I'm not sure if this is commentary on me somehow or not lol but I agree with you. She is the same person who will point out issues with things my brother brings up but yeah is unable to recognize it when she does it. I'm sure I'm guilty but, naturally, I don't know of them.

That "pattern" actually indicates that something is true most of the time (after all, a lot of dangerous things really exist). So "noticing" this pattern seems to rely on being all-knowing?

> So "noticing" this pattern seems to rely on being all-knowing?

No. It relies on you being able to distinguish between an (your) opinion and an (your) identity.

The identity part is the precarious one, i.e. you defending a stance blindly without questioning it because you feel your identity is in danger.

This pattern being present doesn't mean that there can't be an underlying truth in it. In fact, that is what makes its assertion meaningful in the first place. However, it entailing a partial truth doesn't mean that the entire assertion holds true in the context it's presented in. Example: "AI" might ultimately be dangerous (like any other technology can be), but this assertion's primary goal is to make you behave a certain way where it is unclear how that would contribute more towards mitigating the danger than to empower the asserter.

To fix this, take a step back before accepting something blindly. Train yourself to not be reactive.

Meh, I don't think this extrapolates to a general principle very well. While no authoritative source is perfectly reliable, some are more reliable than others. And Elon Musk is just full of crap.

"Uranium waste" scares her because "Nuclear Regulatory Commission" said that "Uranium waste" is very dangerous.

You know, sometimes shit is just dangerous.