The article didn't do much for me, but this comment did. What you write about rings very true in my experience of writing papers and having arguments without a clear goal. One of the better HN comments I've read for a while.
The big moral challenge for me was not that I could bullshit my way, quickly and successfully, through any single paper. Rather, the problem was that this type of work became very easy and, eventually, routine. I found myself applying the principles of "deep" bullshit to my actual problem-solving in real life, and they led me astray more than once. I had to take conscious stock of what had become a subconscious pattern, excise it painfully, and learn to rebuild my thought process.
So I guess my overall point is that "How to Seem Deep" and "How to Be Deep" can be two very different things. The trick is recognizing when one is seeming deep, and when one is being deep, and not letting the ease of the former replace the hard work of the latter.
The use of the 'disagreeing with a commonly agreed concept' pattern, whilst useful, can be overused leading to discussions that get railroaded by blockers that gain credibility through the perception of being deep, simply for sake questioning.
Climate change discussions jump to mind here. 'Skeptics' ride on their ability to question fundamental and long-agree d concepts from the ocean and atmospheric sciences. They seem 'deep' in that they have questioned base concepts but in the end their argument is always flawed. Others who perhaps haven't the background or understanding don't see any flawed argument, just a 'deep' questioning of these concepts and thus gain some level of credibility. This can cloud discussions and create mis-information in my opinion.