George, not at all (taking this as criticism) - and frankly, I get the sense from your responses that I have a fair chance of communicating effectively with you - which is far greater than I usually feel.

I'm assuming that the "People tend to lie to me often." diatribe I offered is a good example of what you referred to as 'overthinking'. Perhaps so, but it is how I think. It's how I think twenty-four/seven whether I am taking a test or speaking to my wife of thirty years (and with whom I'm the most comfortable). My point then is that this may be 'overthinking' by normal standards, it is just 'thinking' to me.

If so, then my thinking isn't normal. That seems to be the reason they want me to take the tests - to determine the anomalies in my thinking. But by telling me to think like them in order to answer the questions not only defeats the purpose, it is impossible! I don't know what a normal level of thinking looks like. My T has remarked on a number of occasions, "Don't you get exhausted thinking like this?" And every time he does, I ask him the same question, "Compared to what? I think like this all the time. What would I compare it too?" To which he nods his head, jots something down and doesn't answer my question.


It is both - but the moral dilemma is secondary, almost to a point of being academic. No, it's the practical matter of deciphering questions like the above, "People tend to lie to me often." I don't understand the question and THAT seems imminently more important and vital to diagnosing me than my answer - whatever my answer is. To me, the answer to that question is equal parts true and false; I might as well flip a coin. When I am in a position like that, I just analyze indefinitely and can't proceed.