travis, some peopole explain things for idiots. That is, they do a summary that is very reductionist or they don't give the back ground information that enabled those who listen to them to make there own choices because the summary excludes lots of important information, They dont give others
enough information to make a choice, they just give them what they think they ought to know. So even those who think they give explainations are maybe not really doing so . I have not noticed that this is your case, I only say it is not even safe to believe people who say they give explainations.
Some think they are explaining when they are dictating. they tell you what you ought to think or give examples that prove their own point and miss all facts that don't back up their points of veiw. this is indoctrinating.
People think for themselves, if you don't give them all the information they will do something which may not be a good idea, for some reason that the instructor has not imagined, a reason that seems a good one in the light of the information they do have but does not seem such a good idea to people in possesion of more information. They don't have enough information to make an informed choice because they were not given all the information. I defend giving all the information and it is not personal my attack is not against you, if it seemed directed at you it was me being over enthusiastic and clumsy and ofensively so, maybe being a bit rushed, there are so many things i am trying to get round to doing.
It is fair to say that people do think they are explaining when they are short changing, because they gave the short change they think they have explained, they are not silent but it is not as far as i know fair to say you do that or let it seem that i think you do that, because i don't have a clue what you do because i have been paying so much more attention to the themes than the people who introduced them.
People hope that with a basic set of ideas without having to go into details they can get people to do the best thing, in some cases, best thing, in some cases there is some question as to what is the best thing, what they think is the best thing but people all think for themselves, if they don't know all the ins and outs of things they will think of something that seems better to them, a different way or they will think of adaptations of your ideas that will seem good from the information you have given them though it might not be what the person who informed them might have thought of, and also may be adaptations that might not be sensible fron the point of view of a person who has more information. TThe changes in your ideas the uninformed make, are different from those of someone who does not agree with you.
My grammar school, which is an English goverment paid school, taught us to treat everyone as if they coiuld understand things, it taught us to treat people as intellectually equals. That does ot mean that you can use a vocabulary others don't understand, it means they will understand the concept if you give all the stages of the argument, if they have the necessary information and with the vocabulary. The school treated us all as if we could decide for our selves. I liked that attitude that i have hardley met again in adult life, hence the desire to extend it's practice and the feeling that there is some reason to think it is not a principle people usually work on and so there is room for making a fuss about it, somthing i did not that there was a need to defend this idea when i was just out of school i had just left a lot of people who defended it i could not know they were an island of faith in humanity.in this sort of belief when i was just out of school .
Those who give simplified information think they inform, it is not that they don't inform it is that the information they give is partial. This is an elitist attitude in the bad sense. If you say you do inform there is still maybe and maybe not a a lot of things you don't touch on depending on what your idea of the necessary is. rose macaskie