topics: the cover letter, being zapped, shielding, chemical sensitivity, met someone yesterday and took a walk, socionics type, jk rowling and a quote from her book, big angry rant about myers-briggs, and finally, giving up on writing a coherent readable blog post. How long can this title be?

10:10 AM 3/22/11

This turned out to be an enormous, unreadable rant. It started off innocently enough but then went from topic to topic to topic.

I worked on my cover letter that will go with the resume. The cover letter explains what I would like to do, and tells about the experience I have with bookkeeping and why I was interested in money and bookkeeping. I talked about how my interest in money goes back a long way, as it began with my father saving up money so that he could retire early. I talked about how I taught myself using a Schaum's Outline and doing my own bookkeeping at home.

The letter was written by someone else, as most of my writing is, and it seems like it's written by someone who doesn't speak English as their first language (again, I commonly experience this with the voices - many of them have foreign accents, many of them seem to be doing poor translations of language, many of them use words that have terrible connotations and I fight against the meanings of their words). One of the guys that I like the most is the guy with the Indian accent.

I put things in quotation marks if the words sounded wrong to me, so that I can go back and find other ways to phrase them. Some of the words have negative connotations, like the phrase 'trying to.' As Yoda said, 'Do, or do not. There is no "try."' (I don't recall where I saw that quote, but it's probably on google somewhere. I don't remember which one of the movies it was from.) 'Trying' implies this painful effort that ultimately fails. You struggle, and it's painful, and it hurts, and you can't do it, and you fail. That's what the word 'try' means to me, so I don't like that word's connotations. 'I'm trying' usually means 'I'm failing.'

Meanwhile, today they're calling me an enneatype Nine again. Yippee! I have been all around the enneagram dozens of times now as 'they' arbitrarily assign me a new type every so often to suit whichever puppeteer is controlling me at that time. I've never been an Eight or a Two, but I've been every other type except those. It's pretty obvious that I'm not an Eight or a Two, as I'm not strong, domineering, aggressive, and potentially violent, and I am also not the extra-friendly, extra-loving, touchy-feely, self-sacrificing, giving-to-others type either, except only a little bit, some of the time.

The enneagram needs a little work. And that's a shame because it really is useful and it's different from the function-based systems. It's more of a 'fear and desire' system, which doesn't emphasize 'how you process information.' It's 'what do you want' and 'what do you fear.'

They like calling me a Nine because it fits with my inability to forcefully assert my own personality against the many fake personas that act through me. 'Multiple personalities' is described as something that can happen to very unhealthy type Nines, however they weren't talking about electronic mind control when they wrote that. The writers of the enneagram books believed that multiple personalities are something that can 'just happen' to someone who is 'unhealthy.' I however interpret my unhealthiness as being caused by intermittent zaps that hit me every couple seconds 24 hours a day which interfere with all of my functioning and my sleep. If you hadn't slept deeply in over a decade, you would be barely functional too, and you would have no motivation to do anything else on earth except sleep until you were done sleeping, which is all that I ever strive to do until somebody pushes a button and forces me to get out of bed and do what they tell me to do. I can no longer take initiative to spontaneously do some activity that I enjoy. I don't enjoy anything and am physically incapable of enjoying any activity, because I feel constant pain and disturbing zaps every couple seconds.

I was lying in bed last night sensing the zaps. I silenced my mind (and could hear the music continuously playing at a very low volume, but still there, never completely gone, although at one point it was so quiet it seemed like it was almost gone), and then I sensed the feelings in my body. In the position that I was lying in, on my bed, the zap seemed to start in my right arm, travel up to the back of my neck, and then down into my torso. It would happen about every 7 seconds or so - I'm just estimating because at the time this was happening, I couldn't focus on counting seconds - I was paying all of my attention to the physical sensation of the zaps. It could be longer or shorter than 7 seconds. I just tried to re-enact it right now, but can't reenact it accurately, because I'm sitting up, in front of a computer, typing on the keyboard, after drinking a large cup of coffee, and I can't sense the zaps unless I am very relaxed. They are still there when I'm tense, but I can't feel them as clearly.

It's the time of relaxation that they matter most. I need to relax completely, focus my mind, and motivate myself from within by looking at the future and seeing the long-term consequences of doing nothing. If I continue to do nothing, then bad things will happen in the future, so I care about doing something. That is how I used to be able to motivate myself. Nowadays, it's 'relax, look at future - *ZAP!* - relax again, relax, relax, let the burning pain flow - future - feel the future - *ZAP!*' Each zap snaps me out of the relaxed mind state and I have to relax all over again. It takes a few seconds to slow down and look into the mind state that I need to look into, and by that time, I am being zapped again.

This relates to socionics: Socionics is about the things that you can do quickly and easily, versus the things that you can do slowly and weakly, with more strain and effort, and less often. I can use my senses and my logic quickly, easily, and effortlessly. I don't have to focus very hard to do that. The quality of my creations is MUCH HIGHER if I am able to focus my mind, but even so, I can easily produce poor-quality or medium-quality output using only my senses and my logic, without effort and without focus. If only I were able to focus and use all my functions as needed, and also use my ego block as needed, with focus, then instead of producing poor quality and medium quality output, I would be producing excellent quality and extremely high quality output, of material having to do with sensing and logic.

If I want to do anything that's not in the 'ego block,' the sensing and logic, if I want to use intuition to sense the flow of time and the series of long-term consequences, that requires a little more effort, and it happens slowly. I can't do that instantly and easily. I can only do it by meditating. I have to enter a special mind state to do it, and I have to be perfectly undisturbed. Your weaker functions are more vulnerable to being disturbed than your ego functions are. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to explain which particular functions are the most easily disturbed. Socionics describes all of this and says that everyone is able to use all of the functions, but some of them are weaker and used more slowly and are more vulnerable to being disturbed. (They don't use the phrase 'vulnerable to being disturbed,' though - that's my phrase.) I experience exactly that while I am meditating.

It makes me angry that I *CAN* look at long-term consequences when I am undisturbed, but as the result of someone else's crime against me, I am not able to look at consequences, and, as a result, it makes me look like just another stupid moron who lives in the immediate moment without caring about long-term consequences (something Ayn Rand complained about, and something that the anti-sensor Keirsey cults complain about in their stereotype of 'bad sensors' who live for the moment and are clueless about the future and about alternatives, while intuitives are the only ones thinking about the future and the big picture. That's just simply *NOT TRUE*. I *WANT* to think about the future.).

I have questions about shielding.

line of sight versus faraday cage

can line of sight panels be used, overlapping, with spaces in between them, so that air flows around it and you don't have to worry about being in a box, where you would have to design air ventilation tubes and make sure the tube seams were sealed with conductive material where the tube joins the side of the box

does the radio wave wrap around a line of sight panel - there's a word for 'waves wrapping around obstacles,' which applies to longer wave frequencies like AM radio, which is able to wrap around large mountains as though the mountain isn't there. or maybe i've forgotten, and it's wrapping around small obstacles, not large ones, just small bumps that are smaller than the wavelength. tpub.com or something like that, the website with pdf files of military operations manuals. it was an engineering section.

there is also the quantum theory that the wave is 'just there' on the other side of the obstacle, without even bothering to wrap around it. it just appears there. it is either there or it isn't, because it's quantum. is it 'wrapping around' or is it 'quantum on/off?'

how big is the beam? if it's a beam, then it isn't the same as a surrounding field going everywhere around you. line of sight would matter with a beam.

non-grounded overlapping panels. i wouldn't be using expensive equipment to test whether the radio frequencies or EMFs were reduced. instead, i would just be using my senses to feel whether anything changed when i was behind the panels. i have to do this using the least amount of money.

last time i tried to build a shield, i learned about chemical sensitivity as it relates to shield building. it didn't occur to me that i was going to have a chemical sensitivity reaction to the material used in the panels of the shield.

i had bought sound reduction panels - ceiling tiles made of mineral fiber - the ordinary ceiling tiles that are about two feet by two feet square - because they reduce sound waves. i was trying to reduce sound waves and also electromagnetic waves at the same time. i was going to wrap plain aluminum foil around the box. this was merely a test box. i was going to see whether i could feel anything at all when the box was around me, but the box would be open on one side for air, because i am not doing anything dangerous where i could suffocate. it would be mostly a line of sight shield instead of a perfect faraday cage. (i just want to reassure everybody that i won't be accidentally suffocating inside of some box. not to worry.)

so i started building this box. but every time i worked on the box, i got horribly exhausted and had to stop. if i had been someone else, if i had been another victim, a different person, then i would have blamed the exhaustion on the attackers. there are people who blame every single symptom they have, and every single event that happens in their life, and every particle that moves in the universe, on the attackers controlling everything. i don't. i see the attackers as people who put up a big SHOW of controlling everything, but they really don't control very much at all. they do a few small things to make you helpless and immobilized, but it doesn't require much effort, and every now and then they do something to 'impress' you, like finding a particular person whose face looks exactly like somebody else you know, and forcing that person to come talk to you, that kind of thing. it makes it SEEM like they are all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-controlling. but really it was just one incident.

so some of the victims blame every single symptom on the attackers. but i don't. i can sense that some of my health problems are caused by chemical sensitivity. now if you read about electromagnetic sensitivity and electromagnetic pollution - those ideas are written from the perspective that you aren't being attacked, but instead are focused on the symptoms and problems you have by passively living in an electromagnetic field all the time, then you can read about how electromagnetic fields might cause people to be more chemical sensitive and less able to metabolize poisons. i appreciate those perspectives. they are looking at the health problems that result from living in EMF all the time, without focusing on whether the EMF is 'ambient' and 'legitimate' and 'being used for socially acceptable forms of communication,' versus 'directed at you personally,' 'illegitimate,' and 'being used for socially unacceptable, illegal, evil, and harmful purposes to destroy lives and control people.'

i switched into all lowercase mode while writing notes about the shield. then i went back into 'overcaffeinated blogging mode' and started writing paragraphs again without switching into capitalized first letters mode.

Anyway, as I was handling these ceiling tiles, I became exhausted, but didn't blame the exhaustion on the attackers, although I might claim that the electromagnetic fields are worsening my chemical sensitivity. That was the point. I blamed it on chemicals. I began to observe that if I touched the ceiling tiles or moved them around, causing the air to circulate and raise dust, if I breathed near the panels, then I would become horribly, overwhelmingly, helplessly, utterly exhausted and unable to work.

After noticing this effect, I looked again at the piece of paper that was included with the ceiling tiles. IT ACTUALLY SAID that the tiles contained something that you shouldn't be touching and shouldn't get on your clothing. It actually said that if you get this dust on your clothing, you must wash that batch of laundry separately, otherwise it would contaminate other pieces of laundry with the dust. It said that this stuff wasn't good for you, it was a health hazard, and you should minimize exposure to it, and I think it might have even said that you should cover your mouth with a dust mask. I don't recall the exact words. It's some kind of mineral fiber. So apparently I read those things and didn't worry about them, or else I didn't bother reading them until it was too late. Now I know. Whatever is in those ceiling tiles, it causes extreme, long-lasting, incapacitating exhaustion, and it made me completely unable to work after handling the ceiling tiles for only a couple minutes.

So I was trying to work on the shield and then would go collapse for a while, not knowing what was wrong. Eventually I saw the connection, and no, I didn't blame the attackers for the exhaustion. So I have learned: whatever I use for the shield must be something that will not trigger chemical sensitivity reactions.

I have reacted to touching copper and inhaling copper several times in the past. I can touch dry copper pennies without noticing much of anything. But I have washed pennies off under running water while holding them in my hands, and once I washed them off with vinegar as I was trying to remove the tarnish, and I used dish soap on them too. While doing this, I started to get a terrible feeling of craziness and wrongness inside my head. It made me feel sick and unable to think, and if the feeling had increased any more, I felt as though I would have had a seizure. I found something on the internet called 'the eight disadvantages of copper,' or something like that, in a web page about ayurvedic medicine, where they talked about using copper for medicinal purposes. there was a list of eight things that made copper dangerous or hard to use. copper can cause you to go crazy, vomit, and have seizures, for instance. it messes up your brain, similar to lead poisoning. (how did i get back into 'no capitals' mode again???)

I reacted to the hairpins that I tried using on my hair sometimes, especially when my hair was wet. The metal of the pins went through the skin on my head, and I felt an uncomfortable tickly sensation and then my mind started having that 'crazy feeling' and 'wrongness' again. Dental fillings are doing this to you, too, as they contain copper. It is misleading to believe that mercury is the ONLY hazardous metal in your fillings. The fillings contain several other metals, ALL of which cause symptoms. Copper causes upset stomach, and I remember having a sick stomach constantly when the metal filling was in my mouth. I have plastic fillings now (resin composite fillings, leaching bisphenol-A and causing breast pain), and I hate them just as much, but the symptoms are different. (My rules forbid *ALL* dental fillings and dental implants of ANY kind.)

And a few weeks ago, when I was helping out at College Avenue McDonald's, I found a penny on the floor while I was cleaning (we were extremely slow, there was absolutely nothing to do, and we were assigned to detail clean some parts of the store). I was spraying bleach on the walls - and no, bleach doesn't bother me - bleach is something that bothers most people who call themselves chemical sensitive, but it's possible to be sensitive to different groups of chemicals, depending on which cytochrome system is inadequate.

(Cytochromes are things like 'CYP2D3' or something like that. I don't know what exactly they ARE, but they are associated with the ability to produce enzymes that break down poisons in the body. You can have only one copy of a particular cytochrome, or you can have two or three copies of it, and if you are lucky enough to have several copies of the cytochrome, then you can easily metabolize the poison, and you'll be somebody who, for instance, can drink a lot and 'hold your liquor' while everyone else around you is obviously drunk.)

Anyway, I found a heavily tarnished penny on the floor and picked it up. I sprayed it with bleach and began scrubbing it with my scouring pad under running water. I had gloves on, so I believed it would not go through the skin of my hands. But I began to feel the sick wrong feeling within a few seconds. I felt as though it was in my nose and throat. So it seems like copper vaporizes when it is wet and having a chemical reaction. Either that or it goes directly through those vinyl gloves.

(Technically, it could have been zinc, too, that I was feeling, as if I recall, zinc is used in brass. Are pennies bronze or brass? I guess they are bronze. Bronze might be copper and tin, right? I forget now. There's bronze and brass, and one of them has tin, and the other has zinc. I'd have to look it up. I suspect that 'bronze' comes from 'copper with tin.' I think that tin was easier to find than zinc. Zinc is hard to find and hard to see, compared to tin, and tin would have been findable thousands of years ago during the bronze age. Copper is also easily findable, as it sometimes occurs in visible chunks of rock, if I understand correctly. You can actually go to certain places and pick up rocks that have visible pieces of copper metal in them. I could be remembering all of this wrong. But I'm interested in understanding how it was that primitive people first discovered these things, and if something is just lying around visible in a chunk of rock, you're a lot more likely to find it than you are if you're getting a substance out of a rock that has to be melted and treated with a long series of chemical refining processes to extract tiny quantities of a substance.)

So I know that copper is not safe. Copper must be kept dry, and it should be covered with a substance that is nonporous and insoluble to copper. I don't know which materials that would be. So the panels of a copper shield must be coated with another substance to make them safe for touching, as you are going to be lying against the shield, touching a very large panel of copper with large areas of your skin, and breathing the air that has flowed around panels of copper. Victims of electronic harassment are already called 'crazy,' and if you are lying inside of a box made of copper sheet metal with the copper pressing against your skin, going crazy because of copper poisoning will only make things much worse than they already are. There is such a thing as 'real crazy' instead of 'fake crazy' or 'wrongly viewed as crazy by a society that doesn't believe you or doesn't understand you.' Real crazy happens from various types of drugs, poisons, and brain damage. The brain is a physical organ like any other physical organ, and the entire body and nervous system is a physical thing.

Shielding will be my specialty in the world of electronic mind control. This is a socionics thing again. I was reading that one guy's writing, the one that I liked a couple blogs ago, where he was questioning whether the term 'electronic mind control' should be used. It was actually THAT PARTICULAR LETTER that made ME decide I ought to refer to it as 'mind control' because that is what it is, even if it's politically incorrect, although I can use other phrases to describe it in appropriate circumstances. I remember reading that particular article years and years ago and being influenced by it.

But I saw that that author had the same attitude about shielding that I have seen in many different places: he had a sort of hopeless attitude, the 'it can't be done' attitude, or 'their technology is so powerful that we can't possibly keep up with it' attitude. Many victims feel that way about the possibility of shielding. That is where I come in. To me, shielding feels inevitable and necessary and possible. It feels like the only thing to do, the most important thing to do, and the best possible thing to do. It feels like the most effective way to quickly solve the problem and calm people down when they are being attacked. (If I had a shelter for attack victims, I would also use several other processes to calm them down, such as showering and decontamination of clothing to remove transdermal poisons that can cause panic attacks and other symptoms. If they stayed at the shelter for a long time, I would also troubleshoot their diet, to check for things like wheat gluten sensitivity, which can cause 'craziness' and symptoms of schizophrenia.) It requires technical, mechanical, scientific knowledge.

RDL writes about how the SLI personality type is focused on things like physical comfort and pleasure and avoiding pain and feeling physically safe. But I think that Ichazo's instinctual subtypes apply just as much to socionics as they do to the enneagram, and I believe that the instinctual subtypes might exist within all of the types, so that an SLI might have a sp/so subtype (as I think I do) and be focused on physical comfort and safety and avoiding risks (and also have the 'dull and boring' mundaneness and lack of charisma that I myself have), while another might have a sx/so subtype and be focused on sex and love, charisma, extreme experiences, attractiveness, and relationships, but would have a weakness in areas like managing their money, eating healthy foods, and avoiding the use of recreational drugs. This is only a theory. That's all on that page called 'info from the underground' at www.ocean-moonshine.net, which has to be googled because the URL will give you an error message if you just type in 'www.ocean-moonshine.net,' as it doesn't have the right kind of index page or something. The real first page is something like 'www.ocean-moonshine.net/A089EH33DF0C08/,' some random gibberish numbers. I'm offline now and can't look it up.

I could be wrong about ALL of that. In fact, almost everything I say about personality types is probably wrong. I would have to sit there and do what RDL himself did, which is watch YouTube videos of celebrities and observe which functions they were using. Or videos of anybody at all, not just celebrities.

I had an experience yesterday. I don't know if it was a puppet incident, or whether it was a genuine coincidence and accident. Yesterday it was warm outside and I (don't let me forget that the main idea of this story is 'I am wrong about almost everything when I try to guess people's personality types') decided to go outside walking somewhere. I didn't know where I wanted to go and I debated between walking in the park, versus walking through town and seeing all the people. I decided to go into town.

I pulled into my space in the parking garage, and as I got out, a girl pulled up beside me and say 'Hey Nicole!' out her window as she parked right beside me. It was a co-worker, and I forget her name, and I didn't use her name even one single time the whole hour or so that I went walking with her. I don't think I have ever called her by her name at all. I really can't remember it. Is it Sara? Sarah? No, I don't think that was Sarah. I really don't know her name. We just didn't use her name that whole time.

She pulled up beside me with her long-haired boyfriend. (I gazed at his hair pleasantly many times while we were all walking together. Men don't understand that it directly gives me pleasure to simply look at their long hair. If you want to constantly give people around you a pleasant experience, grow your hair long. Grow a beard too. 'They' always pay attention to my emotions and sensations, especially if I am in a sexual mood, and I respond strongly to long hair and beards, and they are always urging me to talk about this. However, I don't think that talking about it does any good. You have to pay people to do it, to follow your rules. If you are paying them, they will do anything for you.)

She got out and I told her that I was just wandering around randomly on my day off, and I wasn't going anywhere in particular. She was doing something similar. So we went out together and walked around town. I mostly followed her, as I myself really hadn't been planning on going inside many of the shops, but was just going to walk down the sidewalk. She showed me into several different shops and we looked at things and she bought a stuffed animal at one of the places.

I was trying to decide whether she was a rational type or an irrational type. This seems like one of the most obvious things that you can see about someone's sociotype. And I discovered: I could not even determine whether she was rational or irrational! After walking around with her for over and hour, and chatting, and having a bit of tension and discomfort and the feeling that we didn't know what to say to each other, and the feeling that I was saying the wrong thing and not being understood very well, like she wasn't responding properly to me, and I wasn't responding properly to her, and not knowing whether this was caused by an intertype relations problem, or whether it was caused by a lack of common interests and common knowledge, or what - I don't know what the problem was. And I like her, and I think she's cool, and she's an interesting and unusual person, but for some reason, I don't feel relaxed and comfortable and myself with her. I've seen worse - I've been with people who made me so uncomfortable that it was unbearable to spend any time with them - and I was able to be with her for a while and I actually had a good time and I am glad we did it. I saw new things that I hadn't seen before. But it was a bit of an unnatural strain, and I couldn't be relaxed and be myself as much as I wanted to be. I couldn't tell the truth and be open and say what I wanted to say without censoring and editing myself. And she likes some of the things I like, such as Harry Potter, but that didn't matter.

So the point of that story was that even though I had walked around with her for over an hour, I still couldn't even decide whether she was a rational type or an irrational type. I'm too self-conscious while talking to someone and can't just separate myself and observe what they are. The process of doing that would require me to be a detached, outside observer, like someone watching a YouTube video instead of BEING IN the video. I can't see it when I'm in the video.

I was listening to Harry Potter again last night, as I have recently been buying the audiobook versions. It was one 'extraverted ethics' word after another. Every couple words was an extraverted ethics word. I was listening to the scene about Slughorn's Christmas party in The Half-Blood Prince. It is a constant description of a large number of different people having emotional reactions to each other. There are a huge number of emotion words, constantly. So JK Rowling seems to be very strong in using extraverted ethics, or at least writing about that. There are four types that have extraverted ethics in their ego block. EIE, ESE, IEI, SEI. JK Rowling is extremely competent and comfortable writing dialogue and describing people's behavior, their moods and motives and reactions to each other. And it's not just one or two people, it's dozens and dozens and dozens of people. I need to find out more about introverted ethics, because I wouldn't recognize it if she was using introverted ethics instead of extraverted ethics. If she was using introverted ethics, then she could be IEE, SEE, ESI, EII. Whatever it is, she's using some kind of ethics, very fluently and very strongly and constantly. The whole book is full of emotion words.

Slughorn's Party (an example - I will have to transcribe this while listening to the audio version, as I don't have the paper book to copy it from):

"Hermione! Hermione!"
"There you are. Thank goodness. Hi Luna."
"What's happened to you?" asked Harry, for Hermione looked distinctly disheveled, rather as though she had just fought her way out of a thicket of Devil's Snare.
"Oh, I've just escaped - I mean, I've just left Cormac," she said, "under the mistletoe," she added in explanation, as Harry continued to look questioningly at her.
"Serves you right for coming with him," he told her severely.
"I thought he'd annoy Ron most," said Hermione dispassionately. "I debated for a while about Zacharias Smith, but I thought, on the whole..."
"You considered Smith?" said Harry, revolted.
"Yes, I did. And I'm starting to wish I'd chosen him. McClaggen makes Grawp look a gentleman. Let's go this way - we'll be able to see him coming, he's so tall."
The three of them made their way over to the other side of the room, scooping up goblets of mead on the way, realizing too late that Professor Trelawney was standing there alone.
"Hello," said Luna politely to Professor Trelawney.
"Good evening, my dear," said Professor Trelawney, focusing upon Luna with some difficulty. Harry could smell cooking sherry again. "I haven't seen you in my classes lately."
"No, I've got Firenze this year," said Luna.
"Oh, of course," said Professor Trelawney, with an angry, drunken titter. "Or Dobbin [spelling? not sure], as I prefer to think of him. You would have thought, would you not, that now I am returned to the school, Professor Dumbledore might have got rid of the horse, but no, we share classes. It's an insult, frankly, an insult. Do you know...?"
Professor Trelawney seemed too tipsy to have recognized Harry. Under cover of her furious criticisms of Firenze, Harry drew closer to Hermione and said, "Let's get something straight. Are you planning to tell Ron that you interfered at keeper tryouts?"
Hermione raised her eyebrows. "Do you really think I'd stoop that low?"
Harry looked at her shrewdly.

That's enough to get a feel for it. All of the books are written that way. Shrewdly this, eyebrows that, politely, thank goodness, disheveled, escaped, explanation, questioningly, serves you right, severely, annoy, dispassionately, debated, thought, considered, revolted, wish, comparison between McClaggen and a giant, realizing too late, with some difficulty... All of these words and phrases suggest emotional states that are visible. They are little clues about how people are feeling and what their motives are. If I understand correctly it is extraverted ethics, not introverted ethics, but again, I need to learn more about that to make sure. This is a great description of a group of people moving around in a large party and encountering other individuals and groups and having emotional reactions to them. Oh no - it's Trelawney. I wish we didn't have to talk to Trelawney, but it's too late, oops.

I really enjoy these books and at the same time I realize that this particular skill is something that I can hardly do at all, something I am very weak on. So it's probably extraverted ethics. She's using it so comfortably, confidently, and skillfully that I assume it must be in her ego block. In an interview, Rowling herself said that she ENJOYS writing dialogue! I've read online about people who are struggling to become fiction writers, and one of the most common questions is, 'How do I write dialogue?' and they talk about the horrible nightmare and the unbearably painful process of struggling to create realistic, natural, believable dialogue. Jo Rowling did this automatically and instinctively without a painful struggle.

It was ridiculous that I saw someplace that JK Rowling was typed as an INTP or something like that. I know where that's coming from. That comes from the stereotype that anybody who's smart and creative and who does something cool is an INTP. All smart people must be INTPs. The definition of 'smart' is 'INTP.' This probably comes from Keirsey, but it might have also come from Myers-Briggs. You see this in forums where people look around at any celebrities who are intelligent and interesting and popular and the first thing they say about that person is 'They must be an INTP then.' Wow, there's ANOTHER INTP! Everyone smart and interesting in the whole universe is an INTP.

I myself got typed as an INTP the first time I took the test because the wording of the test is extremely misleading and causes it to give blatantly wrong results, and they're not bothering to do anything about it. The official MBTI test asks questions like 'Do you prefer: what is possible, or what is actual?' I would always choose 'what is possible' because I couldn't stand it when people were stuck doing something a dumb way, when I could show them a better way to do things, and they would stubbornly and stupidly insist that they must continue to do something the stupid way instead of doing it a better way, refusing to imagine that it was possible to do it differently. This would happen to me at the jobs where I worked, for instance, when I could easily find a more efficient way of doing things but the people around me were too stupid to listen to me if I told them that they could save a huge amount of time and effort by doing it the way I showed them. They were always following a rule and doing what they had officially been told to do, and I was always showing them an unofficial way of doing something which I had observed and discovered myself, and it was much faster, easier, and more effective than their way, but they would keep doing it the same old way, and this always frustrated me. These situations usually involved 'how you are operating a tool,' which is the specialty of the Keirsey's SP Artisan type, or the socionics SLI type. But to me, the words to describe this were 'what is possible versus what is actual.' The stupid people were stuck in their little world following their little rules and seeing only 'what is actual,' their way of doing it, the rule that already exists, the past history of having always done it this way, instead of seeing another 'possibility.' That was back in the days when I had no words to use to describe this phenomenon, and so the only word that I could think of to describe those people was the word 'stupid.' I used to call large numbers of people 'stupid,' but I didn't say it out loud, I was just thinking it in my head and judging them quietly.

The language of the MBTI test is extremely misleading. That question measures whether or not you are intuitive or a sensor!!! It isn't measuring whether you are an SP artisan or an SJ guardian. That question tests for whether you are an intuitive (what is possible) versus a sensor (what is actual). So, huge numbers of SP artisans are getting the result 'INTP' and 'INTJ' and other totally, totally wrong results, because SP artisans prefer the phrase 'what is possible,' as they like having open alternatives instead of one closed narrow little pathway to be forced down. SP artisans don't like to be trapped in one little place where they can only have 'what is actual,' when they are dissatisfied with the world around them, and they enjoy the idea that something else is possible, something better than this. And then, after you've gotten the wrong type, and you've connected this idea to 'one of these answers is smart, and the other answer is stupid,' it goes downhill from there. It's especially difficult when you have to eventually change everything and decide that you really are a sensor, and sensors are smart, not stupid, and everything you've been told is wrong. I had to go for a while thinking that, unfortunately, I was condemned to being one of the stupid people, whether I liked it or not. But I still felt like I was smart.

But it would be UNTHINKABLE to try to explain this to the people who officially hold the copyrights of the MBTI test and tell them that they are officially giving thousands of people a personality type that is in a totally different universe than the real type that they have. They think that if you 'misinterpret' or 'misunderstand' the definition of the words in the test, that's YOUR FAULT because you're TOO STUPID to read the words correctly! They've 'carefully chosen' the 'right words' with their dictionary definitions, and it doesn't matter to them that real people have their own interpretations, connotations, and meanings for those words, which are causing them to get horribly, drastically wrong test results. They will tell you, 'That's already been covered in the questions that ask "Do you like to leave your options open?"' which is testing for the P/J letter. To me, that means almost the same thing as 'what is possible versus what is actual.' Possible = open options and possibilities. If I haven't made a decision yet, then everything is still possible. I'm not trapped in one particular decision yet. That's what the word 'possible' means to me.

Sorry... this is a huge rant. I was really getting into it. That's the 'too much caffeine' talking. And my writing addiction.

I should read this over and see whether I've finished all of the things I started. I often start telling a story to make a point, and then go off on two or three tangents within tangents, never to return. I can only find the loose ends by rereading it all from the beginning, which usually leads to my inserting big paragraphs in between other paragraphs.