# Is it common to think that Sensors are...Simple?



## BlueG (Jun 2, 2011)

Tenshi said:


> And I think people are free to set any meaning they want to those words.


Heavens no. That is havoc.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

@_Tenshi_ are you familiar with cognitive functions? I suggest you read up on them. You'll have a better understanding of types that way.


----------



## Angelus (Apr 9, 2012)

firedell said:


> @_Tenshi_ are you familiar with cognitive functions? I suggest you read up on them. You'll have a better understanding of types that way.


I am familiar with them yes, and I have read quite of a bit about them. But I can't claim to be as knowledgeable in them as I'd like to be.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

Tenshi said:


> I am familiar with them yes, and I have read quite of a bit about them. But I can't claim to be as knowledgeable in them as I'd like to be.


Pff. Don't worry about that. An understanding of cognitive functions is nothing to be revered.


----------



## BlueG (Jun 2, 2011)

BlueGiraffe said:


> Heavens no. That is havoc.


Opps, I knew I left something out. 
@*Tenshi*
I am still curious as to what you think depth is?


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Sensors are complex in ways which intuitives can barely understand, thus making this false assumption.

To sensors, intuitives often seem extremely naive, for that same reason.

People don't understand each other, and instead of trying, they are quick to dismiss them.


----------



## fratz (May 23, 2011)

Merope said:


> ...An INtuitive has a broader view on things which most Sensors cant see as readily as most Intuitives. So to an Intuitive the Sensor comes of as narrow minded in those situations. The thing is, Sensors have a better view on details. Now often the N overlooks those details but it can easily be pointed out because its something Concrete. An S points their finger at it and the N sees it with their own eyes and gets it, because its right there. Sensors are in a disadvantage here when an N points out some theoratical broader view object/thing/vision (whatever) because its not right there! See what I mean here? Its just easier for an N to spot the Ss strong points, but for an S its harder to spot an Ns strong point because they are not concrete. So that doesnt make the N smarter.


In my past professional life, I was surrounded by peers who are INtuitives (who were mostly ENF's). I was often in awe of their ability to "see the possibilities" and to strategize around relationships both political and cultural to meet the organization's goals. I have not one bit of that skill in my toolbox. 
BUT what I did bring to the table was a realism that often stopped discussions that I could easily see as a waste of time, energy and resources-I called it "going down rabbit holes". Even when their strategizing was do-able or reasonable, someone had to implement the strategy and I can easily say that none of these INtuitives had the stamina, patience or focus to do it. Step up, Sensor...get 'er done! And I did get it done, time and time again. Speaking from experience, it takes a lot of intellectual and emotional smarts to implement someone else's strategy in a large complex organization (hospital). I am one Sensor in a billion, but I am sure I my experience is not uncommon among us. 
Sensors are able to delve deeply into a subject they are interested in. We eventually intuitively "see" the subject so thoroughly that we problem solve and "tweak" it instinctively. When I compare myself to my INtuitive friends, I seem to see things from the particular to the global, while they see things from the global and just may get around to seeing the particular. I am better able to predict the potential outcomes of any course of action and change course if the consequence is not desireable, while my INtuitive friends deal with the consequences after they start down the road.
Just my ISTP 2 cents...


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

Tenshi said:


> And it annoys me when sensors don't take *certain things* seriously. Like strange enough *all the sensor topics* are sort of incoherent and sarcastic. Like I'll have to skim 10 pages to find a few good answers, while on the N threads already the first page is full of precise lists to answer the question on the title haha!


Which things are you annoyed about not being taken seriously?
Do you mean topics in the non type specific forums relating to sensors? Or topics in the type specific forums relating to Sensors? Or a mixture?

If someone thinks the conversation has lead onto the point, perhaps they see you as missing what they see as the point also. Perhaps they're not communicating in a way you get, perhaps you're not communicating in a way they get. I don't necessarily think this is the case, but they're possibilities to consider.
Can you give examples of someone missing the point and thinking they've reached it?

Honestly I think it's pretty peculiar when people talk of this very obvious divide between sensors and intuitives. This is how I've always percieved it:


JungyesMBTIno said:


> Before I discovered MBTI, I never thought sensors were simple (I never noticed there was a simple group and a "complex" group of people - I just ranked any person in terms of intelligence). There are plenty of N types IRL I find generic and simple.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Tenshi said:


> Calm down before you start bashing me!
> 
> Now, I'm in the understanding that there have been a lot of threads and people that think of Sensors as simple and stupid people who can't think...Or something of the like. I'm sorry if mine seems like another one of those, but I don't mean to say you guys are stupid, definitely not!
> 
> ...


No worries!!!

The notion that us Sensors are simpletons comes from David Keirsey and other popularizers of MBTI who are more often than not ignorant of Carl Jung's actual ideas (and Jung was himself a sensor, an ISTP). Most of the popular N vs. S stereotypes actually have to do with intelligence and has nothing to do with functions or type.

There are plenty of deep and profound Sensors. Darwin was an ESTJ, as was Aristotle. Gandhi was an ISFP. The Enlightenment philosopher John Locke was an ESFP. Carolus Linnaeus was an ESTP, as was Michael Faraday.

Sensation says that something IS.
Thinking says WHAT it is.
Feeling says what VALUE it has.
Intuition says what POSSIBILITIES it has.

Now that doesn't mean sensors can't see possibilities, it's just that we tend not to like when they take over and lose any connection with what is. The best way to tick off an Si dominant like myself is to go off about possible things to do without even knowing if those ideas are actually possible given the CURRENT reality. :laughing:


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> No worries!!!
> 
> The notion that us Sensors are simpletons comes from David Keirsey and other popularizers of MBTI who are more often than not ignorant of Carl Jung's actual ideas (and Jung was himself a sensor, an ISTP). Most of the popular N vs. S stereotypes actually have to do with intelligence and has nothing to do with functions or type.
> 
> ...



Although I agree, Jung very much so isn't Ti-Se. It's quite telling when you look at his autobiography and specifically how his ideas developed and manifested throughout his life. His thoughts on his NDE lead me to believe that he's an INTJ, but his autobiography leads me to believe that he's an INTP. Based on how he classified himself he would be considered an INTP by MBTI's standards.


----------



## snapdragons (Feb 1, 2011)

_In my past professional life, I was surrounded by peers who are INtuitives (who were mostly ENF's). I was often in awe of their ability to "see the possibilities" and to strategize around relationships both political and cultural to meet the organization's goals. I have not one bit of that skill in my toolbox. _

I share @fratz's view here. This is one of the things I admire about intuitives, is their ability to see the possibilities. I was recently told that sometimes I focus on the same things over and over and fail to see that things don't have to be the way I see them. However, when someone doesn't provide me with _evidence_ to demonstrate why things will be different, it's difficult for me to see different possibilities. I'm also not a "hunch" person, and the only times where my hunches came into play were in dire situations where they served me well. This happens once a year or something like that. 

Intuitives have this ability to see possibilities in ways which are not related to each sequentially, but in terms of patterns. For me, when the patterns don't make sense, I don't see the connections. I can tell this difference comes out in communication, especially with other intuitives. Or when I an Ne-ing and don't realize it.


----------



## dilletante (Apr 13, 2012)

There are no N's or S's, this is a misnomer. When you look at it this way, you can only add together a bunch of traits to make a personality, which is the antithesis of the MBTI theory.

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"


----------



## Sayonara (May 11, 2012)

I suppose I'm simple. (hopefully simple doesn't mean stupid) I really don't understand a lot of things or see that many possibilities. I'm not an abstract thinker, but I'm not a concrete one either. I just come to some really bizarre conclusions and take a really weird path to get there. It drove my teachers batty, but most were entertained by my odd thought process.

So I'm kind of challenged on both. I identify with Sensors, because I learn by doing. Overall though, I often need things spelled out for me from both Ns and Ss. Sad, no?


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I once watched an Anime where the main character was a simple boy who was gullible and believed everything he saw literally.

In the end, after all the shit went down and the world was in peril, it was only his ability to do this that allowed him to conjure up a better reality than the one that was there--that became real.







Anime are a lot better than religion. Ha.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Sayonara said:


> I suppose I'm simple. (hopefully simple doesn't mean stupid) I really don't understand a lot of things or see that many possibilities. I'm not an abstract thinker, but I'm not a concrete one either. I just come to some really bizarre conclusions and take a really weird path to get there. It drove my teachers batty, but most were entertained by my odd thought process.
> 
> So I'm kind of challenged on both. I identify with Sensors, because I learn by doing. Overall though, I often need things spelled out for me from both Ns and Ss. Sad, no?


You probably just thinking differently. ^_^ Humans have so many different talents and ways of thinking, and the world (well, society as we know it) relies on that fact. You simply have different talents and ways of thinking.  

There's a little pep talk for you. XD


----------



## Sayonara (May 11, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> You probably just thinking differently. ^_^ Humans have so many different talents and ways of thinking, and the world (well, society as we know it) relies on that fact. You simply have different talents and ways of thinking.
> 
> There's a little pep talk for you. XD


Ahaha thank you, it's appreciated. 

Would have been nice to see a decent report card now and then to confirm it, but eh that's the way it goes, lol XD


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Sayonara said:


> Ahaha thank you, it's appreciated.
> 
> Would have been nice to see a decent report card now and then to confirm it, but eh that's the way it goes, lol XD


Eh, yeah, well, tests can only test so much.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

TL;DR

"I really don't want to complain about sensors, but here goes!"

Well played, OP, well played!

As for your question however, am I complex? Not in the least. Will you ever understand me, though? Most likely not. If anything, that would make you the simpleton in my eyes, if I were to judge. Things *are* simple, if you think any different you just haven't understood them well enough - frankly speaking.



Arrow said:


> Every type has both S and N functions, people do realize that right? It's not an either or thing. If you didn't have an S function you would not be able to tell what something is or is not. If you didn't have an N function you would not be able to have any understanding of foresight or understand things which were not spelled out to you. You need _both_ to function. That's why we have both.


Yes and no. If we presume as Functianalyst implied that aux and tert are interchangeable but the inferior remain inaccessible this leaves the following picture.

P doms are one-dimensional in their world perception but can judge their information intake with both, feeling and thinking whilst J doms are one dimensional in what they acknowledge (logic / feeling) but can take a look at things from a sensory, as well as an intuitive standpoint.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Erbse said:


> TL;DR
> 
> "I really don't want to complain about sensors, but here goes!"
> 
> Well played, OP, well played!


At least she did try and be nice about it. ^^ I think this was a genuine want for understanding. Some people just kind of go out there and really just want to complain.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> At least she did try and be nice about it. ^^ I think this was a genuine want for understanding. Some people just kind of go out there and really just want to complain.


Well, my simplistic nature allowed me to dump the message down to its core.

Matters little, it's not as though I was offended by it, but allow me to dwell in my pool of sarcasm, as there are only very few opportunities such as this to go full throttle on it - at least while still being justified doing so.

P.S: Niceness is nothing I value, this is my inferior Fe saying "Hi" to you :tongue: A pile of goo wrapped in a pink ribbon will be just that: A pile of goo at the end of the day.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Impact Calculus said:


> Although I agree, Jung very much so isn't Ti-Se. It's quite telling when you look at his autobiography and specifically how his ideas developed and manifested throughout his life. His thoughts on his NDE lead me to believe that he's an INTJ, but his autobiography leads me to believe that he's an INTP. Based on how he classified himself he would be considered an INTP by MBTI's standards.


He had tertiary N that he developed as a result of his midlife crisis.

And Jung typed himself as an ISTP.

"As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious."
-Carl Jung


----------



## Eli Ayers (Apr 30, 2012)

At least sensors operate on what they know is real and not on what may be real.

I wish I could be more like a sensor, I know plenty of brilliant sensors, I think they just don't understand why we complicate things. Rather than talk about something, they would rather do it. S's are like the wise southern grandma (sorry lol), who may not be Eisenstein but secretly know way more and doesn't think it's that big of a deal.

I dont think an N could make as good of an artist as an S.

I have the sensibilities of both sometimes.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Eli Ayers said:


> At least sensors operate on what they know is real and not on what may be real.
> 
> I wish I could be more like a sensor, I know plenty of brilliant sensors, I think they just don't understand why we complicate things. Rather than talk about something, they would rather do it. S's are like the wise southern grandma (sorry lol), who may not be Eisenstein but secretly know way more and doesn't think it's that big of a deal.
> 
> ...


*what they perceive as real


----------



## Eli Ayers (Apr 30, 2012)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> *what they perceive as real


Thinking to much about an essence of an entity dilutes it's substance. 

We are both needed.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> *what they perceive as real


We all perceive based on what we perceive is real. Perception is reality. Sensors tend to work in more fundamental aspects, but the difference itself is dependant on function order/preference and is much more complex than this.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Eli Ayers said:


> Thinking to much about an essence of an entity dilutes it's substance.
> 
> We are both needed.


As far as concrete knowledge goes, one may be able to deal with a situation accordingly. What if there lies a root cause to his dealings in such things? I mean, that doesn't meant to completely neglect tackling said situation head-on, but what if that situation could have occurred in a different fashion or not occurred at all? It may be true that the sensor can pick up on this "situation" more adeptly, but why in the first place?


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Impact Calculus said:


> We all perceive based on what we perceive is real. Perception is reality. Sensors tend to work in more fundamental aspects, but the difference itself is dependant on function order/preference and is much more complex than this.


I wouldn't use the word fundamental. Maybe something more along the lines of "readily available to execute".


----------



## Eli Ayers (Apr 30, 2012)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> As far as concrete knowledge goes, one may be able to deal with a situation accordingly. What if there lies a root cause to his dealings in such things? I mean, that doesn't meant to completely neglect tackling said situation head-on, but what if that situation could have occurred in a different fashion or not occurred at all? It may be true that the sensor can pick up on this "situation" more adeptly, but why in the first place?



Come again please.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Eli Ayers said:


> Come again please.


I've been asked that one too many times in my life.

You take out the trash, you file court papers, you pay taxes. These are trivial things that "just exist" outside the realm of a non-developed intuitive. They're just "there". Concrete, in the here-and-now, and since they are so incorporated into society, these things must be valid and socially acceptable hence how it seems to "blend" into everyday life.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a profound philosophical experiences with running errands , but everything comes with a complex framework attached to it. What if my gov't was paying my taxes, or what if money didn't exist? Have you ever tried to have this type of a conversation with your daily sensor? You'll seem like a creep! 

But how did it come to be? Why has it become normal to live in a complex society in which you are born to automatically accept the system around you as something that "just is"? If I were born perhaps centuries ago, I would not be burdened by fulfilling my duties to file my taxes on time, yet something more primitive. I had no choice in this... why should I adhere?


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I've been asked that one too many times in my life.
> 
> You take out the trash, you file court papers, you pay taxes. These are trivial things that "just exist" outside the realm of a non-developed intuitive. They're just "there". Concrete, in the here-and-now, and since they are so incorporated into society, these things must be valid and socially acceptable hence how it seems to "blend" into everyday life.
> 
> ...


This was the unfortunately natural progression of humanity. I dont think it could be avoided.

We have jailed ourselves in chains of commerce and production. You dont need to adhere, no one does, but you will, even if you dont want to; because even if a person were to escape from all the conventional trappings of so called civilised life, he would still find himself building the same systems elsewhere, even if he had never experienced such systems, had never been touched by them he would end up doing this in some form or another.

The content might change, as in language, money, technical advances, culture etc.......but the format would not. It is inherent in our minds, we put meaning to that which has none and through this meaning we build our realities up into something tangible.

It is ironic really, we are caught by the very thing which is what leads us to question such systems in the first place: Our imagination. So we continue in an endless cycle, appalled at the banality of our every day lives, we seek to escape into some mental realm of escape, but we always forget that such banalities were a product of that same imagination and thus we are stuck with it....until the end of our lives.

Hmm that sounds depressing, but dont worry, we have also created such entertaining wonders as well, so with the banality comes the abnormality, the special, the fantastic, the brilliantly conceptual and the original.

To me it is merely two sides of the same coin, we need the banality so that we can escape into the fantastical, one cannot exist without the other.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I've been asked that one too many times in my life.
> 
> You take out the trash, you file court papers, you pay taxes. These are trivial things that "just exist" outside the realm of a non-developed intuitive. They're just "there". Concrete, in the here-and-now, and since they are so incorporated into society, these things must be valid and socially acceptable hence how it seems to "blend" into everyday life.
> 
> ...


No, you don't have a choice, that's quintessential to life in general. Even if you indeed were a farmer a few centuries ago, you could still ask the same question, why should you adhere to farming and the crops growing because it "just is"?



> "/.../ what if money didn't exist?"


 Before we had money we traded with other goods and favors or probably had other systems to manage resources. What if the color blue didn't exist? Then the sky wouldn't be blue, but then what? What's the purpose of discussing that unless it actually can have a meaningful impact on reality? Don't get me wrong, I do love to philosophize about things such as how our universe perhaps could be a universe within a universe within a universe, but why should I even care about the deeper dynamics of the economy? It's been proven already that a few men alone can create an economical crisis, and since I don't know what everyone is thinking, what's the point? Or maybe I understand something else, that all humans running the economy indeed are humans? A monkey economy is as irrational as ours, so why should I try to care? The "complex frameworks" are just constructs that we have created for ourselves, and we have a hard time understanding them not because humans are incredibly intelligent, but because the constructs are stupid and primitive.


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

I think humans are more or less equally complex, but some seem more complex because everything about them isn't obvious right away.


----------



## Steel Magnolia (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm a sensor. I am anything but simple. A lot people have a hard time figuring me out, until they really, really get to know me. And very few people know me well irl.


----------



## justcritic (Mar 26, 2011)

Merope said:


> Sensors arent simple, they just focus on completely different things most of the time. To Ns what they focus on is often shallow or boring BUT its the other way around too! To Ss what Ns focus on is often boring, I think? (not sure here, only Sensors could answer that for sure) But Im sure Ss arent very interested in a lot of N topics either.
> 
> So I hate to break it to you guys but there is most definitaly a conversation and perception gap between Sensors and Intuitives. That does not mean one or the other is smarter/dumber though. I just wanted to say that there definatly is a gap, because some people seem to try to deny that.
> 
> ...



-tears in eyes- *sniff* that was beautiful. I go through the same thing with my SJ dad.


----------



## Samia (Apr 23, 2012)

No one is simple. It's not down to what your MBTI type to judge whether you are simple or not. Not many people get 100 percent intuition or sensing and they are PREFERENCES not absolute. Say if someone got 60 percent on sensing and 40 percent on intuition. Their prefernce is obviously sensing. But it also means they generally rely on intuition 40 percent of the time.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

Common? Yes. Correct? No.


----------



## Belovodia (Sep 12, 2011)

Well, if you've spent your whole life being misunderstood and condescended to by
sensors, you're naturally going to have a biased view of them.

Let's face it, intellectual and objective arguments aside, they are the majority and life
is usually much easier when you're a majority group.


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

Inguz said:


> No, you don't have a choice, that's quintessential to life in general. Even if you indeed were a farmer a few centuries ago, you could still ask the same question, why should you adhere to farming and the crops growing because it "just is"?
> 
> Before we had money we traded with other goods and favors or probably had other systems to manage resources. What if the color blue didn't exist? Then the sky wouldn't be blue, but then what? What's the purpose of discussing that unless it actually can have a meaningful impact on reality? Don't get me wrong, I do love to philosophize about things such as how our universe perhaps could be a universe within a universe within a universe, but why should I even care about the deeper dynamics of the economy? It's been proven already that a few men alone can create an economical crisis, and since I don't know what everyone is thinking, what's the point? Or maybe I understand something else, that all humans running the economy indeed are humans? A monkey economy is as irrational as ours, so why should I try to care? The "complex frameworks" are just constructs that we have created for ourselves, and we have a hard time understanding them not because humans are incredibly intelligent, but because the constructs are stupid and primitive.


But, it is a fair and good thing to question, dig, and learn why the system is there and how it works. That's how discovery happens in so many fields. Perhaps what we think we know is flawed. Maybe there's some error, however slight, and benefit from it's discovery.
Essentially, I see in your post "why question this? there's no point in questioning this stuff" and my Ti/Ne mind roars in anger at the very thought of not questioning. I MUST question, and find out what is hiding under all these layers of complexity... or at least keep my mind open to new ideas, and hope they come.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

I'd like to think of this argument this way:

Sensors are simple by choice......not by ability, and iNtuitives are complex by choice but not by ability.

What people have to realize is that these functions are called preferences; the way we choose to be.
But the thing is, mentally or physically, any part of us that we use the most will be the most developed in that area....for example: when we were toddlers, the choice of what hand to use the most was a preference, not a strength, however, the more we used that hand it started to become a strength, now, 20 years later, it is a strength. The same goes for the Sensor-iNtuitive debate, sensors are not dumb nor stupid.....and I never would imply that as most of my family and friends are sensors and many are very intelligent.........however I do find them to be "simple by choice", as the word simple.......to me......doesn't refer to the lack intellectual capacity, but the value they place on intellect.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

SuperNova85 said:


> I'd like to think of this argument this way:
> 
> Sensors are simple by choice......not by ability, and iNtuitives are complex by choice but not by ability.
> 
> ...


Yes and no.

Part of why each is preferred is because of said person's developed function (S/N). As sensing is defined as a natural ability to consume as much detail and intuition leads one to abstraction and hunches, the idea of complexity and simplicity changes with each distinctive ability. What might seem simple to one is not to the other, particularly because of their abilities elsewhere.

"Simple" can mean condensing an idea or association to something that belongs to a more complex understanding. Sensors have a good way of preserving and utilizing the "what is" while their opposites are more interested in developing "what isn't". If a sensor is to understand the ins and outs of a complex ideology or teaching, his/her associations to said content will differ from the intuitive. The sensor may use a real-world example as reference which at times seems simple, yet is thought through and associated as a basic logical parallel. The intuitive may act upon what they get from it and confuse those who are not familiar with the subject if they were to display their knowledge. This isn't because they are trying to be complex, but because the practical approach is in fact what is complex to them.

Intellectuality is not necessarily reflected by a singular focus. Abstraction may be one of them (which intuitives have over sensors), but concrete logic is also something that largely attributes the scaling of total mental capacity. Various forms of mathematics relies on absolutely no intuition whatsoever. Its not so much about placing "value" on intellect rather than perceived intellect -- what is important and what is valued by each individual.

If anything, intuitives like to oversimplify their understandings of things, and details are rather complex because of the amount of effort needed to manage a larger storage of information. So by natural protocol, sensors may seem to be simple because they are better at *physically* managing their information efficiently. What distinguishes the better management of information here is the magnitude of understanding, where practical associations may fail and hunches are the only salvation to cracking the code to understanding it. Thats where intuitives shine and seem "complex", although I beg to differ on calling that complex if its an innate ability.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

The "S as in Stupid" meme is a pretty shallow and lacks a critical understanding of the eight functions. 

Some of the most sharp-witted people I've come across have been Si doms and aux users (SJ temperament). These are the people I will continually lose to at card games and other activities that require quick mental reaction time. Upon casual examination it would appear that Se dom/aux users don't exactly wear their brains on their sleeves but upon getting to know them better you'll find their intelligence tends to me a lot more subtle than what first appearances suggest.


----------

