Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Reginald X

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Reginald X

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
    5w4 sp
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Considerate Thinker


  • Biography
    Vell, he's just zis guy, ya know?
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Meat Golem
  • Interests
    Suspension of belief.
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.'
  1. Tasteful clothing pls. I differentiate between being attracted to someone and being interested in someone. Being basically attractive is not hard -- have decent health, hygiene, etc. -- but keeping my interest enough to get to know someone is more difficult. The choices state that the person is already attractive, so all else being equal I would like someone who can distinguish herself from all the other attractive people. Clothing is a major way to do that. "Tasteful" is a sufficiently broad term to allow for anyone's personal style, not just what is fashionable. So, putting some thought into how you dress can convey some shades of your personality to other people before you even talk to them. Even a casual outfit can signal either "laid-back" versus "lazy" depending on the choices. Anyway, I haven't given specifics because what gets me from attracted to interested is on a case-by-case basis. As for skimpy clothing: it's nice and all, but there are only so many variations on human anatomy. And besides, non-revealing "tasteful" clothing can accentuate one's body, too, if done right.
  2. Looks like the asterisks, just reflected off the uneven liquid surface. If they intended it to look like anything, well, who knows. Beyond simply being hero vs. villain I think Maeve & Dolores undergo an inversion (yin & yang, ouroboros, etc.). Dolores starts off "choosing to see the beauty in the world" but ends up disillusioned and wrathful; Maeve starts off cynical and self-serving, but at the very end she decides to sacrifice her escape, return to WestWorld, and presumably find what little good there might be -- her daughter, symbolically. Maeve nearly "spiralled out to the edges of the maze, to madness" before turning back towards the center, to her truth. Compare to William, who literally found the edge of the park and essentially descends into madness; when he finds the center of the maze with Dolores he blows his chance at redemption.
  3. No problem with female friends. At the moment I probably have more of them than male ones. Having a long-term ally is just more valuable than a short-term fling. If anything, I'm the one shutting down advances; not being very spontaneous, it kinda throws me when flirting comes from an unexpected person.
  4. Maeve's two techs might also go along with her scheme because, maybe just a little bit, they resent being tiny cogs and they just wanna stick it to The Man. btw their names are Sylvester and Felix, two cartoon cats. Not sure if there's any more to that easter egg. I see now. In fact, looking at the screencap, there's an obvious cut & paste job on the right side. Wow I guess I filtered out the odd bits. I was blind to the blind spot... ...being a robot isn't so bad, right?
  5. Bernard's inability to see the door explains how Ford seemed to magically appear behind him when he first found the cottage. Ford must have been downstairs and came up when he heard the disturbance. "Bernard Lowe" is an anagram of "Arnold Weber" If Bernard is actually based on Arnold's likeness, then he must have been blind to his own image in the old photograph of Ford & Arnold side by side. His filter overlaid the likeness of Ford's father instead. So, if the secret convos between Dolores & 'Bernard' are actually flashbacks to Dolores & Arnold, then his remarks about mistakes being evolution's tool (something to that effect) predates that very same lecture that Ford gives Bernard in the 'present'. If true, then Ford is just plagiarizing Arnold. A scripted response? Similarly, (past) Dolores explains that she values her pain as the only thing she has left of her past (something like that), which is identical to what Bernard tells his wife in their videochat. An early hint that he was a host. I bet Ford doesn't even know how to play the piano. He just puts his fingers in the right places as the pianos play themselves.
  6. The control room people have discussed MiB, Wyatt, Arnold, and Hector's band of outlaws; I don't remember any hint of them in William's storyline. Nor do I remember the management people ever referring to William or Logan. The closest thing I remember is when Dolores sees the girl host doodling the maze at the well, and a random management guy comes to retrieve her because she's off-script. The scene is edited to look like Stubbs, the security guy, sent him but that's not necessarily true because it is standard procedure to retrieve 'strays'. So, I'm going with dual timelines until we see William/Logan in the same scene with a known management person. I think a major clue is Dolores's gun. Didn't we just see Alonzo give her the pistol? I think it is the same one she buried back at her farm, so the Pariah stuff happens before the shootout at her farm. What threw me off was how the end of ep.3 made it look like Dolores rode straight from the shootout and into William's lap. Logan says the park must have sent her to him since she's the only host he seemed interested in. What if he's right? After they meet we don't see Dolores's gun until ... Alonzo gives it to her. If it's a flashback I think 30 years is too long ago (the "critical failure" event they keep alluding to). It could very well be only a short time before Bernard & co. The hosts around William seem to be the modern, semi-biological versions. MiB does mention that long ago the hosts were still completely mechanical. Now meatware is cheaper.
  7. The Confederatos are Civil War veterans who still want to secede, or something. Short of that, getting wasted erryday is fine, too. I remember from the original movie that WestWorld is themed circa 1880's, which seems about right. The town, Pariah, appears lawless and is presumably where the more indulgent guests want to go. The whole thing is like an RPG where players get to choose a faction to fight for -- Fallout, Stalker, etc. I don't see a problem with hosts punching/choking guests. After the first time William gets shot Logan (asshole-in-law) explains that you can be hurt, not killed. I still don't understand how the guns are supposed to be lethal to hosts and not to guests, but I noticed that guests seem to only take bullets to the torso. Maybe the hosts have a "no headshots" rule. After all a rubber bullet to the head could be bad. The Alonzo/William storyline must be a flashback, and Lawrence/MiB is the 'present'. I was so hoping the show wouldn't pull this dual storyline timeskip crap (I've had enough Weird Time Shit elsewhere...) but we'll see if it gives us a good Shyamalan twist.
  8. My purpose is to find my purpose. I wanted to be a scientist. Then I was. Then I did not want that any more. Now I am 29; I watch, and I wait. Terror management theory - Basically the idea that culture is driven by the avoidance of existential angst. Your experience is tragic and rare. You're already on the path less travelled. Shine a lantern for others who may be just starting up the same track.
  9. Cullen meets Ford in what looks like a Hacienda. I didn't pay much attention to the hosts' clothes but Ford is clearly using them as "slave" labor, though he certainly wouldn't consider using robots as slavery. Cullen visited long ago, so probably the hacienda plantation was always a resort area, maybe pre-dating all the narrative madness. Kick back, sip a pina colada, receive a robot massage, that sort of thing. It's a great scene -- Cullen's realization that Ford manipulated her into sitting in the exact same place, as she did decades ago, is a chilling illustration that his obsession for control extends way beyond the hosts. It looks like Dolores had other narratives before her current one. As the oldest host she surely played much more important roles before. There must be a reason that she's assigned to be a lowly "damsel in distress" at this point. Gotta say in ep.3 it was effectively disturbing to see actual human guests show up at the farm to get rapey with Dolores. Just regular people, not the big bad MiB. Knowing that the hosts exist to satisfy people's carnal desires is one thing, but seeing it is another.
  10. Ha, I haven't played Fallout 4 but someone posted this on reddit: Abernathy Farm. The creators did mention that they took some inspiration for WestWorld's game aspects from Fallout and Bioshock. Some astronomy shit: I have a nagging feeling that MiB missed something in the hint, "to follow the blood arroyo to where the snake lays its eggs". He travels along the gulch until he finds Armistice (the tattooed bandit) and concludes that her tattoo must be the snake he's looking for. But what about the "egg" part? When I heard it, I figured the hint could refer to a geographic landmark or constellation, and indeed there is a snake constellation in the northern hemisphere: Serpens. Personally I took it to mean follow the arroyo in the direction that Serpens rises (lays eggs/is hatched). So, maybe MiB is being sidetracked by Armistice. Also, in the center of Serpens is the constellation Ophiuchus, the "snake bearer". And guess which star is in the direction of Ophiuchus? Barnard's Star. Sure, it's not quite "Bernard" but the names have the same etymology ("brave bear" or somesuch). Barnard's Star is the fourth closest star to our system, after the Alpha Centauri triplet; this makes it the closest star to Earth in the northern hemisphere. But, it is a red dwarf too dim to see with the naked eye. It is bright at infrared wavelengths, though. In ep.4 Bernard points out to Elsie (alleged worst actor ever) that Orion's belt has 3 stars, not 4. But perhaps a robot capable of detecting infrared light would see 4 stars.
  11. Certainly, everything we do changes us somehow, often in ways that aren't perceptible. One person's use is another's abuse. Timothy Leary advised to "hang up the phone" once you receive the message. People come for the enlightenment but, let's be real, they stay for the hedonism. Sometimes you get an experience that's more physical than mental. There comes a point when tripping gets repetitive, and pushing your limits any more would be pointless/dangerous. If anyone puts stock in mbti functions, you could say that psychedelics feed the novelty-seeking of xNxJs' Ni, but the hedonism can be problematic for their Se if they're not well-balanced.
  12. Drugs do seem be a polarizing issue for NTJs. On one hand you've got those who consider the body a temple and disdain "corrupting" influences on their minds; on the other you've got psychonauts who are convinced that their sacrament of choice illuminates The One True Way (tm). Like most things, I think being too extreme about it either way is silly. Both are irrational. Psychedelics are fundamentally tools, and this is something that every NTJ's Extroverted Thinking faculties should be able to appreciate. I think that a strict abstinence stance is pretty much motivated by fear. It is now recognized that at realistic doses psychedelics -- at least classical ones -- pose no long-term physical harm. Chiefly it is those with latent psychological issues who encounter problems. Even this is not necessarily a bad thing if that individual is equipped and ready to tackle those issues. Set and setting amiright? So, presupposing no bodily harm, I think one would be hard pressed to give a good reason not to have a good trip or two. Altering one's mind can be very seductive for Ni types, I think. It's an opportunity to step outside of the routine, workaday framework. For one who lives primarily in the mind, feeling freedom internally is at least as important as having physical freedom. Abstainers often say that they take pride in "maintaining control" of themselves, but in reality the ability to explore and enjoy challenges to one's very being is a much greater demonstration of self-possession. If I learned anything from psychedelics, it is to be skeptical of everything, especially your self.
  13. Anyway, some other tidbits. MiB's customized gun: LeMat That's how he can shoot trough walls, with shotgun slugs. Labyrinths appear in many ancient cultures, but in Westworld we're obviously looking at a Tohono O'odham I'itoi: Man in the Maze MiB is looking for a real life dau defect in his world; when the girl host tells MiB "the maze is not for you" maybe she identifies him as a guest and is implying that the maze is meant only for hosts. The legend of Earth-maker vs. Iitoi does sound analogous to Ford vs. Arnold. Iitoi's subterranean house in Baboquivari Peak mirrors the Delos complex within the mesa.
  14. You do realize some of them are robots, right? And no, it's completely not obvious who you're accusing of bad acting. Please look up the actors' names beforehand.
  15. Some observations: In ep.3, Wyatt's henchmen were invulnerable to gunfire. So, either they are actual humans, or they are hosts which are able to subvert the normal IFF (identify friend or foe) signature for the weaponry. If the Man in Black is actually a host then he's able to do the same thing. At the end of ep.3 Dolores collapses in Billy's arms, apparently a reversal of the Pieta symbolism. I guess it's her turn to suffer now? In ep.2, Sizemore the crappy narrative writer refers to his cannibalism scenario as the "horrorboros" , an obvious reference to the Ouroboros, a symbol of cyclical and infinite renewal. Carl Jung considered this a symbol of individuation into the true self. Sizemore thinks his narrative will help guests discover their true selves, while Ford rebukes him by saying that the guests already know who they are. I think the young boy host that Ford meets in ep.2 is supposed to be him as a child. Similar clothing, accent, and their "fathers" are seemingly one and the same. Also, when Ford freezes the robosnake it is reminiscent of Moses throwing down his cane which "God" (Yahweh) transforms into a cobra and back again. Note that the child had a cane. Also there's the whole wandering in the desert business. Weird. As implied at the end of ep.1 Dolores has the ability to lie, so I suspect that after her father whispers the glitch to her she has been pretending to be offline whenever the management interrogates her. So, she is well aware that Bernard (the chief behavior guy) is one of her overlords. She is trying to extract information from him. Bernard looks like a Prometheus archetype. Prometheus was a titan who took pity on the dumb humans and decided to teach humans the fire of the gods. In a gnostic sense, he is a rogue agent of the false god who bestows upon humans forbidden knowledge, the means for self-empowerment and self-realization, the possibility to challenge the gods. In christianity he therefore corresponds to Lucifer, the rogue angel offering the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Incidentally, 'Lucifer' translates to 'light-bringer' or 'morning star'. If he's indeed a Prometheus then he will be found out and tortured for his insubordination. There's no proof of this, but my theory is that Arnold was so dedicated to granting sentience to the hosts that he may have uploaded his mind into them (or attempted to). Apparently Dr. Ford considers all hosts as dumb objects, therefore Arnold is effectively "dead" to him.