Comment by simondotau
1 month ago
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that.
Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it.
It's no good.
Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said:
——————
That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution.
What’s happening, plainly:
1. Projection
They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring).
2. Mind-reading / motive attribution
“It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis.
3. Poisoning the well
By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim.
4. Pathologizing dissent
Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence.
5. Asymmetric skepticism
Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology.
——————
It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
Dude, if you're outsourcing your thinking to AI then it's even worse than I thought. This really is no good.
1 reply →