The Fallen Adymus

[Lyra]

We don't judge that current academic psychology (or sociology etc.), with its self-image and culture, will be able or willing to process this until it already has some momentum behind it as a cultural phenomenon. Too many undeserved reputations, careers and status quos will be at stake, and an appropriate methodological framework isn't in place. We intend to apply the theory and make a movement out of it which is forceful enough that relevant academics will, as they're apt to do with forceful cultural phenomena, start paying attention and catching up. Right now it's down to individual judgement or attempts at falsification.

If you don't think academic psychology is subject to the type of bias I'm talking about, or constricted in terms of the implications or types of data it can/will allow to be processed via its institutional mechanisms, then I have one word for you: psychedelics.

Pod'Lair is a discovery about power. About individual and collective power, about the lies upon which much current power depends and about what power people don't know about in themselves. To learn it is to become more powerful. It is thus a dangerous discovery, a discovery many will actively attempt to suppress, and something we have absolutely no intention of sacrificing to the appearance of scientific integrity, as monopolised by institutions necessarily integrated into power structures we will decimate.

There is, however, no actual monopoly on the essence of the Scientific Method. And we participate in and will engage freely and openly in this Method as applied in social contexts which aren't geared against the kind of thing we need to get through.

 

[snafupants]

We don't judge that current academic psychology (or sociology etc.), with its self-image and culture, will be able or willing to process this until it already has some momentum behind it as a cultural phenomenon. Too many undeserved reputations, careers and status quos will be at stake, and an appropriate methodological framework isn't in place. We intend to apply the theory and make a movement out of it which is forceful enough that relevant academics will, as they're apt to do with forceful cultural phenomena, start paying attention and catching up. Right now it's down to individual judgement or attempts at falsification.

If you don't think academic psychology is subject to the type of bias I'm talking about, or constricted in terms of the implications or types of data it can/will allow to be processed via its institutional mechanisms, then I have one word for you: psychedelics.

So, you have no studies?! These claims are merely hearsay?

In that case, I have a super badass, extra special, ultra accurate typology system!

Come one, come all. Discover your type - even your dog's type - today!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We don't judge that current academic psychology, with its self-image and culture, will be able or willing to process this until it already has some momentum behind it as a cultural phenomenon. Too many undeserved reputations, careers and status quos will be at stake, and an appropriate methodological framework isn't in place. We intend to apply the theory and make a movement out of it which is forceful enough that relevant academics will, as they're apt to do with forceful cultural phenomena, start paying attention and catching up. Right now it's down to individual judgement or attempts at falsification.

If you don't think academic psychology is subject to the type of bias I'm talking about, or constricted in terms of the implications or types of data it can/will allow to be processed via its institutional mechanisms, then I have one word for you: psychedelics.

This is a similar response Adymus gave over a year ago on the same topic. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to go the scientific route(even Jung never went into the process of validating his Psychological Types), nor is there anything wrong with critiquing the culture of academia(it is definitely political).

But where your and Adymus' response is misleading and misses the point, is that Pod'Lair still lacks the formal research and studies, it still lacks any justification for its developers' claims of any kind of accuracy.

Until then, Pod'Lair is and always will be pseudoscience. And your statement of Pod'Lair's goal of gaining the momentum of popular acceptance reaffirms the cult nature of it along with all of its other practices(not to forget its membership rituals).

Pod'Lair is a religion, not a science.

 

[Lyra]

But where your and Adymus' response is misleading and misses the point, is that Pod'Lair still lacks the formal research and studies, it still lacks any justification for its developers' claims of any kind of accuracy.

No, this is where you are wrong. We have provided the appropriate evidence and we have provided it in full.

Until then, Pod'Lair is and always will be pseudoscience. And your statement of Pod'Lair's goal of gaining the momentum of popular acceptance reaffirms the cult nature of it along with all of its other practices(not to forget its membership rituals).

We have no membership rituals, but whatever. You are wrong in that we enact the essence but not the appearance of the Scientific Method. What we have provided is proof of the theories we have presented, whereas what passes for a Peer-Reviewed study in most of corrupt academic psychology today has absolutely no proof for its fundamental assertions/assumptions about the nature of the mind and how it can be investigated. It's mostly sycophantic but futile Physics envy, conducted by people with so little insight into the 'mind' that most don't even realise that's what they're doing. Not engaging with people who know less than us, are geared into a culture that couldn't process our discovery, and who would in many cases be explicitly personally threatened by the implications of our discovery is not an adequate basis for a charge of pseudoscience.

The crux is that we are right, and have provided sufficient empirical evidence to prove this. The rest is mostly shadows and forms, misleading appearances and ossified culture that has become rigid in its attempt to compensate for lack of insight with formality of presentation and institution and Mah'zute.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No, this is where you are wrong. We have provided the appropriate evidence and we have provided it in full.

Spoiler

We have no membership rituals, but whatever. You are wrong in that we enact the essence but not the appearance of the Scientific Method. What we have provided is proof of the theories we have presented, whereas what passes for a Peer-Reviewed study in most of corrupt academic psychology today has absolutely no proof for its fundamental assertions/assumptions about the nature of the mind and how it can be investigated. It's mostly sycophantic but futile Physics envy, conducted by people with so little insight into the 'mind' that most don't even realise that's what they're doing. Not engaging with people who know less than us, are geared into a culture that couldn't process our discovery, and who would in many cases be explicitly personally threatened by the implications of our discovery is not an adequate basis for a charge of pseudoscience.

The crux is that we are right, and have provided sufficient empirical evidence to prove this. The rest is mostly shadows and forms, misleading appearances and ossified culture that has become rigid in its attempt to compensate for lack of insight with formality of presentation and institution and Mah'zute.

Okay, could you link to the publications of documented formal research and studies of Pod'Lair then?

 

[snafupants]

Okay, could you link to the documented publications of formal research and studies then?

What they have at this time is only the essence but not the appearance of formal research.

Countless bong hits and two trips to Taco Bell eventually yielded four diagrams on napkins.

Spoiler

Do you want to see the sacred Pod'Lair napkins?

 

[Jennywocky]

I have to say, this thread has become a large disappointment and contributes to my notable lack of desire to ever hear anything about Pod'Lair again. I feel like I'm observing a dialogue with Jehovah's Witnesses who don't even want to quote specific scripture about their beliefs, so I think I'm moving on at this point from reading any more. Enjoy your nirvana.

I guess as long as BigApplePi is happy, tho...

 

[InvisibleJim]

No, this is where you are wrong. We have provided the appropriate evidence and we have provided it in full.

Please link it as requested.

 

[Lyra]

Already have, but you're going to have to put in some independent thought at this point to analyse it independently, for reasons already put forwards. That is, you'll have to judge our theories and the proof provided in our samples for yourself.

Right now every single one of you is pushing an argument from social authority, which is about the basest, lamest argument in the book.

 

[Lyra]

I have to say, this thread has become a large disappointment and contributes to my notable lack of desire to ever hear anything about Pod'Lair again. I feel like I'm observing a dialogue with Jehovah's Witnesses who don't even want to quote specific scripture about their beliefs, so I think I'm moving on at this point from reading any more. Enjoy your nirvana.

I guess as long as BigApplePi is happy, tho...

Doesn't change that it's true. This type of self-selective culling is desirable at this stage.

 

[Jennywocky]

Doesn't change that it's true. This type of self-selective culling is desirable at this stage.

lol. Since you have not shown that ANYTHING is true to the degree you have been claiming, I would say... no. You guys have an idea, but it's hyped as much as Obama's 2008 run for the presidency; it's not as much of a game changer as you keep trying to present it as.

And this is the kind of smugness that ruins the nice conversation that we had earlier.

I don't what happens with the Pod'Lairs when they find people who disagree with them / challenge their ideas, but you guys seem to drop into a defensive crouch, repel/deny all criticism far beyond what is viable, and lose any sense of humanness and vulnerability.

That is what disappoints me; I know you have something real under there, I saw it for a second, but most of the conversation since then comes across as sock puppetry.

.... I do agree with the "self-culling." I know I don't want to be involved with this. But it's the same screening process that is used for religious cults. Anyone who thinks for themselves or challenges the ideas culls themselves, leaving you with viable targets willing to buy into what you are selling. Why not be actually honest about the pro's and con's of your system, and have some thinking people be part of your movement (instead of needing to remove themselves), rather than just trying to present it as the end-all, be-all of typology and self-enlightenment? What internal need drives you to have to position yourself THAT way? It's okay to be part of something that you believe in that has flaws, you know, and just is ONE way of looking at things.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm curious as to what form of "proof" or use of scientific method you would like to see. (This applies to ANY type theory.) Would you like to have several people take a reading of a sample group of people and see how well they come up with the same reading? Of course this would not indicate WHAT was read, but it would be a start.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm curious as to what form of "proof" or use of scientific method you would like to see. (This applies to ANY type theory.) Would you like to have several people take a reading of a sample group of people and see how well they come up with the same reading? Of course this would not indicate WHAT was read, but it would be a start.

That would be one basic indicator. Replicability of implementation / consistency of results is one evaluation factor, even if they're all getting the wrong reading.

(For the latter, to determine whether the reading is "right," one would need a way to independently validate type, to be tested then by this system.)

 

[BigApplePi]

I guess as long as BigApplePi is happy, tho...

@Jennywocky. I happened to see that! I'm not happy as long as there is disagreement. To me it's an issue to be worked out. Every poster is making a point. What is required is translation.

The problem I suffer is that so many POV's are presented they can't all be addressed. It's not Pod'Lair versus MBTI or anything so simple ... or so I claim. It's jargon, multiple kinds of presentations, specialty entitlements, competitiveness, fear, anger, trespass ... all those things.

 

[Jennywocky]

The problem I suffer is that so many POV's are presented they can't all be addressed. It's not Pod'Lair versus MBTI or anything so simple ... or so I claim. It's jargon, multiple kinds of presentations, specialty entitlements, competitiveness, fear, anger, trespass ... all those things.

I'm not even really considering MBTI, which is funny -- I consider it a flawed imperfect system, and there's a difference between MBTI and JFC as well but both are kind of dragged into the same discussions.

The whole conversation has been a gooey morrass, not a step-by-step formulated substantial analysis.

Maybe section off a piece, analyze it, then focus on another piece? Eat the elephant one bite at a time?

There would have be systematic validation at the end to make sure the pieces/facets are all coherent with each other, but anyway....

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Already have,

Not indoctrination videos but studies and statistics. Analyses? Tests?

The demonstration videos mean nothing if it can't be substantiated how any of it links to reality and the nature of personality or psychology. Behavior is just behavior and can be interpreted infinitely and indefinitely.

Auburn already made this point:

Spoiler

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?

 

[Fukyo]

These discussions are amazingly redundant. It's been over 2 years. Pod'lair isn't going to change. I don't know why anyone still cares to dialogue with these people, when it's obvious the endeavor isn't going to yield anything productive. You'd get more information about their theory and methodology just from watching their videos.

You're not going to get a scientific study because Pod'lair adamantly eschews any form of establishment, other than its own, of course. Any study you see is going to be self-published, which brings us back to square one. Pod'lair is above science. In fact, they're all so afraid they couldn't even begin to try to comprehend it. We're all so scared and poisoned by memes, which is clearly the math of why we don't get it.


Despite the occasional polite display, Pod'lair is still very much hostile to any form of disagreement. Some weeks ago I observed several of them ganging up on one person (whom I perceived to a part of the group, or at the very least a believer) for daring to interpret something the leader said negatively, and being questioning in general, during which they all tapped each other on the back in smug self-congratulation at dishing out righteous punishment at the heretic. It was jarring, to put it mildly.


tl;dr Stop butting your head against the wall, people.

 

[Jennywocky]

tl;dr Stop butting your head against the wall, people.

No.

.... well, okay.

 

[Fukyo]

No.

Well, if you're a glutton for punishment...

 

[InvisibleJim]

Already have, but you're going to have to put in some independent thought at this point to analyse it independently, for reasons already put forwards. That is, you'll have to judge our theories and the proof provided in our samples for yourself.

Right now every single one of you is pushing an argument from social authority, which is about the basest, lamest argument in the book.

Thank you for the video. You will find I am least socially authoritative of all people you will ever meet, I'm just a fickle and demanding taskmaster.

What I saw in the channel were videos teaching people how to read 'mojos'. Out of curiosity I decided to review 'MRR - Orientation Part 1' for no other reason than it was the first video on the channel and therefore was most likely to offer a summary of the theory.

Apparently this video dealt with 'The 1st Gear: Relates to pod powers'. There was no summary of what the 5 gears are, just that this is the first gear; okay.

I was confused and baffled because there was no external qualification of the value of the theory before starting the 'tutorial?'. Instead it immediately launched into some kind of reading mojo tutorial. After 5 minutes where I wasn't given an introduction to the theory and which would allow me to ascertain it's value I flicked ahead to 24 minutes. There were lots of coloured heads. I did not understand what these meant, therefore I went back and found the 'letter vs colours at 1.50'. Because I had no context this had no meaning. I quickly gave up.

My current opinion of Pod'Lair is that it's really some kind of amalgamation of socionics VI with various other typology schema such as SLOAN and enneagram thrown into a melting pot then rebranded for added confusion.

I understand that it is appealing to classical archetypes and queues like all other theories but I find it utterly opaque at this time because its all wrapped into some enlightenment/hero theory which seems belief driven rather than any sort of rational derivation.

What I want is a single short video, no longer than 5 minutes which explains.

For all of Pod'Lair:
a) A high level description of what the theory is
b) It's origins
c) It's verification
d) Comparison vs alternative theories
Bonus points are always awarded for sources and elegance.

I fear the only way I will be able to get that is by somehow giving you a disease which causes flowcharts.

What concerns me more than if the theory is of no value to me as an individual is that if the theory could be useful to many people but the relative level of bamboozlement causes many to dismiss something of relatively high value because it is so opaque from the outside. Do you understand how I can have this concern?

You should also recognize that I am exercising patience and am avoiding forming a hasty conclusion.

 

[Lyra]

Despite the occasional polite display, Pod'lair is still very much hostile to any form of disagreement. Some weeks ago I observed several of them ganging up on one person (whom I perceived to a part of the group, or at the very least a believer) for daring to interpret something the leader said negatively, and being questioning in general, during which they all tapped each other on the back in smug self-congratulation at dishing out righteous punishment at the heretic. It was jarring, to put it mildly.

Which is entirely different from what's occurring right now...

The Science jab is untrue. Again, I spend most of my time studying things related to the Scientific Method independent of Pod'Lair.

I wouldn't agree with your assessment of the discussions.

 

[Lyra]

Honestly not sure what you're talking about. Again, I only responded defensively to aggressive attacks upon the theory/people/our conduct as a whole. What I was responding to was certainly no more 'human'-- you seem to expect me, as the representative of the minority opinion, to be apologetic and yielding. No, I'll be straightforward and human and not defensive except if attacked, but that doesn't mean being apologetic and yielding whilst you post things like what I responded to, for example. My position is a product of a lot of time and thought, and there's, again, nothing obstinate or egotistical or cultish about my rationally explicating it and expecting only to deal with rational criticisms.

Not having really studied the phenomenon or trained your lens on it, I'm not sure that you're in a position to judge its implications so quickly.

lol. Since you have not shown that ANYTHING is true to the degree you have been claiming, I would say... no. You guys have an idea, but it's hyped as much as Obama's 2008 run for the presidency; it's not as much of a game changer as you keep trying to present it as.

And this is the kind of smugness that ruins the nice conversation that we had earlier.

I don't what happens with the Pod'Lairs when they find people who disagree with them / challenge their ideas, but you guys seem to drop into a defensive crouch, repel/deny all criticism far beyond what is viable, and lose any sense of humanness and vulnerability.

That is what disappoints me; I know you have something real under there, I saw it for a second, but most of the conversation since then comes across as sock puppetry.

.... I do agree with the "self-culling." I know I don't want to be involved with this. But it's the same screening process that is used for religious cults. Anyone who thinks for themselves or challenges the ideas culls themselves, leaving you with viable targets willing to buy into what you are selling. Why not be actually honest about the pro's and con's of your system, and have some thinking people be part of your movement (instead of needing to remove themselves), rather than just trying to present it as the end-all, be-all of typology and self-enlightenment? What internal need drives you to have to position yourself THAT way? It's okay to be part of something that you believe in that has flaws, you know, and just is ONE way of looking at things.

 

[Lyra]

This is something we can achieve and plan to demonstrate. We haven't at this stage in our roll-out (we can't do everything at once) but it's coming.

That would be one basic indicator. Replicability of implementation / consistency of results is one evaluation factor, even if they're all getting the wrong reading.

 

[BigApplePi]

These discussions are amazingly redundant. It's been over 2 years. Pod'lair isn't going to change. I don't know why anyone still cares to dialogue with these people, when it's obvious the endeavor isn't going to yield anything productive. You'd get more information about their theory and methodology just from watching their videos.

You're not going to get a scientific study because Pod'lair adamantly eschews any form of establishment, other than its own, of course. Any study you see is going to be self-published, which brings us back to square one. Pod'lair is above science. In fact, they're all so afraid they couldn't even begin to try to comprehend it. We're all so scared and poisoned by memes, which is clearly the math of why we don't get it.


Despite the occasional polite display, Pod'lair is still very much hostile to any form of disagreement. Some weeks ago I observed several of them ganging up on one person (whom I perceived to a part of the group, or at the very least a believer) for daring to interpret something the leader said negatively, and being questioning in general, during which they all tapped each other on the back in smug self-congratulation at dishing out righteous punishment at the heretic. It was jarring, to put it mildly.


tl;dr Stop butting your head against the wall, people.

Hi Fukyo. I don't quite agree. It's not just Pod'Lair. Its disagreements themselves. I'm fascinated by them. I would like to pin down and categorize their nature. I would try never to argue with a Pod'Lairist (I may not succeed), but rather try to see what they're up to. I recall I posted something negative about their leader. I immediately regretted it, but let it stand as I know it was my Si. I believe I'm entitled to an Si expression every once in a while and now feel their leader is simply a different stylist. I'm not talking to him, so let him be. Lyra is here, but she is an ~INFJ. One has to realize they are talking to an INFJ and INTP's are known not to excel at feelings. No wonder. Lyra is a feeling person and we have to understand that ... not that I'm very good at dealing with it, lol.

 

[Lyra]

Statistics/socially approved studies ≠ proof.
What we have presented = proof.

...if actually engaged with.

Not indoctrination videos but studies and statistics. Analyses? Tests?

The demonstration videos mean nothing if it can't be substantiated how any of it links to reality and the nature of personality or psychology. Behavior is just behavior and can be interpreted infinitely and indefinitely.

Auburn already made this point:

 

[Lyra]

@InvisibleJim

You might be right that a single more panoramic video could have its uses. For now, though, I'd refer you to the Crash Course Primer (youtube.com / watch?v=yfvy30wNGGE&feature=plcp), and episodes discussing relevant concepts on the platform channel (see this video about the five gears, for example). Adymus' EoE channel also contain theoretical deconstructions on models like the MBTI.

Our HHH Channel contains many individualised PSAs which introduce the theory from the ground up, from scratch.

The absolute key, though, is to treat everything else as just material to fuel your own Reading. The Samples on the MRR channel are a good way to begin Reading/seeing the patterns.

 

[Jennywocky]

This is something we can achieve and plan to demonstrate. We haven't at this stage in our roll-out (we can't do everything at once) but it's coming.

Thanks. That would be helpful.
Thought Jim's comments were helpful as well.

I don't see other conversation about it being useful at this point, except for the better testing and explanations that were requested.

 

[InvisibleJim]

@InvisibleJim

You might be right that a single more panoramic video could have its uses. For now, though, I'd refer you to the Crash Course Primer (youtube.com / watch?v=yfvy30wNGGE&feature=plcp), and episodes discussing relevant concepts on the platform channel (see this video about the five gears, for example). Adymus' EoE channel also contain theoretical deconstructions on models like the MBTI.

Our HHH Channel contains many individualised PSAs which introduce the theory from the ground up, from scratch.

The absolute key, though, is to treat everything else as just material to fuel your own Reading. The Samples on the MRR channel are a good way to begin Reading/seeing the patterns.

Okay, I will consider watching these videos: however, you should be aware that I tend to prefer a much more concise communication style than what appeals to people who seem to have embraced Pod'Lair so it is unlikely that I find much of the theory digestible in its current format.

What would be very useful is to split the chaffe of the videos by separating those which are clearly belief based 'Pod'lair makes everyone into heroes when they embrace it' simply because that is a personal problem, not a problem for the theory. This would then allow the creation of concise theory videos along the lines of, there are X gears and this is how we define them, based on these observations, hypotheses, theories and derivations A, B, C and D.

I know it is not the nature of the Te PoLR INFJ - yourself - th Ti dominant INTP sic. Thomas and oh my look at that Se PoLR 'I am so angry right now!' and the Enneagram 3 presentation focused Adymus - to see information in that way; but it is critical to a large number of people to compartmentalize this logic and the ideas it spawns from accordingly to analyse and define appropriate boundary limits and constraints.

 

[Fukyo]

Which is entirely different from what's occurring right now...

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The Science jab is untrue. Again, I spend most of my time studying things related to the Scientific Method independent of Pod'Lair.

My comment isn't so much about you, as is about the general attitude, which (paraphrasing, correct me if I'm wrong) is - science isn't equipped to assess Pod'lair because it's an entirely new framework, and everyone has their lens focused on the wrong thing-, which sort of implies that Pod'lair is above the scientific method in the sense that it can't be assessed through it in a valid way.

I wouldn't agree with your assessment of the discussions.

Really?

People are still criticizing Pod'lair about the same things, and Pod'lair is still holding fast to the same principles and still uses the same arguments in response to the criticism.

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is more detail on what I said too briefly.

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

Please note that I am an INTP ~ ZaiNyy while you are an INFJ ~ NaiXyy. BTW although I claim to be ZaiNyy ~INTP, you cannot see that. It's a limitation of Pod'Lair. Would you agree, lol?

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.

I see that as a feeling statement. It's okay if you are among primary feelers. They know what you are saying. But this is an INTP Forum. The primary language here is not feeling but something else and is not likely to be taken favorably.

When you call someone "ridiculous pseudo-science" I see that mighty close to feeling, not rational. Not rational because you would have to present an awful lot to make your case and even if you did it would be argued with anyway. INTP's on this board, being non-feelers might take that literally and have a quarrel with it. It would be an misinterpretation of what you meant. Makes sense?

When I say everyone has something to contribute, I would apply that to Nardi. After all I saw one of his videos last year and he was applying brain scans. You make use of brain scans with Pod'Lair do you not? There you go. You guys are on the same side. I don't see him as your competitor but a fellow typologist. You may be competing with him at a distance, but if you guys got together some day, each of you might advance your thing.

Hang in there Lyra in spite of the flak you're getting. I don't want to see you booted as then you can NEVER make your case. The people (INTP's) here are thinkers and among the smartest in a certain way, not excelling in Fe.

 

[Lyra]

My comment isn't so much about you, as is about the general attitude, which (paraphrasing, correct me if I'm wrong) is - science isn't equipped to assess Pod'lair because it's an entirely new framework, and everyone has their lens focused on the wrong thing-, which sort of implies that Pod'lair is above the scientific method in the sense that it can't be assessed through it in a valid way.

That's not my take, at least. My take is that there are certain assumptions at play in what's even accepted as research or relevant material in current loose academic disciplines that make a going to them first approach untenable. In those disciplines there is too much culture of a kind we can't challenge and don't yet have the resources to experimentally establish ourselves outside of.

In physics and a few other disciplines the models are so tight and the predictions so nuanced that radical total paradigm shifts actually can make headway, because they produce results and make sense of a few core elements better and the predictive context is so precise and its results so un-ignorable. In the psychologies/biologies (in part) etc, which are still imitating what they think Physics was in about 1930 (where it is now would boggle their minds), this just doesn't and can't happen. The shift between perspectives has much more to do with expert/cultural drift and social climbing, and we'd be deluded to think for a second that we'd be welcomed into that fold. Essentially there isn't enough precision to falsify, enough of a precise context to explode/make sense of. A new theoretical/disciplinary context has to be established, but that's a very different thing from stepping outside of the Scientific Method or the possibility of falsification/judging a research program by its predictive yield.

Science is certainly equipped to handle Pod'Lair, and we intend for it do so by many different measures in the long run, in ways that will ultimately be to a far greater extent independent of subjective apparatus (although we don't think that will lessen that apparatus' value or the necessity of the tacit). But for now what we have provided is actually stronger proof and a stronger theory than exist in any other large-scaled/general theory of human beings/behaviour out there.

Really?

People are still criticizing Pod'lair about the same things, and Pod'lair is still holding fast to the same principles and still uses the same arguments in response to the criticism.

Perhaps that's the case-- I wasn't that involved in the discussions months ago. For my part, though, I feel that I'm answering from my own perspective and clarifying some points about the Scientific Method and nature of the claims being made etc. *Shrug*. It doesn't seem much more futile than any other discussion I see on the front page. TBH I also prefer/enjoy being outnumbered and arguing on my my own. Helps clarify finer points and feels more palatable generally.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Statistics/socially approved studies ≠ proof.
What we have presented = proof.

...if actually engaged with.

Identifying pseudoscience

Spoiler

Identifying pseudoscience​

 Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[30]

 Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them).[31] (See also: Reproducibility)

 Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's razor)[32]

 Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.

 Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[33]

 Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.
[edit]Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

 Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: falsifiability)[34]

 Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.[35] Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)[36]

 Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[37]

 Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).[38]

 Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[39] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.

 Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[40]

 Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to explain negative findings.[41]
[edit]Lack of openness to testing by other experts

 Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").[42] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[43]

 Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so that others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.[44]

 Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.[44]
[edit]Absence of progress

 Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.[45] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.[46](see also: Scientific progress)

 Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[47] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

 Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows that the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.
[edit]Personalization of issues

 Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting toconfirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[48]

 Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[49]

 Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[50]
[edit]Use of misleading language

 Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

 Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.
[edit]Absence from citation databases

 One way of assessing whether a subject is accepted as part of the scientific mainstream is to examine citations to it and its proponents in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic or person is referred to in scholarly publications that are peer reviewed. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is likely to have many citations, one that is not accepted very few.​

tl;dr Stop butting your head against the wall, people.

Spoiler

I suppose it is pretty vacuous at this point. I don't really know what else is there to say that hasn't already been said.

 

[Lyra]

There are some valid points in the above list, and some that concern perhaps valid critiques of present models/assumptions which haven't yet found many strong theoretical outlets (IMO Rupert Sheldrake is an example of a somebody who has presented a consistent and testable empirical claim which has imlications that would show, for example, the critique of holism as a characteristic of pseodoscience to be misconstrued. It's actually a consistent theoretical critique which at certain points in the past has had only weak or psuedoscientific expressions).

The point, though, is this:

Can you find any individual who doesn't example either Xyy or Zyy articulating, or who examples both?

Can you find any individual who sometimes examples Xyy emoting and sometimes examples Zyy cooling?

We predict that any individual exampling either Zyy or Xyy will always example only Xyy or Zyy emoting/cooling and the associated patterns of facial musculature and movement.

Can you find any individual whose facial emotive range (whole-face/bi-field/up to the midline only) doesn't always equal what it does at any given read time? Can you find any individual who doesn't example the patterns of momentum or slowing we associate with certain maths of facial emotive range?

Can you find any individual who gains momentum from both of the Y/Y orientations? Can you find any individual who isn't constant in their pattern of Y/Y momentum over all known footage of them? Or whose constant pattern doesn't mesh with other positive predictions we've presented as always being justified by such a pattern?

Can you find anyone with bi-field face who doesn't example the associate patterns of other cues we associate with that?

Can you find any individual who demonstrates the other cues we identify as associated with momentum Nai usage (or Vai/Xai/Zai usage) who doesn't also visibly gain momentum from the specific set of eye-access cues we postulate as being involved in Nai usage? Or the reverse?

These are very precise claims about which we say very precise things. We do not hide in vagueness or obscuritan vocabulary in making these claims, and define all terms used and their implications. I would recommend starting with the Y/Y gesturing episode on the MRR channel for an introduction to this kind of math and what we're saying about it. There are many, many interlinking and positive and precise claims of these kinds which postulate distinct physical cues and patterns of momentum/modulation/movement, and the whole edifice would be quite easy to topple by a demonstration of a consistent flaw.

We have presented a significant sample database in which all of these patterns can be observed to hold true/be exampled in the way we say they do. We provide breakdowns and precise delineations of the cues involved and what they mean predictively. Including what possible cue sets the presence of one cue implies, how this holds true over time, all kind of other things that can be predicted. These are precise, defined, falsifiable, and and as yet unfalsified claims. They present a staggeringly precise and consistent interpretation of patterns of movement/eye-usage/interactional behaviour that have before been entirely obscure, and they do so in a highly predictive manner.

Rhetoric is far more pseudoscientific than the level of discourse I'm inviting engagement in right now. The claims made above are positive empirical claims to which the Scientific Method can be applied and which have Scientific implications. Accusations of character/presentation flaws or of psuedoscience are irrelevant to them and their assessment, and focus on such irrelevancies is itself an indication of disinclination to actively engage in the Scientific enterprise being claimed as an associated/supporting authority.

 

[Matt3737]

They present a staggeringly precise and consistent interpretation of patterns of movement/eye-usage/interactional behaviour that have before been entirely obscure, and they do so in a highly predictive manner.

Rhetoric is far more pseudoscientific than the level of discourse I'm inviting engagement in right now. The claims made above are positive empirical claims to which the Scientific Method can be applied and which have Scientific implications. Accusations of character/presentation flaws or of psuedoscience are irrelevant to them and their assessment, and focus on such irrelevancies is itself an indication of disinclination to actively engage in the Scientific enterprise being claimed as an associated/supporting authority.

Accepting these premises as true, then what predication are you proposing for this theory?

That you can predict what sort of facial cues people will exhibit based on their typing? Or do you further propose you can predict their behavior as well? In other words, what exactly does this revolutionary theory predict exactly?

I'd be willing to bet nothing more than subjective validation, but I love it when you all get grandiose and flamboyant about it like it's the end-all be-all of human understanding! lol

 

[Lyra]

Well, I just gave an indication of that. And earlier in this thread I addressed the misleading Cartesian hypotheses you're suggesting we need to work in terms of.

 

[Matt3737]

So....subjective validation is the end-all be-all of human understanding is what I'm taking away from your response. Correct or could you elaborate further?

 

[Lyra]

You're being asinine. Read the thread and do your research. I'm not restating it all for you personally or in accordance with your personal requirements.

 

[crippli]

The point, though, is this:

Can you find any individual who doesn't example either Xyy or Zyy articulating, or who examples both?

Can you find any individual who sometimes examples Xyy emoting and sometimes examples Zyy cooling?

We predict that any individual exampling either Zyy or Xyy will always example only Xyy or Zyy emoting/cooling and the associated patterns of facial musculature and movement.

Can you find any individual whose facial emotive range (whole-face/bi-field/up to the midline only) doesn't always equal what it does at any given read time? Can you find any individual who doesn't example the patterns of momentum or slowing we associate with certain maths of facial emotive range?

Can you find any individual who gains momentum from both of the Y/Y orientations? Can you find any individual who isn't constant in their pattern of Y/Y momentum over all known footage of them? Or whose constant pattern doesn't mesh with other positive predictions we've presented as always being justified by such a pattern?

Can you find anyone with bi-field face who doesn't example the associate patterns of other cues we associate with that?

Can you find any individual who demonstrates the other cues we identify as associated with momentum Nai usage (or Vai/Xai/Zai usage) who doesn't also visibly gain momentum from the specific set of eye-access cues we postulate as being involved in Nai usage? Or the reverse?

Of course. These are facial expressions, right? Perhaps not all, but many should be able to control this at will. Or else I will presume they have very little will power. If you can fool a lie detector, a mojo reader should certainly prove no difficulty.

It would be cool though if you could actually find something with a certain degree of consistency. But if so, don't tell the cops, as it could become more difficult to have them believe ones lies

 

[Lyra]

No, they can't be faked. It's very easy to read through that. And we can demonstrate that.

And no, they're not just 'expressions'. They are also architecture, structure, and the inherent nature of the system and its range of potential expressions and the constancy they alter from etc.

Basic research would indicate the answers to these kinds of questions. And that we have found something with consistency, already.

 

[Reluctantly]

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.

Okay. I appreciate this response. Can you provide links that explain how the theory both relates and differentiates itself from other psychological models? The links on Pod'Lair are full of jargon and generalizations and the videos on youtube do not give me this information.

Also, as someone who has read Jung and has put a lot of thought into what he wrote about and saw, I find it incredibly insightful in understanding people.
Basically, what I've found is that he wrote about different types of philosophical thinking that people focus on for one reason or another and explained their actions as relating to their kind of thinking; and this is something I can see very well in people.
That said, I could see parallels between what Pod'Lair seems to be trying to explain and what Jung was trying to explain (he's hard to read); so my question is what does Pod'Lair attempt to do differently from Jung? Is this supposed to be more "hands on"?

Another thing that would be good to know is Pod'Lair's stance on type. What I mean is that Jung claimed that type wasn't static (and it seems reasonable to suggest this, knowing what he based them on). So although I'm all for the idea of using type to help people better understand one another, I find the idea of suggesting type is static and using that as an excuse for not changing or adapting to life as ... unhelpful. How does Pod'lair reconcile the two?

 

[snafupants]

so my question is what does Pod'Lair attempt to do differently from Jung? Is this supposed to be more "hands on"?

I would conjecture someone from the Pod'Lair cult would say that their system is based on empirical, physiologically-rooted cues and behavioral patterns, especially as compared to Jung's almost atheoretical opuses. There could be some truth in that claim but Pod'Lair definitely owes something to Psychological Types and Jungian thought, without which Pod'Lair would look radically different. That's putting it tepidly. I can't accept the claim that Jung didn't plant the seed for Pod'Lair and MBTI and myriad typology systems. The constructs between MBTI and Pod'Lair are too similar to be accidental. That's the thing - I'm more saying that subsequent Jung-like typology systems largely drink from the same well and, also, that Pod'Lair should put up or shut up on the evidence front. At this point, claims made by Pod'Lair far outstrip the system's laurels. That statement should be totally uncontroversial because INTP Forum has repeatedly requested evidence of formal research from Pod'Lair and received insults, claptrap, laughable esoterica or silence in return.

 

[tikru]

'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.

You say it 'clearly' shows, but it doesn't seem that clear to me. I will admit that the world could be better... but I also can enjoy my life in the moment, being with friends, having a good time without trying to understand the ways our egos operate (ego in terms of "the I" or your "apparatus"). Your attitude towards the world seems apocalyptic, like we don't have much time left, but from my point of view it doesn't seem that way. Maybe I'm just ignorant of future trends. And I think many would like to contribute to a project that desires to expand consciousness, but your ideas seem unbalanced and mixed up in all kinds of unconscious behavior. The physiological cue work is one thing, but there's also the philosophy being deduced from the cues that seems narrow-minded towards ego-consciousness. The 'vessel' does not solely contain heroic properties...

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.

So you see that the world is Maya, but you want to replace it with your own illusion. It is not a duty to alleviate suffering, but a choice based on your kindness and empathy for other human beings. It is a fine goal to want to empower those that suffer, but it is difficult to judge whether your ideas will empower or simply be putting on the pod'lair meme. It's common for cults to preach about the illusion of the dynamics of society and then replace it with their own esoteric spirituality. And then the cult-members look at their friends and family differently. They take on that heroic 'mah-zute' and believe they have a divine duty to empower them. They use language not in the common lexicon to express their differentiation. There is a history to this.

'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.

I mean, that all sounds well and good, but how do you know what my 'peaking cycle is built to gravitate towards'? Natural law? What does natural law mean to you? I wonder if it means the same thing to me...

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.

You might be using all conscious powers, but there will still be a dominance of intuition and feeling, no? You say 'energizes and excites and turns on' which doesn't seem balanced to me. It's great to feel alive, but it's also great to relate on a human level with the knowledge that we're not always so energized or turned on or feeling like what we're saying will change the world forever

 

[snafupants]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPaKocQKM8&feature=g-all-u

So funny. I love Mike et al. from NFGeeks. More pushback from that absurd typology renaissance hamhandedly spearheaded by our mutual friends over at Pod'Lair. I hear many of the complaints in this thread echoed over at NFGeeks.

Keep up the work, Pod'Lair. Stuff's stellar material.

 

[Minuend]

Could someone tell me what nyyx things are what mbti type? I keep forgetting. Also listing the functions in mbti would be nice. Ty ty ^^

 

[Fukyo]

Xyy - Fe
Xai - Fi
Zyy - Te
Zai - Ti
Nyy - Ne
Nai - Ni
Vyy - Se
Vai - Si


So, you'd be a Nyy'Xai, @Minuend.

 

[Valgaar]

I would conjecture someone from the Pod'Lair cult would say that their system is based on empirical, physiologically-rooted cues and behavioral patterns, especially as compared to Jung's almost atheoretical opuses. There could be some truth in that claim but Pod'Lair definitely owes something to Psychological Types and Jungian thought, without which Pod'Lair would look radically different. That's putting it tepidly. I can't accept the claim that Jung didn't plant the seed for Pod'Lair and MBTI and myriad typology systems. The constructs between MBTI and Pod'Lair are too similar to be accidental. That's the thing - I'm more saying that subsequent Jung-like typology systems largely drink from the same well and, also, that Pod'Lair should put up or shut up on the evidence front. At this point, claims made by Pod'Lair far outstrip the system's laurels. That statement should be totally uncontroversial because INTP Forum has repeatedly requested evidence of formal research from Pod'Lair and received insults, claptrap, laughable esoterica or silence in return.

Bingo.

Pod'lair was once known as 'Intuitives of Long Beach'.

They would study in their 'Temple of Archetypes'.

From Adymus's profile:

Yes, I am sure. Jonathan Rock is one of my students and he is developing his skills very well but he is still training to get his Pure Sight Ranking. You are an Ihnai'ehfee (INFJ). The ups and downs are classic for our Mojo. Also, our Mojo is the hardest of all Mojos to read. Ihnee'ehfai are also very hard and this is because we can be like chameleons, even to ourselves.

Ihnai = Ni Ehfee = Fe.

Yet, they insist that they owe Jung nothing.

By the way, Lyra is a dude:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfjfcqJSZSE

Con artists.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

By the way, Lyra is a dude

Rule 30* until proven otherwise.


By the way, I agree with a comment on the first NFGeeks response video, negative attention for them is still positive attention, since they're pushing for publicity.

Of course it's too late to just ignore them, but this sensationalism / hype is unnecessary.


** Also noticed Jinxi / Sparrow / Anamalech is back with them.

 

[Lyra]

** Also noticed Jinxi / Sparrow / Anamalech is back with them.

Actually Valgaar is Jinxi / Sparrow / Anamalech.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Actually Valgaar is Jinxi / Sparrow / Anamalech.

nsfw

Spoiler

How do you know this?

 

[Lyra]

I knew it from his writing style and post count and general inference, but it's confirmed in the convo with Fukyo on his profile.

FYI he made an apology video and spent some time around Pod'Lair recently, but I think is now choosing to go his own way because of differences with the culture and presentation. I wish him the best.