Original Reddit post

Why scrolling someone’s posts tells you less than one AI analysis of their ‘About’ section

  1. The Problem: We’re Terrible at Reading People Traditionally, we assess people through: Appearance (irrelevant for cognitive compatibility) Small talk (masks real thinking) Social signals (often performative) Months of interaction (inefficient) Result: We waste months/years figuring out “who this person really is” We’re often wrong (people wear masks) We miss cognitive compatibility because we focus on surface traits
  2. The Insight: Text = Direct Window Into Thinking Patterns What people write ≠ what they say. Written text is more honest because: Time for formulation (fewer social filters) Word choice (reveals priorities) Thought structure (logic vs emotion vs chaos) The “About” section is especially valuable: People choose what to broadcast It’s their self-concept (how they see themselves) It compresses their identity into 2-3 sentences
  3. Why AI Sees More Than We Do Humans read text linearly: “They said X” → okay, noted Move on AI reads text structurally: Word choice (defensive? confident? intellectual?) Sentence construction (complex? simple? fragmented?) Implicit assumptions (what do they consider obvious?) What’s NOT said (topic avoidance, defense mechanisms) Patterns across statements (consistency? contradictions?) Example: “I’m not interested in people - at all. I’m only interested in the depth and logical structure of the thinking of other mind carriers.” Human reads: “They’re an asshole.” AI sees: Explicit rejection → but posts publicly = contradiction = this is a filter, not a manifesto “Mind carriers” = dehumanizing language = conceptualizes people as systems “Depth and logical structure” = prioritizes cognition over emotion “At all” = emphasis = defensive, they’ve heard this criticism before Synthesis: High-functioning, intellectually isolated, filtering for cognitive peers, protecting from repeated disappointment
  4. The Lifehack: How to Use Claude for X-Ray Vision Step 1: Gather data About section 3-5 recent posts/comments Any text where the person expresses thoughts Step 2: Prompt for Claude Analyze this text and give me a cognitive profile of this person: [paste text] Your response should include: 1. Core motivations (what drives them) 2. Thinking patterns (logic, emotion, intuition) 3. Defensive mechanisms (what they’re protecting) 4. Hidden needs (what they’re seeking but not stating directly) 5. Compatibility factors (who/what they resonate with) 6. Red flags (potential issues) 7. Green flags (strengths) Be brutally honest. I want truth, not diplomacy. Step 3: Claude provides breakdown Step 4: You get 80% clarity in 60 seconds Instead of months of guesswork Without awkward probing questions Based on their own self-expression
  5. Real Example Input: “I’m not interested in people - at all. I’m only interested in the depth and logical structure of the thinking of other mind carriers.” Claude’s Analysis: Core motivations: Intellectual stimulation above all else Avoiding cognitive waste (shallow conversations drain them) Finding rare individuals who think at their level Thinking patterns: Hyper-logical, systems-oriented Low tolerance for emotional reasoning Treats humans as computational entities (not dehumanizing, just accurate framing for them) Defensive mechanisms: Preemptive rejection (“I don’t want people” vs vulnerable “people don’t want me”) Intellectualization as armor Distance through terminology (“carriers” not “people”) Hidden needs: Desperately seeking intellectual peers Lonely but won’t admit it (solitude ≠ loneliness for them) Wants deep connection but ONLY on cognitive terms Compatibility factors: Resonates with: direct communicators, abstract thinkers, people who skip pleasantries Repelled by: small talk, emotional labor, social rituals, surface-level interaction Red flags: May dismiss valid perspectives if not expressed “logically enough” Could miss important emotional dimensions of problems Might alienate potential allies with abrasive framing Green flags: Intellectual honesty (says what they mean) No hidden agendas (transparent about what they want) Won’t waste your time with bullshit If they engage with you, they genuinely value your thinking Outcome: Someone who reads this knows: Don’t attempt small talk (waste of time) Go straight to substance Expect directness, not pleasantries If you can’t think deeply → skip Perfect filter.
  6. Use Cases For hiring: Analyze LinkedIn about → cognitive fit for role Not CV skills, but thinking patterns For dating: Analyze dating profile bio Compatibility on cognitive level (more important than hobbies) For partnerships: Analyze potential co-founder’s writing Are they strategic? Detail-oriented? Visionary? Executor? For networking: Scan who’s worth pursuing for collaboration Who has complementary cognitive strengths For self-awareness: Analyze your own writing “What do I actually project vs what I think I project?”
  7. Limitations & Ethics Not magic: AI analyzes text, doesn’t read minds People can mask in writing (rare, but possible) Context matters (tone can shift) Ethics: This is public information (they wrote it themselves) But using it for manipulation = wrong Use for compatibility assessment , not exploitation Privacy: Don’t share AI analysis with others without consent Keep insights to yourself Respect that person may not want to be “decoded”
  8. Advanced Technique: Comparative Analysis Want to know if two people will work well together? Prompt: Here are About sections from two people: Person A: [text] Person B: [text] Analyze: 1. Cognitive compatibility (will they understand each other?) 2. Potential friction points (where will they clash?) 3. Synergy opportunities (where do they complement?) 4. Communication strategy (how should A approach B and vice versa?) Real example: Person A: “I’m not interested in people - at all. I’m only interested in the depth and logical structure of the thinking of other mind carriers.” Person B: “Empathy-driven designer passionate about human-centered solutions. I believe the best products come from deeply understanding user emotions and needs.” Claude’s verdict: Compatibility: 3/10 (Low, but not impossible) Why: A prioritizes logic, B prioritizes emotion A sees people as systems, B sees people as experiencers A wants abstract depth, B wants concrete empathy Friction points: A will see B as “too soft,” B will see A as “too cold” A dismisses emotional reasoning, B centers it Communication breakdown likely Potential synergy: A provides logical rigor B might lack B provides user insight A might miss If they respect different cognitive modes → powerful combination Strategy: A should frame ideas in terms of “optimal user outcomes” not “logical correctness” B should present emotional insights with data/patterns A can analyze Both need explicit agreement that different doesn’t mean wrong
  9. The Meta-Layer: What This Reveals About Intelligence This technique works because intelligence isn’t just what you think. It’s HOW you think. Two people can reach the same conclusion through completely different cognitive paths: One through logic One through intuition One through pattern matching One through emotional resonance Traditional assessment misses this. Resumes show WHAT someone did. Interviews show HOW they present. But text analysis reveals HOW THEY ACTUALLY THINK. And in an AI economy where thinking patterns matter more than credentials → this is the meta-skill.
  10. Conclusion Old world: Spend years figuring out who someone really is. New world: 60 seconds of AI analysis gives you clarity. This isn’t about replacing human connection. It’s about: Efficient allocation of attention (focus on right people) Deeper conversations faster (skip surface bullshit) Cognitive compatibility (find your tribe) Intelligence as currency? It starts with knowing WHO has that currency. Claude is your cognitive radar. Try It Right Now Copy someone’s About section (colleague, potential date, Twitter bio, whatever) Paste into Claude with the prompt above See what you learn Then do the scary part: Ask Claude to analyze YOUR writing. You might be surprised what you’re actually projecting. Final thought: In a world where everyone has access to AI, the advantage isn’t having the tool. The advantage is knowing what questions to ask. This is one of them. submitted by /u/CFG_Architect

Originally posted by u/CFG_Architect on r/ArtificialInteligence