...? I think you're misreading my comment. I was suggesting that most people may think they are unaffected by ads, but probably are overestimating their immunity.

My second statement was highlighting how ones own opinion of oneself is not objective.

> My second statement was highlighting how ones own opinion of oneself is not objective.

And I retorted that ones own view of oneself can not be extrapolated onto the population at large if it is not objective.

But I should have been clear, when I mean "second statement" I mean so inside my own post. Ex:

1st Statement: "People," in this context, isn't defined either. If however we were to say that by "people" you mean millennials, then you would be wrong."

2nd Statement: "But if you meant "the population at large" you would be correct."

Which was in defense of the tech-literate and the young, but after researching some more my statements were based on old information.

The only people that come to mind who are easily susceptible to ads are the old and tech-illiterate, i.e those who don't have much experience with ads. Though this is just conjecture.

The emphasis makes it pretty clear that the statement you're quoting was an ironic one.

What's your interpretation of it, because I still don't see it.

"Sure I believe" was quite clearly not meant to be taken literally, as evidenced by the very next half of the sentence.

It's like saying "sure, I think think that I'm smarter than everybody else, but then so does everybody else."

My point was that people should not take their own assessment of themselves as strong objective evidence about themselves.