Hacker News Reader

Comment by Confusion | Hacker News Reader

  People who truly understand their subject should have no
  trouble writing for a popular audience.

This is false for at least two reasons.

1) People who truly understand their subject know they can't write for a popular audience without handwaving, partial truths and actually getting the complexity of the subject across. They may not want to write in that way.

2) The ability to 'think like a layman', properly estimate their background and slowly build up a story that they can follow without getting lost is a skill entirely different from 'knowing your subject'. It is prepostorous to suppose every intelligent person has that skill. It's a typical case where a lot of people mistake intelligence for skill and it's insulting to (technical) writers that have actually put effort into learning how to write.

All in all, I doubt whether 10% of all people that 'truly understand their subject' can write for a popular audience.

View on HN

Yes, there are so many fallacies in that essay. It shows another way to pretend that you're smart: appeal to your audience's vanity by suggesting that you share a rare resistance to manipulation by intellectual intimidation.

Another fallacy is that smart people are more likely to be found behind profanity-laced rants. In my experience, people resort to vulgarity as a gimmick intended to convey a message that isn't adequately conveyed by their content itself. The emotional, gimmicky nature of it is the reason that it tends to be negatively correlated with logical quality.

Right. I like the sentiment of the post but it's definitely not a black and white case of:

1) You are stupid if you are hard to understand 2) You are smart if you are easy to understand

They say the best teachers and coaches (i.e. the ones which are easiest to understand) are the ones who had to work the hardest to find success in their craft. Conversely, the most naturally gifted of people sometimes don't understand how amazing what they take for granted is and can't pass on this knowledge. There is also a lot of real world contradictions to this (I'm thinking sports here) so yes, there are a lot of shades of grey.

The author blatantly ignores modes of communications.

A discussion of two specialists' will be completely impenetrable to a layman. However, this fact says nothing about the specialists'. An 'intelligent' specialist should be able to communicate ideas from his field to a layman, but the efficiency of this communication will be much lower than of the discussion from the example above.

University academics can be a good example of this. Sometimes experts in a given field can be terrible lecturers/writers, yet no-one would doubt their abilities.

I agree, not to mention, some subjects are too complicated to explain to a layman, a lot of mathematical concepts (just as one example) require certain non-trivial fundamental knowledge in the layman before you start, if these fundamentals are lacking, you are stuck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com