# Examples of S vs N and T vs F



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I was looking through the MBTI manual and they present some examples which I found interesting, so I thought I'd share.




MBTI Manual said:


> *An Example of Sensing Versus Intuition*
> 
> The difference between the two perceiving functions can be illustrated by the example of an apple. When the Sensing function is used to perceive an apple, a person might describe it as "juicy," "crisp," "red," or "white with black seeds." The focus is on the sensory attributes of the apple. When the Intuitive function is used to perceive the same apple, a person may say "William Tell," "How to keep the doctor away," "Roast pig," or "My grandmother's famous pie." Here the focus is on the associations and possible meanings stimulated by the apple.
> 
> ...


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Well, yea @PaladinX. That's quite much as basic yet specific (like, unless you've been picking between candidates for a job you can't really know how you actually do it) you can bring N vs S and T vs F.

It's funny tho, my first thought when I see an apple is "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" and I see this picture that we had in the library of a school I went to with that quote on.
Just as I can't stop singing cotton eye joe to myself when I see my ISFJ friend wearing her hat, tho that she loves horses and is from a town in the middle of nowhere might contribute.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@Acerbusvenator

It is pretty basic. I find that even Jung's definition of functions to be very simple too (sensation tells you something exists, thinking tells you what it means, feeling tells you it is agreeable, and intuition tells you the possibilities from whence it came and wither it goes). However, most people seem confused by the functions and there are many threads like "Am I ISTP or INTP?" or "Am I INFJ or INTP?" etc. Also, I like concrete examples. 

I am confused by this statement: "unless you've been picking between candidates for a job you can't really know how you actually do it". What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the example provided is difficult to be understood across contexts?

Now I'm going to have Cotton Eye Joe stuck in my head all day!!!


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> @_Acerbusvenator_
> 
> It is pretty basic. I find that even Jung's definition of functions to be very simple too (sensation tells you something exists, thinking tells you what it means, feeling tells you it is agreeable, and intuition tells you the possibilities from whence it came and wither it goes). However, most people seem confused by the functions and there are many threads like "Am I ISTP or INTP?" or "Am I INFJ or INTP?" etc. Also, I like concrete examples.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree. 99% of online sources makes MBTI seem more complex than it is and thus spreads the wrong message of what it is supposed to tell.



> I am confused by this statement: "unless you've been picking between candidates for a job you can't really know how you actually do it". What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the example provided is difficult to be understood across contexts?


It's what they call, "knowing from experience". For example, I am a student at university and thus never been in such a situation, so I can't identify with either statement beyond a more abstract assumption of what I am more likely to do. This however would be incredibly affected by bias, since if I had a bias for the F dichotomy, I would naturally assume that I would do it that way.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> It's what they call, "knowing from experience". For example, I am a student at university and thus never been in such a situation, so I can't identify with either statement beyond a more abstract assumption of what I am more likely to do. This however would be incredibly affected by bias, since if I had a bias for the F dichotomy, I would naturally assume that I would do it that way.


Of course! I hadn't considered that. Tell me if you think this is inaccurate, but what it seems like to me, as an Introverted Thinker, I abstract meaning from such things. When I look at either example, I extract the underlying principle behind the concrete example. And, being an Introverted Intuitive, I am assuming that you extract the possibility from the concrete example in the form of abstract assumption.

If this is an accurate representation of function principle, then I wonder how an INTP's meaning would differ from my own. The way I understand it is that I abstract meaning from concrete facts and INTPs would form abstract meaning from concrete possibilities... Or something like that. Something to ponder I suppose.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Of course! I hadn't considered that. Tell me if you think this is inaccurate, but what it seems like to me, as an Introverted Thinker, I abstract meaning from such things. When I look at either example, I extract the underlying principle behind the concrete example. And, being an Introverted Intuitive, I am assuming that you extract the possibility from the concrete example in the form of abstract assumption.
> 
> If this is an accurate representation of function principle, then I wonder how an INTP's meaning would differ from my own. The way I understand it is that I abstract meaning from concrete facts and INTPs would form abstract meaning from concrete possibilities... Or something like that. Something to ponder I suppose.


Well, when I see such examples that I can't directly relate to, my brain scans for events with equal content, or I can quite accurately guess what my reaction would be. That's all intuition really.
Making connections between what is known and the example, if that so means connecting it directly or expanding my library of reactions to things.
I got a very high level of empathy because I can understand and put myself in someone else's position with ease (suppose that's intuition as well). As opposed to sympathy which is the ability to share the emotions of others, which I almost completely lack.

But the point was still that such thinking might still bring inaccuracies and the biases on top of that just makes it worse.
It also creates a problem when someone values both equally. I for example would neither want a brainiac dick nor a friendly idiot. Even tho knowledge has more weight than how they are as people then they need to fit the environment or the environment will become infected by dislike for that person and thus less efficient.

Being an intuitive dominant, I can also only really think in context. You might be the smartest person in the world and I might admire it, but you might be awful at teaching and that is the job that is applied for. Thus I would say no, but if someone who is really good as a teacher, but not fairly smart I would still prefer them more as they might be able to teach more than the smart person, and they could accept their errors and when their students correct them (try to correct a bad teacher that makes a mistake, lol. They'd deny it as if their life depended on it.).
However, if we were looking for programmers (programmers in modern society can be just about the most important people in the world), I wouldn't care if you are a dick that everyone hate or the nicest person on the planet that everyone loves, as long as you know what you are talking about more than anyone else applying.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Who wrote the S vs N example? It's terrible because it really was more Se vs Si than S vs N. Yes, intuition is associative but so is Si for example. An Si type would definitely say upon seeing a specific red apple that, "It reminds me of when my grandmother used to bake apple pies when I was a child."

Why is this Si? Because it connects to the concrete object (the apple) and this object generates past and known experiences about apples, imbued with personal meaning (Pi model). This is why Si types mistype so much as N types on the MBTI test, because the MBTI tends to test Se, not Si. 

How would an Ne type describe the apple? It would probably be something like this:
You can bake apple pies. 

Why is this Ne? Because if we assume that Si is always supporting Ne, the reason Ne just suggested you can bake apple pies is because it builds on the experience of grandma's apple pies and the personal meaning that sensation memory is imbued with. 

An Ni type wouldn't describe the apple itself as much as they would describe the idea the apple represents. This how I'd describe the apple:
The apple can play many allegorical roles in fiction. In the story of Fall From Grace, the Serpent tempted Eve to eat the Apple of Wisdom and this resulted in both her and Adam being banned from Eden. In the story of Snow White, when Snow White take a bite from the apple she falls under the apple's curse and is forced to sleep eternally until someone can wake up her up.

This strongly suggests a sexual undertone in both cases, because in Fall From Grace, the problem was that Eve and Adam became sexually aware since they began covering themselves with leaves. In Snow White, the only way to wake her up is to have a prince kiss her so she can marry. 

The apple could thus be interpreted as a sign of sexual fertility/puberty.

In most cases though, if you asked to describe the apple I would just say it's a bloody apple <.<


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Si doesn't do any connection per se. It is the subjective perception of the sensorial.

I find it silly that people make the explanations of intuition so overly weird. I mean, Ni is not over thinking (who the hell would make an essay in their mind over a fucking apple? That's just stupid.). It is the freaking connection between things that the mind creates.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Who wrote the S vs N example? It's terrible because it really was more Se vs Si than S vs N. Yes, intuition is associative but so is Si for example. An Si type would definitely say upon seeing a specific red apple that, "It reminds me of when my grandmother used to bake apple pies when I was a child."
> 
> Why is this Si? Because it connects to the concrete object (the apple) and this object generates past and known experiences about apples, imbued with personal meaning (Pi model). This is why Si types mistype so much as N types on the MBTI test, because the MBTI tends to test Se, not Si.


Yeah, I was thinking it sounded like Se vs Si. The issue is that the concrete/abstract duality is part of S/N on the MBTI, whereas it's part of I/E in Jung. So I agree that lots of people who would be Jungian Si-doms test as N on the MBTI, though I don't think it's correct to say they're mistyping because the MBTI wasn't designed to test for Jungian type. It's a theory that's based on Jung, but they're not the same.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> Yeah, I was thinking it sounded like Se vs Si. The issue is that the concrete/abstract duality is part of S/N on the MBTI, whereas it's part of I/E in Jung. So I agree that lots of people who would be Jungian Si-doms test as N on the MBTI, though I don't think it's correct to say they're mistyping because the MBTI wasn't designed to test for Jungian type. It's a theory that's based on Jung, but they're not the same.


Both MBTI and Socionics are *interpretations *of Jung's work (with some extra on top).

From the book "Gifts Differing"


Isabel Briggs Myers said:


> As Jung points out in Psychological Types, humankind is equipped with two distinct and sharply contrasting ways of perceiving. One means of perception is the familiar process of sensing, by which we become aware of things directly through our five senses. The other is the process of intuition, which is indirect perception by way of the unconscious, incorporating ideas or associations that the unconscious tacks on to perceptions coming from outside. These unconscious contributions range from the merest masculine “hunch” or “woman’s intuition” to the crowning examples of creative art or scientific discovery.


As you see, she is merely referring to his work.


Isabel Briggs Myers said:


> When people prefer sensing, they are so interested in the actuality around them that they have little attention to spare for ideas coming faintly out of nowhere. Those people who prefer intuition are so engrossed in pursuing the possibilities it presents that they seldom look very intently at the actualities. For instance, readers who prefer sensing will tend to confine their attention to what is said here on the page. Readers who prefer intuition are likely to read between and beyond the lines to the possibilities that come to mind.





Isabel Briggs Myers said:


> Thus, by a natural sequence of events, the child who prefers sensing and the child who prefers intuition develop along divergent lines. Each becomes relatively adult in an area where the other remains relatively childlike. Both channel their interests and energy into activities that give them a chance to use their mind the way they prefer. Both acquire a set of surface traits that grows out of the basic preferences beneath. This is the SN preference: S for sensing and N for intuition.


Do note that the book is not made to go into depth of MBTI, but merely go around the basics.

Naomi L. Quenk however goes deeper.


Naomi L. Quenk said:


> Extraverted Sensing types take in the widest range of available sensory messages from the environment, receiving pleasure from their intensity and breadth and having little or no restrictions on what are acceptable data. Introverted Sensing types, in contrast, seem to operate with an established inner structure within which incoming sensory information is classified and ordered. The data are then readily available in all their detail for the appreciation of and use by the Introverted Sensing type.





Naomi L. Quenk said:


> _Is Intuition Extraverted or Introverted? _
> Yolanda, an ENFP, feels that she is frequently criticized and put down for her ideas. As a dominant Extraverted Intuitive type, she talks about her ideas as they are being formed, before she subjects them to her own critical judgment. In contrast, Hal, an INFJ (dominant Introverted Intuitive type), keeps his ideas to himself for a long time before sharing them. He wants to ensure that his ideas are seen as only ideas, and not as finalized, worked-out systems. When he does talk about his ideas, he uses disclaimers, emphasizing their tentative nature.Dominant Introverted Intuitive types tend to focus primarily on ideas and possibilities at a conceptual level and to focus on the essence of those inner ideas that are certain. Introverted Intuition is tuned in to inner interconnected possibilities that may take the form of complex theories, models, and the like.Their relevance to the outer world is usually secondary, so only well-thought-out and important ideas are shared with others.
> 
> 
> Dominant Extraverted Intuitive types tend to be more attracted to a wide range of possibilities in the outer environment, readily sharing them with others as ideas to be explored and applying those ideas in the outer world. So Yolanda, in sharing her ideas before she has critiqued them herself, risks being misunderstood by others. Hal, in initially keeping his ideas to himself, misses out on feedback that might help him further shape his ideas.


Was all I could find atm and didn't care to look for more due to it being 2:30 am.
Short story is that MBTI is not as much different from Jung's psychological types as it is an interpretation of it.
Anyways, read this if you care to: Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Actually, I think Se is more likely to say Red or white with black seeds and Si is more likely to say crisp, or juicy. The latter two are more abstract than the former two.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

The problem, as @_Acerbusvenator_ essentially was getting at .. is that while it's an interesting consideration, it fails when applied to any individual... and for other reasons.

For example, @_PaladinX_ - name me ten associations for an Apple (like 'William Tell' or 'pie'). Go!

I suppose I am more naturally inclined to offer those associations unprompted, and an Se is probably more likely to just call it what it is... but what if they don't?

I could see an ISTP looking at an apple and, feeling impish, saying something it could be used to do, or some random thing it made them think of (the more truly random the more I suspect Se). 

As for me, if you asked me to describe an apple? "Delicious!", "juicy", "round.... ish", "stemmed" (pronounced 'stem-uhd' perhaps), "fun to throw", "fun to eat", "Yummy" (starting to repeat myself here)... but, oh, here it comes but that is because I am really thinking about it.... "poisonous when offered by creepy old ladies", "antagonistic toward certain physicists", "almost certainly genetically engineered", "difficult to decide how best to cut", "lasts for a long time on my shelf now that I think about it". 

I don't have any strong sensory impressions about them, so nothing triggered. ((EDIT: it's funny, but rereading this, I realize that the snow white, how to cut, and last for a long time were all derived from sudden images of recent past events and what I may have thought (but probably didn't actually think ... kinda like what I imagined I thought) at the time.))

I think there is a good chance that unless they were feeling goofy, an Ne would just say the normal stuff about apples. I certainly would. 

I think a better example is stuff that requires some level of abstraction like: "Describe the ocean", or "Describe outer space". There was a post about this... it was interesting. Honestly, even that isn't always reliable... and I think it's a better way to tell Ne vs Ni in any position or Se vs Si in any position (at least it is for me). 

Describe a pie! (random thing from earlier in the page):

uh... round! .. uhm, yummy! ... gooey sometimes? ... better fresh out of the oven? Good with ice cream!

Those are the sorts of answers I would naturally give.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I think it's funny how intuitives seem to take something overly literal and spin it in odd ways.  (I'm not picking on you. You grasp abstract concepts way faster than I ever could).

The point the original example was to make a clear distinction in preference for sense data vs associated data or something like that. Of course an N type could very well give sense data and an S type might provide abstracted associations. They are not going to put that in the example because it is confusing. I think you guys are somehow assuming that someone is too stupid to realize that there's more to it than what seems to be rigidly presented. Or maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit? 


@_arkigos_, your answer shows me Ne at work. 

I would stumble. Someone: "Describe an apple" Me: I uh I dunno. It's an apple. It's red. You can eat it. I dunno.  Which is funny because it makes me look a lot dumber than I really am. I have a 99.9 percentile writing ability and that's the best I can come up with for an apple. (To be fair, I rarely employ that ability. It requires an immense amount of mental energy and anxiety for me).

LOL I think I finally understand what Jung meant in describing Si as aesthetic impression. Si has been the one that escaped my understanding the most because of the elaborate and sometimes odd ways everyone tries to describe it. It's very simply a _juicy_ apple. It is the feeling behind the sense. Not in a Jungian feeling way, or an intuitive feeling way, and not in a touch feeling way.

Aesthetics:


Wikipedia said:


> It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments ofsentiment and taste.




EDIT: Also, don't forget that we are all more advanced in our understanding of MBTI/JCF. This is taken from a training manual. It's meant to be simple and clearcut so that those just starting out can learn to distinguish one from the other.


----------



## EasterInTheBatcave (Aug 18, 2012)

"When the Intuitive function is used to perceive the same apple, a person may say "William Tell," "How to keep the doctor away," "Roast pig," or "My grandmother's famous pie." Here the focus is on the associations and possible meanings stimulated by the apple."

I do stuff like that a lot, mostly to try and be funny.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

EasterInTheBatcave said:


> "When the Intuitive function is used to perceive the same apple, a person may say "William Tell," "How to keep the doctor away," "Roast pig," or "My grandmother's famous pie." Here the focus is on the associations and possible meanings stimulated by the apple."
> 
> I do stuff like that a lot, mostly to try and be funny.


LOL me too!


----------



## seismicturtle (May 8, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I find it silly that people make the explanations of intuition so overly weird. I mean, Ni is not over thinking (who the hell would make an essay in their mind over a fucking apple? That's just stupid.). It is the freaking connection between things that the mind creates.


I would. Why? Because my dominant primary function is Ni. That's kind of the point. I can't help but over analyze every possible thing in ways so abstract that new ideas manifest seemingly out of nowhere.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

EasterInTheBatcave said:


> "When the Intuitive function is used to perceive the same apple, a person may say "William Tell," "How to keep the doctor away," "Roast pig," or "My grandmother's famous pie." Here the focus is on the associations and possible meanings stimulated by the apple."
> 
> I do stuff like that a lot, mostly to try and be funny.


Yes! This.. exactly the point. I don't mean that people are dumb... but more than once I've seen folks use things like that to say that they cannot be Se because they are capable of creative descriptions or people describing Se as 'seeing an apple and calling it an apple' and the person thinks: "that's it? That must be all the people whom I see as shallow and stupid, which is not me and so I am an N."

Honestly, that happens a great deal from my perspective.

I could definitely say that Ne may prioritize this stuff and thus be more inclined to it as a rule... but if an Se type, for whatever reason, 



seismicturtle said:


> I would. Why? Because my dominant primary function is Ni. That's kind of the point. I can't help but over analyze every possible thing in ways so abstract that new ideas manifest seemingly out of nowhere.


How often to the ideas come? How easily do they change? Are they 'real time' ideas that you can let come and go for the most part? What do you mean by 'over analyze'?


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

> The difference between the two perceiving functions can be illustrated by the example of an apple. When the Sensing function is used to perceive an apple, a person might describe it as "juicy," "crisp," "red," or "white with black seeds." The focus is on the sensory attributes of the apple. When the Intuitive function is used to perceive the same apple, a person may say "William Tell," "How to keep the doctor away," "Roast pig," or "My grandmother's famous pie." Here the focus is on the associations and possible meanings stimulated by the apple.


So this is where the instrument begins to slip..... this is Se vs. Si, if anything at all (as some have mentioned, anyone could use the "intuitive" descriptions just to mess around). This kind of test wouldn't be able to say anything on intuition at all, as its place here would be that of rejecting mere description. Intuition can't be used to describe an apple in the same way you can't use a hair dryer to wash your socks.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I don't mean that people are dumb... but more than once I've seen folks use things like that to say that they cannot be Se because they are capable of creative descriptions or people describing Se as 'seeing an apple and calling it an apple' and the person thinks: "that's it? That must be all the people whom I see as shallow and stupid, which is not me and so I am an N."


It's ok @arkigos, you seem like a nice guy. So I'll play bad cop. Those people sound dumb to me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> So this is where the instrument begins to slip..... this is Se vs. Si, if anything at all (as some have mentioned, anyone could use the "intuitive" descriptions just to mess around). This kind of test wouldn't be able to say anything on intuition at all, as its place here would be that of rejecting mere description. Intuition can't be used to describe an apple in the same way you can't use a hair dryer to wash your socks.


no.

If the S examples are Se and N examples are Si, please tell me which of the five senses tells you that something is crisp or juicy?


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> no.
> 
> If the S examples are Se and N examples are Si, please tell me which of the five senses tells you that something is crisp or juicy?


Well if we're getting to the nitty gritty here, calling the apple crisp or juicy could also be a product of general evaluation (T or F, depending on how you take it). But then it makes even less sense to be putting S and the judging functions against each other...... so it seems like it's trying to get at Si. It's a much stretchier stretch to say that it could be getting at intuition.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

That doesn't make sense. The example is about S vs N. You and others seem to equate the S examples to Se. However, two of the S descriptors are in fact abstract sense impressions, which is how Jung defined Si. How do you define it?

The N examples are pointing at possibilities that are beyond the sense data (concrete or abstract).

Jung described Sensation as telling you that something exists. If you look at an Apple and "see" William Tell, that is not a concrete or abstract sensory detail, it is a possibility of the object.

People also seem to be hung up on Si is the past and Ne is the future, but Jung describes Intuition as the possibilities of both the past and the future.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

seismicturtle said:


> I would. Why? Because my dominant primary function is Ni. That's kind of the point. I can't help but over analyze every possible thing in ways so abstract that new ideas manifest seemingly out of nowhere.


I strongt doubt that we either have the same definitions or talking about the same thing.
Humans aren't so dumb that we'd spend too much energy on trivial things.
Also, if you can't comprehend Ni (as you said "new ideas manifest seemingly out of nowhere.") you might want to wonder if it is really dominant. If it was dominant it would be so familiar to you that you could trace its origin.
Also, before you go around giving dodgy type trolling comments, learn MBTI.

But amuse me, describe a fork.


----------



## seismicturtle (May 8, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I strongt doubt that we either have the same definitions or talking about the same thing.
> Humans aren't so dumb that we'd spend too much energy on trivial things.
> Also, if you can't comprehend Ni (as you said "new ideas manifest seemingly out of nowhere.") you might want to wonder if it is really dominant. If it was dominant it would be so familiar to you that you could trace its origin.
> Also, before you go around giving dodgy type trolling comments, learn MBTI.
> ...


Your assumption is based on the idea that the apple is trivial. In some cases this may be true, but in others it might not be. It's all subjective. In the same way that me describing a fork to you for the sake of your amusement is trivial. The fork itself is not however as it can be a symbol of the choices we must make or the strategy we implement in chess. I wasn't trolling, I was simply calling you out on an argument that an INTJ would never make.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

seismicturtle said:


> Your assumption is based on the idea that the apple is trivial. In some cases this may be true, but in others it might not be. It's all subjective. In the same way that me describing a fork to you for the sake of your amusement is trivial. The fork itself is not however as it can be a symbol of the choices we must make or the strategy we implement in chess. I wasn't trolling, I was simply calling you out on an argument that an INTJ would never make.


I am sure that you know all the arguments and comments that an INTJ would make since being an INTJ makes you identical to me in every single way and thus I must be wrong and not you, because you could never be wrong.

Also, a fork (the tableware thingy) is far from something simple as it is one of the tools that define western society and especially, it is a part of tableware (I say tableware because even chinese and those have it, but they don't use the same kind as the western world) that combined is the difference between what we see as civilized countries and uncivilized countries. In quite some countries of the world you swipe your ass with your left hand and eat with your right hand. Tableware can thus be said to save lives as it improves hygiene and makes you less likely to get things such as diarrhea which can be deadly in some countries.
So, a fork is in itself an important thing for our definition of civilization, but it is also a part of something larger, something that saves lives.

We could say that that was intuition, but then we would trick ourselves. What I described was partially intuition, sure, but truth is that it was made by the combination of Ni and Te and not one or the other.


----------



## seismicturtle (May 8, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I am sure that you know all the arguments and comments that an INTJ would make since being an INTJ makes you identical to me in every single way and thus I must be wrong and not you, because you could never be wrong.
> 
> Also, a fork (the tableware thingy) is far from something simple as it is one of the tools that define western society and especially, it is a part of tableware (I say tableware because even chinese and those have it, but they don't use the same kind as the western world) that combined is the difference between what we see as civilized countries and uncivilized countries. In quite some countries of the world you swipe your ass with your left hand and eat with your right hand. Tableware can thus be said to save lives as it improves hygiene and makes you less likely to get things such as diarrhea which can be deadly in some countries.
> So, a fork is in itself an important thing for our definition of civilization, but it is also a part of something larger, something that saves lives.
> ...


Haha well said. I was just curious as to how much of your self worth is based on your interpretation of the system which is why I wanted to threaten it to see if it led to an emotionally charged assault from you.


----------

