>>> The same - your “revealed preference” is different from your “stated preference”.
> It tells me that you really like Truth Social and I shouldn’t believe what you say - you “revealed” your true “preference”
That's what I thought you where thinking. Thank you for at least not beating around the bush anymore.
You're wrong though, and you're thinking about this too simplistically. Yours is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, and not necessarily the right one or even a likely one. The discrepancy between "revealed preference" and "stated preference," only gives you the barest scrap of information. You're jumping to conclusions when you go from that scrap to "you really like X" and "I shouldn’t believe what you say." With the information in the scenario you outlined, about as much as you can reasonably infer is "you can tolerate Truth Social."
It's just like my scenario with the prison cell and the rotten food: if you eat it, it doesn't mean you "really like" it and "I shouldn’t believe what you say." It means you can tolerate it and you have a desire to avoid a negative outcome (starvation) that trumps whatever disgust you feel eating it.
tl;dr: complex and ambivalent feelings are a real and common phenomenon that you should consider.
Go on. How do you interpret that? What does that tell you?