Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link! LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7 CORRECTION (ish): I am not saying all ravens are black, just that it would be a sensible scientific hypothesis. It became a classic example in 20th century analytic philosophy, which is why I used it here as a little nod.
@jennyanydots2389 aye! me too though I'm on the fence about it if it happens I'm happy if it doesn't I'm still happy but I would like to see how it look like & how it would come about
"this isn't a drama channel" thank you so much for this. I'm mentally worn out seeing so many channels I was subscribed to going into wars with each other. Especially on politics. I'm just here to chill, learn and have fun.
The fact that you're in a place where you can be afforded to freely "learn, chill, and have fun" is precisely thanks to those politics you seem to think you're above. When political thinking of the masses is allowed to stagnate, tyrannies happen
This is a video that has very practical implications, such as who to believe when watching UA-cam. My markers are: 1. They say what they believe Vs what they know is true Vs what they are not sure about 2. They give you sources, so that you can check for yourself 3. They correct themselves in the following videos when they make a mistake. Your videos tick all three boxes. Brilliant. Thank you.
Yes. Great list. People seem to get stuck on the idea that because they saw something on UA-cam, it is not legitimate. But UA-cam is a platform, not the actual information lol. I have a music degree and have learned more on UA-cam than I did in college. You can take full college courses on UA-cam, and also watch flat earth videos lol.
To clarify, I'm not accusing either of them of anything, they are just the two most famous people who have been called "pseudo-intellectual" that I had come across
As a translator of academic papers in the field of psychology and education, every now and then I have a funny experience of struggling to making sense of unbelievably obscure passages and then rewriting them in a more explicit manner. It's pretty common in Humanities that authors would go extra length to appear much more 'intellectual' on paper than actually needed, as if to persuade they also do 'serious science'.
Jordan speaks this way. Way too many fancy words and foggy takes. To the point you're questioning if that's partly the purpose of the word salad, to shoot over your head and be the superior intellect. His ego gets in the way of making most topics interesting imo
which is also self-reinforcing, because a reader that understands such passages is also re-affirmed in their competence in the field. This, then, motivates using similar language to appear competent, too. An obscurity-driven competence circle-jerk, if you will
After my undergrad in humanities I have found myself copying this style. It's just a meme that runs through academia. After reading Hegel, Heiddeger, Ponty, Simondon etc. I found that there ideas weren't all that complicated but expressed in such a convoluted way. Part of it is because many will comment and respond to your arguments and so you must pick your words/vocabulary very carefully. Using the word "freedom" for example has so many implications. So one would instead choose "felt sense of personal expression" or "personal impulse to manifest specific life outcomes as reflection of an inner authenticity"
I think I would've learned with much more vigor if books were written in simple language. I had a teacher who taught me more in 1 grade than the second who had 10 years prior to try. All because she explained everything in much simpler terms and was ready to communicate when you didn't understand something, possibly reverting to the lower concepts if it was the issue. I wish the same was with books. They were supposed to be teaching, but instead it feels like their authors trying to prove their superior intellect to the kids. Why?
The point on obscurantism is spot on. The biggest red flag to me is when someone who is trying to make a point is using a vernacular that isn't in line with that of their target audience. If you are truly knowledgeable on a given subject and acting in good faith you shouldn't have a problem explaining your ideas in a way that is easily digestible to the masses. Not doing so means your either being intentionally deceitful or are not knowledgeable enough to speak on a matter and are likely parroting things you've heard from people who are. The second group isn't always acting in bad faith but can also be people who "know" something without fully understanding it.
@@SMT-ks8yp He is right about this. The inability to effectively communicate ideas is a sign of deceit, or of low level intellectual ability. Anything that can be spoken of can be spoken of simply. Yet people seem to have a natural deference to authority, and speaking with big words in an academic way signals intellectual authority. Not only is what they are saying barely understood by the lay person, but their conclusions are accepted as correct without this vital understanding.
I absolutely agree, with the caveat that it's more or less applicable depending on the topic and how accurate one concerns themselves to be. Some concepts are simply hard to accurately describe in an intuitive way, as they're in of themselves quite intuitive, and might require some amount of jargon to explain accurately. In such cases it might be a bit harsh to judge the speaker. This is however the exception i would say, and most topics can definetly be explained simply, and maybe all if youre satisfied with a decent explanation that can compromise on accuracy to an extent.
@@Dreamisanai idk man, he's a Nuclear Yapper but particularly in debates is very important to pick the exact word for the case. Also, to be fair, most of the stuff he says isn't all that abstruse, I think he gets a lot of flack for speaking weird when he could be more fairly accused of drawing connections that aren't demonstrably there. Then again I like the guy and his book helped me a lot, so I'm gonna err on the side of charity.
Yeah, it can be occasionally clunky but I do agree problems of that kind can be navigated easily via precise wording. There's actually an interesting traditional strain of Southern/Western American culture where people speak that way too, though sadly it's dying out. (Such as, after being asked if some event occurred, they would reply "I believe so" instead of "yes.")
it is all just so much easier if you acknowledge that all of us are just leaving it unsaid but heavily implied. Hey yeah? Are all ravens black? Yes Ok, I dont really mean "yes" I mean "yes, every single one ever observed in human history across the planet but I guess its possible there is at least one that isnt because its not like math it is biology". See? I fixed it.
Too often, news agencies pick and choose parts of a scientific essay, ignoring the broader context and the qualifiers that come before the statements, all to attract the most views.
(5:06) Alpha Centauri is a three-star system. Nothing lives ON there; stars are just too hot. There may be life though on planets in the A.C. starsystem.
Peterson is worth listening to when he talks about psychology and philosophy. However, he also speaks on numerous other topics where his expertise is limited. So, could it be that he's both an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual, depending on the subject he’s discussing?
I think this is the key. Huberman knows a lot in his field, but has gone WAY off course and shares topics he knows little about and knowingly leverages his position as an "intellectual" as defense of it all. Hedging with "I'm not a ___" doesn't actually help, we all know that disclaimer does nothing but cover their butt
I think it has more to do with how you present the facts. JP never hesitates to let people know when something is outside of his expertise and he leans harder into cited sources rather than his own opinions. I suggest going and studying how he does this. It’s the primary way I spot bullsh**** IMO pseudo-intellectuals aren’t actually interested in understanding science but rather using it to make them appear thoughtful or intelligent. You can talk about something you don’t have endless wisdom on and simply say, but that’s my opinion and then reference the source of your opinion. Anyone can do that. You don’t need a degree. Doesn’t become a problem until you are trying to force feed others your truth, without any educated reason for sharing it. Personally I love hearing JPs opinions on non philosophical or psychological topics, because it is the entirety of his character and his thoughts processes that I find valuable. I gain more by understanding his other views. It gives me a reference point to understand myself.
To follow your logic. If all of these intellectuals are going so far off course outside of their wheelhouse then how would you know? Are you an expert in these fields? What are your grand feats in intellectual training and pursuits that shows you have the ability to think and judge clearly on a variety of topics? Peterson likes to challenge conventional thinking, this is useful when so often people today are scared to question anything. Lest they be called pseudo-intellectuals or conspiracy theorist. Yet things are getting worse all the time, the clenching fist of ideological absolutism hasn't provided its promised results. Now we need more and more scapegoats than ever before.
I don't want to be mean here but I think the problem with JP is his inability to read the room and speaking to people at their level. I won't conclude he does this intentionally or unintentionally but getting an increasing platform can sure inflate your ego and corrupt your perspective. I'm still subscribed to him since I see him having points on many things but I definitely cringe when I see him into a debate sometimes.
@ how is he supposed to make everybody happy at the same time? He is a scientist. He is literally sharing his findings. The whole point of science. I think the people who need to check themselves are the ones who attack him. Seems to me they don’t like someone with power sharing positions they don’t agree with. Sounds like a personal problem. Yet to see a JP complaint that isn’t this.
I wonder what kind of people were considered ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ back in the 19th century. Like, were some of the people we now consider great thinkers in history once scoffed at? I’m not suggesting here that this means people who are currently seen as pseudo-intellectual by many will soon be regarded as genius thinkers, but I do think a lot of people have a passionate dislike for anything ‘new’ whilst simultaneously harping back to ‘the old days when everything was better’, which I sometimes think isn’t fair.
Well, this is especially funny considering alt right pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. His whole thing is rambling on about "natural hierarchies" and spitting bile at anything remotely new or progressive. So yeah, I doubt history will be looking kindly onto him.
Wow, I recently discovered your channel, and you’ve truly brightened up my life. It feels like I’ve found someone to look up to. The way you present yourself and speak is so inspiring-everything you say has purpose and meaning, without any unnecessary fluff. I really admire your clarity and authenticity. Thank you for being such a positive influence! I love your content and philosophy!
This here is the kind of education we need right now. The issue is not about taking in more information, but how to process it, question it's validity and source. You are absolutely right in asking this question, as the market of self help gurus and intellectual pundits is booming more than ever before. We, the people, must become epistemically mature, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff. Bravo to you for inspiring us all, to stop and think about how we think❤
Very good sir. As a man of 50 living in Bristopia (Brisbane), it's been refreshing to hear a younger (English) man that I would gladly listen to as a lecturer 🥪
10:10 The difficulty of reading isnt in the act of reading the individual words or sentences or pages, but engaging with the story and sparring intellectually with what is being said. Seeing how it shapes your thoughts and how you would add or subtract upon it. Reading Dostoevsky isn’t necessarily hard, anyone can read the words. Actually learning anything from it is the challenge
Seeing Peterson debate with Dawkins last week was especially painful. The back and forth was a muddy and confused ordeal, with DJP not answering a single concise question without metaphoric obfuscation. These eventually became avoidant dismissals and parries of "irrelevance". It's disappointing to see him go from the modern day champion of the hero's journey to the insane king of symbology and word salads. Maybe he who cringes last cringes the hardest but I do finally see the "pseud" behind the intellectual.
@@Epiphalactic Naturally, I am disappointed. My feelings on the debate are irrelevant however as the problems within the exchange are plain to see. It was very much a talk rolled in glitter and made hazier by the smokescreen language of pseudo-intellectualism. His methods and logic didn't clear the fog of confusion; it created it. I can't claim an ideological bias as I'm an unknowing and wavering agnostic.
What i saw there was a literalist vs an inferentialist.. how their occupations shaped their way of thinking and extrapolation manifested immensely. it’s fun to watch if you do it in a POV outside of ‘who’s better’ but rather from POV of understanding two ends of a spectrum with neither being above the other xD
I enjoyed how you wrapped that up in the end. It's far easier to write off questionable sources by damning an entire field(or large sectors of it) than it is to take a more responsible approach to identify bad actors or bad practices.
A few words to sum it up: interal coherence is the single best approach (yet time consuming) to check validity of an argument from pseudo-arguments. In fast and superficial times like these checking internal coherence of any argument (and plausibility of the topics it attaches to) is substantially impossible.
I have just stumbled upon this video and I have to say that you are the most talented public speaker I’ve met on UA-cam. I am solely talking about the skills, the way you speak, the pronunciation and intonation. Very articulate and pleasant to listen to. 😊 (I am not saying that the contents are poor. I am just an English learner who are not intellectual enough to really digest such a difficult topic. Greetings from Tokyo.)
Pseudo implies being false & seducing. Not only being false but simultaneously projecting turmoil. Every aspirant is crystalizing matter to light in resolution and self-convolution.
Nah, they're both about the same. Highly regarded in their fields, absolute mind-numbing buffoons when they speak about almost anything else. I'd say at least Peterstein repackages and dumb's down more benign ideas, though. Chomsky is basically just cancer.
I honestly wish that there were no subtitles in the video. It's honestly a bit distracting. What would be awesome if the captions were an option, but you just showed the names of important things for reference.
Heyy, just wanted to say, I really appreciate your videos and love watching them whenever i can Could you maybe do a video on philosophy book recommendations or how to get into thar topic? Would love that
I'm also curious which definition of solemnly it is you are using. Do you mean "in a formal and dignified manner" or do you mean "with deep sincerity"?
@@JasonLaveKnotts with deep seriousness & sincerity therefore solemnly i can't stop my thoughts so I have to actively suppress them i have been focusing more on sound then thoughts as a pàrt of a thought experiment of course inspired by Allen watts & as for the emoji part I'm optimistic by nature & i do have a right to speech i added what emotions i feel in my emojis as they are called emojis for a reason no further explanation is needed on my part wishing you a wonderful day/noon/eve/night ahead take care both of you
No idea where you were going with the Science analogy at the beginning. Science is hypothesis followed by repeated empirical testing until you're fairly sure there will be the same result given the same circumstances. Intellectualism cannot be empirically tested, however I'd be fairly happy at calling somebody an intellectual if they're smart enough to know that they really don't know enough to be absolutely sure, just sure beyond reasonable doubt and can clearly explain through logical processes how they came to that conclusion. A pseudo-intellectual is someone who is too dumb to know that they cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt. Those that know what they are saying is untrue and cannot be reasonably proven ... are just bullshitters that can't answer a direct question ... but just keep repeating a statement because they know that there are dumb people out there that want to believe in simplistic answers to complicated issues.
Regarding your point on 'conventional' definitions, in aesthetics there is a theory of Art called the 'Institutional Theory' that posits that capital-A Art exists purely in relationship to (as a product/object of) a cultural complex called the 'Artworld'; I think to a certain extent that is true of both science and the more wooly 'intellectualism'. Science is not a series of statements, it is an intellectual process carried out through a collaborative transpersonal project. What distinguishes pseudoscience (as opposed to bad or pathological science) is its lack of engagement with the mechanisms of scientific enquiry and opposition to the 'Scienceworld'.
I reckon the more proper term to label such behavior is "experts' opinion." FYI it sits very low (the bottom) in the pyramid of levels of evidence. So yeah, even when other "intellectuals" accuse somebody else as pseudo, that's his/her opinion. They need to prove it SCIENTIFICALLY, conduct interviews, and so on 😂
True, I remember that's the way doctors, pharmacists, etc do their checking, medicine and so on! That's why (actual) smart + wise people avoid answering conclusive answers if they don't know all of the facts, realizing their biases and limitations, etc. Even doctors aren't immune to "malpractice" and can be sued (or tragically losing the patient life). Hence the lab results, blood test,......
You are making the same error which lies at the basis of groupthink and cults. The role model concept is very problematic. You should be an individual.
@agetss358 You can have a role model and not make a cult around them, worship them and copy them in every aspect. Having healthy role models is totally okay if you don't make it your personality.
@@agetss358you are making too hardline of an emphasis on what individuality constitutes of. You can have a role model while still being an individual, like how you can use the natural world as inspiration for your art but put your own spin on it or how Nietzsche was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer and yet went down a completely different route than him
@@vvvvkkkvvv I don't think so. You are bound to lose your thought even slightly and be influenced by someone subconsciously. The pattern of thinking of the role model will be acquired by you and everything you see will have a shade of that person. You can admire people. I do too. But 'role model' means something else.
The old word “science” comes from a Latin word meaning “to know.” The new word “technology” comes from a Greek word meaning “to make.” The transition from traditional to modern science means that we are not so much seeking to know when we study nature as seeking to make things-and ultimately, to remake nature itself. That spirit of remaking nature-including human nature-greatly emboldens both human beings and governments. Imbued with that spirit, and employing the tools of modern science, totalitarianism is a form of government that reaches farther than tyranny and attempts to control the totality of things. Aristotle: the mark of an educated person is to be able to hold two conflicting ideas in your head without accepting either Orwell: Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them Aristotle believed that the law of contradiction was the basis of all reasoning and the means of making sense of the world. Orwell's character Winston must learn doublethink, which is a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction.
If you dig deeper into philosophy you realise, that this is not that simple. There is whole field of logic dedicated for non-classical logic, study of paraconsistent logic. Those logic dont assume axiom of excluded middle (intuitionistic logic), and even axiom of non-contradiction (dialetheism proposed by Graham Priest). Also Aristotle was proponent of truth as correspondence, which is very problematic (due to relation of coresspondence). Modern theories usually use either semantic theory of truth, coherence theory of truth, or abandon truth and apply probabilism instead (where truth is simply border value 1).
Intellectualism is pretty simple it’s just the dichotomy of pragmatism. The pursuit of knowledge for understanding’s sake rather than for proficiency at a trade. So a psudo-intellectual is just someone who utilizes the conventions and presentation of an intellectual whilst not adhering to its practice. The practice in part being the epistemological virtues stated but these can be derived from the definition of intellectualism provided. pseudo-intellectualism is like using a calculator to write 8008’s, taking the tools of the trade without any of the rigor or philosophy.
I wouldn't recommend "Dr" Ana's video. I think she is definitely riding a high horse on her qualifications while making some big mistakes, and kind of contradicting herself. First of all "intellectual" is in itself a very, very shady category that can mean anything and everything, and it is mostly used in spontaneous language to refer as a person who "thinks" or "talks" about a topic. So I don't know how or why she thinks that she can separate "true" from "false" intellectuals (while very subtly selling herself in the 1st category) when there is no such thing because it shouldn't even be used as a category. Second, what she is considering a "true" intellectual is not an "intellectual", but an academic, more specifically, a an academic who actually does research on a field in a university. So she is contradicting herself with the fallacy of authority she talked about at the beginning. Following that Idea, we shouldn't even be listening to her because she is a "Dr of psychology" as she likes to boast about. Anyone who knows academia knows that she is not a doctor "of psychology". If she did her phd, what she did was a very deep research on a microscopically specific topic that she can do research on, not "psychology" in general. And I think her “doctor” comes from the medicine doctor, not from a PhD. So, she might just be a graduate. Also, following her elitist definition, she would include herself in the category while leaving people like Voltaire, Socrates, Montaigne, Rousseau, Franklin and thousands of other great minds (philosophers, writers, artists, essayists) who have shaped humanity out of the list. And third, again she is kissing the ground of people who go to and work for a University. Seriously? Has she not seen all the corruption, dishonesty and open lack of, not only professionalism, but of human integrity in many of the "true intellectuals" that work there? Anybody with enough money and time on their hands can get a PhD nowadays, because Academia is an industry. An elitist industry that sells diplomas while pretends to sell "truth" when, in many cases, that is not completely accurate. And yes, I am a "true intellectual" according to her own subjective criteria because I've worked more than 12 years as a professor in Universities in my country. She is raising some good points when it comes to discovering some charlatans on the internet, but her take is still very superficial and slightly arrogant
nowadays anyone who disagrees with mainstream acdemia will be called a pseudo by them. Also i think Peterson has more qualifications than her.....and certainly wayy wayyy more impact
You are talking such shit, yes paper mills exist but you can’t buy your way to a PHD from a respected school as it requires peer review. Bachelors can be bought but bachelors were never difficult. Also no academic is going to sell you “truth” there is no objective truth outside of maybe litterally only mathematics.
Jordan Peterson a pseudo intellectual? I dont think so. He changed my life and countless others. His expertise is in clinical psychology and has decades of experience to draw from. He does venture into the realms of philosophy, Sociology and religion, which is outside his expertise but that doesnt make him a pseudo intellectual. His daughter isnt like him. He is a deep thinker, articulate, and can admit when he's wrong. Jordan Peterson is definitely worth listening to, listening to him over the years has greatly expanded my understanding of the world and myself.
This was a fantastic video. I've watched a few of your videos recently after seeing you on Alex O'Connor and I love it. I studied at Cambridge just before you, this channel gives me a big burst nostalgia for late night chats in the bar and I'm so here for it Cracking job
Pseudo just means "Like, akin, or same" So the problem with the label isn't the Pseudo part. It's "intellectuals" and the mythos we have around that term. We think of intellectuals as if they are somehow certified by some authority on a subject, despite the fact that they are human and as prone to error as anyone else. But when you think of yourself as an intellectual, you naturally want to effectively gatekeep the term. The trouble is, intellectual is a moniker. An adjective. It's not some kind of formal title, as it is generally treated as. Or, in short terms, anyone with a reasonable vocabulary and a bone to pick with an established idea held by "intellectuals" based on semantic terms is forever going to be labeled as an intellectual for being able to host semantic arguments in the first place, and since "Pseudo-Intellectual" was meant at it's conception to be an insult, and not a descriptor, a means of distancing oneself from an interlocular as a separated lesser form of themselves, not as a warning or a description of content and capability, it will always be impossible to fail to dispute. My advice would be to stop attempting to use such soft language and just declare them people you don't like. I get it, you're all far to smart to explain any errors you see to the people in a way they can understand, but just call your foes your foes. This whole argument just circles a drain, because everything that isn't pure mathematical theory is objectively contestable. I miss when the authoritarians just called them dissidence. Simple, direct language
@@ohshesmiles after reading this comment I realized there are people so much more eloquent than I, and then there are people who still haven’t realized that
Pseudointellectual is any intellectual I don't like or as Thomas Sowell says: "Intellectuals may like to think of themselves as people who “speak truth to power” but too often they are people who speak lies to gain power."
well if Chomsky is angry about it he could always go defend some dictator committing genocide as revenge. He is very good at that. Linguistics not so good, but defending the worst he is the GOAT.
@@isiahs9312 I've read most of Chomskys work and never seen him defend a dictator. When did he do that? Quote his words specifically, from a book or interview he has done.
See 'Hegel on Pseudo-Philosophy: Reading the Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit', 2023, by Andrew Alexander Davis. Pseudo-philosophy is Davis' description of methods that appear philosophical but fall short of the actual practice of philosophy. Hegel did not simply critique rival positions within philosophy but exposed methodological tendencies that abandon the task that unites the philosophical tradition, from Greek philosopher Thales to the present day. Pseudo-philosophy was not Hegel’s term but he spoke of these tendencies as 'forms [of thought] that, in their familiarity, are an obstacle to philosophical knowing' ('Phenomenology of Spirit', §16). Meaning that these forms of thought are familiar to us as philosophy, but are actually obstacles to it and 'pseudo-philosophy' captures both the familiarity and the obstruction present in these forms of thought, plus it suggests the way that familiarity itself is the obstacle: precisely the things we assume to be philosophical can prove, for that very reason, to be obstacles to genuine inquiry.
Karl Popper was pseudo-intellectual himself (his Open society is a piece of garbage) and his philosophy of science is pretty bad. Even his own students pointed it out to him, yet he couldnt admit, he was wrong. If you want better version of falsificationism, check out Imre Lakatos.
That "abstract" in "abstract computer science" sent me. I bet I'd love computer science too if I didn't have to actually deal with getting those godforsaken things to do what I want lmao
My brother I'm new here, love giving and receiving unsolicited information and advice. I want to say, only scientific theories need to provide falsifiable predictions. A statement, whether or not it's falsifiable is always just a claim. A hypothesis is just that, a claim, it's not a theory and therefore doesn't have to meet that criteria, it's also why we call it a hypothesis and not a theory. It's just an idea, man.
I am not calling him one - him and Peterson are just the most famous people who have had the accusation levelled at them that I could think of. That's why I phrased the thumbnail as a question
@@51gan788 He completely falsifies that the socialist uprising in Latin America, specifically in South America (Brazil, PT and Lula) began with groups involved in organized crime and paramilitaries from cartels. He completely ignores evidence and a legal system that proved that the top brass of the Brazilian state was involved in corruption and calls it a "coup against democracy" and a "fascist uprising". when this same Brazilian elite of the labor/socialist party publicly defends regulating the media, nationalizing TV stations to "control subversive speech", banning foreign social networks, banning foreign journalists, actively providing miraculous subsidies to companies whose partners these politicians or their families are. Chomsky, in his ideological blindness, defends a political mafia because it is "left-wing". It's not a matter of opinion. An opinion would be for him to say "I support the Latin left because even though they are corrupt they represent the demagoguery that I like". He actively lies about the political reality of a country and his statements serve the party as propaganda in our universities to say "look, our corrupt system has intellectual supporters around the world" Search for anything of "Chomsky + Brasil + Luis Inácio Lula da Silva"
You forgot to emphasize on the fact that scientific statements must state certain scales (initial and boundary conditions and systems); otherwise, they risk failing into pseudoscience, unless their scales are universal.
Whoever disagrees with the embraced epistemology of the postmodernism and holds positions contrary to the popular model, is called a pseudo intellectual by those who cannot tolerate opposition and disagreement. Hence, it’s a label they use when they cannot refute people like J Peterson.
Just Because You cannot understand the complex words and terminologies Peterson uses doesn't mean he is smart. He is an expert in speaking a thousand words without ever really telling something ofmeaning,A classic word salad. Peterson can easily define a woman but starts performing mental gymnastics just to say that God may or may not exist and the Events in the Bible may or may not have happened but these things do provide a moral value when asked about Religion. Wdym by "You"? , wdym "believe" ? ,how do you define "God"?😂
@@shassett79 it could be that he actually does it, to protect himself from any criticism or maybe the one's criticising him of the word salad don't know what they're talking about. Online debates are always a mess, especially when people are biased, I remember David goggins, he has a lot of haters, who often put words in his mouths, still to be sure, I checked out all of his videos and needless to say, they were making things up or presenting half truths. Fans do it too. So, without actually going through the content yourself, it's hard to tell who's right.
@@animatedmvs8818 I mean... I feel like it's pretty easy to tell that Peterson isn't saying much besides making vague appeals to Jung and dumping on progressives. I get that a lot of people can't parse his speech, but it's something you can learn to do.
@@iExploder Which no other society agrees with. It’s only accurate in North America and Europe. In the PRC,Japan, Korea, India, and Russia.That is considered western propaganda.
@iExploder I thought it was common knowledge that Bill Nye graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Lmao not his subject of expertise if you follow the logic of the previous person, and I also rest my case as his credentials rarely match up to the subjects he discusses. You acting like he's a biologist 😂
An intellectual is someone that engages in any activity that, by its content and form, is to be regarded as a serious and systematic attempt to ascertain the truth.
Who would call Chomsky a pseudo intelectual, other than people that are purposefuly spreading lies/propaganda. I mean, people also call democrats communists, which makes no sense. So ok, people just use stupid terms when they don't agree with something.
Yes, there's a problematic equation here between Chomsky, a figure of historic importance in Linguistics in his professional life, and Peterson, an obscure Jungian psychologist and author of self-help books. Now, it's entirely appropriate to challenge both on both his scholarship and his public writings and appearances as a politically engaged citizen, but the two roles really shouldn't be confused although Peterson, in particular, often confuses them himself and it is often puzzling that his supporters appear to simply accept it when he talks about mythic substrates and archetypes in making his social-cultural-political pronouncements.
@@nikeisagreekgoddess4135 Trump's own appointed staff all said he constantly talks about idolizing Hilter. Trump himself said he wanted generals as loyal as Hitler's.... What are you disputing, exactly? Be specific because you certainly sound like a cult member who has their head in the sand.. Using the military to go after journalists he doesn't like, using the military to go after people who donate to Kamala.. He literally said these things on recorded television... Again, what are you disputing?
An intellectual is someone who feels that their thoughts or thinking is a product or commodity or otherwise ought to be consumed by the public as opposed to being kept private
I've stumbled into vehemently anti-Peterson channels going over why he's supposedly a pseudo-intellectual, and upon seeing the vast number of commenters discussing amongst themselves of their disapproval of the man and his takes, I always second guess my assessment of Peterson and ask "do I have this guy wrong? Is he actually not as smart as I think he is?" And EVERY time over the years when I reflect, I always end up with the same conclusion, solidified from being challenged: no, Peterson is remarkably intelligent and has a wisdom about him worth listening to. Does this mean he's infallible? Of course not. But he has earned my respect. Most of the critique I hear from him surrounds his character, something something word salad, something something pseudo-intellectual, something something drugs put him in a coma. It's all incredibly banal, especially those that assume negative attention, like he just uses "big words" to confuse people lol. People are literally just exposing their own inability to understand complex ideas. (You might say he should be able to dumb down these ideas for the layman, but a lot of the topics he touches on, especially religion, cannot be expressed in any other way). Not a single one of these critics can actually steelman his position, but pointing this out they just double down as evidence that he's not saying anything. Asserting he purposefully obfuscates in order to confuse his audience is also an argument that doesn't stand up whatsoever, however, I sympathize with it a bit more when it comes to how he speaks of religion. Many see the Dawkins debate and cite this as proof due to him refusing to answer certain questions straightforwardly, but you can literally understand WHY he does this if you didn't assume it was because he can't answer it. Alex O'Connor literally pulls the answer out of him in the same interview lol, and he tells the reason he doesn't like engaging with such questions, even if he knows what they mean by it. It's not that he's obfuscating, it's that he's refusing to play (which, put that way, might change his mind on his approach). Now, you can criticize this APPROACH, but to assume it must mean he's just a big dum dum is asinine. So yeah lol, I find him to be an incredibly mistreated character, that stems from an unwillingness to truly understand him, as well as an arrogance that people already understand him and any attempt at exposing this is brushed to the side.
Sorry, anyone who says Peterson doesn’t Gish-gallop and is super profound…might need to go back to basics. Peterson is an opinionated, but intelligent man who speaks confidently on things he does NOT understand and regularly uses logical fallacies to support himself and attack his detractors. He became addicted to benzodiazepines as he could not manage his own anxiety and now rides the right wing rabbit hole to money because he lost his license - and his argument against loosing his license is hilariously stupid: licensed professionals agree to being restricted and meeting professional rules in order to be licensed, we are NOT free to say whatever we like. He acts like a whiny child who wants his cake AND to eat it too. Source: Minor in philosophy and currently a psychiatrist. None of this is to say everything JP puts out is trash, as much has good use, but dear god is he obtuse and wordy and part of the😂intellectual dark web😂
@@JamesDecker7 Lol thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to. No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong. Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
@@JamesDecker7 Thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to. No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong. Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
@@JamesDecker7 Thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to. No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong. Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
Love the video, very informative. Thank you Sidenote: I would prefer the subtitles to be optinonal and not hardwired into the video. They distract me more than they help
Lots of people disagree with Chomsky, especially his political analysis, but to accuse him of being "pseudo intellectual" is clearly disingenuous in the sense that he is understandable - he makes his ideas clear and those ideas are well-reasoned, in some sense. This is very different to someone like Peterson, who people also disagree with, but in the sense that they accuse him of not making sense at all, if not being deliberately obtuse, despite also clearly being "smart" in some sense.
@@ericb9804 he is pseudo, both are, but one irritating fights for moral arguments where the world functions inherently on drawinism and the Right to Conquer rule. If you don't believe so, you clearly didn't see the Failure the UN is in Sudan, Gaza, and Burma.
@@princeofdarkness4711 Ok, but that would seem to prove my point - You may not agree with Chomsky, which is fine, but you clearly understand the argument that he is making, why he makes it, and the evidence he uses to support it. You may think he is wrong, but you are not accusing him of being incomprehensible, right? And just disagreeing with a person doesn't make them "pseudo-intellectual" in any meaningful sense. Compare this to Peterson, who lots of people agree with, which is also fine, but plenty of people also accuse him of literally not making sense and then hiding behind precisely that lack of sense to claim to be "intellectual" in an way that appears disingenuous. You don't like Chomsky, and thats fine, but the cases seem different enough to me to draw a meaningful distinction.
I am sort of a pseudo-intellectual myself :) When i was young like you i had a friend who read a lot of smart books(always being arrogantly proud of that) but yet was lacking decency and basic communication skills often being harsh to other and belittiling. So once i told him "some people believe that reading a lot of philosophy books makes you smart but i think what makes you smart is comprehending what you've read. Because if you have no way of applying what you've read to be a better person or help others at least in some way than perhaps you've gained no knowlege. You've just read a lot of symbols on the paper on for the sake of stating it." I still think intellectual person is someone who knows how to apply knowlege in real life to advance it. If you are reading Nietzsche the point is not to memorize quotes afterwards but to comprehend his point. (My firend was not offended and infact started to use his knowlege to become a better kinder person. Happy end)
The only definition that seemed relevant for me was a person that would misrepresent their credentials and might show other characteristics such as using overly complex language. A person that aims to represent themselves as having knowledge just for the aesthetic privilege of being treated as wise. Thinkers that promote a particular frame or belief system in my opinion are not unreliable sources of information because information cannot be neutral. I think it's required to be non-neutral in everything that isn't purely material research and that the role of most intellectuals is to explain how a particular idea has a relationship to a particular perspective, and that inconsistency in perspective is a sign of intellectual weakness rather than being able to frame almost any question posed within their particular perspective.
It is far more intellectually honest to admit up front, "This is the point I'm starting from and these are my biases," than it is to say, "This is what is," but it's also less appealing because it reminds us that there is no such thing as an unbiased authority, only those more and less qualified to discuss it, and these topics never truly reach their apex and are always in discussion.
@quinnholleman1547 Yes rhetorical style is part of the perspective so to even begin to introduce an idea like bias into certain frameworks already creates inconsistency
I agree as a general rule. However, there are plenty of intellectuals who are bloated by hubris and insist on cloaking their philosophy with verbosity. Sometimes this verbosity may serve a rhetorical purpose that adds poetic vitality or shades of nuance. For example, at face value, one may initially suspect Nietzsche of pseudo-intellectualism, yet his arcane style was more to do with his aristocratic elitism rather than a grandiose overcompensation for intellectual shortcomings.
@@cerdic6586 There are definitely exceptions where certain concepts are difficult to boil down into something more digestible for someone not familiar with the field, but that's usually higher-level topics for those who have at least moderate experience in the field to begin with and trying to get those concepts to a level the average uninitiated person can understand is reductive to the point of worthlessness. It's like trying to explain calculus to someone who doesn't even know algebra.
Ok, gonna watch this in a minute. But just looking at the thumbnail. I mean, I have plenty of my own criticisms of Chomsky, but I know he is a smart guy who’s contributed a great deal to social science-p-putting him next to the likes of Jordan Peterson, who’s achievements are vastly less impressive and whose contributions are far less positive..i-is just… just seems inappropriate, let’s say.
@@joshreyes3624 this sounds like the remark of a person completely lacking in positivity or common sense. But on the off chance that I’m wrong, please explain for us what specifically what Jordan Peterson has contributed to intellectual progress?
@@MamadouKane-w6fHe's helped people get better in their life with his videos, books and courses. Not sure about his current state, I stopped keeping track of him after he dived into politics but before that, he was helpful for many, as a teacher and an online presence.
@@animatedmvs8818This is the problem, his early work was hopeful and I enjoyed it, I then went on the far right pipeline, essentially following him to daily wire and caught myself after a few months. My own philosophical backing and one of my friends saved me. I remember him for what he was, clean your room is a good first step to getting life in order, but, he's definitely not the same fellow he was. Yes I look back and wince sometimes.
Chomsky is incredibly well-regarded by fellow academics. Sowell is very much a hack and a sellout who decided to make money being the token black conservative academic, so I'd be careful citing him when one of his biggest criticisms is lack of citations in his own work.
Of course, we got the intellectual heights of right wing discourse in here, the anti-sjw "you're triggered" response, the most persistent right wing bot argument since 2016 😂
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 How humble. What did we to deserve you, Joe? In all seriousness though, keep up the work, and hopefully we'll get some videos on eastern philosophies sometimes.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Ah, too modest! It’s clear that you have a natural gift for analysis and reflection, which in itself is a sign of remarkable intelligence.
When you were talking about the idea that science should be falsifiable, I don't quite understand why you would give astrology as a counter example. The notion that all science should be falsifiable doesn't imply that everything that is falsifiable should be considered science. A true counter example would've been something that we would consider science that isn't falsifiable, right?
The problem is once you reach a high level in any area of science or philosophy you realize we are still lost. To put faith in science to answer the big questions humans have is actually backwards, you should look inside yourself for the answers. That is true intellect.
Isn't that what we have on the rise. Creating even bigger problems because in their post truth fantasy there is no truth or right, just feelings and experience. You're essentially creating much problem telling everyone to be god.
As a rule don't trust someone who's too confident in their own ideas and opinions. Those who give off the "I can't possibly be wrong" vibe. People are too imperfect to figure things out exactly right.
That dude created Chomskian syntax, the only class I got a C in in college. And right after the class it was pretty roundly rebuked and debunked by linguists and psychologists, consigned to the dustbin of theory. But not before dragging down my GPA. So yes, I hate him too.
The accusation "That's pseudoscience!" is a cheap argument, and a means of deflection by individuals who often don't want to bother finding out why they don't like what they are hearing, and can't refute or counter it.
Our knowledge is constrained by the information available to us at any moment. When new information is acquired, our understanding can evolve or broaden. This underscores the significance of being receptive to fresh insights and viewpoints. Consequently, the consistent application of the scientific method is essential. Employing the scientific method brings us nearer to the truth than any alternative approach, and those who deviate from or distort this process are often regarded as pseudointellectuals.
Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link!
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
CORRECTION (ish): I am not saying all ravens are black, just that it would be a sensible scientific hypothesis. It became a classic example in 20th century analytic philosophy, which is why I used it here as a little nod.
Thank you
I demand drama from you sir. I demand it.
@jennyanydots2389 aye! me too
though I'm on the fence about it
if it happens I'm happy
if it doesn't I'm still happy
but I would like to see how it look like & how it would come about
In America, Conservatives call public intellectuals like Chris Hitchens & Richard Dawkins "suede-o intellec'challs."
Hey
A question
Do you have an interest in checking Alan Watts' philosophy?
Would love to hear your two cents
"this isn't a drama channel" thank you so much for this. I'm mentally worn out seeing so many channels I was subscribed to going into wars with each other. Especially on politics. I'm just here to chill, learn and have fun.
Was just about to say this
The fact that you're in a place where you can be afforded to freely "learn, chill, and have fun" is precisely thanks to those politics you seem to think you're above. When political thinking of the masses is allowed to stagnate, tyrannies happen
Idk why you expected political channels to NOT do that
@Car-x4c dude. Even phone reviews and medical channels done that atp
have fun? wtf you talking about
Anyone that I like is an intellectual; anyone I do not like is a pseudo-intellectual.
I like only intelectual and dislike only pseudo intelectuals
I like only intelectual and dislike only pseudo intelectuals
Everybody I disagree with is Hitler
This is a video that has very practical implications, such as who to believe when watching UA-cam.
My markers are:
1. They say what they believe Vs what they know is true Vs what they are not sure about
2. They give you sources, so that you can check for yourself
3. They correct themselves in the following videos when they make a mistake.
Your videos tick all three boxes. Brilliant. Thank you.
Yes. Great list. People seem to get stuck on the idea that because they saw something on UA-cam, it is not legitimate. But UA-cam is a platform, not the actual information lol. I have a music degree and have learned more on UA-cam than I did in college. You can take full college courses on UA-cam, and also watch flat earth videos lol.
well it could still be susceptible
Don't believe people - believe in their arguments. Imitate the intellectual habits and practice of those with believable arguments.
Seeing chomsky in the thumbnail scared me
Same lol
get jebaited
To clarify, I'm not accusing either of them of anything, they are just the two most famous people who have been called "pseudo-intellectual" that I had come across
Why does Kremlin Chomsky scare you?
Telling
As a translator of academic papers in the field of psychology and education, every now and then I have a funny experience of struggling to making sense of unbelievably obscure passages and then rewriting them in a more explicit manner. It's pretty common in Humanities that authors would go extra length to appear much more 'intellectual' on paper than actually needed, as if to persuade they also do 'serious science'.
Accurate words.
Jordan speaks this way. Way too many fancy words and foggy takes. To the point you're questioning if that's partly the purpose of the word salad, to shoot over your head and be the superior intellect. His ego gets in the way of making most topics interesting imo
which is also self-reinforcing, because a reader that understands such passages is also re-affirmed in their competence in the field. This, then, motivates using similar language to appear competent, too. An obscurity-driven competence circle-jerk, if you will
After my undergrad in humanities I have found myself copying this style. It's just a meme that runs through academia. After reading Hegel, Heiddeger, Ponty, Simondon etc. I found that there ideas weren't all that complicated but expressed in such a convoluted way.
Part of it is because many will comment and respond to your arguments and so you must pick your words/vocabulary very carefully.
Using the word "freedom" for example has so many implications. So one would instead choose "felt sense of personal expression" or "personal impulse to manifest specific life outcomes as reflection of an inner authenticity"
I think I would've learned with much more vigor if books were written in simple language. I had a teacher who taught me more in 1 grade than the second who had 10 years prior to try. All because she explained everything in much simpler terms and was ready to communicate when you didn't understand something, possibly reverting to the lower concepts if it was the issue. I wish the same was with books. They were supposed to be teaching, but instead it feels like their authors trying to prove their superior intellect to the kids. Why?
I think I'll start randomly stating, "it's a spectrum" in conversation. It's more likely to be true then not, but also, it's a spectrum
Everything in moderation. Even moderation.
@@custos3249 The swedes have that figured out in their deeply held cultural concept of 'lagom'
Everything is "a spectrum" if viewed as such.
@@custos3249 Only Sith deal in absolutes...usually
The point on obscurantism is spot on. The biggest red flag to me is when someone who is trying to make a point is using a vernacular that isn't in line with that of their target audience. If you are truly knowledgeable on a given subject and acting in good faith you shouldn't have a problem explaining your ideas in a way that is easily digestible to the masses. Not doing so means your either being intentionally deceitful or are not knowledgeable enough to speak on a matter and are likely parroting things you've heard from people who are. The second group isn't always acting in bad faith but can also be people who "know" something without fully understanding it.
Does your comment relate only to public intrllectual who are expected to have the skills necessary to educate general public on difficult topics?
@@SMT-ks8yp He is right about this. The inability to effectively communicate ideas is a sign of deceit, or of low level intellectual ability.
Anything that can be spoken of can be spoken of simply. Yet people seem to have a natural deference to authority, and speaking with big words in an academic way signals intellectual authority. Not only is what they are saying barely understood by the lay person, but their conclusions are accepted as correct without this vital understanding.
Peterson is the perfect example
I absolutely agree, with the caveat that it's more or less applicable depending on the topic and how accurate one concerns themselves to be.
Some concepts are simply hard to accurately describe in an intuitive way, as they're in of themselves quite intuitive, and might require some amount of jargon to explain accurately. In such cases it might be a bit harsh to judge the speaker. This is however the exception i would say, and most topics can definetly be explained simply, and maybe all if youre satisfied with a decent explanation that can compromise on accuracy to an extent.
@@Dreamisanai idk man, he's a Nuclear Yapper but particularly in debates is very important to pick the exact word for the case.
Also, to be fair, most of the stuff he says isn't all that abstruse, I think he gets a lot of flack for speaking weird when he could be more fairly accused of drawing connections that aren't demonstrably there.
Then again I like the guy and his book helped me a lot, so I'm gonna err on the side of charity.
A scientist would probably prefer to state the bird species and region and would state that only black ravens have been observed in the wild.
Yeah, it can be occasionally clunky but I do agree problems of that kind can be navigated easily via precise wording. There's actually an interesting traditional strain of Southern/Western American culture where people speak that way too, though sadly it's dying out. (Such as, after being asked if some event occurred, they would reply "I believe so" instead of "yes.")
it is all just so much easier if you acknowledge that all of us are just leaving it unsaid but heavily implied.
Hey
yeah?
Are all ravens black?
Yes
Ok, I dont really mean "yes" I mean "yes, every single one ever observed in human history across the planet but I guess its possible there is at least one that isnt because its not like math it is biology". See? I fixed it.
Too often, news agencies pick and choose parts of a scientific essay, ignoring the broader context and the qualifiers that come before the statements, all to attract the most views.
(5:06) Alpha Centauri is a three-star system. Nothing lives ON there; stars
are just too hot. There may be life though on planets in the A.C. starsystem.
Peterson is worth listening to when he talks about psychology and philosophy. However, he also speaks on numerous other topics where his expertise is limited. So, could it be that he's both an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual, depending on the subject he’s discussing?
I think this is the key. Huberman knows a lot in his field, but has gone WAY off course and shares topics he knows little about and knowingly leverages his position as an "intellectual" as defense of it all. Hedging with "I'm not a ___" doesn't actually help, we all know that disclaimer does nothing but cover their butt
I think it has more to do with how you present the facts. JP never hesitates to let people know when something is outside of his expertise and he leans harder into cited sources rather than his own opinions. I suggest going and studying how he does this. It’s the primary way I spot bullsh****
IMO pseudo-intellectuals aren’t actually interested in understanding science but rather using it to make them appear thoughtful or intelligent.
You can talk about something you don’t have endless wisdom on and simply say, but that’s my opinion and then reference the source of your opinion. Anyone can do that. You don’t need a degree.
Doesn’t become a problem until you are trying to force feed others your truth, without any educated reason for sharing it.
Personally I love hearing JPs opinions on non philosophical or psychological topics, because it is the entirety of his character and his thoughts processes that I find valuable.
I gain more by understanding his other views. It gives me a reference point to understand myself.
To follow your logic. If all of these intellectuals are going so far off course outside of their wheelhouse then how would you know? Are you an expert in these fields? What are your grand feats in intellectual training and pursuits that shows you have the ability to think and judge clearly on a variety of topics?
Peterson likes to challenge conventional thinking, this is useful when so often people today are scared to question anything. Lest they be called pseudo-intellectuals or conspiracy theorist. Yet things are getting worse all the time, the clenching fist of ideological absolutism hasn't provided its promised results. Now we need more and more scapegoats than ever before.
I don't want to be mean here but I think the problem with JP is his inability to read the room and speaking to people at their level. I won't conclude he does this intentionally or unintentionally but getting an increasing platform can sure inflate your ego and corrupt your perspective. I'm still subscribed to him since I see him having points on many things but I definitely cringe when I see him into a debate sometimes.
@ how is he supposed to make everybody happy at the same time?
He is a scientist. He is literally sharing his findings. The whole point of science. I think the people who need to check themselves are the ones who attack him.
Seems to me they don’t like someone with power sharing positions they don’t agree with. Sounds like a personal problem. Yet to see a JP complaint that isn’t this.
Up yours woke moralists! We'll see who cancels who!
This will never not be funny to me.
@@lupo3694 Well that depends on your definition of "this," and, "funny,"... and "me"!
That surely shook the metaphysical substrate of the "woke moralists" hahaha.
Are you joking about Jordan Peterson or supporting him?
@@JSM-bb80u Why do you care?
I wonder what kind of people were considered ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ back in the 19th century. Like, were some of the people we now consider great thinkers in history once scoffed at?
I’m not suggesting here that this means people who are currently seen as pseudo-intellectual by many will soon be regarded as genius thinkers, but I do think a lot of people have a passionate dislike for anything ‘new’ whilst simultaneously harping back to ‘the old days when everything was better’, which I sometimes think isn’t fair.
Well, this is especially funny considering alt right pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. His whole thing is rambling on about "natural hierarchies" and spitting bile at anything remotely new or progressive. So yeah, I doubt history will be looking kindly onto him.
@@lupo3694I can’t help but feel this is a comment fuelled by political bias, but fair enough. We will see I suppose.
It absolutely sounds like it to me also, but they're not entirely wrong. Although I would disagree with the idea of JP as alt right. That's absurd.
middle ages would make even more contrasting example. depends on paradigm, as i faintly recall.
@@oneill6291but he is though…💀
Huh? Psychology with Ana? what a pleasant and unexpected collab!
"This isn't a drama channel"
I took an audible sigh of relief man. Please keep it that ways I'm so tired of drama
Wow, I recently discovered your channel, and you’ve truly brightened up my life. It feels like I’ve found someone to look up to. The way you present yourself and speak is so inspiring-everything you say has purpose and meaning, without any unnecessary fluff. I really admire your clarity and authenticity. Thank you for being such a positive influence! I love your content and philosophy!
This here is the kind of education we need right now.
The issue is not about taking in more information, but how to process it, question it's validity and source.
You are absolutely right in asking this question, as the market of self help gurus and intellectual pundits is booming more than ever before.
We, the people, must become epistemically mature, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Bravo to you for inspiring us all, to stop and think about how we think❤
Very good sir. As a man of 50 living in Bristopia (Brisbane), it's been refreshing to hear a younger (English) man that I would gladly listen to as a lecturer 🥪
This isn't a drama channel? You just lost a subscriber!
Haha! I figured I wanted to say that to start as I thought this would cause a lot of controversy
10:10 The difficulty of reading isnt in the act of reading the individual words or sentences or pages, but engaging with the story and sparring intellectually with what is being said. Seeing how it shapes your thoughts and how you would add or subtract upon it. Reading Dostoevsky isn’t necessarily hard, anyone can read the words. Actually learning anything from it is the challenge
Seeing Peterson debate with Dawkins last week was especially painful. The back and forth was a muddy and confused ordeal, with DJP not answering a single concise question without metaphoric obfuscation. These eventually became avoidant dismissals and parries of "irrelevance".
It's disappointing to see him go from the modern day champion of the hero's journey to the insane king of symbology and word salads.
Maybe he who cringes last cringes the hardest but I do finally see the "pseud" behind the intellectual.
You sound biased here.
Well his answers often resonates with me. Just because someone doesn't speak exactly the way you want doesn't mean he is obsfucating
I still like his psychology lessons but when he moved into politics, I had to stop. That's something I usually avoid and will continue to do so.
@@Epiphalactic Naturally, I am disappointed. My feelings on the debate are irrelevant however as the problems within the exchange are plain to see.
It was very much a talk rolled in glitter and made hazier by the smokescreen language of pseudo-intellectualism. His methods and logic didn't clear the fog of confusion; it created it.
I can't claim an ideological bias as I'm an unknowing and wavering agnostic.
What i saw there was a literalist vs an inferentialist.. how their occupations shaped their way of thinking and extrapolation manifested immensely. it’s fun to watch if you do it in a POV outside of ‘who’s better’ but rather from POV of understanding two ends of a spectrum with neither being above the other xD
I enjoyed how you wrapped that up in the end. It's far easier to write off questionable sources by damning an entire field(or large sectors of it) than it is to take a more responsible approach to identify bad actors or bad practices.
I'll tell you, I might not be the smartest guy around, but I know that Unsolicited Advice is Ten Trillion Percent charming. I adore him.
A few words to sum it up: interal coherence is the single best approach (yet time consuming) to check validity of an argument from pseudo-arguments. In fast and superficial times like these checking internal coherence of any argument (and plausibility of the topics it attaches to) is substantially impossible.
This has been another belter. Ideas I hadn't considered plus illumination on what I believed my own ideas to be.
I have just stumbled upon this video and I have to say that you are the most talented public speaker I’ve met on UA-cam. I am solely talking about the skills, the way you speak, the pronunciation and intonation. Very articulate and pleasant to listen to. 😊
(I am not saying that the contents are poor. I am just an English learner who are not intellectual enough to really digest such a difficult topic. Greetings from Tokyo.)
I don't have anything interesting to say but I wanna leave a comment for the algorithm.
Great vid as always! :D
Pseudo implies being false & seducing. Not only being false but simultaneously projecting turmoil. Every aspirant is crystalizing matter to light in resolution and self-convolution.
Unsolicited advice: *Talks*
Me: *Gets hooked*
Unsolicited advice: *hahaha i will expand on it later in the video
Me: 😒😤 *Expand on it now!!*
If you have a statement that is falsifiable and proven false by a mountain of evidence, it might be scientific, but not of much scientific value.
Not true. Classical mechanics is wrong and incredibly useful. You need to consider how something is wrong.
Putting Noam Chomsky and Jordan Peterson in the same thumbnail is just blasphemy.
Nah, they're both about the same. Highly regarded in their fields, absolute mind-numbing buffoons when they speak about almost anything else. I'd say at least Peterstein repackages and dumb's down more benign ideas, though. Chomsky is basically just cancer.
Noam Chomsky is a quack, much like Jordan Peterson.
Still, I think everyone agrees that one of them is a real intellectual.
@@greenaumsome would even go as far as to say they both are
Your right putting Peterson alongside a genocide denier is pretty wild
I honestly wish that there were no subtitles in the video. It's honestly a bit distracting. What would be awesome if the captions were an option, but you just showed the names of important things for reference.
Very timely Sir, I was actually thinking about this
Ah I hope it is helpful!
So was I. Time is so important to facilitate new ways of thinking about and looking at the same thing we once appreciated.
Same, I was just talking about this moments before coming across the video, coincidentally
Heyy, just wanted to say, I really appreciate your videos and love watching them whenever i can
Could you maybe do a video on philosophy book recommendations or how to get into thar topic? Would love that
The big book of philosophy was a great book for me to start to get into philosophy.
A pseudo-intellectual is a smart person you disagree with.
True.
true
Hehe
Only if you are a pseudo-intellectual
I think it's more so someone who can give you the impression of intelligent thought, but when evaluating their words finding nothing of substance
i have been Solemnly avoiding this topic but thank you 🌠🌺
Why is it that the only word you capitalized was done so incorrectly? Additionally, Emoji are not a type of acceptable punctuation.
@JasonLaveKnotts it was done so to invite people in
& i must say it's worked splendidly
@@JasonLaveKnottswhy'd you capitalize emoji? This is a UA-cam comment section, not a news site.
I'm also curious which definition of solemnly it is you are using. Do you mean "in a formal and dignified manner"
or do you mean "with deep sincerity"?
@@JasonLaveKnotts with deep seriousness & sincerity
therefore solemnly
i can't stop my thoughts so I have to actively suppress them
i have been focusing more on sound then thoughts
as a pàrt of a thought experiment of course inspired by Allen watts
& as for the emoji part
I'm optimistic by nature & i do have a right to speech
i added what emotions i feel in my emojis
as they are called emojis for a reason
no further explanation is needed on my part
wishing you a wonderful day/noon/eve/night ahead
take care both of you
Seeing this channel grow makes me so happy. Such an intelligent guy who never fails to deliver incredibly valuable knowledge.
As usual, fine job young man.
No idea where you were going with the Science analogy at the beginning. Science is hypothesis followed by repeated empirical testing until you're fairly sure there will be the same result given the same circumstances.
Intellectualism cannot be empirically tested, however I'd be fairly happy at calling somebody an intellectual if they're smart enough to know that they really don't know enough to be absolutely sure, just sure beyond reasonable doubt and can clearly explain through logical processes how they came to that conclusion.
A pseudo-intellectual is someone who is too dumb to know that they cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt.
Those that know what they are saying is untrue and cannot be reasonably proven ... are just bullshitters that can't answer a direct question ... but just keep repeating a statement because they know that there are dumb people out there that want to believe in simplistic answers to complicated issues.
Regarding your point on 'conventional' definitions, in aesthetics there is a theory of Art called the 'Institutional Theory' that posits that capital-A Art exists purely in relationship to (as a product/object of) a cultural complex called the 'Artworld'; I think to a certain extent that is true of both science and the more wooly 'intellectualism'. Science is not a series of statements, it is an intellectual process carried out through a collaborative transpersonal project. What distinguishes pseudoscience (as opposed to bad or pathological science) is its lack of engagement with the mechanisms of scientific enquiry and opposition to the 'Scienceworld'.
I reckon the more proper term to label such behavior is "experts' opinion." FYI it sits very low (the bottom) in the pyramid of levels of evidence. So yeah, even when other "intellectuals" accuse somebody else as pseudo, that's his/her opinion. They need to prove it SCIENTIFICALLY, conduct interviews, and so on 😂
True, I remember that's the way doctors, pharmacists, etc do their checking, medicine and so on! That's why (actual) smart + wise people avoid answering conclusive answers if they don't know all of the facts, realizing their biases and limitations, etc. Even doctors aren't immune to "malpractice" and can be sued (or tragically losing the patient life). Hence the lab results, blood test,......
I appreciate your tireless striving towards good faith discussion, I hope that others do as well.
you are a role model we gen z should listen to and support ❤
indeed he his
You are making the same error which lies at the basis of groupthink and cults. The role model concept is very problematic. You should be an individual.
@agetss358 You can have a role model and not make a cult around them, worship them and copy them in every aspect.
Having healthy role models is totally okay if you don't make it your personality.
@@agetss358you are making too hardline of an emphasis on what individuality constitutes of. You can have a role model while still being an individual, like how you can use the natural world as inspiration for your art but put your own spin on it or how Nietzsche was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer and yet went down a completely different route than him
@@vvvvkkkvvv I don't think so. You are bound to lose your thought even slightly and be influenced by someone subconsciously. The pattern of thinking of the role model will be acquired by you and everything you see will have a shade of that person. You can admire people. I do too. But 'role model' means something else.
Warmed my heart when I found out two of my favorite UA-camrs watch each other.
Thank you Sir for Sharing. I really love this YT Channel. It's top tier, Btw, I'll just finish this first.
The old word “science” comes from a Latin word meaning “to know.” The new word “technology” comes from a Greek word meaning “to make.” The transition from traditional to modern science means that we are not so much seeking to know when we study nature as seeking to make things-and ultimately, to remake nature itself. That spirit of remaking nature-including human nature-greatly emboldens both human beings and governments.
Imbued with that spirit, and employing the tools of modern science, totalitarianism is a form of government that reaches farther than tyranny and attempts to control the totality of things.
Aristotle: the mark of an educated person is to be able to hold two conflicting ideas in your head without accepting either
Orwell: Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them
Aristotle believed that the law of contradiction was the basis of all reasoning and the means of making sense of the world.
Orwell's character Winston must learn doublethink, which is a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction.
If you dig deeper into philosophy you realise, that this is not that simple.
There is whole field of logic dedicated for non-classical logic, study of paraconsistent logic. Those logic dont assume axiom of excluded middle (intuitionistic logic), and even axiom of non-contradiction (dialetheism proposed by Graham Priest).
Also Aristotle was proponent of truth as correspondence, which is very problematic (due to relation of coresspondence). Modern theories usually use either semantic theory of truth, coherence theory of truth, or abandon truth and apply probabilism instead (where truth is simply border value 1).
Intellectualism is pretty simple it’s just the dichotomy of pragmatism. The pursuit of knowledge for understanding’s sake rather than for proficiency at a trade.
So a psudo-intellectual is just someone who utilizes the conventions and presentation of an intellectual whilst not adhering to its practice. The practice in part being the epistemological virtues stated but these can be derived from the definition of intellectualism provided.
pseudo-intellectualism is like using a calculator to write 8008’s, taking the tools of the trade without any of the rigor or philosophy.
Schopenhauer: "i'm looking at YOU hegel!"
I wouldn't recommend "Dr" Ana's video. I think she is definitely riding a high horse on her qualifications while making some big mistakes, and kind of contradicting herself. First of all "intellectual" is in itself a very, very shady category that can mean anything and everything, and it is mostly used in spontaneous language to refer as a person who "thinks" or "talks" about a topic. So I don't know how or why she thinks that she can separate "true" from "false" intellectuals (while very subtly selling herself in the 1st category) when there is no such thing because it shouldn't even be used as a category. Second, what she is considering a "true" intellectual is not an "intellectual", but an academic, more specifically, a an academic who actually does research on a field in a university. So she is contradicting herself with the fallacy of authority she talked about at the beginning. Following that Idea, we shouldn't even be listening to her because she is a "Dr of psychology" as she likes to boast about. Anyone who knows academia knows that she is not a doctor "of psychology". If she did her phd, what she did was a very deep research on a microscopically specific topic that she can do research on, not "psychology" in general. And I think her “doctor” comes from the medicine doctor, not from a PhD. So, she might just be a graduate. Also, following her elitist definition, she would include herself in the category while leaving people like Voltaire, Socrates, Montaigne, Rousseau, Franklin and thousands of other great minds (philosophers, writers, artists, essayists) who have shaped humanity out of the list. And third, again she is kissing the ground of people who go to and work for a University. Seriously? Has she not seen all the corruption, dishonesty and open lack of, not only professionalism, but of human integrity in many of the "true intellectuals" that work there? Anybody with enough money and time on their hands can get a PhD nowadays, because Academia is an industry. An elitist industry that sells diplomas while pretends to sell "truth" when, in many cases, that is not completely accurate. And yes, I am a "true intellectual" according to her own subjective criteria because I've worked more than 12 years as a professor in Universities in my country. She is raising some good points when it comes to discovering some charlatans on the internet, but her take is still very superficial and slightly arrogant
Best comment 🤓
nowadays anyone who disagrees with mainstream acdemia will be called a pseudo by them.
Also i think Peterson has more qualifications than her.....and certainly wayy wayyy more impact
You are talking such shit, yes paper mills exist but you can’t buy your way to a PHD from a respected school as it requires peer review.
Bachelors can be bought but bachelors were never difficult.
Also no academic is going to sell you “truth” there is no objective truth outside of maybe litterally only mathematics.
@@GIGADEV690 Thank you!
@@NoOne-kx7zs Yes, totally Agree!
Jordan Peterson a pseudo intellectual? I dont think so. He changed my life and countless others. His expertise is in clinical psychology and has decades of experience to draw from. He does venture into the realms of philosophy, Sociology and religion, which is outside his expertise but that doesnt make him a pseudo intellectual. His daughter isnt like him. He is a deep thinker, articulate, and can admit when he's wrong. Jordan Peterson is definitely worth listening to, listening to him over the years has greatly expanded my understanding of the world and myself.
Not intellectual enough for this lmao but commenting for the algo! Always a good day when there's an Unsolicited Advice vid!
This was a fantastic video. I've watched a few of your videos recently after seeing you on Alex O'Connor and I love it. I studied at Cambridge just before you, this channel gives me a big burst nostalgia for late night chats in the bar and I'm so here for it
Cracking job
Pseudo just means "Like, akin, or same"
So the problem with the label isn't the Pseudo part. It's "intellectuals" and the mythos we have around that term. We think of intellectuals as if they are somehow certified by some authority on a subject, despite the fact that they are human and as prone to error as anyone else.
But when you think of yourself as an intellectual, you naturally want to effectively gatekeep the term. The trouble is, intellectual is a moniker. An adjective. It's not some kind of formal title, as it is generally treated as.
Or, in short terms, anyone with a reasonable vocabulary and a bone to pick with an established idea held by "intellectuals" based on semantic terms is forever going to be labeled as an intellectual for being able to host semantic arguments in the first place, and since "Pseudo-Intellectual" was meant at it's conception to be an insult, and not a descriptor, a means of distancing oneself from an interlocular as a separated lesser form of themselves, not as a warning or a description of content and capability, it will always be impossible to fail to dispute.
My advice would be to stop attempting to use such soft language and just declare them people you don't like. I get it, you're all far to smart to explain any errors you see to the people in a way they can understand, but just call your foes your foes. This whole argument just circles a drain, because everything that isn't pure mathematical theory is objectively contestable.
I miss when the authoritarians just called them dissidence. Simple, direct language
Pseudo: False, fake or a sham. You need a new dictionary.
@@l.5832did you read the last part of his comment?
there a lot of enemies on internet for sure and you are not one of mine
@@deca0no, I don’t believe they did lol 😅 you can’t help people who won’t r-e-a-d.
@@ohshesmiles after reading this comment I realized there are people so much more eloquent than I, and then there are people who still haven’t realized that
30:44 those quick reminders are one of the reasons I subscribed to this channel
Pseudointellectual is any intellectual I don't like or as Thomas Sowell says: "Intellectuals may like to think of themselves as people who “speak truth to power” but too often they are people who speak lies to gain power."
Sowel going out there telling on himself lol.
@addammadd Sowell came straight from the hood he a real OG nigga of course he gonna keep it 💯💯
@@addammaddInfamous establishment elite: Thomas Sowell, you’re so smart🙄
this is not a drama channel... alrigth you got a new sub
you insulted chomsky by puting him in the same thumbnail with peterson
well if Chomsky is angry about it he could always go defend some dictator committing genocide as revenge. He is very good at that. Linguistics not so good, but defending the worst he is the GOAT.
@@isiahs9312 do you mean defending the genocide in Gaza?
@@abadidibadou5476 i doubt the sincerity of your question. Have a nice day.
@@isiahs9312 I've read most of Chomskys work and never seen him defend a dictator. When did he do that? Quote his words specifically, from a book or interview he has done.
Imagine two red eyes and a smile on that piece of void on the wall.
I get that you aren't accusing Chomsky to be a pseudo-intellectualist, but I still greatly appreciate seeing him as such.
See 'Hegel on Pseudo-Philosophy: Reading the Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit', 2023, by Andrew Alexander Davis.
Pseudo-philosophy is Davis' description of methods that appear philosophical but fall short of the actual practice of philosophy. Hegel did not simply critique rival positions within philosophy but exposed methodological tendencies that abandon the task that unites the philosophical tradition, from Greek philosopher Thales to the present day. Pseudo-philosophy was not Hegel’s term but he spoke of these tendencies as 'forms [of thought] that, in their familiarity, are an obstacle to philosophical knowing' ('Phenomenology of Spirit', §16). Meaning that these forms of thought are familiar to us as philosophy, but are actually obstacles to it and 'pseudo-philosophy' captures both the familiarity and the obstruction present in these forms of thought, plus it suggests the way that familiarity itself is the obstacle: precisely the things we assume to be philosophical can prove, for that very reason, to be obstacles to genuine inquiry.
I would refer to Karl Popper's philosophy on science to identify who are the pseudo-intellectuals.
Karl Popper was pseudo-intellectual himself (his Open society is a piece of garbage) and his philosophy of science is pretty bad. Even his own students pointed it out to him, yet he couldnt admit, he was wrong. If you want better version of falsificationism, check out Imre Lakatos.
Karl popper and critical rationalism is not without criticism however!
The biggest tell ive found in whether or not someone is outside their depth is if they're leaning on emotional appeals too much.
That’s flawed reasoning, a being with omniscience would still require emotional appeals to persuade around 40% of humanity.
Unfortunately, the comments turned into right vs left, belittling each other, and name calling. Almost looks like a comment section of a meme channel.
such is the way of youtube
Dude, you bring up badass topics!
Brilliant! Done with all the qualities of a real intellectual.
That "abstract" in "abstract computer science" sent me. I bet I'd love computer science too if I didn't have to actually deal with getting those godforsaken things to do what I want lmao
My brother I'm new here, love giving and receiving unsolicited information and advice.
I want to say, only scientific theories need to provide falsifiable predictions. A statement, whether or not it's falsifiable is always just a claim. A hypothesis is just that, a claim, it's not a theory and therefore doesn't have to meet that criteria, it's also why we call it a hypothesis and not a theory. It's just an idea, man.
How is Chomsky a pseudo-intellectual? He's literally the epitome of a public intellectual.
I am not calling him one - him and Peterson are just the most famous people who have had the accusation levelled at them that I could think of. That's why I phrased the thumbnail as a question
Chomsky is a pseudo intellectual about geopolitics. All the time he talk about Brazilian and Latin politics is a mess, completely ideology speech
@@sr_ryoadmplease provide an example of what he gets wrong about Brazilian and Latin politics
@@51gan788 He completely falsifies that the socialist uprising in Latin America, specifically in South America (Brazil, PT and Lula) began with groups involved in organized crime and paramilitaries from cartels.
He completely ignores evidence and a legal system that proved that the top brass of the Brazilian state was involved in corruption and calls it a "coup against democracy" and a "fascist uprising".
when this same Brazilian elite of the labor/socialist party publicly defends regulating the media, nationalizing TV stations to "control subversive speech", banning foreign social networks, banning foreign journalists, actively providing miraculous subsidies to companies whose partners these politicians or their families are.
Chomsky, in his ideological blindness, defends a political mafia because it is "left-wing".
It's not a matter of opinion. An opinion would be for him to say "I support the Latin left because even though they are corrupt they represent the demagoguery that I like". He actively lies about the political reality of a country and his statements serve the party as propaganda in our universities to say "look, our corrupt system has intellectual supporters around the world"
Search for anything of "Chomsky + Brasil + Luis Inácio Lula da Silva"
You forgot to emphasize on the fact that scientific statements must state certain scales (initial and boundary conditions and systems); otherwise, they risk failing into pseudoscience, unless their scales are universal.
Whoever disagrees with the embraced epistemology of the postmodernism and holds positions contrary to the popular model, is called a pseudo intellectual by those who cannot tolerate opposition and disagreement. Hence, it’s a label they use when they cannot refute people like J Peterson.
Just Because You cannot understand the complex words and terminologies Peterson uses doesn't mean he is smart. He is an expert in speaking a thousand words without ever really telling something ofmeaning,A classic word salad. Peterson can easily define a woman but starts performing mental gymnastics just to say that God may or may not exist and the Events in the Bible may or may not have happened but these things do provide a moral value when asked about Religion. Wdym by "You"? , wdym "believe" ? ,how do you define "God"?😂
Seems like the best refutation of Peterson is just to point out that he's not actually saying anything?
@@shassett79 it could be that he actually does it, to protect himself from any criticism or maybe the one's criticising him of the word salad don't know what they're talking about.
Online debates are always a mess, especially when people are biased, I remember David goggins, he has a lot of haters, who often put words in his mouths, still to be sure, I checked out all of his videos and needless to say, they were making things up or presenting half truths. Fans do it too. So, without actually going through the content yourself, it's hard to tell who's right.
@@shassett79 Maybe with regards to God, but what about everything else he talks about?
@@animatedmvs8818 I mean... I feel like it's pretty easy to tell that Peterson isn't saying much besides making vague appeals to Jung and dumping on progressives. I get that a lot of people can't parse his speech, but it's something you can learn to do.
subscribed, thanks for the thought provoking video
Neil Degrasse Tyson is the greatest pseudo-intellectual of our time 😂
@d.nakamura9579 Bill Nye is also a great contender
@@copykatninja Why, because he quotes accurate and up to date science on gender?
@@iExploder Which no other society agrees with. It’s only accurate in North America and Europe. In the PRC,Japan, Korea, India, and Russia.That is considered western propaganda.
@iExploder I thought it was common knowledge that Bill Nye graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Lmao not his subject of expertise if you follow the logic of the previous person, and I also rest my case as his credentials rarely match up to the subjects he discusses. You acting like he's a biologist 😂
Nah, he's just... idek what he is lol, he's just extra af
An intellectual is someone that engages in any activity that, by its content and form, is to be regarded as a serious and systematic attempt to ascertain the truth.
Who would call Chomsky a pseudo intelectual, other than people that are purposefuly spreading lies/propaganda. I mean, people also call democrats communists, which makes no sense. So ok, people just use stupid terms when they don't agree with something.
said the guy supporting a party that calls their opposition "nazis"
Yes, there's a problematic equation here between Chomsky, a figure of historic importance in Linguistics in his professional life, and Peterson, an obscure Jungian psychologist and author of self-help books. Now, it's entirely appropriate to challenge both on both his scholarship and his public writings and appearances as a politically engaged citizen, but the two roles really shouldn't be confused although Peterson, in particular, often confuses them himself and it is often puzzling that his supporters appear to simply accept it when he talks about mythic substrates and archetypes in making his social-cultural-political pronouncements.
@@nikeisagreekgoddess4135 Trump's own appointed staff all said he constantly talks about idolizing Hilter. Trump himself said he wanted generals as loyal as Hitler's.... What are you disputing, exactly? Be specific because you certainly sound like a cult member who has their head in the sand.. Using the military to go after journalists he doesn't like, using the military to go after people who donate to Kamala.. He literally said these things on recorded television... Again, what are you disputing?
@@nikeisagreekgoddess4135 Talking about fallacies lol.
@@djwolffrankfurtYou said nothing of substance.
An intellectual is someone who feels that their thoughts or thinking is a product or commodity or otherwise ought to be consumed by the public as opposed to being kept private
Based
I've stumbled into vehemently anti-Peterson channels going over why he's supposedly a pseudo-intellectual, and upon seeing the vast number of commenters discussing amongst themselves of their disapproval of the man and his takes, I always second guess my assessment of Peterson and ask "do I have this guy wrong? Is he actually not as smart as I think he is?"
And EVERY time over the years when I reflect, I always end up with the same conclusion, solidified from being challenged: no, Peterson is remarkably intelligent and has a wisdom about him worth listening to. Does this mean he's infallible? Of course not. But he has earned my respect.
Most of the critique I hear from him surrounds his character, something something word salad, something something pseudo-intellectual, something something drugs put him in a coma. It's all incredibly banal, especially those that assume negative attention, like he just uses "big words" to confuse people lol. People are literally just exposing their own inability to understand complex ideas. (You might say he should be able to dumb down these ideas for the layman, but a lot of the topics he touches on, especially religion, cannot be expressed in any other way). Not a single one of these critics can actually steelman his position, but pointing this out they just double down as evidence that he's not saying anything.
Asserting he purposefully obfuscates in order to confuse his audience is also an argument that doesn't stand up whatsoever, however, I sympathize with it a bit more when it comes to how he speaks of religion. Many see the Dawkins debate and cite this as proof due to him refusing to answer certain questions straightforwardly, but you can literally understand WHY he does this if you didn't assume it was because he can't answer it. Alex O'Connor literally pulls the answer out of him in the same interview lol, and he tells the reason he doesn't like engaging with such questions, even if he knows what they mean by it. It's not that he's obfuscating, it's that he's refusing to play (which, put that way, might change his mind on his approach).
Now, you can criticize this APPROACH, but to assume it must mean he's just a big dum dum is asinine. So yeah lol, I find him to be an incredibly mistreated character, that stems from an unwillingness to truly understand him, as well as an arrogance that people already understand him and any attempt at exposing this is brushed to the side.
Sorry, anyone who says Peterson doesn’t Gish-gallop and is super profound…might need to go back to basics. Peterson is an opinionated, but intelligent man who speaks confidently on things he does NOT understand and regularly uses logical fallacies to support himself and attack his detractors.
He became addicted to benzodiazepines as he could not manage his own anxiety and now rides the right wing rabbit hole to money because he lost his license - and his argument against loosing his license is hilariously stupid: licensed professionals agree to being restricted and meeting professional rules in order to be licensed, we are NOT free to say whatever we like. He acts like a whiny child who wants his cake AND to eat it too.
Source: Minor in philosophy and currently a psychiatrist.
None of this is to say everything JP puts out is trash, as much has good use, but dear god is he obtuse and wordy and part of the😂intellectual dark web😂
@@JamesDecker7 Lol thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to.
No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong.
Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
@@asimhussain8716 what you mean by something something it will take me 1 year to tell Jesus was God or not😂.
@@JamesDecker7 Thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to.
No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong.
Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
@@JamesDecker7 Thanks for proving my point. Nothing but character assumptions, even bringing up the drug thing like I said shallow critics do, while assuming negative intention you couldn't possibly be privy to.
No one cares you're a psychiatrist. Your criticisms are shallow beyond belief. Wordy, fallacies, he cries too much, drugs, obtuse, and most importantly, he's wrong.
Lol keep thinking you're saying anything meaningful other than another trite opinion.
Love the video, very informative. Thank you
Sidenote: I would prefer the subtitles to be optinonal and not hardwired into the video. They distract me more than they help
Lots of people disagree with Chomsky, especially his political analysis, but to accuse him of being "pseudo intellectual" is clearly disingenuous in the sense that he is understandable - he makes his ideas clear and those ideas are well-reasoned, in some sense. This is very different to someone like Peterson, who people also disagree with, but in the sense that they accuse him of not making sense at all, if not being deliberately obtuse, despite also clearly being "smart" in some sense.
Exactly 💯
@@HegemonicMarxism yeah...note to self: watch whole video before commenting.
@@ericb9804 I mean what you said it's still true since you talked in general about people who use this label (pseudo-intellectual) to describe him.
@@ericb9804 he is pseudo, both are, but one irritating fights for moral arguments where the world functions inherently on drawinism and the Right to Conquer rule. If you don't believe so, you clearly didn't see the Failure the UN is in Sudan, Gaza, and Burma.
@@princeofdarkness4711 Ok, but that would seem to prove my point - You may not agree with Chomsky, which is fine, but you clearly understand the argument that he is making, why he makes it, and the evidence he uses to support it. You may think he is wrong, but you are not accusing him of being incomprehensible, right? And just disagreeing with a person doesn't make them "pseudo-intellectual" in any meaningful sense. Compare this to Peterson, who lots of people agree with, which is also fine, but plenty of people also accuse him of literally not making sense and then hiding behind precisely that lack of sense to claim to be "intellectual" in an way that appears disingenuous. You don't like Chomsky, and thats fine, but the cases seem different enough to me to draw a meaningful distinction.
I am sort of a pseudo-intellectual myself :)
When i was young like you i had a friend who read a lot of smart books(always being arrogantly proud of that) but yet was lacking decency and basic communication skills often being harsh to other and belittiling.
So once i told him "some people believe that reading a lot of philosophy books makes you smart but i think what makes you smart is comprehending what you've read. Because if you have no way of applying what you've read to be a better person or help others at least in some way than perhaps you've gained no knowlege. You've just read a lot of symbols on the paper on for the sake of stating it." I still think intellectual person is someone who knows how to apply knowlege in real life to advance it. If you are reading Nietzsche the point is not to memorize quotes afterwards but to comprehend his point.
(My firend was not offended and infact started to use his knowlege to become a better kinder person. Happy end)
The only definition that seemed relevant for me was a person that would misrepresent their credentials and might show other characteristics such as using overly complex language. A person that aims to represent themselves as having knowledge just for the aesthetic privilege of being treated as wise.
Thinkers that promote a particular frame or belief system in my opinion are not unreliable sources of information because information cannot be neutral. I think it's required to be non-neutral in everything that isn't purely material research and that the role of most intellectuals is to explain how a particular idea has a relationship to a particular perspective, and that inconsistency in perspective is a sign of intellectual weakness rather than being able to frame almost any question posed within their particular perspective.
It is far more intellectually honest to admit up front, "This is the point I'm starting from and these are my biases," than it is to say, "This is what is," but it's also less appealing because it reminds us that there is no such thing as an unbiased authority, only those more and less qualified to discuss it, and these topics never truly reach their apex and are always in discussion.
@quinnholleman1547 Yes rhetorical style is part of the perspective so to even begin to introduce an idea like bias into certain frameworks already creates inconsistency
I agree as a general rule. However, there are plenty of intellectuals who are bloated by hubris and insist on cloaking their philosophy with verbosity. Sometimes this verbosity may serve a rhetorical purpose that adds poetic vitality or shades of nuance. For example, at face value, one may initially suspect Nietzsche of pseudo-intellectualism, yet his arcane style was more to do with his aristocratic elitism rather than a grandiose overcompensation for intellectual shortcomings.
@@cerdic6586 There are definitely exceptions where certain concepts are difficult to boil down into something more digestible for someone not familiar with the field, but that's usually higher-level topics for those who have at least moderate experience in the field to begin with and trying to get those concepts to a level the average uninitiated person can understand is reductive to the point of worthlessness. It's like trying to explain calculus to someone who doesn't even know algebra.
@@quinnholleman1547 I agree. George Orwell wrote a brilliant essay on this matter called Politics of the English Language.
Now I'm just imagining a grizzled Gandalf the grey with a dark 5 O'clock shadow, bags under his eyes and a surly demeanour 🤣
Joe's channel is an ever-flowing waterfall of quality content
So essentially: one can't even get close to pinning it down.
Ok, gonna watch this in a minute. But just looking at the thumbnail. I mean, I have plenty of my own criticisms of Chomsky, but I know he is a smart guy who’s contributed a great deal to social science-p-putting him next to the likes of Jordan Peterson, who’s achievements are vastly less impressive and whose contributions are far less positive..i-is just… just seems inappropriate, let’s say.
I'm not accusing either of them of anything, they are just the two most famous people who have been called "pseudo-intellectual" that I could think of
Peterson is one of the only voices of common sense and positivity the world has right now. Don't know what the hell you're on about, my guy.
@@joshreyes3624 this sounds like the remark of a person completely lacking in positivity or common sense.
But on the off chance that I’m wrong, please explain for us what specifically what Jordan Peterson has contributed to intellectual progress?
@@MamadouKane-w6fHe's helped people get better in their life with his videos, books and courses. Not sure about his current state, I stopped keeping track of him after he dived into politics but before that, he was helpful for many, as a teacher and an online presence.
@@animatedmvs8818This is the problem, his early work was hopeful and I enjoyed it, I then went on the far right pipeline, essentially following him to daily wire and caught myself after a few months. My own philosophical backing and one of my friends saved me.
I remember him for what he was, clean your room is a good first step to getting life in order, but, he's definitely not the same fellow he was.
Yes I look back and wince sometimes.
I'd like to make a "brazilian version" in portuguese of some of your videos, because I think they are useful. Keep doing the amazing job.
Wew really triggered the lefties with the chomsky thumbnail. It is accurate imo, sowell has some great pieces dismantling him
Turns out they’re easily upset.
Who’d have thought?
Chomsky is incredibly well-regarded by fellow academics. Sowell is very much a hack and a sellout who decided to make money being the token black conservative academic, so I'd be careful citing him when one of his biggest criticisms is lack of citations in his own work.
Is it me, or are the people who crow about others being "triggered" the most triggered people of all?
Of course, we got the intellectual heights of right wing discourse in here, the anti-sjw "you're triggered" response, the most persistent right wing bot argument since 2016 😂
@@archiewall124Not as easily offended as the right wing snowflakes are 😉
Has anyone ever accused you of being a pseudo-intellectual?😂
To be honest, I would be flattered if I was considered any sort of intellectual - pseudo or otherwise
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 How humble. What did we to deserve you, Joe?
In all seriousness though, keep up the work, and hopefully we'll get some videos on eastern philosophies sometimes.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Ah, too modest! It’s clear that you have a natural gift for analysis and reflection, which in itself is a sign of remarkable intelligence.
When you were talking about the idea that science should be falsifiable, I don't quite understand why you would give astrology as a counter example. The notion that all science should be falsifiable doesn't imply that everything that is falsifiable should be considered science. A true counter example would've been something that we would consider science that isn't falsifiable, right?
JP definitely pseudo. He's got a PhD in waffling for hours whilst actually saying nothing.
You had me with the thumbnail not gonna lie
In the thumbnail: Lobster boy and Kremlin Chomsky.
It is a pleasure to follow your logical deductions!
I appreciate everything you do brother! Keep up the amazing work been here since the very beginning
The problem is once you reach a high level in any area of science or philosophy you realize we are still lost.
To put faith in science to answer the big questions humans have is actually backwards, you should look inside yourself for the answers.
That is true intellect.
you got it completely backwards.
Isn't that what we have on the rise. Creating even bigger problems because in their post truth fantasy there is no truth or right, just feelings and experience.
You're essentially creating much problem telling everyone to be god.
As a rule don't trust someone who's too confident in their own ideas and opinions. Those who give off the "I can't possibly be wrong" vibe. People are too imperfect to figure things out exactly right.
I sometimes like and agree with Peterson , sometimes, no. But Chomski is absolutely disgusting person.
That dude created Chomskian syntax, the only class I got a C in in college. And right after the class it was pretty roundly rebuked and debunked by linguists and psychologists, consigned to the dustbin of theory. But not before dragging down my GPA. So yes, I hate him too.
Very well balanced and charitable take, brother Joe 👌🙏
The accusation "That's pseudoscience!" is a cheap argument, and a means of deflection by individuals who often don't want to bother finding out why they don't like what they are hearing, and can't refute or counter it.
Nice treatment; thank you. It's tempting to give up, but there's a certain duty to struggle with one's conscience about that.
Chomsky in the thumbnail is nice clickbait lol
Chomsky is a pseudo intellectual about geopolitics. All the time he talk about Brazilian and Latin politics is a mess, completely ideology speech
Our knowledge is constrained by the information available to us at any moment. When new information is acquired, our understanding can evolve or broaden. This underscores the significance of being receptive to fresh insights and viewpoints. Consequently, the consistent application of the scientific method is essential. Employing the scientific method brings us nearer to the truth than any alternative approach, and those who deviate from or distort this process are often regarded as pseudointellectuals.