Many so-called pseudointellectuals mostly focus on the input; their output is shallow or consists solely of critique. The "feel" of the pseudo's intellectual qualities carries a corniness with it; they will stack their bookshelves with books that have yet to be opened, simply to appear well-read. 

Pseudos seem to focus entirely on trends and on keeping up appearances. They will usually be able to talk about anything considered intellectual, but they will not have read it or watched it or listened to it themselves.

A growing trend is the hipster version of pseudos - the midwit. Midwits are the intellectual IPAs and mid 2010s folk bands. Instead of trying to look like classic intellectuals, they try to blend in as a normal person who just so happens to be "smarter" than the average person. They don't have the charisma to get by on their charm or good looks, so they default to "trusting the experts". Much like the pseudos, they believe everything they hear someone say who everyone else considers smart.

A truly intelligent person can be identified by their intellectual output and input. The output might be hard to detect if they aren't involved in some kind of art that can be easily identified; their sole output might be designing circuit boards at a larger company. In my experience, however, almost all of the smart people I've met have had multiple hobbies that make identifying their intellectually curious natures easy. I've seen photographers, writers, poets, painters, etc, and all in one man. 

The input is easy to identify by asking them. But, usually, all smarter people tend to read more than other people. They don't read to look smart - they read because they enjoy it.

Most people who are faking being smart will try to copy the appearance of a smart person. The input can be easily faked by buying a shelf and stuffing it with books. But the output will be harder to fake. When trying to size people up, pay attention to the output. Most people trying to fake it will focus on securing an impressive job title. The more enthusiastically they claim to be a "lead client success experience director" for Whole Foods, the more likely it is that they are faking it. 

And I'm not trying to take away from people's achievements. A lot of people do a lot of great work, at all levels of human intelligence. Intelligence is not the same as character, heart, trustworthiness, or diligence.

All I'm asking is this: why fake being smart? What's the point to it?