I’m honestly not trying to be contrarian, but I much prefer your original version. It feels like the revised version became more florid and as a result speaks with less specificity and sharpness.

You lose really great sentences like “people are more likely to integrate beliefs that feel good,” and “ If a model predicts that you’ll reject critique, it may stop offering it—not because it’s wrong, but because it’s suboptimal for retention. That is not censorship; it’s adaptive abandonment of confrontation.”

I love the clarity and feel sections like this really capture the mechanism of the problem in a way that’s more abstracted in this version.

Obviously personal taste plays a huge part! And I don’t mean to imply you shouldn’t be proud of this version. Just food for thought—how much preference do you give to the machine yourself? And what do you lose in the process?