The way short content has almost universally led people to assume everything is an excerpt of something more substantial... the fake podcasts are insane. They just look to the side and pretend they are making eye contact with someone who isn't there... while they say things like "Women are the cause of 92% of all divorce. That's why I sell supplements."
@@DockClock-rp2ro yes unfortunately instead of heuristics being a quick / temporary / not strongly held idea to help with cognition & pattern recognition, it's heralded as a truth (in certain groups) because the short clips from shady podcasts / "street interviews" just confirm their beliefs
Also, it’s not about real world credentials to mean someone is actually more “capable” and smarter. People need to not use that as an illusion and really have critical thinking of the exact content people share instead. In fact, most truly “smarter” people are off the radar as they are too far out to be understood and most people with credentials are often near the intelligence level of the masses. “IQ” not way too high. People who know the reason why would know. As such, most people that buy in to people with credentials that actually are not exactly way “intelligent” or wise are in fact the exact representation of those people’s level. This is actually a source of data to know as statics for people who truly understand, usually I suppose the more truly intelligent ones. “Higher-level” can understand “lower-level” but not the other way around truly. That is why more intelligent people generally observe and not act and it’s the opposite for the lesser intelligent people who thinks everything is way simpler than it seems, often not knowing that they can then be “manipulated” without them knowing with them not being able to conceive/ perceive that much perspectives truly. It’s like a higher dimension compared to a lower dimension kind of analogy.
A pseudo-intellectual is someone who cares about being perceived right, as opposed to searching for the truth. "I don't know" is a wonderful thing to say.
Susan Blackmore and Philip J. klass have been accused of raving like this for a long time. I am talking about Philip Klass from the UFO sceptic community. Blackmore has attempted to reduce this behaviour to the extent that some people feel that she is a bit better at engaging in public conversations.
I have an expert witness in my family who appears in court cases to give expert evidence. One of the rules is if you honestly are not qualified to answer something you are required to say "that's outside of my expertise". For instance someone might have 40 years as a mechanic. But they are not a computer programmer so if asked "do you think that car X has well written code for its computer parts" the mechanic might say "not being a programmer that's outside of my expertise.". That's common and it's not held against the expert to do that. It isn't any gotcha moment that a lawyer steers for al all.
bruh lawyers will totally steer for that kind of response. sure, this is not held against the expert witness, but the fact that the expert can't answer a question posed by the lawyer can definitely create a helpful impression in the jury, or call into question if the right sort of expert is on the stand.
nice! in life in general, I really respect when people admit they can’t answer because it’s outside their expertise or they simply don’t know enough about the thing to have a real answer! they feel more trustworthy that way.
A mechanic can tell if the code is doing what to the car what it is intended to do. The disclaimer does need to be there, as he is not talking about the code itself, just the effects of the code.
In my mind, a true intellectual is someone who searches for truth and yet doesn't double down on their belief system. An intellectual must be open to the idea that they may be wrong. And if the evidence is weighed against them, they put their ego aside and recognize that they need to re-evaluate.
Spot on. The ability to entertain multiple theories (in the wake of what was presented to us under an obvious very long list of outright lies) as to what the truth really is, in intellectualism. To mindlessly run with and comply with what "the authorities" tell us to do and think without the application of critical thought, would be the opposite of that.
I think it takes even more maturity to recognize that some things are so complex that one cannot find the truth at all, or sometimes there is no one truth but multiple perspectives.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart It also requires maturity and self awareness to not allow ourselves to run with theatrical, lie-based belief sets sold to us from folks that heavily-struggle with delusions of superiority and infallibility.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheartthe thing with complexity isn't that you can't find truth in it but that the narratives we use to understand the system rarely does justice to it's complexity.
In my case, my ego helps me pursue the truth even harder. The thought that someone might offer a better counterargument and that I am wrong is so bad that I just have to correct myself, myself! I am uncomfortable with being seen as wrong, yeah, so the best thing I can do is think it through, do a little reading of other perspectives, before and after making an argument.
Indeed. It's like a delayed version of Oscar Wilde's _"Sarcasm is highest form of intelligence but the lowest form of wit."_ (Essentially, they believe ad hominem snarkiness _trumps_ legitimate argumentation.)
This is an issue in real life too. Go into many doctors office and you’ll see this. One problem with even the well trained intellectuals is reductionism. The psychologists don’t know about nutrition, the nutritionist don’t know biochemistry, the biochemists don’t know photobiology, etc. Everything is connected, you can’t talk about mental health without talking about sunlight, nor food without sunlight, nor sunlight without the mind. Reductionism is the fundamental root cause that spans all of this.
How to spot a pseudo-intellectual: - They argue from authority. - They deal in absolutes. - They answer any question very fast. Spend no time pondering the question, it's nuances or whether or not they understand the question correctly. Asks for no clarification or scope. - Get angry when questioned or "pressured". - Condescending. "That's so obvious.", "I thought everyone knew that." Phrases you'll never hear them say: "I don't know.", "I was wrong.", "I think..."
@@johnrivera3365Not sure I agree. From what I've seen, "I think" usually means that they are ok with presented evidence that could prove them wrong. Something a psuedo-intelectual would not leave themselves open to.
Kudos for posting about this subject. I recall during the "pandemic" realizing within a few months (to my horror) that we live in paradigm where everyone is an "expert." People would rather believe a narrative and choose sides based on that narrative. I had the same issue you have. I am an actual degreed, experienced, biochemistry research scientist. I taught for 16 years at undergraduate level. But most would sooner believe the stranger in front of the camera on the Internet (especially if they've sold a lot of programs or books) who feeds them non-sense with a scienc-y sound, than someone like me with only peer-reviewed and scholastic publications to his name.
That sounds like Dr. Neil deGrass Tysin's adaptation of Einstein's quote. For that matter, my GED dad used that same approach. He often said the older he got and the more he learned, the more certain he was that he didn't know anything about anything.
That's the Socratic paradox: Socrates was wise precisely because he knew that he was not. That awareness is the "engine" that drives "philosophia" -- not the possession of wisdom, but the love of it.
@@PaleRider54 ON POINT. I love learning things so much. Trivia type things. Generalist and the more I learn the more I realize there is SO MUCH to know in the world that I really will never know anything.
Buried deep in the comments is the correct answer. Quacks, Cranks and charlatans have been around forever...it's the communication medium that has changed.
The medium/channel of communication is the problem, by having a bigger reach compared to previous generations, they influence more and more easily impressionable layperson
You're the first person I've seen talk about this. It's something that's been on my mind recently. Especially after learning about the background of a few famous podcasters. Its so interesting how people will listen and believe so much of what another human says while they have little to no authority in making those statements to begin with. Thank you for shedding light on this topic, and I do agree that this is just the beginning. I can absolutely envision a future where your prediction comes true, and it's a little scary, to be honest.
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." ~ Confucius
@@SisterSunnyFreeSpirit We can, but to what end? I don't see how this differentiation relates to the problem of mimicking "bad" or "foolish" behaviour and attitudes instead of "wise" ones.
I agree, if something is true it’s not personal. If I’m wrong about something and corrected I’m not gonna be mad. When working hard it happens all the time. When goofing around without a goal feelings start to come out.
That's actually not the definition of sophistry. Sophistry is intentionally using fallacious arguments in an attempt to convince others This video contains several examples of sophistry
@@AllanTidgwellIt could arguably be considered sophistry if "cosplaying the aesthetic" functions in/as an informal logical fallacy, e.g. "argument from authority". Whether I am being sophistic rn is left for the reader to determine.
@@SounduSleep said _"So you weren't then."_ Exactly. Someone who is willing to admit their limits demonstrates intellectualism, especially if they attempt to learn from there.
I was when I was like 14 to 18. People always told me I was smart, so in order to live up to their expectations, I always felt the pressure to know the right answer, whether I know it or not. Took some growing up for me to start saying "I don't know" and actually spending more time researching things before answering.
I agree. But its also important to say that getting university degrees doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. Plenty of people get their degrees without actually deeply understanding the subjects.
It's crazy to me because a Bachelor's is literally the bottom of higher education and specific knowledge?? Like, do you not realize just how little you actually know? You spend 3-4 years studying some 10 different subjects per year when there are people who've devoted the last 50 years of their lives to just ONE of those?? And you think you can call yourself an EXPERT??? I will never not be baffled by this
Many holders of PhDs are not particularly brilliant, they have simply put in the time and effort to complete an extensive program and compose a thesis which stood up to critique without falling apart. They may have written something very basic which is just true and soundly researched with attributions in the proper form. Real intellectualism is something that is recognized by the interllectual’s peers. And it’s approached by degrees of recognition, through publication and public speech. And I suppose there is variance in opinion about authentic and spurious intellectualism.
Not to mention all the ps3ud0 sci3ntific fields that are now taught at univ3rsities and even give you a degree. UA-cam ideological filter keeps hiding this post, so I had to amend some words.
Haha it's a bit more nuanced than that. Instead of not existing, his arguments are "it's different from what people try to protrait it as". Be careful to not fall for fallacies, even your owns.
This is related to pseudo-intellectuals but also the people who, even if they are educated on one specific topic, they act like they're educated and qualified talk about every topic in general on a factual basis even if it's in a totally unrelated field
I once had an uncle, a British Texaco executive, who was often humorously self deprecating. We eventually concluded this was simply part of what helped him prevent anyone else from getting a word in edgewise.
If anyone's calling themselves a doctor and talking about medicine, neuroscience, quantum physics, nutrition, technology, etc. it's a safe bet that they're a chiropractor
oh my yes, you said exactly what I was thinking. I had one of those try to tell me things about my genetic illness which most MD's do not know anything about, but when I questioned them, there was that "well, I am a doctor, you are not" kind of response. And I see that all of the time on UA-cam too. No thank you.
As an undergraduate in psychology right now who went back to school after getting a degree in biotech, I see a lot of what you’re talking about and it’s super hard to address all of what you’re saying. I experienced a lot of heartbreak and a lot of family problems in the last couple of years and if I didn’t have a lot of prior knowledge on research and how to look for factual information, I would have fallen for these life coaches and demonizing people in my life as narcissists or just buying into these pseudo life coach/MFT stuff online. I think the problem is broader, there’s a lot of misinformation and bad actors across all fields (politics, psych, medicine, STEM, etc) and in the Information Age it’s hard to fight back the constant shit that is being dulled out. I don’t know how you’d address it because there’s always new people trying their hand at it, I’d generalize it and say if they’re not accredited or maybe focus on individuals like yourself who you believe based on your training that are doing it for benevolent reasons and not to make a quick buck, that way if anyone asks who to look to for insight on topics of divorce, parent estrangement, couples therapy, etc, you can lead people in the right direction and keep other people out. That way you don’t start beef with bad actors but also form a coalition of professionals in the field and shut the bad actors out. There’s plenty of space online for multiple people in multiple practices too so I think that would be the best approach to fight misinformation
"We need to talk about pseudo-intellectuals." My Dear, I would. But I'm far too busy being smarter than you and, even if I did...well, let's face it. You wouldn't understand my superior intellectual speak. TRUST me. I'm a doctor!
What I don’t get is why people don’t just put their ideas out there, be open about their lack of knowledge and ask for other opinions instead of trying to assert superiority. Those who need to assert their superiority, aren’t superior.
People aren’t comfortable with being wrong ,it’s a hit to their ego ….so you have to actually be mature ,secure and intellectual “enough” to be sincere about what you know or do not know.
I get into a little trouble sometimes by unintentionally wording myself as if i know more than i do, then there's also the Dunning Kruger thingy going on sometimes.
Certainty sells as well as sex does unfortunately. It's why politics and religion are so popular. It's an addiction. Society still hasn't learned to be comfortable with the process of learning and asking questions.
I'm in the same boat as you. I've never really seen the word intellectual defined like this before. Ana seems to be talking more about what I would call domain experts or subject experts as you call them. I do think there is an overlap between pseudo intellectuals and fake experts though, so I guess it's not a big deal.
There are no qualifications that make one become an "intellectual" so it's just become a buzzword people give themselves or their favourite idealogues. I think we can all agree that Terrence Howard is clearly a legitimate "intellectual" and we should defer to Joe Rogan to decide who is and who isn't an "intellectual" from now on! 👌🙄
A good rule of thumb is the more they engage in obfuscation and obscurantism, the less trustworthy they are. True intellectuals explain clearly and concisely because they want you to understand what they are communicating.
yeah thats a good point, ive been developing an algorhitim for determining the quality of a piece of written text based on criteria such as structure and clarity, kind of like a bullshit meter based on text quality and word usage
This helped me understand the whole Bee Better situation a lot more. TikTok is a cesspool of pseudo intellectuals. Balance is truly key when it comes to authority. Thanks for your input, Ana.
Why do people watch something on tiktok first place. Anything less than one minute couldn't unpack the complexity of any matter. Better treat it like advertising since they have the same duration.
One can be used to see who treats others they perceive to be at a (n intellectual) disadvantage as well as exploiting overconfide in opponents and the other requires keeping up a constant charade of falsehood which easily crumbles (must be stressful)
One of the heuristics I use to tell if someone is an actual intellectual on the subject is whether they say it depends to more abstract questions. for example, does smiling improve your mood. It depends. Some research has found that smiling for an extended period does improve your mood. However other studies find that smiling for prolonged times might lead to fatigue in your mood. Like you said, science is rarely black and white. Even the "hard" sciences do not speak in absolutes. For example, there could be multiple universes depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics. All in all, when you do not know something 9 times out of 10, if you say it depends you are most likely closer to the answer than most pseudo intellectuals.
A real intellectual would see beyond even the surface level discussion and have a root understanding. For example, smiling improving your mood comes from the opposite. Having a good mood is what makes you smile. Being happy makes you smile. Similarly, eating food makes you salivate because saliva breaks down food for digestion. But the act of chewing even without food makes you salivate as well. When does salivating happen naturally in humans? When we eat. When does smiling happen naturally in humans? When we’re happy. It just so happens that the “effect” can produce the cause as well because because our neurons are both afferent and efferent. Most “intellectuals” will be stuck on the surface, without understanding the actual reason why.
Earning a degree does not make you an intellectual. It just makes you educated. If you have the intellect, you can be an intellectual without a degree. To wit: An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society and who proposes solutions for its normative problems.
In this particular context, an intellectual has a more nuanced definition. Intellectuals are usually, but not necessarily, individuals who publish or do research in their field, have many years in their practice, and hold a higher degree in education. However, in recent years, propaganda has diminished the reputation of the intellectual. Conspiracy theorists are ubiquitous nowadays, and intellectuals are perceived as people who are trying to keep you in the dark about “the truth”.
Awesome video. This has been a concern of mine for a while. As far as your question at the end, I think it's a good idea, but you have to be careful. I've seen a lot of people go down the path of "not wanting to be one of those channels", but when the views start rolling in, the cognitive dissonance sets in and it's the only content they make, but they continue telling themselves they're still "not one of those channels". Also, I'm watching this video 4 months after you posted it, so you may have already started doing it lol. Just something to keep in mind.
Honestly an intellectual for me is someone who can make sound arguments based on first principles and can deduce things with reason-regardless of their qualifications.
@@tuck295q a sound argument is not the same as a convincing argument. an argument can be sound without being convincing and vice versa. now how trippys is that?
@@tuck295q well the words don't smile at you... if you know about an area well enough you can tell by reading whether a person's argument is wrong or not.
You are entirely right. That is what a real intellectual is. They know what they are talking about. And have good reasoning powers and that allows them to apply what they know to new situations. Abilities are demonstrated by performance.
@@tuck295q You don't know what a sound argument is. It's not an argument that sounds good to you. A sound argument is a logically valid argument where the premises are true.
One thing I learned is that nowadays all fields are so hugely wide that a general qualification like being a lawyer or having a degree in history is almost meaningless, if not even dangerous, when it comes to specifics outside the narrow expertise that is humanly possible. Knowledge today is so deep you need to be an expert on a specific question, limited sub-topic, say like a certain era in history. Having learned the names and achievements of all Minoan kings by heart will not help when the question is about the Italian economy during World War II.
@@lisalasers this is correct. People always expect me to know more than I actually do. I understand the subject and i speak the same language, but I will never trust my opinion absolutely, outside of the very small domain that I absolutely know everything about.
Tik Tok is dangerous because the audiences are very impressionable and tend to take everything said in those short videos at face value. It’s happened to even the brightest of my friends who use TikTok - they tend to not fact check.
yes. AND, the drill-through to sources, the literacy required to navigate those spaces may also create more robust thinkers. Perhaps as a form of resistance, an intellectual immune response, mental hygiene. Required.
Regarding talking about people, keep it vague until you have a built a system to deal with the response. Your videos are insightful. Thank you for all you do
I’m glad you aren’t calling out specific people because it distracts from the point. It makes these people enemies instead of leaving room for them to change their behavior. This is a refreshing way to call out bad behavior without the gossip aspect. Thank you for your work!
I've made an enemy (in my mind) of a certain "Dr" because everything he says outside of "stand up straight" and "clean your room" is usually easily falsifiable, and puts people's lives in danger.
I like that you’re vague and stick to the topic. It really separates you from other people who make a point to call other people out. The entire Internet does that, you sticking to the topic you are addressing really sets you apart from other channels. I admire channels like yours that just share information for the benefit of everybody instead of using your platform to tear somebody else down.
My distrust of psychiatrists happened at an early age and certainly wasn’t because of insecurity. They were in a position of power and put all the boys in the group home on liquid seroquel because we were all “bipolar” which wasn’t true. And now that I’m 30 it really hasn’t changed. I live in a rural area so they are all over worked and now won’t prescribe anything helpful because they can be held accountable now.
An Intellectual is not a qualification, it is a way of approaching the world and learning. There is a difference between a trained, experienced subject matter expert and an intellectual. I think that true intellectuals are seekers who apply a deliberative approach to learning. These people may wish to share what they learn. That said, misrepresenting one's qualifications is closer to fraud that pseudo-intellectualism.
Side point: I’ve seen people devalue authority not out of insecurity but out of a deep distrust of the “system” that generates “expertise”. With this that the person with high authority has been indoctrinated by and now benefits from a shadowy power with an agenda. To the extent I feel strongly that this is worth mentioning, it’s a fairly new phenomenon.
@@sandwich4763 sure. I think Joe Rogan exemplifies this attitude at times. He is deeply suspicious of the system and of institutions. I also think a lot of conspiracy theories are drawn up on loose connections of various “elites” having undue influence (and behind the curtain controls). Which seemingly can make people very suspicious of anyone with a certain pedigree (as if anyone with these backgrounds should be viewed with deep suspicion). It all seems systematic of a sort post truth age, where anyone can have their own facts. I probably could do a little better than that in my explanation- but hopefully that’s helpful.
Orrr just maybeeee people devalue authority because they have been screwed over by people with authority. Doctors make mistakes all the time, give wrong diagnosis, wrong medication and are not punished for making mistakes (sometimes constantly) because there aren't enough doctors. Or lawyers, there are natorious lawyers in my city that everyone avoids but they still get work because there aren't enough lawyers.
Well, I also devalue expertise as opposed to knowledge and understanding, because experts _are_ frequently misled by other academics who skew data or write false papers specifically to mess with a field. It literally happens. Expertise means literally nothing if you can't illustrate the argument and provide supporting arguments and evidence, and you don't need expertise to do that. But that's, I guess, different, it's just healthy scepticism to recognise that there are issues in academia that require you to do actual fact checks and to properly assess a paper to decide if it's actually valuable research or not.
Dr. Ana, I’m in my second year of my clinical Psych PhD, and you have consistently inspired me even before choosing this career path. I think it’s completely reasonable to call people out for spreading misinformation. I think you’re already really diplomatic with your criticisms and you can execute these particular criticisms in a way that detaches the persons character from the information that they’re spreading.
Appeal to authority is what we called "credibility" in English class whenever writing a argumentative or persuasive essay (I may have mixed these up). If I remember we were always taught that when writing these essays how credibility can be useful but it can't be something you solely rely on in your argument. You need more to it than an appeal to authority or some form of credibility that convinces the reader that your information is reliable or truthful.
18:21 Ana elegantly dodging the bullet that is directly mentioning jordan peterson but still getting a little dig in, is the moment I was waiting for the whole video
Thank you for this video. I see that the battle against misinformation is on the rise and a big problem in many areas, not just by pseudo-intellectuals, but also politics and religious people.
As an ordinary person, i have some stuff i follow to guide me when finding information or people to listen to. 1. I listen more to how they are saying things than what they are saying. 2. Are they focusing on the topic and giving thoughts on it or are they attacking a person and/or what someone has said. A person that truly has some insight into the topic will be focused on the topic. 3. Does it feel like the person has a feeling of being better than the "opposition". There are always levels and i am carefully moving through the river of information, looking at multiple sources, not seeing anything as an absolute truth. Knowledge of a topic is based on what we a capable of knowing based on our collective experience and learning.
@@weplaydk2343 : It's an uncommon definition but it's a correct one. Being an intellectual does not in any way guarantee someone is good at being rational and impartial, noticing their biases and knowledge gaps and implicit assumptions, etc. It just means they're good at thinking, however flawed their thought process may be.
I think this is a good reminder on how to check sources. Cause a lot of times its hard to remember to check everything with so much information coming at you so fast
This is tied to humanity's core issue: Establishing and coming closest to "Truth" and Fact. There is currently no framework to ensure that these authorities actually follow the falsification process. Being able to discern information and read complex data, is a huge cognitive demand that most people don't have the time or ability for. The world is only becoming more fanatical and dogmatic too -- not less. Even just having the intellectual humility to say "I don't know" is becoming rare.
The world is also becoming more complex. We have created algorithms now that produce outcomes that we don't even fully understand. The global economy has long since moved on from trade with sailing ships. And wars are not fought with muskets, but with drones that beam high resolution colour imagery of their kills into our homes.
Not everyone agrees on what humanity's 'core issues' are. Actually, yes there are many established, agreed upon, frameworks and lenses of analysis which scientists, technicians, and doctors utilize and are guided by.
@@willdenham This reply didn't make sense. Are you saying that there is a framework that has consequences for authorities who do not follow the falsification process?
@@DockClock-rp2ro yeah, there are multiple. That many people are happily and willingly following populist speech without caring about verification is another topic.
@@david0aloha ppl who know possibly a great deal about one thing and consequently think they know about everything else to the same degree. Intellectuals are mostly useless know it alls so there’s not much difference in my opinion. Actual scholarship is rare
UA-cam has an ideological filter in place, which makes it really hard to discuss these things as all posts keep disappearing if they have certain key words or phrases in them.
@@Grievance_Studies_Affair_2018 You're lying. You're perfectly capable of typing such words L1k€ th1$, which bypasses the filter entirely. Literally just change a single letter, and it should work. Find a different excuse.
I think the eventual prevalence of AI will make issues like this even worse since it has become increasingly difficult for people to discern the "facts" and the ability to manipulate videos, speech, personal image, and various other aspects of reality and distort it to serve a destructive purpose is always on the table as a real threat to people's ability to safely consume knowledge online.
Well, AI also produces unbelievably basic information but it can't replicate actual in depth understanding. So it might do the opposite and put the pseudo intellectuals out of work.
Ah, yes. A friendly reminder that when it comes to sheer chaos and destruction, few forces can rival a horde of misguided folks banding together. It's almost endearing, really-their collective ability to turn the simplest of situations into absolute mayhem. Just heartwarming!
there's a rather potent and very common "anti-expertise" bent along with very low literacy for a "developed" country in which this mix is proving quite harmful.
It's interesting how the rise of social media has further has muddied the waters on those who can back up what they say with those who just speak with confidence on certain matters that they're not experts in. Although I will say that the appeal to authority fallacy needs to be taught as much as the flags of shady intellectuals. A much needed discussion on the distinction of intellectualism. Thank you Dr. Ana.
You know, ironically, I think this video places too much importance on formal education as a qualifier for intellectualism. I have an associate's art degree, but I can talk about astronomy and geopolitics for hours. I'm not claiming to be an authority on either topic, but I don't think that means I'm *not* an intellectual. The definition of "intellectual" is "a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for its normative problems." I do believe we have far too many pseudo-intellectuals though, because virtually everyone I talk to about charged issues today just repeats the 30 second half-baked opinion they heard on tiktok as if it's their own.
@@MasoNowa That's understandable, but conflating intellectualism with expertise backed up by formal education isn't right either. In fact, it is sounding a lot like considering all those without formal education to be incapable of forming valid opinions and unable to provide meaningful input on more complex subjects. Are they authority on the subject? Not at all. But dismissing their potential input as inferior based only on their lack of credentials is an inherently elitist position. I might be entirely wrong though - after all, I'm not an expert in the field, so my opinion holds little value.
100%. I think responding to that point of “at what point an expert is so shady that they stop being an intellectual”, the real problem is conflating intellectualism with shade (or lack thereof) in any way. A doctor who is shady and scams people is no less of a doctor than any other doctor with the same qualification, they’re just a bad person; the same way that a layperson is no more shady than anyone else, they’re just lacking said qualifications, or in some cases lacking the expert knowledge that might open them up to deeper concepts/phenomena. Like she said, intelligence and expertise on a specific topic has nothing to do with whether or not their take is good, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not their take is made to scam people or for an ulterior motive. What I think is that we need to stop putting emphasis on qualifications or intellectualism at all before we evaluate if a take is good or bad. Instead of teaching people how to spot if someone online is a real intellectual or not, we’d be much better off teaching people to actually evaluate what they’re saying and whether it makes sense. Granted, it’s not a bad skill to learn to know if a person is lying about their qualifications, but it isn’t solving the root problem of why people are blindly following bad takes, or why people are overly cynical about professionals to the point of dismissing them entirely.
This topic hits home because I’m a Food scientist and the amount of people who just spewing false information is so annoying and dangerous because it can lead people into fearing certain foods and leading them to nutritional deficiencies and/or eating dangerous foods like raw milk. It’s so frustrating.
@SoVidushi she doesn't give nutritional advice, she gives behavioural advice, not everyone is out to get you yanno, Kiana is obviously trying to help people and gives good advice
The raw-milk, raw-egg, anti-vaccine, back to the way it used to be when the world was flat and life was better, and 1 in 4 children never made it to the age of 5.
I think Robert Greene is incredibly intelligent, so I could see why people would ascribe him degrees he may not have. He has never masqueraded as having a background different than being in the film industry. He always makes his background very clear and includes it in his books.
I thoroughly appreciate your presenation style on important topic such as these. To give my thoughts, I believe that it is sometimes necessary to name names.
Intellectual is someone that knows a lot about everything and promotes and believes in actions that gain skills and knowledge as the highest form of pleasure or state of being. I know a lot of non intellectual academics. They are there because they can travel often and get paid near a place they wanted to live in. They are still very educated in their filed but mention work or something remotely philosophical in any social setting outside working hours, and they will try and change the subject to idle gossip.
She has tyrannical thinking, only “qualified” can say these things, like no a lot of people who aren’t qualified have contributed to your line of work darling 🧐 she doesn’t realise she’s shutting down people’s critical thinking abilities.
This is the common stance in Europe to be honest (and historically it makes sense). The US and some parts of Asia tend to overestimate the real world value of academic achievement and undervalue self-education, hands-on experience and personal growth. Some of the smartest and insightful people I know abandoned their formal studies to pursue something they personally found interesting, as opposed to just forcing themselves to learn information just to pass exams they could care less about. That honesty and courage alone makes them more of an intellectual than someone who got a degree because "you have to have one" either for status or for the job market.
What is really disturbing to me is how many people my age and younger (I'm almost 30) are getting into chiropractic or becoming chiropractors based most entirely on TikTok chiropractor shilling.
I saw a better one just 2 days ago. 'Scientist' talking about consciousness and 'frequency' turned out to be a geologist. Tough times in geology? Gotta do something with the geodes?
I understand your misgivings and I think it is true that being a chiropractor (assuming you are licensed as such) does not give you expertise in nutrition. Neither does it preclude you from having expertise in nutrition. It is possible for people to have expertise in more than one area. The point is a degree and licensure in chiropractic is irrelevant to expertise in nutrition
What a valuable talk. This Dr Ana vid ought to be sticked by UA-cam as a must be listened to before or while exploring any content creators. Thank you Dr Ana for sharing this valuable and insightful talk. 🌸
Tiny addendum... As for calling out individuals due to their behaviours, that is a tough one. Though I have stumbled a lot with what to do when faced with anyone who professes misinformation as true, I do find myself moving (slowly, yet moving) towards what Michelle Obama has shared: "When they go low, we go high." Keep sharing in the tools which help anyone who explores your channel to be better at differentiating information from misinformation. May those enlightening tools be contagious.
4 місяці тому+7
There's also another problem - having a vocation doesn't guarantee competency by itself, and many people confuse the two. Obtaining a formal vocation is becoming more common, and as with anything, when numbers rise, inflation follows. I would argue that the bigger issue is formal intellectuals with little to no genuine intellectualism. These individuals are more dangerous because their vocation grants them positions of influence.
The subject matter of your videos has been really interesting lately. I love the analysis of human behaviour and it has a lot of real life applications as well. Thanks for the quality content.
Personally, I think keeping it vague is the better approach. Don't point the finger at anyone, simply raise the finger to call attention to the topic. I believe that by not pointing the finger, you will not provide slander fuel for those that deserve to get pointed at, if that makes sense.
I think that part of the problem is that we many times assume that a doctorate degree in a field implies that they have either true intelligence and or integrity
This video is an eye opener, now that you’ve mentioned the characteristics of pseudo-intellectuals, I’ve begun to notice more of these people on social media.
Can we talk about how pseudo intellectual read the bottoms grade scientific research and pick one thing that slightly leans into their bias and use that for all basis
I'm 100% with u in everything you said. 23:24 And YES I would love to hear you actually name out people who go around throwing misinformation because they are doing more bad than good. And I pretty sure you will do it with good manners ❤
The catch-22 for those of us who are lay people with respect to the subject under discussion is that the only way we can refute a pseudo who makes a n appeal to authority is to make our own appeal to a different authority, since we don’t know the technical details.
Context always matters, I think its good in general to just avoid arguments from authority, unless the argument is about what an authority figure has said or something like that but yeah. If you stick to facts and or state that you believe xyz and add either something to imply that you're infact not the authority but just sharing ideas or something along those lines than its less likely to come off as an argument and then conversations can be a bit more productive.
Or you could just call out the appeal to authority argument and request that they back up their claims with valid supporting evidence--citations supporting the facts they're stating.
This is ridiculously refreshing to see, especially from a larger creator like yourself. I run a psychopharmacology page but I myself am not an authority on the subject. I’m just really passionate about it and have been for 5+ years. Only recently have I been able to formally study it, but even then the majority of my knowledge comes from my own research. I don’t consider myself an expert, but I have always allowed myself to create videos in spite of this because I believe that I can provide information that is at least higher quality than what is most commonly echoed across social media. Again nice video!
The way short content has almost universally led people to assume everything is an excerpt of something more substantial... the fake podcasts are insane. They just look to the side and pretend they are making eye contact with someone who isn't there... while they say things like "Women are the cause of 92% of all divorce. That's why I sell supplements."
Excellent point.
The amount people that rely on heuristics is likely becoming way more of a problem with short-form content.
Yes! If you want a good laugh, go watch Jaime French’s video on fake podcasts (after you finish and click like on this video, obv)
wonderfully put!
@@DockClock-rp2ro yes unfortunately instead of heuristics being a quick / temporary / not strongly held idea to help with cognition & pattern recognition, it's heralded as a truth (in certain groups) because the short clips from shady podcasts / "street interviews" just confirm their beliefs
Also, it’s not about real world credentials to mean someone is actually more “capable” and smarter. People need to not use that as an illusion and really have critical thinking of the exact content people share instead.
In fact, most truly “smarter” people are off the radar as they are too far out to be understood and most people with credentials are often near the intelligence level of the masses. “IQ” not way too high. People who know the reason why would know.
As such, most people that buy in to people with credentials that actually are not exactly way “intelligent” or wise are in fact the exact representation of those people’s level. This is actually a source of data to know as statics for people who truly understand, usually I suppose the more truly intelligent ones. “Higher-level” can understand “lower-level” but not the other way around truly.
That is why more intelligent people generally observe and not act and it’s the opposite for the lesser intelligent people who thinks everything is way simpler than it seems, often not knowing that they can then be “manipulated” without them knowing with them not being able to conceive/ perceive that much perspectives truly.
It’s like a higher dimension compared to a lower dimension kind of analogy.
A pseudo-intellectual is someone who cares about being perceived right, as opposed to searching for the truth. "I don't know" is a wonderful thing to say.
Yeah, the internet's full of idiots like that
And it is also usually everyone’s honest answer…they just don’t say it lol
Susan Blackmore and Philip J. klass have been accused of raving like this for a long time. I am talking about Philip Klass from the UFO sceptic community. Blackmore has attempted to reduce this behaviour to the extent that some people feel that she is a bit better at engaging in public conversations.
righteous people > flakey people , i can tell the différence 🎉
I agree. The problem is that we need to be able to say (and prove) "you don't know" as well.
According to the internet an intellectual is basically anyone who can own their opposition the hardest in a “debate”
Psychologist OWNS feminist with LOGIC and FACTS!
@@AnaPsychology HELL YAA
@@AnaPsychologyBASED!! You really obliterated them in this debate! 😂
@@AnaPsychology🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"own", you meant "own".
I have an expert witness in my family who appears in court cases to give expert evidence. One of the rules is if you honestly are not qualified to answer something you are required to say "that's outside of my expertise". For instance someone might have 40 years as a mechanic. But they are not a computer programmer so if asked "do you think that car X has well written code for its computer parts" the mechanic might say "not being a programmer that's outside of my expertise.". That's common and it's not held against the expert to do that. It isn't any gotcha moment that a lawyer steers for al all.
"One of the rules is if you honestly are not qualified to answer"
from what I've seen those rules are only as good as the court is honorable.
bruh lawyers will totally steer for that kind of response. sure, this is not held against the expert witness, but the fact that the expert can't answer a question posed by the lawyer can definitely create a helpful impression in the jury, or call into question if the right sort of expert is on the stand.
nice! in life in general, I really respect when people admit they can’t answer because it’s outside their expertise or they simply don’t know enough about the thing to have a real answer! they feel more trustworthy that way.
Such a good point!
A mechanic can tell if the code is doing what to the car what it is intended to do. The disclaimer does need to be there, as he is not talking about the code itself, just the effects of the code.
In my mind, a true intellectual is someone who searches for truth and yet doesn't double down on their belief system. An intellectual must be open to the idea that they may be wrong. And if the evidence is weighed against them, they put their ego aside and recognize that they need to re-evaluate.
Spot on.
The ability to entertain multiple theories (in the wake of what was presented to us under an obvious very long list of outright lies) as to what the truth really is, in intellectualism.
To mindlessly run with and comply with what "the authorities" tell us to do and think without the application of critical thought, would be the opposite of that.
I think it takes even more maturity to recognize that some things are so complex that one cannot find the truth at all, or sometimes there is no one truth but multiple perspectives.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart It also requires maturity and self awareness to not allow ourselves to run with theatrical, lie-based belief sets sold to us from folks that heavily-struggle with delusions of superiority and infallibility.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheartthe thing with complexity isn't that you can't find truth in it but that the narratives we use to understand the system rarely does justice to it's complexity.
In my case, my ego helps me pursue the truth even harder. The thought that someone might offer a better counterargument and that I am wrong is so bad that I just have to correct myself, myself! I am uncomfortable with being seen as wrong, yeah, so the best thing I can do is think it through, do a little reading of other perspectives, before and after making an argument.
A lot of theses “online intellectuals” don’t really know anything. They’ve just mastered the art of condescension lol
@GlutenSensitivityReader lol indeed it does.
Indeed. It's like a delayed version of Oscar Wilde's _"Sarcasm is highest form of intelligence but the lowest form of wit."_ (Essentially, they believe ad hominem snarkiness _trumps_ legitimate argumentation.)
Yes. And also the art of sounding confident.
This is an issue in real life too.
Go into many doctors office and you’ll see this.
One problem with even the well trained intellectuals is reductionism.
The psychologists don’t know about nutrition, the nutritionist don’t know biochemistry, the biochemists don’t know photobiology, etc.
Everything is connected, you can’t talk about mental health without talking about sunlight, nor food without sunlight, nor sunlight without the mind.
Reductionism is the fundamental root cause that spans all of this.
@@shawnmclean7707you should read that last sentence back to yourself slowly and carefully.
How to spot a pseudo-intellectual:
- They argue from authority.
- They deal in absolutes.
- They answer any question very fast. Spend no time pondering the question, it's nuances or whether or not they understand the question correctly. Asks for no clarification or scope.
- Get angry when questioned or "pressured".
- Condescending. "That's so obvious.", "I thought everyone knew that."
Phrases you'll never hear them say: "I don't know.", "I was wrong.", "I think..."
💯❤
@@benminor31 Only a Sith deals in absolutes! we need to do what we must
"I think" shouldn't be something good. On the contrary, "I think" likens more to something a charlatan would keep saying.
@@DrKhan-hd4cdwe will try...
@@johnrivera3365Not sure I agree. From what I've seen, "I think" usually means that they are ok with presented evidence that could prove them wrong.
Something a psuedo-intelectual would not leave themselves open to.
Kudos for posting about this subject. I recall during the "pandemic" realizing within a few months (to my horror) that we live in paradigm where everyone is an "expert." People would rather believe a narrative and choose sides based on that narrative. I had the same issue you have. I am an actual degreed, experienced, biochemistry research scientist. I taught for 16 years at undergraduate level. But most would sooner believe the stranger in front of the camera on the Internet (especially if they've sold a lot of programs or books) who feeds them non-sense with a scienc-y sound, than someone like me with only peer-reviewed and scholastic publications to his name.
Interesting because I can deduce which side you were on and know that in 2025 you know damn well you were wrong in 2020.
@@credulity96 🌚
A true intellectual embodies the phrase
“The more I know, the more i realize I know nothing.”
That sounds like Dr. Neil deGrass Tysin's adaptation of Einstein's quote. For that matter, my GED dad used that same approach. He often said the older he got and the more he learned, the more certain he was that he didn't know anything about anything.
Exactly.
That's the Socratic paradox: Socrates was wise precisely because he knew that he was not. That awareness is the "engine" that drives "philosophia" -- not the possession of wisdom, but the love of it.
@@PaleRider54 ON POINT. I love learning things so much. Trivia type things. Generalist and the more I learn the more I realize there is SO MUCH to know in the world that I really will never know anything.
Pseudo-intellectualism isn't on the rise, it's just more visible now because of the internet. People like this have always been around.
Buried deep in the comments is the correct answer. Quacks, Cranks and charlatans have been around forever...it's the communication medium that has changed.
How do you know it isn’t on the rise… where’s your evidence
The medium/channel of communication is the problem, by having a bigger reach compared to previous generations, they influence more and more easily impressionable layperson
@@tortolgawd4481this is illusory. The good AND bad info is amplified.
Facts 😅
As a pseudo intellectual, I verify what she's saying
I'm interested in joining the ranks of the pseudo intellectuals as long as I don't have to read a bunch of books. Any advice?
😂😂😂
As an armchair intellectual, I concur.
Lolll
Here here !!!!! 😅
"Never trust anything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln.
😅😅😅
-Quote by Jay Shetty
No because when I was younger an I did a biography on Lincoln and wiki told me he died in a CAR WRECK
😂
2057, when Abraham first step on the face of the Uranus
You're the first person I've seen talk about this. It's something that's been on my mind recently. Especially after learning about the background of a few famous podcasters. Its so interesting how people will listen and believe so much of what another human says while they have little to no authority in making those statements to begin with. Thank you for shedding light on this topic, and I do agree that this is just the beginning. I can absolutely envision a future where your prediction comes true, and it's a little scary, to be honest.
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest."
~ Confucius
Problem is if imitation is the status quo and people fail to differentiate between wisdom and BS. What if there is no wisdome at all to imitate?
That Cofusion fella sure is a real jerk!
@@nostalji93 we can discern between parroting and embodying.
@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry Ha!
@@SisterSunnyFreeSpirit We can, but to what end? I don't see how this differentiation relates to the problem of mimicking "bad" or "foolish" behaviour and attitudes instead of "wise" ones.
Number one way to spot intelligence, the ability to admit they are wrong, ability to say I dont know and how to spot others intentional mistakes.
I agree, if something is true it’s not personal. If I’m wrong about something and corrected I’m not gonna be mad.
When working hard it happens all the time.
When goofing around without a goal feelings start to come out.
Last one sure, but the others sound like admittance of good character, which isn't inherently an aspect of intelligence traditionally.
@dylanwalsh6677 good point.
What about unintentional mistakes?
❤
“Cosplaying the aesthetic of it” love that phrase.Another word for that is “sophistry”
The OG 'Porch Pirates'
That's actually not the definition of sophistry.
Sophistry is intentionally using fallacious arguments in an attempt to convince others
This video contains several examples of sophistry
@@AllanTidgwellTHIS! LOL
THESE ARE PSUEDO-INTELLECTUALS COPING
@@AllanTidgwell Mind giving us an example? 🧐
@@AllanTidgwellIt could arguably be considered sophistry if "cosplaying the aesthetic" functions in/as an informal logical fallacy, e.g. "argument from authority". Whether I am being sophistic rn is left for the reader to determine.
Your Robert Greene assessment is right-on-the-money.
I was a pseudo-intellectual. Then I came into contact with some actual geniuses and realized that I had years of study and work to do.
So you weren't then.
@@SounduSleep said _"So you weren't then."_
Exactly. Someone who is willing to admit their limits demonstrates intellectualism, especially if they attempt to learn from there.
I was when I was like 14 to 18. People always told me I was smart, so in order to live up to their expectations, I always felt the pressure to know the right answer, whether I know it or not. Took some growing up for me to start saying "I don't know" and actually spending more time researching things before answering.
Same, I transferred into a prestigious school then realised how much of a phony I was intellectually😭
wow, whats it like having to study? as a genius, i dont need to study; im just too smart to read anything.
I agree. But its also important to say that getting university degrees doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. Plenty of people get their degrees without actually deeply understanding the subjects.
It's crazy to me because a Bachelor's is literally the bottom of higher education and specific knowledge?? Like, do you not realize just how little you actually know? You spend 3-4 years studying some 10 different subjects per year when there are people who've devoted the last 50 years of their lives to just ONE of those?? And you think you can call yourself an EXPERT??? I will never not be baffled by this
Many holders of PhDs are not particularly brilliant, they have simply put in the time and effort to complete an extensive program and compose a thesis which stood up to critique without falling apart. They may have written something very basic which is just true and soundly researched with attributions in the proper form.
Real intellectualism is something that is recognized by the interllectual’s peers. And it’s approached by degrees of recognition, through publication and public speech. And I suppose there is variance in opinion about authentic and spurious intellectualism.
You don’t need a degree to be an intellectual.
Not to mention all the ps3ud0 sci3ntific fields that are now taught at univ3rsities and even give you a degree.
UA-cam ideological filter keeps hiding this post, so I had to amend some words.
It's also an assumption that the university is giving accurate information.
The black cat is the real expert here. I trust them to know how to steal my heart.
If you give your heart to the first predator who purrs at you then it's not really stealing :P
I fully concur
Note how kitty immediately tried to interrupt the fake interview. "Liar! Pretender!" 😂😂😂
100%
All cats are grey in the dark, or, as my dear uncle told me 50 years ago, “Tout Les Chats sont gris dans la nuit”, meaning…
This is how I see Jordan Peterson talking about climate change not existing or other matters not related to his psychological wisdom.
I bet it took her a lot of strength not to call him out by name
Or the 1,000s of self-appointed climate "experts", who claim man-made climate change IS happening! What a leftie yawn-fest they all are!
Haha it's a bit more nuanced than that. Instead of not existing, his arguments are "it's different from what people try to protrait it as". Be careful to not fall for fallacies, even your owns.
This is related to pseudo-intellectuals but also the people who, even if they are educated on one specific topic, they act like they're educated and qualified talk about every topic in general on a factual basis even if it's in a totally unrelated field
Yup!! Mentioned this in my definition of a shady intellectual
It’s funny because my perspective on learning is that the more I learn the more I realize how little I actually know.
Are they not also pseudo-intellectuals, in that they can't recognize their own limits of knowledge when outside of their area of expertise?
Most people are mostly ignorant about most things, most of the time. I really don't want to see a war on self-assuredness, though.
You're talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson aren't you? xD
Humility is the mark of someone worth listening to
Did you find the author of this video humble? I’m interested in your thoughts, because I didn’t :/
no she doesnt seem humble...😂 too much focus on qualifications instead on subject itself...we get ir bro: you are doctor :D
What about humidity? Would you be as quick to agree with a person who sweats a lot, or do they have to smell fresh?
I once had an uncle, a British Texaco executive,
who was often humorously self deprecating.
We eventually concluded this was simply
part of what helped him prevent anyone else from
getting a word in edgewise.
@@orinva2410 did you even watched the video? this is addressed.
If anyone's calling themselves a doctor and talking about medicine, neuroscience, quantum physics, nutrition, technology, etc. it's a safe bet that they're a chiropractor
Hit the nail on the head 😂
lol. Ive twice had chiro practors REALLY help me. some of them really know their stuff
oh my yes, you said exactly what I was thinking. I had one of those try to tell me things about my genetic illness which most MD's do not know anything about, but when I questioned them, there was that "well, I am a doctor, you are not" kind of response. And I see that all of the time on UA-cam too. No thank you.
I’ve gotten used to saying “Post the NPI, babe” 🥰
Isn't that exactly what Dr Ana is doing lol?
As an undergraduate in psychology right now who went back to school after getting a degree in biotech, I see a lot of what you’re talking about and it’s super hard to address all of what you’re saying. I experienced a lot of heartbreak and a lot of family problems in the last couple of years and if I didn’t have a lot of prior knowledge on research and how to look for factual information, I would have fallen for these life coaches and demonizing people in my life as narcissists or just buying into these pseudo life coach/MFT stuff online. I think the problem is broader, there’s a lot of misinformation and bad actors across all fields (politics, psych, medicine, STEM, etc) and in the Information Age it’s hard to fight back the constant shit that is being dulled out. I don’t know how you’d address it because there’s always new people trying their hand at it, I’d generalize it and say if they’re not accredited or maybe focus on individuals like yourself who you believe based on your training that are doing it for benevolent reasons and not to make a quick buck, that way if anyone asks who to look to for insight on topics of divorce, parent estrangement, couples therapy, etc, you can lead people in the right direction and keep other people out. That way you don’t start beef with bad actors but also form a coalition of professionals in the field and shut the bad actors out. There’s plenty of space online for multiple people in multiple practices too so I think that would be the best approach to fight misinformation
Working up to be an LMFT rn and I feel called out lol
"We need to talk about pseudo-intellectuals." My Dear, I would. But I'm far too busy being smarter than you and, even if I did...well, let's face it. You wouldn't understand my superior intellectual speak. TRUST me. I'm a doctor!
Haha…meta-pseudo-intellectual!
'Sir, this is an automotive garage, do you want this vehicle serviced or not?'
@@cosinus_square💀
Exactly!
This proves true more often than not. Try listening to some of these people you criticize.
What I don’t get is why people don’t just put their ideas out there, be open about their lack of knowledge and ask for other opinions instead of trying to assert superiority.
Those who need to assert their superiority, aren’t superior.
People aren’t comfortable with being wrong ,it’s a hit to their ego ….so you have to actually be mature ,secure and intellectual “enough” to be sincere about what you know or do not know.
I get into a little trouble sometimes by unintentionally wording myself as if i know more than i do, then there's also the Dunning Kruger thingy going on sometimes.
Certainty sells as well as sex does unfortunately. It's why politics and religion are so popular. It's an addiction. Society still hasn't learned to be comfortable with the process of learning and asking questions.
Because some ideas are too big for most people heh
Requires humility. Not a common quality on a US-dominated web, sadly. Not pushing your way to the front? You're negligible, ipso facto.
To my understanding an intellectual is simply a deep thinker. The word scholar is more accurately a subject expert. I am not a language expert though.
I'm in the same boat as you. I've never really seen the word intellectual defined like this before. Ana seems to be talking more about what I would call domain experts or subject experts as you call them. I do think there is an overlap between pseudo intellectuals and fake experts though, so I guess it's not a big deal.
Agreed
There are no qualifications that make one become an "intellectual" so it's just become a buzzword people give themselves or their favourite idealogues. I think we can all agree that Terrence Howard is clearly a legitimate "intellectual" and we should defer to Joe Rogan to decide who is and who isn't an "intellectual" from now on! 👌🙄
@@pavlovsdogman we should all defer to joe rogan about absolutely nothing
@@intellectually_lazy who says elite intellectuals and serious academics have no sense of humour or ability to read obvious satire? 🧐
Oprah is unforgivable for cursing us with phil and oz. PUKE.
Yup!
Beyond "pseudo-intellectuals." The Internet has become a PLACE OF NONSENSE.
to be fair, "the internet" has always been a place of nonsense.
Seems like anything goes. That's why you have to be very strict with kids in their use of the internet. They must be educated and must be policed.
A good rule of thumb is the more they engage in obfuscation and obscurantism, the less trustworthy they are. True intellectuals explain clearly and concisely because they want you to understand what they are communicating.
yeah thats a good point, ive been developing an algorhitim for determining the quality of a piece of written text based on criteria such as structure and clarity, kind of like a bullshit meter based on text quality and word usage
@@aieverythingsfine This sounds awesome, are you publishing it anywhere?
@@rraegobrr im hoping to get it published by june/july this year with swansea university, its my Masters disertation (as long as i can get it to work)
@@Thebaldocelot thankyou
@@aieverythingsfine That's very interesting. Sounds like an extremely difficult project.
This helped me understand the whole Bee Better situation a lot more. TikTok is a cesspool of pseudo intellectuals. Balance is truly key when it comes to authority. Thanks for your input, Ana.
It’s funny, I recorded this before that fiasco happened, and I couldn’t believe the synchronicity of it
This is for the first time I hear about the ´Bee Better´ example. Thanks for this!!
Why do people watch something on tiktok first place. Anything less than one minute couldn't unpack the complexity of any matter. Better treat it like advertising since they have the same duration.
Congrats on getting your doctorate!! Been following you since you were a student. Nice work building your channel 😊❤
I'd rather the world think I'm dumber than I am, as opposed to smarter than I am.
I’d rather just be dumber at this point
@@briancomforti3890 You can do it. I believe in you!
One can be used to see who treats others they perceive to be at a (n intellectual) disadvantage as well as exploiting overconfide in opponents and the other requires keeping up a constant charade of falsehood which easily crumbles (must be stressful)
The more I read, I get more confused....
I'd rather the world see me exactly as intelligent as I am, not more and not less.
One of the heuristics I use to tell if someone is an actual intellectual on the subject is whether they say it depends to more abstract questions. for example, does smiling improve your mood. It depends. Some research has found that smiling for an extended period does improve your mood. However other studies find that smiling for prolonged times might lead to fatigue in your mood. Like you said, science is rarely black and white. Even the "hard" sciences do not speak in absolutes. For example, there could be multiple universes depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics. All in all, when you do not know something 9 times out of 10, if you say it depends you are most likely closer to the answer than most pseudo intellectuals.
This is a great observation. Experts can be very rigid, but statistically we see that makes them more likely to be wrong.
The presence of absolutes in _any_ sentence should _always_ necessitate a second-read.
A real intellectual would see beyond even the surface level discussion and have a root understanding. For example, smiling improving your mood comes from the opposite. Having a good mood is what makes you smile. Being happy makes you smile. Similarly, eating food makes you salivate because saliva breaks down food for digestion. But the act of chewing even without food makes you salivate as well. When does salivating happen naturally in humans? When we eat. When does smiling happen naturally in humans? When we’re happy. It just so happens that the “effect” can produce the cause as well because because our neurons are both afferent and efferent.
Most “intellectuals” will be stuck on the surface, without understanding the actual reason why.
Nice 😅
@@E4439Qv5 I could possibly read this statement a few times.
Earning a degree does not make you an intellectual. It just makes you educated.
If you have the intellect, you can be an intellectual without a degree.
To wit: An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society and who proposes solutions for its normative problems.
And even then, having a degree doesn't mean anything in practice. People are not the knowledge they have, but what they do with it.
This!
You're not truly an expert untill youve practised said thing for a number of years.@@BrunodeSouzaLino
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Bravo!
In this particular context, an intellectual has a more nuanced definition. Intellectuals are usually, but not necessarily, individuals who publish or do research in their field, have many years in their practice, and hold a higher degree in education. However, in recent years, propaganda has diminished the reputation of the intellectual. Conspiracy theorists are ubiquitous nowadays, and intellectuals are perceived as people who are trying to keep you in the dark about “the truth”.
@@TheOfficialKIKI i am an intellectual because i have 69 years of studying the human condition. The nuanced definition you refer to are propagandists.
Awesome video. This has been a concern of mine for a while. As far as your question at the end, I think it's a good idea, but you have to be careful. I've seen a lot of people go down the path of "not wanting to be one of those channels", but when the views start rolling in, the cognitive dissonance sets in and it's the only content they make, but they continue telling themselves they're still "not one of those channels". Also, I'm watching this video 4 months after you posted it, so you may have already started doing it lol. Just something to keep in mind.
Honestly an intellectual for me is someone who can make sound arguments based on first principles and can deduce things with reason-regardless of their qualifications.
that is trippy because someone that is extremely charismatic can make any argument sound with all incorrect info.
@@tuck295q a sound argument is not the same as a convincing argument. an argument can be sound without being convincing and vice versa. now how trippys is that?
@@tuck295q well the words don't smile at you... if you know about an area well enough you can tell by reading whether a person's argument is wrong or not.
You are entirely right.
That is what a real intellectual is.
They know what they are talking about. And have good reasoning powers and that allows them to apply what they know to new situations.
Abilities are demonstrated by performance.
@@tuck295q You don't know what a sound argument is.
It's not an argument that sounds good to you. A sound argument is a logically valid argument where the premises are true.
One thing I learned is that nowadays all fields are so hugely wide that a general qualification like being a lawyer or having a degree in history is almost meaningless, if not even dangerous, when it comes to specifics outside the narrow expertise that is humanly possible. Knowledge today is so deep you need to be an expert on a specific question, limited sub-topic, say like a certain era in history. Having learned the names and achievements of all Minoan kings by heart will not help when the question is about the Italian economy during World War II.
When I started practicing law eins ago, i was told i need to hyper specialize and become an expert in a discreet area of the law.
@@lisalasers And did you? What is your experience?
@@lisalasers this is correct.
People always expect me to know more than I actually do. I understand the subject and i speak the same language, but I will never trust my opinion absolutely, outside of the very small domain that I absolutely know everything about.
Tik Tok is dangerous because the audiences are very impressionable and tend to take everything said in those short videos at face value. It’s happened to even the brightest of my friends who use TikTok - they tend to not fact check.
Bright people would never use TikTok.
yes. AND, the drill-through to sources, the literacy required to navigate those spaces may also create more robust thinkers. Perhaps as a form of resistance, an intellectual immune response, mental hygiene. Required.
12:57 I appreciate that you included THE internationally renowned expert on cat foods and treats
Regarding talking about people, keep it vague until you have a built a system to deal with the response.
Your videos are insightful.
Thank you for all you do
I’m glad you aren’t calling out specific people because it distracts from the point. It makes these people enemies instead of leaving room for them to change their behavior. This is a refreshing way to call out bad behavior without the gossip aspect. Thank you for your work!
I've made an enemy (in my mind) of a certain "Dr" because everything he says outside of "stand up straight" and "clean your room" is usually easily falsifiable, and puts people's lives in danger.
She literally did name specific people lol
@@billmozart7288how exactly do his words put people in danger?
@@_VISION. wait…wuuuuut
@@hernamewasliberty Robert Greene and Joe Dispenza from what I can remember
I like that you’re vague and stick to the topic. It really separates you from other people who make a point to call other people out. The entire Internet does that, you sticking to the topic you are addressing really sets you apart from other channels. I admire channels like yours that just share information for the benefit of everybody instead of using your platform to tear somebody else down.
So she didn't name Robert Greene?
@@_VISION. she did but she didn’t call him out she just used him as an example of people assuming others are experts.
@@_VISION. Oh brother
If you don't name them, they get away with it.
Pretty sure she has Dr. Grande on her mind 😅
I caught the dr todd shade Ana "dr of counselling education commenting on true crime" lmaoo
Sameee😭
Which was weird, because he doesn't even posture himself as a true crime expert...
He makes fun of people in a horrible way, making unfunny jokes about how other people are untalented and lack insight.
@@emilewilliams5361he does though
My distrust of psychiatrists happened at an early age and certainly wasn’t because of insecurity. They were in a position of power and put all the boys in the group home on liquid seroquel because we were all “bipolar” which wasn’t true. And now that I’m 30 it really hasn’t changed. I live in a rural area so they are all over worked and now won’t prescribe anything helpful because they can be held accountable now.
This tried to do this to me as well, in Windsor Ontario. I wasn’t even 20 years old at the time. I immediately became distrustful.
they did WHAT-
i first got locked up in a mental hospital when i was 12
I was put on a cocktail of drugs "prophylactic antipsychotics" for no diagnosed disorder at 13 for what is actually autism
@@intellectually_lazythey love doing that
An Intellectual is not a qualification, it is a way of approaching the world and learning. There is a difference between a trained, experienced subject matter expert and an intellectual. I think that true intellectuals are seekers who apply a deliberative approach to learning. These people may wish to share what they learn. That said, misrepresenting one's qualifications is closer to fraud that pseudo-intellectualism.
I think what she's saying is that it's a flag.
@@henrychow8849 you're right but I was also getting a little (for the lack of a better term) confused about her intended message.
@qwert_au As am I, it sounds like your qualifications equal your intelligence. I do hope I am wrong.
@@palerider2132 That's how it was coming across to me.
@@yesteryearcreativeGood video but yeah - she seems to be using the word incorrectly.
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts. I found your video to be honest and refreshing. Looking forward to seeing more of your channel
Side point: I’ve seen people devalue authority not out of insecurity but out of a deep distrust of the “system” that generates “expertise”. With this that the person with high authority has been indoctrinated by and now benefits from a shadowy power with an agenda. To the extent I feel strongly that this is worth mentioning, it’s a fairly new phenomenon.
Very good and accurate assessment. I am one who doesn’t trust the “system” at all.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I understood what you mean by that.
@@sandwich4763 sure. I think Joe Rogan exemplifies this attitude at times. He is deeply suspicious of the system and of institutions. I also think a lot of conspiracy theories are drawn up on loose connections of various “elites” having undue influence (and behind the curtain controls). Which seemingly can make people very suspicious of anyone with a certain pedigree (as if anyone with these backgrounds should be viewed with deep suspicion). It all seems systematic of a sort post truth age, where anyone can have their own facts.
I probably could do a little better than that in my explanation- but hopefully that’s helpful.
Orrr just maybeeee people devalue authority because they have been screwed over by people with authority. Doctors make mistakes all the time, give wrong diagnosis, wrong medication and are not punished for making mistakes (sometimes constantly) because there aren't enough doctors. Or lawyers, there are natorious lawyers in my city that everyone avoids but they still get work because there aren't enough lawyers.
Well, I also devalue expertise as opposed to knowledge and understanding, because experts _are_ frequently misled by other academics who skew data or write false papers specifically to mess with a field. It literally happens. Expertise means literally nothing if you can't illustrate the argument and provide supporting arguments and evidence, and you don't need expertise to do that.
But that's, I guess, different, it's just healthy scepticism to recognise that there are issues in academia that require you to do actual fact checks and to properly assess a paper to decide if it's actually valuable research or not.
Dr. Ana, I’m in my second year of my clinical Psych PhD, and you have consistently inspired me even before choosing this career path. I think it’s completely reasonable to call people out for spreading misinformation. I think you’re already really diplomatic with your criticisms and you can execute these particular criticisms in a way that detaches the persons character from the information that they’re spreading.
check out alan watts
Appeal to authority is what we called "credibility" in English class whenever writing a argumentative or persuasive essay (I may have mixed these up). If I remember we were always taught that when writing these essays how credibility can be useful but it can't be something you solely rely on in your argument. You need more to it than an appeal to authority or some form of credibility that convinces the reader that your information is reliable or truthful.
I'm a competitive debater, this applies to us as well 😮
"Truth can never be reached by just listening to the voice of an authority" - Francis Bacon
It's called citing sources. An appeal to authority is just saying a person said or wrote something, without presenting an actual argument or opinion.
18:21 Ana elegantly dodging the bullet that is directly mentioning jordan peterson but still getting a little dig in, is the moment I was waiting for the whole video
Coming back to this channel after 3 years and seeing the Dr part in her title makes me so happy! Keep up the great work Dr. Ana!
"...the higest form of human excellence is to question yourself and others." - Socrates
Who
@@horse433 Socrates? The father of Western philosophy?
It was a little joke.
Thank you for this video. I see that the battle against misinformation is on the rise and a big problem in many areas, not just by pseudo-intellectuals, but also politics and religious people.
As an ordinary person, i have some stuff i follow to guide me when finding information or people to listen to.
1. I listen more to how they are saying things than what they are saying.
2. Are they focusing on the topic and giving thoughts on it or are they attacking a person and/or what someone has said. A person that truly has some insight into the topic will be focused on the topic.
3. Does it feel like the person has a feeling of being better than the "opposition".
There are always levels and i am carefully moving through the river of information, looking at multiple sources, not seeing anything as an absolute truth. Knowledge of a topic is based on what we a capable of knowing based on our collective experience and learning.
An intellectual is someone who enjoys thinking. Whether they are _good_ at thinking is a completely different question.
braindead
That's definitely a unique definition in my experience. Appreciate the perspective though
@@weplaydk2343 : It's an uncommon definition but it's a correct one. Being an intellectual does not in any way guarantee someone is good at being rational and impartial, noticing their biases and knowledge gaps and implicit assumptions, etc. It just means they're good at thinking, however flawed their thought process may be.
Intellectual, presumes that your theories, analysis and opinions of a given subject are well informed.
Shady Intellectuals: deliberately not looking at daytime TV doctors (Oz and Phil, etc)
Having specific examples when speaking on a topic helps me. Being vague forces me to fill in some blanks which I’m okay with, too.
Great stuff, Dr!
I think this is a good reminder on how to check sources. Cause a lot of times its hard to remember to check everything with so much information coming at you so fast
This is tied to humanity's core issue: Establishing and coming closest to "Truth" and Fact.
There is currently no framework to ensure that these authorities actually follow the falsification process.
Being able to discern information and read complex data, is a huge cognitive demand that most people don't have the time or ability for.
The world is only becoming more fanatical and dogmatic too -- not less.
Even just having the intellectual humility to say "I don't know" is becoming rare.
The world is also becoming more complex. We have created algorithms now that produce outcomes that we don't even fully understand. The global economy has long since moved on from trade with sailing ships. And wars are not fought with muskets, but with drones that beam high resolution colour imagery of their kills into our homes.
When was there ever such a framework for the average person?
Not everyone agrees on what humanity's 'core issues' are. Actually, yes there are many established, agreed upon, frameworks and lenses of analysis which scientists, technicians, and doctors utilize and are guided by.
@@willdenham This reply didn't make sense.
Are you saying that there is a framework that has consequences for authorities who do not follow the falsification process?
@@DockClock-rp2ro yeah, there are multiple. That many people are happily and willingly following populist speech without caring about verification is another topic.
As someone who grew up in a university town, pseudo intellectuals completely turned me off from academia 30 years ago
What was your impression of pseudo intellectuals that caused you to turn away from academia? What was the connection between the two for you?
@@david0aloha ppl who know possibly a great deal about one thing and consequently think they know about everything else to the same degree. Intellectuals are mostly useless know it alls so there’s not much difference in my opinion. Actual scholarship is rare
UA-cam has an ideological filter in place, which makes it really hard to discuss these things as all posts keep disappearing if they have certain key words or phrases in them.
lol I can relate to that
@@Grievance_Studies_Affair_2018 You're lying. You're perfectly capable of typing such words L1k€ th1$, which bypasses the filter entirely. Literally just change a single letter, and it should work. Find a different excuse.
I think the eventual prevalence of AI will make issues like this even worse since it has become increasingly difficult for people to discern the "facts" and the ability to manipulate videos, speech, personal image, and various other aspects of reality and distort it to serve a destructive purpose is always on the table as a real threat to people's ability to safely consume knowledge online.
Well, AI also produces unbelievably basic information but it can't replicate actual in depth understanding. So it might do the opposite and put the pseudo intellectuals out of work.
All part of the plan ...
An ignorant populace is easier to control heh
Ah, yes. A friendly reminder that when it comes to sheer chaos and destruction, few forces can rival a horde of misguided folks banding together. It's almost endearing, really-their collective ability to turn the simplest of situations into absolute mayhem. Just heartwarming!
Glad to hear I'm not the only one noticing that there's a lot of people who seem to be trying to sound smart who really aren't
there's a rather potent and very common "anti-expertise" bent along with very low literacy for a "developed" country in which this mix is proving quite harmful.
Completely agree. The internet really gave a rise to armchair psychologists.
Sounds like a jab to her, to be honest lol.
Not just “shady” but “bots”. Not even real people let alone an expert one. You crack on young lady you’re spot on.
Excellent distillation of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
It's interesting how the rise of social media has further has muddied the waters on those who can back up what they say with those who just speak with confidence on certain matters that they're not experts in. Although I will say that the appeal to authority fallacy needs to be taught as much as the flags of shady intellectuals.
A much needed discussion on the distinction of intellectualism.
Thank you Dr. Ana.
This is by far the best video I have seen on this topic.
You know, ironically, I think this video places too much importance on formal education as a qualifier for intellectualism. I have an associate's art degree, but I can talk about astronomy and geopolitics for hours. I'm not claiming to be an authority on either topic, but I don't think that means I'm *not* an intellectual. The definition of "intellectual" is "a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for its normative problems."
I do believe we have far too many pseudo-intellectuals though, because virtually everyone I talk to about charged issues today just repeats the 30 second half-baked opinion they heard on tiktok as if it's their own.
It's important to recognize that you're not actually an expert or authority. You're a hobbyist
@@MasoNowa That's understandable, but conflating intellectualism with expertise backed up by formal education isn't right either. In fact, it is sounding a lot like considering all those without formal education to be incapable of forming valid opinions and unable to provide meaningful input on more complex subjects. Are they authority on the subject? Not at all. But dismissing their potential input as inferior based only on their lack of credentials is an inherently elitist position.
I might be entirely wrong though - after all, I'm not an expert in the field, so my opinion holds little value.
Completely agree
100%. I think responding to that point of “at what point an expert is so shady that they stop being an intellectual”, the real problem is conflating intellectualism with shade (or lack thereof) in any way. A doctor who is shady and scams people is no less of a doctor than any other doctor with the same qualification, they’re just a bad person; the same way that a layperson is no more shady than anyone else, they’re just lacking said qualifications, or in some cases lacking the expert knowledge that might open them up to deeper concepts/phenomena. Like she said, intelligence and expertise on a specific topic has nothing to do with whether or not their take is good, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not their take is made to scam people or for an ulterior motive.
What I think is that we need to stop putting emphasis on qualifications or intellectualism at all before we evaluate if a take is good or bad. Instead of teaching people how to spot if someone online is a real intellectual or not, we’d be much better off teaching people to actually evaluate what they’re saying and whether it makes sense. Granted, it’s not a bad skill to learn to know if a person is lying about their qualifications, but it isn’t solving the root problem of why people are blindly following bad takes, or why people are overly cynical about professionals to the point of dismissing them entirely.
Pseudo intellectual: B. Shapiro
Shady intellectual: J. Peterson
Totally not talking about Sadia Khan.
I’m honestly curious if Ana is or not
My first thought was that
Her and Orion Taraban seem so inauthentic. I don't understand how they're so popular.
or gender expert j k rowling, or the clean your room canadian riddler!
@@briggs5534one need not be a “gender expert” to point out obvious nonsense.
This topic hits home because I’m a Food scientist and the amount of people who just spewing false information is so annoying and dangerous because it can lead people into fearing certain foods and leading them to nutritional deficiencies and/or eating dangerous foods like raw milk. It’s so frustrating.
thoughts on Kiana Docherty's videos?
@SoVidushi she doesn't give nutritional advice, she gives behavioural advice, not everyone is out to get you yanno, Kiana is obviously trying to help people and gives good advice
The raw-milk, raw-egg, anti-vaccine, back to the way it used to be when the world was flat and life was better, and 1 in 4 children never made it to the age of 5.
I think Robert Greene is incredibly intelligent, so I could see why people would ascribe him degrees he may not have.
He has never masqueraded as having a background different than being in the film industry. He always makes his background very clear and includes it in his books.
But he looks like a smart nerd 🤓
Yeah, this one was weird...
He’s unqualified and untrustworthy.
@@A4000 to do what, have an opinion?
@@johncaccioppo1142 to do what he's doing.
I thoroughly appreciate your presenation style on important topic such as these. To give my thoughts, I believe that it is sometimes necessary to name names.
Academics and intellectuals are not the same thing, academics need not be intellectual, and intellectuals need not be academic.
Help me understand this. How do you differentiate the two?
@@agreattimetodayAn academic knows that tomato is a fruit. An intellectual knows not to put a tomato in a fruit salad
100% she is saying intellectual but she is talking about academics
@@kajamatousek247i’d say that’s more the difference between knowledge and wisdom? which isn’t quite the same as an academic vs intellectual
Intellectual is someone that knows a lot about everything and promotes and believes in actions that gain skills and knowledge as the highest form of pleasure or state of being.
I know a lot of non intellectual academics. They are there because they can travel often and get paid near a place they wanted to live in.
They are still very educated in their filed but mention work or something remotely philosophical in any social setting outside working hours, and they will try and change the subject to idle gossip.
I don’t believe intellectualism relates to academic achievement at all. The history of western intellectualism never conflated the two
She has tyrannical thinking, only “qualified” can say these things, like no a lot of people who aren’t qualified have contributed to your line of work darling 🧐 she doesn’t realise she’s shutting down people’s critical thinking abilities.
@@CYNTHIAAAkitty you sound like a pseudo intellectual
In some cases I believe academic achievement just shows your level of indoctrination and group think.
This is the common stance in Europe to be honest (and historically it makes sense).
The US and some parts of Asia tend to overestimate the real world value of academic achievement and undervalue self-education, hands-on experience and personal growth.
Some of the smartest and insightful people I know abandoned their formal studies to pursue something they personally found interesting, as opposed to just forcing themselves to learn information just to pass exams they could care less about.
That honesty and courage alone makes them more of an intellectual than someone who got a degree because "you have to have one" either for status or for the job market.
Yep, chiropractors on UA-cam claiming to nutrition experts
What is really disturbing to me is how many people my age and younger (I'm almost 30) are getting into chiropractic or becoming chiropractors based most entirely on TikTok chiropractor shilling.
I saw a better one just 2 days ago. 'Scientist' talking about consciousness and 'frequency' turned out to be a geologist. Tough times in geology? Gotta do something with the geodes?
What, exactly, are they claiming to nutrition experts?
Eric Berg
I understand your misgivings and I think it is true that being a chiropractor (assuming you are licensed as such) does not give you expertise in nutrition. Neither does it preclude you from having expertise in nutrition. It is possible for people to have expertise in more than one area. The point is a degree and licensure in chiropractic is irrelevant to expertise in nutrition
What a valuable talk. This Dr Ana vid ought to be sticked by UA-cam as a must be listened to before or while exploring any content creators. Thank you Dr Ana for sharing this valuable and insightful talk. 🌸
Tiny addendum... As for calling out individuals due to their behaviours, that is a tough one. Though I have stumbled a lot with what to do when faced with anyone who professes misinformation as true, I do find myself moving (slowly, yet moving) towards what Michelle Obama has shared: "When they go low, we go high." Keep sharing in the tools which help anyone who explores your channel to be better at differentiating information from misinformation. May those enlightening tools be contagious.
There's also another problem - having a vocation doesn't guarantee competency by itself, and many people confuse the two.
Obtaining a formal vocation is becoming more common, and as with anything, when numbers rise, inflation follows. I would argue that the bigger issue is formal intellectuals with little to no genuine intellectualism. These individuals are more dangerous because their vocation grants them positions of influence.
The subject matter of your videos has been really interesting lately. I love the analysis of human behaviour and it has a lot of real life applications as well. Thanks for the quality content.
fr, people will watch tik tok and yt and think they're a psychologist and philosopher
Ok but like... anyone can be an existentialist.
But anyone can be a philosopher... It's an action, not a qualification.
@@kateweatherwax6484case in point
@@kateweatherwax6484🎯
Please always relate to the broader issue. Gossip is not helpful. Understanding context of the issue is much more useful. Thank you for your work❤
As Sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One can go on and ask: "What constitutes as extraordinary?" and "What constitutes as evidence?"
@@ianbuick8946 Don't Jordanpetersonate me.
Anti-establishment pseudo intellectuals are bad, but groupthink from the establishment is worse, and makes the first inevitable.
Excellent point
Okay. What are examples of this supposed groupthink? By any chance do you think it's COVID, transgender care, or climate change?
@@djason338 Political candidates and the truthfulness of their claims might be one the more prominent examples I can think of.
Can you explain what you mean with reference to examples?
The question is can you tell the difference? Are you sure you don't believe the latter just because you're the former, or swayed by the former?
Personally, I think keeping it vague is the better approach. Don't point the finger at anyone, simply raise the finger to call attention to the topic. I believe that by not pointing the finger, you will not provide slander fuel for those that deserve to get pointed at, if that makes sense.
No, idiots and assholes need to be called out and exposed ...
So cool! I'm so impressed and happy for you to be so young and to have a doctorate in psychology! I just subscribed.
I think that part of the problem is that we many times assume that a doctorate degree in a field implies that they have either true intelligence and or integrity
This video is an eye opener, now that you’ve mentioned the characteristics of pseudo-intellectuals, I’ve begun to notice more of these people on social media.
Your spot on this has been a concern since the inception of podcasts UA-cam and all social media! It’s a concern I measure daily.
Great vid, Dr. Ana. Saved for frequent replay and study.
I think calling this out is imperative to media literacy and encouraging people to research things themselves 💗
Source criticism and media literacy are both crucial things people need to learn.
Yes.
Some people don't even know how to research things, that's the problem
If only it were that simple
Can we talk about how pseudo intellectual read the bottoms grade scientific research and pick one thing that slightly leans into their bias and use that for all basis
I appreciate that you don't discredit that laypeople can be intellectuals just as much as academics
She implied it lol
@@_VISION. she explicitly says some laypeople can be more intellectual than some academics
@CreolePolyglot timestamp?
Cause it’s true. Being an intellectual is not exclusive to academics.
I have Asperger’s I love your channel I feel misunderstood but your videos calm me. Thank you! Dr. Ana!
I'm 100% with u in everything you said. 23:24 And YES I would love to hear you actually name out people who go around throwing misinformation because they are doing more bad than good. And I pretty sure you will do it with good manners ❤
Why don't you use your brain instead of waiting for "expert" to tell you who's who. What make you so sure she will "do it with good manners"?
The catch-22 for those of us who are lay people with respect to the subject under discussion is that the only way we can refute a pseudo who makes a n appeal to authority is to make our own appeal to a different authority, since we don’t know the technical details.
True
Context always matters, I think its good in general to just avoid arguments from authority, unless the argument is about what an authority figure has said or something like that but yeah. If you stick to facts and or state that you believe xyz and add either something to imply that you're infact not the authority but just sharing ideas or something along those lines than its less likely to come off as an argument and then conversations can be a bit more productive.
Or, alternatively, just say, "I don't care."
Or you could just call out the appeal to authority argument and request that they back up their claims with valid supporting evidence--citations supporting the facts they're stating.
@@thejayroh0011 you can't always do that. You have to make a decision. You have to have faith in something.
This is ridiculously refreshing to see, especially from a larger creator like yourself.
I run a psychopharmacology page but I myself am not an authority on the subject. I’m just really passionate about it and have been for 5+ years. Only recently have I been able to formally study it, but even then the majority of my knowledge comes from my own research. I don’t consider myself an expert, but I have always allowed myself to create videos in spite of this because I believe that I can provide information that is at least higher quality than what is most commonly echoed across social media.
Again nice video!