|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Intellectualizing?
Disclaimer: Straightaway, I must make it very clear that I am in no way claiming to be an intellectual, or even especially smart (no, sir. "I are smart-less"). This topic exists solely to study this phenomenon known (somewhat ironically) as intellectualizing.
First off...for my benefit, mostly...This is the definition I am thinking of... (Taken from dictionary.com) Intellectualize: to ignore the emotional or psychological significance of (an action, feeling, dream, etc.) by an excessively intellectual or abstract explanation. Mmm. Maybe that definition isn't exactly what I was thinking of, but... *Shrug* I was just thinking about this because it is something I've experienced many times. It seems like many people intellectualize in order to prove their point, or even win an argument. By complicating an issue and using many long, confusing words (nothing wrong with long, confusing words, mind you. I quite enjoy them: ambiguous, convoluted, nefarious, etc.), people often go soaring over the simple truth of the matter, perhaps just to avoid being wrong and having to admit defeat--to admit that the other person is right and they are wrong. And it's not just using long words; it's also being so vague that there is nothing certain or concrete about what a person is saying. As in the definition, "by excessively intellectual or abstract explanation." This "tactic" for winning a debate often works and I end up submitting to this nameless intellectualizer (partly due to my obsequious - um - timid nature). *Sniffs* So, why do you think that people feel the need to intellectualize? Why is it so difficult to admit defeat? Why do fools fall in love? Why, oh, why? ¿Por qué, oh, por qué? -El Fin- Jam it back in, in the dark. |
It's not just enough to have a good argument. A good presentation is important too and some believe that if you don't sound smart, you aren't smart.
There's been a backlash against it, here in the US at least. How else would you explain George Bush? He may be quite smart, but he sounds just about as dumb as a rock and he gives things to you like he was writing a greeting card, not setting national policy. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
I remember reading an article a couple of years ago called How Not to Get Bamboozled. It talks about political languages, and uses of none-specific, and usually by itself meaningless (or have imprecise meaning) words. There are implication within a context for languages, and the context may imply certain meaning in a word while in fact doesn't have much substance. In that sense, I think Bush is a master at this. I think the backlash is actually against the use of imprecise and political language that by itself doesn't have specific meaning.
Although in terms of debates, its usually throwing your debate opponent into a loop and setup logical fallacy to have them walk into it. The use of political language in this context usually require almost endless qualifier and clarification. It might not be the best way to get the point across. I remember a guy that came in here and just do this endless, ENDLESS logical argument that doesn’t’t really go anywhere. Was his name Thomas or something? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
♪♡
Thanks Seris!
Last edited by Magi; Dec 5, 2006 at 02:07 AM.
|
Sounding smart and being smart may or may not be the same thing. However, having the ability to subtly, or remarkably, change a subject just by bending words and being abstract proves that you at least have SOME degree of intelligence. It just doesn't in any way prove that you know what you're talking about. Nowadays, there are many people out there who are so skilled at using their own language, or other languages for that matter, that they can turn the tides of almost any conversation without necessarily knowing anything about the subject being processed. It is a skill in itself, but the user of this skill may or may not, in fact, be dumb as hell.
The reason for intellectualizing might be that many people only see things in black and white. They choose a side and stick with it until the end. Or maybe their pride is hurt and they want to get even at the opposition, at all costs? I believe there are many reasons for one to intellectualize and we can, if we want to study the subject closer, observe all the ongoing threads on this, or any other forum, where there's an argument between two or more parties. Who sticks to the subject and who is trying to bend it to their favor? Am I that guy? The kind that tries to intellectualize to win an argument? I try to think that I am not, seeing as I try to admit when I'm wrong instead of stubbornly going on about a lost cause. I am stubborn, though, and it might take a while for me to realize that I was wrong. How ya doing, buddy?
Last edited by Sword Familiar; Dec 5, 2006 at 02:06 AM.
|
The reason "intellectualizing," as you put it, is used is quite simply because it works--at least much of the time. If you mask your argument with ambiguities, big and less-often used words, and generally don't make it clear on what premise you're basing your assertions, it makes it awfully difficult for someone to tear the argument apart, unless they happen to have a dictionary handy, and are pretty familiar with logical fallacies.
Bush has already been mentioned, but I would like to also point him out as an example of the counterpositive of this. Whereas if you sound really slick you can actually get away with quite a bit in terms of faulty reasoning, if you are not articulate, people generally assume you're a moron, and, as I have observed numerous times in discussions about Bush, may have your opinions criticized on this point alone. However, that said, even if you don't understand all of the vocabulary that is often thrown around by someone "intellectualizing" their way through an argument, if you have a pretty good grasp over rules of evidence and logic, you can still tear an argument to shreds. I was speaking idiomatically. |
In truth, the easiest way to counter intellectualizing is to be an intellectual yourself. It's easier to call somebody out for not knowing what they're talking about when you're familiar with the subject, and as Ridan pointed out, possess a fine understanding of logic.
Sometimes you have to be well-read to know when you're being fed bullshit. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Of course, but then it's always the ideas that are the most important.
Most amazing jew boots |
I know I hate walls of text as much as the next person, but this is a superb essay I read a little while ago about bullshit.
How ya doing, buddy? |
I stopped at "Everyone Lies:"
I know a lot of people who do this. Especially at my school. You ask a question, they answer in a series of BIG words that make them sound as if they know what they are talking about. To the unwary observer, they might seem to sound/look smart. But if you carefully listen, they're just repeating themselves over and over again. One time, a classmate of mine spent a good 15 minutes discussing the water cycle. Half of it made no sense. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Larry Oji, Super Moderator, Judge, "Dirge for the Follin" Project Director, VG Frequency Creator |
As for intellectualizing, I think we need to make an additional distinction. I think being precise with language is a virtue and not something at which to be scoffed. We don't complicate issues: most issues are complicated, plain and simple. Complicated issues require complex problem-solving, which requires precise language. Precision with language seems to be different from political speech, in which we battle over the mere names of phenomena in order to elicit a certain emotional response from the people. Example: are Islamists who blow up buildings 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters'? The average person hates terrorists, but loves freedom. Whichever side wins the war of words wins the war for popular support. Or, facts are chosen selectively in order to produce polling data which supports a given position. Precision with language seems different than political speech. For example, the term 'hypothetico-deductive method' is not used to elicit some emotional response, nor is its intrinsic purpose to make a person sound smarter than he really is or to speak nonsense. Instead it aptly names and delineates a commonly understood method of doing science. Using big words to sound smart is one thing: using precise language is another. But if we do not understand what the person is saying, then how can we judge whether they are merely trying to sound smart or whether they are being precise? ISTM that when one comes across such a person, the best thing to do is to become more informed on the particular issue, learn the terminology, and then re-examine the argument to see whether the person genuinely knew the topic or whether he was deceiving his opposition. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Hmm. Intellectualization is, I think, attempted by most people with education enough to support it, at least in circles that I've been in. Taking the definition as noted up top, it seems like many people use it as the fall-back debate style if they run out of actual points to make, and some people fluff things up using intellectualization just to stroke their own egos. It's an effective form of argument in many cases, and especially online, simply because you can run over people with word-power.
That being said, the most convincing arguments are often direct and uncluttered, simple and precise. Precision of language does go a long way, but it has to be uninhibited by the language surrounding it. You can make your point as pointful as you want, but if no one can find it, you may as well not make a point. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Wark! |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by Phleg; Jan 8, 2007 at 10:58 AM.
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Wark! |
You know, if I hadn't mistakenly wandered into the sewer many, many moons ago, that comment would have flown about twelve feet over my head.
A hearty ROFL to you, Brady Good to see you again. Figuratively speaking. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
How very formal. Also a pleasure from this end.
FELIPE NO |
Wark! |
You know I've got to do one of these sappy reunion "oh my god I haven't seen you in ages how are your kids and is your job going well and look at you in that cute yellow dress where did you buy it!?" kind of things every time I come back for a week.
How ya doing, buddy? |
Why not just pull up a stool and grab a guinness?
Jam it back in, in the dark. Posting without content since 2002. |
Wark! |
I'll pop open an Ayinger Celebrator or McEwans Scotch Ale if it's all the same to you
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Sure, but stouts are so smooth.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. Posting without content since 2002. |