3 ms·

I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, th

I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed. The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue. As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.

fireattack 6y ago
I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked, they just won't go ahead and actively publish anything that way. I personally side with TV producers here as soon as they have good intention. But can see why other people think otherwise.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.