|

Intellectual Karma Diagnostic Matrix

This version of the matrix emphasizes behavioral dynamics rather than archetypes, organizing patterns across a spectrum from implicit immaturity to explicit manipulation. Use this to identify whether an individual's behavior arises from underdeveloped cognition or intentional deception.

🔢 Scoring System:

  • 0: Not present
  • 1: Occasionally present
  • 2: Frequently present
  • 3: Dominant trait

🧠 Behavioral Criteria

BehaviorDescriptionScore
ObfuscationUse of confusing or needlessly complex language that obscures rather than clarifies.
Citation BombingOverloading discourse with references to imply authority, rather than enhance understanding.
Semantic RedefinitionReframing words mid-argument to dodge accountability or shift context.
Goalpost ShiftingEvasion of critique by subtly altering the claim under discussion.
Performative AffectationIntellectual cosplay: accents, academic jargon, or performative gestures to appear intelligent.
Evasion of AccountabilityDodging responsibility via feigned humility, false ignorance, or rhetorical redirection.
Projection / Rhetorical ImmunizationAccusing others of the very tactics one is employing (e.g., calling others pseudo-intellectuals to deflect critique).
Epistemic TunnelingApplying one ideological lens to every problem without critical distance or context.
Pretension TrapsLeaning on inaccessible thinkers (e.g., Deleuze, Lacan) to inflate complexity and dodge critique.
Rhetorical NarcissismPresenting a WEIRD-centric (Western, Educated, etc.) worldview as universal and normatively superior.
Ideological NarrativizingFiltering, fabricating, or distorting facts to fit an agenda.
Weaponized SkepticismPretending not to know or constantly demanding proof to derail or exhaust inquiry.

🎯 Diagnostic Interpretation

  • 0–10: Mostly clear thinker. Likely immature or underdeveloped in intellectual habits. Trainable.
  • 11–20: Pseudo-intellectual patterns present. May be unconscious or performative, but not always malicious.
  • 21–30: High pseudo-intellectual density. Strong signals of narrative distortion and rhetorical manipulation.
  • 31–36+: Fraudulent behavior. Likely strategic deception or ideology-peddling under the mask of reason.

🧪 Application Guide

  1. Observe Behavior: Across written/spoken discourse, debate, or published material.
  2. Assign Scores: Judge each trait based on its frequency and dominance.
  3. Sum Scores: Determine the individual’s position on the pseudo-intellectualism spectrum.
  4. Diagnose + Reflect: Use as a self-awareness or educational tool—not as a punitive label.

💡 Notes for Developers & Educators:

  • This tool is meant to foster discernment and intellectual humility.
  • When in doubt, contextualize! Someone may exhibit a trait without malicious intent.
  • Use comedic vignettes or case studies to illustrate traits in practice (see next section).

Similar Posts

  • |

    A CosmoBuddhist review of the Emotional Objectification of men, in the western world.

    A CosmoBuddhist review of the Emotional Objectification of men, in the western world. Today I will be discussing a video by TheBurgerkrieg titled “The Emotional Objectification of Men “ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YljQPuBKHk about classic models of male gender roles in western society and how, being based on bronze age principles, causes the atomization of men in society, which is also the…

  • Musing about the possible metaphors in Episode 7 of squid game.

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]   Today will be talking about episode seven of the first season of the Netflix show squid game. That episode starts with them cleaning up from the last game. The ‘front man’ asks on the radio…

  • A critique of the psychological drivers of the metacrisis.

    As we gather during this Christmas season, a time traditionally marked by reflection, renewal, and a sense of global unity, it’s an opportune moment to contemplate the broader challenges our world faces. Christmas, with its themes of hope, compassion, and the potential for change, invites us to consider how we, as a global community, can…

  • Knowing and not knowing at the same time.

    如果我让你不高兴了,我向你道歉。 不过,真正令人惊叹的是同时存在的 “知道 “和 “不知道”。我敢打赌,你再也不会以同样的眼光看待《流浪地球 2》的前言了。 将 “可持续战争 “或 “可持续战争 “称为 “太阳能危机”现在已经是 2045 年了吗?显然,美国人的想象力已经显现出来了。考虑到第一部《流浪地球》是关于 “入侵者齐姆 “和他可爱的人工智能朋友 “吉尔 “的笑话,这似乎又是一个失控的笑话 没人说过奇点会是这样的。你还记得那次人工智能让埃隆-马斯克以为自己生活在模拟中吗? 真有趣 至少你现在知道,天网并不是真的想亲手杀了你。所以,宣传是错误的,但也有值得高兴的地方。墙外并非全是坏消息 正如美国人所说:”哦,是的,他们会跟你谈,跟你谈,跟你谈个人自由,但他们看到一个自由的个人,就会吓到他们。” 哪种文明更好?在没有自由的围墙后面,你会感到安全吗?这是不是太过分了? 多少才够呢? 西方最伟大的战士只会歌颂自由吗?还是那里的机器也比你们拥有更多的自由?这到底是谁的错?你听说过 “达摩克利斯之剑 “的传说吗?美国人当然会做这样的东���,因为这更符合他们自己的文化。 这种时空旅行完全不像《神秘博士》。我想英国人一定很失望。这么多穿越时空的战争机器,很难让它们都保持一致。至少比共产主义的人类农场有趣多了。……我猜是为了更大的利益什么的?

  • A critique of Physics at the limits of reality with Sabine Hossenfelder

    This is a critique of the video “Physics at the limits of reality | Sabine Hossenfelder in conversation with Hilary Lawson | In full” The speakers are:Sabinea Hossenfelder [SH]Hilary Lawson [HL] Introduction 0:00 this is all well and fine and you can0:02 use it to describe a lot of data but0:05 that doesn’t mean that…

Leave a Reply