The people at the bar down the street are not engaging in pseudo-intellectual discussion when they discuss an instance of the current foreign policy that was in the news that day, even though they know nothing about political science and the art of foreign policy. Your definition includes that and is thus just silly.

Just entering an opinion on a subject you don't know 'enough' about is not pseudo-intellectualism. Pseudo-intellectualism is making it seem like you have significantly more intelligence on a subject than most other persons or have put significantly more thought into it, often connecting a subject to other subjects, and are thus qualified to make more informed comments on these subjects. You can lend more credence to your comments by using the correct academic vocabulary, but can be caught as a pseudo-intellectual by using it in the wrong way.

Ignoring the fact that it was pointed out elsewhere in the comments that pg has a BA in Philosophy (apparently confirmed by wikipedia), this assumes that someone without training has nothing worthwhile to contribute[1]. While that may end up being true in the majority of cases, I don't think it's valid to apply the term to individuals just because they don't have credentials, in the absence of other evidence. I do like Merriam Webster's definition[2].

1: I'm not trying to argue with you. You plainly qualified it as a clarification, not a position. I just think your definition falls short in some respects, so thought I would clarify your clarification. :)

2: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/pseudo-intellec...

Hm. So you're saying that the distinction betwen "intellectual arguments" and "psuedo-intellectual arguments" is the experience and/or training of the arguer? Isn't it possible for an experienced, trained philosopher to make psuedo-intellectal arguments? Isn't it possible for an inexperienced, untrained person to make a valid argument?

I would think that the validity of the argument is what matters!