Online Debates Bore Me
A look inside a high-bandwidth Maverick mind: when you can already see the next five moves of a conversation, most online debates stop feeling like debates at all.
Throughout this piece, I use the term “high-bandwidth mavericks.” If you’re more familiar with the language of giftedness or gifted individuals, you can mentally substitute that framing here. I don’t find the label myself accurate, but the underlying experience overlaps more than the terminology suggests.
Most online debates don’t frustrate me anymore. Now, they straight up bore me. And this is not because people disagree with me (although that definitely happens too), and also not because the topics are necessarily unimportant. Disagreement can actually be very interesting when it reveals something new or pushes a thought further than where it was before. What drains all the life out of it is how quickly the shape of the conversation becomes predictable. After just a few comments you can quite literally feel the safety rails locking into place, and from that moment on the discussion stops unfolding and starts repeating itself endlessly.
It usually begins with someone posting a confident statement (even with data and all) about a complicated topic. Someone else jumps in to challenge it (I admit that this is usually me), which is perfectly normal. Then the conversation slowly drifts away from the original idea and into the familiar set of rituals that plague online debate. People start interpreting each other’s words through their own assumptions without asking whether they understand correctly, bending the meaning and context in the process. Before long, everyone is arguing with versions of the argument that only exist in their own heads.
Then the authority phase arrives. Someone introduces a study, a dataset, a report, or a respected institution that supposedly settles the issue. Another person counters with a different source or questions the interpretation of the first one. What looked like a discussion about an idea quietly transforms into a negotiation about who is allowed to claim credibility (educated people, not all, tend to do this most often). The debate becomes less about understanding something and more about establishing which framework gets to define reality for everyone.
At that point the conversation tends to harden around that framework. People start defending the structure of the debate itself instead of examining the idea that started it. New participants arrive and attempt to summarize the disagreement, usually by smoothing it into something manageable and symmetrical. Someone will inevitably suggest that both sides are correct in different ways. That flattens the discussion into “it doesn’t matter,” indirectly saying that both sides are unjustified of having the debate to begin with (even if this is not the intention, just saying). The tone becomes overly polite and analytical, but also strangely mechanical.
For me, the boredom really starts to settle in right around there. Not because the people involved are unintelligent or acting in bad faith, quite the opposite, the pattern has become so damn recognizable. You start seeing the next few moves before they happen. A comment that tries to clarify intent, another one that aims to reframe the argument, a third that appeals to authority again, and so forth. The details change ever so slightly, but the structure stays almost identical every single time.
What makes it strange, even ironic, is that everyone else often feels like the discussion is only just getting interesting. The thread grows longer, the algorithmic engagement increases, and from the outside it looks like a lively exchange of ideas. But to the high-bandwidth Maverick mind, the shape of the conversation has already long finished. It’s like watching a movie that you’ve seen already for one hundred plus times...
Once you start noticing that particular structure, it becomes very hard to unsee it. Conversations stop feeling like open exploration and start feeling like performances inside a set of invisible rules, inside of a “social” media platform with visible rules. People follow those sets of rules without realizing it, because they’re the rules all of our current public discourse is built upon. The intention is usually good. Everyone believes they are participating in a meaningful exchange.
So when I step away from these debates, it’s rarely because I’m offended or angry. To the contrary, most of the time it’s simply because the outcome is already visible to me. The same conversational loops begin turning, the same rhetorical moves appear, and the discussion quietly settles back into the pattern it started with. And once you can see that pattern clearly, staying in the conversation starts to feel less like thinking and more like watching the same episode again. Fun at the start, boring at the end.
For more information on NEXUS, our 1:1 sessions, transmissions, books and other items, please visit our website: TheNexusFormula.com