|
Quoth Finnur: pseudo-intellectuals and etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can think, and those who can't. Allow me to elaborate and extrapolate...
A wise man once said, "Cogito ergo sum res cogitans." (I think, therefore I am a thing that thinks.) This person was wise because his statement is valid and sound via mathematical induction. Valid and sound speaking is a sign of critical thought, which is what makes someone an intellectual.
So what is a pseudo-intellectual? I don't like semantical games, so I am going to provide the premise of a definition of a pseudo-intellectual. A pseudo-intellectual is someone who lacks critical thought, but still thinks s/he is intelligent because s/he reads and regurgitates information on sociology/astrophysics/music/etc., fill in the appropriate discipline.
The difference between these people and real intellectuals is that real intellectuals can make inferences, perform deductive and inductive reasoning, rationalise information, and make logical judgements based off of what they hear. Indeed, an intellectual need not even be very well-read to be intellectual in conversation.
So here is a guide on how to be a pseudo-intellectual, since being a real intellectual is something that requires intelligence (in the form of critical thought).
1. Read materials on cerebral or esoteric-sounding subjects such as anthropology, comparative theology, or pretty much anything that ends in -ology. You can ignore that the suffix -ology translates literally into "discourse on [what precedes it, i.e. theology, theos (god) + logia (discourse of)]". By reading something about these things, that makes you smart and capable of making informed opinions without actually having to contribute academically to the "discourse". Forget such things as interpretation or referential inference when reading. You read about it, so you know about it, right?
2. Show off your knowledge in a conversation. When you misquote your source because of a complete lack of understanding of what you read, make sure to passionately mention that you got it from [fill in source], which immediately validates everything you are saying. Who cares if the person you are talking with points out a contradiction in what you are saying. Even though such an action invalidates everything you've just said, remember that YOU are the one who has read the source, that makes you correct.
3. When someone with whom you are debating mentions that they are an expert in that field, scoff at them and remark that you don't believe them and that they are lying. When they go so far as to show you their actual degree hanging in their office, make the (false) implication that four or more years of academic study cannot compare to the credibility of a book from Barnes & Noble by an unknown author, since clearly Barnes & Noble is the source for all scholarly publications. As an added benefit, adopting such a personal belief makes it ok not to go to college and become educated since you have already demonstrated how you can learn EVERYTHING from hanging out in a chain bookstore. You are so smart, you can laugh all the way to the bank about how you didn't have to spend 9 years in school for a Ph.D. and were able to work those 9 years instead (ignoring the fact that having a Ph.D. will allow you to catch up with that lost income in a matter of a couple of years).
4. When none of these work, start using really big words. If you don't know really big words, start picking apart the language of the other person until you can half-identify an ambiguous statement of theirs that might just discredit them with the help of some intimidating rhetoric. After all, it's the person who has the appearance of being right who is correct, the words they are saying has nothing to with it. If the other person swears or uses vulgarities out of frustration, this is even better for you, since it ALWAYS follows that a person who is swearing is "obviously unintelligent". Never mind the fact that word choice has nothing to do with sound reasoning, just be smug enough to convince everyone around you that this is true.
5. If you finally feel defeated, there is yet one way to get yourself out of this mess and get recognised as the "winner" of the debate. Remark that your opponent is snobby, or that s/he "just thinks s/he's always right". If everyone around you possesses the same inability to think critically as you obviously do, they will agree with you and forget the fact that you, yourself, clearly thought you were correct. If you're lucky no one will be clever enough to figure out that only a moron would speak without thinking s/he's correct, so it stands to reason that anyone who is debating thinks they are right. This one should save you because people almost always resent real intellectuals due to their lack of self-esteem caused by their own flagrant stupidity. Just remember, you have won the debate when the onlookers have decided that you have. Who needs to be right when we can just have a popular vote of who wins based off of charisma or sophistry?
Follow my tips and you should be well on your way to becoming a pseudo-intellectual, "pwning" people who actually know things or have the critical thought capacity to win a debate off of sheer powers of logic rather than smug rhetoric. Above all else remember that having the popular opinion is always better than having the valid one.
 Aurigae · Fri Sep 28, 2007 @ 03:20am · 1 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
