To intellectual to be understood.?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

That’s the correct one GG.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

M0nica

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 .

That is simply a load of rubbish Bridgeit.

I said you did not understand the women concerned because you said you did not understand the women. I said you mentioned others who did not understand her either because you said others did not understand her either. I said you did not say who they were because you did not say who they were.

Your OP asked if "one can be too intellectual to be understood". I put forward the argument that intellect and communication are two different things. One does not influence or limit the other. Others agreed. Others also agreed that they understood the women in your example perfectly easily. I then pointed out that logically your point was not made and your example did not support it as others found her perfectly easy to understand.

So, where did I read your mind or interpret something other than what you said. You put forward a proposition, a question. You say I don't understand the concept of opinion. What I do understand is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, if you voice that opinion in public you are also entitled to have it challenged. If you hold an opinion it does not make it a truth. It certainly doesn't mean anyone else has to treat it as if it is the truth. If you have started to believe that your opinion is the truth even when it isn't, simply because you "are entitled to your opinion" then you are wrong. If you do not want to be told the truth do not ask for a discussion of your opinion.

??

You may laugh Bridgit but all you have proved is the level of your own "intellect" and your ability to be rude if you don't get your own way.

It is a problem that some, many, specialisms in science, technology, politics, and philosophy are too difficult for lay people. This problem is why Richard Dawkins has, for instance , been charged with the public understanding of science as a special service that focuses on communication.

When I'm on one of the several discussion sites which I visit I sometimes like to pick upon one point of contention and answer that one in isolation.

You clearly did not read my last sentence GG, but if you do you will see that you have actually repeated what I had said.I notice you posted late at night so maybe you were a bit tired & missed it. It is a shame that you always revert to petty point scoring instead of making any valid points of interest I’m afraid it it is becoming very boring , certainly to me & no doubt to others.

Your last sentence was not a repetition of what I said Bridgeit and the idea that I was resorting to petty point scoring is risible in the extreme after your posts.

Your last sentence was "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."

I do not agree. Shall I repeat that. I do not agree. I somewhat agree with the Harlan Ellison who said "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." No one can stop anyone holding an opinion in their head which, I assume, is why so many believe they are entitled to "their" opinion. Voice it and we are entitled to expect an intelligent discussion not the expectation from you that we will accept what you say simply because you believe your opinion is a truth.

with the with