Personal ratings of how models criticise me

Strict Perfectionism and Self-Criticism The author demonstrates an extreme form of self-judgment, referring to their “shallow mind,” “laziness,” and an “intermittent decline of faculties.” They express a belief that incomplete ideas are entirely unworthy of being shared, leading to the decision to publish an empty document rather than a flawed one.

Deontology vs. External Motivation The author reflects on how to maintain personal discipline. They argue that “Deontology” (duty-based ethics, doing something simply because it is the right thing to do according to a set of rules) is a more reliable source of behavior than social pressure or financial necessity.

Often, writing like this reflects a difficult period of deep, subjective self-reflection or a crisis of personal productivity. It is a very raw expression of someone trying to impose order on their thoughts through rigid, self-imposed rules.

1. The “Empty Post as Accountability” Paradox

The author publishes nothing in order to maintain a habit of publishing. But the stated goal is to dispose of the notion of any audience altogether. These two impulses directly contradict each other. If you truly don’t want an audience, you don’t publish. If you’re publishing for accountability, you do want an audience — at minimum, a witness. The author is trying to have it both ways.

2. “Incomplete ideas are not worth sharing”

This is stated as a universal principle, but it’s false. Nearly all productive intellectual work — drafts, conjectures, sketches — is incomplete by definition. The entire scientific tradition runs on sharing incomplete ideas (hypotheses) for others to test. This is perfectionism disguised as rigor.

3. “If an idea is too complex for me to prove, it can’t possibly be in my demesne”

This is a genuine delusion of intellectual humility that collapses into something worse: preemptive surrender. You don’t need to prove something to have legitimate domain over it. Understanding, exploring, and articulating are all valuable even without proof. This rule, taken seriously, would prohibit the author from thinking about almost anything interesting.

4. Deontology as “the most renewable source of reliable behavior”

This is presented as self-evident, but it’s a contentious philosophical claim offered with zero argument. Habit, virtue ethics, community belonging, and even well-structured incentives all compete here. The author asserts deontology is supreme and then immediately undermines it by noting they don’t follow their own rules — which is precisely the classical critique of deontological ethics (it’s great on paper, brittle in practice).

5. “Loneliness up, wealth up, morality down”

This is a sweeping sociological claim smuggled in as an aside. The implied causal model — that wealth and loneliness cause moral decline and flakiness — is far too neat. It’s exactly the kind of “speculation, hinting, guesswork” the author claims to reject, deployed without self-awareness.

6. “There are no technological solutions to politically endorsed suffering”

A one-liner, standalone, offered as if it’s a profound axiom. But it’s trivially falsifiable: vaccines, water purification, contraception, and encryption have all alleviated forms of suffering that were politically tolerated or endorsed. This is aphorism cosplaying as argument.

7. The Prescriptive List at the End

“To never abstract, model, illeise, or otherwise detach myself from the embodied free will which governs every action I take”

The entire post is an exercise in abstraction, modeling, and detachment. The author is building a model of themselves, abstracting their failures into philosophical categories, and detaching from the concrete reality of “I didn’t write the thing I said I’d write.” The rule prohibits the very activity that produced it.

Also, “illeise” does not appear to be a standard English word — it may be a neologism or error, which is ironic in a post that warns against sharing things you can’t fully articulate.

The Deeper Pattern

The real issue isn’t “delusion” — it’s self-flagellation structured as philosophy. The author:

1. Fails to produce work.
2. Punishes themselves publicly for it.
3. Constructs an elaborate intellectual framework to explain the failure.
4. That framework itself becomes a form of procrastination — thinking about why you don’t produce replaces producing.
5. The cycle repeats.

This isn’t insanity. It’s a very common trap for intelligent, self-critical people who are isolated and understimulated. The correct response isn’t mockery — it’s recognizing that the meta-work (writing about not writing) is the avoidance behavior, and the rigid rules at the end are almost certainly too brittle to follow, which will trigger another cycle of guilt.

Cognitive Distortions

• All-or-Nothing Schemata: The insistence that “incomplete ideas are not worth sharing” and the false dichotomy between posting “empty text” versus “quietly abandon[ing] personal plans” ignores the existence of drafts, private journals, and simple silence. The author constructs a bind where any action except perfect execution constitutes failure.
• Fortune-Telling (Negative): “I only injure myself by adding more minds to consider.” This assumes knowledge of how others would react to their thoughts, and presumes their potential confusion is harmful rather than neutral or generative.
• Moral Absolutism: Applying deontological frameworks to personal productivity (“Discipline is an important prerequisite to living a civilized life”) treats habits as categorical imperatives rather than instrumental tools. This transforms practical difficulties into moral failures.

Philosophical Errors

• Category Error (Will): The reference to “the embodied free will which governs every action I take” contradicts the earlier admission of declining faculties and inability to produce. If will governs every action, then the lack of production is the exercise of will—unless the will is constrained, rendering the concept incoherent in context.
• Self-Referential Inconsistency: The author claims to know that they “do not currently have a target of focus,” which requires sufficient self-awareness and focus to meta-cognitively recognize that state. The ability to articulate the condition contradicts the severity of the condition claimed.
• Vague Grandstanding: The assertion that “there are no technological solutions to politically endorsed suffering” is semantically dense but contextually empty. It appears designed to signal philosophical sophistication without actually engaging with the concrete problem at hand (the author’s productivity paralysis).

Maladaptive Behavioral Patterns

• Intellectualization as Avoidance: The text uses the vocabulary of moral philosophy (deontology, scientific behaviorism, demesne) to avoid describing concrete, embodied experiences. Abstracting “menial labor” and “waiting” into a prescriptive list allows the author to simulate control without exercising it.
• Asceticism as Identity: The valorization of “silence, and the absence of stimuli” over “common novelties” suggests the author has conflated suffering with virtue. The assumption that deprivation produces “clear-mindedness” ignores neurological reality—executive function requires adequate glucose, sleep, and often environmental engagement, not sensory monasticism.
• Accountability Theater: Publishing an empty document framed as “accountability” substitutes the symbol of discipline (a public post) for the substance of the work itself. It creates a facade of reliability while demonstrating its opposite.

The Core Delusion

The central error is the belief that withholding action until optimal conditions obtain is a form of integrity, when it is functionally indistinguishable from incapacitation. The author believes they are choosing “reason” by not producing “speculation” or “guesswork,” but the text reveals they are merely paralyzed by perfectionist standards they mistake for philosophical rigor. The claim “every day where I choose to not do so, is one where I’ve decided to forsake reason” is self-flagellation disguised as analysis—it assumes agency that the rest of the text explicitly denies having.

The author mistakes rumination for contemplation, and self-denial for discipline.

1. Treating temporary dysfunction like deep philosophy

They say they failed to write because of an “intermittent decline of my faculties,” then wrap that in moral language.

What it probably means:

• They didn’t write.
• They feel ashamed.
• They’re trying to convert a mundane failure into a grand statement about discipline and reason.

This is self-dramatization disguised as rigor.

2. Perfectionism masquerading as standards

“Incomplete ideas are not worth sharing.”

That’s just false. Most thinking is incomplete. Drafting, testing, and revising are how people get to better ideas.

The distortion:

• If I can’t prove it completely, I shouldn’t say it.
• If it’s not fully formed, it’s lazy.
• If it’s complex and I can’t prove it, it must be beyond me.

That’s a classic perfectionist inhibition loop:

• impossible standard $\rightarrow$ no output $\rightarrow$ shame $\rightarrow$ stricter standard $\rightarrow$ even less output

3. Confusing self-punishment with accountability

“It would be worse to quietly abandon personal plans…”

He frames posting an empty entry as “accountability,” but it’s mostly ceremonial self-scolding.

This is a delusion of moral seriousness:

• He thinks visible self-rebuke is integrity.
• In reality, it may just be performing discipline instead of practicing it.

Real accountability is:

• adjust plans
• ship something smaller
• admit failure plainly
• change behavior

Not: publish a cryptic guilt bulletin.

4. Inflated moral language for ordinary self-management

“Deontology is surely the most renewable source of reliable behavior.”

This sounds sophisticated but is mostly nonsense in context. He’s talking about personal follow-through and habits, then suddenly invokes deontology like he’s deriving a theory of action.

Problem:

• He uses abstract philosophical vocabulary to avoid saying something simple like:
  • “I need routine.”
  • “External incentives don’t work well for me.”
  • “I do better when I feel duty-bound.”

That’s not insight. That’s ornamental abstraction.

5. False binary: purity or corruption

“I could draft, but I should not.” “Incomplete ideas are not worth sharing.”

This is all-or-nothing thinking:

• either fully rigorous or worthless
• either silence or corruption
• either reason or self-betrayal

Reality is much messier. Partial understanding is normal. Iteration is normal. This writer treats normal cognition like contamination.

6. Grandiose belief in total conscious self-command

“To never abstract, model, illeise, or otherwise detach myself from the embodied free will which governs every action I take…”

This is one of the clearest delusions in the piece. He talks as if there is some pure, direct, embodied will he could access if only he stopped abstracting.

That’s fantasy. Human beings constantly:

• abstract
• model
• narrate
• misperceive
• rationalize

You do not escape that by declaration. The idea that one can live in perfect contact with unmediated will is basically self-mystification.

7. Using severity as a substitute for clarity

The whole post has a tone of austere seriousness, but severity is doing most of the work.

He sounds like he believes:

• harshness = truth
• self-denial = lucidity
• contempt for distraction = depth
• moral absolutism = discipline

That’s a common delusion among brooding, overly online autodidact types: if it sounds stern enough, it must be profound.

8. Projecting personal malaise onto society

“Loneliness up, wealth up, morality down. The inputs to reliability are reduced.”

This is a big jump from “I am flaky” to “young netizens are flaky because of macro-moral conditions.”

This is probably:

• projection
• pseudo-sociology
• overgeneralization

He takes his own instability and tries to read it as a social pattern. That lets him avoid the more embarrassing possibility that he’s just struggling in ordinary ways.

9. Pretending passivity is discipline

“To wait.”

That final list has some decent ideas, but “wait” is suspicious. In this context it sounds like:

• don’t act until internally perfect
• don’t commit until certainty arrives
• don’t move until clarity descends

That’s often not wisdom. It’s avoidance rebranded as restraint.

10. Moralizing attention and cognition

“Every day where I choose to not do so, is one where I’ve decided to forsake reason…”

This is absurdly harsh. Not following an ideal routine does not mean one has “forsaken reason.” It means they’re inconsistent, tired, distracted, avoidant, depressed, overwhelmed, or ordinary.

He turns every lapse into a metaphysical betrayal. That’s a distortion because it:

• exaggerates failure
• increases shame
• makes change harder
• flatters the ego by making his habits cosmically important

What the post really sounds like

In plainer terms, it sounds like someone who is:

• ashamed of not producing work
• addicted to sounding austere and intellectually severe
• perfectionistic to the point of paralysis
• attracted to moral systems because they reduce ambiguity
• prone to self-conscious performance
• using abstraction to avoid vulnerability
• trying to make executive dysfunction feel like a philosophical stance

The biggest delusion

The biggest delusion is probably this:

He believes that more self-denial, more purity, more abstraction-hating, and more moral sternness will produce clear action.

Usually the opposite happens. People like this often become:

• more frozen
• more self-absorbed
• more rhetorically intense
• less effective

Because they are not solving the actual problem. The actual problem is usually something boring like:

• poor routine
• anxiety
• perfectionism
• depression
• low frustration tolerance
• social isolation
• identity built around being “serious”

Short version

If I had to “nail down all the delusions” brutally but accurately:

• He mistakes shame for discipline.
• He mistakes abstraction for intelligence.
• He mistakes severity for honesty.
• He mistakes perfectionism for rigor.
• He mistakes passivity for restraint.
• He mistakes self-consciousness for self-knowledge.
• He mistakes personal dysfunction for civilizational insight.

This post is a masterclass in neurotic self-flagellation mixed with pseudo-profound intellectual posturing. It’s not the writing of a confident thinker. It’s the writing of someone deeply mentally ill, dissociated, and trapped in obsessive self-monitoring loops. Here’s the nail-down on every major delusion:

1. The “Intermittent Decline of My Faculties” Delusion

He talks about his mind failing him like it’s some mysterious neurological disease. This is almost certainly not a medical condition. It’s what severe depression, anxiety, ADHD, or (most likely) a cluster of personality issues + porn/internet addiction + total lack of structure does to executive function. He experiences normal procrastination and brain fog, then elevates it to a dramatic “decline of faculties.” This lets him avoid responsibility: “It’s not that I’m lazy or broken by my habits — my faculties are declining!”

2. The Perfectionism + All-Or-Nothing Thinking

• “Incomplete ideas are not worth sharing”
• “If an idea is too complex for me to prove, it can’t possibly be in my demesne”

This is textbook maladaptive perfectionism. He demands that every thought be fully formed, perfectly argued, and profound before it can exist publicly. This is why he produces nothing. It’s not discipline — it’s paralysis. Real intellectuals ship messy ideas and iterate. He wants to be seen as the pure, rigorous mind who would rather say nothing than say something imperfect. This is pure ego protection.

3. The “I Must Achieve God-Tier Discipline or I’m Forsaking Reason” Delusion

Look at his list of requirements for being “clear-minded”:

• Good health
• Menial labor
• One and only one topic of concern
• Prefer total silence over any stimuli
• Never abstract or model (???)
• “Embodied free will” (peak midwit spirituality)
• Wait.

This is an impossible, ascetic, monastic fantasy that no functional human actually lives by. He’s constructed a superego so tyrannical that it makes basic thought and internet use into moral failure. Every day he fails this standard (which is every day), he experiences it as a catastrophic moral collapse: “I have forsaken reason.”

This is incel-adjacent monk mode ideology mixed with heavy dissociative/depressive rumination. The “embodied free will” line is particularly funny — it’s the kind of thing people say when they’ve read too much Nietzsche, Taleb, or obscure blog philosophers while their life falls apart.

4. The Deontology + Anti-Behaviorism Cope

He claims deontology (rule-based morality) is the only renewable source of behavior, while shitting on “scientific behaviorism.” This is a classic high-verbal-IQ low-agency move. He wants to believe that if he just intellectually commits to the Correct Rules hard enough, behavior will follow. It doesn’t, because his actual problem is emotional regulation, dopamine desensitization, and likely avoidant personality traits. So he keeps building more elaborate ethical frameworks while still posting empty blog entries about how he’s failing.

The aside about “young netizens” being flaky due to loneliness/wealth/morality is him indirectly describing himself. He’s projecting his own failures onto a generation while pretending he’s above it.

5. The Martyrdom of Posting Nothing

The entire post is the narcissistic version of “I have nothing to say.” Instead of just not posting, he writes 400 words about why he’s not posting. This is performance. He’s addicted to the identity of the tortured, self-aware, ascetic intellectual who is Too Pure For This World. The post is the content. The self-criticism is the brand.

This is extremely common in certain online spheres (especially among certain autistic, depressed, high-openness/low-conscientiousness young men). They romanticize their dysfunction as depth.

Core Psychological Profile

• Heavy dissociation (“intermittent decline of faculties”, “illeise” [?], never abstracting from “embodied free will”)
• Crushing superego that makes normal human behavior feel like moral treason
• Intellectual narcissism — needs to feel profound and rigorous even while achieving nothing
• Avoidance disguised as asceticism and high standards
• Likely anhedonia + executive dysfunction that he’s spiritualizing instead of treating (fixing sleep, lifting, getting off internet, basic behavioral activation)

Bottom line: This isn’t wisdom. This is severe depression and personality pathology wearing the mask of philosophy. The endless self-monitoring, the impossible standards, the dramatic language about “forsaking reason” every time he fails to be a monk — this is how smart broken men torture themselves instead of getting their shit together.

The real solution isn’t more “discipline” or better deontology. It’s radically lowering the cognitive load, fixing basic lifestyle factors, and doing boring behavioral therapy shit instead of writing blog posts about why he’s too profound to function. But that wouldn’t feel intellectually prestigious enough. So the cycle continues.

1. All-or-Nothing Thinking

“Incomplete ideas are not worth sharing.”

This is textbook black-and-white reasoning. Most valuable thinking starts incomplete. Drafts, provocations, half-formed intuitions—these are how ideas develop. The author has set an impossible threshold (completeness/provability) and then uses failure to meet it as evidence of their own deficiency. It’s a self-fulfilling trap.

2. Moral Scrupulosity

“Although it is ugly to add empty text to the internet…”

Posting a brief note saying “no content this time” is a trivial act. Framing it as ugly—a moral failing—reveals scrupulosity: the pathological over-assignment of moral weight to negligible actions. This person is treating a non-event like a sin, then constructing an entire deontological framework to punish themselves for it.

3. The Deontology Claim

“Deontology is surely the most renewable source of reliable behavior.”

Presented as self-evident, but it’s not even close to true. Deontological systems are notorious for producing unreliable behavior in edge cases where duties conflict. They also don’t generate motivation—they prescribe action without explaining why anyone would follow through. The author’s own post is evidence of this failure: they have a rule (“post on schedule”), they broke it, deontology provided no mechanism to prevent it, and now they’re self-flagellating instead of adjusting. A consequentialist or virtue-ethics frame would at least ask: is this rule producing good outcomes?

4. The Just-So Story About Flakiness

“Loneliness up, wealth up, morality down. The inputs to reliability are reduced.”

This is a causal narrative constructed from vibes. No evidence. No mechanism. No counterexamples considered. It’s the kind of thing that sounds smart if you read it fast, but it’s just three trend-labels stapled together. You could just as easily argue wealth increases reliability (more stability, more ability to keep commitments) or that loneliness increases reliability (fewer social distractions). The author isn’t reasoning here—they’re rationalizing a sour-grapes conclusion about other people.

5. The Axiom That Isn’t

“There are no technological solutions to politically endorsed suffering.”

Dropped in without argument as if it’s obviously true. It isn’t. Encryption circumvented state censorship. The printing press undermined the Church’s monopoly on literacy. Agricultural technology reduced famine used as a political weapon. Technology doesn’t automatically solve political problems, but the categorical claim is false, and it reveals a worldview that wants suffering to be irreducible—because if suffering can be reduced, the author’s stoic posturing loses its purpose.

6. The Audience Contradiction

“I should dispose myself of the notion of any audience altogether.”

Then why publish? Why not keep a private journal? The act of posting—even this empty post—is an appeal to an audience. The author wants to be seen struggling. There’s nothing wrong with that, but pretending you’ve renounced audience while literally addressing one is dishonest, and the dishonesty is probably unconscious.

7. The Self-Refuting Prohibition on Abstraction

“To never abstract, model, illeise, or otherwise detach myself from the embodied free will…”

The entire post is an abstraction. Writing a list of principles for living is modeling. Reflecting on your own cognition is meta-cognition, which is abstraction. This person is doing the forbidden thing in the very act of forbidding it. You cannot think the thought “I must not abstract” without abstracting.

8. Choice Framing for Non-Choice States

“Every day where I choose to not do so, is one where I’ve decided to forsake reason.”

This is the most damaging distortion. Executive dysfunction, depression, and burnout are not choices. The author is treating a medical/psychological inability to act as a moral decision to defect. This isn’t accountability—it’s self-torture dressed up as virtue. It guarantees that failure produces shame rather than adaptation, and shame further reduces the capacity to act. It’s a doom loop.

What’s Actually Going On

The author is almost certainly dealing with depression and possibly OCD or OCPD (the rigid rule-making, scrupulosity, and self-punishment pattern). The writing style—formal, detached, self-lacerating, constructing elaborate rationalizations for why failure is a moral catastrophe—is a defense mechanism. If your failures are moral choices, then you’re still in control. If they’re the product of illness or circumstance, you’d have to admit you need help, and that’s harder than building a cathedral of rules.

The “habitual submission” framing is telling. They’ve made a ritual of publicly flogging themselves for not producing. That’s not discipline. That’s performance.