Pseudo-Intellectualism Type-Speak . . .

[Kaipaus]

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.

I sort of agree. I study philosophy at a university and what really irritates me is that we are advised to use difficult words in our writing just for the sake of using them, of showing that we can use them. :/ I used to think that writing essays on philosophy would be fun, but using difficult words as an end in itself takes away much of the fun. Fuck the academic world. I wish people in the academic world would respect real undestanding, clear thinking and expressing philosophical thoughts in as ordinary language as possible instead of using difficult words for the sake of just using them.

 

[arbygil]

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

 

[Kaipaus]

I agree with TheDaringHatTrick and arbygil that many of the people here who are seen by some as pseudo-intellectuals are probably misunderstood. I haven't been on this forum for a long time-- actually, only a few days, but I used to frequent another message board where the more intellectual folks were accused of "pseudo-intellectualism". Some of them were guilty of trying to come off as intelligent and "bullying" others because everyone wasn't familiar with advanced argumentation, but many of those who engaged in those intellectual, argumentative discussions did so because they simply enjoyed it and wanted to test their ideas, to learn something new, to take part in a dialogue.

 

[Pristinegirl]

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

Partially true The only real way to test a persons intellect is to have them verbalize and speak about it. Only then can you directly observe it; e.g. watching the person think, body language and coherence!

 

[Satya]

Partially true The only real way to test a persons intellect is to have them verbalize and speak about it. Only then can you directly observe it; e.g. watching the person think, body language and coherence!

That has nothing to do with what I said.

The true intellectual has the capacity to question and scrutinize what they believe and why they believe it. If they have that capacity then they have no need to hide behind a facade of intelligence and wordy language because they are able to articulately and concisely explain the evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs.

In other words, to root out a pseudointellectual, you only have to find those people who shy away from having their views and perceptions challenged, and who cannot provide adequate reasoning to justify them, but who still choose to speak as if they know what they are talking about.

 

[Pristinegirl]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

The true intellectual has the capacity to question and scrutinize what they believe and why they believe it. If they have that capacity then they have no need to hide behind a facade of intelligence and wordy language because they are able to articulately and concisely explain the evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs.

In other words, to root out a pseudointellectual, you only have to find those people who shy away from having their views and perceptions challenged, and who cannot provide adequate reasoning to justify them, but who still choose to speak as if they know what they are talking about.

Of course, I wasnt opposing that even (?). I was just saying that basically if they have that capacity (which you mentioned) then it they can do what I said as well!

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Not all long-winded writing is pseudo-intellectualism. There are some subjects that are difficult to understand either way. And some people really do just talk like that (I know an INTJ that has a very sophisticated vocabulary, and he is often misjudged for that).
However, I can often tell the difference between the two; it's very subtle, but some people really do just go for elitism, and some people say that they like certain things to appear elitist. For instance, if you have a writer who often eludes to a LOT of obscure references, they're probably pseudo-intellectual.

 

[sassafras]

Not all long-winded writing is pseudo-intellectualism. There are some subjects that are difficult to understand either way. And some people really do just talk like that (I know an INTJ that has a very sophisticated vocabulary, and he is often misjudged for that).
However, I can often tell the difference between the two; it's very subtle, but some people really do just go for elitism, and some people say that they like certain things to appear elitist. For instance, if you have a writer who often eludes to a LOT of obscure references, they're probably pseudo-intellectual.

Well, I'm glad you can spot the difference. It's actually a term that hasn't been very well defined in this thread thus far (and I'd say is tough to define and equally tough to spot) And I personally have never seen anyone on these forums demonstrate the sort of pseudo-intellectualism you've described.

I suppose I got all up in arms because my impression was that the general air around this thread was essay-like posts/academic writing = pseudo-intellectualism, with the the implied question being 'why on earth put in the effort to post like that on a forum?'

Some people just express themselves this way, and enjoy academic debates. It wouldn't be fair to just look at a block of writing and sophisticated vocabulary and assume "pseudo intellectual."

 

[Quinlan]

I need some examples.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Hmm...well, T.S. Elliot has a lot of poetry that was made specifically for the "intellect" and some of his work alludes so often to ancient and classic texts that it's pretty ridiculous. Sometimes almost every line has really obscure references with footnotes up the wazoo just to have them. That's would be a fair example. I'd have to look up some articles to really give more of an example though.

(Don't get me wrong, though, some of T.S. Elliot's work isn't that bad; I actually quite like "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock")

 

[arbygil]

Hee...I like Eliot. He's one of my favorites. But I wouldn't call those guys pseudo-intellectuals. Most writers of that era really did write just like that, or worse (James Joyce's Ulysses, anyone?). I think it was another way of writing.

I'd call pseudo-intellectualism (or a pseudo-intellectual) as someone or something that uses big words just to be noticed or to sound self-important. Outside of that context, I think it can simply be a deep discussion. But then, I love discussing themes of poets and authors. I love going deep and coming up with new things with them.

 

[Quinlan]

Given that MBTI is pseudo-science it's hardly surprising that it might attract pseudo-intellectuals.

 

[Satya]

Given that MBTI is pseudo-science it's hardly surprising that it might attract pseudo-intellectuals.

The MBTI actually has peer reviewed evidence to back it up and is used as a predictor for other personality tests. It's reliability and validity are within acceptable range for it to be used as a scientific instrument.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Immanuel Kant

enough said

It may not be Pseudo-Intellectualism but god he writes in the hardest way possible.

 

[Satya]

Immanuel Kant

enough said

It may not be Pseudo-Intellectualism but god he writes in the hardest way possible.

They say that the original German is so hard, that philosophy students in Germany choose to read the English translation instead.

I remember when reading On the Metaphysics of Morals and Ethics, that some sentences would drag on for over a page. A single sentence!

However, his transcendental idealism is anything but pseudo intellectual. It's a remarkable paradigm.

 

[Quinlan]

I find it hard to believe that things like hardcoded dichotomies, dominant functions and function orders (the things that make MBTI anything more than a poor man's Big Five), are supported by evidence.

Ultimately MBTI leaves it up to me to decide what my "type" is, how can that be scientific? If I want to be ENTJ then I am ENTJ.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I find it hard to believe that things like hardcoded dichotomies, dominant functions and function orders (the things that make MBTI anything more than a poor man's Big Five), are supported by evidence.

Ultimately MBTI leaves it up to me to decide what my "type" is, how can that be scientific? If I want to be ENTJ then I am ENTJ.

Your self-typing is certainly affected by what type you "want" to be, especially once you are familiar with the system. But I would expect that the types that people want to be would still correlate with their actual, or near types. Wanting to be a certain type says something about your personality, and since MBTI is really just about sorting people into somewhat similar groups, what difference does it make?

 

[Satya]

Reliabality and Validty are how psychologists determine a measurement's effectiveness. There are various methods to test a measurement's reliablity and validty and the MBTI has done fairly well. I don't what basis you use to call it the "poor man's Big Five" but it certainly isn't an evidence based one.

http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/reliability-validity.htm

 

[Quinlan]

Reliabilities (when scores are treated as continuous scores, as in most other psychological instruments) are as good or better than other personality instruments.

http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/reliability-validity.htm

So when MBTI is used as a continuum it is comparable to other instruments like the bigfive, but MBTI is NOT used as a set of continuums, it is used as dichotomies. Where is the evidence for dichotomies over continuums? and what evidence supports the dominant functions and their set orders?

Perhaps it is the softness of psychology as a whole that I have a problem with.

 

[Julia]

Even I found my post annoying. So comments withdrawn.

I thought you made some good points in that post. I also look back on my posts with trepidation and cringe quite often. This is the case even after I delete possibly half of the posts I make. My vocabulary isn't especially large, but I think some people are better at building large vocabularies and choosing exact wording than they are at distilling ideas. I'm not sure that is always pseudo-intellectualism, but more like an incomplete tool kit for communicating ideas. If it is, then oh well. There are worse things a person could be.

*looks back and cringes*