Which is more common? Pseudo intelligence or true intelligence?

I see a lot of people trying to act smart. They don't sound smart. They have an idea of something in their head but when they talk it comes out wrong.

Then, I also see people who are able to speak fluently. They don't make stuff up.

Yet I see people who try to sound smart. These are the pseudo-intellectual people They don't really understand something yet they think they do but they're wrong.

Which is more common? I know there are a lot of stereotypes that show people here in the United States to be more of the pseudo intellectual type... but I'm not sure.

Well, from my experience, most people are neither. A sad commentary is the fact that in this day and age, most people aren't well-read enough to be either one.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You're right. I haven't been to other countries yet, but here in the U.S. psuedo-intellectualism is worshiped and marketed.

I'm not sure if it's pseudo intelligence that is 'running rampant' or that it is real intellect at work on faulty info. I meanintellect is nothing more than connecting the dots logically and understanding. If the dots are made out of dis-info the connections made are useless and even though people will try to connect them as logically as possible no 'smart' conclusion will come out of it.

The result is the same though, people convinced over the 'fact' that they have the correct information and connected them as such while other people have tried to connect other information about the same subject and get to a different conclusion.

And maybe people are scared to admit that there are unknowns in the world and just fill in the blanks for themselves so that they can feel secure in thinking to know that they have all the answers.

Everybody has this problem on some level or another.

I think that's what I call the difference between street smart and book smart. "Street smart" being where one has a lot of common sense and social skill. They can bs their way through anything without really knowing what they're talking about. "Book Smart" would tend to be the opposite. Well read, knows a lot about everything, can't stand up socially/ in public/ in business to save their lives.

I have twin brothers and they perfectly exemplify each side of the above.

It's a defense mechanism and it's more about security than intelligence. I'd much rather try to understand why we do things than to criticize the things we do. It seems so easily forgotten that the only difference between intelligence (mental skills) and knowledge (mental facts) is the exchange of ideas.

I'm probably gonna get slammed for this, but what the hell...

Is there honestly a difference? Dress them up all you want, they both require a belief in the subject, and in the people who inform you of the subject. 'Pseudo' science, is usually referred to when a concept in science isn't accepted, for instance, 'anti-gravity' (hate that term) or gravity manipulation, is considered pseudo science by most, yet is is gaining more validity within the mainstream, was it ever wrong? and suddenly become right? No, it's peoples opinions and belief that change, not the idea itself.

So what is 'pseudo-science' today, may very well be 'science' tomorrow, so I try not to distinguish.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


I think that's a great point. It makes sense to separate what we speculate from what we can prove, but being judgmental about it is ridiculous simply because we don't know everything. But if time has demonstrated one thing it is that human assumptions are a constant.