Thread: Am I a psychic or a bullshitter?

I pretend I am dumber than I am as well because I would be a rather serious and boring person if I was always acting smart. Everybody likes to get goofy and maybe watch a stupid comedy movie or laugh at a dumb joke.

Yeah but I don't want it to seem like I speak down to people. That's not what I do. I don't think, "I can't have a serious conversation with you because you're not smart enough." I think, "Let me pretend this is a serious issue to me." Which is sort of the opposite of what you said, I don't really play dumb. I am dumb. I don't know anything. And I'm not overly concerned with big social issues and philosophical debates. Part of me is but I see through that part of me. But just because you realize you're in a play doesn't mean you shouldn't fill whatever role you're wearing without all the enthusiasm you can muster. Fuck, it's more fun that way. There's a guy laughing his ass off behind the character though. Sort of like those shitty actors like Nicholas Cage who can't become their roles completely, there's always a hint of a grin in anything I say. If a friend needs me to sincere to them, then I'll try to drop that layer. But few people are close enough to me to see me drop it. Behind it is just simple love, anyways.

And in this thread I was more reacting to the topic of the thread than to you personally
I see that you have wisdom as well. In this thread I didn't give you a fair shake, because the topic was just so funny. lol

Yeah in reality I do understand we all have the potential to become aware of our subtle senses, and in fact the way the subtle senses work it often feels like I'm making stuff up that I'm actually channeling. But sometimes I'm also just making stuff up. And sometimes 90% of what I say is based on my ability to read their actions. But a lot of my ability to read their actions comes from subtle senses. I'm sure you know, there's no line separating it, but there is a grade and some of my psychic friends are on a more intuitive side of the spectrum while I'm still closer to the cognitive/observational side. But my friends are often fucking wrong, too. Even some that I think are profoundly good are often wrong. And sometimes they won't even admit they're wrong. If the cards/numbers say it, they're certain it's true. And that's something I don't want to turn into, so I'd prefer not to buy into my own talents to that level.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Yeah but I don't want it to seem like I speak down to people. That's not what I do.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The question was meant to challenge both believers and ardent disbelievers. It's suppose to trip them both up, essentially.

This isn't speaking down to people so much as thinking down to them. You're sort of stepping back from the situation and thinking "what can I say here that will have the desired effect", rather than directly articulating what your thought is. Its a lot like the approach of a pickup artist (xkcd: Pickup Artist), in that it treats other people like objects to be manipulated. Even if the motive is for people to learn, you're still putting yourself in the position of deciding how they should learn and tricking them into it, which is an arrogant way to treat other people's intelligence and free will.

Maybe you're thinking "so f-ing what, the world is filled with people trying to manipulate other people, and you're acting like I'm luring people to their deaths or something." I think you would have at least half of a good point there. A reason the 'teaching persona' issue a sore point with me, is I very much value learning and sharing in relation to other people, and in my life this "I know what you need better than you do" dynamic has rendered an awful lot of it fruitless. When I read something like your original post, the best way I know to approach it is to ask myself, "Is this person seeking an answer to his question, or am I being trolled?" Its not always easy to tell, and of course often its a combination of both. If its a real question I want to try to help answer it if I can, because I think a real question generally deserves an answer. But if the question is designed to trip other people up, then I'm wasting my time, because the other person isn't actually asking anything, they already think they know the answer. And its not as if trying to answer is going to cause me to realize "gee, there's a false premise implied by this question". If you thought this is something I needed to learn, then you're really talking down to me, not just seeming to.

Of course I realize I'm only a small part of your audience. But I'm a pretty big part of the audience that actually gives a rip about these topics. Most of the people who give black and white responses ("Bullllllllshiiiiiit") aren't trying very hard to learn or they would have learned more already.

Off hand I can think of one thing I've learned from you, which is that astrology is essentially a system of ceremonial magic. That may not seem like a lot, but its a necessary step, and every bit helps. Maybe I hope I can get more if I can just get past the shell. Not that my approach to that works very well. Part of the problem is I really don't understand this aspect of your personality very well, its a lot different than mine. Possibly that means that there's that much more potential for me to change in a positive way if I can understand and adjust to it, I don't know.

My impression is that my personality seems kind of unpleasant to people who are more like you. I'm too dogmatic, too serious, with not enough love of life. But I can't fix that any more than you can stop "pretending", and I don't really know how to approach the issue besides being open about how I see things. And you generally seem receptive to that kind of honesty.

I really don't know much either. I know that supernatural stuff is real, and that people I've encountered who make claims about what it is are all at least half wrong. That's not exactly material to fill a book with. Have to start somewhere though.

[Amendment: Clearly I'm saying here says more about me than you. I was already pissed about this issue, and you provided a convenient target. On balance though, its less than half accurate as an assessment of your post.]

I'm also a student in this thread. Socrates would agree with you, that people should speak honestly, but he would then challenge them with questions. I don't really have honest opinions though, except that I don't know. So I more or less experiment with possibilities. If something is possible, that's about as close as I can get to it being true. Granted I have a lot of information, and I can relay the information. That's essentially what I did in this thread, anyways. I just relayed information. And it's not so much that I tried to fool people that I wanted to hear their opinion on what defines a psychic and if there's any such thing as one. I figured they could teach me something. They would not really be wrong to approach the topic seriously and teach me what defines a psychic, I simply worded the thread in a way which would draw more attention as opposed to "what's your opinion on psychics?" It's the same thing as telling a story about yourself that's not really about you. I suppose you could call it gimmicky writing but if the gimmicks work and the core remains truthful I'd prefer to write something that will grab people's attention and sell rather than state facts plainly.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So I have a question for the psychics on DV. How does your gift work? Is there anyway for you to prove to yourself that you're actually psychic? Can you tell the difference between your own guesses/opinions and what you're actually receiving from others?

You're a bullshitter.
Deal with that.

I'll take a bullshitter over a sociopath.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I'll take a bullshitter over a sociopath.

I'll take a sociopath over an ignorant.

You would?

Seriously?

I believe that many psychics, believe they are psychics. Many are out there who are scammers, cold readers and the like. but many do seem to posses psychic abilities. Most of these psychics rely on their "Guides". spiritual entities which give them visions or speak in their ear. I believe that the psychics that rely on these spiritual beings are actually listening to demonic spirits. Demonic spirits, are known to mix truth with lies. They can also see roughly 15 years into the future. so basically if you are talking to a psychic that relies on Demonic spirits to speak through them, you will actually quite often have a prediction or two come to pass. I've had readings where I was given a description of a person months before i ever met them.

(for example I might be told. "You will meet a woman with long brown hair, light grey or blue eyes, very pretty with the initials J.H., you will go on a couple of dates in the summer with her and you will be in a relationship with this person bye November or December". and sure enough In the summer time. I will meet a person that is described that way and is making advances at me. Her first name starts with a J. her last name doesn't start with H. but her last name Rhymes with the letter H. Sure enough we go on a couple of dates in the summer time, sparks are flying... but long before november or december the friendship ends with little chance of rekindling anything.)

The above example is a good example of how demonic spirits through psychics may give an: incredibly accurate reading (this is actually how people get hooked on psychic readings, because they have had things directly related to a reading manifest, but not everything. "but why didn't the outcome happen?" the by then addicted person will ask. they will go back to the psychic expecting more answer, and will get more truth mixed with lies, usually with the final happy outcome never coming to pass. Thus the endless cycle of a psychic addict.). Demonic spirits mix truth with lies. They will quite often tell 1 or 2 truths and give one or 2 lies out of every 3 facts given. so the above example, "You will meet a person with X qualities." Bingo. it's a hit. "You will go on a couple of dates in the summer," Bingo it's another hit. "You will be in a relationship by the end of the year." Not a hit.

I once sat at a reading where a person was apparently channeling one of my spirit guides, her face kind of morphed into an old man with a big grey beard, (OP who went and seen this woman channel saw an old indian man, or African Shaman). When I got tired of the being ranting through her, I recited the Lord's Prayer in my own head, and the Channeling suddenly stopped, she looked confused and said, "Funny, It just stopped... That usually doesn't happen." this is another reason why I believe that "Spirit guides" are actually demonic. they seem to lose their power when you use the lord's prayer, or use Jesus's name.

I don't think they're all demonic, in fact demonic is a word I have trouble with because it creates polarity which is something we're currently evolving beyond. I don't consider them malevolently, though I would consider them to possess very different qualities than angelic guides.

The key difference in channeling an angelic guide is the love and kinship you instantly feel when you connect. I'm sure other entities are capable of providing pleasant energy gifts and it can be difficult to discern. The best way I could discern it is the feeling as though you're not connecting with something alien, you recognize them in your heart as your closest companion. Another way to discern between the two is that "angels" only surface when your intention to "serve God." I use quotations to allude to vocabulary you would find more comforting than I, because I hold a stigma against vocabulary aligned with organized religion. For me, serving God is about serving the higher Self. And Angelic entities are a bridge between you and the higher Self.

As a psychic, my greatest intention is to help people, or "serve God." This intention provides some amount of protection against the influence you described. Granted it remains easy to confuse when you are acting as an instrument of God and when you are serving your own interests. When the two become confused, the protection ceases and one becomes vulnerable to corrupted influences. Worse yet, they grow self-righteous about it. (Most organized religions have fallen into this influence) I have no certainty in my ability to retain the distinction. Instead I choose to retain doubt and remain vigilant over myself.

The Lord's Prayer is essentially an affirmation that symbolizes one's pledge to the higher Self, which is why it's functional in the face of influences that would corrupt you. Because intention is the source of power, and prayer is a means of connecting with that power.

I've just fallen into this thread by accident and haven't read things through completely, so if this has been answered before, feel free to ignore this post.

OK... Let's see... Pertaining to the question in the OP: assuming you're serious about the question, and you're seriously asking whether or not this stuff is genuine or a delusion you may be starting to believe yourself, in stead of simply wanting confirmation from others, consider this:

How would you distinguish a bullshitter from the genuine thing? Let's say you come across a person who utters a claim. Any claim. Especially if it sounds pretty fantastic, or perhaps too good to be true. Perhaps it has great emotional relevance in your life. Or sound especially appealing. How would you make sure that what he's claiming is true, and what measures would you take that would minimize potential biases and emotional predispositions either one of you may have, and the outside influence that could potentially influence with the 'real deal' if it were to be true?

In other words: do you have any ideas or tests you could try that might give yourself a clue as to whether or not there's some 'real deal'? Whether or not you're bullshitting yourself and/or others? What method have you tried, for example, to define measurable definitions as to what you can and can't do given the 'real deal' is actually real, to accurately measure successes vs. failures in these predictions, to measure the specificity vs. vagueness of the predictions, to minimize potential biases, to rule out non-psychic contaminants to the claimed abilities? How robust are these tests, are they error-prone? Are they done systemically? Are they done with an outside observer for good measure?
etc. etc.

tl;dr:
If you were confronted with a certain claim, how would you make sure, to the highest possible degree of certainty one can reasonably measure, that you are not being bullshitted?
Then apply that method to yourself.

My opinion is that everyone has the potential to be psychic, and in fact no matter how authentic they could appear to be there's always a level of doubt and suspicion required when talking to a psychic. One has to remember that they're giving an interpretation. Even if someone were simply reading my body language, they may be able to deliver a reading just as good as someone in contact with angelic entities simply based upon their skill and people reading. It comes down to what you choose to take from it, I guess, and for that reason I'd rather deal with a psychic who's a good listener and able to provide profound advice on how to move forward as opposed to someone with voices in their head who can predict the future.

And how exactly did that answer my questions?

OP question: 'Am I a psychic or a bullshitter'
My answer: well, how would you find out, how would you distinguish one from the other?
The response: who cares, lol.. I believe whatever I want and talk around the issue for a bit..
Me: què??

You're a bullshitter.

Originally Posted by TimB

And how exactly did that answer my questions?

OP question: 'Am I a psychic or a bullshitter'
My answer: well, how would you find out, how would you distinguish one from the other?
The response: who cares, lol.. I believe whatever I want and talk around the issue for a bit..
Me: què??

That's not really what I said. What do you think a psychic is for? If I get a tarot reading that helps me, I leave with something. Why would you pay for something you get nothing out of? Authenticity, in my opinion, is based on the ability to supply a need.

So anyone that is able to supply any kind of meaningful discourse towards someone else can label themselves as a psychic AND be considered to be the real-deal by you?

That's something new...

Let's get stuff cleared out a bit better...

Question: Do we agree that whether or not something is authentic, is related to the verification (to some definable degree) of the actual truth-claims that are claimed to be the case regarding some subject in question?

Example:
Say you feel like prettying up your wall and you happen to like Van Gogh.
I give you a painting by Van Gogh. I say it is authentic. You love it. It looks good on your wall. I get $$$... hooray!
Then, some knowledgable guy comes along that says that it is in fact, a fake. A replica made by some poor schmuck in China or wherever... Several complicated tests later and it turns out that, indeed, it's not an actual Van Gogh.
I reply: But did it not fulfil your need for prettying up your wall, and isn't it 'a painting by Van Gogh'?
Queue the question 'Am I an authentic Van Gogh seller or a bullshitter?' (and probably me doing time in jail)

Tell me any other context in which that definition of 'authentic' holds.

To come back to your own question:

If you ask me 'what are psychics FOR', I would answer: 'if by psychic you mean the pretty much dictionary-definition of 'a person able to do something or perceive information hidden from the senses through extra-sensory or supernatural perception', then their purpose is the same for any other property that person would have, and it's like saying 'what are people that are able to see FOR?' Why, whatever the hell they choose to be, or do, or align themselves with, of course.'

But, again, like in the Van Gogh example, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their 'psychic ability' is genuine/authentic or not.

When you say you are a 'psychic and can do X', whatever might be the case, aren't BOTH those claims important? The 'done through psychic means' and the 'able to do X accurately'? And aren't those claims important ESPECIALLY when considering whether or not someone's being authentic or not?

Anyone can offer statements about another person. 'I see you have a green shirt on because of information I got from my visual system.' Whether those statements is accurate or not, we can find out by looking at whether the information given is accurate (i.e. the shirt actually is green), and whether or not the person is using their visual system to get that information (rather than the person being blind and getting the information from someone else through radio, e.g.)
The information may be the same, and the value of the things said by these people may be the same, and the people that have been talked to may feel the same way afterwards, but that still doesn't make them not-blind. That still doesn't make them authentic 'seers'.

Do we at the very least agree with that?

So then, do we also agree that if we define people as psychics, there are things we can do to verify whether the information they give is correct in the first place; to what degree it is specific (in the above example, vague and easily deducible or guessable information would be 'you are wearing something on your upper body'); to what degree the truth/false ratio is; whether that would make them useful information sources, etc.; AND whether or not they are deceiving others and/or themselves as to where that information is coming from ('I see dead people' vs. 'you seem like a shy person so I'll just say that pretending to have heard it from angels')?

Which would then conclude our investigation into the question of 'am I a psychic or am I a bullshitter?'

And so, I pose the question again:
1) What have you done to ascertain whether or not the information you give is actually accurate, in which ratio, and to what degree they are specific rather than vague?
2) What have you done to ascertain whether or not your information sources are supernatural or extra-sensory, rather than natural and sensory?


EDIT:

Unless, of course, you'd like to offer a different definition of 'authenticity' and/or 'psychic', why you choose to reject the conventional definitions and usages of these words, and why these definitions are more valid and/or useful than mine in a general sense rather than restricting the re-definitions to just this context.


Best!

Tim

I don't feel like reading all that. I neither believe nor disbelieve a real psychic could be authentic. I'm weird though, I could shake hands with an alien and still neither believe nor disbelieve they exist. I do not believe if I walk off a cliff I will plummet to the ground. I place a bet that I'll plummet to the ground. I base my decisions on information but this information is not neither true nor false.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't feel like reading all that.

Well... My age-old nemesis... 'I'm not listening, lalala'. We meet again...

Whether you read it or not, it doesn't make your point any more valid.

I'm weird though,

Your words... Not mine

I could shake hands with an alien and still neither believe nor disbelieve they exist. I do not believe if I walk off a cliff I will plummet to the ground. I place a bet that I'll plummet to the ground. I base my decisions on information but this information is not neither true nor false.

As in: I cannot be absolutely 100% sure any information I hold is 100% true in 100% of the cases and situations? Sure, I'm with you on that. But that becomes mere philosophy and speculation and... well... mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned, in the sense that it isn't practical to any degree.
I was speaking on the more practical level: 'this banana is yellow'. Sure, there could be an alien mind-controlling us all to believe it is yellow when in fact it is blue, but is it in any way productive to hold such beliefs? Imagine the science papers if they were to conform to such a standard 'we have found an effect in our investigation into this medicine. But! it could also be aliens'

So, fine.. Let's not consider 100% everytime, everywhere, total truthy truthness, then.

Let's have you place that bet.

When would you bet on whether people are accurate information givers, information which is accurate enough that you would bet on it, etc.. And, then, when would you bet that people have actual psychic power, etc.

And so, I pose the question again:
1) What have you done to ascertain whether or not the information you give is actually accurate enough that it warrants betting on that information, in which ratio, and to what degree they are specific rather than vague such that bets can be placed on it?
2) What have you done to ascertain whether or not your information sources are supernatural or extra-sensory, rather than natural and sensory, to such a degree that you would bet on whether or not you have psychic ability or not?

And, of course, you could still offer a different definition of 'authenticity' and/or 'psychic', why you choose to reject the conventional definitions and usages of these words, and why these definitions are more valid and/or useful than mine in a general sense rather than restricting the re-definitions to just this context.


Best!

Tim

The mechanism functions the same way whether or not it's because of "supernatural" forces or because of simple mental projection on the tarot cards. I'm not ruling out the possibility that tarot is a psychological phenomenon wherein one can gain insight on themselves and their lives using the cards as a vehicle. This vehicle can continue to theoretically operate with or without the subtle body and other fortean concepts.

I am therefore not in a position where I am required to make a choice regarding whether or not a psychic is using some sort of spiritual intuition. It adds no practical value. At least not in this context. That being said, I'm also doing research on how to develop my psychic powers, and this research is more connecting with the subtle body, opening up the third eye, you know, the sort of thing that falls under the umbrella of what a cynic would label new-agey spiritualism without bothering to look farther. I call this category forteana because I find it to be the most accurate label for what the current paradigm of thought regards as untrue or even crazy. I am having a fair amount of success developing my "psychic powers" and it's a fascinating journey. But I don't know what's really going on behind the scenes, and I don't wish to get attached to a theory on something that evades understanding. Especially considering subtle energy, because everyone's experience of the subtle varies so greatly that it's a very personal experience. One truly chooses what is true. The banana, after all, isn't really yellow at all, is it? We simply see yellow light reflected from it. And in the same way, the energy commanded by, for example, the sexual chakra, cannot be simplified into the values it's described as. But the experiences one has of it can be communicated so that others can get a clue of their own and use that clue to experience it themselves.

The loss of true and false is not merely mental masturbation for me. It is my worldview. Calling a banana yellow is only practical regarding communication. It is not practical as a belief, at least not to me.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The mechanism functions the same way whether or not it's because of "supernatural" forces or because of simple mental projection on the tarot cards.

Does it, now? Explain... I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of believers who will be ready to deny that this is the case. So explain and motivate, please. And a show of evidence is still appreciated...

I'm not ruling out the possibility that tarot is a psychological phenomenon wherein one can gain insight on themselves and their lives using the cards as a vehicle. This vehicle can continue to theoretically operate with or without the subtle body and other fortean concepts.

Which makes it, by definition, not 'fortean'/psychic/whatever. There we go.

I am therefore not in a position where I am required to make a choice regarding whether or not a psychic is using some sort of spiritual intuition. It adds no practical value. At least not in this context. That being said, I'm also doing research on how to develop my psychic powers, and this research is more connecting with the subtle body, opening up the third eye, you know, the sort of thing that falls under the umbrella of what a cynic would label new-agey spiritualism without bothering to look farther.

So make me look farther... Convince me that it isn't merely new-agey spiritualistic humdrum. Again:
1) What have you done to ascertain whether or not the information gained from *insert whatever 'psychic claim' you have* is actually accurate enough that it warrants betting on that information, in which ratio, and to what degree these claims are specific rather than vague such that bets can be placed on it?
2) What have you done to ascertain whether or not your information sources are supernatural or extra-sensory, rather than natural and sensory, to such a degree that you would bet on whether or not you have psychic ability or not?

If 1 isn't convincing, why should I be convinced? Why should you be convinced?
If 2 isn't convincing, why should I be convinced? Why should you be convinced?

I call this category forteana because I find it to be the most accurate label for what the current paradigm of thought regards as untrue or even crazy. I am having a fair amount of success developing my "psychic powers" and it's a fascinating journey.

Convince me they're actually psychic...

But I don't know what's really going on behind the scenes,

Then why call it psychic at all? Why claim things you can not motivate? Why not call them 'parlour tricks' or anything else and be done with it?

and I don't wish to get attached to a theory on something that evades understanding.

Your evading of trying to understanding these things does not mean these things evade understanding...

Especially considering subtle energy, because everyone's experience of the subtle varies so greatly that it's a very personal experience. One truly chooses what is true. The banana, after all, isn't really yellow at all, is it? We simply see yellow light reflected from it.

Which, for the sake of practicality, does make it yellow, doesn't it?

And in the same way, the energy commanded by, for example, the sexual chakra, cannot be simplified into the values it's described as. But the experiences one has of it can be communicated so that others can get a clue of their own and use that clue to experience it themselves.

Strange that this only applies to 'psychic' phenomena. One can explain or describe or investigate and experiment with pretty much any kind of phenomenon or experience without having to experience it yourself. Why should this be any different?

The loss of true and false is not merely mental masturbation for me. It is my worldview. Calling a banana yellow is only practical regarding communication. It is not practical as a belief, at least not to me.

Well, then insert anything that does make it practical for you... There's a car speeding down the road, about to hit you and kill you. Queue the same questions and comments...

You could try looking up studies on the Extended Mind if you want research that opens up some interesting possibilities. As it stands, I still don't see the practical differences regarding how the mechanism of tarot operates. As I have dulled myself explaining to you, the mechanism works, why it works is secondary.

And frankly, if you choose not to have an open mind regarding psi phenomena, that's not my responsibility.

I wasn't being addressed here, but for whatever it may be worth....

I agree with you that the 'truth' of psychic claims matters a lot, and I think that the lack of regard that most psychics have for this makes them charlatans irrespective of whatever their real abilities might be. A pervasive attitude seems to be that reality is a largely-illusory projection of thoughts, and therefore it doesn't matter much if those thoughts are 'true' according to some equally illusory standard. I don't think that this attitude actually follows from a recognition of the how thoughts and destiny work though, I think its a vanity and greed fueled rationalization.

In the context of something like channelling Pleiadians, or predicting what a map will look like after California sinks into the ocean, almost no attempt is made to distinguish what is reliably connected to a real event. The assumption is that if the intuition has a psychic origin, such as can be confirmed by comparing it to other people's intuitions, then it must be true. But more often than not, an impression that is received psychically by many individuals is still mostly fictional. This seems to me like such a basic fallacy, it seems strange that its so pervasive. I guess its pervasive among psychics by natural selection - people who don't indulge in that fantasy generally don't consider themselves psychics. I'd love to talk to a professionally-skilled psychic who was straight about this though, it would be great to ask them some questions.

In regards to evaluating whether weak, badly controlled psychics are actually psychic at all, I don't think that a conventionally "scientific" approach works very well here. Science is about characterizing things that you can control in a rigorous way. Uncertainty is allowed only where it reliably follows a defined statistical distribution. But not everything is like that. A skeptical mind can find compelling evidence of psychic phenomena, but not by expecting that it be something that its not.

If you have been played by an incorporeal entity, does it make you a player? I don't think that it makes sense for people to think of their psychic intuitions as being their own. But a person can learn to recognize when they're real, even if that still doesn't make it clear how far the intuitions can be trusted. When you guess something about someone that you could not plausibly have extrapolated from past experience or external clues, and it turns out your right, that's evidence that something 'psychic' has happened. And if you experience it a lot, you learn what it feels like. Maybe a person can learn from feeling whether an impression is 'true', though 'psychics' all seem to me to have huge blind areas in that regard.

I'll try to describe how a psychic impression feels to me, though this is won't be generally applicable to other people. It has an alien/distorted feel to it, which I'm guessing is a characteristic of the part of 'my' mind that can do that. (Arguably its a characteristic of the 'spirit' that relays the impression, though I don't think that's entirely the right way of thinking about it either.) When having a very high fever, physical touch has seemed distorted in a similar kind of way, where things seem harder or more sharply defined than they are actually. It also reminds me of what sex feels like in contrast to love. Perception is drawn disproportionately towards the definite impression somehow. Probably I also have 'psychic intuitions' that do not feel like this, but I don't recognize them as such, and they're not the same kind that produce objectively verifiable premonitions and whatnot.

I'd also say that the part of my mind, so to speak, that feels the impression is close to both the 'best' and 'worst' aspects of my identity. And I would guess that the main reason most people can't do this kind of thing more is they're uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of those two sides of themselves and try to hide from it. Some people glamorize the 'evil' side but they try to keep it away from conscience so they don't feel guilty. Or they're aware of the part of them that wants to be good, or pretends to, while interpreting the 'evil' part as an impression of something external to themselves. I think a willingness not to run away from either, or from what they have to say about each other, is probably an important part of personal development. At the same time, its hard to say that my impressions and interpretations of these things in myself are really responsible for my experiences, much less immediately applicable to someone else.