[10yrsgone]

(Mods: If this is in the wrong forum, please move )

I don't mean to start any potentially inflammatory debates or arguments here, but I have seen the term "pseudo-intellectual" thrown around quite often online lately.

What constitutes "Pseudo-Intellectualism" and how does it differ from true Intellectualism? Moreover, is that term made up by people as a defense mechanism, or, worse, trolling?

The impression I get about "pseudo-intellectual" thinking is that many who partake in that type of behavior tend to talk about information without necessarily studying it or applying the proper research. I've seen it used when people often comment on stories with second-hand or improper knowledge of what they are researching.

However, I have also seen the term used when referring to something outside the realm of academia, such as song lyrics. In some cases, I have seen "pseudo-intellectual" applied to Bad Religion's Greg Graffin, despite the fact he holds a doctorate in zoology and is currently a professor at UCLA and Cornell.

In that case, could the term "pseudo-intellectual" be considered a pejorative, or a matter of opinion? Unless something meant to be "lowbrow" is covered in flowery language and holds no educational value apart from the surface, isn't "pseudo-intellectual" a matter of opinion?

Just trying to see what others have to say about it. Though I could be horribly off the mark in my own assumptions/definitions.

[TishaBuv]

pseudointellectual ‎(plural pseudointellectuals) A person who affects proficiency in scholarly and artistic pursuits whilst lacking any in-depth knowledge or critical understanding of such topics. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is. [

It's an insult.

[Perna]

Originally Posted by 10yrsgone

However, I have also seen the term used when referring to something outside the realm of academia, such as song lyrics. In some cases, I have seen "pseudo-intellectual" applied to Bad Religion's Greg Graffin, despite the fact he holds a doctorate in zoology and is currently a professor at UCLA and Cornell.

To my mind, anyone who would use it in the above case would be the uneducated ones, would probably not know he had a doctorate/was a professor, etc. and/or apply their own lack of creds to trying to tear down someone trying something new after already being good at something else, kind of like models or athletes are looked down upon when they try acting? However, it could also be a way to differentiate his science/intellectual work from his hobbies?

[DesigningWoman]

Like most insults "pseudo intellectual" is ridiculous because it is not quantifiable. It is simply a personal judgement by the speaker.
If intellectual is loosely defined as a person who learns and cogitates on a subject or subjects that could apply to anyone regardless of class, degree achievement, age, etc. Who is to say whether when I read a book on quantum physics (not my field), ponder, and discuss my thoughts that is pseudo or real intellectual? Frankly I could care less about someone's judgement of my intellectual endeavors. Education is the important part, degenerating or debating the person is a waste of time.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Originally Posted by DesigningWoman

Who is to say whether when I read a book on quantum physics (not my field), ponder, and discuss my thoughts that is pseudo or real intellectual?

As I understand it, the difference is intent. Are you reading and discussing it because you're genuinely curious about the subject, or are you just trying to look smart and in-the-know? The former is a real intellectual, the latter, pseudointellectual.

[DesigningWoman]

But the distinction is being made by an outside observer who has no way to know your individual intent. This goes back to the you as an outside observer can't quantify the distinction. What test would show the difference in my intent? And how could you make sure I wasn't being deceptive in my answers?

[yagr]

I think this thread has made some very good points regarding the difficulties in categorizing intellectualism vs pseudo-intellectualism. I have found some defining characteristics of pseudo-intellectualism though, but they are guidelines for me rather than hard and fast rules.

If a person is talking about an intellectually heavy topic with disdain for other points of view, exasperation at having to explain it again, and/or an aire of boredom - then it is probably a pseudo-intellectual treatise. For instance, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in physics and mathematics and am a member of Mensa. I have taken some post graduate courses and have a working understanding of quantum mechanics. It's fair to say that I'm pretty versed in the field. Rather than work in my field however, I opted for a different path and became a professional poker player.

In the months and years immediately following 9/11, I got to listen to conversations at the poker table almost daily from conspiracy theorists about how 9/11 was done by our own government. They spoke of the manner in which the buildings fell, spoke of stress points, metal fatigue and melting points. They made all kinds of physics arguments, using bonafide physics terminology and broad statements about how 'obvious' it was. They dismissed any counter arguments, out of hand, regardless of how valid they may have been - but couldn't actually maintain a conversation much beyond the rehearsed reasons they had memorized from an article or news story or whatever sources they were quoting and pretending to be their original thoughts.

Personally, I have no idea whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy. With my education, the next twenty years and unfettered access to evidence I might be able to form a factual, intelligent opinion. They couldn't - but it didn't stop them from pretending that they could. The greatest evidence that theirs was a pseudo-intellectual argument was the fact that they knew. That, and they treated everyone who didn't agree as a complete idiot.

[Permacultural]

I think pseudo intellectual describes someone who strings 50 cent words together but doesn't comprehend the meaning..... Or someone who memorizes quotes from intellectuals and then passes them off as originals.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by Permacultural

I think pseudo intellectual describes someone who strings 50 cent words together but doesn't comprehend the meaning..... Or someone who memorizes quotes from intellectuals and then passes them off as originals.

Yeah, what you said. How did you condense my four paragraphs into two sentences?