How to recognize a pseudo-intellectual

Who are pseudo-intellectuals

To understand this issue, you must first understand who is called an intellectual. According to the explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov, this is a person with a highly developed intellect. Not to be confused with an intellectual - a mental worker in the fields of science, technology and culture. The very word "intellectual" came into the Russian language from French in the 90s of the XIX century.

Accordingly, a pseudo-intellectual is one who wants to be known as a person with a developed intellect and extensive knowledge, but he is not.

Pseudointelligence is often talked about when people use knowledge as a means of self-affirmation, especially on the Internet. This can refer to demonstrative reading of books, ridicule of the "narrow-minded" majority, mockery of mistakes in writing, inappropriate use of foreign words. In general, we are talking about a certain snobbery of individuals who aggressively prove their point of view even when no one asked about it.

It is worth mentioning here that intelligence, by definition, can only be a criterion for evaluating a person by other people. That is, only those around you can recognize you as an intellectual, and not you yourself, with which, obviously, pseudo-intellectuals do not agree.

How to recognize a pseudo-intellectual

“Knows everything”, but formally and superficially

Quite often pseudo-intellectuals are familiar with the topic at the level of a cursory scrolling of the Wikipedia page. This helps them "know" about everything in the world and confidently share their opinions without having any relevant education or experience, as well as discuss books that they have not read and films that they have not watched.

Pseudo-intellectuals like to reason aimlessly, starting from scratch and ultimately not coming to any conclusion. They jump from topic to topic, from reference to reference, confuse others and get confused themselves.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to grasp the meaning in this mess of thoughts, quotes, terms and concepts.

It often happens that a person, being knowledgeable in a certain area (for example, in technology), tries to apply his knowledge and experience when discussing other branches (say, medicine or art). However, some things may simply be incorrect to compare, and for a knowledgeable person the conclusions of a pseudo-intellectual will look one-sided and awkward.

Pseudo-intellectual is impossible to convince

Usually a pseudo-intellectual is 100 percent sure that he is right. He does not question whether his conclusions are correct, and does not critically assess his knowledge. However, he will certainly doubt any argument of the opponent - for example, finding fault with the accuracy of terms or challenging the wording.

Any argument contradicting his opinion pseudo-intellectual will sweep aside. The fact that refutability is an important and generally accepted element of any knowledge is of little concern to him. He ignores some authorities and concepts, but worships others, especially those in fashion. For example, he may argue that Tolkien is “our everything,” and Rowling is pop and commerce, or vice versa. And often such a connoisseur of fantasy literature draws conclusions only from film adaptations.

Pseudo-intellectuals generally like to sprinkle with loud surnames and quotes. Schrodinger, Heidegger, Freud, Kafka, Bulgakov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Brodsky, Lynch, von Trier - this is just a small list of "authorities" or "mediocrity" for them. Moreover, they do not consider it necessary to get acquainted directly with the works of these people.

Doesn't know how to clearly explain what he thinks about

Pseudo-intellectuals, as mentioned above, love to find fault with definitions. They themselves are not averse to expressing their thought in such a way that it will be impossible to understand it without a dictionary of scientific terms. "Existence", "sublimation", "identity" and other similar lexemes are found with enviable frequency in their speech, to the point and out of place.

For pseudo-intellectuals, the main thing is external pseudoscience, not internal content. However, they forget that a simple explanation is not at all a sign of ignorance and profanity, but quite the opposite.

Among physicists and engineers, for example, the phrase is popular: "If you cannot explain something to a child, you do not understand it."

The famous physicist Richard Feynman, in his speech to the students of the California Technical University, called the view of things peculiar to pseudo-intellectuals the science of airplane worshipers. He compared people who put form above content with the natives of Melanesia, who built planes from straw in the hope that this would help them receive "gifts from heaven." Feynman emphasizes that knowledge of words does not bring a person closer to true knowledge.

Appeals to false sources and authorities

Superficial knowledge prevents pseudo-intellectuals from applying convincing evidence. Therefore, they are happy to give private, meaningless examples. Do auto mechanics say that when driving, you should not change gears on a car with an automatic transmission? But the pseudo-intellectual has done this a hundred times. Science says homeopathy doesn't work? But the neighbor was "cured" with her help.

And yes, pseudo-intellectuals often (though not always) believe in numerous alternative theories such as new chronology or bioenergetics.

In the process of discussion, it leaves the essence of the issue

Since a pseudo-intellectual cannot really prove anything, he will insist that you prove to him. He can also resort to demagoguery, generalizing the non-general and substituting concepts. Being pressed against the wall by arguments, he will evade an answer with the help of provocations, sarcasm, trolling, and categorical statements.

In extreme cases, pseudo-intellectuals turn to insults. And all because in a dispute they are looking not for the truth, but for self-affirmation.

How not to be among the pseudo-intellectuals yourself

To one degree or another, almost all people are pseudo-intellectuals. There are not many who have never considered themselves smarter than others. Here are some tips to help you avoid this trap:

Try not to perceive your opponent in an argument as an enemy. Otherwise, it will be much more difficult for you to objectively Galef J. Why do we think that we are right, even when we are not. TED is about what he says.
Do not be afraid to admit that you do not understand something or that you do not understand enough about the topic. It's not a shame not to know, it's a shame not to study.
When choosing your arguments, carefully check the sources of information. It is difficult and tedious, but it can save you from embarrassment.
If you are learning, do not cram the material, but try to understand what you are studying, analyze and look for cause-and-effect relationships.