The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D
Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, where your brain is very good at making up stories that have nothing to do with the original motivation.
I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim of much of this legislation had nothing to do with protecting kids from the beginning. They use that rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board and much more difficult to explain the real world implications for security.
I didn’t get that impression. You’re not wrong that something can be justified “for the children” but have an ulterior motive. But I think what’s being argued is that the initial motive is actually honestly for the children and that that goal blinds people to the reality of how bad or pointless or even perversely harmful the proposed solution is.
