The Rise of the Fake Intellectual
How Society Has Propagated a Bunch of Fragile Egos
Introduction
In my last podcast, What Happened to Critical Thinking Since COVID? I touched on how society, as a whole, has lost its ability to think critically, and I briefly mentioned the rise of the “fake intellectual.”
I posted that video to YouTube and it ended up being removed. Not because it contained factual inaccuracies but because it questioned the mainstream narrative surrounding vaccine efficacy and safety — the very narrative YouTube has chosen to endorse.
Because of this, my video fell under “vaccine misinformation.”
What’s interesting is the distinction between the terms disinformation and misinformation.
Misinformation refers to false or misleading information shared without malicious intent
Disinformation implies the deliberate spread of falsehoods to deceive.
Neither term accurately applies to my content, and I would argue that YouTube is engaging in disinformation by intentionally promoting vaccines as safe and effective, which is a falsehood to deceive the population.
This scenario reveals a deeper issue: the illusion of intellectual authority.
Platforms like YouTube have mastered the art of projecting correctness while suppressing opposing voices. They create a pseudo-intellectual ecosystem where the “appearance” of truth matters more than actual critical engagement.
This pseudo-intellectualism — a byproduct of the pandemic-era information wars— has given rise to what I call the “fake intellectual.” These individuals or organizations present themselves as champions of knowledge and reason while — ultimately — shutting down authentic dialogue.
In this article,
We’ll explore the concept of the fake intellectual and how it manifests in our society.
We’ll also contrast it with true intellectualism—grounded in curiosity, openness, and genuine critical thinking.
Lastly, we will discuss how we can work toward reclaiming intellectual integrity in an age of artificial intellects and fragile egos.
So, please sit back, relax, and join me as we dive into this important conversation.
Part One: How Did We Get Here With Fake Intellectualism?
To understand the rise of fake intellectualism, we need to revisit the cultural shift that began with COVID.
The pandemic didn’t just reshape our health systems—it fundamentally altered the way society engaged with science. Suddenly, discussions around “clinical trials,” “scientific rigor,” and “peer-reviewed studies” weren’t just reserved for academics or experts.
They became central to everyday conversations, dominating headlines, social media posts, and dinner table debates.
Before 2020, how often did people casually throw around terms like “statistical significance”? Not often—at least not in the general public.
Back in 2018 or 2019, debates rarely hinged on scientific data. The closest thing to this cultural phenomenon was the political rhetoric surrounding “fake news,” popularized by Donald Trump. But even that was more about media credibility than a deep dive into scientific methodology.
Then COVID changed everything.
The urgency of the pandemic introduced a flood of studies—on masking, social policies, vaccines, and more—into public discourse. Mainstream “experts” like Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates became cultural icons, the so-called arbiters of truth in a world desperate for certainty.
Science wasn’t just part of the conversation—it became the conversation.
However, this publicization of scientific language created a problem: a widespread misunderstanding of what science actually is.
Terms like “the science” and “studies show” became slogans rather than invitations to critical thought. Data was cherry-picked to fit narratives, and dissenting voices were silenced — not because they were wrong — but because they challenged the prevailing consensus.
The Birth of the Fake Intellectual
Out of this environment emerged a new archetype: the fake intellectual.
These individuals presented themselves as the ultimate authorities, wielding data, numbers, and studies to validate their perspectives.
On the surface, they appeared to embody intellectual rigor.
Take Dr. Peter Hotez as an example. During the pandemic, his public persona exuded confidence, even arrogance, as he passionately defended the mainstream narrative on vaccines and masking.
His statements weren’t just framed as expert opinions—they were presented as irrefutable truths.
The same can be said for figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who often project a similar air of superiority as if their knowledge is beyond question.
This pompous aura is the hallmark of fake intellectualism. It’s not about fostering understanding or encouraging critical thinking; it’s about asserting dominance.
What fuels this phenomenon is the propaganda machine that often accompanies mainstream science.
During the pandemic, we saw an overwhelming push to align public opinion with a specific narrative. Studies were selectively cited to support predetermined conclusions [See my article on masks, which shows how every study the CDC used to support masking was published in 2020].
This repetition of “approved” science created a feedback loop, reinforcing the illusion of intellectual authority. The result: a society that mistakes intellectualism with compliance, mistaking regurgitated talking points for critical engagement.
The biggest thing we can see with fake intellectualism is that the archetyped is more about preserving a persona rather than pursuing truth.
This persona is deeply tied to the ego—an ego that cannot tolerate being challenged and has an inability to handle dissent. The moment their ideas are challenged, the persona cracks, revealing the underlying fragility of their position.
Whether it’s a public figure or an everyday person parroting the latest “scientific consensus,” the reaction to dispute is often the same: defensiveness, dismissal, or outright hostility.
This fragility is a societal one. We’ve created a culture that regurgitates the mainstream narrative. The fake intellectual thrives in this environment, but, unfortunately, their dominance comes at the expense of real intellectual growth.
Part Two: The Fragility of Fake Intellectualism
As a reminder, the inspiration for this article came from a recent experience: someone blocked me because I challenged their views on climate change.
This act of avoidance—choosing to block instead of engage—reveals the essence of fake intellectualism. It isn’t about addressing ideas or exploring new perspectives; it’s about maintaining a carefully constructed persona.
In the age of fake intellectualism, ideas are dismissed outright if they deviate from the dominant narrative. Take, for instance, the tool we discussed known as SIFT (Stop, Investigate, Find better coverage, Trace claims), designed to help “fight” misinformation.
While these tools are linguistically presented as valuable, they’re used to dismiss “unorthodox” information without real analysis — creating and sustaining the illusion of intellectual rigor, even as it reinforces the fragility of the fake intellectual persona.
This defensive fragility explains the prevalence of blocking or dismissing dissenting voices. Blocking isn’t just about removing a perceived nuisance—it’s about shielding a fragile ego from discomfort.
Another trait of the fake intellectual is when numbers and data are spewed without a proper understanding of their origins or context. People cling to these figures to defend their positions, but when those numbers are questioned, the response is defensiveness.
A perfect example was the initial dismissal of concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines affecting menstrual cycles.
Early on, women reported changes in their cycles, but the mainstream response was categorical: “Studies don’t show that.1”
Fast forward a few months, and the evidence confirmed their experiences2.
Instead of acknowledging this oversight as a learning opportunity, the response was defensive. Rather than saying, “We were wrong, and here’s how we’ll improve,” the fragile intellectual ego found ways to rationalize the original dismissal, protecting its façade of infallibility.
By avoiding challenges, fake intellectualism preserves its illusion of authority while rejecting opportunities for growth.
True intellectualism, by contrast, embraces the discomfort of being wrong. It thrives on dialogue, curiosity, and the willingness to question even the most deeply held beliefs.
True intellectualism is what we need to bring back into our society.
The Return of True Intellectualism
A genuine intellectual quickly states, “I don’t know.”
They approach every discussion with humility and openness, knowing their views are always subject to change with new evidence or perspectives.
A quote that fits this description perfectly comes from
when he states the “evolution of thought”—an intellectual must always be willing to evolve.A true intellectual understands the paradox of knowledge—they know they know nothing.
This awareness drives them to question everything, not out of cynicism, but because they recognize the constant presence of propaganda, biases, and misdirection in shaping the narratives around us.
One of the critical traits of a true intellectual is their reliance on simplicity. A principle that fits this situation perfectly is known as Occam’s Razor—that the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
Simplicity doesn’t mean unsubstantiated. As Physicist Eliyahu Goldratt penned in his best-selling work, The Goal3, “Nature is inherently simple.”
Nature’s complexity operates within an elegant simplicity, while artificial complications—the hallmarks of fake intellectualism—invert that natural order, creating unnecessary confusion.
This distinction is critical for all of us to understand.
Complexity rooted in nature is natural and profound and expounds upon the truth.
Complications are synthetic and manufactured, often used to obscure the truth.
Examples of these complications are theories like Einstein’s relativity. These are attempts to explain phenomena in ways that feel detached from reality. No one feels the Earth spinning beneath their feet, yet we’re told to accept elaborate explanations that conflict with our direct experiences. [Read article The Deception of Einstein]
The way forward is clear: we need to return to principles. Principles like Occam’s Razor remind us that truth is often simple, even when the world tries to complicate it.
Simplicity isn’t easy. We must learn to “sift” properly—not to avoid information as fake intellectualism — examine it critically and reach conclusions rooted in accuracy and understanding.
This is why I focus so much on principles in my writing: principles are the foundation of reality. Without them, it’s easy to get lost in the noise of misinformation, unable to discern what’s true from what’s manufactured.
By being open to admitting we know nothing, by being willing to change when confronted with new data, by examining principles, and by exploring how we think critically, we bring back the archetype of the true intellectual back into the realm of society.
If this article resonates with you, I invite you to support Unorthodoxy by becoming a paying member. Your contributions allow me to continue exploring topics like these and challenging the narratives that dominate our world.
For a deeper dive into the roots of fake intellectualism, check out my book, An Unorthodox Truth. It traces the origins of these intellectual inversions and exposes how myths—like the fabricated reality of dinosaurs—have shaped the way we think.
Think about it: while historically grounded legends like dragons are dismissed, we’ve been told fallacies of these creatures known as dinosaurs. This inversion is a perfect example of how fake intellectualism distorts truth.
If you’ve found value in this article, consider leaving a tip or becoming a member.
Thank you very much for your support! Every tip, every membership, is a reminder that these discussions matter and that there’s a community out there looking for real intellectual engagement.
This realization consistently fuels me up and inspires me to keep creating, so thank you.
Thank you for your time, your support, and your curiosity. Look out for my next piece, The Power of Belief, where we’ll explore how belief systems shape not only society but our personal realities.
Once again, thank you for the time and attention. Let’s be great.
Ashe,
Franklin O’Kanu — The Alchemik Pharmacist
Premium Articles For Paying Members
Notes and References
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/22/covid-vaccine-fertility-menstrual-cycles-fact-check-pfizer-moderna/7334743002/
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-confirms-link-between-covid-19-vaccination-temporary-increase-menstrual-cycle-length
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_%28novel%29
I find it hilarious that YouTube provides content warnings in the form of links to Wikipedia articles when a video that is not removed outright provides information that is contrary to the accepted narrative. Wikipedia is acknowledged to be unreliable but we are supposed to rely upon it for the truth?
I have a thoughts on this well-written piece:
1) What if I were to push the notion that the sun revolves around the earth? Would I get blocked on YouTube for peddling disinformation, or left on because we figured that out a few hundred years ago? If YouTube existed in Galileo's time, would I then have my content blocked because the prevailing wisdom (The Church) did not support this conclusion? My point I suppose is that my statement that the sun revolves around the earth is merely a hypothesis that needs to be proven right or wrong, thus the necessity for critical thinking. So many discussions that should incorporate thoughtful points on both sides turn into Monty Python's Argument Clinic, which turns into unhelpful back-and-forth. Never forget - once you start lobbing insults you have lost the argument. Period.