Type Reading | Series

[Coolydudey]

Can I file a special request for the ENTP video?

 

[octopuses]

RDJ has to be an ESTP, or maybe an ENTP

 

[Auburn]

@Coolydudey -
Sure, you mean like, request for the ENTP/NeTi video to be made next?

(...or request something special in the ENTP/NeTi video?)

 

[Coolydudey]

Just for it to be made sooner rather than later..

 

[Obsidian]

I feel like ESFJ or ISTJ should be made next. It bothers me that so many of these typing systems exhibit such a skewed emphasis on intuitives. Pod'Lair is especially guilty. According to Pod'LAir, everyone is either an INFJ, INTP, or ENFP.

 

[Coolydudey]

I feel like ESFJ or ISTJ should be made next. It bothers me that so many of these typing systems exhibit such a skewed emphasis on intuitives. Pod'Lair is especially guilty. According to Pod'LAir, everyone is either an INFJ, INTP, or ENFP.

The situation is
A) already done an S
B) I asked for esfj...
C) They will do their own thing. They seem committed to releasing all the types anyway.

 

[snafupants]

***I really don't find 'INFJ/ENFP' type naming helpful. NiFe/NeFi is much better.

You can deduce one from the other. Who gives a shit? I guess you do haha.

 

[Lyra]

You can deduce one from the other. Who gives a shit? I guess you do haha.

Well, you can when you know, but the dichotomy-focus has done a lot to mislead a lot of people, and is actually just inaccurate. Why use inaccurate terms with baggage when you can use accurate ones without?

That's just my thoughts and preference. Really not interested in a classic snafupants timewaste/empty-exchange/I-have-time-to-make-4,952-posts-saying-nothing-in-particular-fest. Use whatever you will, obviously.

 

[snafupants]

Well, you can when you know, but the dichotomy-focus has done a lot to mislead a lot of people, and is actually just inaccurate. Why use inaccurate terms with baggage when you can use accurate ones without?

Because people are familiar with the MBTI and four letters are simple?

The notion of cognitive functions is immediately incomprehensible to many people.

 

[Obsidian]

I think it is stupid for Pod'Lair to disregard the MBTI labels, because Pod'Lair specifically embraces some clues based on being an MBTI Judger or Feeler ("Directive" or whatever). As far as I can tell, this new system basically does not embrace any such clues, so I guess maybe it makes sense for Auburn just to refer to types as two functions. However, on Auburn's website, it does seem to create four temperaments based in part on Judge-Perceiver dichotomies. That still resembles MBTI.

In any event, I still like the MBTI labels. I do think all judgers generally have some traits in common, and all perceivers.

Everyone loves to hate MBTI, even though everyone leaches off it.

 

[Lyra]

I think it is stupid for Pod'Lair to disregard the MBTI labels, because Pod'Lair specifically embraces some clues based on being an MBTI Judger or Feeler ("Directive" or whatever).

That really doesn't make sense. They do recognise vaues-based vs. logic based (different thing from directive vs. adaptive, which corelates with J vs. P), but also many other dynamics and dichotomies, many in a form that the typecode nomenclature wouldn't comfortably accommodate. It's hardly 'stupid' not to place one factor arbitrarily above others in a nomenclature that doesn't represent your actual position or focus.

Pod'Lair doesn't even recognise that subjective/objective, for example, is identical to the concepts of introversion vs. extroversion. They're somewhat distinct concepts whose identification would be misleading. They also like to focus on all four conscious powers a person has and how their concepts of momentum/modulation/peaking etc. work in terms of those, whereas the four-letter typecodes only deal with the top two functions in the cognitive hierarchy. (There's also the claim that the 'powers' as opposed to the functions are empirically founded, and thus different phenomena etc., but I don't find that particularly relevant or interesting here).

Whatever criticisms can be levied, I don't think this is a particularly valid or important one.

p.s. Btw, fyi, I think the 'FeNi' etc. type conventions actually derive from the Pod'Lair 'Xyy'nai' type names. If this is wrong historically somebody please let me know.

 

[Auburn]

p.s. Btw, fyi, I think the 'FeNi' etc. type conventions actually derive from the Pod'Lair 'Xyy'nai' type names. If this is wrong historically somebody please let me know.

Another examaple of PL egoism. They'd claim Jung ripped them off if they could find some way to justify it to themselves. x_x

2007 - http://www.socionics.com/advan/whoiswho.html
2008 - http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/05/functions.html
2008 - http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/

 

[Auburn]

However, on Auburn's website, it does seem to create four temperaments based in part on Judge-Perceiver dichotomies. That still resembles MBTI.

In CognitiveType theory, Judger-Perciever doesn't correlate with MBTI J & P.

It correlates with Jung's Rational vs Irrational dichotomy, and further to Jung's Extro-Rational, Intro-Rational, Extro-Irrational, Intro-Irrational temperaments. (Je, Ji, Pe, Pi - respectively)

MBTI defines Judger as having Fe/Te as dom/aux, and Perciever as having Ne/Se are either dom/aux, while Jung defined a Judger as someone who used Judgment as primary, and a Perciever as someone who used Perception as primary. My theory relates with that of Jung, not MBTI. So CognitiveType theory really isn't leeching off anything MBTi-based.

~​

Yes, there are some shared similarities between having (Ji/Pe or Pe/Ji) as opposed to (Pi/Je or Je/Pi). The highlight of MBTI's J/P. But there are equally so, similarities between Ji/Pe and Je/Pi, or between Pe/Ji and Pi/Je. As well as similarities between several other arrangements. But all to varying degrees and such similarities are simply fourth-hand. This sort of correlation to be expected due to the overlapping complexity of the psychic algorithm. There isn't a single type that we share absolutely nothing with.

Yet not all those correlations can be encapsulated into the name of the type - nor is it really necessary. I think it would instead remain more pure to the theory to simply name types via their functions, and elaborate on how they relate to the other types in more in-depth profiles. (:

 

[Lyra]

Another examaple of PL egoism. They'd claim Jung ripped them off if they could find some way to justify it to themselves. x_x

2007 - http://www.socionics.com/advan/whoiswho.html
2008 - http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/05/functions.html
2008 - http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/

...? I was speaking for myself (I am... me, not 'Pod'Lair's egoism'), and I asked for historical correction because I wasn't sure. Point conceded but certainly not the best place to go on the attack like that. Especially not, given your position, about ripping off. Curious that you chose that to jump on out of a whole thread of theory/info, Auburn. You don't strike me as a truth-seeker nowadays. More worried about your fledgling platform and its claim to fame and copyrights and authorities, huh?

If you'll look through my recent posts, I think you'll find I've only attempted to explore what actually is the state of affairs in various contexts. Not about any of that bs. Leave the girly/bitchy Fe-polar weeaboo cartoonery for somebody you understand enough to apply it to. Go back and read the gushing post you made to me in the HDM thread before you start treating me as a personification of whatever you think Pod'Lair is again. You were closer, there.

 

[Auburn]

*sigh*

Forget I said anything..

 

[PhoenixRising]

...? I was speaking for myself (I am... me, not 'Pod'Lair's egoism'), and I asked for historical correction because I wasn't sure. Point conceded but certainly not the best place to go on the attack like that. Especially not, given your position, about ripping off. Curious that you chose that to jump on out of a whole thread of theory/info, Auburn. You don't strike me as a truth-seeker nowadays. More worried about your fledgling platform and its claim to fame and copyrights and authorities, huh?

If you'll look through my recent posts, I think you'll find I've only attempted to explore what actually is the state of affairs in various contexts. Not about any of that bs. Leave the girly/bitchy Fe-polar weeaboo cartoonery for somebody you understand enough to apply it to. Go back and read the gushing post you made to me in the HDM thread before you start treating me as a personification of whatever you think Pod'Lair is again. You were closer, there.

o.o

dude.. what's with the 6th grade name calling? just chill.

I don't know how you can say that Auburn isn't a "truth seeker". He actively uses deduction in everything he thinks about in order to distill it down as close to the core facts of the matter as possible. In reality, no matter how we go about seeking the truth, all human perceptions are going to be somewhat subjective. But if you're saying that the act of seeking, or the attempt at discovering reality is what counts, then Auburn definitely classifies as someone who seeks the truth.

Your opinion about visual typing differs from ours, and that's fine. Pod'lair has its merits just like any theory, and you're entitled to think that it is the closest explanation to reality. I think it's important though, not to exalt one's own ideology as the "absolute truth" or the "only truth".

As for CognitiveType stealing ideas from Pod'lair, that just isn't true. Remember the Modus project? That is how the CognitiveType theory was developed, through extensive observation and identification of repetitive patterns. This research was conducted with Jung's original theories in mind. If CT has some of the same ideas as Pod'lair, it's because we've made some of the same observations as they have. Reality is reality, no one should put a trademark on the truth.

 

[Auburn]

@Lyra - You're right that I shouldn't have made that comment, but that didn't warrant the half-dozen attacks of your following post.

You stress me out... it's like being in a room with a hostile Fe-dom. The presence is felt all around, intruding upon the rest just by his presence, and there's a sense that one has to be cautious of what one says to not upset this creature who is constantly on the edge of eruption. Wearing a faintly veiled facade of niceness and Ti "neutrality" when it's apparent to everyone that dispassion is the least of his motives.

This is what I meant when I said your presence is toxic (to me and at least several others). It is in your spirit; a hostility which you've elsewhere justified and felt proud to have - and which, depending on the day, you conceal. It's senseless to try and ignore the full context of yourself in relation to all of this and pretend to play democratic.

Regarding that post I made, I meant it, and... still do. Sad that you'd use that vulnerability and throw it back in my face along with the rest of this attack. I thank you for the things you've helped me realize - I just believe I have the right to explore on my own as all beings do, and seek my own answers. If you wish to call me stupid for it, go ahead. I won't allow myself to be guilt in a direction other than what my values call me toward.

And no, I'm not concerned about copyrights, really, I don't think anyone has a patent on the truth despite human's attempts to control something beyond them. I just find it silly how podlair *is* worried about it - both of them not trespassing copyrights and of others not trespassing theirs - and the complex of ownership they cling to. It is a symptom of imbalance, imo, to need so much for one's opinion to be the only one exalted. When one steps out of the human-lens and sees what is happening on an animalistic level, on a universal, one realizes how trivial it is.

It is unrealistic, as nature has taught me every invention humans make is simply a re-invention of what nature's already done. There's nothing unprecedented, only the re-discovery of old truths with every new generation. Truth, as it emerges in the minds of humans, has various independent origins, as the pattern re-emerges and then is observed by a fresh pair of eyes over and over, at different levels of clarity at different times.

 

[Lyra]

o.o

dude.. what's with the 6th grade name calling? just chill.

I don't know how you can say that Auburn isn't a "truth seeker". He actively uses deduction in everything he thinks about in order to distill it down as close to the core facts of the matter as possible. In reality, no matter how we go about seeking the truth, all human perceptions are going to be somewhat subjective. But if you're saying that the act of seeking, or the attempt at discovering reality is what counts, then Auburn definitely classifies as someone who seeks the truth.

Your opinion about visual typing differs from ours, and that's fine. Pod'lair has its merits just like any theory, and you're entitled to think that it is the closest explanation to reality. I think it's important though, not to exalt one's own ideology as the "absolute truth" or the "only truth".

As for CognitiveType stealing ideas from Pod'lair, that just isn't true. Remember the Modus project? That is how the CognitiveType theory was developed, through extensive observation and identification of repetitive patterns. This research was conducted with Jung's original theories in mind. If CT has some of the same ideas as Pod'lair, it's because we've made some of the same observations as they have. Reality is reality, no one should put a trademark on the truth.

That all sounds nice, but it's just factually inaccurate.

You didn't actually know Auburn whilst he was developing this, or during PHY ('Modus'), or back when he was still struggling to disentangle the parts he liked from Pod'Lair. Anybody who really experienced that history gets the actual state of affairs here. If you reference my post in the other thread about derivations, you'll see a little of what I'm talking about. This is just a matter for the record, not a matter of rights. All of this was in place long before the so-called 'project' of Modus, and you will find it impossible to demonstrate any realistic process of inference from the activities which supposedly constituted Modus (which were mostly a result of my input, btw). Even the form of Modus was all about mirroring/attacking Pod'Lair's platform, and its first videos were put up in explicit 'challenge' to it. 'Pod'Lair' were the unspoken words hanging over every conversation on the forum.

Now, am I talking about trademarks on truth? No. I said that explicitly in the other thread. I said I acknowledge the validity of a project of this kind or with these aims. That's not going to win me favour with 'my' people but I really don't care. The point is that I'm not in Pod'Lair attack mode, if such a thing exists. Little as a I know any of you will believe it, I actually don't care about that social/property/heroic/unheroic/whatever bullshit. I'm just pointing out massive factual inaccuracies, historical white-washes and blind-spots in the story Auburn is presenting. He is misrepresenting the state of things, and of his own would-be knowledge, to his audience. I'm setting the record straight so we can analyse the situation with more clarity.

The fact is that Auburn is trying to re-constitute something he learned from Adymus in seed form, and whose structure he's basically mirrored whilst changing a few terms here and there. I know from back then that he changed some terms just to avoid calling things the same thing that Pod'Lair did. And sure, I'm certain he thinks he noticed some things of his own since then, or has a different system because he gets different results. But his entire position is an expression of errors and perceptions which are part of the classical early stage inaccuracies of learning about this phenomenon. He's walking blind through well-tread and well-known paths, mistaking his experience as a student for trailblazing. I've explained this to him many times, and explained what he needs to do to achieve basic competence (none of it involves joining or supporting Pod'Lair), but he's far more scared of being wrong in his current position and assumptions and having his mind shaken up than he is fascinated by what's out there.

This is why I say he's not a serious truth-seeker. He just isn't. He hasn't done the hard graft. He wants to think he has, but he never really does, and needs to think he's found the answer to soon. I attack him as viciously as I do because I regard him as an old friend and fellow truth-seeker lost in a haze of his own failure. It's the only relevant impact I can have. I don't care about the niceties or the social role it puts me in, or how badly a post like this is likely to be received. The guy's a hypocrite, a deluded fool, and an incompetent, and any contact he has with me will consist of attempts to shake him into waking up in a way very few others will be willing to take on the necessary role to achieve. Part of him I used to know would have wanted that. Guess it's best for the other part just not to speak with me.

So, yes, I'm 'toxic'. If Auburn has followed the advice I'd given him at several turns his current personality would be a jibbering wreck of lust for the answer. But that's not the path he wants. He prefers the neat and tidy and pedestrian and respected game where he gets nicely credited for what a smart/good little boy he is, with his pleasing and innovative little model. He'd never deliberately experience pushback or take on hated roles like I do, never smash through his limits, never do a few thousand reads whilst trying on a certain alien perspective just to see if it's true. Never pretend to be something heretical for a few months just to see how much life and order and reason he could find in it. Never become his own diametric opposite as an experiment in transcending his own blind spots. He's too small and he's not enough of a truth-seeker to want to be bigger more than he wants any of the stuff in the way of that. He doesn't have the completely detached rational calculation (good one Lyra... right?) and experimental impulse (seriously...), and is too bound up by social implications in a crude sense, which is why he's never really explored this phenomenon without his anti-Pod'Lair attachments and need to have been right all along. Which is why he currently understands as little as he does.

 

[Lyra]

Wearing a faintly veiled facade of niceness and Ti "neutrality" when it's apparent to everyone that dispassion is the least of his motives.

Well, concern for accuracy is my motive, as it has been in all recent posts on this forum (except perhaps in the ways stated and indulged in in the last one, given that things got personal and about personal history). Discussion of whether that's 'Ti' or not, or w/e, is a red herring.

What's 'apparent' to you is more projection and a lack of understanding of what any of my past engagements here were about than anything else. I'm a lot colder and more neutral than you realise or even are yourself, just not on the cartoon/school-room/nicely-baanced-school-essay level.

 

[Brontosaurie]

btw CognitiveTypes terms for movements and gestures make a lot more sense.

here's a lazy comparison:

CT: "penetrative stare"
PL: "hypno-swivel"

they're not describing the same movement but surely PL's hyperbolic tendency of vagueness indicates that CT, while perhaps a complete rip-off, is slightly less indulgent and lunatic.

 

[snafupants]

they're not describing the same movement but surely PL's hyperbolic tendency of vagueness indicates that CT, while perhaps a complete rip-off, is slightly less indulgent and lunatic.

Honestly, I don't care too much about the verbiage. I just want to know what each is really saying. Thus far, CognitiveType seems to have the more intuitive, complementary and helpful information. The vitriolic polemics, for me, muddy the messages.

 

[Lyra]

Honestly, I don't care too much about the verbiage. I just want to know what each is really saying. Thus far, CognitiveType seems to have the more intuitive, complementary and helpful information. The vitriolic polemics, for me, muddy the messages.

Speaking independently, I agree that CT has the more intuitive and helpfully presented information so far. I attribute this to at least four factors:

1) Closer alignment with the auidence's cultural climate, allowing easier transmission of limited new information within a somewhat familiar intellectual atmosphere.
2) Basic aesthetic simplicity, clarity, and design. Particularly going ahead with in-depth annotations on visual footage, which Pod'Lair hadn't clarified copyright concerns about yet.
3) A focus on linking individual physiognomic ('first gear') movements to an already pretty much established model.

IME, Pod'Lair's visual reading really only clicks via a highly interpretive and story-like approach. It then grounds in hugely consistent first/second/third etc. 'gear' consistency. But there can be something of an unfathomable abyss between newcomers and getting to that stage, and language useful and accurate for reading at that stage can come across outright lunatic if its efficacy in certain contexts is missed. IME at least trying out leaping the chasm is worth it, but I totally get why the way Auburn has presented info so far comes across as far easier to get. IMO it's largely inaccurate and easy to accept for similar reasons to why misconstrued or inaccurate MBTI is (human cognitive failures/biases), which makes the whole situation quite a sorry one at present.

...and 4) 'Implications'. Pod'Lair is presented as a revolutionary obligation and a big complex of information and imperatives and lots of other things. It pushes hard and is confusing. By far the easiest reaction is to brush it off somehow, if only to clear the weight on your psyche it proposes.

Now IMO/IME P'L's rendering of the phenomenon is a profound and epochal discovery, whereas Auburn is trifling with a mixture of vague amateurish intuitions and a maze of cognitive bias. Also IMO/IME total-bullshit ideologies and spiritualites and whatever can gain massive followings just by effective marketing etc. and seeming a bit nice and smart and attractive. It's my view that the skills and talents, and unique and extreme mental set-up, required to discover and develop something like P'L's interpretive language and insights might not be the most amenable to immediate transfer into the public domain, or at least parts of it. The single-minded following of your own path and insights, and all the synomnia vision and metaphoric layers, take you what can seem quite far out. And you might have a jittery ride bringing it all back again, especially if you felt honourable and proud about what you'd found, and perhaps angry about how less insightful people were reacting to you. It's a bit like William Blake going on a crusade. Wouldn't have worked out. But I do think that these skills etc. can be learned with time, and that it will in time be clear who deserves what credit and just how much each school of thought is really worth.

 

[snafupants]

Speaking independently, I agree that CT has the more intuitive and helpfully presented information so far. I attribute this to three factors:

1) Closer alignment with the auidence's cultural climate.
2) Going ahead with in-depth annotations on visual footage, which Pod'Lair hadn't clarified copyright concerns about yet.
3) A focus on linking individual physiognomic ('first gear') movements to an already pretty much established model.

IME, Pod'Lair's visual reading really only clicks via a highly interpretive and story-like approach. It then grounds in hugely consistent first/second/third etc. 'gear' consistency. But there can be something of an unfathomable abyss between newcomers and getting to that stage. IME it's worth it, but I totally get why the way Auburn has presented info so far comes across as far easier to get. IMO it's largely inaccurate and easy to accept for similar reasons to why misconstrued or inaccurate MBTI is (human cognitive failures/biases), which makes the whole situation quite a sorry one at present.

Number one is a copout. I can accept novel math theorems if they make sense. A year ago I didn't really understand Bayes' theorem and now I do. On close analysis it makes sense. I don't feel the same can be said for Pod'Lair. It would be promising to see Pod'Lair's visual readings align with an outside agency, which could be an MBTI assessment or third-party rater. Even the latter might demonstrate inter-rater reliability.

 

[Montresor]

Standing criticism I have for CT: lacking an actual theory on how neural activity expresses itself outwardly (through the eyes, and by other means), thereby failing to demonstrate that cognitive typing via body language has any sort of validity or reliability.

At best, cognitive typing would be more accurate if performed blind, with EEG data alone.


Withholding judgement of P'L at this time due to ignorance. First impressions: stoopid.

 

[snafupants]

Standing criticism I have for CT: lacking an actual theory on how neural activity expresses itself outwardly (through the eyes, and by other means), thereby failing to demonstrate that cognitive typing via body language has any sort of validity or reliability.

Exactly! I asked Auburn to provide such data (or rationale) but was ignored. EEG results correlated to blind visual reading and perhaps JCF results would enhance CT's validity. Even if their argument is that self-assessment is innately unreliable, they still need to provide a rationale linking hand movements ("puppeteer hands") to the JCF framework.

 

[Montresor]

Exactly! I asked Auburn to provide such data but was ignored. EEG results correlated to blind visual reading and perhaps JCF results would enhance CT's validity.

The data has been provided. I'm referring to this thread.

However, discussion was avoided. In my mind it's an INTP vs ISTP thing. They don't seem to care HOW it works. They just care that it APPEARS to work.

So far as I am concerned, the theory is weak. It is stuck in the observational stage. It is early in its development and will take more time before it can hold up to criticism.

Lyra seems to make some strong points but it would be nice to see somebody rip them apart a bit. Perhaps he/she could allow some more time for the theory to develop.

 

[snafupants]

The data has been provided. I'm referring to this thread.

However, discussion was avoided. In my mind it's an INTP vs ISTP thing. They don't seem to care HOW it works. They just care that it APPEARS to work.

I see Auburn discussing a plan. Has Auburn explained the rationale?

 

[snafupants]

Haha, is Auburn just piggybacking Nardi's research?

 

[snafupants]

To be fair, Nardi's research doesn't make the physiognomical claims of CT.

 

[Montresor]

Correct, these are connections that need to be made before things get any deeper.

A psychological theory is absolutely groundless in today's world without firm physiological backing.

I don't expect Auburn to share his own research but I assume he is doing some.

All scientific research piggybacks off of other scientific research.

 

[Lyra]

Number one is a copout. I can accept novel math theorems if they make sense. A year ago I didn't really understand Bayes' theorem and now I do. On close analysis it makes sense. I don't feel the same can be said for Pod'Lair. It would be promising to see Pod'Lair's visual readings align with an outside agency, which could be an MBTI assessment or third-party rater. Even the latter might demonstrate inter-rater reliability.

You don't feel the same is true, I do. I think I'm right. Not much more to say on that.

IMO there is no qualified outside agency, and the construction of an appropriate test of that kind would itself be a huge intellectual achievement.

My current concern isn't for wherther there's some phenomenon there-- it's for how important and explanatory what is there is relative to other factors, how it relates to them, and what its presence might mean for our epistemological models more generally. I don't feel that these matters have been addressed satisfactorily anywhere. In fact, I find there to be a remarkable lack of curiosity about such things almost universally.

 

[Lyra]

Correct, these are connections that need to be made before things get any deeper.

A psychological theory is absolutely groundless in today's world without firm physiological backing.

I don't expect Auburn to share his own research but I assume he is doing some.

All scientific research piggybacks off of other scientific research.

Auburn doesn't have any relevant research in this regard (and he doesn't do scientific research at all, full stop), beyond a bit of inspiration from Nardi's unconvincing notes, although I'm not sure it's as necessary as he'd think it is. I think we should certainly look for neurological patternings etc. in the long run, but that we certainly don't have a scientific theory of cognitive/neural functioning providing any adequate basis for usefully linking the two fields of research at this point. We just don't know how neural functioning relates to things like personality or whatever with nearly enough clarity.

All Nardi did was cluster answers on a self-assessment test together with more frequent areas of brain activity and come up with a few interesting but entirely unscientific stories about it.

It's worth at least getting accurately identified samples and putting them under an EEG to see if there are common patterns, sure. It might even show more common patterning between one and another person's rendering of the cognitive configuration phenomenon. Although I wouldn't be surprised if nothing more than statistical clusterings of activity were identified at this point.* But making a neurological theory out of that, or interpreting it... that's nowhere near being able to be on solid ground yet.

IMO though it's possible to establish laws and typologies on different levels. Newtonian laws could be established without the atomic-level microscopes we have today, etc. We can't know the full picture, but can know a lot about what some of its elements or the things it will explain will have to be.

--

*Actually, we should be dissecting and analysing typed cadavers, as well. Why not?

 

[Auburn]

IMO there is no qualified outside agency, and the construction of an appropriate test of that kind would itself be a huge intellectual achievement.

My current concern isn't for wherther there's some phenomenon there-- it's for how important and explanatory what is there is relative to other factors, how it relates to them, and what its presence might mean for our epistemological models more generally. I don't feel that these matters have been addressed satisfactorily anywhere. In fact, I find there to be a remarkable lack of curiosity about such things almost universally.

@Lyra - I have an idea. A solution to that.


In my contemplations about psychology I've spent a long time thinking about what exactly a correlation is, an "abstract" connection, from a mathematical level. This is an even longer-term project but we (PhoenixRising & I) believe we can code an A.I. modeled after the cognitive functions. Using that algorithm itself in it's consciousness.

Now, this actually adds a level of empirical control. Suppose we can model an A.I. whose algorithms we understand perfectly; the way it deduces information. However, the trillions of connections it'd have to make (assuming it's high-level A.I.) and the specific logic to the node-net it forms would be untraceable by a human alone.

Nonetheless we do know that the deductions it made had to be done via the algorithm it used. And if a camera/etc is used in tandem with the A.I.'s entire history of exposure to reality - then one could in theory have a complete record of every sensory exposure the A.I. had, and how that inescapably lead to it making the high-level deductions it has made.

This would make an A.I. intelligence a legitimate unbiased/empirical perciever who is capable of high-abstraction and nunanced perception. And whose entire process of deduction down to those nuanced conclusions could be traced back (albeit through the tedium of millions of files in it's neural-network) and proven.

Essentially replicating the human deductive process - which is mathematical, and empirical, just very complexly so, but without the ambiguity that a human (whose extensive life history and exposure to reality is entirely unavailable for scrutiny in the same manner) would have.

 

[Montresor]

Auburn doesn't have any relevant research in this regard, beyond a bit of inspiration from Nardi's totally bunk experiment, although I'm not sure it's as necessary as he'd think it is. I think we should certainly look for neurological patternings etc. in the long run, but that we certainly don't have a scientific theory of cognitive/neural functioning providing any adequate basis for usefully linking the two fields of research at this point. We just don't know how neural functioning relates to things like personality or whatever with nearly enough clarity.

All Nardi did was cluster answers on a self-assessment test together with more frequent areas of brain activity and come up with a few interesting but entirely unscientific stories about it.

Good point overall but I feel you are getting ahead of yourself.

Auburn doesn't have any relevant research in this regard, <<Do you know this to be true? beyond a bit of inspiration from Nardi's totally bunk experiment, although I'm not sure it's as necessary as he'd think it is.

Necessary? Are you saying that brain-scanning research is irrelevant or somehow unnecessary to building a working cognitive-typing theory?

I think we should certainly look for neurological patternings etc. in the long run, In the long run!? What should they do in the meantime??? but that we certainly don't have a scientific theory of cognitive/neural functioning providing any adequate basis for usefully linking the two fields of research at this point. They're linked; we don't need scientific basis to make this assertion.

We just don't know how neural functioning relates to things like personality or whatever with nearly enough clarity.

^This, of course, is the purpose of researching and building theories. Else we simply have observations about the external world, and all the Ne in the universe won't make them theorize themselves.

What's more, is "we", ("we")(("we")), absolutely do have the information and knowledge about the CNS. "They", possibly, do not. They need data first.

All Nardi did was cluster answers on a self-assessment test together with more frequent areas of brain activity and come up with a few interesting but entirely unscientific stories about it.

^Impetus for further research, DUH. There is starting ground now. Observations have been made. It's time to attempt to disprove them.

--------------
At the end of the day, we can map out the cortex to see which regions correspond to which cognitive functions, but even that is simplistic in its nature. The understanding comes from looking at least one level deeper.

Hate to say it (again), but the answer to cognitive typing and personality theory starts with the thalamus. This is my theory.

 

[Lyra]

Montresor, there aren't any interesting/relevant disagreements here. You're saying research should be done. Agreed. My other points were about the nature of our statements and theories until it's been done.

The only point I disagree with you upon is that I wouldn't go into the neurological research assuming that we have to find a certain particular something there, in a certain form, for other coherent theories to be validated. The reducability might take an unexpected form or relation.

Whatever, this line of debate doesn't seem worth pursuing further. Let's see what happens in the long run.

 

[Lyra]

@Lyra - I have an idea. A solution to that.


In my contemplations about psychology I've spent a long time thinking about what exactly a correlation is, an "abstract" connection, from a mathematical level. This is an even longer-term project but we (PhoenixRising & I) believe we can code an A.I. modeled after the cognitive functions. Using that algorithm itself in it's consciousness.

Now, this actually adds a level of empirical control. Suppose we can model an A.I. whose algorithms we understand perfectly; the way it deduces information. However, the trillions of connections it'd have to make (assuming it's high-level A.I.) and the specific logic to the node-net it forms would be untraceable by a human alone.

Nonetheless we do know that the deductions it made had to be done via the algorithm it used. And if a camera/etc is used in tandem with the A.I.'s entire history of exposure to reality - then one could in theory have a complete record of every sensory exposure the A.I. had, and how that inescapably lead to it making the high-level deductions it has made.

This would make an A.I. intelligence a legitimate unbiased/empirical perciever who is capable of high-abstraction and nunanced perception. And whose entire process of deduction down to those nuanced conclusions could be traced back (albeit through the tedium of millions of files in it's neural-network) and proven.

Essentially replicating the human deductive process - which is mathematical, and empirical, just very complexly so, but without the ambiguity that a human (whose extensive life history and exposure to reality is entirely unavailable for scrutiny in the same manner) would have.

Possibly a little impractical, short term? Also, doesn't it seem likely that we would need to know what we wanted to know before this would help us to know it?

That said, I applaud the endeavor, however likely or unlikely to succeed. I'm not convinced that the functions generate consciousness (as you've implied the past), but my first loyalty is to the generation of new forms of life and the hacking of our own form.

If you did want to encode the powers/functions into something, the Power Flows would be the best place to start.

 

[Montresor]

Montresor, there aren't any interesting/relevant disagreements here. You're saying research should be done. Agreed. My other points were about the nature of our statements and theories until it's been done.

The only point I disagree with you upon is that I wouldn't go into the neurological research assuming that we have to find a certain particular something there, in a certain form, for other coherent theories to be validated. The reducability might take an unexpected form or relation.

Whatever, this line of debate doesn't seem worth pursuing further. Let's see what happens in the long run.

Translation:

I don't know you, I don't like you, you suck, stop talking to me.

Not everything is a debate. I said you're getting ahead of yourself.

The reducibility (sp.) is precisely what I think they should try and discover. They have the framework for a theory on cognitive typing.

 

[PhoenixRising]

@Lyra

mkay. See, the problem is at this point, it's your word against his. And from what I've seen, you are the only person that worked on the original project with Auburn that is saying he got his ideas from Pod'lair. Everyone else has a different story. I've seen his original notes on the website and conversations with other members that lead to his conclusions, and none of it indicates that he took his ideologies from Pod'lair.

I get that you're basically calling Auburn a liar. But I don't believe that, because I know him very well, better than I've ever known anyone in my life. Sure, he's capable of lying just like any human being, but all in all he values truth and honesty too much to make up as big a lie as you're indicating he is.

From my point of view, it's more likely that you are the one who has a distorted perspective.

You may be an old friend, but that doesn't give you the right to tell Auburn that he is "right" or "wrong" or that he is finding his truth in the "wrong" way. I knew someone very much like you a long time ago. He thought it was his role in society to, "beat the truth into other's heads." But he never considered that his "truth" was just another subjective perspective, no more or less real than anyone else's conclusions.

I'm asking that you have a bit of respect for this reality that I speak of. If you want to help Auburn, you're not going about it the right way. You can't beat your perspective into someone else's head, can't force anything on anyone else if they see reality in a different way.

So please, if all you are going to do is point your finger at Auburn and accuse him of being dishonest, or "small" or "deluded", just stop. It's nothing but empty bullying without any positive outcome to be seen. People like he and I don't listen to that kind of approach. It is not logical, nor is it respectful.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you have already stated it for everyone to see many times. But it is not correct in an objective or a social sense to keep trying to force your opinion on others after they have asked you to stop.

 

[Lyra]

Translation:

I don't know you, I don't like you, you suck, stop talking to me.

Not everything is a debate. I said you're getting ahead of yourself.

The reducibility (sp.) is precisely what I think they should try and discover. They have the framework for a theory on cognitive typing.

Not actually what I meant at all. I've enjoyed your thoughts generally-- I just didn't want to pursue a precise analysis of that line of discussion much further.

p.s. @PhoenixRising, my response to you seems to be in moderation.

 

[Lyra]

Not actually what I meant at all. I've enjoyed your thoughts generally-- I just didn't want to pursue a precise analysis of that line of discussion much further.

p.s. @PhoenixRising, my response to you seems to be in moderation.

Oh wait, posts are going through now, guess I'll rewrite it.

Note that that particular exchange started with Auburn identifying my words with 'Pod'Lair egoism' whilst I was discussing general theory. He went on to dismiss every post I had made as 'a thinly veiled facade of Ti' with another agenda, essentially calling everything I was interested in and writing about a bogus front. Given the hostile atmosphere I already face on this forum, and his willingness to play off that, I'd hardly say I'm the 'bully'. Standing up for myself and not being cowed by character assassination (giving as good as I get, essentially), perhaps.

As for the historical record, it's not my word against his, and I won't let you use superficial populism to rewrite history. Perhaps I'll prove this even more conclusively by logs, posts, and chronologies at some point to set the facts straight. You've inspired me in that regard.

As for the rest of your post-- you don't know me or what I'm doing. I'm not interested in drama with Auburn's girlfriend. I only spiralled into that little episode of our historical drama at your joint invitation, following on from Auburn's original attempt at bullying character assassination. Here forward I'll make any point I'm making by factual analysis and demonstration, leaving others to make their conclusions, which will be more than sufficient. I've told him before there's not much point in talking further, given how he reacts to new info, but that doesn't mean I'm obliged to present a version of reality he likes in so far as our paths cross or he begins taking random opportunities to undermine parts of my perspective that don't support his version of events with insults.

 

[Obsidian]

Auburn's model makes good intuitive sense. Extraverted sensors will voraciously scan the physical environment with their perception organs. We can't watch how ears hear. But we can watch how eyes see. Introverted perceivers will perceive in connection with a prior internal compass, and so will not wholly pay attention to the external object. Extraverted thinkers can outwardly project their thoughts well. Extraverted thinkers can't (Jung talked about this specifically). Extraverted feelers project their emotions. I know a lot of politically correct people try to pretend that Feeling is not connected to emotions, but that is garbage. They are directly connected. Introverted feelers do not project. Jung said that with Fi users, "Still waters run deep." It all makes sense to me. Call it a model or call it whatever you want.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you at least make an effort to connect the visual clues to real behaviors (something Pod'Lair does not care about), then you are on the right track, scientifically speaking.

And who cares whether Auburn made it up? A lot of what he is saying is not new to me, although some of it is. But I like the way he is analyzing things logically and systematizing everything. He isn't claiming to be God's gift to mankind, like the big head Nai-Xyy is.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Oh wait, posts are going through now, guess I'll rewrite it.

Note that that particular exchange started with Auburn identifying my words with 'Pod'Lair egoism' whilst I was discussing general theory. He went on to dismiss every post I had made as 'a thinly veiled facade of Ti' with another agenda, essentially calling everything I was interested in and writing about a bogus front. Given the hostile atmosphere I already face on this forum, and his willingness to play off that, I'd hardly say I'm the 'bully'. Standing up for myself and not being cowed by character assassination (giving as good as I get, essentially), perhaps.

As for the historical record, it's not my word against his, and I won't let you use superficial populism to rewrite history. Perhaps I'll prove this even more conclusively by logs, posts, and chronologies at some point to set the facts straight. You've inspired me in that regard.

As for the rest of your post-- you don't know me or what I'm doing. I'm not interested in drama with Auburn's girlfriend. I only spiralled into that little episode of our historical drama at your joint invitation, following on from Auburn's original attempt at bullying character assassination. Here forward I'll make any point I'm making by factual analysis and demonstration, leaving others to make their conclusions, which will be more than sufficient. I've told him before there's not much point in talking further, given how he reacts to new info, but that doesn't mean I'm obliged to present a version of reality he likes in so far as our paths cross or he begins taking random opportunities to undermine parts of my perspective that don't support his version of events with insults.

It's good to hear you will be providing objective evidence to back your claims. However I will still be wary of it, since it is likely in writing, you could modify it to make it look like anything you wanted.

I'm not trying to start drama with you. I just want you to acknowledge that your point of view isn't more important than anyone else's on here, nor is it more or less valid (even with evidence).

A point of view is a point of view.

And hey, even if Auburn did originally get some ideas from Pod'lair (which it wouldn't be many if he did).. So what. People inspire each other. According to you, you contributed quite a bit to the original concept, perhaps it was your input specifically that tinged CT with Pod'lair's ideology.

 

[Lyra]

With regards to what I contributed to PHY, it was the impetus to use and the structure of the experimental methodology. I had to teach them some basic science, essentially, and compel Auburn to move from his unfalsifiable worldview (the same as it is now, in almost every regard) to a collaborative project. I also pressed for a forum structuring and way of working appropriate to an actual project.

All of the following was up before I ever even talked to Auburn about anything to do with visual reading:

http://physiognomy.me/b01/index.html

So we can discount Phoenix's bizarre 'tinging' back-pedal right off the bat. Just opened a random page, for a random example. Note:

http://physiognomy.me/b01/ne.html

Momentum:

The mental process of Ne naturally generates an enormous level of energy which manifests in a restlessness of body and mind. This can create many habits such as foot tapping, wiggling, pacing, twitching, playing with facial expressions, teeth grinding and countless others. Body movements will generally be quirky and dangly, often uncoordinated and wacky.

Anybody who knows anything about this all (who hasn't been given precisely what Auburn wants the story to be-- i.e. PhoenixRising) knows that that alone is conclusive with regards to there being some influence. 'Momentum' is a Pod'Lair term, and the rest mirrors Pod'Lair closely in structure.

'Momentum' is also used on the 'Ti' and 'Se' pages as headings or in bold.

Edit:

A few more. This is the PHY beta 1 'celebrity list':

http://physiognomy.me/b01/celebritylist.pdf

Which precisely mirrors in format and name and approach the Pod'Lair 'virtual village' (which pdf, by the way, Auburn explicitly mentioned in one of his early challenge videos directed explicitly at Pod'Lair). The 'Renown for' section, the entire structure-- it's just a direct influence, or answer.

This shows Auburn's heavy inluence from the emphasis on functional/power pairings (i.e. Nai and Vyy/Ni-Se) made by Pod'Lair. Note that, until this, Naomi Quenck's 'In The Grip' was about the pinnacle of typology community knowledge in this regard, and it displays absolutely no awareness of these kinds of modulation relationships:

‘Ti is best known for its Momentum Halting ability. It is distinct from the other introverted functions by it's particularly lifeless demeanor. When engagin in Ti, the user will go silent, while the face becomes flat/dead and the voice becomes stale. The eyes will also shut off or start deflecting as this occurs.

It can also be distinguished by it's peculiar Stop-Start quality. Ti will sharply halt the momentum of extroverted functions in order to process, and then release the breaks when finished screening the thought for clarity and precision, letting the flow continue again without much loss of energy.

It is made distinct from Fi+Te by its Life/Death nature. Ti users will alternate between appearing lifeless one moment, then charming and passionate the next - speaking their words with a sense of conviction and want to impact the audience. The Fi/Te duality does not suffer this contrast, but instead maintains a steady, low-level emotionality at all times with small integrations of cooling speech. The speech of Ti/Fe is warming, while it's processing is cooling. The processing of Fi/Te is warming, while it's speech is cooling.’

Now I'd like to note that Auburn said he was 'friends with Adymus' and talked to him regularly. He was also on Pod'Lair's forums as a member, and on INTPforum during the whole Pod'Lair drama. He talked about Pod'Lair to me regularly. He talked about it to other members. Nobody in the typology community did anything like Pod'Lair's Visual Reading in an expressed or serious way before Adymus' introduction of it. Coincidence? I think not.

Not that this demonstrates the entirety of my point-- it's just a basic foundation I can verify with hard evidence that demonstrates the absurdity of PheonixRising's claims. I never said Auburn's current theory needed to be all taken from Pod'Lair for my core argument about his incompetence to apply, but her claims are simply ridiculous and need to be corrected. This alone is sufficient, but I will go a lot deeper and a provide a lot more in time.

Now how about the other members in PHY? Three are now explicitly or privately involved with or supporters of Pod'Lair (including myself, nanohealer, and one other), although some had a rocky road to getting there. All three recognise that Auburn is an incompetent Visual Reader. One more, Cheese, tends to take the position that Pod'Lair are dicks but probably largely right, and his interest was originally spurred by Pod'Lair's activity on this forum (where Auburn and I are having this discussion! What a coincidence!). There are one or two other who were very fringe/unimportant PHY members and who are unaccounted for.

Does this support PhoenixRising's account? Not really. It suggests to a very strong connection with Pod'Lair. It alone isn't proof of theory-influence, but I offer it for consideration.

Editing to add more...

'It [Te] is made distinct from Fe by it's Cooling ability. Each word is spoken in a very flat, dispassionate and matter-of-fact flavor. This should not be confused with aggression, quite contrary, it is typically void of aggression and most any other emotion yet still articulates in a very animated way.'

'It [Fe] is made distinct from Te by it's Warming ability. If the user is benevolent, Fe's warming ability will create a sense of assurance, acceptance and safety. It will make it known by it's words or body language that it considers you an ally. If the user is malevolent, the inverse is true. It will make it known that you are on it's bad side and create an atmosphere of hostility. But in each case, each word is meant to elicit a certain emotion in the audience.'

This is a directly copied Pod'Lair cue. Bracing vs. warming.

Ni Drift:

The eyes fall into a dream-like state and drift off into the distance. The eyes will appear to be looking through the object of it's focus, rather than being fixated on it like Se or Si. Often the head and body will also be involved and be steered by the drift of the eyes.

When the eyes come out of this state, they reconnect with Se with the environment, but not as strongly. Ni eyes have a mild drifting quality to them at all times.

'Nai drift' is a term invented by Pod'Lair and used heavily by them in their time on this forum. 'Dreamy eyes' is also a cue Pod'Lair recognised and made widely known for Nai usage. The Se/Ni cycling is also something nobody ever talked about before Adymus began posting on INTPforum.

Mesmerizing Eyes:

Ni eyes also have a hypnotic quality to them. Their steadiness and calmness can evoke a sense of tranquility in others, especially when combined with Fe. This happens unintentionally and is not malicious in itself, although some Ni users become masterful manipulators using this trait.

The term hypnotic to describe Nai eyes, as a major cue, is also a borrowing from Pod'Lair. Not to mention the very concept of there being such a thing as Nai eyes (unless you're counting the time Jung said Hitler looked like a 'seer').

 

[Lyra]

Relevant recent discussions:

Originally Posted by Lyra
@nightstreaking @Auburn and I ran the physiognomy.me project together for a few months, and I'm very familiar with his thinking. His visual reading is derived from Pod'Lair, and he would really do better to train harder on his source material before publishing his findings. That's not to say that I don't think he might have valid criticisms; the simple fact is that he just misses very basic cues, dichotomies, and factors known about by those competent in the field he's trying to teach on.

For example, he doesn't really understand, and is unable to read, the adaptive/directive phenomenon, which is manifested in a certain and very obvious kind of gesturing. He similarly doesn't know how to read the distinct signals that each function gives off, or the distinct gesturing modes or patterns of movement that characterise each configuration. He also hasn't yet processed or integrated the great amount of insight contained in the terms (hunter/fighter/tower, power 'form' names etc.) coined by the individual who discovered visual and first formulated visual reading, and is totally unaware of fundamental discoveries like the sequential 'power flows', which highly accurately describe how any individual function kicks into action and generates activity over a period of time.

Now, I'm personally for free thought and inquiry and debate, and I want Auburn to do well. It's just that his whole model right now fails to integrate the implications the basic cues and factors involved in visual reading necessitate, or even acknowledge those factors' existence. Auburn got his lead from others but didn't take the time to really study what they'd discovered. Any criticisms he has, or epistemological alterations or alterations in focus he wants to make, would carry far more weight if this basic competency were in place first.

One criticism Auburn consistently levels against Pod'Lair is that its presentation is poor. This may or may not be true, but I would point out that there is so much to communicate with this kind of model. First time around, it's very hard to get right. Especially if you're simultaneously trying to push the recognition and the implications. But that doesn't make it wrong or inherently flawed to do so. And perhaps you might even make mistakes, or recruit the wrong people to do your graphic design! It might just be a matter of a complex problem requiring very nuanced calibration that could radically change the reception. What I would say is that, regardless or criticisms, Auburn, as a would-be authority on this phenomenon, has a duty, for basic competency's sake, to be familiar with the arguments and information at stake. He's not just a listener or student, by the role he's taken on for himself, and this requires him to work through the information, badly presented or not.

I'm sure Adymus will have more to say, from his perspective, in time. But that's my thinking.

Quote:
Well first I'd like to say I'm not against or an enemy of Pod'Lair.

Well, sure. But that's not particularly relevant to what I'm saying.

Quote:
But we do both know that the methodology constructed via physiognomy.me wasn't from Podlair. If you look at the site (physiognomy.me/forum) the sections still exist where we both did pure observations. That is, we did nothing but observe people without any prior guidance system and merely noted what we saw.

Sure, I was providing background history for the poster I was responding to, not claiming that your model was identical. That said, I would very much regard your project now as a continuation of the pre-group phase of PHY, and as bearing no demonstrable connection to the experimental methodology I created for the group-phase of PHY. Again, this is of very little importance to what I'm saying.

Quote:
Equally as unfounded on any other model, we had boards dedicated to the meticulous annotation of individual signals, broken down second-by-second, from which we grouped together recurring signals. This, again, was done without any prior foundation - and that was the whole point. Evidence of what I just said exists on that site for anyone who wishes to look for themselves and see that these things were not taken from Pod'lair but formed anew from observations that only resemble PL insomuch as they're both dealing in the same plateau.

I'm hoping this isn't being used as a blatant rhetorical tactic, as I'm really not playing a zero sum game here. This is a very inaccurate representation, and I can only assume you're stating things this way to attempt to defend agianst intellectual property claims or similar in future. Anybody who was involved in PHY knows that we certainly didn't undertake any kind of experimentation or observation sufficient to infer anything, that we went into it explicitly with the framework of MBTI and Pod'Lair's visual reading impacting us, and that whatever's in your model now is a result of the personal (not PHY, not collective and experimental) process of investigation that started with your introduction to Adymus' rendering of Pod'Lair's information.

My point was not that your model now is identical to Pod'Lair's-- it isn't. My point was that you took your lead from Adymus (this is a matter of clear historical record) and that you didn't follow this lead up to the point of achieving basic knowledge of the field you are now teaching on. My point has nothing to do with Pod'Lair infallibility (your enemy point), with other critiques you might be able to develop more usefully with greater knowledge, or with your right to speak about any of this. That said, you certainly didn't infer or build your current model from the attempted scientific work of PHY (which, again, I engineered), and it is base dishonesty to imply that kind of historical progression.

So, yes, I totally agree that a lot of the content of your current project doesn't come from Pod'Lair in detail, although your inspiration for developing that detail has always been an desire to extract what you found useful from Pod'Lair's methodology and insight and develop it in a form more amenable to the way you want to approach knowledge. And I don't find anything wrong with trying to work things out in terms of those desires. But you've really just made my point for me, in clarifying that-- you didn't do basic due diligence in becoming familiar with the field you're speaking on, or what was definitely a major inspiration in your current direction of research. I have done this due diligence, and the fact of the matter is that you're missing so much basic and fundamental reading material that you're totally uninformed on where your own field (visual reading of cognitive configuration) is at, and what others in it know.

That said, on your specific differences:

Quote:
'The placement of the values process isn't related to how far up a smile goes.
- - - Tertiary Fi, for example, goes up high but toward the nose.'

The evidence shows this to be false, IMO. NiTe do not smile high, for example.

Quote:
'The eyes can tell apart the perception processes.
- - - Ne/Si eyes toggle between naive eyes and scowling with concentration.
- - - Ni/Se eyes toggle between zoned-out eyes and locking-on.'

This has always been known by Pod'Lair. That's why they talk about 'laser eyes' which 'drift' or 'thousand-yard stare' for Nai and 'dancing' or 'open' eyes for Nyy. They also explicitly say that the worldview (Nai/Vai) powers give a 'serious' look, and imply a searching/scowling kind of energy to Vai access. This is not a discovery on your part.

Quote:
'- - - Perception-Leads are steered by the direction of the eyes, and the rest of the head follows them (whether immediately or a few moments later)
- - - Perception-leads have the eyes as the main focus of their face.
- - - Judgment-Leads have a unified face/body and the eyes are secondary and don't lead the face, but rather get neglected often.'

Most of this has actually always been explicitly stated by Pod'Lair. They talk about whether the 'eyes' or the 'mouth/whole face' hit you first when looking at a person. Eyes for perception lead, mouth/whole face for judgement lead. They also talk about the 'always on' look of perception leads. The head following the eyes thing is perhaps a difference, although I would say that the description of 'liquidy' vs. tower/fighter energies for perception vs. discernment leads gets at it in so far as is useful/accurate.

Quote:
The Ti/Fe duality can be identified via:
- - - Dead/Flat pauses, Momentum Halting (Ti)
- - - Warm Fe Articulation

The stop/start rhythm vs. the Zyy/Xai rhythm has long been acknowledged by Pod'Lair. 'Going cold', or as yo put it 'Dead/Flat', was discovered by Pod'Lair to be a Zai feature. This also, actually, extends both into the voice and into the facial structuring, depending upon Zai placement. Zai alpha tend to have an almost wholly flat/locked face, with only low emoting, whereas a NiFe like myself has Zai whose 'Dead/Flat' look only shoots up to the midline when used.

Quote:
'The Te/Fi duality can be identified via:
- - - Sullen/Sassy momentum curving (Fi)
- - - Blunt/Fast Te Articulation'

Blunt Te approximates the 'bracing' cue always used by Pod'Lair, and Sullen/Sassy is a direct rip off of Pod'Lair's 'Hopeful/Mournful' spectrum of Xai infusing monotone Zyy from within, as compared to the Baleful/Butter (mixed with Zai going flat-cold) functioning of Xyy.

Quote:
'Ji functions can be distinguished via:
- - - Eyes looking downward'

Perhaps more so, but Xai drifts can and do go pretty high. This could be misleading.

Quote:
'Pi functions can be identified via:
- - - Eyes drifting off to the sides (either sides, for either function)
- - - Inertial (viscous) energy
'

Pi does go liquidy, yes, but a Si scowl certainly doesn't 'drift'. It checks. This is what builds the very distinction between innocent/scowling you present or Ne/Si cycling. Vai Checks, slowing that dancing/open perceptive energy. If it drifted, then dancing Nyy eyes would look almost entirely ungrounded in their whole modulation cycle, which they don't. They slow and come back to earth, so to speak.

Quote:
'Pe functions can be identified via:
- - - Eyes darting/toggling
- - - Momentum (fluid) energy'

I wouldn't call Se fluid, really. That much more applies to Ni, and Ni-lead movements. Even Ne is far more airy and light than fluid. Ne eyes also don't dart like Se eyes do. Hence laser eyes vs. dancing eyes.

Either way, this list you've presented is about 1/50th of what can usefully be read, max, which again gets to my point.

Quote:
'In general we agree on the nature of the T/F dualities, which are honestly not that hard to figure out. Even novice MBTI-ers can figure out that Fe has a warm/empathic articulation. We do agree on the terminology for some of these things (like Ni eyes, Si concern) but when rubber-meets-road and we both demonstrate examples of what we mean, we have totally opposite views. So while the terms are similar we don't seem to be describing the same thing.

And yes, a major difference is the deduction process of the hierarchical order. Mainly since PL looks at the hierarchy more-or-less the same way MBTI does where the hierarchy is a sliding-scale of size in the psyche, but also measured them by the energy reward/drain they have. While I see the hierarchy as not a sliding scale but a set of two oscillations.
'

It's again clear that you haven't done due dilligence. Major for the Source and Polar functions (Major Momentum and Major Modulation) compared to Minor for what you present as the inner wheel more than encompasses this. The two Major conscious powers are also treated as inherently intertwined, as are the two Minors. Nai is always treated as operating in conjunction with Vyy, and it's expected to be understood/inferred that the modulation of Vyy will thus play a hugely dominant role in the psyche of a Nai lead, involving more energetic halting/throughput than the Minor powers. The difference is that Vyy doesn't give any momentum. Doesn't mean it can't be an energetically huge or rewarding even when you can dominate it into working for you, if it's your polar.

Overall, the presented modulation/momentum relationships (never discussed before Pod'Lair) are very complex and nuanced.

Quote:
'In general, CognitiveType's signals are more based on the functions in use, and the nature of the functions as being either Ji/Je/Pi/Pe. While I see PL's signals rely more on an approach similar to MBTI where they decide via the 'energy fields' (or dichotomies). Meaning there's signals to tell apart I vs E, directly, F vs T directly, regardless of what functions that'd imply.

I disagree with this. I don't think there's any consistent signal that tells apart I vs E, and that is one of the worse dichotomies since it denotes nothing about the functions in use and confounds and biases the deduction process to the functions. I may not be representing PL the most accurately here, and it's not my intent to misrepresent them, but just share my perspective/point-of-view.'

Sure, and it's an entirely inaccurate one unrelated both to my perspective and to Pod'Lair's, so I won't address it. Pod'Lair is very multi-angeled in its reading. It takes into account a lot of cues and dichotomies. Many times more than your model includes-- this, combined with limited familiarity, may be throwing you.

Quote:
Now I realize that since Podlair thinks they're absolutely "right" that they will view any variance my approach has from theirs as an error. Essentially, I'm doing it all wrong unless I'm doing it like them -- at which point I'd just be accused of copying them anyhow. So I fail both ways; making the only logical deduction to join them.

I entirely reject that. And I've kept true to my promise to continue pursuing this phenomenon because I seek the truth of it, freely as I do in all my journeys even if it is on my own, and try my best to explain what my subjectivity sees to others cue-by-cue, second-by-second, in the manner in which I suggested PL ought to if they wished to convey their personal truth.

That's wonderful, Auburn. But what relation does it bear to my critique above? None. Straw-man, that doesn't salvage your competence.

As for cue-by-cue, second by second, Pod'Lair has always wanted to do this kind of thing, but was worried about copyright issues. They have many episodes in the works though, having found a solution. They also have episodes of things like 500 Nai drifts etc. strung together, in the pipeline.

Quote:
'That said/done, in honesty, I still know what I am presenting isn't a finished product but it isn't intended to be. Nonetheless I think it will be concise enough to make sense to those who are truly curious. If others can be convinced, by me showing them (rather than just telling them (i.e. using video-clips not jut words), that these things exist -- then naturally this will spread and more investigation and better resources will be directed toward it to refine it. If others cannot see it, and/or I fail to show it, then it won't.

I find that the most mature approach to take. It is my responsibility and burden of proof. Historically there has always been, and will be, those who don't listen. That's not my concern nor need I worry myself with it. My duty is to present it in a way that is comprehensible should someone stumble upon it with open eyes.'

So you got around copyright concerns first or made an innovation in presentation? How is this relevant to anything I said in my first post? From my perspective, what you're presenting isn't just not a finished product-- it's a product presented in grave ignorance of the state of the field you're attempting to teach within. Somebody taking the position you are really needs to have done basic research, like I did (as the other person who led PHY). Your social relation to Pod'Lair is an entirely different issue, as are your personal feelings about whatever it is you've just described above.

Quote:
'PL seems desperate to get others to accept them while not truly showing anything unambiguously, mostly words which most (myself included) have apparently failed to associate to the things they intended. This doesn't necessarily mean PL is wrong but if the majority are failing to even see what they're describing then it cannot be objectively known whether the vast majority are simply ignorant or if the method is faulty. And by default the majority will assume false until seen true.'

PL had a lot to deal with in presenting both the phenomena and what they believe to be its implications. It's complex and copyright contraints were of great concern. And, as I mentioned in my first post, there's more to it than that. That said, this, again, is irrelevant to your position and standards of competence relevant to you as a would-be figure/teacher in the field.

It also might be that the phenomenon genuinely and fully seen is far harder to communicate than the impression of getting it that using certain misleading methods might effect. Pod'Lair is more concerned with the former, from my experience of them. And the latter can do very well, from my experience of so many people's attachment to superficial understandings and distortions of the MBTI (not even getting into MBTI's inherent and fundamental distortions).

But this is, again, irrelevant, and is not a warrant for a dishonest or incompetent position on your part. To me, it isn't about Pod'Lair vs. alternatives. It's about accuracy and right position vs. inaccuracy and wrong position, regardless of social affiliation. That's why I researched Pod'Lair in depth before taking any kind of stance on them, and am actually competent in visual reading. You, contrarily, have been unable to distinguish the information from the people and their overall manner and position, and so remain gravely limited in your competence by your personal feelings, aversions, and naive epistemological commitments.


[Edit: a final point w.r.t presentation. I am, along with a few artists/graphic designers, doing a lot of work on setting up a basic course, step by step, to introduce people to this phenomena and to give them a clear overview from the get-go. This, combined with recordings of live in-depth readings, hundreds of cues strung together, and interactive google hangout sessions should, I think, go a long way.]
__________________

 

[Lyra]

That's just notes from a few minutes of looking through the site, and from posts made in the past few days. I regard it as informative, not as the evidence I said I would provide. If that's needed I can provide it when I have more time to, and it will be utterly conclusive.

Why Auburn and PhoenixRising are attempting to take this indefensible position... is beyond me. Well, it isn't actually. But it's ridiculous and says a lot. The idea that Auburn didn't get his whole original idea from Pod'Lair/Adymus, or that he wasn't massively influenced by them, is just utterly absurd.

That said, I'd like to get back to discussing things of more interest and philosophical importance.

 

[Auburn]

The CT website is incomplete, but since the initial launch this page hasn't changed: http://cognitivetype.com/credits.html
(Jonathan Rock=Adymus, for those who don't know)

I have no issue or shame sharing the long process that has led to my conclusions, from which no single source or event came everything. I don't even have an issue crediting PL but what you're saying isn't rational. I'll make another massive post now as to why....

Spoiler

#1: Similar terms does not equate to similar concepts. I use the word "momentum" as something the Ne/Se functions do from generating excitation in the body. I use it in opposition to the word "inertia" to denote the viscous effect the Ni/Si functions have in the body. This is another example where you're pointing at me and saying "see, see! same word!" when the words don't mean the same thing, as I've repeated already.

And again, never did PL tangibly show me any of the cues. (and they still haven't explicitly done so) They just put words in the air. At most one could argue the terms lingered around in my head and subconsciously directed my investigation. And that's fine. That happens to everyone from every thought. They all ultimately contribute. It is not logical to try to peel away all else, and try to trace back an effect to a single cause when there are hundreds of factors at play. It's simplistic and unrealistic to only highlight one of those. You don't know how many times in the past I may have called people in my life "Warm" and seen other people as "cold" or seen others as "sassy". The influences of my recognition of difference between people stem back decades.

I used the words "warm" and "cold" to describe people when I was in grade school. When adymus said it again on this forum I just thought "yeah, I've seen that too". The same goes for a lot of the other signals. PL was not my first exposure to any of this, nor are vague verbal exposures (within hundreds of other exposures) sufficient to claim a direct association to them and any tactile output.

#2: Bringing up a topic of inquiry doesn't give you the right to claim the finds of everyone who was listening. Adymus got me interested in the concept of visual reading and perhaps I wouldn't have thought to look otherwise, at least not anytime soon, (or perhaps I would have, I don't know) but that doesn't mean all that springs forth from my own personal inquiries is his to claim.

It's entirely erroneous to propose this. We all give each-other ideas all the time. Especially on forums like this. And each idea presented is stored with the rest of the millions of ideas previously presented - from which, combining the effects of them all - comes forth action.

It's like a child that thinks up a cool robot idea when they were 9 years old and shares it with a friend. The friends loose touch and they grow up to be 24, take different careers and the friend actually builds the whole thing and the kid files a copyright claim because he thinks he thought of it first.

But the robot has colors, blueprints, circuits, nodes, servos, and hundreds of details the two boys never even talked about. He figured out how to make it work all by himself. The whole product doesn't belong to the boy, it belongs to the friend.

I would not be able to make the videos I am making, annotated as they are, if I didn't have individual exposure and hours of contemplation on my own. Every second in those videos is a product of dozens of my own independent deductions. I learned it from my own watching of hundreds of people.

The parts that are similar between this and PL are simply the parts that work.
CT and PL agree on warm/cold articulation because that's a reality that's been there for centuries. We are not the first ones to note it. I thought about the proposal, investigated for myself and came to realize "yeah, that's reality". It's not PL, it's reality. The two are different. The common denominator between CT and PL is reality.

I have said elsewhere that I agree some 50-ish% with podlair, and I mean this in a scientific sense. The whole proposal you're making here completely lacks awareness of how scientific knowledge is attained.

If it was an artistic work that might be different, but if PL is asserting empirical, objective validity then they're claiming what they're seeing is real independent of them. They're saying "podlair or not, this is reality". And so such a claim would have to be peer-reviewed, their experiments retried and checked independent of them.

To then go and accuse another project that attempts to explore the same field (but came up with some different, some similar, conclusions) of jipping from them is erroneous*. It's immature and entirely opposite of what a truth-seeker does...

It's what a marketing expert does. It's what someone concerned with maintaining face, and popularity, copyrights, money and recognition does. Petty thought-trains of petty human concerns. None of those are our aims. I/we are doing nothing more than relaying a message of what we see, for others to decide for themselves if they see it or not. If nobody accepted what CT was saying, I would be content knowing I put it out there.

____

* =
Suppose a lab-group does some experiments, comes up with some findings, and publishes their finds. Other groups of scientists then have to perform the experiment themselves to know if it's true. So they make an experiment of their own, in their own lab, and then post their results.

If the two results are similar it doesn't mean the second group ripped off the first, it means that the two arrived at the same conclusion. It confirms that something is there, but each experiment was it's own.

This is actually what adds validity to a claim. Now if the second group ran the test and got some similar results but some different results, then they publish those results. So now there are two separate reports/interpretations in place.

The second lab-test's results contradict aspects of the first and suggest there may have been discrepancies in it. The only way to know whether the discrepancy is in the first or second test is for a third lab-test to be run. And thus continues the process of discovering truth.

If I am guilty of anything it is this. Of being scientific and exploring things for myself. And noting my finds. PL and you would have me believe I didn't explore. That all I did was blindly copy-paste them.

But as I said above I couldn't possibly have come up with the hundreds of cues I've released, and hundreds more to come, from them because they've not even released such a detailed thing. This is evidence in itself that I am performing my own tests, not just taking their stuff. And if they relate it's because they observe the same thing, not because I took it from them.

I see both PL and CT as researching the same field of truth. It's ridiculous to quarrel over ownerships.

@members - Sorry this thread's degraded how it has... c.c
I agree that it'd be very nice if a mod could split the thread. ^^;

 

[Puffy]

^ Sounds a little parallel to how the theory of evolution was discovered. Darwin & Wallace published on it at parallel times (at the same conference I think), but Darwin was quicker to the mark and so everyone knows who he is and few know who Wallace is (though, Wallace went on to have a very spiritual bent which got him exiled from the scientific community as well.)

Both had their own nuances, interpretations, but they were both approaching essentially a very similar idea. Even now you'll get variations like Gould's interpretation, or a Lamarkian one which predates Darwin slightly. It's a fact that scientific ideas are sometimes discovered by multiple people - I think it was also the case with the steam engine.

I'm inclined to believe Auburn, then there's always the possibility he was inspired by PL more than that, who knows. But the fact that multiple people are working on the same idea is a virtue to it, and it's clear from the findings they both have their own interpretations, and so their own value. If CT's isn't useful against PL's that will show when others can test it, and it will show no matter how long PL leave publishing.

If PL are concerned they should just get on and do a Darwin.

 

[Fukyo]

Some posts have been removed. I will say again, this is not a topic about Pod'lair. We have tons of threads about this, and if you want answers, then just read the archives. Not to mention you can just ...y'know go to the source.

Most of the argument about whether Auburn/Cognitive Type ripped Pod'lair off was left, because it's a criticism as any other and it's partially relevant to the topic, but - the personal disputes between Lyra and Auburn/PhoenixRising aren't, so leave that out from now on.

 

[Lyra]

Well, whatever. The conversation is a little butchered with some posts being left in and some removed. My reply to PhoenixRising, for example, was what I'd regard as a necessary and adequate response to an unjustified assertion, and the assertion remains. I guess I'll just note for the historical record that the thread as it stands may be misleading and incomplete.

 

[Lyra]

@Fukyo So I get to respond to that massive list of assertions about me and my intentions here by Auburn, right? If you're going to shut down all debate in that line then it's unreasonable to leave that up and not allow me to respond. (Not to mention the contentless posts from Phoenix which you deleted my reply to).

I have said elsewhere that I agree some 50-ish% with podlair, and I mean this in a scientific sense. The whole proposal you're making here completely lacks awareness of how scientific knowledge is attained.

Nope. This isn't about Scientific Knowledge. This was mostly about PhoenixRising's bizarre assertions of no influence, and of induction from PHY.

Now, as I've stated many times, it's not important to my point just how closely your ideas now reflect Pod'Lair's influence. What was important to me was setting the historical record straight in the face of outright misinformation about something I know about-- and that is not something, as you claimed in the above post, antithetical to the concerns of a truth-seeker.

That's the essence of the matter. At no point did I, as you suggested, raise or care about 'ownerships' or 'copyrights'. The only points I made were to do with clarity and accuracy, and you've repeatedly attacked my character for doing so. In fact, I've had my character repeatedly attacked throughout this thread merely for raising facts and discussing things you and your girlfriend didn't like. At no point did I initiate any exchange of that kind, so don't hold yourself up as the impartial/rational one concerned with truth above all else.

Now, on the commonality being reality: 'Ni drift'*? THe modulation cycles etc.? These things are direct and unattributed intellectual copies. Which is all that's sufficient to make my point and display PhoenixRising's extreme misinformation. The rest of the character/intention/psychodrama in your post isn't particularly relevant, given that that's the point in dispute, and given that I haven't actually expressed most of the intentions or positions you claim to be responding to in it. I'm not interested in defending things I haven't said.

I have repeatedly stated that I personally support open inquiry, so stop, again, attempting to undermine my personal right to express a position by just mind-melding me with this group entity you can attribute whatever character to you like. I have, as well, said that my mind is independent. And I have clearly made the points I have made-- not whichever you choose to attribute to me-- by premises, evidence, and logical argument.The issue in point, Phoenix's distractions aside, isn't your right to explore things-- it's your competence, which any visual reader trained in the insights you've conducted a botched exploration of (including multiple members of PHY), inspired by your contact with Adymus, knows is very low.

The point is that you haven't done basic research and self-education, and are incompetent, but nonetheless recapitulate in a butchered form the source of your inspiration. Your output doesn't qualify as 'scientific' by any coherent (self-generated) or established standard, and has no relation to whatever PHY's methodology was intended to achieve. But you're of course free to continue outputting it.

I don't even have an issue crediting PL but what you're saying isn't rational.

...neither of these is true.

--

*And, yes, I saw the re-definition of momentum before pasting that. But you don't stick to it throughout your pages. Are you seriously saying that Ti ('momentum halting') halts Ne or Se? No, you aren't. The source of the word and its original meaning lingers.