I like your definition though, it sounds more dickish and elitist. It’s quite similar in meaning to “Thanks Captain Obvious”, isn’t it?

This reinforced my belief that most philosophy is simple ideas badly expressed so as to make them seem more insightful than they are. Such cases make it difficult to know when an outsight is necessary, and when it is gauche.

However, I have seen many clearer cases of outsights. For example, stupid people who have suddenly had the epiphany that for speakers of a foreign language, that language is not foreign. “And I had thought they just learned Spanish so they could talk without me understanding what they said!”

I do think you have to separate the two groups Mr. Sanchez includes in his analysis. If you are truly among “experts” in a particular subject matter then a statement of the obvious might very well be inappropriate. There are many retorts however that can assuage the situation and let the discussion continue. Alas, often “experts” lack the social graces to employ these kinds of retorts. Or are either too pretentious or egocentric to consider discretion as the better part of valor.

In the more normative setting, where the discussers are relying on “native intelligence” (often an oxymoron) or perhaps are all just well read on events, the “outsight” occurrence perhaps might even be necessary.

I love to argue, debate, call it what you will, and frequently involve myself in the hot topics of economics, politics, sex or religion. It is immaterial that I enjoy pontificating as well. Anyway, I often find that today’s politics has invaded not only the dialogue but the thought processes of many of us. Often in discussions I hear “sound bites” as arguments. They are usually offered as if they are a summation of a universal truth that everyone should know (could these be “outsights”?). Example: “Saddam was a bad man, therefore it was necessary and important for us to take him out”. This statement does nothing to explore all the implications of “taking him out”. In this instance it might be necessary to state obvious facts to attempt to build a response that both counters the “sound bite” and hopefully expands the dialogue.

My point is that we have become a nation of shorthanders. It is so much easier to spout the seemingly acceptable slogan as a serious discussion point rather than invoke the laborious process of thinking about what you want to say and formulating a sound logical basis for your viewpoint.

I fear I will be left with, “suffering fools gladly”.