Intellectual vs Pseudo-Intellectual

[Cavallier]

What is the difference between being intellectual and pseudo-intellectual?

Follow up questions to consider:

What does it mean to be intellectual?

Does being intellectual involve some level of awareness or open-mindedness that isn't involved in being merely pseudo-intellectual?

How much is intent involved in either being intellectual or pseudo-intellectual? Is a person pseudo-intellectual because they wish to appear intellectual without actually being intellectual?

In an attempt to appear intellectual doesn't the pseudo-intellectual have an opportunity to become an actual intellectual?

Don't think you have to answer all of the questions listed above. What I'm trying to tease out here is how much intent is the source and definition of a pseudo-intellectual and how a pseudo-intellectual's desire to appear intellectual is any different from being an actual intellectual with the same desire.

 

[Moocow]

I would say, "actual" intellectuals wouldn't tend to think about whether or not they are considered intellectual. There are better things for intellectuals to think about.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Truthfully there really isn't a difference, since it's all a matter of perception. But with the common understanding of what an intellectual is in mind, a psuedo-intellectual would just be a front, he knows things, but doesn't understand what he knows and doesn't care to. For example, people who watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show but don't really have an interest in practical economics and politics are pseudo-intellectuals if they make a habit of showcasing what they picked up.

 

[Dormouse]

Pseudo-intellectuals get cake and friends - I mean, wait, no.

I suppose that much of the difference between the two is their intent. For pseudo-intellectuals the motivation is self-aggrandissement, whereas for intellectuals it would be primarily to find the truth of the matter. And then maybe get money or recognition, but that comes after. Basically anything besides sounding smart for the sake of sounding smart.

I think intellectuals are more inclined to delve deeply into a topic, and support ideas that are less widely accepted. And I don't mean in a typical non-conformist fashion, I mean just because they've pondered the issue and happen to think everyone else is wrong.
Pseudo-intellectuals would be more likely to appeal to authority or just damn it all and embrace obscure nonsense to come off as forward-thinking.

I don't think there's really a sharp line drawn between the two. Most people seem to demonstrate qualities of both types.

 

[Words]

What I'm trying to tease out here is how much intent is the source and definition of a pseudo-intellectual and how a pseudo-intellectual's desire to appear intellectual is any different from being an actual intellectual with the same desire.

In an attempt to appear intellectual doesn't the pseudo-intellectual have an opportunity to become an actual intellectual?

Yes, I'd rather pair intellectual/pseudo depending on intention: intention towards understanding or answer for the true intellectual, and indirect superficial desires for the pseudo. These two words become both meaningful and useful that way.

But, now you make it more complex by asking "what is intention and how does it behave in the person?". Indeed, as much as we want to simplify with purity, people aren't 'pure'.

So, if people aren't pure, can a person be purely an intellectual or would it be more accurate to state that a person is a pseudo-intellectual and an intellectual at the same interval of time? Our intentions and purposes, i believe, are always clashing, always within ourselves is 'internal conflict'.

But in order to make 'use' of the these words, we shall have to generalize the overall intention of the person. If most of the intention is invested into seeking understanding or obtaining an answer, then the means no longer matter---the person is an intellectual. If most of intention is invested on something else and the usual means of investigation becomes a medium of another goal, then obviously the "philosophy of intellect" is not being followed---indirect and pseudo.

Most people seem to demonstrate qualities of both types.

yeah....maybe the conditions are REALLY relatively situational.

 

[snafupants]

An intellectual read or wrote the book whereas a pseudo-intellectual skimmed or read a summary of the book for the intent of crowing about it later, or obliquely working in a reference for personal gain. Oh, you want something with more teeth: an intellectual must have an IQ>130 and an abiding curiosity in the world s/he inhabits. Put more simply, an intellectual wants the truth at any cost and a pseudo-intellectual wants the truth for his subsequent bragging and hollow showmanship.

 

[Polaris]

Yes, I'd rather pair intellectual/pseudo depending on intention: intention towards understanding or answer for the true intellectual, and indirect superficial desires for the pseudo. These two words become both meaningful and useful that way.

But, now you make it more complex by asking "what is intention and how does it behave in the person?". Indeed, as much as we want to simplify with purity, people aren't 'pure'.

So, if people aren't pure, can a person be purely an intellectual or would it be more accurate to state that a person is a pseudo-intellectual and an intellectual at the same interval of time? Our intentions and purposes, i believe, are always clashing, always within ourselves is 'internal conflict'.

But in order to make 'use' of the these words, we shall have to generalize the overall intention of the person. If most of the intention is invested into seeking understanding or obtaining an answer, then the means no longer matter---the person is an intellectual. If most of intention is invested on something else and the usual means of investigation becomes a medium of another goal, then obviously the "philosophy of intellect" is not being followed---indirect and pseudo.



yeah....maybe the conditions are REALLY relatively situational.

This makes sense. Which makes me wonder if all humans are born naturally curious, and to which extent.

If we are all born with the same level of curiosity, we all have the same basis for being "intellectuals". If that curiosity is nurtured, we may become 'pure' in our intellectual pursuits, and/or we may even become 'tainted' by other means if we are over-nurtured (as in too much emphasis on the pursuit itself).

I think society lays the foundations for over-nurturing, where intellect=prestige. And then every person and their dog craves that prestige as society dictates it, hints at it. Society idolises intellect, but sometimes forces certain types of intelligence on individuals, such as mathematical skills, etc. Where the initial nurturing has not sufficed, the person feels inferior and has to over-compromise by 'trying' to be intellectual. However, the potential is always there.

Where nurturing has become a 'natural' path, and not forced, one is perhaps more inclined towards relative 'purity'.

In most cases, I think it is a matter of knowing ones limitations as far as facts are concerned, but also realising one's unlimited potential for creativity.

And most importantly to shut up when one has nothing of substance to add. I am perhaps just now an example of the latter......

 

[snafupants]

^ Alright, but no matter how valiantly Tommy the Dunce applies himself, he will never be an authority to anyone but himself. An intellectual is the product of working hard, rationally, and with disregard for authority alongside the genetic predisposition for sustained and high mental processing. Elitist? That's life. Ever notice how if mommy or daddy is intelligent, so to is the child more often than not?

 

[Amor Anti]

Honestly, "psuedo intellectual" is a useless term--for the very reasons (disguised as questions) you listed. As far as I can tell from my observations of the oh so lovely internet, the difference seems to be you have to some kind of qualifcations to be a "real" intellectual. Like, intellectuals are people with Ph.D.s in philosophy and pseudo intellectuals are 15 year olds.

Anyone with intellectual aspirations or interests should ignore the labels and expectations and just do what they want.

 

[Polaris]

^ Alright, but no matter how valiantly Tommy the Dunce applies himself, he will never be an authority to anyone but himself. An intellectual is the product of working hard, rationally, and with disregard for authority alongside the genetic predisposition for sustained and high mental processing. Elitist? That's life. Ever notice how if mommy or daddy is intelligent, so to is the child more often than not?

I do not disagree with that Snafu. I understand what you are saying, however, the difference is that I think where mommy and daddy missed out on that very basis themselves, they are perhaps less likely to influence their offspring, not because of genetic predisposition, but because of circumstantial factors. My point is that I still think all human beings have the same potential, regardless of background. Have you ever observed someone you may have underestimated for whatever reason, suddenly having a moment of brilliance? It is there, only disguised as something else.

 

[Words]

"Smart versus Not smart but pretending to be smart" is considered. But then I wonder if 'purity' is a form of wisdom and if wisdom is a big portion of smartness.

A person can be smart and yet aim to be seen as smart but is having such aim really smart?

 

[Auburn]

naturally it's all subjective, but..

I suppose that much of the difference between the two is their intent. For pseudo-intellectuals the motivation is self-aggrandissement, whereas for intellectuals it would be primarily to find the truth of the matter. And then maybe get money or recognition, but that comes after. Basically anything besides sounding smart for the sake of sounding smart.

i agree with dory.

An example of someone who I see as 'purely' intellectual is A.I. (though lots are a mix of both), if you wanna know what a pure intellectual is, just read his posts. His intent, as I see it, is always just to understand and share understanding - not self-aggrandizement or praise. He doesn't bs anything that he doesn't thoroughly understand, knowing that doing so would just muddy the waters more and place the goal farther from reach - were a pseudo would be more prone to bs things to not be caught seeming unintellectual/without-an-answer or maybe just out of lazy thinking.

And an example of someone who I would consider largely pseudo-intellectual is myself. If you want an example of pseudo-intellectual, just read my posts. Close to none of them are based on anything verifiable or empirical/factual - but rather fortune-cookie type logic - yet they're often presented as such. The intent is not purely out of a pursuit for truth, but a mixture of various desires.

I've also noticed that I take advantage of wording/language to say things which are largely 'shielded' from critical analysis due to their inherently subjective nature. I only post in threads where the subject matter is subjective (such as this one) where my pseudo-wisdoms can remain safe and unchallenged - while I avoid threads of more logically-rigid logic because I don't have anywhere near the knowledge enough to add a helpful perspective - and don't want to say something foolish.

As a general rule of my subconscious mind (well, it's only recently become conscious) - nothing is shared/posted by me if I don't perceive at least a decent/high chance of the reaction I get to be positive. It's not so important that what I say be 100% true, as it is that what I say gains support/acceptance.

Um, this post is probably an exception to that rule though, as I'm pretty sure this will disappoint anyone who's believed my nonsense thus far..

*blindfolds self and lights a smoke*

 

[snafupants]

I do not disagree with that Snafu. I understand what you are saying, however, the difference is that I think where mommy and daddy missed out on that very basis themselves, they are perhaps less likely to influence their offspring, not because of genetic predisposition, but because of circumstantial factors. My point is that I still think all human beings have the same potential, regardless of background. Have you ever observed someone you may have underestimated for whatever reason, suddenly having a moment of brilliance? It is there, only disguised as something else.

Yes, but the key word is moment. A drop of water does not intimate an ocean.

 

[Polaris]

Yes, but the key word is moment. A drop of water does not intimate an ocean.

No, you are right......but it still has the potential. Many drops, etc..........excuse metaphorical ping-pong....but you started that

 

[Cavallier]

It's a very subjective topic and for that reason I put this in the Lounge instead of one of the more serious intellectual () subsections. I think Words and Dor have summed up my thoughts on this discussion.

And an example of someone who I would consider largely pseudo-intellectual is myself. If you want an example of pseudo-intellectual, just read my posts. Close to none of them are based on anything verifiable or empirical/factual - but rather fortune-cookie type logic - yet they're often presented as such. The intent is not purely out of a pursuit for truth, but a mixture of various desires.

I've also noticed that I take advantage of wording/language to say things which are largely 'shielded' from critical analysis due to their inherently subjective nature. I only post in threads where the subject matter is subjective (such as this one) where my pseudo-wisdoms can remain safe and unchallenged - while I avoid threads of more logically-rigid logic because I don't have anywhere near the knowledge enough to add a helpful perspective - and don't want to say something foolish.

As a general rule of my subconscious mind (well, it's only recently become conscious) - nothing is shared/posted by me if I don't perceive at least a decent/high chance of the reaction I get to be positive. It's not so important that what I say be 100% true, as it is that what I say gains support/acceptance.

Um, this post is probably an exception to that rule though, as I'm pretty sure this will disappoint anyone who's believed my nonsense thus far..

*blindfolds self and lights a smoke*

You do mention logic as an important aspect of being intellectual but you seem to put a lot of weight on the empirical and the scientific. There is no room for literary, philosophical, or historical intellectuals in this definition. Then again there are people who argue the softer sciences and liberal arts aren't intellectual pursuits. Do you mean to say you are one of these people?

"while I avoid threads of more logically-rigid logic because I don't have anywhere near the knowledge enough to add a helpful perspective - and don't want to say something foolish."

A pseudo-intellectual (as Dor and Words have defined) would not necessarily avoid these threads while an intellectual who doesn't know anything about the subject at hand would stay away until they knew more. No one wants to appear foolish.

Auburn: What is the difference between presenting an idea as positively as possible so that it will be accepted and changing your position so that you personally will be better accepted? I think a further definition of intellectual and pseudo-intellectual can be found in that question.

 

[snafupants]

Forget appearing foolish: make honest, even huge, mistakes and learn from them. Kids in schools are apprehensive as hell, like they're about to be shot if they answer incorrectly. That learning environment of fear and anxiety is ineffective and predicated on negativity, and it sticks with them later in life.

 

[echoplex]

Interesting topic. I've asked myself those questions many times.

My impression is that a 'pure' intellectual would be someone only concerned with understanding the truth and nothing else. To me, this is an ideal that is not entirely reachable but is worth pursuing. All people are concerned with things other than understanding -- an easy example: food. I can be entirely focused on understanding a topic, but if I get hungry enough, my focus will become food, how to get it, what I want, how much, etc. Get hungry enough and nothing else will matter.

Of course, that's an easy one which applies to everyone regardless. But there are other things that motivate people besides understanding, most notably: acceptance, sex, ethics, health, emotions in general, etc. I think, in light of this, what most people mean regarding real vs. pseudo is one's ability to keep those things (and others) from interfering, or even affecting (within reason), their pursuit of understanding. That, and keeping the pursuit from becoming primarily a way of accomplishing those things, rather than primarily a way of achieving understanding. The idea (I think) is that a pseudo ends up muddying their/others' understanding if it's attached too tightly to other goals. That doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with those goals, just that they should have little effect on 'matters of truth', so to speak.

I think the most notable one, it seems, is acceptance. I do notice that when I'm around people I believe to be more intelligent I become very aware of my desire to be seen as competent. I don't care if they think I'm the least intelligent person there, but I do care that they respect me and view me as intellectually capable -- which is to say, capable of understanding what they do if given sufficient information. I'd imagine I've probably been seen as p-i before, which I think is due to my tendency to talk about things I don't know alot about (though I mostly ask questions). Sometimes I overstep my boundaries and talk out of my ass, and each time I'd appreciate being called out for it. It's never something I intend to do, but it does happen.

All of that said, I don't really consider myself an intellectual. I'm a silly person first and foremost. My entire existence just seems too illogical for me to be one of those people.

I probably should've avoided this thread as I lack the proper expertise. I'm afraid I've become a dreaded pseudo wrestler (someone who wrestles with ideas they know little about).

 

[Anthile]

 

[AlisaD]

 

[Melllvar]

Like others have said, I suppose one view is that a pseudo-intellectual is more concerned with appearing smart or stroking their own ego, while an actual intellectual is concerned with knowledge, truth, understanding, blah blah blah, coupled with some degree of achievement in this endeavor.

In reality though I think the term pseudo-intellectual is more often used to refer to someone we don't particularly like very much. The actual difference between the two is probably much smaller than the above definition would indicate. Which is to say, I expect very few people can objectively be put into one group or the other, but it makes a good way to label someone we find disagreeable or annoying.

I must also disagree with the notion that discussing topics you're ill-informed on would make one a 'pseudo-intellectual.' It seems more like that shows someone is searching for more knowledge without fear of being wrong or appearing stupid. If someone is afraid to be part of the discourse for fear of being wrong, that seems more like they're worried about their intellectual status rather than trying to enhance their understanding of the subject.

 

[Cavallier]

I must also disagree with the notion that discussing topics you're ill-informed on would make one a 'pseudo-intellectual.' It seems more like that shows someone is searching for more knowledge without fear of being wrong or appearing stupid. If someone is afraid to be part of the discourse for fear of being wrong, that seems more like they're worried about their intellectual status rather than trying to enhance their understanding of the subject.

Agreed, which is why I thought that there might be a good opportunity to become an intellectual even if a person approaches a stance with pseudo-intellectual aims.

Edit: Calvin and Hobbs is ever the final word. Cartoons (and humor in general) are able to so easily sum up a situation in only a few words and a visual.

 

[Decaf]

As I was reading the previous posts I had a thought. What's the difference between a carpenter and a pseudo-carpenter? A carpenter works hard to build something and then hopes to profit from the outcome. A pseudo-carpenter wants to look like they're working hard because they think that's the key to being a carpenter. The flaw in the thinking of the pseudo-carpenter is easy to see in this case, which is why there aren't many pseudo-carpenters (unless you want to bash general contractors, but we'll leave that aside for now).

I don't believe anyone needs to be smart to be an intellectual. They need to exercise their natural curiosity, be careful how they label what they learn and avoid making claims in ignorance. That's it. The natural result of that self control and self embracing is someone who slowly builds a worldview with perspectives worth sharing.

If an "intellectual" gets in the habit of speaking knowledgeably about things and blurts out something in ignorance, they've ceased to be an "intellectual" until they regain their self control. Of course, its just a label, so its no surprise people pursue it the same way they pursue labels like "stylish" or "cool". With the kind of half-assed effort common to people who believe they're entitled to be whatever they want without paying any kind of price but the effort of the moment. As if the last two weeks before Christmas would get them on the nice list.

 

[Cavallier]

^That's so practical!

If an "intellectual" gets in the habit of speaking knowledgeably about things and blurts out something in ignorance, they've ceased to be an "intellectual" until they regain their self control.

Oof. That would be so easy to do. I guess that makes just about everybody a pseudo-intellectual at one point or another. So, over-confidence in your intellectual ability could be an aspect of being pseudo-intellectual perhaps?

 

[Claverhouse]

One distinction may be that the high Intellectual is always a bourgeois; Socrates, Renan, Matthew Arnold, Lenin, Chomsky to name a few, whatever their sympathies. They live relatively comfortable lives in conformity with prevailing dictates. Although their beliefs may be informed by passion and rigor, they come to conclusions fairly scientifically. They may be at odds with contemporary academia, but they are still part of the mainstream.

A pseudo-intellectual, insofar as this is not a pejorative thrown out by disgruntled conformists, would rather be an outsider who seeks to epater la bourgeoisie either to make his mark, 'See how shocking I am !', or is determined by personal issues rather than rational decision.


Thus, an intellectual may well decide that abortion on demand is a good fair policy which maximises happiness ( for the survivors ) and produces an equitable non-oppressive outcome. The pseudo-intellectual is more likely to come to the same belief because he virulently hates christian red-necks ( from whom he probably sprang ); jewish religious mandates; or anyone stopping anyone from doing anything. Emotional motivations...


( Although Lenin was obviously a bourgeois, some might feel he was a pseudo-intellectual based on the fact of communist theory being a bunch of stuff made up as he ( and those others ) went along, and that he was exceptionally emotionally driven. Mostly by hate, but also by despising everyone he ever met, except perhaps Krupshaya. In the other hand he made coherent theory and followed through. )






Claverhouse

 

[merzbau]

An intellectual is the product of working hard, rationally, and with disregard for authority alongside the genetic predisposition for sustained and high mental processing. Elitist? That's life. Ever notice how if mommy or daddy is intelligent, so to is the child more often than not?

ever noticed how christian people tend to have christian kids? but no-one would claim that christianity is genetically predetermined.

with regards to the OP, my opinion is an intellectual uses their cleverness in pursuit of something. a pseudo-intellectual is satisfied with appearing clever.

 

[Melllvar]

Semantics I say. Does a person go back and forth between being an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual based on the particular assertion they're making, or does anyone who has a tendency towards, uh, "intellectual pursuits" suffer from some mixture of intellect and pseudo-intellect? I doubt there's anyone who can claim to be free from bias or overcommitment to a particular fallacy (and probably they enjoy being somewhat smart too, whether that's the main purpose for their pursuit or not).

Since it would seem to be a matter of "shades of grey," or moving back and forth between intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism (same difference), the way the person is perceived by others will determine which end of the spectrum they are placed on. What may seem as an overcommitment to an unverified assertion to one may be viewed as reasonable by another.

Heck, we could all be labeled pseudo-intellectuals for wasting our time discussing such a tangential topic without even having a clear definition of what these words mean (why should we even care? we're not worried we might be labeled one and not the other, are we? or do we simply want to feel superior to people who don't understand this difference?). Look at the people who go to TED conferences: most likely very intelligent people who nevertheless are content to listen to a 20-30 minute superficial summary of ideas that are supposedly groundbreaking, but probably they do it as much for networking as for the knowledge/stimulation? Not that it makes them pseudo-intellectuals though, so much as I'm just criticizing them from one perspective while ignoring others.

It's easier to label someone when they're farther to one end of a spectrum, like a numerologist/astrologist maintaining the validity of their art or a scientist who doesn't care about productive research so much as getting his h-index higher. Even in the latter case, would the person necessarily be a pseudo-intellectual anymore than a chess player more concerned with winning than with understanding the strategy of the game?

Whew, that was long. In summary, the difference is highly subjective and lies more in the eye of the beholder, me thinks.

 

[Decaf]

Semantics I say. Does a person go back and forth between being an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual based on the particular assertion they're making, or does anyone who has a tendency towards, uh, "intellectual pursuits" suffer from some mixture of intellect and pseudo-intellect?

That was part of the point. Intellectual is a temporary state of being, like angry or poor. Its true as long as the characteristics that make up its definition remain true. I've stated what my rules are and I'm sure the rules would be different for someone else.

I actually disagree with intellectualism being in the eye of the beholder. You're either honestly trying to constructively add to the world with your thoughts or your aren't. That being said it would be nearly impossible to make that judgement externally, so I suppose it falls more under the class of generosity than any evident attitude. If someone donates $100 to a charity, is given a t-shirt that says "I'm a donor to <the charity>" and they wear it, are they generous or pseudo-generous? Who knows?

Its futile to hypothesize about someone's intent when they attempt to intellectualize unless their attempt is specifically disruptive (like a troll). I may not like someone I suspect is engaging in self-puffery rather than trying to elucidate the subject at hand, but I wouldn't assume my perspective on their behavior is correct. If someone's intellectualizing doesn't engage your mind, avoid them. If everyone ends up avoiding them, then yes, they're probably a pseudo-intellectual.

 

[Glordag]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1786

 

[Melllvar]

@Decaf:
I think I can agree with that (I was mostly just bickering over how I think we should describe such things), except that I tend to see people as being more dynamic and fluid creatures. It seems like people are capable of having completely contradictory thoughts/behaviors at the exact same time. So someone might make an argument both for self-aggrandizement and also to try and reach a deeper understanding on the matter. They may even switch back and forth mid-sentence, or experience both motivations at once. But that's just my hypothesis/worldview on how people are. Which is to say, I fundamentally disagree with the statement, "You're either honestly trying to constructively add to the world with your thoughts or your aren't." People seem more complicated than that (to me at least).

 

[Decaf]

Which is to say, I fundamentally disagree with the statement, "You're either honestly trying to constructively add to the world with your thoughts or your aren't." People seem more complicated than that (to me at least).

Fair enough, though to put my own statement in context I believe someone acting as an intellectual is like a good carpenter. A carpenter does what he does because he's getting paid. The result for the person paying him is that they get a functional piece of furniture, a staircase, or cabinets. The distinction I was making was between the the responsible carpenter and the one who builds a shoddy chair that breaks as soon as the carpenter gets his pay check. Its a matter of principle and standards. You're either being an honest carpenter or you're not.

 

[Auburn]

You do mention logic as an important aspect of being intellectual but you seem to put a lot of weight on the empirical and the scientific. There is no room for literary, philosophical, or historical intellectuals in this definition. Then again there are people who argue the softer sciences and liberal arts aren't intellectual pursuits. Do you mean to say you are one of these people?

....i take that back. what Melllvar and Decaf said makes more sense.. So maybe an intellectual is better defined by having their underlying motivations/intents geared toward pure understanding, and not by what topics (be it literacy, philosophy, mathematics or astrology, etc) they engage in; by their curiosity-driven pursuit for that truth?

It seems better defined as a 'mindset', an intent rather than one's level of knowledge or topic of interest. But yea, I don't think intent is ever completely black/white. <<

Auburn: What is the difference between presenting an idea as positively as possible so that it will be accepted and changing your position so that you personally will be better accepted? I think a further definition of intellectual and pseudo-intellectual can be found in that question.

In some cases, there is no difference, methinks. A person could be so fused with their ideas/positions that for those positions to be rejected would simultaneously be a rejection of said person - and inversely, an acceptance of their ideas = acceptance of them?

Also, "presenting an idea as positively as possible" isn't something I think an intellectual would do. I think an intellectual would instead present their ideas as honestly, accurately and neutrally as possible - whether that turns out to be a good/bad report - because they'd have no reason to magnify some aspects more than others, since their intentions would be to find/share truth - not to sell an idea to others. But I think I understand in what context you meant that, and I think it's okay to do that (to group all the pros together and create a complete and concise argument to one side) as long as the other side (the cons) is also grouped together and presented in fair light. I personally don't think I do both too often, but then again the waters are foggy and I lost my mirror.

Spoiler

It seems like people are capable of having completely contradictory thoughts/behaviors at the exact same time. So someone might make an argument both for self-aggrandizement and also to try and reach a deeper understanding on the matter. They may even switch back and forth mid-sentence, or experience both motivations at once.

= me

 

[Reluctantly]

Pseudo-intellectuals would be more likely to appeal to authority or just damn it all and embrace obscure nonsense to come off as forward-thinking.

Then there are also those people that are willing to ignore other people's ideas on a matter because the one they have suits them or they just don't want to be bothered with thinking about alternatives when they already came up with some perfect perceptual reasoning that works fine for them and they believe they can make it work for everyone else too, even if others tell them they don't want/like it.

I don't think there's really a sharp line drawn between the two. Most people seem to demonstrate qualities of both types.

That's true. But if other people get to dismiss my thoughts without considering them then I guess it's fair for me to assume they aren't intellectual, even if and though I know that such reasoning I hold upon them in the grand scheme of things will never truly hold up with all of reality. Because to do so allows me to endeavor for that which I specifically seek value. Then it seems regardless that the ability to rationalize is a double-edged sword. I have to rationalize and choose the actions that I believe will lead to what I see as the better reality of the possibilities (without ever being able to fully understand all my sentient motivations) I see ahead of me, even if that means all action to do so then implicitly holds some perception or level of inherent ignorance. So that's true...

 

[Cavallier]

Thanks everybody for taking a minute to consider my questions. I had my own opinions on the matter but I wanted other people's insight.

 

[snafupants]

^ Is that a subtle way of saying thanks for coming but get the hell out?

 

[Cavallier]

You read me so well!

Actually, no. I had these thoughts rattling around in my head and wanted outside input. In retrospect I think this topic is a little silly and for this reason I felt thankful that you all responded with serious consideration. Thus I thanked you.

Now, get the hell out.

 

[UseHerName]

Pseudo-intellectuals remember things; they read as much as possible to gain the most amount of information just to seem as smart as possible. They focus on the details. Like Grammar Nazis or snarky nerds.

Intellectuals understand, analyze, and evaluate things; they don't focus on having the greatest amount of information but rather the deepest understanding of it, gaining their own thoughts and theories on things. They create genuine knowledge for pseudo-intellectuals to read up on. The bigger picture people like philosophers or scientists.

Geniuses create things; they are the people who notice something, or think up something astounding, that nobody else could ever fathom and then explain it. They maybe even create an entire field of study. Like Isaac Newton or Sigmund Freud.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You're also a genius is you're in the top 2.5% of your general population's IQ range.

 

[BigApplePi]

You're also a genius is you're in the top 2.5% of your general population's IQ range.

You want genius? Try this guy:

Bluejay: The Mind of a Child Prodigy - 60 Minutes - CBS News

I would die to ask him some questions. One I would like to know is ... is he any good? How is he at melodies?

 

[Thales]

An intellectual would be someone with a high capacity for comprehension, or "processing" the mind would be involuntarily stimulated (such as exposed nerve endings). Intellectuals come in many forms, some aren't so noble. A pseudo-intellectual, in my mind, tries to be something they aren't.

I used to know someone with a genius level IQ, he communicated in a manner that was most complex, and unusual. A pseudo-intellectual=claiming to have an IQ in the genius range when everyone knows it is a false assertion.

 

[Sanctum]

I think Therefore I am - Rene Descartes

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You're also a genius is you're in the top 2.5% of your general population's IQ range.

I win. ^_^

 

[BigApplePi]

I think Therefore I am - Rene Descartes

I itch therefore I scratch
I'm tired thereby I sleep
I speak therefore I'm irrelevant
I pose therefore I'm phoney
I feel therefore I'm alive

 

[Zensunni]

I like the short and sweet.

"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself."

-Albert Camus

The rest here have it right: pseudo-intellectuals are poseurs to the cause.

 

[Zensunni]

I itch therefore I scratch
I'm tired thereby I sleep
I speak therefore I'm irrelevant
I pose therefore I'm phoney
I feel therefore I'm alive

I oink, therefore I'm Ham.

 

[Jennywocky]

Pseudo-intellectuals remember things; they read as much as possible to gain the most amount of information just to seem as smart as possible. They focus on the details. Like Grammar Nazis or snarky nerds.

Intellectuals understand, analyze, and evaluate things; they don't focus on having the greatest amount of information but rather the deepest understanding of it, gaining their own thoughts and theories on things. They create genuine knowledge for pseudo-intellectuals to read up on. The bigger picture people like philosophers or scientists.

Yeah, there's a guy I know on another forum that drives me batty -- he's constantly starting threads and quoting various books he has read and name-dropping authors, as if to justify that he's quite intelligent (and I wouldn't say he's stupid), but typically all the thread's have blatant inherent bias in the questions that are being asked, and just because you happen to read a lot doesn't mean that you understand it. He seems to cherry-pick data to support his views and doesn't really put together his own ideas, he's just quoting someone else or talking about their book.

Meanwhile, if and when anyone says anything like this to him, he just digs in and gets really pissy about it, often just responding with a blow-off or a retort that totally diverts attention away from his own weaknesses as a thinker.

I'm far more impressed with someone who says less, but what they say comes from an understanding of what they've read so that they see the connections among the data and can build off of that to reach new ground. You can tell someone understands something when they don't need to dazzle everyone else with the fact they've read this book or that, and when they can rephrase ideas in their own words or create new ideas from the information they've digested.

 

[Zensunni]

Is he an economist?

 

[Jennywocky]

He seems more into history; I think he works in social offices.

 

[Oblivious]

It depends on the clique you're in.

 

[BigApplePi]

Let's bring this guy here, start a new thread and call it, "Pseudo-Intellectual vs Pseudo-Intellectual" We'll all pile in.

Oh oh. What did I say?

Important edit:

Originally Posted by UseHerName
They focus on the details. Like Grammar Nazis or snarky nerds.

Why is Grammar Nazis capitalized while snarky nerds not? Isn't that unfair to snarky nerds?

 

[Zensunni]

He seems more into history; I think he works in social offices.

I quoted other people for a number of years just so people would not think I was passing off others' intelligence as my own. I did not want people thinking I was the one who came up with that great idea. That' plagiarism. People thought I was showing off, so now I just tell them what I know.