Pseudo-intellectuals

[stargroup100]

Not really a serious thread but I wanted to know if anyone knows of any "fake" intellectuals like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

I love listening to this guy's nonsense dribble and delusions, and I want more. A while back in the chit chat board I posted a thread full of videos of idiots. This time, I want people who think they're smart and to someone that doesn't know what's going on sounds smart, but actually isn't.

In other words, I'm looking more for "Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created." rather than "A painting had a painter, a watch had a watchmaker, therefore creation must have a creator."

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

define what distinguishes "real" intellectualism from "fake" intellectualism

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

"sounds smart, but actually isn't" is too vague, anyone can apply this label to anyone they disagree with

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

It's a loose definition, but basically I'm looking for people similar to the guy I linked.

Someone who "uses big words" but is usually wrong or doesn't actually understand what he's saying.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

okay, you're still not using precise language

by "big words" you mean rare words, since "prig" is objectively a small word but it's a rare word and has nuanced meanings. you also probably don't just mean rare words but academic words, since I don't know what kind of smartness you think this person is striving for but I doubt it's the kind that invokes a lot of small-but-rare words

to even talk about people who are "fake intellectuals" you need to first make clear what you mean by "real" intellectuals, and you haven't done that. otherwise, you're asking us to do a lot of inferential work by trying to draw a contrast between people who are "actually smart", which is super vague and probably not discernable from your writing.

of course, people can think they know what you mean merely because they accept what you've concluded, but that's the same kind of false-agreement that happens when people say "[insert president] is ruining the country" and disagree for entirely different reasons.

"every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created" is not even that wordy of a sentence; he's asserting that the objects of spacetime include spacetime as a system that creates rules that guide transitions between states. I don't think this makes sense, but you're being unclear about how you think this wording is being used to "sound" smart, or what you mean by "smart", and you haven't established how you can draw that motive.

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

dude I could spend time figuring out exactly what i want but this is a casual thread where im asking for entertainment material i dont think this is all necessary

if you have anything that's even remotely close to what I'm looking for just post it

[macchabee]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

dude I could spend time figuring out exactly what i want but this is a casual thread where im asking for entertainment material i dont think this is all necessary

if you have anything that's even remotely close to what I'm looking for just post it

Perhaps instead of getting uppity when someone responds to your post with critical thinking, post somewhere other than the Critical Thinking thread?

Edit: Though if you're looking for something hilariously pseudo-intellectual and cringe-worthy, you could always try watching this.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

this is a casual thread where im asking for entertainment material

and this is a forum where you think about things. if you find the act of thinking about things uncomfortable, there are at least two forums to suit your wants. namely:

1. http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...splay.php?f=17
2. http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...splay.php?f=70

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Perhaps instead of getting uppity when someone responds to your post with critical thinking, post somewhere other than the Critical Thinking thread?

I did specify that this wasn't a serious thread, and the reason why I went here instead of chit chat is because I felt the audience here would be better judges of who is actually smart versus who is trying to be smart and isn't.

Edit: Though if you're looking for something hilariously pseudo-intellectual and cringe-worthy, you could always try watching this.

I actually enjoy this show, and it's not what I'm looking for either. These are scripted shows done by actors, and so there's really no realization of any incompetent/delusional characters when the writers do moderate research and the technical material is spaced out and delivered as a comedy.

I want people who think they're brilliant but are actually full of shit.

and this is a forum where you think about things. if you find the act of thinking about things uncomfortable,

are you really gonna pull this card on me right now

[MracY]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

What would you think of this?

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

"are you really" is a form of rhetorical dismissal that sets up a reply chain where the next reply is something that question's the sayer's competence without actually rebutting the claim, such as "wow" or "you're an idiot" or "you must be trolling."

anyway, you did give a rebuttal to essentially the same statement, which was:

"I felt the audience here would be better judges of who is actually smart versus who is trying to be smart and isn't."

now, if you think we have better judgment of what "smart" is, please tell me why you think my first response to you was not an exercise of that judgment

because it is, in fact. I do think we have a more precise idea of what "smart" means here, and I don't think my idea of "smart" has anything to do with how you're defining it, which is why I asked you to be more clear about what you mean.

you are in other words reacting against people exercising the same criteria you sought out.

the only way I could see anyone being "pseudo intellectual" is if they were trying to feign academic credentials, but chris langan doesn't seem to be doing that.

[MracY]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I wouldn't say you are doing a bad thing by pointing out the nuances about the word 'intellectual', Arch0wl.
However, I would say your tone is too condescending. I suggest using a more nuanced tone as well, or making your point in another way.

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

now, if you think we have better judgment of what "smart" is, please tell me why you think my first response to you was not an exercise of that judgment

because it is, in fact. I do think we have a more precise idea of what "smart" means here, and I don't think my idea of "smart" has anything to do with how you're defining it, which is why I asked you to be more clear about what you mean.

Sigh, fair enough. I'll be a bit more specific, but part of the reason why I didn't want to go deeper into this is because I wanted to keep the interpretation of "smart" open, as it can be assessed in many different ways. The way you brought up these points made it sound like you were nit-picking specifically to be a smartass.

I consider a "real" intellectual to be someone whose work is meaningful and contributes to the academic community. I wish I could just say "anyone whose work isn't stupid" because I want to leave open ideas of value outside of this scope, but this is the only description I can think of that accurately and descriptively divides the two groups.

I want people that talk nonsense or are wrong about what they think they know, but not someone who you could immediately dismiss as an idiot. I'm talking about someone who could fool idiots into thinking they were smart.

Deepak Chopra for example, is on the grey line between these two boundaries, as the things he says can easily be shown to be ridiculous, but he is successful at convincing millions that he is an expert.

[Arkuski]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

ITT pseudo-intellectuals

but gj Arch this thread sucks and you've done a fantastic job explaining why

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

all i wanted for christmas was to listen to nutjobs

santa must hate me