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*
Look at all of the pseudo-intellectuals hovering over this thread in the "Currently Active Users" bar.
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?!
Can you create a mathematical equation out of that, and then bitch about how high your IQ is?
I usually roll my eyes and head for the hills when I see people debating "intellectual" topics such as the color of lint.
You're seeking identification through intelligence.
We've been over this. It's obviously purple.
You have an obsession with empirical evidence.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”