As opposed to the unintelligent / intelligent criteria. I think it's more likely closer to being (at time of reading) positioned intellectually to (a) value a

As opposed to the unintelligent / intelligent criteria. I think it's more likely closer to being (at time of reading) positioned intellectually to (a) value a particular expression as having some level of profundity, vs (b) seeing the same expression as some level of complete and utter horse plop. I think there is often a meta level too, where the intellectual state is positioned at a crossroads of moving from the perception of profundity as bullshit, and subsequently, beginning to see certain (previously seen as) bullshit as profound. I think it's worth making the (obvious) case that intellectual life is not a fixed constant, and is infact a continuous organic, individual process. Generalising is as useless as it always is.