Pseudo-Intellectualism Type-Speak . . .

[Gaze]

OP:

For a long time, especially in late undergrad/early grad. I followed the trend of the intellectual, projecting this image of the continually, intellectually engaged, using the language, citing the thought and perpetuating the lingo of the culture and discipline. Only to realize in the last few years that most of it was pseudo intellectualism.

I notice that there is more pseudo-intellectualism than true intellectual engagement, even among true intellectuals. I guess it makes us think we see things that others don't. E.g. "I see dead people . . ." (6th Sense). Apparently, if you can understanding something simply, or explain it in simple terms, it's not good or intellectual enough. And apparently, it supposedly demonstrates simplicity of thought or understanding.

I notice that a few here on the board, who don't read posts carefully, rush to use "intellectual" typology speak to point out where the poster doesn't understand what they are saying or isn't clearly articulating their thoughts on a concept or idea. Making snap, oversimplified judgments which give the impression that they are more intelligent or intellectual than the person who is posting. This is proped up by extreme arrogance and ignorance of the many possible ways an individual may understand and interpret an experience.

Understanding is complicated and cannot be understood through language and communication. Our minds have quite a bit more inside than what we are able to express through words. Intellect or a complex of understanding cannot be defined entirely through verbal or written communication; nor, can the pseudo-intellectual analysis of someone's thoughts or ideas expressed in a post. Sometimes, all that's necessary is to relate your experience; it's not always necessary to demonstrate how capable you are of spewing typological thought just to prove you are so knowledgeable or that much more understanding than everyone else.

You know . . . you can know what you know, and not need to prove it.

Even I found my post annoying. So comments withdrawn.

 

[Sithious]

That's me alright, but hey, at least I'm honest about it

 

[Satya]

The true test of intellectualism is the ability to apply critical thinking.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Your quasi-amateurish pseudo-intellectual critique of the pretense of unfettered superiority betrays your standing as a mere dilettante in the realm of cognitive grandstanding.

 

[Gaze]

Your quasi-amateurish pseudo-intellectual critique of the pretense of unfettered superiority betrays your standing as a mere dilettante in the realm of cognitive grandstanding.

lol

 

[Wyote]

"School is a house of parrots"

-Chris Langan

Being genuine is far more important than being verbose. I think the vast majority of supposed pseudo-intellectuals on this forum are quite genuine.

Realizing you are a dittohead is a great first step in breaking free.

 

[Gaze]

The point is not to bash anyone for using type speak to explain or describe an subject or issue, but to avoid allowing the type speak to get in the way of understanding what someone is saying or feeling, so that responses are helpful and are not just a rehash of type speak just to prove that one is more knowledgeable or more logical than another just because they know the lingo and can use it.

Edit:
In any case, the original post was withdrawn.

 

[Architectonic]

Your quasi-amateurish pseudo-intellectual critique of the pretense of unfettered superiority betrays your standing as a mere dilettante in the realm of cognitive grandstanding.

Your comment would have had more of an intellectual tone had you written it in Latin.

Seriously though, perhaps they are compensating for their lack of insight? Perhaps they wish to obscure their thoughts just in case someone would notice that it is bullshit?

The sad fact is that communicating in such a way actually decreases your communication skill - as less people are going to actually understand what you mean. This fact needs to be pointed out wherever you see someone expressing an idea in language which obscures their intended message.

 

[sassafras]

Yup, that's me

But I notice that much of it has to do with your background. For instance, a number of university disciplines get you into the habit of small-picture/big-picture analysis. Academic writing itself is pretty convoluted. You get comfortable with a certain style, and then you begin to think and write this way.

There's also a number of writers here. Lyrical and long-winded, and I find that if you're a by-the-seat of your-pants kind of scribbler, your ideas don't really evolve until they appear on paper.

To be fair, this first post makes it sound like someone is trying to come across one way or another. Some of us simply express our thoughts on paper better; and its more explaining thoughts and trying understand our own opinions ourselves than it really is trying to explain them to others. It's not about bullshit. It's about how we present the ideas in our heads. We think in paragraphs.

Maybe it comes across as arrogance. Chances are, though, if someone is putting in the time and effort to articulate their opinion that is dedicated to helping another person ( or as I feel it is in my case) it's not about lording knowledge, it's about genuinely trying to help the person as I understand the issue.

Call me pseudo-intellectual if you will. If the way I communicate my ideas annoys you, then don't read what I've got to say. It's that simple.

 

[transcendentalethos]

Yup, that's me

But I notice that much of it has to do with your background. For instance, a number of university disciplines get you into the habit of small-picture/big-picture analysis. Academic writing itself is pretty convoluted. You get comfortable with a certain style, and then you begin to think and write this way.

There's also a number of writers here. Lyrical and long-winded, and I find that if you're a by-the-seat of your-pants kind of scribbler, your ideas don't really evolve until they appear on paper.

To be fair, this first post makes it sound like someone is trying to come across one way or another. Some of us simply express our thoughts on paper better; and its more explaining thoughts and trying understand our own opinions ourselves than it really is trying to explain them to others. It's not about bullshit. It's about how we present the ideas in our heads. We think in paragraphs.

Maybe it comes across as arrogance. Chances are, though, if someone is putting in the time and effort to articulate their opinion that is dedicated to helping another person ( or as I feel it is in my case) it's not about lording knowledge, it's about genuinely trying to help the person as I understand the issue.

Call me pseudo-intellectual if you will. If the way I communicate my ideas annoys you, then don't read what I've got to say. It's that simple.

Yup, you writers annoy me.

I'm not going to point any fingers, it just seems very unnecessary most of the time.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I kind of know what you're talking about though. I've had to read many "intellectual" papers for my colloquium class, and quite honestly, it can be exhausting. One thing that really irks me is when someone over-complicates the point in their writing just to make it sound more "legit" or "intellectual." The smartest people in the world can express their ideas in a way that is easy to understand, or at least isn't overcomplicated for the sake of sounding intelligent.

 

[Gaze]

I kind of know what you're talking about though. I've had to read many "intellectual" papers for my colloquium class, and quite honestly, it can be exhausting. One thing that really irks me is when someone over-complicates the point in their writing just to make it sound more "legit" or "intellectual." The smartest people in the world can express their ideas in a way that is easy to understand, or at least isn't overcomplicated for the sake of sounding intelligent.

That was my point. And you've done a much better job of explaining it.

Thanx.

 

[enfp can be shy]

The whole idea of "intellectual" and "pseudo-intellectual" is funny and unnecessary. Like a job, or something? Should there be a certificate for that title too? (gosh, i hate titles and certificates - even though i got quite a lot of them too..) There are just thoughts and ideas.

Apparently, if you can understanding something simply, or explain it in simple terms, it's not good or intellectual enough.

Oh, not at all! The opposite is much more true - real understanding leads you to simple words. The words, the labels are of no importance, only what you mean by them - hence, no use to throw heavy words out there. Most wise men, like Gandhi or Tolkien, didn't use very complicated words in their narrative's sentences. The essence of their thoughts was what made them great.
(and note that they have been very well educated, and could use very complicated words for everything - but they didn't)

you can know what you know, and not need to prove it

Sure! I feel very often like that. I know (some) people won't understand or accept my arguments, and I just retreat somewhere, and wait for them to get the data by themselves, convince themselves, and then come back lecturing me about the same thing I was supporting before. ^^ I got used to that trend by now.

In short: How we speak is less important than what we say.

 

[Wyote]

I kind of know what you're talking about though. I've had to read many "intellectual" papers for my colloquium class, and quite honestly, it can be exhausting. One thing that really irks me is when someone over-complicates the point in their writing just to make it sound more "legit" or "intellectual." The smartest people in the world can express their ideas in a way that is easy to understand, or at least isn't overcomplicated for the sake of sounding intelligent.

The reason people do this is because they are insecure. It's intellectual bullying in my opinion. It's just dick measuring, but with words. I find it kind of sad actually. I've come across folks who speak this way in an attempt to impress others for the purpose of asserting their own self worth. Then they end up baffled that no one likes them! And of course this spills over into academia because people believe that if you have a large vocabulary you have more self worth - which is entirely false.

Ultimately we've ended up with all of these sub groups of people with their own lingo because it makes people feel special. If you can use the language you become part of the club. This creates the appearance of more intellect than is actually present within the club.

People who have higher vocabularies are paid more. This is fact.

In our attempt to find belonging, we've alienated ourselves from each other.

 

[Satya]

I kind of know what you're talking about though. I've had to read many "intellectual" papers for my colloquium class, and quite honestly, it can be exhausting. One thing that really irks me is when someone over-complicates the point in their writing just to make it sound more "legit" or "intellectual." The smartest people in the world can express their ideas in a way that is easy to understand, or at least isn't overcomplicated for the sake of sounding intelligent.

A lot of psychological journals are this way as well. It irritates me to no end.

 

[Blind Bandit]

A lot of psychological journals are this way as well. It irritates me to no end.

Yes and don't forget Philosophy. My god some of the language that is used is so asininely convoluted and awkward. I know philosophy Epically questions of Meta Physics and Epistemology are extremely abstract and thus difficult to explain but don't make it worse. Overstated something or worse repeating the same thing over again only to point out anther conclusion all together.

In ethics we haven't read many primary sources but in 101 we read primary sources pretty exclusively thank god we had a good teacher because have time I wasn't sure where they where their conclusion was headed.

Being verbose for its own sake is sad. If a world is appropriate use it but don't pack in useless words.

 

[Duty]

What is this "intellectual language?" The purpose of formal languages is the absence of ambiguity and reference to concepts specific to a given discipline. To logicians I can say, "In step 5 of this proof I take step 4 and apply the rule of universal elimination, so we turn the variable into a specific case within our given system," and they know exactly what is going on...instead of taking several paragraphs to explain what that is and precisely what it is.

 

[Wyote]

What is this "intellectual language?" The purpose of formal languages is the absence of ambiguity and reference to concepts specific to a given discipline. To logicians I can say, "In step 5 of this proof I take step 4 and apply the rule of universal elimination, so we turn the variable into a specific case within our given system," and they know exactly what is going on...instead of taking several paragraphs to explain what that is and precisely what it is.

It is necessary to use non-ambiguous language and reference pertinent materials, but it is often taken far beyond that. When you read whole paragraphs which can honestly be summed up in a sentence or two (had the author attempted to reach a wider audience), it becomes unnecessary elitist jargon.

And really, why not make every attempt to reach as many people as possible? Why must only logicians know what logicians are talking about?

 

[Duty]

And really, why not make every attempt to reach as many people as possible? Why must only logicians know what logicians are talking about?

For logic specifically, it is impossible, since logic is the formalization of language. It is exactly like asking why you can't understand what a mathematician is saying in his long formula. He can translate the basics to you, but the precision and unambiguous nature of the symbology will be lost. This is why the public so often misunderstands science: when trying to bring things down to the realm of common language, ambiguity ignites peoples biases and imaginations.

 

[sassafras]

Hmm. It still sounds like you guys are pointing fingers at a whole coalition of these academic/writerly folks that gets together to think of all the convoluted, confusing ways to present their ideas to just fuck with the “plebian masses” or hide to their own insecurities.

If communication was simply about getting to the point of the matter, we wouldn’t have twenty or thirty different ways of saying the same thing. It’s an art, and it’s meant to move you; capture your imagination, capitalize on feeling. If every professor were to write his discourse the same way that dude at Sony writes out the instructions to their DVD players, he’d be eradicating an entire level of intellectual stimulation. While making a logical argument is important, being able to reinforce that argument in many different ways triggers a familiarity with the subject— rhetoric, structure, and illustrative examples consciously or subconsciously force you to connect more intimately with the point, and inspire thinking about the subject in different ways. Compare it to body language. Body language helps you express the point you’re verbalizing, but at the same time, communicates other, subconscious information that the other person responds to in addition to what it is you're saying.

If you actually stop, and look at the ways essays/treatises are structured and worded, there is an intelligent and intentional design. There’s much that remains unspoken, and it’s yours to discover.

Nowadays we’re just used to getting information at the snap of our fingers—twitter’s 65 characters or less—so it’s relatively easy to develop a low frustration tolerance for things that are not available at the click of a button. Furthermore, the average person’s vocabulary has actually decreased in the last twenty years. A combination of these things makes it easy to get intimidated by academic writing…. Or, frighteningly enough, regard it as pretentious or arrogant just because we didn’t take the time to appreciate it.

So, instead of automatically dismissing a long piece of writing as convoluted and therefore, "senseless" just because the other person is demonstrating their ideas in a stylized manner, think of it instead as a puzzle, and look at the whole picture. If you're a humanities student and you've done your share of academic reading, you'll know that to write a successful essay means to look at what the author is saying, and also what he isn't saying. The long-windedness of these academic writings often helps in the latter because they are meant to better express their point. It sharpens your reading comprehension, and it helps you to truly weed out the bullshitters from the real academics.

And lastly, who knows? A certain turn of a phrase, or an image might encourage a response or send you down another avenue of thinking without you being conscious of it. It’s not just building information; it's building inspiration. No one should be accused of having a black agenda just because they don't state their point the way it would be displayed in a instruction manual.