What makes someone a ''pseudo-intellectual'' in your opinion?
Arrogance?
>>355038
Intellectual, as in someone who actually partakes in academic intellectual life and produces unique works, is an actual word and pseudo is an actual word. Pseudo-intellectual means postulating as an intellectual or creating intellectual works that are perfidious.
A pseudo intellectual who isn't formally educated and they or someone like them has disagreed with me.
I'd say a lot of namedropping. Style over substance. It's difficult to define, though.
>>355038
Someone who has no idea what they're talking about or only has a basic understanding of it, but acts like they are an expert on it.
>>355092
>Someone better than me
cry more.
>>355073
Fichte's and Schelling's write style suitable for this?
Anyone who discusses anything unless they have a degree in the field. Humans shouldn't be allowed to discuss anything unless they are hired to do so. The idea that society benefits from citizens understanding history or any other field outside of a citizen's respective profession is a myth.
When I tell someone that I have a degree they should immediately agree with what I say. "Educating" the public with pop-science and documentaries detracts from the social status that my education gives me and are therefore bad.
>>355129
>The idea that society benefits from citizens understanding history or any other field outside of a citizen's respective profession is a myth.
The idea that citizens should act in the way that is the most beneficial to society is also a myth.
A true intellectual is humble, they don't take anything for granted and are fully aware that everything they know can be questioned or challenged.
A pseudo-intellectual is arrogant, they take everything for granted and think they know everything, acting superior in the process.
>>355129
You're a pseudo-intellectual.
Longform clickbait makes people pseudo-intellectuals.
>>355142
>A true intellectual is humble
Yea, nah. A wise man can be humble. It's not directly related to intellectual.
>>355141
More so an opinion, but your implication isn't wrong.
>>355121
No he's basically right. You have plenty of people who think they are well versed in philosophy simply because they know the names Descartes and Plato or have cursory understanding of the subject but think they are more qualified to speak on it.
It's not a matter of somebody being better, it's about them thinking they're more knowledgeable than they actually are. They feel this way because they're likely more knowledgeable than their immediate circle of friends and family but can't hold any serious conversation on the subject with an actual intellectual.
>>355155
Arrogance leads to ignorance.
Name a bigger pop pseudo-intellectual than this fucking guy
>>355141
>agreeing with bait post about society benefiting from an uneducated over specialized populacce
>>355038
SOME OF THE PRIME FACTORS, OR CRITERIA, THAT, IN CONJUNCTION, CHARACTERIZE A "PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL" ARE, IN NO SPECIFIC ORDER:
— LACK OF INTUITION, OR UNDERDEVELOPED INTUITION.
— LACK OF IMAGINATION, OR UNDERDEVELOPED IMAGINATION.
— OVERDEVELOPED VERBAL, OR DISCURSIVE, INTELLIGENCE.
— LACK OF SENTIMENT, OR UNDERDEVELOPED SENTIMENT.
— LACK OF AESTHETIC SENSIBILITY, OR UNDERDEVELOPED AESTHETIC SENSIBILITY.
— STRICTLY FACTUAL, OR DOXIC, KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIZATION.
— STRICTLY EMPIRICAL THINKING MODE.
THE "PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL" MAY APPREHEND EVERYTHING, UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS, AND COMPREHEND NOTHING.
REGARDLESS, THE TERM "PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL", AND ITS HOMOLOGUE "INTELLECTUAL", MUST NOT BE EARNESTLY CONSIDERED AS EPISTEMOLOGICALLY VALID SINCE THERE IS NO ACTUAL THING AS "AN INTELLECTUAL"; WHAT DOES BEING AN "INTELLECTUAL" EVEN ENTAIL? WHAT SPECIAL CAPABILITIES, AND/OR ABILITIES DO "INTELLECTUALS" HAVE THAT JUSTIFIES A DIFFERENTIATION FROM OTHER KINDS OF PERSON? WHAT KIND OF CLASSIFICATION IS "INTELLECTUAL"? A SOCIAL ONE? A CULTURAL ONE?
THE CONCEPT OF "INTELLECTUALISM" ITSELF IS SPURIOUS, THEREFORE ALL OF ITS DERIVED NOTIONS, AND THE TERMS DERIVED FROM THEM, ARE SPURIOUS ALSO.
TYPICALLY, PERSONS WHO EARNESTLY CONSIDER THE CONCEPT OF "INTELLECTUALISM" AS VALID, ALSO FULFILL MOST OF THE CRITERIA THAT I LISTED.
>>355170
I think one is more a byproduct of the other.
Pseudo-Intellectual here.
>>355038
more interested in seeming knowledgeable than actually learning
>>355038
a good example:
An intellectual reads a book to understand it contents.
A pseudo intellectual reads the summary of a book to convince people he's read it and understands it.
>>355199
This.
And also
>using big words when small ones would suffice
>>355183
LOL EVERYTHING IS A SPOOK CAPS LOCK IS YOUR FRIEND
>>355183
GOLLY THESE INDICATORS SOUND AWFULLY FAMILIAR
>>355182
Actually society has a cooperative unit DOES benefit from most individuals being "ignorants". In a spciety based on specialization, a few individuals will do the thinking, the rest will be free from the energetic cost such thinking requires, and can use this energy for more useful occupations.
>>355038
am I a pseudo intellectual if I know a fair deal about a lot of subjects and appear smart to people but I acknowledge I know little in a given field but want to learn more because it interests me?
>>355242
no, as long as you don't act arrogant over the things you already know
>>355183
>LACK OF AESTHETIC SENSIBILITY
>writes in all-caps
Checks out.
someone who uses big fancy words to convey simple thoughts
>>355129
>When I tell someone that I have a degree they should immediately agree with what I say.
>>355183
>tripfagging
>arrogant cunt
>using complex word to appear smart
>using all caps to seem imposing
Intentional or not a perfect example of what a pseudo intellectual is like.
>>355277
Fuck off back /v/ no one thinks she's an intellectual
>>355231
Incorrect. Democracies are the most stable governemnt because they have the greatest ability to change with changing public opinion. The primary drawback of democracies is that the public can make ignorant decisions. Democratic countries make better decisions when the public has a better understanding of science, history, politic theory, and economics.
>>355038
Anyone who self-identifies as an "intellectual."
>>355292
>pseudo-intellectual
>>355300
She's not even that. She's just a blogger.
>>355174
doesn't being a pseudo intellectual have to appear smart,
He's just some entertaining, bitchy gay guy with a journalism degree
>>355038
Having around a standard IQ (within 15 points of 100) and acting as if you're a genius.
Or, not having knowledge in a certain field yet acting as if you do.
You could call that arrogance but its a specific type.
>>355306
I feel we are in agreement.
>>355308
Right.
You know who fits in the category? Any Youtuber like Sargon of Akkad.
Everyone who disagrees with me
>>355315
>mentioning IQ
Oh no anon what have you done now the thread is fucked
>>355129
My fatehr taught me to opine about everything and to avoid lecturing.
>>355296
Democracies are more stable because they are the less corrupt and the power can't be easily monopolized for the interests of a few individuals. At the end of the day most people will naturally seek opinions from "intellectuals" because they wouldn't go through the hassle of thinking seriously about society.
![750[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YASX39D.jpg "750[1].jpg")
>>355174
Outta my way and check your privilege. King of the pseudo-intellectuals right here. You may approach the throne and state your business.
>>355351
Literally who?
>>355057
>Intellectual, as in someone who actually partakes in academic intellectual life
Zizek warned us about these people
>>355355
Some American who writes about muh blackness. You probably won't have heard of him unless you get off reading whiny shit or you get off whining about people reading whiny shit
>>355129
E D G Y
D
G
Y
>>355355
This post is a typical example of violence against black bodies perpetrated by those who consider themselves white.
Don't you recognize America's foremost public intellectual?
>>355215
yeah, though a good support for those who use large words is that while a small word may suffice in a particular circumstance, a large word may more correctly describe it.
A good example of this is Randal Monroe's new book "thing explainer" which uses the 1000 most common words in the English language to explain some interesting things. He is certainly very capable of explaining almost any of the things in that book, however at points you realize how much jargon is taken for granted.
Though your point was also highlighted in the fight between Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
I am more likely to side by Fitzgerald than Hemingway because I always do feel like Hemingway uses his limited vocabulary as a crutch.
>>355129
>>355386
Everyone who bitches about sjws is a pseudo-intellectual too just so you know. Both camps are full of morons who are incapable of moderation or fully considering opposing views, and they all think they're fucking geniuses
>>355174
Milo doesn't believe his own bullshit, though. As much as I can't stand him I have to give the guy props for being a very savvy businessman who was actually able to monetize the unbridled retardation that was GG.
>>355386
Vox Day
>>355393
What would be the correct word for that current strain of left wing thought which encompasses the inter-sectional, bell hooks, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the privilege checking, safe spaces, micro-aggression thing?
SJW or 'cultural Marxism' immediately marks you out as an internet moron. There must be a phrase you can use in polite society.
>>355424
Liberal?
>>355344
You aren't disagreeing with my main points that democracies are the most stable and that they perform better when the public has a broad education. If you do indeed agree with me then maybe you should have said so before disagreeing with the less important points.
>>355209
I often read the wiki pages on books I know I will never read due to lack of interest so I will understand people's references without having to read the books I wouldn't want to read for whatever reason. That being said, I often do read a wiki page then realize how much I might like a book then read it myself. A good example is "100 Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez (a MUST read, it is amazing, and now in my top 10 books of all time) I was reading moby dick, which was taking me weeks longer than I hoped, and once I read the description of 100 years of solitude, I dropped moby dick and haven't looked back (I'll conquer that whale one day).
>>355410
I dunno man, he seems pretty confident in himself whenever he quotes stupid shit coming from pop evolutionary psychology
>>355038
They keep namedropping real intellectuals while only showing a shallow understanding of what they're talking about. Also, they will agree and disagree to opinions for VERY shallow reasons.
>>355424
SJW and cultural marxists are the correct terms. You're literally just trying to be politically correct and bust balls over terms not being formal enough.
>>355417
This, literally Stephan Molyneux 2.0
>>355038
>Knowing enough to pass as an intellectual among laymen but not enough to pass among experts in whichever field.
>Then being incurious, insincere, and uncharitable in conversations that utilize this incomplete body of knowledge.
>Bonus points for using said knowledge for self-aggrandizement or losing your shit when confronted by one or more real experts, or even just an amateur with an uncomfortable question.
Well-read laymen being uncritically enthusiastic about the knowledge they've accumulated (even though it's sometimes wrong) don't always count. It happens. And people really shouldn't be condemned for trying to learn outside their field.
I'd say National Socialists and Fascists in general are the worst pseudo-intellectuals.
Evolafags and Traditionalists are also up there.
I live in Murika, so mostly the white, middle-upper class college-aged demographic.
You have a lot of children in college, reading textbooks at face-value, listening to hysterical lectures, applying a long brush of generalities over things that they can't possibly understand at an individual basis because they've been sheltered and spoon-fed their whole lives. It makes me want to kick their teeth in.
Pseudo-intellectual can also describe someone who has the credentials but is just going through the motions. I heard a paper at a history conference by a guy who was on the faculty of an Ivy League school; it was complete garbage. The paper had been accepted purely on a nuge-nuge-wink-wink basis so the guy could get a publication credit. He himself has no idea of the significance of his topic and knew nothing about the context in which the events he described took place. Not only was everybody involved playing the academic game, they were playing it badly.
>>355038
thinking themselves one. other people's intelligence isn't real.
>>355174
Has anybody outside 4chan actually heard of him? And even here, most people don't take him seriously.
>>355038
Do you find yourself writing run-on sentences?
Do you find yourself using words with many syllables just out of habit?
Are you under 25?
Were you educated or are you in the process of being educated in a frivolous field?
When you make references, are they references to things that an ordinary, reasonable person would not understand?
Are you under the age of 40, but believe that you are in expert in some field?
Do you take what is said on cable news seriously?
Do you brag about reading books?
Do you commonly insult the intelligence of people you do not know?
These are just a few of the many symptoms of being a pseudo-intellectual.
>>355539
>children in college, reading textbooks at face-value, listening to hysterical lectures, applying a long brush of generalities
That seems like a pretty general statement bruh. I mean I'm in university (thanks to the "support" of the state of course), but I engage in lectures, explore topics of interest outside the classroom, and only generalize as a means to have a better comprehension of a big picture despite being fully aware of exceptions. Whatchu tryna say? That we all basic mo'fuckas treatin' university education like 13th grade/a factory which produces skilled workers? Nigga, you wrong for that. I'll have you know I be thinkin' critically, pursuing genuine interests as electives (and fields of study) tryna better myself as a person, and gain knowledge with which to better understand the world and to educate the next generation.
Just saying incorrect things with a feeling that they are absolutely right.
If I am never 100% certain about something, I make sure to say it.
>>355410
I think he does but Milo knows he's not an expert and doesn't even take himself very seriously.
>>357096
>Possibly saying incorrect things with a feeling that they might be right.
>If I am never somewhat certain about something, I try to make sure to say it.
Fixed that for you senpai, can't have you being too sure of yourself there.
>>355038
A lot of them will also assert things quite confidently that they can't really back up. At least, this has been my experience.
>>355038
Feigning interest and knowledge on intellectual subjects for the purpose of looking cool.
>>355038
and intellectual appreciates all sciences
a pseudo intellectual only reads philosophy
>>357043
Do i have to fulfill all thpse fields or only a partial amount
>>355038
Posting threads like this one.
>>355170
It leads fishing out the easy marks. Lack of study and rigor leads to ignorance.
>>355038
It is a synonym for college hipster.
>>355142
He is being sarcastic, you autist.
>>355038
Myself.
Calling myself "intellectual" is what sounds arrogant to me.
I do accept "teacher" because I end up making people learn new things without even meaning to.
>>358986
"Call me teacher"
No shut up Bob, I'm not going to fulfill your kinky power fetish
