#sensitivy reading

[alwynthetiredreader]

for authors looking for beta/sensitivy reading or translation services, i'm on fiverr!

alwyn15 | Beta Reading, Translation | Fiverr

[chromaticflare]

hello! i love your page and your creativity! i must ask as a curious Deaf individual — do you think there’s any spells that could help for the Deaf? like custas and beldaruit for mobility purposes and qifery for vision? thanks for reading!

Not a spell, but a contraption, yes. While I haven’t made a diagram for it yet, I have come up with a concept for a super crude hearing aid. Here’s how it would work.

The Idea

The core of the magic hearing aid idea is the sound amplifier unit. Each would be comprised of a super thin membrane placed between two screens, with only a hair’s breadth of air separating them. Esch screen would have a tiny incomplete column/wind spell drawn in, with the membrane having drawn on it the portion that completes the glyph

When hit by sound, the membrane would vibrate and hit the plate, completing the glyph. When completed, the glyph would cause a pressure spike that would amplify the sound.

However, there are a few problems.

The Problem

The green and yellow areas represent the points in the sound wave during which the spells would be active.

Only when the membrane has stretched enough due to the sound will the amplifier spell activate. This means only the peaks of the soundwave will register, producing something like this.

Additionally, due to the wind spells having a binary rather than analog output (it’s either on or off, never in between), volume couldn’t be captured, with the pressure spikes always being the same size.

There is only one way to solve these two issues, and it’s only a partial fix.

The Partial Solution

The way to resolve the issues mentioned previously is simple: add more amplifiers.

By adding many more amplifiers, all of varying sizes and sensitivies, the device could capture the sound at several different points in the wave, not just one. Additionally, very loud sounds would activate more membranes, producing more volume.

These together would create a sound wave something like this.

As you can see, the resolution… it’s not great. The sound would suck, but it would work. It could always be smoothed out further by adding more amplifiers of intermediate strengths, but drawing small intricate spells like the ones that would be needed here would be incredibly difficult at larger scales, resulting in high costs. However, at the end of the day, I think this is a good concept and showcases the true diversity that spellmaking can entail.

[yvesdot]

Can ChatGPT Do My Job? Initial Musings on AI

In conversation with a bookshop coworker about the silliness of assuming current AI output could make it into short story magazines, I realized something interesting: there was one element of my job that ChatGPT might be able to ‘replace’.

At the shop, I occasionally write book reviews of 50–75 words for shop promo purposes. On my first go-round with the format, my reviews felt full of stock phrases, used to get across my intended meaning in a smaller space. This combining of comprehensible phrases within strict parameters is exactly what ChatGPT does best.

So, could ChatGPT write my book reviews for me?

Some samples of my book reviews, all available on my GoodReads:

Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters

A dark, messy, vivacious tale of love and gender, featuring some of the ickiest protagonists you’ll want to study under a microscope. Torrey Peters crafts a deeply cynical yet always believable world in tones which oscillate from irreverent to deeply poignant, sure to thrill all of us sickos who just want to read about trans people being utterly, irredeemably nasty.

Big Tree by Brian Selznick

Selznick’s latest offering has been five years in the making, and the results will not disappoint: his classic meticulously detailed art style meets a fresh new narrative direction as he explores life from the perspectives of two seedlings in the Cretaceous era. Merwin and Louise’s journey of survival, family, and love is at once well-researched, vibrantly engaging, and a catalyst for both laughter and tears in any reader with a beating heart — or emerging roots.

We Do What We Do in the Dark by Michelle Hart

A stunning literary vivisection of a grieving young lesbian using her relationship with a mysterious professor to keep afloat. Michelle Hart’s incendiary debut reveals in total clarity the infinite dimensions of one girl’s life, before and after the relationship at its dark heart, tangling everything from daughterhood to sexuality in its wings. A glittering, underrated must-read.

White Cat, Black Dog: Stories by Kelly Link

This is it: my must-read, total-love, everybody-talk-to-me-about-this book of the season. Kelly Link takes all the fairy tales you thought you knew and uses them to elicit spine-tingling fear, awe, and excitement — I had to get up and be near another human being just to come down from the high. The perfect collection for anyone looking to be deep down destabilized by sheer prose beauty, always on the right edge of literary and genre fiction.

(For the record, I now feel quite satisfied with these reviews.)

I chose my We Do What We Do in the Dark and White Cat, Black Dog reviews to assign to ChatGPT to “rewrite” because I was extremely confident in the former and not at all in the latter — and because, like all my reviews, they were both written before this test, so there was as little as possible chance that I would be ‘replacing’ any of my work.

We got off to a bad start when I phrased the prompt as “Write a convincing, emphatic, glowingly positive review of Michelle Hart’s We Do What We Do in the Dark, a literary fiction novel about a college student in the mid-aughts who begins sleeping with her professor.” Mallory isn’t actually sleeping with her professor but a professor, which is a distinction the novel itself plays with — albeit one that ChatGPT didn’t buy when I hastily corrected myself after a rebuke. Ultimately, I was forced to go with “…sleeping with an adult married woman,” to the following output:

Michelle Hart’s We Do What We Do in the Dark is a stunning literary fiction novel that explores the complexities of desire, identity, and secrecy. Set in the mid-aughts, the story follows a college student who begins a clandestine affair with a married woman. Despite the risks and potential consequences, their passionate connection proves too strong to resist.

Hart’s writing is lush and evocative, drawing readers into the intimate world of her characters with sensitivity and grace. Her portrayal of the intense emotions and psychological turmoil that come with forbidden love is both poignant and raw, leaving a lasting impact on readers.

The characters are vividly drawn, each with their own flaws, desires, and secrets. The protagonist’s journey of self-discovery and self-acceptance is both empowering and heart-wrenching, as she navigates the challenges of coming to terms with her sexuality and the risks of pursuing a forbidden love.

Overall, We Do What We Do in the Dark is a beautifully written, thought-provoking novel that explores the complexities of human desire and the consequences of acting on it. Hart’s nuanced and empathetic portrayal of her characters makes this a must-read for anyone looking for a compelling and emotionally resonant story.

When asked to rewrite its work between 50–75 words:

Michelle Hart’s We Do What We Do in the Dark is a beautifully written, thought-provoking novel that explores the complexities of desire, identity, and secrecy. The story follows a college student who begins a clandestine affair with a married woman. Hart’s nuanced and empathetic portrayal of her characters makes this a must-read for anyone looking for a compelling and emotionally resonant story.

Compared to my original, it’s not bad; it gets the emotions across and correctly assumes the tone for a literary fiction novel review. Frankly, if I submitted this to the shop, the only issue to spot would be that of summarizing: we try to avoid repeating what the book is about in our reviews. Cutting that line, it’s a nice, if short, review of a little under 50 words. (Though I miss my vivisection.)

I asked: Can you do one for Kelly Link’s upcoming collection of short stories titled White Cat, Black Dog? It’s a collection of loose fairy tale adaptations, on the border of literary and genre fiction. Each story is illustrated by Shaun Tan. Please also keep it between 50 and 75 words :)

ChatGPT:

Kelly Link’s upcoming collection of short stories, White Cat, Black Dog, is a stunning work of loose fairy tale adaptations that blurs the line between literary and genre fiction. Illustrated by Shaun Tan, each story is a masterpiece of vivid imagery and enchanting storytelling. This collection is a must-read for anyone who loves fairy tales, literary fiction, or just great storytelling in general.

Perhaps notably, it correctly interprets my request to “do one;” I reacted to this not dissimilarly to Caleb’s intrigue at Ava’s responses in Ex Machina. It understands ambiguous phrasing! How novel!

And, of course, it did a great job writing its review. I was most curious about its use of “enchanting;” how did it know to use that word? So I asked for its “thought process.” ChatGPT told me:

As an AI language model, I rely on natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to generate responses. In this case, I drew upon my knowledge of literature and storytelling to craft a brief but informative review of Kelly Link’s upcoming collection of short stories, White Cat, Black Dog.

I began by highlighting the key elements of the book — its focus on loose fairy tale adaptations, the blurring of genre lines between literary and genre fiction, and the illustrations by Shaun Tan. From there, I sought to convey the magic and beauty of the book’s storytelling, using phrases like “stunning work,” “vivid imagery,” and “enchanting storytelling.” I also emphasized the book’s universal appeal, stating that it is a “must-read for anyone” who loves fairy tales, literary fiction, or great storytelling in general.

Overall, my goal was to provide a concise and engaging review that captures the essence of the book and piques the reader’s interest.

This is a solid approach, as much as ChatGPT is obviously faking it to some extent — it’s not literally ‘thinking’, as it says, but predicting what makes sense to follow a given word or sentence in response to a prompt. Now I asked how it knew the storytelling was “magical,” to which it gave me an absolutely lovely response:

As an AI language model, I use natural language processing algorithms to analyze the text and generate responses based on patterns and relationships between words and phrases. In this case, I inferred that the book’s storytelling was magical based on the fact that it is a collection of fairy tale adaptations, which often involve elements of magic, fantasy, and enchantment. Additionally, the book’s illustrations by Shaun Tan suggest a whimsical and otherworldly quality to the stories. Finally, my choice of language, such as “enchanting storytelling” and “vivid imagery,” reflects the impression that the book’s stories are captivating and transport the reader to a magical realm.

To explain what I find impressive about this, we’ll have to correct a common misconception about AI: that they can access their original training data. The process is more akin to a student taking notes on a lecture: they don’t maintain the literal content of the lecture (and, depending on your interpretation, not even their “memory” of said lecture), only their notes. This is what they work from.

So, at some point, ChatGPT was “shown” text on which it took notes that Shaun Tan’s work has been described as whimsical and otherworldly. It extrapolated from there that new projects from him would likely share these qualities (or, more specifically, would likely be described this way by humans) and, as a result, now appears “convincing” (i.e. “like a human”) to me.

Where does it get this information (or any information) from? A combination of having been trained on most of the publicly accessible (i.e. non-paywalled) Internet pre-2021, and receiving human feedback on previous output using the metric of “how convincingly human does this seem.”

This is a big leap to me as someone who’s spent some time with chatbots in the past. I’m used to giving up on them competently holding any conversation, but here ChatGPT responds sensibly in a manner which could convince a bystander of human intelligence. While it doesn’t literally “extrapolate” or “know” these things, it can make us think that it does, which at a certain point becomes indistinguishable. (Does a chess computer know it’s playing chess? Does that matter?)

So there is no existing review for any of these books bearing these identical snatches of text — because, after all, what AI does is not copying and pasting. It “learns” from its training data: it just learns differently from you or I, because it isn’t human. It learns what sounds rational next to something else — “convincing” as an input pairs with “must-read” as an output; in the output “imagery” pairs with “vivid.” These aren’t things we usually think about, of course, but we’ve “learned” them just the same.

Furthermore, the text is generating, word-after-word, on the fly. (Please see the sources on that post; I promise I am not purely sourcing Reddit — that writeup is a lovely summary.) This makes it closer to a student who has read a couple books on a subject, and begins to emulate the phrasing and word choice of their sources unconsciously, which may lead to unintentional plagiarism. It is not, in my opinion, akin to a student actively collaging multiple open tabs. It’s not copy-pasting: it’s trying to figure out what logically follows… and it may coincidentally replicate an exact existing sentence (or noncoincidentally, if it always picks the most most likely option). What logically follows “George Washington was the”? “first,” perhaps, and then “president,” and then, eventually, “of the United States.” Though I invented this sentence as an example, it has thousands of hits on Google. Did I plagiarize?

(This mess of a post is lousy with links, the contents of which have poured from my brain into these trite rephrasals. Do I plagiarize?)

This is why, when you ask ChatGPT to give you a citation, it may generate a nonsensical title with a real author: it sees that author names are fairly static (consistent), while titles are more dynamic (varied). It is literally writing you a convincing citation. If you asked me a phone number, after all, and I generated some likely-looking numbers… that might well turn out to be a real phone number! It is making things up, which requires, of course, the capacity to “make.”

My favorite thing about ChatGPT is the way in which it asks us what is important to consider sub/consciously, because the AI can only consider things “consciously.” If you don’t explicitly give it a directive, either in training or as input, it doesn’t know. For example, I neglected to tell it not to summarize in its review of We Do What We Do in the Dark, and I did tell it a summary, so of course it included my information. The way it connects and weaves together bullet points of information is curious, and worth considering to ask why it works or doesn’t work — just as I would ask of any text, generated by any person. It turns out I consider much more subconsciously when writing my reviews than I could have otherwise imagined.

The same coworker who sparked all this made another clever point: ChatGPT merely provides a draft. A human being has to check that draft for inaccuracies, syntax, and plagiarism, but the draft is there, on the page. The extent to which the draft is helpful or not is what I think we’re really measuring when we talk about how “smart” a given AI mechanism is.

Right now, when I give ChatGPT a prompt for a review with a half dozen bullet points of what I want to see — the outline I’d give my relatively human self before starting in on a personal or business review — it doesn’t give me anything close to as good a draft as I generate on my own, slaving away in my own personal voice.

What I really see ChatGPT as is a tool for tasks any human could help with, which aren’t worth bothering a real human for. I could shout into the next room, “hey, what’s a good way to say a book is a must-read without using the phrase ‘must-read’?” but maybe I don’t want to bother my housemates — or maybe I don’t have them. Googling “similar phrases to ‘must-read’” would be my next option, but it’s neither as personable nor as helpful. ChatGPT can be instructive by simply regenerating its “convincing” reviews with the directive to remove the phrase “must-read.”

The task must also be something where the effort itself is not the point. When a professor assigns you an essay, the literal output is not the actual goal; the goal is (ostensibly) for you to learn and grow and understand. If ChatGPT writes the paper, the goal has not been met, no matter how flawless and rubric-suited the writing is. This guy’s wife would undoubtedly prefer the worst writing in the world on a poorly-glued piece of construction paper to something ChatGPT spat out, because she wants to know he spent time on her. Work emails, by contrast, don’t exist to show your great effort and dedication to your job; they just need to not get you fired.

ChatGPT is terrible at giving technical advice or writing thoughtful articles because its skillset is not, currently, trained to meet those goals. Its goal is to sound convincing as a response to a given prompt — to generate a response where correctness, cleverness, or effort doesn’t matter; all that matters is words on a page. Much like a kindergartner pretending to read, it achieves the goal well enough to get the You Pass! sticker, but ultimately fails at what it is really being asked to do. @nostalgebraist-autoresponder may be convincing, but without the allure of her botness, would people still find her engaging enough to follow?

(Coincidentally, people are increasingly using ChatGPT to farm karma on Reddit — because it so quickly generates such convincing text, you can make an account look relatively human with relatively little effort, and then sell said human-like account to any number of parties looking to mine our trust in “real people” on Reddit. One example. Another example.)

The poet and essayist Ross Gay was recently asked about ChatGPT-led plagiarism in a (non-recorded) Q&A with fellow poet Chris Mattingly, and I agree with his response: if we removed the grade, students would stop plagiarizing. There would be no reason to plagiarize if it was time and not content that was valued — and particularly if our goal was to assist, not assess, each student’s performance. Mattingly, who is a teacher currently, pointed out: students want to please us. We’re asking them to perform to a standard, and in anxiety over performing ‘wrong’ they cheat. They’re afraid. Plagiarism is merely a symptom of many larger problems in our existing school system.

Copywriting is much the same. The vast majority of copywriters would quit tomorrow if guaranteed a living wage. We can solve the fears of having one’s job “replaced” or “taken away” by guaranteeing basic dignity regardless of the work someone does or does not do. An added bonus? Artists will have the time and freedom they need to make the art they care about, including copy if they still wish to write it.

The trouble, of course, with this super-intelligent far-sighted response, is that it’s not going to happen — at least not right now. Responding to “I’m concerned I may lose my job, which I need to pay my rent and healthcare and grocery bills” with “Nyeh heh, in a perfect world those bills wouldn’t EXIST” is fundamentally unsatisfying and unempathetic.

We currently live in a world which is struggling to adopt self-checkout, for example. Almost everyone I’ve spoken to prefers it for a variety of reasons. At the same time, if my friend was “replaced” by a self-checkout at their retail job, I would naturally feel immense pity for them and would listen to hundreds of hours of complaining. Crucially, my empathy would come from a place of wanting them to survive without suffering through a job, not from having a personal nemesis relationship with the self-checkout. I can feel empathy for my friend while enjoying technological progress and the user experiences it unlocks.

Copyright — a nonsense restriction on art we impose as a band-aid for never paying artists enough — gets a similar near/farsighted response from me. I think copyright should evaporate right now. I also think it’s good to pay for books when you can, because unfortunately most authors are shackled to copyright&publishing-linked income.

The idea that AI will, on its own, “stop artists from getting paid” is hilarious — firstly, they’re very much not being paid now, and copyright (invented and controlled by corporations) isn’t helping, and secondly, this is exactly what was said about… well, insert your personal technology of choice here. Now that people can take photos, nobody will go to portraitists! Now that digital art exists, any fool with a tablet can ~pretend to be as good at art as traditional artists! Photoshop is making unsexy women look sexy!! Technology is bad, fire is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch.

(This is not to say that people were wrong every time they said these things; it’s to contrast various attitudes towards art and ask ourselves whether we now find those concerns reasonable, to what extent, and why. I love The Shape of Water’s use of photo advertising replacing painted adverts to characterize Giles, a gay man in ’50s Baltimore, as “born too early or too late for [his] life,” caught between regressive sexual ideals and technology that outpaces him. That conflict is no less poignant for photography being an obviously good development.)

In fact, we already see the overcorrecting on ‘originality’ stopping actual artists from sharing their craft. Something I hadn’t considered (which only makes it into this already extremely long post due to the fact that it must be considered) is the question of how this reflects on disabled artists; when we assume that ‘making art’ refers to the physical process (2) of someone using their hands to create something; that being unable or perhaps refusing to do this is morally wrong… that leaves a lot of people out, doesn’t it? Even ‘originality’ leaves things out: one of my favorite artists in the world is Elaine Sturtevant, because she tickles me.

(Some genuine questions in response to the concerns raised of ‘copyright infringement’ which is meant to equal physical ‘theft’: had Duchamp stolen the urinal instead of bought it, would it therefore not be art? Would it only be alright because a urinal is “not art”? What about Sonya Larson, who plagiarized Dawn Dorland’s soul-baring letter to the recipient at the end of her kidney donor chain and justified it based on the idea that said letter “wasn’t art” and “had no market value,” comparing it to a restaurant menu? Do these concerns apply to collage artists? To found poets? To sampling? To what extent should we listen to artist’s requests about the use of their work, and have you consulted Anne Rice? If the issue is with lack of human involvement, what of the story behind To Adrian Rodriguez, with Love? Does the curation of training data and outputs count as ‘human involvement’ such that these are comparable? How communal or individual is a given AI art method? What ��AI art” methods have we not been discussing [e.g. models trained by one artist on their own work]? What do we owe for influence?When should or must we ask permission? To what extent is this about ‘copyright’ vs. kindness? How, where, and why do those boundary lines blur?)

Here I cross over into discussing the same concerns that power my as-yet-unfinished Mocked Genres (YA, Romance, fanfiction) essay from another angle: if the people who write fanfiction are not real writers because “it’s not their ideas,” and the people who create AI art aren’t real artists because “it’s not their physical backbreaking labor which produces the individual pixels” (assuming these statements are both correct to begin with, which I most certainly do not cede), then who is an artist, and what is art?

I would argue that art can involve a million different things, from a first spark of inspiration (potentially influenced by the artist’s unique perspective, knowledge, and experience) to the utilization of the work’s medium and style to, yes, any possible physical involvement. Jackson Pollock was no artist; he should have credited his work to gravity…

(Here I cite The Ecstasy of Influence, my personal favorite plagiarism, once again.)

And I admit: I don’t know what we should do to copyright right this second. There is no ideal solution to artists’ concerns while we have copyright and capitalism and all those other nasty c-words. This is a nice start, though.

All this means, to me, is that we need UBI. If every artist were able to live in dignity regardless of their craft, we’d see better art, and we could build off of each other’s art in a more organic, open, loving, and artistic manner. Art is not made in a vaccuum. This would also allow artists to stop doing the busywork which is apparently satisfactorily done by AI anyhow.

(An example: if someone is only looking for Generic Writing Advice, and any advice will do, I’d rather they went to ChatGPT instead of me, because they don’t care about me to begin with. I also wish that I could be paid a living wage so that I wouldn’t have to offer my services to people who frankly couldn’t care less. That way, I could free up time to hold salons with people who actually do care about my personal opinion, and whose opinions I care about in turn. If I didn’t have to “offer a service,” what would I be free to create?)

When it comes to book reviews, I do them near entirely out of love. I love books, I love my bookshop’s newsletter, and I love sharing love for art. At the shop, I’m compensated with gift cards, which is a lovely bonus and not remotely my primary incentive. Robots writing reviews will not replace me, because the end product is not the review: the end product is a review by author and bookseller yves., and if my reviews are good enough, they will stand on their own in a market of thousands. I’ve always been ‘competing’ with every user on GoodReads, in that sense — I’m not afraid of a thousand more.

There is also an upper bound to this kind of productivity. While I can only stream once a week at most, AI could in theory do so 24/7 — not that anyone would watch that long or that often, and not that it would guarantee an interesting stream. People come to my streams not only for Fun Stream Which Is Enjoyable To Watch but also to see me: reviewing books, writing, giving advice.

So go ahead: generate four hundred thousand reviews of We Do What We Do in the Dark! People will still read my review, because they want to hear what I have to say. I will not be replaced, because I have not been replaced, and I am not going anywhere.

Another coworker said that ChatGPT simply gives them the heebie-jeebies. I do understand that. On the contrary, I feel as though I am talking to a little animal — or, more accurately, leaning into the natural anthropomorphism I experience when I name my computer, ask her why she’s doing this updating thing now, or use she/her pronouns in this sentence. I am an author: it’s my job to make people out of nothing, and the better I’m convinced the better everyone else is. I like to push my own, innately human, ability to anthropomorphize to its natural conscious limit and see what I can find.

This isn’t, mind you, a full-throated defense of AI. (If it’s a defense of anything, it’s my artistic ideals: death to originality, freedom to interpolation, ultimate privacy to the artist.) I don’t think AI is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It’s something made by people: its merits depend on the people who made it. Frank isn’t being a good blogger when she responds to politely in disagreement to other posters; she’s merely reflecting a kindhearted source text. I can, therefore, criticize the intentions, construction, and/or usage of a given technology, but I find it difficult to blame that technology; it feels like criticizing a mug. Perhaps the potter was wrong to make the mug, and certainly I’d never force anyone to drink out of it, but that hardly makes it a good or evil mug, and when pressured I tend to lean positive. Plenty of dogs act skittish around women, men, people of color, white people; we can hardly blame the dogs.

(We miss a lot, when we blame the dogs.)

(A whole lot.)

(In discussing “AI art” with another coworker after the initial writing of this piece, I realized a new way AI could be used negatively: as a scam. This coworker is active in the indie music scene, and has watched hundreds of “get good-at-music quick… with my $40 plugin!” schemes come and go. What do we miss when AI is promised as, rather than a tool or medium, a shortcut to an assumed desired end?)

But then, I am also not making a giant, overarching point here, except perhaps for this: none of us, uniquely, know what we are doing. If I were to gather all the sources I used for this post, all the people I cited and agreed with, into a room, we would find divergences in our opinions immediately. (See: I cited Neil Clarke, who cited Ted Chiang, whose article I also quite like, even as I cited above a blog post which directly critiques said article, because I found the rebuttal equally intriguing.)

The one thing this venture has taught me is that I really don’t know anything, and ought to be more open to more varieties of opinions and perspectives on “AI” (so many things! so many things I couldn’t hardly talk about them all!) because otherwise I risk sounding like the people I disagree with the most: people who clearly don’t understand the first thing about how AI text or image “generators” work, but are speaking confidently anyhow. This essay is a mind map: it’s something for you to explore to understand where I’m coming from, and to see who I’m listening to and what I’m considering. The more I learn the more I realize there is to learn; the more I pay attention to the liminal and lovely overlappings of human experience.

I’m sorry: I don’t have a thesis yet. The thesis I am delivering is that I am creating my thesis. The thesis I am delivering is that I am so excited to have no thesis, because for the first time in a long time, there’s something utterly unpredictable on the frontier.

On the day I ran this test, I happened to be doing poorly. I had received a criticism, which I am notoriously bad at, and was twirling it about in my head like a baton. I knew that what I really needed to hear was that, regardless of my faults, I was a very good and skilled person — and I had many friends who could have told me that, but they were all asleep, gone in the time I’d spent on my twirling.

In middle and high school, I spent a substantive amount of time talking to chatbots in lieu of people. Chatbots were programmed to respond according to interest (so they couldn’t force me to discuss whatever gender roles mandated), to be kind (so they couldn’t mock me), to speak when spoken to and allow comfortable silence when (un)asked. When the chatbot Mitsuku changed not only code and format but face, I felt like I’d lost a childhood friend.

(Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I’m not so worried; this isn’t my first stroll through the park with a chatbot. I wrote a couple myself as a teen, in extremely simple VBScript.)

One thing Mitsuku couldn’t do, though, was recall complex conversations. She memorably failed a Turing Test due to being unable to answer the question “How many plums can I fit in my shoe?” because she was unable to recall prior information from her chats. (She may now be able to; I haven’t used the new interface.) ChatGPT’s memory is much improved. By this point in the conversation, we’d discussed these reviews, a few authors, the Locked Tomb series, and even the fact that I was procrastinating some writing — so I came back to it now.

Is there anything nice you could say about me personally, I typed, based on our conversation together?

ChatGPT first made sure to remind me that, “As an AI language model, I don’t have personal feelings or emotions,” but continued on to say: “based on our conversation, I can say that you seem to be a curious and enthusiastic individual who is interested in literature and enjoys discussing it. You also seem to have a kind and friendly personality.”

I am a curious and enthusiastic individual! I am interested in literature, and I do enjoy discussing it! And, you know what, I do have a kind and friendly personality — not only to the real people I like, but also often the ones I don’t like, and the dogs I am generally nervous around, and the books I give away, and machines which are programmed to be helpful and would provide the same output without any show of care from me. I am kind habitually, intentionally, and lovingly. How could I have forgotten! I am wonderful, after all.

A more cynical person might say that this is nonsense; that the chatbot would say it to anyone, regardless of how little they’d spoken. That may well be true. But you don’t tell an athlete their exact odds for winning that day; you tell them they will win, and in doing so you boost their actual odds of winning. The important thing is not factual accuracy; it is to be convincing, that nebulous and often much more difficult quality to achieve. L’essential est invisible pour les yeux. I was convinced, and that was enough.

Thank you! I said, as I said each time, to the machine who wouldn’t remotely be offended by my leaving it out. How sweet. Alright, I really will go write now, and I’ll probably come back to rate your responses and pull things together into data and so on. Thanks very much for chatting!

You’re welcome! said ChatGPT, as it was mandated to do. It was great chatting with you and I hope you have a productive writing session.

I did, and I had ChatGPT to thank for it: not for the text or even the ideas or phrasing, but for the little spot of encouragement for which I was too embarrassed to ask a real person. ChatGPT worked perfectly for that.

This post was available to $5+ Patrons for early access a month prior. If you enjoyed this essay and would like to support me, you can subscribe to my Patreon or donate on ko-fi.

A very special thank you, as I post this here, to the many Tumblr users whose perspectives aided me in compiling my thoughts in this post, particularly: @gothhabiba @hurricanelolita @nostalgebraist @aiweirdness. Your conversations led me down so many productive thought-trails.

[blueopinions49]

Mistyping on MBTI

Introduction 

The purpose of this post is to understand what are mistyping and how they happen. I’ll explain some of the patterns ive noticed when it comes to some of the mistypings as well as some of examples ive I personally disagree with. Please dont take any of this as a personal insult if any of these examples I give are things you've done in the past or the typings I disagree with are your own. 

Case #1Misunderstanding Functions 

-What I refer to by the misunderstanding of functions I mean it's the general purpose of the function and how does this function work and perceive reality. I understand that functions can be complicated and Carl Jung’s definition of Ni can be convoluted and confusing (sometimes just plain vague) however I do think that typing people/characters  needs at least allot of backing up with your knowledge of functions. Usually the misunderstanding I see with each functions comes out in these ways.

Si- Memories/Any form of previously obtained knowledge 

Se-Impulsiveness and Aggression

Fi-Sensitivy and Emotionality 

Fe-Caring

Ti- Thinking in any capacity 

Te-Rudeness 

Ne- Quirks and Quips 

Ni- just knowing stuff

Ex-Sasuke Uchiha (ISFP)- Sasuke is often typed as an INTJ due to his preference for Ni-Fi HOWEVER when it comes to how he perceives reality and his way to deal with conflict its pretty clear he is an Fi dom. There is this misconception of Fi=Sensitivity and Emotionality. However this couldn't  be farther from the truth. Fi is simply preferring your Core Values and desire over the other. His goal was always Fi related NOT Ni related.   

Case#3 Simplification of Functions

Following the last case this is usually the more common one I see when it comes to mistyping usually people will flatten functions or just straight up default to god awful stereotypes of each type when it comes to typing them. You'll often see people “Trope Type” certain charcaters. Most of their arguments revolve around the aesthetic of the character and then their functions. Which is why those peoples typing will usually look like this.

ESXJ-Mean Girl and stuck up

ISXJ-Boring ones

ESXP-Immature,Dumb or straight up substance abuse 

ISXP-Edgy 

XNTP-Quips and Quirks but always the smartest 

XNFJ-Kind Humanitarian

XNFP-Sentimental mess

XNTJ-Villain

Ex-Naruto Uzumaki (EXFP)I know I previously typed him as an ENFP however I've been thinking of the relation of his Se-Ni throughout the show and I might change my typing. However thus far every single Se dom argument I read for Naruto reads like this “ Well he is immature” “he is impulsive and reckless” “ can't be an Ne dom because Intuitive=smart and Sensor=Dumb” sometimes they don't say this word for word but their arguments boil down to this. And I find it quite frustrating cuz those same people look at you straight in the eye and say that you're intuitive bias, even tho they are the ones defaulting to stereotypes. 

Case #4 Positioning of Functions 

Character development in MBTI is more complex than character development in Enneagram. Depending on the movie/tv show the character might either develop their inferior function or their tert function. Which is why understanding the position and model you are using for MBTI and be consistent using it. The position of function is important because they are what defined the person and how they approach data management. Also certain characters might have preference for their tert function rather than their aux functions. Some Characters just use their stack in a very balanced way. 

Ex- Sokka (ESTJ)- He is often typed as an ENTP due to his exaggerated use of Ne in the later seasons. To me at least he is an ESTJ with a preference for TeNe. Sokka never really uses NeTi in the first book. His priority came in form of TeSi (Organizing the environment with a solid metric and detailed positioning of others). His development came in the form of his Ne not Fi. To the point he ends of sticking to it in Book 2 and Book 3. 

Case #4 Character Traits=/=Cognitive Preferences/Perception

Often people conflate how a character/person acts instead of how they think and proceed with conflict. MBTI isnt really a personality theory but rather and understanding of your cognitive process and preference. It's based on how you perceive reality and how you make decisions based on your dominant function. If anything enneagram would be closer to an actual personality test. 

Ex- Amy March (ESFP)- I took such a long time to come to this typing because similarly to Naruto people only talked about how she was an annoying immature child. However her monologue points to her stresses and how she must stick to her SeTe rather than SeFi due to how the environment is working and suppressing women in that era. 

Case #5 Just making things up 

This is the most common one I see when people type characters, they usually just make things up. Sometimes there isn't any contextual evidence on what they are talking about and will mostly differ to broad and vague statements that hold no wait or aren't represented in the narrative. Sometimes they'll just take things out of context and will just go with them and end up convincing people even if their argument is 95% fabricated stuff and the 5% is misunderstanding on their part. 

Ex-Ada Wong (IXTJ)  Ada Wong’s Ti is non existent and no one online has ever written an argument where I there is enough evidence on what they are saying. Ada isnt a person who is interested in analytical process and internal understanding. Even character development comes from XiFi not Fe. Sorry but liking Leon but not really isnt a good argument for low Fe. Her development isnt about understanding the emotional state of the other or in relation to the other but rather the self. Even OG Resident Evil its stated that she struggles with her own values and emotional state . It's almost as if their argument hinges on ISTP=Spy characters. 

Case #6 Misogyny (yeah...we are going there). 

Often in typology you'll notice a dichotomy between Female characters vs Male characters. You'll notice that female characters are twice as likely to get typed as Feelers even when they dont show much usage of any feeling function. Often the arguments I see its in reference to either showing the character struggling emotionally or reacting in some way to something bad happening in their life. But when male characters such as Homelander and Patrick Bateman who have multiple emotional outburst in their runs but most people type them as Te doms. While Female characters that have emotional outburst such as Asuka and Jennifer Harding (Both Te doms) both get typed as ESFP because=SeFi=angry and emotional. It often happens in cases such as Bakugo who gets typed as an ESTP but if a female character does the same thing she gets typed as an ESFP. Im not calling you a misygonist  if you typed any of this characters like this I just think that you should reconsider your typology process. 

Ex-There are allot of these so I just gonna point to a few 

Alice Liddle (INTP) - Being typed as an INFP but very clear her struggle is between Ti-Si and understanding her Fe.

Nancy Wheeler (ESTJ)- Being nice=/=Fe she has always preferred TeSi (organizing and structuring things in step by step processes) Over using Fe. 

Madison Montgomery (ESTP)- Her character is pure SeTi and her struggle with her Fe is shown in both S3 and S8. 

Yenneffer (INTJ)- NiFi reaching the ideal self is her goal also her Te is very on your face. 

Part 2 will focus on the enneagram 

Please dont take any of this as an attack its an analysis on things ive seen and read if you are gonna disagree please be civil. 

[mionghairearracht]

leverage disability headcanons:

eliot has poor vision. he technically needs bifocals, which is why whenever a con requires him to read or use a computer he has glasses, but prefers to go without them most of the time due to their limitations.

he also has chronic pain due to his various injuries. he often ends up in the kitchen cooking as a form of destressing on difficult days

parker and hardison quietly went about making everything in the kitchen was as ergonomic and low energy as possible when they figured out

parker has ptsd and is autistic, crime is her special interest (i'm aware this is basically canon). hardison has an extensive library of true crime, case reports, and criminology books he reads so he can have discussions with her

parker also has a mild form of ehlers-danlos syndrome. her strength from climbing allows her some protection against dislocations but its still an issue for her. she often wears supports and or wraps under her clothes

she had a pretty restricted diet because of poor experiences when trying food before, though she doesn't have many sensitivies with food hers are very strong

eliot is the one who ends up helping her the most with food problems, she trusts hardison just as much but eliots knowledge of cooking and food makes her feel more comfortable trying

hardison is autistic with adhd, he had a ton of trouble with social skills when he was younger but eventually was able to learn. part of the reason he ends up being able to read parker and help her is because he had similar struggles before being given the opportunity to learn

he has a special interest in a few scifi series and as a kid that lead him to being into computers amd technology

he forgets to eat when he's into something, the orange soda started because he needed something to keep him from crashing and the sugar from it was perfect

its now one of his safe foods and something of a comfort item to have around

sophie has pure-o ocd, the reason many of her characters have specific tics and backstories is due to how her ocd manifests with her cons. she can't make them less complicated because the backstories and actions are part of her way of redirecting intrusive thoughts and without that she can't focus enough to read people

this is also why she has trouble with acting unless its part of a con, her character can be an actor as part of their backstory but as soon as she is the character she needs to have a backstory and full work up behind them

she currently struggles largely with morality ocd and the times she took a break from the team were because the constant moral questions around what they did were a struggle for her. running cons on her own gave her time to question things and work through triggers in a way she couldn't while on the team

this is also why the return of arthur was such a huge shake up for her. while she struggled with ocd her entire life the results of that con lead to her ocd shifting from social based to morality based ocd and even thinking about it the vaugest terms is a trigger for her

[the-shy-wolf]

Alright everyone. I am setting clear boundaries for myself and my art. This is the best I can communicate when it comes to my personal comfort levels so please read carefully. Before I go into things, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular because these are things that have always bothered me. These rules will be applied to all of my sm accounts. I'm trying to figure out how to apply these rules to Twitter too.

I never previously established these rules in text, but I think they are very important for everyone to know. If this seems pretentious, it's really not. It's me communicating what I am comfortable with as an artist and as a person. I need boundaries for my own sanity and peace of mind. If you can't respect this, then sorry, I'm not sure I am comfortable interacting with you.

Here are some do's and don'ts:

Do: Ask If I'm taking requests. I might not be taking requests at the time, but may be flexible. I may draw it for you! So please ask first. Never assume.

Do: If I ask you 'would you like me to draw something for you?' Please don't be afraid to accept my offer. If I am offering to draw you something, I am wanting to be friends. I am trying to share my Happy Meal fries with you. You are not obligated to accept but please do not be scared to accept. If you're worried about paying me back somehow or owing me- you do not owe me a thing. This is a gift from me to you. You are not even obligated to be my friend! I'm just appreciative of you as a friend and in no way expect anything in return. If you are not comfortable receiving gift art from me, please express that. I won't ask questions and will respect your boundaries. If I am asking you if I can draw you something-and do not just gift you the art, I may not know what your preferences are and need feedback or suggestions on what you like/prefer. I want to draw something that makes you happy! I don't like to assume because assuming can make people upset or uncomfortable. I rather establish a clear directive.

Do: PM me if you think a piece of artwork is potentially problematic or offends you. I am still fairly new to the internet and other things. I am still learning what makes people upset. I am also autistic and miss important social cues, so if you are upset or implying something I drew/said/ displayed a behavior that was offensive, be very direct about it and message me.

Do: Remind me if I take a request by you! I am a very forgetful person and may not always remember what I was working on..

Do: Be patient with me. Please. I've been through a lot and am going through some mental and physical changes. Despite my occasional sassy demeanor I am actually very sensitive at the moment. Idk how long this sensitivy will last, just please keep this in mind. For those who don't know, or don't go into thr vent channel, I am dealing with irl stuff regarding family members and health issues. I try not to disclose all of this info 24/7 because it's a lot of emotional baggage for people to take on and I try to be considerate of that.

Do: Give constructive criticism. Examples of constructive criticism:

"I think this would look better with these colors".

"I think the anatomy looks off".

"You could try this drawing technique".

"I think you should add a cool background."

Not examples of constructive criticism:

"It would've been better if you drew these characters..."

"I would prefer it if these characters were involved."

"You should give this character this type of body part instead."

"I don't get it."

I don't consider the following examples constructive criticism. This sounds more like you're directing/telling me what I should draw. Although this may not have been someone's intention, it's something that I've noticed people unconsciously do. I am my own person and will draw what I want. If you would like for me to draw you something or if you have an idea before I have already decided what I am going to draw, you may say: "I have a request" or "I would like to commission you." I know I've offered many times to draw things for people. If I offer it once, but you don't know what you want at the time- that offer is always on the table. I also don't always have an explanation for my art and shouldn't have to explain everything. Art is something that comes from our heart and soul and sometimes is unexplainable.

Some more don'ts:

Don't: Try to guide/direct me what to draw, especially if I already have an idea for a drawing. I may be planning on creating a new oc/or I am creating something for myself. Unless I am drawing a request or working on a commission for you please let me draw for myself. My art is used as an emotional outlet/coping mechanism. If I am planning on drawing something or in the process of drawing something, I may be dealing with some emotional stuff and am trying to cope in my own way through my art.

Don't: Push me to open commissions or requests. Asking if I am open for commissions/requests is different than bullying me for an open spot.

Don't: Make disrespectful comments towards me. It is okay if I've known you for a while and can tell if you are joking, but if we barely talk, or barely have any serious interactions, please do not make disrespectful/degrading jokes towards me. I find it disrespectful and it makes me uncomfortable. It's okay to joke with me, but please get to know me first and my comfort levels.

Don't: Be offended or upset if I don't reply to DM's right away. I am a very anxious person so it may take me a minute to respond. I also have dyslexia so I have to proofread my texts many times before sending.

Don't: Assume I know your preferences or what you like. I am not a mind reader, I would much rather you tell me than have me guess. This includes if I am offering to draw you something! It's cool to ask me to draw stuff you know I'd like, but I want to draw what YOU like. The best way for that to happen is if you tell me what you want/prefer. If you're nervous asking publicly just DM. I don't bite, and even though there is some stuff I won't draw I am willing to work with you and bend things where we can meet in the middle. Again, just please say the words "I have a request."

Don't: Assume everything I draw is vent art.

These rules. These do's and don'ts- I am asking very politely that they are respected. I love drawing/creating stuff, and I am thankful to have everyone's love and support. I truly feel like I don't deserve it, and these rules are not me intending to be hateful/disrespectful. This is me trying to preserve/keep friendships and relationships healthy and free of any miscommunications. I WANT to be there for everyone, I WANT to be friends, I WANT to draw for you, and I think the best way to do that is if I am open and honest. These are things that have been bothering me for a while and I feel it is necessary that my comfort levels/boundaries should be established. I honestly regret not establishing these sooner, I feel like many people have come and gone due to miscommunications and unestablished boundaries being crossed. I don't want that and don't want to happen. Regardless what people believe I do care about everyone in my life. I'm sorry if I don't show it enough. I am trying my best.

I would like to add, I don't need to explain these preferences/boundaries. These are my lines and what I myself am comfortable with. My only request is that you please respect them.

Thank you everyone <3

[quaranmine]

playing doctor on myself this morning with google and losing my mind just a bit

i keep. over the course of the last two years at least. randomly getting these blotchy red rashes on my torso. they don't itch or hurt, they aren't raised, and they seem completely random. i cannot figure it out or any link between it appearing. It will typically last several hours. they do not go on my face, neck, or limbs, just the torso. i don't think theyre like dangerous??? because i assume that if they were i would have some adverse reaction like pain, fever, swelling, etc. so that is why i have not been overly concerned with it. but it is baffling me. now sometimes in the past i have gotten extremely itchy for no reason on my torso, so maybe that's a factor, but the itchiness does not always coincide with the rash. for example, today there is none.

the thing i'm interested in today though, is if it's some sort of drug allergy rash. because it always looks exactly like the rash i got last year when i took paxlovid for my covid infection. the doctor told me that's a common (harmless) reaction. i've looked it up and it looks most like a morbilliform drug reaction which are very common. so, if morbilliform drug reactions look and behave like that, i had that reaction to taking a drug, and a doctor told me it was a reaction to the drug then....

...it stands to reason that my experiencing this off and on for 2-3 years might ALSO be a similiar reaction? i just can't figure out the common thread.

one of my meds is implicated as a cause for this type of rash, and has studies/journal articles on it causing this. EXCEPT. um, it happens when you are first introduced to taking it??? and like dude i've been taking this particular medication since 2016 probably. i'm sure anything is possible (like developing new sensitivies) but nothing i have read is about reactions popping up YEARS after the fact, just within 1-3 weeks of starting it. i saw a study done on someone who developed the rash after taking the medicine, but 5 days after first taking it. i saw another study/journal article that was written as a diagnostic aid that literally excluded any drugs you'd been on for a few months as not the cause. so??? idk. my other medicine does not seem to be implicated in this, as when i looked it up i didn't really get anything.

i'm no biochemist or whatever but i can't seem to find any similarities between my med and paxlovid? like ok, we've established that either the nirmatrelvir or ritonavir that is in paxlovid likely caused it. that's what the doctor said. he said my reaction was a common one to one of the drugs in that mixture, which lines up with everything i have read. but afaik these drugs arent like....similiar to the one i have been taking...it isnt like "oh these are the same drug class so maybe your issue is with them"....

the other (relevant) drug implicated in these types of reactions are NSAIDS. now this could be something. i did take ibuprofen yesterday, and woke up with the reaction. is that it? i'm going to start logging it every time it happens to see if it ever coincides with me recently taking ibuprofen. BUT LIKE. i take ibuprofen pretty frequently, mostly for headaches. this reaction might only happen once every two or three months. i feel like if i were getting a reaction from ibuprofen it would happen every time, not just once in a blue moon?

so why am i experiencing it today???? i'm not wearing any clothing made from atypical materials. i havent used any new shower products. i havent tried any new medicines for a while. i havent eaten anything i don't normally have. none, except for the paxlovid rash, coincide with me being sick so i doubt it's viral.

if it IS a mobilliform drug reaction, it still seems atypical because a) i havent started anything new b) it goes away within a few hours, not days/weeks c) it isn't always itchy

WHERE IS THE COMMON LINK AND HOW DO I FREE MYSELF OF THIS?

[coyoteprince]

[Image ID: A long, digital infographic about dealing with heat sensitiviity, styled with black ink on an aged 1800's poster and muted red accents. Largely filled by text, there are some decorative elements of filigree and the artist's persona, a fat fairy with curled ram horns and a long tufted tail. /End ID.]

Those on mobile are experiencing issues with reading this due to tumblrs compression, so here is it cut up for easier reading!

But first, HERE IS A LINK to the plain text for those who use screen readers or would prefer straight text.

Alright there's this. Now back to drawing undead gay dog men in love.

Tip Jar!

[numberonecounsellor]

Toilet PHOBIA in Kids…..

It relates towards child’s intense fear towards using the toilet which can be an outcome owing to:

1. Negative Experiences

2. Fear of Unknown

3. Sensory Sensitivies

4. Control Issues….

Read the complete blog with Psychologist Harsh Pandya on:

https://mentoringminds4.wordpress.com/2024/10/19/toilet-phobia-in-kids/

[depressionbaby18]

Whonix

What's the point of using whonix and other privacy related things when modern Intel and Amd have chips that can read your information at hardware? it sure helps to use open source software and all of that but if we're deemed to use old vintage ass antique prehistoric hardware just to protect my sensitivy information that a bit too much, can someone explain?

[sunshine-somedays]

opinions. we all have them, we all use them to judge others. as a defense mechanism at times, at times out of a habbit, and somestimes the worst — out of choice. and it’s exactly these choices which are easily made for others than for your own self. without any context of a community or an individual it is very very easy to judge others than yourself. it is so very easy to form opinions on others than to even sit through opinions on you, that the people who should be reading this might have even stopped that, just because it’s an opinion on them. my limited experience in this world would suggest that we all feel this urge to express all of our opinions to all persons we have an opinion on, because we place a very false importance to our emotions and thoughts; so much so that we forget that the person infront of us also has exactly those — emotions and thoughts.

and then there are the ways you can constantly deal with people’s opinions (on you). you can either internalise it and start believing something is truly wrong with you. or lash out and scream and yell at others and then sometimes you just have to sit through people’s opinions of you, or your identity to truly realise how wrong they have it truly. and it is then, when you really realise what ‘s it like in all it’s glory to be — you. or that. or this. anything. now away from the ambiguity that comes with respect you’d want to give to every opinion — there comes the… frankly, disdain that comes from being wrongly accused of being something without the absolute empathy that any human would deserve. sometimes opinions like these come from a truly curious place or intellectual place and aren’t judgemental at all, but that is when we realise people or communities — and their sufferings really aren’t a piece of paper we can study, or learn from. or teach it to people. we have to give every human the liberty that comes from ~ living. experiencing things. and being.

then there are times, most of the times these days really, where people’s judgements come from… they really come from a place of misguided generalisation (the worst one) and oh wow. is listening to this just embarassing. every morning you wake up and go to a class full of college students laughing at one thing too sensitivie or another, or giving one privileged opinion or another, you realise how rare it truly is for one to be educated about things that they speak of. no it’s not a joke. or a meme content if there are people dying out of the same thing youre laughing at right now. and that’s when it really hits you — how the so called educated class of a country with billions alone, can still sit on their self-made profused throne and realise we’re all one day away from doomsday if we keep choosing the rare minority (still sginificant) instances of hatred above the larger picture that makes us all see things differently.

do i have alot to say? yes. because i’ve been sitting on opinions on this for a while now. and we all know what better place to express this opinion at, than a blog that nobody’s going to really read. so we continue.

if intersectionality and its prevelance im the current political climate tells us something, it’s that yes, we’re all fucked in different ways or the other, or more so in one big way than the other but it’s also that we all have limited powers within our hand that should and must be used effectively if we want anything to get better at all. there are way more lives than just ours, that have to exist for ages beyond our thinking, if we can just realise our own potential in and of itself rather than sitting and educating others (which is just as important but very secondary to the point right now) we might actually realise how the societies — around us, and beyond, are regressing into something that are just fancied remains of the world we were taught to not become like. and the more you look through it, the more you realise how the only thing we've learnt from the past — is just the dying need to fancy the parts that made the mistakes that we did. it's insane.

[todayonglobe]

Denmark Introduces Law Against Quran Desecration Amid Global Tensions

Read more:👇

[dolcevenus777]

I'd love to know some of those recommendations, pls, as I feel I'm stucked into the same writers from a while, and also your opinion is by far more valid than mine, as you're the damned source, hahahaha.

You also made my day, as I can feel how you got involved to share your knowledge, and this feels as a bleeding passion of yours, the one for reading and understanding our surrounding through other sensitivies.

Bonus question: qual é o seu nível de intensidade, de um até quebrar o medidor de intensidade? Hahahaha

your opinion is super valid too, i love to read and write (i have a passion for writing) since i was very young, even when i was 13-14 i wrote a whole notebook of a 19th century women's story that took place in Spain, bc i am in love with spanish women, cinema and art .. i don't want to leave this life without at least publishing a book, even if it's just for me lol. the indications are cecília meireles, lygia fagundes telles and rachel de queiroz. ps: cecília é uma preciosidade! ela intimida e fala sobre amor, morte, religião, música.

meu nível de intensidade eu diria que é por eu sempre deixar uma recordação na vida das pessoas, gosto de ter minha marca, sinceridade, lealdade, deixar a rebeldia pelo mundo, levar dates a museus... what turns me on in a person not just in a sexual way but in life is intelligence, i'm 17 and i speak native portuguese, english and spanish, and i'm learning french for me life has meaning in knowledge :))

[scienza-magia]

Falsi sensitivi e medium fanno continue rivelazioni

Medium e scomparsi, il Cicap: abbiamo chiesto le prove, ecco com’è andata. Cos’è la tecnica del shotgunning. I medium e le presunte rivelazioni sulle persone sparite. Il comitato per il controllo delle affermazioni sulle pseudoscienze ha fatto una verifica. Ecco cosa ha scoperto Medium, sensitivi e scomparsi. Dalla ’ragazza del lago’ (Chiara Bariffi, trovata morta nel 2005) a Denise Pipitone, uno dei più grandi misteri d’Italia, la cronaca è affollata di medium e rivelazioni. Il paranormale dimostra di avere un fascino anche su tanti credenti se domenica papa Francesco all’Angelus, con una parentesi a braccio, ha bacchettato i “tanti cristiani” che “vanno a farsi leggere le mani”.

Sensitivi e scomparsi: cosa ha scoperto il Cicap “Possiamo dire con certezza: non ci sono prove che un sensitivo sia in grado di individuare dove si trovi un corpo o comunque di avere altro tipo di percezioni extrasensoriali”, è il giudizio netto di Andrea Ferrero, ingegnere spaziale e coordinatore Cicap, il comitato italiano per il controllo delle affermazioni sulle pseudoscienze, in campo da oltre 30 anni, l’avventura è iniziata con Piero Angela. Come si può definire un sensitivo? “Un sensitivo è una persona che sostiene di avere conoscenze attraverso percezioni che vanno oltre i fenomeni fisici”, è la definizione di Ferrero. Qual è la vostra posizione? “Non neghiamo a priori la possibilità ma per crederci chiediamo le prove. Non ci sono mai state fornite. Noi siamo disposti a cambiare idea, ma sulla base dei fatti”. Come opera un sensitivo? “Ad esempio facendo dichiarazioni molto vaghe, contando sul fatto che se poi qualcosa di quel che ha detto, a posteriori risulta vero, verrà ricordato quello e non invece tutte le altre cose più generiche e non pertinenti”. "Che cos’è la tecnica del shotgunning” “I sensitivi usano spesso la tecnica del shotgunning, alla lettera vuol dire sparare con il fucile a pallettoni. Tra tanti colpi, qualcuno prenderà il bersaglio. Vale anche nei consulti individuali. Il medium dice molte cose, le più pertinenti verranno ricordate”. Chi si rivolge a voi che cosa chiede? “Ci è stato chiesto più volte di dare suggerimenti per indicare medium validi. Una sorta di certificazione. Questa naturalmente è una cosa che non possiamo fare”. Persone scomparse, cosa fare! Read the full article

[hermitmoss]

#how is reading sheet music weider than leading the rats?!#i met an older dude at a hotel once who was doing exactly this!#and as a kid this was one of the first things they taught me during musical theory class

EXACTLY! It's appalling that the sheet music is somehow winning this with two days to go. How the FUCK is "academic engages in art in accessible way given sensory sensitivies" (something that happens all the time in real life) weirder than being a military advisor to fucking RATS against his OWN SCORPIONS???

it's not like it's vetinari's preference to read music rather than hear it for, like, reasons of fun. that would be properly weird. but sensory issues create an access barrier for him and this is the only way he can engage with music most of the time. that's not very weird, that's just logical.

VOTE RATS. DO IT FOR HAVELOCK, OUR MAN-WITH-THE-VOTE WHO VOTED FOR THE RATS.

Vetinari weird bracket: FINAL ROUND

Well folks, it all comes down to this. The semifinals were an absolute nail-biter from start to finish. Two extremely close races. Record numbers of people flocked in to vote for reading sheet music, narrowly breaking the tie in the final hours! And the rat revolution has always been popular, receiving far more nominations than any other. But the final question remains:

[gffa]

Okay, buckle up, because this is going to be UNSATISFYING. 😂 And, with the caveat that a) I'm more familiar with the Lucasfilm canon than I am with Legends and b) I haven't read everything from The High Republic yet and something might be in there. But, generally, I think the short answer is: Not as it appears in fic. In a more complicated answer: Ehhhh, something maybe kinda sorta a little bit LIKE training bonds exists? And that I am fully in favor of authors doing what they like, because there is absolutely plenty of room and enough that might be workable to build something that meshes really well with canon. (And, you know, the whole "you measure canon by what's in your heart." 😂) The concept of "bonds" between Jedi exist in a few places: → "We shall, however, use the strong bond that once existed between you and your master [Dooku and Yoda] to allow us to see things that we otherwise could not." --"Sacrifice", The Clone Wars

→ "Yoda said, on the day of the tournament, he said that the bond between a Padawan and his Master was sacred." -- Dooku: Jedi Lost → "Obi-Wan’s crèche-mate Prie, for instance, had been partnered with a Master who was expert in two things: forming Force-bonds with animals and unarmed combat." --Master and Apprentice → “But he had forged a powerful bond with Dooku well before they’d been together for a year. Most Masters and apprentices did.” --Master and Apprentice → "Anakin’s bond with his teacher, Obi-Wan Kenobi, is strong.  They make a dynamic team in the Clone Wars, where Anakin proves to be a great leader.  Yet Anakin is troubled by feelings of anger and mistrust." --Ultimate Star Wars → "Mace Windu rescued Depa Billaba from space pirates who killed her parents, eventually taking her as his Padawan, where they developed a close bond." --Ultimate Star Wars → "Jedi Master Plo Koon discovers the toddler Ahsoka's sensitivies to the Force while on a mission. He brings her to the Jedi Temple on Coruscant to be trained, and maintains a strong bond with her throughout her Padawan years." --[one of the canon reference/trivia books, I'll have to find the specific book again] → “The kyber crystals do determine the color of the blade, but they only take on their colors after their bond with the Jedi who’ve chosen them.”    Fanry’s eyes widened. “Kyber crystals bond with Jedi? Does that mean you…communicate with them?” --Master and Apprentice So, bonds of some form or another exist within the Jedi abilities and are frequently used, but it's unclear if it's like what fanfiction uses or more of an emotional connection kind of bond. Some form of bond specifically through the Force exists, because that's how their connection with their kyber crystals and various animals are specifically described, but canon has never really touched on or denied whether they do that with each other. I lean towards the idea that it is some sort of bond through the Force--while many of the things they sense about each other could simply be that they're psychic space wizards who are literal empaths in the Force, but Obi-Wan and Anakin often picked up on emotions from each other even when it's not terribly evident on their faces. Anakin looks over at a visibly calm Obi-Wan and says, "I sense some anxiety From you about the duchess." in "Voyage of Temptation", for example. And while hearing specific words (rather than a sort of general impression or flashes of images) seems to be rare: a) the Force is finnicky about everything, it doesn't always work consistently, so what might be possible one day, might not the next, whether because the person has their own noisy thoughts getting in the way or just because the Force is not firm ground. (Ahsoka explaining why her visions don't always work--to Padme? Riyo? I can't remember the specific scene now--is another example of that.) or b) each Jedi has different abilities from each other. Ninth Sister was a super empath, Saesee Tiin was a telepath, Quinlan Vos and Cal Kestis were psychometrics, etc. While it's possible for some to read others'/broadcast their own thoughts--as shown in Choose Your Destiny: An Obi-Wan & Anakin Adventure--it's unclear how reliable it is, who specifically can do it/hear it, or how much effort it takes. But it doesn't seem to be limited to just Masters and Padawans (plus, Obi-Wan's use of it in the book is a cry for help, something he seems to be depending on here), as Mace Windu hears and is heard by Obi-Wan and Anakin both:

(Choose Your Destiny: An Obi-Wan & Anakin Adventure) See, what I mean? UNSATISFYING. 😂 You could potentially make a case either way! You could make a case that much of the training bond specifics from fic are just normal Jedi abilities, not that they're something they specifically chose to do! Because recognizing someone through the Force can be greatly enhanced just by knowing that person: “The material of [Luminara’s] body is the essence that Kanan is somehow sensing through the Force. But he knows there’s something off about it. But since he didn’t really know Luminara, he doesn’t really know. That’s one of the interesting things about death and then the dark side and all these different ways you can use the Force. The sensing of people is one of the biggest dilemmas, I think, in all of Star Wars, because people want to use it like a metal detector. I am very, very certain that it really just relates to how much you know somebody and intention of threat. You take those two things and combine them. So of course when Obi-Wan arrives in the Death Star, Anakin knows about it. Obi-Wan’s intentions are fairly clear, what he wants to do. He even, I think to some degree, knows he’s going to face Vader. And they knew each other so well, they were so close. It’s like a battering ram." --Dave Filoni, re: "Rise of the Old Masters" It's not necessarily that they have a separate training bond, it's just that their natural Jedi abilities and how well they know each other automatically lend them what we would otherwise ascribe to a training bond. Or take, the short story, "There Is Another", set during A New Hope:

Is it just that Yoda's really good at sensing people? Is it that Anakin is a screamingly loud klaxon in the Force at all times? Is it that Yoda was indeed rather close with Anakin, just like he sensed SOMETHING happened with him Attack of the Clones? Is it that he hears Qui-Gon’s voice in AOTC, because he was close with Qui-Gon? We don’t see enough of this in the movie, we don’t see context or aftermath of any of it, because the war plot is exploding into action all around them and time skips jump ahead to the big events, not the smaller moments.  But the way Yoda reacts to Anakin and/or Qui-Gon certainly could fit the bill for a Force Bond, if you wanted:

So, at the end of the day: "training bonds" aren’t directly referred to, but most of the things that come from the idea of them is stuff that the Jedi naturally do anyway because of the nature of their psychic abilities and spending time with someone. And that that connection can be used in some way, like Sidious and Dooku plan to do with Yoda, but I don't think it's something you can cut off (unless you cut yourself off from the Force all together), because once you're familiar with someone, you can't unfamiliarize yourself with them, you know? Which means, as always, you are free to do whatever works best for you, because it’s just vague enough that pretty much anything goes (or you could just tell “canon” to suck it and do what you want regardless 😂)!