How does one know if they're a pseudo-intellectual or not? How does one become an intellectual?
>How does one know if they're a pseudo-intellectual or not?
Well self-identifying as a Marxist is a great indication.
Just know you're as dumb as the next guy except you're not clever enough to hide it.
>>488072
What about self identifying as a bearded Marxist?
>>488068
Just keep this xkcd comic laying around in the back your head at all times and you should be fine.
>>488068
Stop name-dropping names of intellectuals and start explaining ideas and concepts so easy so that a 10-year old will understand them.
>>488415
if you believe the majority of people think like that you are likely a pseudointellectual who spends too much time around other hipsters
>>488443
No, that's how you identify a stupid cunt with a you tube channel
>>488443
/thread
>>488068
Intelligent people is knows he knows much more stuff than average people, and is told usually that is very intelligent, yet might not be completely sure about it because they know there's people that is better than them at some things, so they just dont go everywhere saying "look me, I'm so intelligent".
>>488068
>Do you disagree with me?
>Have you used big words?
If you answered yes to both questions then you are a pseudo-intellectual.
I feel like intelligent people don't need to go out and prove how intelligent they are, or accuse others of being psuedo-intellectuals.
>>488068
You are a pseudo intellectual if you believe modern history departments practice a real discipline.
>>488453
This tbhjosefiosjb
>>488464
No, it is how you identify a stupid cunt with a youtube channel.
Reductivism is a major historiographical sin. Your conception of "explaining ideas" is based around an idea that history has a moral, or is reducible to themes that make the pedagogic concept in science of "lies for children" look like the literal word of god in flaming letters written across the sky.
>>488068
Don't pretend you know more than you do.
Just have some guy follow you and whisper "You had to be taught not to shit yourself. And it took YEARS." into your ear constantly. That ought to keep you humble.
>>488068
I feel terrible because I'm smart enough to know how stupid I am. I used to think I was intelligent.
>>488068
those always reminded me of these fuckers
>>488068
If you try to say something smart and you agree with me, you're an intellectual
If you try to say something smart and you disagree with me, you're a pseudo-intellectual
Other than that it's just a measure of how obnoxious and pedantic you sound when you spout your shit
Hard to self-police something like that. But if you use words like "anachronistic" and other "big words" when something could have just as well been stated plainly it's a pretty safe bet you're a pseudo-intellectual.
Also, considering yourself an intellectual probably qualifies you as a pseudo-intellectual.
>>488696
Fuck off fifel.
>>488696
Lemme break it down nice and simple:
What they mean to say, is pseudo-intellectuals abuse the thesaurus and ramble on unnecessarily.
That's all. Nothing wrong with letting things get complex or using big words *if it's warranted*.
>le big words
>le 10-year old level
>REEE PSEUDO!!
People are very insecure near someone declaring himself an intellectual or 'emanating' intellectuality. This pathetic thread nicely being a timely demonstrator.
This is very accurate too >>490227
>>488415
This is me, tbqh familia.
Maybe by not trying to prove that you're smart all the time or trying to sound smarter than the next guy or something.
But I don't fucking know, I'm an idiot.
>>488068
I good qualification for being a pseudo-intellectual would probably be
>trying to sound knowledgeable on something you have no idea about.
>Using a vocabulary that 3/4 of you don't even know the definition to
>Being an attention-whore, i.e. Trying to bring up a philosophical topic in the most non-philosophical of situations. This ties into the first arrow, actually.
So, if you're a pseudo-intellectual, you're essentially grasping for attention by appearing like an academic or expert on a topic when you know jack-shit. And then you try dressing it up in fancy language so you can obfuscate your incompetence.
If you're an actual intellectual, you might know some good-tier vocabulary, but you still know how to talk like everybody else. You also don't bring up philosophical topics or something you can capitalize on for attention. The only time you'd bring up a topic like that is if it was actually the main topic of the conversation. You would also talk as much about a topic as much as you know about it, and be honest in your absence, i.e. "From what I know," "That's what I know so far."
That's my opinion.
Is correcting people when they are wrong and teaching new things to people that do not usually know (like physics or history shit for example) an intellectual or pseudo intellectual thing?
Go ask virgins on 4Chan what you are. That should do it
>>488068
People who love sprouting concepts they barely understand and love to namedrop philosophers and writers they barely know anything about are a good indication of pseudo-intellectualism.
Also personal observation, people who love to engage in 'philosophical debates' and 'political debates' in real life are usually some type of snobby pseudo-intellectual.
And of course.
>>488415
>>488443
>>488458
>>492109
Depends on your tone, attitude and intention.
If you are trying to show off and correct someone on a subject that you yourself barely know much of, then yes that is pseudo-intellectual.
>>488763
Fuck off me
>>490259
Well but you imply that people who are not able to simplify concepts and historic events down to a point where a literal retard can understand them, are not intellectuals because WHY NOT?!
Are you fucking stupid? This might be a good trait for a teacher but how is this what distinguishes an intellectual from a show off? I hate people like you, you are just what you claim to know so much about, pseudo intellectuals, being so dogmatic in your reasoning can only mean that your mind works in extremely simple ways and needs easy concepts and is prone to ideologies.
>>492121
If you actually know a lot about a subject and get annoyed by the stupidity of some people?
>>488068
A pseudo-intellectual disagrees with my intellectual priors and biases, and an intellectual agrees with all of my biases.
>>488453
>muh pseudointellectualism
Why do you care about being an intellectual?
Truth is you are probably average. Just accept that and you are at the very least more self-aware than a lot of cunts in the world.
Everyone, almost literally everyone thinks "I must at least be above average" in terms of basically everything, be it looks intelligence or talent.
Just by being that one guy who is genuinely aware that he's not so great you are more introspective and thoughtful than a lot of people. Even if it doesn't make you a genius or even above average in terms of anything else.
>>488068
by not giving a fuck about how smart you look and just learning for the sake of learning
>>488068
No education, I'm talking both formal and self. Reading relevant books is education enough outside of careers.
Also Ill-informed. Arguing points fervently after reading a paragraph in a click-bait article, wherein another article would have had them arguing for the other side just as easily.
>>488068
Well, I always think of an intellectual as someone whose mind observes itself. So, if you aren't committed to truth and knowledge, you're probably a pseudo-intellectual.
>>488415
B-But I have posted this on my FB... It´s cool, and I like XKCD and...
Oh my god, am I a pseudo-intellectual?
