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.

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?

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.

Quote:

http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay53.htm

Everyone lies: it’s just a question of how, when and why. From the relationship saving “yes, you do look thin in those pants” to the improbable “your table will be ready in 5 minutes”, manipulating the truth is part of the human condition. Accept it now.

I'm positive that given our irrational nature and difficultly accepting tough truths, we’re collectively better off with some of our deceptions. They buffer us from each other (and from ourselves), avoid unnecessary conflicts, and keep the wonderful confusion of our psychologies tucked away from those who don’t care. White lies are the spackle of civilization, tucked into the dirty corners and crevices our necessary, but pretentiously inflexible idealisms create. Small lies prop up and support our powerful truths, holding together the insanely half honest, half false chaos that spins the world.

But lies, serious lies, should not be encouraged as they destroy trust, the binding force in all relationships. One particularly troublesome kind of lie is known as Bullshit (BS). These are unnecessary deceptions, committed in the gray area between polite white lies and complete malicious fabrications. BS is usually defined as inventions made in ignorance of the facts, where the primary goal is to protect oneself. The aim of BS isn’t to harm another person, although that often happens collaterally. For a variety of reasons BS can be hard to detect, which is why I’m offering this missive as a crash B.S. in BS detection. But be warned: to keep you on your toes there are several bits of BS tucked inside this essay which you will have to find for yourself.
Why people BS: a primer

The first lie in the Western canon comes from the same joyful tome as the first murders, wars and plagues: the Old Testament. Despite my distaste for trips into religious texts, this one has supreme tragicomic value.

To recap from the book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge, as pretty as it is, for they’ll die. He wanders off to do some unexplained godlike things, as gods are prone to do, leaving the very tempting, and non pit-bull or electrified fence protected, tree out for all to see. Meanwhile Satan slinks by and convinces Eve apples are good: so she and Adam have an apple snack. God instantly returns, scolds Adam, who blames Eve; resulting in everyone, snakes, people and all, getting thrown out of Eden forever.

Please note that in this tale nearly everyone lied. God lied[1], or was deceptively ambiguous, about the apples (they weren’t fatal), Satan misrepresents the apple’s power, and Adam, approximates a lie in his wimpy finger pointing to Eve. It’s a litany of deception and a cautionary tale: in any book that makes everyone look bad in just a few pages, is it really a surprise how the rest plays out?

People lie for three reasons; the first is to protect themselves. They may wish to protect something they want or need, a concept they cherish, or to prevent something they fear, like confrontation. There is often a clear psychological need motivating every lie.

A well known fib, “the dog ate my homework”, fits the BS model. In the desperate fear driven attempt not to be caught, children’s imaginations conceive amazing improbabilities. Fires, plagues, revolutions, curses, illnesses and absurd reinventions of the laws of physics and space-time have all been summoned by children around the world on the fateful mornings when they find themselves at school, sans-homework. It’s an emotional experience, this need to BS: as logically speaking, the stress of inventing and maintaining a lie is rarely easier than accepting the consequences of the truth.

Which leads to the second reason people lie: sometimes it works. It’s a gamble, but when it works, wow. Did you lie to your parents about girls, boys, fireworks, drugs, grades, or where you were till 2am on a school night? I sure did and still do. My parents still think I’m a famous painter / doctor / professor in London (shhh), and my best friend still believes his high school girlfriend and I didn’t get it on every time I borrowed his car[2]. Even my ever faithful dog Butch used to lie, in his way, by liberating trash from a house-worth of garbage cans, then hiding in his bed, hoping his lack of proximity to the Jackson Pollock of refuse that was formerly my kitchen would be indistinguishable from innocence.

Which gives us the third reason people lie, a truth saints and sinners have known for ages: we want to be seen as better than we see ourselves. Sadly, comically, we also believe we’re alone in both having this temptation, as well as the shame it brings with it (e.g. "We're not alone in feeling alone"). The secret truth is everyone has moments of weakness: times when fear and greed melt our brains and we’re tempted to say the lies we wish were true. And for that reason the deepest honesty is found in people willing to admit to their lies, or their barely resisted temptations, and own the consequences. Not the pretense of the saints, who pretend, incomprehensibly, inhumanly, to never even have those urges at all.

Ok, enough philosophy: lets get to detection.
BS detection

The first rule of BS is to expect it. Fire detectors are designed to expect a fire at any moment: they’re not optimists. They fixate on the possibility of fires and that’s why they save lives. If you want to detect BS you have to swallow some cynicism, and add some internal doubt to everything you hear. Socrates, the father of western wisdom, based his philosophy around the recognition, and expectation, of ignorance. It’s far more dangerous to assume people know what they’re talking about, than it is to assume they don’t and let them prove you wrong. Be like Socrates: assume people are unaware of their own ignorance (including yourself) and politely, warmly, probe to sort out the difference.

The first detection tool is a question: How do you know what you know?

Throw this phrase down when someone force feeds you an idea, an argument, a reference to a study or over-confidently suggests a course of action. People so rarely have their claims challenged, that asking someone to explain how they know sheds light on whatever ignorance they’re hiding. It instantly diminishes the force of a BS driven opinion. It works well in response to the following examples:
# "The project will take 5 weeks". How do you know this? What might go wrong that you haven't accounted for? Would you bet $10k on this claim? $100k?
# "Our design is groundbreaking." Really? What ground is that? And who, besides the designers/investors, has this opinion?
# "Studies show that liars' pants are flame resistant.." What studies? Who ran them and why? Did you actually read the study or a two sentence press clipping (poorly) explaining the results? Are there any studies that claim the opposite?

When you ask a flavor of “how do you know what you know?” often they can't answer quickly. Even credible thinkers need time to sort through their logic, separating assumptions from facts: an an exercise that works in everyone’s favor.

Of course it's fine to hear: "This is purely my opinion" or “It's a guess, as we have no data", but those are far weaker claims that most people, especially if they’re making stuff up, typically make. Identifying someone's opinion as speculation, rather than fact, disarms the threat of most kinds of BS.

The second tool is also a question: What is the counter argument?

Anyone who has seriously considered something will have seen enough facts to fit their current argument as well as alternative position: ask for them. It’s a grade school assignment, intended to show there are many reasonable ways to interpret the same set of facts. However, someone who is bullshitting you won’t have researched or thought through anything: they’re making things up. Asking for the counter argument will force them to either back up their position, or to end the discussion until they’ve done due diligence. (If they claim there is no counter argument, end the discussion. They are not only BS’ing you, they think you’re a moron).

Similarly useful questions include: Who besides you shares this opinion? What are your biggest concerns, and what will you do to address them? What would need to change for you to have a different (opposite) opinion?
Time & Pressure

A good thought holds together. Its solid conceptual mass maintains its shape no matter how much you poke, probe, test and examine. But BS is all surface. Like a magician’s bouquet of flowers, it's pretty as it flashes past your eyes, but its absence of integrity become obvious when you hold it in your hands. Anyone creating BS knows this, and will tend towards urgency. They’ll resist reviews, breaks, consultations or the suggestion of sleeping on decisions before they’re made.

Use time & pressure, the third tool of BS detection, in your favor: never allow big decisions to be mismanaged to the point where they must be made urgently. Ask to withhold judgment for a day, and watch the response. Invite people with expertise you need but don’t have to participate in decisions to add intellectual and domain pressure (Hiring them if necessary. The $500 you pay a lawyer, accountant or consultant to review something effectively becomes a well spent BS insurance fee).

Be a leader in creating an environment unpleasant for BS. If everyone knows the gauntlet of friendly, but rigorous, intellectual curiosity claims must run through, BS will be discouraged while still in the minds of the tempted.
Confidence in reduction

Especially in business and technology, jargon and obfuscation hide huge quantities of BS. Inflated language is a technique of intimidation. The bet is that if you don't understand what they're talking about, you'll feel stupid, or distracted, and give in to the appearance of their superior knowledge. This is, of course, entirely bullshit. To withstand BS you have to have an inner core of self-reliance, holding on to your doubts longer than the BS'er holds onto their charade.

For example:

Our dynamic flow capacity matrix has unprecedented downtime resistance protocols.

If you don't understand what the hell this means, err on your own side. Don't assume you're missing something: assume they are. They're either hiding something, communicating poorly, or don't themselves understand what they're talking about. BS deflating responses include:
# I refuse to accept this proposal until I, or someone I trust, fully understands it.
# Explain this in simpler terms I can understand (repeat if necessary).
# Break this into pieces you can verify, prove, compare, or demonstrate for me.
# Are you trying to say "our network server has a backup power supply?" If so, can you speak plainly next time?
Assignment of trust

The forth tool of BS detection (derived from the rule of expecting BS) is careful assignment of your trust. Never agree to more than your trust allows. Who cares how confident they are: the question is how confident are you in them? It’s rare that there isn’t time for trust to be earned. Divide requests, projects or commitments into pieces. It's not offensive to refuse to take someone's word if they have no history of living up to it before (especially if they're trying to sell you something).

And trust can be delegated. I don’t need to trust you, if you’ve earned the trust of people I trust. Anyone skilled in the BS arts has obtained that skill through practice, diminishing the odds that many BS-proof people have been successfully deceived by them in the past. Nothing defuses BS faster than a collective of people that help each other detect and eliminate BS. If a team of people witnesses the complete evisceration of someone's BS few will attempt it again: they'll know your world is a BS free zone. Great teams and families help each other detect bullshit, both in others and themselves, as sometimes the real BS we need to fear is our own.

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.

Quote:

Magi:
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?

Did anyone refute my arguments or show me where I was guiding my opponents into positions that they didn't need to take? You might think that the argument produces counter-intuitive results, but that does not negate the force of the argument. If the argument is a bad one, then people should have no problem finding a faulty premise or two. If anything is sophistry, it is the attack upon individuals instead of arguments, and not merely the act of being long-winded.

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.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

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.

Perhaps it's a tactic grown out of favor with you new breed, but I always preferred a long drawn-out quote war to frustrate and fatigue my opponents, thus ensuring my default victory once they've stopped responding to my lunacy.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

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."

Kinda like most marketing blurbs...

Originally Posted by Dumb Company

Avanade is the only global IT solutions consultancy 100 percent dedicated to using the Microsoft platform to help enterprises achieve profitable growth. Through proven solutions that extend Microsoft products, Avanade helps enterprises increase revenue, reduce costs, and reinvest in innovation to gain competitive advantage.

We partner with our customers to create new products and services, serve their customers better, streamline operations, and optimize collaboration across all groups and boundaries. Our consultants deliver value according to each customer’s requirements, timeline and budget by combining insight, innovation and the talent of our global workforce, which includes the industry’s most extensive offshore community of Microsoft technology experts.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

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*

Well you are a festizio! See, I can make up words too, sister.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

So, why do you think that people feel the need to intellectualize?

Quite simply, because some people give little or no value to things with purely emotional and psychological experience benefits. Especially in politics: do we give money to poor people because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, or do we discuss the difficult economic questions behind such a practice? It's a fair question.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

Why is it so difficult to admit defeat?

Internet penis sizing contests are a difficult thing to lose. I mean, it would kill me if people online had concrete proof that my glans is a hair shorter than someone else's.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dent

Why do fools fall in love?

Same reason you normal people do, I suppose. For the great make-up sex.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Internet penis sizing contests are a difficult thing to lose. I mean, it would kill me if people online had concrete concrete proof that my glans is a hair shorter than someone else's.

My status in this regard is already well-established, therefore I have nothing to lose.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

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.

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.