I took his claims at face value for many years, although there was always a small undercurrent of skepticism. But when I heard many years ago that he claimed that he himself suffered from the neurosis of not being able to recognize people's faces, my skepticism came on fully. How could someone who couldn't recognize people by their faces have the truly deep insight into personality that is presented in his books? It didn't make sense to me. Either he wasn't completely truthful about that affliction or the stories weren't quite as they appeared. It all seemed too much to believe, and so from that moment I didn't really believe any of it.
I took his claims at face value for many years, although there was always a small undercurrent of skepticism. But when I heard many years ago that he claimed that he himself suffered from the neurosis of not being able to recognize people's faces, my skepticism came on fully. How could someone who couldn't recognize people by their faces have the truly deep insight into personality that is presented in his books? It didn't make sense to me. Either he wasn't completely truthful about that affliction or the stories weren't quite as they appeared. It all seemed too much to believe, and so from that moment I didn't really believe any of it.