The situation isI 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.
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?You can deduce one from the other. Who gives a shit? I guess you do haha.
Because people are familiar with the MBTI and four letters are simple?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 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.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).
Another examaple of PL egoism. They'd claim Jung ripped them off if they could find some way to justify it to themselves. x_xp.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.
In CognitiveType theory, Judger-Perciever doesn't correlate with MBTI J & P.However, on Auburn's website, it does seem to create four temperaments based in part on Judge-Perceiver dichotomies. That still resembles MBTI.
...? 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?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/
o.o...? 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.
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.
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.Wearing a faintly veiled facade of niceness and Ti "neutrality" when it's apparent to everyone that dispassion is the least of his motives.
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.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.
Speaking independently, I agree that CT has the more intuitive and helpfully presented information so far. I attribute this to at least four factors: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.
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.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.
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.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.
The data has been provided. I'm referring to this thread.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.
I see Auburn discussing a plan. Has Auburn explained the rationale?
You don't feel the same is true, I do. I think I'm right. Not much more to say on that.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.
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.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 - I have an idea. A solution to 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.
Good point overall but I feel you are getting ahead of yourself.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.
Necessary? Are you saying that brain-scanning research is irrelevant or somehow unnecessary to building a working cognitive-typing theory?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.
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.
^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.We just don't know how neural functioning relates to things like personality or whatever with nearly enough clarity.
^Impetus for further research, DUH. There is starting ground now. Observations have been made. It's time to attempt to disprove them.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.
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?@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, 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.
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.
Oh wait, posts are going through now, guess I'll rewrite it.
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.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.
So we can discount Phoenix's bizarre 'tinging' back-pedal right off the bat. Just opened a random page, for a random example. Note:
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.http://physiognomy.me/b01/ne.html
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.
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.
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.‘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.’
This is a directly copied Pod'Lair cue. Bracing vs. warming.'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.'
'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.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.
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').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.
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.
Well, sure. But that's not particularly relevant to what I'm saying.Quote:
Well first I'd like to say I'm not against or an enemy of Pod'Lair.
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:
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.
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.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.
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:
The evidence shows this to be false, IMO. NiTe do not smile high, for example.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.'
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:
'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.'
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:
'- - - 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.'
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 Ti/Fe duality can be identified via:
- - - Dead/Flat pauses, Momentum Halting (Ti)
- - - Warm Fe 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:
'The Te/Fi duality can be identified via:
- - - Sullen/Sassy momentum curving (Fi)
- - - Blunt/Fast Te Articulation'
Perhaps more so, but Xai drifts can and do go pretty high. This could be misleading.Quote:
'Ji functions can be distinguished via:
- - - Eyes looking downward'
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:
'Pi functions can be identified via:
- - - Eyes drifting off to the sides (either sides, for either function)
- - - Inertial (viscous) 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.Quote:
'Pe functions can be identified via:
- - - Eyes darting/toggling
- - - Momentum (fluid) energy'
Either way, this list you've presented is about 1/50th of what can usefully be read, max, which again gets to my point.
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.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.
Overall, the presented modulation/momentum relationships (never discussed before Pod'Lair) are very complex and nuanced.
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:
'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.'
That's wonderful, Auburn. But what relation does it bear to my critique above? None. Straw-man, that doesn't salvage your competence.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.
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.
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:
'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.'
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.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.'
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.]
Nope. This isn't about Scientific Knowledge. This was mostly about PhoenixRising's bizarre assertions of no influence, and of induction from PHY.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.
...neither of these is true.I don't even have an issue crediting PL but what you're saying isn't rational.