#1
More info: Reddit They repeat what you already said, in a slightly different way, and act as if they’re adding to the discussion. They defensively tell people to “read a book” instead of answering a question. Image source: Kancer420, Mikhail Nilov
#2
They talk constantly and say nothing. Image source: Bhanghai, Monstera
#3
Using a Ben Shapiro style structure to arguing a point
- Speak fast * Construct straw men as fast as they get taken down * Win through endurance over intellect * Deflect, obfuscate, infuriate – Just get the other person to stop debating Image source: escape1979uk, Gage Skidmore
#4
They refuse to explain something in an easier/more understandable way when asked Image source: ctortan, SHVETS production
#5
They say “educate yourself” but don’t know the difference between blind peer reviewed studies and YouTube nonsense. Image source: anon
#6
If they listen to the usual Incel Mentors: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or any other online troll that sees differing opinions as a debate challenge and an affront to society. Image source: RevaniteN7, Gage Skidmore
#7
Making a series of discussion-worthy points about a topic. When responded to, selects one of three responses for an “auto victory” in their eyes:
- (RARE) They see that of 6 points they raised, you only directly addressed 5, they declare you couldn’t handle that extra point (even if it rested on the other 5 points being all perfectly true) and therefor they win the conversation. [This is rare because it requires them to read longer than the few words it takes to realize you disagree.]
- (Average) They repeat what they said the first time and claim you didn’t address any of their points because there is no response to them, they are objectively correct.
- (Frequent) “Post too long bro. Not gonna read it. Clearly I’m right if you can’t refute what I said in only a few words.” Image source: Mazon_Del, Armin Rimoldi
#8
They hyper-focus on a single source of wisdom or completely ignore their opponent’s perspective. Actual intellectuals read broadly, and the best intellectuals read things they disagree with. Edit: Talking about “read things they disagree with”… There is a difference between reading the influential works of opposing movements and browsing social media cesspools. I am disappointed that I have to clutter this post by clarifying. Image source: Jeutnarg, Keira Burton
#9
For me, it’s seeing people who can’t shift their beliefs/biases based on evidence Image source: meandering_simpleton, Keira Burton
#10
In internet debates, the trend in the past few years was just to just say, ‘I’m not reading all that’ when they encounter an argument they can’t counter. Image source: Anianna, Mizuno K
#11
They don’t validate the experiences of others, which are often backed by science or data, if they haven’t been through it themselves. Image source: anon, SHVETS production
#12
They can’t say they don’t know something. When pressed, they will deflect or fake their way through it. Somebody actually knowledgeable (no matter in what area) will also know the limits of their knowledge, and have the confidence to identify it when they reach it. Image source: chton, Karolina Grabowska
#13
Really intelligent people are very secure in their intelligence but fakers will most likely be trying to put others down to seem smarter. Image source: prettiergenghis, Budgeron Bach
#14
When they tell you their IQ. And it’s always suspiciously high. Image source: TrashPandaAntics, Liza Summer
#15
They debate and don’t let anyone else speak, and when someone does try to speak, the other person just talks louder and faster. Image source: https://www.reddit.com/user/usedxtampon/, Alex Green
#16
Being a contrarian. Automatically disagreeing with everything you hear isn’t any smarter than than believing everything. Image source: boooooooooo_cowboys, Tima Miroshnichenko
#17
Pseudo-intellectuals love to drop names of famous experts in the field, and will often do that in lieu of a real explanation when challenged to explain themselves. For example, “If you’re not familiar with the research of Lawrence and Krasden in this field, then it’s not worth my time to educate you”. In general, pseudo-intellectuals don’t like explaining concepts, because they’re afraid that they’ll explain the concept incorrectly and get shown up by somebody else. So they use all sorts of tactics to establish dominance, try to belittle you, and avoid giving a clearly worded explanation of their argument. Image source: Bizarre_Protuberance, ANTONI SHKRABA
#18
Image source: Sorvick, Ketut Subiyanto They absolutely cannot fess up to their own mistakes.
#19
They like to “debate” but shut down and get angry the second they get an unexpected question or have to think about their answer. Image source: verysleepymama,Timur Weber
#20
They parrot talking points without being able to discuss or understand the details of their arguments. Seen it all across the political spectrum. If all you are able to communicate are Twitter-length bullet points, then there is something wrong. I’ve tried to talk with people who are like a NPC in a video game, all they can do is repeat the same 3 generic statements on a topic. Similar to above the other sign is that their opinions are 100% exactly the same as either some person, movement, or religion. No nuance, no “shades of grey”, not even a slight disagreement on a particular point or two. Basically you have turned off your brain and someone else is thinking for you. Image source: Warthog__, Yan Krukov
title: “20 Things People Do That Indicate That They Are Faking To Be Smart” ShowToc: true date: “2024-09-04” author: “John Keller”
#1
More info: Reddit They repeat what you already said, in a slightly different way, and act as if they’re adding to the discussion. They defensively tell people to “read a book” instead of answering a question. Image source: Kancer420, Mikhail Nilov
#2
They talk constantly and say nothing. Image source: Bhanghai, Monstera
#3
Using a Ben Shapiro style structure to arguing a point
- Speak fast * Construct straw men as fast as they get taken down * Win through endurance over intellect * Deflect, obfuscate, infuriate – Just get the other person to stop debating Image source: escape1979uk, Gage Skidmore
#4
They refuse to explain something in an easier/more understandable way when asked Image source: ctortan, SHVETS production
#5
They say “educate yourself” but don’t know the difference between blind peer reviewed studies and YouTube nonsense. Image source: anon
#6
If they listen to the usual Incel Mentors: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or any other online troll that sees differing opinions as a debate challenge and an affront to society. Image source: RevaniteN7, Gage Skidmore
#7
Making a series of discussion-worthy points about a topic. When responded to, selects one of three responses for an “auto victory” in their eyes:
- (RARE) They see that of 6 points they raised, you only directly addressed 5, they declare you couldn’t handle that extra point (even if it rested on the other 5 points being all perfectly true) and therefor they win the conversation. [This is rare because it requires them to read longer than the few words it takes to realize you disagree.]
- (Average) They repeat what they said the first time and claim you didn’t address any of their points because there is no response to them, they are objectively correct.
- (Frequent) “Post too long bro. Not gonna read it. Clearly I’m right if you can’t refute what I said in only a few words.” Image source: Mazon_Del, Armin Rimoldi
#8
They hyper-focus on a single source of wisdom or completely ignore their opponent’s perspective. Actual intellectuals read broadly, and the best intellectuals read things they disagree with. Edit: Talking about “read things they disagree with”… There is a difference between reading the influential works of opposing movements and browsing social media cesspools. I am disappointed that I have to clutter this post by clarifying. Image source: Jeutnarg, Keira Burton
#9
For me, it’s seeing people who can’t shift their beliefs/biases based on evidence Image source: meandering_simpleton, Keira Burton
#10
In internet debates, the trend in the past few years was just to just say, ‘I’m not reading all that’ when they encounter an argument they can’t counter. Image source: Anianna, Mizuno K
#11
They don’t validate the experiences of others, which are often backed by science or data, if they haven’t been through it themselves. Image source: anon, SHVETS production
#12
They can’t say they don’t know something. When pressed, they will deflect or fake their way through it. Somebody actually knowledgeable (no matter in what area) will also know the limits of their knowledge, and have the confidence to identify it when they reach it. Image source: chton, Karolina Grabowska
#13
Really intelligent people are very secure in their intelligence but fakers will most likely be trying to put others down to seem smarter. Image source: prettiergenghis, Budgeron Bach
#14
When they tell you their IQ. And it’s always suspiciously high. Image source: TrashPandaAntics, Liza Summer
#15
They debate and don’t let anyone else speak, and when someone does try to speak, the other person just talks louder and faster. Image source: https://www.reddit.com/user/usedxtampon/, Alex Green
#16
Being a contrarian. Automatically disagreeing with everything you hear isn’t any smarter than than believing everything. Image source: boooooooooo_cowboys, Tima Miroshnichenko
#17
Pseudo-intellectuals love to drop names of famous experts in the field, and will often do that in lieu of a real explanation when challenged to explain themselves. For example, “If you’re not familiar with the research of Lawrence and Krasden in this field, then it’s not worth my time to educate you”. In general, pseudo-intellectuals don’t like explaining concepts, because they’re afraid that they’ll explain the concept incorrectly and get shown up by somebody else. So they use all sorts of tactics to establish dominance, try to belittle you, and avoid giving a clearly worded explanation of their argument. Image source: Bizarre_Protuberance, ANTONI SHKRABA
#18
Image source: Sorvick, Ketut Subiyanto They absolutely cannot fess up to their own mistakes.
#19
They like to “debate” but shut down and get angry the second they get an unexpected question or have to think about their answer. Image source: verysleepymama,Timur Weber
#20
They parrot talking points without being able to discuss or understand the details of their arguments. Seen it all across the political spectrum. If all you are able to communicate are Twitter-length bullet points, then there is something wrong. I’ve tried to talk with people who are like a NPC in a video game, all they can do is repeat the same 3 generic statements on a topic. Similar to above the other sign is that their opinions are 100% exactly the same as either some person, movement, or religion. No nuance, no “shades of grey”, not even a slight disagreement on a particular point or two. Basically you have turned off your brain and someone else is thinking for you. Image source: Warthog__, Yan Krukov
