Recently, I participated in a gathering of my peers, where discussions of mind-boggling ideas ebbed and flowed throughout the night. There, my peers contributed a great deal of their own thoughtful inputs. Yet, there were those who could only recite the workings of the intellectual juggernauts of old. The tone seemed to change, and it seemed as if some individuals were claiming to be intellectually superior to the rest of us.

I find this deception to be rather paltry and extremely dangerous to civil discourse. When you appear as the expert on important matters, then who can argue with you? After all, isn’t it difficult to test for intellectual superiority in the first place?

As a pseudo-intellectual, you may have this comfort knowing you are viewed with high regard, but be prepared when somebody calls you out on it.

When I speak of this intellectualism, I mean it as defined by the parameters of an individual’s capacity to think critically. When someone either lies or plagiarizes to gain the approval and trust of his or her peers, they are so defined as “pseudo” (meaning “fake”) intellectuals. Or, as in the instance described above, the person attempts to appear more intelligent than they actually are.

For example, whenever I am in a company willing to delve into the complexities of string theory or wormholes, inevitably there is one person who merely regurgitates everything they read about in the works of Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking. This is not to say, however, this company is filled with astrophysicists who know when you are stealing work. It is difficult to speak about dimensional theory without doing at least some referencing. However, when individuals claim originality or demand a higher echelon of respect, then I become irritated.

In essence, we are all intellectually capable of at least talking about string theory, reducing it to its basic components, so no one should feel they are inadequate in comparison to an individual who wants to feel intelligent.

It is pseudo intellectuals who taint the individuals with too feeble a mind, and warp perspectives to resolve a sort of cognitive dissonance. Another characteristic of pseudo intellectuals, one that I personally treat with contempt, is the citing of other pseudo intellectuals. This often occurs in the midst of argumentative fervor, where one deliberately searches for the first article they find to support their contention.

It seems that nobody takes the time to fact check his or her sources for biasness. It seems that we no longer examine all approaches to the argument. Rather, it is much easier to spout off the sayings of one individual and claim it as truth. In turn, the audience perceives the citer as a well-informed and efficient researcher.

Pseudo intellectuals confirming pseudo intellectuals breaks the trust we have in each other to perform due diligence. It is a narcissistic trap that is only ceased by our efforts to find the truth.

Perform research on your own and keep others in check. Don’t fall into the habit of listening to demagogues speak, just because it is easier to do. The best way to counteract pseudo intellectualism is education. People will no longer act as if they are intellectually superior to you, because you are calling them out and testing them thoroughly.

It seems that now, instead of true academics, we are left with people who think themselves superior to their peers because they can quote from Goethe. We are left with unoriginal and over-pampered fakes.

I, myself, do not claim to be a true intellectual. That is for others to decide. Our actions create perception, and we should be held accountable for them. If others think I am “smart” because I use fancy words to express my thoughts, then so be it. But it should be known I actually take the time to read from the brilliant minds of our past, as it is our duty as humans to pay respect to the great contributors of our race. I do this not so I may say that I know what I am talking about, but so I may have the satisfaction of learning. Application of what I have learned is merely testing my knowledge in the presence of my peers. My peers, in turn, hold me accountable for my thoughts and actions.

What is worth living for if you are not true to others, let alone true to yourself? How can you be genuine when you sell yourself out? I would hope, at the very least, that toward the end of my life I would be able to say I stood by principle and held fast to my convictions.

I end with a quote from “Good Will Hunting” where Robin Williams’ character expounds upon the dangers of using intellectual prowess to define the individual: “Unless you want to talk about you, who you are, then I’m fascinated. I’m in. But you don’t want to do that, do you sport? You’re terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.”