Sure, I know what you mean. In my department, there are pure theoretical linguists who don't do computational stuff. Although I think, these days, linguists need to branch out beyond the pure theoretical, be it computational, cognitive, or psychological.
It's much tougher to find a job as a pure theoretical linguist, or one that really looks at things philosophically.
But that's a good thing, because it means we've come to understand the language faculty enough that we can't just wax philosophical, we need hard data. Linguistics is better off when it stays grounded in science.
Sure, but I suppose it's not as "romantic" as it once was... then again you do need to be systematic if you're supposed to be keeping track of how languages diverge from roots.
But "retard" is really teetering on the edge these days.
I always find it interesting that nobody bats an eye about phrases like "he was blind to the truth" or "his words fell on deaf ears". These seem insulting to the blind and the deaf.
@Kosmonaut whoops, I forgot to come back with my finding: the answer was [Dunning Kruger Effect](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) ~ bad URL format?
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…