How do you actually tell that someone is well read instead of a pseud by just talking to them?

Ask them if they think the author's intent matters? Or simply ask them if they enjoy talking about any of the following: politics, sport, video games, tv, anime, comics

Right, but I think calling someone dumb or wrong is extremely pretentious, even if you do work within academia.

I’m just saying you having this idea makes you a little immature

It’s pronounced noocleur

being hung up on DOTA (which you undoubtedly havent actually read) is peak pseudery

Pseud identified

>calling someone dumb or wrong is extremely pretentious
have an intellectual backbone chap

Attached: 1521958013390s.jpg (250x233, 4K)

sneed

>Calling someone wrong is pretentious
Holy moly

If you talk to someone and they seem genuinely intersted in the conversation, there well read or at least not a psued. If they use the conversation has an opportunity to show how much they know, then they are psued.

well if they can look at a picture from the tv show "the simpsons" and not mention sneed they're a pseud.

If you're talking to somebody and they force the conversation into literature, they're probably a pseud. If you're talking to somebody and they try to force you to agree with them on an issue, probably a pseud. Force is generally my main red flag for pseuds. The real intellectuals I've met (or figure I've met) have always dipped in and out of subjects without really trying too hard or appearing to forcefully introduce a subject. This, of course, could also just mean I'm a brainlet.

You read their literary essays

Attached: A142D27B-9A6B-4D52-B93B-DE10A8E46F87.jpg (1936x2592, 2.42M)

this, my father is a pseud and always just generally talks about people and not their ideas, I'll start explaining some philosophical idea that so and so came up with and he'll just start talking about how smart the guy who wrote the idea is, not the idea itself.

>not being a lonely hermit who does nothing but reads is pseud

Simply ask them if they are familiar with S. Need’s work.

I find this to be true too. Most people who know what they are talking about *in general dont shit talk certain people. Of course, there are exceptions such as the famous Wittgenstein poker incident. Usually, it's easy to tell by the amount of intellectual arrogance. People who call authors dumb think they are smarter.

yes?

A well read person talks like an Encyclopedia with rhetorical merit. He doesn't neeed to get passionate and dramatical since he knows the subject and its context in and out and every argument an opponent could bring up he either already has had in mind or can safely be disregarded as pointless.

I think you can always sense disingenuousness with pseuds. I always love talking to people who obviously have all the knowledge at their finger-tips but struggle to find it all when they need it - the kind of stumbling and tip-of-the-tongue conversation which betrays a much deeper pool of knowledge lying just below the surface that is just bursting to get out. I think, with pseuds, there isn’t the same disorder, because their talking points are artificial, manufactured and manicured. They can articulate well, but narrowly.

I'm a pseud and hate well read people. Get a life you're fucking 20. Boring people.

>not ditching DOTA for the infinitely superior intentional fallacy
You are like a child

This
The whole “intellectuals talk fast” is a meme, the ones who are actually engaging with the content won’t just take their time but actively struggle with their language to make it say precisely what they mean it to. If you’re not spending most of your discussion time gesturing aimlessly and stuttering, you’re not thinking deeply enough about the subject.

Pseuds have no humility, it's fairly easy to tell by the way they approach topics. The say their dogma and are done with it, they're not interested at all in having dialogue. They're afraid of putting themselves on the line, or incapable because they never thought about it, they just read an argument presented to them by someone they think is smart and went with that to seem smart themselves

you should have already thought about it on your own time, so you dont stutter when trying to explain it. stuttering comes from either anxiety or not having thought out what you want to say before hand.

You may not be privy to this information I’m about to tell you, user, but sometimes people actually have conversations where they don’t write a script out for all their answers like a fucking autist.

They're elitist about reading books
Almost anyone can read words, stop being proud of it

Attached: 7af.jpg (353x334, 19K)

Nice take in it but you can't always tell someone's power level from their elocution, not least because a lot of truly smart people are practiced with intelligent discourse and often have occasions to speak about their ideas. Think of a leading physicist who alos teach high-level courses in uni, he would be rather proefficient at explaining some of his knowledge (obviously not all) to people, unless he's one of those autistic profs who don't make any effort.

Biggest giveaway for me has always been their denial to delve into ideas they don't agree with. Also, when presented with a postulate, they'll deny it on face value rather than examining the possibilities in good faith, even if at face value the postulate seems near impossible.

Is it just me or is this board going more and more the way of /fit/ with its 'lookism'? I suppose it is the natural tendency in this era of total commodification for all interests to lean progressively towards and affectation, a bauble to bandy. The /fa/ification of all life is the late totality. Fuck you.

That's gay I choose Voltaire

that's a person who, on the dunning-kruger scale, is at 60-70% knowledge on a topic and low confidence. the worst kind of pseud desu

It's not pretentious to say somebody is wrong if you can reasonably and clearly state why you think they're wrong.

Theres plenty of well read pseuds, being well read doesnt mean much in itself

Just clicked this thread from the main page, not a frequenter of this board.
If I'm understanding correctly, you're assuming some sort of moral high-ground and calling others below that "pseuds?"

Have you considered the irony of a put-down culture revolving around your own assumed righteousness?

Im more partial To C.Huck, although he is a bit more obscure than that of S.Need. I see Needs work more as an introduction to that of Hucks, as Need is very literal in his writings, while Hucks more often than not gives you the guidelines and ideas to branch out into your own thought, both are worth a read though.
I recommend Hucks essay: Sun and Furtivity.

>you're assuming some sort of moral high-ground
>everything must derive from morality
goddamn anglos are beyond redemption.. fuck off pseud, this board isn't for you

You sound like a retard

You are one.

What?

Fuck off.

I thought that there would be some level of intellectual rigor here. It seems that I was mistaken.

They feel they need to namedrop authors, philosophers and books they haven't read constantly.

lmfao i hope this guy sticks around, what a brainlet

Kek

lmao

If they're like Yea Forums then they're not well-read.

Why?

Cringe.

No you shouldn't, the point of a dialogue is to improve your thinking by engaging or clashing with another point of view. Having predetermined buzz phrases is pointless because 1) the other person may not be familiar with the terminology, 2) there's no guarantee that your ideas will be relevant in a one-size-fits-all kind of way and 3) only pseuds spend their free time planning out exactly how they're going to say something before a discussion (unlike a genuinely intelligent person, who will use the spark of inspiration that comes from discussion to talk about the subject in an innovative light). If you think you're saying things with absolute clarity and precision all the time without reconsidering your statements, then you're being pretty unreflective for a supposed 'intellectual'.

No, that's autism.

This is true, but then again there shouldn't really be any expectation that a professor is a pseud as their doctorate is a pretty clear indicator that they've put the work in. If we're talking about a general discussion with friends or colleagues then there's certainly a difference in how an intelligent person would approach a topic– only pseuds speak with absolute authority in a colloquial environment.

This is a good answer. People who are genuinely interested will want to get deeper into a topic and the debates within it. Pseuds have their pre-selected opinion and stick to only that.