My best friend currently acts as a proxy to explain my ideas to other people, and he says that while my logic is generally correct, my premises and conclusions are difficult to connect because I don't stay on a particular topic easily during a conversation. This is partially because I pull from many different domains when trying to solve a problem, and partially because different parts of my brain are running my mouth during the conversation ("scatter brained", probably ADHD inattentive type or something). I have found it difficult to explain cross-domain relationships that I am investigating, mainly because people like information boxed nicely in a certain domain or "format". I seem to use a form of "compression" that is not compatible with most people's expectations. It was also brought to my attention that scientists often have an emotional attachment to proving or disproving certain theories (they also have person beliefs I would imagine), while I don't particularly care if I am wrong - I simply update my world model accordingly. In other words I don't "care about" believing in certain things, I care about progressing toward understanding truth, as much as can be possible for a human anyway. Like everyone I am also imperfect, just so you don't think I'm sitting on my high horse or whatever - my methods work fine for my brain, relatively speaking. The other problem is that I store multiple theories at the same time and apply them in turn to a problem; most people consider this "wishy washy" while I just look at it as evaluating information through many lenses to identify the truth in its pattern. When science was young, it was easier to think holistically; I guess due to the volume of data in science now, domain expertise means general inability to really think holistically. This is specifically why I never sought to work toward a PhD; my interests are too diverse. The bottom line is ideas mean nothing if they cannot be understood by other people. This is literally a formatting exercise: I think I just need to list premise and conclusion in sets that make sense to other people; but it is more than that, my friend is able to understand other people's beliefs, even if illogical, and make an emotional appeal (we call this "marketing ideas"). So clearly making a logical argument is not sufficient to qualify as "having communicated an idea effectively". At the end of the day, convincing people to listen apparently takes more time than actually sharing the information or asking a question. Surely I am not the only person to have encountered difficulties with that ? What is the correct way to "format" ideas that are in flux for discussion ?