I post a lot of information or articles I find from publications I subscribe to. Much of this information either agrees with what I believe or is new to me. Often I post to see what others think. I don't feel that I am simply regurgitating someone else's ideas or viewpoint altho I have seen that this is a common practice.

I am addicted to reading and to taking classes. I love that I can continue to learn and am really put off by those who never had an idea after school or whose views are cast in stone. How can we grow if we don't venture out?

I prefer to rely upon what I can solidly understand without help and remember off the top of my head. That's what I value, that's how I want to be, so that's how I do.

However anyone else does is up to them. Rather than guide people to my preferred standard of behavior, I'd rather let people disclose themselves to me by having the freedom to choose however they want to be. That way I can tell who I'm really impressed with and who is just going along.

Alright, I see what most people are saying. and mostly, you all make great points.

I wasn't suggesting there isn't a place to learn on the internet, nor was I suggesting you can't double check your thoughts. it's one thing to pop on google and briefly look at a wiki page to get some sort of reassurance you're on the right track, and it's another thing to do it to assert you know something.

an example on my part would be phonetically similar words, which I'm certain I know the meaning of, but if I get it wrong the whole context flies out the window, as a result, someone who relies on authority or people who seem to have authority, may just run with what that other person says and become a victim of ignorance from themselves and those they deem an authority on the subject.

I'm not a physicist, nor am I good with mathematics, but I have taken the time to teach myself and find teachers who can lend insight into a subject, giving me enough information to dig deeper.

someone mentioned teaching a class... if you're a teacher, your entire job is to encourage and spark curiosity in your students. if you can't do that, you shouldn't be teaching. I never had a good teacher, the best teacher I ever knew was myself. as soon as I didn't have school, I wanted to learn more of what I was denied.

it's one thing to tell others some regurgitated information, it's another to be able to actually talk about it. someone mentioned having reference books before the internet, and how the internet makes it easier... look, reference books are there when you have enough information to know where to look. you can't just think you need to know something and read every single book, cover to cover, looking for that little gem you need. this is how you're taught to research. know enough about your subject, and dig deeper. this is a process of learning, not a process of lying to yourself or others to seem like you know what you're saying.

this is why I'm asking the question. I'm not sure if I'm on the right train of thought and I figured dropping the question here would spark some sense of what I need to improve in myself and if I am alone in it. without any real opinions leaning toward answers, to my yes or no question, instead to be given mostly anecdotes, I have no further insight than before I asked.

should it be ignored and allowed to persist? what do you know about surviving in the wild? can you tell the time from your own knowledge or do you need the internet? do you know which tools are best used and created in the wild? which foods to eat, what is and isn't dangerous?

I've lived in the wild, without internet or society on my side. I had to use intuition and bravery in order to trust what it is I think I know. do you know where to find water and how to make sure it won't kill you? this pseudo intelligence is a dangerous road to let it go unchecked. it's all fine and dandy that we have created our own living spaces, we're safe from seriously dangerous predators. if society collapsed tomorrow, would you be truly ready to employ your intelligence, or will you rely on other people to be smart enough and nice enough to be the ones who keep you alive?

I say we shouldn't let idiots pretend they know shit. I don't want to be an idiot, I don't want to think what I know is right. I want to be corrected, improved and encouraged to learn more about almost every single subject there is. it's not about detailed memorisation, it's mostly about the willingness to accept your knowledge is limited. how limited it is, depends on the people around you and vice versa for the people you are around. I'm mentally prepared to scavenge, collect, create and adapt to pretty much anything. what I'm not prepared to do is let other people pretend they know something and say it with such confidence, it could harm other people later.

I think this is summed up in a story about a large building, hall, town centre (I forget the name and place) which, when built, was sturdy and really well built. I think it was in england too. the council / leaders told the architect to put columns in the building to support the ceiling, basically pretending they knew it need support, but the architect denied the need for them. after being forced to make columns anyway, the architect purposefully made them slightly short of touch the ceiling. he tried explaining why he was right and they refused to listen. to this day, the columns still do not support the ceiling and thus have proven that knowledge is power.

pseudo intellect and pseudo knowledge wasted time and money because they thought they knew better. if they had succeeded in getting what they wanted, we would be even more ignorant of an obvious truth about construction and the brilliant mind of a great architect. if the architect allowed that pseudo intelligence to persevere, we would be listening to half baked understandings and half known truths from people who are only halfwits. wouldn't you be super proud if you could defy authority like that and still be right years down the line.

I think intelligence is the ability to find and accurately make use of knowledge. If that involves looking something up on the Internet then I don't see that as making intelligence less legitimate. It doesn't really matter if I knew something already or was able to come up to speed quickly in the moment -- so long as I accurately understand the topic and can engage meaningfully with it.

I may be somewhat conditioned to this because in the pre-Internet era, like all software developers, I had a big bookcase full of thick reference books and example code and so forth, and now I don't because I can Google all that far more efficiently and up-to-date anyway. I don't clutter my mind with detailed memorized lists; why should I do that, or take the time to memorize things, when Google or Bing can serve that office? In what way were my paper reference books representative of superior intellect, when they were less complete, less up to date, and less efficient to access?

In most of my work, and in most of my online interactions, I know enough to get by, and doing quick research is a way of confirming my recollection or finding a factoid that I don't use on a regular basis.

Finally, I don't need to prove anything about my intelligence and apart from my paying clients I don't much care what anyone thinks of it. I just care about participating effectively to my own satisfaction. I don't think we should be judging other's intelligence as more or less genuine so long as their arguments are accurate and use valid reasoning.

Hmm...seems a bit picky and control freaky of you.
I don't care why people look up information on google, as long as they are learning something.
I even used to TRICK my students into learning, using curiosity

I'd bring a novel like Anna Karenina to work when I was a sub teacher in two eastern KY counties. I'd sit in front of the class while students were doing their boring "busywork" assignments left by the regular teacher to amuse them.

Then I'd gasp and react to the first chapter, saying things barely aloud, like, "NO! Not with the children's tutor! What will she do NOW? "

After a bit, the high school girls would start getting curious but I'd act like it was not for children.."No, no, its about a guy cheating on his wife, so his married sister comes to help his wife forgive him, but she falls in love with a handsome army officer, and they start this affair..now she finds out she's pregnant..

By then the girls would have rushed to the front and begun fighting over the novel, which I would relinquish reluctantly, then start the whole thing again with another book, or newspaper article..to get the boys stampeding to the front.

"What? Ashley Judd is only wearing a football jersey in this photo op?"

I have a lot of shit in my head, I kill on trivia nights, in the past I had reference books and many books of my own notes as I couldn't keep all the minute details in my head. Now my notes are on my hard drive and the net is my reference source. I recommend (for me anyway) a mix, I use what I know as a starting point, and then especially when dealing with a professional, say a medical specialist I would double check myself before getting too in depth.

I agree with you for many discussions. Particularly when it is an honest given and take discussion.

Often when a discussion becomes adversarial then evidence is required. I have to say that I have not encountered that so much on this site. The problem is that in scientific discussions people will demand "evidence" so then is fair to google? I have to say yes.

Okay.