Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I used to know this word but cannot remember it.

Basically it’s someone who likes the prospect of being knowledgeable about many things, or at least wants the appearance of erudition, but who is unwilling to put in the time and effort to learn new things.

He may put in just enough effort to learn some trivia to impress others.

And pretentious isn’t the word I was thinking of.

share|improve this question
4  
These days, "Googler" is enough to define that concept. –  Robusto Jul 12 '14 at 15:28
    
@tchrist - I am curious why you edited "who is" in the question title to "who's". Is it the site policy to use the shortened form in the question titles? Or isn't it rather your personal preference only? In that case you shouldn't have edited it in this way. I haven't found anything which would support such an edit in english.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit. Or maybe I am wrong and in the contemporary English it is already considered an error to use the full form of "is"? –  Honza Zidek Jul 13 '14 at 9:59
    
Not a single word, but there is an idiom that means basically just this: jack of all trades, master of none (the second half of it can be left out and is still understood). –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 13 '14 at 11:39
    
I was trying to make the title shorter. Might as well delete who’s altogether. –  tchrist Jul 13 '14 at 11:39
    
@tchrist - motivation for deleting who is altogether would be more understandable :) Go on, do it! :D –  Honza Zidek Jul 13 '14 at 12:50

12 Answers 12

Perhaps dilettante or dilettantish conveys what you describe.

According to Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

a person whose interest in an art or in an area of knowledge is not very deep or serious.

Plural: dil·et·tantes or dil·et·tan·ti

share|improve this answer
    
That's the first word I thought of as well. The only point I would argue is that dilettante doesn't imply anything about the motivations of the person to whom it is applied. A dilettante could genuinely enjoy and appreciate the thing they study superficially, but they are happy with a surface level understanding. –  Jason M Jul 13 '14 at 3:10

Per Collins English Dictionary:

sciolist — (rare) a person who gives their opinion on subjects of which they have only superficial knowledge

share|improve this answer

I can imagine use cases where shallow would work in the meaning you're asking for:

shallow, adj

lacking depth of intellect or knowledge; concerned only with what is obvious

"shallow people"; "his arguments seemed shallow and tedious"

Source: English Wordnet

share|improve this answer
1  
+1. "Dilettante" is the most accurate word but I would use "intellectually shallow" for more informal contexts. –  seismatica Jul 13 '14 at 6:33
    
I literally connected my main SE account just to upvote this! –  Nameless May 21 at 8:56
    
@Nameless: It's kind of you :-) –  Honza Zidek May 21 at 11:45

I would describe this person as a know-it-all. The central definition of that term is slightly different ...

know-it-all n. One who claims to know everything and rejects advice or information from others.

... being more about the refusing to listen to other people on topics where they are actually more expert, but it can certainly be used to describe someone who likes to show off their superficial knowledge of many subjects, and I think it will be more readily understood than some of the other suggestions. In particular, dilettante is more often used to describe someone who has a superficial knowledge of one or two specific subjects, and the other suggested words are quite rare.

share|improve this answer
    
But a know-it-all might actually know quite a bit about many things. The arrogant eagerness to share that information and correct others is what makes them a "know-it-all." –  fredsbend Jul 13 '14 at 5:55

The first word that came to my mind was poseur, for the cases where the appearance is more important than the underlying substance.

share|improve this answer

You may have been thinking of a smatterer in some topic.

Of smatterer the OED says:

One who has only a slight or superficial knowledge of (now rare) or in a matter; a dabbler. Also used without const.

For which two of the numerous citations given are this pair separated in time by a couple of centuries:

  • A. 1680 Butler Rem. (1759) I. 213
    As Smatterers prove more arrogant and pert, The less they truly understand an Art.

  • 1893 Jessopp Stud. Recluse Pref. p. ix,
    A clergyman with a cure of souls··must give up all hopes of being anything but a smatterer in science.

share|improve this answer

generalist: a person whose knowledge, aptitudes, and skills are applied to a field as a whole or to a variety of different fields (opposed to specialist).

… but the term is generally (!) not used in such a pejorative manner.

share|improve this answer

The first thing that came into my mind was:

complacent

ODE

showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements:

you can't afford to be complacent about security.

smug is also listed as a synonym (I thought that might be what you were looking for as you mentioned that 'pretentious' was not the word you were looking for).

share|improve this answer

He may put in just enough effort to learn some trivia to impress others.

Is the need to impress others with something that isn't a total fabrication the most important aspect of the word you are searching for?

Is it alright if the word is vulgar slang?

If you answered yes to both, then search no more, here's part of Wikipedia's discussion on the subject matter

Distinguished from lying

"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be "filler" or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something.

In his essay on the subject, William G. Perry called bull[shit] "relevancies, however relevant, without data" and gave a definition of the verb "to bull[shit]" as follows:

  • To discourse upon the contexts, frames of reference and points of observation which would determine the origin, nature, and meaning of data if one had any
  • To present evidence of an understanding of form in the hope that the reader may be deceived into supposing a familiarity with content.

The bullshitter generally either knows the statements are likely false, exaggerated, and in other ways misleading or has no interest in their factual accuracy one way or the other. "Talking bullshit" is thus a lesser form of lying, and is likely to elicit a correspondingly weaker emotional response: whereas an obvious liar may be greeted with derision, outrage, or anger, an exponent of bullshit tends to be dismissed with an indifferent sneer.
Wikipedia: Bullshit

Oxford English Dictionary has this to say

bullshitter

noun

Derivative of

bullshit

noun, vulgar slang

  • Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense. verb (bullshits, bullshitting, bullshitted)
  • Talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.
    ODO
share|improve this answer

Such a person could be described as an armchair expert or armchair pundit.

From the OED:

[as modifier] Lacking or not involving practical or direct experience of a particular subject or activity: an armchair traveller

Example sentences:

The result is a unique perspective applauded by armchair naturalists in which the stars of the film are also the videographers.

What do these armchair counter-terrorists propose that Moscow should have done?

Almost all other commentary was grotesque - the work of armchair generals.

See also this article: 'Edward Sapir was not an "armchair linguist"!'

share|improve this answer

How about wiseacre?

According to Google:

a person with an affectation of wisdom or knowledge, regarded with scorn or irritation by others; a know-all

Sciolist fits your need best, except that I have never come across the word before. Why, even the spell-check in this text box flags it as a spelling error!

Even wiseacre is rare, for that matter. I found it in some Gurdjieff book.

share|improve this answer
    
I’m afraid that “According to Google” doesn’t really work as a citation. Different people get different answers, there’s (often) no actual source named, and it is subject to change without notice. –  tchrist Jul 12 '14 at 16:42

Sciolism is superficial knowledge. ;)

share|improve this answer
3  
a definition from a reputable source would enhance your answer, –  P. Obertelli May 19 at 19:47
1  
It would also help if you answered "sciolist" as meaning "one who has a superficial knowledge", since the question was looking for "someone who ..." :-) (Good find, though.) –  Hellion May 19 at 21:38

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.