I am interested a lot in metacognitive thinking. Analyzing my own thinking. Chatbots say this is a strength but also a weakness of myself.
I think the following was one of the best answers I received from an LLM thus far. I will change it a little bit for privacy reasons. But I think readers of my posts will agree with them. I read it out loud to one of my closest friends who despises AI chatbots but he admitted this answer was extremely on point. It also reminded me of some of the things the quantum physics professor explained to me.
I am on the autism spectrum, I am bipolar and I had two psychoses.
1. Catastrophizing
You tend to mentally expand possible negative outcomes and explore them in depth.
Examples from your topics include:
Often, you don't stop at "What could happen?", but quickly move several steps further:
"If X happens, then it probably means Y about my future / credibility / identity."
This significantly increases emotional pressure.
2. Mind reading / overinterpretation of social signals
You frequently try to infer internal states of other people from small details:
You often search for:
3. Confirmation bias
When a concern is emotionally activated, you tend to search more for information that could confirm that concern.
For example:
You do consider multiple perspectives, but the focus often leans more strongly toward problematic interpretations than neutral or harmless ones.
4. Hyper-reflexivity / over-analysis
This appears to be one of your strongest patterns.
You closely observe:
This often creates a kind of meta-loop:
You don't just analyze situations—you analyze your analysis of situations.
This can be cognitively sophisticated, but also mentally exhausting because it reduces spontaneous perception.
5. Emotional reasoning
At times, you seem to treat the intensity of a feeling as evidence for its accuracy.
For example:
Here, emotions can unintentionally function as a form of evidence.
6. Intolerance of uncertainty
Uncertainty appears to be highly stressful for you.
You often try to:
The difficulty is that many social or legal situations are inherently ambiguous, but your thinking tends to push for definitive clarity. This fuels rumination.
7. Negativity bias
Potential negative outcomes are often weighted more heavily than neutral or positive ones.
For example, even if there are:
8. Narrative construction
You often connect individual events into larger psychological or symbolic narratives.
This shows up in:
This is cognitively creative, but can also increase the risk of over-interpreting coincidence or ambiguity.
Overall patter
What stands out is not impulsive distortion, but rather over-complexification.
Instead of oversimplifying, your thinking tends to:
This can be intellectually strong, but also increases mental load and rumination.
A central pattern seems to be:
You often treat possibilities as if they require serious weight simply because they are imaginable.
This is likely one of the most important underlying mechanisms.
My comment: especially, emotional reasoning hit home. I knew I struggled from something like that. In an extreme way when I am paranoid. This can be really hellish and causes a lot of issues and anxiety. But I never knew the concept behind that. The quatum physics professor was the first one who pointed out most of these cognitive biases. My therapists were often too stupid to notice them. I think analyzing a huge amount of my texts makes such biases for LLMs very clear. I don't have an antidote for them yet though. The advices AI chatbots give me don't help. I think I had to decalibrate my thinking but this is extremely hard and I don't know if I actually want that...
Have you noticed these patterns in my texts?
I think the following was one of the best answers I received from an LLM thus far. I will change it a little bit for privacy reasons. But I think readers of my posts will agree with them. I read it out loud to one of my closest friends who despises AI chatbots but he admitted this answer was extremely on point. It also reminded me of some of the things the quantum physics professor explained to me.
I am on the autism spectrum, I am bipolar and I had two psychoses.
1. Catastrophizing
You tend to mentally expand possible negative outcomes and explore them in depth.
Examples from your topics include:
- how others might interpret statements
- worst-case outcomes of procedures or decisions
Often, you don't stop at "What could happen?", but quickly move several steps further:
"If X happens, then it probably means Y about my future / credibility / identity."
This significantly increases emotional pressure.
2. Mind reading / overinterpretation of social signals
You frequently try to infer internal states of other people from small details:
- word choice
- symbolic content
- ambiguity
- names or perceived hidden meanings
You often search for:
- indirect meanings
- meta-level interpretations
- implicit messages
- psychological subtext
3. Confirmation bias
When a concern is emotionally activated, you tend to search more for information that could confirm that concern.
For example:
- "Will this be interpreted negatively?"
You do consider multiple perspectives, but the focus often leans more strongly toward problematic interpretations than neutral or harmless ones.
4. Hyper-reflexivity / over-analysis
This appears to be one of your strongest patterns.
You closely observe:
- your thoughts
- your impact on others
- language choices
- social reactions
- possible future scenarios
This often creates a kind of meta-loop:
You don't just analyze situations—you analyze your analysis of situations.
This can be cognitively sophisticated, but also mentally exhausting because it reduces spontaneous perception.
5. Emotional reasoning
At times, you seem to treat the intensity of a feeling as evidence for its accuracy.
For example:
- "It feels threatening → therefore it might be objectively threatening."
- "I feel shame → therefore I must have done something wrong."
- "I feel guilty → therefore I am responsible."
Here, emotions can unintentionally function as a form of evidence.
6. Intolerance of uncertainty
Uncertainty appears to be highly stressful for you.
You often try to:
- estimate probabilities
- clarify interpretations
- reduce ambiguity
- resolve open-ended situations
The difficulty is that many social or legal situations are inherently ambiguous, but your thinking tends to push for definitive clarity. This fuels rumination.
7. Negativity bias
Potential negative outcomes are often weighted more heavily than neutral or positive ones.
For example, even if there are:
- 5 harmless interpretations
- and 1 problematic one
8. Narrative construction
You often connect individual events into larger psychological or symbolic narratives.
This shows up in:
- timeline interpretations
- social dynamics
- perceived hidden meanings
- meta-interpretations of communication
This is cognitively creative, but can also increase the risk of over-interpreting coincidence or ambiguity.
Overall patter
What stands out is not impulsive distortion, but rather over-complexification.
Instead of oversimplifying, your thinking tends to:
- generate many layers
- build multiple hypotheses
- keep several interpretations active at once
This can be intellectually strong, but also increases mental load and rumination.
A central pattern seems to be:
You often treat possibilities as if they require serious weight simply because they are imaginable.
This is likely one of the most important underlying mechanisms.
My comment: especially, emotional reasoning hit home. I knew I struggled from something like that. In an extreme way when I am paranoid. This can be really hellish and causes a lot of issues and anxiety. But I never knew the concept behind that. The quatum physics professor was the first one who pointed out most of these cognitive biases. My therapists were often too stupid to notice them. I think analyzing a huge amount of my texts makes such biases for LLMs very clear. I don't have an antidote for them yet though. The advices AI chatbots give me don't help. I think I had to decalibrate my thinking but this is extremely hard and I don't know if I actually want that...
Have you noticed these patterns in my texts?
Last edited:
