Meandering Musing: Intellect Signaling

So, in my blog about racism, I referenced something called “Intellect Signaling”, a concept related to but distinct from virtue signaling. Now, I think most people familiar with the concept of virtue signaling have at least a rough idea of what I call intellect signaling. But, in the interest of clarity and because I felt like this would be a good blog subject in itself, I will be going into detail on exactly what I mean.

More importantly, I will also be going into what I DON’T mean. Not every intellectual online is intellect signaling just like not every person online who spreads awareness about different issues is virtue signaling. The short version is that, like how virtue signalers don’t take action beyond claiming they support something morally virtuous, intellect signalers don’t spread knowledge or contribute anything of substance, instead opting to simply claim they are more intelligent than everyone around them.

1. Lack of Nuance

I’m going to be using real examples for most of these, and this one specifically always gives me a chuckle. There is a user who runs the two channels “ThoughtRevolution” and “MetaphysicalAxiom”(more about these names in the next point). I find this guy to be the very epitome of an intellect signaler, as he goes out his way to antagonize people with vulgar language while feigning surprise when they respond in kind. But his positions specifically are just… stupid, for lack of a better word.

Oh, and here’s some quick proof that they are the same person, straight from the horse’s mouth.

This is just the tip of the iceberg...

Now, he didn’t like the fact that I responded to an open challenge from him to comment on his posts. This went so far that he actually deleted a post me and him had been talking on. However, at the time, he couldn’t delete my comments, so he went to help and support to ask for the ability to delete comments. He also went on quite a long rant about how free speech is fundamentally flawed, as it allowed idiots like me to challenge him.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Those pesky 14 year olds, spending all their time trollin'

That’s a rather extreme position, isn’t it? “freedom of speech is not possible nor is it even remotely safe for the mass consciousness” I always found it odd to see people on Minds who were anti-free speech, given places that aligned with their beliefs already existed and were arguably far larger than this platform specifically geared towards that ideal. Perhaps it is because those platforms are slowly dying because of such beliefs? Oh, well. We are getting off topic.

So: yes, a radical position, but one that can be held. But he is also completely unwilling to defend such a stance at even the slightest of inconvenience. When he discovers that other people are using the new delete comment feature along with banning against him, he finds it completely unacceptable.

Again, we have established already this is the same person as MetaphysicalAxiom. Speech patterns match up rather well.

So that’s kinda weird, isn’t it? He speaks with a lot of confidence despite having done a complete 180 on his previous position. Now he’s concerned about free speech? Now he thinks there should be protections? Why? He didn’t think such protections should be extended to me…

To be frank, there is a middle road here. If you let everyone speak completely unfiltered, the loudest and fastest talking people can drown out everyone else(ironically, MetaThot is one of those fast talking, loud people). If you pick and choose winners, you end up with an echo chamber in a purity spiral that discourages free thought. There is nuance to this. But MetaThot only jumps between the two most radical positions, and fails to see any other option nor the irony of completely contradicting himself without ever noting his change in position.

2. Use of “Sciency” Buzzwords

Let’s keep talking about ole’ ThotRev, because he is a truly fascinating specimen. Let’s start with his name: ThoughtRevolution. Clearly, this name is meant to signify that he is focused on intellectual matters, and that he does not conform to the status quo. He challenges ideas, or at least that is what his name implies. The avatar he uses for this account is a brain in the shape of a lightbulb, signifying enlightened thought.

Then, there is his alt account, MetaphysicalAxiom. Metaphysical, basically meaning abstract, and Axiom, which is just a fancy word for a truth or fact. This is meant to summon philosophical themes, focused on thorough research and rigorous discussion. The avatar for this account is a brain with blue aura surrounding it, synapses darting off as the thoughts are spread far and wide.

Nothing wrong with using imagery and word choice like this in itself, otherwise I would also be warning people about a certain RhetoricalHypothetical. But take a look at his writing… I don’t even really need to include a screenshot, since almost everything he says on either of these accounts fulfills the criteria. He will talk a lot about logic, being rational, being empirical, knowledge, truth, fallacies, echo chambers… etc. I could go on forever. Here is one example.

Interesting tidbit, I use this quote in one of my books for a self absorbed character because it is just such a hilariously perfect example of saying very little of substance while using mangled sentence structure and ostentatious tone.

Just look at the highlighted section: "thinking critically", "logical fallacy", "cognitive bias", "borderline delusional". This entire section could be removed, and the actual content of his comment wouldn't change much.

But the thing is, stating oneself as logical does not make it so, any more than saying you support feeding children in third world countries makes it happen. In the majority of posts, he is using these words to attack not other ideas, but other people, since he is unable to properly handle disagreement on ideas. Any statements of his own position that he does actually make are entirely unsupported by evidence and bloated with unnecessary platitudes. He does not address criticism, he just disparages his critics as being too stupid to understand his brilliance with a bunch of sciency buzzwords. All while complaining how people are bullying him… he’s a cry bully pretending to be an intellectual, when you really get down to it. But that’s not even the worst of it.

3. Self-contradictory

Now, I hate to keep referencing the same guy, but… he’s just such a perfect example. At least, I’m 99% sure this is the same guy. I kid you not, I had a finished draft of this post, and THEN I got a notification about a certain LogicianMagician commenting on a post I was following. You really can’t make this stuff up…

He even started a group, which is part of how I determined this was the same guy. A group called Logic Supersedes Theory. See point 2 again. I’ll include a screenshot, just to show how incredibly sad this kind of behavior is.

Using a profile image from an older alt account in a group occupied by two of his newer alt accounts. Just... wow. Such rationality.

Notice, only two members at the time of the screenshot. Well, three now. I’m hoping to find some truly intellectuals in this group, so I’m going to be keeping an eye on it as well as posting my own stuff there when I find the time. I guess we will see how long it takes for him to notice and kick me out, given he already had the good sense to set posts to moderated. But back to the subject at hand…

So, me and another user were discussing random political stuff. The recent Minds update wrought havoc upon the thread, so I don’t really recommend trying to parse through most of the conversation. Also, the comment got deleted... But anyways. Out of nowhere, enter LogiciaMagician!

We weren't even arguing. We were discussing, and it was a lengthy, rambly discussion at that. Weird how someone proclaiming logic is trying to shame people away from conversation.

I want you to really, really look at this, and try to fathom the concentrated autism mixed with tourettes on display. Me and another person are having a very reasonable discussion, one in which neither of us has any problem with. It’s not heated, we are just chatting. I don’t really agree with the guy I’m talking with, and I also don’t align with him ideologically, but that’s why we are talking about the things we disagree on. To enhance mutual understanding.

Meanwhile, Log inserts himself into a conversation, insults the reasonable people who were having a civil discussion, and insists we are the infantile ones. Let that sink in. The only one using profanity and not staying on topic is accusing everyone else of wasting time bickering. What the literal heck.

By his own logic, Log's previously expressed political opinions don't have value, either. But of course, when it comes to him, it's rules for thee and not for me.

It goes further than that. He started by telling us opinions don’t matter. Then he immediately states HIS opinion on something political. THEN… he reiterates that political opinions have absolutely no value. The self awareness is so nonexistent, I’m not entirely sure we can even classify this as sentience if we are being honest.

I wasn’t even going to include this section! The contradictory nature of intellect signaling is directly related to lack of nuance, and could have been just as easily applied to the first section! And yet, LogicianMagician, A.K.A. MetaphysicalAxiom, A.K.A. ThoughtRevolution, just can’t help himself from giving me MORE examples!

I would love to find out two things about this guy. One, how many alt accounts he already has; the currently confirmed total is three. And two, why he keeps creating more. Does he actually think he’s being shadowbanned? Does he not realize that blocking everyone and generally being mean spirited makes people stay away from you naturally? I don’t know. He’s a real mystery that may never be solved.

4. Inability to Articulate/Rationalize Position(using sources)

Awhile back… there was a user by the name of ChrisandAmber. They(supposedly, it was two people sharing an account for some reason) were not generally liked, and last I checked, they had been banned for engaging in some sketchy practices. But the duo claimed to be anarchists. This was hard to take seriously, as they pushed for more authoritarian controls that could be used against those who they believed were beyond the ideological pale.

But their anarchist leaning, and how they conflicted with their proposal, led me to question them at length on anarchy. It even led to me writing a full blog post about anarchy as a framework, and why I thought it was doomed to fail. We discussed further on the article, and I won’t bore you with the details and screenshots(Here is the link for those interested in reading for themselves), but we eventually got to this point that I will paraphrase:

Chris: “You just don’t understand Anarchy!”

Me: “I disagree, I have done quite a bit of research as well as discussing it at length with you specifically. You have failed to convince me any of my stated issues are invalid.”

Chris: “Well, I just don’t have time to sit here and explain why you are wrong, so watch these five videos! They will answer your questions!”

Me: “...FIVE videos? Looking at the titles, I don’t think these really address my concerns…”

Chris: “Just watch them, otherwise I’m done! I won’t continue discussing with an ignoramus!”

Me: “…fine. I’ll watch them and get back to you.”

I watched the videos. They were boiler plate anarchist debunking videos, addressing arguments I never made or talking about concepts I was already familiar with. So, I made a new post talking about this, and further expressed that such action was why I believed Anarchy couldn’t work; we had people like ChrisandAmber who were more than willing to blindly trust the experts and not properly vet things for themselves. Such a system is ripe for corruption and abuse. Not to mention, there was circumstantial evidence that ChrisandAmber was looking to consolidate power for themselves. Ironic that a self-professed anarchist was apparently looking to set up rules within a larger system in order to wield oppressive power over anyone that opposes them, huh?

This, however, is not my argument against anarchy. Chris is almost a strawman of an anarchist because, as I stated, he was unable to properly rationalize his own position without relying on sources that, shockingly, also didn’t properly address the points I was making. This is very common of the intellect signaler; they believe themselves right, and no evidence or argument to the contrary can convince them. If they can’t defend their position, it is because they simply don’t have time or are not as well spoken as the videos they consume. They never face the possibility that they have been taken in by propaganda.

Here is the second blog that goes into more detail on this whole situation, where I even talk about the individual videos I was sent, what they were about, and how they failed to address even a single one of my points. It's not necessary reading for the rest of this blog, but you still may find it interesting.

5. Follows Current Trends Blindly

Please insert, like, a million asterisks in this section. I don’t want to argue about literally every commonly accepted scientific principle, as that is far outside the scope of this blog.

First, I’m not some kind of conspiracy theorist. I enjoy learning about conspiracy theories, and I even write fiction with all kinds of crazy plots going on in the background, but that doesn’t mean I immediately believe them when I see them. That said, I also don’t count them out immediately. I do believe people in power are willing to use that power in sketchy ways for less than moral ends. Some conspiracies have been substantiated in the past, and I’m certain other theories are true even if they haven’t been proven true quite yet.

But one thing I patently do not believe is that something is true based solely on consensus. Something is either true or not, and what everyone thinks about it is irrelevant in bestowing that status. Sure, if something is true and evidence supports it, then more people are likely to believe it rather than disbelieve it. There is frequently correlation.

That said, some people confuse correlation for causation. Some people, despite claiming to have prestigious academic credentials, claim that the accepted beliefs of the majority are true by virtue of popularity, and… that’s it. That is literally everything they have to say on the subject. There is nothing wrong with stating one’s beliefs when asked, or exposing one’s beliefs when posting evidence that supports it.

The example for this section is NearMiss, who I discussed gender differences with on a random thread that originally only referenced such concepts rather than focusing on them. She made several claims over the conversation, including:

1. Businesses are sexist towards women, and exclude them based on no empirical evidence.

2. Men take excessive risks, far more so than women, who are better at calculating risk.

3. Women aren’t starting new businesses because of historical factors rather than having different interests and aptitudes.

4. Women are objectively no more risky to have as employees than men.

We had a decent conversation with other people jumping in at various times, viewable here. It is worth noting, though, that I provided links to articles that supported my statements, articles which had statistics beyond mere statements of opinion. Overall, I think I refuted the points rather well, and defended my own positions with intellectual consistency. However, I apparently ruined it all with a small throwaway joke… and NearMiss rage quit. But I want to put this whole exchange in perspective.

I had a conversation with a self professed molecular biologist, one who had poked fun at my lowly bachelors in computer science previously. She spoke with emotion and in alignment with the mainstream narrative about women being oppressed, while I presented evidence that she could not challenge since she had provided no evidence for her own claims nor evidence against my claims. Then, she bailed on the conversation by calling me a sexist when I made a small joke, despite the fact she had been spouting openly sexist rhetoric the entire conversation. In fact, that was my joke; I made a passing comment on her open hatred of men.

Sexism is okay, guys. But aggressive sexism? That's where I draw the line. NearMiss is just too radical for me to associate with.

She claims I was the one not having a genuine discussion, but I wasn’t the one arguing from emotion and assuming my position was self evident. I wasn’t the one unwilling to discuss the issue, nor was I the one who insulted my ideological opponent. Science is based on experimentation to either confirm or refute hypotheses, no matter what the scientist might wish to be true. To claim credentials as a scientist makes one’s feelings more right than the evidence being provided that contradicts one’s conclusions is intellectually dishonest and exposes you as a charlatan.
CONCLUSION

There is nothing shameful about being incorrect sometimes. It happens, no one can have access to the entirety of human knowledge before making a comment or post on social media. But I have open disdain for anyone who tries to use hot topics for the sole purpose of making themselves appear smarter than they are without giving those topics the respect and rigor they deserve. Besides, it always begs the question…

If someone is so smart that everyone on social media is just unbearably stupid by comparison, why is this supremely intelligent being posting on social media? If it was to educate, they would be more willing to answer questions, even stupid ones. These people exist. If it was to discuss the topic, they would provide more thorough analysis and not be so openly hostile to the slightest of disagreements. These people also exist. But if it was only to boost their own ego, they would do exactly what I have just described; they would start intellect signaling. Posting low effort faux intellectual content where they praise themselves as bastions of objectivity while not really living up to that standard.

And that is why I shame them. To knock that over-inflated ego down a notch. As far as I’m concerned, that is exactly what they deserve.

Epilogue:

WORLDSCULPTING! I FOUND ANOTHER ONE! WORLDSCULPTING! AN OLD ALT ACCOUNT OF METATHOTLOG!

That brings the total to four.

EXTRA EPILOGUE:

I FOUND ANOTHER ONE. GAMERPORN. THAT’S IT. THIS IS GETTING IT’S OWN BLOG. STAY TUNED.

---

This Post on Minds