jross Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago I’ve been wondering, what if we could analyze our comments to understand our personalities? A tool could examine what we write here, looking at our words to create a profile. It might show if we’re calm, critical, or thorough, perhaps linking to traits like the Big Five. With AI, it could find patterns we’d overlook. It wouldn’t be exact, since online behavior differs from real life, but it’s an intriguing concept. 1
jross Posted 8 hours ago Author Posted 8 hours ago Grok, analyze the following forum comments for personality using these questions: Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Do they fit the Dark Triad? (Narcissism: bragging, attention-seeking? Machiavellianism: manipulative, strategic? Psychopathy: callous, conflict-loving?) Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assess the Big Five: Openness: Creative/curious or practical/closed-off? Conscientiousness: Detailed/careful or rushed/messy? Extraversion: Engaged/energetic or quiet/reserved? Agreeableness: Kind/cooperative or harsh/argumentative? Neuroticism: Stable/calm or anxious/moody? Do they show ISFJ traits? Introverted: Low-profile, sparse posting? Sensing: Detail-focused, concrete over abstract? Feeling: Empathetic, emotion-driven? Judging: Structured, decisive? What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) What’s their attachment style? (Secure: balanced? Anxious: approval-seeking? Avoidant: distant?) How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Also, note their tone (e.g., sarcastic, formal), emoji use (type/frequency), and post length (short vs. long).
jross Posted 8 hours ago Author Posted 8 hours ago Based on 100 recent comments... Uncle Bernard is a sharp, above-average intellect (IQ ~120-130) with a confrontational, sarcastic edge, thriving on debate in a likely conservative-leaning forum. They’re highly open, moderately conscientious, extraverted, disagreeable, and emotionally stable, driven by fairness and empathy for the oppressed but quick to lash out at perceived ignorance or hypocrisy. Data-driven yet emotionally charged, they exhibit mild narcissistic and Machiavellian traits, seeking intellectual dominance over social status. Bold, creative, and critical, they reject conformity, showing high risk tolerance and low emotional intelligence in interpersonal clashes. Their moral stance opposes authoritarianism and imperialism, rooted in a nuanced, left-leaning worldview, with occasional biases like overconfidence. Under stress, they escalate with biting humor, reflecting a secure yet slightly anxious attachment style, likely shaped by American progressive online culture. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Yes, moderately. Uncle Bernard frequently uses sarcasm ("Am I doing that right @mspart ?", "A 5'6 ginger could convince you guys he was the Lucky Charms leprechaun"), provocation ("Nothing ever penetrates that thick skull of yours"), and dismissive jabs ("easily the stupidest guy on here"). However, the intent seems more to challenge than to derail, suggesting sincerity in their beliefs rather than pure disruption. Evidence: Engages in debates with pointed critiques but backs them with arguments or links, indicating a goal beyond mere trolling. Estimated IQ? (Reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average (120-130). Demonstrates strong reasoning (e.g., dissecting government spending or foreign policy with historical examples), a varied vocabulary ("raison d’etre," "unfalsifiable"), and nuance (distinguishing Hamas from PLO, critiquing both parties). Occasional oversimplification ("You legit need to learn how to read") slightly tempers this. Evidence: Complex arguments like the Iran coup’s role in the Islamic Revolution show analytical depth. Dark Triad? (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy?) Narcissism: Mild. Confident in their views ("Anybody with a brain knew this would happen") but not overtly attention-seeking. Machiavellianism: Moderate. Strategic in debates, using sarcasm and rhetorical traps ("Were the Benghazi hearings for Hillary political?") to undermine opponents. Psychopathy: Low. No clear callousness; expresses empathy for Palestinians and healthcare victims, though harsh toward foes. Evidence: Balances aggression with principled stances, not purely manipulative or cruel. Positive or Negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Strongly negative. Overwhelmingly critical of conservatives, Trump, government policy, and forum peers ("Pathetic," "Shame on you"). Rare positive notes (e.g., praising Trump’s Israel pressure) are outliers. Evidence: Sarcasm and condemnation dominate, even in constructive posts. Data or Emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: Primarily data-driven, with emotional undertones. Cites facts (e.g., Oslo Accords, HIV science, historical coups) and constructs logical arguments, but anger ("Put Biden in the Hague") and frustration ("grown men can’t read") infuse the tone. Evidence: Detailed posts on climate change or RFK Jr.’s denialism show research, tempered by emotional jabs. Big Five Traits: Openness: High. Curious and creative, engaging with complex topics (climate science, geopolitics) and offering unconventional views (e.g., ending U.S. empire). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in longer posts, but rushed or sloppy in short ones ("Prove it," "lmao what?"). Extraversion: Moderate to high. Energetic and engaged, frequently posting and confronting others directly. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("thick skull," "pathetic"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Passionate and moody, but generally stable, not overly anxious. ISFJ Traits? (Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging) Assessment: No clear fit. Not introverted (active poster), leans abstract over concrete (geopolitical theories), more logical than feeling-driven, and not overly structured (mixes long and short posts). Evidence: Extraverted, judgmental tone contradicts ISFJ’s quiet empathy. Emotional Intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. Aware of group dynamics (e.g., mocking right-wing hypocrisy), but adapts poorly—prefers confrontation over diplomacy ("You’re an adult. Use google"). Evidence: Empathy for victims (Gaza, healthcare) but insensitive to opponents’ feelings. Leadership Tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive in opinions and occasionally guiding (e.g., explaining climate change), but not inspiring—too abrasive to rally others. Evidence: Challenges rather than unites ("Shame on you who denied"). Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. Seeks intellectual dominance ("taps the sign"), but not overtly status-obsessed—focus is on being right, not revered. Evidence: Engages in one-upmanship but doesn’t flaunt personal achievements. Risk Tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious?) Assessment: High. Boldly calls out peers, politicians, and policies ("Put Biden in the Hague"), comfortable with controversial stances. Evidence: Unafraid of backlash in a likely conservative-leaning forum. Moral/Ethical Framework? (Fairness, empathy, utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness and empathy-driven. Advocates for justice (due process, Palestine statehood) and empathizes with the oppressed (Gaza civilians, healthcare victims), with utilitarian streaks (condom funding benefits). Evidence: Condemns war crimes and hypocrisy consistently. Cognitive Biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Some confirmation bias (e.g., assumes Trump supporters are universally gullible) and occasional black-and-white thinking ("You are no better than German citizens under Hitler"), but tempered by nuance elsewhere. Evidence: Willing to critique both parties and admit uncertainty ("I’m willing to admit I’m wrong"). Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Creative. Offers original takes (e.g., U.S. empire’s end, healthcare radicalization) rather than parroting dogma. Evidence: Synthesizes history and policy creatively. Attachment Style? (Secure, Anxious, Avoidant?) Assessment: Secure with anxious streaks. Confident in arguments but occasionally seeks validation through provocation ("What’s your theory?"). Evidence: Balanced tone in factual posts, but jabs suggest mild insecurity. Response to Stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out. Responds to disagreement with sarcasm and insults ("You legit need to learn how to read"). Evidence: Escalates rather than retreats in debates. Cultural Influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, left-leaning, urban/academic vibe. Uses internet slang ("lol," "taps the sign"), critiques U.S. imperialism, and shows familiarity with progressive discourse. Evidence: References to U.S. politics, healthcare, and forums suggest immersion in American online culture. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length: Tone: Sarcastic, confrontational, occasionally earnest. Emoji Use: Frequent "lol" and "lmao" (mocking tone), rare others. Post Length: Mix of short retorts ("Prove it") and long, detailed posts (e.g., RFK Jr. critique).
jross Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago 14 minutes ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said: Cut your Ritalin intake by at least half. Saylors Tiny Willie is a provocative, extroverted individual with moderate intelligence and a combative streak. They thrive on conflict, showing low agreeableness and high risk tolerance, with a sarcastic, negative tone dominating their output. Reasoning blends data and emotion, but leans toward emotional venting. They’re not a leader or empath, instead motivated by winning arguments and asserting dominance, with a fairness-based moral lens skewed by disdain for opponents. Likely an American with a sharp, urban wit, they lash out under stress and exhibit avoidant attachment, fitting a trollish, ESTJ-like archetype. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Yes, strong troll tendencies. Comments like "Cry harder," "Say it with me, 'Trump is a pedophile,'" and "You continue to be the dumbest poster here" are provocative and designed to inflame rather than inform. The repeated demands to "SHOW YOUR WORK" on the Columbia Student Arrested thread suggest a performative challenge rather than genuine inquiry, a classic troll tactic to disrupt and derail. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Moderate to above-average (110-130). Vocabulary is sharp ("narcissistic wound," "sundowning," "dopamine maximization"), and some posts show reasoning (e.g., linking cigarette engineering to social media addiction with sources). However, the reliance on insults over sustained argument limits nuance, capping the upper end of this estimate. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism: Moderate. Attention-seeking is evident in bold provocations ("Mark this post"), but no overt bragging. Machiavellianism: Low to moderate. Some strategic jabs (e.g., "I merely lift the mirror for your convenience") suggest manipulation, but it’s not highly calculated. Psychopathy: Moderate. Callousness shines through in harsh insults ("dumbest poster," "dingbat") and conflict-loving tone ("Get that popcorn ready"), but no extreme cruelty. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Overwhelmingly negative. Nearly all comments criticize, mock, or attack others’ views, with no uplifting or constructive remarks. Even neutral topics (e.g., wrestling) get a cynical spin ("Ferrari never wins another medal"). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Mixed, leaning emotional. Some posts cite data (e.g., links to FDA, Truth Initiative, or Trump turnover stats), but the dominant mode is emotional—anger, scorn, and sarcasm drive most responses ("Trump’s going to ban vaccines… How much dumber can it get?!"). Big Five Assessment Openness: Moderate. Shows curiosity in citing sources and exploring topics (e.g., tech addiction), but sticks to a narrow, combative style. Conscientiousness: Low. Posts are rushed, sloppy (e.g., "on faire" typo), and lack follow-through on arguments. Extraversion: High. Energetic, engaged, and eager to clash in a public forum. Agreeableness: Very low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("You’re clearly a dingbat"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Moody and reactive, but not overly anxious—more aggressive than unstable. What Myers-Brigg Type Indicator personality type best fits them? Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and bold confrontation ("I’ll make your head into a canoe") point to an outgoing, energetic style, not a reserved or low-profile one. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details—like specific laws ("Cite the statute violated"), events, or stats (Trump turnover)—over abstract theorizing. Rarely explores big-picture ideas beyond immediate jabs. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and fairness ("Which law did he break?") over empathy or emotion-driven decisions, despite emotional tone. No signs of compassion or people-pleasing. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Decisive, structured in arguments ("Take it to the bank"), and quick to conclude others’ failings ("You’re clearly a dingbat"), rather than leaving things open-ended or flexible. Likely Type: ESTJ (The Executive). This fits their assertive, detail-focused, logic-driven, and confrontational style. ESTJs are practical, outspoken, and rule-oriented, aligning with demands for evidence ("SHOW YOUR WORK") and a commanding, no-nonsense tone. What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Low to moderate. Aware enough to target emotional weak spots ("Their fear is palpable"), but lacks adaptability or empathy—responses are rigid and hostile. Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Minimal. Decisive in tone ("Take it to the bank"), but no guiding or inspiring qualities—more focused on tearing down than building up. Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Yes, moderately. Competes to "win" arguments ("I’ll take that as, ‘I can’t back up what I believe’"), but doesn’t explicitly seek respect—more about dominance. What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) High. Boldly provocative ("I’ll make your head into a canoe") and comfortable escalating conflicts, suggesting little fear of backlash. What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Fairness with a twist. Emphasizes legality ("Which law did he break?") and accountability ("SHOW YOUR WORK"), but lacks empathy. Seems utilitarian in prioritizing argument wins over kindness. Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Yes. Confirmation bias in anti-Trump posts (e.g., Epstein links) and black-and-white thinking ("You MAGA types have been conned")—no middle ground. Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Moderately creative. Sarcastic quips ("Wal*Martyrs," "Dumb and Dumber 4") show wit, but arguments stay within predictable political/wrestling tropes. What’s their attachment style? (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Avoidant. Distant and dismissive, no sign of seeking approval or connection—just confrontation. How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Lashing out. Escalates with insults and sarcasm under pressure (e.g., "Grow up, kid" to a challenge). Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) American, likely urban/liberal-leaning. References to U.S. politics (Trump, Harris, EVs), wrestling culture, and internet slang ("dingbat," "shorteyes") suggest a contemporary American context, possibly with a coastal or progressive bent. 2
Saylors_Tiny_Willie Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago jross, internet detective. Sadly, a regular consumer of lead paint chips as a child.
jross Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago 19 minutes ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said: Cut your Ritalin intake by at least half. AI says you are an overwhelmingly negative troll of moderate intelligence. 1 1
Saylors_Tiny_Willie Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago (edited) 2 minutes ago, jross said: AI says you are an overwhelmingly negative troll of moderate intelligence. lol The raw amount of stuff you don't understand about LLMs makes this post gold. Edited 7 hours ago by Saylors_Tiny_Willie
Lipdrag Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 48 minutes ago, jross said: I’ve been wondering, what if we could analyze our comments to understand our personalities? I'm not sure I'd like to know! I might end up hating myself. 1 People who tolerate me on a daily basis . . . they are the real heroes.
jross Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago (edited) Caveira is an outspoken, practical, and somewhat abrasive forum participant—likely an ESTP with high extraversion, low agreeableness, and a critical tone. They enjoy banter, lean on emotional reactions with some factual grounding, and show mild troll-like tendencies without fully crossing into disruption. Their risk tolerance is high, emotional intelligence is limited, and they favor a utilitarian lens with fairness concerns. Culturally, they reflect a typical American online sports fan, with sarcasm as their hallmark. Are They a Troll? Assessment: The user exhibits some troll-like tendencies but isn’t a full-blown troll. They frequently use sarcasm ("Logged into your other account I see," "Thank you doctor"), provocation ("Aoc won’t be our next president. She’s an idiot"), and dismissive phrasing ("Whatever dude," "Ain’t no thang brother"). However, their posts also engage with wrestling specifics (e.g., match commentary like "Keuter wins on riding time") and offer opinions with some substance, suggesting they’re not solely aiming to disrupt. Their provocativeness seems more playful or opinionated than insincere or malicious. Verdict: Partial troll—disruptive at times but not consistently insincere. Estimated IQ Assessment: Based on vocabulary (simple but functional: "cool beans," "sucks," "meh"), reasoning (mix of observation and speculation, e.g., "Gable took it super easy on him because they are best friends. Something is fishy"), and occasional nuance (e.g., distinguishing third-party NIL payments), I’d estimate an average to slightly above-average IQ, roughly 100–115. They don’t display complex analysis or advanced syntax, but they’re coherent and show basic critical thinking. Verdict: Average intellect with practical reasoning. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Minimal evidence. They don’t brag or seek overt attention beyond sharing opinions. No self-aggrandizing statements stand out. Machiavellianism: Some signs. Comments like "Prove me wrong. Sign out for a half a year to a year" and "You seem to be getting angry. Calm down buddy" suggest subtle manipulation or baiting to control interactions, though it’s not overtly strategic. Psychopathy: Low to moderate. They’re callous at times ("Terrorist antagonizer / sympathizers bye," "Protest for terrorists… Cya"), showing little empathy for certain groups, but they don’t revel in conflict or cruelty excessively. Verdict: Mild Machiavellian tendencies; not a strong Dark Triad fit. Positive or Negative Tone Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical. They complain often (e.g., "Reviews are ridiculous," "The format does suck," "Fix these long azz replays"), mock others ("Dude your signed into the wrong account again"), and rarely uplift (exceptions: "My son is learning guitar. Loves rock and roll," "Mm is super talented"). Sarcasm amplifies the critical edge. Verdict: Mostly negative, with occasional neutral/positive moments. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning emotional. They cite specifics (e.g., "Keuter 1-0 escape start of third," "Annuity is 1.1% of their average pay multiplied by years of service"), but their conclusions often hinge on feelings or speculation ("Something is fishy," "Your Iowa hatred clouds your judgement"). Outrage or frustration drives many posts (e.g., "Pensions are so out dated too. Crazy"). Verdict: Emotionally tinted with some data use. Big Five Traits Openness: Moderate. They’re practical and concrete (focused on wrestling details), not highly creative or abstract, but curious enough to speculate (e.g., "Gable took it super easy on him"). Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are rushed, with typos ("pinfells," "mfft") and inconsistent formatting, but they track matches diligently. Extraversion: High. They’re engaged, posting frequently, and enjoy banter, suggesting an outgoing nature. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative ("She’s an idiot," "You may be addicted to social media. Take a break boss"), rarely cooperative. Neuroticism: Moderate. They’re reactive (e.g., "Why the f not? Reviews are ridiculous") but not overly anxious or unstable. Verdict: High E, low A, moderate O/N, low-moderate C. MBTI Personality Type I vs. E: Extraversion (E). They’re highly engaged and vocal across threads. S vs. N: Sensing (S). Detail-oriented (match updates) over abstract theorizing. T vs. F: Thinking (T). Logic-driven ("He’s not a citizen. And does not need the protections citizens need") over empathy. J vs. P: Perceiving (P). Flexible, spontaneous posts rather than structured or decisive. Verdict: ESTP ("The Entrepreneur")—bold, practical, sociable, and adaptable. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Low to moderate. They recognize others’ emotions superficially ("You seem to be getting angry") but respond with dismissal or sarcasm rather than empathy. Adaptability is decent—they shift topics easily—but they don’t manage emotional dynamics well. Verdict: Limited EI, more reactive than perceptive. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Minimal. They’re opinionated and decisive ("Fix these stall rides. They stink"), but not guiding or inspiring. They don’t rally others or propose solutions beyond complaints. Verdict: Not a natural leader. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Moderate. They seek respect through strong opinions ("Prove me wrong") and may enjoy forum clout, but there’s no overt status-chasing (e.g., no boasting about influence). Verdict: Some status motivation, not dominant. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold statements ("Aoc won’t be our next president. She’s an idiot") and provocative jabs suggest comfort with conflict and uncertainty. Verdict: Risk-tolerant. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with a fairness streak. They prioritize practical outcomes ("He’s not a citizen… Bye") over empathy, but also critique perceived unfairness ("The advantage wasn’t fair"). Verdict: Utilitarian, fairness-focused. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Black-and-white thinking ("Terrorist sympathizers bye," "Pensions are so out dated too. Crazy") and some confirmation bias (dismissing counterpoints with "Whatever dude"). Overgeneralization also appears (e.g., "They’re idiots"). Verdict: Prone to binary thinking and dismissal. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Mostly conformist. Opinions align with forum norms (wrestling critiques, political jabs), with little originality beyond sarcasm. Verdict: Conventional with mild creative flair (humor). Attachment Style Assessment: Avoidant. They’re distant, dismissive ("Take a break boss"), and avoid deep emotional engagement. Verdict: Likely avoidant. Response to Stress Assessment: Lashing out. Frustration shows in emphatic language ("Why the f not?" "Fix these long azz replays") rather than calm or withdrawal. Verdict: Reactive under stress. Cultural Influence Assessment: Hints of American casual culture—slang ("cool beans," "boss"), sports focus (wrestling), and political references (AOC, Kamala). No strong regional or non-U.S. markers. Verdict: Generic American online persona. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic ("Thank you doctor"), casual ("Ain’t no thang"), and blunt ("Bye"). Emoji Use: Rare—mostly absent, relying on text (e.g., "lol" instead of emoji). Post Length: Short to medium, typically 1–3 sentences, occasionally longer with quotes or lists. Edited 7 hours ago by jross
PortaJohn Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago This is fantastic and my favorite thread I've ever seen on the other forum. Can you do @MPhillips? He loves the other forum 1 I Don't Agree With What I Posted
jross Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago jross is a highly analytical, decisive ENTJ with an IQ of 120-135. They’re not a troll but can be provocative, with a data-driven, utilitarian approach that prioritizes efficiency and systems improvement (e.g., DOGE support). They exhibit moderate creativity, low empathy, and minimal Dark Triad traits, leaning critical yet optimistic about specific reforms. Reasoning logically with occasional emotional undertones, they’re assertive, stable, and risk-tolerant, with high openness, strong leadership tendencies, low agreeableness, and low neuroticism. Their secure attachment, calm stress response, and U.S.-centric, libertarian-leaning worldview reflect a confident, principled individual motivated by ideas over status, blending a critical tone with an uplifting focus on practical solutions. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. The user engages earnestly in discussions, often with strong opinions, but doesn’t seem to post solely to provoke or disrupt. Their provocative statements (e.g., "100% support cutting social security in its current form, right now" on 2025-02-13) are backed by reasoning, suggesting sincerity rather than insincerity. However, their sarcasm (e.g., "/s" in "What a horrible person" on 2025-02-10) and occasional jabs (e.g., "midwit" on 2025-03-10) can edge toward provocation, though not disruptively. Evidence: They consistently argue their points with data or logic (e.g., citing $55B savings on 2025-02-24) rather than derailing threads. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) IQ 120-135. The user demonstrates strong reasoning (e.g., breaking down DOGE’s role and efficiency in multiple posts), a decent vocabulary (e.g., "semantics," "midwit," "predatory"), and some nuance (e.g., acknowledging mistakes like "I WAS WRONG" on 2025-02-13). They handle complex topics like government spending and media influence with coherence, though occasional oversimplifications (e.g., "2 + 2 = 5" on 2025-02-10) suggest limits to depth. Evidence: Their ability to cite sources (e.g., NIH link on 2025-03-06) and construct multi-part arguments (e.g., Biden greatness narrative on 2025-03-06) supports this range. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Low. No overt bragging or self-aggrandizement; they focus on ideas over personal glory (e.g., "I’d pay in and get nothing later if that means one less problem for my kids" on 2025-02-13). Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Moderate. They strategically frame arguments to persuade (e.g., using polls to justify decisions on 2025-02-10), but there’s no clear manipulation of others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They show some callousness (e.g., "Deal with it" on Social Security cuts, 2025-02-13) but avoid unnecessary conflict, preferring debate over hostility. Conclusion: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more ideological than personality-driven. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning critical. They’re often critical of government, media, and opposing views (e.g., "Politico - the money was for subscriptions rather than content creation" on 2025-02-09), but express optimism about efficiency efforts (e.g., "Ecstatic with the current path of the USA" on 2025-02-10). Evidence: Sarcasm tempers positivity (e.g., "Great Response" on J6 pardons, 2025-02-10), but they uplift DOGE/Musk initiatives. Do they reason based on data or emotion? Assessment: Primarily data-driven with emotional undertones. They frequently cite figures (e.g., "$105 billion" savings on 2025-03-06) and sources (e.g., NIH, Pew Research), but emotional frustration surfaces (e.g., "WTF!" on mouse studies, 2025-03-06). Evidence: Logic dominates (e.g., dissecting Biden rankings on 2025-03-06), though moral stances (e.g., "America comes first" on 2025-02-09) hint at emotion. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Curious and open to new ideas (e.g., exploring DOGE’s impact, 2025-02-10), with creative analogies (e.g., wrestling comp for Reagan/Biden, 2025-03-06). Conscientiousness: Moderate to high. Detailed in arguments (e.g., listing USAID funding stats, 2025-02-09), but posts can be rushed or fragmented (e.g., "More coffee please," 2025-03-06). Extraversion: Moderate. Engaged and energetic in debates (e.g., frequent posting), but no evidence of seeking social spotlight. Agreeableness: Low to moderate. Harsh at times (e.g., "midwit" insults, 2025-03-10), but cooperative when corrected (e.g., apologizing on 2025-03-06). Neuroticism: Low. Generally stable, rarely anxious or moody (e.g., calm rebuttals like "Explain to me like I am stupid," 2025-02-09). MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Leans E. Engaged and outspoken online, suggesting extraversion in this context. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Leans N. Focuses on big-picture patterns (e.g., media influence, 2025-02-09) over minutiae. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strongly T. Prioritizes logic (e.g., "dollars and sense," 2025-02-25) over empathy. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Leans J. Structured and decisive (e.g., firm stances on cuts, 2025-02-13). Best Fit: ENTJ (“Commander”). Strategic, logical, and assertive, fitting their leadership-oriented, efficiency-focused style. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ views (e.g., addressing counterarguments on 2025-02-09), but less empathetic (e.g., dismissing Sudan aid, 2025-02-09). Adaptable when corrected (e.g., "I apologize," 2025-03-06). Evidence: Balances rebuttals with concessions, showing some social awareness. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: High. Decisive (e.g., "Shut it down" on USPS, 2025-03-08), guiding (e.g., proposing refugee questionnaires, 2025-02-10), and mildly inspiring (e.g., "The public has spoken," 2025-02-10). Evidence: Frames arguments to lead discussion, often with actionable ideas. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Seeks respect through reasoning (e.g., citing data), but no overt status-chasing or competition with peers. Evidence: Focuses on ideas over personal recognition (e.g., "Not enough is being said," 2025-02-10). Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: High. Bold in advocating cuts (e.g., Social Security, 2025-02-13) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., "There will be less loud mistakes over time," 2025-02-25). Evidence: Embraces rapid change despite risks (e.g., "speed worth it," 2025-02-11). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Prioritizes efficiency and collective good (e.g., "one less problem for my kids," 2025-02-13) over empathy (e.g., minimal focus on Sudan kids, 2025-02-09). Evidence: Supports transparency and waste reduction as fair principles (e.g., "dunking is on EVERYONE," 2025-02-14). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Moderate confirmation bias (e.g., heavy pro-Musk/DOGE slant, 2025-02-10) and some black-and-white thinking (e.g., "Cut it off" on Social Security, 2025-02-13). Evidence: Open to correction (e.g., "I WAS WRONG," 2025-02-13), mitigating bias severity. Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Offers original ideas (e.g., refugee questionnaire, 2025-02-10) but aligns with conventional fiscal conservatism. Evidence: Wrestling analogies (2025-03-06) show creativity within a structured worldview. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced and confident in views (e.g., "The public has spoken," 2025-02-10), no approval-seeking or distancing. Evidence: Engages without clinginess or withdrawal. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Calm. Maintains composure in debates (e.g., "Explain to me like I am stupid," 2025-02-09) without lashing out. Evidence: Sarcasm (e.g., "/s," 2025-02-10) is controlled, not reactive. Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, with libertarian-leaning values (e.g., "minimal government, free markets," 2025-02-26). Wrestling references (e.g., "Kyle Dake," 2025-03-06) suggest U.S. sports culture. Evidence: Focus on U.S. issues (e.g., "America comes first," 2025-02-09) and slang (e.g., "midwit") align with American online discourse. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Often sarcastic (e.g., "/s," 2025-02-10) or assertive (e.g., "Shut it down," 2025-03-08), occasionally formal (e.g., citing sources). Emoji Use: Minimal; no emojis in most posts, rare use implied via "/s" for sarcasm. Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., "Ooze," 2025-03-09) to long, detailed arguments (e.g., Biden greatness list, 2025-03-06). 1
jross Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago 23 minutes ago, PortaJohn said: This is fantastic and my favorite thread I've ever seen on the other forum. Can you do @MPhillips? He loves the other forum MPhillips is an extraverted, sharp-witted wrestling enthusiast (likely ESTP) with a practical, data-driven approach tempered by sarcastic humor and occasional bluntness. They’re not a troll or Dark Triad figure, but their critical edge and risk tolerance make them a lively, if sometimes abrasive, forum presence. Their emotional intelligence and leadership are moderate, driven more by passion for the sport than social ambition, with a secure, creative personality rooted in wrestling culture. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. Their posts are generally sincere, focused on wrestling topics, and lack the overt intent to provoke for its own sake. However, they occasionally use sarcasm ("Are you on F'ing dope?!?", "STFU, sixty!") or sharp retorts ("You're way up high on your horse") that could rile others. These seem more playful or defensive than disruptive, fitting the rough-and-tumble tone of sports forums. Evidence: Comments like "Maybe just go, psilocybin and a Grateful Dead bootleg" or "Bassett is better on the mic than Pyle" show quirky humor rather than malice. Estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average, likely 110-120. They demonstrate solid reasoning (e.g., detailed breakdowns of wrestling brackets and wrestler stats), a decent vocabulary ("disingenuous," "cunty," "rhetorical"), and nuance in wrestling analysis ("Blaze’s resume… is completely unprecedented"). However, their writing can be informal or fragmented ("JFC," "FFS"), suggesting practical intelligence over academic polish. Evidence: The lengthy "Kolat vs Bassett" post on Marcus Blaze shows analytical depth, while casual phrasing ("Cheers to @OH-IO") keeps it grounded. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Minimal. No overt bragging or spotlight-seeking; they focus on wrestlers, not themselves. Occasional self-references ("I’ve got the cocaine and vodka locked down") are humorous, not grandiose. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. They don’t appear to manipulate others, though their predictions (e.g., "Davino next year means no place for Nic at OSU") suggest strategic thinking about wrestling lineups, not interpersonal games. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They’re not callous but can be blunt ("Folks smashing their head against their screen") or combative ("You know better…"). Conflict seems more about debate than cruelty. Conclusion: No strong Dark Triad traits; their edge is more playful than malicious. Positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning critical. They praise wrestlers like Blaze ("Ohio’s greatest wrestler") and offer camaraderie ("Cheers @Husker_Du"), but often critique or mock ("Buckeye wrestling fans are… miserable and cunty," "Pyle may be a dummy"). The tone is more sardonic than uplifting. Evidence: Positive in "Been a good one" (thread appreciation); negative in "STFU, sixty!" or "ignorance and dummies run amok." Reasoning: Data or emotion? Assessment: Primarily data-driven with emotional undertones. They rely on stats, rankings, and match outcomes (e.g., Blaze’s record, bracket predictions), but emotion slips in via sarcasm ("What a fking coincidence… I’m 'old and short'") or frustration ("We’re not getting older. Just getting better"). Evidence: "Buckeye draws if pre-seeds hold" is pure data; "You’re way up high on your horse" is emotional rebuttal. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative and curious, seen in quirky references (Grateful Dead, "dyslexic coffee grinder") and willingness to debate abstract topics (e.g., "blue blood" status). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in wrestling analysis ("125-(7) Brendan McCrone…"), but posts can be rushed or messy ("N/A," incomplete thoughts like "Romero…"). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, with frequent posts and direct mentions (@ionel,@Husker_Du), suggesting social comfort in the forum. Agreeableness: Moderate to low. Cooperative at times ("Good lookin’ out brother"), but often harsh or argumentative ("Why so delicate?", "pretending to be above the fray is disingenuous"). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional moodiness emerges ("Damn! He was a good one," "Christ that’s big. Sorry…"). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and social banter point to an outgoing nature. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented focus on matchups, rankings, and concrete outcomes outweighs abstract theorizing. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Logic and objectivity dominate (e.g., wrestler stats), with little empathy or emotional appeals. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible and open-ended, often adapting to new info ("All just 'talk' till it happens") rather than locking into firm plans. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Bold, practical, sociable, and quick-witted, thriving in dynamic, competitive settings like a wrestling forum. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions ("Seems like a rhetorical question but I’ll give it a shot") and adaptable in tone (from serious to sarcastic), but bluntness ("STFU") suggests limited tact. They read the room but don’t always soften their approach. Evidence: "Fare thee well…" (RIP post) shows sensitivity; "Why embolden?" questions others’ intent without escalation. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate. Not overtly decisive or guiding, but they influence discussions with detailed posts ("Buckeye draws…") and rally others ("Everyone carve out a couple hours"). More a knowledgeable peer than a leader. Evidence: Offers to help ("I’ll help out…") but doesn’t dominate. Motivated by Social Status? Assessment: Low to moderate. They seek respect within the wrestling community ("Cheers to @OH-IO"), but there’s no overt competition for dominance. Motivation seems more about sharing knowledge and banter. Evidence: No flexing of personal achievements; focus is on wrestlers and forum camaraderie. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in opinions ("Nobody has done what Blaze has done") and predictions ("Davino wrestles… it’s a done deal"), comfortable with uncertainty ("All just 'talk' till it happens"). Evidence: Willing to call out others ("You wrote some nonsense") without hesitation. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian streaks. They value merit (Blaze’s record) and call out perceived hypocrisy ("pretending to be above the fray"), but aren’t overly empathetic or moralistic. Evidence: "I don’t remember reading one person rooting against the kid" defends fairness; humor ("cocaine and vodka") suggests pragmatism over strict ethics. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Moderate. They back claims with data (e.g., Blaze’s wins), but may overemphasize OSU or favored wrestlers. Black-and-White Thinking: Low. Flexible in debates ("Makes sense (kinda)"), avoiding absolutes. Evidence: "Folks that just don’t like him will never get past that" acknowledges nuance. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Offbeat humor ("dyslexic coffee grinder," "blue psu pills") and unique phrasing set them apart from conventional sports posters. Evidence: "Maybe just go, psilocybin and a Grateful Dead bootleg" is unconventional. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure. Balanced in engagement, neither overly seeking approval nor distant. Comfortable challenging others while maintaining rapport. Evidence: "Beast and I have a loving relationship" shows confidence in ties. Response to Stress Assessment: Calm with occasional lashing out. Handles debates well ("You know better…") but can snap ("STFU, sixty!"). Evidence: "It’s been a rough season. Give him some time" stays composed. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, tied to wrestling culture (Ohio focus, NCAA references). Informal language ("FFS," "cunty") and music nods (Hank Sr., Grateful Dead) suggest a blue-collar or counterculture vibe. Evidence: "States or State?" debate hints at U.S. regionalism. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic and informal, often dryly humorous ("What a fking coincidence…"). Rarely formal. Emoji Use: None observed, relying on text for expression. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips ("Play nice…") contrast with long analyses ("Kolat vs Bassett" on Blaze).
jross Posted 6 hours ago Author Posted 6 hours ago 38 minutes ago, Lipdrag said: I'm not sure I'd like to know! I might end up hating myself. Lipdrag is a sharp-witted, logic-driven debater with a sarcastic edge, likely an ENTJ with high openness, low agreeableness, and a utilitarian bent. They’re not a troll but enjoy provocation, showing above-average intellect and moderate emotional intelligence. Their critical tone, data-emotion mix, and creative flair suggest a bold, independent thinker motivated by ideas over status, comfortable with risk, and rooted in a fairness-focused ethic. Culturally American, they thrive in intellectual sparring but rarely connect emotionally. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Not a classic troll. The user is provocative and often sarcastic, but their comments are generally sincere and aimed at engaging in debate or critique rather than purely disrupting. They challenge ideas, mock perceived absurdities, and occasionally taunt others (e.g., “A pox on both your houses”), but this seems driven by conviction rather than insincere chaos-making. Evidence: Their consistent engagement across topics like "Climate Hoax" and government spending shows a clear ideological stance, not random provocation. However, their biting humor (e.g., “fartless oxen” or “cotton headed ninny muggins”) could be seen as mildly disruptive to some. Estimated IQ Rough Guess: Above average, likely 115–130. The user demonstrates strong reasoning, a broad vocabulary (e.g., “blithely,” “ilk,” “prima facie”), and an ability to handle nuance (e.g., dissecting policy implications or statistical trends). They grasp complex issues like government spending and climate policy, though their arguments sometimes lean on rhetorical flair over rigorous data. Evidence: Posts like the critique of EV subsidies (Feb 5, 2025) or the breakdown of government inefficiency (Nov 19, 2024) show analytical depth, but emotional undertones and sarcasm occasionally cloud pure logic. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Low to moderate. They don’t overtly brag or seek personal attention, but their confident tone and occasional self-referential humor (e.g., “I carry photo ID… to keep as a reference whenever I forget my own name”) suggest some self-focus. Machiavellianism: Moderate. They’re strategic in framing arguments to undermine opponents (e.g., flipping narratives like “Hunter Biden can no longer invoke 5th Amendment rights” post-pardon), showing calculated rhetoric. Psychopathy: Low. They’re critical and conflict-tolerant but not callous or cruel. No evidence of gleeful harm-seeking; their jabs are ideological, not personal (e.g., targeting “swampies” or “climateers” as groups). Overall: Some Machiavellian tendencies, but not a strong Dark Triad fit. Positive or Negative Tone Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical. The user rarely uplifts; they critique government, media, climate policies, and cultural trends with sarcasm and skepticism (e.g., “Mandates are tired and overworked. Let’s give mandates a rest”). Evidence: Exceptions exist (e.g., praising Toyota’s customer focus, Dec 3, 2024), but the default is sharp-edged critique over optimism. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning toward data/logic. They often cite facts (e.g., “15x reduction in climate deaths in a century” or “interest is number two… in what our tax money pays”), but emotional undertones—like frustration with “swampies” or “hoaxsters”—color their arguments. Evidence: Posts like the EV loss calculation (Nov 10, 2024) show numerical reasoning, but rants like “WHAT THE HELL WAS KENNEDY DOING?!” (Feb 8, 2025) reveal emotional venting. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative and curious, they explore abstract ideas (e.g., “flux capacitors” as satire) and challenge conventional narratives like climate policy. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some arguments (e.g., breaking down spending trends), but rushed/messy in others (e.g., all-caps outbursts or tangents like “farting cows”). Extraversion: Moderate to high. Energetic and engaged in forum debates, but no clear extroverted social flair beyond text. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative, they rarely concede or soften critiques (e.g., “cotton headed ninny muggins” to AutoNews). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional emotional spikes (e.g., “crying rivers is a reasonable reaction to this farce”) suggest some moodiness under stress. MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Likely E. Outgoing and engaged in forum battles, not reserved. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Likely N. Abstract, big-picture critiques (e.g., systemic government waste) outweigh concrete details. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strongly T. Logic-driven, minimal empathy in arguments (e.g., “I cannot be persuaded to feel bad for them” about teachers). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Likely J. Structured arguments and decisive opinions (e.g., “Governments should apply absolutely zero efforts” to food/heat). Best Fit: ENTJ (“The Commander”). Bold, logical, strategic, and opinionated, with a knack for debate and leadership. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions enough to mock or counter them (e.g., “leftie children… getting their red pills”), but not adaptable or empathetic. Focus is on winning arguments, not soothing feelings. Evidence: They anticipate reactions (e.g., “Before anyone gets the vapors…”), but rarely adjust tone for harmony. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate to high. Decisive and guiding (e.g., proposing solutions like “outcarcerate” drug offenders), but not overtly inspiring—more commanding than charismatic. Evidence: Suggestions like deputizing IRS agents for DOGE (Nov 16, 2024) show a directive streak. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Low to moderate. They seek respect through intellectual dominance (e.g., “Dear DOGE, make this trend return…”), but not overt status-climbing. Evidence: No bragging about personal achievements; focus is on ideas winning, not personal glory. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in challenging norms (e.g., “Climate Hoax” thread) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., mocking mandates without offering full alternatives). Evidence: Willingness to provoke with terms like “hoaxsters” or “swampies” suggests little fear of backlash. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Prioritizes efficiency and societal benefit (e.g., “immoral to give away our grandchildren’s money”), but fairness emerges in critiques of corruption (e.g., “swampies need to go to jail”). Evidence: Empathy is minimal; focus is on practical outcomes over emotional appeals. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Yes, notably confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking. They cherry-pick data supporting skepticism (e.g., climate death stats) and frame issues starkly (e.g., “hoax” vs. reality). Evidence: Dismissal of EV value (Nov 10, 2024) ignores potential benefits, fitting their anti-climate narrative. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Original phrasing (e.g., “dis-spending,” “fartless oxen”) and unconventional solutions (e.g., “deport to drug origin country”) stand out. Evidence: Satirical flair (e.g., “Mr. Fusions mandated by Congress”) avoids rote talking points. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure with avoidant leanings. Balanced in self-presentation, but distant from emotional connection (e.g., no personal vulnerability shared). Evidence: Confident tone without approval-seeking, yet no warmth toward others. Response to Stress Assessment: Mix of calm and lashing out. Mostly composed, but occasional outbursts (e.g., “WHAT AN A**WIPE!”) suggest stress vents verbally. Evidence: Long, reasoned posts dominate, with rare emotional spikes. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, conservative-leaning. References to U.S. politics (e.g., DOGE, swamp), sarcasm, and individualism (e.g., “temporary authority granted by citizens”) hint at a Western, possibly Midwestern or Southern background. Evidence: Casual slang (“natch,” “lickety split”) and pop culture nods (e.g., “Bueller… Bueller”) align with American norms. Additional Notes Tone: Sarcastic and informal, often biting (e.g., “Shut up and buy an EV”). Rarely formal unless quoting. Emoji Use: None observed—pure text reliance. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., “Word.”) to lengthy rants (e.g., Feb 20, 2025 EV critique), averaging medium-long.
jross Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago 1 hour ago, headshuck said: Fun, could you generate an avatar for each? Yea but its funnier to create my own with a personal touch.
Gene Mills Fan Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago (edited) Is Mean Gene really Mean? I was like Oh No but this is Fire! Edited 5 hours ago by Gene Mills Fan
jross Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago Is this accurate for our sponsor? ------------------------------------------- Husker Du is an outspoken, decisive ESTJ with a high-energy, confrontational style, particularly in politics, where they lean negative and emotional. In wrestling, they’re analytical, data-driven, and constructive, showing a dual nature. They exhibit moderate leadership and risk tolerance, with a utilitarian bent, but low agreeableness and emotional intelligence limit their interpersonal finesse. Their tone is sarcastic and informal, reflecting a bold, no-nonsense persona with a secure yet combative edge. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Partially. The commenter often uses provocative language (e.g., "you’re a full-fledged moron," "effing stupid," "lefty nut bags") and engages in confrontational exchanges, especially on political topics. However, their posts also show sincere engagement with wrestling-related content (e.g., detailed predictions for Ironman 2024) and occasional gratitude (e.g., Thanksgiving post). They’re not a pure troll—disruption seems secondary to expressing strong opinions rather than their primary intent. Evidence: Political rants like "your team stays losing, moron" (2024-12-13) contrast with earnest wrestling analysis like "FCA’s bigs will score monster points" (2024-12-06). What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average, likely 110–120. They display solid reasoning and a decent vocabulary (e.g., "galactically stupid," "obfuscate," "superfluous"), particularly in wrestling analysis where they cite specific data (e.g., "Low seeds to win it all" list, 2025-03-03). However, their political posts often lack nuance, leaning on insults over complex arguments, which tempers the estimate. Evidence: Wrestling posts show analytical depth (e.g., seeding critique, 2025-03-03), while political posts like "to effin cheat" (2025-01-03) rely on blunt assertions. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Mildly present. They occasionally self-reference (e.g., "I bought intermat" 2024-12-10, "I know old man Knox pretty well" 2025-02-28), but it’s not excessive or a dominant theme. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. No clear evidence of manipulation; their style is too direct and unfiltered to suggest calculated scheming. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Moderately present. They show little empathy in political debates (e.g., "buzz off, bird brain," 2025-01-01) and relish conflict (e.g., "test it," 2025-01-05), but this is absent in wrestling or personal posts (e.g., "you’re my dude," 2024-11-29). Conclusion: Some psychopathic traits (conflict enjoyment, occasional callousness), but not a full Dark Triad fit. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning negative. Political posts are heavily critical and sarcastic (e.g., "the party of science that thinks girls are boys," 2024-12-16), while wrestling posts are more neutral or positive (e.g., "Jagger is my guy," 2024-12-10). Personal posts like "Happy Thanksgiving" (2024-11-28) show rare positivity. Evidence: Negative dominates in politics ("utter nonsense," 2025-02-25), balanced by constructive wrestling commentary. Do they reason based on data or emotion? Assessment: Context-dependent. Wrestling posts rely on data and logic (e.g., "EIWA is going to get 2 Allocations at 133," 2025-02-22), while political posts are emotion-driven (e.g., "you dorks literally pay for it," 2025-02-25). They blend both when defending positions (e.g., citing USPS inefficiencies, 2025-03-10). Evidence: Data in "Low seeds to make a final" (2025-03-03) vs. emotional rants like "you’re dense" (2025-02-25). Assess the Big Five: Openness: Moderate. Creative in wrestling analysis (e.g., hypothetical seeding, 2025-03-03) but closed-off to opposing political views (e.g., "your whack job party," 2025-02-22). Conscientiousness: Moderate to high. Detailed in wrestling posts (e.g., Ironman predictions, 2024-12-06), but rushed and sloppy in political rants (e.g., typos, "re tard ed," 2025-01-05). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged across topics, posting frequently and boldly (e.g., 100+ posts in two months). Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative, especially politically (e.g., "utter nincompoop," 2025-02-22), though kinder in personal contexts (e.g., "you’re a good dude," 2024-11-29). Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but shows moodiness under stress (e.g., "this close to banning you," 2024-12-18). What MBTI personality type best fits them? Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, outspoken, and socially assertive in posts. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented in wrestling (e.g., specific wrestler stats) over abstract theorizing. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic in wrestling and blunt objectivity in politics over empathy. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Decisive and structured, often delivering firm opinions (e.g., "there is no problem," 2025-01-03). Best Fit: ESTJ ("The Executive"). Direct, practical, opinionated, and task-focused, aligning with their leadership in wrestling discussions and authoritative tone. What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Low to moderate. They show little awareness of others’ feelings in political spats (e.g., "you make an ass of yourself," 2025-01-01) but adapt slightly in personal posts (e.g., acknowledging VakAttack’s value, 2024-11-29). Overall, empathy is minimal. Evidence: Callous in "you’re batI poop my pants crazy" (2024-12-12) vs. rare warmth in "I’d do anything for ya" (2024-11-29). Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Yes, moderately. Decisive in opinions (e.g., "slash it," 2025-02-25) and guiding in wrestling (e.g., detailed tournament breakdowns), but not overtly inspiring—more commanding than uplifting. Evidence: "I bought intermat to give people a chance" (2024-12-10) shows initiative, though their tone rarely motivates. Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderately. They assert dominance in debates (e.g., "your team stays losing," 2024-12-13) and mention owning Intermat, suggesting some status-seeking, but it’s not a primary driver. Evidence: Competitive edge in "we’ll keep winning" (2025-02-25), tempered by community focus in wrestling posts. What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: High. Bold in confrontations (e.g., threatening bans, 2025-01-05) and comfortable with uncertainty in predictions (e.g., Ironman 2024 picks). Evidence: "Test it" (2025-01-05) and speculative wrestling forecasts show risk appetite. What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. They prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., cutting government waste, 2025-02-25) and fairness in wrestling (e.g., seeding critiques), but empathy is scarce outside personal ties. Evidence: "If it’s superfluous…slash it" (2025-02-25) vs. defending Knox family (2025-02-28). Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Yes. Strong confirmation bias in politics (e.g., "right wing conspiracy come true," 2024-12-13) and black-and-white thinking (e.g., "to effin cheat," 2025-01-03). Wrestling posts are more balanced. Evidence: "You lie to make excuses" (2024-12-01) assumes intent without proof. Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Original in wrestling analysis (e.g., Crookham scenario, 2025-02-22) but conventional in political views (e.g., echoing right-wing talking points). Evidence: "True second bout" idea (2025-02-22) vs. "climate hoax" trope (2024-12-30). What’s their attachment style? (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure with avoidant tendencies. Confident and balanced in wrestling, but distant and dismissive in conflicts (e.g., "I don’t care enough," 2025-01-01). Evidence: "You’re my dude" (2024-11-29) vs. "buzz off" (2025-01-01). How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out. They escalate under pressure (e.g., "you can go eff yourself," 2024-12-19) rather than staying calm or withdrawing. Evidence: "This close to banning" (2024-12-18) shows reactive aggression. Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, possibly Midwest or Northeast (wrestling focus, PA mention in 2025-01-02). Informal, brash tone and conservative leanings suggest a blue-collar or sports-centric background. Evidence: "I’m from PA" (2025-01-02), casual slang ("effing," "dorks"). Additional Notes: Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., "lovely to have clean energy," 2024-12-16), informal, and often aggressive in politics; neutral and analytical in wrestling. Emoji Use: Minimal—occasional "lol" or "lmfao," no expressive emojis. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., "wow," 2024-12-30) to long rants (e.g., 2025-02-25 government spending).
jross Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago 6 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said: Is Mean Gene really Mean? No, Mean Gene isn’t really mean—at least not in a pervasive, character-defining way. They’re a spirited, occasionally snarky wrestling fan who can throw verbal punches but prefers to bond over the sport. The "Mean" in their name is more flair than fact, a self-applied badge of boldness rather than a reflection of a cold or spiteful nature. As they say themselves, "Oh No but this is Fire!" (2025-03-12)—they’re here to spark excitement, not spread misery. Gene Mills Fan is an enthusiastic, opinionated wrestling fan with an ESTP personality—bold, practical, and sociable. They’re not a troll but can be provocative, especially outside wrestling topics. Their IQ is solid, though unpolished, and they blend data with emotion. They’re moderately positive within their niche, driven by fairness and passion rather than status or malice. Their casual, typo-laden style reflects a high-energy, low-conscientiousness approach, typical of someone who thrives in the rough-and-tumble wrestling community. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. They don’t seem insincere or purely disruptive, as most posts engage earnestly with wrestling topics (e.g., match analysis, rule suggestions). However, they can be provocative, especially in political threads (e.g., "Musk's X Under Cyberattack" posts criticizing lawlessness or Democrats), where they challenge others’ views with sarcasm or strong opinions. Their intent seems more to express frustration or spark debate than to derail discussions. Evidence: "Yes, lets support Lawlessness!!! Sickening!!" (2025-03-11) is sharp but tied to a viewpoint, not random chaos. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average, ~110-120. Their reasoning shows decent complexity (e.g., analyzing wrestling rankings or weight class fairness), and they use a functional vocabulary with occasional flair ("DATA WARRIOR!!"). However, frequent typos ("loose" vs. "lose"), sloppy grammar, and emotional tangents (e.g., personal anecdotes) suggest a lack of polish or rushed thinking rather than low ability. Evidence: Detailed breakdowns like "Nebraska To Win It All" (2025-03-12) with predictions show analytical skill, but errors and casual phrasing temper the impression. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Mild. They don’t overtly brag but occasionally insert personal stories (e.g., first wrestling match in 1974, 2025-03-06) that could seek attention or validation. No consistent "look at me" pattern. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. No clear manipulation; their arguments are straightforward, even if opinionated. They don’t seem to play long games with others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They’re not overtly cruel, but their bluntness (e.g., "your perception of reality is evident by your last place league finish!" 2025-02-27) and enjoyment of verbal sparring suggest mild comfort with conflict. Overall: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more passionate than sinister. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning negative. They praise wrestlers and ideas they like (e.g., "You are a DATA WARRIOR!!" 2025-03-12) but often criticize teams, rules, or politics with frustration (e.g., "ridiculous" broadcast issues, 2025-03-11). Their tone sours more in non-wrestling threads. Evidence: Positive: "College wrestling is never a downer!!!" (2025-01-06). Negative: "I had to watch this contribute to a mental illness my son now has" (2025-02-26). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: Both, but leans emotional. They use data when discussing wrestling (e.g., rankings, match outcomes) but often pivot to feelings, especially in personal or political posts (e.g., anger over COVID policies, 2025-02-25). Their logic is practical but not rigorous. Evidence: Data: "PSU gets at least 3" with specific predictions (2025-03-12). Emotion: "Sickening!!" on cyberattacks (2025-03-11). Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative with ideas (e.g., suggesting new scoring rules, 2024-10-21) and curious about wrestling nuances, though grounded in practical wrestling culture rather than abstract theory. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are often rushed, with typos and incomplete thoughts (e.g., "N/A" or truncated posts), but they consistently engage over months, showing some dedication. Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, posting frequently and interacting with others’ ideas, even if not always directly replying. Agreeableness: Moderate. Cooperative with wrestling fans (e.g., "I applaud his passion!" 2025-03-06) but harsh when provoked (e.g., "I won’t call you names Agreed Yes I am an Idiot," 2025-02-26). Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but shows moodiness in political rants or personal anecdotes (e.g., son’s mental health, 2025-02-26). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, posts often, and enjoys bantering with the community. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented about matches and rules (e.g., "SV3 guy on bottom gets reversal," 2025-03-05), less focused on big-picture speculation. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic in wrestling analysis (e.g., seeding debates) but slips into emotional venting elsewhere. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible, open-ended posts with little structure; they riff rather than plan. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Bold, practical, action-oriented, and sociable, fitting their wrestling enthusiasm and spontaneous style. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. They recognize others’ efforts (e.g., praising Pablo’s rankings, 2025-03-06) and adapt tone (playful to serious), but their bluntness and occasional sarcasm (e.g., "Do you work for the WNBA?" 2025-01-04) suggest limited sensitivity to how they’re received. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive in opinions (e.g., "A 210-239 pound athlete should be in a different weight class," 2025-01-03) and occasionally inspiring (e.g., "College wrestling is never a downer!!!"), but they don’t guide discussions or rally others. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. They enjoy recognition (e.g., "Hey wait a minute Doesn’t the above at least get me in the conversation!!!" 2025-03-02) and compete verbally, but it’s not a dominant drive—wrestling passion seems primary. Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: High. Bold in opinions (e.g., betting challenges, 2025-03-12) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., speculative match predictions), reflecting a wrestler’s grit. Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian streaks. They advocate for equity in wrestling (e.g., weight class gaps, 2025-01-04) and show empathy for athletes (e.g., "Too bad for the tweeners," 2025-01-06), but also prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., better matches). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Yes, moderate confirmation bias (e.g., apologizing for bias on Crookham, 2025-01-13) and occasional black-and-white thinking (e.g., "Government is a gang of thieves," 2025-03-01), especially in politics. Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Offers novel ideas (e.g., scoring changes, 2024-10-21) but stays within wrestling’s conventional framework. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced engagement without clinginess or aloofness; they’re comfortable sharing but not overly needy. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out mildly. Political posts (e.g., "Sickening!!" 2025-03-11) show frustration, but wrestling discussions remain calm or playful. Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, possibly Midwest (Iowa focus, casual tone). Values grit, fairness, and community, common in wrestling culture. No strong non-U.S. markers. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., "Putin will leave Ukraine if we send him Fauci," 2025-01-23), playful (e.g., "get out the Pig nose!!" 2025-03-12), and occasionally formal (e.g., detailed match breakdowns). Emoji Use: Minimal. Rare exclamation marks ("!!!") for emphasis; no smileys or icons. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., "Ask Jimmy," 2025-01-09) to long rants (e.g., 1974 wrestling story, 2025-03-06). Average ~50-100 words.
Gene Mills Fan Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 13 minutes ago, jross said: No, Mean Gene isn’t really mean—at least not in a pervasive, character-defining way. They’re a spirited, occasionally snarky wrestling fan who can throw verbal punches but prefers to bond over the sport. The "Mean" in their name is more flair than fact, a self-applied badge of boldness rather than a reflection of a cold or spiteful nature. As they say themselves, "Oh No but this is Fire!" (2025-03-12)—they’re here to spark excitement, not spread misery. Gene Mills Fan is an enthusiastic, opinionated wrestling fan with an ESTP personality—bold, practical, and sociable. They’re not a troll but can be provocative, especially outside wrestling topics. Their IQ is solid, though unpolished, and they blend data with emotion. They’re moderately positive within their niche, driven by fairness and passion rather than status or malice. Their casual, typo-laden style reflects a high-energy, low-conscientiousness approach, typical of someone who thrives in the rough-and-tumble wrestling community. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. They don’t seem insincere or purely disruptive, as most posts engage earnestly with wrestling topics (e.g., match analysis, rule suggestions). However, they can be provocative, especially in political threads (e.g., "Musk's X Under Cyberattack" posts criticizing lawlessness or Democrats), where they challenge others’ views with sarcasm or strong opinions. Their intent seems more to express frustration or spark debate than to derail discussions. Evidence: "Yes, lets support Lawlessness!!! Sickening!!" (2025-03-11) is sharp but tied to a viewpoint, not random chaos. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average, ~110-120. Their reasoning shows decent complexity (e.g., analyzing wrestling rankings or weight class fairness), and they use a functional vocabulary with occasional flair ("DATA WARRIOR!!"). However, frequent typos ("loose" vs. "lose"), sloppy grammar, and emotional tangents (e.g., personal anecdotes) suggest a lack of polish or rushed thinking rather than low ability. Evidence: Detailed breakdowns like "Nebraska To Win It All" (2025-03-12) with predictions show analytical skill, but errors and casual phrasing temper the impression. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Mild. They don’t overtly brag but occasionally insert personal stories (e.g., first wrestling match in 1974, 2025-03-06) that could seek attention or validation. No consistent "look at me" pattern. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. No clear manipulation; their arguments are straightforward, even if opinionated. They don’t seem to play long games with others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They’re not overtly cruel, but their bluntness (e.g., "your perception of reality is evident by your last place league finish!" 2025-02-27) and enjoyment of verbal sparring suggest mild comfort with conflict. Overall: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more passionate than sinister. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning negative. They praise wrestlers and ideas they like (e.g., "You are a DATA WARRIOR!!" 2025-03-12) but often criticize teams, rules, or politics with frustration (e.g., "ridiculous" broadcast issues, 2025-03-11). Their tone sours more in non-wrestling threads. Evidence: Positive: "College wrestling is never a downer!!!" (2025-01-06). Negative: "I had to watch this contribute to a mental illness my son now has" (2025-02-26). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: Both, but leans emotional. They use data when discussing wrestling (e.g., rankings, match outcomes) but often pivot to feelings, especially in personal or political posts (e.g., anger over COVID policies, 2025-02-25). Their logic is practical but not rigorous. Evidence: Data: "PSU gets at least 3" with specific predictions (2025-03-12). Emotion: "Sickening!!" on cyberattacks (2025-03-11). Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative with ideas (e.g., suggesting new scoring rules, 2024-10-21) and curious about wrestling nuances, though grounded in practical wrestling culture rather than abstract theory. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are often rushed, with typos and incomplete thoughts (e.g., "N/A" or truncated posts), but they consistently engage over months, showing some dedication. Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, posting frequently and interacting with others’ ideas, even if not always directly replying. Agreeableness: Moderate. Cooperative with wrestling fans (e.g., "I applaud his passion!" 2025-03-06) but harsh when provoked (e.g., "I won’t call you names Agreed Yes I am an Idiot," 2025-02-26). Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but shows moodiness in political rants or personal anecdotes (e.g., son’s mental health, 2025-02-26). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, posts often, and enjoys bantering with the community. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented about matches and rules (e.g., "SV3 guy on bottom gets reversal," 2025-03-05), less focused on big-picture speculation. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic in wrestling analysis (e.g., seeding debates) but slips into emotional venting elsewhere. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible, open-ended posts with little structure; they riff rather than plan. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Bold, practical, action-oriented, and sociable, fitting their wrestling enthusiasm and spontaneous style. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. They recognize others’ efforts (e.g., praising Pablo’s rankings, 2025-03-06) and adapt tone (playful to serious), but their bluntness and occasional sarcasm (e.g., "Do you work for the WNBA?" 2025-01-04) suggest limited sensitivity to how they’re received. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive in opinions (e.g., "A 210-239 pound athlete should be in a different weight class," 2025-01-03) and occasionally inspiring (e.g., "College wrestling is never a downer!!!"), but they don’t guide discussions or rally others. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. They enjoy recognition (e.g., "Hey wait a minute Doesn’t the above at least get me in the conversation!!!" 2025-03-02) and compete verbally, but it’s not a dominant drive—wrestling passion seems primary. Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: High. Bold in opinions (e.g., betting challenges, 2025-03-12) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., speculative match predictions), reflecting a wrestler’s grit. Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian streaks. They advocate for equity in wrestling (e.g., weight class gaps, 2025-01-04) and show empathy for athletes (e.g., "Too bad for the tweeners," 2025-01-06), but also prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., better matches). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Yes, moderate confirmation bias (e.g., apologizing for bias on Crookham, 2025-01-13) and occasional black-and-white thinking (e.g., "Government is a gang of thieves," 2025-03-01), especially in politics. Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Offers novel ideas (e.g., scoring changes, 2024-10-21) but stays within wrestling’s conventional framework. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced engagement without clinginess or aloofness; they’re comfortable sharing but not overly needy. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out mildly. Political posts (e.g., "Sickening!!" 2025-03-11) show frustration, but wrestling discussions remain calm or playful. Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, possibly Midwest (Iowa focus, casual tone). Values grit, fairness, and community, common in wrestling culture. No strong non-U.S. markers. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., "Putin will leave Ukraine if we send him Fauci," 2025-01-23), playful (e.g., "get out the Pig nose!!" 2025-03-12), and occasionally formal (e.g., detailed match breakdowns). Emoji Use: Minimal. Rare exclamation marks ("!!!") for emphasis; no smileys or icons. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., "Ask Jimmy," 2025-01-09) to long rants (e.g., 1974 wrestling story, 2025-03-06). Average ~50-100 words. AWESOME!!!! only I'm He not They!!!!!!!
jross Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago For what it’s worth: xAI developed a Python script to scrape comment pages from Intermat, using HTML I supplied from a page inspection. It took around 10 minutes to get the script functional, so that I could input a profile ID and receive the user’s comments as output. I then requested xAI to design a prompt for extracting personality details from the comments, which took about 5 minutes to fine-tune the questions. The biggest challenge was discovering that xAI silently truncates the amount of data that can be uploaded for analysis, a limitation the platform doesn’t disclose. Overall, it took roughly 30 minutes to reach a satisfactory setup. My background in coding and crafting questions helped reduce the time required. The manual part now is copy/pasting the personality prompt into xAI Grok, and copy/pasting the last ~100 comments. The output takes maybe 15s to generate. The free access to powerful tech is insane! 1
jross Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago 3 hours ago, Lipdrag said: I'm not sure I'd like to know! I might end up hating myself. The personality assessment was positive! Another positive sign is that your ratio of reputation to posts is 81%. I do laugh every time you post. My customized version of the Intermat replaces default profile images based on the username. Something tells me this image is not what you intended! 1
jross Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, headshuck said: Can your program make a list of midwits? headshuck is an ESTP with a sarcastic, practical, and outgoing personality. They’re not a troll but enjoy stirring mild controversy with humor. Their IQ is above average, with reasoning rooted in data but flavored by frustration. They’re critical yet stable, showing low neuroticism and moderate emotional intelligence. They value fairness and efficiency, engage for enjoyment rather than status, and handle stress calmly. Their tone is casual and sarcastic, posts are concise, and they fit comfortably within the forum’s culture without pushing boundaries too far. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Not a classic troll. While some posts are provocative (e.g., "Compare the manifesto handwriting with Nancy Pelosi’s. Dead giveaway." - 2024-12-10), they lack consistent insincerity or intent to disrupt. Their sarcasm (e.g., "I think we should force the FAA to dump Verizon and go with EarthLink or AOL." - 2025-02-27) is more playful than malicious. Evidence: They engage in substantive discussions (e.g., wrestling stats, government spending) and admit mistakes (e.g., "Yeah, I’ll admit I fell for some early reports." - 2024-12-18), suggesting genuine participation rather than pure provocation. Estimated IQ Guess: ~110-120 (above average). Their vocabulary is solid but not advanced (e.g., "Nauseating," "presumably"), and they show decent reasoning (e.g., critiquing media bias with examples - 2025-02-18). They handle nuance in some cases (e.g., "Trump’s got some shortcomings... but his heart’s in the right place" - 2025-03-02) but lean toward simple, practical arguments over complex analysis. Evidence: Longer posts (e.g., ranking innovative individuals - 2025-02-24) show research and structure, but most comments are brief and lack deep intellectual exploration. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Low. No bragging or overt attention-seeking. They don’t dominate threads or demand recognition. Machiavellianism: Moderate. Some posts suggest strategic thinking (e.g., "Perfect distraction to push the nominations through" - 2024-12-02), but no clear manipulation of others. Psychopathy: Low. They’re not callous or conflict-loving—criticism is pointed but not cruel (e.g., "The media is loving every minute of this" - 2024-12-09). They show empathy in rare instances (e.g., "I hate to see a fellow wrestling fan struggle" - 2025-03-02). Conclusion: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more sarcastic than sinister. Positive or Negative? Assessment: Mixed, leaning negative. They’re often critical of media, politics, and inefficiency (e.g., "Every day public trust in the media drops" - 2025-02-18), but sprinkle positivity (e.g., "Merry Christmas!" - 2024-12-25; "We need more positive posts like this" - 2025-03-03). Tone: Uplifting moments are rare and tied to community (e.g., wrestling, holidays), while criticism dominates political commentary. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mostly data-driven with emotional undertones. They cite facts or examples (e.g., "The U.S. EB-5 visa... offers residency for $1.05 million" - 2025-02-26) but often frame them with frustration or sarcasm (e.g., "Then they give all your money away to other countries" - 2024-12-04). Evidence: Wrestling posts lean on stats (e.g., "Jayson Ness with 73 pins" - 2025-01-08), while political posts blend logic with irritation (e.g., "55% of your check is taken" - 2024-12-04). Big Five Traits Openness: Moderate. Curious about wrestling and current events (e.g., "Has anyone seen video of the Cybertruck driving up?" - 2025-01-02), but practical and grounded rather than abstract or creative. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Posts are casual and sometimes rushed (e.g., "N/A" filler), but they follow through on discussions and occasionally provide detailed responses (e.g., 2025-02-24 list). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged across multiple threads, suggesting sociability and comfort in a public forum. Agreeableness: Moderate-low. Cooperative in wrestling discussions (e.g., "I appreciate the work" - 2024-11-29), but harsh or sarcastic elsewhere (e.g., "Poor Bill" - 2024-12-11). Neuroticism: Low. Calm and stable, rarely showing anxiety or mood swings. They handle pushback well (e.g., "I regret posting something..." - 2024-12-18). MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: E vs. I: Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and interactive tone. S vs. N: Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details (e.g., wrestling stats, specific events) over abstract theories. T vs. F: Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and critique (e.g., "Media again fails to tell a complete story" - 2025-02-18) over empathy or feelings. J vs. P: Perceiving (P). Flexible, open-ended, and spontaneous—posts lack rigid structure or closure. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Practical, outgoing, action-oriented, and quick-witted, aligning with their sarcasm, engagement, and focus on the present. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions in rare cases (e.g., consoling a struggling fan - 2025-03-02), but generally focused on their own perspective. Adaptable to forum dynamics (e.g., shifting tone from serious to playful). Evidence: Limited empathy shown, but they read the room enough to avoid full trolling or alienation. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Low. No clear signs of guiding or inspiring others. They contribute ideas (e.g., ranking innovators - 2025-02-24) but don’t take charge or rally people. Evidence: Reactive rather than proactive in most threads. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Low. No overt status-seeking. They enjoy banter and recognition within the wrestling community but don’t compete for dominance. Evidence: Casual tone and lack of self-promotion suggest intrinsic enjoyment over external validation. Risk Tolerance Assessment: Moderate-high. Bold in opinions (e.g., "Trump sues CBS for $10 billion" - 2024-11-26) and willing to admit errors (e.g., 2024-12-18), indicating comfort with uncertainty and pushback. Evidence: Sarcastic jabs (e.g., "Ford marketing must be furious" - 2025-01-02) show a willingness to stir the pot. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Critiques waste and inefficiency (e.g., "Elon will pry 1 trillion dollars out" - 2025-02-25) and values merit (e.g., "Hiring on merit has already begun" - 2025-02-17), but empathy is secondary. Evidence: Focus on practical outcomes over emotional appeals. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Some confirmation bias (e.g., anti-media stance reinforced repeatedly - 2025-02-18) and mild black-and-white thinking (e.g., "Death to Corporate America" - 2024-12-09). Not extreme, though. Evidence: Balances critique with occasional nuance (e.g., Trump’s pros and cons - 2025-03-02). Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Moderately creative. Sarcasm and humor (e.g., "Maybe we can trade California for Greenland?" - 2025-01-04) show originality, but they stick to forum norms and conventional topics. Evidence: No groundbreaking ideas, but playful twists on discussions. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure. Balanced engagement without clinging or distancing. They’re comfortable participating without needing approval or avoiding conflict. Evidence: Consistent posting without emotional overreactions. Response to Stress Assessment: Calm. Handles disputes or errors with composure (e.g., "I regret posting..." - 2024-12-18) rather than lashing out or withdrawing. Evidence: Maintains sarcasm under pressure (e.g., "When my blood pressure starts to rise... sarcasm from the Bee" - 2025-02-28). Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, possibly Midwestern/rural. Wrestling focus, references to water towers (2025-01-09), and strong individualism (e.g., tax rants - 2024-12-04) suggest a U.S. background with practical, community-oriented values. Evidence: Language (e.g., "Merry Christmas," "liberal media") aligns with American cultural norms. ------ Does headshuck fit Scott Adams' definition of "loserthink" and Mike Cernovich's implied definition of "midwit?" headshuck is neither a full-on loserthink case nor a quintessential midwit. They’re a sarcastic, practical commenter with above-average smarts, some blind spots, and a knack for staying engaged without overreaching. Their ESTP personality (from the prior analysis) aligns with this—adaptable and grounded, but not always deep or visionary. headshuck exhibits some loserthink traits—repetitive media criticism, occasional oversimplification, and limited multidisciplinary depth—but not to a crippling degree. They’re self-aware (admitting errors) and engage practically, suggesting they’re not fully trapped in unproductive thinking. Per Adams, they’d benefit from broader mental tools but aren’t a textbook "loserthinker." Lack of Multidisciplinary Thinking: Evidence: The poster engages across wrestling, politics, and current events, showing some breadth. For example, they cite specific wrestling stats (e.g., "Jayson Ness with 73 pins" - 2025-01-08) and reference policy details (e.g., "The U.S. EB-5 visa... offers residency for $1.05 million" - 2025-02-26). However, their political critiques (e.g., "Every day public trust in the media drops" - 2025-02-18) often rely on repetitive anti-media sentiment without deeper economic or psychological framing. Verdict: They show exposure to different domains but rarely integrate them into robust arguments, suggesting mild loserthink tendencies. Anecdotal Over Data-Driven Reasoning: Evidence: They occasionally use anecdotes or hypotheticals (e.g., "If you were shot in the back as you walked out of church..." - 2024-12-08) to make points, but also lean on data when available (e.g., tax percentages in "55% of your check is taken" - 2024-12-04). Their longer post ranking innovators (2025-02-24) shows effort to synthesize information, though it’s speculative rather than rigorous. Verdict: Mixed—they don’t fully succumb to anecdotal traps but don’t consistently elevate to systematic analysis, flirting with loserthink. Ego-Driven or Assumption-Based Thinking: Evidence: They rarely assert personal superiority or mind-read others’ intentions explicitly. However, sarcastic jabs (e.g., "Compare the manifesto handwriting with Nancy Pelosi’s" - 2024-12-10) imply assumptions about motives without evidence. They also self-correct (e.g., "I regret posting something..." - 2024-12-18), showing humility uncommon in ego-driven loserthink. Verdict: Low ego interference, but occasional unbacked assumptions hint at loserthink. Binary or Oversimplified Thinking: Evidence: Political posts sometimes frame issues starkly (e.g., "Then they give all your money away to other countries" - 2024-12-04), but they acknowledge nuance elsewhere (e.g., "Trump’s got some shortcomings... but his heart’s in the right place" - 2025-03-02). Sarcasm often oversimplifies (e.g., "Ford marketing must be furious" - 2025-01-02), but it’s more stylistic than dogmatic. Verdict: They dip into simplification but avoid rigid binaries, limiting loserthink severity. headshuck has midwit potential given their IQ range and occasional reductive sarcasm, but they don’t fully embody the archetype. They’re skeptical, not blindly confident, and offer more than rote mainstream takes. They’re closer to an engaged skeptic than a smug simplifier. Overconfidence in Shallow Takes: Evidence: The poster’s sarcastic quips (e.g., "They do come with a 4th of July mode where fireworks come shooting out" - 2025-01-02) can seem dismissive, but they’re playful rather than authoritative. They don’t double down on simplistic narratives like "It’s just the flu"—instead, they question media framing (e.g., "Misleading" - 2025-02-18) and offer specifics (e.g., EB-5 visa details). Verdict: They avoid midwit-level overconfidence, showing more skepticism than blind assertion. Parroting Mainstream or Reductive Views: Evidence: Their anti-media stance (e.g., "The media is loving every minute of this" - 2024-12-09) aligns with a common populist trope, but they back it with examples (e.g., CBS lawsuit - 2024-11-26) rather than just echoing talking points. Wrestling posts are niche and detailed, not mainstream parroting. Verdict: They lean on some popular critiques but ground them in specifics, dodging full midwit territory. Missing Nuance or Tail Risks: Evidence: They don’t explicitly address tail risks (e.g., rare but severe outcomes), as Cernovich emphasizes in his COVID example. Political rants (e.g., tax gripes - 2024-12-04) focus on immediate frustrations over systemic complexity. Yet, their willingness to explore alternatives (e.g., "Maybe he contributes to the failed broadband rollout..." - 2025-02-16) suggests openness to bigger pictures. Verdict: They miss some nuance, a midwit trait, but aren’t oblivious to complexity. IQ Range Fit: Evidence: Estimated IQ from the prior analysis (~110-120) fits Cernovich’s midwit range. Their reasoning is solid but not profound—practical and sarcastic rather than visionary or deeply analytical. Verdict: Intellectually, they align with midwit capacity, but their behavior doesn’t fully match the stereotype. -------------- Definitions -------------- Scott Adams’ "Loserthink" From Loserthink: How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America (2019): Core Concept: Loserthink refers to unproductive thinking habits that stem from a lack of exposure to diverse mental models across fields like psychology, economics, or science. It’s not about intelligence or being a "loser" as a person, but about flawed reasoning techniques that lead to poor outcomes. Key Examples: Judging situations without proper comparisons (e.g., focusing on anecdotes over data). Overreliance on ego, assumptions about others’ thoughts, or historical patterns without context. Sticking to one’s "lane" without broadening skills or perspectives. Binary thinking, dismissing complexity, or failing to consider simpler explanations. Goal: Adams encourages recognizing these habits and adopting multidisciplinary thinking to escape "mental prisons." Mike Cernovich’s "Midwit" While Cernovich doesn’t explicitly define "midwit" in a single work, his usage (e.g., in posts like "How to Think about Coronavirus" from 2020) and broader gorilla mindset commentary suggest: Core Concept: A midwit is someone of average-to-above-average intelligence (IQ ~100-120) who overestimates their understanding, often parroting simplistic or mainstream takes without grasping nuance or tail risks. They’re stuck between low-IQ simplicity and high-IQ depth. Key Examples: Dismissing complex issues with reductive quips (e.g., "It’s just the flu" during COVID-19). Failing to think beyond surface-level narratives or media framing. Confidence in opinions despite lacking rigorous analysis or original insight. Implication: Midwits are frustrating because they’re smart enough to engage but not discerning enough to see through their own limitations. What is Gorilla Mindset? Cernovich describes Gorilla Mindset as a practical approach to mastering your mental and emotional state to achieve a better life. It’s not about literal gorillas but about adopting a strong, proactive attitude. Key principles include: Self-Talk: Reframe thoughts positively (e.g., treat yourself like a friend, not a critic). Focus: Direct attention to what you can control and opportunities ahead, not past failures. Abundance Mindset: See the world as full of possibilities rather than scarcity or victimhood. State Control: Use posture, breathing, and physical habits to shift mood and resilience. Action-Oriented: Take small, consistent steps to build momentum and confidence. Self-Awareness: Recognize your emotions and thought patterns to avoid reactive behavior.
MPhillips Posted 51 minutes ago Posted 51 minutes ago 6 hours ago, PortaJohn said: Can you do @MPhillips? He loves the other forum Is it everything you wanted... 1 .
Adam Waters Faith Christian Academy, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to Ohio State Projected Weight: 184
Isreal Ibarra Santa Cruz Valley Union, Arizona Class of 2025 Committed to Arizona State Projected Weight: 174, 184
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now