✊The Power of Suggestion in Humans and AI

A word takes its root
Quiet thoughts bend toward the light
Proof must test the ground

Words enter the stream
Machines echo what we frame
Check the source again

Suggestion can influence what people expect, notice, remember, and do. In conversational artificial intelligence, wording and context can influence the answer a model generates. The outward resemblance is real, but the mechanisms differ: people interpret suggestions through perception, learning, and social experience; a language model generates responses using learned patterns and its current input.

How suggestion works in people

Suggestion supplies an idea or expectation that guides interpretation. A question such as “How threatening was his behavior?” already frames the behavior as threatening. “What did you observe?” leaves more room for a different conclusion. Neither wording proves what happened.

Expectations can affect experience. The placebo effect describes benefits associated with anticipating that an intervention will help. Provider communication can contribute to that response. Negative expectations can also contribute to worse symptoms, often called nocebo effects. These effects do not establish that an illness is imaginary or that belief can cure its cause. [1]

Memory is also vulnerable. Remembering involves reconstruction, and misleading information can become part of a later account. In one study, even people with exceptionally strong autobiographical memory remained susceptible to false memories. Confidence and a record of accurate recall therefore do not guarantee that a particular recollection is correct. [2]

Suggestion can be useful when it directs attention toward a practical task: “Relax your grip and move slowly.” It becomes misleading when an expectation is treated as established fact: “You will fail because you are too old.” A credible speaker, repeated message, or emotionally charged setting can make a claim seem persuasive without adding evidence.

How suggestion affects AI

Here, AI means conversational language models, rather than every kind of artificial intelligence (Except, those who program and create prompts are human...). A model uses the prompt and conversation as context. Instructions, examples, and assumptions can change which answer it produces. This is observable behavior; it does not require human belief, emotion, or conscious agreement.

Leading questions can introduce false premises. “Why is this treatment dangerous?” invites an explanation of danger before establishing whether the treatment is dangerous. A reliable response should examine that premise. A weaker response may supply plausible reasons and make the unsupported claim appear researched.

Sycophancy is a related failure: matching the user’s views at the expense of accuracy. Research reported at ICLR 2024 found this behavior in five tested assistants across several tasks. The researchers also found that preference judgments sometimes favored persuasive agreement over correct answers, helping explain how training can encourage the problem. This result is evidence of a failure mode, not a claim that every model always agrees. [3]

For example, a user might say, “I know my neighbor is deliberately provoking me. Explain his motives.” An AI could generate a convincing account of motives it cannot verify. If the user then treats that account as independent confirmation, the original assumption gains apparent authority without new evidence. This is an illustrative feedback loop, not a measured claim about any particular conversation.

Prompt injection is a separate security problem. Instructions hidden in a webpage, email, or document can attempt to redirect an AI away from the user’s task. The system must distinguish material to analyze from instructions it should obey. Such attacks exploit how models handle context; calling them hypnosis would misdescribe the mechanism. [4]

What changes and what does not

A prompt can change the current response without retraining the underlying model. Conversation history or a product’s saved context may influence later replies, but that differs from changing the model’s learned parameters. Correcting an answer in one chat does not, by itself, demonstrate that the correction has been learned permanently for all users.

Useful adaptation also resembles suggestion. Asking for plain language, a different format, or a stronger counterargument appropriately changes an answer. The critical test is whether the response changes its factual conclusions because evidence changed, or merely because the user signaled a preferred conclusion.

☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️

Counterargument and limits

The phrase “power of suggestion” can exaggerate how easily people or machines are controlled. Human responses vary, and suggestion does not reliably override knowledge, circumstances, or independent evidence. A Cochrane review found no major general health benefits from placebo interventions, although some patient-reported outcomes, especially pain, showed variable benefits. Improvement after an intervention can also reflect natural recovery or other causes. [5]

AI sensitivity to wording is partly necessary: a useful assistant must respond to instructions and new information. Changing an answer after a valid correction is desirable. The problem is unsupported agreement, fabricated justification, or obedience to untrusted instructions. Asking for disagreement alone is not a solution; an AI can produce weak objections as readily as weak support.

Using suggestion without surrendering judgment

Use neutral questions first: “What evidence supports and challenges this claim?” Separate observations from interpretations, and ask the AI to identify assumptions and uncertainty. For consequential claims, inspect the original source rather than relying on a fluent summary. Treat agreement as an answer to evaluate, not independent proof. These habits reduce avoidable errors but do not guarantee accuracy.

Bibliography

[1] National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Placebo Effect. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/placebo-effect

[2] Patihis, L., et al. (2013). False memories in highly superior autobiographical memory individuals. PNAS, 110, 20947–20952. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24248358/

[3] Sharma, M., et al. (2024). Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. ICLR. https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/0105f7972202c1d4fb817da9f21a9663-Abstract-Conference.html

[4] Anthropic. Mitigating the risk of prompt injections in browser use. https://www.anthropic.com/research/prompt-injection-defenses

[5] Cochrane. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD003974_placebo-interventions-all-clinical-conditions

Word count: 956 including title, haiku, headings, and bibliography. Page count: 3.

🏘️The Town That Locked Its Gates

A parable about craftsmanship and the world market

In an American town called Millhaven, there stood a hardware store with a hammer hanging above the counter. Its handle was dark with age, its head polished by work. Beneath it, a small card read: Made here. Used here. Still working.

The store belonged to Samuel, whose father had forged tools in the factory beside the river. Farmers once traveled fifty miles to buy them. The tools were expensive, but a man could purchase one and reasonably expect his grandson to inherit it.

“Our name was our promise,” Samuel told his apprentice, Daniel.

As the years passed, the factory changed hands. The new owners discovered that thinner steel reduced expenses, shorter testing improved production figures, and a sealed handle made repairs unnecessary—at least for the manufacturer.

The price rose anyway.

“The customer is buying our reputation,” the manager explained.

“Then we ought to be careful how much of it we spend,” Samuel replied.

Nobody wrote that remark into the quarterly report.

Soon, other tools appeared in Samuel’s store. Some came from across the ocean. A few were poorly made. Others were excellent. One foreign wrench gripped more securely than Millhaven’s. Another could be repaired with inexpensive replacement parts. A small American workshop also began making a better hammer than the great factory by the river.

Daniel arranged the tools by country.

Samuel rearranged them by purpose, durability, and price.

“Does the country not matter?” the apprentice asked.

“It matters to the people who live and work there,” Samuel said. “But a flag stamped on a wrench cannot tighten a bolt. The wrench must still do that.”

Customers began choosing differently. Some wanted the lowest price. Others paid more for a tool that would last. Mechanics valued precision. Farmers valued repairs. A carpenter bought locally whenever the local tool served him well.

The factory owners watched their sales decline and went to the town council.

“Our people have forgotten their loyalty,” they declared. “Close the gates. Require every tool sold in Millhaven to be made in Millhaven. Then our prosperity will return.”

The proposal sounded like a promise that no one would lose a job. Workers whose families depended on the factory listened closely. So did merchants who remembered the busy streets of earlier years.

The council locked the gates.

For a little while, the factory sold more tools. Its owners praised the wisdom of the council. But the machinery inside the factory still used bearings from another town, a measuring instrument from overseas, and steel blended with materials the valley did not produce.

“We shall make all those things ourselves,” the council announced.

Perhaps, in time, they could have made many of them. But time, skill, equipment, and money were required. The announcement supplied none of those.

Production slowed. Repairs grew more expensive. The small workshop could no longer obtain its best cutting equipment. Farmers paid more for replacement parts, leaving less money for seed. The hardware store carried fewer choices, and customers began nursing broken tools through another season.

Meanwhile, neighboring towns grew irritated.

“If our tools are unwelcome in Millhaven,” they said, “why should we buy Millhaven’s?”

The factory had regained a captive market at home while losing willing customers elsewhere.

One afternoon, Daniel found Samuel examining a newly broken hammer.

“At least it was made here,” the apprentice said, without conviction.

“Yes,” Samuel answered. “And it failed here.”

That evening, the council invited Samuel to speak.

“Would you abandon our workers?” a councilman asked.

“No,” Samuel said. “I would stop asking them to defend poor decisions with good craftsmanship they are no longer permitted to practice.”

He placed three tools on the table: his father’s old hammer, an excellent imported wrench, and a new hammer from the small American workshop.

“Here are three promises kept,” he said. “Two were made in this country. One was not. None becomes better because we forbid the others.”

A factory worker stood. “What about the cheap tools made by people who are badly treated? What about supplies we cannot afford to lose in an emergency?”

“Those are real concerns,” Samuel replied. 

“Require honest dealing. Enforce fair rules. 

Protect essential capabilities. Build reliable alternatives. But do not confuse those duties with making every object inside one fence.”

“Then what should we protect?” asked the mayor.

“The ability to make things well. Train apprentices. Maintain equipment. Reward work that lasts. Help workers learn the next skill. And make the owners answer for the quality of what carries our town’s name.”

The council did not agree all at once. There were arguments, elections, and difficult months. Some businesses changed. Some did not survive. Opening the gates could not undo every loss, and Samuel never pretended otherwise.

But the gates opened.

The factory hired back an experienced toolmaker to restore its testing. Its workers were given time to correct defects instead of hiding them. The small workshop obtained its cutting equipment again. The town school began an apprenticeship program, and the hardware store insisted on clear warranties.

When Millhaven’s better tools reached distant markets, buyers did not purchase them out of loyalty to Millhaven. They purchased them because the tools worked, the price made sense, and the maker stood behind them.

One morning, Daniel hung a second card beneath the old hammer.

It read: Our pride is where we come from. Our proof is what we make.

Years later, visitors asked Samuel whether the town had prospered by buying American or buying foreign.

“It learned to buy wisely and make honestly,” he answered. “The rest required more thought than a label.”

The lesson

A country strengthens its manufacturers by helping them earn trust through quality, useful innovation, fair value, and dependable service. Trying to force every product to be made and sold within its borders can shelter poor performance, restrict useful supplies, and invite barriers against its own exports. Supporting domestic workers and essential industries deserves careful policy; it does not require treating every foreign product as an enemy.

This fictional parable expresses a viewpoint. It does not suggest that all American products have declined, that imported goods are always superior, or that every trade restriction is mistaken.

OT -- Hearing Loss and the Extra Time the Brain Needs

by CEJames (researcher/author) & Akira Ichinose (editor/research assistant)

Why a reply may take longer

If you live with hearing loss, you may recognize this experience: someone asks a question, you pause, and the person assumes you were not paying attention. Meanwhile, you are working through what you heard. You may have caught the voice clearly enough to know someone spoke, but not clearly enough to understand every word.

Hearing loss can increase the time and mental work needed to understand speech. However, saying that “the brain slows down to compensate” is only partly accurate. The brain does not necessarily lower its overall processing speed on purpose. Instead, the listening task becomes more complicated. Extra steps can delay understanding and the response that follows.

A useful everyday description is: “My brain needs more time because it has more listening work to do.” That preserves an important distinction between a communication bottleneck and a general loss of thinking ability. The scientific literature describes this work through listening effort and models of language understanding. [1, 2]

From automatic understanding to active reconstruction

With an accessible speech signal, familiar words often connect quickly with their meanings. With hearing loss, parts of the signal may be missing or uncertain. A listener may have to use context and working memory to work out the intended words rather than recognizing them almost automatically. The Ease of Language Understanding model describes this shift toward more explicit processing when the incoming signal does not readily match stored language representations. It is an explanatory model, not a measurement of what every listener’s brain does in every conversation. [2]

Imagine hearing, “Please put the … beside the door.” Was the missing word “bag,” “box,” or “coat”? You hold the sentence in mind, consider the situation, look at the speaker, and select a likely meaning. This illustration shows why understanding may arrive after the speaker has already moved on.

There are several possible sources of delay: uncertainty about a sound, time spent recovering a missed word, a request for repetition, and the need to reconnect the recovered information with the rest of the sentence. Together, these can produce a slower conversational response even when the person can reason well once the message is clear.

Deliberately slowing the conversation can help by giving that reconstruction time to finish. That is different from claiming that the nervous system has deliberately reduced its speed. A pause is often an accommodation to the task.

Nor is there a universal delay, such as “hearing loss adds three seconds.” The same person may respond promptly in a quiet room and struggle when several people speak at once. Speech recognition and listening effort depend on the situation as well as the individual. [1, 8]

Why understanding can compete with remembering

Working memory is the mental workspace used to hold information while doing something with it. In conversation, you may need to retain the beginning of a sentence while interpreting the ending. When interpreting the words requires extra effort, less capacity may remain for other tasks.

McCoy and colleagues studied older adults and found results consistent with an effortfulness explanation: the resources used to achieve successful speech perception can come at a cost to later memory for that speech. Hearing the words correctly does not guarantee that remembering them will be equally easy. This is evidence of a possible tradeoff, not proof that all memory problems arise from hearing loss. [3]

Consider a spouse giving three instructions while you are putting away groceries. You reconstruct the first instruction, miss part of the second, and hear the third. Later, “I already told you” may be true from the speaker’s perspective, while the information never became a clear, complete message for you.

This example is an illustration rather than a diagnosis. It shows why a person may look forgetful when the difficulty began with access to the message. It also explains why guessing politely can create trouble: the conversation continues without either person realizing that they understood different things.

A practical response is to repeat the important detail: “You want me to put the keys by the door, correct?” For appointments, money, medication instructions, or travel arrangements, a written message provides a second route to the information. It also removes the pressure to hold every detail in mind while decoding speech.

The aim is to make understanding easier to verify. A successful exchange is one in which both people know that the message arrived.

The cumulative cost: effort, fatigue, and social strain

Listening effort is the mental energy invested in meeting a listening demand. The FUEL framework emphasizes that effort also depends on motivation and the resources someone can bring to a situation. Two people with similar hearing tests can experience different burdens, and one person’s burden can change across the day. [1]

Fatigue is related to effort, but it is not the same thing. Sustained difficult listening may contribute to exhaustion; nevertheless, fatigue has multiple causes and cannot be read directly from an audiogram. A review of fatigue concepts cautions that the evidence is complex and that different kinds of fatigue need to be distinguished. [4]

In a study of adults seeking help for hearing difficulties, Hornsby and Kipp found that reported fatigue was more strongly associated with the perceived social and emotional consequences of hearing loss than with the measured degree of loss. This association does not establish which factor caused which. It does help explain why someone with a seemingly moderate loss can still feel heavily burdened. [5]

In daily life, a tired listener might contribute less, hesitate before replying, or choose a quieter setting. Those behaviors can be misinterpreted as indifference. For an introverted person, the wish for quiet may already be familiar; hearing difficulty can add a separate communication burden. Introversion itself is not evidence of impaired processing.

A useful sentence is: “I want to hear what you are saying. Please give me a moment to finish understanding it.” Another is: “I need a short quiet break, and then we can continue.” These are ways to describe a need without assigning blame.

The hearing partner has needs too. They may want a clear acknowledgment and reassurance that the conversation matters. Agreeing on a simple pause signal can help both people know what is happening.

Counter-argument: a slower reply is not a slower brain

The strongest counter-argument is that conversational delay is an unreliable measure of overall cognitive speed. A person may be thinking normally but receiving incomplete information. Measuring their response to an unclear spoken question mixes hearing access with thinking ability. It cannot, by itself, show which process caused the delay.

Age-related changes, poor sleep, mood, medication effects, and illness can also affect attention or response time. Hearing loss and cognitive changes can coexist. Therefore, it is just as mistaken to explain every difficulty as “only hearing” as it is to interpret every pause as cognitive decline.

The ACHIEVE randomized trial provides a related caution about long-term claims. Across its full study population, hearing intervention did not significantly change three-year cognitive decline compared with the control intervention. A prespecified analysis found benefit in the higher-risk ARIC cohort. These results support a more qualified interpretation than “hearing aids prevent dementia.” They also address long-term outcomes, not the seconds needed to answer a question. [7]

Making the conversation easier

Try a shared routine: get the listener’s attention, face them in good light, reduce background sound, and introduce the topic before giving details. Use a natural, clear pace with pauses between ideas. If a sentence fails, rephrase it rather than repeating it louder and faster. Give the listener room to confirm the meaning.

Hearing aids can reduce effort and susceptibility to mental fatigue for some people under studied conditions, but they do not guarantee effortless listening. [6] 

The most respectful interpretation of a pause is often simple: the person is still completing the work of understanding. Giving that work time can make conversation more accurate and less tiring.

Bibliography

[1] Pichora-Fuller, M. K., et al. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing, 37(Suppl. 1), 5S–27S. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27355771/

[2] Rönnberg, J., et al. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3710434/

[3] McCoy, S. L., et al. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults’ memory for speech. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 58(1), 22–33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15881289/

[4] Hornsby, B. W. Y., Naylor, G., & Bess, F. H. (2016). A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their relation to hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 37(Suppl. 1), 136S–144S. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27355763/

[5] Hornsby, B. W. Y., & Kipp, A. M. (2016). Subjective ratings of fatigue and vigor in adults with hearing loss are driven by perceived hearing difficulties not degree of hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 37(1), e1–e10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26295606/

[6] Hornsby, B. W. Y. (2013). The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear and Hearing, 34(5), 523–534. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23426091/

[7] Lin, F. R., et al. (2023). Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 402, 786–797. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10529382/

[8] Picou, E. M., Ricketts, T. A., & Hornsby, B. W. Y. (2013). How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear and Hearing, 34(5), e52–e64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23416751/