Yes, you're right, I was simplifying too much (status and brilliance are strongly correlated, so I didn't pay attention to the distinction). However, this doesn't change much - still it's a hypocrisy.

Why do you think that the dishonesty isn't intentional? The journal reviewers demand a specific style and people generally know it. For most papers, the style matters if you want to get it published. If your status is enough high you are more able to choose your style, but a lower-status researcher should first maximise the number of his publications, and the most effective way is to imitate the approved style (which signals brilliance). The authors know it, they are not stupid.

The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that people really buy this signalling. If I don't understand what someone else is saying, I think (more or less automatically) that he's too smart rather that he's a poor teacher. Conversely, if I understand everything, I tend to think that the subject is trivial and the speaker is not much better than me.