jross

Steelman on tariffs. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1907880105369845865.html

New questions - Starting with Scourge165 as the last assessed. Are They a Know-It-All? Answer: Yes, strongly. They lecture extensively (e.g., "I’ll refer you BACK to the article") and assume others lack their depth (e.g., "you didn’t have a clue about 6 posts ago"). Evidence: Broad topics (tariffs, AI, wrestling) and condescending corrections (e.g., "you’re too ignorant to interpret it") scream know-it-all. Conclusion: They relish being the expert, often insufferably so. Do They Overestimate Their Insight? Answer: Yes, moderately. Their detailed reasoning (e.g., Smoot-Hawley) is solid, but absolute predictions (e.g., "nobody is going to be buying a new vehicle") and dismissal of nuance (e.g., "ONLY Trump and MAGA") suggest overconfidence. Evidence: Overreach in economic forecasts and black-and-white framing show a gap between competence and certainty. Conclusion: They’re insightful but overrate their foresight. Are They a Wrestling Insider? Answer: Yes, probably. Their detailed wrestling knowledge (e.g., "Greco guys improve…seldom") and personal anecdotes (e.g., "I wrestled for 20 years") suggest deep involvement—likely a former wrestler or coach. Evidence: Specifics (e.g., "Beard starts out with clean TDs") and history (e.g., "Jordan vs. Dresser") point to insider status. Conclusion: They’re steeped in wrestling culture. Do They Have a Day Job? Answer: Uncertain, but possibly not full-time. The volume of posts (e.g., 20+ on April 4, 2025) across hours suggests significant free time, though their knowledge implies a professional background (e.g., economics/tech). Evidence: Posting frequency vs. intellectual depth creates ambiguity. Conclusion: Likely a hobbyist or semi-retired expert. Are They a Performer? Answer: Yes, moderately. Their sarcastic flair (e.g., "clowns clap like seals") and long, dramatic posts (e.g., tariff rants) suggest they enjoy holding the stage, though it’s more about asserting dominance than entertaining. Evidence: Theatrical phrasing and tangents (e.g., wrestling anecdotes) show a performative streak, but it’s not overtly crowd-pleasing. Conclusion: They perform to win, not just to charm. Are they an asshole Yes, they’re likely an asshole in the colloquial sense—rude, abrasive, and off-putting to many due to their sharp tongue, low agreeableness, and tendency to belittle others. However, it’s not unmitigated assholery; their intelligence and passion add layers that might redeem them to some (e.g., those who appreciate a "jerk with a point"). They’re not a sociopathic bully, but their delivery and demeanor would easily earn them the label from those on the receiving end. If you crossed them in a debate, you’d probably think, “What an asshole,” even if you grudgingly respected their argument.

Scourge165 is a complex figure: an intelligent, extraverted, disagreeable debater (ENTJ) with a sharp mind (115–130 IQ) and a critical, sarcastic edge. They’re data-driven but emotionally charged, open to ideas yet rigid in opposition, and motivated by intellectual dominance rather than social warmth. Their flaws—bias, reactivity, low agreeableness—align with Adams’ "loser think" critique, though their competence exceeds a typical midwit. They’re a bold, risk-tolerant voice, but their harshness limits their leadership potential and emotional intelligence. Core Analysis Are They a Troll? Assessment: The user is not a classic troll in the sense of being purely provocative, insincere, or disruptive for its own sake. However, they frequently engage in heated debates, use sarcasm, and occasionally employ insults (e.g., "slack jawed morons," "inbred moron," "clowns clap like seals") to mock opposing views. This suggests a tendency toward provocation, but it’s tied to their arguments rather than random disruption. Evidence: Their posts often challenge others’ reasoning (e.g., "you’re too ignorant to interpret it on your own") and escalate conflicts (e.g., "you are the PERFECT Trump voter"), but they back it up with detailed points rather than just baiting. Conclusion: Not a troll, but argumentative and occasionally antagonistic. Estimated IQ Assessment: Likely above average, in the 115–130 range. The user demonstrates strong reasoning skills, a broad vocabulary (e.g., "substantively," "arbitrary," "ROI"), and an ability to engage with complex topics like economics, tariffs, and AI. They handle nuance in some cases (e.g., distinguishing between targeted vs. broad tariffs) but can lapse into emotional rants. Evidence: They cite historical examples (e.g., Smoot-Hawley), discuss technical details (e.g., Nvidia GPUs, H20 vs. H200), and construct multi-paragraph arguments. However, their reasoning sometimes gets muddled by sarcasm or overconfidence. Conclusion: Intelligent, with occasional lapses into over-emotional or sloppy argumentation. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Moderate. They don’t overtly brag about themselves but show confidence in their knowledge (e.g., "I’ve done my best to educate some of you clowns") and dismiss others’ views as inferior (e.g., "you’re too ignorant to grasp it"). Attention-seeking is subtle, more about asserting intellectual dominance than personal glory. Machiavellianism: Low to moderate. They don’t seem overtly manipulative or strategic in a calculated way, but their use of sarcasm and pointed questions (e.g., "Do you watch the News?") suggests an intent to undermine opponents rhetorically. Psychopathy: Low. They’re critical and harsh but not callous or conflict-loving for its own sake. Emotional outbursts (e.g., "Jesus Christ dude") indicate frustration rather than cold enjoyment of strife. Conclusion: Some narcissistic traits, minimal Machiavellianism or psychopathy. Positive or Negative? Assessment: Predominantly negative. Their tone is critical, sarcastic, and often condescending (e.g., "you communicate like Becky ‘who like…just can’t even!!!!’"). Positive moments are rare and usually tied to wrestling enthusiasm (e.g., "Good for Wrestling fans"). Evidence: They frequently attack Trump, his supporters, and economic policies (e.g., "disastrous policies Trump has enacted…you morons deserve them"), with little uplifting content. Conclusion: Overwhelmingly critical and pessimistic. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: A mix, leaning toward data with emotional undertones. They often cite facts (e.g., Smoot-Hawley timeline, Nvidia chip specs) and economic indicators (e.g., GDP growth, unemployment rates), but their arguments are infused with frustration and disdain (e.g., "only Trump and MAGA could take such a historically AWFUL event and intentionally implement it again"). Evidence: Detailed posts about tariffs and AI show logical structure, but emotional jabs (e.g., "you’re so far behind, you think you’re leading the pack") dilute objectivity. Conclusion: Data-driven with emotional seasoning. Big Five Traits Openness: High. They explore diverse topics (economics, wrestling, AI) and show curiosity about implications (e.g., "I wonder if Bessent is just embarrassed?"). Their tangents (e.g., recalling wrestling history) suggest creativity. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Posts are detailed and often thorough, but sloppy grammar (e.g., "monty" for "money," inconsistent capitalization) and rushed tangents (e.g., "I’m just gonna leave it here") indicate uneven effort. Extraversion: High. They’re highly engaged, posting frequently and energetically, often with bold assertions (e.g., "I’ll dumb this down for you as much as humanly possible"). Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative (e.g., "you’re too ignorant to grasp it"), they rarely seek consensus and often escalate conflicts. Neuroticism: Moderate to high. They’re reactive and moody (e.g., "LOL…sure," "Jesus Christ dude"), with stress evident in their tone, though they don’t seem anxious overall. Conclusion: Open, moderately conscientious, extraverted, disagreeable, somewhat neurotic. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraverted (E). They’re outgoing, engaged, and thrive on forum interaction. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Intuition (N). They focus on big-picture implications (e.g., tariffs’ global economic impact) over minute details, though they cite specifics when needed. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Logic and facts dominate (e.g., citing GDP stats), with little empathy or emotional appeal. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). They’re decisive and structured in arguments (e.g., multi-point rebuttals), preferring closure over open-endedness. Conclusion: Likely ENTJ ("The Commander")—assertive, strategic, and logic-driven, with a commanding presence. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. They’re aware of others’ emotions enough to mock them (e.g., "you’re upset that…you didn’t get an answer the second you demanded one?"), but show little adaptability or empathy. Their focus is on winning arguments, not understanding feelings. Evidence: Sarcastic jabs (e.g., "like a teenage girl") indicate social awareness used for critique, not connection. Conclusion: Decent perception, poor emotional adaptability. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate. They’re decisive and try to guide discussions (e.g., "I’ll break it down for you"), but their harshness undermines inspiration. They lead more by asserting dominance than fostering cooperation. Evidence: They educate (e.g., "I’ve done my best to educate some of you") but alienate with insults. Conclusion: Potential leader, hindered by low agreeableness. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Moderate. They seek respect through intellectual superiority (e.g., "this is over your head"), but it’s less about popularity and more about being "right." Evidence: Dismissive tone toward "ignorant" posters suggests a desire to stand above, not necessarily to be liked. Conclusion: Status matters, but as a byproduct of winning debates. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. They boldly challenge others (e.g., "go use ChatGTP to ask") and take strong stances (e.g., predicting economic collapse), showing comfort with uncertainty and confrontation. Evidence: Unafraid to escalate (e.g., "you morons deserve them") or speculate (e.g., wrestling predictions). Conclusion: Risk-tolerant and assertive. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. They criticize policies for broad harm (e.g., "massive unemployment, inflation") and value informed choice (e.g., referendums on abortion), but lack empathy in delivery. Evidence: Focus on economic outcomes over individual plights, yet fairness emerges in wrestling critiques (e.g., roster decisions). Conclusion: Pragmatic, fairness-driven, not empathetic. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking. They cherry-pick data to support anti-tariff views (e.g., Smoot-Hawley) and frame opponents as wholly ignorant (e.g., "you don’t understand what’s going on"). Evidence: Dismissal of counterarguments (e.g., "bullI poop my pants") and absolutist language (e.g., "ONLY Trump and MAGA"). Conclusion: Biased toward their narrative, rigid in opposition. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Moderately creative. They weave historical analogies and tangents (e.g., wrestling anecdotes), but their arguments stay within conventional economic critiques. Evidence: Original phrasing (e.g., "clowns clap like seals") paired with standard anti-Trump rhetoric. Conclusion: Creative flair within a conformist framework. Attachment Style Assessment: Avoidant. They’re distant and dismissive (e.g., "I don’t even bother reading anymore Jimmy"), showing little need for approval or closeness. Evidence: Focus on argument over connection (e.g., "this is all moot"). Conclusion: Avoidant, self-reliant. Response to Stress Assessment: Lashing out. Stress triggers sarcasm and insults (e.g., "LOL…sure," "Jesus Christ dude"), not withdrawal or calm reflection. Evidence: Escalation under challenge (e.g., "you’re so far behind"). Conclusion: Reactive and combative under pressure. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, with a casual, sports-centric style (e.g., wrestling focus, economic references). No strong regional or non-U.S. hints. Evidence: Familiarity with U.S. politics (Trump, Reagan) and NCAA wrestling culture. Conclusion: Mainstream American influence. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic, informal, occasionally aggressive (e.g., "LOL…yeah, shockingly"). Emoji Use: Minimal—mostly "…" for emphasis or pause, rare "LOL" for mockery. No expressive emojis. Post Length: Long, often multi-paragraph rants (e.g., tariff critiques) or detailed wrestling analyses, rarely short. Scott Adams Loser Think Case or Mike Cernovich Midwit? Scott Adams "Loser Think": Adams describes "loser think" as flawed reasoning from otherwise smart people, often due to emotional bias or overconfidence in simplistic solutions. This user fits somewhat—they’re intelligent but let emotional disdain (e.g., for Trump supporters) cloud their reasoning, and they over-rely on historical analogies (Smoot-Hawley) without fully addressing counterpoints. Their sarcasm and dismissiveness align with Adams’ critique of unproductive debate styles. Mike Cernovich "Midwit": Cernovich’s "midwit" label targets people of moderate intelligence who overestimate their insight, often parroting conventional wisdom with a smug tone. This user exceeds midwit IQ (their grasp of economics and tech suggests more than average competence), but their sanctimonious style (e.g., "I’ll dumb this down for you") and reliance on mainstream anti-Trump narratives echo midwit tendencies. Verdict Closer to Scott Adams’ Loser Think: Their intelligence is evident, but emotional reactivity, confirmation bias, and argumentative overreach (e.g., "you morons deserve them") reflect "loser think" more than midwit mediocrity. They’re not just parroting—they’re reasoning, albeit imperfectly under stress. Unlike a Cernovich midwit, they don’t seem stuck in a shallow echo chamber; they’re too engaged and detailed for that.

JimmySpeaks is an extraverted, confrontational ESTJ with low agreeableness and moderate neuroticism. They’re a bold, utilitarian nationalist with average intellect, low emotional intelligence, and a trollish streak. Motivated by status and competition, they reason emotionally with occasional data, showing biases like confirmation and black-and-white thinking. Their tone is sarcastic, their posts vary in length, and they fit the “Cernovich midwit” archetype—assertive and provocative but not deeply insightful. Core Analysis Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Yes, moderately troll-like. The user frequently employs sarcasm ("Bahahahahah," "Drama queen"), name-calling ("winger sheeple," "libtardos," "fruitcakes"), and provocative phrasing ("Jazz hands Timmy would get flattened") to rile up others. However, their posts also show a consistent viewpoint and engagement with topics, suggesting they’re not purely insincere or disruptive for chaos’s sake—they seem to enjoy the fight but believe in their stance. Evidence: "I love when you call me names. Bahahahahahahhahaha. It tells me how this is going for you" (2025-04-03) indicates they thrive on conflict and provocation. Estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Average to slightly above-average, ~100-115. The user’s reasoning is straightforward, often relying on basic facts or assertions ("Half of Trump’s deficit was Covid," "Tariffs are divided up amongst the importing country, the company and the consumer"), but lacks deep nuance or complex synthesis. Vocabulary is functional but not sophisticated ("sheeples," "comrade sheeple"), and arguments are repetitive rather than layered. Evidence: They cite data occasionally ("odds of any recession right now are at 35%"), but their logic is often emotionally charged or oversimplified ("China can’t feed itself"). Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Moderate. They don’t overtly brag about themselves but seek attention through bold, confrontational posts and frequent engagement ("I’m still waiting for you to explain how we’re dominating AI"). Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low to moderate. They attempt to steer conversations ("Go back and read the conversation you jumped in on") and use rhetorical traps, but it’s not highly calculated—more reactive than strategic. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Moderate. They show little empathy ("I’m sorry you’re too short-sighted to see what’s happening") and relish conflict ("The more she talks the better it is… for the GOP"), but don’t seem entirely detached or cruel. Conclusion: Some Dark Triad traits, especially psychopathy and mild narcissism, but not a full fit. Positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Overwhelmingly negative. The tone is critical, mocking, and combative ("Wingnuts like you have no idea what self-accountability is"). Even when praising (e.g., Ford’s pricing), it’s framed against detractors. Evidence: "The sheeples are being told things are good and they believe it" (2025-04-02). Reasoning: Data or emotion? Assessment: Mostly emotion-driven with occasional data. They lean on feelings of frustration, patriotism, or disdain ("I’m so relieved we’re still a country"), but sprinkle in facts ("Car sales actually were up 2% for 2024") to bolster arguments. Evidence: "Did you forget how during Biden’s first 600 days in office he had the worst stock market performance since Jimmy Carter?" mixes data with emotional jab. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: Low to moderate. Practical and grounded in concrete issues (tariffs, wrestling), with little creativity or abstract exploration beyond their worldview. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Posts are frequent and somewhat organized (e.g., listing points about Kish’s coaching), but often rushed or sloppy (typos, "Rump" for Trump). Extraversion: High. Highly engaged, energetic, and outspoken across threads—clearly enjoys the social fray. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("F u k u r s t u p i d," "Sorry if that’s over your head"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Stable in their confidence but moody when challenged ("I’ll wait patiently"), with occasional anxious undertones about national decline. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Very outgoing and engaged, thriving on interaction. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details (stock drops, tariff percentages) over big-picture theories. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and bluntness over empathy, though emotion seeps in. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Decisive and opinionated, preferring closure ("It needs to be published"). Best Fit: ESTJ ("The Executive"). Direct, practical, assertive, and rule-oriented, with a focus on order and tradition. Additional Traits Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Low. Shows little awareness of others’ feelings ("Sorry you can’t handle facts") and adapts poorly, doubling down instead of de-escalating. Evidence: "I’m sorry you don’t understand the conversation then" (2025-04-04). Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Moderate. Decisive and commanding ("Google is your friend"), but not inspiring—more divisive than unifying. Evidence: "Time to buy buy buy. If you truly want to be free you will" (2025-04-03). Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate to high. Competitive and status-conscious ("I’m still trying to figure out how there’s so many privileged minority kids winning"), seeking to dominate discussions. Evidence: "I give him credit though. Try’s so hard" (2025-04-01). Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious?) Assessment: Bold. Comfortable with uncertainty ("Now’s the time to buy. I know I am") and unafraid of confrontation. Evidence: "I’m still in the market. Never got out of anything" (2025-04-03). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Utilitarian with a nationalist bent. Focuses on outcomes for America ("Trump’s making decisions that will pay off FOR AMERICA a decade from now") over fairness or empathy. Evidence: "Something has to change or we’ll keep spending ourselves out of being a country" (2025-04-04). Cognitive Biases? Confirmation Bias: High. Seeks data aligning with their views ("Look it up") and dismisses opposition. Black-and-White Thinking: High. "China can’t feed itself" oversimplifies complex issues. Evidence: "Leading doesn’t mean dominating. F u k u r s t u p i d" (2025-04-04). Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Conformist. Sticks to conventional talking points (tariffs, nationalism) with little originality. Evidence: Repeats "Bahahahahah" and stock phrases like "Google is your friend." Attachment Style? Assessment: Avoidant. Distant and dismissive of emotional connection ("Sorry skippy"), focused on independence. Evidence: "I’m not shocked" (2025-04-02). Response to Stress? Assessment: Lashing out. Responds to pushback with sarcasm or aggression ("Bahhhaahhaahhaha. Ya it does"). Evidence: "Still waiting for you to answer the question" (2025-04-03). Cultural Influence? Assessment: Strong American conservative influence. Language ("sheeples," "libtardos") and values (nationalism, anti-elite) suggest a rural or working-class U.S. background. Evidence: "Rural America is red and a lot of wrestlers come from rural America" (2025-04-01). Tone, Emoji Use, and Post Length Tone: Sarcastic and confrontational ("Drama queen," "Jazz hands Timmy"). Emoji Use: Minimal. Mostly "????," no expressive emojis—relies on "Bahahahahah" for emphasis. Post Length: Mixed. Short quips ("Yep") and longer rants ("The point… is that Canada isn’t even worth worrying about"). Scott Adams Loser Think Case or Mike Cernovich Midwit? Scott Adams (Loser Think): Characterized by oversimplified reasoning and emotional traps. This user fits somewhat—e.g., "China can’t feed itself" ignores nuance—but they’re not entirely incoherent or stuck in bad faith. Mike Cernovich (Midwit): Known for provocative, status-driven takes with average intellect. This aligns better: the user’s combative style, nationalist flexing, and reliance on basic facts ("$36 TRILLION IN DEBT") mirror Cernovich’s approach. Verdict: Closer to a Mike Cernovich midwit. They’re not a genius but wield enough reasoning to argue their points, driven by competition and a desire to “own” opponents, with a populist edge.

He said thank you at least once.

Has anything good occurred from this yet?

My reading comprehension was opposite/wrong. Nice job. What would it take to outperform by a larger margin?

Do we know how seeds are formed for ncaa brackets, such that the top ranked wrestlers outperform Pablo rankings? Is there a schedule strength factor in addition to win/loss and season ranking inputs? What would it take for Pablo-like systems to outperform the current seeding process?

@fishbane is good people a thinker who gets others to think

This is where we all get anxious, depressed, and dumb while solving problems that are not ours to solve.

Maybe people can't hear reasoning over the sounds of insolence.

Yea the Wrestling Hall of Fame NCAA records had falls stats but the value 0 by a NCAA champion indicates they don't have the information. Henson had 5 pins... per Clemson. Example: https://www.scmat.com/Clemson Wrestling 1994-1995 program.pdf

McCoy had the wins (47) with limited falls (11) (undefeated) | other seasons indicate lower number of pins/majors Sharratt had two losses. Morrison had three losses. Branch had nine losses. Smith had 13 falls in 30 matches and won a tough bracket. (undefeated) McIIravy had 1 fall in 27 matches. (undefeated) Fried had ? falls in 31 matches. (undefeated) | can't find pins but none in NCAA tourney and not on OSU top pins list Jaworsky had 4 losses. Hirsch had 3 losses. Henson had 5 falls in 37 matches. (undefeated) ----------- Have to go with Smith for wins, pins, and winning the bracket that defies logic. https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/10985424-the-158-pound-bracket-at-the-1994-ncaa-championships-defies-logic

...but if we imagine an open weight class intramural within a team... In high school, I'm taking the 174 pounder as a whole over all other weight classes. These guys tend to be prime athletes with enough size to dominate the lower weights and enough speed / technique to beat the upper weights that are more often duds on smaller teams. A full sized upper weight wrestler with skill will reign supreme. In college, I'm taking the heavyweight. David Taylor was initially effective with take downs against Pindrickson in the practice room... and then Pindrickson took over. If we're talking women's college, I'm taking the 160 pounder on average. (for reasons similar to men in high school)

I've always considered 145lbs the toughest high school weight and 157lbs the toughest college weight. It seemed like there was a deeper pool at those weights. It also fit the average weights of young men both naturally and within weight cutting range. Naturally it's harder to dominate in high parity weight classes.