Current Events > Do you think academics are arrogant and self-absorbed?

(+) Yeah! (+)

jayj420 posted...

The title of this topic is literally "Do you think academics are arrogant and self-absorbed?"

So from that you're gonna assume that anybody who posts in this topic and disagrees is an academic

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

***Note that I've been neutral this time and literally have only responded to you
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

I didn't realize I hurt your ego, ah well.

Projections are often a sign of a losing argument.
---

jayj420 posted...

The problem is how professors aren't the kind of people you see going around claiming to be academics and intellectuals.

I feel that my definition of "academic" is different than yours. As COVxy said, people typically describe academics as people who work in academia, such as professors. More broadly, I see it as people whose main goal is to increase their knowledge through research, something most commonly seen in professors at research universities.

If your definition of "academic" is people who assign themselves that title to make themselves sound smarter and intellectual than everyone else, then in that case, yes, academics are arrogant and self-absorbed, because that is inherent in the word's definition.
---

DezCaughtIt posted...

jayj420 posted...

Also since you're good at debating I'm wondering where I mentioned anything about being an academic in this topic

The title of this topic is literally "Do you think academics are arrogant and self-absorbed?"

I believe you've made yourself perfectly redundant

You're the one trying to act like a topic asking people what they think about academics has nothing to do with the subject.
---

not any more arrogant or self-absorbed than the rest of people
---

Kineth posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

MutantJohn posted...

they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed.

I can hardly think of anyone more self-important and self-obsessed than an academic

The irony is that you are conveying a sense of self-importance and I won't even bother commenting on the self-obsession part, but point is, what the fuck does your opinion matter? It's not backed up by anything. I could literally say Chris Jericho, the wrestler, portrayed a persona with more self-importance and self-obsession. Or even the Kim dynasty with the amount of statues, pictures, painting, etc that show depictions, images and etc. of them, as well as the propaganda that he forces the citizens to watch or about like the 18 hole-in-ones story. Hell, Henry VIII literally changed the Country's religion to Protestantism because he wanted to break tradition and be able to divorce some of the wives that didn't get killed or die.

Point is it's a disingenuous sentiment that doesn't fairly represent anything. There's either a lack of information, whether studied, or learned from the environment to explain the lack of context and other plausible possibilities, a clear bias against the subject that leads to things like: intending to discredit them, failing to see individuality in a group leading to failure to see the individual as anything but an idealized representation of the object in your head which leads to speaking of an unrealistic subject because it's not a realistic representation or a respectable one at that. It's likely a mix of both when people say this as a true sentiment instead of just to troll.

---

Zanzenburger posted...

jayj420 posted...

The problem is how professors aren't the kind of people you see going around claiming to be academics and intellectuals.

I feel that my definition of "academic" is different than yours. As COVxy said, people typically describe academics as people who work in academia, such as professors. More broadly, I see it as people whose main goal is to increase their knowledge through research, something most commonly seen in professors at research universities.

If your definition of "academic" is people who assign themselves that title to make themselves sound smarter and intellectual than everyone else, then in that case, yes, academics are arrogant and self-absorbed, because that is inherent in the word's definition.

So how am I incorrect? I didn't assign my definition to everyone who could fall into the definition but the kind of people who actually use the title of academic. I would expect you at the very least to understand basic definitions if you hope to defend the values of academia.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

jayj420 posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

I didn't realize I hurt your ego, ah well.

Projections are often a sign of a losing argument.

What's the argument again? Or better yet, what do you think mine is?

You are merely trying to defend your ego at this point, it is obvious and why I have never had any interest in arguing with you. Vanity is a bad excuse to be pompous.
---

jayj420 posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

jayj420 posted...

The problem is how professors aren't the kind of people you see going around claiming to be academics and intellectuals.

I feel that my definition of "academic" is different than yours. As COVxy said, people typically describe academics as people who work in academia, such as professors. More broadly, I see it as people whose main goal is to increase their knowledge through research, something most commonly seen in professors at research universities.

If your definition of "academic" is people who assign themselves that title to make themselves sound smarter and intellectual than everyone else, then in that case, yes, academics are arrogant and self-absorbed, because that is inherent in the word's definition.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Hmm yes good point
---

You have to excuse jay, it appears all of this debating has made him quite hwheary
---

You know, if you hope to establish your values as an intellectual, name calling and insults are a bad way to do that.
---

MacadamianNut3 posted...

You have to excuse jay, it appears all of this debating has made him quite hwheary

Honestly it's a topic asking people what they think about academics, and when someone says something critical all of a sudden some people get very aggressive and attack those opinions.

Whenever people do that it is usually because they can't handle the criticism.
---

jayj420 posted...

Honestly it's a topic asking people what they think about academics, and when someone says something critical all of a sudden some people get very aggressive and attack those opinions.

Post 10 was a great start to this. I rate it....post 10/10

*rimshot*
---

jayj420 posted...

So how am I incorrect? I didn't assign my definition to everyone who could fall into the definition but the kind of people who actually use the title of academic. I would expect you at the very least to understand basic definitions if you hope to defend the values of academia.

I guess the part of your argument that I struggle with is that I've never encountered anyone who unironically calls themselves an "academic" or an "intellectual". I've seen academic used more as an adjective for a field, or a group of people, not really as a title for a person.

Professors generally call themselves professors, or sometimes researchers. Even philosophy teachers, which in my opinion fit the closest description to a stereotypical academic, typically just call themselves students of life, or lifelong learners, or just "the annoying guy that questions everything" (had a great philosophy professor once that had that on his business card, lol).
---

Zanzenburger posted...

jayj420 posted...

So how am I incorrect? I didn't assign my definition to everyone who could fall into the definition but the kind of people who actually use the title of academic. I would expect you at the very least to understand basic definitions if you hope to defend the values of academia.

I guess the part of your argument that I struggle with is that I've never encountered anyone who unironically calls themselves an "academic" or an "intellectual". I've seen academic used more as an adjective for a field, or a group of people, not really as a title for a person.

Professors generally call themselves professors, or sometimes researchers. Even philosophy teachers, which in my opinion fit the closest description to a stereotypical academic, typically just call themselves students of life, or lifelong learners, or just "the annoying guy that questions everything" (had a great philosophy professor once that had that on his business card, lol).

I think that's the point I was trying to make really lol.

The title of academic is great for people who don't actually call themselves academics... while the people you see going around trying to call themselves academics or intellectuals... well they have some problems.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Some are, some aren't.

---

jayj420 posted...

doug123 posted...

Do I think some academics are arrogant? Yes.
Do I think all academics are arrogant? No.
Do I think most academics are arrogant? No.

Do I think this poll was poorly worded? Yes.


I also believe that the trend of anti-intellectualism is far more of a threat to society than arrogant or self-adsorbed academics.

Where is this "trend of anti-intellectualism?"

You guys sound like idiots trying to justify your bullshit right now, just sayin...

Seriously?

I think the issue here is that some people are interpreting academic as

"Someone (usually with a PhD) who is a professor or is heavily involved in academic research"

and those people seem to not think academics are self-absorbed/arrogant.

And then there are people who interpret academic as
"Arrogant, self-absorbed people who claim to be smart"

and unsurprisingly have negative opinions of those people.

For the record, the term academics refers to the first definition.
---

Over 50% of the people think that academics are either self-absorbed, arrogant or both. Interesting.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Over 50% of the people think that academics are either self-absorbed, arrogant or both. Interesting.

Nobody has said that anti-intellectualism isn't a rising problem.
---

COVxy posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Over 50% of the people think that academics are either self-absorbed, arrogant or both. Interesting.

Nobody has said that anti-intellectualism isn't a rising problem.

You've spent your entire life drinking the academic kool-aid
---

REMercsChamp posted...

COVxy posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Over 50% of the people think that academics are either self-absorbed, arrogant or both. Interesting.

Nobody has said that anti-intellectualism isn't a rising problem.

You've spent your entire life drinking the academic kool-aid

Me thinks you have no idea what my life has been like, so pretending you do is silly.

All you know is where I am now, at best, but even that you don't understand.
---

COVxy posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

COVxy posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Over 50% of the people think that academics are either self-absorbed, arrogant or both. Interesting.

Nobody has said that anti-intellectualism isn't a rising problem.

You've spent your entire life drinking the academic kool-aid

Me thinks you have no idea what my life has been like, so pretending you do is silly.

All you know is where I am now, at best, but even that you don't understand.

I can tell by your diarrhea inducing posts that you're little more than an arrogant academic with no real world experience.
---

I find it to be much worse in law school than in undergrad.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

I can tell by your diarrhea inducing posts that you're little more than an arrogant academic with no real world experience.

Lmao, if you say so.
---

Who pissed in jay's cereal?
---

NadYobWoc posted...

Who pissed in jay's cereal?

I think he's still sore that one of his alts is in purgatory for perpetual shitposting
---

As someone with a Bachelor's and one year of law school experience: Yes to both.

So many of my classmates and teachers were fucking insufferable. It rubbed off on me a bit too, but I didn't realize it until a few years later.