Pseudointellectualism

[Albert Flasher]

[COLOR=Sienna]Ok, I'm fairly sure I spelt that right...

Anyways, are there any pseudointellectuals here (There are bound to be)? If you weren't aware, a pseudointellectual (I hate writing out that word...) is someone who is, essentially, faking intellegence. Someone who repeats what they see on the Discovery channle and the learning network while trying to pass themselves off as knowledgable. Things like that.

I like to think of myself more as a pseudonerd rather than a pseudointel.... you get it. But it is essentially the same thing. Anyways, I grew up as someone who didn't really strive for popularity, but I wasn't smart enough to be considered a nerd. Rather than fall into the category of outcast, I decided to craft a mystique of nerdiness and intellegence by watching the discovery channle and expanding my vocabulary. This resulted in me growing up as someone who was not in fact smart but was very good at passing himself off as smart, if you know what I mean. Obviously, this doesn't cut it with tests etc and my marks are crap, but I still act like I know more than everyone.

So who else suffers from pseudointell...[/COLOR]

[TheResplendent]

Being an actual intellectual myself, this is actually one of my biggest pet peeves if the person fits the strict description.

I hate people who believe they are full of useful knowledge, yet the most useful knowledge they have is stuff you learn in the first grade or they just emulate an alternate source such as others whom teach them or as the topic creator used as an example "watch the discovery channel" and repeat what they hear. Pretty much anyone who is trying to convey a false image of themselves through psuedointellegence is insulting.

Now here is the difference, before people here begin to take offense. The biggest problem with this is not the fact that they actually know little or only know the exact words of another...it's the refusal to acknowledge that this is who they are. Anyone who says "I am a pseudointellectual" or dosen't go around claiming they are the smartest person in the world i have no problem with, because self-awareness is one of the most important things in the world to us humans. Knowing who you are is already winning half the battle. Those who take pride in using a facade to delude others as well as themselves are of the weakest form of mental stability.

Simply put in one word, it's synonomous with ignorance.

However, it is only pseudointellectualism IF you fail to realize the meaning of what your learning through these sources and simply repeat what you hear word for word consistantly. Getting an increased vocabulary is something acquired through television, books, school, any source you can find if you pay attention. This is the best way of increasing your knowledge, by experiencing for yourself regardless of the source. As i mentioned above, it is when you use the exact words and exact sentences constantly and yet do not actually know the meaning of what your saying that is what would be considered pseudointellectualism. Independent studying is an umbrella term for all of these methods, people must acquire their knowledge to be intellegent, and it is done in the same way people who may not be particularly intellegent do. The tools and resources are out there for us to use, understanding them and what you acquire makes you intellegent or not. Not the usage of the sources.

[Fasteriskhead]

What? Didn't you see the sign on my chest? The one right above "pedant," just left of "windbag"?

Seriously though, in an age with google and wikipedia specialized knowledge comes very cheap indeed. Anyone interested in almost any topic (for their own curiosity, as part of a discussion, for something that came up at work or home, etc.) can make themselves aware of the basics of that topic within the space of ten minutes. To me this is, without reservation, a good thing. It offers the [I]possibility[/I] (not necessarily the [I]actuality[/I], mind) of a population much more basically familiar with many broad areas of knowledge. They won't be anywhere near a professional level, of course, but at the very least it might get people in different spheres to be able to understand one another in a rudimentary way. Pseudointellectuals can at least follow what the real professionals are [I]saying[/I], which is not to be overlooked.

The danger isn't "pseudointellectualism," if we mean that word to just mean people who show off and spit back words they read in the Times editorial page. One can certainly criticize them for being half-assed, but they're really off to the side in the long run. The real danger of all this is that we might begin to think that we already have everything worth knowing (or, if we don't, then that knowledge is there to be grabbed whenever we need it, and we can also take in whatever shows up in new investigations). This isn't really something new, obviously. But it's still all too easy to get into the habit of just collecting facts without ever asking any fundamental questions about what's at the [I]root[/I] of all that knowledge. (but asking questions in this sense doesn't mean being "skeptical," as in questioning the reality of some facts or even all facts - mere skepticism misses the point)

[2010DigitalBoy]

is not all knowledge handed down? Can one learn without learning? If I do my 12 painstaking years, do you still call it false knowledge? I ought to burn you, for I shall be damned before enduring such remarks as that my strive for athering intellect has been all imitation. My countless hours of wikipedia should be considered no less learning than any other form of learning. After all, in no other way can such facts be compiled, and such effort to compile said facts should not be wasted by lack of being read.

Psuedointellectual? Perhaps. Although to be fair to myself I have learned much more through personal experience. For the knowledge of the deep workings of the soul cannot be simply drawn out in 0s and 1s.

[Charles]

Not guilty.

[B]I behave[/B]:

Of or relating to the intellect.

Rational rather than emotional.

[B]I[/B]:

Appeal to or engage the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.

[B]I[/B]:

Have or show intellect, especially to a high degree.

[B]I am[/B]:

n.
An intellectual person.

[KatanaViolet]

[SIZE=1]Well, I'm not the smartest chicken in the coop, but I do like to think I'm intelligent enough.

Yes, I do like learning things from Discovery Channel, Wikipedia, Encarta, and other mainstream information sources. Just because it's not from a text book shouldn't discredit it. I am a university student, so of course I learn things in class as well. Either way, I'm learning information from credible sources.

I am a pseudointellectual when it comes to politics though. I don't know everything that's going on in the world, I'm not gonna lie. But I take what I do learn, and form my own opinions... isn't that what everyone does? What does bug me though are those people who read one Noam Chomsky book or go see one Michael Moore movie and think that they can see the whole picture. Not to discredit either, I've read work from Chomsky and Moore, and it's very interesting stuff.

But you gotta take a little of everything in.
Human beings are like spounges, we absorb info like there's no tomorrow. What we do with that info is the key point though.

I'm no scholar, and I still got alot to learn, but I'm not an idiot (I hope).[/SIZE]

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]Everyone has their own type of knowledge. Someone could sit in front of the TV watching Discovery Channel all hours of the day and still do horribly in school. Simply because you know about things in different areas. If you know about things that others do not, wonderful. Striving to be knowledgeable is not wrong. Hell, the whole point of having a brain is learning. Living things are naturally curious and yearn to learn, at least about something.
[/color][/size]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#35425E][SIZE=1]"Faking intelligence" is something that I happen to be very good at. It's easy to lie about recent studies and statistics, and cite sources, titles of which are enough to shut up whoever I'm talking to. It won't hurt to exude an aura of high self-esteem and smarter-than-thou confidence either. In a sense, "faking intelligence" is pretty much like play-acting: I memorize lines and act a part out.

I also had my share of conversations with pseudointellectuals. The saying "It takes one to know one" applies: by casually dropping basic questions from my field of specialization, it's easy to tell whether she/he's faking it or not. Oh how I love to watch them squirm everytime I ask what they think of uniformitarianism! (Yes, not only am I a compulsive pseudointellectual, I am also an elitist.)[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=Sienna]You mean like this?

[B]Distinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals[/B]

[INDENT]*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.

*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.

*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.

*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.

*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.

*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.

*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.

*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.

*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them."[/INDENT]

Sounds more like someone being a know-it-all pain in the butt. I certainly see nothing wrong with using the resources available to you to learn more, but to then act as if you know everything; well it just seems kind of stupid. Like Delta said, it?s easy to tell if someone is faking it.

Am I a Pseudo-Intellectual? I don?t think so. I may have a little bit of knowledge about a lot of different topics, thanks to having ready access to a wealth of information, but I?ve never thought I was an expert on them.
[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=dimgray] Like a lot of people have already said, Cygnus X-1, I believe you have the wrong definition of a 'pseudointellectual'. All great people had a teacher. Sitting around with only natural talent doesn't do **** unless you're ambitious enough to apply it.

People I consider pseudointellectuals are 1) people who don't do anything themselves and point at other to make themselves feel smarter, and 2) people who talk big on a subject they barely know about. I've been guilty on both accounts before and I'm sure everyone in the world has been as well.

Of course there will always be people who can learn things more quickly, apply knowledge more brilliantly and come out on top without doing much, but then they'll never know the meaning of hard work. [/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna']Someone who repeats what they see on the Discovery channle and the learning network while trying to pass themselves off as knowledgable. Things like that.[/COLOR][/quote][size=1]Someone who misspells "channel." Things like that.

[quote name='Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna']Obviously, this doesn't cut it with tests etc and my marks are crap, but I still act like I know more than everyone.[/COLOR][/quote]You're just ignorant.[/size]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]
You're just ignorant.[/size][/QUOTE]

[size=1]:D

Someone was bound to say that eventually.

I don't like to think my intellegence is 'PuedoIntellegence', I do like to think the little I know is from actual knowlege, and not just a 'better-than-you' front.

I think that there are only a few people who 'fake intellegence', or 'talk down to' other members here on OtakuBoards.

Most people here actually know what they're talking about most of the time, I think.

It has nothing to do with 'Looking smart' or 'Being right', but just for sake of clarification and intellegent conversation.[/size]

[Stark]

[SIZE=1]Does being a void of useless knowledge count? Because, if so, I am most definently a Pseudointellectual. I mean, no one really cares about the variety of bananas. I just happened to find that my favorite topic to ramble on about during my little stint in the local grocery store.

Thank you Popular Science! I owe my sanity to you!

I've also taken a few college level courses in my short life, and I've had to write a few term papers. Few people seem to realize that it is perfectly easy to get an A on total b.s.! I've become a master at hunting down info for the sake of research papers. I needed a grade, what else was there to do?

But, I guess I teeter along of the border between the true and pseudo intellectuals. I've only just graduated from High School, and I desperately want to learn. I figure that I'll be a librarian someday. After all, what profession dedicates itself more to the propagation of knowledge than the lovely neighborhood Librarian?[/SIZE]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna']This resulted in me growing up as someone who was not in fact smart but was very good at passing himself off as smart, if you know what I mean.[/COLOR][/quote]

[color=crimson]You should enter politics. You'd do very well.

It's better to know a little about something than nothing at all, I suppose. Reading magazines, watching the Discovery channel, getting lost in WikiPedia. That alone won't make you a scholar of anything but you'll learn a good bit and you might find a subject that you never thought would capture your interest- something you want to invest more time in learning. Just have to keep your ego in check and invest time in subjects you enjoy learning.

People here are pretty sharp. I mean people here can spell the word "channel". That's a pretty big clue into how sharp they are. ;)[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']People here are pretty sharp. I mean people here can spell the word "channel". That's a pretty big clue into how sharp they are. ;)[/color][/quote]
[size=1]I was pointing out the fact that he was talking about people who aren't actually smart, but act like they are. I was pointing out that even his act was downright awful. I suppose you missed this... either that, or you were just being [strike]obnoxiously[/strike] sarcastic.

Pseudointellectuals are annoying, and that's all there is to it. If you don't know something about a given topic, please, spare us and remain silent until you do.[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1] I suppose you missed this... either that, or you were just being [strike]obnoxiously[/strike'] sarcastic.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Nothing missed, just a healthy jab. As smart as you are, unfortunately, your sense of humor is situationally lacking. :p [/color]

[quote name='Retribution']Pseudointellectuals are annoying, and that's all there is to it. If you don't know something about a given topic, please, spare us and remain silent until you do.[/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]The louder ones are annoying. I'd agree that they should probably tone down their boasting.[/color]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Sounds to me like Pseudo-Intellectuals don?t know what the words ?I don?t know? means. I see nothing wrong with knowing only a little about different topics. And honestly unless you are acting like you know everything, it?s fun to talk about something new that you?ve learned. If we were to go upon the basis that you had to know everything about a given topic in order to talk about it, we would never talk about anything.

I think the problem isn?t that their knowledge is lacking but rather their ability to admit that they don?t know more. It?s already been said in this thread, but it really sounds like they are just arrogant and full of themselves and they went and picked up a little knowledge to support their overrated belief in themselves.

In that respect I would have to say that you are not a Pseudo-Intellectual Cygnus X-1 If you really were in any sense of the word. You would have never admitted that you try to pass yourself off as smart.

Anyway I think Fasteriskhead described the real problem. The potential to be comfortable with a little knowledge without understanding where it came from or even attempting to see if what we just read is even true. My Mom is always telling me that just because it is written doesn't mean it's actually true.

Anyway, I?d rather be an Intellectual since I know I have a lot of stuff to learn and a lot that I know nothing about. ^_^[/COLOR]

[Corey]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I was pointing out the fact that he was talking about people who aren't actually smart, but act like they are. I was pointing out that even his act was downright awful. I suppose you missed this... either that, or you were just being [strike]obnoxiously[/strike] sarcastic.

Pseudointellectuals are annoying, and that's all there is to it. If you don't know something about a given topic, please, spare us and remain silent until you do.[/size][/QUOTE]

[size=1]I love ya Retri, but since when did a Mod-Job constitute a superiority complex?[/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Corey][size=1']I love ya Retri, but since when did a Mod-Job constitute a superiority complex?[/size][/quote]
[size=1]I don't think I asserted myself as superior. I was just giving my opinion. Take it as you list. Perhaps its because I lack of sense of humor [strike]after my mother dropped me as a baby[/strike]. I also feel dumb now that I don't know what a Mod-Job is. :p

PS - I love you, DeathKnight.[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR=SeaGreen']Anyway I think Fasteriskhead described the real problem. The potential to be comfortable with a little knowledge without understanding where it came from or even attempting to see if what we just read is even true.[/COLOR][/quote]Well, not exactly, and I apologize for being unclear on this. Certainly it's important to fact check, make sure that whatever you're picking up seems reliable, and so on, but this has [I]nothing[/I] to do with the kind of questioning I'm asking about (which is why I said that skepticism missed the point). Checking and rechecking has to come to an end somewhere - at what point have I furnished enough proofs of a equation to show that it's correct, or how many times do I need to check the stove before I leave for the day to make sure that it's turned off? Obviously this becomes quite silly after a certain point, but that doesn't mean that after enough checking something is simply "known" to be true... which is understood in a very tragic way by those with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Here, though, it's enough to indicate that "certainty" in the sense of being sure of something (that an equation is correct, that the stove really is off) relies more on non-doubt than our confidence actually according with reality.

From the above, someone will probably accuse me of saying that we can't really "know" anything - this is nonsense, not to be taken seriously. Because the big riddle is that we [I]do[/I] know things (I know my name, I know the street I live on, I know that I have two hands and two feet), no matter whether those things are true in the sense of agreeing with an external reality. "What's at the root of all that knowledge," as I said earlier, then has nothing to do with checking the sources of a fact or checking that a fact is well-supported by evidence (although these things are important in a different sense). Rather, the question is what makes it possible to know and understand anything [I]at all[/I] - or, if you prefer, what must be absolutely necessary for a consciousness to apprehend experience in a meaningful way. And probably I should leave it at that... unless someone really wants a lecture or something.

(sorry for being somewhat off-topic, but I thought I should clarify myself)

[Sara]

[color=#b0000b][size=1]I really don't have much to contribute to this, I guess, except I think that this thread has the most occurences of the word "pseudointellectual" that I've ever seen, and the word-density alone makes it all seem really pretentious.

I think it's important to know all you can, about everything you can. When you don't know something, the best thing you can do is say "I'm not sure, but I'm going to find out." That's how you learn things.

[QUOTE=Stark][SIZE=1]Does being a void of useless knowledge count? Because, if so, I am most definently a Pseudointellectual. I mean, no one really cares about the variety of bananas. I just happened to find that my favorite topic to ramble on about during my little stint in the local grocery store.

Thank you Popular Science! I owe my sanity to you![/SIZE][/QUOTE]I would also like to add that the month that article came out, I had no less than four of my friends speak to me [i]at great length[/i] about the imminent extinction of bananas. So I think Pop Sci's karma has about evened out--it might have saved your sanity, but it just about destroyed mine. :)[/color][/size]

[Ezekiel]

[SIZE=1][quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson]Nothing missed, just a healthy jab. As smart as you are, unfortunately, your sense of humor is situationally lacking. :p [/color'][/color][/quote]

<3

In all seriousness though, I think there's a variety of...pompous people. Same difference. You get people who try to use big words in posts, perhaps, to make themselves sound intelligent when really they spell half of them wrong or use the wrong word in the wrong place. That, to me, is someone being an idiot but trying to look mature and clever. Most of the time it makes them seem even more inferior, no?

Then you get people who'll try to seem deep or that they know more than you. My friend Ben is like that and has come a cropper on more than one occasion, having to hear me screaming down a corridor at him for treating me like an ignorant child.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people talking about something they read or watched on TV, if the topic of conversation suits. It's when they cross into the 'Oh, your wrong because...' and act as if THEY are the source of all knowledge that they deserve to be burnt on a spit.

[B]Note-[/B] I should point out that on further inspection I had actually spelt about ten words wrong in this post. Oh my. At least I use a spell check.[/SIZE]

[GaarasStalker]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1]A great way to tell a pseudointellectual from a truly intelligent person is their grammar. Sounds odd, but it works. Intelligent people care enough to use capitol letters, proper punctuation, and correct spelling. Pseudointellectuals, most often, don't care.

(Watch. I bet I'll have a typo in there somewhere. x_x)

[/FONT][/SIZE]