"split second misinformation"(not a real term yet, coined by me just now) = a sentence constructed in such a manner that your internal prediction about what message will be communicated is pushed in the wrong direction for ~1 second.
for example saying: "the gift you gave me a week ago(positive tone), i lost that(negative tone), im sorry" instead of saying: "I'm sorry, i lost the gift you gave me a week ago(all in a negative tone)". The first example leaves the interpretation that you want to say something else about the gift for a short period, the second pre-clarifies this by saying sorry first, making for a slightly more digestible message(imo)
remove from your life = every message stated while you hear it is constructed in a manner to remove "split second misinformation", this does not impact the thinking of other people or require effort for them, as it happens automatically in this hypothetical.
feel free to ask anything in the comments. I did a bad job explaining what i mean xD
Edit: i forgot to include an "unsure" option, so if you unsure just guess how much you would pay, no need to be exact
1,000[Split-minute misinformation]
@MaxA nope, just a "sleep deprived guy posting an idea that seems cool to think about but it's actually a waste of time probably" issue
If you don't mind me asking, what's a "gen z specific mental health issue"? and what would be an example of that?
@remedyrain Anything that deserves a deep analytical essay in The Atlantic or New York Magazine today while being seen as a regular nothingburger 20 years ago.
@Interrobang I'm not sure if it really "costs" you time, because the overall time used is still the same/similar. but you would be confused/not confused about the intended message for 2.03 hours in total i think
I don’t think it’s misinformation. Because word order matters. The two example sentences you gave communicate two different things. The speaker of the second sentence seems to care more about apologizing than the person uttering the first sentence. Or maybe the different ways of saying it could differ depending on the linguistic background and regional dialect of the person. So it’s not misinformation, it’s more information.
@TomNeuburg That's a really good point i hadn't considered. I guess for this still to work you'd have to assume that this takes place in a world/language where word order doesn't convey extra information, or that you magically get the same meaning of the "sentence 1" word order while still hearing the "sentence 2" one