Sign into an existing account

I also see it with people in the 110-120 IQ range.

You might have noticed it once when explaining an idea to someone, and they responded "oh you're doing xyz."
followed by them dismissing the idea out of hand.

The reason this happens, is in the normal deconstruction of an idea, over the course of a debate, people deconstruct an idea recursively.

Whereas the person committing the fallacy of discursive abandonment (DA), first breaks down the topic into a surface level understanding. Then they assign a short simple label to encompass their surface-level understanding. And then, instead of
following through into a recursive deconstruction like standard criticism, they dismiss the topic as trivial.
This happens because their mind confuses their ability to break the topic down, with the criticism itself, except they never
get to that last step. They abandon the process. The idea is "understood" and thus must be incorrect. They simply abandon the step of criticizing a topic to analysis and determine if it is true or not, or to what degree the idea is accurate and where the faults lie. The flaws are assumed whole-sale.

You see this as well with marxism and adjacent philosophies, a hodge podge of contradicting notions that have been repeatedly disproved by history. "That wasn't true communism" etc.
And when an entire life is built on this process, the adherent to this flawed reasoning, assumes only those beliefs they can't prove,
reasoning that because they can't prove it (and won't resort to the process of disproving an idea), that therefore any disbelief in an idea must be a flaw in their own understanding, rather than a flaw in the idea itself. This leads to magical thinking and disconnections from reality. Ideal for creating adherents to political cults, and violent zealots who are intent on enforcing their unexamined beliefs.

The person prone to DA might suggest that if an idea is flawed, it need not be examined closely in order to prove the flaw. Rather it must 'clearly' be related to some externality instead of any supposed flaw others put forward. This must be 'true' to them by virtue of the fact that they don't understand the topic at all, because if they did, it would be self-evident the idea is simple and surd on its face.

It is to say a way of abdicating from the duty to reason, in favor of mammonizing the unknown, and worshiping ignorance.

Thats discursive abandonment, and up until this time, I have never seen it listed as a fallacy, but once you know what it is, you'll start to see crop up everywhere, in almost every fruitless debate. TMYK.