>I think you're describing publishing and not academia as a whole. It's sad that the two have become so intractable in many minds.
Yes, exactly. I was specifically referring to publishing, because OP was specifically referring to publishing:
> I wish this idea would take hold in academia. So many papers seem to bury simple and often powerful ideas in jargon.
> If you don't ever cater to general audiences your field is less accessible in many important ways. Which seems like intentional gatekeeping given the economic realities of #1.
I never said to not ever cater to general audiences. I said that catering to general audiences is not the purpose of a research paper. Separation of concerns. Communication to general audiences is still necessary and worthwhile.
In fact, there's a feedback loop between science, technology, and capital. Not communicating results from academia breaks or reduces the effectiveness of this feedback loop. So, yes, you are absolutely correct that academic papers should be communicated to general audiences.
