Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Problems with "predictions" (and explanations) in Socionics

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Problems with "predictions" (and explanations) in Socionics

    In principle, Socionics can predict how anyone or any groups of people are going to act collectively as a group. But the problem with this approach is that a prediction is not the same as an explanation.

    Let me explain what I mean by that. Say that you have two people in a room, and say that you can predict that they're going to conflict, because they're a Conflictor relation and their Fi and Ti are going to conflict or whatever. And that prediction turns out to be correct, they did end up with a conflict and it's all good and well.

    But the problem is that it's not an EXPLANATION of why they have conflicted. Let's suppose that the real reason that they have conflicted, is because one person accidentally stepped on another person's feet while they were in the waiting room, and the person never apologized for it, which made the another person angry. Or whatever, it could be any kind of an arbitrary reason. The whole point is that we are supposing that we "know" the truth behind the reason for their conflict, and this conflict could have never been explained by Socionics, as stepping on another's feet or whatever have nothing to do with Fi or Ti or anything that can be explained within the frameworks Socionics.

    So Socionics (in principle) can PREDICT that two people are going to conflict. But you can not explain why they have ended up in a conflict, even though the RESULT is the same: They have conflicted. But there are no "details" or the "process" of WHY it happened. I mean if you can predict something but you can not explain it, then it's not going to be much use since it could be just a coincidence, or there could be no correlation. And if you're going to say something like "Fi conflicts with Ti", then again that's just an assumption without an explanation.

    You could say, "Well of course you can explain it, since this and that is related to Fi and such and such", but then that would be your OWN explanation that came after the fact. And anything can be "explained" after the fact. It was outside of the framework of Socionics, as it were, and so you arrived at a certain truth OUTSIDE of the system of Socionics (and if you do this, it will no longer be Socionics because it's not relying on functions or whatever).

    In the end, in principle, you could predict how anyone is going to act using Socionics. But there is not going to be an explanation of why, other than from the framework within Socionics, so it's going to be pretty pointless. You can not say, "This is why so and so acted in this way", without "adding" extra explanations on top of Socionics, which is obviously not a Socionics explanation, but it was your own, ad-hoc, personal explanation.

    And of course, this is even assuming that Socionics CAN successfully predict relationships, which is a pretty dubious claim. And also it is the EXPLANATIONS that allow something to be successfully predicted in the first place (and Socionics is not in the business of offering explanations, it offers a priori assumptions such as "Fi conflicts with Ti" or "LIEs do not get along with SEIs"). And understanding things and coming up with explanations is difficult, because it is the creative process of a rational being, which itself can not be predicted (because then we can make a prediction of future explanations).

    We cannot truly predict something without an explanation, and Socionics does not offer proper explanations. In order to predict people's behavior, we need explanations for why people behave the way they do. The explanations are roughly either cognitive or behavioral. So psychology at large is in the realm of offering explanations for people's behavior (if they're "good" psychology). Of course, there could be an entirely new theory of consciousness that could explain people's behavior and cognition in an objective way.

  2. #2
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,068
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you observe them carefully enough, you might find the reason the conflict started. And this could be linked to their valued functions/positions somehow. For example; I remember one time I conflicted with an SEI, and it began because he made some modification to something I had made, in jest. He used his -Fe creative to shit over my -Te. The modification entailed a reversal of some typings I had made (he had changed them for conflictors). Since +Si is my PoLR, I did not see the blatant connection; instead I began to realize that actually conflictors are similar in some ways (hidden connection I saw with my +Ni).

    So you can see that if you actually try, it can be explained by socionics.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    If you observe them carefully enough, you might find the reason the conflict started. And this could be linked to their valued functions/positions somehow. For example; I remember one time I conflicted with an SEI, and it began because he made some modification to something I had made, in jest. He used his -Fe creative to shit over my -Te. The modification entailed a reversal of some typings I had made (he had changed them for conflictors). Since +Si is my PoLR, I did not see the blatant connection; instead I began to realize that actually conflictors are similar in some ways (hidden connection I saw with my +Ni).

    So you can see that if you actually try, it can be explained by socionics.
    Well, I think that it's going to create a paradox. Either everything can be explained by Socionics (if you try hard enough), or because there are NTR issues, some things can't be explained by Socionics.

    But ITR is supposed to be absolute, and since ITR is itself a Socionics explanation, if ITR is true, then everything MUST be able to be explained by Socionics, and there's no such thing as NTR (how else would you explain ITR predictions?).

    So either there is no NTR and everything can be explained by Socionics, or there is NTR and Socionics is wrong (cannot explain ITR).

    Paradox: You can not have ITR and NTR at the same time.

  4. #4
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,068
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One thing is the ITR, and everything related to it; another thing is reality and all the NTR factors that are into play. Socionics ITR things can be explained using socionics. For example: that conflict I experienced with a SEI; I felt a mild annoyance but I didn't come to dislike him as a person. It triggered a conflict ITR, but not a conflict of values or emotional conflict. It was just a matter of each having our base as the other's PoLR (and all other functional-related factors).

  5. #5
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    In principle, Socionics can predict how anyone or any groups of people are going to act collectively as a group. But the problem with this approach is that a prediction is not the same as an explanation.

    yes totally agree, this is why when employing socionics one must make their explanations prior to making any predictions rather than making their explanation rely on a prediction. the latter is pure question begging

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    We cannot truly predict something without an explanation, and Socionics does not offer proper explanations.
    1) we can. this is called "intuition" and methods to predict based in it are well developed long ago. also there is a chance
    2) Socionics has explanations - it's its theories
    3) the main what is "proper" in a theory is it correct or wrong on practice. without objective experimental proof that Socionics theory is incorrect to call it as "not proper" is not proper

    You have strange thinking processes about "explanations" in Socionics and seems trying to use it as a basis to baselessly say "socionics theory is wrong". I suspect you dislike some opinion which you get by using Socionics theory and hence trying to do strange illogical attack on it.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  7. #7
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,813
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    But the problem is that it's not an EXPLANATION of
    why they have conflicted. Let's suppose that the real reason that they have conflicted, is because one person accidentally stepped on another person's feet while they were in the waiting room, and the person never apologized for it, which made the another person angry.

    I think I get what you're saying, but you might need a better example. I don't understand getting pissed off at somebody for accidentally stepping on your feet. What a petty and utterly insignificant thing to get mad about... but it scares me because there are a lot of loonies in the world that probably would go out and file a police report for somebody accidentally stepping on their toe.

    I can understand if somebody is bullying you and consistently harrassing you and they try to write of off with 'I was just having some fun man lighten up!' in that asshole way. Like yeah of course you're having fun, at my expense you sadistic little shitwad. Then they might try to gaslight everybody into thinking you're being too sensitive, when they are really just being too much of a douchebag- but there is interesting gray areas with all this and it can get complicated/nuanced. Somebody accidentally stepping on your toe though? I can't understand getting mad about that unless you already were mad about something more serious earlier on.


  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IF it is a Socionics explanation, then it is ITR.

    IF it is a NTR explanation, then it is not ITR.

    REALITY contains both ITR and NTR.

    HISTORY can be predicted by ITR ("quadra progression"). HISTORY = sum of ITR and NTR. Then how can HISTORY be explained by Socionics?

    IF HISTORY is sum of ITR + NTR, but overall ITR > NTR (which makes Socionics predictions possible), then ALL relations must be overall ITR > NTR. Then ALL relations must be (overall) explainable by Socionics.

    HISTORY must be a combination of ITR and NTR, which must mean that it is a combination of theories of ITR + NTR, which must mean that it is a new theory that supersedes Socionics.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    socionics only predicts history in the most general terms, its more like it frames it. it is not a specific determinism its a way of looking at human affairs. it confers utility not in predicting behavior but in understanding it. if your point is people are wrong to rely on socionics to predict behavior I would agree with you. that's really not what it is for. I think your problem is underneath it all you believe the only utility is that which can conclusively determine a result thus anything that falls short of being able to do that is useless to you and you therefore reject it. that is a fine opinion to have but its inconsistent inasmuch as until you can prove that opinion to a certainty you fail to live up to your own standard (such a standard is self evident to you but few others). by your own values then your argument fails to persuade, which is why it comes across as so neurotic. you don't like explanations that rely on intuition (as Sol described), yet here you are trying to assert your own to subsume everyone elses. by the way Sol is correct when he says you can explain things by prediction, which is how hypothesis are generated. they are guesses or gambles that are verified, but they're not considered "justified" until being verified by a consensus bound methodology (the most famous being reproducible measurements). but prior to being verified they were no less true, we just didn't know it yet or have reason to accept it as true. socionics therefore is not so much a prediction hanging out in the air, but an as yet proven-to-a-certainty hypothesis. When they say LIE is a natural scientist they're saying he gambles on markets and other ventures, in this way, forms hypothesis and tests them via relying on pedictions that either suceed or fail, and then refines them. markets are just one way to do this

    if you want to reject all such hypothesis there's nothing wrong with that, it just makes you fundamentally conservative by temperament. this idea that your temperamental commitment to conservatism means socionics cannot be true is only a statement about your attitude toward truth though and not a reflection about which may ultimately show itself to be the case. I would also say that if this fundamentally conservative outlook had its way science never would have developed in the first place, so there's a weird "this far no further" lack of self awareness about when you happened to be born and where you happen to draw the line metaphysically, which is always a little ironic when they comport so closely and yet one could never admit it their claim to truth was contingent on such arbirtrary factors without conceding maybe there's something to these as-yet ideas-- it is always: no I am right and I just happened to be born at the time in which I stand right on the line which I declare for all mankind "no further!"

    I think the bottom line is when trying to determine competing theories if one does everything the other can and more it is better, in that sense I believe socionics can account very much for your point of view as being fundamentally an expression of certain psychological values, and you haven't offered anything that can likewise explain socionics and do more, thus there is very little reason to adopt your version of reality if one accepts that you're asking people to make a choice. if they have to make a choice, everything you've said militates toward choosing socionics. a big part of socionics is trying to get a handle on how people such as yourself can be so hard headed
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-02-2018 at 08:40 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that Socionics has caught too big of a fish to handle. It has attempted to predict thing that it cannot possibly predict from following the premises of Socionics alone, such as ITR and Quadra progressions, which demand even greater explanations. It cannot explain the things that it attempts to predict.

    And so instead of being a system of prediction, it has turned into a system of prophesy. And prophesies are not the same as predictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    socionics only predicts history in the most general terms, its more like it frames it. it is not a specific determinism its a way of looking at human affairs.
    Even if it predicts things in "general terms", as in long-range forecasts are not affected too much by small errors and other variables, it must be able to be explained and distinguished, what can be explained in terms of Socionics, and what is NTR. Because these predictions, such as Quadra progression, demand explanations for why it has arrived the way it did, and it can not just prophesize things and say that it will turn out this way, as if by simply looking at a magic crystal ball.

    So Socionics is saying that things are already "there", the relations act and react according to the Socionics "law", and yet its processes can't be explained by Socionics. The premise and the conclusion must be the same, and yet we are saying that they're different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    it confers utility not in predicting behavior but in understanding it.

    if your point is people are wrong to rely on socionics to predict behavior I would agree with you. that's really not what it is for.
    That's the whole point, I'm saying explain something, and yet it cannot offer any genuine explanations for its predictions. And if you can understand or explain something, then it will inevitably lead to predictions. They are linked and intertwined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think your problem is underneath it all you believe the only utility is that which can conclusively determine a result thus anything that falls short of being able to do that is useless to you and you therefore reject it. that is a fine opinion to have but its inconsistent inasmuch as until you can prove that opinion to a certainty you fail to live up to your own standard
    That's the whole point of a scientific theory, it's about being able to predict something. A scientific theory is mainly judged by its two criteria, its predictive power, and its explanatory power. If a theory can't predict something, then the theory isn't going to have much use.

    But of course, it's not JUST about being predict things, because predictions are going to be requiring explanations. And either way, you are going to require explanations if you want to predict something. It's just that explanations lead to predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    you don't like explanations that rely on intuition (as Sol described),
    "Intuition" is a process that cannot be explained. "Explanations that rely on intuition" is an oxymoron. If it can be explained, then it's no longer intuition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    by the way Sol is correct when he says you can explain things by prediction, which is how hypothesis are generated.
    You explain the predictions, not that things are explained by predictions. Either way, it's the other way around. You come up with an explanation first, which lead to predictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    they are guesses or gambles that are verified, but they're not considered "justified" until being verified by a consensus bound methodology (the most famous being reproducible measurements). but prior to being verified they were no less true, we just didn't know it yet or have reason to accept it as true.
    I think that you are confused. There is no "verification" in science, as being verified means being proven to be true, when there is no "truth" in science, since we have no direct access to the "truth", so as you have said, there are only guesses, and there are criticisms and refutations of those guesses. A better demarcation would be falsification over verification. You can only ever say that a theory is false, but not true.

    And then you even say that "prior to being verified they were no less true", and so you say that it was true before you even knew it was true! A clear sign that you are confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think the bottom line is when trying to determine competing theories if one does everything the other can and more it is better, in that sense I believe socionics can account very much for your point of view as being fundamentally an expression of certain psychological values, and you haven't offered anything that can likewise explain socionics and do more, thus there is very little reason to adopt your version of reality if one accepts that you're asking people to make a choice. if they have to make a choice, everything you've said militates toward choosing socionics. a big part of socionics is trying to get a handle on how people such as yourself can be so hard headed
    There are many different theories regarding explaining people's behavior. There is no reason why one should choose Socionics over the others, other than that perhaps one is ignorant and don't know any other theories, or perhaps it's just a personal preference without resorting to any particular rational reason as to why, which is basically called being biased.

    What's really hard-headed is insisting that Socionics is right and correct, when really all theories are wrong, and all theories need to be criticized equally as such (it's really rather puzzling why one should insist on a theory without as much as any evidence as this one). The essential problem is that Socionics does not tend do allow any criticisms, and there comes these misguided "defenders" who feel that it is their mission to "defend" against those who (they perceive to be) "attack" the system, without of course resorting to any rational means of refutations.

    What they're really doing, is admitting that Socionics can't possibly be improved via criticisms and refutations, which only means that it will be even more wrong than before. And so they end up talking about the same things, without adding anything new to it.

    So this forum is like the anthropomorphic principle (I'm not necessarily agreeing with this principle)... it is the remaining of those who have "stubbornly" resisted all criticisms, and hence decided to stick with this system. So evidently, there are very few remaining people here anymore, when most other people have simply gotten bored, found the theory to be hopeless, found something better, and otherwise have simply moved on. It's the last bastion of the "defenders" of Socionics, who may stubbornly and loyally stick with this system until the very end, even if they don't actually have a very good reason to, as it is a dying system in its last breath.

  11. #11
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    well if anyone ever wanted to witness a Ni Ti loop firsthand here it is

    you're essentially starting from the assumption that accurate predictions can only flow from explanations not that explanations are generated from observing accurate predictions, which is essentially just a denial of Te in principle. as well as failing to understand that Ti is a subjective grid that is overlaid on reality and can be constructed in any which way--it is only its predictive power that makes one way preferable to another. what this means is explanations are limitless and that utility is what decides whether one should adopt an "explanation" or not. in other words, predictions don't flow from explanations, but what is considered a justified explanation are those explanations that do more work than others. the rest are considered inferior but function no less as explanations. for example, if I said ghosts did it, that is an explanation but it does less work than a theory of physics. if you want to start from the work and proceed from the back-end you simply generate hypothesis and test them, and only flesh them out into a full blown explanation upon verifying they do some work up front. its a way to save effort; a form of the efficiency principle in shaping theory

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    you're essentially starting from the assumption that accurate predictions can only flow from explanations not that explanations are generated from observing accurate predictions,
    If you can "predict" something, but offer no explanation, then that is a prophecy and not a prediction. A prophecy is like looking at a magic crystal ball to say so and so will happen, but offering no explanation as to why it will happen. And if an event does occur according to the prophecy, even if by some chance or a coincidence, then it can say that the "prophecy was true", even if it was just some coincidence. And if it does not occur, then it can simply come up with some excuse, like "Maybe the year was wrong, maybe the prophecy will occur 10 years from now", which doesn't actually solve the problem.

    So it is actually the explanations that lead to predictions. You can not just come up with a prediction, and not explain how that works. Otherwise, it's just prophesizing but not predicting.

    for example, if I said ghosts did it, that is an explanation but it does less work than a theory of physics.
    If you say that ghosts did it, then you believe in the irrational and the supernatural. Of course, the error of the supernatural is that it can not be explained and it is arbitrary in a way that it does not pertain to reality, it is in the realm of myths and imaginations.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A way to imagine the problem of induction, or extrapolating from observations, is from the problem proposed by Hume.

    Hume has pointed out that you can observe day after day that the sun rising every morning, and yet you can not be certain that this will happen indefinitely into the future, just from the repeated patterns of the past. He was correct in this, but he was also wrong. We can also EXPLAIN the nuclear physics of the sun, that the fuel of the sun will eventually run out billions of years from now (or we could say that by a very small chance, the sun will explode by having all its atoms bounced by chance towards the nuclear reaction at its core). And hence, we can successfully predict that the sun will eventually burn out, even if we have never actually observed the sun ever burning out before.

    Another is proposed by Bertrand Russell with his story of the chicken. There was a chicken and a farmer, and the chicken noticed the farmer came every day to feed it. The chicken predicted that the farmer would continue to feed it every day. The chicken had created a theory out of this, and the more and more the farmer fed it, it added justification of the theory and more it became convinced of the strength of the theory. And then one day, the farmer came and wrung the chicken’s neck.

  14. #14
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ethical hypotheses carry the force of prophecy, yes, when verified

    this is how you know Nietzsche was Ni creative, because these "gambles" are precisely what Ni creative does

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    ethical hypotheses carry the force of prophecy, yes, when verified
    Saying "verify" over and over again won't somehow make you any less wrong, as if by repetition. There is no "verification" in science, because you can not prove something to be true. You were simply confused and clueless, yet again.

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    as to Hume, you left out Kant who resolved Hume's paradox by saying Hume's inference wasn't just one everyone makes, but one we are justified in making because everyone makes it, in other words in virtue of the fact that it seems self evident despite being rationally indefensible makes it true on the level of perception. Kant called it a pure form of intuition. By the way this is what made psychology in the vein of schopenhauer/nietzsche/jung possible

    your reading of Russell is wrong. He is saying that in principle rationality is subject to irrationality. he is like any comic who draws a picture which contradicts whatever is going on in the world bubbles, in order to gain his point



    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Saying "verify" over and over again won't somehow make you any less wrong, as if by repetition. There is no "verification" in science, because you can not prove something to be true. You were simply confused and clueless, yet again.
    lol you have me confused for your dual, once again

    you have privately defined "verification" as a threshold requiring metaphysical proof to meet, which exists only in your own mind, across every level, so it confers a degree of control to produce any result you want from the bottom up (like you like it). however, in reality, science operates as a consensus bound methodology, verification doesn't exist outside that consensus as a kind of metaphysical proof that imposes itself, rather it gains acceptance by demonstration of the work it can do and the reproducibility of its results based on the methods set forth... in other words your dream world is highly distorted and its spitting out a weird interplay between Ni and Ti that is like a closed universe where you play God. its super bizarre and is why people don't like you, because they can tell something is off, despite how you can go on for hours manufacturing definitions and conclusions in an endless loop. its the difference between a Ni Ti loop and Ne. at some point ask yourself "if all of this is true, what impact am I having?"
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-03-2018 at 05:51 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    as to Hume, you left out Kant who resolved Hume's paradox
    It's not a paradox, it's just the problem of induction. And I've already said that Hume was both correct and incorrect. What was incorrect was that he took his empiricism to the extreme, which is wrong. I have already explained that we can predict things via explanations. But you cannot predict things from mere observations.

    And anyway, if you say that a "Ni creative will do this and this", without giving an explanation, then that is indeed just prophesizing and not predicting. I could ask, "When is he going to make a prediction with his Ni?", and you could say, "Well, sometime in the indefinite future", and that is just prophesizing, but not predicting.

    You could not have, for instance, predicted that one day the Ni creative would find that the key to enlightenment is never making any predictions, and simply living in the present, because that would require an explanation for why he did the thing that he did.

    So you could say that the entire problem of Socionics, is that it makes prophecies, but not predictions.

  18. #18
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post

    So you could say that the entire problem of Socionics, is that it makes prophecies, but not predictions.
    this is only a problem for you bro, that's my entire point

    most people don't subconsciously long for slavery and look for socionics to provide it

  19. #19
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    dis Singu-Bert master thread lmao

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    dis Singu-Bert master thread lmao
    Read and you will learn, just as Bert might be learning a few new things, if only little by little.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •