sorry for not being a genius.

[Beorn]

erm's post reminded me of the Sokal afair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

 

[entropie]

Anyone else feel this way when posting? Like you're constantly being criticized for not quoting long chunks of texts or reiterating stuff you learned from a book? That you get bored after 2 posts in a debate so you leave, especially when you realize the person you're debating with is stubborn and will just twist your words? That you don't write novels for posts? that what you're curious about, others see as dumb/retarded/useless.

I'm sorry I will never be an intellectual, it's just not who I am. I still love to learn.

Yes I agree 100%. What I find intresting is that in the last years either I have met an increasingly larger amount of people like this or their numbers are growing.

I dont know, I normally manage to stay away from such people but mysteriously their numbers in my environment are growing. Smart-Alecs, people speaking languages I dont understand, people ignoring basica natural laws, people believing in quantum physics, I dont know, I guess it the life's biggest challenge you'll ever be able to take on, which is staying yourself without loosing the sense to wonder as in the sense to learn.

I personally thing that one of the prices you pay for being someone who likes to keep the balance with things, is that you probably will never be a genius. Or that you exactly because of that will bhe a genius, it is a matter of definition. One thing is more important than anything else tho and I learnt that in life: it's not important in life if you are a genius or a smart-alec, who quotes tons of text. Those two have in common that they constantly need to compare themselves to the rest of society to understand that they are geniuses and this situation puts them in a constant battle with other people. They'll never learn to enjoy the company of others and even more important, they'll never learn about themselves, cause they are to busy giving weight to the opinion of others about them.

 

[nonsequitur]

*feeds prplchknz genius-pills*

 

[InvisibleJim]

You should try harder.

 

[mysavior]

I don't read long posts. I skim quoted messages.

Are you saying dumb shit?

 

[Red Herring]

>postmodern jam session<

erm's post reminded me of the Sokal afair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

I'm guessing Postmodernism Generator, which was inspired by Sokal:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Here's a random sample:

Expressionism and the precapitalist paradigm of context

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of semanticist sexuality. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Smith is the defining characteristic, and subsequent futility, of neotextual society. The subject is interpolated into a precapitalist paradigm of context that includes language as a totality.

If one examines Marxist class, one is faced with a choice: either reject expressionism or conclude that culture serves to reinforce sexism. However, Hanfkopf[1] suggests that we have to choose between Marxist class and Sontagist camp. The main theme of Reicher’s[2] critique of the precapitalist paradigm of context is the bridge between class and society.

“Truth is responsible for the status quo,” says Baudrillard. Therefore, in Mason & Dixon, Pynchon deconstructs Marxist class; in Gravity’s Rainbow, however, he reiterates expressionism. Sartre promotes the use of subcultural theory to read sexual identity.

 

[man]

it is ok
not evry1 can be one

 

[EcK]

Anyone else feel this way when posting? Like you're constantly being criticized for not quoting long chunks of texts or reiterating stuff you learned from a book? That you get bored after 2 posts in a debate so you leave, especially when you realize the person you're debating with is stubborn and will just twist your words? That you don't write novels for posts? that what you're curious about, others see as dumb/retarded/useless.

I'm sorry I will never be an intellectual, it's just not who I am. I still love to learn.

I tend to dislike most intellectuals. But I do have my own definition of intellectualism. As a group intellectuals can be just as biased and subject to faulty group think that every other social subgroup. If not often more due to the fact that we do have a natural tendency to agree with seemingly complex explanations even when these can be demonstrated to be faulty. (studies on the topic).
So if someone's main hobby is quoting academic types the very source material they use will protect them from most counter attacks and give an unjustified feeling of self worth knowing that reporting specialised knowledge is after all not structurally different in terms of data processing than talking about "what tom and katty did at last night's party".

I respect people with a highly developped ability for critical thinking, including of themselves and their own actions. Because after all, that's what seems to me, to justify one's claim to be first and foremost an individual rather than a subtype of a cultural geshtalt with a secondary property of self awareness.

 

[prplchknz]

I tend to dislike most intellectuals. But I do have my own definition of intellectualism. As a group intellectuals can be just as biased and subject to faulty group think that every other social subgroup. If not often more due to the fact that we do have a natural tendency to agree with seemingly complex explanations even if false (studies on the topic).
So if someone's main hobby is quoting academic types the very source material they use will protect them from most counter attacks and give an unjustified feeling of self worth knowing that it's after all not structurally different in terms of data processing than talking about "what tom and katty did at last night's party".

It's not that i mind people using acadmeic sources as back up to their arguments. Hell if some one tells me x is true i want to see a research study that proves that. What I hate is when people don't have any original thoughts.

 

[chachamaru]

Intellectuals...

that's the quickest way to get me into bed.

 

[entropie]

I tend to dislike most intellectuals. But I do have my own definition of intellectualism. As a group intellectuals can be just as biased and subject to faulty group think that every other social subgroup. If not often more due to the fact that we do have a natural tendency to agree with seemingly complex explanations even when these can be demonstrated to be faulty. (studies on the topic).
So if someone's main hobby is quoting academic types the very source material they use will protect them from most counter attacks and give an unjustified feeling of self worth knowing that reporting specialised knowledge is after all not structurally different in terms of data processing than talking about "what tom and katty did at last night's party".

I respect people with a highly developped ability for critical thinking, including of themselves and their own actions. Because after all, that's what seems to me, to justify one's claim to be first and foremost an individual rather than a subtype of a cultural geshtalt with a secondary property of self awareness.

You remembered me of a somewhat twisted thought I once had. There's a guy in my company who is mister smart alec himself. He has eaten all that history books and tho he's always correcting you if you speak about things he knows better, he has no clue of computers. So I was thinking the other day when he called me for help: computer guy doesnt know about computers .

I thought this to be funny, but probably it's kinda far out

 

[rav3n]

Take this excerpt from Socrates meets Sartre:

*must resist typing Socrates and Sartre*

 

[Glycerine]

It's not that i mind people using acadmeic sources as back up to their arguments. Hell if some one tells me x is true i want to see a research study that proves that. What I hate is when people don't have any original thoughts.

To be honest, I don't read much so that I can generate my own thoughts on subjects and then I will look for resources for anything, I consider "important". I don't want to be a walking encyclopedia.It hasn't screwed me over in academics yet so...

 

[Jaguar]

I'm sorry I will never be an intellectual, it's just not who I am. I still love to learn.

Food for thought: Those who ramble on most about being "intellectual" are usually the people least likely to actually be intellectual. Those who are constantly talking about it are usually covering up one hell of an inferiority complex. They need to go fix their mommy and daddy issues, since that's where the problem begins.

 

[entropie]

Food for thought: Those who ramble on most about being "intellectual" are usually the people least likely to actually be intellectual. Those who are constantly talking about it are usually covering up one hell of an inferiority complex. They need to go fix their mommy and daddy issues, since that's where the problem begins.

That's a reasonable standpoint, but you can see it from another point aswell: those who ramble the most about it are the ones which are the most affected by it, cause they are completly different and have another attitude. Who the intellectual in that discussion is I think is only a matter of definition.

 

[Glycerine]

I see myself as an "intellectual" compared to the average person and it's only as a big of a deal as you make it. hahaha, it's great when people say, "you're thinking too much" or "you're making my brain hurt".

 

[rav3n]

prpl, did something negative happen where someone insulted you or suggested that you weren't smart? You know no one can make you feel a certain way without your consent, right?

 

[Jaguar]

That's a reasonable standpoint, but you can see it from another point aswell: those who ramble the most about it are the ones which are the most affected by it, cause they are completly different and have another attitude. Who the intellectual in that discussion is I think is only a matter of definition.

Why can't people just share knowledge to help people, without being a pretentious jackass?
Why? I'll tell you why - there are those who use and abuse knowledge to "win" or beat others. They don't really have a passion for knowledge. Not really.

 

[entropie]

Why can't people just share knowledge to help people, without being a pretentious jackass?
Why? I'll tell you why - there are those who use and abuse knowledge to "win" or beat others. They don't really have a passion for knowledge. Not really.

I agree

 

[Athenian200]

Why can't people just share knowledge to help people, without being a pretentious jackass?
Why? I'll tell you why - there are those who use and abuse knowledge to "win" or beat others. They don't really have a passion for knowledge. Not really.

I agree with you. It would be great if people didn't invest their egos so much, and could just share the knowledge without judgement.

I think that perhaps sometimes, people don't realize how being pretentious or judgmental affects others.