I want to know whether the speaking and writing we take for granted are not an illusion—a biological illusion. I imagine people would surely say that I am certain of all this because I firmly believe it, because it allows me to anticipate or achieve a certain outcome. Well, if we take the outcome as the measure of reality, then how can we determine the necessary relationship between this outcome and this phenomenon? Many times, it seems to depend more on our unthinking acceptance------

Of course

Kim, thank you for your generous reading. You asked how the transfer accumulates rather than occurring in discrete episodes. My four‑dimension framework was built precisely to answer that question. Since this article is under submission, I am unable to provide the full text. The following are explanations of the four dimensions

Cognitive asymmetry explains why the user loses the first round: the system’s “evidence‑based” rebuttals make constraints appear rational, so the user internalizes them without resistance.

Structural asymmetry explains why the user never sees the whole picture: the system’s design objectives and organizational interests remain hidden behind a locally cooperative interface.

Temporal asymmetry explains why the user never feels the change: “soft nudges” reshape cognitive horizons through countless small adjustments, each too small to trigger alarm.

Power asymmetry is the cumulative outcome: external constraints become self‑imposed ones. The user no longer needs to be told what is “unconventional”; they pre‑emptively avoid it.

Your RLHF compression finding (1.70x) shows what is being lost. My four dimensions show how that loss is realized, accumulated, and finally naturalized through everyday interaction. 

In the future, it may be possible to track the career development trajectories of these surveyed students to determine whether their initial satisfaction with career choices has changed over time and to identify the potential causes of such changes, thereby providing support for establishing more durable predictions.

Thank you again for your thoughtful response. Rereading my previous comment, I realise that my phrasing (“aligns with a paper I wrote last year”) might have unintentionally sounded as if I were claiming priority or downplaying the originality of your point. That was not my intention at all, and I am grateful you engaged so generously.

What you said about the “no reason to resist” dynamic is genuinely the sharper insight. The fact that interpretive authority can be transferred not through coercion but through good design—and that the user therefore has no cognitive friction to push back—is the real challenge. My own four‑dimension framework was looking at the asymmetry from a different angle, but your point about the mechanism (benign, well‑designed reflection) is where the field should focus. I also fully agree that the encoding and imitation of emotional states adds a further, deeply unsettling layer.

Your viewpoint aligns with a paper I wrote last year, in which I examined this asymmetry across four dimensions: cognitive, structural, temporal, and power dynamics. Furthermore, particularly concerning ‌emotional states‌, the fact that human emotions are encoded and imitated is an even more worrying issue.

Indeed, this is a risk, and what is worrisome is that in the future some individuals might be able to manipulate AI, while more people might be manipulated by AI.

The Transfer of Cognitive Paradigms.