3 ms·

> Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." This should be emphasized more. I was dating a guy who claimed to be a critical thinker

by spoiler 11y ago

> Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." This should be emphasized more. I was dating a guy who claimed to be a critical thinker, which actually was worse than what you described here. Essentially, his definition of critical thinking was "agreeing with me." This--among ample other reasons--is why he is an ex. But later in life I realised it wasn't just him, a lot of other "intellectuals"[0], are like that. [0]: I've grown to snort and snicker when I hear the word lately. I believe anyone who calls himself (or someone else, because they've given themselves the authority to decide who is and who isn't) an intellectual, is a pompous little shit.

omegaham 11y ago
I do agree that anyone who calls himself an intellectual is probably a pompous idiot, but I'm mixed regarding calling other people intellectuals. The definition of "intellectual," as I see it, seems to be "Someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems." In and of itself, I think that this is a completely neutral concept, and I can name plenty of people who occupy that position. The issue is that intelligence (which is required to be an intellectual) is an intrinsically desirable trait, meaning that someone who is smart (even if they are nothing else) is often seen as more desirable or worth more than a less smart individual. More importantly, having this position implies leadership. If you're going to propose solutions, you're not very good at your job if no one is actually listening to you. And since we value leaders over followers, it follows that intellectuals are considered more valuable. This means that calling someone an intellectual doesn't just define them as "someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems" - it defines them as someone who has insight regarding society and proposes worthwhile solutions for its problems. This makes things weird. I can still call a shitty artist an artist. I can still call a shitty programmer a programmer. But when I call someone an intellectual, it's making a positive judgment regarding his ideas. After all, a shitty intellectual is just a guy with stupid ideas. And who am I, Omegaham, a random electron microscope technician from Oregon, to say that Noam Chomsky or Thomas Sowell has worthwhile ideas? I mean, I have opinions, but saying so definitively is way above my pay grade. As a result, the term is so screwed up by connotation that I tend to use "intellectual" exactly the same as you - sarcastically. For me, an "intellectual" is "someone who would call himself an intellectual," with all of the misguided arrogance that doing so implies.

by spoiler 11y ago

omegaham 11y ago

I do agree that anyone who calls himself an intellectual is probably a pompous idiot, but I'm mixed regarding calling other people intellectuals. The definition of "intellectual," as I see it, seems to be "Someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems." In and of itself, I think that this is a completely neutral concept, and I can name plenty of people who occupy that position. The issue is that intelligence (which is required to be an intellectual) is an intrinsically desirable trait, meaning that someone who is smart (even if they are nothing else) is often seen as more desirable or worth more than a less smart individual. More importantly, having this position implies leadership. If you're going to propose solutions, you're not very good at your job if no one is actually listening to you. And since we value leaders over followers, it follows that intellectuals are considered more valuable. This means that calling someone an intellectual doesn't just define them as "someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems" - it defines them as someone who has insight regarding society and proposes worthwhile solutions for its problems. This makes things weird. I can still call a shitty artist an artist. I can still call a shitty programmer a programmer. But when I call someone an intellectual, it's making a positive judgment regarding his ideas. After all, a shitty intellectual is just a guy with stupid ideas. And who am I, Omegaham, a random electron microscope technician from Oregon, to say that Noam Chomsky or Thomas Sowell has worthwhile ideas? I mean, I have opinions, but saying so definitively is way above my pay grade. As a result, the term is so screwed up by connotation that I tend to use "intellectual" exactly the same as you - sarcastically. For me, an "intellectual" is "someone who would call himself an intellectual," with all of the misguided arrogance that doing so implies.