ChatGPT opinion of me today

chatgpt logo

“How do you describe me based on our conversations?” “Based on what you know, please list what I can improve on.”

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 28s

Here’s my best read on you, based only on what you’ve shown me here so far.

1) How I’d describe you

Professionally and cognitively, you come across as:

Analytical and systems-oriented
You don’t just ask “how do I turn this on?” — you’re usually thinking in terms of architecture, policies, conflicts between settings, and how multiple controls interact (Defender, STIG, CA JSON, Purview, etc.).
Security-first but not blindly so
You push for strict configurations (strictest CA settings, ASR rules, Hello security, BitLocker PIN, Purview controls), but you also care about practicality and user experience rather than just ticking boxes.
Detail-driven and thorough
You gravitate to “step-by-step,” “end-to-end,” “conflict resolution,” “training docs,” and “how things really work under the hood,” not just surface guidance.
Cross-disciplinary
You’re comfortable living in more than one world: security/IT consulting, enterprise compliance, and also marketing/DMC/travel. That’s not a common mix, and it suggests you can translate between technical and business sides.
High standards for clarity and honesty
You explicitly told me:
- Always say if I can’t do something.
- Always actually do the task when asked.
- Never silently fail.
  That signals you value transparency, reliability, and directness from people you work with.
Teacher/structure mindset
The way you approach the Purview training class — targeted at people with no prior experience, step-by-step — hints that you think like an instructor: you want others to really “get it,” not just follow a script.
Comfortable with disagreement when it’s justified
You’ve explicitly said you want me to push back when the data shows something else. That’s a sign you’re more interested in being correct than being agreed with.

That’s the “you” I see in this workspace: a detail-oriented, security-focused consultant who likes rigor, clear communication, and real-world applicability.

2) Things you might improve on (based on what I’ve seen)

These are inferences, not diagnoses. If one doesn’t feel true, treat it as a prompt to reflect, not a verdict.

Balancing “maximum security” with “right-sized effort”
- Because you lean toward the strictest, most secure settings, there’s a risk of spending a lot of time chasing marginal gains.
- Possible improvement: for each decision, explicitly classify it as “must be perfect” vs “good enough with monitoring,” and let that drive how deep you go.
Time-boxing deep dives
- Your questions often aim for comprehensive understanding (all edge cases, all interactions). That’s a strength, but it can turn into rabbit holes.
- Possible improvement: decide upfront, “I’ll research this for X minutes/hours; after that, I pick the best available option and move on.”
Separating “design” from “documentation” work
- You put a lot of thought into training docs and detailed procedures.
- Possible improvement: first design the minimal working solution/architecture, then later switch into “documentation mode,” instead of trying to perfect both at once.
Making tradeoffs explicit for stakeholders
- You’re clearly aware of security vs usability vs business needs, but that nuance may live mostly in your head.
- Possible improvement: for each recommendation, write a simple 3-line summary:
  - What we gain
  - What we lose
  - Why I still recommend this
    That makes it easier for non-technical people to say yes.
Avoiding over-ownership of every detail
- Your style suggests a tendency to personally ensure things are done “correctly” and “fully” (configs, policies, training).
- Possible improvement: identify pieces that can be templated or delegated (e.g., standard policy baselines, training skeletons) so you reserve your deep attention for genuinely hard or novel problems.
Documenting decisions, not just configurations
- You think hard about conflicts, precedence, and edge behavior (e.g., CA JSON, ASR exceptions, Windows Hello behavior).
- Possible improvement: maintain a short “decision log” for major projects: what options you considered, what you chose, and why. That shows your reasoning and makes future adjustments easier.
Protecting your own cognitive load
- Juggling enterprise security, consulting, and marketing/DMC work can be cognitively expensive.
- Possible improvement: consciously limit the number of “active big initiatives” at once and set clear “done for now” criteria so your brain isn’t constantly holding everything open.