Okay. Things are staying civil. Given that we're doing this over the internet, that alone is pretty good. So why not, here we go.

I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying; I just think you're wrong.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I find it odd that you would argue that point? Given that I am saying it, aren't I the authority on what is and isn't an accurate representation of my opinion? I digress, it just struck me as odd.

You equated my words:

You're providing two kinds of explanations for two kinds of readers and it needn't have anything to do with judging they're intelligence. You provide more technical, long winded explanations for those interested in parsing it out and getting the big, detailed picture. You provide the cliff notes version so that you're work is also accessible to readers that wouldn't be inclined to indulge complicated or convoluted explanations.

To your words:

In other words, some of your readers "get it," and others don't. This is making a judgment about their intelligence, whether you think so or not.

You are misrepresenting what I'm saying there. Quite explicitly. That entire bit of text I wrote was talking about catering to readers with different preferences. Appealing to readers who are more or less interested in certain parts of the plot and story telling. I never once said it had anything to do with intelligence. You did. I said it had to do with differences of opinion and taste. I used the words: "interested" and "inclined to indulge". I very clearly never brought up intelligence, yet somehow that's what you took away from what I wrote. You interpreted that paragraph as saying something about "getting it" or "not getting it". I never even touched that idea. I only ever talked about readers having different interests. That is in no way implicitly bound to intelligence, whether you think so or not.

Lets address this complaint:

I've asked you questions you don't answer Okay. I'll do my best to fix that.

Did you read the link? Yup.

Why would you have a character who needs things spoonfed to him? Because you think the audience needs it spoonfed to them.

Or because people write all sorts of characters for all sorts of reasons. Which has been my whole point from the start. And there is no requisite intelligence for a character. They can be dumb, a genius, completely mundane. It doesn't have to do with the authors opinion of the audience. Yes, that could be the case, but you're ignoring the million and one other reasons an author would write a certain character. There's no reason to assume that characters are an accurate description of how the author sees his audience. That's very contextual.

Why write: Scientist: "Blah blah, technical jargon, blah blah." Regular Joe: "Um... In English?" Scientist: "Easy-to-understand explanation." when you can just write the easier explanation first?

Plenty of reasons, we can rattle a few off. Perhaps it's to establish that the scientist is smarter than the Regular Joe in question. Maybe it's to convey that the scientist has poor communication skills, giving convoluted and unclear explanations. Alternatively, the author may provide an in depth explanation for detail oriented fans who will look for every little detail and connection within a narrative, but for everyone else it's boring and falls flat. Maybe the writer is writing a genre like fantasy or science fiction, where new and foreign concepts are constantly introduced; and so completely foreign concepts demand both a detailed explanation as well as a concise one. Maybe the author has the scientist say something which, at this point in the narrative, doesn't make sense to the reader, but will be perfectly clear later.

That's my whole point. You're assuming writers could only have one reason for writing a character or a piece of dialog one way or another. I'm saying the complete opposite is true.

You're also assuming the easier explanation is inherently better. But I see no reason to accept that assumption.

Then what's a good reason to do it? Why waste the reader's time with the first "incomprehensible" explanation when you're just going to give them a simplified version in the next paragraph?

See above. Because an author can write "incomprehensible explanations" for all sorts of reasons, to convey all sorts of things, to make all sorts of statements. And not every single one of them is inherently offensive to their audience. Hell, plenty of the reasons a writer may write something like this have very little to do with the audience. Not everything is a comment on the audience.

I'd like to see an example of how they could both be necessary.

As I've said countless times: different phrasing, different explanations for readers with different interests and preferences. I am not making any sort of comment about intelligence here. Just what one reader would like and what another reader wouldn't. If you can satisfy both without frustrating the other, what exactly is wrong with that?

The only reason to write it the other way is so the author can say, "See how smart I am? But you don't get it, so here's what it means." It's insulting.

All you've really done is insist on this constantly. Why is it implicit that the author is saying "See how smart I am? But you don't get it, so here's what it means"? The words, beliefs, thoughts, etc. of a character are in no way inherently representative of the author themselves. Maybe the character is just arrogant and that's the point.

It's not about expecting readers to follow a bunch of technical jargon, it's about not wasting time with it in the first place just to make yourself seem smarter.

Again, you're just taking this as fact. Why is it inherently a waste of time? Why can there only be one motivation for an author to write something like this? There are all kinds of motivations.

I'm sorry you don't feel like this conversation is going anywhere, but it's as much your fault as mine.

Alright, I'll take that into consideration very seriously.

Sorry for the wall of text but we are in /r/writing and (regardless of my opinions or the quality of my posts), I enjoy writing. You also seemed dissatisfied with my explanations thus far.