logo
17 Phrases Know-It-Alls Use To Flex Their ‘Superiority'

17 Phrases Know-It-Alls Use To Flex Their ‘Superiority'

Yahoo14-07-2025
We've all dealt with those people who can't help but try to outshine everyone else in the room. They drop subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrases designed to make you feel like they know more, like they're the walking encyclopedia of the conversation. These individuals often enjoy showcasing their perceived intelligence with lines that can come across as dismissive, condescending, or annoying. Here's a breakdown of what they say and what they're really trying to accomplish.
People love to whip out 'Well, technically…' when itching to correct you on something small, often irrelevant. It's not about adding depth to the conversation—it's about asserting their intellectual dominance by focusing on a minor detail. This phrase is a favorite among those who need to be right, even if the 'correction' doesn't matter in the grand scheme. It's less about accuracy and more about control. Their goal is to sound smarter, not to be helpful.
These people rarely bring up 'technically' moments in good faith. It's usually a way to remind you who's supposedly more precise. Even when they're right, their delivery reeks of superiority. They enjoy spotlighting flaws, even minor ones, to inflate their ego. The tone says it all: they want to feel smarter than you.
When someone tells you something is 'simple,' they're not being helpful—they're belittling you. It's their way of suggesting that you're making something more complicated than it needs to be. Even if the topic is nuanced, they reduce it to a basic level to make it seem like you're the one who's struggling. The subtext is loud and clear: 'I've got this figured out, why haven't you?' It's condescending, plain and simple.
What they really mean is that your confusion is beneath them. They want to look like the expert in the room. By minimizing complexity, they elevate themselves. This tactic shuts down deeper discussion fast. It leaves you feeling talked down to, not enlightened.
When someone says, 'I read somewhere that…', it's often their way of flexing their 'well-informed' status. The problem is that they rarely cite reliable sources or offer any real depth. It's just a tactic to make you feel like they're more in the know, even if what they're referencing is vague or irrelevant. It's a throwaway line meant to make them seem well-read and knowledgeable. Most of the time, it adds nothing valuable to the conversation.
This phrase is a lazy attempt at credibility. They hope you won't question the source. It's meant to shut down your perspective by implying they've already done the homework. But vague references rarely impress anyone genuinely informed. It's more about sounding smart than being smart.
When someone starts a sentence with 'Actually…', they're waving a flag that says, 'I'm here to correct you.' This one word is a classic way to interject and undermine whatever you've just said, whether or not they have any groundbreaking information to share. It's a subtle power move meant to establish their intellectual dominance. They want you to know they're smarter, even if the correction is pointless. Their 'correction' is often unnecessary, but the condescension is crystal clear.
They thrive on these moments of interruption. It's less about clarity and more about control. They want the room to pause and admire their knowledge. Even when it's petty, they crave that moment of superiority. 'Actually' is rarely as harmless as it seems.
Hearing this phrase can feel like nails on a chalkboard, especially when you already get it. It implies you're clueless, and the speaker is swooping in to save you with their vast knowledge. In reality, they're positioning themselves as the 'expert' in the conversation, leaving you as the uninformed bystander. It's one of those statements that instantly turns a discussion into a lecture. They assume the teacher role whether you want it or not.
Their tone isn't about being helpful—it's about being superior. This is how they assert dominance in subtle social ways. They need you to recognize their authority, even if it's over something trivial. These people mistake condescension for clarity. Conversations stop being equal the moment this phrase is dropped.
'Everyone knows that' isn't just a phrase—it's a dig, a not-so-subtle way of making you feel like you're the only one in the dark. It's designed to make you question your intelligence and put the other person on a pedestal. They're saying, 'How could you not know this?' It's dismissive and shows they're more interested in appearing smart than engaging in a meaningful conversation.
It's arrogance wrapped in casual phrasing. What they want is to highlight how behind you are. They crave the comparison between their brilliance and your supposed ignorance. These statements aren't about facts—they're about hierarchy. Making you feel small makes them feel big. That's their real goal here.
This one is the verbal equivalent of a door slamming in your face. When someone says, 'You wouldn't understand,' they're not just shutting down the conversation but also implying that your brain can't handle the topic. It's a passive-aggressive way of belittling your intelligence while making them feel superior. The worst part is it doesn't invite a discussion—it's designed to make you feel left out and inferior. It sends a clear message that they think you're intellectually inferior to them.
This phrase is all about exclusion and hierarchy. They aren't offering to explain—they're declaring you unworthy of understanding. It's a power play disguised as protection. They get to feel smarter while you're left feeling dismissed. It's about maintaining their self-image, not clarity.
If someone starts with this, prepare yourself. What follows will be rude, no matter how much they try to sugarcoat it. This phrase is the ultimate passive-aggressive opener. They're permitting themselves to be condescending under the guise of politeness. They really mean, 'I'm about to put you in your place, but I want to look like I'm being civil while I do it.'
Their tone says it all—smug, knowing, and superior. They think prefacing it this way softens the blow. In reality, it just makes them seem more manipulative. They want to insult you but hide behind fake manners. This isn't honesty—it's veiled hostility.
This phrase is nothing short of an insult. It's a direct jab at your intelligence, as if they question whether you know the subject. It's not an innocent question—it's a statement wrapped in a question mark designed to belittle you. Instead of offering clarification or engaging in a real conversation, they use this to remind you that, in their eyes, you're out of your depth. It's designed to make you feel embarrassed and small.
They don't want your answer—they want you to feel inferior. This phrase is about posturing, not discussion. It's dismissive and patronizing in equal measure. Their goal isn't understanding—it's dominance. People who say this aren't curious; they're condescending.
Whenever someone says, 'It's common sense,' they're not being helpful—they're being condescending. This phrase implies that whatever you discuss should be so obvious that only a fool wouldn't get it. It's their way of saying that you lack basic understanding while they are enlightened. It's a dismissive line that shuts down real conversation. Instead of explaining, they're choosing to belittle.
They use this to make themselves feel superior. It's not about facts—it's about ego. Their words are meant to humiliate, not clarify. When someone defaults to this phrase, they're signaling impatience and arrogance. It's a shortcut to making you feel small.
This phrase is a favorite of people pretending they're experts, but their 'research' often consists of reading a few articles or watching a YouTube video. They use this line to back you into a corner, making it seem like their viewpoint is bulletproof because they've put in more 'work.' The reality is they're probably as informed as you are, but they'll claim superior knowledge to discredit your opinion. It's less about facts and more about authority. They want to win the argument, not exchange ideas.
Their version of research rarely withstands scrutiny. It's a bluff to make you back down. They hope you won't challenge their so-called expertise. Saying this phrase signals they're done listening. They value appearing right over being open-minded.
This is one of those humblebrag phrases that people drop to make it seem like you're late to the party. By saying, 'I've known that for ages,' they're trying to make you feel like you're behind the curve while they've been sitting on this information forever. It's dismissive, unnecessary, and another way to inflate their ego by making you feel like you're playing catch-up. It's not about sharing knowledge—it's about subtly putting you down. They want you to know they've been ahead of you all along.
Their goal is superiority, not camaraderie. They frame themselves as more experienced, more informed, and ahead of the game. It's rarely said kindly—it's meant to highlight your ignorance. This isn't about facts; it's about status. They want you to feel embarrassed, not enlightened.
This phrase is a classic move to shut down your perspective, regardless of whether their 'experience' is relevant. Even if it is, they use it to shut down the conversation because, in their mind, more experience equals superior knowledge. It's an automatic conversation ender, implying that their lived experience trumps your understanding, no matter what you bring to the table.
They aren't offering insight—they're closing the door on your opinion. It's all about pulling rank. Experience doesn't always equal wisdom, but they want you to think it does. This phrase is about power, not collaboration. They want you to defer, not discuss. Once this line drops, they've signaled they're done listening. Their ego won't allow for debate.
While this might seem like a friendly offer, it's often a backhanded way of saying you're doing something wrong, and they're here to save the day. The real meaning behind this phrase is, 'I know better than you, and you need my guidance.' It's condescending and often unnecessary, especially when you didn't ask for their help in the first place. They frame it as kindness, but it's rooted in superiority. They want credit for being the wiser voice in the room.
This isn't generosity—it's about control. They believe their unsolicited advice is a gift you should accept. Dismissing your ideas feels like doing you a favor. Their 'help' isn't about your growth—it's about their ego. These words mask superiority as concern.
This one's sneaky because it sounds like they're just offering an alternative perspective, but really, it's a way of saying their method is better than yours. It's a quiet way of implying that your approach is flawed and theirs is superior. Even if they don't outright say your way is wrong, the subtext is clear—they think they know better. It's dismissive, masked as casual commentary. They aren't offering advice—they're issuing judgment.
Their words imply there's only one right way—their way. They want you to question your choices and defer to their experience. Subtle superiority is still superiority. It's rarely about improvement; it's about control. This phrase chips away at confidence while elevating their ego.
When someone says, 'I'm pretty sure…' they cast doubt on what you've just said, even if they don't have solid evidence. It's a way of hedging their bets while implying they have a better handle on the topic. It's passive-aggressive because it sounds uncertain, but in reality, they're trying to gently correct you, whether or not they have the facts to back it up. They want to sound knowledgeable without fully committing. This gives them cover if they're wrong.
This phrase is about planting seeds of doubt. They subtly question your grasp on reality. Even if they're wrong, they've unsettled your confidence. They use uncertainty as a weapon. It's less about facts, more about control.
While this might sound diplomatic, it's often just a way for someone to end the conversation when they think they've won. By saying, 'Let's agree to disagree,' they're essentially saying, 'I'm right, but I'll let you have your little opinion.' It's a dismissive way to shut down further discussion and avoid engaging with your viewpoint. They want the final word without offering closure.
It's condescension dressed up as civility. What they're saying is they're done respecting your perspective. They don't want dialogue—they want you to back down. This phrase isn't about respect, it's about control. It ends conversations on their terms, not yours. They leave feeling superior, not reconciled.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Motivation is a pattern: Moving from alarm clocks to purpose-driven success
Motivation is a pattern: Moving from alarm clocks to purpose-driven success

Fast Company

time25 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Motivation is a pattern: Moving from alarm clocks to purpose-driven success

Motivation isn't just a feeling—it's a pattern. A pattern of behavior, of habits, of choosing again and again to pursue something that matters. Too often we confuse motivation with external forces: deadlines, alarms, or pressure from bosses. But the most lasting, fulfilling kind of motivation comes from within. There are two types of motivation: alarm clock motivation and fulfillment-driven motivation. Alarm clock motivation is just what it sounds like—an external push. It's the reason you get up at 6:30 AM because your job or responsibilities demand it. It's duty-bound, sometimes driven by fear or necessity. Think of a teacher who wakes early because they have 30 kids waiting for them. It's not passion that gets them out of bed—it's the obligation. Fulfillment-driven motivation is different. It's internal. It's what happens when you believe you were meant to do something. That same teacher might be waking up at 6:30 AM not just to teach, but because they believe they're shaping minds and making a real difference in their community. That's purpose in action. And when your motivation is tied to fulfillment, your energy, creativity, and resilience increase dramatically. But to operate from fulfillment, your basic needs have to be met. You need stability: shelter, food, rest, safety, love. Only then can you lift your gaze beyond survival and start to think about the impact you want to make in the world. Subscribe to the Daily newsletter. Fast Company's trending stories delivered to you every day Privacy Policy | Fast Company Newsletters Many people set huge, noble goals—to start nonprofits, write books, change lives—but fail to get traction because they haven't overcome the basics. They're still stuck in alarm clock mode. And that's okay. It's a phase. But we must recognize that we can't get to fulfillment-driven motivation if we're still fighting to meet our daily needs. Once I reached a point where my family was stable—economically, emotionally, spiritually—that's when my motivation began to shift. I was no longer driven just by the need to provide, but by the desire to help others, to make an impact, to mentor and inspire. People lose enthusiasm when their motivation isn't sustainable. If you're driven only by money, fame, or a target metric, what happens when you hit it? Often, you find that the goal doesn't simplify your life—it complicates it. You need a deeper 'why' to carry you through. That's what fulfillment provides. The key is setting goals that are both attainable and purpose-driven. Don't aim for something completely out of reach just to prove a point. Instead, chunk your big dream into manageable pieces. One of my mentors used to say, 'The best way to eat an elephant is in hunks, chunks, and bites.' That's how motivation works best too. For example, instead of setting a goal to lose 50 pounds, start by going to the gym every day for two weeks. Then build from there. Instead of trying to get on a nonprofit board immediately, show up to events, serve, and connect authentically. Motivation builds when you take meaningful action—bit by bit. As I've grown, my motivation has shifted again. In my 20s, I was motivated by fun. In my 30s, by financial stability and growing a business. Now, as I approach 40, I'm motivated by spending time with my family, mentoring others, and making a meaningful dent in the world—just as Steve Jobs encouraged others to do. Ultimately, motivation is about setting yourself up for success, not burnout. It's about recognizing the season you're in and aligning your goals accordingly. So ask yourself: What motivates you now? And how can you break it down into the bites that will carry you forward? When you understand that motivation is a pattern—not a mystery—you gain the power to shape it.

How to Check If That ‘Deleted' Tweet Is Real
How to Check If That ‘Deleted' Tweet Is Real

Gizmodo

time25 minutes ago

  • Gizmodo

How to Check If That ‘Deleted' Tweet Is Real

It happens almost every day. A screenshot of a social media post from a prominent figure like Elon Musk or Donald Trump goes viral because it demonstrates just how stupid these men really are. But sometimes it sounds too good to be true. You go to check X or Truth Social yourself and it's not there. But maybe it was deleted. What do you do? Well, we've got some tips that might be helpful for uncovering the truth. Right off the bat, it's important to note that there's not always a foolproof way to figure out if a 'deleted' tweet was real, especially if it's not from a famous person. But there are things you can do to get closer to the truth. And with a little bit of detective work, you can often figure out if that deleted tweet ever existed. The first step in any tweet fact-check involves looking for the original post yourself on the platform where it appears to have originated, whether it was X, Facebook, or Truth Social. The easiest way to do that is to take a snippet of the text you found in a screenshot and search using quotation marks. You don't need to use the entire tweet; just a portion will be fine. Let's take an example of an old tweet from Musk. Below is a tweet that I screenshotted on Nov. 23, 2023, but Musk later deleted. If you saw this screenshot floating around and wanted to verify if it was real, you could go to X and search the phrase 'What say you major brands?' That search yields a few results that look like bots just repeating what Musk said: And if you scroll down through those tweets, there's even a link to the original tweet from Musk. Clicking on that brings you to a notice that reads 'Hmm…this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else.' It seems we have confirmed that the tweet was real since we found the original URL, quoting the text we saw in a screenshot, and it's coming up with an error message. But what happens if you don't see any solid leads like that in the social media app where the post appeared to originate? Check out a resource like and search your snippet of text there. A quick search for 'What say you major brands?' doesn't come up with any hits, but that's not unexpected. The content of this Musk tweet doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The Tesla CEO often tweets hundreds of times each day, so it's unlikely that news outlets are going to write a story about everything. But that brings us to other clues about whether something should be in the news. One good example recently was a post that appeared to be coming from Donald Trump that read 'STOP TALKING ABOUT EPSTEIN' with five exclamation points. If you went over to Truth Social and searched when that post was going viral, you wouldn't have found it. And since it was coming from the president, you would've expected there to have been lots of news articles quoting it. The thing that complicated matters was the fact that it wasn't long before Trump posted something identical in spirit and somehow even more unhinged. But if you searched for that exact phrase in Google News, you still wouldn't see the fake tweet that read 'STOP TALKING ABOUT EPSTEIN.' Maybe the tweet was deleted quickly, and there wasn't enough time for news outlets to pick it up. But there are other clues that might suggest something is fake. Does the tweet have a high number of views, but you don't see bots on X or major news outlets writing about it? A banal tweet isn't going to get picked up by CNN. But a tweet where a prominent figure declares something outrageous probably will. And if the screenshot you're looking at has millions of views, it should probably be showing up in reliable places. There are many places online where people post fake tweets, including subreddits that revel in photoshops. If you're trying to investigate a fake tweet, a good place to start looking might be any message boards specifically started to be skeptical of that person. Elon Musk has plenty, for example. There are also comedians who like to make fake tweets, with one in particular that we'll check in on whenever a tweet that looks too good to be true goes viral. That person is @marionumber4 on X and has the handle 679 Enthusiast. The person behind that account loves making fake tweets and frequently will photoshop 'this post has been deleted' on the bottom for maximum confusion. Again, if you're going to spread a photoshopped tweet, people often don't know what to do if they see that visual signifier because it tells them in advance there's nothing to find if they go looking for it. Which brings us to a recent fake tweet from '679 Enthusiast' that was fact-checked using Grok… The account 679 Enthusiast recently made a photoshopped post about Musk that read 'Just like I took your wife,' that appeared to quote-tweet Stephen Miller. It's a joke about the rumors that there was some kind of romantic relationship between Musk and Miller's wife, rumors that have not been confirmed by any reliable sources. But naturally, someone wanted to ask Grok if the screenshot was real. Incredibly, Grok said it 'likely existed and was deleted.' To be clear, the tweet never existed. But AI doesn't know that because AI doesn't actually know things. It's a fancy Speak & Spell. But Grok suggested it must be real because 'while a fabricated screenshot is possible, the evidence leans toward the post being real but removed, consistent with Musk's pattern of deleting controversial posts.' Again, it's not real. But Musk saw this and replied, clearly frustrated, insisting, 'I never posted this.' Funny enough, 679 Enthusiast eventually deleted their photoshop of the Musk tweet about Miller's wife. Check the Wayback Machine. There are places online that archive content, like the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, but there are so many caveats to that suggestion. The Wayback Machine is not quick to archive anything, so if you're looking for a recent tweet, it's probably not going to be there. But if it's an old tweet that you think was deleted, and you have the patience to find the dates in question through significant clicking around, you could luck out. If you search for a tweet and see that it pops up, make sure you click through and verify it's coming from the official account. Tweets that looked like they were coming from Robert F. Kennedy were incredibly popular earlier this year but fooled a lot of people because they were actually from a parody account. Musk got rid of the old Twitter 'verification' model after he bought the social media platform in late 2022, and now anyone with $8 to spend can buy a blue checkmark. One way that so-called 'parody' accounts trick people into believing they're real is to create long screen names that push the disclaimers out of view when you're reading the name on mobile. For example, one popular RFK Jr. account is called 'Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Commentary only.' And if you even know that 'commentary' is supposed to be a disclaimer, you might not even see it. Only when you click through to the account's bio does it read 'No Affiliation,' though it still doesn't use precise language about where the 'affiliation' is lacking. So, yes, you might find a tweet that seemed too stupid to be real in your search on platforms like X. But be extra careful when you look at the account that shared it. There is no surefire way to always figure out whether a 'deleted' tweet is real. But hopefully our tips can help you narrow down your search. And given just how stupid our current timeline is, people are tweeting things that are simply beyond parody.

Chicago woman says rotting berries from neighbor's tree are feeding rat problems in Lincoln Square
Chicago woman says rotting berries from neighbor's tree are feeding rat problems in Lincoln Square

CBS News

time26 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Chicago woman says rotting berries from neighbor's tree are feeding rat problems in Lincoln Square

A woman from Chicago's Lincoln Square neighborhood said a giant tree's sweet berries are causing a sour situation, feeding into the neighborhood's rat problem, and no one will listen to her concerns. "That's why I chose to contact Channel 2 News," she said. "I need someone to listen to me." Jane, who did not want to share her last name, never fancied herself a farmer. But for the last 28 summers, she has gotten quite the haul of rotten berries landing in her backyard. CBS News Chicago met Jane as she was scooping rotten berries out of nets hanging between garages on her property and collecting them in plastic bags. The daily harvests add up. "Since I've been gathering them and weighing them, since June 14, I'm over 215 pounds of berries, just this year" Jane said. The nets don't catch all the berries; even more are piled up on the ground and nearby garages. They are not edible for humans. "You can't use these for cooking. You can't use these for donating to anybody," Jane said. Instead, the berries make a delicious meal for pigeons, bees, fruit flies and, most frustratingly, rats. Jane has taken plenty of pictures of the rats the berries attract. One mother rat was spotted carrying her baby as she stopped for a snack earlier this month. Jane says the berries are creating an unsanitary, slippery and smelly situation. "There is rat feces everywhere," Jane said. The berries fall for about six weeks straight, and end up rolling around in the nets and on the ground. Jane can't control the decaying fruit because it is not coming from her yard. It is coming from a gigantic mulberry tree on her neighbor's property. The tree in question is so big that some of its branches are held up with metal. "If we get a sudden downburst, that chain's not going to hold anything," Jane said. Jane shared her concerns with 47th Ward Ald. Matt Martin, but was told the city can't do much because the tree is on privately owned land. "It is your right to take down the branches that encroach on your property line, but I know you mentioned the problem is with the entire tree," Martin's staff wrote. "Our office does not have the capability to compel your neighbors to take down the tree." The "take matters into your own hands" advice when it comes to tree branches crossing property lines doesn't always work out. CBS News Chicago covered a similar overbearing tree story in 2021. In that case, Roula Savakis of Chicago's Peterson Park community was so frustrated with a wall of trees blocking her windows that she hacked them back. In response, her neighbors took her to court, alleging at least $100,000 of damage. Asher and Cynthia Kohn accused Savakis of violating the Illinois Wrongful Tree Cutting Act. They claimed she damaged 38 of their trees intentionally and illegally. Four years later, CBS News Chicago has learned that the Savakis family ended up selling their home to the tree-owning neighbors and relocating. In Lincoln Square, as Jane's dog Brutus went hunting for mulberry-loving rats, CBS News Chicago went looking for the tree owners. Jane and two plant experts suspect the tree is a white mulberry. "Interestingly, white mulberry was introduced to the U.S. back in colonial times because it is the preferred food of the silkworm caterpillar, which is where we get natural silk from," said Jamie Viebach, horticulture educator at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Viebach said while white mulberry is not officially listed as an invasive species in Illinois, it is non-native and very weedy. "It can basically be considered invasive (though, without the legal ramifications of the official designation)," Viebach wrote. And the tree is treated as invasive by some land managers. "It is not regulated or banned in any statewide way in Illinois, though it is often managed and removed by land managers when it is found growing in natural areas," said Chris Evans, an extension forestry and research specialist at the Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Viebach also noted that the Morton Arboretum lists white mulberry as a "problem plant." Jane agrees with the description. "This is a health issue right now," she said. "This is a safety issue." CBS News Chicago knocked on the neighbors' door, but never got an answer. The city can issue citations to homeowners whose vegetation creates a "public nuisance." CBS News Chicago was told that while Savakis' situation with her neighbors' trees in 2021 met the Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation criteria for a public nuisance, Jane's berry situation does not meet those criteria and does not warrant any fines. The city said the following constitutes a nuisance per ordinance 10-32-140 (Trees, shrubs or other plant materials – Public nuisance):

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store