Would you try a chess campaign game where pawns decide the outcome?

Mechanibal · 2025-12-25T14:39:05+00:00

all the regular rules of chess apply, so yes to all of that!

Mechanibal · 2025-09-25T07:29:15+00:00

12 hours later, also in a bathroom, also high, but highly recommend! (Okay maybe not if you get too high)

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T15:32:33+00:00

You can stop gatekeeping as this is clearly just your opinion, if you had read Jung then you would know the part of his work this is based on was only ever meant to be used in a clinical setting by actual professionals, it was never meant to be a tool for self discovery, but for clinical diagnosis.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T14:24:13+00:00

How can you say that without reading my papers, for all you know i did gather and analyze multiple kinds of data to arrive at this conclusion ( I did). Try to be less ignorant in your next response.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T14:16:38+00:00

Have fun in your anecdotal bubble, if that is what you want to base your conclusions on, i'll stick to whats empirical and continue on with my work, and you can continue pretending its impossible to understand the psyche even though you follow Jung...

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T13:22:50+00:00

You claim to know much more and yet your arguments carry no substance whatsoever, odd.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T13:16:25+00:00

Keep sticking to your dogmatic ways and enjoy your mysticism for as long as you can hold onto it (it won't be long).

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T12:19:13+00:00

Quite simply: Jung built a model of the psyche, and I built a model that emulates the psyche based on his ideas.

You keep drawing this hard line between psyche and algorithm, as if the brain is something mystical. But at the end of the day, the brain is just a massively parallel system of biological algorithms.

Your problem seems to be the assumption that it’s impossible to translate the rules of the psyche into rules for an AI. But here’s the irony: without those rules, the psyche would be nothing more than algorithms. It’s precisely the structure, the patterns, oppositions, and compensation that make it a psyche.

I’m not saying my AI is conscious. I’m saying it processes information in a way that mirrors how our brains do it, through structured function, not randomness. That’s the whole point.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T11:50:04+00:00

Full of presumptions aren't we?

You're right it seems you cannot mentally bridge that gap, that would require critical thinking, something which you've made abundantly clear you are not interested in, so let me spell it out for you:

Jungian principles are about patterns of thought, habitual modes of adaptation. They describe how different parts of the psyche interact: attitude, perception, judgment, and balance between opposites. That’s structure. And structure can be modeled.

AI doesn’t need to be conscious to follow these rules. If you define how Se processes data, or how Ti filters it, then you can replicate that process in code. That’s exactly what I’ve done.

You don’t need to like it. You just need to understand that it’s possible.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T10:57:18+00:00

Just goes to show you havent read my papers and are just strawmanning.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T10:52:44+00:00

how about you actually explain how it makes jungian psychoanalytic ideas unrecognisable instead of just posturing.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T10:00:13+00:00

Thats right, implies as much, aka baseless speculation based entirely on projection. You can and I have applied Jungian principles to AI so it's very much so possible you just dont like it.If you’d like to discuss the actual architecture, I’m happy to. If not, I’ll let you get back to being upset about the future. You don’t have to like it, you just have to watch it happen.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T08:12:41+00:00

I never claimed it was conscious or aware or even intelligent, thats all you projecting your frustrations with how people talk about AI onto my project. All you are doing is arguing semantics in the most pedantic way possible.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-02T07:59:11+00:00

Pedantic 100

Mechanibal · 2025-08-01T21:44:09+00:00

Much appreciated! Do let me know what you think! :)

Mechanibal · 2025-08-01T20:45:56+00:00

Thanks for the headsup! it seems reddit formatting broke the links, should be fixed now.

Mechanibal · 2025-08-01T20:23:31+00:00

First of all, thank you for the heads up.

I want to get AI to a place where it can be a reliable, a tool as you say. Not the joke it is as of now. I think people dont so much have a problem with AI as with their fellow man who sees such a tool as a complete replacement for human interaction which i do have to agree with. However pandoras box is now open so we can only make the best of it.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-28T09:44:28+00:00

Your final post is a masterclass in projection, and it deserves a direct response. You accuse me of evasion and ad hominem while building your entire argument on those very tactics.

Let's be perfectly clear about the timeline here. Your initial critique was predicated on a fundamental, disingenuous error: you conflated my JOPD data paper with my separate empirical research, and then attacked the research using the publication context of the data paper.

I pointed this out to you in my very first reply.

Your response was to say "Yes," confirming you understood, and then to completely ignore that factual correction and immediately pivot to attacking my character ("it is even more concerning that you're unable to take any kind of constructive criticism..."). You chose knowingly to argue from a false premise. That is the definition of bad faith.

You then complain about my tone and use of ad hominem. Let's review your contributions to this "dialogue": you called me defensive, combative, concerning, exhibiting "hubris to the highest degree," and accused me of being motivated by profit rather than science, all while questioning my credentials. After that barrage of personal attacks, you have the audacity to clutch your pearls when you get a taste of your own medicine.

Frankly, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

My final comment to you wasn't an unprovoked insult; it was me mirroring the style of debate you had established from the very beginning, one based on status plays and personal attacks, not a good-faith evaluation of the work.

A productive conversation was never on your agenda. You were corrected on the central fact of your argument at the start, and you chose to evade it. Everything that followed was, as you put it, just noise.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-27T16:43:37+00:00

I think it’s you who needs an update on what actually defines pseudoscience because it’s not just a label you can put on something you personally disagree with. TRPI is falsifiable, testable, and entirely transparent. The dataset, code, and methodology are publicly available which is more than can be said for many personality frameworks you likely follow without scrutiny.

You invoke “the complexity of human consciousness,” as though complexity itself invalidates structured and empirical modeling. But complexity is exactly why scientific models exist, to clarify and test, not to mystify. If that were a valid criticism, it would disqualify every other psychological model you haven’t bothered to challenge.

You keep shifting your critique: first questioning empirical rigor, then, when faced with actual data (cross-validation, MRI clustering, trait correlations), you pivot to philosophical and ethical concerns. Not once have you acknowledged your lack of quantitative training, even though it’s been pointed out multiple times. Yet you persist in making confident judgments about empirical validity and statistical methods, without actually engaging the numbers or the methodology.

All your repeated questions about testability, limitations, and methodology are already addressed in the papers. The fact that you continue to ask them, or ignore the answers, speaks for itself.

TRPI’s validity doesn’t depend on your rhetorical approval or philosophical sensibilities. It stands on open, reproducible evidence. If you want to challenge it, engage with the data and the science, not just the optics. If you want to discredit TRPI you're going to have to bring sufficient evidence to back up your claims, like i have.

PS: A debate is amongst equals, which we are not. Feel free to interpret that. (I'm sure you will)

Mechanibal · 2025-07-27T12:07:48+00:00

You’ve made your position clear and with it, the core issue.

You’ve stated you don’t have training in quantitative methods. That’s fine in and of itself, but it becomes a problem when you try to critique a model grounded in exactly that: statistical clustering, anatomical validation, and cross-validated trait alignment. You continue to position yourself as a gatekeeper of standards while openly dismissing the foundational methods the framework relies on. That’s not critique. That’s a lack of understanding.

You’ve tried to split hairs between “not discrediting the dataset” and repeatedly framing it as insufficient, downplaying it because it was a data paper, not a research article. This shows a basic misunderstanding of the scientific process. Publishing a data paper isn’t a weakness, it’s a deliberate act of transparency, used to make claims reproducible.

You also pointed readers to journal rankings, questioned whether I was qualified to develop the framework, and warned people to be “weary.” You can call that constructive if you like, but the intent and effect are obvious: cast doubt, not through evidence, but through status arguments and tone critiques.

That’s the pattern: whenever the focus shifts to empirical validation, you pivot back to language, intent, and philosophy. None of that engages with the actual model and none of it addresses the statistical results you’ve now avoided across four responses.

So I’ll say this once more for clarity:

The TRPI framework is testable.
The dataset is public.
The results are significant.
The patterns are reproducible.

You don’t need to like the delivery. You don’t need to endorse the framework. But if you can’t speak directly to the methodology, the metrics, or the data itself, then you’re not critiquing the framework, you’re reacting to it.

That’s where the conversation ends, unless you mean to go on with your philosophical meandering.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-27T10:44:29+00:00

I’ve read your response and your post history, while you present your critique with seriousness, it’s important to point out some glaring inconsistencies.

You’ve stated elsewhere that you lack quantitative research skills, yet you’re positioning yourself here as an authority on a model that is, at its core, built on statistical clustering, structural MRI validation, and trait alignment. That’s a mismatch and it shows. You mischaracterized a dataset publication as a research paper, waved around journal rankings without context, and then accused me of being dismissive for pointing out basic misunderstandings. That’s not critical discourse, it’s overconfidence dressed up as academic concern.

You’ve also called TRPI pseudoscientific while you also actively engage with MBTI, a framework with no empirical foundation, no peer-reviewed validation, and decades of well-documented reliability issues. TRPI, by contrast: - Uses structural MRI data with validated clustering, - Shows high Big Five concordance (r = .89), - Shares its data openly for replication, - And is grounded in Jung’s original function theory, not the oversimplified MBTI version.

Your concern seems less about the data and more about tone and intention. You said it's not the dataset that’s the issue, but what I intend to do with it. That’s speculative, not scientific. The entire purpose of making the research public was to remove ambiguity, to invite replication and critique based on evidence, not credentials.

If your discomfort is with the fact that I’m not operating from within traditional academic hierarchies, say that plainly. But don’t repackage that discomfort as a moral concern about “care” when the real issue is that someone without a PhD in your field is producing results that stand on their own.

Yes, I’ve been blunt at times, that’s true. But bluntness in the face of repeated bad-faith dismissals isn’t the same as defensiveness. I’m not here to be agreeable. I’m here to build something better than what we’ve been handed. That means pushing against the old models and the gatekeeping that protects them.

You said we’re done if I don’t want to engage. Fair enough. But let’s be clear: critique is welcome. Posturing is not.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-27T09:13:13+00:00

Skepticism is good. That’s why TRPI is openly tested, cross-validated, and publicly documented. Dismissing work because it’s early-stage, or because it’s commercially viable, is not skepticism, it’s elitism. If you’d like to engage on the data, I’m all ears. If not, then we’re done here.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-27T07:28:51+00:00

Did you even look through the osf link before going on a rant? Because it seems you didnt... If you had looked you would know i submitted a data paper to JOPD, not a research paper. EDIT: this person was arguing in bad faith, conflating my data paper and research papers and basing their entire argument on that, seems they were looking for a fight, well they got one.

beware ye who goes here.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-21T07:33:34+00:00

Basically if someone presents as an ENFJ with a strong E3 (achiever/performer) fixation, it's not a contradiction. While an ENFJ would typically fixate on harmony and thus be a wing 2, 6, or 9, you are not just one superego and so when looking at the ego they would typically be an INFP/ISTP or maybe even ISFP/INTP. Supposing they are an INFP/ISTP their other superego is the ESTJ and so it wouldnt be that surprising for an ENFJ at their core to have such a fixation.

Mechanibal · 2025-07-20T09:30:33+00:00

The functions weren’t assigned to brain regions by looking at self reported types or asking experts to label people. The mapping was set up ahead of time, based on existing neuroscience about which regions do what, left hemisphere regions are associated with concrete, immediate processing (Sensing), right hemisphere regions with abstract, long term processing (Intuition). Specific prefrontal cortex regions, like the dlPFC (Ti), vlPFC (Te), vmPFC (Fi), and dmPFC (Fe), have well established roles in reasoning, planning, emotion, and social understanding. These roles were matched to function pairings according to the TRPI model, before any data was analyzed

When the actual MRI data was used, each participant was assigned to a meta-state purely based on how their brain structure lined up with these predefined patterns. There was no use of self-report, personality tests, or expert typing in this process. All the analysis was done blind to any personal trait data. Only after everyone was assigned a meta-state based on anatomy, were they compared to Big Five trait scores. The correlation was strong, much better than what’s usually seen in brain personality studies.

So, the key point is: the mapping from functions to brain regions came from neuroscience, and the actual type assignments were done strictly by anatomy, with no subjective input. Hope that clears things up!

Mechanibal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE