How to define intuition?

[WinnieW]

That's a good way to put it. Ne usually solves some pre-existing problem instead of generating something "from thin air" like Ni (like a story or work of art).

I'm a bit wary about the phrasing "from thin air". Why it can be look like for other people to be that way, I think it's more like extracting patterns from experience.

I think of it as a complex simulation and compare it to the approach of chaos theory.
To steer through a complex system of a lot of variables and parameters, where little variations and deviations can change the course and influence the outcome of events in a strong way. Ni might be a way to plot a route to your goals or destination, or at last keep track of it.

[Exodus]

I'm a bit wary about the phrasing "from thin air". Why it can be look like for other people to be that way, I think it's more like extracting patterns from experience.

I think of it as a complex simulation and compare it to the approach of chaos theory.
To steer through a complex system of a lot of variables and parameters, where little variations and deviations can change the course and influence the outcome of events in a strong way. Ni might be a way to plot a route to your goals or destination, or at last keep track of it.

What I was describing is more like Ni+Fe, what you're talking about is Ni+Te - it's based on observable data.

[Metamorph]

Jung defined intuition as ESP. Full stop. In Jungian psychology it's just a polite word clairvoyance/telepathy/telekinesis. I feel like everyone should already know that.

Then, if everyone lost their euphemisms, more people would have to be mind readers.

[Metamorph]

Why are most of you wasting your time talking about some obscure guy's ESP theory when you don't even have ESP? Smh.

[Metamorph]

"The mathematical theory of information is beyond the reach of my understanding, but it sounds interesting nevertheless."

Carl Jung LSI confirm final.

[Metamorph]

Ni is Kantian intuition. Kantian intuition is the most boring kind. We prefer Jungian intuition. ESP is way more entertaining than "external intuition is space and internal intuition is time." Also, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė was way late to the Kant party. There aren't no party like a Kant party because there ain't a Kant party.

[Metamorph]

At least it's not as boring as MBTI intuition, which is Humean intuition. Even Kantian intuition is more interesting than Humean intuition, though clearly the best option is Jungian intuition which is just ESP.

MBTI = Hume
Socionics = Kant
Psychological Types = William James

[WinnieW]

What I was describing is more like Ni+Fe, what you're talking about is Ni+Te - it's based on observable data.

Ok, Ni+Te might be observable data. It's about further development in a pragmatic and logistic way.
Ni+Fe is more about how the dynamics between people change or the further development of a particular person will likely be.

[Exodus]

Ok, Ni+Te might be observable data. It's about further development in a pragmatic and logistic way.
Ni+Fe is more about how the dynamics between people change or the further development of a particular person will likely be.

I disagree that Ni is necessarily about dynamics or change. NiFe often imagines things that have nothing to do with how things are presently nor their future evolution, for example things like fictional worlds or narratives.

[Mairon]

I disagree that Ni is necessarily about dynamics or change. NiFe often imagines things that have nothing to do with how things are presently nor their future evolution, for example things like fictional worlds or narratives.

Yep, and the same does NiTe in my opinion. Stephen King is a good exemple of ILI writer. Reading his "On Writing" guide book he indirectly explains what Ni is, in my opinion.

Paraphrasing (because I've not that book in my actual house):

The tale is like an ancient artifact that is found buried. It exists outside of you, as if it were not your work. Taking it out from where it's buried will certainly ruin it, so it is impossible to recover it in its original perfection. Your goal is to use your toolbox (your writing skills) to make sure that it gets damaged as little as possible. "

It focuses very much on the idea being external, not internal to the individual. As if it were an archetypal representation that you try to bring to earth.

Like the artist's work, who through his filters tries to imprint human and universal concepts on canvas, which will be arbitrated on the basis of him.

He also repeats the importance of the autonomy of this "vision" when describing the fate of his characters:

"I had decided that this character was going to die, but to a certain extent he surprised me. He began to behave in a way that I had not foreseen, as if he had taken on a life of his own. And in the end the ending of the book came out different from what was planned, and he managed to escape and save his life"

In this example, the concept of "dynamics" is more contextualized. In fact, King visualized the dynamics of his creations as if they did not depend on him, as he is subject to the Ni lead which is a function of perception.

Ni is not just predict, but "playing" with archetypical image of reality and create products from it.

[RBRS]

Perceptive understanding of ιδέα and it's ramifications/connections

[Tallmo]

I disagree that Ni is necessarily about dynamics or change. NiFe often imagines things that have nothing to do with how things are presently nor their future evolution, for example things like fictional worlds or narratives.

Yes I agree, but they are connected. If one can perceive the archetypal image that represents the "background" of reality one can also see how things might develop, or where they come from. But Ni as "time" is a simplification, just as Si as "comfort" is.

[WinnieW]

I disagree that Ni is necessarily about dynamics or change.

Introverted perception functions are considered to be dynamic information elements in Socionics.
Otherwise my statement is based on my own understanding and the description of @End

NiFe often imagines things that have nothing to do with how things are presently nor their future evolution, for example things like fictional worlds or narratives.

That happens, I guess, when Ni ego types detaches from Se. When they process Se input they don't drift away into fictional worlds.

But I can tell it's the same for me. It's not that difficult for me to engange in a fictional world by ignoring sensorical data from the world around me.

[Exodus]

Introverted perception functions are considered to be dynamic information elements in Socionics.

Taken literally they are definitely not dynamic, Si and Ni are static. The extroverted elements are the dynamic ones, they are processes, introverted elements are the "things" or states that these processes act on. The static/dynamic dichotomy has been interpreted in multiple ways throughout the history of socionics, it's not really a fixed foundational part of the theory.

That happens, I guess, when Ni ego types detaches from Se. When they process Se input they don't drift away into fictional worlds.

But I can tell it's the same for me. It's not that difficult for me to engange in a fictional world by ignoring sensorical data from the world around me.

All use of Ni involves detaching yourself from what is present to some extent, but it can be applied to what is present (such as recognizing the possible consequences of an action).

[WinnieW]

Taken literally they are definitely not dynamic, Si and Ni are static. The extroverted elements are the dynamic ones, they are processes, introverted elements are the "things" or states that these processes act on. The static/dynamic dichotomy has been interpreted in multiple ways throughout the history of socionics, it's not really a fixed foundational part of the theory.

I've taken the info from there: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Information_elements#Static_/_Dynamic_Information_Elements

But to my understanding the naming - static vs dynamic - seems quite confusing because the explaination says the destinction between them is discrete and continous perception of information.
When we deal with changing states why is it called static at all? Because of multiple stable states, whereas the state of dynamic perception is fundamental unstable?

All use of Ni involves detaching yourself from what is present to some extent, but it can be applied to what is present (such as recognizing the possible consequences of an action).

Looks like that Ni is not a conscious function for me, because I don't know what an archetypal image looks like.

[myresearch]

I've taken the info from there: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Information_elements#Static_/_Dynamic_Information_Elements

But to my understanding the naming - static vs dynamic - seems quite confusing because the explaination says the destinction between them is discrete and continous perception of information.
When we deal with changing states why is it called static at all? Because of multiple stable states, whereas the state of dynamic perception is fundamental unstable?


Looks like that Ni is not a conscious function for me, because I don't know what an archetypal image looks like.

Ni and Si are dynamic in almost every model of socionics. Exodus seem to have his own understanding that clashes with that.

[WinnieW]

Pardon me but static vs dynamic when ist comes to the Socionics definitions is like comparing stairs with an inclined plane, or as electronic components a stepping switch with a potentiometer.

[Metamorph]

Ni and Si are dynamic in almost every model of socionics. Exodus seem to have his own understanding that clashes with that.

Exodus didn't disagree with the definition, though. He disagreed with common interpretations of the words. Ni does not refer to perceiving things around you that are changing, it refers to perceiving the process of change, which is "static" (vs. Ne which perceives momentary states of affairs.)

Honestly, this just goes alongside the misconception that sensing refers to sense perception. Ne refers to sense perception (see: Kantian intuition, where external intuition is intuition of space and internal intuition is intuition of time.) Se and Si refer to people acting on the physical environment, and not actually perceiving it.

[myresearch]

Exodus didn't disagree with the definition, though. He disagreed with common interpretations of the words. Ni does not refer to perceiving things around you that are changing, it refers to perceiving the process of change, which is "static" (vs. Ne which perceives momentary states of affairs.)

Honestly, this just goes alongside the misconception that sensing refers to sense perception. Ne refers to sense perception (see: Kantian intuition, where external intuition is intuition of space and internal intuition is intuition of time.) Se and Si refer to people acting on the physical environment, and not actually perceiving it.

Yes he did by using the word and then explaining. If you see beyond the words written, I dont have that kind of access.

[BrainlessSquid]

Intuition is pretty much like getting hit by an invisible sword. No one can see it, but you know it's there by the effect it has on you

[Metamorph]

Yes he did by using the word and then explaining. If you see beyond the words written, I dont have that kind of access.

There are socionics definitions of static and dynamic. Exodus disagreed with a common-sense definition but not with all the socionics definitions that have been given. I think Exodus simply doesn't use static or dynamic in any common way it's used. For example, some people really do take the Ip types and say they're paying attention to their environment since they're dynamic and their environment is changing and that's what Exodus seems to have been rebutting because that's a common conception I've noticed. However, Ni is just about processes in time and Ne is about cross-sections in space, processes in time are not something in the environment that changes. Si is about equilibrium mostly and Se is about expansion, but equilibrium is just a counter-process, it's not about what people normally conceive of as dynamic changes in the environment which really would just be extraversion. Static vs. dynamic only has implications in more nuanced aspects of the theory like what you see in Gulenko's cognitive styles or Olga Tangemann's associative socionics, and Alive is completely abusing it by essentially painting passive Ip types as extraverts just because people are equating external activity "dynamic" with self-adjusting irrational elements "dynamic," which is made worse by the fact the Ej types really are dynamic in all senses of the word.

[Exodus]

I've taken the info from there: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Information_elements#Static_/_Dynamic_Information_Elements

But to my understanding the naming - static vs dynamic - seems quite confusing because the explaination says the destinction between them is discrete and continous perception of information.

Yes, that's another attempt at an interpretation, which is distinct from the literal interpretation.

When we deal with changing states why is it called static at all? Because of multiple stable states, whereas the state of dynamic perception is fundamental unstable?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Looks like that Ni is not a conscious function for me, because I don't know what an archetypal image looks like.

Hm? I'm not sure what the relevance of archetypal images is here and I don't find the interpretation of mental/vital as conscious/unconscious to be helpful either, the presence cube is a better description of which functions are "conscious" or paid a lot of attention to: https://sedecology.blogspot.com/2020...ence-cube.html

Exodus didn't disagree with the definition, though. He disagreed with common interpretations of the words. Ni does not refer to perceiving things around you that are changing, it refers to perceiving the process of change, which is "static" (vs. Ne which perceives momentary states of affairs.)

That's not what I said. A definition is an interpretation, obviously everyone calls them static and dynamic elements just for communication, just like we call the id block the id block even though it's not literally a Freudian id.

I define Ni as the process that generates a conception through negating what is present.

Honestly, this just goes alongside the misconception that sensing refers to sense perception. Ne refers to sense perception (see: Kantian intuition, where external intuition is intuition of space and internal intuition is intuition of time.) Se and Si refer to people acting on the physical environment, and not actually perceiving it.

I would say Se is more fundamentally about action than perception, but Si is definitely about sense perception in a way - but both of them perceive what is present as opposed to Ne and Ni which "perceive" or apprehend possibilities.

[Metamorph]

That's not what I said. A definition is an interpretation, obviously everyone calls them static and dynamic elements just for communication, just like we call the id block the id block even though it's not literally a Freudian id.

A definition is an interpretation, but most people think dynamic elements are about doing things and most people think the id block is a Freudian id. Most people think Hispanists are in favor of bull-fighting, Germanists are in favor of jackboots, medievalists want everyone to go back to feudalism, and orientalists are in favor of harems. Wrong definitions of words are extremely common, and as I saw it you were disagreeing with a common wrong definition even if you didn't state directly it was a common wrong definition.

I would say Se is more fundamentally about action than perception, but Si is definitely about sense perception in a way - but both of them perceive what is present as opposed to Ne and Ni which "perceive" or apprehend possibilities.

Well, this seems like a disagreement with the original socionists since they seem to have defined Si in terms of a function that keeps equilibrium and awareness of ordinary sense-perceptions in space is generally Ne (as well as some kind of understanding of psychological states as really almost quasi-telepathic getting folded into Ne, especially demonstrative Ne, like people understand and manipulate people through affecting energy metabolism inside their bodies with Ne. This has always been the weirdest part of the theory to me to be honest, beyond Gulenko describing the purported best way to torture each of the cognitive styles.)

[Exodus]

A definition is an interpretation, but most people think dynamic elements are about doing things and most people think the id block is a Freudian id.

Most people definitely do not think the id block is a Freudian id - something that has to do with primal desires?? Nah, even Augusta didn't think that, she just liked the correspondence.

Well, this seems like a disagreement with the original socionists since they seem to have defined Si in terms of a function that keeps equilibrium and awareness of ordinary sense-perceptions in space is generally Ne (as well as some kind of understanding of psychological states as really almost quasi-telepathic getting folded into Ne, especially demonstrative Ne, like people understand and manipulate people through affecting energy metabolism inside their bodies with Ne. This has always been the weirdest part of the theory to me to be honest, beyond Gulenko describing the purported best way to torture each of the cognitive styles.)

There have been multiple iterations of definitions, Si was not originally defined as keeping equilibrium - that's a newer, more general understanding. Augusta described it as avoiding discomfort and creating sensory aesthetics. (see here: https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/)

"perceptions in space is generally Ne" - I have no idea where you got this from.

[Metamorph]

Most people definitely do not think the id block is a Freudian id - something that has to do with primal desires?? Nah, even Augusta didn't think that, she just liked the correspondence.

Most *laypeople. Most laypeople seem to think, for example, if you have Se in the id block you have primal desires for Se and you're going to be extra violent, while if you have Te you're going to be greedy or similar (since people usually equate Te to money nowadays and not Se to money,) if you have Si you're going to be a glutton or lazy, and if you have Fi you're going to be extremely petty because those are your primal desires due to being "id block."

There have been multiple iterations of definitions, Si was not originally defined as keeping equilibrium - that's a newer, more general understanding. Augusta described it as avoiding discomfort and creating sensory aesthetics. (see here: https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/)

Well, people see wrapping up those two as being only possible by defining it in terms of equilibrium and expansion.

"perceptions in space is generally Ne" - I have no idea where you got this from.

The idea of external intuition being intuition of space and internal intuition being intuition of time is straight from Kant, which is more or less my entire basis to not take socionics seriously any more. I started reading Kant once upon a time and got bored with it, but you can also just check the Wikipedia version.

[Exodus]

Ni and Si are dynamic in almost every model of socionics. Exodus seem to have his own understanding that clashes with that.

Dmitri Lytov noted way back in 2001 the issues with this dichotomy - at least on the type level, where introverted irrationals are supposed to be "dynamic" somehow despite being some of the most inactive types. He also notes how it has been given multiple, contradictory interpretations:

Statics/dynamics .

This, apparently, the most popular non-Jungian trait among socionics is obtained by crossing the Jungian traits E/I and J/P. Thus, groups (EP + IJ) were called “statics”, and groups (EJ + IP) were called “dynamics”. The most simplified interpretation of this sign sounds something like this: the speakers are always spinning, they are pulling something in their hands - flickering, in short; and the static, once choosing a comfortable position, remains in it (forever?). V.V. Gulenko, who expressed such an assumption, subsequently made serious amendments to it. On the other hand, N.A. Chaur, and later - T.N. Prokofieva, rely in their lectures precisely on this interpretation. Observations say otherwise: one of the most “dynamic” according to this criterion is the “static” SEE, and its dual “dynamic” OR is one of the most “static”. Let's not forget the SLI, who prides himself on his ability not to do unnecessary actions, unnecessary movements - what is the dynamism here? I just want to remind you that the terms statics/dynamics arose as a result of, to put it mildly, a dubious analogy from a physical point of view between the structure of the human psyche and the internal combustion engine [1]. And the illegal extrapolation of dubious analogies, such as "kinetic energy - moment of statics" and "equilibrium - moment of dynamics" [1, pp. 60-61], cannot serve as a guarantee of the reliability of the conclusion.

...

We see that the initially contradictory description of the attribute gave rise to the result: different socionic schools interpret the same attribute in different ways. Understanding depends on the belonging of the authors to the same socionic school. Almost like in a famous joke:

“I graduated from school number 5 with in-depth study of the English language. I can communicate fluently in English with everyone who graduated from the same school.”

[Exodus]

Most *laypeople. Most laypeople seem to think, for example, if you have Se in the id block you have primal desires for Se and you're going to be extra violent, while if you have Te you're going to be greedy or similar (since people usually equate Te to money nowadays and not Se to money,) if you have Si you're going to be a glutton or lazy, and if you have Fi you're going to be extremely petty because those are your primal desires due to being "id block."

Most people who completely misunderstand socionics, maybe.

The idea of external intuition being intuition of space and internal intuition being intuition of time is straight from Kant, which is more or less my entire basis to not take socionics seriously any more. I started reading Kant once upon a time and got bored with it, but you can also just check the Wikipedia version.

Kant has an interpretation of socionics concepts? Ok.

[Metamorph]

Most people who completely misunderstand socionics, maybe.

That would be most people. Not that their opinions really matter all that much, beyond trying to correct them, which is what I've tried to do off and on even though I think it's impossible to teach most people since most people are dumb. I think this forum is just not a good platform for spreading ideas, even though I'm going to hang out here as long as it's the only place many people I met here hang out and as long as people are spreading interesting ideas here. And well, I've gotten back a lot more of my time, I can check out protocols like Matrix and IRC and just mailing lists, certainly I can help move everyone from here to other places even if it's not all the same other places for everyone.

Kant has an interpretation of socionics concepts? Ok.

Kant is the origin of those concepts. The socionists got their idea from Kant, not vice versa. In Kant intuition of space is very explicitly ordinary sense perception, and intuition of time is subjective perception such as memory, imagination, and prognostication. This is why sensing elements are not described primarily as sense perception but as affecting changes in the environment (as you said even Aušra put a lot of weight on Si types making cozy environments.) They need sense perception to do this, but this is different than the kind of detached cognitive awareness Ne is generally described as. This is where the + and - signs in socionics come from. No one only has "awareness of perception," or "awareness of force," people have awareness of information that furthers certain kinds of objectives, primarily, relationships or structures.

[WinnieW]

I'm not sure what you mean.

That was more like an open, rethorical statement. I should have made that more clear.

[YnysAfallach]

Kant is the origin of those concepts. The socionists got their idea from Kant, not vice versa. In Kant intuition of space is very explicitly ordinary sense perception, and intuition of time is subjective perception such as memory, imagination, and prognostication. This is why sensing elements are not described primarily as sense perception but as affecting changes in the environment (as you said even Aušra put a lot of weight on Si types making cozy environments.) They need sense perception to do this, but this is different than the kind of detached cognitive awareness Ne is generally described as. This is where the + and - signs in socionics come from. No one only has "awareness of perception," or "awareness of force," people have awareness of information that furthers certain kinds of objectives, primarily, relationships or structures.

I think you're double-dipping here a bit within the evolution of ideas, charitably. I'm not a Kant scholar by any means, but I am suspect that Kant's intuition of space tracks with Ne and his intuition of time tracks with Ni. I think you're right to sense they're related in some way, but I don't think the interaction is this straightforward.

My guess is that in the hierarchy of ontology, Se/Si fall in the same relation to Kant's description of spacetime intuition as do Ne/Ni. If Kant was saying we also had a sensation of spacetime, then I may be inclined differently. But in this picture, where there is only the intuition of spacetime which is captured by Ne/Ni, we get an odd result where those with unvalued Ne/Ni seemingly don't psychologically value relating to reality in a grounded or structured way (inescapably relating to reality in a grounded or structured way is Kant's conceptual purpose behind explicating his spacetime intuitions). This odd result arises from the fact that Kant isn't aiming towards fine-grained differences in psychological patterns of function, and rather is aiming towards baseline conditions for cognition that undergird all of the rest of the multi-faceted ways in which a mind/psychology can flourish on top of those baseline conditions (IM elements).

Kantian intuition (what does metaphysics say about conditions for our conscious experience) =/= Socionics intuition (how do our minds extrapolate from the actual to the possible?)

I think a clue to recognize that you've bought into an incorrect juncture somewhere is your statement that "Se and Si refer to people acting on the physical environment, and not actually perceiving it." This shows that your understanding of action/perception doesn't quite capture where Socionics is coming from with those terms. For instance, could there be a way to understand action/perception where Se and Si both generate actions on the physical environment and perceive it? Such that their (Se/Si) function is one bounded by some sense of 'perception' on one side and some sense of 'action' on the other?

[WinnieW]

My intuitive perception of flow of time is when I compare it to the states of matter.
The present moment is the point where a phase change happens, from fluid to solid. The present is the cristallization of the flow of time. Past is solid, future is liquid.
Se is the enemy of Ne for me because the present reduces everything into a defined state and erases all other possibilities in the moment.

[YnysAfallach]

My intuitive perception of flow of time is when I compare it to the states of matter.
The present moment is the point where a phase change happens, from fluid to solid. The present is the cristallization of the flow of time. Past is solid, future is liquid.
Se is the enemy of Ne for me because the present reduces everything into a defined state and erases all other possibilities in the moment.

Yes, this makes sense to me. My gloss of this is that, yes, the present is the moment in which what is possible and what is actual coexist; on either side of the present, only one can live. Our conscious perception is constrained to the present at all times (i.e. that we perceive in the present and not in the future/past is axiomatic) though certainly we might try to presently conceptually construct objects that are displaced from us in the actual-possible spectrum. This construction of the 'displaced' future-possible inside of the present-actual is what intuition is in socionics.

And so, when you look at the difference between Se and Ne, you do see that they are contradictory in their scope: Se is attached to the external present-actual, which is mutually exclusive with Ne's attachment to the external future-possible. This is why no sociotype can ever value both Se and Ne at the same time, as to do so would require the part of their cognition that tracks external irrational dynamics to both deny the actual to get to the possible and deny the possible to get to the actual.

[Metamorph]

Yes, this makes sense to me. My gloss of this is that, yes, the present is the moment in which what is possible and what is actual coexist; on either side of the present, only one can live. Our conscious perception is constrained to the present at all times (i.e. that we perceive in the present and not in the future/past is axiomatic) though certainly we might try to presently conceptually construct objects that are displaced from us in the actual-possible spectrum. This construction of the 'displaced' future-possible inside of the present-actual is what intuition is in socionics.

And so, when you look at the difference between Se and Ne, you do see that they are contradictory in their scope: Se is attached to the external present-actual, which is mutually exclusive with Ne's attachment to the external future-possible. This is why no sociotype can ever value both Se and Ne at the same time, as to do so would require the part of their cognition that tracks external irrational dynamics to both deny the actual to get to the possible and deny the possible to get to the actual.

And I'm a determinist who believes in the B-theory of time. The Tralfamadorians taught me to cover my eyes 4th-dimensionally when the future looks particularly ugly, though I seldom heed their advice.

[YnysAfallach]

And I'm a determinist who believes in the B-theory of time. The Tralfamadorians taught me to cover my eyes 4th-dimensionally when the future looks particularly ugly, though I seldom heed their advice.

For your own sake, responses like this mostly just telegraph that you couldn’t respond in any other more substantive way. Often times it’s better to just not respond in these cases.

[Metamorph]

For your own sake, responses like this mostly just telegraph that you couldn’t respond in any other more substantive way.

...Why are you actually offended by the fact that I think the future has already happened in some sense? There's no cutting down on possibilities in my perception because there are no different possibilities. If anything that might just mean I value Ni/Se rather Ne/Si, but it's not a meaningless response just because you haven't read Slaughterhouse Five and all the philosophy I'm referencing with B-theories of time and you don't know what kind of metaphor I'm making.

[YnysAfallach]

...Why are you actually offended by the fact that I think the future has already happened in some sense? There's no cutting down on possibilities in my perception because there are no different possibilities. If anything that might just mean I value Ni/Se rather Ne/Si, but it's not a meaningless response just because you haven't read Slaughterhouse Five and all the philosophy I'm referencing with B-theories of time and you don't know what kind of metaphor I'm making.

I apologize if I misinterpreted a reference you were making, but to be honest your comment was so obtuse that the only way it made sense to me was as an insult.

[Metamorph]

I apologize if I misinterpreted a reference you were making, but to be honest your comment was so obtuse that the only way it made sense to me was as an insult.

I apologize. I'm really posting white distracted right now, even though you seem like a cool enough person that despite my generalized cynicism toward other people (because most people really have earned it) I don't want to alienate you, personally, as well as other potential readers with obtuse comments like that and then wait for other people to explain them. It absolutely is an obtuse comment, but it was an obtuse comment that absolutely meant specific things unironically and I was just kind of throwing it out to fish for people who would've understood it.

[draon9]

Money