[Asmodaeus]

There are some (professional and/or scholarly) contexts where the use of complex language or a highly specialized lexicon is encouraged or even prized, mainly because grasping the depth of some insight requires intricate explanations or a substantial degree of theoretical abstraction.

However, whenever it's necessary to deal with “average” people, the aforementioned approach is regularly counterproductive because it diminishes the clarity of one's ideas, especially when one is (foolishly?) used to the idea that complexity enhances accuracy.

As an occasional lecturer, the use of metaphors to illustrate complex concepts is often helpful but sometimes it's not enough in other less sophisticated domains.

Much to my chagrin, this is a meaningful problem because it's rather difficult to oversimplify complexity in concisely understandable terms.

So, how to deal with the need to “dumb down”? Can this challenge be reasonably overcome? How?

As usual, everyone’s thoughts, ideas, comments, suggestions and/or advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Solstice Amarok]

"dumb down" seems to me a bit too harsh.
Instead of dumbing down things i prefer to call it lengthening the explanation.
For example, if you told someone to "cook some rice" and they didn't know how. Just go through the process of how to make it, I know it may seem too tedious but honestly it's better than having a bunch of blank looks as if they were being told to make a rocket out of cardboard.
Also try to keep your patience with people, INTJs have a HUGE problem with not being understood by "less knowledgeable" people.

 

[Mmmm]

Well it probably depends on the subject but one of the things I've done is create visuals. Graphs, charts, pictures, videos, all seem to help. At work I constantly have to print screen & add my notes so that my instructions are understood but I think the people I work with are "special". They have their master's degree but don't ask me how they got them. Breaking everything down into an outline of steps/procedures also helps. As you mentioned choice of words can go a long way, just act like you are addressing kids. Keep it as simple as possible & maybe have a question & answer session at the end.

 

[g_w]

There are some (professional and/or scholarly) contexts where the use of complex language or a highly specialized lexicon is encouraged or even prized, mainly because grasping the depth of some insight requires intricate explanations or a substantial degree of theoretical abstraction.

However, whenever it's necessary to deal with “average” people, the aforementioned approach is regularly counterproductive because it diminishes the clarity of one's ideas, especially when one is (foolishly?) used to the idea that complexity enhances accuracy.

As an occasional lecturer, the use of metaphors to illustrate complex concepts is often helpful but sometimes it's not enough in other less sophisticated domains.

Much to my chagrin, this is a meaningful problem because it's rather difficult to oversimplify complexity in concisely understandable terms.

So, how to deal with the need to “dumb down”? Can this challenge be reasonably overcome? How?

As usual, everyone’s thoughts, ideas, comments, suggestions and/or advice will be greatly appreciated.

Change the subject, *or*, seek to illustrate the _principle_ involved, if not the actual facts, by using examples from an area closer to the audience's everyday life.

For example "weighted averages" can be explained by saying you don't get a team batting average, by adding the starting lineup's individual average and dividing by 9, because some people have a lot more at bats.

 

[g_w]

Well it probably depends on the subject but one of the things I've done is create visuals. Graphs, charts, pictures, videos, all seem to help. At work I constantly have to print screen & add my notes so that my instructions are understood but I think the people I work with are "special". They have their master's degree but don't ask me how they got them. Breaking everything down into an outline of steps/procedures also helps. As you mentioned choice of words can go a long way, just act like you are addressing kids. Keep it as simple as possible & maybe have a question & answer session at the end.

Your answer is really, really good: but it also depends on the format, and the amount of time you have, and the other people's patience, and how important the topic is, the more important the topic the more time you can spend.

 

[ae1905]

it's like taking someone on a journey...you have to start where they are (in understanding) and lead them to where you are...the sine qua non is you have to know the subject well enough--ie, have a mental "map"--to navigate the terrain

so if the student is lost amongst the trees, you have to show him the forest

or if the student has never seen the forest or even knows it exists, you have to take him there and point out where your "trees" stand in the thick of things


a teacher who can't do this is himself lost in the forest

 

[Green Girl]

Connect it with something your audience can intuitively understand, and focus on one concept at a time. I do a science program for elementary school age children at the library, and it can be a challenge. I try to keep it focused on one concept, limit the vocabulary introduced, and explain things visually. It helps to get some emotional engagement, which will help the kids learn and to remember the content.

For example, one program I do is about symmetry. Try to explain symmetry verbally to a first grader, and you'll get nowhere.

But suggest they chop you in half. If they chop you across your stomach, will the two halves match? (Stand up and hold a yardstick across your stomach.) No! How could they chop you in half to make the halves match? Vertically! (Hold the yardstick vertically as a demo). Yes! I have vertical symmetry! How about you? (Have everybody test themselves out.)

The kids are cracking up at the idea of chopping each other in half, but they all grasp the concept, and I have even introduced the idea that there are different kinds of symmetry, as well as the vocabulary to go with it. After that we go on to explore other kinds of symmetry by making paper snowflakes.

I know you are explaining much more complex ideas, but the approach of demonstrating one concept at a time and reinforcing it is good for all ages. Once your audience has grasped the basic concept, build on it. Of course, kids learn way faster than adults, so you might have to slow it down even more.

 

[Catwalk]

Essentially, I have learned to acquiring ''specific'' group(s) to which I seek specific resource from that are all dynamic which a particular set of ''requirements,'' to be placed within their classification.


Ex; (1) -->

 

(A)

The Knowledgables (e.g., high-functioning intellectuals / professors / individual(s) I would consider of equal - or higher intelligence than myself). They can be considered ''associates,'' like Group (B), but only within certain time-frames (&) localities.

[Impersonal - sometimes Subjective].

[HR][/HR]


(B)

The Associates (e.g., social-activities / small-talkers / minglers / friends / or the ''averages''). They can be intelligent, but are usually not intellectual as Group (A).

[Subjective].

[HR][/HR]


(C)

The Romantics (e.g., relationship / partner potentials / sexual-inquiries / informal relations, et al). They can also be ''intelligent,'' (e.g., able to supply other means of comforts / emotional + feeling support(s) + mutualistic capacity of shared interests), but are usually never intellectual like Group (A), nor ''associates,'' like Group (B).

[Personal].

[HR][/HR]


(D)

The Strangers (e.g., random 'average' folk(s) / unknown-classification / unfamiliar (&) social). They can be of either (A, B, or C), respectively, but have no 'classification' due to alienation; thus communicative mean(s) with them are usually very ''brief,'' - non-intellectual [group (A)], not as -personal [group (B)], nor as intimate [group (C)].

[Impersonal].


[HR][/HR]


(E)

The Incapable (e.g., mentally-challenged + handicapped / lacking sufficient cognitive capacity / problematic - behavioral malfunction(s) (i.e., inabilities to compromise), children, disabled, ''off-limits,'', et al.

[Impersonal].

[HR][/HR]


Results / Comments::

I usually do not need to ''dumb-down,'' in these distinct localities - as I always 'expect' the same amount of stimulus. The times I do sense a need to ''dumb-down,'' are usually within group (D) [unknown classifieds] - who could be of any unique group (A, B, C). Seeking specific types of individuals [rather than all eggs in one basket] (&) classifiying as 'unknowns' until further discerning is established seems to 'balance' + reduce these ''dumbing down needs,'' - is this 100% effective; no - as I still feel a particular 'annoyance' + uncomfortability while around a particular group of individual(s) - I say this because while I have multiple group(s), I do not always fancy these particular groups. (e.g,. B, D, E).

Thus,

Explaining ''complex,'' concepts to groups such as (B, C, D, or E) [audiences] - usually revolves in 'simplifying' my speech/explanation, rather than ''simplifying'' the concept itself. While this supplies clarity to other(s), without discombobulating the audience - while keeping ''complex,'' things intact. (e.g., mathematical shortcuts).

In the same way(s) we do not utilizing 'medical terms' when explaining to a patient their illness. I would recommend working on + practicing socializing with group(s) (B, C, D) through more simplistic speech without ''restructuring'' the idea/concept - unless necessary - rather than ''dumbing the self down,'' which appear(s) to make no sense. Understand this is merely a projection of self-comfort -- rather than an actuality (e.g., within the wrong locality).

The malfunction(s) occur when explaining concepts within 'abstraction' to sensor(s) (See other thread) - although, I need to remember to speak in 'detail' (Ti-like) - rather than 'chop-chop / ''magical-speaking,'' (Ni-like), which is often unrecognized by (Ni-users), since it is an innate function.

 

[Felinex]

It's all about knowing the other part; seeing it from their perspective and to communicate in a way that they can take in.

Don't see it as "dumbing down" - see it as clarifying.

 

[HugtheVoid]

Whenever possible, develop a discussion, activity, or exercise that allows your audience to discover the rudiments of the concept on their own, so they will be prepared for the topic and motivated to strive to understand you at your level or a level in the middle.

 

[WickerDeer]

For example "weighted averages" can be explained by saying you don't get a team batting average, by adding the starting lineup's individual average and dividing by 9, because some people have a lot more at bats.

*eyes glaze over* Noooo....baseball. XD

I agree with focusing on principle and also what is relatable to them. I used to love reading my mom's old physics book for non-physics majors in fifth grade--it was so understandable and completely satisfying to me. They mostly summarized the principles though and I couldn't understand the math.

----------------

If you want, and this is similar to metaphor, relate it something that they can personally relate with/to. The problem with this is that you may not be as much of an expert on what your audience understands.

For example, I had a math teacher who tried to help us memorize some mathematical thing (can't remember it now though I did at the time...barely) by relating it to cooking. He said one was like a soup, where you have to add ingredients in stages and sequence. Then he said the other was like a stew, where you just throw everything in a pot.

And I was like...um (yeah, I raised my hand to tell him this) you often have to prepare things for stews too...add things at different times, brown the meat etc. Then another student also raised their hand to agree that yeah, plenty of stews are not the same as just throwing things randomly in a pot without sequence. I guess when he cooked stews he just threw everything in a slow cooker without any preparation...which I admire. It sounds like a pretty easy thing to do for dinner when it works. But he didn't really understand the complexity of his metaphor. I think he also offered extra credit if we could find problems with his arguments, so that was his mistake.

But I still think that relating it to something your audience does understand can help. I mean, that's the amazing thing about complexity, that it really can reveal things that you or others may not know.

But yeah, start with what someone understands, and what they are familiar with. If you don't have enough time to teach them the details of the complexities around what you are explaining, at least relate it to other complexities (like stew...I don't think many of us really understand the complexity of stew--I don't) so that at least they can fill in the blind spots with something comparable, until they ask more questions on their own time and understand it more.

I work with young children and so I mostly just try to focus on their level of understanding and their interest. Most of it is conversational though, and not lecture. It's amazing to learn what other people are interested in, even if they don't really understand things in complex ways, because you know something complex is going on underneath all of that. But there are many examples which can illustrate the same principle, so choosing one that is most understandable to the audience. IDK--I read Green Girl's chopping in half to explain symmetry, which sounds interesting. I usually just try to add it into convo--like we're eating lunch and I show pictures of where the food came from, what tools were used in harvesting it, when we are learning about senses it's jst like 'I can hear this' or 'this feels soft' mostly just introducing new language and showing how it's used. For young kids, learning language is huge, but even for adults trying to understand different disciplines, there is sometimes a language barrier in jargon that makes it difficult to understand what's being communicated.

 

[Ashie]

There are some (professional and/or scholarly) contexts where the use of complex language or a highly specialized lexicon is encouraged or even prized, mainly because grasping the depth of some insight requires intricate explanations or a substantial degree of theoretical abstraction.

However, whenever it's necessary to deal with “average” people, the aforementioned approach is regularly counterproductive because it diminishes the clarity of one's ideas, especially when one is (foolishly?) used to the idea that complexity enhances accuracy.

As an occasional lecturer, the use of metaphors to illustrate complex concepts is often helpful but sometimes it's not enough in other less sophisticated domains.

Much to my chagrin, this is a meaningful problem because it's rather difficult to oversimplify complexity in concisely understandable terms.

So, how to deal with the need to “dumb down”? Can this challenge be reasonably overcome? How?

As usual, everyone’s thoughts, ideas, comments, suggestions and/or advice will be greatly appreciated.

You could start by reducing the number of $20 words in your uh day-to-day discourse. What you lose in precision you more than make up for in clarity, and it will dramatically cut down on "average" people's eyes glazing over when you talk to them.

Think of big fancy academic words as seasoning for the main ingredient, which is your ideas. If your ideas are good, you won't sound dumb using the most simple language.

OP made me think of this comic.

 

[Dabbling]

Another thing I do as a teacher is have a topic which I am myself learning, so I remember the feeling of being a student and the frustrations of not understanding.

This also means I can talk about something where I'm not an expert, and it makes me more relatable as a person with my students...I get frustrated too when I can't get it, I also have times when I'm too lazy or just want a coffee break...

Recognising that the students have their own areas of expertise is a great move...learning bits of their home languages is a big one for me...they are delighted with my attempts to reproduce their 'great homework' phrase in their mother tongue, and it keeps me as a learner and a novice in their eyes...it all helps to dispel the idea that I'm talking 'down' to their 'dumb' selves.

As for lecturing, that's tougher since talking to individual students isn't as easily available as it is for me. But maybe watch a few TED talks and see what tactics those great speakers use to engage their audience, to make them laugh, to get them on the lecturer's side...

 

[starscream430]

"dumb down" seems to me a bit too harsh.
Instead of dumbing down things i prefer to call it lengthening the explanation.
For example, if you told someone to "cook some rice" and they didn't know how. Just go through the process of how to make it, I know it may seem too tedious but honestly it's better than having a bunch of blank looks as if they were being told to make a rocket out of cardboard.
Also try to keep your patience with people, INTJs have a HUGE problem with not being understood by "less knowledgeable" people.

This!

I personally don't have a problem explaining things again for people, but I know people who do. When doing presentations on mundane, difficult-for-people-except-me topics, I tend to inject in a bit of humor for two reasons: it keeps attention on me while helping watchers learn more and serves to maintain my sanity when talking about the topic :tongue:.

 

[Figure]

One tip I'd bring forward is, allow your audience to be involved. INTJ's have a habit of reciting things to other people without realizing that they aren't actually answering questions or even giving the needed information. Be as succinct and direct as you can, to allow others to ask questions or for clarification. Avoid filler language, and stick to concrete and simple sentences. Once you have a dialogue, you can then dive into more detail later once you know others are on the same page.

Along with that, start with a high level summary first. You want people to become intrigued with ideas they can grasp before handing them more complex details, so they'll actually understand and want to learn those details.

A third would be to give people different options of understanding the concept. I know for me, it's easy to want to demonstrate my understanding of something above having my audience actually learn, and the latter is more important in a presentation. Think of multiple ways of understanding the same thing, and vary your channels - auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. If you can whiteboard processes or diagrams, try that; accentuate your voice for important points; have people actually get their hands in an activity to demonstrate the concept.

 

[Mick Travis]

I'm glad specialists realize they have special languages. If you want me to understand, I respond well to "fun".

View attachment 580658

I know, applied mathematics is fun for some. I really do wish I could hang in there without it all eventually looking like a bunch of lines. Some of my wacky ideas need serious discipline to become reality.

 

[lilysocks]

i feel like the hardest part for me is always trying to walk the tightrope between 'comprehensible' and 'condescending'. it varies with every person and audience too, but many people don't even seem to realise it's there.

 

[SouDesuNyan]

"dumb down" seems to me a bit too harsh.
Instead of dumbing down things i prefer to call it lengthening the explanation.
For example, if you told someone to "cook some rice" and they didn't know how. Just go through the process of how to make it, I know it may seem too tedious but honestly it's better than having a bunch of blank looks as if they were being told to make a rocket out of cardboard.
Also try to keep your patience with people, INTJs have a HUGE problem with not being understood by "less knowledgeable" people.

Interesting. For me it's the other way around. I have a fairly complicated structure in my mind, and when I try to explain it to others, I would try to abstract it to highest level (i.e. hiding as much information as possible). This makes my answer very concise. Details are only discussed with more knowledgeable people.

 

[kiwig0ld]

to dumb it down, it's all in your vocabulary.

 

[Penny]

There are some (professional and/or scholarly) contexts where the use of complex language or a highly specialized lexicon is encouraged or even prized, mainly because grasping the depth of some insight requires intricate explanations or a substantial degree of theoretical abstraction.

However, whenever it's necessary to deal with “average” people, the aforementioned approach is regularly counterproductive because it diminishes the clarity of one's ideas, especially when one is (foolishly?) used to the idea that complexity enhances accuracy.

As an occasional lecturer, the use of metaphors to illustrate complex concepts is often helpful but sometimes it's not enough in other less sophisticated domains.

Much to my chagrin, this is a meaningful problem because it's rather difficult to oversimplify complexity in concisely understandable terms.

So, how to deal with the need to “dumb down”? Can this challenge be reasonably overcome? How?

As usual, everyone’s thoughts, ideas, comments, suggestions and/or advice will be greatly appreciated.

i think the only thing you could really do to help is help them find the meanings of the complex words or terms on their own if you can't find a suitable metaphor. pictures/visualizations drawn out might help i suppose if you could come up with something. i read our comprehension levels drop amazingly for a bit after coming across a word we don't understand and/or can't come up with an alternative meaning for (like substitute it for something concrete whether it's right or not) so explaining unfamiliar words might be helpful.