You use your history of private talks with people as too much of a basis for what is and isn't real.
Ofc I use them in that way. 'Too much' is your own flawed opinion of my process.
How many times do I have to tell you people that I was formally trained in information gathering techniques that are about the best that are possible without specialized equipment? Precisely what do you think I'm saying when I tell you over and over that I was an anthropology and archaeology major and I very nearly went into forensics? Do you think I'm lying to try to impress you or smthg? lol idgaf if you're impressed. I'm telling you where my reasoning style comes from and why it's durn good for assessing people I can't even see.
That's my reasoning style and it's a damn sight better than yours, Word Salad Boy.
When I'm chatting privately with somebody, I can ask them a string of rapid fire loaded questions and split hairs until I get a better sense of who's full of shit and who's not, and what drives the person. I'm playful and fun with my questions bc I do usually approach them with a sincere interest in their humanity... at least at first. If I don't like the person, I avoid talking to them privately with various levels of courtesy or lack thereof.
I rarely believe what people post publicly on the forum. There's so much bs and spin on SC I only believe it if it comes from the person him/herself.
And even then, there's still about a 1 in 4 chance I'm talking to a puppet.
If I feel the acct might be a fake, I'll interrogate a person further to see if I'm right and to try to get an idea of who the puppetmaster is.
You try to assess personalities with certain recognizable interview/interrogation techniques, too, in your own messed up way.
More than half the conclusions you reach after your interrogations are absurd, tho.