I find essays written in this style to be overwrought in a way that makes them impossible to challenge (setting aside AI summarization). Is this not, in and of

I find essays written in this style to be overwrought in a way that makes them impossible to challenge (setting aside AI summarization). Is this not, in and of itself, a form of fake thinking? For example, some section of this essay introduces the following: > Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated. It later begins to conclude with: > But regardless of the actual evolutionary and psychological story, here, I think my point about the abstract form of a truth engine still stands. Why bother introducing the evopsych hypothesis if we're not actually going to stand behind it or use it in a meaningful way? I don't even mean this particularly as a takedown, the dimensions listed are kind of interesting at least. But I find a particular sort of irony in having written so many words and having engaged in so much thought just to return to not thinking about something at all.