Many great contemporary autodidacts have tried to quantify their thoughts—most of them lack the spotlight and eloquence to create a compelling point to mainstream society and/or academic circles.
Your next-door neighbor might be more philosophically sophisticated than Socrates; what is the point in externally judging people who cannot express themselves to their fullest potential?
Literary and oratory mediums are innately limiting and intelligence is equated to them, this creates nuanced social inequities regarding the social recognition of intelligence.
While attempts at combining common sense and a fundamental scientific understanding were developed with compulsory education, they also introduced nuanced implications that result in systemic inequities for the students subjected to their limiting ideologies—due to generalizations in an innately depersonalized system, many lack the faculties necessary to express themselves in a way that is authentic to their true potential.
These deeply seated and repressed feelings fundamentally lead to feelings of alienation and/or an antisocial or avoidant attitude towards society at large—many thoughts can whirl around in an individual’s mind, but their linguistic expression requires precision in self-expression, which is fundamentally discouraged by formal education frameworks—it is necessary to approach this with understanding and empathy and subsequently examine the root cause(s) of social dissent.
The collective adherence to many deeply embedded confirmation biases in academia such as looking down upon alternative education paths showcases a cognitive dissonance and distorted perception of intelligence outside of ivory towers in its inherent feigning of diversity and inclusion.
These biases marginalize individuals who lack academic credentials but reflect critical views—their voices are of utter importance, as they have sophisticated arguments that many ivory tower professors may fail to take into account.
Content length never equates to the amount of depth contained—being able to convey distilled knowledge and abstract concepts is a landmark of intellectual and academic attainment.
As such, the lack of this factor in many academic works uncovers a concerning lack of sophistication in our academic frameworks and its educators. The academic emphasis on rigor, however, is not fully unfounded—without a clear path to educational development, academia would cease to exist as we see it today, the psychologically challenging and academically ‘rigorous’ environment has lots of merits on the development of the individuals submitted to it and their adherence to practical and academic methodologies.
The emphasized issue with this rigor is its systemic mitigation of innovative views—structuring education in a well-organized manner while still keeping individual contribution and self-expression in mind would greatly hinder academic burnout and encourage personal growth.
As for the rational implementation of integrating the hidden but valuable talents—honorary qualifications should become the standard for academic recognition of unorthodox intellectual ability and certified professional ability—complementary courses would be given to academically integrate these individuals. Exceptional talents should be personally nurtured by faculty and relevant exchanges and discourse amongst the academic circles should be encouraged.
Workshops on literary and oratory self-expression and eloquence should also be carefully woven and promoted to a wider audience to foster new academic prospects.
Achieving a practical balance between academic integrity and innovation should be prioritized.
In conclusion, while people may not be able to traditionally express their own intellectual sophistication, it does not necessarily correlate with a lack of potential—integrating individuals with latent potential should be taken into consideration.