IEIs/INFps: How do you behave in a college classroom setting?

[Steve]

Science doesn't really interest me. I need to be in an area where I'm making breakthroughs that have personal meaning; I mean, I'm sure if I pigeonholed myself into some branch of science and worked my way up, I would find some sense of reward in "being on the cutting edge," but it just wouldn't be the same. The range and varying intensities of internal states is vastly more navigable given my disposition Psychonauts till death.

The conceptual aspects of science are cool, and can spark insights about the nature of the universe, which lead to personal insights. Things like the IDEAS behind theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, etc. The more empirical aspects and calculations can get dry; I'm definitely with you there.

[strrrng]

God reading this thread makes me weep inside wistfully at my missed opportunities for intellectual masturbatory sessions to connect with people in college. I went to an undergraduate business college where we got to learn about how to do fucking accounting costing, do statistical financial analysis and some boring notation-filled theoretical and context-less microeconomic bullshit. And I couldn't relate with hardly any of the other people in the classes. I fortunately found some cool people who were worldly, artistic and can appreciate interesting musings, and also was able to take some management classes which touched on psychology related stuff which was much better. But I felt so deprived, which ultimately led me onto internet forums 2 years ago trying to figure myself out. I just wish though that I had the kind of awareness and willingness to engage back when I was in college,that I have now, because I probably would've taken some philosophy electives (I took some theoretical physics/astronomy electives which were much better than my business courses and required little effort on my part and no research papers). I probably would've gotten to connect with more like minded people and join clubs and stuff. I guess at the time I didn't want to have to write long papers and do library research, so I avoided the classes that would involve it.

*sigh*

The realization of error itself is a liberator.

But I guess I did finally get to experience the equivalent of a full fledged philosophy experience my senior year thanks to online/phone contact

@ the comment about experiencing the truth yourself: I totally agree. I may consider some formal theorem someone wrote, but I would always relate it to truth in my own experience and come at it from the subjective perspective and not lose myself in trying to mold things to fit some accepted structure.

Yeah. It's not like shit people wrote is drained of life; even formal essays had to be generated from subjective experience. Ultimately, anyone who -doesn't- relate a "truth" to their own experience, is a fool, and living a lie. Like... you think you're understanding anything by constructing an abstraction based something you may or may not have observed?

I think you know

lol, true.

Hmmmm, I mean I have had experiences that I think could be analogous, but for once I'm not entirely certain. Some of my most desperate times have been when the overriding feeling is one of basically complete confusion, which is not even a "feeling" in and of itself, but merely the overall effect produced, where I feel almost overstimulated, as if multitudes of emphases are vying for precedence or dominance.

Maybe I shall pm to elucidate

I know what you mean about the confusion thing. I think it comes from layers stripping away, and all the clutter you previously attempted to write off rushing in without restraint, destroying any sense of cognitive priority, relevance or order you thought you possessed.

Just another day

See, my whole shtick is, let nothing be sacred, subject everything to the most rigorous analysis, because if it can't withstand that upon an initial trial, even if I try to put it on a pedestal and bask in it and find its allegorical significance and all of its abstractions and applications, I will eventually debunk it, or someone else will, or something will happen to make me realize that I've been deluding myself, and I'll go through a sort of jading phase. So only the most inexplicable manifestations and themes truly become meaningful, enabling me to apply them naturally, without pondering what might be "behind the veil," so to speak.

That's true. I mean, ruminating on some vision you had about an event, which inspired the awareness of an apparent theme, doesn't necessarily mean you are revolutionizing a perspective or enhancing experience. I think you can usually tell though — whether or not you're abstracting something into a deeper layer or actually processing its full magnitude unbridled in the moment.

Science doesn't really interest me. I need to be in an area where I'm making breakthroughs that have personal meaning; I mean, I'm sure if I pigeonholed myself into some branch of science and worked my way up, I would find some sense of reward in "being on the cutting edge," but it just wouldn't be the same. The range and varying intensities of internal states is vastly more navigable given my disposition Psychonauts till death.

Agreed

Hmmm...never deigned to read any Koontz; I generally avoid anyone who puts their own name in raised lettering on a trade sized paperback

lol deigned... yeah, I read a few of his books some years back, on suggestion from others. He's definitely not one of the better beta NF writers.

*gets the belt*

More like the dick, lol.

[Steve]

The realization of error itself is a liberator.

Yeah . Writing that post actually made me feel better.

Yeah. It's not like shit people wrote is drained of life; even formal essays had to be generated from subjective experience. Ultimately, anyone who -doesn't- relate a "truth" to their own experience, is a fool, and living a lie. Like... you think you're understanding anything by constructing an abstraction based something you may or may not have observed

True. It makes me think maybe I was probably shortsighted in my speculating my tolerance of the assignments in a philosophy class - as in I probably wouldn't have minded writing essays for philosophy because I'd actually be interested in the topic and have something to say from experience.

But yeah that would be pretty dumb if people followed blindly like that - reminds me of religions.

[Steve]

*gets the belt*

"More like the dick, lol.

For whatever reason it made me think of this - not completely related but there must be some connection:



Maybe it's just because it's the antithesis of feminism lol

[Gilly]

Maybe I shall pm to elucidate

Excellent.

I know what you mean about the confusion thing. I think it comes from layers stripping away, and all the clutter you previously attempted to write off rushing in without restraint, destroying any sense of cognitive priority, relevance or order you thought you possessed.

Sounds about right.

Just another day

Wouldn't have it any other way

That's true. I mean, ruminating on some vision you had about an event, which inspired the awareness of an apparent theme, doesn't necessarily mean you are revolutionizing a perspective or enhancing experience. I think you can usually tell though — whether or not you're abstracting something into a deeper layer or actually processing its full magnitude unbridled in the moment.

Yeah, I'd like to think so, but I've had "real" revelations before that, in retrospect, were more like brief ventures into psychosis and I've fooled myself into thinking I see the genuine article on more than one occasion, so I like to double check before I get carried away. I'm something of a perfectionist

More like the dick, lol.

Even better

[strrrng]

Yeah, I'd like to think so, but I've had "real" revelations before that, in retrospect, were more like brief ventures into psychosis and I've fooled myself into thinking I see the genuine article on more than one occasion, so I like to double check before I get carried away. I'm something of a perfectionist

Well, maybe it was genuine – at least in its respective context. I mean, ventures into psychosis aren't exactly relevant to objective analysis, let alone substantial "real world" correlations. That's happened to me before as well – and I can swear the visions are these magical a priori determinations of all reality that can subsequently unfold, lol. I suppose perfectionism necessitates elimination of all error, which means the revelations can't always be that special.

[Gilly]

YouTube - Howard Stern - 11/8/2008 - Oprah Winfrey Calls In About SIRIUS XM Mergerl

That could not have been real. I mean, I REALLY want to believe that it was, but...holy shit

[Gilly]

Well, maybe it was genuine – at least in its respective context.

Well at the moment it certainly was, and as an experience in the larger context it was a turning point for me, but the simple fact is that what I felt there did not carry over, had no experiential relevance to my "sane" state (whatever the fuck that means).

I mean, ventures into psychosis aren't exactly relevant to objective analysis, let alone substantial "real world" correlations.

Well obviously But when seen through the context of BEING psychotic experiences, they are inherently in a different category...I mean, it's all a matter of degree, but at a certain point you kind of have to draw the line, you know?

That's happened to me before as well – and I can swear the visions are these magical a priori determinations of all reality that can subsequently unfold, lol.

Dude, I thought I had grasped the unifying conception of Freudian psychoanalysis in it's real psychological manifestation; in reality I was probably in the middle of a dopamine rush, and could fully comprehend and relate to his coked-out inanity

I suppose perfectionism necessitates elimination of all error, which means the revelations can't always be that special.

Right; even in the realm of transcendent internal experiences, where everything has some merit of its own, even if only in the moment, you still have to sort the wheat from the chaff; what has persistent relevance from what is purely transient.

[strrrng]

Well at the moment it certainly was, and as an experience in the larger context it was a turning point for me, but the simple fact is that what I felt there did not carry over, had no experiential relevance to my "sane" state (whatever the fuck that means).

Well, fuck the correlations, then; because it had value, and affected your subsequent sane state. The content differs, but the quality doesn't.

Well obviously But when seen through the context of BEING psychotic experiences, they are inherently in a different category...I mean, it's all a matter of degree, but at a certain point you kind of have to draw the line, you know?

Yeah. Understanding them through that lens gives them a more respective value – it allows you to appreciate and understand them without assuming there needs to be something more.

Dude, I thought I had grasped the unifying conception of Freudian psychoanalysis in it's real psychological manifestation; in reality I was probably in the middle of a dopamine rush, and could fully comprehend and relate to his coked-out inanity

Ah yeah beautiful times... trace the winds of fate in the steam rising from the mug

Right; even in the realm of transcendent internal experiences, where everything has some merit of its own, even if only in the moment, you still have to sort the wheat from the chaff; what has persistent relevance from what is purely transient.

Yeah. And relevance and transience aren't mutually exclusive

[Gilly]

Well, fuck the correlations, then; because it had value, and affected your subsequent sane state. The content differs, but the quality doesn't.

True, I mean I'm not saying these things don't have their value; psychotic states make for especially great moments to reflect on and draw inspiration from in hindsight, but for the sake of personal development and inner understanding, they aren't things you want to place emphasis on...unless you want to go insane, and I teeter close enough to the brink sometimes that I don't think any extra emphasis would do me much good

Yeah. Understanding them through that lens gives them a more respective value – it allows you to appreciate and understand them without assuming there needs to be something more.

Right.

Ah yeah beautiful times... trace the winds of fate in the steam rising from the mug

Heheheh...I dunno, personally I've been finding lately that caffeine is a hindrance to my writing. It makes me too mental, too eager to think things over and worry about little details, which is great for editing, but crap when you're trying to put purity on paper.

Chocolate, on the other hand, is perfect

Yeah. And relevance and transience aren't mutually exclusive

If they were our pursuits would be rather futile

[ArchonAlarion]

@Discojoe: Then you admit to the US government being founded on non contractual obligations? Cuz Im pretty fucking sure that means slavery and Im pretty fucking sure that means the "love it or leave it" or "social contract" argument fall flat on its face. So in terms of legal consistency, there isn't any. Children can't enter into contracts and yet they are born into one. So what? Are you might makes right? Are you a pragmatist? If you would like to argue on the pragmatic grounds of anarchism vs. the state I will be obliged.

@All you other bastards: I inferred Gilly was speaking about his college achievments and therefore I added in my achievements to counter a lame argument from authority. If Gilly was not speaking of such (sure sounded like it) then I apologize.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with me being like a feminist idealouge. I did not idly page through wikipedia and decide I wanted to be an anarchist. I was fervently "archist" before hand and I mulled over the information I found quite awhile before changing idealogies.

You can lie all you like; if you want to lay out an argument, and show me that you actually understand this shit, then start another thread, I will be more than happy to embarrass you, and show you exactly why your self-centered claim to promoting "anarcho-capitalism" is a bunch of useless intellectual masturbation that has no place in the world today.

No you really fucking won't.

Shut up. Examine what you just said, and you'll realize not only the foolishness of making an assertion in the first place, but also the nature of the assertion itself. Maybe it will serve as a lesson – potentially for both you and Tom – of what it means to create an argument, undermine the argument, and prove something entirely different than what the initial argument purported, at the same time!



I honestly don't get how someone can think they understand something so deeply, yet merely go around touting their flag of knowledge, as if by doing so they are actually proving anything. Tom did it, and now Jake is doing it. At least be subtle, lol.

How did I do this? Gilly wants to make some fucking sidewards "haha im a winner!" comment at Tom and I just said "no you're not" basically. Was I laying out an argument? No. Was Gilly? Not at all.

So stop trying to make it seem like I countered some master rebuttle of anarcho capitalism by Gilly with a weak "flag touting". Cuz I didn't.

And I wasn't in the other thread either.

Precisely, lol. I mean, at least when we used to attack each others' character and intellect, there was some sort of debate about something. Jake and Tom just come in like feminist petitioners, hoist a few signs, belch out some ideological fervor, then upon being questioned as to their position, retreat while waving the same signs and screaming the same things.

Umm, pretty sure thats what you do.

I mean, you may think "have respect for soldiers" or "freedom isn't free" or "Its just not realistic!" is some sort of legit argument, but to me its garbage and Im going to respond with garbage because its clear you lack actual interest and investment in the debate.

lmfao

Yeah, well, they'll learn the harder way...never changing.

Nah, you see I actually know the counter arguments to anarchism. I know the positions of socialism, communism, fascism, conservatism, paleo conservatism, geo libertarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, keynesianism, etc. I research. I spend hours and hours mulling this shit over, checking theories for consistency and comparing them to others.

So, you can sit there like a cliche fucker and doubt my integrity all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not shallow in this subject.

AND, I'm simply not going to debate anarchism on this forum. I've done it before in other places and I hate it. I get too worked up, I feel I need to response (lots of statists, fewer anarchists) to every post, so I sit at my computer all day and have to dread getting back on and trying to convince a new person who just dropped into the thread and is using the same exact arguments as 20 posts ago.

If you really feel you're set with poli-eco, then just be a smug little guy and don't ever continue research into alternate theories.

If you are legitimately interested then you can do what everyone else should and go read shit up yourself.

Why do people think I need to spoon feed them this shit in forum posts? Can they not fucking think for themselves?

So, like I once said to warlord, have a blast, feel that little rush to your dick, cuz now you can post "cop-out" in your next post and chuckle to yourself like you're a winner.

I have better ways to spread the ideology than exhausting myself here.

[Steve]

That could not have been real. I mean, I REALLY want to believe that it was, but...holy shit

lol nah it wasn't real, but the imitation was really good. The person imitating is a Fe valuer and the real Oprah is a Fi valuer fwiw.

[Gilly]

lol nah it wasn't real, but the imitation was really good. The person imitating is a Fe valuer and the real Oprah is a Fi valuer fwiw.

The person imitating actually reminded me of an ESE I know.

And Oprah is EIE; blatantly so, even.

[Steve]

The person imitating actually reminded me of an ESE I know.

And Oprah is EIE; blatantly so, even.

I used to think Oprah was EIE but her values and way of doing things seems much more Delta than Beta. Also, she doesn't seem "affecting" the way EXEs are and seems static > dynamic.

The people she hypes up and gives a lot of attention to on her show also tend to be Deltas, like Eckhart Tolle.

[Gilly]

I inferred Gilly was speaking about his college achievments and therefore I added in my achievements to counter a lame argument from authority. If Gilly was not speaking of such (sure sounded like it) then I apologize.

I wasn't talking about "college achievements" in any reference to you or tommy boy. If you could READ you might be able to deduce as much for yourself.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with me being like a feminist idealouge. I did not idly page through wikipedia and decide I wanted to be an anarchist. I was fervently "archist" before hand and I mulled over the information I found quite awhile before changing idealogies.

Yeah but you come in waving your flag without offering any explanations, only to cop out on the old "You guys aren't worth my time" standby. How can you NOT expect us to laugh you out the door?

No you really fucking won't.

Try me, bitch

How did I do this? Gilly wants to make some fucking sidewards "haha im a winner!" comment at Tom and I just said "no you're not" basically. Was I laying out an argument? No. Was Gilly? Not at all.

It wasn't even AT tom, you idiot; do you see him here? If you have a problem with what I said, prove me wrong and quit bitching.

So stop trying to make it seem like I countered some master rebuttle of anarcho capitalism by Gilly with a weak "flag touting". Cuz I didn't.

Yeah but you did come in waving your flag and then run away. Either accept that you're too chicken shit to explain yourself, stop avoiding the embarrassment of doing so with these little ass-covering excuses for explanations, and go snuggle with tommy, or make a fucking case.

Nah, you see I actually know the counter arguments to anarchism. I know the positions of socialism, communism, fascism, conservatism, paleo conservatism, geo libertarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, keynesianism, etc. I research. I spend hours and hours mulling this shit over, checking theories for consistency and comparing them to others.

Well apparently you need to make a break with theory and look at the state of the world before you make assumptions about what would work best.

So, you can sit there like a cliche fucker and doubt my integrity all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not shallow in this subject.

lol at italics, if you want to get your angst out just fucking debate me already.

You may not be shallow; I wasn't shallow when I was a socialist either. Doesn't mean I understood the world.

AND, I'm simply not going to debate anarchism on this forum. I've done it before in other places and I hate it. I get too worked up, I feel I need to response (lots of statists, fewer anarchists) to every post, so I sit at my computer all day and have to dread getting back on and trying to convince a new person who just dropped into the thread and is using the same exact arguments as 20 posts ago.

If you really feel you're set with poli-eco, then just be a smug little guy and don't ever continue research into alternate theories.

If you are legitimately interested then you can do what everyone else should and go read shit up yourself.

Why do people think I need to spoon feed them this shit in forum posts? Can they not fucking think for themselves?

So, like I once said to warlord, have a blast, feel that little rush to your dick, cuz now you can post "cop-out" in your next post and chuckle to yourself like you're a winner.

I have better ways to spread the ideology than exhausting myself here.

blah blah blah, waah waahh wahh, nobody is open minded but me.

[Gilly]

I used to think Oprah was EIE but her values and way of doing things seems much more Delta than Beta. Also, she doesn't seem "affecting" the way EXEs are and seems static > dynamic.

The people she hypes up and gives a lot of attention to on her show also tend to be Deltas, like Eckhart Tolle.

Yeah but look at how unnatural her interaction with Tolle is on the actual show. She caters to an American mindset that is sort of archetypally "Delta," but as an individual she is FeNi to the core: all about her image, her influence, her big plans and big goals and blah blah blah.

Compare her to Ellen Degeneres and I think you'll see the obvious differences: Ellen is light hearted, has a kind of vulnerable honesty, and is interested in a typically Ne/Si "having fun while promoting good ideals and open mindedness etc" whereas Oprah is much more blunt, focused on serious issues, and obviously more image-conscious. Ellen would never have a series where she tried to make a HUGE BIG DEAL out of someone like Oprah did with Tolle; she might bring him on, and have a chat, but she wouldn't be acting like he was "the next big thing" the way Oprah did.

[discojoe]

@Discojoe: Then you admit to the US government being founded on non contractual obligations?

The current (i.e., post-Articles of Confederation) federal government's powers are strictly limited by the Constitution. These limits are very much part of a contract, as each state individually ratified the Constitution after its inception in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention, and federal employees are bound by the constitution, with many of them swearing oaths to that effect.

Cuz Im pretty fucking sure that means slavery and Im pretty fucking sure that means the "love it or leave it" or "social contract" argument fall flat on its face.

The Constitution did not endorse slavery, but neither did it expressly prohibit it. Article 4, Section 2 calls for the return across state lines of those who are bound to service (which obviously would include slaves) and of course the Thirteenth Amendment was determined necessary to abolish the legal institution of slavery in the United States. However, if you accept that the Thirteenth Amendment made slavery illegal, then you accept that the Constitution is a legally binding contract.

In regard to the notion of children being born into contracts, yet prohibited from voluntarily entering into them, as not being "legally consistent", I think this is merely an arbitrary misapplication of the term "legal consistency". Legal consistency is about applying existing laws accurately, not about legislating all laws so that they apply indiscriminately to every sector of humanity, nor so that they apply only to those who voluntarily agree to be subject to them. If human beings could simply opt out of following the law without facing legal consequences, you'd end up with mob rule, which is another form of big government.

[strrrng]

@All you other bastards: I inferred Gilly was speaking about his college achievments and therefore I added in my achievements to counter a lame argument from authority. If Gilly was not speaking of such (sure sounded like it) then I apologize.

lol, you "inferred"? How quaint. As if such an act would even halfway justify the foolish, self-inflating claim you ejaculated. If it was a "lame argument from authority," why would you counter with the same kind of statement?

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with me being like a feminist idealouge. I did not idly page through wikipedia and decide I wanted to be an anarchist. I was fervently "archist" before hand and I mulled over the information I found quite awhile before changing idealogies.

Feminists didn't idly page through wikipedia either

How did I do this? Gilly wants to make some fucking sidewards "haha im a winner!" comment at Tom and I just said "no you're not" basically. Was I laying out an argument? No. Was Gilly? Not at all.

So stop trying to make it seem like I countered some master rebuttle of anarcho capitalism by Gilly with a weak "flag touting". Cuz I didn't.

Was Tom even involved in this thread? As far as I'm concerned, you gratuitously started promoting your anarchist crap, along with the claim about outwitting a Yale professor.

And I wasn't in the other thread either.

Yeah, but you were in this one; and you two do the same shit.

Umm, pretty sure thats what you do.

*cough*

I mean, you may think "have respect for soldiers" or "freedom isn't free" or "Its just not realistic!" is some sort of legit argument, but to me its garbage and Im going to respond with garbage because its clear you lack actual interest and investment in the debate.

I may think, I may not think, you may think what I may or may not think — this claim means nothing. Fuck your pathetic straw-man tactics.

[Gilly]

Something tells me he's not coming back

[ArchonAlarion]

lol, you "inferred"? How quaint. As if such an act would even halfway justify the foolish, self-inflating claim you ejaculated. If it was a "lame argument from authority," why would you counter with the same kind of statement?

To be a dick. And yeah actually it totally would.

Was Tom even involved in this thread? As far as I'm concerned, you gratuitously started promoting your anarchist crap, along with the claim about outwitting a Yale professor.

Nah he wasn't, until Gilly mentioned him like he was some trophy he had conquered.

Oh and Tom also aided in "outwitting" said professor, so i must give him credit (not that it was very hard).

Yeah, but you were in this one; and you two do the same shit.

Yep, bffl.

*cough*

*moan*

I may think, I may not think, you may think what I may or may not think — this claim means nothing. Fuck your pathetic straw-man tactics.

Nah you've spouted that shit before and I stand by what I originally said.

Strrrng, all you're doing now is trying to argue that I was wrong in making a boastful remark in response to Gilly's own boastful remark.

What are you trying to prove?


fwiw I have no interest in arguing with the two of you or in a thread, but if he cares to respond, I have continued the discussion on PM with Discojoe.

[Gilly]

I wish you could see you.

[strrrng]

To be a dick. And yeah actually it totally would.

Ok. That's fine, lol. I don't care as long as you're honest; but purporting it as some legitimate retort is foolish.

Nah he wasn't, until Gilly mentioned him like he was some trophy he had conquered.

I don't think Gilly would deign to actually brag about "conquering" Tom. It was probably some passing remark.

Oh and Tom also aided in "outwitting" said professor, so i must give him credit (not that it was very hard).

Yep, bffl.

*moan*

lol

Nah you've spouted that shit before and I stand by what I originally said.

Strrrng, all you're doing now is trying to argue that I was wrong in making a boastful remark in response to Gilly's own boastful remark.

What are you trying to prove?

Spouted what shit? And I wasn't trying to prove anything – funny that's the first motivation you and Tom jump to when debating others, though. I was calling you out on your impudent crap, since it seemed you *clearly* had something to prove.

[JWC3]

*shakes head solemnly* I doubt this thread will ever get back on topic...

[Gilly]

That's your job

[JWC3]

*shrugs* Well I mean it seems most of the IEIs have weighed in, that's the reason i didn't bother saying anything sooner, Really I got enough information already before the thread got derailed. I more just posted that to bring attention to the epic derailment, b/c it is indeed epic and I wanted to make sure people noticed.

[Gilly]

Gotcha.

[misutii]

IEIs in classroom? Back of the class and somewhere to the side. Somewhere where day dreaming in not a punishable offense. During the first few weeks they might appear particularly studious in taking notes. Within a couple weeks notice how their notes deteriorate into doodles. Often late for class but make it seem natural due the masterfully stealthy entrance that only a veteran in such matters could achieve. Doesn't participate much... the bigger the class the less participation - if participation is graded and the professor has directly outlined how (i.e. 5 good comments per class) the IEI will never make more than 5 comments per class.

[07490]

HI! Starfall!, you have a raccoon on your avatar, when are you going to drink bubble tea with me? I promise you it would be on my tab.

[07490]

Oh, and to answer your question... one day Numbers, one day.

Should we invite Merky? I think We should only if he is willing to pay for everything.

[07490]

I only see the bold. Start saving up Merks.

The thing is I have read in this forum that with their type, that one of their friend in a bar went and ask a lady if they can dance with him, the lady offered only if he is willing to buy her a drink, he did, and she pretend the deal was never offered... how lame? so he went back and tell his friend what happen, his friend went back to the same girl and ask if you can dance with me, she proposed the same offered, but this time his friend only loook at her in the eyes, and ask him How about you buy me a buy and I will dance with you, in a glazed ready for action look, blah, blah. she brought him a drink and get to dance with him, Do you think Merky will do that to us poor soul?

[Froody Blue Gem]

I am a very academic person, focussing on the lecture, taking notes, trying to figure out what I need to do at home. Since middle, maybe even elementary school, putting emphasis on school/competency has been a big part of me. I am part of the honor society and consider this to be one of my proudest achievements to date. I participate in the class as much as possible but if it's a weaker subject, I get very quiet while quietly trying to understand. I'll try to comprehend information in the way that fits best. I usually try to take interest in said subject but some subjects are harder than others.

Math is one subject that has never been my strong suit. If it's a particularly cha class, then I will go to tutoring. I put a lot of emphasis on getting good grades. In the college setting, I don't interact with peers as much, but I value having a good relationship with my professor. I have talked to other classmates but I mainly keep to myself.