I seem to remember reading somewhere (freakonomics?) that people teaching in less prestigious economics departments were more likely to insist on being called ‘Dr’ than those in better departments.
I seem to remember the same thing. Silly and insecure, of course, but they may be reacting to people like Lazy above who think that doctorates in fields other than medicine aren’t as real.
Which is ironic, because arguably medical (and other professional) ‘doctorates’ are no such thing – no original research.
You’re assuming the general public cares about the requirements for receiving a Ph.D., or even knows them. And that a medical doctorate is somehow less than a doctor of philosophy because of the original research the former requires.
The default meaning of doctor is “doctor of medicine or dentistry” which, I think, is why my beloved old professor preferred not to be addressed as such outside an academic environment. She did not wish to mislead people.
Consider also persons like Laura Schlessinger, who styles (or used to style) herself as “Dr. Laura” to imply that her personal opinions on behavior and morality had greater weight than they did.
I went to one of the Seven Sisters colleges (if I may say so without pretention), and we were instructed to call all of our professors “Mr.” or “Ms.” rather than “Dr.” with the stated reason that since all faculty members were required to have PhDs, it was unnecessary to refer to it when we spoke to them because it was, of course, taken as given.
At the time, that seemed humble, but this thread is making me question everything now. 
I’m assuming no such thing. I was talking more about the historical evolution of the term.
I agree that today, the default meaning of ‘doctor’ is a medical doctor. Not dentist, though - if someone said 'she’s a doctor and turned out to be talking about a dentist, I’d feel mildly misled.
pdts
Books with subtitles;
Dead-pet poetry;
Asserting agnosticism (agnosticism is being unsure of your position, it’s meaningless to assert a non-position), triangulatory bipartisanship, all this Nephelokokkygian middle ground seeking.
After scanning this list, it seems like anyone who shows any enthusiasm at all for a hobby or an experience they’ve had is being pretentious. Everybody should treat everything with detached indifference. However, hipsters are also considered pretentious. I would say that’s a Catch-22, but using a literary reference would be pretentious.
Or “Dr. Phil.”
Those usages are pretentious not because Schlessinger and McGraw aren’t “doctors”–they hold doctorates in physiology and psychology respectively–but because of the incorporation of the formal style into the familiar address. Basically just like MsWhatsit’s friend “DrJohn Smith.”
They’re also misleading, and used so with some intent, but the reason that they work to mislead is that common idea that “doctor” means some kind of physician.
nonsense
Another one: People who describe their musical tastes as “eclectic.”
Whenever I hear someone describe themselves this way, I feel like they think they are some special snowflake, different from everybody else because of their diverse, enlightened interests. Look, everyone’s musical taste is eclectic. Do you know of anyone who listens to only one genre of music?
Really??? Awww.
I’m betting you were repressed from expressing your sorrow over your dead pet as a child. That’s ok. Let it all out.
“Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear? In the ground, in the ground, with my dog Max.”
As someone with eclectic musical tastes, I disagree! Not that I particularly mind you thinking me pretentious; as you see, everyone here is “pretentious” to somebody else here.
But it’s just not accurate to say that “everyone’s musical taste is eclectic.” Yes, I certainly do know people who only listen to one genre of music. Some people only listen to classical. Or bluegrass. Or classic rock. Or whatever. They do not want to hear anything else.
For that matter, there are people who listen to more than one genre, but still aren’t musically eclectic.
Nothing wrong with any of that. Though I admit the classic rock dude was driving me up the wall after some weeks working with him–the same radio station playing the same couple hundred songs, all day, every day.
That’s the point where you realize we’re all in danger of disappearing up our own assholes and say, “Fuck it, I’m going for a walk in the sunshine.” 
[QUOTE=Greg Charles]
After scanning this list, it seems like anyone who shows any enthusiasm at all for a hobby or an experience they’ve had is being pretentious. Everybody should treat everything with detached indifference. However, hipsters are also considered pretentious. I would say that’s a Catch-22, but using a literary reference would be pretentious.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s quite it. Someone suffering from new-convert proselytizing syndrome, where they have to go on and on about whatever new gee-whiz thing they’re involved with is not pretentious- annoying maybe, but not pretentious. Similarly, like with CrafterMan’s list, I don’t think he meant people who do those things in and of themselves are pretentious; it’s the subset of people who have to make sure everyone knows they do those things who are pretentious.
As an example, eating sushi in and of itself is not pretentious. Finding a new restaurant you think makes The Best Sushi Ever and going on and on about it endlessly is not pretentious. However, if, every time the topic of sushi comes up, you have to make a point of stating you won’t eat sushi if chopsticks are not available because you simply cannot eat it if you don’t eat it how it was meant to be eaten and it would ruin your meal, then you are pretentious.* Usually, the more casual a person’s experience with something, the more pretentious they are with regards to that topic. They want to appear more knowledgeable about the topic, so they put on airs and make sure everyone knows they like said topic.
I do find some of the stuff listed as being counter to pretense. I mean, speaking euphemistically is being pretentious? That actually strikes me as the opposite of being pretentious. You’re not trying to look superior to anyone by using a euphemism, you’re either speaking in earnestness or trying to look earthier or less posh.
As to what I find pretentious, the only thing I can think of is the REALTOR™(C)(R)(ASAP)(LMNOP) world. Not necessarily all realtors, and not a lot of real estate agents (yes, there is a difference, and that difference is part of the pretentiousness). A few years back, I had to go to a realtor dinner. It was an year-end awards banquet, so I knew it would be bad, but I was not prepared for it to be as awful as it was. If you think the Oscars and other Hollywood awards are showy, they have nothing on realtor awards.
You would have thought the lady who won “REALTOR of the Year” had cured cancer, AIDS, and the scourge that is gingivitis. She was in tears, thanking everyone for voting for her and how as great as the award was, knowing she had changed so many people’s lives that year by putting them in homes. It was basically a “top salesman of the year” award, but, no, she saw it as she had actually single-handedly made every single client’s life so much better because she found them a home.
Then there was the 40 hour speech (okay, maybe closer to 20 minutes, but it felt like 40 hours) by the local realtor board president going on and on about how important it was that realtors exist and how important it was for people to use a licensed realtor, not just a real estate agent, because those mere agents were more than likely evil incarnate and didn’t know the business like an honest to goodness, ordained by god himself realtor. Mind you, this is in a state where anyone selling real estate for a living has to be licensed at a function where all attendees were either a) realtors b) associates of vendors (such as loan officers, closers, title insurers, etc.) or c) unfortunate spouses of a or b who got dragged there. If you asked me for an embodiment of pretentiousness, REALTORs would be it.
- Yes, I actually used to know someone who did this. If the topic of sushi came up, he would comment on how he simply could not eat it if it wasn’t authentic and if chopsticks weren’t an option, then it couldn’t be authentic. Use your hands? That’s how a barbarian would do it. Use silverware? That’s for the round-eyes (mind you, he was more Anglo than The Anglo-est Anglo who ever did Anglo).
Why?
What do you mean by books with subtitles?
Your remark about agnosticism also shows that you don’t know what the term means. Agnosticism is not uncertainty about the existence of God or gods; it’s the position that it is beyond human capability to say for certain whether God or god exists.
This reminds me of an old thread. I don’t know if a poster held this position or a posters “friend”.
But the premise was it was a serious affront to “far eastern culture” (or whatever the heck the correct term is these days) to eat “their” food without chopsticks. And this guy stuck to his show guns about it.
The extra funny part was this involved fast food Chinese food at a food court in a mall.
Now THATS pretentious, I don’t care who you are!
And git er done! (just to wash off the pretentious from reading this thread).
Agnosticism is the view that we couldn’t possibly have knowledge about whether God exists, perhaps because the question is beyond our ken.
A + gnosis = no + knowledge
A perfectly defensible position.
People who spout the word usage every other breath when they really should be using use are pretentious.
I don’t know if using actual and actually all the time is pretentious, but it annoys me.