Talk:Pseudointellectual

Original research - should be removed

This article qualifies for original "research" and should be removed. I don't see how anyone could possibly find information that supports the statements made - it would seem that any "sources" that could be cited would merely reiterate the same opinion. Furthermore, this article's incessant listing of specific character traits seems pseudoscientific, which is ironically close to being "pseudointellectual" by the article's criteria.

Move to wiktionary

Comment Originally added by Melaen - obviously not to the article wiktionary but to the project --Lox (t,c) 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed "move" template. Ashibaka tock 01:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Was This Article Written By A 12 Year Old?

Seriously. This was one of the most poorly written articles I have ever come across on Wikipedia. I attempted to clean up some of the more spectacularly awful parts, but it is nothing more than a band-aid; this article needs a complete rewrite from scratch. I removed the NPOV dispute tag, as I presume that that was there in reference to the out-of-place American Idol and Linkin Park comment, which I removed. Also, with regard to the claims that the article should be moved to Wiktionary, I think I would be against it. If we can have encyclopedia articles on Snobs and Grammar Nazis, then why not pseudo-intellectuals? Any views on this? 213.168.230.149 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironic how there are also spelling mistakes. I'll try to clean it up. Ken 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Snobs" have been written about endlessly by sociologists, and I don't think that we should have wikipedia articles on "Grammar Nazis".

You're right....Now that user 213.168.230.149 rewrote it, it does look like it was written by a 12 year old.

Flawed Article

1. "Secretly they may like, American Idol, bad anime, Linkin Park and similar material" isn't very neutral. Can an intellectual person not like Linkin Park? Or is the point that a psuedo-intellectual perceives such things as "low-brow," regardless of their merit, and therefore disdains them?

2. "It is considered to be the ultimate insult..." Really? Bit of an opinion, there.

3. "becomes the object of scorn ... for stepping out of what is viewed as his or her correct place in the hierarchy of intelligence." Hierarchy of intelligence? I think they are scorned not for 'breaking rank', but for saying stupid/false things while pretending to be intelligent and elite.

The point of a psuedo-intellectual is they try to look smart. They often use larger / more complicated words and phrases when they try to do this, or cite (often obscure) references. The difference between an a psuedo-intellectual and a regular person who does that is the psuedo-intellectual often doesn't know much about what they're talking about. It's about show, not substance.

So... I'd say this article needs work...

Truly; its a meandering mess. Good luck. I'll get the shovel...

Advice?

Who wrote this thing?

In fact if you follow the link "So you'd like to... be a pseudointellectual prick" at the bottom it's an Amazon.com list, and all the examples are the same. This is obviously the Amazon author's total NPOV rant rather than an article.

---

I too think this is the same author of the "So you'd like to... be a pseudointellectual prick" on the Amazon listings. What really gets me is, before he posted his list on Amazon, there used to be a truly funny, and less vitriolic version of the pseudo-intellectual list. I loved that list. Sorry fella, but this isn't that pointed or precise. You don't seem to be describing a pseudo-intellectual, but rather a moron. The two are very different specimens.

Seems like a personal attack on someone the writer knows...

There are just too many random specifics for a word that can cover many types of people not just those that read the economist. Not all psudos are young... etc.

Benjamin Jordan Yingling -- no Google hits except for this article. Seems personal. 198.166.241.183 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, I agreed with all of the above comments, I thought the article was actually incorrect, and I rewrote it. It seemed to imply that abuse of vocabulary is pseudo-intellectualism, which I think is similar but probably something else. (Ironic -- I'm not sure there's word for abuse of vocabulary) I would say that the most accurate one-sentence definition is this: a pseudo-intellectual is a term used to accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest.

If there were a wikipedia article for intellectual dishonesty, I think that would be a better place for this information and this article would become a wiktionary one. Ken 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical lexicon

I took out the following statement regarding medical lexicon because I think it's POV:

and so those suspicious of technical vocabulary may simply lack the training to understand it.

Ken 07:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly devoid of value. Should be removed.

The entire article should be removed and relocated to wiktionary with the simple literal definition of the term. The author's attempts to characterise pseudointellectual traits is in itself ironically psuedointellectual. If its intended as a sociological study of the paradigm then it should be rewritten in accordance with scholastic integrity, ie. by referencing some sort of reputable scholarly work. With regards to the reference to deliberately confusing lexicon, perhaps referencing Foucalt's work on the "medical gaze" would be beneficial. However I still maintain that the entire is still utter rubbish and should be removed. Psuedo-intellectualism is not a personality disorder, it is an entirely subjective judgement. Sam Bedggood 07:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And here, we have more of it. 72.144.68.156 12:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article as is needs some work, but the topic is important enough to keep. Maybe this should be recategorized somehow also. Mathchem271828

exploded all over this article

All the s are a bit pointless. Most of this article is unsourcable by its nature. While some of the characterizations may be correct, I suggest the article be trimmed down to a short paragraph or two briefly defining what the term means, and anything else that can be sourced. More than that just encourages NPOV (especially in the form of snobbery). -kotra 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that it be removed. 69.149.104.152 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By "it" do you mean the entire article, the unsourced material (i.e. most of the article), or the s? -kotra 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact-tags are supposed to be funny, considering the article's title. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact tags are ridiculous. I'm deleting them, though I don't mean to imply that the article doesn't need to be sourced. johnpseudo 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of word

Judging from my own original research, it seems that the word "Pseudointellectual" is usually used on someone with whose views the person using it doesn't agree, even if the "pseudointellectual" in question is actually a respected academic. The definition, then, changes to "intellectual who doesn't agree with my own uninformed view". But again, that's just OR ;)

What I really came here to say is that the article is actually fairly readable now, so kudos to all of you who improved it. It still is inadequate, but at least it is no longer horribly inadequate. Esn 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically

What is the difference between a pseudo-intellectual and an intellectual. An intellectual is basically someone who knows quite a lot about a varied range of subjects, likes classical music, books and art and uses complex language so the person this article is describing sounds pretty intellectual to me.

A pseudo-intellectual is an intellectual the person using the phrase happens not to like. A worthless phrase, a rather pointless entry. --Chips Critic 18:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's goes deeper than simply not liking someone or disagreeing with someone. It's more to do with intention.

An intellectual will genuinely be knowledgeable about a certain topic or topics and will seek to use that knowledge to facilitate constructive discussions with others who hold differing or even similar opinions with the intention of learning more, spreading understanding and generally trying to improve things and people. A pseudo-intellectual merely "pretends" to be knowledgeable about certain topics, insisting that what they read online or in other mass media is the final answer to anything and everything. Their only intention is to (falsely) make themselves appear superior to others by using inappropriately complex language, citing irrelevant material etc.

Basically one is a front, whereas the other is genuine and sincere. One understands that there are limits to what is knowable and seeks more information/perspectives from others, whereas the pseudo thinks they know it all having read a Wikipedia page or two on a topic. They think their opinions based on superficial knowledge are somehow superior, possibly because they are just quite insecure. --ex turpi causa (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... There's no justifiable cause to delete this, there's many, many cases of pseudo-intellectualism -- especially in our modern culture that make amazing examples of logical fallacies and unsound arguments. People should be able to see these examples or gain a deeper understanding of pseudo-intellect. --67.169.223.94 (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)