The Fallen Adymus

[Lyra]

Hi Architect,

'Ignoring the visual theory' is the crux of the issue. What Pod'Lair presents in those descriptions are indicators pointing towards the broad field that is understood and observed directly via the visual reading. We present sufficient information for a person to make contact with and then build their own representation, from direct experience, of the phenomenon in question.

The difference between this and the MBTI's approach is that Jung/MBTI did make contact with that field as it affected individuals/manifested in them, but not with enough clarity to correctly distinguish it from beliefs and assumptions or limitations of perspective which aren't inherent to its understanding. And in the method of communication of the phenomenon: given the entirely verbal nature of an MBTI/JCF description of Ti, there's very little to guard against-- and in fact nothing does sufficiently guard against-- the propagation of useless or unfalsifiable expert/consensus conjecture. What is propagated is theory abstracted from a sense of that field without an adequate means of pointing others towards it or demonstrating the precise nature of its operation. MBTI/JCF's Ti is therefore unfalsifiable, a matter of consensus and convincing anecdote, and not a positive theory. The inefficacy of its application is a direct consequence of this.

Now it could be said that the same type of consensus/conjecture might manifest with Reading experts. That's not so because of the clearly defined visual patterns-- co-ordinates, so to speak-- which ground any Reading based apprehension and discussion on Zai. These, when apprehended to a basic level, re-orient the individual's perception and provide a constant external standard which is there in fact to which postulated theories/claims must adjust themselves. On a more advanced level, Zai read this way is the pattern itself, the ebb and flow of the momentum and modulation itself in visible conjunction with other powers, as opposed to an abstracted conceptual impression formed from sensing but not being able to adequately clarify the broad field 'Ti'.

With regards to the identity of the verbal representations-- P'L's being a means to a very precise and precisely identified end, MBTI's being what they think the phenomenon itself is-- Ti is the MBTI's approximation of the phenomenon Zai. It gets some things right, as does Jung's. But as an actual operational field Zai doesn't fit into the verbal parameters of 'introverted' or 'thinking' in the sense that Jung or MBTI have historically defined them. It's subjective, yes, but its actual operational working is a far more dynamic and intricate phenomenon which can only really be approached via a direct observation of it via its manifestation in cues. This observation begins the process of building a representation/knowledge of it which hasn't yet been translated into, and perhaps can't in some important respects be translated into, an equally useful verbal approximation. The crux is that this knowledge allows a unity of perception in identifying individuals who will manifest the relevant distinct cue set, and that that cue set cannot do certain very obvious physiognomic things.

P'L's current verbal approximation does, however, innovate in a number of notable ways: The Power Flows, which have been presented as a series of steps in the cycle/working of each Power and how it gains momentum, are a more precise and accurate representation of each Power than I think has been made available anywhere else. The distinct signals clarify the relationship between what impression a field can give off and its actual workings. These two in conjunction explain Powers to a far greater extent that JCF/MBTI, which both did a very bad job of separating impression from actuality and getting people to really understand others better than they would without the theories. Another innovation is the discovery of the momentum/modulation relationship between power pairings and their precise nature, and how they look when being read. Another discovery is how a power looks at different places in a person's energetic hierarchy-- which can be used to build a very precise internal representation of the different roles the power plays. This placing is delineated in precise cue sets which can be read and, again, have yet to be falsified. Another discovery is the moment by moment power flow interaction between individuals that can be observed in reading, including how individuals differently energise or modulate one another, and what role concepts/memes being given energy to play in this.

That the MTBI's approximation is insufficient, in terms of actual predictive utility, is demonstrated by continued adherence to self-assessment and the low accuracy of expert reads. That P'L's if functionally superior is demostrated by the results we've been able to produce, which are far beyond anything produced in the field before now. We have yet to see a falsification.

 

[Lyra]

Zai Power Flows is here.

Zai can be observed by an observation of clean samples of all configurations with Zai in their conscious hierarchy presented in the crash courses on the MRR channel.

Zai distinct signals episode is upcoming. Other relevant episodes include Xai vs. Zai resonating.

 

[BigApplePi]

Two naive questions:

Computer programs can identify faces. Can Pod'Lair ultimately be programmed to computers so the 16 categories can be identified?

Once a category is identified, what verbiage goes along with it? Is it fair to match INTP with ZaiNyy?

 

[Lyra]

In the long run that seems possible, yes.

INTP approximates Zai'nyy, yes.

 

[Architect]

Thanks @Lyra for replying back. I'm going to try and take this very slow.

Ignoring the visual theory' is the crux of the issue. What Pod'Lair presents in those descriptions are indicators pointing towards the broad field that is understood and observed directly via the visual reading. We present sufficient information for a person to make contact with and then build their own representation, from direct experience, of the phenomenon in question.

This is one difficulty I have which is deciphering what you people are saying. So, it seems you don't have exact descriptions, but that you psychically 'awaken' the individual, who can then find their own 'descriptions'? Interesting approach if true, but take this example

The difference between this and the MBTI's approach is that Jung/MBTI did make contact with that field as it affected individuals/manifested in them, but not with enough clarity to correctly distinguish it from beliefs and assumptions or limitations of perspective which aren't inherent to its understanding. And in the method of communication of the phenomenon: given the entirely verbal nature of an MBTI/JCF description of Ti, there's very little to guard against-- and in fact nothing does sufficiently guard against-- the propagation of useless or unfalsifiable expert/consensus conjecture. What is propagated is theory abstracted from a sense of that field without an adequate means of pointing others towards it or demonstrating the precise nature of its operation. MBTI/JCF's Ti is therefore unfalsifiable, a matter of consensus and convincing anecdote, and not a positive theory. The inefficacy of its application is a direct consequence of this.

I have no idea what you're saying here. I've studied theoretical physics, computer science and Gregorian Chant but my eyes glaze over when reading much PL writing. This is the problem with developing individual meanings - they aren't very communicable.

The other point is that it might be like Twelve Tone music. A wonderful theory, but one that most people find unpalatable. Going on ...

P'L's current verbal approximation does, however, innovate in a number of notable ways: The Power Flows, which have been presented as a series of steps in the cycle/working of each Power and how it gains momentum, are a more precise and accurate representation of each Power than I think has been made available anywhere else. The distinct signals clarify the relationship between what impression a field can give off and its actual workings. These two in conjunction explain Powers to a far greater extent that JCF/MBTI, which both did a very bad job of separating impression from actuality and getting people to really understand others better than they would without the theories. Another innovation is the discovery of the momentum/modulation relationship between power pairings and their precise nature, and how they look when being read. Another discovery is how a power looks at different places in a person's energetic hierarchy-- which can be used to build a very precise internal representation of the different roles the power plays. This placing is delineated in precise cue sets which can be read and, again, have yet to be falsified. Another discovery is the moment by moment power flow interaction between individuals that can be observed in reading, including how individuals differently energise or modulate one another, and what role concepts/memes being given energy to play in this.

See here is a problem. In this text you say that you CAN create a PL verbal approximation, but I can't make sense of what you are trying to say in that.

That the MTBI's approximation is insufficient, in terms of actual predictive utility, is demonstrated by continued adherence to self-assessment and the low accuracy of expert reads. That P'L's if functionally superior is demostrated by the results we've been able to produce, which are far beyond anything produced in the field before now. We have yet to see a falsification.

You guys are consistent in criticizing the competition and promoting PL, I'll give you that.

 

[Lyra]

This is one difficulty I have which is deciphering what you people are saying. So, it seems you don't have exact descriptions, but that you psychically 'awaken' the individual, who can then find their own 'descriptions'? Interesting approach if true, but take this example

Subjective training is key, but it's all grounded in very clear and falsifiable patterns of 1st gear physiognomic cues. We don't deny the tacit or interpretive or their validity, but we provide tangible and clear proof of the concepts which we work with on those levels.

I am personally deeply enamored with Gregorian Chant. I envy you for that.

I'd suggest that your difficulties come from trying to make sense of the thing without actually trying to make sense of it. You have no referent for my words or meanings, so you come up blank. Have you watched the episodes I linked? Or tried reading various Zai samples, spending 10 minutes on each? Or tried doing the two in conjunction? It takes a certain amount of time to 'get it', but the process of exponential serendipity getting it sets of is worth it. It will also provide you with the appropriate referent.

 

[Architect]

I am personally deeply enamored with Gregorian Chant. I envy you for that.

It's quite simple actually

I'd suggest that your difficulties come from trying to make sense of the thing without actually trying to make sense of it.

riddles

You have no referent for my words or meanings, so you come up blank.

Yes, the goal of communication is to convey understanding

Have you watched the episodes I linked? Or tried reading various Zai samples, spending 10 minutes on each? Or tried doing the two in conjunction? It takes a certain amount of time to 'get it', but the process of exponential serendipity getting it sets of is worth it. It will also provide you with the appropriate referent.

Yes, but my eyes glaze over from the perceived arrogance and obtuseness.

Well I'll keep noodling at it as I have time. It does remind me of discussions I had with a member of a Sang Ha who wanted me to join (its a Buddhist group). When it came down to it the only way to understand The Way was to take a leap of faith. The issue I have with that is that once you take that leap to believe one thing, you are in a place to believe anything.

 

[Lyra]

Actually no. Experimenting with Reading axiomatically, to see what it yields, really isn't a leap of faith. It's a novel use of your perceptual apparatus, but being that afraid that experimenting with what different perspectives might reveal will parasitically take over your mind and void your independent judgement is a little odd, to say the least.

We present all of the required info publicly. You don't need to talk our talk or be amongst us to begin perceiving, analysing, and testing in relevant ways.

The outright insults in the rest of your reply were a little out of the blue. Not sure how to respond to them, so I guess I just won't.

 

[snafupants]

Subjective training is key

Indoctrination is key for cults and inbred corporations too.

 

[Lyra]

As I said, all relevant info is available publicly. I don't think the insults are really well thought through or warranted.

 

[snafupants]

As I said, all relevant info is available publicly. I don't think the insults are really well thought through or warranted.

Oh, I find it warranted. It just doesn't fit the story you're telling yourself right now.

 

[Architect]

Actually no. Experimenting with Reading axiomatically, to see what it yields, really isn't a leap of faith. It's a novel use of your perceptual apparatus, but being that afraid that experimenting with what different perspectives might reveal will parasitically take over your mind and void your independent judgement is a little odd, to say the least.

It has nothing to do with being afraid, it's more about using my reasoning capability versus human gullibility.

The outright insults in the rest of your reply were a little out of the blue. Not sure how to respond to them, so I guess I just won't.

Outright insults? You misunderstand, I said perceived arrogance - meaning that whether intended or not PL comes off as arrogant. And by obtuseness I mean just that, it comes off as difficult to understand. I don't mean insults at all, my point is that these are the two problems I have with learning PL.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Intentions aside, I think the problems of Pod'lair is a good example of what I believe to be the problems of being limited to "Ni-Se" thinking. The ideas and the ways of expression is geared towards being unintuitive. It is self-appeasingly mystified. There is no attempt at all at trying to be simple. There's just mumbo-jumbo. There's no transition of the abstract to the concrete/intuitive. There is no Si-Ne. There's no exactitude. There's no clarity. There's no quantification, although you don't necessarily need to have numbers in order to be simple. The reality that you might be describing, and most of the reality that anyone would probably describe CAN be simplified and made intuitive. Everything can be perceived in terms of Si-Ne. It can be related and reduced to simple, intuitive concepts. Everything can be simple. If you care about attracting the public or perhaps more "gullible and stupid prey", then do realize that most people are Si-Ne and understand things that way. Course, by then, you would be treading on my battleground. There would be logical arguments and erroneous equations to trample over.

Words, you know these are ridiculous generalizations? You are over identifying with what you think about your functions, and are projecting the negatives.

 

[Words]

I'm not going to parse this entire post of Words, just comment. I see no reason in the world why a presentation can't have Ni behind it if it wants to. That's them. If they do it, it IS like a cult. To learn it one has to immerse oneself in it ... like swimming. Would you like to hear a lecture on how to swim to learn swimming? Would you like to learn a foreign language without hearing it? I think not. That's apparently the Pod'Lair approach.

Not to an INTP's liking, but let's recognize this. Pod'Lair is not a top-down rational approach. It presents itself and you have to run with it and test the waters. Maybe find out it's no good, but maybe not. I say look at it, listen to the critics (INTPs are good critics) and take the positive. Clarity and quantification are not the first impressions here. "Mumbo-jumbo" is the first impression. Jargon is not necessarily mumbo-jumbo. My reaction to Pod'Lair's leader is like some other INTP's: I feel sick to my stomach. But to hell with my feelings. As an INTP, I go with my thinking, not my feelings.

Not really "feelings", preferences. My point is that the presenter must adapt to the audience, not the other way around. Do you use German to teach Chinese students? And again, I don't believe it is difficult to understand and explain things with less "fluff." Pod'lair has too much. Concretion and simplicity allows for criticism. "Fluff" doesn't. Maintaining an esoteric environment means withdrawing from a fair standard.

Words, you know these are ridiculous generalizations? You are over identifying with what you think about your functions, and are projecting the negatives.

Your objection is as constructive and as informative as my counter-argument: nope.

No seriously, what's the basis of your objection? I realize my generalization doesn't apply to all Ni-Se types. I do believe it applies only to some Ni-Se types, particularly NiTi and NiFi types. I have the luxury of listening to my INTJ friend's conspiracy yap all day and everyday.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Your objection is as constructive and as informative as my counter-argument: nope.

No seriously, what's the basis of your objection? I realize my generalization doesn't apply to all Ni-Se types. I do believe it applies only to some Ni-Se types, particularly NiTi and NiFi types. I have the luxury of listening to my INTJ friend's conspiracy yap all day and everyday.

I don't see how you could make these statements and conclusions without seeing how much you are idealizing, generalizing and projecting.


problems of being limited to "Ni-Se" thinking.
geared towards being unintuitive.
self-appeasingly mystified.
no attempt at all at trying to be simple
just mumbo-jumbo.
no transition of the abstract to the concrete/intuitive.

There is no Si-Ne.
There's no exactitude.
There's no clarity. There's no quantification
Everything can be perceived in terms of Si-Ne.
Everything can be simple.
most people are Si-Ne and understand things that way.


Really? How do you not see the bias and arrogance?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have the luxury of listening to my INTJ friend's conspiracy yap all day and everyday.

Tell him to shut up and get a job? ^_^

 

[Words]

Really? How do you not see the bias and arrogance?

I don't know what kind of foresight you expect me to have.

Maybe your talking about my focus on "negatives" of Ni-Se solely, and the non-mention of problems of being limited to Si-Ne. Of course being limited to Si-Ne also has many problems. Rigidity, imperceptability, traditionalist, dictionary, unaltering.."too anchored", prone to false premises etc. I'm not saying one is better than the other. You need everything to form a holistic perception. I'm only talking about Ni-Se because I believe Podlair has too much of it.

If this isn't it, then do argue, trait by trait, about my erroneous associations.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: The Risen Adymus

Not really "feelings", preferences. My point is that the presenter must adapt to the audience, not the other way around. Do you use German to teach Chinese students? And again, I don't believe it is difficult to understand and explain things with less "fluff." Pod'lair has too much. Concretion and simplicity allows for criticism. "Fluff" doesn't. Maintaining an esoteric environment means withdrawing from a fair standard.

Preferences yes. I can prefer people talk my language. Doesn't mean they will. When I take my car or laptop to be serviced I do so because I don't care to do it myself. I take it to specialists. They speak a special language = jargon. I don't care to learn it. I just want the job done. Doesn't mean the job will be done right, that they know for sure what they are doing, or I will be satisfied. I have to take that chance if I want my car or laptop to work in a better way.

Pod'Lair could be like that. They are making visual discoveries. Just as MBTI explained uses Words, so does Pod'Lair. Pod'Lairists have found new words to describe visuals. It's a new language because it's a new discovery. The obligation goes BOTH ways. I am obligated to learn their language if I so wish, but they are obligated to make it as easy as possible for me.

 

[tikru]

I don't post here much, but I have a few thoughts I'd like to share

I feel like it must be difficult to live with the idea that one's own ideas separate one from a fellow human being. That anyone who doesn't agree or understand is stupid or shallow or weak. So lets figure out the math of why others don't agree with me or understand me. Or don't like me, as I can see from the obviousness of their facial cues

Thomas' concern with strength, heroism, Alpha-male antics come off as juvenile imo. The INFJ over-reliance on Ti is 'faux-zen', a way of curbing manic momentum. Down-playing the role of Ti says a lot, I think. The inspiration for INFJ is ENFP, the primary link being dominant intuition and feeling, a feeling that there is more to this world than the drudgery of existence. A sacred coupling of epic proportions, but let's not forget about the wise old man, the hermetic God of the coincidencia apositorum. hehe

I think it's cool if like-minded people want to get together and brainstorm about their ego-consciousness, but a little awareness of what their behavior might look like to others would go along way I think. And maybe the main thing is being aware that it's not the end of the world, as bad as things are politically or morally. It doesn't seem necessary to be so fanatic about these ideas.

In the first episode of 'podlair planet', Thomas shows that he's openly concerned with how others perceive him.. the need to be seen as a 'mega-genius', a person of intense dissatisfaction, a person who has the best grasp of his hypersensitivities. If we do not value his superiority, we are worthless to him. Which doesn't matter to the vast majority, because we have no reason to care about a stranger on the internet who disrespects his audience.
IT might matter to a few INFJs and ENFPs who, due to their sensitivity, have faced difficulties coming to terms with their idealism. They might be gifted with their insight into the behaviour of others, but let's not forget everyone has their own unique gifts.

The behavior of the pod'lair members has been antagonistic group-think combined with a sense of omnipotence-- which naturally sets a tone of 'talking down to' which is repulsive in many eyes. They use pod'lair buzz words like 'canvassing' like that's a word everyone happens to use instead of 'contemplation' or 'self-examination' or 'reflection'. There is no reason for any of this obfuscatory language other than a means of separating from the status quo.

Lyra's sincerity earlier in the thread was welcomed because it showed atleast some sort of humility, but now it all just seems like manipulation. And that's another issue with podlair.. there is a cloud of subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle) manipulation not unlike cults in the past, and people pick up on these 'cues' because there is a history to all of it.

I feel like Thomas and company could do with a good ego-death or twenty . It seems to me that there is always a death-instinct in these kind of fanatic movements.

in my opinion

 

[Lyra]

Hi tikru,

I really wold prefer to speak from a personal perspective. I'd ask that you consider the context within which I've been discussing this, though, and the tone of what I've been responding to. It's hard not to defend something you care about and judge to be true with at least some force in the face of certain kinds of assertions against it. Dishonourable, even. And from the first post everything I've said has been outright rejected as lies/cultish/stupid.

I don't think it's fair to say that I've been using 'manipulation', either. I think I've made points in an argument. I'm not quite sure why it's arrogance for me to engage forceful points with forceful points, or stand up for my rationally held positions in in the face of explicit ridicule. Which has, again, been the reaction to almost every serious argument I've presented. I think I've largely been as or more respectful to people as they have been. Would just letting any and all assertions pass and apologising constantly for something I calculate is genuinely a gift and genuinely helpful be better?

In short, I don't think the double-standards here are fair. And I don't think I'm in any sense restricted or brainwashed in my thinking or responses. Ego-deaths also aren't alien to me... except that they always are. I think you'll find though that I respond to inquiries that just sincerely question me human to human, like jennywocky's, as... just a human explaining themselves. I don't think there's any real qualitative difference between my responses and any you'd fairly expect from somebody who actually had taken a stake in a position and was acting upon it. And I don't think I'm being arrogant or closed or manipulative or sales-pitchy in, 1 for 1, answering questions or assertions put forward.

 

[Lyra]

'And maybe the main thing is being aware that it's not the end of the world, as bad as things are politically or morally. It doesn't seem necessary to be so fanatic about these ideas.'

Well, actually, government policies and huge social movements and memes which cause great suffering and individual incompetence are being perpetuated, and learning to Read provides and actual disproof of those ways of working. It clearly shows a far more effective and accurate way of perceiving and interacting with other humans. And right now the way humans are interacting and treating one another, the culture they're using to do so, is wreaking all kinds of havoc and trauma on irrevocable, planetary, or just cruel scales.

Our rational assessment is that we have access to an epistemological tool that would undermine the basis for memeplexes used to support such activities/which engender them. Our ethos is that it is our duty to make it known and alleviate suffering which we could alleviate, enhance and empower our fellow beings as we see that they could be enhanced and empowered.

'Thomas' concern with strength, heroism, Alpha-male antics come off as juvenile imo. The INFJ over-reliance on Ti is 'faux-zen', a way of curbing manic momentum. Down-playing the role of Ti says a lot, I think. The inspiration for INFJ is ENFP, the primary link being dominant intuition and feeling, a feeling that there is more to this world than the drudgery of existence. A sacred coupling of epic proportions, but let's not forget about the wise old man, the hermetic God of the coincidencia apositorum. hehe'

I don't think this is a fair characterisation of our approach to the Offside Power. It's modulation, so a person just as a matter of fact will be enervated by being constantly locked down by it, but we positively encourage training it in an on/off and situationally-appropriate sense. The point is that this won't really work for you unless it's supporting a peaking cycle which starts with your momentum powers (Source then Tandem), and that such a peaking cycle is what your psyche is built to gravitate towards, find a means of expressing, and be nourished by successfully completing.

The inspirational relationship is about momentum, but also about balance. It allows the use of all conscious powers by two beings working in harmony with one another, without the use of those powers invalidating or halting what really energises and excites and turns on one of the partners.

 

[BigApplePi]

tikru. What would you say to a bit of paranoia or at least defensiveness on their part considering the public's attack? They believe they have something, so they close ranks and act tough. It's a polarization unfortunately. They need a press agent. At least Lyra is here. I hope she doesn't give up. At least you have played some of their utubes. I haven't done much since last year (for lack of time).

 

[Melkor]

Oh hang on.

My mojo filter was turned off.

*Flicks it on*

Oh. It all makes sense now.

Wow.

 

[cheese]

@Architect
It *does* take some time to get it - typology in general. I've tried to explain MBTI concepts to family and friends and it takes forever - it's still not clear to them. The theory is quite complex and it takes a lot of observation and contemplation, and comparing your 'samples' irl to your concept models, to really get it. So presumably the same goes for podlair. I didn't take Lyra's tone as arrogant, personally.

But you probably don't have to sift through the podlair videos too much (imo). If you've read through Adymus's original threads before the podlair lingo and marketing came in (it's still in JCF form), and read some of Lenore Thomson's stuff, Jung, anyone out there, you'll probably be on more or less the same track as they are, in terms of concepts (ime). The information will sit in your head for a while and then slowly converge in useful patterns that you can compare against reality, and the nonsense will usually be weeded out.

Reading the original thread about identifying functions visually in real time is helpful, though. There should be some really obvious examples in your life that fit the descriptions for certain functions like a glove. The cues themselves also indicate a little bit about how the functions work. (Like that 'leaning back' usually signifies accessing an introverted function, and if your face warms up while in that introverted position you're using Fi, whereas if it cools down you're using Ti. Stuff that fits perfectly with what we already believe to be true.) That plus the seemingly huge number of and complexity of correlations involved do suggest that the cues are directly linked to cognitive functions and support the JCF model.

Simplified explanation of Lyra's wordy post:

Spoiler

Possibly with errors and definitely with simplification, but I think the basic idea is right:

Spoiler

I think Lyra's post was basically just talking about correlations and the importance of having an external source of data to refer back to (rather than building an internal mental model without checking the outside enough). Their visual reading seems true to them because as far as they can tell, the cues always occur in distinct packages, such that you can make predictions (eg which cues you'll see and with what frequency relative to other cues). Like if you're a person whose face cools down when you lean back (accessing Ti) it'll probably warm up at least a little when you learn forward (accessing Fe). [Simplification.] Or if your face cools down really easily, it'll probably warm up less easily (high T, low F). In other words, the way the cues are correlated with each other, always/without fail, seems to support the idea of function pairs (Ti-Fe, Te-Fi, Ne-Si, Ni-Se), which also gives a little support to the overall theory of functions and the functional stack/order of functions. Or if you become really energised while demonstrating some cues but lose energy when demonstrating others - that's further support for functional stack. (They have different names for it, but the basic concept is the same, I think.)

This holds true even if they demonstrate the lower-energy cues more frequently than the higher energy ones, the idea being that we can use a function more than the one which is actually our dom, maybe because it's necessary for the moment or because you've grown up in an environment where your dom isn't rewarded. MBTI/JCF talk about this stuff too iirc, and how it can lead to sickness or depression. In podlair, this kind of inefficient/unhealthy use of your functions will show physically as well.

It gets more complex than what I've mentioned - taking into account many variables at once (like comparing the person's apparent energy levels during and after a certain cue-set manifests, since both can tell us something about how easily the cues were used/how stimulating they are and therefore where those functions lie in the stack), and observing different combinations of cue-sets and energy.

Basically, it's building layers and layers of patterns/correlations. Groups of correlations eventually become variables themselves, as the correlations themselves can be correlated with others in different groups - and you get larger patterns (but patterns that can nonetheless be traced down to the most basic cues). At the most basic level, you have function pairs - eg if you see Ni, you'll always see Se. Then you see energy levels correlating with cues in a particular way - fluctuating in several broad categories/patterns (highs and lows correlating with specific cue-sets) that suggest functional stack (and could distinguish eg between INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP and ESFP - all of whom share the same two function pairs, Ni-Se and Te-Fi). Then you see that within those categories there are differences and things you can't explain, but as you observe more and more people you realise even those differences occur in predictable manners with predictable correlations, and have formed their own little subcategory (eg a Ti dom who's overmodulating with Fe and is stressed-out will have abcdefg variables interacting in these precise ways) (Or seeing how an ENFP's strong/energised and frequent use of Te still looks different to an ENTJ's strong and frequent use of Te, due to a multitude of variables.). So the more you observe people, the more precise your categories can become and the stronger your predictions, more or less.

The reason the visual reading's important is because it's too easy to get caught up building conceptual castles in your head without checking if they correspond with reality. (We all know how this works! And it's an idea that's well-understood in normal culture too.) Ti can go really deep but it can also get a little off-course. Also, a lot of the data for our mental models of functions is sourced from our understanding of ourselves, so if we type ourselves wrong that means our understanding of Ti, Ne, Si and Fe is probably flawed too. And generally the kind of patterns (correlations) we use to build our models of the underlying structure are weak (often behaviour-based, which can be influenced by a huge number of things and imo aren't strong indicators of type), based on a small sample size (people we personally know well).

Whereas visual cue-sets are more elemental, so the complex structure of correlations we can build up from there is a lot tighter - less room for alternative explanations. Also, if it's accurate, that means anyone we see can be useful data for us since we can type them almost immediately - and that data is more likely to be correct given the tight network of patterns behind it. So all these people's behaviour, not just the behaviour of people we know but *anyone we can see*, can be a reliable indicator of what various types are capable of.

Basically, it's a bigger pool and it's cleaner. That is, if this is true. I'm not totally sold yet. It makes a lot of sense, and I can see how it's tighter, but I'd really like to see it verified by people outside the group with computers and statistical analysis. (Something some of us were trying to do at one point.) In my own experience it does seem to work but I haven't explored enough yet.

But essentially, I think that's the gist of (most of) what Lyra was saying: Precise correlations/patterns that they observe without fail, which means they can make predictions about what correlations will appear, and so far those predictions haven't been falsified yet (by them). Plus, being able to read (assuming it's correct) would be a really big boon in terms of making sure our mental models adhere to reality, cos we'd be taking our understanding of 'types' directly from verified sources (ie people we read, using the 'verified' reading system) rather than people's assumptions and stereotypes, using a weaker reading system.

[So for example if they read a deeply compassionate, empathetic, highly successful, very sociable and outgoing grief counsellor as a Zai'nyy (INTP), then that's something that INTPs are capable of, regardless of what assumptions we held about their limitations previously. Or if we see an ESFJ academic lauded by his peers for his unparalleled intellect and incisive critical thinking, then that's also something that ESFJs can do (given the raw talent), regardless of what we previously believed about their type.]

That turned out longer than expected, but I hope it made sense/helped. He was explaining things in an abstract way, to cover as much ground as possible I think, but this is more or less how the idea works 'on the ground'. (Although I should add they don't usually read in the robotic, ground-up way I described - just like we don't read body language the way autistic people have to. After enough experience, it becomes second nature, and they see the larger patterns rather than base-level small patterns.) It's actually a quite natural way for Ti to do things, I think - building up these little correlations and seeing how eventually huge patterns fit together really tightly.

Honestly, I do think the MBTI stereotypes (and a lot of the other models that have grown up around that) are limiting.

I did ask them previously what *other* correlations they have, because they could be observing a very real phenomenon that suggests cognitive functions and stack but actually has nothing to do with them - like if they could make any predictions about behaviour, life, etc. There wasn't a very clear answer. They said yes, but I wasn't sure how. Perhaps when you speak to these people you've read on a one-to-one level, the way their head processes things will be very clearly a certain type, regardless of what signals their outer behaviour sends about type 'stereotypes' and 'profiles'. Not totally sure.

 

[Lyra]

I did ask them previously what *other* correlations they have, because they could be observing a very real phenomenon that suggests cognitive functions and stack but actually has nothing to do with them - like if they could make any predictions about behaviour, life, etc. There wasn't a very clear answer. They said yes, but I wasn't sure how. Perhaps when you speak to these people you've read on a one-to-one level, the way their head processes things will be very clearly a certain type, regardless of what signals their outer behaviour sends about type 'stereotypes' and 'profiles'. Not totally sure.

Cues and signals occur in the context of a person's overall concerns and life path, which they often give you a lot of information about just by what they discuss or what role (4th gear) or overall pattern (5th gear) they're giving off. We can read configuration without understanding a person's language or words, but in the process of reading lots of samples you come to see that momentum will occur, in Nai or Vai for example, in the context of themes which clearly are life-scale. Separating cues out from this information-source is actually quite unnatural when you're working at 4th gear+.

The peaking cycle is fractal. You can observe it in the context of microscopic or moment by moment interactions, or more significantly over the course of days, or, more or less depending upon the config in question, over years or an entire lifetime. Nai'alpha, for example, naturally have single peaking cycles that can last for several decades. When you actually read a person it's, again, unnatural to separate out their moment by moment cues from this overall context.

We don't tend to focus on these more tacit levels in our up-front public presentation, because, as exampled by Architect, the current cultural climate tends to promote ridicule/denial of anything not solid and precise and concrete used in making sense of our world. Our actual position is that we can prove our theory on those levels, but that it's native, natural, and possible to work with the insights, and related ones which are less mundanely obvious, on more tacit/holistic levels. And, importantly, that the hostility the strength of Coach's discovery enables us to undermine in this case via falsifiable and factual proof of concept is a form of collective dysfunctionality that prejudices against and stymies the creativity of less strong but still useful intuitive expressions generally.

Such prejudice is in essence no different than racism or other forms of warped discrimination. The fact is that people work in a way not generally recognised, and that cultural/familial/institutional biases hurt/misunderstand/disempower some of them for being what they natively and inherently are. The only reason it makes sense for us not to be as absolute in rejecting and fighting this kind of thing is that it's less obvious/accepted a phenomenon than, say, race-discrimination. We're not ok with that, or with getting less intense because this isn't immediately obvious, because it is there and we have factually demonstrated that it is there. Laziness doesn't change that we have factually demonstrated it, or that there is a lot of suffering that the appreciation of this factual demonstration would, amongst good-willed people, necessarily prevent/reverse.

If people are going to take a totally dissociated position (as Auburn sometimes claims to, but never really does), fine. But that would apply as much to things they don't seem to have a predilection for challenging-- such as explicit rejection of racism, combating climactic catastrophe, or any other social preference/position which references factual states of affairs. In so far as it's accepted that we should actively tend to our collective well-being and that of future generations, Pod'Lair is up there. It demonstrates and those demonstrations have direct implications. It is what we are and we suffer for not understanding what we are.

I liked your post. Might respond more soon.

 

[pjoa09]

I just never understood why do you guys type,type, and code so much.

I mean type as in everyone has to get their reading by sending a lengthy video over.

I mean type as in there is a lot of text on every single post and when it comes to Pod Lair I can't even work with Cheese's summary.

I mean code as in none of your key terms are actual words that actually mean something in a dictionary.

It's just inherently confusing.

I think that's from where you guys are getting the hate. It's a lot of effort man.

Anyone who walks into Adymus's videos would feel like they were violently attacked by a schizophrenic Sham Wow velociraptor .

MBTI at least is a walk in the park with a dog for the first half an hour.

Podlair left me is despair after 5 minutes.

A small humorous insult-ish sentence there for the insult sensitive thread.

 

[Lyra]

But you probably don't have to sift through the podlair videos too much (imo). If you've read through Adymus's original threads before the podlair lingo and marketing came in (it's still in JCF form), and read some of Lenore Thomson's stuff, Jung, anyone out there, you'll probably be on more or less the same track as they are, in terms of concepts (ime). The information will sit in your head for a while and then slowly converge in useful patterns that you can compare against reality, and the nonsense will usually be weeded out.

Lenore Thompson isn't a source you want to be using, given her read accuracy. I liked Adymus' threads here, but his understanding has (I believe) progressed since he wrote them, and far more and more complete information is presented in the videos on the MRR Channel and in our indvidiualised PSAs. Including, vitally, clean samples. These should form the foundation for the process of learning to Read people.

 

[Lyra]

I just never understood why do you guys type,type, and code so much.

I mean type as in everyone has to get their reading by sending a lengthy video over.

I mean type as in there is a lot of text on every single post and when it comes to Pod Lair I can't even work with Cheese's summary.

I mean code as in none of your key terms are actual words that actually mean something in a dictionary.

It's just inherently confusing.

I think that's from where you guys are getting the hate. It's a lot of effort man.

Anyone who walks into Adymus's videos would feel like they were violently attacked by a schizophrenic Sham Wow velociraptor .

MBTI at least is a walk in the park with a dog for the first half an hour.

Podlair left me is despair after 5 minutes.

A small humorous insult-ish sentence there for the insult sensitive thread.

I would apologise that the universe takes more than 5 minutes/half-an-hour for you to understand usefully...

but...

no.

I do, however, recommend yielding all aspiration to responsibility and being listened to if this is your attitude. The world's problems need better right now.

We care about people who care. There is more than enough for them to work with, and more than enough we've provided to them, and we are the only source providing info of this kind. Any theoretical discipline developed/refined to an advanced level requires some work and dedication to grasp and has its own unique vocabulary and requirements, and the same goes for Pod'Lair.

 

[Reluctantly]

@Lyra

What scares me about Pod'Lair and gives it legitimate 'cult' status is the fact that you guys believe you have found something significant that can only lead to better understanding; it's the essence behind a self-fulfilling prophecy. You guys operate on the assumption that the theory is 'correct', which automatically denies legitimate criticism.

And it doesn't help that you guys fluff it up so much; fluff is fine, but when all people see is fluff and no substance (concepts), people start to wonder what you're pitching. Jesus, if the theory has something to offer, people will respect it, but you have to be fair with what it is and you have to be willing to accept that it might not be as great as you 'envisioned' it to other people.

Jesus, and Jung talks about this - Ti seeing some order or logic to things that in the Ti mind is perfect and great, but is still abstract (an idea) and isn't directly relatable to reality. It's similar to how Fi seeks perfection as well, but one of congruence, but...

Christ, is it an ego thing? You guys will never accept 'flaws', will you? It's so ironic then, that without seeing what you produce as limited, you color everything with your ego and can't see past it, but yet you have a better 'understanding', a better theory.

And yet, I can only believe this post will not get addressed as criticizing posts are ignored. Such ignorance makes me feel angry, but sorry at the same time. You make me feel so ambivalent. So incredibly frustrating to be reduced to nothing in your mind. Pure ambivalence.

 

[Lyra]

Look. What I 'believe' is that there are certain facts which have been demonstrated in a falsifiable manner, and that widespread knowledge of them would change human self-conceptions in manner that promoted excellence and fulfillment of inherent potential. This is a simple rational analysis which could be challenged at a number of levels:

1) By a refutation of my interpretation of the facts (by falsification/presentation of a superior theory which made sense of them/undermining the link being made between evidence and theory).
2) By challenging the implications, necessarily via an understanding of the facts and a knowledgeable criticism of what their implications are being judged to be.

Because of my position with regards to 1 and 2, and my personal ethos, I am pursuing a course of action.

If somebody seriously challenges me on 1 or 2, I'd be prepared to change my position, and probably adjust my course of action. My prerequisite to that is a good-will effort to make contact with and analyse the facts in question.

I don't think this is a particularly closed-minded or egotistical position. I certainly don't see you as 'nothing'. Your 'Ti' criticism is somewhat off-mark, I think, given that Pod'Lair is, in honesty, a vessel to me for concerns my Nai (I'm a Nai'xyy) is working on. I also don't think we do fluff it up so much. MRR actually presents all the info in a very straightforward way, and anybody can choose just to watch that channel and get the info for Reading clearly and straightforwardly.

I am not closed to your criticisms or your input. My judgement and reasons for engaging in Pod'Lair are my own, and if you engage with them, and the basis of my analysis, I will engage with you. What I cannot satisfactorily engage with are inaccurate assertions/psychological analyses/general rejections/laziness, because those things don't provide adequate ground for a rational discourse about the nature of the facts and the claims being made in relation to them.

 

[Auburn]

@Lyra - If I were to deconstruct one of Pod'Lair's supposed Nai'xyy (say, Florence Welch) and show you that the cues given off do indeed have inconsistencies even by Pod'Lair's own standards. Would that suffice?

Or would I be told I'm only looking at 1st/2nd gear and that this matter has to be approached more artistically/holistically. (which would be a crappy excuse imo, after saying their cues are so irrefutable and have zero contradictions). Would I be told I'm not looking at the Qualia?

 

[Auburn]

Furthermore, even if there were zero inconsistencies, how precisely do you tie together cues to psychology?

Even if there is no contradiction in the pared patterns of facial signals -- that doesn't automatically imply said pair(s) of signals indicate -- absolutely -- a particular psychic disposition.

For example, I can state this hypothesis:
All people who blink more than 40 times per minute have dry lips.
Assuming by some miracle that turned out to be true, how would I know that these people (lets call them people A) have any particular psychic dispositions.

So how would you go about connecting the consistency of a pair(s) of physiological correlation to a psychological one? What means would you use to measure the mind - and compare it against the face?

Do you use behavior?
- - - Proposal: Perhaps specific behaviors/habits will always be observable in people A. Thus a grounds to link the physiognomy to the mind.
- - - No. podlair claims not to rely on behavior, nor the frequency of behaviors to support mojo/type. //pretty fair call

Do you use neuro-scans?
- - - Proposal: Perhaps these cues/signals, when placed under an fMRI/EEG will show activity in certain areas, or sequences of activities that remains consistent across all people A. And those areas that light up are understood to relate to particular psychological tendencies. Thus a grounds exists to link the face to neuroscience (and thus psychological).
- - - No. podlair does not believe neuroscience is a valid means for testing mojo. // why not?

Do you use Astrology? No. //good call
Do you use Palm Reading? No. //good call
Do you use Self-Assessments? No. //good call

So what do you use to connect face to psychology?
- - - Gears 3-5. A very artistic/subjective (and imo unjustifiable) nuanced perception. A collective nuanced perception that is shared between the podlairians and thus seems consistent to themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I value subjective and nuanced perception, and have it myself. But I would hardly be able to call my own artistic lens irrefutable forensic evidence. Even if I could get others to agree with me on it, it wouldn't prove it.

Why? Because people get people to agree with them about all sorts of ideas --- and all sorts of ideas that are widespread are also wrong. So if getting more people to agree with you isn't necessarily valid grounds of objectivity/right-ness, then what is?

 

[Matt3737]

I've already engaged in this discussion months ago over at the INFJ forum which I found to be hilariously misleading and deceptive.

My absolute favorite Adymus quote in that whole discussion has to be his refutation that referring back to his original statement was not a circular argument!

Pointing you to my original statement is not circularly logic, it is just redirecting you to that one thing that you keep ignoring.

I guess my disagreement is also my ignorance, but how was I supposed to know until Adymus told me it was!?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Look. What I 'believe' is that there are certain facts which have been demonstrated in a falsifiable manner, and that widespread knowledge of them would change human self-conceptions in manner that promoted excellence and fulfillment of inherent potential. This is a simple rational analysis which could be challenged at a number of levels.

Lyra, I have watched a few of Adymus videos and also enjoy mocking Pod'Lair occasionally: Let's be honest, silly names coupled with theories with derived silly names inside instead of using common lingo delivered continuously with the statement 'we think' almost as a representation as some kind of hive mind makes you an easy target.

That aside I keep hearing certain statements from Pod'Lair which appear unsubstantiated:

Pod'Lair has been shown to be consistent, verified, objective etc.
All other theories have been shown to be inconsistent, lack verification etc.

Please provide any evidence to help verify these claims.

As far as I am aware there are absolutely no cognitive style models that are accepted as scientifically verified. This doesn't mean there isn't something to each theory, but you can't keep making such a statement without providing any evidence to support it or you will keep losing credibility.

I have not seen any evidence that makes Pod'Lair any different from other theories with regards to consistency, verification or objectivity or any other qualifier.

 

[pjoa09]

I would apologise that the universe takes more than 5 minutes/half-an-hour for you to understand usefully...

but...

no.

I do, however, recommend yielding all aspiration to responsibility and being listened to if this is your attitude. The world's problems need better right now.

We care about people who care. There is more than enough for them to work with, and more than enough we've provided to them, and we are the only source providing info of this kind. Any theoretical discipline developed/refined to an advanced level requires some work and dedication to grasp and has its own unique vocabulary and requirements, and the same goes for Pod'Lair.

Youtube convinced me otherwise.

I agree my attitude is not on par with someone who is genuinely interested in Pod'Lair.

I am just saying that everything other than Pod'Lair looks digestible.

 

[Lyra]

Furthermore, even if there were zero inconsistencies, how precisely do you tie together cues to psychology?

Even if there is no contradiction in the pared patterns of facial signals -- that doesn't automatically imply said pair(s) of signals indicate -- absolutely -- a particular psychic disposition.

Momentum already crosses this boundary, and you can't really read any of the gears without getting it. It's inherently a behavioural phenomenon, which concerns the being which the person is and which moves. You're lost in Cartesian word games that learning to read would just make a non-issue. That is: you're asserting a positive separation which in fact is irrelevant to perceiving what is there, and what is there is capable of being perceived with a unity of perception amongst individuals, with that unity of ordered and communicable perception yielding superior predictive results and explanatory power. It's not necessary for us to make sense of an archaic and empirically unjustified distinction between the hypothesised entities of 'psychology' and 'physiology', which you assume you can use unchallenged just because they're common.

This is just one more example of the excuses you use not to learn Reading. Of the rigidity which prevents you from accepting the conditions we propose as necessary for understanding axiomatically to see what results are yielded by doing so, and then rationally comparing the coherency/explanatory power of this way of looking at people to all others which proliferate.

'All sorts of ideas' pale in comparison to this, and do not link their tacit aspects with a coherent and falsifiable set of physical signals/markers in any way even close to how P'L does. Aditionally, we didn't make reality like this. P'L just figured it out far more usefully than you or prolific models-- including associated ideas about how problems and people can even be usefully approached-- did. It's not our responsibility to make reality or how it can most successfully be investigated/manipulated/interacted with accord with your misconceived standards.

On your other points:

-We don't reject the possibility of neurological insights being yielded in relation to this, or eventually being used as an alternate means of reading. What we do reject is ridiculous pseudo-science like Nardi or what PHY was attempting to create, along with much of the fashionable but ultimately empty neurospeculation that proliferates in academia today just 'cos grant-seeking and generally sycophantic authors know 'neuro' gets everyone thinking you're up on Science and mad clever. What we have, already, now, is a very long way beyond that scrabbling around in the name-dropping epistemological dark.

 

[BigApplePi]

What we do reject is ridiculous pseudo-science like Nardi or what PHY was attempting to create, along with much of the fashionable but ultimately empty neurospeculation that proliferates in academia today just 'cos grant-seeking and generally sycophantic authors know 'neuro' gets everyone thinking you're up on Science and mad clever. What we have, already, now, is a very long way beyond that scrabbling around in the name-dropping epistemological dark.

Lyra. This is just a quick response. Saying what you said above doesn't make it so. Every view has something to contribute.

 

[Lyra]

@Lyra - If I were to deconstruct one of Pod'Lair's supposed Nai'xyy (say, Florence Welch) and show you that the cues given off do indeed have inconsistencies even by Pod'Lair's own standards. Would that suffice?

Or would I be told I'm only looking at 1st/2nd gear and that this matter has to be approached more artistically/holistically. (which would be a crappy excuse imo, after saying their cues are so irrefutable and have zero contradictions). Would I be told I'm not looking at the Qualia?

Go ahead and try to show that they have inconsistencies by Pod'Lair's standards.

Or better yet-- because we do make individual misreads, although far less than anyone else out there-- demonstrate a consistent flaw/theoretical-error which as a trend corrupts multiple reads.

You might be told that you're ignoring Qualia, because you usually do, because you have a predilection for not even engaging your lens-- the instrument of reading-- in the way required for first gear. The cues are there, but it's not our problem whether or not you attempt to read them and thereby attain the superior results to which that leads, or instead randomly quibble with irrelevant 'data'. TBH you're a bit like somebody coming to learning Chinese with a a fixed idea that this syllable as your untrained Western auditory system hears it must always mean this particular thing, or else the language doesn't make sense. You respond to insistence that there is in fact a coherent and elegant syntax in play with an assertion that that's all bullshit if the language doesn't fit your standards of what a lanuage must be, which is something where each syllable does what you think it should. You set about amassing vast data sets in accordance with these bizarre assumptions you come to it with, in which the linguistic processing-power and innate abilities of the actual language speakers are ignored as unreal if they can't directly correspond with a 1 syllable-1 meaning standard (as you, untrained, hear it-- bearing in mind language learners adjust to being able to consistently and correctly identify individual words received through their senses via engagement with the language as a whole, which is a holistic human phenomenon that cannot be distinguished in its completeness from either the concrete or the tacit). Whatever, the language is there and people speak it. And, in this case, it is theoretically superior to and predictively far beyond any other language/model out there. If you want to quibble with irrelevancies or continue projecting inappropriate standards that's your problem-- you have nothing to show for the efficacy of your requirements, so they hold no weight.

What you could work on now are things like bi-field face, Y/Y gesturing, emotive range etc. These might set you on the right track with regards to what falsification would involve, saving you from continuing with the irrelevant mapping of irrelevant movements or incidence of movements made, without engaging the lens through which relevant movements can be distinguished.

 

[Lyra]

Lyra. This is just a quick response. Saying what you said above doesn't make it so. Every view has something to contribute.

What are you even saying?

 

[Lyra]

I'd also like to note that this mob-democratic concern with everyone needing to be able to see/understand something from an untrained perspective is in no way inherent to the activity or Science or truth-seeking generally. Physics never worked like this, maths never worked like this, high literature never worked like this, high anything never worked like this. What matters is whether or not the phenomenon is true and most useful/explanatory amongst those whose trained unity of perception can apply and make use of rigorous and relevant empirical standards.

Not seeing it means nothing, throwing up irrelevant 'data' that anybody adept in the discipline would immediately understand as superfluous attempts at the Mah'zute of Science means nothing. What we are working with is the gold standard in the field, nothing comes close, and that is the fact of the matter. You need to put in a certain amount of work to be eligible to comment relevantly, and your inability to do so or to engage the relevant faculties (as a trainee physicist must engage mathematical faculties) are no argument against us. Present an alternate model and you have some weight, criticise ours whilst demonstrating fluency in the phenomenon and you have some weight, project irrelevant Cartesian word-games and individual hang-ups explaining why you couldn't just get it together and learn how to do equations and you have no weight.

Nobody cares if you don't get that what + means, or can't find an empirical example of + out in the concrete world that makes it all make sense for you (hint: none exists-- OH NO TACIT IN PHYSIKS!). Physicists still use + and make sense of data by it. You just need to be fluent before you can comment. Same goes here. It fits together, it is a working theory of an elegance and magnitude and predictive power unlike anything that has gone before, and there are basic requirements-- no different in essence from requirements like needing to train your perceptual/cognitive faculties to process equations-- for those who want to make relevant comment.

If you think this is rigging the game you're just being a pleb. Every refined/high-level discipline works like this. It's not their problem to make themselves or their subject matter accessible to every pleb too lazy or ill-suited to grasping it. Or their responsibility to listen to the ramblings of every mind that's erroneously convinced itself its untrained contributions, that make sense to it and its ill-adapted psychic landscape, matter.

 

[snafupants]

I'd also like to note that this mob-democratic concern with everyone needing to be able to see/understand something from an untrained perspective is in no way inherent to the activity or Science or truth-seeking generally.

OK, let's back up. Nobody's calling for third grade reading comprehension level.

Is it too much to ask Pod'Lair's practitioners to use words common to standard written English?!

You mention science and allude to philosophy or metaphysics. Those disciplines use words with fairly common meanings - you can find most in the dictionary. @Lyra

Mob-democratic concern? Calm down.

 

[Lyra]

OK, let's back up. Nobody's calling for third grade reading comprehension level.

Is it too much to ask Pod'Lair's practitioners to use words common to standard written English?!

You mention science and allude to philosophy or metaphysics. Those disciplines use words with fairly common meanings - you can find most in the dictionary. @Lyra

Mob-democratic concern? Calm down.

Pod'Lair's vocabulary is inanely easy to grasp. The reason we use a very few unfamiliar terms is because we are introducing unfamiliar experiences/concepts to which it is better to come with a clean lens. This allows a person to build their own relevant interpretation by the relevant methods. Prior associations would directly hinder this process.

However, we elucidate these central unfamiliar terms by means of many familiar concepts, a colour-coding system, and signs. A little sincere effort allows all of these to be quickly and easily grasped. The key to making sense of it all is the only activity which makes any of this worthwhile or coherent: Reading Samples.

All new terms are defined/explained comprehensively and clearly in places where anybody who actually wanted to understand them would very quickly look. There are far fewer new or difficult or esoteric terms than in most scientific or academic disciplines.

Much of my criticism was specific and appropriate to Auburn.

 

[snafupants]

Pod'Lair's vocabulary is inanely easy to grasp.

At first blush, I totally disagree because the words aren't really words.

It would only be "innately easy to grasp" provided you utilized real words.

Prior associations would directly hinder this process.

Prior associations?! For fuck's sake, use real words.

 

[Architect]

@cheese and @Lyra

OK, so PL is a form of Physiognomy?

Physiognomy (from the Gk. physis meaning "nature" and gnomon meaning "judge" or "interpreter") is the assessment of a person's character or personality from his outer appearance, especially the face.

Credence of such study has varied from time to time. The practice was well-accepted by the ancient Greek philosophers, but fell into disrepute in the Middle Ages when practised by vagabonds and mountebanks. It was then revived and popularised by Johann Kaspar Lavater before falling from favour again in the late 19th century. Physiognomy as understood in the past meets the contemporary definition of a pseudoscience.

There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works.

What makes PL different and better from past attempts?

 

[Lyra]

Words refer (or claim to). This phenomenon was not referred to previously. Therefore new referents are appropriate. 'Real' in the context you are using it means 'the known'. This is unknown, and we intend to signal that.

Also, you've contributed nothing, so you really don't get to make requests like this. Your productive yield is precisely 0. Your discoveries 0. The relevance of your desires 0.

 

[snafupants]

Words refer (or claim to). This phenomenon was not referred to previously. Therefore new referents are appropriate. 'Real' in the context you are using it means 'the known'. This is unknown, and we intend to signal that.

Neologisms aren't necessary to describe "new" things.

Pod'Lair seems like MBTI with window dressing anyway.

Also, you've contributed nothing, so you really don't get to make requests like this. Your productive yield is precisely 0. Your discoveries 0. The relevance of your desires 0.

Someone's getting defensive.

 

[Lyra]

@cheese and @Lyra

OK, so PL is a form of Physiognomy?

What makes PL different and better from past attempts?

Having run a project called physiognomy.me with Auburn, this is a revelation to me. To find that the word we used to name our project actually refers to the project's subject matter is startlingly serendipitous.

That aside, the inefficacy or past attempts is of no more relevance to our positive faslifiable claims that Medieval metaphysics was to Newton.

 

[snafupants]

To find that the word we used to name our project actually refers to the project's subject matter is startlingly serendipitous.

Perhaps like MBTI's influence on Pod'Lair proved startlingly serendipitous?

 

[crippli]

@OP video

It's very disorienting and messy.

Try to relax more, no more of the hand movements. And try to present your material with a calm and steady voice. The voice also break up from time to time, that I would associate with insecurity. The 'enthusiasm' comes off as forced. So the unconscious signals are not well addressed. It's also distracting with the ponytail whips from side to side. If you feel that rapid head movement is necessary, take care to tie up the hair further. And with a background and lightning as such, makeup will make a difference

Really. The material might be fine, but drowns in the presentation. I made it to 8 minutes. It's often a good idea to use a still image, and just focus on the voice(do not underestimate the power of the voice) if you feel you have a message that really should reach out to the public. If moving pictures are to be used, get a media professional to handle the details. This is generally well spent money.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd also like to note that this mob-democratic concern with everyone needing to be able to see/understand something from an untrained perspective is in no way inherent to the activity or Science or truth-seeking generally. Physics never worked like this, maths never worked like this, high literature never worked like this, high anything never worked like this.

You have a point. Validity does not necessitate that the layman understands, or could ever understand. Pod'Lair is not at fault for this.


What Pod'Lair is at fault for is the complete avoidance of the scientific sphere while at the same time claiming infallibility, certainty, and a goal of universal implementation. That is just pure pseudoscience bordering on cult fascism.

Unless I am mistaken, there is a lack of publications documenting formal and methodological studies into the predictability, reproducibility and general accuracy of Pod'Lair theory. There is a lack of documented research justifying Pod'Lair's foundations. The only information that is available is confirmation bias, conclusions that prove Pod'Lair is correct because its developers say it is.



It would be reasonably unreasonable for me to ask you or other Pod'Lair advocates to prove something complex as this on the spot. But as Pod'lair developers and practitioners already claim infallibility, certainty, and accuracy, then where is the evidence of these studies? Can you link to your research?