The visual reading methods of pod-lair.

(pre: Hiya guys!)

Yes. chaoticbrain pm'ed me wondering if it's ok to make a thread discussing pod'lair, and I just wanted to clarify that it absolutely is.

I've let Podlair know that I'm not in opposition with them - though they've considered me their enemy. I have more of a scientific mindset to this.. Hence, I tried to collaborate with them at least twice but they're quite the "my way or the high-way" type of people. In science, people don't close off information to other groups; it's customary that findings are shared and that previous knowledge is integrated into new knowledge. It's necessary that knowledge not be treated as a possession. But they see themselves as having exclusive possession of The Solution and will not back down from asserting all else is a lesser attempt to do what they're doing perfectly.

Podlair Methodology

But their actual methodology is of some interest! You'll notice that there are some words that sound similar in their terminology and CT. I've debated with them about this, and it appears that even though the words seem similar, we mean entirely different things by them. If, for example, I point to a clear example of what I consider Ne alert eyes they'll say it's Ni-lead eyes.

Relevant Link to Debate

 And another neat post (where they accuse me of biting their methodology o.o)

The primary reason I disagree with Pod'lair though (putting their aggressive attitude aside) is that their reads don't reflect reality. It also appears they've done a side-by-side comparison of our reads and theirs, here:



If you notice, there's a distinct pattern of typing bias towards high-N types, Nai'xyy and Nyy'xai in particular. The majority of our misreads, according to them, are actually NiFe or NeFi. I've tried to *see* the correlations in their reads, but they don't correlate. The vast range of expression they give to, say, Nai'xyy, makes it near impossible to see any semblance -- from Florence Welch (Nai'xyy) to James Cameron (Nai'xyy) to Eminem (Nai'xyy) -- NeFi, TeSi, SeTi respectively.

They also type me as Zai'nyy (TiNe) but also type Richard Feynman as Zai'nyy (TiNe). o.o I certainly can't see that. Not surprisingly, they consider CT's methodology/reads to be just marginally better than complete guesswork. Now I understand that our reads may not be 100% accurate, but the sheer gap between those two systems displays a fundamental difference; in other words, we're not seeing the same thing whatsoever. ^^;

I have a question. It's apparent the two systems collide when it comes to the type (or mojo, lul) of people. It also seems that the function cues don't correlate. For example, you mentioned what you view as ne they view as ni. However, it appears that there are more than one occasion on that list where they might think that someone is displaying ni when you believe they're displaying a sensory function as dominant or secondary. IE number 9, kiera knightley. Therefore, how are we supposed to know which system is correct, or that any system is correct? I am almost certain pod'lair is incorrect because the overwhelming majority of NiFe and NeFi they type. However, how do we know that your typings are correct? It seems that a lot of them seemed to be backed by standard popular opinion in MBTI communities. Is this the case? If so then CT would be primarily a method of supporting the claims of the typings made by the MBTI community. Rather than using the methods they often use, this method would support the claim by using visual reading. If this is the case, then the system would be already bias in its methodology, as conclusions would be influenced, or even shaped, to conform to the mbti community. I don't believe this is necessarily the case, as I've seen you all go against popular opinion in a handful of typings. However, how do we confirm that your typings are correct, and finally, are the typings given even contradictory to the typings made by the MBTI community? Could someone be a type in MBTI and a different type in CT? If so what does it mean to have the typings in CT, do they have completely new definitions?

Thanks.

Thank you for the response .

edit:


I.) Intro:

I just wanted to state my rough outline of two things I noticed. I believe that the motus project falls victim to sampling bias, based on what I've observed so far. The second rough conclusion I've made is that while motus may be used to show similarity in expression of one's physical self. There has been no evidence that those who share motus type also share the same cognitive inner workings.



II.)Motus and MBTI:

The motus video mentions that answering the question of ,"does motus type correlate at all to psychology", is outside of the realm of motus, which is understandable as motus is not aimed to answer that question. However, unless the neurology project has been done, all present typings are truly just motus typings. Based on what motus type appears to be defined as, then all current typings are just typings of one's physical similarity in expression with others; these motus types have nothing to do with cognitive typings, at the moment. They're purely physical typings. I know that this is still very early in the theory. However, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that many people here were taking these typings as something more. I believe many were using motus's conclusions to replace mbti's conclusions. As you said above, only one can be correct if there is a difference in conclusion; which there has been on more than one occasion here. In that case, I believe many were relating say, NiFe, to INFJ. While they may have prior been typed an INFP in mbti, these fellows, if typed NiFe, may have believed that their MBTI type was truly INFJ. The issue being that FiNe =/= INFJ. At this present point in time, I'm unsure if the two systems can contradict one another. There is no cognitive explanation for motus types, so therefore, I'm unsure how a physical typing system could interfere with a cognitive typing system. In conclusion, it seems apparent at this point in time, prior to neurology tests, that one could be both and INFP and an NiFe.



III.)Cause of confusion:

This may be confusing for newcomers, and I believe this should be more explicit. I believe the cause for this confusion is also due in part to the way the site is designed. In the profiles section, cognitivetype.com/profiles/, the section starts off by saying, "Herein are detailed profiles covering the psychological aspect of the sixteen types". However, as said before, it appears that motus types are not psychological in any shape or form. Also there is a section of the forum called "the experience of being a type". While I understand this could be great for gathering information from motus types, this still falls victim to sampling bias. It's also probably not a great way to gather data in this regard. None the less, more importantly, it furthers the illusion that motus type can be used to describe cognition of users. I believe this is why many confuse it as a alternative to MBTI, at this point. Which is not true, as they define completely different things, one physical and one mental.



IV.)Possible experimenter bias:

Finally, you mentioned in the video that there are no pre-conceived types formed. However, if the neurology tests have not been done yet, how is it possible that there are already 16 defined types? I believe that the motus project could lead to pretty big conclusions. However, my biggest gripe with the project is in the low amount of data, based on physiognomy.me/catalog/, and the method for taking in data. The two biggest demographics of data source are people who are either celebrities, or people who voluntarily give data to the project. All the while both groups are victim to the Hawthorne effect. Finally, after enough good data were gathered it would be great to know if there's a correlation between a motus type and some cognitive description. However, I believe there's preconceived bias in that conclusions seem to already be drawn before the cognitive tests have even begun:


This should not be surprising. The methodology of choosing cognitive descriptions seems to have been heavily influenced by Jung; which so happens to have also influenced MBTI. My main issue is that unless the neurology work has been done, it seems that you all were leaping to conclusions using anecdotal evidence to support your descriptions, which were based off of an old system. Basically, rather than using the motus system to find new correlations, you all appeared to have used the motus system to support anecdotal identities supported by old Jungian theory. That seems very limiting and full of preconceived bias. Rather, from what the motus video seems to imply, I believe that there could be a much greater multiple of identities correlated with motus type's findings. In my opinion, there are so many possibilities about what those cognitive descriptions are, and how many there are. Next, I imagine it's even possible for more than one motus type to share a same cognitive description; or even more than one cognitive description available for a given motus type. Maybe it's possible for a person's motus type to change, and along with it their cognitive description. There just seems to be many different results that could occur, however, at the moment it seems really based off reworking an old model. My point being, the discoveries that the neuro work performed on the data given by motus could be more than what the current Jung system could account for; ie, working around the Jung system could turn out to be more limiting than anything else. Of course, it could turn out that there are no correlations all together, however, there are many possibilities; and I do not believe it likely to be either none, or only Jung.


I agree, but they must be tested. There are many theories that come from unexpected places that do not pass the tests or completely ignore testing. I'm not saying CT is one of them, but I'm stating that unexpected origins is not a good reason to believe that a given theory will be true. In relation, I believe the similar history of pod'lair is relevant. As you mentioned, they were filled with preconceived bias in their methodology. Therefore, it's not irrational to be weary of systems that share similar origins, due to this reason.

Mhm.

There's one big misconception which I do have to clear up. It's mentioned here ( cognitivetype.com/database/motus.html ) a link found in the Database page, but I'll post it here:



The Motus project was a separate undertaking before CognitiveType. In the motus project, things were pure physical typings, but CT is a psychological endeavor as well. When I showed you the video, I wasn't using that as a justification for the correlation between visual signals and cognition, but demonstrating a way to know 'with certainty' which interpretation of the signals is more aligned with reality. The question of the psyche's correlation with physical manifestation is a second question and one which is also important.

This brings forth great epistemological questions. In the book I'm writing I make a detailed case for this, but I'll briefly outline some points here....


The formalization of the Scientific method is one not necessarily ill-suited to the comprehension of the Psyche - given that this formalization does not compromise the complexity of the data that exists for simplicity - but when such formality is combined with limited capacity to process a multitude of variables - the human sense becomes a more accurate empirical evaluator, pound per pound, given that it is rightly directed. What it seems you are proposing is that because the formal approach (i.e. Motus) has not been taken as far as to quantify things neurologically, that we cannot say at all whether these Motus types are linked to psychology.

This seems to me an incredibly blind deduction to draw, especially when one considers the nature of the very signals in question. For example, if someone has fast/snippy articulation (Te), one must necessarily deduce that the individual in question was able to process and execute their mental decision in that short amount of time allotted. If they display this as a consistent signal, then we have no choice but to deduce that said individual is able to process and execute judgments at a very fast rate - and they have a mind that is such tailored. The observation is then simultaneously one visual as well as psychological.

To desire a completely objective answer to the question of the nature of Consciousness is an improper question to ask. The neurological approach is certainly the most quantifiable, but brings with it a series of new dilemmas. The information the brain produces in the form of electromagnetic waves and synaptic firings is not a direct representation of the psychic experience of the individual – but a cryptic representation which cannot be translated without a behavioral comparison point. We discover what this neural activity corresponds to when a physical/behavioral effect is observed occurring during the presence of said neural activity. In light of this, the challenge of deciphering the psyche is one which cannot bypass the requirement for keen psychological interpretation of behavior but which also requires cooperation with neuroscience and any other available empirical means of quantification.

The psyche cannot be understood objectively while being divorced from subjectivity; it can only be understood by making sense of subjectivity objectively – hence making the human element indispensable. The abstract and concrete elements of perception are both equally necessary for complete understanding – and it is also crucial that the subjective experience be revered as well as the objective one. An academic approach too far leaning toward the objective and concrete directions will fail to capture a truly intelligent understanding of reality, even though it may appear captivating to hold a sight which has available a quantification for each component in its tapestry.

It attains this certainty at the compromise and loss of much more breadth of insight which isn’t formatted in a structure quite as rigid and defined – but formatted nonetheless. The over-emphasis toward this form of empiricism is not what I desire to advocate, as it is an illusion to consider the concrete to be by default more empirical than the abstract, when often times it is abstractions – perhaps seen clearest in mathematics; math formulae being essentially abstractions – that can best represent reality. It’s in like form that I refer to the formulas and equations of psychic dynamics, which individual human subjects serve to represent and verify or disprove, but which exist outside of any particular individual.



Facial expressions are, like neuroscience, another decodable source of information which is directly emitted from the brain's activity. Brain waves are not the only directly empirical avenue we have of measuring, and all avenues and available sources of information should be used when attempting to answer the complicated question of what the nature of human Cognition is. CognitiveType is a theory detailing the visual dimension/component of this mental phenomenon. Although it is not the entirety of the story, it is no less a valid and important element - and not one which *requires* a neural angle for a justification to publish it's observations. It would certainly add more perspective, but VR itself is the study of an empirical platform - like neuroscience - that can draw it's own conclusions about the human personal experience.

Motus Type:
Interesting. It seems that you’re distancing yourself from the Motus system. Please excuse my misconception that Motus was not a separate undertaking from CT. Rather, I had the false belief that Motus was a foundation that CT was formed off of. I don’t seem to be the only one:



That pm was sent to me from one who, I believe, is one of the more informed supporters of CT. Truth be told, CT and Motus appear to be one and the same; Motus just with a new name. I refer to physiognomy.me/b01/celebritylist.pdf . Many of the CT typings are the same as these Motus typings; and the function cues are the same used for CT. You even have meekakitty as an Ne example for Motus, which you also have as an Ne example for CT. I refer to physiognomy.me/jung/ and



Of course, this is all very odd. The reason being that Motus was not aimed at finding correlations between physical cues and psyche. However, as that is what occurred during the latter stages of Motus, this is not all that surprising. Renaming a system does not make it any different, therefore, all the faults that the Motus system had (when it comes to experimenter bias and poor intake of data) also appears to apply to CT. The only other case would be if the methodology of CT is vastly different than that of Motus. As it appears that the same conclusions are being based off Motus, when it comes to cognitive function cues, then it’s rational to conclude that CT falls victim to the same preconceived bias Motus had. No mention of any different forms of intaking data have been mentioned, either. Therefore, it’s most likely that CT = present day Motus.



Facial Expressions:
I never mentioned that I believed that facial expressions could not be used to get a glimpse into the psyche of a person. In fact, I said:



I also posted a video which is on the subject of using body language to gain cues on a person’s psyche. I thought it was self evident, however, I believe that a lot of the conclusions they made were most likely accurate. The difference, though? They’re not claiming that their conclusions are based off scientific evidence.


Are you making fun of my fedora? Regardless, I’m unsure why you would cite a disorder, that is defined by the DSM, to explain the phenomena of not being able to understand social signals at a proficient level; as you said not too long after:




Failure of modern day psychology (according to Motus/CT):
I’m not sure how the motivations of the startup of this system is relevant. I understand that there are motivations, however, they’re not important when it comes to analyzing the method of the system that is being reviewed. As the methodology of the system being reviewed has not been detailed in depth; criticizing the contemporary method of analyzing psychology appears to be a red herring.



Neurology:
I pointed out the use of neurological experiments because that is what my sources from Motus were telling me; and my sources came from you and an advocate of CT. The reason why I was so reliant on neuroscience was due to the claims of Motus; in which Motus states the goal of using it as its only possible source of verifying and testing conclusions. That statement was made by Motus, not me. If there are other methods then by all means list them. As there haven’t been any listings of real scientific undertakings which are used to verify conclusions from Motus or CT I’m unsure how it could be labeled a ‘scientific theory’.



Final:
I don’t really have any issues with CT when it comes down to what it really is. I believe it is very good at indicating a person’s Jung / MBTI type at a given point in time. It, however, appears ill-suited when it comes to tackling the more rooted questions of psychology, and the conclusions drawn from a CT indication should be treated in the same regard as a typing from an MBTI practitioner.


edit: grammar.

Again, thanks for your replies


I believe we are reaching the core. As so I will mostly quote and respond in this post:




I see. Well, then the issues of methodology are not involving Motus, rather phsyiognomy.me . It’s just another name...



So with light of this new information CT = present day phsyiognomy.me. In this case, of course, Motus’s data was used for physiognomy.me’s conclusions.





My mistake. I had this misbelief due to:

.


In which the neuroscience project is explicitly introduced as a method to test hypotheses, unlike the others which were far more implicit. None the less, I’m unsure how any of this is very important; as no methodologies have been outlined that have been used to test hypotheses, neurological or otherwise.





Well, none the less, you cited a disorder that does explain that phenomenon*. If you cited it because “it is clearly the popular opinion/lore”, then I’m not sure why you did. Above you outline the wisdom archetype and I believe that “popular opinion/lore” probably falls within that category, in your eyes. Therefore, it kind of is an odd deduction to use those guys as support that “it is clearly...a deficiency”.





I believe the deduction is not odd. It’s preferable for them to acknowledge that their observations and predictions are not scientific. This is because they are not scientific. I believe it is somewhat 'telling' because I believe they’re probably more right than they are wrong. That said I, and most viewers (I hope), know that they are conclusions based on inductive logic.





I have to disagree. Empiricism is fine and dandy, however, I believe heavy reliance on it is restricting. Empiricism combined with rationalism is more advantageous than JUST empiricism. Ironically, a lot of the conclusions you reached in the linked page is done via rationalism. As for why your view on empiricism is faulty: I ask, is one supposed to retrace the history of human development and find out for themselves what people have proven centuries ago? There’s not enough time in one’s lifespan to possibly retrace all of human development. That said, it is all silly that science could be likened to a ‘wisdom archetype’ based on the types of figures you used as examples and the descriptions you gave for this label. “Humanity remains to defer to it, rather than investigate for themselves the claims it makes”. Humans are the ones who do the experiments, tests, and investigations that are used in the scientific method. This is unlike all of the other wisdom archetypes. This is because those other wisdom archetypes reached conclusions via methods that are not scientific. If you're, indeed, criticizing the scientific method, then I'm not sure what else to say; in fact if that is what all of this controversy boils down to then I will just end it there. I have faith in the scientific method, if CT is formed off ideas that go against the scientific method then all power to it. However, this would label lit a pseudoscience. If one does not believe in the scientific method then that really shouldn't be an issue. Finally, there’s a lot of things that I feel are wrong in that post, but they mostly fall into one of the above, so I’ll leave it there.





As said above, science uses both empiricism and rationalism. Most people cannot afford to go to space to see for themselves whether the Earth is flat or round.





I entirely disagree. The two are not in any way, shape, or form similar. No, the atomic theory has been around for a very long time and has been tested and backed by experimental evidence for over 200 years. The Motus system is relatively new and speculating conclusions is nothing like speculating how an established chemistry theory could be incorrect. That said, I disagree that going into the lab is necessary. I believe it is not necessary to go to the lab. I also believe that not going to the lab would not lead to “all is speculative and there’s no better or worse answer”. If this were the case, and what you say is true, then the flat earth “theory” is just as true or false as the idea of a spherical earth; unless, of course, one physically went to space and viewed the Earth.

No you're correct. I never said that you were under the impression that they were the same. I said that you believed that CT was formed off of it. Which is, for the most part, accurate. I explained it above, but I'll give a short summary here.

Motus made findings -> Motus findings are used as support of conclusions made by phsyiognomy.me -> CT is formed and has many of the same conclusions as physiognomy.me


That's why I stated CT = current day physiognomy.me; it's physiognomy.me with a new name; unless, of course, there are drastic changes in methodologies in CT....which have not been shown. I outline this above.