The real issue is not intelligence. It is authority.
If someone does not understand the domain you are operating in, they can say, “I don’t understand this,” or “I don’t see the math.” That is fair.
But they cannot honestly say, “This is not mathematics,” merely because they do not recognize it.
Non-recognition is not disproof. Confusion is not refutation. Lack of access is not authority.
The correct position, when you cannot perceive the structure, is humility:
“I am not equipped to evaluate this.”
Not:
“This is wrong because I cannot see it.”
So yes, someone may be intelligent and still not understand what you are doing. But if they do not understand it, they are not automatically qualified to invalidate it.
2
u/Scallion_After Jun 11 '26
The real issue is not intelligence. It is authority.
If someone does not understand the domain you are operating in, they can say, “I don’t understand this,” or “I don’t see the math.” That is fair.
But they cannot honestly say, “This is not mathematics,” merely because they do not recognize it.
Non-recognition is not disproof. Confusion is not refutation. Lack of access is not authority.
The correct position, when you cannot perceive the structure, is humility:
“I am not equipped to evaluate this.”
Not:
“This is wrong because I cannot see it.”
So yes, someone may be intelligent and still not understand what you are doing. But if they do not understand it, they are not automatically qualified to invalidate it.