Why I will never reply on X?

For a long time I tried to reply to people on X. I believed discussion might clarify ideas. I believed arguments might help people rethink their assumptions. Eventually I realized that this expectation was unrealistic. Replying on X consumes time and energy while producing almost no intellectual value. For that reason I decided that I will simply stop replying there.

The old joke about IQ dynamics

For years I joked about something I called the “IQ dynamic.” Of course it was never meant as a scientific claim. No one can measure someone’s IQ from a short conversation. Still, when you communicate with different groups of people, you often notice striking differences in how they think.

Some discussions resemble conversations with what one might jokingly call the “IQ 80 group.” Others feel closer to the “IQ 100 group,” where people can follow simple arguments but rarely go deeper. Then there are conversations with people who might correspond to an “IQ 120 group,” where reasoning becomes more structured and evidence begins to matter. Finally, there are rare interactions resembling the “IQ 140 group,” where nuance, abstraction, and intellectual curiosity become visible very quickly.

Again, this is not science. It is simply a way to describe the very different levels of reasoning people bring into conversations.

The strange experience on X

When I began interacting on X, I expected to encounter the full range of these groups. Instead, I repeatedly had the impression that I was communicating almost exclusively with what felt like the “IQ 80 group.”

Of course that statement is rhetorical. Yet the pattern feels difficult to ignore.

Very few replies contain well-thought opinions. Arguments are rarely structured. Nuance almost never appears. Instead, discussions jump immediately into emotional reactions.

No critical thinking

The absence of critical thinking becomes visible very quickly. Many users do not examine arguments. They do not test claims against evidence. They rarely notice contradictions.

Instead, discussions move from one assertion to another without any attempt to analyze the underlying logic. Complexity disappears. Everything becomes reduced to simple slogans.

Cognitive biases everywhere

At the same time, almost every cognitive bias seems to appear repeatedly.

Confirmation bias dominates. People accept only the information that supports their existing beliefs. Tribal thinking shapes nearly every reaction. In-group loyalty and out-group hostility replace careful reasoning. Emotional reactions often substitute for analysis.

Instead of examining evidence, many users simply defend their ideological tribe.

Logical fallacies everywhere

Logical fallacies appear just as frequently.

Straw man arguments distort opposing views. False dilemmas reduce complex problems to two simplistic choices. Hasty generalizations appear constantly. Circular reasoning often replaces actual argument.

The problem is not that people occasionally make such mistakes. Everyone does. The problem is that many discussions on X seem to consist almost entirely of these errors.

Radicalism without knowledge

Weak reasoning might still allow for productive conversation if people remained open to learning. Unfortunately, the opposite pattern often appears.

Many users combine poor reasoning with extreme certainty. Disagreement quickly becomes aggression. Instead of engaging arguments, people swear, insult, and threaten.

I have personally been sworn at and threatened simply for expressing disagreement.

In such an environment, discussion stops being intellectual exchange and becomes emotional confrontation.

Users are often not well-read

Another striking pattern is how rarely serious reading appears behind many opinions.

People repeat slogans. They repeat ideological talking points. However, they rarely show familiarity with serious literature in economics, philosophy, history, or political theory.

Opinions appear disconnected from any deeper framework of knowledge.

Communication becomes pointless

Under these conditions, replying becomes extremely time-consuming and largely pointless.

A thoughtful reply requires time to construct. One must explain concepts, provide examples, and build a coherent argument. Yet the response often ignores everything that was written and returns immediately to slogans.

Serious discussion cannot survive under those conditions.

The truck driver conversation

One conversation illustrates the problem very clearly.

I once discussed economic questions with a truck driver who strongly believed that health care should be paid fully in cash. He insisted that everyone should simply pay their own medical costs directly.

The irony was obvious. As a truck driver he already pays for health care in cash through his work and taxes, just like everyone else in a modern economy. The payment simply appears indirectly through wages, insurance contributions, and taxation rather than through a hospital cashier.

However, the deeper issue was not only the misunderstanding of how health care financing works.

I tried to introduce a broader economic perspective; I explained that economic systems contain structures such as surplus value. I attempted to show that the super-rich are not simply rich individuals with larger houses or nicer cars. They represent a structurally different level of economic power that influences entire markets and political systems.

I even suggested reading more broadly. Read right-wing economists. Read left-wing literature. Compare perspectives. Try to understand the system from different angles.

Nothing changed. The discussion remained trapped at the same simplistic level.

The deeper frustration

This conversation reflects a broader pattern I repeatedly encounter on X.

Many discussions never move beyond the level of slogans. Attempts to introduce economic theory, structural analysis, or historical context simply fail. The conceptual tools needed to understand such arguments are missing.

Instead of reflection, the conversation returns immediately to the same simplistic assumptions.

The platform rewards the worst communication

The structure of X makes the problem even worse.

Short messages encourage simplification. Speed replaces reflection. Emotional reactions spread faster than careful arguments.

Users who react quickly and aggressively gain visibility. Users who attempt serious analysis disappear in the noise.

The platform therefore amplifies the very forms of communication that destroy meaningful discussion.