I can see that I've failed to convince you and I need to do better.

This is a failure mode common in when other-optimising. You assume that I need to be persuaded, put that as the bottom line and then work from there. There is no room for the possibility that I know more about my relative areas of weakness than you do. This is a rather bizarre position to take given that you don't even have significant familiarity with the wedrifid online persona let alone me.

In my experience, the sort of thing you've written is a longer version of "It can't happen to me, I'm far too smart for that" and a quite typical reaction to the notion that you, yes you, might have security holes. I don't expect you to like that, but it is.

It isn't so much that I dislike what you are saying as it is that it seems trivial and poorly calibrated to the context. Are you really telling a lesswrong frequenter that they may have security holes as though you are making some kind of novel suggestion that could trigger insecurity or offence?

I suggest that I understand the entirety of the point you are making and still respond with the grandparent. There is a limit to how much intellectual paranoia is helpful and under-confidence is a failure of epistemic rationality even if it is encouraged socially. This is a point that you either do not understand or have been careful to avoid acknowledging for the purpose of presenting your position.

I am curious as to the specific basis you have for considering yourself more immune. Not just "I am more rational", but something that's actually put it to a test?

I would be more inclined to answer such questions if they didn't come with explicitly declared rhetorical intent.