Keeping ideas in simplicity is not an easy task and was never intended to be. But there is a reason to see it as an intellectuals nirvana because it is the true essence of the mantra that analysts and pundits alike seems to cling to, that persuasive and compelling evidence is tantamount to unassailable evidence and therefore the last word on reason, whether anyone understands it or not. Wanna bet?
I have another suggestion; don’t keep it simple for the sake of simplicity, especially if the subject could be understood by an idiot. For example, one doesn't need to understand the problems in Washington to know that there is something dysfunctional with the political system, whether or not the recipient of that statement understands what the term dysfunctional means.
Simply put, we understand that there are many templates for understanding but none that will deliver the truth like mathematics, but the wide disparity of methods that people cling to while processing the world around them is often closed to interpretation which is exactly how people react when they are spoken to in language that isn’t in sync with their understanding of and idea. It’s a dilemma for anyone, such as me, who has to explain the often confusing facts about market behavior. Not that I’m complaining, I consider it a fun challenge of my work, and am pleased at to be asked.
I guess the main reason for writing this piece is that in all the years I've been railing against the instructions to keep it simple, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just too easy for me to “think too much” as I’m accused of doing, in fact almost as easy as it is for many people to not think at all.