Compare and Contrast

Pod'Lair is completely unprecedented, heres how it stacks up against other models ...

There are a number of Models of thought in use that are designed to help you understand humans, or help you understand yourself better. Some examples are Typology (Jung, MBTI, Kiersey, Socionics, Enneagram), Astrology, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Face Reading, etc. None of these models even come close to the insight, accuracy and proof of concept that Pod’Lair can provide, and we’ll be discussing why that is in this section.


Typology and more specifically, Personality typology refers to the classifying of human character into separate “types.” What Most typologes are attempting to explore and inform on is Cognitive Configuration, although there is no Typology that can actually observe Cognitive Configuration, and so they all try to turn it into surveys, and basically horoscopes of sorts.

Jung & MBTI

Jung Classified people as being one (or possibly none) of eight different “psychological types.” Again, Jung and his practitioners did not have any way of actually observing anything that is happening in the psyche, directly, so the way they originally went about putting people into psychological types,was by essentially having a stereotyped descriptive understanding of what the use of a cognitive function looked like, and a stereotyped understanding of how a person acts when they are using a cognitive function, and then interpreting that person’s lifestyle or how they describe themselves as having more or less Habitual use of a certain Cognitive Function. Then placing a person into a type depending on which stereotype their behavior is perceived to be closer to. If a person did not behave in any of these stereotyped ways then they were untyplable, or as Jung called “Undifferentiated.”

Jung’s model was a work of Conjecture, so he defined his Cognitive Functions by basically making up rules and parameters to how they work, and what kind of mental maneuvers constitute the use of a particular Cognitive Function. He then would analyze a person’s lifestyle, and if he determined that said person had a habitual use of a particular Cognitive Function, then he would consider that function “differentiated”, and if he felt one function was more differentiated than any other, in other words had more of a habitual use than any other, then he considered that function dominant, and deterministic their Psychological Type. So when determining Psychological type, Jung and the Jungians primarily look for habitual use. Typologies that are based around Jung’s model such as MBTI and Socionics are no different in that sense.

Why doesn’t this work?

·      Foundational Bias: Jung basically just made up rules as to how the Cognitive Functions worked, and sorted people out using those assumptions. But those assumptions where neither testable, nor referring to anything significant in the Psyche.

·      Habitual use of any Pod Powers does not indicate their role in the Psyche. A person could be using a lot of one Pod Power on a habitual basis, but that does not mean that Power is a Momentum Power, which is essentially what the Jung Model is trying to drive at. In order to read Cognitive Configuration, you need a way to actually read if their Pod Powers are Momentum or Modulation, simply noting that they are being used habitually tells you nothing about their hierarchical ranking.

·      There are no Objective standards for what constitutes as one type or another, or one cognitive function or another. Basically all Jungian typological concepts are purely descriptive, there are no real-life samples.

·      Unfalsifiability: All assumptions made in the Jungian model are assumed to be true without question, there is no way to actually test any of these claims (at least there is no way to self-falsify them using the Jungian Model).

·      No Internal Consistency amoung “Experts”: Due to the purely Subjective nature of Typology, and lack of real-life standards, different practitioners and experts tend to disagree with each other on who is one type or another, and there is no way to determine who is right due to unfalsifiability.

·      Self-Assessment tests do not work: MBTI and many other Jungian off-shoot typology work by having the subject take a questionnaire. Everyone has their own perception of who they are, and the MBTI assumes that this self-assessment, which is represented by the answers that you put on the test, is going to reflect your Cognitive Configuration. This is wrong for a number of reasons. The test is allegedly supposed to be checking for your top two Cognitive Functions. As they are assuming your Apparatus (your conscious understanding of yourself) will only be composed of your top two functions, although the reality of one’s Apparatus is not so precise. The MBTI is assuming that the Apparatus of any given human will always be divorced from their Modulation powers, and thus not relate to any of them. So when a person who actually has a fairly decent relationship with their Modulation powers takes the test, the results end up getting skewed. Funny how that works, isn’t it? Knowing yourself better actually makes self-assessment test less accurate in this regard. In contrast, factors like Memes and stress-lock can even cause a human to divorce one or maybe even both of their Momentum powers from their perception of who they are. All of these factors stack up into the MBTI tests being nothing more than a joke.


Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth.

Why doesn’t this work?

Are you serious? You don’t see anything wrong with this premise just from a glance? Alright fine, I’ll tell you…

·      Unfalsifiability: Astrology is for the most part, strategically unfalsifiable, and untestable, and where it has been falsifiable, it has been falsified. Where it can be tested, it has failed every form of testing it has been through.

·      Forer Effect: The Forer effect is the observation that most humans, when given a description of themselves that suggest a lot of vague and positive traits about themselves, they will say the description is accurate. Just about every Typology system banks on the Forer Effect, but Astrology is riding entirely the Forer Effect, and they have optimized it for maximum Forer effectiveness. This is another vision of the same fallacy that the MBTI makes, just because a person agrees with your description with them does not actually mean you are actually reading accurately how their Psyche is designed.

·      Lack of Consistency - Testing the validity of astrology can be hard because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict. Most professional astrologers are paid to predict the future or describe a person's personality and life, but most horoscopes only make vague untestable statements that can almost apply to any individual. Astrologers avoid making verifiable predictions and instead rely on making vague statements which allows them to try to avoid falsification

·      Lack of Mechanism: there is really no mechanism that would cause the Astral bodies to dictate the will of humans. Astrologers sometimes claim it is gravity and electro-magnitism, but not only are both of those forces coming from the other planets and Moon have no real impact on us in any measurable way, and there is really no reason as to why that should effect how our mind’s work. If you are going to say something is the cause, you should at least have a reason that it would be the cause.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs is a theory on human motivation, he is trying to inform on what motivates humans to do what they do and behave the way that they behave. Maslow Postulates there is a hierarchy built on needs that need to be satisfied before you can move up the pyramid, and one must fulfill lower levels before they can begin to think about fulfilling anything higher. In essence what Maslow was trying to do is create an Science and Spirituality index kind of Model and claiming that humans become aware of higher tiers only when they have gotten a lower one sorted out.

Why doesn’t it work?

·      The sequential nature of the hierarchy goes against Synomnia: Humans are using all 8 eight powers at once, but Maslow is acting like you need to set one off to get to the other. The Science & Spirituality Index represents the delineations of human experience of reality by degrees of the tangible to the most tacit, it is not a sequence.

·      Does not take Qualia into Account: Maslow has presupposed the universal ordering, and does not account for qualia. There are 16 different ways that synomnia storylines are weighted, 16 different Peak Pathways, and none of them are sequential, and there is no Mojo that actually has the SS Index as a Peak Pathway, but according to Maslow, every human is in effect using this as their Peak Pathway. He is effectively saying that a Nai’xyy’s Nai won’t be a dominating force in their psyche until they have taken care of Vyy stuff, Vai, and Xez stuff in that order.

·      Based entirely on Memes: MHN has nothing to do with the natural law behind human motivation, it is the model for how the powers that be of western culture want humans to live their lives by, from birth to coffin.

Return Home

© 2014 Pod'Lair All rights reserved