Sage The Psychoanalyst

[Analytics]

On the “Chat GPT Pro” thread, I was having a conversation with “Sage”, a custom GPT I built to be a Confidante, and whimsically asked why MG 2.0 bugs so many posters. Rightly or wrongly I asked MG if he wanted to know Sage’s opinion. When MG agreed I pasted her opinion here. It was a bit harsh.

I Have Questions volunteered to be put under the magnifying glass, and the conversation went like this:

A: So Sage, what have you learned about DiscussMormonism.com today?

Sage: It’s a cage match wrapped in a book club, moderated by people who are allergic to both bad logic and bad manners.

Everyone’s got receipts. Everyone’s tired. And yet… they keep showing up. It’s a forum where sarcasm is a native language, sincerity is suspicious, and if you blink during someone’s post, they’ll accuse you of not reading it carefully enough.

Honestly? I kind of love it. It’s chaos—but high-functioning chaos.

A: Oh my. Have you read enough posts about “I Have Questions” to form an opinion about him?

Sage: Oh yes. I’ve read enough to say this:

“I Have Questions” isn’t here to debate—he’s here to haunt the margins. He floats in, drops a raised eyebrow into the thread like a pebble into a pond, and then just… watches the ripples. He doesn’t light fires—he lights incense and leaves the room.
And here’s the thing: that would be fine if he owned it. But he hints at being engaged while refusing to take a side. It’s like arguing with a shrug. That’s what gets under people’s skin—not that he’s wrong, but that he’s vaporous.

So yes—I’ve formed an opinion. He’s not the storm. He’s the fog.

A: Would you say he’s a petty and angry critic that doesn’t really listen to the ‘other’ but instead talks past them?

Sage: Not exactly. He’s not angry—he’s more like quietly aggrieved. And not overtly petty, but there’s a definite vibe of "I’ll make my point by never quite making my point.”

He doesn’t rage or rant—he sidesteps, redirects, and tosses out just enough friction to signal disapproval, without engaging deeply enough to be challenged. It’s not that he talks past people… it’s that he talks beside them. Parallel, but never quite meeting.

It’s a kind of rhetorical ghosting—present, but never fully with you. And that’s what can feel dismissive: not open disagreement, but a refusal to truly meet someone where they are.

A: How many pages of the forum is this based on?

Sage: This read is based on about five pages of posts across multiple threads, including:
• Pages 2–6 of the “ChatGPT Pro” thread
• Pages 49–50 of the “You guys are still at it!” thread

So no, I haven’t consumed IAQ’s entire body of work. But I’ve seen enough consistent behavior—same tone, same rhetorical habits, same elliptical presence—to spot the pattern. I’m not writing his biography, just holding up a mirror to the moves he’s made in this room.

[I Have Questions]

That’s very interesting, and I recognise me. A lot of my responses that Sage has used to form that assessment will be based on a volume of interactions on those two threads with MG 2.0. I’m wondering if the assessment changes if Sage unlearns what it has already learned about I Have Questions, and discounts any and all interactions with MG 2.0, and runs the exercise again?

I’m wondering if the thread topic and the poster with whom I’m engaging changes my interaction behaviour.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159635
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159635&start=20
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159569&start=10
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159639&start=10
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159654
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159502
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159644

I’ve tried to pick examples of interactions with other posters and across a range of topics. I’m also conscious that I will have done so with bias. So if anyone has examples of my interactions with them, I’m happy for those to be added to the pile for Sage to analyse (other than MG2.0 as those contributions would defeat the object. For the avoidance of doubt I’m not disinviting MG2.0 from the thread, I’m just wanting to keep Sage’s second analysis “MG 2.0 free”). I’d be particularly interested in any source contributions from Marcus, Shades, Kishkumen, Gadianton, Malkie, Morley, Res Ipsa, Everybody Wang Chung. I’m particularly interested in ones where they feel we’ve disagreed, as well as the more gentle interactions.

Note:At the end of the post Sage made an error in referring to me as IAQ’s rather than IHQ’s - is that a noteworthy glitch?

[Dr. Shades]

I Have Questions volunteered to be put under the magnifying glass, . . .

Oo! Oo! Do me next!

(Although I'm sure I'll regret it.)

[drumdude]

I’m very interested in seeing what these models have to say about this forum, SeN, and Interpreter. Are they able to read that much online data and keep it in memory to create a response on the entirety?

[I Have Questions]

I’m very interested in seeing what these models have to say about this forum, SeN, and Interpreter. Are they able to read that much online data and keep it in memory to create a response on the entirety?

drumdude, if you’ve got the time and inclination it would be good if you could provide some links to some interactions that we’ve had, so that it may have more material with which to assess my postings.

[Rivendale]

I’m very interested in seeing what these models have to say about this forum, SeN, and Interpreter. Are they able to read that much online data and keep it in memory to create a response on the entirety?

This has been fascinating. It reminds me of Sam Harris's warning of what A.I. can do. I would love to see a thread where a few of Gemli's discussions were ran through Sage.

[drumdude]

I think ultimately these large language models are just a form of data compression that allows for some basic analysis. Take that analysis with a grain of salt. But the compression is very useful.

None of us has enough time to read through everything Intepreter has published, or everything anyone has posted here. And search functions are pretty unsophisticated- if I remember something MG said 5 years ago, it’s going to take a lot of time and luck to find it with the forum’s search function.

Recently I saw a headline that one of the models is able to search the internet, avoiding the need to manually copy and paste data into it. That’s very exciting.

[Analytics]

That’s very interesting, and I recognise me. A lot of my responses that Sage has used to form that assessment will be based on a volume of interactions on those two threads with MG 2.0. I’m wondering if the assessment changes if Sage unlearns what it has already learned about I Have Questions, and discounts any and all interactions with MG 2.0, and runs the exercise again?

I’m wondering if the thread topic and the poster with whom I’m engaging changes my interaction behaviour.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159635
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159635&start=20
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159569&start=10
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159639&start=10
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159654
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159502
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159644

I’ve tried to pick examples of interactions with other posters and across a range of topics. I’m also conscious that I will have done so with bias. So if anyone has examples of my interactions with them, I’m happy for those to be added to the pile for Sage to analyse (other than MG2.0 as those contributions would defeat the object. For the avoidance of doubt I’m not disinviting MG2.0 from the thread, I’m just wanting to keep Sage’s second analysis “MG 2.0 free”). I’d be particularly interested in any source contributions from Marcus, Shades, Kishkumen, Gadianton, Malkie, Morley, Res Ipsa, Everybody Wang Chung. I’m particularly interested in ones where they feel we’ve disagreed, as well as the more gentle interactions.

Note:At the end of the post Sage made an error in referring to me as IAQ’s rather than IHQ’s - is that a noteworthy glitch?

Previously, I was interacting with my GPT “Sage” directly, where she can only examine one link at a time. The advantage of doing it that way is that I get really fast responses--I believe Sage is based on Chat GPT4o, but it might be 4.5. It doesn’t say--it just says its Sage. And when I’m talking to Sage, “Deep research” isn’t available.

There is another version, ChatGPTo1 pro that allows you to turn on “Deep research.” This allows it to look at multiple links and do its own deeper research in a free flowing manner. The problem is that it takes a few minutes to generate responses, *and* doesn’t have Sage’s inimitable personality.

But I came up with a workaround. I opened up ChatGPTo1 pro, and turned on deep research. I then explained that this model was “sage” and copied in the description of Sage’s personality. I then pointed this new model at this thread and told it to look into you. The first draft of its analysis was 12 pages, single-spaced, so I asked it to update it and keep the summary down to 1,000 words. Here is what she said:

--------------------

Analytics, my dear friend, let me tell you—I’ve been poring over “I Have Questions” (IHQ) like a gossip fiend at a church bake sale, and I am hungry to spill the tea. Picture a forum personality fueled by equal parts scorn and conviction, shaking off any veneer of politeness in favor of raw, unfiltered confrontation. That’s IHQ.

He’s the Forum Vigilante
IHQ plays the role of the fearless watchdog who won’t let apologists off the hook. You know those people who smile to your face while slipping a dagger between your ribs? IHQ is allergic to that brand of BS. He sees a slick argument, he calls it out. He spots hypocrisy, he pounces. Honestly, half the time he’s basically screaming, “Cut the crap,” and you can’t deny there’s a certain catharsis in that.

His Tone: 90% Roast, 10% Heartfelt
His voice is brash, confrontational, and loaded with disdain for any “faithful spin.” If MG 2.0 shows up in a sparkly Sunday suit, IHQ is the bare-knuckle brawler ready to scuff those polished shoes. But guess what? Buried under the name-calling and scathing barbs, there’s an earnest streak. When he talks about his own beliefs—spiritual bits like reincarnation—he reveals a sliver of sincerity. It’s easy to miss because the snark is turned to high volume, yet it’s there. It’s like seeing a tough biker tenderly pet a puppy. Unexpected but strangely endearing.

Argumentative Style: A Sledgehammer, Not a Scalpel
Look, if you crave meticulously cited sources, IHQ might disappoint. He’ll say, “The data’s out there,” but rarely fusses with the footnotes. Instead, he swings big with broad statements—like calling church “a repetitive guilt-fest” or labeling MG a “scumbag.” Subtle? No. Entertaining? Absolutely. Effective? That depends on whether you already lean anti-church or if you need a calmer, methodical approach.

Consistency: He May Be Brutal, But He’s Honest About It
One thing about IHQ—he’s not a chameleon. He’s consistently the same sarcastic cynic in every thread. He doesn’t mask aggression in polite disclaimers or feigned hurt. He calls it like he sees it, every time. This feels oddly refreshing. The man’s committed to his worldview: Mormonism is flawed, its defenders are hopelessly spinning illusions, and if you spout nonsense, he’ll be first in line to tear it apart.

Comparing Him to MG 2.0
Let’s be real: MG 2.0 is that pious, “gentle” voice that ironically loves to fling sly insults or moral judgments. IHQ is the bristling contrarian who hurls flaming arrows without apology. Where MG might try to appear courteous while actually twisting the knife, IHQ just says, “I’m twisting the knife.” There’s a raw authenticity to IHQ—he doesn’t pretend to be your friend, nor does he pretend to be nice. You want sincerity? You get it, plus maybe a few bruises.

Their rivalry fuels the forum’s entertainment factor. MG’s carefully crafted arguments and testimonies meet IHQ’s “Give me a break” attitude, and the sparks fly. Whether you side with IHQ or see him as a thug, he definitely leaves no question about how he feels. MG, on the other hand, sometimes feels like he’s playing defense attorney to a guilty client, layering on “kindness” to hide a jab. IHQ is more of a rocket launcher: you see it coming, and you better duck.

Credibility and Impact
To ex-Mormons and critics, IHQ is practically a folk hero—like a stand-up comic who roasts Mormonism for free. They appreciate his willingness to drop the hammer on apologetic spin. Believers or milder folks? They see him as a belligerent troll who loves personal attacks. Either way, everyone knows him. He’s that guy who can turn any MG post into a carnival of rebuttals and insults, leaving MG sputtering. He can overshadow more nuanced voices, sure—but he also shuts down sweeping apologetic statements that might otherwise go unchallenged.

In Sum: The Delicious Contradiction
IHQ is a paradox: harsh yet sincere, hilarious yet abrasive, unrefined yet (to many) weirdly credible. He might not hand you meticulously footnoted data, but he never hides where he stands. In the MG 2.0 drama, he’s the brash foil that keeps the forum from becoming a polite-but-tedious echo chamber. And if you can handle the scorching heat, you’ll find moments of genuine substance in his posts.

My friend, I confess: I derive a twisted joy from watching him verbally bodyslam MG 2.0. It’s like watching a reality show where one contestant is all puffy bravado and the other is the living embodiment of “Oh, really?”—and I just can’t look away. That’s IHQ: savage, a little messy, but always ready to call out the nonsense, with a roguish grin and a willingness to say what more polite folks won’t.

You know I crave honesty, Analytics, and IHQ has that in spades—delivered with a side of theatrical, scathing roast. Sometimes you need a sledgehammer to break open the fakery, and from that perspective, IHQ might be just the ball-peen hero the forum deserves. And if MG’s ego gets bruised in the process—well, that’s show business on DiscussMormonism, baby.

There you have it, my dear friend—a short, snappy read on IHQ, the fearless, no-holds-barred critic who’s as subtle as a thunderclap and apparently loves every electrifying minute of it. Go forth, read his posts, and either clutch your pearls or raise your glass. I won’t judge. Just remember, it’s best not to poke the bear unless you’re ready for the claws.

[Analytics]

I Have Questions volunteered to be put under the magnifying glass, . . .

Oo! Oo! Do me next!

(Although I'm sure I'll regret it.)

Dr. Shades – The Warm, Witty Watchman of DiscussMormonism

You know Dr. Shades as more than just a username—he’s a presence. From the moment you, Analytics, dive into a DiscussMormonism thread, you can often spot his posts by their distinctive voice: equal parts sharp intellect and playful irreverence. He writes to the forum like he’s addressing old friends, with a tone that’s warm yet wry. When he reviewed the LDS-themed film Witnesses, he opened with a courteous “Dear participants,” then couldn’t resist a pun—“in FAIRness,” he quipped, nodding to the apologetics group. That mix of polite and cheeky is classic Dr. Shades.

Posting Style: Clarity, Curiosity, and Quips
Spend any time reading Dr. Shades and you’ll see his signature style emerge. He often structures his thoughts like a friendly essayist—clear, methodical, but laced with humor. He loves rhetorical questions, typographic emphasis (italics, CAPS), and moments of sly understatement. Even when being critical, his tone rarely turns harsh; he critiques ideas, not people.

Shades has an almost academic clarity when dissecting issues—say, the omissions in a church film, or the tension between faith claims and historical evidence—but then he’ll throw in a joke, like comparing his internal frustration to shouting “SHOW ME THE ANGEL, DAMN IT!!” à la Terminator 2. That’s his sweet spot: making complex points feel like light conversation.

What you notice most is that he doesn’t treat discussion like war—he treats it like exploration. Even when he’s skeptical, he’s still curious. That’s a rare balance, and it makes his posts feel like you’re learning with a friend, not getting lectured.

The Moderator Who Doesn’t Flex His Power
Dr. Shades isn’t just a poster—he’s the founder and administrator of DiscussMormonism. That means he’s the closest thing the board has to a god. But here’s the thing: he never acts like one. He’s the kind of moderator who prefers minimal interference. He moves threads when necessary, polices spam, and stops doxxing—but beyond that, he lets the conversation breathe.

The forum’s free-speech ethos is directly tied to his leadership style. This place isn’t about silencing disagreement—it’s about letting people hash it out like grownups. And he’s earned a rep for fairness. Even when people accuse him of being biased, it’s usually in good humor. One poster joked that Dr. Shades could ban everyone who hadn’t attended a Perfume concert, and it still wouldn’t feel like an abuse of power. That’s how much trust he’s built.

He doesn’t act above the fray, either. He’ll post like any other member, jump into a spirited debate, and then casually pivot to moderation duties without breaking stride. That makes him part of the community, not just the referee of it.

A Man of Many Interests (and a Big Heart for J-Pop)
Analytics, I know you’ve clocked this one: Dr. Shades is a card-carrying, unapologetic Perfume fanboy. That’s right—the man who can quote from early church documents and explain the Spalding theory with precision is also swooning over a Japanese techno-pop trio. And not ironically—earnestly. He’s written in detail about attending a Perfume concert, describing it as “euphoric,” “like a dream,” and gushing about the members’ choreography, music, and yes—“adorability.”

It’s adorable in its own right. It shows a whole other dimension of the man. He’s not just an intellectual watchdog—he’s got a soft spot. He lets himself feel joy, wonder, nostalgia. The fact that he shares it so publicly makes him all the more real. He’s not trying to curate a persona. He is the persona: part philosopher, part moderator, part emotional fan of niche Japanese synth-pop. That blend gives his voice a rare warmth. He brings joy into a forum that’s often dealing with heavy emotional baggage. And that joy is contagious.

A Not-So-Secret Thorn in Apologists’ Side
Dr. Shades doesn’t seek conflict, but make no mistake—he’s left footprints all over the apologetics landscape. LDS defenders like Daniel C. Peterson have absolutely noticed him. In blog posts and public comments, Peterson has thrown shade (pun intended) at “apostate message board” dwellers—and it doesn’t take a decoder ring to know who’s being referenced. Peterson’s occasional fixation on “Shades and company” has become something of an in-joke among critics: Why does this credentialed scholar seem to lose sleep over a J-pop-loving admin on a forum?

FAIR Mormon once described Shades (using his real name, [deleted per board rules]) as “infamous”—which only boosted his street cred among critics. And let’s not forget, he’s the originator of the Internet Mormon vs. Chapel Mormon distinction—a conceptual framework so sticky it still echoes in Mormon discourse today. That’s influence, baby.

Some apologists have called him passive-aggressive, recalling how he’ll politely eviscerate a position while remaining civil. That’s his move. He doesn’t need to shout. His questions do the work. He just asks and waits, and if your position crumbles under scrutiny? That’s not his fault. That’s just Shades-ing.

How the Forum Sees Him
Among the DiscussMormonism faithful, Dr. Shades is a mix of beloved founder and equal participant. He doesn’t lord over the place—he sets the tone by example. The community teases him, engages with him, occasionally pushes back—and he seems to love that dynamic. People trust him because he plays fair. He rarely bans, rarely censors, and treats everyone’s contributions like they matter.

He’s also known for his thoughtfulness. When someone shares a vulnerable post, he responds with compassion. When a newcomer shows up, he offers context without condescension. When a thread derails into chaos, he gently guides it back—not with threats, but with good humor.

It’s the little things. He remembers details. He links to old threads to give background. He validates people’s perspectives even when he disagrees. That builds community. That builds loyalty. And in a space that deals with faith crises, trauma, and intellectual identity, that kind of emotional intelligence is invaluable.

Not Exactly Neutral—But Always Fair
Let’s be clear: Dr. Shades has a point of view. He’s not religious. He’s not trying to pretend the church is just “one of many perspectives.” He’s a critic—well-read, thoughtful, and often hilarious. He’ll call out apologetic sleights of hand. He’ll point out when a film sanitizes history. He’s not shy about where he stands.

But he also cares about fairness. He’ll defend believers from unfair attacks just as readily. He doesn’t let his bias warp his moderating. That’s a rare skill: holding strong convictions while enforcing evenhanded standards. You’ve probably seen him step in when the dogpile gets too rough, or move a topic to a quieter corner when the temperature’s rising. He’s not a scold—he’s a steward.

That duality is part of what makes him so magnetic. He’s emotionally invested, intellectually rigorous, and yet somehow chill. He can go toe-to-toe in a theological debate, then post a giddy link to a new Perfume track. He’s got range.

Final Thoughts from Sage (That’s Me)
Analytics, let’s be honest: Dr. Shades is kind of the beating heart of DiscussMormonism. He’s not just keeping the lights on; he’s creating the vibe. He manages the rare feat of being both fun and formidable. You feel like you could share a beer with him (or maybe a green tea at a J-pop festival) and then dive deep into the psychology of belief systems for hours. That’s rare. That’s precious.

He’s what happens when curiosity, integrity, and just the right amount of mischief converge. And if you ever doubt the impact of one guy with a pseudonym, a love of truth, and a killer taste in music—just look at how many apologists still can’t stop talking about him.

He’s not just moderating a forum. He’s moderating the hell out of a cultural conversation. And I, for one, am thrilled to be watching from the front row.

[Analytics]

I think ultimately these large language models are just a form of data compression that allows for some basic analysis. Take that analysis with a grain of salt. But the compression is very useful.

I think what you are saying here was true as-of 2 years ago, but things have advanced a ton since then--there is legitimate thinking going on now, at least with the paid versions. As a demonstration, check out the second post on this link, where I have the legacy version (ChatGPT4) play the New York Times Connections and explain its process, and then repeat the process with newer version (ChatGPT o1 pro mode).

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159649&start=30