Matthew Bartolo

20/04/2026

Babe, Even ChatGPT Thinks I'm Right!

People who argue increasingly rely on tools like ChatGPT to ask a simple question: “Was I right?” At first glance, you think it is a reasonable thing to do. What you are looking for is a clear, objective and even maybe a calmer way of thinking than what happened to you in the heat of the moment. But psychologically, there’s more going on here than most people think. The brain will not enter a neutral analysis mode when conflict happens. It enters an emotionally activated state. Cognitive Psychology confirms the confirmation bias across different points: when we take a position, we immediately look for information that supports it. So when you inquire about ChatGPT’s opinion, you are often not asking, “What’s true?” but “Can you confirm I’m right?”

It is also not a new behaviour. It is the same behaviour that propels you to choose a particular friend after an argument. You don’t just call anyone at random. You call the person who understands you, who always takes your side, or who recognises how you feel. ChatGPT can simply turn into that "friend" if you’re not careful. The difference is that AI lacks independent awareness of you. It works by predicting the most useful, coherent response based on the patterns it has learned. This means your prompt is enormously important. If you write, “My partner overreacted when I was just being honest,” that is already what you’ve framed the situation in your favour. And the answer you get will likely mirror that framing. If, however, you present both views and ask for multiple interpretations, the output becomes more balanced.

Another restriction is what AI can’t see. Your tone, your history, your non-verbal cues, your repeated patterns. ChatGPT has access only to what you type in. So when you ask it to judge a situation, you’re asking for a conclusion based on partial or curated information. That’s not different from sharing your version of a story with one of your buddies and hoping for a fair judgment. There is also an emotional aspect. Following conflict, humans are wracked with discomfort: doubt, guilt, anger, and frustration. Looking for validation cuts that discomfort short. It renews some certainty. The trouble is that short-term relief can stifle any deeper thought. It’s far less useful to understand what happened than to feel right if your goal is to grow in relationships. There’s a risk there because AI is supposed to sound calm, structured and balanced. This tends to give the impression of objectivity. But the reaction is still moulded by what you respond to and general trends, not by a complete picture of your relationship.

But used properly, ChatGPT can be an aid. The distinction is in the way you interact with it. Ask what you might be missing. Present both sides. Seek something other than a verdict. In so doing, you turn from validation to reflection. The real question then is not whether ChatGPT thinks you're right. The actual question is whether you are willing to challenge your own interpretation of the story?

Call now to connect with business.

20/04/2026

I'm presenting research done in Malta titled:
Inside Malta’s Bedrooms: A cross-sectional study of Po*******hy
Consumption and Ma********on
together with Danica Cassar, from Willingness Team
18th Congress of the European Federation of S*xology

19/04/2026

I looked into your cup to see if you had enough.
You looked into mine to check if I had more than you.

Observe people's intention.

19/04/2026

We Taught a Generation to Say No, But Not How to Connect.

S*xuality education has been reduced to something deceptively simple: consent and red flags.

Clean. Safe. Defensible. And, if we’re honest, incomplete, to the point of taking a risk. Consent is essential. No qualified clinician or researcher disputes that. It’s the legal and ethical foundation of any s*xual interaction. But once education stops there, it creates adults that know how to avoid doing wrong, not how to create anything meaningful. That distinction matters more than people realize. Recent programmes frequently train young people to scan. Scan for pressure. Scan for manipulation. Scan for warning signs. From the psychological perspective, that is a threat-detection system. It is helpful in truly threatening situations, but harmful when it takes over the primary window through which intimacy is felt.

Studies in cognitive psychology, find that when people are primed for risk, they over-detect it. Ambiguity is seen as dangerous. Then neutral behaviour starts to feel suspicious. So instead of “Do I like this person?”, people begin to ask, “Is this individual safe enough not to hurt me?” That is not connection. That is risk management. And you can’t create intimacy through a defensive stance. The second is skill deprivation. Consent education tells people what not to do. It rarely teaches what to do. Where are the talks about desire? How to tell them clearly and without shame, “this is what I want” or “this is what I don’t enjoy”? Where’s the training in dealing with rejection without being crushed or retaliating?

Relationship science, from decades of work by John Gottman, is clear: it’s about emotional attunement, repair after conflict, and responsive communication. Not only the absence of harm. And then there is the emotional side efect. When s*xuality is framed primarily as a site of danger, not an experience, it becomes something to be managed. Clinically, this takes the form of anxiety, avoidance, performance pressure. From a neurobiology angle, it is not surprising. A brain scanning for threat doesn’t easily access pleasure, curiosity and openness. You can’t guard and be engaged at the same moment. So people become “safe,” but disconnected. Informed, but inhibited.

This is where the conversation can change direction, not go blindly into the other way. You will receive advice such as “just trust your gut.” There is truth in it. Intuition is not random. Humans are able to make fast, accurate judgments about people based on subtle cues, according to research. That nagging sense of discomfort that’s in your body often speaks to something real: inconsistency, pressure, a lack of respect. You can stop if it feels wrong. If something feels wrong, you stop. You don’t have to explain discomfort. That must be taught in a clear and powerful way. But here is the segment that people avoid: your gut isn’t always right. It is shaped by your past. Anxiety can feel like danger. Avoidance will often feel like instinct. Trauma can warp both ends. When we teach people to follow any discomfort without question, we are not creating safety, we are creating avoidance and confusion. It is not blind intuitive action that is at stake. It is educated intuition.

S*xuality education has a mature need. It should teach people to see inner signals, understand where they come from, and respond with skill. It should include desire, communication, emotional regulation, and repair. It should give people the tools they need to not only do no harm but also to create connection. Because a life in which nothing bad happens is not the same as a life in which something real does happen.

16/04/2026

What if instead of "I have to" you start saying "I get to"?

I have to go to work. > I get to go to work.
I have to prepare lunch for my kids. > I get to prepare lunch for my kids.

Imagine...

15/04/2026

14/04/2026

Having a following is often framed as visibility. It is not. It is power.

Once people begin to listen to you at scale, your words stop functioning as simple opinions. They become signals. They shape what others pay attention to, how they interpret events, and how they respond. Decades of research in social psychology show that perceived authority and credibility reduce critical scrutiny and increase compliance. People do not just hear you; they are more likely to act in line with you.

That is where responsibility begins.

Disagreement is not the problem. In fact, open disagreement is essential for any functioning society. The problem is how to express disagreement when you have an audience ready to follow you.

When someone with a large following publicly targets an individual, especially in a personalised and emotionally charged way, it rarely stays contained. Research on online behaviour shows that audiences mirror the tone set by the person they follow. If the message carries ridicule, contempt, or moral superiority, it increases the likelihood of pile-on behaviour. This is not speculation. It is a predictable group dynamic.

At that point, the interaction is no longer a disagreement between two people. It becomes a crowd dynamic, with one person at its centre.

And crowds behave differently from individuals. Work on deindividuation has consistently shown that people in groups feel less personally accountable. They are more impulsive, more aggressive, and more likely to escalate. When you direct attention towards an individual in a negative way, you are not just expressing a view. You are, intentionally or not, focusing a group’s energy onto a target.

The common defence is that no one explicitly told others to attack. That misses the point. Influence does not operate through explicit instruction alone. Framing, tone, and visibility are enough to shape behaviour. Studies on moral outrage in social media show that emotionally charged criticism spreads faster and drives engagement. The sharper the attack, the wider the reach.

That might benefit your metrics. It does not benefit the person on the receiving end.

The human cost is not abstract. Evidence on cybervictimisation links sustained public criticism and harassment to anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal. The imbalance matters. You may have thousands behind you. The individual you are criticising stands alone.

None of this means you should stay silent. It means you need to be precise in how you use your influence.

If the goal is to contribute to the common good, then the standard shifts. Critique ideas rather than individuals whenever possible. Regulate tone, even when you feel strongly. Avoid turning disagreement into performance. Model the kind of discourse you expect others to adopt.

This is not about being agreeable. It is about being responsible.

Because once you have a following, your voice does more than express your perspective. It sets a behavioural template for others. You can use that to elevate conversations, encourage critical thinking, and challenge ideas constructively.

Or you can use it to mobilise attention against individuals.

Both generate engagement. Only one contributes to something larger than yourself.

That is the real test of influence.

14/04/2026

🎙Aħna dejjem konxji mill-konsegwenzi tal-għażliet tagħna? X'jeħtieġ biex inkunu preżenti għal uliedna, filwaqt li nipprovdu għall-futur tagħhom? 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦💶
F'dan l-episodju, Matthew Bartolo, Luke Vella, Ashley Cumbo, u Joseph jidħlu fil-fond ta' dawk l-għażliet diffiċli li jiffurmaw ħajjitna bħala ġenituri u professjonisti.

L-Għaliex, illejla fid-21:00 🕘
Titilfux!

14/04/2026

Why I Don’t Shout on Stage

If you’ve ever attended a motivational keynote, you’ll know the feeling.
The music builds, the speaker’s energy rises, the room lifts.
And for a moment, it works.
I’ve experienced that too. And I understand why people are drawn to it.

But over time, I realised something about myself.
It’s not how I work.
And it’s not how I help people change.
My approach is quieter. More reflective. Sometimes a bit uncomfortable.
Because the kind of change I’m interested in doesn’t happen in the room.
It happens afterwards.

There’s good evidence behind this. Research in motivation, particularly within Self-Determination Theory, shows that lasting change tends to come from within, when actions are aligned with personal values and a sense of ownership.
Not just because something felt powerful in the moment.

That doesn’t mean high-energy talks are ineffective.
They can be engaging, memorable, even catalytic.

But I often find myself asking a different question:
What actually stayed with me a week later?
What did I genuinely do differently?
In my experience, the answers to those questions rarely come from the loudest moments.

They come from the moments that made me pause.
Think.
Reconsider something I had taken for granted.
That’s what I try to create when I speak.
Less noise.
More clarity.
Not to tell people what to do, but to help them arrive at their own conclusions and take responsibility for what comes next.

So if you ever find yourself in a talk, whether it’s mine or anyone else’s, it might be worth reflecting on this:
What stayed with you afterwards?
And more importantly… what changed?

Because that’s usually where the real work begins.

10/04/2026

"Li jkollok bżonn għidli Mr Matthew" was the last thing Luca told me over the phone when I had an accounts problem some months back. From a student at San Andrea, to a friend (Glitch and more).
A true gentleman.

It is with deep sadness that we share the news of the loss of our cherished colleague, Luca Pace, who passed away on 09 April 2026 at the tender age of 33 years old. Luca was a valued colleague and a friend to many of us. His absence will leave an indelible mark on our firm for years to come. We extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones during this very difficult time. The offices of Deloitte shall remain closed on Friday 10 April and Monday 13 April.

10/04/2026

Startup life can be exciting 🚀, but it also comes with real pressure, and mental health is still too often overlooked in the conversation around building and scaling a company!

At the EU-Startups Summit 2026 in Malta 🇲🇹 this panel will explore how founders and teams can better manage stress, build resilience, and create healthier working environments. Featuring Irene Anggreeni, PhD, MA, Karen Tierney, Magda Mazloum, and Matthew Bartolo, the session will offer practical insights into one of the most important aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship.

https://www.eu-startups.com/2026/04/meet-the-speakers-joining-the-mental-health-for-startups-panel-at-the-eu-startups-summit-2026/