going for upgrade from mphil to phd. living in a 2bed with a garden. yoga and pilates studio. working at a local greengrocers for rent money. getting married in 1 and a bit months. looking for readings and trying to write vows. new washing machine. hair going prematurely grey. nails super long. skin pretty good. starting to teach. drinking herbal tea every day. reading mary renault. thinking about splurging on aesop hand soap. double vaxxed. no social life. putting hydrocolloid patches on fiances road rash. stressing about submission. long talks with mother. self imposed tik tok ban. horrible diet. super busy!
When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.
The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.
There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.
The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.
Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.
It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.
