• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] pseudo intellectuals

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Like OrangeAppled mentioned already, I was always under the impression that a pseudo-intellectual was someone who liked the idea or appearance of intellectual discussion, but really could not care less about the topic in any genuine way. So, someone who discusses some political or philosophical issue just to show to everyone that they are intellectual, not because they are curious or actually care about the topic, is a pseudo-intellectual.

I hope that this is the real definition of it. It concerns me that some people here are instead trying to claim that a person has to be intelligent to be an intellectual, and that a person who isn't that bright but desperately wants to be able to discuss intellectual matters is somehow fake. :huh:

I've made this point many times before, and probably will make it many more times: higher-than-average intelligence isn't required for intellectualism. All that is required is an intense interest in intellectual subjects.

For example, it is almost sort of a given for INTPs to be intellectuals of a sort (the thinker, the philosopher...) But where in the type description does it say that they are all amazingly smart? Maybe in some of the descriptions, but the good ones are supposed to be purely about personality, not about ability. It is an unfair thing to have a very intellectual personality but to have to add a "pseudo" to that because of weak reasoning abilities, flawed logic, etc.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I dealt with this issue somewhat in my blog

The simple truth about truth is that it's universal(not to mention eternal) - it applies to all people. Therefore it can be expressed in various forms. Yes you have philosophers who ponder on such matters with great depth; but yet it can also be expressed with the words of an old maid as well. It doesn't really matter. The intelligent do not have a monopoly on truth, it belongs to all men.

And as I mentioned to LL, Plato himself emphasized that a true philosopher is simply an exemplary man - he's not a species apart so to speak.

Of course in regards to intellectual discourse nowadays(or what counts as such), there are several problems that go to the heart of several issues. A big issue regards the (post)modern denial of universal truths, which results in an endless fragmentation of knowledge and inquiry - which is institutionalized with ever increasing specialization. That of course is an entire discussion in of itself -one which I won't be able to get into right now...

...The irony of course being that I'm actually a populist in this regard; I do believe intellectual discourse should be more open to everyday people, and public discourse should be elevated to a greater level then what we usually see.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Well said. Both Luna and Peguy.

A true intellectual should just be someone who is intellectually curious and interested in improving their intellect and knowledge. Their status as an intellectual ought to be independent of their actual schooling or IQ.

As many have said, the term pseudo-intellectual should really be reserved for those who don't care about intellect or knowledge except as it affects their reputation or standing. These are the people who accumulate knowledge purely for the purpose of showing off. There can be brilliant pseudo-intellectuals.

I like this division.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I think it's also important to distinguish between the philosopher and the philodoxer. The philosopher is concerned with wisdom and truth; while the philodoxer is only concerned with opinion.

You could say the true intellectual is the former, while pseudo-intellectuals represents the latter.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Like OrangeAppled mentioned already, I was always under the impression that a pseudo-intellectual was someone who liked the idea or appearance of intellectual discussion, but really could not care less about the topic in any genuine way. So, someone who discusses some political or philosophical issue just to show to everyone that they are intellectual, not because they are curious or actually care about the topic, is a pseudo-intellectual.

It's hard to tell on this forum who is and who is not a pseudo-intellectual because it's difficult to read people's intentions through text. That said, there is a tendency for pseudo-intellectuals to talk extensive nonsense because their lack of care for the subject makes them intellectually lazy or sloppy, and this is immediately identifiable.

I tend to agree with that definition of pseudo-intellectual, but would that mean that anyone who discusses politics or philosophy with a genuine interest is an intellectual? A lot would say it's not just about interest but ability as well.
 

CJ99

Is Willard in Footloose!!
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
582
MBTI Type
ENTP
Of course theres lot of pseudo intellectuals. Its a forum full of Ns!!!!!! And about half of them are NTs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Athenian has got the point.
I agree.
The Sermon of the Mount.
Pure wisdom.

Essential Socrates. Written down by Plato.
Reason is ahead of the answer.
The answer precedes the question.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I tend to agree with that definition of pseudo-intellectual, but would that mean that anyone who discusses politics or philosophy with a genuine interest is an intellectual? A lot would say it's not just about interest but ability as well.

Perhaps genuine interest is not a sufficient condition (though I still kind of think it is), but it is necessary. So it still stands as a good basis for distinguishing between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual.
 

krunchtime

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
96
He told me that a psychiatrist once put it to him that the reason he sneered and scoffed at "non-intellectuals" having serious discussions was because he liked to feel like he, and others like him, were alone entitled/qualified to do that. He had to believe that there was *something* he "could" do that others couldn't or shouldn't, and defend that territory, to compensate for all the things he believed he couldn't do that others could - mostly, socialising and making friends. Facing the idea that all kinds of people can and do have interesting discussions would mean that there was nothing, really, that other people couldn't do that he could, would have undermined the basis of his self-esteem: I'm more intelligent, therefore I have *proper* discussions, whilst other people just talk about mundane, uninteresting nonsense.

He realised with horror that he was an elitist, and that his elitism stemmed from self-loathing! :laugh:

+100

I always thought that a self-styled intellectual would remain open to various options/ perspectives, because it allows him/her to obtain a clearer understanding of the issue. Discussions are all about the ebbs and flow of ideas, so expert knowledge (or lack of thereof) should not pose as a barrier to entry. It might seem terribly tedious for those with superior knowledge, although they can choose to walk away or share the love ;)
I'm a pseudo intellectual for sure, and I think "intellectual" alone, is an elitist label which implies some sort of high-browed conversation taking place, that naturally carries more merit than all other types of discussions :D
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
+100

I always thought that a self-styled intellectual would remain open to various options/ perspectives, because it allows him/her to obtain a clearer understanding of the issue. Discussions are all about the ebbs and flow of ideas, so expert knowledge (or lack of thereof) should not pose as a barrier to entry. It might seem terribly tedious for those with superior knowledge, although they can choose to walk away or share the love ;)
I'm a pseudo intellectual for sure, and I think "intellectual" alone, is an elitist label which implies some sort of high-browed conversation taking place, that naturally carries more merit than all other types of discussions :D


To you, and Proximo, that's exactly why I have a certain distaste for this thread. I wont make assumptions about what people are thinking, but I do know the historical use of the term "intellectual" and the types of people who cling to such a distinction. It IS a marker of self ascribed elitism, far more than any PSEUDO-intellectual.

Personally, I know I'm smart, I know the limits of my own knowledge and understanding, and I know what truths I'm seeking. However, not once have I, or would I, be so HONESTLY (because I do espouse a lot of half serious, trollish arrogance around here for kicks) audacious as to call myself an "intellectual". When people do such things they either do it in full knowledge of their own insecurities or they do it in complete ignorance of their own mental state.
 

avolkiteshvara

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
893
MBTI Type
YaYa
Reading some Chompsky gave me a real distaste for "Intellectuals". I see these people everyday.

He basically says professors dress up simply concepts with complex language to try to give it more weight. A "barrier to entry" if you will.
 

Snuggletron

Reptilian
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2,224
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
10
Reading some Chompsky gave me a real distaste for "Intellectuals". I see these people everyday.

He basically says professors dress up simple concepts with complex language to try to give it more weight. A "barrier to entry" if you will.

So many people do this. Most of the time it just makes the laymen leave the room which gives a certain satisfaction to the pseudo-intellectual. You're not helping people see your point by putting it in a tailored suit and giving it a big top hat and a monocle.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Reading some Chompsky gave me a real distaste for "Intellectuals". I see these people everyday.

He basically says professors dress up simply concepts with complex language to try to give it more weight. A "barrier to entry" if you will.

I agree 100%.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Reading some Chompsky gave me a real distaste for "Intellectuals". I see these people everyday.

He basically says professors dress up simply concepts with complex language to try to give it more weight. A "barrier to entry" if you will.

Yes, the proper term for this is Sophistry.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
He basically says professors dress up simply concepts with complex language to try to give it more weight. A "barrier to entry" if you will.

Yes, this is infuriating. Most of the presentations in college (80 minutes) can be summed up in 5 complex sentences without any loss of information if we leave the unnecessary gaudiness.
 

foolish heart

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
470
MBTI Type
ISTP
Yes, the proper term for this is Sophistry.

:happy2: Aha! concise ideas communicated simply vs disorganized ideas communicated with sophisticated vocabulary?

Here is another side question... Is a vast vocabulary really useful if other people do not know the same words?
 

foolish heart

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
470
MBTI Type
ISTP
kid+driving+car.jpg


"Oh yeah? Why don't YOU learn to drive?" :D
 

krunchtime

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
96
So many people do this. Most of the time it just makes the laymen leave the room which gives a certain satisfaction to the pseudo-intellectual. You're not helping people see your point by putting it in a tailored suit and giving it a big top hat and a monocle.

Dress it up with a flourish! Otherwise, its bald and unpresentable :smile::smile::smile:

Personally, I know I'm smart, I know the limits of my own knowledge and understanding, and I know what truths I'm seeking. However, not once have I, or would I, be so HONESTLY (because I do espouse a lot of half serious, trollish arrogance around here for kicks) audacious as to call myself an "intellectual". When people do such things they either do it in full knowledge of their own insecurities or they do it in complete ignorance of their own mental state.

I think you can call yourself an intellectual as long as you've an interest in things which are far removed from reality. There's no justification otherwise lol. I usually assume that knowledge or data is easier to obtain than insight into one own's psyche, which was why I liked proximo's analysis. It's spot on, even for myself. At some point in time, I realised that it's a fallacy to rank topics by content, but I still can't help doing it. Its kind of like saying, we should accept humans for who they are, while secretly resenting the fact that they are different from you in some way.
 

StoryToTell

New member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
53
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
5w4
I tend to get a bit embarrassed by my pseudo-intellectual ramblings at times and will pronounce them as such, since I know I don't have all the facts and am often going off perceptions. I have to agree with OrangeAppled here, the annoying "pseudo-intellectuals" are ones that have no genuine interest in a topic but simply want to sound intelligent. There's a difference between bouncing ideas around and talking out of your ass.

Well, most of the time.
 
Top