Clairgustance: Signs of Clear tasting, How to Develop It and Common Confusions
Clairgustance is the psychic sense of clear tasting: a flavor arrives in the mouth with no food, drink, or physical source behind it, and the practitioner reads it as information. In mediumship it usually works as evidence, naming a person by the tobacco, sweet, or medicine they were known for. This guide covers clairgustance signs, the exercises used to develop it, and the confusions that trip people up.
What is clairgustance, and what does the word clairgustance mean?
Clairgustance is the psychic sense of clear tasting: a flavor arrives in the mouth with no food, drink, medicine, or physical source behind it, and the practitioner reads that flavor as information. The word is built the same way as the rest of the clair family, from the French clair, meaning clear, joined to the Latin gustare, to taste. Clairvoyance is clear seeing, clairaudience is clear hearing, and clairgustance puts the mouth in the receiving position. Clairgustance meaning is narrow in practice. It does not cover a craving, a food memory you deliberately called up, or taste in the aesthetic sense. It covers a gustatory percept that turns up unbidden, and the reports are usually specific rather than vague: the flat mineral edge of a copper coin, aniseed, pipe tobacco tar at the back of the throat, the over-sweet icing of a supermarket birthday cake. Practitioners describe the flavor as a pointer rather than a whole message. The taste says who or what is present, and the reading proceeds from there. Among the clairs, clairgustance is the one most often described as brief. A clairvoyant image can be held and examined, but a clairgustant flavor tends to bloom and vanish inside a few seconds, which is one reason it goes unrecorded even by people who get it regularly.
Clairgustance is nearly always taught alongside clairalience, clear smelling, because the two senses share equipment. What people call flavor is mostly retronasal olfaction, air carrying volatile compounds up from the back of the mouth to the nose, while the tongue itself reports a short list: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, savory, and the metallic and pungent sensations that sit at the edge of that list. That physiology explains something readers notice long before they can account for it. Clairgustance impressions arrive in a small palette and lean on texture, temperature, and aftertaste to carry detail, where clairalience arrives with the fine resolution of a named perfume or a particular brand of soap. The vocabulary itself belongs to the wave of clair- terms that spread through spiritualist and psychic circles as the movement organized its language, and clairgustance has always been the least standardized of them. You will find it spelled clairgustence and clairgustation in older material, and some teachers fold it into clairsentience entirely rather than granting it a name of its own. The practical tradition disagrees, mainly because taste behaves differently in a reading. It cannot be described in halves the way an image can, and either the sitter recognizes the flavor or nobody does.
Is clairgustance the same as clear tasting?
Clear tasting is simply the plain English rendering of clairgustance, and the two terms are used interchangeably in development circles. Teachers who prefer clear tasting argue it stops students expecting something exotic, since the experience is an ordinary flavor in an unexplained place rather than an unearthly one. Teachers who prefer clairgustance keep it for consistency with clairvoyance and clairaudience on a class syllabus.
How is clairgustance pronounced and spelled?
Clairgustance is usually pronounced klair-GUS-tance, with the stress on the second syllable and the first syllable rhyming with air. The spelling wobbles more than the other clairs. Clairgustence appears in older spiritualist writing, and clairgustation shows up where a writer has built the noun from the Latin verb form instead. All three refer to the same thing, and clairgustance is the standard modern spelling.
Is clairgustance considered a rare psychic ability?
Clairgustance is treated as uncommonly reported rather than genuinely rare. The impression lasts seconds, leaves nothing to review, and is easy to blame on breakfast, so it goes unlogged. Circle leaders who run a round asking every sitter specifically for a taste, rather than leaving the request open, generally find that far more people produce clairgustance than volunteer it when the question is left general.
What are the most common clairgustance signs?
The clairgustance signs practitioners look for divide into the flavors themselves and the behavior of the impression. The flavors reported most often are tobacco tar and menthol cigarettes, cold black coffee, sweet sherry, communion wine, aniseed or licorice, peppermint, rose-scented Turkish delight, cough syrup, the chalk of indigestion medicine, cod liver oil, condensed milk, sea salt, curry spice, engine oil or petrol, and the coin-like metallic taste people describe as blood or copper. The behavior matters more than the list. A clairgustance impression arrives before the thought that would explain it, so the flavor comes first and the recognition of whose flavor it is comes second. It tends to land toward the middle or back of the tongue and into the throat rather than on the tip. It arrives without hunger attached, which is what separates it from a craving. It often appears at the exact moment a person is named, a photograph is turned over, or an object is picked up. Rinsing the mouth or drinking water does not clear it, and it fades on its own schedule, usually abruptly. The strongest sign of all is a flavor you dislike, have never eaten, or cannot name, since your own mind had no reason to produce it.
Experienced readers pay close attention to what arrives with the taste, because clairgustance rarely comes bare. Texture is the most common companion: chalky, greasy, fizzing, gritty, syrupy, or drying. Temperature turns up too, and a sitter hearing that a drink came through warm and thick rather than cold is being given real detail. Location within the mouth is treated as meaningful by some circles, with tastes that sit against a particular molar read as pointing to dental or jaw trouble in the person being described. There is also the borrowed palate, one of the more distinctive features of clairgustance. A reader tastes something they have never eaten, cannot name, and can only describe by its parts, and the sitter supplies the name immediately. Someone who has never had a Fisherman's Friend lozenge will describe a lozenge that burns and clears the nose and tastes of tar and eucalyptus, and a widow will name it in a second. Recurrence is another marker worth logging. When the same flavor arrives every time one particular person is thought of, over months, practitioners treat that flavor as a signature and start using it deliberately, asking for it as a check on whether that person is present in a sitting.
What does a clairgustance impression feel like physically?
Practitioners describe clairgustance as a flavor with a physical footprint rather than an idea of one. The mouth often responds, with saliva to a sour taste or the reflex to swallow against a bitter one, and the taste sits somewhere identifiable rather than nowhere. Many report it strengthening on the out-breath. Imagined tastes, by contrast, are usually described as thin and located in the thought rather than on the tongue.
Do clairgustance tastes come with smells?
Clairgustance and clairalience frequently arrive together, since a spirit described as a pipe smoker tends to bring both the smoke at the nose and the tar at the back of the throat. Practitioners record them separately anyway. Keeping the nose report and the mouth report apart preserves the detail, and it also shows over time which sense is doing the actual work for a given reader.
How long does a clairgustance taste last?
Most clairgustance impressions are described as lasting a few seconds, occasionally up to half a minute, and they usually stop abruptly rather than fading out. That brevity is the practical problem with the sense. Development teachers push students to write the taste down within ten seconds, since a flavor cannot be replayed the way a clairaudient phrase can be turned over and checked twice.
How does clairgustance differ from clairalience, clairsentience, and the other clairs?
Clairgustance differs from the other clairs by channel and by resolution. Against clairalience, the difference is location and detail: clairalience is smelled at the nose, arrives on the in-breath, and carries fine-grained information such as a specific perfume, wet wool, or hospital disinfectant, while clairgustance is tasted on the tongue and in the throat, brings texture and aftertaste, and works within a smaller palette. Against clairvoyance, the difference is obvious once stated. Clairvoyance would show you a lemon; clairgustance sours your mouth and never shows you anything. Against claircognizance, clairgustance is the raw material rather than the conclusion. Claircognizance delivers the flat fact that a man chewed aniseed; clairgustance delivers the aniseed and leaves you to work out why. Against clairsentience, the boundary is the one people argue about most. Clairsentience gives body sensation and borrowed emotion, a tightening throat or a weight on the chest, and some teachers treat taste as a subset of that. The practical tradition keeps them apart because a flavor is nameable and checkable in a way that a vague heaviness is not. Clairtangency, reading through touch, often acts as the trigger rather than the rival: a reader holds a hip flask and a taste follows.
The reason clairgustance keeps its own name despite low bandwidth is evidential weight. A reader who describes a garden with roses has said something a great many sitters can accept, while a reader who reports the specific burn of a menthol lozenge, or the metallic taste of a particular liquid iron tonic, has said something narrow enough to be wrong. In evidential mediumship that narrowness is the whole point, and taste is unusually good at producing it. Practitioners also note a difference in how the senses behave under pressure. Clairvoyant images can be embellished almost without noticing, and clairaudient phrases can slide into inner monologue, but a taste either appears or does not, which makes it harder to inflate honestly and easier to score. Very few people lead with clairgustance. The common pattern described in circles is a dominant sense, usually clairvoyance or clairsentience, with clairgustance arriving second and confirming: a picture of a kitchen comes first, and then the flavor of what was cooked in it. Teachers who rank the clairs are generally regarded as missing the point, since a reader with one strong sense and one occasional confirming taste does better work than someone chasing a full set.
Is clairgustance just a form of clairsentience?
Some teachers file clairgustance under clairsentience because both are body-based, but most practitioners keep clairgustance separate for a working reason. Clairsentience produces sensations and emotions that are hard to falsify, whereas a clairgustance report names a specific flavor that a sitter either recognizes or does not. That testability is what makes taste useful as evidence, and folding it into clairsentience loses it.
Can you have clairgustance without clairalience?
Yes, and the pattern is common enough that circles ask about it directly. Some readers get tastes reliably and almost never get scents, while others get scents constantly and only occasionally a flavor. Because ordinary flavor depends heavily on smell, a reader with strong clairgustance and no clairalience often reports impressions that are blunt and structural, closer to salt or bitterness than to a named food.
Which clair usually develops before clairgustance?
Clairsentience and clairvoyance are usually described as arriving before clairgustance, with clairaudience varying widely between people. Clairgustance tends to appear once a practitioner starts asking for it specifically, which is why teachers add taste rounds to a circle rather than waiting. In many cases the taste was already arriving for years and was dismissed as a stray flavor from something eaten earlier.
How do you develop clairgustance, and which exercises are used?
Learning how to develop clairgustance starts with vocabulary, because you cannot report a flavor you have no words for. The standard first exercise is the pantry drill: sit with five ordinary foods, taste each with the eyes closed, and describe every one in basic taste, texture, and aftertaste, so that vinegar becomes sharp, thin, and drying rather than just sour. Second comes recall work, calling up lemon, then salt, then one specific childhood sweet, until the retrieval channel opens on demand. Third is the clean-mouth window: practice before coffee or food, rinse, wait a few minutes, and let background flavor go quiet so anything arriving is noticeable. The main development drill is the face-down photograph exercise. A partner supplies pictures of people they knew, placed image down, and the practitioner asks a single narrow question, usually what was in this person's mouth, then writes the answer before turning the card. The object version uses a hip flask, a snuff tin, a pill box, or a rosary. In a circle, the equivalent is a taste-only round where the leader forbids images and asks every sitter for a flavor. Everything gets logged inside ten seconds, since clairgustance impressions are gone before a slow note-taker reaches for a pen.
Development in this tradition is framed as catching rather than producing, and that framing changes the practice. You are not trying to generate a taste by effort, which mostly produces a thin imagined one, but trying to notice the ones already arriving and get them written down before they evaporate. Practitioners who take this seriously keep a baseline log first, recording every unexplained flavor for two or three weeks with the time, what was eaten beforehand, who was in mind, and any medication taken, before doing any readings at all. That log does two jobs at once. It reveals genuine patterns, and it exposes the boring explanations, such as the metallic taste that turns out to arrive forty minutes after a particular tablet every time. Scoring matters as much as sitting. Working with a partner who knows the answers and marks each attempt as a hit, a partial, or a miss keeps clairgustance honest, and the miss log is more instructive than the hit log. Two habits protect the practice: avoid strong mint toothpaste or gum before sitting, since a menthol coating flattens the palate for a long time, and never ask a leading question such as whether the person smoked, because the mouth will oblige.
Can clairgustance be learned, or is it innate?
The working position in development circles is that clairgustance is trainable in the same way listening is trainable. The sense is treated as present in most people and buried under noise, so training is largely about attention, vocabulary, and the discipline of logging. What varies between people is bandwidth. Some readers develop reliable flavor detail, others reach only a basic taste and a texture, and both are considered usable.
What should a clairgustance journal record?
A useful clairgustance journal records seven things per entry: the flavor, the texture, where in the mouth it sat, how long it lasted, what you were doing or who was in mind, what you last ate or drank, and any medication. Add the confirmation later if one comes. Journals kept without the food and medication columns are the ones that produce false patterns, since ordinary aftertaste gets mistaken for signal.
How long does it take to develop clairgustance?
No honest teacher gives a timetable, because what changes first is noticing rather than ability. Students often report that within a few weeks of keeping a log they realize clairgustance impressions had been arriving for years unrecorded. Building enough consistency to offer a taste in a reading and have it recognized regularly takes far longer, and depends more on the number of scored sittings than on months elapsed.
How do you tell clairgustance from imagination, memory, or a medical cause?
Rule out the physical first, then apply the discernment tests. Dry mouth, reflux, dental work and metal restorations, sinus infections, post-viral taste changes, pregnancy, and a long list of prescription drugs all produce metallic, bitter, or sour tastes, and a gustatory aura before a migraine or a seizure can produce a sudden strong flavor with nothing in the mouth at all. Any taste that is persistent, one-sided, or arrives with confusion, a lost minute, numbness, or a change in speech belongs to a doctor, not a development circle. Once that is settled, five tests separate clairgustance from imagination. The unwanted-flavor test asks whether you would ever have invented this: cod liver oil and chalky antacid rarely come from wishful thinking. The timing test checks the order, since clairgustance arrives before the thought that explains it and imagination arrives after. The non-summonable test compares the impression against a taste you deliberately conjure, and practitioners describe the deliberate one as thinner and more located in the head. The specificity test looks for brand-level or texture-level detail. The confirmation test is the strongest of the five, because someone else recognized the flavor.
Confirmation is the only test that reaches outside your own head, and serious practitioners weight it accordingly. Internal certainty is a poor guide with clairgustance, partly because the sense is so brief that memory starts editing it within a minute of arrival. That is the real argument for the ten-second rule. Written immediately, an impression reads as burnt sugar with a bitter edge; recalled at the end of a sitting, it has quietly become the caramel a sitter mentioned in between. Keeping a miss log is the other half of the discipline. Readers who record only the flavors that landed build a false picture of their own reliability, and the misses are where the useful information sits, showing whether you consistently over-reach on sweets, or default to tobacco whenever an older man is described. One further rule appears in most teaching: never build a reading on a single taste. A flavor is a lead, and it should be offered as a description and then supported by something from another sense before any weight is placed on it. If nothing supports it, the taste is released rather than defended.
Why do I keep tasting metal or blood?
A recurring metallic taste has a long list of ordinary causes and should be checked before it is read as clairgustance. Medications, dental metal and gum bleeding, reflux, sinus problems, pregnancy, and zinc or iron issues all produce it, and it is the single most common false positive in taste logs. Where practitioners do read a metallic taste, they treat it as pointing to blood, injury, or an iron tonic in the person described.
Can clairgustance be faked or self-suggested?
Easily, and the usual route is a leading question. Ask yourself whether a spirit smoked and the mouth will produce tobacco, because expectation drives the palate. Circles guard against this by keeping questions open, using face-down material, and having a third person hold the answers. The other common self-suggestion is reaching for whatever flavor fits a story already half told in the reading.
Does clairgustance make you salivate?
Practitioners often report a genuine physical response with clairgustance, including salivation to a sour or sharp flavor and the reflex to swallow against something bitter or greasy. That bodily response is one of the informal tells students are taught to notice, since a deliberately imagined taste rarely moves the mouth. It is a supporting sign, not proof, and it does not replace outside confirmation.
How is clairgustance used in mediumship readings and spirit contact?
In evidential mediumship, clairgustance is used to identify rather than to interpret, and the flavor is offered plainly before any meaning is attached. A reader reports the tar and paper of a hand-rolled cigarette, and the sitter confirms a grandfather who rolled his own; a reader reports thick, sweet, artificial cherry, and the sitter recognizes the medicine of a final illness. Beyond mediumship, clairgustance appears in several practices. At ancestor altars and offering tables, practitioners describe tasting what was set out, and treat that as the offering being received. In house clearing, a taste that changes room to room, stagnant water in one, iron or soot in another, is read as information about the space. In readings for the living, a taste can point to a sitter's diet, medication, or dental work rather than to anyone deceased. Devotional traditions describe sweetness arriving during prayer as a sign of presence. The etiquette is consistent across all of it. Describe the flavor and its texture in plain words, do not dress it up, do not name a cause of death from a taste, and if the sitter does not recognize it, put it down and move on rather than arguing them into it.
A worked sequence shows how clairgustance sits inside a sitting. The reader asks a narrow question, usually about what a person drank or kept in a pocket, and waits with a quiet mouth rather than reaching. A flavor arrives, and it is reported in parts, sharp, warm, sweet, with an alcohol burn at the back, before it is named. The sitter says sweet sherry, and the reader now has an anchor to build on, asking next for the glass, the room, and the occasion. Circles that score this work rate a taste highest when the reader could not name it and the sitter could, since that combination is hardest to explain by guesswork. Two cautions run through the tradition. Tastes tied to the manner of death, particularly the medicinal and metallic ones, are handled with careful language, because the flavor of a last illness lands hard on a sitter who was there. And a foul taste is not read as a verdict on the person or the place. It is read as description, usually of an illness, a habit, or neglect, and the reader who turns it into an accusation has stopped doing evidential work.
What does it mean to taste cigarettes when no one is smoking?
Tasting cigarette tar with no smoker present is one of the most commonly reported clairgustance experiences, and practitioners read it as a smoker making themselves known through the habit that identified them. The detail worth reporting is the type, since menthol, unfiltered, pipe tobacco, and cigars taste distinct. A stale ashtray quality with no burn is often read as residue in a place rather than a person present.
Does a bitter or foul taste in clairgustance mean a negative spirit?
No, and treating it that way is one of the fastest ways to frighten a sitter for no reason. In this tradition a bitter, sour, or rotten taste is read as description first: illness, medication, alcohol, dental decay, or a neglected building. Readers who work with unwanted presences look at the whole picture, including what the other senses bring and how the room behaves, rather than convicting on a flavor.
Can clairgustance identify a specific person?
Clairgustance identifies by signature rather than by name, and practitioners find that a flavor tied to one person tends to recur reliably. A particular boiled sweet, a brand of cough drop, or the specific sweetness of a homemade cake becomes the marker for that individual across many sittings. Readers use it as a check, asking for the taste to confirm who is present before continuing, and they log it as a signature once it repeats.
What are the most common confusions about clairgustance?
Six confusions come up repeatedly. The first is mistaking clairgustance for clairalience, which happens because most of flavor is retronasal smell, and the fix is to record where the impression sat rather than what it seemed to be. The second is confusing clairgustance with lexical-gustatory synesthesia, a documented neurological trait in which particular words or names reliably evoke particular tastes; the tell is consistency, since a synesthete gets the same taste from the same word for decades, involuntarily and with no message attached. The third is treating a craving as clairgustance, when a craving comes with hunger and appetite and clairgustance does not. The fourth is reading a foul taste as a malevolent presence rather than as a description of illness, drink, or a neglected place. The fifth is expecting clairgustance on demand, when the sense arrives on its own timing and practice is mostly about catching it. The sixth is assuming a taste is always about the dead, when in readings for the living a flavor often points at the sitter's own medication, diet, or dental situation. Underneath all six sits the largest one: treating a single flavor as a complete message rather than an opening line.
Expectations around clairgustance get inflated by quizzes and gift lists that promise a hidden ability, and the reality is far more ordinary. A practitioner with a working clairgustance mostly keeps a notebook, records tastes that lead nowhere, and occasionally offers a flavor that a sitter recognizes and cries about. There is no ranking to climb and no full set to collect. There is also an ethical line that clairgustance runs into more often than the other clairs, because taste points at the body. A reader who tastes chemotherapy metal or a diabetic sweetness and turns that into a health pronouncement has done real harm, whatever the intention, and the standard practice is to describe the flavor and let the sitter decide what it belongs to. The same restraint applies when nothing lands. If a taste is offered and the sitter shakes their head, the correct move is to say it did not fit, note it as a miss, and continue. Pressing a flavor onto someone until they find something it might match is how clairgustance stops being evidence and starts being a cold reading with a mouth attached.
Is clairgustance the same as synesthesia?
No. Lexical-gustatory synesthesia is a stable neurological trait where a given word or name produces the same taste every time, automatically and for life, and it carries no message. Clairgustance, as practitioners describe it, is occasional, tied to a person or place rather than to a word, and offered as information. Someone who tastes the same thing whenever they hear a specific name is usually describing synesthesia.
Can food cravings be clairgustance?
Cravings and clairgustance are separated by hunger and by direction. A craving comes with appetite, builds over time, and makes you want the food, while clairgustance arrives already complete, with no wish to eat anything, and often brings a flavor you actively dislike. Practitioners who suddenly want a departed relative's cooking treat that as memory and grief, which is meaningful but is not clear tasting.
What should you do if a sitter does not recognize the taste?
Release it. Say plainly that the flavor did not land, record it as a miss in your log, and move to whatever else is present. The temptation is to broaden the description until something sticks, and that habit destroys the evidential value of clairgustance faster than any single wrong answer. Occasionally a sitter recognizes a released taste days later, which is why it is worth writing down exactly as it came.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is clairgustance in simple terms?
Clairgustance is clear tasting: a flavor turns up in your mouth when nothing has gone into it. No food, no drink, no medicine, no sweet left on the tongue. The taste is usually strong and specific rather than vague, and practitioners treat it as a pointer to a person or a situation. A reader who tastes unfiltered tobacco tar while a sitter thinks about her father is not tasting an idea of tobacco, but reporting a flavor in the mouth that arrived before any thought of him rolling cigarettes. The word comes from clair, French for clear, and the Latin gustare, to taste.
What are the signs that you have clairgustance?
The most reported clairgustance signs are flavors that arrive without a source and without hunger, that land toward the back of the tongue or the throat rather than the tip, and that appear the moment a particular person is named or a photograph is picked up. Practitioners also count the flavors you would never invent: cod liver oil, chalky indigestion medicine, a metallic coin taste, aniseed. Two further markers matter. The taste arrives before the thought that would explain it, and rinsing the mouth does not shift it. If it fades after a glass of water, most readers file it as ordinary.
How do you develop clairgustance at home?
Developing clairgustance starts with building a taste vocabulary, because you cannot report a flavor you have no words for. Practitioners taste five ordinary foods with eyes closed and describe each in basic taste, texture, and aftertaste. From there they move to recall work, calling up lemon and salt and a specific childhood sweet on demand. The main drill is the face-down photograph exercise: a partner supplies pictures of people they knew, and you record what was in that person's mouth before turning the card. Everything gets written down inside ten seconds, because clairgustance impressions fade faster than clairvoyant images.
What is the difference between clairgustance and clairalience?
Clairgustance is tasting without a source and clairalience is smelling without a source. They blur because most of what people call flavor is retronasal smell reaching the nose from the back of the mouth, so a strong clairalient impression of pipe smoke often reads as a taste. Practitioners separate them by location and by structure. Clairalience is reported at the nose, arrives on the in-breath, and carries fine detail such as a particular perfume. Clairgustance is reported on the tongue or in the throat, often brings texture with it, and is limited to a smaller palette of sweet, salt, sour, bitter, savory, and metallic.
Is clairgustance rare?
Clairgustance is better described as underreported than rare. The percept lasts a few seconds, has no image to hold and no voice to replay, and most people who get it swallow, assume a stray flavor from breakfast, and move on. Development circles that run a taste-only round, where every sitter is asked specifically for a flavor rather than a picture, tend to surface far more clairgustance than open sittings do. It is also rarely anyone's lead sense. Most practitioners describe clairgustance as a support sense that arrives beside clairvoyance or clairsentience and confirms what those senses already brought.
Why do I taste something when I think about someone who died?
In this tradition, tasting something when a departed person comes to mind is read as clairgustance offering identification: the flavor names the person through a habit, a job, or an illness. Common reports are cigarette tar for a smoker, sweet sherry, a boiled sweet kept in a coat pocket, engine oil for someone who worked on cars, and the thick sweetness of a liquid medicine from a final illness. Readers treat the taste as a starting point rather than a message. The flavor says who is present, and the rest of the sitting has to supply what is being said.
Can clairgustance be a medical problem?
A persistent strange taste is a medical question before it is a clairgustance question, and every serious development teacher says so. Dry mouth, reflux, dental work, sinus and post-viral changes, pregnancy, and a long list of medications all produce metallic, bitter, or sour tastes. Gustatory aura before a migraine or a seizure can produce a sudden strong flavor too, and a taste that arrives with confusion, a lost minute, numbness, or a one-sided sensation should be taken to a doctor rather than to a circle. Clairgustance is what remains after physical causes have been ruled out, not a way to avoid ruling them out.
Try Our Free Tools
Related topics: clairgustance, clairgustance meaning, clairgustance signs, how to develop clairgustance, what is clairgustance, clairgustance psychic taste, clairgustance vs clairalience
