The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Top 13 criticisms of Consuela (Consuela)
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
| ferengi | 10/21/26 |
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
| Fracture in the Maidenhead | 10/21/26 |
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
| Fracture in the Maidenhead | 10/21/26 |
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
| censorship | 10/21/26 |
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
| Fracture in the Maidenhead | 10/21/26 |
| Consuela | 10/21/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:23 PM Author: Consuela 1. AI dependence / AI-sounding prose — the writing is allegedly over-polished, formulaic, or cognitively outsourced. 2. Weak inferential bridges — large metaphysical conclusions are said to outrun the evidence and intermediate steps. 3. Unfalsifiability / tautology — the framework allegedly accommodates any outcome and explains too little distinctively. 4. Conflation of different oppositions — psychological, semantic, political, and ontological contradictions are treated as structurally equivalent without adequate demonstration. 5. Excessive complexity and poor legibility — the system is hard to follow; critics say “you don’t understand it” can become a shield against criticism. 6. Overblown, repetitive, self-dramatizing style — the prose allegedly gives too many claims the same existential weight. 7. Political and historical credibility problems — specific claims about central banking, elites, sources, and historical figures are alleged to be inaccurate, poorly sourced, or misleading; the prediction record is also challenged. 8. Insufficient grounding in Jungian scholarship — critics may see the psychological/metaphysical treatment as under-engaged with specialist literature. 9. Anonymity and authorial credibility — anonymity may make the work harder for some readers to assess or trust. 10. Psychological self-justification — the framework is alleged to rationalize despair, isolation, or resignation; its personal function is taken as evidence against it. 11. Defensiveness / Galileo-gambit pattern — some replies are said to dismiss criticism as misunderstanding rather than identify precisely what the critic got wrong. 12. Personal insult: “low IQ” — an ad hominem, not a substantive critique. 13. Blog-switch motive — the claim that I moved because my influence was declining; I say this is factually false.
I will address these in a future post after further contemplation on them, although this is clearly an uncomfortable topic that i don't really want to turn to (but it is important regardless), but first I will be reading richard noll's "aryan jung" and Sonu Shamdasani's response "cult fictions", *in part* because the tension between mystic and crank mirrors the tension i experience with certain posters on this forum, although the parallels are not exact, of course, and i do not mean to create inflation by comparing myself to jung's situation |
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:28 PM Author: ferengi best thing you can do to address #11 is just ignore 11, 12, and 13 because those are way too in-the-weeds defensive. i mean, writing about it is already that. but especially those last three. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200173) |
 |
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:28 PM Author: Consuela thankl, we'll see what unfolds, i don't go in with a set agenda, except on the top layer axiomatic belief which is fixed. the writing output often surprises me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200175) |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:32 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Layers of irony in #12 being labeled as "ad hominem, not a substantive critique." This list was pulled from that AI thread and the reason IQ came up with you called HATP low IQ first and he shot back with a "No U!", and it that same thread you whine about people not engaging sunstantively. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200188) |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:33 PM Author: Consuela i'll address it anyway, i don't think i'm super iq, i'm probably about 130 iq. i scored 99 on the military entrance exam out of 99, could have done military intel, and did fine on sat and lsat. but i've been obsessively trying to solve for a very intense psychological issue and i don't think iq is super relevant to it (mig and the penis are both book "smarter" than me, i am okay with that)
i do think you are book smart, and i do think HAtp is dumb |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:38 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) You missed the point completely.
But LOL @ 130 IQ. Apparently you took the LSAT which is far better correlated to IQ especially at the right tail yet choose to use the military entrance exam? Which not just state your LSAT? |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:40 PM Author: Consuela i understand, your point was hypocrisy - "you call HAtp low IQ but then accuse him of ad hominem" - but i don't really care about hypocrisy because i see it all nested under totality. my LSAT score was around 170 (old scale, pre-inflation) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200224) |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:41 PM Author: censorship gunnerrattt broke ur fucking brain holy shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200228) |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:42 PM Author: Consuela :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200230) |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:44 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I'd like to stop sexualizing him but he keeps making threads.
Consuela, people are tired of this and are starting to feel bad for you. Why not chill out of a bit instead of stoking the embers that were about to burn out? |
|
Date: October 21st, 2026 2:47 PM Author: Consuela i'm drunk and want attention, i guess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5914375&forum_id=2#50200250) |