Tis ok. Intensity does make some girls swoon, so it'd make your sweeping easier. One cannot ask every bear to be a carebear, without threatening a major extinction of some species.The latter. In fact, everything I sent along with the paper curiosity was according to her very general interests. It wasn't necessary, I thought, to ask what she wanted. And, yes -- setting up passion and romance as to intensity and allure, I probably have the first.
Ah. Yes, correlations - how much comes from actual HW, how much comes from intepretation. Accuracy per cent was the best way I could qualify it. Afterall, I could ask a person what he thinks of himself, and if my analysis does not fit his own self-image, is it the reader that is wrong, or is it the subject who does not know himself? Possibly a shade of both sometimes. Blindspots in Johari's window applies to reader and subject.Developing a chronology of that kind would be interesting. My skepticism remains on the reach of correlations made; but then, your methods are qualified by a measure of accuracy per cent.
I originally wanted to show where each analysis point came from, but that became too much trouble to type out. Also, I'd have to explain the integration of some points, which was a little too much work and demystified things too much for my liking.