How would you describe a "pseudo-intellectual"?
I'm just curious as to whether or not there is a general consensus on what that entails. Harmless curiosity..
Someone who acts like they're above everyone else in the discussion but then you look what they're saying and realize that it's just some empty bullshit.
a person who uses intellectual jargon but doesnt understand what it actually means or what hes talking about
>>540366
Modern """"artists.""""
someone more interested in being seen intellectual than actually understanding the ideas presented in a work.
>>540366
People who think they can just link a source and call it a day
>>540366
The "Im 14 and this is deep" crowd
It means "fake intellectual" which I think is pretty straightforward. Somebody who pretends that they're well-educated or insightful but doesn't really know what he's talking about and just spins bullshit.
Common traits of pseudo-intellectuals are:
>being unnecessarily verbose when describing simple ideas or opinions in order to make them sound more complicated
>name-dropping famous authors/scientists/philosophers to back up their opinions without explaining their relevance
>claiming to have read/seen famous works while being largely ignorant of basic facts about them, and if asked for their opinion about such a work will either change the subject or resort to name-dropping without providing any original input
>the inability to explain in detail any particular event or idea they mention in discussion (in particular they will be unable to come up with names, dates, or hard numbers of any kind)
>when talking about fiction they often rely on buzzwords and vague placeholder terms (i.e. deep, meaningful, mature, refined, sophisticated, etc) and refuse to explain in concrete terms what they like about anything
>they often start threads and enter arguments about "taste" and always insist on a distinction between good and bad taste in whatever medium they inhabit
>related to the above, they are obsessed with appearances and nagged by the paranoia of being found out as a fraud, so they tend to be very judgemental of others and are more likely to mock them for having "bad taste" and are very quick to show off their "superior taste" to others
I could go on, but I think this paints a pretty clear picture of how they act.
ITT: examples
>>540366
Someone who browses /lit/
>>540366
Anyone who overanalyzes shit without actually having the intelligence to do so
>>540908
So, /pol/?
I think the main reason a pseudo-intellectual would ignore those accusing him of being one is that they see "intellectualism" as something these people don't have, delude themselves into convincing they're intellectual, while also holding the belief that "intellectual" is a completely subjective term.
It's the akin to a goth saying that no real goth calls themselves goth. A lot of these people don't realize they're part of a mentality that can be compartmentalized. This is where they fail, because they set their limits so low. But they also suffer from a problem that a lot of people have, and it's that being able to explain something in the linguistic sense is the same as understanding it. They're thinking solely in language and not in the abstract when they need to. They can't. Someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of quantum physics can't exactly understand these different aspects of it beyond pop culture.
TL;DR: Let's say you're categorizing people by subculture. Pseudo-intellectual will be on the opposite extreme of an autist.
>>540916
>/pol/
>analysis
pick one and only one
>>540916
/pol/ has a lot of problem. You have to include people who are just following whatever bandwagon and aren't as racist as they think. It's also easily manipulated by memes and trends. They will whine about whatever distraction subject is out there just as much as anyone else.
I think a lot of them think in memes. They don't bother to delve deep into what anyone else is saying.
anyone who visits /lit/
>>540761
almost got me, but the "I could go on" made it too blatant
I'm gonna go ahead and flood the thread with some examples of pseudo intellectuals, to help you all form your own little internal definitions.
>>540916
/pol/ prides themselves on being ignorant.
>>541970
I laughed.
>>541978
Yeah, that's where I'm getting these. I'm not subscribed but it's a great place to grab a big ass collection.
Lemme post some 4chan examples.
>>541988
This is not pseudo-intelectualism, this is baiting a la reddit.
>>541991
You really give people the benefit of the doubt. That's a very kind outlook of the world to have.
>>541993
Has someone ever told you to either fuck off or kill yourself? Why didn't you went and did those when they told you to?
>>541994
>Has someone ever told you to either fuck off or kill yourself?
Who hasn't?
>Why didn't you went and did those when they told you to?
Why would I?
I, right now, am telling you to go kill yourself. Are you going to? Why not?
Your reason why not is my reason.
>>541998
>being pseudo-intellectual
>on a pseudo-intellectual shame thread
>>542003
I wouldn't look pseudo if you'd get on my level.
