What distinguishes a pseudo-intellectual from a true intellectual?
one is pretending to be the other
what kind of answer did you think you'd get?
>>895482
Psuedo-intellectuals are driven to show other people that they are right.
Intellectuals are driven to show themselves they are wrong.
Its a trick question, both are usually garbage. Same thing for people that take iq seriously.
>>895482
If I call myself an intellectual, doesn't that immediately make me a pseudo-intellectual? Do true intellectuals even exist, or is pseudo-intellectualism the best we can achieve? Is intellectualism perhaps merely a platonic idea, never implemented in reality?
>>895492
>Same thing for people that take iq seriously.
Are you asserting that someone with an IQ of 80 can reach the same intelligence as someone with an IQ of 120, assuming they roughly work equally hard to further develop their intellect?
>>895506
Intelligence is a logically flawed construct and only ever taken seriously by racists from /pol/. Look at Stephen Hawkins. The guy is considered intelligent for playing with formulas, but at the same time he's too dumb to walk or talk like a normal human being.
I believe an intellectual is someone who has taken information on any given subject from multiple sources, organised, collated and understood them within his own mind, and then has written them out or in some way presented them for the scrutiny of others and to establish his own understanding. This process is what gives you an actual deep understanding of any given subject, as collecting, collating and in your own terms producing information is how you properly organise, memorise and understand things.
A pseudo-intellectual is someone who has done nothing but read information and could not, on demand, recite an in depth explanation of any specific subject.
Basically:
Read a bunch of history books and nothing more? Pseudo-intellectual
Read a bunch of history books and written a detailed thesis on a subject contained within them? Actual intellectual (at least on that one subject)
(This is just my opinion doe)
>>895555
Merely being able to fully understand what others wrote makes you an intellectual then? Nah, faggit. An intellectual has to contribute something new on his own. He has to go beyond repeating and summarizing other people's works. What you mistakenly describe as an intellectual is actually an exam babby.
>>895526
Everyone has their talent, but it's seriously foolish not to acknowledge that some people have more potential when it comes to pure thinking skill than others. That's not being racist, that's simply acknowledging that some people are born with different assets (regardless of race, I never said one race has more potential than the other, nor that if that were true it means one race should rule over the other, please don't mistake me for some neofascist ;_;). Simple biological stuff.
>>895506
Yes. Iq is mostly invalidated into adulthood if not conpletely.
Iq can only reliably measure development speed of a child, which doesnt matter as an adult. It indicates how close the parents are too a child, and richer families that can afford college tuition can also afford better care.
People that take iq tests that you can study for online or put iq on their resumes are hilarious morons.
>>895496
oh for fucks sake
the other difference is not actually being it. this isn't a "deep" question. the only purpose of your sophistry is to impress your own retarded self.
>>895603
So you think I'm a pseudo-intellectual? How do I become a real intellectual?
>>895597
You sound as if you're upset over scoring low.
>>895459
The observer.
>>895613
My iq was 132.
>>895609
try being more profound and less pretentious
>>895490
exactly this
>>895490
No, that's the differance btween a dumbass and a cuck.
With literall retards like notch making over a billion dollars, dont focus as much on being smart as doing smart things.
>>895459
A pseudo-intellectual is a tryhard who advertises their intellectualism. Usually humanities majors.
A real intellectual doesn't need to show it.
>>895459
No one is an 'intellectual' because intellectualism is an end point to strive towards. One can only be an 'intellectual' retroactively, once the value of your intellect has been proven in the permanence and use of your writings/experiments/theories etc. We are all pseudo-intellectuals, at least, until death immortalises us as true intellectuals or dismisses us to historical obscurity.
>>895459
"Pseudo-intellectual" is an insult anti-intellectuals call intellectuals.
One use complicated language while the other one try to explain it in as simple term as possible when conveying their ideas.
One of em identify their ideas with themselves while the other knows their position always can change.
Wether or not they disagree with me.
>>895754
Fuck I can't falsify this
>>895890
that it is true doesn't mean it is the only way anyone ever used that word. glad to be of assistance.
This is something i've been legit thinking about.
For a person who is not so well-learned, it's very difficult (impossible almost) to separate what's really smart and "deep" and thoughtful, from that which sounds smart, "deep" and thoughtful, but really isn't
>>895941
knowing what an understanding is like is mostly the same as having that understanding. without being clever, you do not know what is clever.
the trick is not to have opinions about things you have no god damn clue about.
>>895459
Nothing. Purge them all.
>>895459
Smugness. Real intellectuals aren't smug.
"Anti-intellectual" is merely a term used by psuedo-intellectuals to justify psuedo-intellectuaism.
>>895490
This is the best answer on this thread so far.
>>895459
pseudo-intellectuals are younger
Actual intellectuals can make money with their brains.
Pseudo intellectuals work as baristas or waiters
>>895555
question
I am not implying i disagree with you, but lets say we get into an argument over the merits of Alexander the Greats conquests of Persia, and neither of us are published or accredited scholars on the subject. However we both have done research, are we still pseudo intellectuals?
Personally i think not being an expert is not equivalent to being a pseudo intellectual.
>>898527
i think that a community of pseuds would have very few discussions on the topics they are supposedly interested in.
they would sit back and enjoy the mutual recognition of their apparent intellectualism, and wouldn't want to threaten their appearance by probing too deeply.
even if its inarticulate, earnest argument and presentation of views is always better than complacently holding back, to create an artificial enigma.
be honest and upfront, and accept the knocks that will come from getting out of ignorance.
The acquisition of knowledge rather than the possession of it.
