re: Have you ever run your TD handle through AI?

quote:

---

every one of you participating in this circle jerk should feel deep shame and embarrassment

---

Chat said ur ornery.

Standalone Psychological and Cognitive Profile: SlowFlowPro
Method and limitations
This report evaluates SlowFlowPro as a public TigerDroppings forum persona. It is not a clinical diagnosis, not a verified biographical profile, and not a claim about private identity. The analysis is based on publicly visible posting behavior, writing style, argumentative patterns, board interactions, and repeated topical choices across Political Talk, O-T Lounge, Money Talk, Movie/TV, More Sports, Saints Talk, Pelicans Talk, Soccer, and related boards.
The evidence is strongest for recent and current posting because those posts are more searchable and visible. Older-era conclusions are necessarily lower-confidence. Public profile data shows the account registered in January 2004, lists Stanford as favorite team, uses the location/tagline “With populists, expect populism,” and has roughly 479,000 posts, which makes the account a long-term, high-volume participant rather than a casual user. (tigerdroppings.com)
________________________________________
Executive summary
SlowFlowPro presents as a high-verbal, high-conflict, legally analytical, status-aware forum combatant. The dominant public persona is not best understood as simple trolling. It is better described as adversarial systems analysis: he enters disputes by attacking premises, correcting definitions, narrowing procedural posture, and exposing sloppy reasoning.
His strongest visible traits are verbal intelligence, argumentative speed, legal/procedural precision, broad topical range, and comfort with being disliked. His weaknesses are also clear: contempt, status sensitivity, excessive cross-examination, low patience for ordinary confusion, and a tendency to treat bad arguments as evidence of personal deficiency.
The best version of SFP is genuinely useful: funny, fast, independent, precise, and difficult to fool. The worst version is condescending, dominance-oriented, and more interested in humiliating a bad argument than persuading the person making it.
The central psychological engine appears to be:
A need to impose intellectual order on chaotic crowd reasoning while being recognized as the person capable of doing it.
________________________________________
Core archetype
SFP’s forum archetype is the adversarial systems analyst.
He is not primarily the class clown, although he can be funny. He is not the detached academic, although he has academic-style habits. He is not the partisan foot soldier, although he has strong ideological preferences. He is not merely a contrarian, although he often takes contrarian positions.
His core role is the person who says, implicitly or explicitly:
“Your premise is wrong, your category is wrong, your evidence does not prove what you think it proves, and I’m going to enjoy making that obvious.”
This pattern appears across politics, law, economics, sports, and culture. In a thread about memoranda of understanding, he frames the issue procedurally and transactionally, emphasizing that an MOU is generally an initial, often nonbinding framework that charts a path toward a definitive agreement rather than the final deal itself. (tigerdroppings.com) In Money Talk tariff discussions, he similarly moves from rhetoric to mechanism, arguing that tariff revenue would fall if tariffs “work” by reducing imports and therefore cannot plausibly balance the budget. (tigerdroppings.com)
________________________________________
Intelligence analysis
Overall apparent intelligence
SFP’s public writing shows well-above-average to very high apparent verbal and analytical intelligence. This should not be treated as a verified IQ score. Forum posting cannot measure actual IQ, and performance is distorted by persona, humor, topic familiarity, and incentives. But the visible cognitive phenotype is strong.
The most obvious markers are:
1. Fast abstraction
2. Verbal compression
3. Procedural reasoning
4. Category discipline
5. Cross-domain recall
6. Ability to argue against board consensus
7. Rapid detection of flawed premises
He frequently does not merely disagree with conclusions. He contests the architecture of the argument. In the socialism discussion, he distinguishes modern rhetorical use of “socialism” from more traditional meanings involving state ownership, then treats the Nordic model as a question of semantic category rather than slogan. (tigerdroppings.com) That is a high-verbal, high-abstraction habit.
Verbal intelligence
His verbal intelligence is likely his strongest cognitive domain. He has a consistent ability to compress a complicated objection into a short, cutting formulation: “You’re conflating,” “that gets into what ‘socialism’ is,” or “you just proved his point and I doubt realized it.” (tigerdroppings.com)
This is not just vocabulary. It is semantic control. He often identifies when two sides are using the same word differently, when a claim has shifted definitions midstream, or when a poster is confusing a legal or economic category with a political slogan.
Legal and procedural intelligence
SFP’s procedural intelligence is one of the strongest indicators that the public persona is not just performative cleverness. He repeatedly cares about legal stage, transactional posture, burden, and consequence. In one profile sample, he corrects the idea that a federal guilty plea necessarily means the defendant already knows the sentence; in another, he invokes the distinction between being accused or having pleaded and being formally sentenced as a convicted felon. (tigerdroppings.com)
The MOU thread is especially revealing because it shows how he thinks: not emotionally, not tribally, but structurally. He describes an MOU as an initial framework, generally nonbinding, often materially different from the final definitive agreement after diligence and further negotiation. (tigerdroppings.com) That is transactional cognition: stage, document type, legal effect, and practical likelihood.
Economic and systems intelligence
SFP’s economic reasoning is not merely ideological. He tends to ask whether a policy mechanism actually produces the claimed result. In the tariff-budget discussion, he argues that balancing the budget through tariffs would require enormous aggregate tariff rates and that successful tariffs would reduce imports, thereby reducing the very revenue being projected. (tigerdroppings.com)
That is a systems-level objection. It recognizes feedback effects. The policy cannot be evaluated only at the slogan level; the mechanism changes the base on which the policy depends.
Sports intelligence
His sports-board reasoning is more mixed because he also uses sports boards for humor, provocation, and board-native banter. But when serious, he tends to analyze roster fit, opportunity cost, risk, and organizational incentives.
On Pelicans Talk, he questions whether Ace Bailey’s upside resembles a cheaper version of Brandon Ingram with similar fit problems beside Zion, then sharpens the point by assuming the opposing premise is true and asking why the team would draft someone whose best-case version recreates the same structural problem. (tigerdroppings.com) In another Pelicans thread, he questions the fit of Queen and Zion in terms of pick-and-roll structure, defensive limitations, coaching, and staff uncertainty. (tigerdroppings.com)
That shows sports intelligence based on fit and institutional competence, not just fandom.

Cultural intelligence
SFP also shows breadth beyond politics and sports. On Movie/TV, he engages with directors, style, and audience accessibility. In a Bugonia thread, the discussion around Yorgos Lanthimos films reflects awareness of filmography, style, and viewer expectations rather than surface-level “good/bad” reaction. (tigerdroppings.com) In another Movie/TV post, he comments on Gronk’s cultivated “dumb meathead jock” image, which is a small but telling example of persona analysis. (tigerdroppings.com)
Likely IQ phenotype
A cautious estimate from the visible posting phenotype would put SFP in the high verbal / high analytical range, plausibly somewhere in the 120s to 140s equivalent phenotype, with the strongest evidence in verbal reasoning, legal abstraction, and adversarial logic. That is not a measured IQ claim. It means his public posting style resembles that of a person with strong verbal intelligence and above-average analytical horsepower.
The ceiling could be high. The floor is also high. What is less clear is whether the intelligence is evenly distributed. The evidence is much stronger for verbal, legal, procedural, and systems reasoning than for mathematical creativity, scientific reasoning, or deep technical competence.
Intelligence blind spots
His intelligence has predictable distortions:
Contempt can mimic clarity. A smart person who quickly sees a flaw may assume the other person is stupid rather than mistaken, emotionally invested, or operating from different priors.
Definition-control can become argument-control. He is often right to define terms, but definitional mastery can also become a way to avoid the practical or emotional thrust of a dispute.
Winning can outrun persuasion. His intelligence is optimized for defeating arguments, not necessarily converting opponents.
Status and intelligence appear intertwined. The profile includes joking references to IQ tests, academic history, and reputation; these are comedic, but the joke works because “being smart” is a recognizable part of the persona. (tigerdroppings.com)
________________________________________
Debate and argument style
SFP argues like a cross-examiner.
His typical moves are:
Premise attack. He identifies the hidden assumption and forces the other poster to defend it.
Category correction. He distinguishes legal status, procedural stage, economic mechanism, or semantic usage.
Frame replacement. He does not merely say an argument is wrong; he replaces the frame with what he considers the proper one.
Compression insult. He often reduces a bad argument to a short dismissive line.
Humor as blade. He uses jokes, gifs, and sarcasm to turn correction into performance.
The MOU thread is the clearest example of formal argument style. He explicitly defines the instrument, explains its ordinary role in deal negotiations, and emphasizes that definitive agreements often differ materially after diligence and negotiation. (tigerdroppings.com) The same pattern appears in the socialism thread, where he treats the issue as a definitional problem rather than a bumper-sticker debate. (tigerdroppings.com)
The blunt conclusion: SFP enjoys making people pay a social cost for sloppy thinking.
________________________________________
Humor, sarcasm, and gif signaling
SFP’s humor is not incidental. It is one of the main tools of the persona.
His sarcasm should generally be read as comedy first, not literal belief. But it is rarely harmless comedy only. It usually performs multiple functions at once.
1. Sarcasm as social dominance
When told he did not make the cut in an AI-handle thread, he jokes that all he has left is his “voluminous history of actual IQ tests, academic history, and reputation.” (tigerdroppings.com) The statement is obviously comic exaggeration. But the joke also works because it flexes status while pretending not to.
That is a common SFP move: a joke that disclaims seriousness while still asserting superiority.
2. Sarcasm as contempt management
SFP often uses dry phrasing to make contempt socially acceptable. Instead of simply saying “you are dumb,” he may say a poster is conflating things, using NPC talking points, or proving the other side’s point without realizing it. (tigerdroppings.com)
This allows the insult to feel analytical rather than emotional.
3. Gifs and topical image signaling
SFP uses images and gifs as topical punctuation. They often function as visual punchlines, not as substitutes for argument.
The “saltwater crocs are MASSIVE” OT thread is a good example. The opening post is largely image-driven, with multiple embedded images/gifs setting up the thread’s comic premise. The thread then becomes communal riffing: crocodile awe, Lake Placid references, boot jokes, and absurd escalation. (tigerdroppings.com) SFP later participates in the bit by saying the croc cage is on his bucket list but his wife rejected it, and then pivots into low-stakes movie-bundle humor. (tigerdroppings.com)
The gif/image use here is not random. It signals: “This is a visual bit; respond in kind.” It invites board participation and shows that his persona is not only adversarial. He can initiate low-stakes communal comedy.
In a Political Talk thread, he uses two images to contrast “OP’s mental image of Pam Bondi’s desk” with “Reality,” turning a procedural/political disagreement into a visual gag. (tigerdroppings.com) This is a more aggressive use of image humor: the gif/image does not merely entertain; it mocks the opponent’s imagined reality.
4. Sports-board shitposting
The Saints “Where does Rattler rank?” thread appears deliberately provocative and comedic. The opening is essentially an image-based prompt, receives a harsh downvote ratio, and draws responses calling him insufferable; SFP’s reply, “Big Haener fan I take it?” shows he is playing the board rather than making a sober quarterback ranking claim. (tigerdroppings.com)
That matters because misreading this kind of post literally would underrate his intelligence and overstate his bad faith. Much of the sports-board persona is intentionally irritating comic provocation.

ChatGPT says The Torch is named so for his 11” cock.

How do they know these things

This is more interesting. Why do so many on Tiger droppings dislike :

SlowFlowPro is disliked by many posters not because they doubt his intelligence, but because they perceive him as embodying the most frustrating traits of an exceptionally intelligent debater: he is relentlessly argumentative, unwilling to concede even minor points, prone to lengthy and highly technical discussions, and seemingly incapable of letting a disagreement die a natural death. Critics often feel that he treats ordinary message-board exchanges like appellate oral arguments, dissecting definitions, premises, and logical structures long after everyone else has grown tired of the discussion. To his detractors, he can come across as pedantic, contrarian, and more interested in the process of argumentation than in reaching consensus, creating the impression that defeating an opponent’s reasoning is often more important to him than persuading the opponent themselves.


Many of LSU PIMP’s critics dislike him because they perceive him as extraordinarily confident, rhetorically aggressive, and often mercilessly satirical. Rather than engaging opponents as merely mistaken, he frequently frames them as naïve, emotionally driven, ideologically captured, or fundamentally misunderstanding human nature itself. His tendency to reduce arguments to underlying psychological motives, combined with his use of sarcasm, ridicule, and memorable one-liners, can leave opponents feeling not merely disagreed with, but dissected and mocked. Critics often view him as overconfident, theatrical, and more interested in delivering a devastating rhetorical performance than in conducting a collaborative discussion. Ironically, many of the traits that his admirers celebrate—his wit, certainty, fearlessness, and willingness to say unpopular things—are precisely the traits that make him one of the more polarizing personalities on the board.

The simplest way to distinguish the two reputations is:

* People dislike SlowFlowPro because he won’t stop arguing.
* People dislike LSU PIMP because, when he argues, he often makes them feel foolish.

Yea we ain't reading all that

Having AI rate comedy is probably more telling than most other aspects of personality, both in terms of the output and judging the AI's powers of interpretation/comprehension

ChatGPT, how would you describe the tigerdroppings poster cgrand?

"Based on years of posts across multiple TigerDroppings boards, cgrand has a fairly recognizable posting style and reputation, though, as with any forum personality, opinions vary.

A balanced description would be:

Analytical and opinionated. He tends to make arguments rather than just throw out one-liners. Whether discussing investing, local politics, the Pelicans, or outdoor topics, he usually explains his reasoning instead of relying on slogans.
Broad range of interests. Unlike posters who stay on one board, he is active on the Money Talk, Pelicans, Outdoor, Home & Garden, O-T Lounge, and other boards. His profile shows tens of thousands of posts since joining in 2009.
Financially savvy. On the Money Talk board he frequently discusses growth stocks, portfolio management, and risk management. His advice often emphasizes disciplined investing and taking profits rather than chasing momentum.
Independent-minded. He doesn't appear to toe a consistent ideological line in every discussion. He'll challenge posters he disagrees with, including those who might otherwise share his general viewpoints.
Dry sense of humor. Many of his posts include sarcasm or understated jokes rather than overt trolling.
Can be blunt. He often writes in a direct, sometimes confrontational style. That earns him agreement from some users and downvotes or arguments from others, which is fairly typical on TigerDroppings.

Among regular users, he's generally viewed as a longtime, substantive contributor rather than a novelty or flame-bait account. He doesn't seem to have the reputation of being one of the site's infamous trolls, although, like many prolific TigerDroppings posters, he has detractors and gets into heated debates. Forum reputations are inherently subjective, and discussions about "best" or "most respected" posters often reflect the biases of the people participating."

quote:

---

Hey, chat… can you condense this unholy screed of pompous puffery?

---

If you’ll notice, SFP only started his manifesto after I asked Google’s AI to rank the top 10 most intelligent OT posted based on its analysis of their posting history. He didn’t make the cut. His ego was sorely wounded.

Yea, Gemini was a waste even after I explained the concept…

ChatGPt
Profile Summary

* Username: NytroBud
* Registered: June 4, 2009
* Posts: Approximately 6,059 (as of the latest profile snapshot)
* Favorite Team: Georgia
* Location: LaFayette, Georgia
* Biography/Interests/Occupation: Not listed.

Posting History

The publicly accessible profile shows the user’s recent posts but does not provide a complete archive of every post since 2009 in a single view. Based on the available history:

* Most activity is concentrated in:
* O-T Lounge (off-topic discussions)
* Political Talk
* There are occasional posts on other boards, but these two dominate the visible history.

General Posting Style

Over many years, the account has shown a fairly consistent style:

* Frequent use of sarcasm and humor.
* Short, direct replies are more common than long-form discussions.
* Participates heavily in political threads, often expressing conservative viewpoints.
* Also comments on everyday topics such as family life, vehicles, history, old equipment, sports, and current events.
* Doesn’t appear to reveal much personal information beyond the location and favorite team listed on the profile.