Thank you for the elaboration. And thank you for sticking with me here :)
So, if I am getting this right, we have the following factors: Person A makes a statement (this could be an impostor or not-impostor), Person B observes that there is an impostor at work (or not) and Person B could either be educated or not and lastly, whether they agree or not.
So we have the following possibilities:
1.) A -> non-impostor -> B educated (B trusts A based on shared knowledge, easy)
2.) A -> non-impostor -> B uneducated (B has to trust A, A made argument well enough to convince B, but B has nothing but a 'feeling' to rely on)
3.) A -> impostor -> B educated (B immediately figures out A is a sharlatan based on knowledge, argument ensues...or it's just obvious A is no good)
4.) A -> impostor -> B uneducated (B has figured out A is an impostor, but that could be for who-knows-what reasons and is therefore less valid)
And the conclusion here is that in case 4.), the person has used their lack of education about the subject matter as a way to add weight to their statement (or to embarrass the impostor further), when, in actuality their lack of education just indicates that they have little reason to participate in the discussion in the first place.
Am I now kind of getting it? I feel I'm being slow today, but it bugs me when I don't understand something.
The cases in which B is educated doesn't really matter for the point I'm trying to make.
There are two relevant cases:
1. A is a non-impostor, B uneducated -> B has to trust A, but A's argument seems flawed because B doesn't know of the non-obvious feature that fixes the apparent obvious flaw in their argument.
2. A is an impostor, B uneducated -> B has to trust A, but A's argument seems flawed because their is an obvious flaw in their argument that even B can spot.
From the point of view of B, there is no way to distinguish between these two situations, and so their being uneducated doesn't help them spot the impostor.
So, if I am getting this right, we have the following factors: Person A makes a statement (this could be an impostor or not-impostor), Person B observes that there is an impostor at work (or not) and Person B could either be educated or not and lastly, whether they agree or not.
So we have the following possibilities:
1.) A -> non-impostor -> B educated (B trusts A based on shared knowledge, easy)
2.) A -> non-impostor -> B uneducated (B has to trust A, A made argument well enough to convince B, but B has nothing but a 'feeling' to rely on)
3.) A -> impostor -> B educated (B immediately figures out A is a sharlatan based on knowledge, argument ensues...or it's just obvious A is no good)
4.) A -> impostor -> B uneducated (B has figured out A is an impostor, but that could be for who-knows-what reasons and is therefore less valid)
And the conclusion here is that in case 4.), the person has used their lack of education about the subject matter as a way to add weight to their statement (or to embarrass the impostor further), when, in actuality their lack of education just indicates that they have little reason to participate in the discussion in the first place.
Am I now kind of getting it? I feel I'm being slow today, but it bugs me when I don't understand something.