[MBTI General] pseudo intellectuals

[Athenian200]

Well, it doesn't seem like this discussion is going anywhere, so...

I suppose this would be a good time to reveal my actual reason for my username. The reason I called myself "Athenian200" was partially as a parody, and partially an attempt to fit in with all the psudo-intellectuals on the Internet.

When I first joined Internet forums, it seemed like everyone thought they were an intellectual and used all these sophisticated-sounding arguments, although their actual intelligence varied wildly. I simply found myself backing whoever's opinion seemed right to me, with whatever thoughts/insights I had to offer, but still remaining open to hearing what the opposition was saying. Most people chose the usernames of these great philosophers, and I couldn't help but feel like I was just a bystander and minor player in these major debates with huge, larger than life personas.

So instead of choosing the name of a prominent figure or trying to stand out among all these arrogant self-proclaimed reincarnations of Greek philosophers, I just called myself, "Athenian200," to sort of hint that I was interested in this philosophical realm, but was just another participant, just another member of the crowd throwing their two cents in.

 

[Risen]

Or maybe we're talking about people who don't know what they know, and don't know what they don't know? Either way, I think if everyone on the forum generally agreed on everything, there'd be no dissension over who is perceived as a "pseudo" intellectual vs. a full intellectual, and we'd all be hailing each other as geniuses. This whole subject sounds like rather subjective fecal matter.

 

[ygolo]

No youtube videos then

That was the main idea.

----

Circle, I am curious to know what actually sparked this thread. There are a lot of psuedo-intellectuals everywhere that I have been.

Do you find there to be more here, than other fairly general discussion forums? (at least ones that haven't been taken over by teenagers).

 

[simulatedworld]

No, I see a lot of them as well.

But then again, there are probably many who would believe myself to be one as well.

I don't think people consciously believe they're psuedo-intellectuals and go around trying to appear intelligent with a knowingly flawed argument. I think most of them believe that what they've discovered is the truth, and part of it likely is, but fail to realize the faults in their own critical faculties.

I think that's one of the premises of MBTI... that all the types have a "block" in certain areas of perception. That there are contexts in which certain understandings are correct/applicable, but that they have assumed to be universal what was actually local.

I'd like to offer a quote from the Bible. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." I'm not saying that one can never see the flaws in another person's argument, but that one should consider that quote before accusing someone else of deception or incorrect thinking. I'm not really a Christian, but I do find a lot of wisdom in religious texts nonetheless.

This.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think most people are [a pseudo-intellectual].

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.

That.

This is actually a casual forum, not a rigorous one, since the bulk of conversations here really are on just the casual or self-expressive level, not the academic one.

Which is okay.
People are allowed to talk about stuff that they might know little about.

I do sometimes wish we would all be more upfront though on what level we know ourselves to be talking on. Usually there is just an issue when someone considers themselves to be an expert without stating or perceiving their limitations in the dialog. People who know what their strengths and weaknesses are will be better conversationalists/debaters.

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?

yes, that particular comments seems rather difficult to justify. I don't think it's about the "logical faculties" since we can't really define those, we'd do better noting the experiencing/knowledge pool involved and the general approach to discussion. How would we ever debate whether someone was "acting smarter than they really are?"

I don't think people consciously believe they're psuedo-intellectuals and go around trying to appear intelligent with a knowingly flawed argument. I think most of them believe that what they've discovered is the truth, and part of it likely is, but fail to realize the faults in their own critical faculties.

That too.

It's why we should take each other with a grain of salt and a pinch of patience.

 

[Litvyak]

They told me if I went to college I would meet smart people and be happier. At college, though, I mostly just met the same people from high school that I hoped I'd never see again after graduation. Whoops.

So true.

 

[paperoceans]

Most people here are pseudo intellectuals... I'll say about 99% of the community

 

[Matthew_Z]

But... I LIKE being a pseudo-intellectual.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

But luckily, this is my escape from law school as well.

And I really do love learning from you guys all about a bunch of MBTI stuff and emotional knowledge that used to be far beyond my capacity to understand.

 

[simulatedworld]

But... I LIKE being a pseudo-intellectual.

Me too; it's so much less effort than actually knowing what I'm talking about.

 

[Ginkgo]

So instead of choosing the name of a prominent figure or trying to stand out among all these arrogant self-proclaimed reincarnations of Greek philosophers, I just called myself, "Athenian200," to sort of hint that I was interested in this philosophical realm, but was just another participant, just another member of the crowd throwing their two cents in.

Hah! How thoughtful.

I find that my own experiences revolve around me interjecting questions that I have already answered in my mind. I usually just bait people and attempt to see their viewpoints.

There are few things that I feel passionately enough to converse/debate about.

Too often I'll just throw in a random stance to see how people respond. Other times I feel the need to clarify the substance of an issue because people tend to misunderstand each other.

 

[Soar337]

None of us truly understand MBTI

 

[Ginkgo]

None of us truly understand MBTI

Is there really anything that can be understood in the first place?

 

[Risen]

None of us truly understand MBTI

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.”

 

[Quinlan]

I suppose for me I think it's better that I put forth a potentially false belief and have it torn down rather than to keep it to myself and carry on believing it.

 

[Willfrey]

They are easy to pick out. I think they are most in their element when correcting people's spelling/grammar.

 

[Athenian200]

Is there really anything to understand in the first place?

Good question.

To be honest, I don't think there is... at least, no more than in any other self-help books or pop psychology ideas. All of those ideas are useful to a point, in that they illustrate a vague idea of what you are like, and what you are NOT like, thus allowing you to take a look at what you're NOT like, and examine why you haven't incorporated those qualities into your life, and whether you would benefit from doing so.

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

Indeed, Risen. Each time you make a discovery that shatters your previous worldview, you wonder how you could have believed in something so simplistic, and you tell yourself you'll never fall for it again... but then, you build up a new layer of comfortable beliefs (which I've come to believe that human beings need to function), and it happens AGAIN.

The best thing about MBTI, I think, is that it gives you the building blocks to construct a new worldview from scratch if you find yourself in a situation where your old one no longer functions well at all.

They are easy to pick out. I think they are most in their element when correcting people's spelling/grammar.

Oh. In that case, I guess I'm one.

 

[Risen]

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*

 

[Gish]

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

 

[Matthew_Z]

Me too; it's so much less effort than actually knowing what I'm talking about.

But you still get the good feeling from thinking you might just seem insightful!