Editing Nuance Is Overrated

A famous engineering saying goes

<blockquote> Any idiot can build a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.</blockquote>

That's also true for ideas. An idiot savant could, given some list of phenomena, regurgitate that list on demand, failing to capture the common elements or principles that underlie them. It takes someone capable to distill the parts that matter most and communicate them.

Because [[Principles Are Compressed Images Of Reality]], inserting detail is not an operation that is free. You could monomorphize any principle so that it is less general and just covers both subsets of any cover of a set, but that's not very useful.

All things have more detail than can be talked about within a reasonable amount of time. The magic isn't in exhaustively specifying all the cases exhaustively. It's in generalizing while keeping your models small. That means that, necessarily, there will be phenomena that your model does not explain completely. And, in fact, when verbally communicating you're likely to chop off all the frequencies with lower amplitude in the interest of communication.

So, in increasing order of precision, you have:

1. Pure recording of phenomena transmitted at high fidelity

2. Some loss of data

3. A principle, with substantial loss of data, but that captures the fundamental idea

4. A 'false' principle that doesn't capture anything of value

Many will believe that someone else's principle has destroyed too much data and that their own is nuanced. The [[Third Bear Claim|Third Bear Effect]] means that this is inevitable. All people will necessarily claim that they are at the perfect point on the curve.

Therefore, any claims that something is un-nuanced or omits crucial detail are pointless. Since some number of people will always claim that, it provides little to no information that some people claim that about something.