I used the term pseudointellectuals in a thread earlier today to refer to individuals I remember from high school who did precisely what is mentioned here: pretended to be intelligent to gain social standing. They were frighteningly obssessed with seeming to be the smartest people in the room, or at least amongst that number. One guy I knew would read through dictionary.com and memorize the longest words so he could use them in day to day conversation, but he was somewhat weak when it came to explaining his beliefs and why he held them. Another man read Nietczhe but refused to observe any other philosophers, choosing instead to take Nietczhe at face value and immediately adopt a hedonist attitude to everything. They often held a lot of scorn towards people in the classroom setting who did not immediately recognize a concept, and delighted in being able to work out the 'correct' answer. Yet, their 'correct' answers were rarely backed up with any evidence, and in the few instances where a teacher (or a student, when the teacher was particularly inept) called them out on something that was untrue, they would refuse to let their viewpoint be altered, even going so far as to declare direct proof against their claims as being invalid for one reason or another (even when it wasn't).
These are all traps an intellectual can fall into, of course, but I think what prevents a person from being one is the study. An intellectual will allow what he believes to be altered through research. He may develop some intense theory he really likes, but he will go out and try to find out if it has been suggested before and if it is sometimes true. I often use the phrase "Read a book" around here whenever I stumble across a heated argument about something which could easily be solved by one or both parties just looking up what they are talking about and providing a link. That's what an intellectual does. An intellectual tries to prove what they are saying by observing things and seeing what other people have observed. They will usually have at least some level of respect for people who dedicate their entire lives to studying the question at hand. If he turns out to have been wrong about something, he will correct his belief system so that it is as close to the truth as is possible. A pseudointellectual will tell the expert that he must have made errors somewhere, and continue lying to themselves about the facts because it would hurt their pride too much to admit they were every wrong, even if it just to themselves.
I see less pseudointellectuals in the university social structure than I did in high school, probably because there are people studying and learning things for real everywhere. Generally I've found that when people act like a pseudointellectual, it's about a discipline that is not their own, which is why I often poke fun at Math students but avoid actually discussing advanced mathematics whenever I can. I'm in the Drama program, though, so every so often I'll meet somebody who's trying to become famous and has no real interest in the art, but will spout wild nonsense in an effort to seem smarter than they are. I think that's a pseudointellectual quality, too.
I knew a few girls in high school who attached themselves to me because I had a reputation for being well read and articulate, as well. I think they were also pseudointellectuals, even the ones who didn't actively gloat about their intelligence, because they were trying to get in on some intellectual elite. If intelligent people actually get to be in some sort of special elite society, however, I'm afraid I'll have to concede to not being an intelligent person. My social class still seems to be pegged down to the socio-economic status of my parents and my efforts towards attaining a university degree. I haven't received a single boon for reading Aristotle's Poetics or going through an Ayn Rand publication to see what she's really about (just as bad as people say, actually). I've literally had to make do with expanding my knowledge and thinking about new things.
Though, it's true that the impressionable among us seem to get overly impressed when they hear about books or authours you've read. I think people who don't read these sorts of materials often just find it exotic. One intelligent person in their mid-twenties was exceedingly impressed when they saw that I had read most of Tennessee William's famous plays, and seemed to think that I was quite clever for having done so. Maybe that's what the draw is for the pseudointellectual - getting people to praise you.
Author
Topic: Intellectual vs. Pseudointellectual (Read 17564 times)