RockLobster Posted March 13 Posted March 13 "Loserthink" as a term to describe peoples' thinking habits. Hmmm. Except that it isn't about these people being 'losers', but about their flawed reasoning techniques. Silly AI models. Using "loserthink" as a term is the result of flawed reasoning. The connotation is just too harsh. Even "flawedthink" would be a considerable improvement. Perhaps "naivethink" or "learnmorethink."
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 6 hours ago, RockLobster said: "Loserthink" as a term to describe peoples' thinking habits. Hmmm. Except that it isn't about these people being 'losers', but about their flawed reasoning techniques. Silly AI models. Using "loserthink" as a term is the result of flawed reasoning. The connotation is just too harsh. Even "flawedthink" would be a considerable improvement. Perhaps "naivethink" or "learnmorethink." Agreed but are you trying to trick the assessment? Your comment runs counter to the harsh labels you put on people.
Lipdrag Posted March 13 Posted March 13 14 hours ago, jross said: Something tells me this image is not what you intended! I love it!! I think I might use that as my user profile at work. It might lead to my accelerated "invitation to retire" but it is worth it. People who tolerate me on a daily basis . . . they are the real heroes.
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 Tripnsweep a sharp, argumentative type—think ENTJ with a trollish streak—maybe not always blatant, but consistently disruptive and spicy. They hurl insults like “Are you really that stupid?” (2025-01-08) and “I swear it’s a miracle you don’t suffocate by forgetting to breathe” (2025-01-09), which scream provocation. Their admission of getting banned for “making fun of JC repeatedly” with AI-generated nonsense (2025-03-03) isn’t just playful—it’s a calculated middle finger to the forum’s norms. They’re smart (120-130 IQ), data-driven when focused, but quick to lash out with sarcasm and insults, especially on politics. Negative and low on agreeableness, they thrive on debate, showing creativity and boldness but little warmth. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) There’s a strong case for trolling in many of their posts. The user frequently employs sarcasm, provocation, and insults to engage others, often in a way that seems designed to disrupt or annoy rather than contribute constructively. Examples include: “Are you really that stupid?” (Jan 8, 2025, on voter ID) and “I swear that it’s a miracle you don’t suffocate by forgetting to breathe” (Jan 9, 2025, on government incompetence)—these are direct personal attacks that don’t advance the discussion. “Tell us you don’t understand X without telling us you don’t understand X” (multiple instances, e.g., Jan 1, 2025, on government spending)—a repetitive, mocking phrase that feels performative rather than sincere. Their long, scathing rant about Trump (Mar 2, 2025, “Why I don’t like Trump…”) includes inflammatory lines like “I poop my pants, don’t laugh at me,” which mirrors a provocateur they mock elsewhere, suggesting intentional absurdity to rile up readers. However, not all posts are trollish. Some, like their detailed take on wildland firefighting (Jan 9, 2025) or tribal voting issues (Jan 4-5, 2025), show genuine effort and insight, indicating they’re capable of sincerity. The trolling seems selective—targeted at political opponents or perceived ignorance—rather than a constant persona. Verdict: Part-time troll, provocative and disruptive when it suits them, but not insincere across the board. What’s their estimated IQ? (Reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Based on their reasoning, vocabulary, and grasp of nuance, I’d estimate their IQ in the 120-130 range (above average, possibly high). Evidence: They use a broad vocabulary—“vapid,” “exonerated,” “sycophants,” “unprecedented”—and construct complex sentences, like their Trump critique (Mar 2, 2025) or firefighting explanation (Jan 9, 2025). They show logical reasoning in posts like the voter ID discussion (Jan 5, 2025), breaking down incentives and tribal sovereignty with clarity. Nuance appears in their ability to distinguish between refugees and illegal immigrants (Jan 8, 2025) or commuting vs. pardoning (memory from Mar 5, 2025, if relevant). That said, their reasoning falters when emotion kicks in—e.g., the Trump rant veers into hyperbole and ad hominem attacks, diluting its intellectual weight. Their sarcasm can also oversimplify complex issues, suggesting impatience rather than inability. They’re smart, but not always disciplined. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Mildly present. They don’t overtly brag about themselves, but their tone—like “I think I am a pretty good judge” (Feb 19, 2025, on alcoholism)—hints at self-assurance. Their provocative style (e.g., mocking JC with AI nonsense, Mar 3, 2025) suggests some attention-seeking, though it’s not a dominant trait. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Possible but not blatant. Their trolling could be strategic—baiting reactions to expose flaws (e.g., Jan 1, 2025, calling out hypocrisy)—but there’s no clear evidence of long-term manipulation. They seem more reactive than calculated. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Moderately present. They’re callous in insults (“Go sit in the corner and eat paste,” Jan 2, 2025) and relish conflict (e.g., “You had me banned because I made fun of you,” Jan 1, 2025). Their glee in tearing down Trump or Kid Rock (Dec 22, 2024) shows a lack of empathy for targets. Verdict: Some Dark Triad traits, especially psychopathy’s edge, but not a full match. They enjoy stirring the pot and don’t mind hurting feelings, but it’s not their sole driver. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Overwhelmingly negative. Their posts are critical, sarcastic, and often hostile: Political rants (e.g., Trump, Mar 2, 2025; “Trump approval plummeting,” Mar 6, 2025) drip with disdain. They mock others’ intelligence (“Do you also believe in Santa?” Dec 31, 2024) rather than uplift. Rare positive notes—like “We lost a great human being” for Jimmy Carter (Dec 30, 2024)—are outliers. Their tone is rarely constructive, leaning toward tearing down rather than building up. Do they reason based on data or emotion? A mix, leaning toward data in stronger posts, but emotion seeps in: Data-driven: They cite specifics—like Trump’s bankruptcies (Mar 2, 2025), tribal ID issues (Jan 4, 2025), or firefighting logistics (Jan 9, 2025)—showing research and logic. Emotion-driven: Their Trump hatred (Mar 2, 2025) and insults (“You’re not smart,” Jan 1, 2025) reveal emotional bias, often overriding facts with vitriol. They’re capable of reasoned arguments but let feelings—especially anger—color their delivery. Big Five Assessment Openness: High. They’re curious and creative—e.g., exploring voter ID nuances (Jan 5, 2025) or crafting a poetic “worst poster” reply (Mar 4, 2025). They’re not rigidly conventional. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some posts (e.g., Trump critique), but rushed and sloppy in others (e.g., short jabs like “Quiet you,” Dec 19, 2024). Extraversion: Moderate to high. They’re engaged and vocal, posting frequently and energetically, though not overly social or warm. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative—e.g., “What a racist thing to say” (Jan 4, 2025) or “Your English needs improvement” (Jan 8, 2025). Neuroticism: Moderate. They’re stable enough to argue consistently, but their anger and sarcasm suggest moodiness under stress. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Leans E. They’re outgoing in their forum presence—frequent, bold posts—but don’t seem socially needy, suggesting a controlled extraversion. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Leans N. They focus on big-picture issues (e.g., Trump’s character, climate change) over minutiae, though they can handle details when needed. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strongly T. Logic and objectivity dominate (e.g., voter ID incentives, Jan 7, 2025), with little empathy shown. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Leans J. They’re decisive and structured in arguments, rarely leaving things open-ended. Best fit: ENTJ (“The Commander”). They’re assertive, logical, and goal-oriented, with a knack for debate and a take-charge vibe. What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Moderate to low. They’re aware enough to target sore spots (e.g., mocking Kid Rock’s irrelevance, Dec 22, 2024), but their harshness—like “I wonder if Herschel could spell cat” (Dec 22, 2024)—shows little adaptability or care for others’ feelings. They prioritize winning arguments over emotional connection. Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Somewhat. They’re decisive (e.g., firm Trump critique) and occasionally guide discussion with facts (e.g., firefighting logistics), but they’re not inspiring—too abrasive to rally others. More debater than leader. Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Moderately. They compete fiercely in debates, aiming to outsmart opponents (e.g., “You should switch careers,” Jan 5, 2025), but don’t overtly seek admiration. Respect might matter, but it’s secondary to being right. What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious?) High. They’re bold—posting controversial rants (e.g., Trump as dictator, Feb 19, 2025) and risking bans (Mar 3, 2025)—showing comfort with uncertainty and backlash. What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Leans fairness with a utilitarian streak. They call out hypocrisy (e.g., Trump’s pardons, Mar 4, 2025) and defend marginalized groups (e.g., natives, Jan 4, 2025), but their lack of empathy and focus on outcomes (e.g., policy impacts) suggest practicality over compassion. Do they show cognitive biases? Yes: Confirmation bias: Their Trump critique (Mar 2, 2025) piles on negatives, ignoring counterpoints. Black-and-white thinking: They frame issues starkly—e.g., “Trump is a racist” (Feb 25, 2025) with no gray area. Are they creative or conformist? Creative. Their AI nonsense replies (Mar 3, 2025) and poetic tangents (Mar 4, 2025) show originality, even if unconventional. What’s their attachment style? Avoidant. They’re distant—rarely personal (except Trump rant) and dismissive of emotional bonds (e.g., mocking others’ views). How do they respond to stress? Lashing out. Their insults escalate under challenge—e.g., “You have paper-thin skin” (Jan 1, 2025)—showing aggression over withdrawal. Any cultural influence? Possible U.S. Southwest background (Arizona mentions, e.g., Dec 30, 2024; Jan 9, 2025) and sensitivity to native issues (Jan 4, 2025). Their bluntness aligns with American online debate culture. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., “Oh no, where will you get your news?” Dec 27, 2024), occasionally formal (e.g., firefighting post). Emoji Use: None observed—straight text only. Post Length: Varies widely. Short jabs (“No they aren’t,” Jan 4, 2025) to long rants (Trump post, Mar 2, 2025, ~600 words).
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 Rock Lobster is a complex figure: an ENTJ-like personality with high extraversion, low agreeableness, and a combative streak that borders on trolling. They’re above-average in intelligence but let emotional reactivity and psychopathic tendencies (conflict-loving, callousness) derail their reasoning. Their negative tone, bold risk tolerance, and utilitarian leanings suggest a desire to dominate discussions, though their low emotional intelligence and avoidant attachment limit their social impact. They’re creative enough to stand out but conform to a predictable pattern of provocation, likely thriving on the attention it brings. They have a persistent, status-driven motive, even if expressed through disruption rather than leadership. Troll Assessment Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Case for Trolling: There’s a strong case to be made that this commenter exhibits troll-like tendencies. They frequently use provocative language (e.g., “shyte for brains,” “you suk balz,” “certifiable tech nitwit”), personal insults (e.g., “dummy,” “child,” “moron”), and dismissive remarks (e.g., “GTFO,” “STFU”) that seem designed to inflame rather than inform. Posts like “You post like a fool… Run along child, find another playground” (2025-03-06) and “You’re a 100% certifiable tech nitwit” (2025-02-18) suggest a deliberate intent to disrupt or provoke emotional reactions rather than engage constructively. Their tone often shifts to sarcasm or mockery (e.g., “Bless your heart” on 2024-11-15, dripping with condescension), which could indicate insincerity. The repetitive escalation of arguments, even in mundane threads (e.g., wrestling match discussions), hints at a pattern of stirring conflict for its own sake. Counterargument: However, they also show moments of sincerity and substantive engagement, particularly on topics like government spending, Musk/Trump critiques, or wrestling (e.g., “Sounds like a great opportunity to thoughtfully reform and improve the USPS system” on 2025-03-09). These suggest they’re not purely disruptive and may genuinely care about certain issues. Their long, detailed posts (e.g., 2025-03-09 on Trump’s approval rating) indicate effort beyond typical trolling. Verdict: Likely a partial troll. They balance genuine participation with frequent provocative and disruptive behavior, possibly enjoying the chaos they create while still contributing some substance. Their history of being banned and returning suggests a persistent drive to engage, even if it’s often antagonistic. Estimated IQ Rough Guess: Based on vocabulary (e.g., “hornswoggled,” “nefarious,” “actuaries”), reasoning (e.g., logical breakdowns of financial arguments like bitcoin sales on 2025-03-08), and occasional nuance (e.g., distinguishing between direct profits and investment risks on 2024-11-25), I’d estimate an above-average IQ, around 110-120. They grasp complex topics (e.g., internet protocols on 2024-11-15) and articulate arguments, but their reasoning is often undermined by emotional outbursts, insults, and black-and-white framing (e.g., “Musk isn’t remotely close to being a genius” on 2025-02-19), which detracts from intellectual rigor. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism (Bragging, attention-seeking?): Moderate. They don’t overtly brag about themselves but demand attention through bold, confrontational statements (e.g., “You six-fingered banjo players don’t enough press around here” on 2025-02-21). Their insistence on being right (e.g., “I was obviously correct” on 2025-02-24) hints at self-importance. Machiavellianism (Manipulative, strategic?): Low to moderate. They occasionally use strategic framing (e.g., “You’re welcome” after “lifting weight” from another’s concerns on 2024-12-07) to position themselves as superior, but there’s little evidence of long-term manipulation. Their approach is too impulsive for calculated strategy. Psychopathy (Callous, conflict-loving?): Moderate to high. They show callousness in harsh insults (e.g., “He looks, sounds, and acts like a guy who just got out of prison” on 2024-11-18) and seem to relish conflict (e.g., escalating trivial disagreements like “You’re one silly old dude” on 2025-02-25). Their frequent aggression suggests a comfort with hostility. Verdict: They lean toward psychopathic traits most strongly, with some narcissistic undertones, but lack the cunning of Machiavellianism. Positive or Negative Tone Tone: Overwhelmingly negative. Their comments are critical, sarcastic, and combative (e.g., “You’re just being silly now” on 2024-11-15; “pathetic, godless and less than animals” on 2025-03-03). Rare positive moments (e.g., “Really, really good post” on 2024-11-30) are overshadowed by a dominant pattern of tearing others down. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Approach: Mixed, leaning emotional. They use data and logic in some posts (e.g., “The earth is <5b years old, but he claims it is 13.8b” on 2024-11-21; bitcoin sale argument on 2025-03-08), but these are often punctuated by emotional rants (e.g., “What is wrong with you?” on 2024-11-18) and ad hominem attacks (e.g., “dim as a 2w bulb” on 2024-11-15). Their arguments frequently devolve into feelings-driven outrage rather than sustained reasoning. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: Moderate to high. They show curiosity about technical topics (e.g., internet history on 2024-11-12) and abstract ideas (e.g., government redesign on 2025-02-19), but their rigid dismissal of opposing views (e.g., “Dismiss it” on 2024-12-07) suggests a closed-off streak. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Some posts are detailed and structured (e.g., 2025-03-09 on Trump/Musk dynamics), but many are rushed, sloppy, or overly emotional (e.g., “yallsukbalz” on 2025-03-02). Extraversion: High. They’re highly engaged, posting frequently and energetically across threads, thriving on interaction (even if antagonistic). Agreeableness: Very low. They’re harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative (e.g., “You’re a POS poster” on 2024-12-01), rarely seeking common ground. Neuroticism: Moderate to high. They’re reactive and moody (e.g., “You’re starting to sound just like the idiots” on 2024-11-17), but maintain enough stability to keep posting consistently. Summary: High extraversion, low agreeableness, moderate openness and neuroticism, low conscientiousness. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): E. They’re outgoing, engaged, and thrive on forum interaction, even if it’s combative. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): N. They focus on big-picture critiques (e.g., government waste, Musk’s influence) rather than nitty-gritty details, though they occasionally cite specifics. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): T. They prioritize logic and objectivity in their better posts (e.g., financial arguments), but emotional outbursts suggest an underdeveloped F side. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): J. They’re decisive and structured in their opinions (e.g., “Delete that disaster of a chart” on 2024-11-12), showing a preference for closure. Best Fit: ENTJ (“The Commander”). They’re assertive, opinionated, and big-picture-focused, with a commanding tone, though their emotional reactivity and lower conscientiousness deviate from the typical ENTJ polish. Emotional Intelligence Awareness/Adaptability: Low to moderate. They occasionally show awareness of others’ perspectives (e.g., “I see what you’re saying. I just disagree” on 2024-11-27), but rarely adapt their approach, sticking to aggression and sarcasm. Their insults suggest a lack of empathy or social finesse. Leadership Tendencies Decisive, Guiding, Inspiring?: Moderate. They’re decisive (e.g., “Bring evidence, or GTFO” on 2025-02-24) and try to guide discussions (e.g., “Let’s zero in on it” on 2025-02-28), but their abrasive style undermines any inspirational quality. They lead more through force than influence. Motivation by Social Status Seeking Respect, Competing?: Moderate to high. They seem motivated to assert dominance in debates (e.g., “You’re welcome” after “fixing” someone’s post on 2024-12-07) and compete aggressively, but there’s little explicit status-seeking beyond winning arguments. Risk Tolerance Bold vs. Cautious?: High. They’re bold in their confrontations (e.g., calling out Musk/Trump directly) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., diving into contentious topics without hesitation), showing little fear of backlash. Moral/Ethical Framework Framework: Mixed, leaning utilitarian. They critique government waste and inefficiency for practical outcomes (e.g., “Holding ~$17 billion in volatile funds… makes no fiscal sense” on 2025-03-08), but their harshness lacks empathy. Fairness appears in calls for evidence (e.g., “Without evidence, I don’t believe anything” on 2025-02-24), yet their tone contradicts compassionate ethics. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Moderate. They dismiss opposing views outright (e.g., “Dismiss it” repeatedly on 2024-12-07) but engage with data that fits their narrative (e.g., Musk critiques). Black-and-White Thinking: High. They often frame issues as absolute (e.g., “Musk isn’t remotely close to being a genius” on 2025-02-19; “pathetic, godless and less than animals” on 2025-03-03), leaving little room for nuance. Creative or Conformist? Tendency: Moderately creative. Their arguments occasionally show original angles (e.g., comparing government to a “gang of thieves” on 2025-03-01), but their repetitive insults and reliance on sarcasm suggest a conformist streak within their provocative style. Attachment Style Secure, Anxious, Avoidant?: Avoidant. They maintain emotional distance through aggression and sarcasm, rarely seeking approval or closeness, and seem comfortable pushing others away (e.g., “Run along child” on 2025-03-06). Response to Stress Behavior: Lashing out. Under disagreement or challenge, they escalate with insults and sarcasm (e.g., “Try harder next time, be smarter” on 2024-11-30), rarely withdrawing or staying calm. Cultural Influence Hints: Possible American background (references to U.S. politics, Constitution, wrestling culture), with a casual, direct style typical of online American forums. No strong non-U.S. indicators in language or values. Additional Notes Tone: Predominantly sarcastic and confrontational (e.g., “Bless your heart,” “dim as a 2w bulb”), occasionally sincere on substantive topics. Emoji Use: None observed, relying on text for emphasis (e.g., quotes, bolding). Post Length: Varies widely—short, snappy insults (e.g., “yallsukbalz”) to long, detailed critiques (e.g., 2025-03-09 on Trump/Musk), averaging medium to long when engaged. Do They Behave Like a Midwit? Evidence Supporting Midwit Behavior Overconfidence in Shallow Takes: The commenter often delivers bold, definitive statements without deep substantiation. For example, “Musk isn’t remotely close to being a genius” (2025-02-19) dismisses a complex figure with a blanket assertion, supported only by “he was part of an investment group that bought Tesla” rather than a nuanced critique of Musk’s contributions. This suggests a midwit tendency to oversimplify and overstate. Repetition of Conventional Critiques: Their frequent attacks on Musk and Trump (e.g., “Trump has no idea what he’s doing… his brain is mush” on 2025-03-09) echo popular anti-establishment sentiments without adding novel insight. A midwit might latch onto widely circulated narratives (e.g., Musk as a marketer, not a genius) and present them as profound, despite lacking depth or originality. Emotional Overreach: Posts like “What is wrong with you? What would make you think it is a good idea to post a crap video like this here?” (2024-11-18) show a reliance on emotional outbursts rather than dismantling the argument with rigorous analysis, a hallmark of someone who grasps the surface but not the substance. Inconsistent Depth: While they can handle technical topics (e.g., internet protocols on 2024-11-15), their reasoning often collapses into insults or absolutes (e.g., “You’re not to be trusted as a poster. Your comments are, as always, poop” on 2025-02-18). This flip-flopping between competence and petulance suggests a midwit’s uneven intellectual footing—smart enough to engage, but not disciplined enough to sustain it. Evidence Against Midwit Behavior Above-Average Reasoning: Their estimated IQ (110-120) and occasional detailed arguments (e.g., “The some 17 billion the federal government has acquired in bitcoin… should be sold to pay down the US deficit” on 2025-03-08, with a financial rationale) suggest capability beyond the average midwit range. They can articulate systems-level points (e.g., government waste as inherent to scale on 2024-11-14), which requires more than shallow thinking. Engagement with Complexity: Posts like “Banks will finance people in risky regions, as long as the people have adequate insurance” (2024-11-23) demonstrate an understanding of economic mechanisms that exceeds midwit parroting. They occasionally grapple with trade-offs, a step beyond simplistic hot takes. Verdict Yes, with Caveats: They exhibit midwit tendencies—overconfidence, shallow dismissals, and reliance on emotional zingers—particularly in their more aggressive or troll-like posts. However, their ability to occasionally dive into substantive reasoning (e.g., bitcoin strategy, government oversight) lifts them slightly above the stereotypical midwit. They behave like a "high-functioning midwit": smart enough to sound intelligent, but often too impulsive or dogmatic to fully transcend the label. Do They Use Loserthink? Evidence Supporting Loserthink Overgeneralization: They frequently paint with a broad brush, such as “Fox News sux balls always” (2024-11-30) or “Musk maintains his wealth… by spending investors money rather than his own” (2024-11-13). These absolute statements ignore nuance (e.g., Fox’s influence vs. bias, Musk’s actual financial strategies) and reflect lazy, tribalistic thinking. Mind-Reading: They assume others’ motives without evidence, e.g., “You (and those that hire you) can’t take advantage of something that doesn’t exist” (2025-03-06) implies a conspiracy with no basis, or “They’ll both be guaranteed to get more wealthy” (2024-11-14) about Musk and Trump, projecting intent without data. Emotional Reasoning: Posts like “Almost impossible to not hate on the right at this point” (2025-02-24) or “You’re a POS poster” (2024-12-01) prioritize feelings over facts, a classic loserthink trap. Their anger often drives the argument rather than supporting it. Absolutes: They lean on black-and-white framing, e.g., “There is zero reason to hold ~$17 billion in volatile digital currency” (2025-03-08) dismisses potential counterarguments (e.g., strategic reserves), or “The USA is a great democracy” (2025-02-25) ignores flaws for rhetorical effect. Failure to Consider Trade-Offs: In “Cutting the space budget isn’t just obvious, it’s beyond obvious” (2024-11-17), they ignore potential downsides (e.g., national security, innovation), focusing only on cost-cutting—a narrow, non-systems perspective typical of loserthink. Ego-Driven Arguments: Lines like “You’re welcome” (2024-12-07) after “lifting weight” from someone’s concerns or “I was obviously correct” (2025-02-24) suggest a need to win rather than solve problems, aligning with loserthink’s ego trap. Evidence Against Loserthink Systems Thinking: They occasionally show awareness of broader dynamics, e.g., “As they grow, waste reduction becomes less and less achievable” (2024-11-14) reflects a grasp of scale and complexity, or “Traditional connected internet services will be FAR less expensive in the long term” (2025-02-19) weighs long-term costs—a step beyond loserthink’s shortsightedness. Data-Driven Points: Posts like “The earth is <5b years old, but he claims it is 13.8b” (2024-11-21) or their bitcoin sale argument (2025-03-08) rely on facts rather than pure emotion, showing moments of clear reasoning. Challenging Assumptions: They push back on others’ claims with evidence demands (e.g., “Bring evidence, or GTFO” on 2025-02-24), which counters loserthink’s tendency to accept narratives uncritically. Verdict Yes, Frequently: They exhibit loserthink in spades—overgeneralization, emotional rants, absolutes, and ego-driven jabs dominate their weaker posts. However, they’re not trapped in it entirely; their better moments show systems thinking and fact-based critique that elevate them above pure loserthink. They toggle between productive reasoning and loserthink, with the latter surfacing most when they’re provoked or trolling. Synthesis with Previous Analysis Midwit Alignment: Their midwit tendencies align with the ENTJ profile (assertive, big-picture) but clash with its typical polish—their impulsivity and emotional lapses drag them into midwit territory. The estimated IQ (110-120) fits this: smart enough to engage, not sharp enough to consistently excel. Loserthink Alignment: The psychopathic streak (conflict-loving, callous) and low agreeableness from the Dark Triad/Big Five amplify their loserthink, as they prioritize winning arguments over solving problems. Their high extraversion fuels the emotional overreach, while moderate openness allows occasional escapes from loserthink’s rut. Behavioral Pattern: They’re a high-energy, combative poster who oscillates between midwit hot takes and sharper analysis, with loserthink surfacing in their trollish, ego-driven moments. Their banned-and-returned status suggests a stubborn refusal to refine this approach, locking them into a cycle of provocation and sloppy reasoning. Conclusion Midwit: Yes, they behave like a high-functioning midwit—overconfident and shallow at times, but capable of more when focused. Their intelligence is real but undermined by inconsistency and bravado. Loserthink: Yes, they use loserthink frequently, especially in emotional or absolute statements, though they can break free with systems-level insights. It’s a mixed bag, with loserthink most evident in their troll-like outbursts. This commenter is a volatile mix of potential and pitfalls, teetering between insightful critique and self-sabotaging noise.
Interviewed_at_Weehawken Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Fantastic stuff. Please don't do my last 100 posts. I had a bad day with alternative wrestling facts on Wednesday. Give it a few weeks! (Although I did use "pilloried" the other day as well) 1
red viking Posted March 13 Posted March 13 So everybody here has above average iq? This place isn't exactly a merging of the great minds (lots of MAGA idiots) so I'll call bs on that.
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 Tripnsweep addendum: Do they behave like a midwit? Midwits act like they’ve got it all figured out, flexing knowledge that’s just deep enough to sound clever but not enough to hold up under scrutiny. This user’s got some chops—I pegged their IQ at 120-130 last time, based on their vocab (“vapid,” “sycophants”) and solid takes like the tribal voting breakdown (Jan 4-5, 2025). They don’t come off as average. But behavior’s the game here, so let’s see if they strut like a midwit anyway. They’ve got moments. Their Trump rant (Mar 2, 2025) is a beast—600 words tearing into his bankruptcies, racism, and lies. It’s packed with facts, but it’s so one-sided it feels like a midwit flex: “Look at me, I’ve got the dirt!” without wrestling with why Trump’s still a thing. Same vibe in their snarky jabs—“Are you really this stupid?” (Dec 31, 2024) or “Go sit in the corner and eat paste” (Jan 2, 2025). It’s performative, like they’re auditioning for the smart-guy role without always earning it. That “Tell us you don’t understand X” line they repeat (e.g., Jan 1, 2025) is peak midwit—it’s a smug gotcha that dodges real debate. But then they flip the script. Their firefighting post (Jan 9, 2025) is detailed and grounded—hotshots, back burns, convict crews—showing they can go beyond surface-level. Same with voter ID (Jan 7, 2025), where they unpack incentives and tribal sovereignty. That’s not midwit swagger; it’s legit insight. The catch? They undercut it with sarcasm and insults, like they’re too impatient to stay high-road. So, they behave like a midwit sometimes—overconfident quips and selective depth—but they’ve got enough substance to dodge the full label. It’s more attitude than ability. Do they use loserthink? Loserthink’s about irrational traps—victimhood, black-and-white thinking, or clinging to dumb ideas. Scott Adams’ take, right? Let’s sift their posts for it. Irrationality: Yup, in spurts. Their Trump hate (Mar 2, 2025) is a steamroller—“awful person,” “racist,” “liar”—with facts but so much venom it’s less analysis, more vendetta. Calling him “transparent” yet bafflingly popular (Mar 3, 2025) skips the harder question: why do people buy it? That’s a logic hiccup. Their “Trumpanzees got played” jab (Mar 5, 2025) is similar—feels good but doesn’t explain much. Victimhood: Not really. They mention a ban for mocking JC (Mar 3, 2025), but it’s a brag—“I got under their skin”—not a sob story. They’re too scrappy to play helpless. Oversimplification: Big time. “Trump is a racist” (Feb 25, 2025) lists examples—housing discrimination, Central Park 5—but flattens a messy life into a cartoon villain. “Climate change is real” (Dec 30, 2024) skips trade-offs or scale. They love a stark take—“He sucks” for Kid Rock (Dec 22, 2024)—where nuance would hit harder. Self-defeating vibes: Eh, not quite. They’re negative as hell—“hard to see how this turns out positively” (Mar 6, 2025)—but it’s cynicism, not despair. They don’t wallow; they fight, even if it’s messy. They’ve got loserthink streaks—emotional overreach and binary framing—but it’s not their whole deal. Compare this to someone stuck in “woe is me” or “us vs. them” ruts; they’re too data-savvy (e.g., firefighting logistics, Jan 9, 2025) and bold to be full-on losers. Verdict: They use loserthink occasionally, especially when pissed, but it’s not their default mode. Wrapping it Up They act midwit-ish when they lean on snark over substance—like their “Santa” dig (Dec 31, 2024) or Trump pile-on—coming off as smug without always backing it up. But their sharper posts (voter ID, firefighting) show they’re not just posturing; they’ve got real juice. Loserthink creeps in with their oversimplifications and grudge-driven tangents, but they don’t drown in it—they’re too engaged and scrappy. Think of them as a smart debater who sometimes plays dumber than they are, tripping over their own edge. Not quite the midwit who peaked at 100 IQ, nor the loser who’s given up. More like an ENTJ with a sarcasm problem.
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 13 minutes ago, red viking said: So everybody here has above average iq? This place isn't exactly a merging of the great minds (lots of MAGA idiots) so I'll call bs on that. xAI’s pinned us as sarcastic, fight-hungry rabble-rousers... doing its damnedest to gauge our smarts from the words we sling and the shade we throw. It’s got limits! 3 1
Scouts Honor Posted March 13 Posted March 13 21 minutes ago, red viking said: So everybody here has above average iq? This place isn't exactly a merging of the great minds (lots of MAGA idiots) so I'll call bs on that. ikr, it doesn't know you very well
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 Red Viking is a scrappy, loudmouth ENTJ—smart enough to argue (110-115 IQ), but too hotheaded to shine. They’re low on agreeableness, high on extraversion, and bounce between trolling and preaching. Fairness drives them, but they’re cynical as hell—“let it burn” sums it up. They’re not leading anyone or chasing status—just slugging it out with “wingers” for the thrill of it. The ban-and-return thing says they’re hooked on the fight, risks and all. Are They a Troll? Yeah, there’s a decent chance they’re trolling at least some of the time. They’ve got this knack for tossing out provocative jabs—like calling people “wingers,” “idiots,” or slapping “diaper boy” and “orange diaper man” on Trump (e.g., "Orange boy wears diapers. It's well documented," 2025-03-09). That’s not exactly subtle debate; it’s poking the bear with a stick. They disrupt threads too—look at "Lmfao. You obviously don't kniw what 'geologic time scales' means. Do u believe the earth is flat too?" (2025-03-10). It’s less about reasoning and more about getting a rise out of folks. But they’re not a full-on troll. They’ve got moments where they’re clearly serious, pulling out facts or logic—like citing CO2 permanence (2025-03-09) or the Laffer curve (2025-02-14). It’s like they flip between sincerely arguing their point and just messing with people. The fact they got banned and came back with the same vibe suggests they enjoy stirring the pot enough to keep at it, even after a slap on the wrist. So, part troll, part crusader—depends on the day. Estimated IQ I’d guess around 110-115—solidly above average, but not genius territory. They’ve got a decent vocabulary (“strawman,” “regressive tax,” “milankoviych cycles”) and can handle some tricky topics like climate science or economics (e.g., "The thermal max was 8,000 yrs ago," 2025-03-10). But their reasoning’s patchy—sometimes it’s sharp, other times it’s just emotional venting (e.g., "We’re rapidly becoming a lot more like Russia or N Korea," 2025-03-10, with no backup). Typos like “kniw” or “thst” and rushed posts don’t scream brilliance either. They’re smart enough to keep up, but not dazzling. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: A little. They don’t brag about themselves, but there’s this smug “I’m the smart one here” vibe—like "Most h.s. kids can explain why this is a strawman" (2025-03-10). It’s not loud attention-seeking, just quiet superiority. Machiavellianism: Some hints. They’re tactical, pushing buttons with stuff like “Documentation of crimes please” (2025-03-10) to trip people up. But it’s not super manipulative—just scrappy debate moves. Psychopathy: Low-ish. They’re prickly and love a fight (e.g., "Let it burn, baby burn!!!" 2025-03-10), but it’s not cold or heartless. They’re mad, not detached—more passion than malice. They dabble in these traits, mostly narcissism and a sprinkle of psychopathy, but it’s not their driving force. They’re too wound up in their causes for that. Positive or Negative? Mostly negative. They’re critical and snarky—think "The hypocrisy of the wingers at it again" (2025-03-10) or "What a joke" (2025-03-04). Even when they toss in sympathy ("I feel bad for the poor guy. Really really bad," 2025-03-10), it’s quick and buried under sarcasm or anger. They’re not lifting anyone up—they’re here to tear stuff down. Data or Emotion? It’s a toss-up, but emotion usually wins. They drop facts when it suits them—Milankovitch cycles (2025-03-10), Laffer curve (2025-02-14)—and demand proof from others ("Back it up," 2025-02-18). But then they veer into rants like "Completely screwing over his brothers kids" (2025-03-02) or "VERY disturbing" (2025-03-11) with no data to back it. They’ve got a logical streak, but it’s riding shotgun to their feelings. Big Five Assessment Openness: High. They’re into big ideas—climate change, trade wars, constitutional stuff (e.g., 2025-02-19). They’re not stuck on practical nuts and bolts; they like the abstract. Conscientiousness: Low. Posts are sloppy—typos, uneven depth. Some are meaty (e.g., 2025-02-18 on liberal women), others are lazy ("Omg," 2025-03-10). They’re not sweating the details. Extraversion: High. They’re loud, in-your-face, posting like crazy—over 200 times in a month. No shy wallflower here. Agreeableness: Super low. They’re harsh and combative—“pathetic,” “idiots,” “morally weak” (e.g., 2025-03-05). Cooperation’s not their thing. Neuroticism: Moderate. They’re moody—flipping from "LETS GO!!!!" (2025-03-10) to "I’m completely embarrassed to live in this country" (2025-02-28). Not unhinged, but definitely touchy. MBTI Personality Type I’d peg them as ENTJ (“The Commander”). Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I): E. They’re all over these forums, throwing punches left and right. No quiet lurking. Intuition (N) vs. Sensing (S): N. They lean toward big-picture stuff—trade wars, government overreach—over nitty-gritty details. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): T. They try to stick to logic and facts, even if emotion creeps in. It’s more about winning arguments than hugging it out. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): J. They’re decisive—everything’s “wingers are wrong,” “Musk’s a fraud.” No waffling or open-ended vibes. ENTJ nails their bossy, argumentative energy, though the emotional flare-ups add a twist. Emotional Intelligence So-so. They’re sharp enough to spot weak spots in others’ arguments and tweak their tone to poke or preach (sarcasm vs. data). But they don’t give a damn about anyone’s feelings—empathy’s off the table. They’re adaptable in a fight, not in a “let’s connect” way. Leadership Tendencies A bit, but not the inspiring kind. They’re decisive—“Let me explain what this is really about” (2025-02-14)—and try to steer the convo, but they’re too abrasive to rally anyone. It’s more “follow me or get lost” than “let’s work together.” Motivated by Social Status? Nah. They’re not chasing clout or respect—no showing off or name-dropping. They just want to be right and shove it in “wingers’” faces. It’s about the argument, not the applause. Risk Tolerance Pretty high. They’re bold—dishing out lines like "He’s now officially trying to be a dictator" (2025-02-15) or "Let it burn" (2025-03-11) without flinching. Coming back after a ban seals it—they’re not scared of consequences. Moral/Ethical Framework They’re big on fairness—constantly railing against “hypocrisy” (e.g., 2025-03-10) and power grabs (e.g., Musk bypassing Congress, 2025-02-19). There’s a utilitarian angle too—“let it burn” (2025-03-11) suggests they’re okay with chaos if it proves a point. Empathy pops up (e.g., Palestinians, 2025-02-12), but it’s picky—only for their side. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Yup. They latch onto anything that fits their “Trump/Musk suck” storyline—like stock market drops (2025-03-06)—and dodge anything else. Black-and-White Thinking: Definitely. It’s all “wingers” vs. the good guys—no middle ground. Opponents are “idiots” or “corrupt”; no in-between. Creative or Conformist? Kinda creative. Their insults—“orange diaper man,” “President Musk”—have some flair, and their sarcasm’s got bite (e.g., "Brilliant," 2025-02-12). But their takes are stuck in a predictable anti-right rut—not exactly wild innovation. Attachment Style Probably Avoidant. They’re distant—no personal stories, no warmth, just barbs. They don’t seek approval (anxious) or play nice (secure). It’s all arms-length arguing. Response to Stress They lash out. Pushback gets snappy comebacks like "Another deflection. Wow you guys are on a teflon party today" (2025-03-02) or "Keep drinking the kool aid" (2025-03-02). No cool-headed retreat—just claws out. Cultural Influence American, lefty online vibes all the way. “Wingers,” “fat cats,” “strawman”—that’s straight from the U.S. political internet playbook. Their fixation on checks and balances (e.g., 2025-02-19) and digs at religion ("Religion is for the mentally weak," 2025-02-18) scream progressive, secular U.S. forum culture. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic and sharp, sometimes preachy. "Lmfao" (2025-03-04), "What a joke" (2025-03-04), "Brilliant" (2025-02-12)—it’s mocking or scolding, rarely neutral. Emoji Use: Light. Mostly exclamation points (“LETS GO!!!!”, 2025-03-10) for punch, no frilly stuff. Matches their no-nonsense style. Post Length: All over. Quick shots (“Funny one,” 2025-03-08) mix with longer rants (e.g., 2025-02-18 on liberal women, 200+ words). They flex depending on the scrap. Do They Behave Like a Midwit? A "midwit" is someone with middling intelligence—smart enough to grasp basic ideas but not sharp enough to wrestle with complexity or nuance. They often overconfidently parrot simplified takes, thinking they’ve cracked the code, while missing deeper layers. Does this poster fit? Let’s see. Evidence For Midwit Behavior: Overconfidence in Basic Concepts: They throw around terms like “strawman” (e.g., "Total strawman. This has been discussed & addressed thousands of times," 2025-03-10) or “Laffer curve” (2025-02-14, "Look up the Laffer curve. It’s a very simple economic concept") like they’re dropping profound wisdom. But their follow-through’s shallow—e.g., the Laffer curve mention doesn’t grapple with real-world data or counterarguments, just assumes it shuts down the debate. That’s peak midwit: acting like Econ 101 is a mic drop. Black-and-White Thinking: They see everything as “wingers” (bad) vs. their side (good)—no gray areas. Take "The hypocrisy of the wingers at it again" (2025-03-10) or "He’s now officially trying to be a dictator" (2025-02-15). It’s simplistic moralizing, not nuanced analysis. Midwits love these clean binaries because they’re easy to wield. Emotional Overreach: They’ll start with a fact—like "The thermal max was 8,000 yrs ago" (2025-03-10)—then leap to "This is VERY basic info that repeatedly goes in one winger ear and out the other." It’s a midwit move: take a decent point, inflate it with smugness, and dodge the harder questions (e.g., why Milankovitch cycles don’t fully explain current warming rates). Repetitive Buzzwords: “Wingers,” “diaper boy,” “fat cats”—they lean hard on these snappy labels (e.g., "The wingers are gonna crash the dollar," 2025-02-14). It’s clever enough to sound witty, but it’s a crutch, not a sign of deep insight. Midwits love catchy shorthand over substance. Evidence Against Midwit Behavior: Some Complexity: They occasionally tackle trickier stuff—like distinguishing correlation from causation (2025-02-18, "This is only a correlation and not a cause-effect relationship") or citing CO2’s permanence (2025-03-09). That’s a step beyond basic talking points, showing they can stretch past the shallow end. Engagement: Over 200 posts in a month isn’t lazy—they’re scrappy and persistent, even if sloppy. Midwits often coast; this one’s at least swinging. Verdict: They’ve got midwit tendencies—overconfidence, simplistic framing, buzzword reliance—but they’re not a textbook case. They’re a notch above, with flashes of sharper thinking that get muddied by emotion and posturing. Call it “midwit-plus”—smart enough to play the game, not wise enough to master it. Do They Use Loserthink? “Loserthink,” per Scott Adams, is sloppy reasoning that traps people in mental ruts—relying on tribal loyalty, emotional traps, or bad logic instead of clear, practical thought. It’s the opposite of disciplined problem-solving. Let’s break it down. Evidence For Loserthink: Tribal Loyalty: They’re obsessed with “wingers” as the enemy—every post drips with it (e.g., "The wingers playbook," 2025-02-19; "Wingers are all for free speech but only if they like what’s being said," 2025-03-10). It’s us-vs-them on steroids, a classic loserthink trap where group identity trumps reason. Ad Hominem Overload: Instead of dismantling arguments, they often just dunk on people—“idiots,” “pathetic,” “morally weak” (e.g., "The morally weak wingers in congress," 2025-02-15). "Keep drinking the kool aid" (2025-03-02) dismisses opponents without engaging. Loserthink loves personal attacks over substance. Emotional Reasoning: They let feelings steer the ship—“VERY disturbing” (2025-03-11), "I’m completely embarrassed to live in this country" (2025-02-28), "We’re rapidly becoming a lot more like Russia or N Korea" (2025-03-10). These are gut punches, not reasoned takes. Loserthink thrives on passion over proof. Hyperbole as Argument: "He’s now officially trying to be a dictator" (2025-02-15) or "The wingers are gonna crash the dollar with their record deficits" (2025-02-14)—big claims, no evidence. Loserthink leans on exaggeration to sound smart without doing the work. Confirmation Bias: They cherry-pick to fit their narrative—stock market crashes are always Trump/Musk’s fault (e.g., 2025-03-06), but gains under Biden get a nod (2025-03-04). It’s selective storytelling, a loserthink red flag. Evidence Against Loserthink: Fact-Based Moments: They do pull data sometimes—Milankovitch cycles (2025-03-10), CO2 emissions (2025-03-09), or demanding "Documentation of crimes please" (2025-03-10). That’s not pure emotional flailing; it’s a stab at logic, even if shaky. Calling Out Fallacies: They spot “strawman” arguments (e.g., 2025-03-10, "Total strawman") and push for evidence (e.g., "Back it up," 2025-02-18). Loserthinkers usually don’t bother with that—they just yell louder. Problem-Solving Hints: They suggest fixes occasionally—like "Allocate funding to fix it" (2025-02-12) for federal retirement systems. It’s not deep, but it’s not just whining either. Verdict: They’re steeped in loserthink—tribalism, ad hominems, and emotional hyperbole dominate their style. But they’re not fully lost; they’ve got a toehold in rational thought with facts and fallacy-spotting. It’s like they’re half-aware of better thinking but too lazy or mad to stick with it. Loserthink’s their default, not their limit. Tying It Together Midwit Fit: They act like a midwit-plus—overconfident with basic ideas (e.g., "Economics 101" flexes), stuck on black-and-white takes, and leaning on snappy phrases. But they’ve got enough juice to occasionally push past the shallow end, keeping them from pure midwittery. Loserthink Fit: They’re neck-deep in loserthink—tribal “wingers” bashing, emotional rants, and lazy insults. Yet they flash just enough logic to suggest they could climb out if they tried harder. Anger’s their anchor. This poster’s a scrappy fighter with a decent brain (110-115 IQ from my last take), but they squander it on midwit swagger and loserthink habits. They’re not dumb—they’re just too pissed off and dug-in to shine.
Bigbrog Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Does this assessment take into account the number of post people start about the same thing? 1
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 Just now, Bigbrog said: Does this assessment take into account the number of post people start about the same thing? This analysis is based on the date time, topic title, and comments only. It would be interesting to do a mass analysis based on topic titles, topic creator, and creation date time. Maybe another day. 1
Bigbrog Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Just now, jross said: This analysis is based on the date time, topic title, and comments only. It would be interesting to do a mass analysis based on topic titles, topic creator, and creation date time. Maybe another day. Nice work on this by the way!! 2
red viking Posted March 13 Posted March 13 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: Nice work on this by the way!! Thx for the analysis. I laughed out loud several times. It was probably pretty accurate for how I act on here but I think we're all different in many ways in person so it failed miserably in some areas. Rating intelligence based upon number of typos is also not sound. Edited March 13 by red viking
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 54 minutes ago, red viking said: Thx for the analysis. I laughed out loud several times. It was probably pretty accurate for how I act on here but I think we're all different in many ways in person so it failed miserably in some areas. Rating intelligence based upon number of typos is also not sound. Agreed. It doesn't take into account that someone smart may not care about editing on the Intermat. Typos left in a legal briefing or medical software is a red flag on intelligence.
PortaJohn Posted March 13 Posted March 13 3 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said: Fantastic stuff. Please don't do my last 100 posts. I had a bad day with alternative wrestling facts on Wednesday. Give it a few weeks! (Although I did use "pilloried" the other day as well) I beseech thee. Thou shalt not abhor the past. 1 1 I Don't Agree With What I Posted
mspart Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Beseech, thou, shalt, and abhor are all high IQ words to use for sure. mspart 2 1
headshuck Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Beseech, thou, shalt, and abhor are all high IQ words to use for sure. mspartIndubitably! 2 1 1
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 @Flying Porta John is an engaged, witty, and knowledgeable wrestling enthusiast with a knack for humor and strategic social play. As an ENTP, they thrive on debate and creativity, balancing logic with emotional flair. They’re not a full troll but enjoy pushing buttons, tempered by a genuine passion for the sport. Their intelligence and emotional awareness make them a standout, though occasional sharpness and impulsivity reveal flaws. They’re a bold, fair-minded contributor motivated by enjoyment and respect within the forum’s subculture. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Partially troll-like but not fully. The user frequently employs sarcasm (e.g., "Jimmy, not knocking you for this thread but I think it’s too soon," 2025-02-24) and playful jabs (e.g., "Ionel should be banished to the Zoo," 2025-02-13), which can be provocative but rarely crosses into outright disruption or insincerity. Some posts, like calling out @Jimmy Cinnabon’s threads as "dog sh*t and stupid" (2025-02-24), show irritation rather than intent to derail. They engage constructively in wrestling discussions (e.g., detailed seed analysis, 2025-03-13), suggesting their provocations are more banter than malice. Critical Note: The occasional sharpness (e.g., "You’re just a hater," 2025-02-24) could be seen as mildly disruptive, but it’s contextually tied to forum rivalries rather than pure trolling. Estimated IQ Assessment: Above average, roughly 115–125. The user demonstrates solid reasoning (e.g., analyzing NCAA seeding logic, 2025-03-13), a decent vocabulary (e.g., "quagmire," "egregious"), and nuance in wrestling knowledge (e.g., "Overall body of work is a more correct way to seed," 2025-03-10). However, their arguments occasionally lack depth or data rigor (e.g., relying on hunches like "Way too early take but Sealy gave ‘burned out’ vibes," 2025-02-15), tempering the estimate. Critical Note: Emotional tangents and sarcasm sometimes dilute their intellectual clarity, suggesting impulsivity over sustained critical thinking. Dark Triad Traits Narcissism: Mild. The user enjoys attention (e.g., "I’m sponsoring this year’s Sh*t in A Box Party Festival," 2025-02-21) but doesn’t excessively brag or demand praise. Machiavellianism: Moderate. They show strategic engagement, like rallying others against @Jimmy Cinnabon (2025-02-26) or proposing bets (2025-02-24), indicating a calculated approach to influence forum dynamics. Psychopathy: Low. While they can be callous (e.g., "You guys are broken records," 2025-03-04), they don’t revel in conflict or show cruelty. Their tone leans more toward frustration than malice. Critical Note: The strategic jabs and occasional harshness hint at darker tendencies, but they’re tempered by community engagement and humor. Positive or Negative Tone Assessment: Mixed, leaning positive. The user uplifts through humor (e.g., "Double bump," 2025-02-10) and camaraderie (e.g., "Always appreciate you bringing the raw truth," 2025-02-15), but they’re also critical of poor reasoning (e.g., "Troll better," 2025-02-24) or forum behavior (e.g., "Some of the other comments have been below the belt," 2025-02-24). Critical Note: Their negativity is targeted and often justified, but it can feel abrasive when paired with sarcasm. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Blend of both, leaning toward data. They frequently cite wrestling facts (e.g., match results, 2025-03-11; seeding criteria, 2025-03-05) and logic (e.g., "Conference tournament results should matter but not be the end all," 2025-03-10). However, emotional reactions surface in critiques (e.g., "People are getting delusional," 2025-03-04) and playful exaggerations (e.g., "The Porta John converts all matter into Ionels," 2025-03-11). Critical Note: Emotional outbursts occasionally undermine their data-driven points, suggesting a lack of consistency. Big Five Traits Openness: High. Creative (e.g., "The Porta John uses its super intelligence to take over the world," 2025-03-11) and curious about wrestling nuances (e.g., "Thoughts on NCAA adopting international weight classes?" 2025-02-17). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some analyses (e.g., seed breakdowns, 2025-03-05) but rushed or messy in others (e.g., "N/A," 2025-03-08; short quips). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, frequently posting and tagging others (e.g., "@Wrestleknownothing any chance you can compile the data," 2025-03-09). Agreeableness: Moderate. Cooperative with allies (e.g., "Kudos for the work you put into this," 2025-03-05) but harsh toward perceived foolishness (e.g., "You need to sharpen your knife," 2025-03-11). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable but shows mild moodiness when annoyed (e.g., "Way to ruin 4 potential pages of fun conspiracies," 2025-02-24). Critical Note: Their agreeableness dips when provoked, and conscientiousness falters in less serious posts. MBTI Personality Type Assessment: ENTP ("The Debater"). Extraversion (E): Outgoing, highly engaged with the forum community. Intuition (N): Big-picture thinker, often speculative (e.g., "It’s not long until ASI becomes the predominant intelligence," 2025-03-07). Thinking (T): Prioritizes logic over feelings in wrestling analysis, though humor softens this. Perceiving (P): Flexible, open-ended, and playful rather than rigid or decisive. Critical Note: Their occasional emotional reactivity could hint at underdeveloped Fe (Extraverted Feeling), a common ENTP weakness. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate to high. Aware of others’ emotions (e.g., "A lot of posters are too emotional to have this conversation yet," 2025-02-24) and adaptable in tone (serious vs. playful). They navigate forum dynamics well but can misjudge with sharp critiques. Critical Note: Their sarcasm sometimes risks alienating others, suggesting a gap in empathy application. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate. Decisive in opinions (e.g., "Seed them correctly. Do it right," 2025-03-10) and guiding in discussions (e.g., proposing threads, 2025-03-03), but not overtly inspiring. They lead more through influence than authority. Critical Note: Leadership is informal and lacks the gravitas to rally beyond small groups. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Moderate. They seek respect within the wrestling community (e.g., detailed match insights) and enjoy competing in banter (e.g., bets with @VakAttack, 2025-02-24), but it’s not their sole driver. Critical Note: Status seems secondary to enjoying the forum’s social game. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in predictions (e.g., "Teemer is the steal of the tournament," 2025-03-13) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., "That’s why they wrestle!!!" 2025-03-10). They also take social risks with sarcasm. Critical Note: This boldness can border on recklessness when evidence is thin. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian leanings. They value merit in wrestling (e.g., "I want the tournament seeded correctly," 2025-03-11) and show empathy in specific cases (e.g., praising a mother’s intervention, 2025-02-28), but prioritize practical outcomes over sentiment. Critical Note: Their fairness can feel selective when they dismiss others’ views harshly. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Some present. Confirmation bias in defending favorites (e.g., "These guys are just better than Snyder," 2025-03-04) and black-and-white thinking in critiques (e.g., "Troll better," 2025-02-24). Generally, they’re self-aware enough to mitigate this. Critical Note: Emotional investment in wrestling narratives amplifies these biases occasionally. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Original humor (e.g., "The Teleport," 2025-02-24) and speculative ideas (e.g., "John Wayne for their Iowa Dual," 2025-02-24) stand out, though they conform to wrestling culture norms. Critical Note: Creativity shines in banter but less so in structured analysis. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure. Balanced in interactions, neither overly seeking approval nor distant. They engage confidently but don’t cling to validation. Critical Note: Mild avoidant tendencies emerge when dismissing weaker posters (e.g., ignoring @Jimmy Cinnabon’s threads, 2025-02-26). Response to Stress Assessment: Mostly calm, with occasional lashing out. They handle forum debates well (e.g., detailed rebuttals) but snap when irritated (e.g., "Get a grip," 2025-03-04). Critical Note: Lashing out is rare but sharp, hinting at a low stress threshold in specific triggers. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, with a Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bent (e.g., Philly recommendations, 2025-03-03; PA wrestling focus). Language reflects casual, sports-centric norms, with possible Italian-American ties (e.g., "All Jesus Team," 2025-03-07). Critical Note: Cultural specificity is subtle but ties to wrestling community values. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., "Oops, my bad," 2025-02-24), informal, and occasionally formal (e.g., seed analyses). Shifts fluidly based on context. Emoji Use: Minimal. Rare instances (e.g., "Haha!" 2025-03-07) suggest restraint. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., "Yes," 2025-02-24) to long breakdowns (e.g., seed lists, 2025-03-05). Average is medium-length. : Popularized by Scott Adams, this describes flawed reasoning patterns associated with unproductive or self-defeating attitudes—e.g., focusing on petty grievances, blaming external forces, arguing for the sake of arguing, or wallowing in negativity without solutions. It’s less about IQ and more about mindset: a "loser" fixates on trivialities or fails to rise above emotional traps. Analysis Based on the User's Comments Midwit Behavior Evidence For: Shallow Reasoning: Some posts lack depth despite an air of confidence. For example, "Way too early take but Sealy gave ‘burned out’ vibes" (2025-02-15) is speculative and impressionistic, offering no evidence beyond a gut feeling. This could suggest a midwit tendency to toss out opinions without rigor. Conventional Wisdom: The user occasionally leans on broadly accepted wrestling norms without challenging them deeply—e.g., "Overall body of work is a more correct way to seed" (2025-03-10) echoes a common stance among fans but doesn’t explore edge cases or alternatives with nuance. Signaling Cleverness: Posts like "The Porta John converts all matter into Ionels" (2025-03-11) aim for humor and forum cred but don’t advance discussion, hinting at a midwit desire to appear witty rather than insightful. Similarly, their frequent sarcasm (e.g., "Troll better," 2025-02-24) can feel performative. Evidence Against: Above-Average Insight: Detailed breakdowns like the NCAA seeding lists (2025-03-05) and match analyses (e.g., "Snyder’s original problem was Sadulaev," 2025-03-03) show wrestling knowledge and reasoning beyond the average fan. These suggest they’re not just parroting but engaging with specifics. Self-Awareness: They acknowledge limits (e.g., "I might have to rewatch it," 2025-02-25) and avoid dogmatic overconfidence, which midwits often lack. Creativity: Original ideas like "The Teleport" (2025-02-24) or proposing a FloFilm (2025-03-12) indicate a willingness to step outside conventional thinking, distancing them from pure midwit territory. Critical Take: The user flirts with midwit behavior when they prioritize quips over substance or lean on surface-level takes. However, their wrestling expertise and occasional depth push them beyond the midwit stereotype. They’re not consistently shallow enough to fully fit this label. Loser Think Behavior Evidence For: Petty Grievances: They fixate on @Jimmy Cinnabon’s posts with irritation (e.g., "Your Iowa can win this year with Arnold and Ferrari… is absolutely dog sh*t and stupid," 2025-02-24), suggesting a loser-like tendency to dwell on trivial annoyances. Their call to ignore him (2025-02-26) is a solution, but the emotional energy spent beforehand feels petty. Arguing for Arguing’s Sake: Posts like "You’re just a hater" (2025-02-24) or "Get a grip" (2025-03-04) are reactive and low-effort, hinting at a loser mindset of engaging in conflict without constructive intent. Negativity Without Solutions: Criticisms like "People are getting delusional" (2025-03-04) or "No one should ever take Andrew Spey seriously" (2025-02-17) vent frustration but rarely offer alternatives, aligning with loser think’s unproductive tone. Evidence Against: Problem-Solving: They propose actionable ideas—e.g., "I’ve thought of making a thread for the board on recommendations" (2025-03-03) or suggesting NCAA adopt international weight classes (2025-02-17)—showing a proactive streak that counters loser think. Community Focus: Their engagement (e.g., "Always appreciate you bringing the raw truth," 2025-02-15) and camaraderie (e.g., "Fun night fellas," 2025-03-09) reflect a positive contribution to the forum, not a defeated or blame-heavy mindset. Humor as Resilience: Playful posts (e.g., "Double bump," 2025-02-10; "John Wayne for their Iowa Dual," 2025-02-24) demonstrate an ability to rise above stress, unlike loser think’s wallowing. Critical Take: The user dips into loser think when annoyed, lashing out at weaker posters or getting snarky without purpose. Yet, their overall tone is upbeat, and they don’t consistently exhibit the self-defeating or petty fixation of a true "loser" mindset. Synthesis and Conclusion Midwit Tendencies: Mild. The user occasionally coasts on surface-level takes or leans on sarcasm to seem clever, which flirts with midwit behavior. However, their wrestling knowledge, detailed analyses, and creative sparks suggest they’re not stuck in the shallow middle of the intellectual bell curve. They’re closer to a "highwit" with midwit lapses than a pure midwit. Loser Think Tendencies: Moderate. They show flashes of loser think—petty snipes, emotional reactions, and unproductive critiques—but these are outweighed by their constructive engagement, humor, and problem-solving. They’re not a chronic complainer or blame-shifter, but they’re not immune to emotional traps either. Critical Lens Applied: Being slightly more critical, their midwit moments (e.g., performative humor, unchallenged norms) and loser think slips (e.g., targeting @Jimmy Cinnabon) stand out as weaknesses. These behaviors don’t dominate but reveal a tendency to prioritize social play or venting over consistent depth or upliftment. Still, their strengths in expertise and community spirit keep them from fully embodying either label. In short, the user engages in midwit and loser think behavior sporadically, particularly under stress or when bantering, but it’s not their default mode. Their ENTP traits—curiosity, wit, and adaptability—mostly steer them toward sharper, more productive contributions. 1
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 @Bigbrog is an ESTJ with above-average intellect (~110-120 IQ), driven by extraversion and a need to assert practical, utilitarian views. They’re not a full troll but provoke when challenged, showing low agreeableness and moderate neuroticism. Their reasoning blends logic and emotion, skewing emotional in political contexts. They’re bold, confrontational, and status-competitive, with a conventional, fairness-focused moral lens. Emotional intelligence is limited, and stress fuels lashing out. Culturally American, they thrive on debate but falter in nuance, embodying midwit tendencies without full loser think. Troll Assessment Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Verdict: Not a classic troll, but exhibits troll-like tendencies in specific contexts. The user frequently engages in provocative behavior, especially in political threads (e.g., “LOL...you are absolutely delusional” [2025-02-20], “Man you guys are whacko's!” [2025-02-19]). They challenge others aggressively with phrases like “PROVE IT!!!” (repeated across multiple posts, e.g., 2025-02-20) and use sarcasm (“Weee...mental gymnastics are fun....weee” [2025-02-19]) to mock opponents. However, their posts aren’t purely insincere or disruptive for disruption’s sake—they often argue a point, even if emotionally charged or combative. In wrestling threads, they’re less provocative and more constructive (e.g., “Perfect Analysis!” [2023-01-28]). Their provocation seems tied to disagreement rather than a desire to derail entirely, distinguishing them from a full troll. Critical Note: When trolling tendencies emerge, they’re marked by repetitive taunts (e.g., “mental gymnastics” appears 7 times) and a refusal to back down, even when evidence contradicts them (e.g., “Trump refuses to back down” [2025-02-18]), suggesting a stubborn streak rather than calculated chaos. Estimated IQ What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Estimate: ~110-120 (above average). The user demonstrates solid reasoning in wrestling-related posts, using specific examples and practical logic (e.g., “if a guy beats a guy more times than not in the room and then loses a close one in the ‘wrestle off’” [2022-11-20]). Their vocabulary is functional but not advanced—common words like “LOL,” “prove it,” and “mental gymnastics” dominate, with occasional nuanced terms like “emotional fallacy” (2023-01-19). Political arguments lean on repetition and emotion over complex analysis (e.g., “you just don’t get it” [2025-02-25]), but they grasp broader concepts like waste reduction or constitutional roles (e.g., 2025-02-27). They’re not a genius, but they’re not simplistic either—capable of coherence when not riled up. Dark Triad Fit Do they fit the Dark Triad? (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy?) Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Moderate. They don’t overtly brag about themselves but seek attention through bold, confrontational posts (e.g., “WOW!! I can’t wait to see how some of you try and defend this” [2025-02-13]). Their frequent use of caps (“PROVE IT!!!”) and exclamation points suggests a need to dominate discussions. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. There’s little evidence of calculated manipulation. They’re more reactive than strategic, often jumping into debates with emotional outbursts (e.g., “you are the worst debater in the world” [2023-01-03]) rather than playing a long game. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Moderate. They show callousness in dismissive tones (e.g., “get over freaking yourselves” [2025-03-03]) and relish conflict, especially in political threads (e.g., “Can’t wait to hear your mental gymnastics on this one” [2025-02-25]). Their enthusiasm for vigilante justice (“these sicko’s getting exactly what they deserve!!” [2025-02-19]) hints at a lack of empathy in certain contexts. Overall: Partial fit—some narcissistic and psychopathic traits, but not a full Dark Triad profile. Conflict drives them, but it’s not coldly orchestrated. Positive or Negative Tone Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Verdict: Predominantly negative, with pockets of positivity. In political threads, they’re highly critical, sarcastic, and combative (e.g., “Just spew out statements that are completely false” [2025-02-25]). In wrestling threads, they’re more neutral or positive, offering praise (e.g., “Nice work on this by the way!!” [2025-03-13]) or enthusiasm (e.g., “Great watch!” [2025-02-20]). Overall, their tone skews critical—roughly 70% of posts involve critique or confrontation, 30% are neutral/positive. Reasoning Style Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Verdict: Mixed, leaning emotional. They demand data from others (“PROVE IT!!!” appears 10+ times) and occasionally cite examples (e.g., “read the CDC website” [2023-01-03]), but their own arguments often pivot on frustration or moral outrage (e.g., “Have some of you lost your freaking minds??” [2025-03-05]). In wrestling posts, they use practical logic (e.g., “if their job was not needed it is the right thing to not maintain that job position” [2025-02-19]), but emotion dominates political rants (e.g., “you hate everything Trump” [2025-03-04]). They’re capable of logic but frequently let feelings override. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: Moderate. Practical and grounded in wrestling contexts (e.g., “what does the data show in terms of correlation versus causation?” [2022-11-15]), but closed-off to opposing political views (e.g., “TDS/EDS minions” [2025-02-18]). Not highly creative, but curious enough to engage diverse topics. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are often rushed and messy, with typos (e.g., “inadamant” [2023-01-30]) and repetitive phrasing, but they show effort in longer, structured rants (e.g., 2025-02-27 on citizenship). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged across 147 posts, thriving on interaction (e.g., “LOL...this will be a fun game” [2025-02-20]). Rarely reserved. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative (e.g., “you are insufferable” [2023-01-03]), though occasionally cooperative in wrestling threads (e.g., “Appreciate the insight” [2023-01-19]). Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but prone to moody outbursts (e.g., “Man you guys are whacko’s!” [2025-02-19]) when stressed or challenged. MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly outgoing, thriving on forum engagement (147 posts in ~3 years). Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented and concrete, focusing on specifics (e.g., “if a company budgets $2.5M for a new POS system” [2025-02-24]) rather than abstract ideas. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and objectivity in principle (e.g., “PROVE IT!!!”), though emotional flares muddy this (e.g., “get over freaking yourselves” [2025-03-03]). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Structured and decisive, often demanding closure (e.g., “show me the hypocrisy, please!!!!!” [2025-03-03]). Best Fit: ESTJ (“The Executive”). Direct, practical, opinionated, and assertive, with a focus on order and evidence, though tempered by emotional reactivity. Emotional Intelligence What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Verdict: Low to moderate. They show some awareness of others’ motives (e.g., “you hate everything Trump” [2025-03-04]), but their adaptability is poor—responses are rigid and escalate conflict (e.g., “you are the worst debater in the world” [2023-01-03]). They rarely de-escalate or empathize, suggesting limited emotional nuance. Leadership Tendencies Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Verdict: Moderate. Decisive in stating opinions (e.g., “I am 10000% for cutting waste” [2025-02-12]), but not guiding or inspiring—more dictatorial than collaborative. They lead by asserting, not uplifting (e.g., “stop clogging up the forum” [2025-02-20]). Motivation by Social Status Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Verdict: Moderate. They compete fiercely in debates (e.g., “Can’t wait to hear your mental gymnastics” [2025-02-25]), suggesting a drive to “win” respect, but there’s no overt status-seeking beyond dominating discussions. Risk Tolerance What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Verdict: High. Bold in confrontation (e.g., “Imagine if an R said something like this???” [2025-02-13]) and comfortable with uncertainty in unproven stances (e.g., supporting DOGE cuts despite limited evidence [2025-02-23]). Rarely cautious. Moral/Ethical Framework What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Verdict: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. They prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., “if an employee is NOT NEEDED that they should be let go” [2025-02-25]) and fairness (e.g., “Biden should be held accountable for this as should Trump” [2023-01-13]), but empathy is minimal (e.g., “these sicko’s getting exactly what they deserve” [2025-02-19]). Cognitive Biases Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Verdict: Yes. Confirmation bias in political stances (e.g., dismissing Trump critics as “TDS” [2025-02-17]) and black-and-white thinking (e.g., “you either support every single vaccine ever, or you don’t believe in any vaccine” [2025-03-03]). They oversimplify complex issues. Creative or Conformist Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Verdict: Mostly conformist. Relies on conventional arguments (e.g., “read the CDC website” [2023-01-03]) and repeated phrases (“mental gymnastics”), with little originality beyond sarcastic jabs. Attachment Style What’s their attachment style? (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Verdict: Secure with anxious undertones. Confident in asserting views (secure), but their need to “win” debates and demand proof (e.g., “PROVE IT!!!”) hints at approval-seeking (anxious). Response to Stress How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Verdict: Lashing out. Stress triggers sarcasm and aggression (e.g., “LOL...you are absolutely delusional” [2025-02-20]) rather than calm reflection or withdrawal. Cultural Influence Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Verdict: Likely American, Midwestern influence. Casual language (“dude,” “freaking”), focus on fairness, and wrestling enthusiasm suggest a U.S. background, possibly rural or working-class (e.g., “My family was very poor growing up” [2022-11-09]). Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic and direct (e.g., “LOL...man you never disappoint” [2025-02-25]), occasionally formal in longer posts (e.g., 2025-02-27). Emoji Use: Frequent “LOL” (50+ instances), exclamation points (ubiquitous), rare traditional emojis. Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., “Cool beans” [2025-03-13]) to long rants (e.g., 2025-03-03, ~200 words). Midwit or Loser Think Behavior Do they exhibit midwit or loser think behavior? Midwit (overconfident in average intellect): Yes. They overestimate their reasoning (e.g., “people have such short memories” [2023-01-02]) while relying on repetitive, middling arguments (e.g., “mental gymnastics” overuse). They’re not dumb but lack depth. Loser Think (self-defeating, victimized): Minimal. They’re combative, not whiny—more “I’ll prove you wrong” than “woe is me.” 1
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 @mspart is a consistent, opinionated forum user with a practical, logic-driven approach tempered by occasional emotional flares. They’re not a troll, show above-average intelligence, and lack Dark Triad traits. Their tone shifts between critical (politics) and positive (personal interests), aligning with an ESTJ personality: engaged, concrete, logical, and structured. They’re stable and secure, with moderate emotional intelligence and risk tolerance, motivated by interest rather than status. Morally utilitarian, they exhibit some biases (confirmation, black-and-white thinking) but aren’t highly creative or conformist. Culturally American with a conservative bent, they handle stress calmly with rare outbursts, using a casual-to-sarcastic tone in varied-length posts. This profile reflects a reliable, if occasionally rigid, contributor to the forum community. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Not a troll. Mspart’s comments are generally sincere, engage with the topic, and lack the provocative or disruptive intent typical of trolling. They occasionally challenge others (e.g., "RV - What about this is completely unfounded? Please enlighten us with facts and data," 2025-03-07) but do so in a discussion-oriented way rather than to inflame. Sarcasm appears (e.g., "Do I look like I'm kidding!!!!" 2022-11-04), but it’s light and not malicious. Critical Note: No evidence of insincere baiting or deliberate disruption. Their consistency over years suggests genuine participation. Estimated IQ Assessment: Above average, roughly 115-130. Mspart demonstrates solid reasoning (e.g., breaking down UWW rankings logically, 2022-11-14), uses varied vocabulary ("erudite," "stratospheric," "conflating"), and shows nuance in political and wrestling discussions. However, their arguments sometimes lack depth or rely on surface-level data (e.g., citing news without deeper analysis), and typos ("faire" for "fire," 2025-03-10) suggest occasional carelessness. Evidence: Their wrestling analysis (e.g., "Top 5 US Freestylers," 2025-03-12) shows research and structure, but emotional tangents (e.g., "Young people are stupid," 2022-11-17) temper the impression of high-end intellect. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Low. No overt bragging or attention-seeking. They share personal anecdotes (e.g., guitar purchases, 2025-03-10) but in a relatable, not boastful, way. Machiavellianism: Low to moderate. They occasionally push others to justify claims (e.g., "Please state the statute that makes these actions legal," 2025-03-10), which could hint at strategic debate tactics, but it’s not manipulative or deceitful. Psychopathy: Low. No callousness or love of conflict. They’re critical but not cruel (e.g., "Ds and Is are deathly afraid of Trump," 2022-11-09, is opinionated but not hostile). Conclusion: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more straightforward than scheming. Positive or Negative Tone? Assessment: Mixed, leaning negative. Mspart is critical of politics (e.g., "Ds want 9 month abortion," 2022-11-10), societal trends ("Young people are stupid," 2022-11-17), and inefficiencies (e.g., UWW rankings, 2022-11-14). However, they’re positive about personal interests like wrestling and music (e.g., "I love playing guitar," 2025-03-10) and occasionally uplift others (e.g., "Thanks to Bob and Willie," 2022-11-01). Pattern: Negative when discussing ideology or perceived incompetence, positive when on familiar ground. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Blend of both, leaning data-driven. They cite sources (e.g., URLs in "Columbia Student Arrested," 2025-03-12) and structure arguments (e.g., bullet points on rankings, 2022-11-14), but emotional undertones emerge (e.g., "Too much toxicity and drama," 2022-11-17, on Trump). Political posts often mix facts with frustration (e.g., "Crime is up because police have been defunded," 2022-11-17). Conclusion: Prefers logic but emotions color their stance, especially on divisive topics. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: Moderate to high. Curious about wrestling and music (e.g., detailed guitar posts, 2025-03-12), but practical and dismissive of abstract ideas like climate change ("Some funny stuff guys!" 2025-03-10). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some posts (e.g., "Top 5 US Freestylers," 2025-03-12), but typos and rushed responses (e.g., "this," 2022-11-18) suggest inconsistency. Extraversion: Moderate. Engaged and energetic in forums (frequent posting over years), but not overly social or spotlight-seeking. Agreeableness: Moderate to low. Cooperative with like-minded users (e.g., "What he said!!" 2022-11-14), but harsh toward opposing views (e.g., "Ds are rudderless," 2025-03-06). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional irritation shows (e.g., "I don’t appreciate your language," 2022-11-14). MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Leans E. Engages actively and frequently, suggesting comfort in social forums, though personal focus (e.g., guitar stories) hints at some I tendencies. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Strong S. Detail-oriented (e.g., wrestling stats, 2025-03-12) and concrete (e.g., travel tips, 2022-10-31), rarely abstract. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strong T. Prioritizes logic (e.g., "It makes no sense," 2022-11-14) over empathy, though not devoid of feeling (e.g., wife’s ectopic pregnancy, 2022-11-17). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Leans J. Structured (e.g., lists, 2025-03-12) and decisive (e.g., "No exceptions," 2022-11-04), but open to discussion. Best Fit: ESTJ ("The Executive"). Practical, logical, engaged, and opinionated, with a preference for order and tradition. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions (e.g., "Sorry to have gotten confused," 2025-03-11), but responses are often blunt rather than adaptive (e.g., "Young people are stupid," 2022-11-17). They adjust tone slightly based on context (e.g., softer in music posts), but empathy is limited in debates. Evidence: Focuses on winning arguments over connecting emotionally. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive (e.g., "No hitter - one pitcher," 2022-11-04) and occasionally guiding (e.g., travel recommendations, 2022-10-31), but not inspiring or rallying. More a participant than a leader. Evidence: Prefers stating opinions over directing group action. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Low. No clear drive for respect or competition. They engage consistently but don’t seek dominance or praise (e.g., "I’m no good, but I love playing," 2025-03-10, on guitar). Evidence: Participation seems driven by interest, not status. Risk Tolerance Assessment: Moderate. Bold in opinions (e.g., "Trump is toxic," 2022-11-09) and purchases (e.g., new guitar, 2025-03-10), but cautious in reasoning (relies on familiar data). Comfortable with uncertainty in casual contexts (e.g., wrestling predictions), less so in ideology. Evidence: Balanced between confidence and pragmatism. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Focuses on practical outcomes (e.g., "Why would we continue to fund the postal service," 2025-03-10) and justice (e.g., "Those who stormed the Capitol… rightly prosecuted," 2025-03-12), but empathy is secondary (e.g., dismissive of trans kids’ agency, 2022-11-10). Evidence: Prioritizes societal function over individual feelings. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Moderate. Seeks data aligning with views (e.g., crime stats, 2022-11-17) and dismisses counterpoints (e.g., "Climate Hoax," 2025-03-10). Black-and-White Thinking: High. Strong dichotomies (e.g., "Young people are stupid," 2022-11-17; "Rs should have slam dunked," 2022-11-09) suggest limited nuance on divisive issues. Evidence: Rigid on politics, more flexible elsewhere. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Mostly conformist. Conventional in opinions (e.g., traditional wrestling rankings, 2022-11-14) and hobbies (guitar covers), but shows creativity in structuring posts (e.g., travel list, 2022-10-31). Evidence: Sticks to established norms with occasional flair. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure. Balanced in engagement (e.g., thanks community, 2022-11-01) without approval-seeking or distance. Shares personal stories comfortably (e.g., wife’s surgery, 2022-11-17). Evidence: No anxious or avoidant red flags. Response to Stress Assessment: Calm with occasional lashing out. Handles debate well (e.g., "Hopefully my point is clear," 2022-11-14), but snaps at provocation (e.g., "I don’t appreciate your language," 2022-11-14). Evidence: Mostly composed, with rare irritability. Cultural Influence Assessment: American, likely conservative-leaning from the Pacific Northwest (Seattle mentions, e.g., 2025-03-07). Values tradition (e.g., wrestling history, 2025-03-12) and skepticism of progressive policies (e.g., "mostly peaceful riots," 2025-03-12). Evidence: Language (e.g., "JMHO" = Just My Humble Opinion) and references suggest U.S. middle-class background. Additional Observations Tone: Casual, often sarcastic (e.g., "Musty Moo Moo Moo!!" 2025-03-10), occasionally formal (e.g., legal citations, 2025-03-12). Emoji Use: Minimal. Rare exclamation marks (e.g., "Duty complete!!" 2022-11-10) or "^^^" (2022-11-14), no emojis proper. Post Length: Varies. Short quips (e.g., "this," 2022-11-18) to long analyses (e.g., "Top 5 US Freestylers," 2025-03-12). Midwit or Loser Think? Assessment: Some midwit tendencies. Overgeneralizes (e.g., "Young people are stupid," 2022-11-17) and leans on mainstream sources without deep critique (e.g., news links, 2025-03-12). Not a "loser"—engaged and competent in interests—but not a standout intellect either. Evidence: Solid but not exceptional reasoning.
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 @Interviewed_at_Weehawken is an engaged, sarcastic wrestling enthusiast with above-average intellect and a fairness-driven ethos. They’re not a troll but enjoy stirring the pot, especially against perceived biases. As an ESTJ, they’re logical, outspoken, and detail-focused, with moderate emotional intelligence and a critical streak. They’re motivated by debate and clarity, not status, and handle stress with humor rather than meltdown. Their posts blend data and emotion, leaning negative but grounded in sport-specific insight. A passionate, slightly prickly contributor—not a leader, but a vocal participant. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: The poster is not a full-blown troll but exhibits troll-like tendencies in specific contexts. They frequently use sarcasm (e.g., “Glory ducks the scales,” “Cael lets a potential future gold medalist wrestle with no ACL? Horrors!”) and provocation (e.g., calling out PSU fans for hypocrisy, “If it was Penn State it is ‘sprtsmanship’”). However, their posts are not purely disruptive or insincere—many show genuine engagement with wrestling topics and a desire to discuss or debate. They occasionally poke fun at others (e.g., “Says the PSU fan who lives in Colorado. Let me guess: You were a Dallas Cowboys fan and Chicago Bulls fan in the 90s?”), but this seems more playful than malicious. Their critical tone toward certain figures (e.g., Pat Mineo, “Fountain of misinformation”) suggests irritation rather than a deliberate intent to derail discussions. Critical Note: The trolling is mild and selective, often aimed at perceived biases or inconsistencies (e.g., PSU favoritism), but they don’t consistently disrupt threads like a dedicated troll would. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Estimated IQ is above average, likely in the 115–130 range. Their vocabulary is solid (e.g., “pilloried,” “whataboutism,” “premeditation”), and they demonstrate reasoning ability through structured arguments (e.g., analyzing Glory’s weight certification issues with historical context). They catch nuances, like inconsistencies in others’ claims (e.g., Mineo’s contradictory statements), and occasionally use data-driven points (e.g., match statistics, seeding logic). However, their reasoning can veer into emotional tangents or sarcasm, slightly diluting intellectual rigor at times. Evidence: Posts like “Lee will not be wrestling in the consolation brackets” show mathematical reasoning, while “I would argue that a .400 batting average is anything but poor!” reflects quick wit and contextual awareness. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Minimal evidence. They don’t brag about themselves (e.g., “Me. Every year.” in response to “Who got recruited over?” is self-deprecating). Attention-seeking is low—they engage in discussions without dominating or fishing for praise. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Some strategic tendencies emerge, like baiting PSU fans (e.g., “PSU wrestlers have been doing quite a bit of ducking this year tbh”) to expose hypocrisy, but it’s not overtly manipulative. They seem more interested in proving a point than controlling others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low. They criticize harshly (e.g., “Sorry, not that important” about Mineo), but there’s no glee in conflict or callousness toward individuals’ struggles (e.g., sympathy for Gabe Arnold’s mental health). They enjoy debate but don’t revel in harm. Conclusion: Dark Triad traits are negligible; they’re more snarky than sinister. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical, with occasional positivity. They frequently critique wrestlers, coaches, and fans (e.g., “Glory also missed that very same match, missing weight against an Iowa backup”), but they also praise selectively (e.g., “Cael is the best coach in the USA”). Their tone leans toward exposing flaws or inconsistencies rather than uplifting the community. Tone Note: Sarcasm amplifies the negativity (e.g., “1980s training techniques!”), though they soften it with humor or concessions (e.g., “Mea culpa! Terrible post by me”). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: A mix, leaning toward data/logic with emotional undertones. They use facts like match results, seeding rules, and historical context (e.g., “Three. There is NO circumstance where anyone would have to wrestle five top ten competitors”), but emotion creeps in when defending Iowa or critiquing PSU (e.g., “I’m just sick of the level of dishonesty”). Their frustration with perceived unfairness (e.g., weight-cutting abuses) often drives their arguments. Pattern: Logic dominates in technical discussions, emotion in fan rivalries. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. They’re curious about wrestling minutiae (e.g., researching Bearcat Open results) and creative with humor (e.g., “five words and one alphanumeric”). They enjoy abstract debates (e.g., 2nd Amendment rights). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Posts are detailed and thoughtful (e.g., multi-paragraph analyses), but they admit mistakes casually (e.g., “I was spitting some alternative facts here!”) and sometimes rush into sarcasm without polish. Extraversion: Moderate to high. They’re engaged and energetic in debates, posting frequently across threads, but don’t seem overly social or performative. Agreeableness: Low to moderate. They’re cooperative when conceding points (e.g., “Ok, looks like you sort of did as I was posting”), but often harsh or argumentative (e.g., “Sick individual”). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional moodiness shows in defensive or exasperated tones (e.g., “Makes me cringe” about “boy” usage). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). They’re outgoing in forum interactions, thriving on engagement and debate. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented (e.g., match specifics, timestamps), though they occasionally speculate big-picture (e.g., cultural impacts). Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Logic and objectivity dominate (e.g., seeding math), with less focus on empathy unless prompted (e.g., Iranian soccer protest). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Structured and decisive in arguments, preferring resolution over open-endedness (e.g., “Wrestle the schedule”). Best Fit: ESTJ (“The Executive”). Practical, outspoken, logical, and opinionated, with a penchant for order and fairness. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. They recognize emotional stakes (e.g., “Hope the swine over at Mineo’s board feel a little regret” about Gabe Arnold), but their sarcasm and bluntness suggest limited adaptability or sensitivity in heated exchanges. They adjust tone when conceding (e.g., “Thanks for sharing your experiences”), showing some awareness. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Mild. They’re decisive in opinions (e.g., “If he is healthy, he should wrestle”) and occasionally guide discussions with facts, but they don’t inspire or rally others. Their focus is more on critique than motivation. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Low to moderate. They compete in debates (e.g., challenging PSU narratives), but there’s little evidence of status-seeking. Their self-deprecation (e.g., “I’m taking a year off, too. For about 23 years now”) suggests they don’t crave respect overtly. Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: Moderate to high. Bold in calling out inconsistencies (e.g., “PSU generally seems to have done a better job timing most of their injuries”), but cautious with definitive claims unless backed by data (e.g., “I’m not 100% sure it was said on the podcast”). They tolerate uncertainty in speculation (e.g., lawsuit rumors). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian leanings. They emphasize equity in wrestling (e.g., criticizing weight-cutting abuses, “Let us not forget WHY we put this system in place”) and show empathy selectively (e.g., Iranian players), but their solutions prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., “Build the sport”). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Some confirmation bias in Iowa defense/PSU critique (e.g., listing PSU injuries to counter narratives), and mild black-and-white thinking (e.g., “Wrestle your schedule” as an absolute). They mitigate this with self-correction (e.g., “I got any of this wrong”). Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Their humor (e.g., “And what is a natty? A Natural Light?”) and lists (e.g., Irish surname team) show originality, but their arguments stay within wrestling norms. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced in engagement, not overly approval-seeking or distant, though their defensiveness (e.g., Iowa loyalty) hints at mild anxiety under stress. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Mostly calm, with occasional lashing out. They maintain composure in debates but snap sarcastically when frustrated (e.g., “Embarrassing triple post! 80s posting methods!”). Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, with a sports-centric, possibly Midwestern influence (Iowa focus, wrestling passion). References to “Natural Light” and “Ditka” suggest familiarity with U.S. pop culture. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic (frequent), informal, occasionally formal (e.g., legal terms like “premeditation”). Emoji Use: Rare; mentions wanting a heart emoji once but doesn’t use them. Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., “Paid haters”) to long analyses (e.g., Glory critique). Midwit or Loser Think Behavior? Assessment: Minimal midwit (overconfident mediocrity) or loser (self-pitying) tendencies. They’re knowledgeable and self-aware (e.g., admitting errors), avoiding midwit traps, and their humor counters loser vibes. Occasional snark might flirt with midwit territory, but it’s not dominant. 1
jross Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 @WrestlingRasta is an outspoken, sarcastic ESTP with above-average intellect and a knack for debate. They’re not a troll but enjoy provocation, driven by fairness and practicality rather than status or malice. High openness and extraversion pair with low agreeableness, making them a bold, creative critic who thrives on conflict but stays grounded in real-world details. Emotionally intelligent enough to jab effectively, they lean negative and lash out under stress, reflecting a secure-yet-combative style rooted in American cultural norms. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Not a full troll, but exhibits troll-like tendencies sporadically. The commenter is generally sincere and engaged, but occasionally uses provocative or sarcastic remarks to stir reactions (e.g., "You seem confused by what I’m saying so let me be a little more clear….. I’m saying you’re a piece of garbage" [2025-02-07]). These instances are disruptive but not insincere—they align with their argumentative style rather than aimless provocation. Evidence: Most posts contribute to discussion (e.g., detailed thoughts on wrestling rules [2023-04-21] or government spending [2025-03-10]), but sharp insults ("You are literally the worst kind of American" [2025-02-07]) and sarcasm ("Teach us more about hypocrisy, please!!" [2025-03-03]) suggest a willingness to poke the bear. This is tempered by genuine participation, ruling out pure trolling. Critical Note: The provocative moments are calculated, not random, indicating intent to challenge rather than derail. Estimated IQ? Assessment: Above average, likely 110–120. The commenter demonstrates solid reasoning, a decent vocabulary (e.g., "physiological reaction upon withdrawal" [2023-03-23]), and nuance in distinguishing concepts (e.g., dependence vs. addiction [2023-03-23]). However, they don’t exhibit exceptional complexity or abstract leaps that would suggest genius-level intellect. Evidence: They handle multi-point arguments (e.g., stock market post [2025-03-10]) and show awareness of rhetorical flaws ("Comprehension is a wonderful thing" [2025-03-10]), but their reasoning occasionally lapses into emotional venting or oversimplification (e.g., "We the people are the biggest threat" [2023-05-18]). Do They Fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism: Mild. No overt bragging or attention-seeking, but they occasionally position themselves as morally or intellectually superior (e.g., "I’d rather let four guilty people walk than convict an innocent man" [2023-05-13]). They enjoy being heard but don’t crave spotlight. Machiavellianism: Moderate. Strategic in debates, they use sarcasm and pointed questions to undermine opponents (e.g., "Are you okay?" after a heated exchange [2025-02-25]). They manipulate tone to provoke or disarm, showing calculated engagement. Psychopathy: Low. They’re not callous—they express empathy (e.g., concern for cancer patients [2025-03-05])—but relish conflict (e.g., "Have fun with this one!!" [2025-03-01]). Conflict-loving, yes; heartless, no. Overall: Some Machiavellian traits, but not a strong Dark Triad fit. Positive or Negative? Assessment: Leans negative. The tone is often critical, sarcastic, or exasperated (e.g., "You’re not healthy" [2025-02-08]), with frequent jabs at others’ logic or behavior. Positive moments exist (e.g., "I’m very happy for him personally" [2025-03-05]), but they’re outweighed by critique. Evidence: Uplifting posts are rare (e.g., praising BBQ [2023-06-15]), while critical rants dominate (e.g., "This poopshow just keeps getting better!" [2025-02-13]). Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning toward emotion. They use facts and logic when it suits (e.g., citing voting percentages [2025-02-08]), but often pivot to emotional appeals or frustration (e.g., "You are so far off the reservation" [2025-03-07]). Evidence: Data-driven in wrestling analysis (e.g., "Parris wrestled more matches than anyone else" [2023-03-23]), but emotionally charged in politics (e.g., "49.8% of the country voted for the guy" rant [2025-03-01]). Big Five Traits Openness: High. Curious and open to ideas (e.g., exploring marijuana legalization [2023-06-01]), with creative phrasing (e.g., "flattop the eggs" [2025-03-05]). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some posts (e.g., wrestling rule critique [2023-04-21]), but rushed or sloppy in others (e.g., "Something something DS" [2025-02-05]). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, posting frequently and boldly (e.g., 150+ comments in two years). Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative (e.g., "You’re a piece of garbage" [2025-02-07]), rarely cooperative unless agreeing sarcastically. Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but moody under stress (e.g., "That was a lot. You okay?" [2025-02-15] vs. lashing out [2025-02-07]). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, outspoken, and interactive. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details (e.g., match stats [2023-03-23]) over abstract theories. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and critique over empathy, though emotions slip through. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible, spontaneous, and open-ended in posting style. Best Fit: ESTP (“Entrepreneur”). Bold, practical, debate-loving, and adaptable. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions (e.g., "Are you okay?" [2025-03-06]) and adaptable in tone (sarcastic to serious), but often prioritizes winning arguments over connection. Evidence: Picks up on emotional cues to jab (e.g., "You need a mental health day" [2025-02-23]), but rarely comforts. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Mild. Decisive and opinionated (e.g., "Best thing we can do is look in the mirror" [2023-05-18]), but not guiding or inspiring—more combative than unifying. Evidence: Offers solutions (e.g., election advice [2023-05-19]), but lacks warmth to lead. Motivated by Social Status? Assessment: Low to moderate. Seeks respect through sharp wit and knowledge (e.g., wrestling expertise [2023-06-02]), but not overtly competitive or status-obsessed. Evidence: No boasting about personal achievements, just ideas. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in confrontation (e.g., "You’re literally the worst kind of American" [2025-02-07]) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., casual pot use disclosure [2023-03-23]). Evidence: Unfazed by backlash, willing to escalate. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian streaks. Values justice (e.g., "If he broke the law he is facing the consequences" [2025-03-10]) and practical outcomes (e.g., supporting military use [2025-02-06]), with some empathy (e.g., cancer funding concern [2025-03-05]). Evidence: Balances principles and pragmatism, not overly idealistic. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Some present. Confirmation bias in political rants (e.g., assuming MAGA hypocrisy [2025-03-05]) and black-and-white thinking (e.g., "We the people are the biggest threat" [2023-05-18]). Evidence: Nuanced at times (e.g., distinguishing addiction [2023-03-23]), but slips into absolutes. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Original phrasing (e.g., "chin wiping parrots" [2025-03-06]) and unconventional takes (e.g., hygiene rant [2025-02-12]). Evidence: Rarely parrots others, prefers unique spins. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure with avoidant leanings. Balanced in engagement but distant emotionally (e.g., "I’m faaaaaaaaar from Rich" [2025-03-05] deflects personal probing). Evidence: No approval-seeking, but not overly warm. Response to Stress Assessment: Lashing out or sarcasm. Calm in wrestling posts (e.g., [2023-04-29]), but aggressive when challenged (e.g., "Do better" [2025-03-05]). Evidence: Escalates under pressure (e.g., "You’re not healthy" [2025-02-08]). Cultural Influence Assessment: American, likely Southern/Midwestern. Casual language ("hot dog water" [2023-06-07]), references to BBQ and wrestling, and Florida mentions (e.g., [2025-02-12]) suggest a regional flavor. Evidence: Patriotic undertones (e.g., "our America" [2023-06-14]) align with U.S. values. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic (e.g., "Teach us more about hypocrisy" [2025-03-03]), occasionally formal (e.g., legal reasoning [2023-05-13]), often blunt. Emoji Use: Rare, minimal (e.g., none in most posts, occasional punctuation like "!!"). Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., "Ok" [2025-02-07]) to long rants (e.g., 2025-03-01 Zelensky post). Midwit or Loser Think? Assessment: Neither strongly. Avoids midwit traps (overly simplistic takes) with nuance (e.g., addiction vs. dependence [2023-03-23]), and no loser self-pity—confident, if abrasive. Evidence: Sharp but not profound; assertive, not defeated.
Vanessa Aguirre Youngker, Arizona Class of 2025 Committed to Simpson (Women) Projected Weight: 131, 138
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