What is pseudo-intellectualism and how do I avoid it?

A person who loves cool facts is almost definitely not a pseudo-intellectual. In fact, that might as well be the definition of "intellectual."

No, an intellectual builds a coherent framework of understanding that saves them the trouble of having to memorize the minutiae.

What are you saying, that anyone who googles "how far away is the sun" and doesn't become an astronomer is a pseudo-intellectual? It sounds like you're demonizing curiosity, which would make you a pseudo-intellectual no matter how many hours you've spent crunching numbers for homework. Intellectualism is a state of mind, nothing else.

I used to think this too until I started actually studying X subject.

The thing is those exams you do in school, and access to TA's to help you understand, actually test your knowledge. So if you taught yourself, and you actually did practice exams then yes, you can claim to have the same expertise of somebody in school (not a grad student of course).

Math is a good example. You can read a textbook, do some of the problems, and think you know it then try an exam and fail miserably.

If you want to go this route, you find a university with an open calendar meaning you can access lecture notes, you can access recitations, and there's some sample practice exams w/solutions. Then you follow the universities recommended academic structure, even if you think course X has no meaning on your desired study it does you just don't know because you haven't taken it yet, and academics who teach thousands of students have refined the curriculum because they know a student will need X.

Another problem of pseudo-intellectuals is often just doing the work is not enough. There are serious problems in grad research you will only know about if you're around peers in the field, like how a lot of paper's findings can't be replicated. A pseudo-intellectual will just point to a 'peer reviewed' paper without understanding what peer review actually is, and how it gives no guarantees that the paper's findings are correct in anyway. A good example of this is Stats. When you take grad level stats you will discover how mistakes are easily propagated but only if you have access to peers at the graduate level to show you how your logic is flawed. As a self learner the only way you can get around this is by joining academic groups and talking to people in whatever field you're doing. For a math student this means showing up to free seminar's given on campus open to the public then staying around afterwards to run things by some actual mathematicians.

This, a true intellectual does all the tedious rigorous work involved so they can then reason on an abstract level and know their reasoning is correct because they've already put in the hard work.

A pseudo-intellectual jumps straight to the abstract reasoning

That method only works if you actually use that knowledge.

Just reading about it ain't going to do you shit.

Also no one gives a fuck about your degree unless you actually have the skills, which can only be acquired through practicing said skill over and over again.

If you're looking up our distance from the Sun just for the sake of memorizing it, maybe to blurt it out as trivia, then you may very well be a pseudo-intellectual, yes. If you have a specific question and the distance to the Sun is a relevant variable then you'd be working that information into your broader understanding, and you don't need to be an astronomer for that.

a pseudo intellectual, roughly speaking, is one who conjures simple answers to complex problems based on a poor understanding of the problem at hand.
>Pic related

wtf, it literally happens all the time, especially in fields that don't require a large upfront cost to experiment in. Math is the prime example, where it's been happening for centuries, and CS is following in it's footsteps.

where is the problem?

>So therefore
The mark of all pseudointellectuals. stay away from those who say that dreadful phrase.

>le mathematicians are """pseudointellectuals"""

Saying both so and therefore is redundant.

Fundamentally it boils down to the ability to understand, once that you understand that you understand then in fact objectively you understand nothing because all your doing is understanding ect.

It's the stuff they learn in those college courses where they have time to be activists all day.

Don't fake you understand...
Once i went to a seminar on blackholes, i was the oldest student there (academically), blackholes are not my area, and i didn't knew shit about them,
the professor, on the seminar was talking and talking, and asked "do you follow?", everyone saying yes... me and my pal, naughting with our heads, the professor, then explain a little bit more like an introduction for actual students, and everything became clear to us, then, he said again everyone follow? and the rest of the auditorium, naught their heads, but, they where mostly 1 year students who read blackholes things on wikipedia, and some sagan or something, and they claim to know what not even some professors know because again "it's not their area" soooo...
please don't be that kind of shitty student who knows everything...

If you have to ask that question, it's probably already too late.

>what is a pseudo-intellectual

A person who claims proficiency in scholarship while lacking in-depth knowledge. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is.

>how do I avoid it

The key word in that definition is pretend. Don't pretend. If you don't know something, say, "I don't know." If you do know something, don't be afraid of sharing it, but also be open minded to the idea that your understanding is incomplete or wrong.

>pseudo-intellectualism

Literally knowing the rhetoric but not the meaning. Like that guy who drops by the guy hang out and talks about cars but obviously doesn't know jack shit about cars.

I've only seen it happen when someone is transferred onto a project that requires a whole new knowledge base. That's it. Self study as a hobby is a gigantic meme.