Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
In theory, that is desirable I agree that it is something to aspire to always. However, in practice, that isn't always feasible with regards the importance of absolute precision in conveying extremely counter-intuitive and complex aspects of reality.

The biggest risk is the distortion that comes from "simple words", in fact, it is a big problem which is why we are forced to create & utilise new vocabulary to minimise its effect. The only reason for advanced vocabulary is not to be pretentious but rather to minimise communication interferences from the miscommunication of ideas.

And finally regarding this:
"Just maybe you think too highly of your own intellect"
This idea makes no sense to me, with regards to intellect the proof is "in-the-pudding", or the thought-product as opposed to the agent. I don't see why personality attributes inherent to a person matter with regards to analysing the strength of their intellect. Whether the person has intellectual pride or not is irrelevant is critiquing the product of their thought.
The intellect thing was in respond to how you responded to the post previously. A bit dicky. Anyhow ya if something can be described more precise with more words that is to best, if something can be explained simply that is the master description. Anyhow I think Jung did great work but it have evolved and been redone in ways that cover it better. Model A is way better frame to make theoretical conclusions than something about subjective objects, which, does not exist.