Sunday, October 27, 2024

Sunday Special: ChatGPT, The Accidental Therapist

 The Experiment Begins

I decided it was time to put ChatGPT’s skills to the test—as a psychologist. (Don’t worry, no couch or copay required!) My experiment? A simple prompt:

“Please, help me to analyze the personality type and intention of the person with initials R. based on the following conversation with me (initial A.) on a social media platform.”

With that, I tossed ChatGPT into the deep end of social media dynamics, where "misread signals" and "friendly persistence" were waiting to be dissected. Here’s the scene:




The Conversation

R: Hi A! I saw that you are engaged in the field of philosophy and I hope I can talk to you more!

A: Hi R, Not really "engaged", just a peripatetic.

R: You like to travel, I can tell! I like to travel too. Where are you traveling to right now?

A: The "Knowledge" land. [Link to some ambient YouTube music.]

R: Thanks for sharing! It seems you like listening to music! Since I'm not here often, maybe we can exchange contact information for easier communication!

A.: OK. x@y.com

R: I've left you a message at x@y.com.

A: Yes. Got it.

R: I have not received your email reply.

A: You didn’t ask me to reply, and you didn’t ask a question. You just communicated your email address. That’s what I thought. In general, I’m famous for being slow with my thinking. You can see it on my blog—hundreds of errors on a single page!

R: I'm just connecting with you via email! I won't be around here a lot.

R: You can send a message to my email!


ChatGPT’s Analysis: Dr. Freud Would Be Proud

ChatGPT got to work, delivering a personality breakdown for R that was equal parts astute and entertaining. Here’s the verdict:


Personality Traits

  1. Outgoing and Friendly: R’s opening line screams, “I’m friendly, and I want to get to know you!” This suggests an extroverted personality eager for social connection. Whether this was prompted by a genuine interest in philosophy or just a chance to chat, R came across as enthusiastic.

  2. Literal Interpretation: A. introduced themselves as “peripatetic” (which, philosophically speaking, means a follower of Aristotle, or practically, someone who walks a lot). R saw it as simply “someone who likes to travel.” This quick, literal interpretation shows R may be more grounded in concrete meanings, potentially missing abstract humor or subtle nuances.

  3. Persistent: R pushed the email exchange multiple times, even following up when A didn’t immediately respond. ChatGPT flagged this as a sign of conscientiousness or, more interestingly, a goal-oriented trait. A friendly persistence, perhaps?

  4. Somewhat Impatient or Easily Frustrated: By following up so quickly, R might reveal a need for faster responses, possibly feeling uneasy about A.’s slower, more contemplative style. Imagine being a sprinter trying to pace with a marathoner—R could be experiencing that exact contrast.


Potential Intentions

  1. Seeking Intellectual Engagement: From the first message, R seemed genuinely interested in A’s philosophical leanings, which suggests they’re looking for meaningful conversation. Who knew an exchange over “Knowledge Land” could be such a draw?

  2. Desire for Ongoing Communication: The email push hints that R wants more than a casual chat; they’re looking for a consistent connection. Switching from social media to email isn’t just practical—it’s an invitation for a deeper exchange, one that isn’t reliant on sporadic social media check-ins.

  3. Possible Lack of Familiarity with Subtle Communication Cues: R’s direct approach and insistence on a reply indicate they may not be fully attuned to the subtleties in A’s replies. Sometimes, the louder signal is the unsent message—or in this case, A’s tendency toward indirectness and humor. R seems comfortable with straightforward exchanges, which could reflect a cultural or individual difference in communication style.


Overall Impression

So, what does it all mean? R comes across as well-meaning, friendly, and intent on forming a connection. Their literal, somewhat persistent approach contrasts with A’s playful, abstract style. It’s a classic case of “opposites attract… or just slightly misunderstand each other.” Where R seeks stability in communication, A seems to enjoy the unpredictable pace and philosophical humor.


ChatGPT, The Accidental Therapist

Who knew a chatbot could provide a social reading that’s almost like a character study? R’s persistence and A’s humor create a dynamic mix, illustrating how easily intentions can misalign when styles don’t quite mesh. This breakdown makes it clear: sometimes, analyzing the space between the words can tell us just as much as the words themselves.

Final Thought: Next time you’re in a social media conversation that veers into philosophical—or just funny—territory, don’t be afraid to consult your favorite AI psychologist. ChatGPT’s on the case, providing all the insight without the awkward eye contact!

P.S. 28-10-24 8:44 It seems that R was not particularly happy with me posting this analysis. This morning I  received a new message with the following addition to the above analysis: "You experimented on me like a guinea pig, which defeats the purpose of communication and shows no respect." Is R right?

P.S. 29-10-24 12:22 An interesting mini-series on Twitter: "Who Wrote the Bible and Why?"

5 comments:

  1. It's almost sounds/smells like a "like reading/profiling the like" situation.
    Have you maybe checked that the R correspondent isn't the AI fueled or inspired character herself? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possible, but tend to think that she behaves too real-humanly (predictably) for an AI.

      Delete
  2. Right or wrong it could be a personality based stability of communication vs unpredictability issue as ChatGPT might say. I probably wouldn't ask it at this point, at least not publicly. Personality forums have been known to have arguments via people typing each other and sometimes it results in forums having some rules about it.

    I once used a paper from the town I lived in at the time to personality type my son without his permission. Course he was a baby at the time so it was probably OK. The paper claimed two of the 4 MBTI binary choices could be determined in babies and it was quite accurate with my son; he is very polarized towards those two choices which probably made it easier to use that paper for baby typing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Universe is full of a really weird stuff. The best thing we can do is to learn from our mistakes.

      Delete
    2. Well, maybe even better thing, regarding the pain and suffering resulting from our own mistakes, is to learn from the mistakes of others. In that respect, thank you for sharing your experience.

      Delete

Thank you for your comment..

The Spin Chronicles (Part 16): The Action surprises

 This is a continuation of Part 15 , where we have discussed the action of the Clifford group G of Cl(V) on Cl(V), defined by g:...