[MBTI General] pseudo intellectuals

[Oaky]

Pseudo-intellectuals are there to make people feel stupid.

 

[Ginkgo]

Disagreements go on forever when both parties are arguing out of a state of ignorance, for it is only knowledge of truth that can bring peace guidance to the lost and sight to the blind. People can disagree for eternity when neither party can see the true nature of what it is they disagree on. One faulty argument can never kill another, only the irrefutable truth can can bring death to the pestilent, fallacious mutterings.

*wink wink*

I had a recent thought. Don't take it seriously:

Everyone internally agrees about everything. They just don't know it because they express themselves through different means.

 

[Soar337]

Look at all of the pseudo-intellectuals hovering over this thread in the "Currently Active Users" bar.

The thread has just been open on a tab for the past hour while I've been doing my homework Can't speak for the others though...

 

[Soar337]

I don't even know how to pronounce Pseudo.

And, Circle, ahem. Isn't it better for a fifteen year old to be on here, thinking about life and being quite clever, than to be out on the streets drinking, getting high and having no future?

 

[Jaguar]

I usually roll my eyes and head for the hills when I see people debating "intellectual" topics such as the color of lint.

 

[Ginkgo]

I usually roll my eyes and head for the hills when I see people debating "intellectual" topics such as the color of lint.

Did you know that if you wear a pink T shirt and run around in a circle for 30 minutes, you can accumulate pink lint in your belly-button? How cool is that?!

 

[Jaguar]

Did you know that if you wear a pink T shirt and run around in a circle for 30 minutes, you can accumulate pink lint in your belly-button? How cool is that?!

Can you create a mathematical equation out of that, and then bitch about how high your IQ is?

 

[Ginkgo]

Can you create a mathematical equation out of that, and then bitch about how high your IQ is?

Honestly, no. I suppose that means that I am a pseudo-pseudo-intellectual.

 

[simulatedworld]

I usually roll my eyes and head for the hills when I see people debating "intellectual" topics such as the color of lint.

We've been over this. It's obviously purple.

 

[proximo]

You're seeking identification through intelligence.

This reminds me of someone I know who has always suffered from very low self-confidence. He believes he's not really liked or likeable to other people, and so clings very strongly to the idea that he's more intelligent than most people (which, in terms of raw IQ, he is) as a basis for what self-esteem he has.

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, and 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!

 

[Jaguar]

We've been over this. It's obviously purple.

You have an obsession with empirical evidence.

 

[simulatedworld]

You have an obsession with empirical evidence.

You should learn to take note of empirical evidence that someone is joking.

And no, you're the one with an obsession. I only have to keep bringing it up because you never seem to take anything seriously without it.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I am most definitely a pseudo-intellectual.

I think most people are.

How often do you hear people talk about their opinions of human nature, the economy, political issues, scientific issues, philosophy, etc.? How often are the people speaking about these things experts about what they are talking about?

If we didn't have people who were pseudo-intellectuals, some of us (at least one of us, namely me) would be bored out of our skulls.

I really cannot converse too long on what happened recently to someone, or who said what about who...just doesn't hold my attention. I listen, because I like hearing people talk, but there is a limit.

There certainly are other types of conversation...but even a thread like this invites pseudo-intellectualism. Who here is an expert on intellectualism, or an expert on who ought to or ought not participate in intellectual discussions? Who is qualified to accurately asses what is beyond the logical faculties of a particular individual?

I agree with this....although, I don't think being intellectual means being an expert on a topic. I simply see it as a genuine curiosity into intellectual matters. I would say I am intellectually curious, but not an expert intellectual at all.

I think pseudo-intellectuals are people who want to seem smart/knowledgeable, but really have little interest in exploring a topic. Rather, they just like to hear themselves talk and to appear intellectual. It's a facade, not a sincere interest.

 

[proximo]

You don't need to be well educated or an expert to be a genuine intellectual.

It's official. I guess we can all heave a sigh of relief!

 

[Shimmy]

Honest question--am I the only one who sees a lot of them posting on MBTIc?

In my opinion a pseudo-intellectual is someone who attempts to wield arguments beyond the capabilities of their logical facilities. They are the 15-year-old who insists on driving a manual sports car... can't blame them for wanting to try, but I feel it is appropriate to point out that there are negative consequences of misrepresentation.


Discuss... and try to keep it polite, you or I could easily fall into this categorization.

Fuck, we're all pseudo-intellectuals. you, me, and everybody else. If you don't want to meet pseudo-intellectuals, get the fuck of the internet.

I believe that when you use the term "pseudo-intellectual", you are just watering down the term "idiot". I can't blame you for using lighter vocabulary though.

Yes, I see them. I probably am one.

This thread is probably going to result in an "NT bashes everyone else" conversation. You're seeking identification through intelligence.

NT's love to bash other NT's as well. And yeah, you are right with the "I probably am one." part. Everybody on this entire forum (and the entire internet) is one. Everybody who voices his opinion in one or another way thinks he or she matters in some way aka, a pseudo intellectual. Only people who voice other people's opinions aren't pseudo-intellectual, but they're called 'sheople'. Neither choice is 'wrong'. But both think that each other is wrong (including me, I prefer pseudo-intelectual over sheople).

 

[OrangeAppled]

You don't need to be well educated or an expert to be a genuine intellectual.

It's official. I guess we can all heave a sigh of relief!

Isabel Myers Briggs would be pretty pseudo-intellectual otherwise, or maybe she was a pseudo-intellectual .

 

[Ginkgo]

I retract my previous comment about the "idiot" terminology.

 

[simulatedworld]

I agree with this....although, I don't think being intellectual means being an expert on a topic. I simply see it as a genuine curiosity into intellectual matters. I would say I am intellectually curious, but not an expert intellectual at all.

I think pseudo-intellectuals are people who want to seem smart/knowledgeable, but really have little interest in exploring a topic. Rather, they just like to hear themselves talk and to appear intellectual. It's a facade, not a sincere interest.

Probably true. +1

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Yea, when it comes to MBTI, THEN I'll start throwing around the pseudo-intellectual stigma. A lot of people think they're experts in the subject, but... nah. They presume to know/understand more about things that they can't know.

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.”

SAY THAT IN THE MIRROR 50 TIMES...