Post #41791

2025-12-08 14:43 UTC

My point being that for some stuff, you just can’t describe things as bags within bags, irrelevant of where you are on the scale, at least not being without quite dishonest and oversimplifying. I am not saying I am on too of the scale, I am saying I’ve met and worked with people on top of the scale (and couldn’t keep up), and they don’t explain things with bags within bags.

Replies (1)

@masterspace@lemmy.ca 2025-12-08 14:55

Eh I don’t really agree, depending on how simple you’re talking. Bags within bags, or dumbing things down to a grade school level, then sure, there are topics that can’t be described succinctly. But if you’re talking about simplifying things down to the point that anyone who took a bit of undergrad math/science can understand, then pretty much everything can be described in simple and easy to understand ways. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen many people at the top who can’t, but in every case, it’s not because of the topics inherent complexity but either because they don’t actually understand the topics as well as they may seem, or because they lack the social skills (or time / effort / setting) to properly analogize and adjust for the listener.

Open ##41830