If you hear someone using big words and complicated concepts that make them sound smart, the chances are you will think of them highly. And while it’s indeed true that there are quite a few intellectual people in your social circle, the opposite is true as well.
You see, many people don’t quite have a sensitive radar when determining if a person is actually a pseudo-intellectual. Described by Merriam Webster dictionary, a pseudo-intellectual is “a person who wants to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who is not really intelligent or knowledgeable.” That means they can be very, very annoying.
So when someone asked “What's a sign someone is a pseudo-intellectual?” on Ask Reddit, it resonated with people big time. Below we wrapped up some of the most interesting and illuminating answers, so scroll down!
This post may include affiliate links.
They say "educate yourself" but don't know the difference between blind peer reviewed studies and YouTube nonsense.
Andrew Tate will be Andrew Tate. If you ever want to laugh at someone being an absolute dingus just read about Andrew Tate
Load More Replies...
When I was 18, I had the grades to get into any college I wanted to, but not the money. So I went to work instead, and read as much as I could, from reliable, verified, scholarly sources, to learn as much as I could. Many years later, I finally got to go to college. Though I had already amassed enough knowledge to be comfortable sitting in class next to people fresh out of high school, I did come to the realization that my self-learning wasn’t as well organized as a professional educator would lay it out—-I just jumped in wherever I could, and often switched subjects before finishing one, whereas a professional would start at the basics of one subject and build on them. Well-directed and disciplined learning, conducted by a professional, turned out to be the key for me, as it also helped me develop better and more organized critical thinking skills.
The most intelligent people on earth never went to or finished college and the idea that a collegiate education (which I have) makes you know better, more, "the truth" or anything else useful. If it isn't technical, engineering, chemistry, medical, mathematics or language related it's just a waste of time. Psychology and sociology have their uses, theology but you can learn better outside of a humanistic and secular psychology class. Spiritualism is much more beneficial and useful in those regards... Some of the most pseudo-intellectual and paeudoscience blathering people I know have college degrees.
Load More Replies...
And when you ask how to start educating yourself they scoff and insult instead of recommending a source because they have no clue.
Good response. Seems far better than the direct, more confrontational approach.
Load More Replies... 
OMG! "Do your research!" and "Educate yourself!" have become the two most hated phrases I see on facebook. As soon as I spot them, I recognize them for the idiots they are.
Quoting a Fakebook post that you know is proven hoax. Once I eye rolled so much I almost ended up in the hospital 😄
And some people don't know the similarities between peer-reviewed studies and YouTube nonsense.
The broach on his grandma's blouse popped off and made the blouse pop open how embarrassing
If you like Fresh and Fit, you’ll LOVE no jumper. Just doofuses all around
Andrew Tate has views I agree with on occasion but his for life as a professional fighter and his delusions of grandeur thru being "well off" make him one of the most annoying, goofy, døüche lord tool dickbags on the face of the planet. Besides his swing between a UK accent to American just makes him doubly annoying. He's only tolerable to the Andrew Dice Clay subset I came up in during the early nineties. Like a 12 to 17 year old age range.
Peer reviewed "studies" are often times not any better than well researched youtube content. Peer review studies are still nothing but an echo chamber.
This comment has been peer reviewed by fart monkeys and found to be odorous.
Load More Replies... 
They hyper-focus on a single source of wisdom or completely ignore their opponent's perspective.
Actual intellectuals read broadly, and the best intellectuals read things they disagree with.
Edit: Talking about "read things they disagree with"... There is a difference between reading the influential works of opposing movements and browsing social media cesspools. I am disappointed that I have to clutter this post by clarifying.
Its actually fantastic when you find an opinion or point of view that is contrary to what you know/believe and it looks like it actually may be right. Thats new knowledge. Something that just agrees with what you already know is generally of no use. I kinda have an attitude of "prove me wrong" not as in, youre not gonna change my mind, but as in, please try to poke holes in my theory, it can either help find weak spots in it or, allow me to get rid of something i erroneously though correct.
For me, it's seeing people who can't shift their beliefs/biases based on evidence
According to Alex Wang, the marketing expert and book author who is better known as the “Hijack” Copywriter, a pseudo-intellectual is someone who pretends they are highly intelligent and knowledgeable but who isn’t. “They’re good at faking it and convincing others they’re this amazing smart person when they don’t have the knowledge or skills to back it up,” he added.
Wong who has been on a mission to help small and corporate businesses “hijack” their client’s minds and help them to grow their businesses and sales, shared a couple of insights into pseudo-intellectualism.
They like to "debate" but shut down and get angry the second they get an unexpected question or have to think about their answer.
They can't say they don't know something. When pressed, they will deflect or fake their way through it. Somebody actually knowledgeable (no matter in what area) will also know the limits of their knowledge, and have the confidence to identify it when they reach it.
It's really important to let children know that it's normal, and okay not to know everything. When my children were little, and they asked a question I didn't know the answer to, we'd pause and think about how we could find out. It might be asking someone, reading a book, searching on the web etc. Then we'd talk about what we had learned.
Really intelligent people are very secure in their intelligence but fakers will most likely be trying to put others down to seem smarter.
When asked why some people pretend like they are better than others and know more than they actually do, Wong said that they may be doing this to make themselves feel better and that they have an advantage over others in some way. “As humans, we are always judging ourselves and comparing ourselves to others.”
“By thinking that we are smarter or better than others, we feel more important. It gives us a sense of importance. When someone overestimates their skills and abilities, this is known as illusory superiority,” the marketing expert explained.
When they tell you their IQ. And it's always suspiciously high.
I took an IQ test when I was high once and it was 114. I was proud. I took another one sober and it was 110… 😂😂😂
They repeat what you already said, in a slightly different way, and act as if they're adding to the discussion.
They defensively tell people to "read a book" instead of answering a question.
Hahaha lol ive had this told to me recently. The funniest part was, we were discussing video game related tech stuff and it was actually "you should play less video games and read instead" but the thing is, my health is c**p, im often too tired even to play and i pretty much spend my entire day reading in bed. It was so funny i didn't even bother getting annoyed at the dumb remark.
They talk constantly and say nothing.
Wong believes that the biggest difference between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual is that the former actually knows their stuff. “They’ve spent years building their craft and attaining their specific set of skills and knowledge.”
Citing "countless examples";
Can't name one of them.
an intellectual entertains his opponent's views without accepting them, he puts himself in the other's shoes, and from there he figures out where it doesn't make sense, the fake intellectual doesn't seem to have that flexibility of thought.
This! Sometimes it totally defuses a situation or argument if you're able to identify where the anger is coming from. Then you can address that. And sometimes through understanding you can actually relate to their point of view. If you're talking to a dumbass, though, they will claim victory and go on being dumbasses.
Using a Ben Shapiro style structure to arguing a point
* Speak fast
* Construct straw men as fast as they get taken down
* Win through endurance over intellect
* Deflect, obfuscate, infuriate - Just get the other person to stop debating
Basically, filibuster a conversation until the "opponent" gets tired and gives up.
“In today’s society, knowledge is power. However, attaining this knowledge to become an expert at something takes lots of work, effort, and time. It takes approximately 10,000 hours to become a true expert at something,” Wong argues. Wong concluded that “Most people just aren’t willing to make the sacrifice to reach that level so it’s easier to just pretend instead.”
Intelligent people don't have to tell you they are. They probably don't even think they are. There's a reason that "all I know is I know nothing" is such a big quote in studying philosophy.
They refuse to explain something in an easier/more understandable way when asked
Not totally fair, I can show people how to do stuff but if they ask me to explain it I just shut down inside lol Not everybody has excellent verbal skills or does well with people. Unless the kind of person this is about just WON'T do anything to be a jerk.
Showing off about knowledge. As we say in French:
"Culture is like marmalade, the less you have the more you spread it"
And the thinner it spreads—-but the b******t that comes with it is so much thicker and deeper.
They debate and don't let anyone else speak, and when someone does try to speak, the other person just talks louder and faster.
Being a contrarian. Automatically disagreeing with everything you hear isn’t any smarter than than believing everything.
Pseudo-intellectuals **love** to drop names of famous experts in the field, and will often do that in lieu of a real explanation when challenged to explain themselves.
For example, "If you're not familiar with the research of Lawrence and Krasden in this field, then it's not worth my time to educate you".
In general, pseudo-intellectuals don't like explaining concepts, because they're afraid that they'll explain the concept incorrectly and get shown up by somebody else. So they use all sorts of tactics to establish dominance, try to belittle you, and avoid giving a clearly worded explanation of their argument.
They absolutely cannot fess up to their own mistakes.
No, you misunderstood what I was trying not to say because you don't know what you're talking about. You always do that.
They're unwilling to provide sources/read your sources. They put more emphasis on how you said something, than the facts.
Because they can’t back it up with verifiable and scholarly sources. Because what they’re saying—-or rather, parroting without thinking or understanding—-is merely belief, hearsay, or the repeated opinion of some loud bloviating imbecile that confirms their own bias.
They parrot talking points without being able to discuss or understand the details of their arguments. Seen it all across the political spectrum. If all you are able to communicate are Twitter-length bullet points, then there is something wrong. I’ve tried to talk with people who are like a NPC in a video game, all they can do is repeat the same 3 generic statements on a topic.
Similar to above the other sign is that their opinions are 100% exactly the same as either some person, movement, or religion. No nuance, no “shades of grey”, not even a slight disagreement on a particular point or two. Basically you have turned off your brain and someone else is thinking for you.
They also talk endlessly, using word salad. True experts are direct and to the point. They summarize initially and then can dive into details as needed.
Or theyre just bad at communicating. You can be an expert but absolute garbage at explaining honestly. Richard Feynman was a genius man in general but in a way, his even more amazing ability was to explain things, basically to anyone. Its actually something most people are c**p at period. Teaching is hard.
In internet debates, the trend in the past few years was just to just say, 'I'm not reading all that' when they encounter an argument they can't counter.
Depends on the context. If it's a long rambling essay that could have been a few sentences, I think tl;dr applies.
They don't validate the experiences of others, which are often backed by science or data, if they haven't been through it themselves.
You don’t always have to directly experience something to understand it. The best minds are able to think beyond what is physically experienceable (if that’s a word) to them or anyone else (at least at present).
They rarely have an original thought or original contribution to discussions. Mostly regurgitating someone else's idea or view. Pop-intellectualism like Joe Rogan.
Tai ta patį gali pasakyt ir apie save bei mane śiaip jau Orginalios idejos retas dalykas gražute
If they listen to the usual Incel Mentors: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or any other online troll that sees differing opinions as a debate challenge and an affront to society.
If the only way they can explain complex or “high brow” topics (especially if they call them high brow) is using big words and not being able to use simple and concise language to make it understandable to the person they’re explaining to.
Also having to put down anything they see as “lesser” than them and their interests. I always think of Hawking talking about teenage girls who love one direction and speaking with as much fondness as his assisted communication device could portray.
Making a series of discussion-worthy points about a topic. When responded to, selects one of three responses for an "auto victory" in their eyes:
1) (RARE) They see that of 6 points they raised, you only directly addressed 5, they declare you couldn't handle that extra point (even if it rested on the other 5 points being all perfectly true) and therefor they win the conversation. [This is rare because it requires them to read longer than the few words it takes to realize you disagree.]
2) (Average) They repeat what they said the first time and claim you didn't address any of their points because there is no response to them, they are objectively correct.
3) (Frequent) "Post too long bro. Not gonna read it. Clearly I'm right if you can't refute what I said in only a few words."
Going out of their way to not use contractions when they talk. Also identifying as "sapiosexual." I also find that pseudo-intellectuals will write messages that read more like a college essay than a casual conversation. I can see you read books, you don't have to talk to me like you're a 19th century novelist.
I disagree with the part about conversations. Some people prefer using more formal style because it's easier for them to word their thoughts that way. Some didn't have enough exposure to informal style to be able to use it. It's a matter of preferenses, not intelligence or lack of it.
Note: this post originally had 53 images. It’s been shortened to the top 30 images based on user votes.
One time I was arguing with a man about women being funny. He said “name one good female comedian”. I named around 20. He said “ nope not funny” I said “have you ever watched/listened to any of them?” He said no. I said “ well how do you know if they’re funny or not?” It’s so annoying when someone goes into an argument, asks for proof, gets provided proof, then refuses to acknowledge it
I feel for this man. Imagine not knowing Wanda Sykes, Aisling Bea, Tiffany Haddish, Kate McKinnon, Tina Fey, Fortune Feimster, Michelle Buteau, or Betty freakin' White. My life is enriched by how funny these women are.
Load More Replies...
This list is silly. It seems ironically written by people pretending to be smart 😅
I’m a certified and qualified trainer at work. Yet I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about what we do. I always encourage the new hires to take notes, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. There are no stupid questions. And by asking questions is how we learn.
People who say "whom" or "whomever" when "who" or "whoever" is correct. Trying to sound much smarter than they are.
If someone tries to correct your who to a whom, the correct response is 'whom cares?'
Load More Replies...
This whole post seems dedicated to this guy Mike I used to know and I'm so irritated thinking about all our "discussions".
It seemed the same with this person I had an argument with. A good chunk of these, represented them. I gave proof in the first place, they didn't care at all, and didn't care about the experience of others that gone through what the argument was about. I understand being irritated.
Load More Replies...
People with decent intelligence have no problem saying "I don't know" - they'll usually then go and find out. A pretender will BS their way through instead of admitting they don't have a Scooby
I work with a lady who makes sure the first thing people know about her is that she she has three separate degrees and speaks two languages fluently. I asked her the best way to scrub up a mess that had been made and she said "have someone else do it".........she classifies herself as "too smart" to be cleaning in her workplace.
The smarter you are, the dumber you sound to other people.
Load More Replies... Ar kažkas tave nuskriaude? Grynai visas straipsnis atrodo lyg butu asmenine ataka prieš kažka hahah
"Has someone wronged you? The whole article just seems like a personal attack on someone hahah" ... no, it seems legit. Personally if someone cites Peterson, Rogan or Shapiro to me I automatically block/unfriend.
Load More Replies... One time I was arguing with a man about women being funny. He said “name one good female comedian”. I named around 20. He said “ nope not funny” I said “have you ever watched/listened to any of them?” He said no. I said “ well how do you know if they’re funny or not?” It’s so annoying when someone goes into an argument, asks for proof, gets provided proof, then refuses to acknowledge it
I feel for this man. Imagine not knowing Wanda Sykes, Aisling Bea, Tiffany Haddish, Kate McKinnon, Tina Fey, Fortune Feimster, Michelle Buteau, or Betty freakin' White. My life is enriched by how funny these women are.
Load More Replies... This list is silly. It seems ironically written by people pretending to be smart 😅
I’m a certified and qualified trainer at work. Yet I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about what we do. I always encourage the new hires to take notes, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. There are no stupid questions. And by asking questions is how we learn.
People who say "whom" or "whomever" when "who" or "whoever" is correct. Trying to sound much smarter than they are.
If someone tries to correct your who to a whom, the correct response is 'whom cares?'
Load More Replies... This whole post seems dedicated to this guy Mike I used to know and I'm so irritated thinking about all our "discussions".
It seemed the same with this person I had an argument with. A good chunk of these, represented them. I gave proof in the first place, they didn't care at all, and didn't care about the experience of others that gone through what the argument was about. I understand being irritated.
Load More Replies... People with decent intelligence have no problem saying "I don't know" - they'll usually then go and find out. A pretender will BS their way through instead of admitting they don't have a Scooby
I work with a lady who makes sure the first thing people know about her is that she she has three separate degrees and speaks two languages fluently. I asked her the best way to scrub up a mess that had been made and she said "have someone else do it".........she classifies herself as "too smart" to be cleaning in her workplace.
The smarter you are, the dumber you sound to other people.
Load More Replies... Ar kažkas tave nuskriaude? Grynai visas straipsnis atrodo lyg butu asmenine ataka prieš kažka hahah
"Has someone wronged you? The whole article just seems like a personal attack on someone hahah" ... no, it seems legit. Personally if someone cites Peterson, Rogan or Shapiro to me I automatically block/unfriend.
Load More Replies...