Thanks to Jordan Peterson I got into this really embarassing situation during my last internship. When I spontaniously started singing the Internationale I was met with nothing but awkward silence. Turns out Peterson was wrong and corporate HR departments are in fact not actually hotbeds of marxist thought.
A large part of it is that pseudo-intellectuals provide easy, black-and-white answers to complex questions that in reality require a great deal of careful study and are never as easy as the pseudo-intellectual presents them to be.
Corey Herrick example of an easy answer please. Like when Peterson talks about multi variant analysis when talking about why there’s a wage gap instead of blaming ‘institutionalized sexism’? Like that?
bevilhive Did I mention anything about Jordan Peterson? My, my. *Someone* is feeling defensive today... PS I *could* have mentioned him, but so many critiques have been made of his work, I'd rather not.
You can easily find duped fanboys in comments complaining about the people in the video labeling Jordan Peterson a psuedo-intellectual when in reality they clearly talked about JP NOT being a psuedo intellectual himself but having stooped to using pseudo intellectual ideas to gain a fanbase. They even complimented him on his expertise in Jungian psychology and being a professor.
Redbeardian - Exactly! I wonder why guys like Jordan Peterson do it. Is it the money? The groupies? The fame? There is NO easier way to get attention than for an academic to bash the Left - especially by targeting young extremists. Young university students hear about some really brutal realities and their natural instinct is to try to correct these injustices. They haven’t learned about the obstacles to these ideas yet, so they embrace some ideas of the extreme Left. This has been happening for centuries, and now it’s a “crisis”? Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris know that this is utterly harmless and is as old as time, but the Right will pay serious money to feel vindicated.
Redbeardian Having read a great deal of Jung, Freud and other psychologists, I honestly don’t think Peterson has a good handle on Jung. And I can give some basic examples. First, Peterson has recommended Stephen Hick’s book. In that Book Hicks makes several claims about Kant which are the complete opposite of what Kant has said and claims Kant was a counter enlightenment philosopher. Why is this important? Kant is one of the foundational ideas of Jung. Kant basically says that the subjective experience can be studied as an empirical object of experience. This is where we get modern psychology, anthropology, and cognitive psychology from. Peterson’s recommendation of Hicks shows the worst of sloppy scholarship. Jung’s most basic idea is the ego and shadow paradigm. The ego being the center of ones consciousness the shadow bring things which one represses, denies, and rejects in themselves and projects onto others. His continual rants, ad hominem attacks, straw manning clearly reveal a shadow complex. And they go down the line of things you can find in his own behaviors. Like Derrida is a trickster, or Marxism is collectivist and against the individual, or his inability to see that he set up a liberal versus Marxist paradigm etc. What Peterson is doing is advocating a type of identity totemism. Meaning identify with his version of “the West” and project all negative attributes onto Marxism and anything I tell you is Marxist. It is John Birch Society Red Scare McCarthyism dressed up as philosophy. I don’t think Psychoanalytic thinking is pure “pseudo-science” as the comment below states (only in Pooper’s definition) it uses phenomenology because it is difficult to easily test. But both Jung and Freud were really good empiricists. They didn’t just make it all up. But psychology dies lend itself to pseudoscience if a person can’t make the basic Kantian differentiation’s of which it is based. That differentiation is a perspective that helps a person to see a psychic phenomenon as an object of study rather being mired in the subjective. For example Chomsky is essentially Kantian as he created a universal grammar theory. But it would be completely absurd and false for Chomsky to claim that English is the best most universal language. Peterson uses Jung’s theory which makes a similar claim as Chomsky’s theory, meaning that there is an inborn parameters to perception and cognition. But unlike Chomsky Peterson actually says that Christianity is the perfect metaphysical tragedy, and then other universalized political claims as well. This error of Peterson is refuted by the entire legacy of Kant and contemporary cognitive science in general. But what it does is what Marx calls mystification. It mystifies his audience as if what he says is the ultimate or absolute truth.
it is easier to manipulate people than telling people they are manipulated. if you make people think they are thinking they love you, if you ask them to really think, they hate you. how can you try to do something good to others and they they think that you are the enemy?
@@craigsmith8811 are you serious Craig? There is some serious research being done within departments of psychology. I for example do research on the placebo and nocebo effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. There are measurable effects of a proper conducted placebo or nocebo study (also neuronal effects on the brain). Furthermore, these experiments are both testable and falsifiable; not sure how that counts as pseudoscience?
I like this guy. I think that he is fair. It is difficult not to get offended by some of the ideas coming out of the right wing right now but then you are immediately denounced as an SJW, which then in turn triggers the right wing victim complex, where suddenly asking for equality means somehow hating white men. It's exhausting and so much isn't getting talked about and debated because of all the nonsense.
I like this guy. I think that he is fair. It is difficult not to get offended by some of the ideas coming out of the left wing right now but then you are immediately denounced as an nazi, which then in turn triggers the left wing victim complex, where suddenly asking for meritocracy means somehow hating non-white males. It's exhausting and so much isn't getting talked about and debated because of all the nonsense.
Social justice is a good thing, BUT there are some far left individuals who are extremists, too. The far left and far right are very often mirror images of each other. They are more alike than they are different--hence you see things like Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, basically endorsing Donald Trump. I have seen some really bizarre posts, like that anyone who is "white" (whiteness is a social construct and NOT an ethnicity) is personally responsible for any bad thing ever done by anybody with pale skin, even if it was on the other side of the world, or before they were born. I have also seen the opinion publicized that "whites" are not truly human, (also because of the bad things anyone with pale skin ever did) and shouldn't be allowed to live on their own without the supervision of a darker skinned person. Some of these individuals have gone so far down the rabbit hole that they have come out the other side and become authoritarian, extremist bigots themselves. Humans are just as capable of both good and bad, no matter what their gender or ethnicity. The trick is to promote justice without letting your anger at injustice lead you to the "dark side".
Pseudo-intellectuals basically tell their audience what they want to hear and give what they prefer to believe the appearance of legitimacy and authority, simple as that.
Bash Bash Jordan Peterson This started out as a discussion about "pseudo intellectualism" but primarily was an attempt to decry Peterson as a pseudo intellectual, based largely on an anecdote that could be attributed to a combination of bad timing and an administrative blunder. If you are going to take a reasoning line, please do it without ad hominem or straw man arguments. Otherwise you lose the very audience that you say want to target, i.e. those that do want to understand the issues. 15:02 ad hominem: "Peterson is a much shallower thinker." 16:45 Straw man: "Peterson is giving them people to blame for their problems" Peterson's fundamental points are 1. Don't espouse a philosophy, such as Marxism or feminism, that blames others for your problems. 2. Take some responsibility for your own choices - start by cleaning up your room. 2:34 Straw man:"... what I'll just call the anti intellectual right, or anti social justice warrior right." This equate those on the right, particularly those who oppose the extremes of social justice campaigners, with being anti intellectual. Perhaps the only important criticism that was legitimate here was the argument that Peterson hadn't trawled through the leftist literature to see the similar arguments to his that had been made. Valid point, but why had these critiques not become defining characteristics of the field before now?
This dude says Sam Harris kinda fits into that. I've heard many people talk about Sam Harris when talking about Jordan Peterson and "pseudo intellectuals" but i've never gotten an explaination to why Sam Harris fits into that group, what has Sam said or done that is "pseudo intellectual"? He has talked with Jordan Peterson, sure, but they disagreed with eachother pretty much the entire talk.
Sam Harris criticizes Islam, therefore pseudo intellectual. Sam Harris delivers a 3hr long ass blasting to Cenk Uyger on his own show, therefore pseudo intellectual.
It's Harris support for military intervention and torture and he's deceptive arguments for this support that land him on many people's list of pseudo intellectuals
i don't see how a difference in opinion makes someone a pseudointellectual. Deceptive in what way? You mean he is lying about facts or what? I don't agree with his views on military intervention, but that doesn't mean i think he is a pseudo intellectual. And with torture, what do you mean "support"? He has said that he thinks it should be illegal. But he has said that he think that in certain situations water-boarding might be justified in order to save lives. But he still thinks it should be illegal. And btw, I'm not defending his position, just clarifying it.
He's written articles defending torture. He uses long grandiose and convoluted argument's to support morally bankrupt policy positions. He has a reputation as being edgy because he's an outspoken atheist but his politics are run of the mill conservative talking points delivered under a veneer of intellectualism. www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
did you read the linked article? "NOTE: Please see my most recent thoughts on this and other controversial subjects here: Response to Controversy". He isn't "supporting" torture. His point is pretty much that in certain situations you need to do bad things in order to save lives. He isn't saying we should continue with torture as we are now and just torture every suspected terrorist. Now exactly when its okey and how we decide that, i don't know what he thinks. But he says it should be illegal. So i don't know who decides when these laws can be broken. Anyway, i don't understand why that makes him "pseudo intellectual". He says torture might somethimes me justified if it saves lives, and therefor he is pseudo intellectual? Or is it because his argument was "grandiose and convoluted"? Or because its "Morally bankrupt"? Moralls are subjective and i don't think morals have much to do with intelligence. "but his politics are run of the mill conservative talking points", well he is left and votes democrat (well, democrats are conservative but anyway).
Harris went of the rails with the whole Charles Murray thing. He’s also been pretty terrible on Israel-Palestine and US foreign policy. On the other hand he also has done some brilliant and honestly necessary takedowns of faith and religion. He’s a very mixed bag, but i’m having a really hard time calling him a pseudo-intellectual.
Yeah, I was wishing he would clarify when he said that. Don't agrew with 100% of his views, but back when I watched a lot of his podcast, his batting average with regards to logical reasoning seemed pretty good to me.
Pseudo-intellectualism is appealing in the context that it acts as a mechanism to obfuscate actual intellectual criticism of the status quo, the reality of industrial slavery, and authoritarian rule over what is perceived as democracy.
People only use ideas that when confronted, are consistent. That is why people tend to ideologies, because they create an entire bubble around a set of ideas. Non of the people's he mentioned promotes an ideology, so their ideas are easy to criticize. The problem is that they say nothing controversial, and people has to adscribe them to an ideology to discard the entire person. It didn't work, every single one of those guys got way bigger.
People rarely literally go, "damn, legit intellectuals are idiots! We need fake intellectuals, those are much better!" The closest thing is the pseudo-intellectualism of saying that actual intellectuals are liberal elites just pushing shenanigans, while not adhering to "alternative" purported intellectuals, but having a more "common man" general disdain for them.
This video was really bad. How do you guys distinguish between proper intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals? What do the so called pseudo-intellectuals claim? This sounds like an attempt to get rid of critics without debating but solely use name shaming.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Please clarify: how do you classify an idea as "pseudo intellectual" versus "intellectual"? Are this guy's ideas "intellectual", whereas Jordan Peterson's are "pseudo intellectual"? On what basis do you make this distinction?
In the most part, we can consider the latest widely-accepted science as fact. We can use the facts that we have collected, observations, and to a certain degree, historical anecdotes, use our critical analysis and reasoning to form valid logical arguments and hypothesis. This is intellect. Starting with non-existent, debunked, highly refuted, or underdetermined science, or using sophistry, word salad, and fluffy or technical words of woo, or resorting to incorrect use of reasoning is highly flawed. Building an entire foundation of these "facts" to support your entire catalogue of arguments, propositions, or findings, is pseudo-science. Creating an entire reputation around this as a public intellectual makes you are pseudo-intellectual. It matters nought if someone is accomplished in their field. Once their recipe book has every recipe requiring eye of newt, you can't cook a fucking thing and it is sad watching them try. Also, look up The Science Wars. The three forces fighting science at the moment are religion, politico-economic ideology, and pseudo-science.
The short answer is that pseudo intellectuals speak mostly to dazzle listeners with jargon, and grandiloquence. Sometimes they even deceive themselves into believing their own bullshit.
For the most part the word pseudo-intellectual is used by people who wish to play gatekeeper and control the narrative of public discourse, in my view. Once they have labelled an individual as a pseudo-intellectual, they no longer need to address that person's claims. It's a more subtle version of calling someone a racist or a bigot or a phobe. These words are so open-ended as to virtually always require an explanation of what the person using them means. That's a problem, because these words, including "pseudo-intellectual", are emotionally powerful yet are unguided, like a nuclear weapon in the hands of a chimpanzee. Ideally, people who are intellectually charitable will never use these words because they destabilise serious discourse. It's baffling to me why people who call themselves intellectuals continue to revert to name-calling instead of addressing points one by one. I can only assume they are doing it on purpose, and therefore should be watched with extreme (intellectual) caution; otherwise, they are simply unaware of such obvious and fundamental biases that we are all subject to, and against which we need to remain eternally vigilant. Watch out for people who are oblivious to their own biases, such as those who habitually label others. No one person has only good or only bad ideas, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to call themselves intellectuals to do the hard work of actually checking each idea on its own merits.
I don't think the word "pseudo-intellectual" is open ended. I also think it's possible that the majority of people using the word know what it means. The word also has a valid, and relevant usage. But some people will use the word where it is not valid, or relevant. Much like how claims of persecution have a valid, and relevant usage, and are sometimes used not valid, or relevant. Biases don't care about the words you use. If I say pseudo-intellectual, and you say biased neither one of us has evidently crossed into validity, or relevance on those words alone. I might be just name calling, but you might be just status calling.
There are some characteristics. Pseudo intellectuals engage in needless jargon, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty. Pseudo-intellectuals usually also start from their conclusions, instead of letting evidence and critical thinking guide them or may have ulterior motives other than trying to reach truth or honestly communicate complicated things to the layman (profit is probably the most common ulterior motive.) And as the interviewee explains there can indeed be some overlap, people who are otherwise intellectuals may be prone to pseudointellectuallism only under certain conditions or on certain subjects. By and large I would argue clear lines can be cut. Deepak Chopra is one the world's leading pseudointellectuals. Richard Dawkins in one of the world's leading intellectuals. Not that difficult.
something that cannot be said about many other pseudo intellectuals, 'skeptics' and a few borderline cult leaders who have been pumped up by their fanbase into borderline cult figures; too much smugness and ego for their own good.
What hubris to piss on what you call pseudo intellectualism without addressing anything they say. Its so appealing because people stand on their ivory towers like glasses guy here is a prime example of. edit: heck half of the people commenting refer to this fact, just talking about people as "pseudo intellectuals" in my opinion makes you highly suspect to being in a thought bubble... People disagree, intellectuals disagree... its normal, address the issues instead of using borderline ad hominems like this.
Yeah. Points I'd like to see addressed: - how porn and casual sex requires government tyranny - how "darwinism" may not be true if humanity eventually destroys itself - or how an extramarital affair that triggers a suicide ceases being real after the suicide, since suicide is a sad thing, so it's not fair the extra-marital affair was real, so it isn't.
Hiya Ricky! So what's ironic? The Nazis committed a genocide and are genocidal definitionally. Those people can be fought and killed in self defense with zero irony. Were you sympathizing with the Nazis?
where in the name of fuck has Peterson ever claimed he wants to "actively imprison/exterminate the poor and unemployed"?! holy shit, you must be trolling, nobody is this stupid
Bart Bols you don't understand what ad hominem means I think ... for instance, ppl discussing a trend in society , any type of generalization etc, by definition can be ad hominem, it also can't be "nearly" ad hominem.. ad hominem is a very personal attack , it's 99.999 % of the time used to describe a common event in debates or political discussion when in the throws of civil discussion ... point. Counterpoint back and forth banter being interuppted by Someone attacking the person who brought up the point or counterpoint rather than discussing the issue, for instance i say I like bread you say you don't i say it's healthy you say it's high calorie I say... you're a big fat pig and your mom never taught you to eat right .
I’m sick of realizing I’ve believed another conspiracy theory or pseudo intellectual. It’s like my enthusiasm and curiosity drowns out boring rationality. Everyone at the compound starts lining up for the cool aid and think “damn it’s happened again”. The only solace I have is that rationally should be plenty like me but we are all too embarrassed to say anything.
He does. Harris has many blindsides and assumes that any criticism of him is done in bad faith and uses that as a reason to only listen to criticism so he can respond and not to reflect.
He does......as someone who used to listen to Harris.....the longer I listened the more I noticed how absolutely narrow he is and frankly either unaware that he is or is happily so....he leaves out MANY parameters and ingredients in his analysis of world affairs....he ignores imperialism, capitalism and a host of other systemic issues in his arguments and gives a distorted view of society
That black people are less intelligent do to genetics. He agreed with Charles Murray's conclusions, and thus believe black people are inherently less intelligent and he said environment has a minimal impact on IQ. If you don't think that is racist and don't see how that same argument has been used for centuries to justify slavery, segregation, red lining, and mass incarceration then I don't know what to tell you.
Here is a correction then: It is false to say that Sam Harris or Charles Murray for that matter said that black people are less intelligent due to genetics. Instead, what they said, and I have heard both of them say this emphatically (as well as was written in Murray's book "The Bell Curve") that regarding intelligence for ANY group, society AND genetics play a factor. However, they say that it is quite uncertain to what extent each play a role. It is a fact that people of sub-Saharan African descent tend to (meaning on average) score lower on IQ tests, this is not news. Likewise, it is well known that Asians score remarkably higher on IQ tests than even those of European descent. These are just statistics that are true. And, regarding any human trait, it is a platitude to say, "Genetics and society both play a role" it is a GIVEN in both the social sciences and biological sciences that humans are the result of both of these factors. Unfortunately, Murray was initially responding to a nonsensical argument that intelligence was totally the result of upbringing, etc. when the science quite clearly showed and still does show that genetics play some role as most obviously shown in the intelligence inherited by children from their parents. Similar arguments WERE used to justify slavery and racism, but that does not make the argument that blacks score lower on IQ tests untrue. It is just a fact that blacks score lower and for a variety of reasons and none of which reasons were dismissed by Murray nor Harris. You simply need to listen to them discuss this on the podcast in which Harris invited Murray and you would know this. The truth, however offensive, cannot be racist.
Sam Harris said it is largely genetic and virtually all of it is determined by genetics roughly 50-80% and the science has proven it, even though it hasn't. You are misrepresnting theses racists as something that they aren't (non-racist) They both, especially harris, said that historical context didn't matter and it was proven that Blacks have lower intelligence. He said those things not only while talking to Murray but others as well. They spoke no truth other than spouting off statistics that don't mean a whole lot relative to genetics. There is no link, and they claim it is. They are both racist, just not the ones with hoods. Stop bullshiting, we all know exactly what they both said and did not say. If you say things about race, present it as scientific even though the experts in the field say its hogwash you are indeed a racist. I'm beginning to think you are as well, only a racist would defend these two.
A lot of people think that when Peterson spouts off about Jung that he's talking about something within his wheelhouse of expertise. But Peterson is a CLINICAL psychologist. He's a CLINICIAN - he deals with learning and emotional disorders, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, perhaps behavior modification, etc. Jung was a psychiatrist those most important work is related to none of this. Jung was interested in things like the collective unconscious, universal symbologies, religion, etc. it would be the equivalent of asking a gynecologist about a wart on your neck. They might have something to say - but it's FAR out of their area of expertise.
A large part of the success of people you feel are pseudo intellectuals is that, for me at least, it doesn’t feel like they are projecting ideas on to things that exist in the world, but rather trying to look at the way the world exists as honestly as they can. They talk about things and seem to talk from a place of experience and honest thought. If they are lacking in some way, it’s not hard to beat them, do the same and the truth should win out. Calling them pseudo intellectuals is part of the problem because you are just attacking their character.
Oh my the hypocrisy is DEEP! David refuses to debate Hard Bastard, makes excuses like it’s not worth his time. $2000 for 1 hour is seemingly quite lucrative, yet David still shuns such an opportunity to simply defend his positions.
I don't get it David. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are not pseudo-intellectuals. They're highly intelligent, yet they're wrong sometimes (like any human). You have to remember that some of their core discussions have a lot to do with metaphysics and religion. You can not argue that they have very reasonable standpoints a lot of the time. Yeah, they're not always right; for example, I believe that Sam is too harsh on Islam with his rhetoric while still making some valid points. Also, I think that Jordan Peterson has a bad definition of "truth" (aka Peterson's truth) when it comes to epistemology; however, just recently-- you made a video about Roseanne Barr, and I think you're wrong. I am a black person btw. From my perspective, she wasn't being racist. The lady in question doesn't even look black! Valerie Jarrett actually looks like a female character from that movie without looking black. This is like how Trump looks like an orangutan to people. I still can't call you or Kyle (for example) pseudo-intellectuals because of thngs that I clearly disagree with. If anything, Ben Shapiro and Milo would fit that category (especially the latter).
As far as Sam and Islam. Sam isnt too harsh on Islam, he is too harsh on the people. He really is one step away from saying that their genes just make them inferior. Thats why hes special. I trust his views on religion while never trusting what he says on the people themselves. Questions? I'm literally obsessed with seeing Jordan P go down in flames because he is a fascist.
Was Sam Harris ever mentioned in this video? Peterson barely should be mentioned in the same square meter of a mentioning of Harris, please. He's a post-modernist bullshiter like the BS he supposedly denounces. If things have bad or sad outcomes, then they're not real, porn and casual sex lead to government tyranny... if at least he kept with just the free-speech and clean your bed points... I'm not sure he'd be a intellectual, but at least wouldn't be a pseudo-intellectual.
Harris barely says anything about peoples genes, that's a blatant mischaracterization of his views. I bet you just listen to Sam Seder and just believes everything without checking. People, individuals, are different in their traits and abilities. Part of that difference is due to genetics. Being "different in traits and abilities" do not make individuals "superior" and "inferior" in an uni-dimensional sense, just like being TALLER, "superior in height" does not make one just "superior". The big irony is that those criticizing him with those points are the ones who really unconsciously "buy" the far-right rationale that, if one's traits and abilities in general below average, then the individual is an "inferior" being. The _true liberal, humanist position,_ is not to deny that there are differences and therefore, unavoidably, there are people who are at the bottom of any scale of traits and abilities -- but to accept them as equally worthy as humans nevertheless. The average liberal person seems to have not much problem accepting that when they're thinking of more serious differences such as autism or down syndrome, which they admit are real and do not beg for euthanasia as a consequence, but somehow their minds enter a panic mode when thinking of non-pathological minor gradations of normal variation. There's also this bizarre in-between, though, some people who even will deny women and men differ on averages of strength and height, otherwise reality will be sexist and women would be "truly" inferior.
it's simple. this dave pakman character is jealous that his name never comes up when the larger world outside his audience (many of them here in this comments section) start talking about this up and coming group group of non establishment political and philosophical thinkers. I've heard a lot of pakman, his game at time can be strong. but having heard weeks worth of his podcasts, it's mostly "the trumpsters out there believe their guy when he says this lie or that lie to them." every day, that's his show. I know. I've listened to it. pakman could offer more, like more robust general discussions on what is the proper role of government in today's society but little is spent on that and its mostly him ping-ponging with his tone-deaf producer about "how stupid trump is". sorry pakman fan club buddies, but he needs to step his game up. right now, his daily content is psuedo-intellectual, which is what he ACTUALLY means when he says the other guys are the same....he's really talking about their content. if not, i'll match their resumes up with his any day of any week.
I'm a left-libertarian that is an anti-SJW, BLM, and feminism. please tell me how I'm a pseudo-intellectual when I've seen feminist hit people they disagree with and see the same with BLM. I disagree with them on a fundamental level as I want equality without place women, blacks or minorities as superior because they have been mistreated for so long. the lgbtq community has almost equal status to everyone else. women are equal because their payed the same as the men in their position but the pay gap comes from career choices. they have choices because of equality. black people are equal under law and if you want to end rascism then know thine enemy like daryl davis.
How are the general public going to tell the difference between a real intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual? They are going to have to rely on other intellectuals to tell them the difference, but that only moves the question as how do we know these intellectuals aren’t pseudo-intellectuals?
Then its premise is fundamentally wrong. Pseudo-intellectualism isn't appealing to anybody. Instead, everybody is drawn to what they think is useful dialogue, whether it be wisdom, advice, conclusions based on empirical evidence or actual intellectualism.
Pseudo-intellectualism isn't a movement or an idea. Asking "Why is pseudo-intellectualism so appealing" is like asking "Why are books so appealing". It depends what book you are talking about. This whole fixation you have on "pseudo-intellectualism" is very perverse and ironic, because it is basically a pseudo-intellectual way of committing an ad hominem. Just stick to arguing the points they are making, without resorting to petty labels. And does anybody really not understand why arguments that appear to be reasonable are more popular than arguments that are overtly stupid? Because that is the essence of your question.
You two come dangerously close to claiming that anyone who opposes social justice as and ideology, or the follies of the activists (in other words, any 'anti social justice warrior', as the speaker calls them), is a pseudointellectual by default. Ironically, such a lazy dismissal tactic (dismiss the messenger rather than addressing the message) is itself an example of pseudointellectualism. The argument from authority fallacy has a flipside: look, this guy is a pleb and beneath me, he never even went to university... _therefore_ his argument has no validity and I can dismiss it. It's just as much a fallacy. Maybe that guy has the IQ of a brick, but his argument is still sound, you can't address it, and so you address his lack of credentials.
What the heck are you talking about? If you disagree with someone they are "Pseudo Intellectuals"? Can people just have different thinking styles? If they try to simplify for the less intelligent they are held suspect? I have never been so confused by a DP video.
I agree Peterson/Rubin/Shapiro/Harris need to fuck off with the hand-wavy explanations and begin describing mechanisms that back up their claims not just point to cherry picked stats
"Pseudo-intellectual" is a term used by people who may be more accurately described as "pseudo-intellectuals", ironically. In all seriousness, it is a subjective term for dogmatic people to describe people they don't like. I could throw it around to describe Pakman and Lain... doesn't progress the argument.
I will never understand why people continue to push Sam Harris into these various groups of pseudo-intellectuals, together with Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Petersen?? Sam Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist, orator, thinker, proponent of atheism and critical thinking. Just because he's not spewing out concepts and ideas that are expected from him, since he comes from the left political spectrum, he's automatically a "pseudo-intellectual". This is why I like Sam Harris, Bill Maher and ultimately David Pakman, cause they're not PC and are not scared to point out problems that reside on our side of the political debate. The same thing recently happened to Richard Dawkins when he tweeted a mild critique of the transgender people and was immidiately attacked as a fake and a transfobic person, and that he should retire from every brilliant thing he's doing to forward ideas of science over pseudo science, separation of church and state and free thinking. The late and great Christopher Hitchens lost many friends when he supported the invasion of Iraq, and although I don't agree with him on this particular topic I respect people who ain't black or white. When you're a member of BLM you automatically have to be for defunding and abolishing police. To hell with the regressive Left.
There is a great swath of people who need to be told how to think. As religions fail, Peterson types, who have savior complexes, wish to fill the void.
So we have a critical theorist calling out pseudo intellectuals (really Peterson because Doug is obsessed) which is surreal, but the term is never defined and no examples given. Instead, Doug starts talking about how people on his ‘side’ (because he’s in the moral matrix) have just as appealing ideas about things too and many agree with Peterson,they just do it better or something. anti intellectual have reached empty smear word status along with alt right and sexist. The fear and disorientation on the left mostly all because of Peterson is amazing to watch. The retreat into dogmatism is evident in these comment sections. Anyway, Doug is being disingenuous. He knows as fact that Peterson is set to debate zizek in October. JP doesn’t know who he is.
I was on board with Douglas Lain until he seemed to advocate getting rid of capitalism. I suppose I should read his book to find out what he imagines could replace capitalism, but regulated capitalism works better than any alternatives I’ve ever heard of. People want to be financially rewarded for their skills, labor and investments.
I don't think Peterson is right wing. And by calling him right wing, you leave him to be picked up the right. The left would benefit if they would engage him.
Pseudo intellectualism is appealing because of “fear of missing out” theory. If you can create a school of thought, that was never constructed or thought of by no one else then you have jumped ahead of the curve. People hate missing out so theses pseudo intellectuals are racing each other to create new ideologies that were never thought of or constructed so they can be seen as a genius; but In actuality these theories are baseless, without evidence, and complete red herring falsehoods. It’s the same with conspiracy theories, people like creating them based on junk evidence just to say they discovered some hidden evidence, message or truth. Everyone wants top secret security clearance to get the juiciest information, but no one wants to do the work to get it.
I wish I could expose and dispel such insidious treachery as easily as could be my logical rebuttal, being a weight lifting demonstration in which I use inflatable weights and claim equivalent strength to my opponent using actual weights.
Because they appeal to the dummies. And I am immune to that because I am not a dummy. Can everyone see that I am not a dummy ? God it feels so good to not be stupid. My farts smell like roses btw.
Douglas Lain should have gone more into the "ideas" of Peterson and how he would counter them (especially the role of family, of men and women). He somehow alluded there could be something valid to that critique?? I would darn love to hear his opinion, plain and straight!
Pseudo-intellectual is is a nonintellectual who presents himself as an intellectual. Peterson is a pefect example of this. He finds convoluted ways of saying nothing of substance at all. Not to mention the loony conspiracy theories.
AgainstYourThought, "dismissive comment' = I don't have any intelligent criticism - btw, the phrase pseudo-intellectual has a meaning you would definitely benefit from understanding.
In other words, David with his fancy BA and a "wannabe Marxist" science-fiction writer decide that people with more credentials, scholarly citations, and broad appeal are "pseudo-intellectuals". Seems legit.
Actually no. It's not an appeal to authority because the credentials are relevant to the discussion. Pseudo-intellectuals don't usually become associate professors at Harvard, or teach at UofT for 20 years, or have 20-30,000 hrs of actual clinical practice in the field they teach, plus 10,000 scholarly citations in the scientific literature. Meanwhile in David's realm RUclips, Peterson has double the subscribers, and it's difficult content, not bland "hot takes" on Trump and republicans. And who's this other guy? Did he sell a million non-fiction books in the last 6 months? No, he's a science fiction writer (maybe even a good one), but look at the facts-and it's pretty clear who the pseudo-intellectuals are by thinking they get to apply that label to others. I'm sad to see David devolve into this Sam Seder like crap which seems to come from a place of envy/jealousy of someone who's accomplished more than both of them ever will.
Naming your opponents as pseudo-intellectual makes me less inclined to listen to you. It comes off as a type of catharsis, or a way to simply tell yourself that you are better. An approach I would respect more is to acknowledge that there are legitimate intellectual viewpoints that oppose your own, and then just make good arguments that are convincing.
This guy is a Marxist, but he doesn't try to mischaracterize JBP and i feel he is intellectually honest. He is attacking the ideas not the man. That makes him different to 99% of the left. Even if he was a Marxist he could join the IDW if he remained with the ability to have honest debate and criticize ideas on both right and left.
Ich Du Don't take this wrongly, but you have a cartoon view of right wing politics given to you by far leftists. For example, take one of my favorite commentators, Ben Shapiro. He has never personally attacked any of those groups you mentioned because they are a member of that group (with the exception of communists - that is an idea). Take another, Roger Scruton. I doubt you would find any personal attacks there either. Maybe some crazy Alex Jones type, but i can't see any political position he supports which could be called conservative. He is just anti-left and probably the opposite of people like Shapiro and Scruton. I would encourage you to listen once or twice before you make up your mind on the right side. I think you'll find we are not the boogeymen you are looking for.
What makes a pseudo-intellectual? Why do you get to define what makes a person ‘pseudo’? Seems like you’re just resorting to attacking character over substance.
This is disheartening... just because you disagree with someone why call them pseudoscience?? Critical theory is pseudoscience as well... whole field of philosophy is a pseudoscience btw.
The punchline here is that I am actually going to agree with people like David ideologically most of the time. HOWEVER, right off the bat to say it's that they don't rigorously debate and discuss various topics is factually dishonest. You are aware all of these people have podcasts whose formats are long form discussions, many exceeding 1-2 hours right? And these debates / discussions are with many of the top people in their respective fields of study - studies ranging from physics (like Sean Carroll), philosophy (Rebecca Goldstein) , genetics (Jennifer Doudna),... (do I really need to go on?(and this is just some of Sam's relatively recent guests)). Now I ask you to compare each of these guests just mentioned and Sam's own accomplishments against the likes of David Pakman and a guest like Douglas Lain and ask yourself - to what ideas are they applying this "pseudo intellectual" term? What I really see here is that the tactic to apply an alt right identity or some other identity failed, so now let's see if "pseudo intellectual" identity sticks - so we can continue to play identity politics. My bet is that it is not going to work, and these folks will continue to accomplish much more than David and many of David's guests could ever even hope to.
Ok so there are some valid points here against Peterson and the general pseudo-intellectualist tactics of the right but I feel like it fails to strike at the heart of pseudo-intellectualism. It sort of traces the edges without really diving into it.
This is quite popular channel. Is there one single person that changed his/her mind from right leaning (or alt right if you want it so badly) to left/marxist/sjw leaning because of words of Pakman/Seder or whoever is most famous online figure for the left? If yes, why? Because it seems to me trend is other way around. That is why you try so desperately to dismiss the characters involved as pseudo intellectuals, tricksters, con men etc. It is like the left is not able to form coherent counter movement so you are just blabbering around with good old marxist weapons of smearing, name calling, smugness and dismissing. You are "the intellectuals" here after all, aren´t you? Meanwhile you are losing supporters big time. You lack modesty and are unwilling to challenge your own ideas and lost momentum while right wing has reformed itself to something more potent and willing to act. And it has exceeded you intellectually to the point average right winger can just piss on average leftie mule comfortably. You can boast how great Zizek or Chomsky are, how they would dominate Peterson or Harris, on the streets we dominate you easily. You don ´t even have leftie versions of Fleccas or Faith Goldy in the field, asking right wingers what they are about, you just dismiss them outright, like you dismiss their intellectuals. Seems to me like you have big trouble finding arguments to support your ideology, so personal attacks it is...
A good interview, thank you David Pakman Show team. The guest was intelligent, articulate and charismatic... I have encountered some of the right-wing anti-intellectuals and I wonder why people are drawn to them; it's evidently not charisma which attracts people to the anti-intellectuals, fingers being scratched down chalkboards come to mind when they speak.
But the idea that this is a "movement" in it self is flawed. Not everybody associated with "The Intellectual Dark Web" (stupid name) takes this as serious as Dave Rubin.
Can you define pseudo intellectualism and what makes it different from a random RUclipsr political opinion commentator? I prefer his term anti-SJW rather than anti intellectual, it's seems less biased or less politically motivated term. It's a fair characterization.
Pseudo intellectuals engage in needless jargon, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty. Pseudo-intellectuals usually also start from their conclusions, instead of letting evidence and critical thinking guide them or may have ulterior motives other than trying to reach truth or honestly communicate complicated things to the layman (profit is probably the most common ulterior motive.) I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between people who get mainstream media exposure and some random RUclipsr with 10k subscribers, they can both be intellectuals or pseudo intellectuals.
funny i just found a discussion with Peterson and Camille Paglia, since basically a lot of what Peterson is saying is cribbed from Paglia's writings and books from 25-30 years ago!
I think a better question is how can we tell if we are being psuedo-intellectual or actually intellectual. To the ignorant it seems no more than being in the social circle of scientists without any regard for what it is that scientists are actually doing. But when asked to extrapolate data from an incomplete set which we are bound to do because we are pattern recognition machines that never quite have all the data we are bound to jump to certain conclusions based on our own biased experience. Is psuedo-intellectualism no more than an attempt to make objective claims from subjective observation? If so how can we make the jump to objective observations from our subjective ones? I know it isn't as simple as everyone agreeing on the same thing that there is a more fundamental truth that we are all pointing to which is more important that we are pointing to it, but because we are human sometimes our certainties cloud how objective we are being. Then when someone objects to our claims it is so easy to just say that they are wrong because they are being less objective than us. In order to prevent psuedo intellectualism from muddying the waters of what to trust we would need to essentially prevent people from having confidence.
Ok, they keep talking about the pseudo intellectuals, but then again who are the real intellectuals on the right that are alive ? How about a couple of names.
David, you are right not to bring into the debate certain peoples names, since once the guest mentioned Sam Harris, I felt it wasn't quite fare to add him to the particular list he had. Sam's way of thinking and the books he's written, has made me a better thinker, I feel. He has some questionable ways of handling critique...but i feel like Sam is a true intellectual and mentioning him takes away from the real point you are trying to make.
What an extremely pompous and shallow argument laid out here. You are saying that their thoughts are pseudo-intellectualism because you disagree with them plain and simple. If you would be half-way intellectually honest you'd see that this group you're bunching together come from a wide range of points of view and frequently discuss and evaluate the merits of their positions. Most of what you point out about Jordan Peterson in your various videos for example are completely taken out of context or misrepresented. I would LOVE to see you have a discussion with any of them. I'm sure they would welcome the debate if presented to them. But I can see where you probably feel it's not worth your oh-so-intellectual brain to talk to them. Smug is the word out that cones to mind so far when I watch this. And I realize this is a petty observation, but it is an honest piece of advice, you really should consider dropping the "air quote" fingers, it's really annoying. Just my "opinion". Have a great day.
David, you asked to argue with your position and show how you are wrong with your point of view calling some conservatives are part of a pseudo-intellectualist movement. I have to agree with your assessment of some of these talking heads and I am also disturbed by much alt-right crap. Moly is terrible and I knew many who joined his cult up here in NH. GOP is actually not conservative leading to the expansion of big government in ICE, INS, and military. My problem though is that your argument appears to ignore private property rights which is a real concern when central planning. IMO, citizens are overtaxed from a way too big government which interferes with one's ability to actually make one's own way according to their own culture and individual choice along with less regulation when market choices become limited and expensive. This Socialist guy omits many concerns I think a more free citizen would have. Truth is not in one place so I come to your show but a Marxist did not enlighten me so far.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to Jordan Peterson I got into this really embarassing situation during my last internship. When I spontaniously started singing the Internationale I was met with nothing but awkward silence. Turns out Peterson was wrong and corporate HR departments are in fact not actually hotbeds of marxist thought.
Happens to me all the time...
Brotlowsky rgseg That's fucking hilarious and a great lesson , if true. I so hope that is true.
yeah, blame some other guy. no, that's just you being a douchebag at work.
Brotlowsky rgseg Not a JBP fan, but what does singing internationale has to do with Marxist ideology??
Silly Goose Why do conservatives have no humor? Does that get lost in their victim complex or what is it?
A large part of it is that pseudo-intellectuals provide easy, black-and-white answers to complex questions that in reality require a great deal of careful study and are never as easy as the pseudo-intellectual presents them to be.
Exact samre reason why people fall for conspiracy theories.
Corey Herrick example of an easy answer please. Like when Peterson talks about multi variant analysis when talking about why there’s a wage gap instead of blaming ‘institutionalized sexism’? Like that?
bevilhive
Did I mention anything about Jordan Peterson? My, my. *Someone* is feeling defensive today...
PS I *could* have mentioned him, but so many critiques have been made of his work, I'd rather not.
Corey Herrick so do you have an example from ANYBODY?
bevilhive
Yes, I have plenty examples of butthurt Jordan Peterson fanboys.
Wait, what were we talking about?
You can easily find duped fanboys in comments complaining about the people in the video labeling Jordan Peterson a psuedo-intellectual when in reality they clearly talked about JP NOT being a psuedo intellectual himself but having stooped to using pseudo intellectual ideas to gain a fanbase. They even complimented him on his expertise in Jungian psychology and being a professor.
Redbeardian - Exactly! I wonder why guys like Jordan Peterson do it. Is it the money? The groupies? The fame? There is NO easier way to get attention than for an academic to bash the Left - especially by targeting young extremists.
Young university students hear about some really brutal realities and their natural instinct is to try to correct these injustices. They haven’t learned about the obstacles to these ideas yet, so they embrace some ideas of the extreme Left. This has been happening for centuries, and now it’s a “crisis”? Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris know that this is utterly harmless and is as old as time, but the Right will pay serious money to feel vindicated.
The entire science of psychology is a pseudo science.
Redbeardian Having read a great deal of Jung, Freud and other psychologists, I honestly don’t think Peterson has a good handle on Jung. And I can give some basic examples.
First, Peterson has recommended Stephen Hick’s book. In that Book Hicks makes several claims about Kant which are the complete opposite of what Kant has said and claims Kant was a counter enlightenment philosopher. Why is this important?
Kant is one of the foundational ideas of Jung. Kant basically says that the subjective experience can be studied as an empirical object of experience. This is where we get modern psychology, anthropology, and cognitive psychology from. Peterson’s recommendation of Hicks shows the worst of sloppy scholarship.
Jung’s most basic idea is the ego and shadow paradigm. The ego being the center of ones consciousness the shadow bring things which one represses, denies, and rejects in themselves and projects onto others.
His continual rants, ad hominem attacks, straw manning clearly reveal a shadow complex. And they go down the line of things you can find in his own behaviors. Like Derrida is a trickster, or Marxism is collectivist and against the individual, or his inability to see that he set up a liberal versus Marxist paradigm etc.
What Peterson is doing is advocating a type of identity totemism. Meaning identify with his version of “the West” and project all negative attributes onto Marxism and anything I tell you is Marxist. It is John Birch Society Red Scare McCarthyism dressed up as philosophy.
I don’t think Psychoanalytic thinking is pure “pseudo-science” as the comment below states (only in Pooper’s definition) it uses phenomenology because it is difficult to easily test. But both Jung and Freud were really good empiricists. They didn’t just make it all up.
But psychology dies lend itself to pseudoscience if a person can’t make the basic Kantian differentiation’s of which it is based.
That differentiation is a perspective that helps a person to see a psychic phenomenon as an object of study rather being mired in the subjective.
For example Chomsky is essentially Kantian as he created a universal grammar theory. But it would be completely absurd and false for Chomsky to claim that English is the best most universal language.
Peterson uses Jung’s theory which makes a similar claim as Chomsky’s theory, meaning that there is an inborn parameters to perception and cognition. But unlike Chomsky Peterson actually says that Christianity is the perfect metaphysical tragedy, and then other universalized political claims as well.
This error of Peterson is refuted by the entire legacy of Kant and contemporary cognitive science in general.
But what it does is what Marx calls mystification. It mystifies his audience as if what he says is the ultimate or absolute truth.
it is easier to manipulate people than telling people they are manipulated. if you make people think they are thinking they love you, if you ask them to really think, they hate you. how can you try to do something good to others and they they think that you are the enemy?
@@craigsmith8811 are you serious Craig? There is some serious research being done within departments of psychology. I for example do research on the placebo and nocebo effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. There are measurable effects of a proper conducted placebo or nocebo study (also neuronal effects on the brain). Furthermore, these experiments are both testable and falsifiable; not sure how that counts as pseudoscience?
Because it makes you feel smart without having to put any real effort towards it.
Exactly
YESSSS!!! THIS!!!
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
I like this guy. I think that he is fair. It is difficult not to get offended by some of the ideas coming out of the right wing right now but then you are immediately denounced as an SJW, which then in turn triggers the right wing victim complex, where suddenly asking for equality means somehow hating white men. It's exhausting and so much isn't getting talked about and debated because of all the nonsense.
I like this guy. I think that he is fair. It is difficult not to get offended by some of the ideas coming out of the left wing right now but then you are immediately denounced as an nazi, which then in turn triggers the left wing victim complex, where suddenly asking for meritocracy means somehow hating non-white males. It's exhausting and so much isn't getting talked about and debated because of all the nonsense.
mrbouncelol Yeah white dudes are under siege; getting shot by cops for nuthin. Tragic
mrbouncelol But you do demonstrate just how butthurt you guys are !? Lol
Social justice is a good thing, BUT there are some far left individuals who are extremists, too. The far left and far right are very often mirror images of each other. They are more alike than they are different--hence you see things like Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, basically endorsing Donald Trump. I have seen some really bizarre posts, like that anyone who is "white" (whiteness is a social construct and NOT an ethnicity) is personally responsible for any bad thing ever done by anybody with pale skin, even if it was on the other side of the world, or before they were born. I have also seen the opinion publicized that "whites" are not truly human, (also because of the bad things anyone with pale skin ever did) and shouldn't be allowed to live on their own without the supervision of a darker skinned person. Some of these individuals have gone so far down the rabbit hole that they have come out the other side and become authoritarian, extremist bigots themselves. Humans are just as capable of both good and bad, no matter what their gender or ethnicity. The trick is to promote justice without letting your anger at injustice lead you to the "dark side".
Pseudo-intellectuals basically tell their audience what they want to hear and give what they prefer to believe the appearance of legitimacy and authority, simple as that.
Bash Bash Jordan Peterson
This started out as a discussion about "pseudo intellectualism" but primarily was an attempt to decry Peterson as a pseudo intellectual, based largely on an anecdote that could be attributed to a combination of bad timing and an administrative blunder.
If you are going to take a reasoning line, please do it without ad hominem or straw man arguments. Otherwise you lose the very audience that you say want to target, i.e. those that do want to understand the issues.
15:02 ad hominem: "Peterson is a much shallower thinker."
16:45 Straw man: "Peterson is giving them people to blame for their problems" Peterson's fundamental points are 1. Don't espouse a philosophy, such as Marxism or feminism, that blames others for your problems. 2. Take some responsibility for your own choices - start by cleaning up your room.
2:34 Straw man:"... what I'll just call the anti intellectual right, or anti social justice warrior right." This equate those on the right, particularly those who oppose the extremes of social justice campaigners, with being anti intellectual.
Perhaps the only important criticism that was legitimate here was the argument that Peterson hadn't trawled through the leftist literature to see the similar arguments to his that had been made. Valid point, but why had these critiques not become defining characteristics of the field before now?
This is literally what Pakman and his fans are.
This dude says Sam Harris kinda fits into that. I've heard many people talk about Sam Harris when talking about Jordan Peterson and "pseudo intellectuals" but i've never gotten an explaination to why Sam Harris fits into that group, what has Sam said or done that is "pseudo intellectual"? He has talked with Jordan Peterson, sure, but they disagreed with eachother pretty much the entire talk.
Sam Harris criticizes Islam, therefore pseudo intellectual.
Sam Harris delivers a 3hr long ass blasting to Cenk Uyger on his own show, therefore pseudo intellectual.
It's Harris support for military intervention and torture and he's deceptive arguments for this support that land him on many people's list of pseudo intellectuals
i don't see how a difference in opinion makes someone a pseudointellectual. Deceptive in what way? You mean he is lying about facts or what?
I don't agree with his views on military intervention, but that doesn't mean i think he is a pseudo intellectual. And with torture, what do you mean "support"? He has said that he thinks it should be illegal. But he has said that he think that in certain situations water-boarding might be justified in order to save lives. But he still thinks it should be illegal. And btw, I'm not defending his position, just clarifying it.
He's written articles defending torture. He uses long grandiose and convoluted argument's to support morally bankrupt policy positions. He has a reputation as being edgy because he's an outspoken atheist but his politics are run of the mill conservative talking points delivered under a veneer of intellectualism. www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
did you read the linked article?
"NOTE: Please see my most recent thoughts on this and other controversial subjects here: Response to Controversy".
He isn't "supporting" torture. His point is pretty much that in certain situations you need to do bad things in order to save lives. He isn't saying we should continue with torture as we are now and just torture every suspected terrorist. Now exactly when its okey and how we decide that, i don't know what he thinks. But he says it should be illegal. So i don't know who decides when these laws can be broken.
Anyway, i don't understand why that makes him "pseudo intellectual". He says torture might somethimes me justified if it saves lives, and therefor he is pseudo intellectual? Or is it because his argument was "grandiose and convoluted"? Or because its "Morally bankrupt"? Moralls are subjective and i don't think morals have much to do with intelligence.
"but his politics are run of the mill conservative talking points", well he is left and votes democrat (well, democrats are conservative but anyway).
It's a weird thing to see people without PhDs telling people that people with PhDs are stupid.
Harris went of the rails with the whole Charles Murray thing. He’s also been pretty terrible on Israel-Palestine and US foreign policy. On the other hand he also has done some brilliant and honestly necessary takedowns of faith and religion. He’s a very mixed bag, but i’m having a really hard time calling him a pseudo-intellectual.
Yeah, I was wishing he would clarify when he said that. Don't agrew with 100% of his views, but back when I watched a lot of his podcast, his batting average with regards to logical reasoning seemed pretty good to me.
Because he isn't woke and he's Jewish. This interview was very bias and politically motivated.
Pseudo-intellectualism is appealing in the context that it acts as a mechanism to obfuscate actual intellectual criticism of the status quo, the reality of industrial slavery, and authoritarian rule over what is perceived as democracy.
In history pseudo intellectualism rises in trying times, we are in trying times
Sadly, it's the trying times that have the greatest need for actual intellectuals to figure out how to solve the problems of the day.
"Why is Pseudo-Intellectualism So Appealing?" Because it gives people a way to feel smarter and more knowledgeable than they actually are.
People only use ideas that when confronted, are consistent. That is why people tend to ideologies, because they create an entire bubble around a set of ideas.
Non of the people's he mentioned promotes an ideology, so their ideas are easy to criticize. The problem is that they say nothing controversial, and people has to adscribe them to an ideology to discard the entire person.
It didn't work, every single one of those guys got way bigger.
It's simple. People don't realize they're doing it. Neither do you.
yes i do! wait.
Best reply, magnificent!
People rarely literally go, "damn, legit intellectuals are idiots! We need fake intellectuals, those are much better!" The closest thing is the pseudo-intellectualism of saying that actual intellectuals are liberal elites just pushing shenanigans, while not adhering to "alternative" purported intellectuals, but having a more "common man" general disdain for them.
Perfect reply.
Pseudo-intellectualism is pseudo-awesome
This video was really bad. How do you guys distinguish between proper intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals? What do the so called pseudo-intellectuals claim? This sounds like an attempt to get rid of critics without debating but solely use name shaming.
Those in the comments who are offended by this vid are the very problem, sorry but you were tricked. Don't be angry open your mind.
dave pakman's posture is insanely good
It sounds appealing and since it little or no rigor it's easy and oddly comforting to all sorts of biases.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Please clarify: how do you classify an idea as "pseudo intellectual" versus "intellectual"? Are this guy's ideas "intellectual", whereas Jordan Peterson's are "pseudo intellectual"? On what basis do you make this distinction?
In the most part, we can consider the latest widely-accepted science as fact. We can use the facts that we have collected, observations, and to a certain degree, historical anecdotes, use our critical analysis and reasoning to form valid logical arguments and hypothesis. This is intellect.
Starting with non-existent, debunked, highly refuted, or underdetermined science, or using sophistry, word salad, and fluffy or technical words of woo, or resorting to incorrect use of reasoning is highly flawed. Building an entire foundation of these "facts" to support your entire catalogue of arguments, propositions, or findings, is pseudo-science. Creating an entire reputation around this as a public intellectual makes you are pseudo-intellectual.
It matters nought if someone is accomplished in their field. Once their recipe book has every recipe requiring eye of newt, you can't cook a fucking thing and it is sad watching them try.
Also, look up The Science Wars. The three forces fighting science at the moment are religion, politico-economic ideology, and pseudo-science.
The short answer is that pseudo intellectuals speak mostly to dazzle listeners with jargon, and grandiloquence. Sometimes they even deceive themselves into believing their own bullshit.
For the most part the word pseudo-intellectual is used by people who wish to play gatekeeper and control the narrative of public discourse, in my view. Once they have labelled an individual as a pseudo-intellectual, they no longer need to address that person's claims. It's a more subtle version of calling someone a racist or a bigot or a phobe. These words are so open-ended as to virtually always require an explanation of what the person using them means. That's a problem, because these words, including "pseudo-intellectual", are emotionally powerful yet are unguided, like a nuclear weapon in the hands of a chimpanzee. Ideally, people who are intellectually charitable will never use these words because they destabilise serious discourse.
It's baffling to me why people who call themselves intellectuals continue to revert to name-calling instead of addressing points one by one. I can only assume they are doing it on purpose, and therefore should be watched with extreme (intellectual) caution; otherwise, they are simply unaware of such obvious and fundamental biases that we are all subject to, and against which we need to remain eternally vigilant. Watch out for people who are oblivious to their own biases, such as those who habitually label others. No one person has only good or only bad ideas, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to call themselves intellectuals to do the hard work of actually checking each idea on its own merits.
I don't think the word "pseudo-intellectual" is open ended. I also think it's possible that the majority of people using the word know what it means. The word also has a valid, and relevant usage. But some people will use the word where it is not valid, or relevant. Much like how claims of persecution have a valid, and relevant usage, and are sometimes used not valid, or relevant. Biases don't care about the words you use. If I say pseudo-intellectual, and you say biased neither one of us has evidently crossed into validity, or relevance on those words alone. I might be just name calling, but you might be just status calling.
There are some characteristics. Pseudo intellectuals engage in needless jargon, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty. Pseudo-intellectuals usually also start from their conclusions, instead of letting evidence and critical thinking guide them or may have ulterior motives other than trying to reach truth or honestly communicate complicated things to the layman (profit is probably the most common ulterior motive.)
And as the interviewee explains there can indeed be some overlap, people who are otherwise intellectuals may be prone to pseudointellectuallism only under certain conditions or on certain subjects. By and large I would argue clear lines can be cut. Deepak Chopra is one the world's leading pseudointellectuals. Richard Dawkins in one of the world's leading intellectuals. Not that difficult.
Good to see that David believes in self criticism...
something that cannot be said about many other pseudo intellectuals, 'skeptics' and a few borderline cult leaders who have been pumped up by their fanbase into borderline cult figures; too much smugness and ego for their own good.
What hubris to piss on what you call pseudo intellectualism without addressing anything they say. Its so appealing because people stand on their ivory towers like glasses guy here is a prime example of. edit: heck half of the people commenting refer to this fact, just talking about people as "pseudo intellectuals" in my opinion makes you highly suspect to being in a thought bubble... People disagree, intellectuals disagree... its normal, address the issues instead of using borderline ad hominems like this.
So you're upset that pseudo-intellectualism exists? Or you don't think it exists? (hint: look up the history of sophists)
Yeah. Points I'd like to see addressed:
- how porn and casual sex requires government tyranny
- how "darwinism" may not be true if humanity eventually destroys itself
- or how an extramarital affair that triggers a suicide ceases being real after the suicide, since suicide is a sad thing, so it's not fair the extra-marital affair was real, so it isn't.
Hiya Ricky! So what's ironic? The Nazis committed a genocide and are genocidal definitionally. Those people can be fought and killed in self defense with zero irony. Were you sympathizing with the Nazis?
where in the name of fuck has Peterson ever claimed he wants to "actively imprison/exterminate the poor and unemployed"?! holy shit, you must be trolling, nobody is this stupid
Bart Bols you don't understand what ad hominem means I think ... for instance, ppl discussing a trend in society , any type of generalization etc, by definition can be ad hominem, it also can't be "nearly" ad hominem.. ad hominem is a very personal attack , it's 99.999 % of the time used to describe a common event in debates or political discussion when in the throws of civil discussion ... point. Counterpoint back and forth banter being interuppted by Someone attacking the person who brought up the point or counterpoint rather than discussing the issue, for instance i say I like bread you say you don't i say it's healthy you say it's high calorie I say... you're a big fat pig and your mom never taught you to eat right .
I’m sick of realizing I’ve believed another conspiracy theory or pseudo intellectual. It’s like my enthusiasm and curiosity drowns out boring rationality. Everyone at the compound starts lining up for the cool aid and think “damn it’s happened again”. The only solace I have is that rationally should be plenty like me but we are all too embarrassed to say anything.
Sam Harris does not belong in this group
Your really don't understand the regressive left, do you?
He does. Harris has many blindsides and assumes that any criticism of him is done in bad faith and uses that as a reason to only listen to criticism so he can respond and not to reflect.
He does......as someone who used to listen to Harris.....the longer I listened the more I noticed how absolutely narrow he is and frankly either unaware that he is or is happily so....he leaves out MANY parameters and ingredients in his analysis of world affairs....he ignores imperialism, capitalism and a host of other systemic issues in his arguments and gives a distorted view of society
Vernon Hector you should rethink your approach to figuring out reality.
likewise
You brought out the "totally not racist, thats a strawman" Peterson/Harris fan boys!
Not in outcome
Oh, and what racist beliefs does Harris have?
That black people are less intelligent do to genetics. He agreed with Charles Murray's conclusions, and thus believe black people are inherently less intelligent and he said environment has a minimal impact on IQ.
If you don't think that is racist and don't see how that same argument has been used for centuries to justify slavery, segregation, red lining, and mass incarceration then I don't know what to tell you.
Here is a correction then:
It is false to say that Sam Harris or Charles Murray for that matter said that black people are less intelligent due to genetics. Instead, what they said, and I have heard both of them say this emphatically (as well as was written in Murray's book "The Bell Curve") that regarding intelligence for ANY group, society AND genetics play a factor. However, they say that it is quite uncertain to what extent each play a role. It is a fact that people of sub-Saharan African descent tend to (meaning on average) score lower on IQ tests, this is not news. Likewise, it is well known that Asians score remarkably higher on IQ tests than even those of European descent. These are just statistics that are true. And, regarding any human trait, it is a platitude to say, "Genetics and society both play a role" it is a GIVEN in both the social sciences and biological sciences that humans are the result of both of these factors. Unfortunately, Murray was initially responding to a nonsensical argument that intelligence was totally the result of upbringing, etc. when the science quite clearly showed and still does show that genetics play some role as most obviously shown in the intelligence inherited by children from their parents. Similar arguments WERE used to justify slavery and racism, but that does not make the argument that blacks score lower on IQ tests untrue. It is just a fact that blacks score lower and for a variety of reasons and none of which reasons were dismissed by Murray nor Harris. You simply need to listen to them discuss this on the podcast in which Harris invited Murray and you would know this. The truth, however offensive, cannot be racist.
Sam Harris said it is largely genetic and virtually all of it is determined by genetics roughly 50-80% and the science has proven it, even though it hasn't. You are misrepresnting theses racists as something that they aren't (non-racist)
They both, especially harris, said that historical context didn't matter and it was proven that Blacks have lower intelligence. He said those things not only while talking to Murray but others as well.
They spoke no truth other than spouting off statistics that don't mean a whole lot relative to genetics. There is no link, and they claim it is. They are both racist, just not the ones with hoods. Stop bullshiting, we all know exactly what they both said and did not say.
If you say things about race, present it as scientific even though the experts in the field say its hogwash you are indeed a racist. I'm beginning to think you are as well, only a racist would defend these two.
This is not an antiintelectual discussion, but antiwoke.
A lot of people think that when Peterson spouts off about Jung that he's talking about something within his wheelhouse of expertise. But Peterson is a CLINICAL psychologist. He's a CLINICIAN - he deals with learning and emotional disorders, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, perhaps behavior modification, etc. Jung was a psychiatrist those most important work is related to none of this. Jung was interested in things like the collective unconscious, universal symbologies, religion, etc. it would be the equivalent of asking a gynecologist about a wart on your neck. They might have something to say - but it's FAR out of their area of expertise.
Insufferable. Pseudo-intellectuals proposing to critique pseudo-intellectuals.
Good minute in and the guest mentions Sam Harris as a part of antiSJW movement... I'm out
This was a very interesting conversation
Wow, I think Smash Bros creator Masahiro Sakurai would be flattered to learn his game inspired a novel.
A large part of the success of people you feel are pseudo intellectuals is that, for me at least, it doesn’t feel like they are projecting ideas on to things that exist in the world, but rather trying to look at the way the world exists as honestly as they can. They talk about things and seem to talk from a place of experience and honest thought. If they are lacking in some way, it’s not hard to beat them, do the same and the truth should win out. Calling them pseudo intellectuals is part of the problem because you are just attacking their character.
Oh my the hypocrisy is DEEP! David refuses to debate Hard Bastard, makes excuses like it’s not worth his time. $2000 for 1 hour is seemingly quite lucrative, yet David still shuns such an opportunity to simply defend his positions.
I LOVE Zero Books! So glad you had Doug on, David! ✌🏼🙏🏼💦
Who defined pseudo intellectual.
I don't get it David. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are not pseudo-intellectuals. They're highly intelligent, yet they're wrong sometimes (like any human). You have to remember that some of their core discussions have a lot to do with metaphysics and religion. You can not argue that they have very reasonable standpoints a lot of the time. Yeah, they're not always right; for example, I believe that Sam is too harsh on Islam with his rhetoric while still making some valid points. Also, I think that Jordan Peterson has a bad definition of "truth" (aka Peterson's truth) when it comes to epistemology; however, just recently-- you made a video about Roseanne Barr, and I think you're wrong. I am a black person btw. From my perspective, she wasn't being racist. The lady in question doesn't even look black! Valerie Jarrett actually looks like a female character from that movie without looking black. This is like how Trump looks like an orangutan to people. I still can't call you or Kyle (for example) pseudo-intellectuals because of thngs that I clearly disagree with. If anything, Ben Shapiro and Milo would fit that category (especially the latter).
Youre conflating intellect and intelligence.
As far as Sam and Islam. Sam isnt too harsh on Islam, he is too harsh on the people. He really is one step away from saying that their genes just make them inferior.
Thats why hes special. I trust his views on religion while never trusting what he says on the people themselves.
Questions?
I'm literally obsessed with seeing Jordan P go down in flames because he is a fascist.
Was Sam Harris ever mentioned in this video? Peterson barely should be mentioned in the same square meter of a mentioning of Harris, please. He's a post-modernist bullshiter like the BS he supposedly denounces. If things have bad or sad outcomes, then they're not real, porn and casual sex lead to government tyranny... if at least he kept with just the free-speech and clean your bed points... I'm not sure he'd be a intellectual, but at least wouldn't be a pseudo-intellectual.
Harris barely says anything about peoples genes, that's a blatant mischaracterization of his views. I bet you just listen to Sam Seder and just believes everything without checking. People, individuals, are different in their traits and abilities. Part of that difference is due to genetics. Being "different in traits and abilities" do not make individuals "superior" and "inferior" in an uni-dimensional sense, just like being TALLER, "superior in height" does not make one just "superior".
The big irony is that those criticizing him with those points are the ones who really unconsciously "buy" the far-right rationale that, if one's traits and abilities in general below average, then the individual is an "inferior" being.
The _true liberal, humanist position,_ is not to deny that there are differences and therefore, unavoidably, there are people who are at the bottom of any scale of traits and abilities -- but to accept them as equally worthy as humans nevertheless.
The average liberal person seems to have not much problem accepting that when they're thinking of more serious differences such as autism or down syndrome, which they admit are real and do not beg for euthanasia as a consequence, but somehow their minds enter a panic mode when thinking of non-pathological minor gradations of normal variation.
There's also this bizarre in-between, though, some people who even will deny women and men differ on averages of strength and height, otherwise reality will be sexist and women would be "truly" inferior.
it's simple. this dave pakman character is jealous that his name never comes up when the larger world outside his audience (many of them here in this comments section) start talking about this up and coming group group of non establishment political and philosophical thinkers. I've heard a lot of pakman, his game at time can be strong. but having heard weeks worth of his podcasts, it's mostly "the trumpsters out there believe their guy when he says this lie or that lie to them." every day, that's his show. I know. I've listened to it. pakman could offer more, like more robust general discussions on what is the proper role of government in today's society but little is spent on that and its mostly him ping-ponging with his tone-deaf producer about "how stupid trump is". sorry pakman fan club buddies, but he needs to step his game up. right now, his daily content is psuedo-intellectual, which is what he ACTUALLY means when he says the other guys are the same....he's really talking about their content. if not, i'll match their resumes up with his any day of any week.
It makes people that watch your show feel smart.
The Fact that Melee helped inspire the book makes me proud to be a Gamer XD
I'm a left-libertarian that is an anti-SJW, BLM, and feminism. please tell me how I'm a pseudo-intellectual when I've seen feminist hit people they disagree with and see the same with BLM. I disagree with them on a fundamental level as I want equality without place women, blacks or minorities as superior because they have been mistreated for so long. the lgbtq community has almost equal status to everyone else. women are equal because their payed the same as the men in their position but the pay gap comes from career choices. they have choices because of equality. black people are equal under law and if you want to end rascism then know thine enemy like daryl davis.
How are the general public going to tell the difference between a real intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual? They are going to have to rely on other intellectuals to tell them the difference, but that only moves the question as how do we know these intellectuals aren’t pseudo-intellectuals?
Simple minds will seek simple answers.
The peak irony of this is that only a pseudo-intellectual would choose such a title
Then its premise is fundamentally wrong. Pseudo-intellectualism isn't appealing to anybody. Instead, everybody is drawn to what they think is useful dialogue, whether it be wisdom, advice, conclusions based on empirical evidence or actual intellectualism.
Because we don't trust our right brain and emotions. Our loss.
Pseudo-intellectualism isn't a movement or an idea. Asking "Why is pseudo-intellectualism so appealing" is like asking "Why are books so appealing". It depends what book you are talking about.
This whole fixation you have on "pseudo-intellectualism" is very perverse and ironic, because it is basically a pseudo-intellectual way of committing an ad hominem. Just stick to arguing the points they are making, without resorting to petty labels.
And does anybody really not understand why arguments that appear to be reasonable are more popular than arguments that are overtly stupid? Because that is the essence of your question.
The Sophists were not pre-Socratics. There's a a whole *Socratic* dialogue about that.
You two come dangerously close to claiming that anyone who opposes social justice as and ideology, or the follies of the activists (in other words, any 'anti social justice warrior', as the speaker calls them), is a pseudointellectual by default. Ironically, such a lazy dismissal tactic (dismiss the messenger rather than addressing the message) is itself an example of pseudointellectualism.
The argument from authority fallacy has a flipside: look, this guy is a pleb and beneath me, he never even went to university... _therefore_ his argument has no validity and I can dismiss it. It's just as much a fallacy. Maybe that guy has the IQ of a brick, but his argument is still sound, you can't address it, and so you address his lack of credentials.
What the heck are you talking about? If you disagree with someone they are "Pseudo Intellectuals"? Can people just have different thinking styles? If they try to simplify for the less intelligent they are held suspect? I have never been so confused by a DP video.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ just rebut the arguments.
I don't think anyone has time to talk about it for 3 hours
Then you need to fuck off because this type of vague hand-waving bullshit is worthless
I agree Peterson/Rubin/Shapiro/Harris need to fuck off with the hand-wavy explanations and begin describing mechanisms that back up their claims not just point to cherry picked stats
mrbouncelol go watch Douglas Lain's videos instead of making inane comments
"Pseudo-intellectual" is a term used by people who may be more accurately described as "pseudo-intellectuals", ironically. In all seriousness, it is a subjective term for dogmatic people to describe people they don't like. I could throw it around to describe Pakman and Lain... doesn't progress the argument.
I will never understand why people continue to push Sam Harris into these various groups of pseudo-intellectuals, together with Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Petersen?? Sam Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist, orator, thinker, proponent of atheism and critical thinking. Just because he's not spewing out concepts and ideas that are expected from him, since he comes from the left political spectrum, he's automatically a "pseudo-intellectual". This is why I like Sam Harris, Bill Maher and ultimately David Pakman, cause they're not PC and are not scared to point out problems that reside on our side of the political debate.
The same thing recently happened to Richard Dawkins when he tweeted a mild critique of the transgender people and was immidiately attacked as a fake and a transfobic person, and that he should retire from every brilliant thing he's doing to forward ideas of science over pseudo science, separation of church and state and free thinking.
The late and great Christopher Hitchens lost many friends when he supported the invasion of Iraq, and although I don't agree with him on this particular topic I respect people who ain't black or white. When you're a member of BLM you automatically have to be for defunding and abolishing police. To hell with the regressive Left.
The last thing I want to waste on time on is Jordan Peterson. No, no, no.
Rule 8, ''always tell the truth'' What a stupid fucking rule.
The pseudo-intellectual dark web.
There is a great swath of people who need to be told how to think. As religions fail, Peterson types, who have savior complexes, wish to fill the void.
So we have a critical theorist calling out pseudo intellectuals (really Peterson because Doug is obsessed) which is surreal, but the term is never defined and no examples given. Instead, Doug starts talking about how people on his ‘side’ (because he’s in the moral matrix) have just as appealing ideas about things too and many agree with Peterson,they just do it better or something.
anti intellectual have reached empty smear word status along with alt right and sexist. The fear and disorientation on the left mostly all because of Peterson is amazing to watch. The retreat into dogmatism is evident in these comment sections.
Anyway, Doug is being disingenuous. He knows as fact that Peterson is set to debate zizek in October. JP doesn’t know who he is.
Ich Du guess you missed the munk debate.
Ok Pakman, who are some actual intellectuals then?
Dude this guy is awesome, I love his channel
I was on board with Douglas Lain until he seemed to advocate getting rid of capitalism. I suppose I should read his book to find out what he imagines could replace capitalism, but regulated capitalism works better than any alternatives I’ve ever heard of. People want to be financially rewarded for their skills, labor and investments.
Night-kitchen Robo-chicken
Who was the individual that discovered that word pseudo-intellectual? And how did the individual fully understand it?
I know karl Popper talked about it a lot.
I don't think Peterson is right wing. And by calling him right wing, you leave him to be picked up the right. The left would benefit if they would engage him.
Nobody wants to be dumb.
I was really psyched to see this video, thinking it was finally the pseudoscience content the show's been talking about. Great video nonetheless.
Pseudo intellectualism is appealing because of “fear of missing out” theory. If you can create a school of thought, that was never constructed or thought of by no one else then you have jumped ahead of the curve. People hate missing out so theses pseudo intellectuals are racing each other to create new ideologies that were never thought of or constructed so they can be seen as a genius; but In actuality these theories are baseless, without evidence, and complete red herring falsehoods. It’s the same with conspiracy theories, people like creating them based on junk evidence just to say they discovered some hidden evidence, message or truth. Everyone wants top secret security clearance to get the juiciest information, but no one wants to do the work to get it.
Because they give simple answers in half truths that take more work to disspell than it takes to just spew out there.
Put simply what is needed is dialogue and moderation 💡
I wish I could expose and dispel such insidious treachery as easily as could be my logical rebuttal, being a weight lifting demonstration in which I use inflatable weights and claim equivalent strength to my opponent using actual weights.
Because they appeal to the dummies.
And I am immune to that because I am not a dummy.
Can everyone see that I am not a dummy ?
God it feels so good to not be stupid.
My farts smell like roses btw.
Douglas Lain should have gone more into the "ideas" of Peterson and how he would counter them (especially the role of family, of men and women). He somehow alluded there could be something valid to that critique?? I would darn love to hear his opinion, plain and straight!
Mircea Eliade could definitely beat up Jordan Peterson; that's my intellectual opinion. There's a rich debate in the culture.
Who do you consider pseudo-intellectual?
"pseudo-intellectual" = any intellectual I disagree with
Probably didn't watch the video. What are you afraid of? Keep an open mind and listen.
Pseudo-intellectual is is a nonintellectual who presents himself as an intellectual. Peterson is a pefect example of this. He finds convoluted ways of saying nothing of substance at all. Not to mention the loony conspiracy theories.
AgainstYourThought, "dismissive comment' = I don't have any intelligent criticism - btw, the phrase pseudo-intellectual has a meaning you would definitely benefit from understanding.
Soon they'll rebrand themselves as proponents of _alternative_ intellectualism.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
Douglas Lain- a real intellectual
In other words, David with his fancy BA and a "wannabe Marxist" science-fiction writer decide that people with more credentials, scholarly citations, and broad appeal are "pseudo-intellectuals". Seems legit.
Congratulations. With that appeal to authority, you have engaged in pseudo intellectualism yourself.
Actually no. It's not an appeal to authority because the credentials are relevant to the discussion. Pseudo-intellectuals don't usually become associate professors at Harvard, or teach at UofT for 20 years, or have 20-30,000 hrs of actual clinical practice in the field they teach, plus 10,000 scholarly citations in the scientific literature.
Meanwhile in David's realm RUclips, Peterson has double the subscribers, and it's difficult content, not bland "hot takes" on Trump and republicans. And who's this other guy? Did he sell a million non-fiction books in the last 6 months? No, he's a science fiction writer (maybe even a good one), but look at the facts-and it's pretty clear who the pseudo-intellectuals are by thinking they get to apply that label to others. I'm sad to see David devolve into this Sam Seder like crap which seems to come from a place of envy/jealousy of someone who's accomplished more than both of them ever will.
Naming your opponents as pseudo-intellectual makes me less inclined to listen to you. It comes off as a type of catharsis, or a way to simply tell yourself that you are better. An approach I would respect more is to acknowledge that there are legitimate intellectual viewpoints that oppose your own, and then just make good arguments that are convincing.
This guy is a Marxist, but he doesn't try to mischaracterize JBP and i feel he is intellectually honest. He is attacking the ideas not the man. That makes him different to 99% of the left. Even if he was a Marxist he could join the IDW if he remained with the ability to have honest debate and criticize ideas on both right and left.
Ich Du
Don't take this wrongly, but you have a cartoon view of right wing politics given to you by far leftists. For example, take one of my favorite commentators, Ben Shapiro. He has never personally attacked any of those groups you mentioned because they are a member of that group (with the exception of communists - that is an idea). Take another, Roger Scruton. I doubt you would find any personal attacks there either. Maybe some crazy Alex Jones type, but i can't see any political position he supports which could be called conservative. He is just anti-left and probably the opposite of people like Shapiro and Scruton.
I would encourage you to listen once or twice before you make up your mind on the right side. I think you'll find we are not the boogeymen you are looking for.
What makes a pseudo-intellectual? Why do you get to define what makes a person ‘pseudo’? Seems like you’re just resorting to attacking character over substance.
Dave’s guest is a pseudo-intellectual compared to Sam Harris.
This is disheartening... just because you disagree with someone why call them pseudoscience?? Critical theory is pseudoscience as well... whole field of philosophy is a pseudoscience btw.
The punchline here is that I am actually going to agree with people like David ideologically most of the time. HOWEVER, right off the bat to say it's that they don't rigorously debate and discuss various topics is factually dishonest. You are aware all of these people have podcasts whose formats are long form discussions, many exceeding 1-2 hours right? And these debates / discussions are with many of the top people in their respective fields of study - studies ranging from physics (like Sean Carroll), philosophy (Rebecca Goldstein) , genetics (Jennifer Doudna),... (do I really need to go on?(and this is just some of Sam's relatively recent guests)). Now I ask you to compare each of these guests just mentioned and Sam's own accomplishments against the likes of David Pakman and a guest like Douglas Lain and ask yourself - to what ideas are they applying this "pseudo intellectual" term?
What I really see here is that the tactic to apply an alt right identity or some other identity failed, so now let's see if "pseudo intellectual" identity sticks - so we can continue to play identity politics. My bet is that it is not going to work, and these folks will continue to accomplish much more than David and many of David's guests could ever even hope to.
Critical Theory with Doug, my favorite :) thank you David
Ok so there are some valid points here against Peterson and the general pseudo-intellectualist tactics of the right but I feel like it fails to strike at the heart of pseudo-intellectualism. It sort of traces the edges without really diving into it.
This is quite popular channel. Is there one single person that changed his/her mind from right leaning (or alt right if you want it so badly) to left/marxist/sjw leaning because of words of Pakman/Seder or whoever is most famous online figure for the left? If yes, why? Because it seems to me trend is other way around. That is why you try so desperately to dismiss the characters involved as pseudo intellectuals, tricksters, con men etc. It is like the left is not able to form coherent counter movement so you are just blabbering around with good old marxist weapons of smearing, name calling, smugness and dismissing. You are "the intellectuals" here after all, aren´t you? Meanwhile you are losing supporters big time. You lack modesty and are unwilling to challenge your own ideas and lost momentum while right wing has reformed itself to something more potent and willing to act. And it has exceeded you intellectually to the point average right winger can just piss on average leftie mule comfortably. You can boast how great Zizek or Chomsky are, how they would dominate Peterson or Harris, on the streets we dominate you easily. You don ´t even have leftie versions of Fleccas or Faith Goldy in the field, asking right wingers what they are about, you just dismiss them outright, like you dismiss their intellectuals. Seems to me like you have big trouble finding arguments to support your ideology, so personal attacks it is...
What the fuck does pseudo intellectualism even mean??
A good interview, thank you David Pakman Show team. The guest was intelligent, articulate and charismatic... I have encountered some of the right-wing anti-intellectuals and I wonder why people are drawn to them; it's evidently not charisma which attracts people to the anti-intellectuals, fingers being scratched down chalkboards come to mind when they speak.
David why did you fat shame Alex jones??
But the idea that this is a "movement" in it self is flawed.
Not everybody associated with "The Intellectual Dark Web" (stupid name) takes this as serious as Dave Rubin.
Sometimes you gotta crack a few pseudos to get to the amine.
The ORIGINAL Jordan Peterson Diss Track (a la Eminem Killshot) at: ruclips.net/video/l85hZdmK7-k/видео.html
Can you define pseudo intellectualism and what makes it different from a random RUclipsr political opinion commentator?
I prefer his term anti-SJW rather than anti intellectual, it's seems less biased or less politically motivated term. It's a fair characterization.
Pseudo intellectuals engage in needless jargon, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty. Pseudo-intellectuals usually also start from their conclusions, instead of letting evidence and critical thinking guide them or may have ulterior motives other than trying to reach truth or honestly communicate complicated things to the layman (profit is probably the most common ulterior motive.) I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between people who get mainstream media exposure and some random RUclipsr with 10k subscribers, they can both be intellectuals or pseudo intellectuals.
funny i just found a discussion with Peterson and Camille Paglia, since basically a lot of what Peterson is saying is cribbed from Paglia's writings and books from 25-30 years ago!
I think a better question is how can we tell if we are being psuedo-intellectual or actually intellectual. To the ignorant it seems no more than being in the social circle of scientists without any regard for what it is that scientists are actually doing. But when asked to extrapolate data from an incomplete set which we are bound to do because we are pattern recognition machines that never quite have all the data we are bound to jump to certain conclusions based on our own biased experience. Is psuedo-intellectualism no more than an attempt to make objective claims from subjective observation? If so how can we make the jump to objective observations from our subjective ones? I know it isn't as simple as everyone agreeing on the same thing that there is a more fundamental truth that we are all pointing to which is more important that we are pointing to it, but because we are human sometimes our certainties cloud how objective we are being. Then when someone objects to our claims it is so easy to just say that they are wrong because they are being less objective than us. In order to prevent psuedo intellectualism from muddying the waters of what to trust we would need to essentially prevent people from having confidence.
I don't know David - maybe ask your 473k subscribers why yours is so popular.
Ok, they keep talking about the pseudo intellectuals, but then again who are the real intellectuals on the right that are alive ? How about a couple of names.
5:28 here you can have the term i came up with: internectuals
Hurrr laame hahaha but nice try
David, you are right not to bring into the debate certain peoples names, since once the guest mentioned Sam Harris, I felt it wasn't quite fare to add him to the particular list he had. Sam's way of thinking and the books he's written, has made me a better thinker, I feel. He has some questionable ways of handling critique...but i feel like Sam is a true intellectual and mentioning him takes away from the real point you are trying to make.
What an extremely pompous and shallow argument laid out here. You are saying that their thoughts are pseudo-intellectualism because you disagree with them plain and simple. If you would be half-way intellectually honest you'd see that this group you're bunching together come from a wide range of points of view and frequently discuss and evaluate the merits of their positions. Most of what you point out about Jordan Peterson in your various videos for example are completely taken out of context or misrepresented. I would LOVE to see you have a discussion with any of them. I'm sure they would welcome the debate if presented to them. But I can see where you probably feel it's not worth your oh-so-intellectual brain to talk to them. Smug is the word out that cones to mind so far when I watch this. And I realize this is a petty observation, but it is an honest piece of advice, you really should consider dropping the "air quote" fingers, it's really annoying. Just my "opinion". Have a great day.
David, you asked to argue with your position and show how you are wrong with your point of view calling some conservatives are part of a pseudo-intellectualist movement. I have to agree with your assessment of some of these talking heads and I am also disturbed by much alt-right crap. Moly is terrible and I knew many who joined his cult up here in NH. GOP is actually not conservative leading to the expansion of big government in ICE, INS, and military. My problem though is that your argument appears to ignore private property rights which is a real concern when central planning. IMO, citizens are overtaxed from a way too big government which interferes with one's ability to actually make one's own way according to their own culture and individual choice along with less regulation when market choices become limited and expensive. This Socialist guy omits many concerns I think a more free citizen would have. Truth is not in one place so I come to your show but a Marxist did not enlighten me so far.
+HEY LOVE I+ BECAUSE I+ VINDICA+ES +HEIR OWN PREJUDICES & IGNORANCE