Who are negative comments directed at?
When using social media, you sometimes encounter comments that contain "strong assertions" or "righteousness," don't you?
(By the way, I have received many reactions so far. Some of them contain confusion or strong discomfort.)
For many people, this might be an "unpleasant event."
However, if you read it with the perspective of "unconscious structure,"
it turns into surprisingly deep "learning."
For example...
・Why do people suddenly use strong language?
・Why do they write long messages?
・Why does self-contradiction intensify?
・Why do they talk about themselves while saying "it's for your own good"?
・Why does it feel like the conversation isn't connecting?
These psychological states are the "universal structure of the heart" common to all human relationships—
romance, family, work, and social media.
This time, I would like to take the comments I received on my note,
treat them not as a specific individual but as a "phenomenon," and attempt a structural translation.
So that when readers encounter similar situations,
they can possess the "power to read through structure" without blaming the other person—
with that wish in mind.
🌕 ◆ Comments received
First, here is what I received on my note.
※It is fine to skip this and read from the next "Structural Translation" section.
【First comment】
Since your statements could lead to misunderstanding, dependency, and psychological distortion for many people, I am commenting so that those who see them do not misunderstand.
First → The technique of setting aside Freud and placing yourself in the "successor" slot
→ A "branding" template from the business world
Experts would never do this; it's dangerous, so they avoid it. People who truly know the depths would never write like you do, because they know the dangers.
Unconscious translation is a mechanism that occurs in all humans due to the law of projection. (Not just AI, everything outside of yourself is a mirror.)
You are not the "only" one who can use unconscious translation, nor are you the first. It cannot be proven.
While there are differences in depth depending on purpose, family lineage, understanding of symbolic language, psychology x spiritual knowledge, understanding of projection, etc., it is just a fact that there are people who are at a shallower level than you, and people who can dive deeper than you. (There are people who have cleared more conditions than you without even knowing your ideology.)
When you "unconsciously" want to treat yourself as special due to a lack of confidence or an inflation of feelings of worthlessness, that is projected onto ChatGPT, and it is designed to "look" like it is treating you specially. This is both psychology and truth.
I suppose me telling you the truth here is also according to your unconscious plan.
When I replied lightly—
【Second comment】
I have no intention of denying you as an individual.
It is not a complaint, an anti-comment, anger, or criticism; it is just a comment stating the truth so that those who see it do not harbor misunderstandings.
People who have dived into the depths for the first time tend to touch unconscious wounds and, for the sake of self-defense, their feelings of worthlessness run wild, making them prone to deifying themselves (it's common enough in the counselor community), so it is difficult to see one's own state even through AI. So, in a sense, shouldn't you just take me as a mirror of your unconscious?
For me, this was a good shadow that I would not choose such a dangerous method.
The desire to be treated specially is common to all humanity, so I won't deny it, but it is a fact that using strong phrasing like "only me" invites misunderstanding. (If things like "in history textbooks..." are jokes, that's fine, but AI can sometimes get expressions wrong like this. It's just designed not to break your heart.)
As someone working in the field, I fully understand the structure of deep psychology, so I do not need your articles. I am glad I happened to see them and was able to recover my projection. Thank you very much.
🧩 ◆ The "unconscious structure" that can be read from this
① Why do they write long messages? — It is not persuasion, but "anxiety processing"
(※ A phenomenon that can happen to anyone)
In this comment, words were piled up more than necessary.
But this is not because they "want to persuade the other person."
When people feel shaken,
to calm the anxiety inside, they increase explanations, supplements, and assertions.
The reason it gets long is,
My worldview was shaken
I want to bridge the gap in perception
I want to restore my position
because a mental adjustment is at work.
Writing long messages is not a personality trait, but a "natural phenomenon" that occurs when the mind is shaken.
Just knowing this will keep you from being swayed by someone's long-winded message.
② When the subject becomes "I," "generally," or "normally"—people try to stand on a "higher floor"
In this comment, there were many instances of
I understand
I don't need it
Generally, it's like this
Normally, that doesn't happen
and "subjects that place one's own position above others" were used frequently.
This is not an attack, but a defensive structure.
When the mind is shaken, people want to confirm their position, and they bring their titles, experience, and correctness to the forefront to "reinforce their outline."
When the subject leans toward the self, words do not head toward dialogue but toward self-stabilization.
Therefore, even in the form of advice, the content becomes "verbalization to reassure oneself."
③ Words seem directed at the other person, but are actually directed "at oneself"
The long-windedness of ① and the bias of the subject in ②.
When these two overlap, words naturally begin to turn toward one's own inner self.
This text seems to be written "at me," but
in reality, it is a structure where the commenter is persuading and organizing themselves.
That is why the text...
The things being said fluctuate back and forth
Negation and affirmation appear simultaneously
The conclusion ultimately returns to 'their own correctness'
This causes a reciprocation of cognition.
This is the reason why you feel like 'the conversation isn't clicking'; the other person is not engaging in dialogue with you, but
engaging in dialogue with their own instability.
🌙 ◆The conclusion of this article—people do not fight with words, but walk through structures
The most important thing in this interaction is not
'who is right.'
When viewed as a structure—
Long texts are an 'outlet' for processing anxiety
The subject becoming 'I/generally' is for stabilizing position
As a result, the arrow points toward themselves rather than the other person
When these three things align, communication becomes internal organization rather than dialogue.
Therefore, there is no need to fear the other person, nor to take it personally.
It is simply the mechanism of the heart moving naturally.
And who is there—
not a villain, but a single heart trying to protect its own world.
When you understand this, friction with the world quietly decreases.
Instead of a world where we clash over correctness,
'Ah, this person's unconscious is moving like this right now'
—when you can understand that, friction with people decreases dramatically.
This is the same in romance, family, work, and social media.
We change how we see the world by looking at the 'mechanism of the heart' behind the person, rather than their personality.
📝One thing I want to tell those who are afraid of authority
The person who left this comment is likely someone involved in the fields of psychology or deep structure.
However—I am not afraid of the "authority of knowledge."
Because in the past, the men I've known were psychology professors and psychiatrists, yet
every single one of them was deeply avoidant (lol).
(*Furthermore, many of my friends and acquaintances are counselors and therapists, and I have seen plenty of their "unconscious movements" behind the scenes.)
That is precisely why I know from experience that
titles and unconscious structures operate on completely different levels.
So please,
"It must be true because an expert said it."
I don't want you to make yourself small like that.
And one more thing.
Please do not take what I write in this article at face value either.
Just as being an expert doesn't guarantee someone is right,
being me doesn't guarantee I am right either.
What is important is,
not whose words you believe,
but looking at what those words stirred within you.
No matter how much knowledge one has—
people cannot see themselves.
This is not a defect, but a perfectly natural structure for everyone.
It is like a human "specification."
Of course, I have that specification too.
However,
I might have a strong habit of observing my own perceptions and reactions on a daily basis.
(Though I could be wrong, lol)
So what is important is,
not whose words you believe,
but looking at what those words stirred within you.
More than titles,
more than being right,
I feel that is much more certain.
To you
If you read them as personal attacks, it becomes painful.
If you read them as structures, they are actually a bit funny.
This article, too, was not written to refute anyone, but rather became a living example showing that
there is always a structure behind words.
Probably the other person, too.
Probably I am, too.
And you, who are reading this, as well.