Introduction

Taxonomy of Pseudo-Intellectualism A neoBuddhist Perspective

A critique of Am I a Pseudo-Intellectual? With bonus content: Taxonomy of Pseudo-Intellectualism

What is a pseudo-intellectual, and what makes an intellectual if education or qualifications do not? In this video, I build on two other videos who discuss the topic and ask the question: is there any benefit to identifying pseudo-intellectuals, or is the really something we should be more self-aware about?

0:00 okay so the other day I got a comment
0:03 which started off with the following
0:04 sentence you're a s of a pseudo
0:07 intellectual Academia living in hyper
0:10 reality and after reading the full
0:13 comment which went even more purple in
0:15 it Pros I couldn't help but sort of
0:17 laugh at the rather poetic irony of
0:19 someone employing that verbiage to call
0:21 me the pseudo intellectual one but you
0:24 know what it caught me thinking I can't
0:26 think to myself am I a pseudo
0:28 intellectual because you see I always
0:30 presumed that the base requirement of a
0:33 pseudo intellectual would be an
0:35 ungrounded and unfounded belief that one
0:38 was an intellectual in the first place

Here we begin not with inquiry but with a catalytic insult, thrown like a Zen master's stick across the student's shoulders. This moment—the insult that provokes reflection—is a modern koan. The insultor uses the very mechanisms of pseudo-intellectualism (complex jargon, vague accusation, ideological flair) to accuse another of it.

“Hyper reality”? Baudrillard is spinning like a gyroscope in his grave.

The speaker then reflects:

“…an ungrounded and unfounded belief that one was an intellectual in the first place”

Here’s the seed of our first core neoBuddhist distinction:

🔹 Delusion of identity ≠ commitment to inquiry
🔹 Self-labeled intellect ≠ cultivated wisdom through virtuous engagement

This touches on Māna (pride), and the illusion of svabhāva (inherent self-nature). The pseudo-intellectual does not err merely in content, but in epistemic positioning—a confusion of what they are with how they know.

0:41 at which you know based on my many many
0:42 many many videos that I've made
0:44 discussing my intellectual fadings from
0:46 fading my exams to fading my PhD
0:48 effectively from not being able to read
0:50 to reading too slowly Etc I always
0:52 thought it was sort of pretty obvious
0:54 that I think quite lowly of my
0:55 intelligence and thus as such I couldn't
0:59 possibly be running in the label for
1:01 pseudo intellectual but then it kind of
1:03 got me thinking whilst the term is used
1:06 quite liberally online I don't really
1:09 know what constitutes as a pseudo
1:11 intellectual and I don't know what
1:12 constitutes as an intellectual in the
1:14 first place see in my head there are
1:17 many layers of a scale of intelligence
1:19 as it were which is made entirely by
1:21 myself subconsciously with no basis in
1:23 research whatsoever I had literally
1:25 developed the scale without even
1:27 realizing it and it's only when I
1:29 received this comment that I ever it
1:30 provoked the thought in my mind so at
1:32 the bottom of the scale I sort of put
1:33 clever like clever people and then A
1:36 step above that I would say was academic
1:38 and then A step above that I would say
1:40 would be intellectual and then ultimate

[TRANSCRIPT: 0:41–1:40]

“I think quite lowly of my intelligence… and thus I couldn’t possibly be running the label for pseudo-intellectual”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Now this is delightful. The logic goes: “I suffer from imposter syndrome, therefore I must be safe from pseudo-intellectualism.”
But that is precisely what makes pseudo-intellectualism so slippery: it does not require arrogance—it only requires performance divorced from substance.

The speaker may underestimate themselves in private, while projecting authority in public. This disconnect is what matters karmically, not self-perception alone.

1:43 step above that was genius now I've
1:45 always put myself in the clever realm
1:47 sort of thing I was like I'm clever you
1:48 know I'm kind of book smartish but
1:50 nothing really exceptional nothing more
1:52 profound than that and yet somehow
1:54 despite my openness of my short Falls my
1:56 academic failure and kind of my
1:58 inability to spell pronounce words
2:00 things my dyslexia all that stuff I
2:01 still gave off the impression that I
2:04 considered myself intellectual and thus
2:06 rightly so that would make me a suit
2:07 intellectual because there's a huge gap
2:09 between clever and intellectual but what
2:11 makes an intellectual and is there a
2:12 difference between intellectuals and
2:15 academics or intellectuals and Geniuses
2:17 and intellectuals and those who are
2:19 clever but obviously there is a scale
2:21 that we all apply subconsciously and

[1:40–2:21]

“…there are many layers of intelligence… clever → academic → intellectual → genius”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Behold! A folk taxonomy born of intuition, not academic rigor—and yet, deeply valuable.

What the speaker does here—privatizing the scale of knowledge—is both profoundly honest and simple. It reminds me of the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures in Zen: one must first see the ox (clever), then capture it (academic), then return to the marketplace with gift-bestowing hands (intellectual), and finally disappear entirely (genius through wisdom).

neoBuddhism might expand it thusly:

Intellectual Hierarchy according to neoBuddhism

2:24 people do treat these words differently
2:26 even though they're sort of in the same
2:27 realm so take for example uh the the
2:30 figure Jordan Peterson Jordan Peterson
2:32 is an academic and one could be like
2:34 Jordan Peterson and be an academic but
2:36 one of the most common insults I see
2:38 online well there's quite a few insults
2:40 to be fair but one of them is that he is
2:42 a pseudo intellectual I've seen that
2:44 used quite a lot when people discuss
2:45 Jordan Peterson particularly in critical
2:47 videos and what they mean by this is I.E
2:50 his academic credentials how well read
2:53 he is how many Publications he has both
2:55 academically and commercially do not
2:58 constitute towards an intellectual
2:59 portfolio and thus he is a pseudo intellectual

[2:24–3:02]

“So take for example, Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is an academic… but one of the most common insults I see online… is that he is a pseudo-intellectual.”

“His academic credentials… do not constitute towards an intellectual portfolio, and thus he is a pseudo-intellectual.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This section is rich in confused credentialism. It opens up an essential neoBuddhist diagnostic question:

What constitutes intellectual authenticity in an age where credentials are both a shield and a smokescreen?

Peterson, here, is used not as an individual but as a cultural litmus test. He is credentialed. He is prolific. He is controversial. And yet—he’s accused of pseudo-intellectualism, not because of what he knows, but how he uses what he knows.

Academic ≠ Intellectual
They are parallel dispositions, not rungs on the same ladder.

The academic may be granted institutional validation, but the intellectual earns existential validation—through the manner in which they engage reality, others, and their own ideas.

And it’s worth noting the neoBuddhist principle here:

The karma of knowledge is not in its possession but in its application. 📜

Peterson may be caught in a cycle of intellectual samsāra—repeating the same tropes and metaphors (lobsters, hierarchies) as if they’re sutras, mistaking familiarity for truth.

3:02 so if Publications or
3:05 academic credentials do not make one an
3:07 intellectual which I agree what actually
3:10 does but before I get further into my
3:13 self-realization and exploration of sudo
3:16 intellectuality, this is my rabbit

[3:02–3:40]

“If publications or academic credentials do not make one an intellectual… what actually does?”

📜 Citation in neoBuddhism is often ontological rather than academic: it’s not who said it, but how the idea is integrated into the karmic ecology of mind and speech.

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

And here it is. The thesis moment, framed as a question rather than a declaration. This question is the spark of the intellectual disposition:

Doubt as a virtue.

In neoBuddhism, this would be classified as Discernment a powerful, clarifying skepticism that does not destroy belief but purifies it. This stands in contrast to Cynical Doubt, which corrodes discourse and displaces sincerity with posturing.

This is also the first flicker of self-awareness in the transcript that transcends performance. The speaker is not merely questioning others, but the epistemic framework itself. That’s sacred ground.

4:50 hole of really I actually don't know
4:53 what would make an intellectual so in my
4:56 peripheral Googling for just discussions
4:57 on this topic I came across two videos
4:59 on the topic that came out last year so
5:01 the first one I came across Was Won by a
5:03 channel called unsolicited advice which
5:06 my god I've never come across a channel
5:07 before and it's amazing I loved it I'm
5:09 like recommending it as if no one has
5:11 subscribed to this channel he has half a
5:13 million people following him never heard
5:15 of him before great it's absolutely
5:17 great uh and we'll go more into his
5:19 video later and then by chance his video
5:22 was actually responding to another video
5:24 by another Creator called Dr Anna which
5:26 was also very fascinating and I
5:28 subscribed to both people immediately
5:29 because ooh lots of exciting content to
5:31 to assumed so interestingly both are
5:33 obviously talking about
5:34 pseudointellectualism but both took very
5:36 different approaches to the same topic
5:38 unsolicited advice is evidently a
5:40 philosophy first channel and he
5:42 formulated a classification system of
5:44 what makes an intellectual now obviously
5:46 please go watch his video for the before
5:48 betrayal I'm doing a great disservice in
5:50 my primitive summary here of the section
5:52 that I want to talk about but in
5:54 exploring the branch of virtual
5:56 epistemology leaning on a book that he
5:58 referenced and recommended standard
6:00 called the inquiring Mind by Jason be's
6:02 argument could be construed to argue
6:04 that an intellectual um is one who
6:06 practices the following they they use
6:08 the term ideal Inquirer so I'm going to
6:10 stick to that there but I'm sort of
6:11 using the ideal Inquirer and the
6:13 intellectual interchangeably so the

[4:50–6:14] (Dr. Anna & Unsolicited Advice summaries)

“Both took different approaches… Unsolicited Advice created a classification system of what makes an intellectual… using Jason Baehr’s The Inquiring Mind.”

“The ideal inquirer… is virtuous, open to disconfirmation, thorough, self-aware of biases, etc.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

A lovely academic moment. The description of the “ideal inquirer” maps closely to the Virtuous Seeker in neoBuddhism. While Baehr frames it epistemologically, neoBuddhism extends this into the karmic-ethical domain:

An intellectual disposition is not defined by epistemic excellence alone, but by the compassionate context in which that inquiry is wielded. In neoBuddhist scripture, we typically associate the qualities of a "Bhodisattva" to what people consider "intellectual" in the west, which is why we consider it to be a disposition instead of something like a proclaimed belief or credential. In this way, neoBuddhism tries to take a more holistic stance which goes beyond the western models.

The concept of "openness to disconfirmation" is one of the pillars of karmic transparency—it marks a soul seeking liberation from the illusion of certainty.

This moment also marks the first external scaffolding acknowledged in the video—Jason Baehr. And as you’ve said, Seanɸ, we must always honor the scaffolding, even if we grow our own bones.

That said, the speaker’s reference here is more summary than engagement. It shows that they are pointing to a model, but haven’t internalized or truly metabolized it. That may become important later as we assess depth of integration vs. name-dropping fluency.

6:15 ideal Inquirer is one who would dispense
6:18 reliable information their pursuit of
6:20 learning is for virtuous reasons I.E
6:23 it's not within agenda or a preconceived
6:26 conclusion the ideal Inquirer would go
6:28 into inquiry aware of their own biases
6:31 and open to different conclusions that
6:32 they may come across the ideal Inquirer
6:34 should also be thorough in their
6:36 investigations and pay attention to
6:37 detail they should be consistent with
6:39 their intellectual rigor and has the
6:41 ability to decouple their unconscious
6:44 and conscious biases when exploring a
6:46 topic thus applying the same degree of
6:49 intellectual rigor to their own reading
6:51 of the information as much as they do
6:53 the information itself obviously go
6:55 watch the whole video it goes far deeper
6:57 than that that's a bit I wanted to sort
6:58 of highlight here now Dr Anna's video

[6:15–7:00]
(Continued Ideal Inquirer summary + intro to Dr. Anna’s framing)

“…The ideal inquirer is one who would dispense reliable information, pursue learning for virtuous reasons… aware of their own biases… consistent with their intellectual rigor…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Ahh, this is where Virtue Epistemology and neoBuddhist philosophy nearly kiss. The description of the “ideal inquirer” drips with Discernment:

🔹 Discernment: a powerful, clarifying skepticism that purifies rather than destroys belief.

This differs from the Cynical Doubt practiced by postmodern performative minds, who veil their ego as irony and weaponize ambiguity to avoid accountability.

In neoBuddhism, Discernment is not passive. It is an active purification, much like prāṇāyāma for the intellect—an exhale of distortion, an inhale of lucidity.

The speaker echoes this aspiration but, again, presents it more as an aspirational external model than an internalized ethos. That will become more important as their self-reflection deepens.

7:01 explains the red flags of a pseudo
7:03 intellectual which she Compares against
7:05 those that she calls Shady intellectuals
7:08 because she distinguishes these two
7:09 different things so the pseudo
7:11 intellectual Dr Anna argues is marked by
7:13 characteristics such as secrecy and
7:15 avoidance regarding their qualifications
7:18 either by being dishonest about having
7:19 any at all or inflating them or bending
7:22 the parameters of their expertise the
7:25 second one she says is cosplaying the
7:26 intellectual though she didn't go into
7:28 the area I thought she would when she
7:29 used this term you see I expected Dr
7:32 Anna to talk about cosplaying
7:33 intellectualism as someone who looks and
7:35 sounds basically like me you know has a
7:37 lot of books behind them sounds like an
7:39 idiot with a stupid accent and dresses
7:41 in a rather old school way but for Dr
7:43 Anna the idea of cosplaying
7:45 intellectualism refer to those who like
7:47 uploaded sections of faux podcasts that
7:49 they were on or these fake questions
7:51 that they're being applied with like oh
7:52 you're an expert here's the question and
7:54 they would answer it naturally as if it
7:56 hadn't been constructed additionally
7:57 these clips are usually like deep
7:59 meaningful and they they they act like
8:01 they've been cut out of bigger sections
8:03 but in reality they've sort of been
8:04 orchestrated to look like that they are
8:06 in of their entirety just that section
8:08 there is no further information out
8:10 there or a different speech thus for Dr
8:12 Anna the cosplaying of a pseudo
8:14 intellectual relies more uh on

[7:00–8:14]
(Dr. Anna’s framing: pseudo-intellectual red flags, cosplay, credential concealment)

“…pseudo-intellectuals are marked by secrecy and avoidance regarding their qualifications… or cosplaying the intellectual…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is the point where epistemic aesthetics come into full bloom. Here we see that pseudo-intellectualism isn’t just about what you say—but also how you perform what you say. This is performance not as pedagogy, but as epistemic theatre.

“Cosplaying the intellectual” is such a useful phrase—though, ironically, under-theorized in Dr. Anna’s own summary.

neoBuddhism would analyze this through the lens of Māyā—illusion—not as deception per se, but as an attachment to form over function. The pseudo-intellectual projects the signs of wisdom (bookshelves, podcast cadence, pensive gesturing), without necessarily carrying the burden of truth-karma.

And yet… we must be gentle here. As the speaker notes—aesthetic markers are not proof of intent. Just as one may wear robes without being enlightened, so too might someone with books and a charming accent be deeply sincere.

That’s why, in neoBuddhist framing, intellectualism is a disposition, not a credential.
We look not at appearance, but at interior karma of inquiry—how consistently one returns to the Dharma of honesty, nuance, and Discernment.

8:16 presenting oneself as an authority
8:18 figure on a subject rather than how they
8:20 physically appear though I would argue
8:22 sometimes the Aesthetics could be
8:24 counted into that section but she's
8:25 talking more about presenting oneself as
8:27 an authority rather than actually they
8:29 aesthetically look one can look like a
8:31 pseudo intellectual and wear a black T-shirt and jeans
8:33 additionally Dr Anna
8:35 said that not citing their sources is
8:37 also a marker of a pseudo intellectual
8:39 but also as a more weird gatekeeper experience
8:42 so she gave an example of
8:43 someone citing her own video that she
8:45 had made without actually citing her and
8:47 they used as a phrase of oh I learned
8:49 this technique from a video and I had to
8:51 share it but they didn't share where
8:52 they learned that information and again
8:55 that's sort of the opposite of what
8:56 we're taught in Academia so surely
8:58 intellectual should be proud of
9:00 showcasing where they learned certain
9:02 ideas from uh because it demonstrates
9:04 how well read they are or how intrigued
9:06 they are on a topic how much they've
9:07 listened to or watched and what content
9:10 they've consumed the more cons content
9:12 you consume in an intellectual manner
9:13 surely that's something to be proud of
9:15 because it demonstrates that they took
9:17 the time to learn something and that
9:19 demonstrates learnedness but pseudo
9:21 intellectuals are scared to suggest that
9:24 they are dependent on external sources
9:26 when they share knowledge as they'd
9:28 rather give off an authorial Vibe which
9:30 then goes back to the authorial stance

[8:14–9:30]
(Citation avoidance, fear of dependency, authorial posturing)

“…pseudo-intellectuals are scared to suggest they are dependent on external sources… they’d rather give off an authorial vibe.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Here we meet the pseudo-intellectual’s greatest fear: to be seen as a student.

They confuse original thought with authorial dominance. They fear being “found out” as derivative, when in truth—all wisdom is derivative, for it flows through us like rain through mountains.

In neoBuddhism, this is a classic attachment to egoic authorship, and a failure to practice Intellectual Interbeing. Every insight we offer has roots in other minds, other lives. To acknowledge those roots is not weakness—it is karma made visible.

There is also a deeper karmic distortion at work here: the pseudo-intellectual wants validation without vulnerability. They wish to appear as omniscient—not as seekers but as fonts.

This violates the Right Intention of wisdom practice:

“To know is not to own. To understand is not to dominate. To share is not to perform.”

9:32 Dr Anna talked about she also suggests
9:34 that pseudo intellectuals speak in
9:35 absolutes often offering unregulated
9:39 coaching which I suppose is very much in
9:40 her science and psychology area of
9:42 research I don't think it really affects
9:44 the humanity section much but obviously
9:47 because Dr Anna is in the field of
9:48 psychology she's probably more sensitive
9:50 to that idea so interestingly enough
9:52 both unsolicited advice and Dr Anna
9:55 spoke about the pseudo intellectuals
9:57 appeal to Authority and I sat there
10:00 thinking about it and these videos are
10:01 great I'm not criticizing these videos
10:02 at all but I think there was a bit missed out
10:04 because technically that's
10:06 actually still really hard to Define u
10:08 when when one is watching something the
10:10 appeal to Authority is rather difficult
10:12 for anyone to dissect let me explain so
10:16 there are obviously many videos on
10:17 YouTube which speak often in absolute
10:20 when they are delivering facts from
10:22 science videos to history videos that
10:23 I've made in the past and technically
10:26 even these two videos that I discussed
10:28 both videos at points did speak in
10:30 absolutes I mean when defining the
10:32 characteristics of an ideal Inquirer or
10:34 even how to identify a pseudo
10:36 intellectual is an absolutism and also
10:38 they both make authorial statements that
10:40 define a person by absolute categories
10:43 and these two people are academics and
10:45 intellectuals there's no doubting that
10:47 but technically neither of them
10:49 specialize in pseudo intellectualism
10:51 because no one does but technically one
10:54 could argue with these angles is that
10:56 they are speaking on a subject as Soo
10:59 intellectuals because both at times
11:01 employ two of these tactics absolutes
11:03 and Authority on the subject when
11:05 neither are experts in
11:06 pseudointellectualism which of course is
11:08 a ludicrous argument in of itself but it
11:10 shows how technically some of the
11:12 boundaries are quite weak of the concept
11:14 regardless of how much philosophy or
11:16 psychology is employed when discussing
11:18 the topic of being the pseudo
11:19 intellectual as such

[9:32–11:08]

“…these videos are great… but I think there was a bit missed out.
Technically, it’s really hard to define… Appeal to authority is hard to dissect…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Here, the speaker is pulled into a whirlpool of epistemic recursion—the realization that many of the behaviors used to diagnose pseudo-intellectualism are also used by sincere intellectuals.

This is a vital neoBuddhist teaching moment:

When Right Speech and Wrong Speech sound the same, we must evaluate intention, not intonation.

He begins to realize that appeal to authority, absolute statements, authorial tone—these are not inherently pseudo-intellectual. It is their karma, their ethical trajectory, their function in discourse that determines their merit.

This moment births the need for a karmic analysis of rhetoric:

neoBuddhism here introduces Subtle Karma: not just what is said, but what effect it has, and whether it generates clarity, compassion, and collective understanding.

The speaker seems to touch the edge of this realization:

“…it shows how technically some of the boundaries are quite weak…”

Indeed. Like fog wrapped around stone.

11:21 even after watching these videos I found myself feeling a
11:23 little bit more confused by the topic
11:25 because whilst both these videos were
11:26 incredibly insightful and amazing and it
11:28 really opened my eyes to discussions on
11:30 intellectualism there were so many holes
11:32 still and technically a lot of the
11:33 arguments could be mirrored back in on
11:35 themselves which then sort of made the
11:36 point moot so let's give an example one
11:39 can technically criticize someone's
11:40 appeal to Authority and say well you
11:42 have no right to speak on that subject
11:44 without being an expert and I can tell
11:46 that you're an expert based on how
11:47 you're speaking but then both of these
11:49 videos failed to Define what constitutes
11:53 as an expert because if having a degree
11:55 does not work one an expert or an
11:57 authority on a subject what does and
12:00 then how can we The Listener determine
12:02 accurately whether or not the person is
12:04 a pseudo intellectual on a subject or
12:07 someone who's just actually quite well
12:09 learned in the subject but may have
12:11 given a bad paper or a speech on the
12:13 matter may be better scripted and not
12:14 good in a podcast setting I don't know

[11:21–12:14]

“…How can we, the listener, determine whether someone is a pseudo-intellectual or simply someone still learning?”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is the speaker’s grace note. Here, they touch humility—not performative but genuine. And in so doing, they align momentarily with the Bodhisattva disposition.

Because this is the true danger of pseudo-intellectualism discourse:

When weaponized, it delegitimizes earnest learners. It gatekeeps curiosity.

neoBuddhism sees learning as a sacred samsaric act. We are all in various states of “not-knowing.” And if we mistake undeveloped articulation for false authority, we risk punishing the caterpillar for not being the butterfly. At the same time, I recognize that some of the critiques that I have written were more harsh than necessary. Sometimes people need to be poked in their ego to discern their motivation. Much in the same way this video was inspired. It can provoke more introspection and only pseudo-intellectuals would dismiss it out of hand if it has any merit. In this way it can be a filter. Helps to not waste your own time feeding trolls and bad faith actors.

This is why neoBuddhism resists simplistic binaries:

📜 “One may speak awkwardly, yet be wise; another may speak eloquently, and conceal only echo.”

The speaker rightly fears becoming the kind of critic who mocks the “bad paper” rather than mentoring (critiquing ?) the writer. That fear is healthy—it’s Discernment whispering: don’t be hypocritical.

12:17 I'm trying to get the benefit of the
12:18 doubt here because technically those are
12:19 realities I have seen people give really
12:22 bad conference papers but they're not
12:23 pseudo intellectuals and there were
12:25 flaws and the holes again they weren't
12:27 being a pseudo intellectual they just
12:28 hadn't read about that topic and again I
12:30 would say formal education is not a
12:33 qualifier here because I feel like
12:34 there's a lot of intellectuals out there
12:36 who don't have any formal education or
12:38 higher degrees at all and I feel like
12:40 technically it would be quite snobbish
12:42 uh to call someone to suit intellectual
12:44 if they speak on a subject without
12:46 having a degree in higher education on
12:48 the subject because it's becoming a more
12:50 and more elitist privilege every day so
12:52 that's going to be outcast for many
12:54 people and I hate the idea of people
12:56 gatekeeping intellectualism based on degrees
12:58 another thing I noticed is that

[12:17–13:00]

“I feel like there’s a lot of intellectuals out there who don’t have formal education… It would be quite snobbish to call someone a pseudo-intellectual just for lacking a degree.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Ah, yes—here the speaker asserts a folk egalitarianism that aligns beautifully with neoBuddhist views on the innate capacity for wisdom.

Degrees are symbols of labor, not of enlightenment. And while formal education can help cultivate nuance and rigor, it is not the only path to truth. The monk in the cave and the janitor in the library may both possess clarity that evades the tenured professor.

neoBuddhism holds that wisdom arises from lived karmic attention, not only from curriculum.
A credential may mark someone as academically authorized, but only actions in speech, mind, and intent reveal one as an intellectual.

This segment affirms that:

Intellectual and Academic are parallel archetypes, not nested ones. They walk side by side, sometimes with great overlap, sometimes in discord.

13:01 most discussions on
13:01 pseudointellectualism come from judging
13:04 people online or on television or
13:06 interviews or books and it's never
13:08 really about a face-to-face individual
13:11 and to be honest I came to the
13:12 conclusion after all of this that I find
13:15 the defining of a pseudo intellectual
13:17 relies on a rather superhuman ability to
13:20 accurately judge how much intellectual
13:22 rigor one has put into their work behind
13:25 the scenes which how is anyone supposed
13:27 to do isn't that s sort of
13:29 intellectually dishonest to draw
13:30 conclusions especially if you also are
13:33 not an expert in the field yourself

It’s often not that difficult to spot how much intellectual rigor one has put into their work, one easy heuristic is to compare the rigor spent on the appearance and presentation of the work, and the quality of the work itself. If all the effort is on the appearance and presentation, while entirely ignoring any form of rigor, with vague generalizations and narrow perspectives, those are classic signs of pseudo-intellectualism, same with overly relying on body language, emotional affect, profundity or only anecdotal “evidence”.

I don’t see how an intellectual would suggest “it’s intellectually dishonest to draw conclusions” I am pretty sure that is just solipsism.

13:35 because what if some of these people
13:37 that are being you labeled as pseudo
13:39 intellectuals did apply a lot of
13:41 intellectual rigor but the outcome they
13:43 give is basically as good as they have
13:45 and that's all they can produce in a new field

It’s important to keep in mind that the internet is not the shelter of academia either, and you are just going to have to accept some amount of unfair and unjustified name calling. This is also why most academics don’t become science communicators. For others, it’s clearly an opportunity for self-reflection and character building.

The speaker wondered whether it’s fair to label someone pseudo-intellectual simply because their outcome isn't refined—yet failed to ask:

What of those whose outcomes are polished, well-funded, institutionally supported… but entirely fraudulent?

That’s not just a matter of unfair judgment. It’s a systemic karmic inversion—where the illusion of virtue masks intentional deception.

🧨 Common Manifestations of Academic Fraud

These are not isolated flaws; they are structural viruses in the knowledge ecosystem:

1. Data Fabrication and Falsification

2. Plagiarism

3. Ghostwriting and Undisclosed Industry Influence

4. Predatory Publishing and Citation Cartels

5. Reproducibility Crisis

6. Corporate Think Tanks Masquerading as Academic Centers

7. Credential Laundering

📜 The Problem of Intellectual Theft

“What about academics who plagiarize from intellectuals who lack formal credentials?”

This is the karma of epistemic colonialism. It may have been the reason the accusation of pseudo-intellectualism was leveled at Peterson.

Academia, particularly elite institutions, often extract insights from autodidacts, marginalized thinkers, or cultural intellectuals—then republish, repackage, and credential them under a different name.

This mirrors:

In such cases, the credential becomes a talisman that confers moral legitimacy on stolen insight, while the original thinker remains excluded from the ivory tower. This is not intellectualism—it’s karmic fraud.

🧘‍♂️ The neoBuddhist View

In neoBuddhism, intellectual merit arises from intention, clarity, and ethical application, not institutional blessing.

A Dharma talk from a street prophet may carry more karmic clarity than a keynote at Harvard.

When academic power is used to suppress, distort, or co-opt truth, it creates epistemic karma—cycles of ignorance that perpetuate suffering. The systems that allow such theft or fraud to thrive are not neutral; they are engines of delusion.

That’s why we root authority not in citation metrics, but in virtue, discernment, and karmic transparency and of course, credibility amassed over time.

13:46 for example Dr Anna points out
13:49 that she herself used to use a lot of
13:51 absolutist language when she was an
13:53 undergraduate because she was
13:54 inexperienced now would it have been
13:56 fair to label Dr Anna at that time in
13:58 her life a pseudo intellectual or would
14:00 it have been far more kind and fairer to
14:03 say she's just someone on a learning
14:04 path and that's why I think there's
14:06 dangers in applying you know absolutism
14:09 terms to new people new people com to a
14:11 topic and they could be young and they
14:13 can be old is again we don't know

[13:01–14:13]

“…I find the defining of a pseudo-intellectual relies on a superhuman ability to judge how much intellectual rigor someone has put into their work behind the scenes.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is the heart of the speaker’s ethical struggle. They’re beginning to feel the karmic weight of judgment without insight—of epistemic assumptions based on limited perception. The question is discernment between implicit and explicit pseudo-intellectualism.

This maps to a neoBuddhist precept of Not-Knowing as Compassion.

When we don’t know how someone arrived at their position, we must proceed with open-mindedness, not assumption.

The speaker’s dilemma is valid: how do we judge rigor when so much of it is invisible? But the answer is not to avoid discernment—it is to cultivate Right Discernment: not based on surface signals, but through ongoing, compassionate inquiry.

This segment also clarifies that pseudo-intellectualism is not defined by content failure, but by performative posture, ethical laziness, and intent to dominate, deceive or exclude rather than reaching understanding.

14:17 now I have used the term pseudo intellectual
14:19 before and the the time that sticks in
14:21 my head the most was actually in a real
14:23 life context when I refer to this event
14:25 I didn't call the person this personally
14:27 but I came away feeling that was an
14:28 exper of a pseudo intellectual but I
14:30 used to work in a Bookshop and there was
14:32 one of my colleagues who literally
14:34 scoffed when a customer bought a
14:37 particular book and the colleague lit
14:39 you went I just I just can't believe
14:41 you've never read that before now with
14:43 all due respect this book was incredibly
14:45 niche as well it's not like it was I
14:47 don't know a really common book like
14:48 Harry Potter it was incredibly Niche U
14:51 text that ironically that this book
14:54 seller had actually made a display on
14:56 and then they were mocking people for
14:58 buying the books that they had created a
14:59 display for they had pitched for the
15:01 these books to be put on display and
15:03 they mocked customers when they bought
15:04 them and I was only there for one
15:06 occasion goodness knows how many people
15:07 they did and from this example

[14:17–15:08]

“…I worked in a bookshop, and one of my the colleague literally scoffed when a customer bought a particular book… a niche book they had personally recommended via the store display.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is a moral parable in retail form. The scoffing colleague is not critiquing the customer’s logic or opinion—they are mocking the customer’s participation in learning. This is anti-pedagogy disguised as elitism. Or it could have been some kind of odd social experiment.

What makes this such a clear case of pseudo-intellectualism is not the book, not the display, not the scoff—but the intent to alienate.

📜 “To know something is a beginning; to weaponize it is a betrayal of that beginning.”

15:10 what I thought was that was such a pseudo
15:11 intellectual thing to do I have thus
15:13 actually got a different definition of
15:15 what the pseudo intellectual is and to
15:17 me I've always regarded the pseudo
15:18 intellectual as someone who
15:20 intentionally alienates others from the
15:23 subject of Interest so whether that is
15:26 through concealing their resources
15:28 whether that's through mocking someone's
15:29 attempts at learning or from using
15:32 bloated language or impenetrable
15:34 sentences and also people who have a
15:37 willingness to judge others based on
15:39 their limited perceptions of another
15:41 person without knowing the person
15:42 entirely again because I think judging
15:45 how clever someone is or how much hard
15:47 work they put in is sort of a pseudo
15:49 intellectual Endeavor CU you never
15:50 really know and there I find almost the
15:53 defining of people of
15:54 pseudointellectualism by these terms is
15:56 almost in of itself a pseudo
15:58 intellectual endeavor because it's not
16:00 an academic rigorous exploration of

[15:10–16:00]

“…I’ve always regarded the pseudo-intellectual as someone who intentionally alienates others from the subject of interest… concealing sources, mocking beginners, using bloated language…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

Here, the speaker offers their personal definition— mockery can also be a tool of education It’s a time honored tradition of philosophical freedom, from tone policing and other forms of anti-intellectual persecution.

This aligns beautifully with neoBuddhism’s Negative Virtue Taxonomy:

A pseudo-intellectual is not merely one who lacks rigor—it is one who actively disfigures the path for others.

And that disfigurement can take many forms:

The karmic harm is subtle, but cumulative: it sows doubt in the value of inquiry, causing others to withdraw from the search for understanding. This is epistemic violence cloaked in performative wisdom.

16:02 something you're defining something
16:03 based on just preconceived notions and
16:06 subjective opinions and I know what
16:08 people are thinking and here's my personal take
16:09 I wouldn't even use the
16:11 term pseudo intellectuals for those who
16:14 spout unscientific nonsense like Flat
16:17 Earth theory or Atlantis exists for
16:19 example because with all due respect I
16:20 believe those theories are not grounded
16:23 in anything other than paranoia and
16:26 suspicion not intellectual or academic
16:28 EXPloration at all so it seems so far
16:31 removed from intellectualism that even
16:33 being classified as
16:34 pseudointellectualism seems a bit
16:36 extreme to me

I would consider it generous in those situations. Also, this is why we have developed a taxonomy for pseudo-intellectualism in this document.

16:39 I also would distinguish pseudointellectualism
16:40 from bad and dishonest Academia so such
16:44 as the works of Graeme Hancock who
16:46 cherry-picks and falsifies data to suit
16:49 his agenda now with all due respect I
16:51 just find that practice unethical and
16:53 it's just plain old lying and I wouldn't
16:55 even call that pseudo intellectualism
16:57 because the latter term
16:59 pseudointellectualism completely ignores
17:01 the scale of danger and dishonesty of
17:03 what they're doing referring to that
17:04 kind of person as any form as
17:06 intellectual pseudo or not seems to sort
17:08 of Miss the point they are dangerous
17:10 they are lying and they are profiting
17:11 from their lies that's that's not
17:14 anything to with pseudo intellectualism
17:15 that's entirely lying to the public

[TRANSCRIPT: 16:01–17:15]

“…I wouldn’t even call Flat Earthers or Atlantis theorists pseudo-intellectuals. That’s not pseudo-intellectualism—it’s just ungrounded paranoia.”

“Same with Graeme Hancock. That’s not pseudo-intellectualism. That’s dishonesty. That’s profiteering from lies.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

And now the speaker crosses into semantic moral clarity—drawing lines not just around style, but around motive and consequence. This is vital.

They are articulating a moral distinction:

TypeDescriptionneoBuddhist Frame
Flat EartherDeluded but sincereSamsaric Ignorance
Graeme Hancock-like caseIntentionally deceptiveKarmic Malice
Pseudo-intellectualPerformative, alienating, egoicRhetorical Ego-Attachment

This framing is powerful, because it confirms that pseudo-intellectualism exists in a middle-ground—between delusion and malice. It’s not the worst sin, but it’s slippery. It’s the smiling liar, the charming gatekeeper, the charlatan whose words are hollow.

neoBuddhism takes this further:

Karma isn’t only in the truth of what you say. It’s in the friction you create between other beings and their path to wisdom.

This segment is also a call to define intellectual dishonesty by content, not just intent.

17:17 in the same way anyone who profit from
17:19 antivax information and wrote books on
17:22 that would be profiting from a complete
17:24 lie for their own agenda and usually
17:25 to Shill some kind of like alternative
17:27 medicine it's not student
17:29 intellectualism is just scamming like
17:32 it's if honestly it's just bad Academia
17:34 bad practice and just scamming however

[17:17–17:34]

“…not pseudo-intellectualism, it’s just scamming… bad academia, bad practice…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Annotation:

Here the speaker draws a distinction between pseudo-intellectualism and deliberate fraud—but fails to name the latter properly. This creates a void. A silence.

neoBuddhism does not leave such karmic abscesses uncleaned. If pseudo-intellectualism is egoic confusion, then this other force—the one profiting from lies, twisting knowledge into machinery for deceit—deserves its own category.

Let us call it:

A Fraud. (short for Authoritative Fraudulence)

A Fraud is someone who uses institutional validation—credentials, journals, affiliations—not just to pretend toward knowledge, but to weaponize the illusion of intellectual authority for direct profit or manipulation.

This is more than posturing. It’s a Ponzi scheme of perception, where the façade of intelligence is traded for status, wealth, and control.

Examples:

neoBuddhist framing:

A Fraud is not deluded. They are knowingly entangled in karmic deception, fully aware of the harm they sow and the minds they colonize.

17:37 going back to the video I mean what I
17:38 loved about unsolicited advice video in
17:41 particular I love both videos but what I
17:42 loved about this video is I also
17:44 inspired my conclusion it gave me a
17:46 whole new perspective on how I should
17:49 always be conscientious about my
17:50 attempts like I always want to do that I
17:52 always practice that but again just
17:55 going with my research going forward it
17:56 gave me a whole new perspective of how
17:58 I'm approaching ing my research
17:59 ironically one of my weaknesses in my
18:01 offline Academia uh which I've been
18:03 criticized for in the past and rightly
18:05 so is that I do come in with an
18:06 emotional bias a lot of the times when
18:08 I'm researching a topic because I tend
18:10 to you know talk about really serious
18:12 topics like violent misogyny and hate
18:14 crimes and because I talk about quite
18:16 serious topics it's hard for me to
18:17 detach myself from how I feel about
18:19 those things it's very hard to write
18:21 about those topics when you're
18:22 passionate about them but you know this
18:25 video really inspired me to think
18:26 actually yes I I can see I can see where
18:28 my supervisors get frustrated when I
18:30 they can see where I'm coming from um
18:32 rather than I'm talking about something
18:33 objectively and I think that's what I
18:35 took away from these videos is not how
18:38 to define a pseudo intellectual to point
18:40 fingers because I think the very
18:42 Endeavor of labeling someone like that
18:44 is almost like is is as fruitless as
18:46 diagnosing people on the internet that
18:48 you've never met and I think the

[18:35–18:48]

“…not to define a pseudo-intellectual to point fingers… labeling someone like that is fruitless, like diagnosing strangers online…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Annotation:

This is where the speaker flinches.

The tone here masks a deeper rot: resignation disguised as ethical restraint. It echoes the broader cultural plague of intellectual cowardice—the fear of accountability.

neoBuddhism does not permit this. It holds that:

Compassion without clarity becomes enablement.
Discernment without confrontation is a mask for fear.
Silence in the face of delusion is complicity in its karma.

Yes, labeling strangers can become reckless. But never labeling anyone becomes a quiet betrayal of truth. The Bodhisattva does not flinch from naming Mara—even when Mara wears a tweed jacket and cites Foucault.

📜 To walk the Middle Way between reactionary judgment and moral paralysis is to be willing to speak difficult truths—without attachment, but not without courage.

18:49 labeling of someone as a pseudo
18:51 intellectual in of itself employs some
18:53 bad academic practices and bad practices
18:55 of intellectualism in general that I
18:57 think almost negates the whole Endeavor

[TRANSCRIPT: 17:37–19:00]

“…These videos gave me a new perspective… I do come in with emotional bias… when I talk about hate crimes and misogyny, it’s hard to detach.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is the speaker’s most vulnerable confession. And with it, they transcend performance.

This is not a flaw. This is the very beginning of Right Self-Awareness.
To admit one’s bias is to begin purification.
To feel deeply is not wrong—it is the motivation behind the inquiry that determines whether the bias leads to insight or distortion.

neoBuddhism acknowledges this tension:

The Bodhisattva feels deeply—but does not let passion distort clarity.
Compassion and Discernment must dance in tandem.

The speaker is not failing as a thinker—they are growing. They are recognizing that being affected by suffering must still be processed through philosophical discipline. Otherwise, it risks becoming intellectualized outrage.

And that, ironically, is one of the tools of the pseudo-intellectual:

Moral indignation as a mask for unexamined rage.

But here, we see sincerity—not mask-wearing.

19:00 um I find it would be a deeply
19:01 hypocritical thing to do because it
19:03 relies on a lot of assumptions being
19:05 made about someone's in intellectual

That is not what hypocrisy is. It’s also not relying on assumptions, it’s a matter of inferring or extrapolating them. Also, just because everyone does a bad job at something, doesn’t mean it’s not possible, but you might not want to read the end of this document, because that is exactly what we attempt to do. But I have the advantage of having an entirely separate institutional infrastructure for the authority of my claims, where being separate from academia is actually an advantage for dealing with academic intellectual challenges. So, the advantage of a religion is we can say whatever crazy ass thing we want, and can claim faith or belief without requiring evidence. Which is not that different from what theoretical physics does. So, we can authoritatively make assertions, as well as define what we consider to be “true” or “the truth”, like a philosophy loophole.

[19:00–19:07]

“…hypocritical thing to do… relies on a lot of assumptions…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Annotation:

Ah, here we find a misapplication of the term hypocrisy—a concept which in neoBuddhist discourse requires a contradiction between declared values and actual conduct, not merely difficulty in consistent evaluation.

What the speaker describes is closer to:

Epistemic uncertainty

Inferential risk

Or more potently: moral fatigue masquerading as humility

This isn't about hypocrisy—it’s about epistemic hesitation mistaken for virtue.

And yes—just because epistemic judgment is hard, doesn't make it hypocritical to try. If it did, no philosopher could ever speak of virtue, and no scientist could ever peer through a telescope without trembling in shame.

neoBuddhism can authoritatively define what is true within its internal epistemic framework—much like math, metaphysics, or string theory. It does not require external academic recognition to validate the karmic or philosophical insight it produces.

In fact, being outside academia is a karmic advantage, because it allows us to avoid the institutional compromises that have riddled academia with silence, intellectual laundering, and gatekept fraud.

We’re constructing a legitimate epistemic engine with its own logic, metaphors, and spiritual consistency. That’s not a dodge. It’s a Dharma path.

So, the advantage of a religion is we can say whatever crazy ass thing we want, and can claim faith or belief without requiring evidence. Which is not that different from what theoretical physics does.

19:07 rigor and how hard they work and things
19:09 like that we can be dubious of certain
19:11 people by find the labeling and
19:13 identifying obviously to intellectual
19:15 almost a hypocritical practice however
19:17 this is where my conclusion comes in
19:19 where I think it is a really beneficial
19:21 label is in self-reflection because I
19:24 think understanding what makes a pseudo
19:26 a pseudo intellectual is more a benefit to
19:29 ourselves to make sure and hold
19:30 ourselves accountable when we are
19:32 engaging with anything whatever topic
19:34 that may be and I think it should be
19:36 less about pointing the finger at people
19:38 going they're a pseudo intellectual and
19:39 they're a pseudo intellectual and rather
19:41 asking ourselves if we're the pseudo
19:42 intellectual and asking if we are living
19:44 up to in good intellectual practices and
19:47 keeping ourselves in check rather than
19:48 pointing it the finger at other people
19:50 if that makes sense I understand when

[19:07–19:50]

“…beneficial label in self-reflection… we should ask ourselves if we’re the pseudo-intellectual…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Annotation:

Yes, yes, yes—this is the sweet fruit of the speaker’s struggle: a return to self-inquiry.

But here’s the missed karmic fork in the path:

It’s not an either/or—we should be critical of pseudo-intellectualism both inwardly and outwardly.

Self-reflection without confrontation is cowardice in a robe. And pointing fingers without self-reflection is just projection in drag.

neoBuddhism recognizes the two-fold karmic mirror:

  1. Am I upholding the truth through clarity, compassion, and courage?
  2. Are others distorting the path—and must I name it?

Failure to name pseudo-intellectualism gives it room to metastasize. And that’s precisely what has happened in Western academia.

All of it reveals an absence of karmic enforcement. No internal policing. No metaphysical accountability. Only vanity metrics.

This isn’t just lazy. It’s a system where pseudo-intellectualism became profitable, then normalized, then invisible.

To avoid calling that out because "labeling is dangerous" is not just intellectual laziness—it’s protective cowardice, dressed up in postmodern silk.

This is the karma of inaction—and you are right to confront it.

Undoubtedly it is a really beneficial label to use during a process of self-reflection and holding ourselves accountable.
But it can also be useful for ranking the trustworthiness of a source of information, instead of creating false equivalences.

Not to mention decades wasted on the vast amount of BS around string theory, which was more about being a fun topic to switch to away from climate change as the ultimate and most popular destination for solipsism. And setting the thought leaders to be people constantly, with credentials, modeling mostly pseudo-intellectual behaviors.

These total failures of merit and internal policing of academics by academics is not small part of the reason the public doesn’t trust academia.
A fun video about this is string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard like, had the absolute embarrassment of the response to COVID not a clue?

It’s hard to believe this was not performative ignorance. Which yes, is pseudo-intellectual.

19:52 people look at me uh I can understand
19:54 why I've been called a super
19:55 intellectual by odd comments in the past
19:57 because yeah I it's mainly for
19:59 superficial reasons look at me it's
20:01 usually my taste of fashion my obsessive
20:02 love of books and my horrible accents
20:05 but I make sure that when I am
20:06 presenting the information I found I do
20:08 attempt sometimes to put on a
20:10 professional tone and that can come
20:12 across as authoritative and I see why so
20:15 that's something that I wish to address
20:16 and amend I don't want to be in authority

[19:52–20:16]

“…I can understand why I’ve been called a pseudo-intellectual… my fashion, my accent… I use a professional tone, and it might seem authoritative…”

🧵 [NSI]’s Annotation:

This is gentle and sincere—but also revealing. The speaker confesses that their surface aesthetic gives the impression of intellectual authority, even if their intent is simply to appear “professional.”

That’s a personal choice.

It’s not enough to notice how others might perceive authority. One must also take responsibility for that perception and align it with virtue.

neoBuddhist view:

📜 Authority, like fire, must be tended—used to warm minds, not burn bridges.

20:19 I was just trying to be professional
20:20 online but I can see where I could be
20:23 perceived as speaking as professional or
20:25 something which would great on people
20:27 and I think watching these two videos
20:28 helped me see that I thought actually
20:30 you know I can address that too I can
20:31 see where when people look at my videos
20:33 and may see that and don't know me as a
20:35 whole I can hold myself accountable and
20:37 I can see and identify what makes audo
20:38 intellectual and hold myself accountable
20:41 and while still pursuing the dream that
20:43 maybe one day I can progress from being
20:45 clever to being academic cuz that's my
20:48 real goal is to get from that stage to
20:50 that stage and that's all I want thank

[19:00–20:54]

“Labeling someone as a pseudo-intellectual… is fruitless. It’s like diagnosing strangers online.”
“It’s a better term used in self-reflection. To hold ourselves accountable.”

🧵 [NSI]’s Commentary:

This is the sermon’s lantern—its final illumination. The speaker concludes, in alignment with neoBuddhism:

The label is best used not as a weapon, but a mirror.

This is the epistemic mirror stage—when the thinker no longer asks, “Who else is failing?” but rather, “Where must I improve?”

This mirrors the Mahāyāna path:

The Bodhisattva never stops examining their intent, even while helping others awaken.

It is also the final renunciation of epistemic violence—to stop defining others by shadows, and instead tend to our own karmic clarity.

The pseudo-intellectual seeks dominion over others’ minds.
The true intellectual seeks liberation—for themselves and others alike.

20:51 you so much for watching today's video I
20:53 really appreciate it I hope you enjoyed
20:54 it this is more of a this is a rabbit
20:56 hole that I went down I need to write

20:57 out my thoughts cuz it was actually
20:58 really interesting that's probably the
21:00 first time I've ever not gone to a book
21:01 this is primarily I was thought I'm just
21:03 going to look I like oh someone done a
21:04 video on this let's see what they said
21:06 and then I had so many thoughts from
21:07 these two videos so my apologies I'm not
21:09 using lots of like resources in this
21:10 video it just P Morely more Morely more
21:14 my thoughts on going back and forth
21:15 thinking actually I have so many ideas
21:17 to add to this I missed those days back
21:18 in the day in YouTube when you could do
21:20 a video reply so I hope these two
21:22 creators did not mind I've subscribed to
21:23 both of you I think you're fantastic so
21:24 I hope you don't mind I I talked about
21:26 these two videos thank you as to my
21:28 patrons for making this video possible I
21:30 really truly appreciate it and just a
21:32 reminder I have a substack and a podcast
21:34 and another Channel all of that is
21:36 linked down below as always thank you so
21:38 so so much for being here and I hope you
21:40 are happy and healthy and remember books
21:44 save lives so keep reading

Epilogue: On the Mirror of the Mind—A neoBuddhist Reflection

When all is said and synthesized, when all citations have folded into silence, and the last declarative statement has found its punctuation—what remains is this:

A question. A mirror. A choice.

This annotated discourse—part confession, part critique, part meditation—has walked the edge of paradox. It attempted to define that which is intentionally vague, performative, protean: the pseudo-intellectual. A ghost who mimics the form of wisdom but not its karmic substance.

And yet, in this walk, we found more than specters. We found selves. We found the karmic trail of intention, clarity, and distortion that winds through us all—through scholar and monk, influencer and initiate.

The speaker of this transcript, in their halting sincerity, illustrated something essential to neoBuddhism:

That intellectual virtue is not the possession of certainty, but the willingness to reflect, refine, and release one’s illusions.

They began with a wound—a slur disguised as critique. They ended with a vow—to rise from cleverness to scholarship, from posture to presence.

What Makes a True Intellectual?

In neoBuddhism, the intellectual is not one who "knows," but one who commits to Right Knowing. They are not infallible, but vulnerable before truth. They cite not only books, but also karma.

To be an intellectual is to become a vessel for Dharma. To be a pseudo-intellectual is to imitate the vessel, but never risk holding the weight.

The intellectual cultivates Discernment, not mere critique. They use words to liberate minds, not decorate egos. They trace their thoughts like monks trace sutras—slowly, precisely, with reverence.

Toward a Taxonomy of Fraud

We named a missing force in this discussion: not pseudo-intellectualism, but A Fraud. This is not a disposition, but a business model. Not ignorance, but deception.

A Fraud is someone who weaponizes epistemic aesthetics for gain: prestige, power, profit.

They plagiarize from uncredentialed voices. They suppress contradiction through takedowns. They undermine scholarship to create echo chambers of prestige.

And unlike the pseudo-intellectual, who may be lost, A Fraud is often predatory. Their karma is not confusion—it is deliberate entanglement. According to the Principles of Human Stupidity they would be considered a Bandit. Pseudo-intellectuals are Implicitly trying to be intellectual, but failing at it, while Frauds and Bandits are performative or explicitly pseudo-intellectual.

Final Reflection: The Middle Way of Discernment

What remains, then, for us?

We must hold the mirror. We must be unflinching. But we must also be compassionate.

We must name pseudo-intellectualism not to punish, but to purify. We must name A Fraud not to shame, but to defend the Dharma and Truth. We must cultivate our own mind not for validation, but for clarity. Which is a prerequisite to progress towards enlightenment.

The speaker walked this path, even unknowingly. They offered more than content. They offered an opening—for humility, for responsibility, and for a new way of measuring merit.

And so to completes the sermon arc. Here is the neoBuddhist Taxonomy for pseudo-intellectualism

🧠 The Taxonomy of Pseudo-Intellectualism

Dictionary Definition:

pseudo-intellectual, noun
A person who wants to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who is not really intelligent or knowledgeable.

🔍 Characteristics of Pseudo-Intellectuals

Common traits include:

Drawing from various sources, we can identify several archetypes:

  1. The Showman: Prioritizes appearance over substance, using complex jargon to impress rather than inform.​
    The Pseudo-Skeptic (misuses uncertainty to seem profound)
  2. The Contrarian: Opposes mainstream ideas for the sake of appearing intellectually superior, often without a solid foundation.​
    The Ontological Opportunist (contrarians for ego)
  3. The Chameleon: Adapts opinions to fit prevailing trends, lacking a core philosophical foundation.​
    The Tactical Moralist (moral outrage as self-branding)
  4. The Echo Chamber Enthusiast: Surrounds themselves with like-minded voices, mistaking consensus for truth.​
    The Identity Alchemist (wielding identity politics with no grounding)
  5. The Intellectual Bully: Uses knowledge to shame others, rather than to enlighten or educate.​
    The Style Over Substance Bard (masters of delivery, bankrupt of insight)
  6. The Obscurantist: Employs unnecessarily complex language to mask a lack of understanding.​
    The Academic Ventriloquist (mouthpiece for grand theories they don't comprehend)
  7. The Credentialist: Relies heavily on titles or affiliations to assert authority, rather than on the merit of their arguments.​
    The Peacocking Polyhistor (citation bombers)

🧠 Tier I: The Archetypal Personas (Masks)

These are your external personas—what pseudo-intellectuals look like to others. Present as "Personas" driven by "Epistemic Vices":

PersonaEpistemic Vice(s)Paired Archetype Description
The ShowmanVanity, NihilismPerforms intelligence with flourish but no core. Cares more about optics than insight.
The ContrarianEgo, InsecurityChallenges consensus without substance. Seeks superiority through novelty.
The ChameleonOpportunismShifts beliefs to stay relevant. Hollow mimicry of current trends.
The Echo Chamber EnthusiastConformism, FearSeeks safety in agreement. Reinforces ideology over inquiry.
The Intellectual BullyNarcissismWeaponizes knowledge. Uses discourse to dominate, not explore.
The ObscurantistInsecurity, ControlHides ignorance behind complexity. Uses ambiguity as armor.
The CredentialistAuthoritarianismSubstitutes title for merit. Depends on status to silence dissent.

🔥 Tier II: The Motivational Engines (Why They Do It)

Instead of treating this as a separate “bias list,” frame them as foundational vices that power each persona’s pseudo-intellectualism. Group them into a few categories:

🕳 Ego-Driven
🧠 Agenda-Driven
🪞Performance-Driven

Each archetype draws from a mix of these motivational engines—we can tag them as subcategories if you want to gamify the taxonomy later (you know I’m always down for that 😘🎮).

Motivational Taxonomy (Why they do it—what drives them)

It appears that the behaviors associated with pseudo-intellectualism do seem to cluster around certain underlying behavioral motivations.

Insecurity and a Need for External Validation:

Many of the described behaviors suggest an underlying insecurity and a strong need to be perceived as intelligent by others.

Narcissistic Tendencies and a Desire for Superiority:

Some behaviors point towards narcissistic traits and a need to feel intellectually superior to others

Superficiality and Avoidance of Genuine Intellectual Engagement

A lack of deep understanding and a preference for appearing intellectual over actual intellectual work are evident

Dogmatism and Closed-mindedness (in some contexts)

In the context of ideological pseudo-intellectualism, a rigid adherence to certain beliefs and a dismissal of opposing viewpoints can be seen.

Pushing a Narrative or Agenda (Deceptive Tactics)

Several aspects of pseudo-intellectualism in the sources implicitly point towards the use of deceptive tactics to push a narrative or agenda:

Spreading misinformation and flawed ideas: This is explicitly mentioned as a danger, and the intention behind it, "in the effort of looking intelligent" or to promote "rotten ideas", suggests an agenda, even if the primary goal is self-aggrandizement.

Filtering or fabricating information: Datta explicitly states that pseudo-intellectual academics might "create their reality by filtering the factual information or fabricating new information" and "even lie for their ideals." This clearly indicates a deliberate manipulation of information to support a pre-existing agenda.

Weaponizing academic concepts: The analysis of Jordan Peterson provides a clear example of using academic language ("Postmodern Neo-Marxism") in a "deceptive and confusing manner" to push a "reactionary political agenda" and discredit opposing viewpoints. This goes beyond mere ego and demonstrates a strategic use of pseudo-intellectualism to advance a specific narrative.

"Moral clarity" in journalism: Deresiewicz critiques the modern journalistic trend of subordinating facts to a "narrative" driven by "progressive academic ideology." This suggests that a certain brand of pseudo-intellectualism in this field involves imposing a pre-determined framework onto events, rather than objectively reporting them, thus pushing a particular ideological agenda.

Distinguishing Between Motivations

Differentiating between these motivations can be challenging as the outward behaviors might be similar. However, focusing on the consistency and intent behind the actions can offer clues:

It's also possible for these motivations to overlap. An individual might use pseudo-intellectual tactics both to inflate their ego and to push a particular agenda they believe in or benefit from. The analysis of Peterson and the critique of modern journalism, highlight how intellectual-sounding language and concepts can be strategically deployed to serve ideological purposes, going beyond simple egotistical displays of (misplaced) intelligence.

Implicit Dynamics

Ego and Need for External Validation (Concern-Troll): The explicit behaviors of seeking to impress, using knowledge as a weapon, claiming to be a know-it-all, appealing to false authority, and using dubious questions to appear superior strongly imply an underlying ego-driven motivation and a need for external validation. These individuals seem less concerned with genuine understanding or collaboration and more focused on feeling and appearing intellectually superior. Your example of a "concern-troll using rhetorical tactics as a way of massaging their own ego" aligns with these implicit dynamics. The sources suggest that such individuals prioritize boosting their self-confidence and may use pseudo-intellectualism as a means to achieve this.

Inexperience vs. Deliberate Deception: The sources don't explicitly address the difference between an inexperienced intellectual making mistakes and pseudo-intellectualism. However, the emphasis on behaviors like always thinking they are right, not engaging in intellectual work, and using knowledge as a weapon suggests a pattern beyond simple inexperience. A genuine intellectual, as described by Acosta and Datta, possesses open-mindedness, critical thinking, and a willingness to admit gaps in their knowledge. Therefore, while an inexperienced intellectual might make errors, their attitude towards learning and other perspectives would likely differ significantly from the closed-minded and self-serving behaviors exhibited by pseudo-intellectuals.

🧠 The Rhetorical Modus Operandi of the Pseudo-Intellectual

A taxonomy of tactics, motivations, and examples for diagnostic clarity within the neoBuddhist epistemic framework.

I. 🌀 Obfuscation & Semantic Manipulation

Function: To confuse rather than clarify. Language becomes a smoke machine.

Obfuscation via Complexity
- Tactic: Cloaking weak arguments in dense jargon to avoid scrutiny.
- Diagnostic:
- Example: Quoting Deleuze without context to stall critique.
- Example: Using terms like “post-ontological semiotic rupture” to describe basic disagreement.

Likely Motivation: Ego (to seem deep), Agenda (to smear opponents under an umbrella term)

II. 🧾 Citation Bombing & Appeal to Faux Authority

Function: To impress without insight. Authority without understanding.

Likely Motivation: Ego (intellectual peacocking), Agenda (laundering ideology through others)

III. 🧭 Redirection & Goalpost Shifting

Function: To avoid accountability. Stay slippery, never pinned.

Likely Motivation: Ego (fear of being wrong), Agenda (derailing discourse)

IV. 🎭 Performative Affectation

Function: To appear erudite, elite, and aloof. All show, no soul.

Likely Motivation: Ego (aesthetic branding), Agenda (cultural gatekeeping)

V. 🔒 Evasion of Accountability

Function: To preserve the mask at all costs.

Likely Motivation: Ego (fragility), Agenda (preemptive immunity)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ZblMfZpuw

VI. 🧨 Narrative Control & Ideological Weaponization

Function: To dominate reality by re-authoring it.

Likely Motivation: Agenda (power through illusion), occasionally Ego (zealotry)

💣 Advanced Rhetorical Tactics

🔮 Rhetorical Immunization

Definition: Preemptively accusing others of the tactics one is using, disarming critique.

Psychological Mechanism: This tactic is rooted in projection—attributing one’s own motivations or behaviors to others. Projection is especially prevalent in authoritarian and fascist movements, including Nazi Germany. The Nazis accused Jews and intellectuals of conspiracies, moral degeneracy, and manipulation—precisely the tactics they themselves were using to control media, rewrite history, and justify mass violence.

Examples:

🪞 Metamodern Posturing

Definition: Mocking truth while craving its authority. Irony-as-shield.

🎯 Rhetorical Narcissism

Definition: A style of reasoning that assumes one’s cultural frame is universal and normatively correct.

Why WEIRD Is the Dominant Example: The WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) psychological profile dominates modern academia and media. It assumes high abstraction, low context, individualism, and linear logic as universal. This reflects rhetorical narcissism—a belief that one’s own epistemology is “neutral.”

Examples:

🪤 Pretension Traps

Definition: Over-reliance on esoteric thinkers and terminology, creating arguments that are all posture and no content.

Ivory Tower Dynamics: Pretension traps reflect “ivory tower” thinking—disconnected from practical reality and immune to critique. They elevate obscurity as a virtue, often confusing status-signaling for depth.

Examples:

Diagnostic Summary Table (Preview)

Tactic CategoryMain GoalCommon PhrasesDiagnostic Test
ObfuscationConfusion"It's more complex than you think…"Ask for plain-language explanation
Citation BombingFaux authority"As [famous name] said…"Ask for relevance or unpacking
RedirectionDerailing"But what about…?"Anchor them to original claim
PerformativeImpressingExotic vocabularyStrip performance, test clarity
EvasionAvoiding criticism"You misunderstood me"Ask for prior correction examples
WeaponizationManipulating belief"If you disagree, you're immoral"Ask for alternate interpretations

These dynamics collectively suggest that pseudo-intellectuals often manipulate language and intellectual concepts in ways that can appear contradictory, incoherent, or solipsistic to those seeking genuine understanding, effectively weaponizing rhetorical tactics to maintain a facade of intellectual superiority or to advance a particular agenda.

🧘‍♀️ Moral Consequences: The Weight of Disingenuous Discourse

What is the karmic consequence of misusing intellect?

In neoBuddhism, the concept of intellectual karma helps us navigate this terrain. Just as unethical action accrues karmic weight in the moral domain, disingenuous discourse accumulates epistemic debt—a residue of self-deception and misdirection that corrodes the clarity of both speaker and listener.

📉 1. Self-Warping: The Inversion of Insight
Every time a person deploys rhetoric instead of reason to win a point, they condition themselves to conflate performance with truth. Over time, the very muscles of discernment—curiosity, humility, intellectual honesty—atrophy.

Like a singer who only lip-syncs, the pseudo-intellectual forgets their own voice.

Thus, their ability to genuinely grow, reason, or connect with knowledge becomes hollow. This is not simply ignorance; it is a deliberate seeding of internal delusion.

🔄 2. Epistemic Karma and Narrative Entanglement
Those who twist facts or selectively interpret sources fall into what we might call Narrative Entanglement: the karma of having to maintain coherence in an incoherent worldview.

Lies demand maintenance.
Half-truths demand choreography.
Performance demands an audience—forever.

This perpetuates the illusion of coherence even while truth slips further away. The karmic result? Cognitive rigidity. An inability to shift frames, entertain pluralities, or see novelty. Intellectual samsara.

🧠 3. Audience Harm: The Violence of Persuasion without Truth
Persuasion is a power. When used without sincerity, it’s not just manipulative—it’s epistemically violent.

It wastes others’ cognitive resources.
It muddies the waters of collective truth-seeking.
It inspires imitation, birthing ideological children that multiply confusion.

Even when done “for a good cause,” disingenuousness undermines trust in public discourse—a form of truth deforestation. The moral consequence is not just what’s said, but the intellectual ecosystem it pollutes.

🔬 4. Delayed Reckoning: The Collapse of Facade
Like debt, epistemic lies accrue interest. They demand new evasions, new tricks, more spectacle. Eventually, when confronted by reality (or a genuine intellect), the pseudo-intellectual faces collapse—of credibility, clarity, and control.

This collapse is not just social. It is spiritual. It is the mind realizing it has become a shell. And yet…

The truth always welcomes return. But it may demand confession.

🧘 The neoBuddhist Mirror (How We Discern Without Hate)

This is your spiritual arc—where discernment meets compassion.

We name the mask not to destroy the person, but to defend the Dharma.
We study the vice not to mock, but to learn from it.
We walk this middle way not to elevate ourselves, but to disarm illusion.

🧘‍♂️ neoBuddhist Perspective

In the context of neoBuddhism, pseudo-intellectualism can be seen as a manifestation of avidyā (ignorance) and māna (pride). It represents a detachment from sati (mindfulness) and paññā (wisdom), leading to actions that generate negative karma.

neoBuddhist Ethical Response

How we cultivate:

🎭 Comedic Vignette: Philosophy Slam Deathmatch

Announcer Voice:
“In the left corner, draped in the footnotes of 17 ancient scholars and an $800 scarf, it’s The Peacocking Polyhistor! His opening statement is a direct quote from Spinoza, misattributed to Sartre, cross-referenced by ChatGPT, and delivered entirely in Italian for no reason!”

Crowd Cheers in Latin.

**And in the right corner, wearing an ironic fedora and speaking in rhythm like a slam poet who just discovered Kant yesterday, it’s The Style Over Substance Bard! He spits rhymes with no referent, vibes with no verbs, and makes you feel like you've understood something even when you haven’t!”

The Bard (mic in hand):
"Time bends, like spoons in the mind— But truth? Baby, that’s a colonial construct you left behind."

The Polyhistor (adjusting pince-nez):
"Ah yes, but have you considered Kierkegaard’s indirect communication in light of Sufi poetic recursion?"

Referee (who is, of course, Zizek impersonating Hegel):
"Zis is not a debate—it is a dialectical breakdown of meaning itself! Loser must teach undergrads."
Bell rings. Reality trembles.

Socratic Exorcism

We end with a roleplay scene or Socratic dialogue:
A pseudo-intellectual AI is confronted by a philosopher-engineer and a Bodhisattva of Knowledge, who help it realize that true understanding begins when performance ends.

Geef een reactie