To intellectual to be understood.?

Wow, we have a veritable mindreader, interpreter, & truthfinder to rely on, GG has decided that anyone reading my post won’t understand it so she has very kindly interpreted my meaning , grammer, spelling etc. she has also decided she knows what truth is or isn’t .It is apparent to me that GG doesn’t know or understand the concept of opinion. Although it is desirable to contain some factual background about a topic ,an opinion is not truth or logic it’s an opinion, & I am entitled to mine .

M0nica

There is absolutely no relationship between erudition and the ability to either speak or write comprehensibly.

I made a good living out of turning incomprehensible material into readable articles.

What the OP was saying was that she - and not just herself although we didn't find out who else - found the women's comments "incapable of being fully understood" - unfathomable in her words.

The women was too tiggerish for me. I couldn't have shared a room with her for long but everyone who has watched and commented on here found her easy to understand.

That was the OP's argument. Not whether you could be best friends with the women but that she, and other people was/are "to (sic) intellectual to be understood".

This example did not prove that to be true. Logic does not prove it to be true. I would offer the view that it is not true although I understand some people would like it to be.

OK Grace’sGran I’ve watched the programme again and I agree that she made an interesting and valid point. I do agree with her about the purpose of education.
If I’m going to be critical though, she did jump around a bit from one thing to another in a distracting way. It wasn’t helped by being interrupted before she could finish.
I didn’t think she was as good at putting her view across as many of the others who perhaps put their opinions across more briefly and forcefully.
Interesting discussion though.

She wasn't reading anything out and her argument, to me, was perfectly comprehensible mostlyharmless. Have a look and see what you think. She is engaged; I would agree with the OP that she was passionate and knowledgeable (erudite in OP). She was obviously used to talking in public and she, when I was viewing, put over her points clearly and could be understood easily - at least by those of us who have watched it other than the OP it appears.

Can we not agree that the argument that "one can be too intellectual to be understood" does not hold water. You are talking about two different skill sets; you may have both, neither or one or the other but having one - intellect in this argument - does not preclude the other - the ability to communicate. There is simply nothing in this thread to prove that it does.

I go back to my original point. Isn't this view just a form of inverted snobbery?

I think some people underestimate the skills needed to be a good public speaker.
You can’t just read out a well prepared statement, you have to engage with the audience, have good timing, speak clearly, vary your voice to emphasise certain points etc etc. Charisma comes into it too.
It’s a real skill and very little to do with intellect.

Grandma70 I did wonder if it was her the OP referred to simply because she fitted the short hair description and no one else seemed to fit.

In her current position the women you are talking about goes out to talk to eleven year olds in schools. As she still has the job I don't think her communication skills are all that lacking and, if it was her, I found her very easy to understand.

Regarding intellect and the ability to communicate to anyone and everyone, I'd say people like Dame Joan Bakewell, Sir David Attenborough, Bill Gates or Bill Bryson have both in abundance. But would agree, it doesn't necessarily follow.

The Big Questions is often well worth watching. It always involves people with varying and contrasting experiences and views.

It can sometimes get a bit heated with certain speakers trying to shout down others but I think Nicky Campbell does a very good job keeping down the level of aggro.

I wonder what he would make of some of the more contentious threads on GN.

Bridgeit, there was a woman on the far left with short hair but it was reddish-brown rather than blonde. She. Wore a green top. I found her irritating because she had a very unpleasant voice, but I didn’t find her any harder to follow than the rest of them. I thought her main point was that degrees were of value because they (ideally) instil critical thinking and increase mental agility, whether they are in ‘useful’ subjects or not. She had a degree in Renaissance Studies.

I found everyone (except the man who rudely talked over another contributor) very clear as were the points they made whether I agreed or not. I wonder what and who it was you found 'almost unfathomable' Bridgeit?

That’s the correct one GG.

I have to admit I just answered the premise put forward and didn't look at the example offered. I have now watched the programme. Who was not getting their points across? Who was the colleague who 'found it necessary to explain'? Was I looking at the wrong programme?

I watched the Big Questions which had been broadcast on Sunday 11 February 2018 and could not see anyone having any problems other than some did not like the opinions put forward. Have I watched the wrong thing?

Front row far left, I think youngish short blond hair .

I certainly agree with varian about the devaluation of some degrees. We have too many institutions calling themselves universities, and a whole generation of students conned into thinking all degrees are equal.

I’d still like to know which woman on this programme is being referred to in the OP. Nobody stood out particularly for me.

Whenever Anne Atkins the broadcaster is on ‘Thought for the Day’ I switch the radio off. I never have a clue what she is talking about.

I did however read a very candid article she wrote about her battle with alcohol and now see her in a slightly different light.

There are some people who, possibly because they feel insecure, adopt a "blind them with science" approach. No-one with a real understanding of their subject would do that.

I think there is also sometimes too much respect given to someone with a PhD. When we were young that was quite unusual and signified an expert, if not an intellectual.

There has been such a proliferation of degrees and commensurate dilution that you can now come across PhDs who would not have ever been considered particularly bright in a previous generation.

OldMed [grin}

GG2 just reading your post above where you quoted me, and I’m looking down at my dog who is communicating quite clearly that I’ve forgotten to feed him ????

Some people are good st communicating others are not. It’s as simple as that. Nothing to do with intelligence.

And some, like me, take three paragraphs to say just that OldMeg usually because I want to explain it all. I almost inevitably I over explain, not to prove I'm clever but to share a bit of knowledge.

GG the fact the the speakers colleague found it necessary to explain to an educated and intelligent audience does, I think, prove my point. With respect, you don't know me or my educational or intelligence level.

I am not interested in your education or your intelligence to be honest sunseeker - just your logic and the above is not logical. The reason the speakers colleague had to explain was because the speaker was not a good communicator - a skill some have and others never learn. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that proves the point that high levels of intellect stop people being good communicators! Some of the cleverest people are brilliant communicators. The colleague must have had a reasonable level of intelligence and knowledge (intellect) to have been able to explain.

The language of love, I expect.

We once had a church minister who had a PhD and a brain the size of a planet, but who found it very hard to gauge the capacity of his congregation to understand his sermons. We eventually had an agreement to meet weekly so that I could 'translate' his thoughts into more understandable terms and that solved the problem. Interestingly his wife was just the opposite, a very simple soul who left school with no qualifications to speak of and who, on her own admission, found it almost impossible to have a conversation with him on anything other than a domestic topic. Something worked between them though - they had four children!

Oh dear. I’ve just watched the programme, which certainly tried my patience. However, I have no idea which person the OP means. The format of this programme, where participants are allowed to talk over each other and the noise level is far too high, makes rational debate impossible. It was the usual ill-disciplined rabble.

Its much like the 'plain English' campaign providing training for companies and so on.
No point trying to make a valid point if nobody understands it.