I do however see some more community-based, objective sort of ethical judgements (Fe), like "it's good (or bad) that this happens" sort of stuff. I'm pretty sure that I saw some personal experience references too (Si). Though, when I was doing the analysis the other day, I saw at least one post that struck me as having the INTJ function order, but as I've been saying, I don't believe people are purely one type.

What do you think?

1. That is your ego talking.

2. Talk to me about religion to understand me.

3. I am a very unique individual, that is why I am hard to type.

What is projection-surfing? I am far too idealist to have Ne. I have Te unconscious.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

My stance is that no other dom type cares as much about closure than Si dom types.

You might have Ne based on 2nd-3rd paragraph.

It's good you are thinking critically about this stuff. So many people don't know how to think.

I think it's sublimely obvious you are an introvert. However, you are still pretty pinned to that Si.

Great discussion!

Well, I mean, all types have Ne in some form or another. I posit that all people have all 8 functions consciously to some degree because I don't believe in the "one person = one type" view.

But I am interested to know why you think I'm pinned to the Si.

I'll respond to your other part in the thread the post was from.

 

[Niclmaki]

Guess I’ll share my thoughts about Pod Lair even though nobody asked.

When I first came across then several years ago, they scared me. I mean they really REALLY come off as a cult.

I now see it’s kind of closer to, “no psychologist want to share and build up each other theories”.

I had a psychology professor describe it as every researcher thinking they’re sharing toothbrushes if they incorporate someone elses ideas into their own.

Their bizzarre terminology was and still is a huge turnoff for me. Maybe it’s just parodying typology and all the terms that are already used though. It is fairly close to being psuedoscience as it is. It’s goal being just to reveal that absurdity to you. /shrug

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yeah. The terminology and all. The arguments in favour of it sound pretty solid but there's all kinds of rationalising going on. Synomnia. The zh sound of Xai/Xyy versus the z sound of Zai/Zyy to correspond to the soft versus hard nature of Feeling versus Thinking.

It gives all kinds of red flags. I don't know what the truth is. I don't know if it's good or evil. They say it's not typology but it clearly is. But maybe typology itself is a problem. I don't know. It certainly can be the source of problems. But maybe it's like the say and can be the remedy of problems in the world.

I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

Honestly the first time I saw it I brushed it off, but it was such a huge presence on this forum that it is probably a big part of why I became so obsessed with typology. They made it sound like a big deal.

Chenault is claiming to have accomplished the greatest scientific and spiritual breakthrough in history, but it's at its best a finalising touch in the hundred year history of typology, and even still doesn't come close to what Christianity did, if it's even trying for the same sort of thing.

There's this idea going around in it that it's so huge that just touching it makes you into a major player in history, but if you're not taking it seriously you're an NPC. But we don't really know what it really even is.


Maybe the winners are the ones who left it alone.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

In Pod'lair, you only have to have faith in one thing... the beauty and amazing nature with which we've been designed, by Natural Law

 

[QuickTwist]

My stance is that no other dom type cares as much about closure than Si dom types.

You might have Ne based on 2nd-3rd paragraph.

It's good you are thinking critically about this stuff. So many people don't know how to think.

I think it's sublimely obvious you are an introvert. However, you are still pretty pinned to that Si.

Great discussion!

Well, I mean, all types have Ne in some form or another. I posit that all people have all 8 functions consciously to some degree because I don't believe in the "one person = one type" view.

But I am interested to know why you think I'm pinned to the Si.

I'll respond to your other part in the the post was from.

I think you are pinned to your Si based on your Ni and how that manifests itself in unhealthy ways.