I definitely agree that with everything , as in each subject, there are and needs to be very technical field jargon specific writings and also easier to digest, more simplistic in its vocabulary, lay persons explanations. Everyone is different and some are able to translate their knowledge in various ways better than others. Some experts are only good at technical journal submissions. Some are great at breaking it down for 10th graders. Some can get a concept and flesh out a entire 600 page book while others equally trained on the subject matter may not be able to effectively write a 250 page book on it. Some can express their ideas clearly in blogs, podcasts, or videos.
Some people also lie outright. We see this constantly by companies with lawsuits filed against them for their product and during the investigation sometimes it comes out that a issue was purposely buried. Or they change the variables for a better outcome.
Get a 400lb person and put them on 1000 calorie a day diet of chocolate, tea and bananas and they may very well lose weight and feel healthier two weeks later. Get a very healthy athletic person and put them on the same diet and they may feel weaker and sicker. But if all you do is focus on the first study and talk about how they lost weight and then imply your tea results in weight loss it’s a deceitful.
Lastly experts are able to blur the clear cut because the person already wants to believe it. They are not willing to deconstruct their ideas. They will allow for clear contradictions but bridge the contention through compartmentalizing it. It’s why statistics are often so useless. The people focus on the result created by controlled populations and not on the issue with a wider population.
Take the recent conversations on psychopaths. The term denotes something nightmarish at the start, conjuring up these icons of horror like Michael Myers because the most common variable for studying psychopaths is pulling them from prisons after carrying out violent and terrible crimes. You don’t hardly seem to see the population control being based off of those who never committed a crime of any severity.
I feel like it would be the same as if we did like what racists do and build a portfolio of generalizations on African Americans by pulling statists and examples of only those that committed crimes and building a image off of gangster rap and hood films. If that’s the population you are picking from you won’t get the same as if you pulled from those who never did anything criminal. But if your statistics is based off of crimes committed by race verses the total population it can easily be deceitful. I see it all the time.
Someone will argue African Americans are more dangerous based off of inmates instead of realizing that the overwhelming majority never go to prison or even get arrested. So it’s a very misguided statistic and a even worse headliner built around it.
I feel like I see the same things happening with every thing including covid.
Scientist A says that the death rate is very low because the majority that gets it is mostly fine. Many don’t even know they have it.
Scientist B says that it’s very deadly because they are focused on the extra deaths found within a specific time period of those with a compromised immune system.
If you are a politician trying to open up the economy you can easily set the stage of the path you want based off of which scientist you cite while ignoring the other half of the equation.
I could make a 1300 calorie sundae every night and talk about how healthy it is because of the protein in it and focus on the healthier benefits of the toppings such as strawberries and walnuts and totally ignore the macronutrient composition , negative benefits of way to much processed sugar and excess calories.