A quick tell for someone who is an "ideological coomer" is that they prefer smart-looking ideas that are utopian and very palatable. There is no acquired taste, and is more likely than not mass-manufactured through main stream media. The people speaking are either celebrity experts, or blind iconoclastic entertainers. Good ideas should not just burn your nose before it burns your mouth (like genuine wasabi). https://www.samstack.io/p/beware-interesting-ideashttps://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/if-a-thinker-appeals-to-a-broad-audience
Example through Andrew Tate: just because he makes money, he won't expose his formula, only the mental image of the formula through generic self-help advice. Constantly insist on being "the Top G" and flexing pseudo-assets like cars as signs of wealth. Thinks he is Morpheus (the chill wise teacher) but literally looks like Cypher (the bald-n-mustached hedonic back-stabber).
Quick tell wise, claims that there is a way to "scaping the matrix" through a paid service of explaining sales techniques (freedom of money is not freedom from money), and reinforces through posturing and confidence. Slower observation wise, he cannot articulate perspectives of the ones that are opposed to him, and give them blanket labels of promiscuous feminists and weak men instead. Paradoxically men that are disenfranchised are more likely to be in support of his antics unironically and naively.
The direct counter-example of this is the right-wing Curtis Yarvin against Effective Altruism (the collective) and the "rationalism" movement, and left-wing Slavoj Zizek again Jordan Peterson's IDW bandwagon. In both cases the premise revolves around "I understand your intention, but my idea/plan is better than yours" win-win situation, rather than playing "I am right, you are wrong" zero-sum games.
> "Sex sells, knowledge sells better"
Cus porn is easy and bed skills are hard. Same goes for "insight porn" vs reflective functional coaching.
"Luxury ideas" are seen as a kind of virtue signal. The desire to look good is an important element, but pure aestheticism is hollow marketing/kayfabe. "call for action" and "demands for respect/prestige" are often core themes, and with them an absence of planning and execution. McCloud's dissection of comical filler can be transposed to junk media as well as the absence of thought structure and clear terminology. https://aniv.substack.com/p/stop-reading-to-virtue-signal https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-clear-pill-part-2-of-5-a-theory-of-pervasive-error/ https://understandingcomicsuwmadison.wordpress.com/about/what-is-art/
A quick tell for someone who is an "ideological coomer" is that they prefer smart-looking ideas that are utopian and very palatable. There is no acquired taste, and is more likely than not mass-manufactured through main stream media. The people speaking are either celebrity experts, or blind iconoclastic entertainers. Good ideas should not just burn your nose before it burns your mouth (like genuine wasabi). https://www.samstack.io/p/beware-interesting-ideas https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/if-a-thinker-appeals-to-a-broad-audience
A slower but clear sign of the same ill is the inability to write, articulate, and synthesize new things. A classical fast-track of testing this is through the Ideological Turing Test and Chesterton's Fence. More simply, the ability to declare "erroneous demand of X is often caused by unknown or anticipated desire Y", to know how the other person thinks. https://aniv.substack.com/p/how-does-one-consume-content-effectively https://archive.ph/2pd5u https://tammylenski.com/ideological-turing-test-for-conflict/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
Example through Andrew Tate: just because he makes money, he won't expose his formula, only the mental image of the formula through generic self-help advice. Constantly insist on being "the Top G" and flexing pseudo-assets like cars as signs of wealth. Thinks he is Morpheus (the chill wise teacher) but literally looks like Cypher (the bald-n-mustached hedonic back-stabber).
Quick tell wise, claims that there is a way to "scaping the matrix" through a paid service of explaining sales techniques (freedom of money is not freedom from money), and reinforces through posturing and confidence. Slower observation wise, he cannot articulate perspectives of the ones that are opposed to him, and give them blanket labels of promiscuous feminists and weak men instead. Paradoxically men that are disenfranchised are more likely to be in support of his antics unironically and naively.
The direct counter-example of this is the right-wing Curtis Yarvin against Effective Altruism (the collective) and the "rationalism" movement, and left-wing Slavoj Zizek again Jordan Peterson's IDW bandwagon. In both cases the premise revolves around "I understand your intention, but my idea/plan is better than yours" win-win situation, rather than playing "I am right, you are wrong" zero-sum games.