The Limits of Relatability: When Anti-Intellectualism Disguises Expertise as Casual Conversation

As a hyperfeminine Black woman navigating academia (as a PhD student) and working in the tech industry, I am frequently confronted with a dissonance between how I am perceived and the intellectual depth I possess. This mismatch, often tied to my appearance, speaks volumes about the broader societal tendency to dismiss intellect based on surface-level factors, particularly gender and race.

At its core, there are two predominant reactions to this disconnection. First, there are those who, upon seeing me, (my "girly" exterior and my assumed adherence to beauty standards that often appeal to the male gaze), dismiss me as lacking substance. Their assumptions about my intellect are based on appearances, and it's only once they are exposed to my expertise and knowledge that they are forced to recalibrate their initial judgments. This response reveals a deeply ingrained bias: the idea that femininity, particularly a feminine Black body, cannot be synonymous with intellect or professionalism. This goes beyond my lived experience and feeds into a much broader observation.

Christian Divyne's reflections on the portrayal of Black intellectuals in the media directly connect to this experience. He speaks on the assumption that Black individuals, in order to be seen as intellectual, often have to sacrifice part of their Blackness, as if intellect and Black identity are incompatible unless one conforms to certain expectations of "intelligence." He references Ryan Coogler, who was met with shock when people heard him speak about film formats for Sinners in an intellectually sophisticated way, all while speaking with a thick Oakland, California accent. This dissonance—when a Black person exhibits both deep knowledge and a familiar cultural identity—resonates deeply with me. People are often stunned when I speak and engage on a high intellectual level because they don’t expect a Black woman who conforms (albeit unintentionally) to certain cultural beauty standards and ways of being to also carry this depth of knowledge.

The second reaction, however, is more nuanced. It often comes from women who see my (assumed) adherence to cultural beauty standards and conclude that we’ll easily relate. They see my “girly girl” exterior and think, “She’s just like me,” but when they hear me speak, they quickly realize that I cannot relate to their experiences in the way they expected. This realization often leads to discomfort, even disdain, as I become a mirror to their own insecurities and limitations. They quickly find themselves frustrated by the gap in intellectual depth, finding it difficult to engage on a more profound level because, quite frankly, they don’t have the literacy, skills, or, more importantly, the curiosity to keep up.

This dynamic is vividly illustrated in public debates, such as those between Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and Ish on The Joe Budden Podcast. Their conversations often highlight the stark contrast between individuals who engage deeply with ideas and those who don’t. For instance, in a recent episode, Dr. Hill challenged rapper Wiz Khalifa's assertion that the Earth is flat. Khalifa, citing his extensive travels, claimed that the Earth is a "flat plane," a view he holds despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Dr. Hill, maintaining his composure and presenting evidence-based arguments, questioned Khalifa's reasoning, pointing out the lack of empirical support for such claims.

Similarly, discussions about the ethics of billionaires have sparked intense debates. Dr. Hill has argued that the concentration of wealth among a few individuals is inherently unethical, as it often comes at the expense of the broader society. Ish, on the other hand, has expressed more ambivalence, suggesting that the success of billionaires can be seen as a result of their hard work and innovation. These differing perspectives underscore the challenges of engaging in meaningful discourse when foundational understandings of economics and ethics vary significantly.

Dr. Hill, known for blending humor, relatability, and intellectual discourse, often faces pushback precisely because of his perceived relatability. Dr. Hill’s ability to make complex concepts digestible, weaving in humor and casual conversation, makes him seem like a fellow customer in a barbershop who you could have a conversation with. He's relatable, approachable, and “just like you.” This perceived relatability, however, leads many to believe they are on equal intellectual footing with him.

In these conversations, they feel emboldened to challenge him, thinking they have the same level of knowledge or understanding. This false equivalence, which can be seen in aforementioned debates like the flat Earth discussion with rapper Wiz Khalifa, leads to moments of defensiveness when their arguments are dismantled. Khalifa, despite his personal travel experiences, presented the Earth-is-flat theory, which Dr. Hill calmly deconstructed with evidence-based reasoning. In this instance, Khalifa felt his experiences held weight against Dr. Hill’s intellectual authority, yet the lack of empirical support for his claims was clear.

In these exchanges, Dr. Hill's ability to navigate complex topics with emotional regulation and nuance often contrasts with responses from those less equipped to engage thoughtfully. Their defensiveness or frustration is not merely a reaction to differing opinions but reflects a deeper discomfort with confronting the limits of their own understanding. This pattern is a stark reminder that intellectualism is not just about being "right"; it's about the capacity to engage, question, and grow.

One of the most common comments I receive on my TikTok videos from women is, “It’s not that deep.” This comment, often dismissing my deeper dives into topics, highlights a reluctance to engage with complexity. Their refusal or inability to connect with deeper layers of conversation leaves them stagnant, unable to keep up. This reflects a pattern that mirrors how people interact with me on a surface level. They expect my content to be superficial, perhaps because of my perceived relatability. Once confronted with my intellectual depth, the response becomes, "It's not that deep," as if to downplay or dismiss what they've encountered, but in a world where every issue, whether societal, political, or environmental, is interconnected and layered, everything is that deep.

Dismissing depth as “not that deep” is a defense mechanism to avoid grappling with complexities they don’t want to or can’t fully comprehend.

This brings us back to the importance of recognizing expertise and understanding the skills involved in becoming an expert. Tyus Williams, a TikToker and PhD candidate in science, shared his perspective on this issue. He points out that many people fail to understand what it truly means to be an expert. Expertise isn't just about "being right" in an argument; it's about thousands of hours of rigorous study and training. Tyus discusses the relatively small percentage of people who hold doctorates in the U.S. (around 2%) and how that limited pool contributes to the lack of understanding of what it means to be an expert. In his video, Tyus argues that because people don’t understand the amount of work required to cultivate expertise, they often believe they can challenge those who have spent years becoming authorities in their fields. I think this is also heightened when relatability becomes an entry point, wherein individuals perceive themselves as being on the same playing field as an expert.

This lack of understanding fuels the rise of anti-intellectualism, where individuals, unprepared and ill-equipped, attempt to challenge experts and their knowledge. Tyus underscores that this issue is not unique to any one topic (whether it’s flat Earth debates or discussions about billionaires’ ethics), the absence of intellectual humility and recognition of expertise leads to these misunderstandings. Dr. Hill’s ability to engage in these discussions, dissect arguments, and maintain emotional regulation is a direct result of his academic training, something that Tyus rightly points out is honed through years of doctoral study. The ability to carefully interrogate complex topics, defend one's perspective, and engage with opposing viewpoints is not something anyone can do without the necessary intellectual tools. And, to be clear, I do not think formal education is the only way to acquire this skillset; however, in this case, Dr. Hill is a formally trained expert in the truest sense of the term.

Higher-order thinking (a phrase I use often on TikTok to capture the ability to synthesize complex information, engage critically with new ideas, and respond with nuance), requires more than just exposure to facts. It requires emotional regulation and intellectual resilience. These skills are rooted in literacy: the ability to not only read but to deeply engage with, critique, and expand upon the information we consume. Our capacity to process complex information and respond thoughtfully is tied to these foundational skills. In contrast, when someone with limited intellectual capacity faces challenging information, they often respond with defensiveness, hostility, or outright dismissal. This is the difference between someone engaged in higher-order thinking. They approach information with curiosity and openness, as opposed to someone who feels threatened or unable to process new ideas. The former will navigate complexity; the latter will retreat into ignorance. This dynamic is on full display in public intellectual debates, like those between Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and Ish on The Joe Budden Podcast. Their conversations illuminate the vast gap between those who engage deeply with ideas and those who don’t. Dr. Hill’s ability to navigate complex ideas with emotional regulation and nuance challenges those who aren’t equipped with the same intellectual tools. This contrast is evident in how Ish responds, often through defensiveness or frustration.

The problem is that in a world that often values superficiality and instant gratification, the intellectual rigor I bring to every conversation is both empowering and discomforting to those who can’t keep up, but that’s okay. I’ve worked hard for my expertise and the gap between those who can keep up with me and those who can’t reflects their own limitations. Intellectualism, emotional regulation, and curiosity are essential tools for navigating our world, and they are skills I’ll never apologize for, and never stop advocating for.