Language, from presentation to the way that presentation is received by an audience, as delivered from a platform by specific types of presentor's is in question. Linguistics and methods of articulation in relation to both audience and platforms is a study I had never considered. Subject matter coupled with rhetoric utilized to make a point stick, an effort to enable greater resonance, applied for specific purposes, and in this particular case, as it pertains to comprehension levels and effort in understanding. Language arts and linguistics, expression and effect, comprehension and intent all variables of the exercise itself, to better understand the art or the science of language, articulation, and reception. The differences of reaction to different types of presentations and rhetoric as it applies to the effectiveness of, which includes the differences between presentor or types of people making the presentations, an evident limiting reality for both audience and some people on the platform Is there a specific reason for the potential differences between types and how the material is perceived by other's? I'm inquiring about insight, not so much about personal truths in this regard. A study of why some are more effective than others, respectively. The difference between how a presentation is perceived based on who is giving the presentation and the effect it has is what's in question. Why the difference? What about people or types of people determine whether one view held by one type is accepted and another view not, even if the one accepted seems contrary to personal introspection and understanding? A college professor vs a highschool dropout for example. Or is this even part of linguistics, the scientific study of language? Obvious reasons transparent enough to understand that it's still a somewhat personal study and about the human psyche.
People in positions of authority are too often given more credence than the typical citizen, but they are also more subject to required bias based on position and others in positions of authority. With that said, do you ever feel the need to stand in spite of the deliberate bias of authority figures based on personal paradigms and contrary understanding of what they sometimes present as truths and/or suggestions?
You're certainly tuned into the zeitgeist, there. There's a trend at the moment for distrusting experts of all kinds, and the institutions those experts work for. I think that, at some level, most people realise that experts generally are considered experts for a reason. For example, experts can be highly trained, have lots of experience working in their field of expertise, consult with lots of people and so tend to have well-informed views on their field, etc. But then comes that second bit: the part where people like to assume that experts tend be biased, on the assumption that institutions require the experts to adhere to a particular dogma, party line, corporate message etc. There is always tension between trusting what the experts have to say and distrusting the experts because maybe they aren't telling us everything, or they are telling us what they've been told to tell us. However, the current trend in the 2020s seems to be to come down on the side of distrust. My own observation is that, generally speaking, the further removed a layperson is from the expert in question - in terms of level of education, specific knowledge on the topic, general knowledge about what the expert actually does all day - the more the layperson is likely to mistrust what the expert has to say. I don't think this is a very positive societal trend, all things considered.
Knowledge is one thing, expertise another. Teachers, police, military, the clergy, coaches, lawyers, bread winners, parents, husbands, doctors, etc have all been known to abuse their positions. I generally agree with your thoughts, but you can't avoid the truth.
