Response to Pod'lair

[axemblack]

RESPONSE TO POD'LAIR

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51147681/PODLAIR-V-HALL

The reason for my writing this post is to balance out the criticism of Pod'lair and, hopefully, provide a more objective criticism based on the facts so far known. Because this is not a professional critique my structure will not be formal and may appear a bit haphazard, but I believe the main point of this mini-essay will not be hard to miss. The main point being this: that Pod'lair, in the information that has thus far been made available, has much more in common with a religious cult/ moneymaking venture than any sort of scientific endeavor. I understand that MBTI also does not have any overwhelming scientific (neurological) evidence going for it, but there is a key difference to the the two approaches to personality typing that I would like to point out: MBTI is not promising you the secret to life, how you are "One with the All", nor does it have any other spiritual claim attached to it. It is a theory used by organizations and individuals which is subject to change; Pod'lair is an entire system for structuring and living your life, and I quote "The ground breaking work done in Mojo Dojo will revolutionize all aspects of life, after which all institutions of learning and life path instruction will need to be rewritten." This quote is
found on page 3 of the online Pod'lair document and you can find many like it throughout the entire first three pages (I include a link at the top and bottom of the post). The bottom line of the philosophy of Pod'lair is this: we have all the answers and everything you may have hoped for, free for a limited time. Now, does this line of reasoning sound familiar to anyone?

Now that I've briefly mentioned the general problem I see with the philosophy of Pod'lair I'll move on to how the theory of Pod'lair was introduced to intpforum.com. A trusted forum member "Adymus" with almost 2,000 posts and whose threads on cognitive functions and typing have met with a fair amount of popularity claims that the cognitive theory of which he is a part is far superior to MBTI. However, when requested for additional information he always turns vague and gives the "coming soon" excuse. The reason why his method of introducing Pod'lair is rather
ingenious is that in his "Guide to typing in real time." thread he gives descriptions of physical cues of cognitive traits and provides videos so that other forum members can test the theory in their own lives. Many of us, myself included, have used these cues and found that yes they do appear to be useful in typing people. We go out and we use the knowledge we have been given and we find it to be effective, so we're intrigued and we ask for more information and receive the "coming soon" line. This is a common business strategy to peak interest and give the illusion of depth so that we will shell out our cash to learn more. But a question I have to ask is: if Pod'lair is such a new and groundbreaking theory why does most of the information we currently have (a 59 page document) indicate it is just using a different spelling of cognitive functions, adding a spiritual element, vague catch-all phrases and diagrams, and promising to be the "Evolution Revolution"?


Given that all the information on Pod'lair has not been released yet my analysis of Pod'lair may be wrong, but everything I've seen so far tells me that Pod'lair is not the answer to life and the "Human Condition", and I would further analyze the pop culture aspects of the language used by Pod'lair, as well as making this post more clear and concise, but I don't see any reason to. Anyone can read the information currently availabe, this is just a kickstart for anyone hearing about Pod'lair who wants a less emotionally charged take on Pod'lair than "Sparrow", and to put a link to the Pod'lair document in an easier location (the first post of a new thread) so that anyone who wants the primary source can have access to it, but there will always be those who will be taken in by scams like these, because this is a business formula that has succeeded before at its intended purpose: to make money. My only real goal for this post, besides balancing out the "Sparrow" posts, is to make the information more readily available.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51147681/PODLAIR-V-HALL

 

[Da Blob]

I agree with the above. As a psychologist, I am familiar with various topics, including the mental disorders common amongst cult followers/religious fanatics. Of course, most successful cults have a single charismatic leader, who is able to impart to his or her followers the belief, that they become superior to the human race simply by the process of osmosis and the transference of the 'Enlightened Leaders' 'gifts' to those followers

There are many different flavors of 'religious fanatics"...

 

[Lyra]

As a religious fanatic from another cult (and one which Da Blob would be even less inclined towards), I'd like to note that 'cults' have the potential to be some of the most intense, unique, and interesting communal embodiments of humanity. The vulgarisation of the word 'cult', which is not disparaging when one realises that it applies to the ancient mystery cults of greece (the ecstatic cult of Dionysus, for instance), indicates an inability to recognise the value, beauty, and strange understandings which these splinter-groups have the potential to embody.

Perhaps it is the obsessive, mundane individualism of the modern west which has engendered this aversion to radical communal groups. It's fine, the dogma goes, for individuals to be unique or eccentric. Just so long as they're not different because of 'brainwashing' or cultish conformity. It's very rarely considered that certain modes of being-- certain configurations of human life, on both an individual and communal scale-- are only facilitated by alternate structuring on a group-wide scale.

Which is why, just as I wish to see a great diversity of individuals, each with unique characteristics and modes of being, I encourage and applaud multiple cult-configurations, each with its unique characteristics and fanaticism. The fanatic is often the ecstatic-- life taken to its highest intensity.

Take the above example of the Dionysus cult, for example: the overflowing, unmitigated ecstasy which it embodied would only by possible en mass. A lone individual cannot lose himself in that, and survive, in the way which the Dionysians could. Many other configurations on a group-wide scale allow individual and collective experiences denied to non-cult individuals who are unique or eccentric in contrast to their civilisation.

And, again, certain traditions of understanding, or unique and incredible understandings engendered by a communal mode of being, are only possible in cults.

The dogma which holds 'religious fanaticism' and 'cultism' to be bad is unthinking conformity on a civilisation-wide scale.


(A head-nod to the 352: 'Diamond is renowned as a material with superlative physical qualities, most of which originate from the strong covalent bonding between its atoms.')

 

[Lyra]

Note: I'm not implying that I agree that pod'lair is a cult. My post is in response to the tired-old criticisms levied at pod'lair, and has nothing to do with that system itself.

I've been reading through the posted link, and there is one aspect of the system which particularly appeals to me: the strife which is inherent in the interplay and modulation of various functions. I know the word 'balance' is used, and harmony and peace seem to be emphasised (as is appropriate to widespread propagation in the current social context), but the whole system meshes well with Heraclitus' understanding that:

'We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.'

and

'War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen.'

and

'Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.'

Pod'lair: discord as psychology. Modulation is strife. Strife is the genesis of balance. No balance will remain static, for all is dynamic tension aberrating from equilibrium and reactive adjustments to such. Our minds are inherently oppositional, even to themselves.

Peace is a fool's delusion.

Peace is an ideal of liars and the blind.

All that is possible is refinement of war.

 

[snafupants]

Perhaps it is the obsessive, mundance individualism of the modern west; does this unfairly demonize the other side? By the way, those words unmitigated ecstasy are extremely creepy.

 

[Siloc]

I just started reading this in class, and decided I needed to comment just from the first few pages. I must admit, I am quite disappointed with how the theory is being presented, and my first impression is that this is less a scientific/philisophical treatise, than a political manifesto with a business model. While, I am sure that there are some interesting tid bits in here, which I will make sure to read thoroughly, I must say that between the cultish description of these "elite", the sales pitch, the sound bites and slogans, and the new age naming conventions, I am quite deterred. It's almost as if Darwin tacked a political theory based in social darwinism and eugenics onto the origin of species(although this is absurd).

It also seems to me, by the tone, and what's being said, that the grounding in neuroscience is really just a way to render people more credulous in the midst of this babble about "revolution" and the other things aforementioned, rather than as a serious dispassionate investigation into the physical veracity of the theory. Granted, this is more a matter of motive, the Pod' Lair guys may be completely right, and I will be completely willing to concede this point when I learn more.

I also get the sense that the writer is a heavy NI dominant type, as he reminds me alot of someone I know. But hey, what do I know?

I really want to hear Adymus's take on this, as I have learned alot from him, and certainly still think that there is much validity to the things he says. I am sure I will have more to say as I finish up the document.

 

[Da Blob]

As a religious fanatic from another cult (and one which Da Blob would be even less inclined towards), I'd like to note that 'cults' have the potential to be some of the most intense, unique, and interesting communal embodiments of humanity. The vulgarisation of the word 'cult', which is not disparaging when one realises that it applies to the ancient mystery cults of greece (the ecstatic cult of Dionysus, for instance), indicates an inability to recognise the value, beauty, and strange understandings which these splinter-groups have the potential to embody.

Perhaps it is the obsessive, mundane individualism of the modern west which has engendered this aversion to radical communal groups. It's fine, the dogma goes, for individuals to be unique or eccentric. Just so long as they're not different because of 'brainwashing' or cultish conformity. It's very rarely considered that certain modes of being-- certain configurations of human life, on both an individual and communal scale-- are only facilitated by alternate structuring on a group-wide scale.

Which is why, just as I wish to see a great diversity of individuals, each with unique characteristics and modes of being, I encourage and applaud multiple cult-configurations, each with its unique characteristics and fanaticism. The fanatic is often the ecstatic-- life taken to its highest intensity.

Take the above example of the Dionysus cult, for example: the overflowing, unmitigated ecstasy which it embodied would only by possible en mass. A lone individual cannot lose himself in that, and survive, in the way which the Dionysians could. Many other configurations on a group-wide scale allow individual and collective experiences denied to non-cult individuals who are unique or eccentric in contrast to their civilisation.

And, again, certain traditions of understanding, or unique and incredible understandings engendered by a communal mode of being, are only possible in cults.

The dogma which holds 'religious fanaticism' and 'cultism' to be bad is unthinking conformity on a civilisation-wide scale.


(A head-nod to the 352: 'Diamond is renowned as a material with superlative physical qualities, most of which originate from the strong covalent bonding between its atoms.')

I am not in disagreement with the above, but would like to perhaps expand the concept of cult to a more generic meaning...

cult |kəlt|
noun
a system of 'religious' veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
• a relatively small group of people having 'religious' beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing

Cults are a form of idolatry and virtually everyone, is a member of some kind of cult as an extension of ego. For example here in Oklahoma, there is a massive cult focused on the Oklahoma Sooner football team... These individuals go way beyond the behavior and attitudes of normal football fans and meet every criteria for 'religious' fanatics.

I spent some time studying cults, motivated by a personal interest in David Koresh and his Branch Davidians. I found it fascinating how an uneducated loser like Koresh (actually his name was Vernon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh) could exert so much power over those who were his superiors in so many ways, except perhaps in one thing.... The ability to transform human Self into something else, a nonhuman Self.

This transformation is the basis for virtually all cults, such as the aforementioned Dionysians and perhaps the cult that Lyra is now victimized by. There is a common pattern to most cults a charismatic cult leader and his victims. There are certain personality types that are vulnerable to the ploys and manipulative techniques of a cult leader. The successful leaders of cults know this and look for prey that share these characteristics. Perhaps, loneliness the most appealing characteristic for prey in the eyes of any predator of any species. The cult leader puts his individual prey into a group of his prey and Ta Da, a miracle, the individuals no longer feel as if they are alone.... They are able to experience the entire set of experiences of the social human, The WE... and perhaps even experience that of the 'nonhuman group' as well...

Of course, then the group is subjected to classical conditioning, and perhaps more sophisticated 'brain washing techniques" but the end product is a group that has lost its mind ( and usually everything else - possessions values etc.) to the cult leader. Of course most cults die off when their "Exalted Leader" dies, but this is not always the case if that leader has groomed a successor and instructed he or she in the manipulation of the group...

 

[Lyra]

If victimisation and weakness, or even subjugation, are necessary to cosmic divergence, then I see such as an acceptable price.

Although, if I am a victim, I am also an abuser. The particular cult I am a vessel of is one which trains its members to create new cults of their own. It's kind of cancerous. The unique and radical spawning new, unique radicalisms.

Pandivergent. Spiraling towards the stars.

Dancing upon the corpses of sacrifices to its perpetual creation.

p.s. The long function ('pod powers') descriptions, from pg.22 or so onwards, are actually incredibly useful. I've never seen such an intuitive, empathetic and potent presentation of them.

 

[Adymus]

On Pod'lair as a Money Making Scheme:

Yes, Pod'lair does intend to charge money for a large portion of our services and information. However to assume that this is reason to believe that Pod'lair exists specifically to make money would be jumping to a rather paranoid conclusion. Every organization or individual that has plans to further expand the services and information they can provide need a source of funding of some kind, media does not pay for itself. A writer might have a very altruistic message in their books, but they most likely not going to give them out for free. That doesn't mean the writer actually has no message at all and is only seeking to make money, it means the writer has a life that needs to be sustained with a source of income.

As for why I continuously said "coming soon", many of the threads I wrote were when Pod'lair was still in it's conceptual stages, and over time our plans for how we would implement Pod'lair did a bit of flip-flopping and ended up talking a little longer than I had hoped. I also did not want it to seem like Pod'lair was pushing their ideas on this forum, being that I represent Pod'lair, but my presence on this forum is of my own accord. Thus, I preferred to wait until we had our own internet outpost, outside of the MBTI community that I can simply direct you to if you had an interest. So I apologize for making you all wait, but I assure you it was certainly not an ulterior motive to string you into emptying out your pockets. I wish I was that Ingenious.

On Pod'lair being like MBTI with new terms:

Not at all, what you have read in the V-Hall focuses on Mojo Dojo (Which is only one of eight Pod'lair disciplines, the rest of which are absolutely nothing like MBTI), which is the most similar to MBTI, but has a far more nuanced understanding of the personality, and actually has useful applications: The Five gears of reading people, Universal/Personal Peak Pathways, and Social Alchemy. MBTI doesn't make any claims that it can revolutionize all aspects of life because it realistically can't. MBTI tells you one thing, you're an INTP, you're an ESTJ, and from that you get a vague idea of how you act, which can help in some aspects, but not many.
Not only do we have a far more accurate method of identifying a person's Mojo or "Personality type" than MBTI, we actually understand how we work and developing, and can use this understanding to maximize a persons output (Peak Pathways), and create interpersonal circles that amplify or inspire your innate abilities (Social Alchemy). Furthermore, to actually be able to read people, it is imperative that you detach from the stereotypes of each personality type that you would find in MBTI to not taint your lenses with this prejudice, so changing certain names to new ones is actually a wise move.

On the presentation being more Pop-culture than it is scientific:

You are precisely right, Pod'lair is presenting itself to the Pop-culture as opposed to Scientific Community, because the latter would be a complete waste of time. The amount of energy and funding we would have to put in just to get the scientific community to bat an eye, seems like a very round about path when compared to simply presenting the message directly to the people, which is who the theory is for in the first place.
Even Carl Jung had to greatly alter his work for the easy concrete consumption of the scientific community, and he is still not taken very seriously by the majority of them. Thus, we will speak directly to who matters, the people, and if the Scientific community decides to peak a skeptical eye, we will let them come to us, there is no need to come to them just so they can tell us what we already know.


I am a little disappointed how quick you all jump to irrational conclusions, whether it be that I have somehow betrayed you all, or that Pod'lair is a cult (because God forbid any scientific idea has any implications of a spiritual nature, apparently you guys have never sat through an episode of Cosmos)

 

[Chimera]

Given that all the information on Pod'lair has not been released yet my analysis of Pod'lair may be wrongL

Why does this remind me of the majority of the media?

Personally, I take theories on personality and social interaction very lightly, and do my best not to restrict myself to them. So this Pod'lair stuff is mildly interesting at best. That said, I'm annoyed that Adymus got fingers jabbed at him for something he hasn't even formally presented to us. Instead, threads pop up about how Pod'lair is a cult and whatever else (note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing)...it's like frigging Fox News.

But that's just my take on it.
People are funny.

I can't read Mojo Dojo with a straight face though.
​

 

[Fukyo]

I can't read Mojo Dojo with a straight face though.

Yeah...

Spoiler

 

[axemblack]

Adymus: A fair rebuttal. I agree that my response may have been immature, but given the information available I don't believe my current assessment is irrational. When this new body of information appears I will be more than willing to apologize if I can conclude that my first assessment was wrong in the light of this subsequent information.

 

[Lyra]

I am a little disappointed how quick you all jump to irrational conclusions, whether it be that I have somehow betrayed you all, or that Pod'lair is a cult

I was going to make a comment to this effect, actually.

Although, I'm not so much disappointed at the conclusions drawn as the entire mode of approach to the information. People haven't treated it as a systemic whole-- that is, a language-- and viewed its informational components in that light. Instead, they've reacted to the aesthetic resonances which they have projected onto the material presented, without attempting to determine whether those resonances accurately represent the system as it is in itself.

So, they've treated it as something roughly fitting into the cultural/psychic categories and tendencies with which they are familiar. Hence the associations with 'new age' and 'religiosity' and 'cultishness' etc. I can see precisely how the info presented gives off this image to those who aren't approaching it with a deeper empathy or more comprehensive rigor, but I can also see that accepting such an image involves a fundamental laziness. Once you treat the pod'lair terms which might otherwise seem 'new age'/'cultish' as part of an entirely new kind of system (and it seems to be such, from the little info I have), you recognise how totally misleading attempting to fit it into previous cultural categories, and their aesthetic/resonant associations, is.

That's partly why I made the 'cult' posts above-- to... uh... syncopate the all too predictable rhythm of the reactions so far. To break the aesthetic/associative hegemony.

Fuck, some of you people are incredibly inert. I once heard somebody here say that attempting to direct INTPs was like 'herding cats'. That's far too respectful a simile for the way people are behaving in relation to Pod'Lair, at the moment. It's more like trying to show something new to a group of brain-dead retards who half-remember the general feel of what was 'SCIENTIFIC HURR DURR' before they were lobotomised, and mindlessly react to whatever doesn't fit with that general feel. There's such a total absence of critical thought that I'm coming to think that most of you have very little inclination towards critical thought itself, but instead like the idea of associating yourself with things which outwardly seem 'analytical' and 'critical', just because such is currently respectable and 'intellectual hurr durr hurr' in culture as a whole.

Honestly, though, I anticipate this kind of 'science lol' reaction on a wide scale, and I don't see the questionable brain-location theories in the V Hall booklet doing anything to assuage it.

 

[Sparrow]

Carl Jung would be ashamed of these guys. They've just stolen his concepts and given them really stupid names. Jung himself stated when posed a question that went something like this "Any relations between the personality and the human mind?" that it could be possible...Hell, he probably noticed these cues but never told anyone about them because the practice is WRONG.

 

[JimHawkins]

It seems to me that this is less a system aimed regarding psychology/typology, and more an attempt at creating a universal language. Perhaps some of the initial reactions can be accounted for with this possibility? Are we approaching it with the wrong perspective and intentions? (I’m aware such a statement does nothing to ease the, “Cult! CULT!” alarm bells.) This especially since we were expecting it to be much more academically convenient in nature? Pending further material and more reading on my part, of course.

Is the short hand lexicon – as in the various “//”s and “\\”s, to be officially recognised as part of the pod’lair system or is that merely an individual convenience? My initial reaction was that it would make incorporating it academically somewhat difficult; it doesn’t really tide with the usual means of presentation (?). Perhaps the reason for the use of symbols as opposed to the Latin alphabet is precisely because of its cross-cultural intention? Its own rules of writing and grammar too? There’s no faulting its ambition!

Hmm, a universal language... Tower of Babel anyone? (Da Blob?)

 

[snafupants]

Why does this remind me of the majority of the media?​

Personally, I take theories on personality and social interaction very lightly, and do my best not to restrict myself to them. So this Pod'lair stuff is mildly interesting at best. That said, I'm annoyed that Adymus got fingers jabbed at him for something he hasn't even formally presented to us. Instead, threads pop up about how Pod'lair is a cult and whatever else (note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing)...it's like frigging Fox News.​

But that's just my take on it.
People are funny.​

I can't read Mojo Dojo with a straight face though.​

Sparrow provided us with portions of text from the creator of the theory; these correspondences acted as a primer for the material and an ad hoc introduction to the creator and her cohorts/underlings. Based on these extracts, conclusions drawn from forum goers that the information was heavily laden with obfuscating and stupidly esoteric terms, which are indicative of a cult, seem pretty well substantiated. The verbiage seems exclusionary (e.g., commercial parlance) and the ideas pseudo scientific, which indeed - as one forum goer posited - smacks of Scientology. The supreme secrecy and apparent hierarchy also does not help.

 

[Sparrow]

Meh. Thomas believes his theory is 100% accurate. Innate. Absolute.

Theory: A set of basic rules, supported by a great many confirmed observations by many scientists that explains and sensible a large number of facts that, without the theory, would seem to be unconnected. Theories are not necessarily correct in every detail, to begin with, and might never be entirely correct in every detail, but they are sufficiently correct (if they are good theories) to guide scientists in understanding the subject the theory deals with, in exploring further observations and, eventually, in improving the theory.

Since this theory cannot be improved, why is it even a theory? And it's not a science, what is it?

 

[snafupants]

Meh. Thomas believes his theory is 100% accurate. Innate. Absolute.

Theory: A set of basic rules, supported by a great many confirmed observations by many scientists that explains and sensible a large number of facts that, without the theory, would seem to be unconnected. Theories are not necessarily correct in every detail, to begin with, and might never be entirely correct in every detail, but they are sufficiently correct (if they are good theories) to guide scientists in understanding the subject the theory deals with, in exploring further observations and, eventually, in improving the theory.

Since this theory cannot be improved, why is it even a theory? And it's not a science, what is it?

The creator, Thomas, seemed to compulsively downplay the influence of the MBTI in this supposedly earth shattering theory. There seems to be a lot of overlap, however. Also, did you not say you would be ceasing your posts on this newfangled theory?

 

[Sparrow]

The creator, Thomas, seemed to compulsively downplay the influence of the MBTI in this supposedly earth shattering theory. There seems to be a lot of overlap, however. Also, did you not say you would be ceasing your posts on this newfangled theory?

Did I set a time limit? Okay, this'll be my last one! I apologize to those that keep track of every single post I make!

 

[Adymus]

Sparrow provided us with portions of text from the creator of the theory; these correspondences acted as a primer for the material and an ad hoc introduction to the creator and her cohorts/underlings. Based on these extracts, conclusions drawn from forum goers that the information was heavily laden with obfuscating and stupidly esoteric terms, which are indicative of a cult, seem pretty well substantiated. The verbiage seems exclusionary (e.g., commercial parlance) and the ideas pseudo scientific, which indeed - as one forum goer posited - smacks of Scientology. The supreme secrecy and apparent hierarchy also does not help.

None of the information you (and by you I mean the entire forum) extracted about Pod'lair is a secret, Thomas would not have spoke about it in an email with some guy if it was intended to be.
In fact, that V-Hall that someone Google up is our plans for what we are going to include on our main website. You essentially forced information out us right when we were preparing to willingly give it out, and you're calling us secretive?

We are rather eccentric and we are up front about that, and if it was the esoteric verbiage is what lost you, then you probably were not up for the rigorous material anyway.

 

[snafupants]

None of the information you (and by you I mean the entire forum) extracted about Pod'lair is a secret, Thomas would not have spoke about it in an email with some guy if it was intended to be.
In fact, that V-Hall that someone Google up is our plans for what we are going to include on our main website. You essentially forced information out us right when we were preparing to willingly give it out, and you're calling us secretive?

We are rather eccentric and we are up front about that, and if it was the esoteric verbiage is what lost you, then you probably were not up for the rigorous material anyway.

Do not be a child, the intellectual level of the material was very manageable. Yes, it seemed secretive because forum members would prompt you and there would be little responsiveness or divulgence. And no one forced information out of you, who is on trial here? *Beats a retreat to watch Sparrow vs. Adymus on HBO*

 

[Sparrow]

None of the information you (and by you I mean the entire forum) extracted about Pod'lair is a secret, Thomas would not have spoke about it in an email with some guy if it was intended to be.
In fact, that V-Hall that someone Google up is our plans for what we are going to include on our main website. You essentially forced information out us right when we were preparing to willingly give it out, and you're calling us secretive?

We are rather eccentric and we are up front about that, and if it was the esoteric verbiage is what lost you, then you probably were not up for the rigorous material anyway.

Umm, he sent me manuscripts he told me not to send to anyone else. If that's open to viewing then I'll send them to anyone that wants to see them. PM for manuscripts. They're all the gear cue readings. Oh, and the celebification list that Thomas doesn't want you to see. Nice lies Adymus.

Yeah, so when their forum is up and they introduce 10 celebs a week and everyone wants to know what their type is...just check the list. It's all there...at least 1000 names. Yes Adymus, I'm sure Thomas doesn't want that circulating.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Once again someone out there has released an underwhelming manifesto of claims with little evidence to substantiate. Their claims may loosely correlate to or model reality but in no way does this validate their theory. To take pod'lair seriously would be a detrimental use of resources. Though, the weak minded are often deluded and one must invest resources in order to combat ill-ideas and the deluded in order to maintain integrity of the system.

On numerous occasions I have been employed to mitigate disputes with environmentalists attempting to impede development of projects. From what I have encountered on these occasions is that their arguments are not substantiated by logic or evidence. After spending time and money accommodating they claim perjury. I have no time to deal with emotional turmoil of people who anthropomorphize the general environment or atmosphere.

Pod'lair contrasts with the above example; it will impede the mental development of individuals. Deluded proportions of the population inherently cause miss allocation of resources.

 

[Adymus]

Do not be a child, the intellectual level of the material was very manageable. Yes, it seemed secretive because forum members would prompt you and there would be little responsiveness or divulgence. And no one forced information out of you, who is on trial here? *Beats a retreat to watch Sparrow vs. Adymus on HBO*

I wasn't talking about the level of intellectuality. Prompt me to do what? I have been more than willing to answer your questions, do you have any idea how much information I have written for this forum? I could write a thousand pages of material using that alone.
And yes, proactively seeking to find our material after I told you that it was not quite ready to be presented publicly is a forceful approach.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

Yeah...

Spoiler

Amen.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

I will say this, though. Whatever Sparrow's motivations (and his emotional outbursts aside), he does have a point. As I recall, wasn't it Adymus who made a crack about people gravitating towards false gurus? Or was that someone else who wrote a long treatise on INFJ's? Mojo Dojo? WTF?!?!

 

[Oblivious]

I have a whole bunch of questions I need answering.

1. What does psychology have to do with this new age mojo? When people reading is mentioned, I assume it to be within some extended framework of mbti, which is at least somewhat scientific. I honestly have no qualms stating that I do not take pod'lair seriously simply because of the New Age vibe I get from it.

2. If there is ground breaking work being done, why can it not be done through the existing framework of peer reviewed journals? If you believe in your theory, go to a university, talk to the professors and see if you can get some research arrangements going. Get a grant, get paid, advance your theory.

3. I do not know much about mbti, but Adymus comes across to me as a rather no nonsense academic. What is he doing associating his work with this New Age nonsense?

4. What's up with Sparrow?

 

[Adymus]

I have a whole bunch of questions I need answering.

1. What does psychology have to do with this new age mojo? When people reading is mentioned, I assume it to be within some extended framework of mbti, which is at least somewhat scientific. I honestly have no qualms stating that I do not take pod'lair seriously simply because of the New Age vibe I get from it.

2. If there is ground breaking work being done, why can it not be done through the existing framework of peer reviewed journals? If you believe in your theory, go to a university, talk to the professors and see if you can get some research arrangements going. Get a grant, get paid, advance your theory.

3. I do not know much about mbti, but Adymus comes across to me as a rather no nonsense academic. What is he doing associating his work with this New Age nonsense?

4. What's up with Sparrow?

What makes you think MBTI is scientific? MBTI was actually not taken seriously by psychologists during it's genesis because of the fact that Catherine Briggs and Isabel Meyers had no credentials, and because it had no scientific base. Even now we are just beginning to see MRI scans that can roughly correlate with the cognitive functions, but still no solid evidence for a complete picture of how they work and manifest. MBTI is by definition psuedoscience, yet the reason you take it seriously is because it has been made to "sound" scientific. What Lyra beautifully referred to as "Hurr Durr Science"
Secondly, Reading people does not exist in the MBTI framework, it is specifically Pod'lair methodology, and integrating it into MBTI would probably be a bad move since they have been doing it wrong in the first place. Instead of cleaning up their mess, we will just start with a fresh framework.

It is thanks to this New Age nonsense that I have the high level understanding that I do. I already had a background in MBTI before I met two of the originators of Pod'lair while it was still in it's early conceptual stages, and it wasn't until I started learning how to read people that I gained a much higher understanding and wider perception of the psyche. So perhaps I am a No nonsense Academic type, but I clearly have a different perception as well as set of criteria for what make something "nonsense" than you do.

 

[Siloc]

In fact, that V-Hall that someone Google up is our plans for what we are going to include on our main website. You essentially forced information out us right when we were preparing to willingly give it out, and you're calling us secretive?

Fair enough... I personally have no vendetta against you or Pod' Lair. In fact, I was quite looking forward to it! Which is why I did a simple google search which, within seconds, yielded that document that everyone is raving about.

Once I found all 59 pages of it, I thought it would be at least an intresting read for everyone here. I have no regrets about posting the document, and certainly you can not deny that it represents your "theory". Maybe not in it's entirety, but come on now!!! New age babble, is new age babble!

1. What does psychology have to do with this new age mojo? When people reading is mentioned, I assume it to be within some extended framework of mbti, which is at least somewhat scientific. I honestly have no qualms stating that I do not take pod'lair seriously simply because of the New Age vibe I get from it.

I completely agree! My entire problem with it at the moment is it's presentation and future provisions.

2. If there is ground breaking work being done, why can it not be done through the existing framework of peer reviewed journals? If you believe in your theory, go to a university, talk to the professors and see if you can get some research arrangements going. Get a grant, get paid, advance your theory.

Because apparently it is for the "people"... Clearly in it's current form it would not be academically accepted, due to all the new age nonsense, and the talk of "revolution" and what have you. The Pod' Lair guys probably know this though, and see it as even more of a reason to be staunch, and "fight the power"...

If there is any real scientific substance to the theory, I hope that they will consider doing research, and testing it in academic circles. If it's as good as they say it is...there should be nothing to worry about.

3. I do not know much about mbti, but Adymus comes across to me as a rather no nonsense academic. What is he doing associating his work with this New Age nonsense?

I got that vibe as well... It's why I was quite surprised when I read even the first few pages of the v-hall document...I nearly cringed sitting their in class...

4. What's up with Sparrow?

I think Sparrow had his mind set on arguing whatever Adymus put out to be honest. Even if the theory was presented as more of an academic extension of the mbti, I think Sparrow would still be the same old petulant pissant towards it.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

2. If there is ground breaking work being done, why can it not be done through the existing framework of peer reviewed journals? If you believe in your theory, go to a university, talk to the professors and see if you can get some research arrangements going. Get a grant, get paid, advance your theory.

I second this motion. I don't know much about personality typing (which, truth be told, has always seemed to me to be like reading tea leaves) or psychology, but I'll tell you why this can't be done through the framework of peer-reviewed journals. It would never stand up in the face of scrutiny from the scientific community, and well that it shouldn't given the New Age influence. Adymus may insist that the New Age themes have given him "vision" (though, I have yet to be convinced of that), but scientists would meet such a claim with a great deal of skepticism, and they would be right to do so. This sort of thing belongs in the realm of religion not science; and, keeping it out of science is what allows science to maintain its integrity, to refrain from becoming religion. Furthermore, even without the New Age influence, the methodology is suspect. As Lenore Thomson pointed out, the experimental framework in which this theory is tested rests on a control group of members with uncertain types. Unless you're going to have each of these celebrities take the MBTI or some other personality assessment, how would you know (reading it off the internet doesn't cut it)? And even if you did, can you be sure that you've accounted for systematic uncertainty (e.g., assigning them one type when they really are another, which, as I've pointed out before, can easily happen either because the test questions are inadequate in deciding between the various dichotomies, the test taker didn't quite understand the questions, the test taker answered in the way they think they "should" be rather than the way they actually are, etc.)? And can you quantify this uncertainty (because numbers matter in science, even the social sciences)? Even so, how can you be sure that the assessment you used as a baseline is actually a good assessment? Really, in that manner, the best you can hope for is to determine how well your assessment is calibrated with another assessment. And what is the basis for the claim of 90% accuracy?

Now, possibly being able to map out the cognitive functions would be interesting. But even Adymus has acknowledged that neuroscience has only just started being able to do this (and scientific research is a matter of years, so don't think you'll get the answers tomorrow). As such, I'm inclined to take this (and the MBTI, as well, for that matter) with a grain of salt. Yes, it's fun to get on the internet and chat with people, and yes, I like to try to type my friends in real time, too. But beyond that, it's a toy model, at best. And a toy model is precisely that. A toy.

 

[GarmGarf]

Unless you're going to have each of these celebrities take the MBTI or some other personality assessment, how would you know (reading it off the internet doesn't cut it)? And even if you did, can you be sure that you've accounted for systematic uncertainty (e.g., assigning them one type when they really are another, which, as I've pointed out before, can easily happen either because the test questions are inadequate in deciding between the various dichotomies, the test taker didn't quite understand the questions, the test taker answered in the way they think they "should" be rather than the way they actually are, etc.)? And can you quantify this uncertainty (because numbers matter in science, even the social sciences)? Even so, how can you be sure that the assessment you used as a baseline is actually a good assessment? Really, in that manner, the best you can hope for is to determine how well your assessment is calibrated with another assessment.

I'd imagine that the Pod'Lair community believe that the MBTI and other analytical psychology tests are garbage, so there is nothing (yet) worthy of calibrating their assessments/results with.

I would imagine that the Pod'Lair community take their results are truth because they can "see" their results in a way - maybe to them it's something like how a scientist measuring a length quantity uses a meter stick, and doesn't question the result he/she finds (although maybe allocates an error/uncertainty/tolerance based on the limitations of the meter stick and their own personal perception/dexterity). Ideally an individual with a greater physical perception and dexterity should take the measurement. Ideally, the best in the world should take that measurement. Once one gets the best in the world to take their measurement, who's left to be more accurate?

And what is the basis for the claim of 90% accuracy?

If I recall correctly, that is Adymus' claimed personal typing/reading accuracy (85% - 90%); i.e: Adymus claims to be able to type people (himself) to that accuracy.

Out of Pod'Lair's entirety (i.e: include Thomas), they claim to be able to type/read people to a 100% accuracy.

Rather then stating a figure, I believe Adymus' point was that he is more accurate at typing/reading people than any MBTI test and any other INTP Forum member.

 

[Oblivious]

Adymus:

Perhaps in the end this is all a matter of preference.

If you tell me you want to break into someone's house so that you could give them a present, I could not really say that you would NOT be giving them a present after breaking in. I am not in a position to say. You could really be giving them a present.

All I can say, is that breaking in people's homes is quite suspicious and the reason it is outlawed is not because a home is broken into, but because there are bad things associated with having your home broken into. If everyone was Santa Claus and only broke into people's homes to deliver presents, you could be sure home breaking would not be outlawed.

So your pod'lair might indeed be bringing forth a revolution and might actually work as well as a theory within a scientific framework. Who am I to say? I will tell you that by using a New Age framework to deliver your theory will associate it with the likes of scientology and other kinds of bad mojo (LOLPUN). Perhaps you are fine with that. That's your preference and your freedom.

All I want to say is that if you want to give people presents, you could also knock on their front door; you do not have to be Santa Claus.

Let's just say mbti is trash, I wouldn't know either way, but it is obvious to me that you want your improved version of mbti to be more then that. You want it to be right, to be objectively verifiable by anyone with competent ability, to be comprehensive, to serve a useful function in society.

What better way then to publish psychology textbooks on the subject that are accredited by the scientific community? To deliver lectures at Yale before hundreds of psychology undergraduates? To undertake highly anticipated research efforts with as much funding as you would ever require? To apply personal typing to help human resource departments everywhere better manage their workers in a strictly professional manner and thereby directly contribute to society?

To be fair, most scientists/scholars would be lucky to achieve half of those things, but as an academic you know you are, do you not see the desirability of such goals? Where do you see yourself in ten years? What is your vision for pod'lair?

Maybe I am just speaking as a user of societal frameworks. I also know next to nothing about the scientific psychology community. Are they not receptive to new ideas? Are they just plain whackos? Why has this route not been taken? Why the New Age outfit? What do you want to achieve with this? Can you honestly say that this would not be detrimental to a serious academic effort that your theory deserves?

What's the background on pod'lair? Google fails me, but there are still a ton of questions I, and I believe, the community here wants answered.

edit: btw You've seen me enough. What's my type?

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

I'd imagine that the Pod'Lair community believe that the MBTI and other analytical psychology tests are garbage, so there is nothing (yet) worthy of calibrating their assessments/results with.

Really? Then, why do they still use MBTI terminology?

I would imagine that the Pod'Lair community take their results are truth because they can "see" their results in a way - maybe to them it's something like how a scientist measuring a length quantity uses a meter stick, and doesn't question the result he/she finds (although maybe allocates an error/uncertainty/tolerance based on the limitations of the meter stick and their own personal perception/dexterity).

A meter stick has been calibrated against a predefined and preserved standard. But yes, a scientist would assign some kind of uncertainty to that measurement (including the possibility that the meter stick was calibrated incorrectly). But to follow the analogy, for Pod'Lair, what's the meter stick? How do you actually know that the people you type are actually the type that you assign them? And if you're trying to develop a whole new system, what are you basing the new system on? And have you performed statistical studies to support the validity of the new system? Sorry, but my objection still stands.

If I recall correctly, that is Adymus' claimed personal typing/reading accuracy (85% - 90%); i.e: Adymus claims to be able to type people (himself) to that accuracy.

Out of Pod'Lair's entirety (i.e: include Thomas), they claim to be able to type/read people to a 100% accuracy.

Rather then stating a figure, I believe Adymus' point was that he is more accurate at typing/reading people than any MBTI test and any other INTP Forum member.

And my question was what was the basis for making such a claim? Truth be told, Pod'Lair sounds a lot like fortune telling to me. A good fortune teller will be able to tell a lot about a person based on his/her body language and the information he/she gives. Then, the fortune teller simply recasts the information he/she has gathered from the person as a fortune, and the person thinks it's real because the fortune sounds so true to him/her. Yeah, that fits Pod'Lair to a T.

 

[Thaklaar]

So, does this look like a meeting of serious thinkers wrestling to create a new, paradigm shifting insight into the human psyche? Or, does it look like the spiritual successor to the EST nuts, Moonies, and Scientologists et al.? "...the fourteenth of sixteen meditation rituals that make up the Pod'Lair Super-Heroic Cycle..." Pop psychology mixed with Eastern mysticism has been a good seller in the US since Madam Blavatsky. Couple that with a multi-stage initiation reminicent of Thelema and you've got money in the bank. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, though. Probably completely on the up-and-up.

 

[kibou]

Wow, did we just scare Adymus away from this forum??

 

[walfin]

By the way, the Metre in France is no longer the standard for determining the length of the metre.

Adymus scared??????? See his signature.

If everyone was Santa Claus and only broke into people's homes to deliver presents, you could be sure home breaking would not be outlawed.

The present had better be worth more than the broken door/window/whatever else.

 

[snafupants]

Welcome to Pod'lair. The first rule of Pod'lair is: you do not talk about Pod'lair. The second rule of Pod'lair is: you DO NOT talk about Pod'lair!

 

[GarmGarf]

Really? Then, why do they still use MBTI terminology?

Like "INTP" and etc? They don't use those, actually. Adymus used those terms for INTP Forum's community's convenience. They even refrain from using a lot (if not all) of Jungian terminology too, but Jungian phycology doesn't equal MBTI anyway.

A meter stick has been calibrated against a predefined and preserved standard. But yes, a scientist would assign some kind of uncertainty to that measurement (including the possibility that the meter stick was calibrated incorrectly). But to follow the analogy, for Pod'Lair, what's the meter stick? How do you actually know that the people you type are actually the type that you assign them? And if you're trying to develop a whole new system, what are you basing the new system on? And have you performed statistical studies to support the validity of the new system? Sorry, but my objection still stands.

"What did they do when they had to made the first meter stick?" was my point. How did they know that they could trust their own eyes? How did they know the first meter stick wasn't imperfect; etc? The scientific community made a call to start somewhere and decided to trust their experiences.

 

[Ska]

Just so everyone knows, this is the most widely accepted personality model in the scientific community - at least that's what I'm learning in my personality psychology class (and by the way there's about 2 or 3 pages relating to Jung/MBTI at all in my textbook). I don't understand this - the eight functions make so much more sense to me and can explain so much more. It seems to me it only focuses on extraverted traits mainly and misses almost half the picture. I just want to point out that just because it is widely accepted doesn't exactly mean it's the best method. After all, this is a forum mainly focused on Jungian Concepts/MBTI and not the Five Factor Model for a reason. If the eight functions aren't even of importance to personality psychologists, I don't see how Pod'Lair would stand a chance no matter which way they spin it (which is basically what Adymus has said - they don't even want to wast their time)

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

Like "INTP" and etc? They don't use those, actually. Adymus used those terms for INTP Forum's community's convenience. They even refrain from using a lot (if not all) of Jungian terminology too, but Jungian phycology doesn't equal MBTI anyway.

Which introduces more uncertainty, not less.

"What did they do when they had to made the first meter stick?" was my point. How did they know that they could trust their own eyes? How did they know the first meter stick wasn't imperfect; etc? The scientific community made a call to start somewhere and decided to trust their experiences.

You are completely missing the point. The meter is an arbitrary length measurement. It could have been defined to be any other length. What matters is that instruments that measure meters are calibrated correctly. You wouldn't want to call a yard stick a meter stick. My point about calibration was to point out that I have seen no evidence that they have any way of knowing that they're not calling a yard stick a meter stick - that the people they type actually use the cognitive functions they claim they do and that what plays out on their faces is actually indicative of the usage of their cognitive functions. And if it's not even based on cognitive functions, if instead they're saying, "People with this kind of personality squint their eyes this way," then that's even dumber. What do you mean by "this kind of personality" and "squint their eyes this way?" And where are the statistical studies? Sorry, but finding it difficult to take this seriously.

 

[Adymus]

Which introduces more uncertainty, not less.

No it doesn't, what you choose to call a concept has nothing to do with how accurate the concept is.

My point about calibration was to point out that I have seen no evidence that they have any way of knowing that they're not calling a yard stick a meter stick - that the people they type actually use the cognitive functions they claim they do and that what plays out on their faces is actually indicative of the usage of their cognitive functions.

The truth of the matter is, we actually don't know what is specifically causing the cognitive functions to manifest themselves in the physical ways that they do, but these specific details are actually not very important to the theory itself. We've read more than just celebrities, we used to have a weekly meet up group, and we have recorded interview and read quite a few people. What we have found is that these patterns are occurring consistently, without exception, on everyone that we have read. These physical patterns match up perfectly with the with the behavioral patterns that one would expect to see from a person of said Mojo (personality type) who has developed in the way that they did, without contradiction of the structural logic of the theory or universal design of Mojos themselves.

Knowing precisely why (in a neurological sense) each mojo is giving off these physical signal patterns, is irrelevant to the fact that they are doing it, you don't need to know precisely why something is happening to be able to see that it is.
I understand why you and Fukyo are distrusting of this lack of empirical evidence, I hate to admit it, but I probably would have been to if I was in your shoes. However, this is a phenomenon that is extremely difficult to create quantitative evidence out of, and to do so would require access facilities, tools, Staff, and resources that at the moment are currently out of our reach. In the future this will be very possible, but at the moment what we can do is show you how to see it for yourself, the fact that we can get multiple people who are all trained in people reading to get the exact same results without influencing each other is a strong proof of concept regardless of it's qualitative nature.

And if it's not even based on cognitive functions, if instead they're saying, "People with this kind of personality squint their eyes this way," then that's even dumber. What do you mean by "this kind of personality" and "squint their eyes this way?" And where are the statistical studies? Sorry, but finding it difficult to take this seriously.

Look, if you are going to criticize our theory, at least read it, it looks like you are taking shots in the dark and just saying "If they do this then they are stupid." At least know what we are doing before deciding that it is stupid.

No it is not as simple as "this Mojo squints like that", had it been that simple, someone would have already created this system of reading people long before we did.
I don't think you have full grasp of this situation of you think creating statistical evidence is that easy or even validating for that matter. First of all, I've noticed a number of you have complained that we don't have an objective control to calibrate the accuracy of our reads. That is probably because such a thing does not actually exist, the MBTI test is around 30% accurate give or take a few percent depending on what type they are, what culture they are in, what gender they are, etc. If we used the MBTI test as a control then our levels of accuracy would never exceed 30%, because that is the best our "control" can do.
To go beyond that, we actually have to tread into the world of the qualitative analysis, because the complexity of the personality is beyond the reach of our current quantitative methodology.

Many of your guys I find way too dependent of the faux certainty of statistical evidence. Turning something into a quantitative value does not make it true, accurate, or revealing, there is an infinite amount of factors that are not being taken into account. This is why the Big 5 is used more often by mainstream Psychologists, it's convenient, you get to some of all the complexities of the human mind in five little percentages. Who cares if they don't actually mean anything, and reveals absolutely nothing about the psyche, it creates a nice little illusion of empirical evidence that the shrinks can feel safe with.

If you still wish to not take us seriously, then by all means, don't. We are not out to convince any skeptics that will not even listen to what we have to say unless we provide empirical evidence validated by a scientific authority, right this minute.

 

[Saoshyant]

Hmmm I am kind of confused now why would Anamalech be promoting Pod'Lair on another typology forum now? After he gets banned from this one?

Hmmm....

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/35781-pod-lair.html

 

[Fukyo]

Hmmm I am kind of confused now why would Anamalech be promoting Pod'Lair on another typology forum now? After he gets banned from this one?

Hmmm....

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/35781-pod-lair.html

He's posted it on other forums too, and he keeps showing up on IRC to rant about Pod'lair. No idea why he's so obsessed, the annoying little thing.

 

[Adymus]

You guys seriously still haven't figured out yet that the only reason he was doing this was to fuck with me?

 

[Jedi]

On Pod'lair being like MBTI with new terms:

Not at all, what you have read in the V-Hall focuses on Mojo Dojo (Which is only one of eight Pod'lair disciplines, the rest of which are absolutely nothing like MBTI), which is the most similar to MBTI, but has a far more nuanced understanding of the personality, and actually has useful applications: The Five gears of reading people, Universal/Personal Peak Pathways, and Social Alchemy. MBTI doesn't make any claims that it can revolutionize all aspects of life because it realistically can't. MBTI tells you one thing, you're an INTP, you're an ESTJ, and from that you get a vague idea of how you act, which can help in some aspects, but not many.
Not only do we have a far more accurate method of identifying a person's Mojo or "Personality type" than MBTI, we actually understand how we work and developing, and can use this understanding to maximize a persons output (Peak Pathways), and create interpersonal circles that amplify or inspire your innate abilities (Social Alchemy). Furthermore, to actually be able to read people, it is imperative that you detach from the stereotypes of each personality type that you would find in MBTI to not taint your lenses with this prejudice, so changing certain names to new ones is actually a wise move.

Even if pod'lair could 'inspire innate abilities' that doesn't take away from the fact that 90% of pod'lair is recycled from the people who actually discovered it. It wouldn't be worth criticizing if they gave credit where it was due. Jung was the first to identify cognitive functions, and his in-depth analysis of them is truly amazing. Everybody who has expanded upon Jung's theory has given credit to the people who deserve it, instead of taking an existing theory, changing the labels, and kicking them straight in the balls.

 

[Adymus]

Even if pod'lair could 'inspire innate abilities' that doesn't take away from the fact that 90% of pod'lair is recycled from the people who actually discovered it. It wouldn't be worth criticizing if they gave credit where it was due. Jung was the first to identify cognitive functions, and his in-depth analysis of them is truly amazing. Everybody who has expanded upon Jung's theory has given credit to the people who deserve it, instead of taking an existing theory, changing the labels, and kicking them straight in the balls.

Short answer:

That would be true if Jung actually discovered something, which he did not, he merely speculated on the existence of a phenomenon, and then wrote about it. You actually need physical evidence of a phenomenon to discover it, so in other words Pod'Lair is actually the first to discover the Cognitive Configuration phenomenon. Pod'Lair did not expand on Jung's theory, we made a new one that happens to eclipse inform on what Jung speculated on in ways that Jung never could.

I've already argued this point here

it was a lot of work and I would hate to have to do that all over again, so please just read that (starting with my response to Auburn on that page, and then all responses after that) and get back to me.