I’d go as far as to say that Good Will Hunting is a pretty good example of writers getting it right. The equivocation and miscommunication isn't a plot device to conjure up conflict from thin air. That sort of avoidant behaviour is a classic malaptive coping mechanism in highly intelligent victim of abuse. Communication with Will fails not because people aren’t willing to speak plainly to him, but because he’s too emotionally bruised and battered to handle that communication, and he’s _way_ too clever for his own good, so he runs circles around the people trying to have those conversations with him. Sean’s successes come from being patient and not letting Will bait him.
I have a line that I haven't used in a long time which I crafted for a different scenario but applies here. Which is that: Very intelligent people are very good at rationally defending positions that they've arrived at for unrational reasons.
I was trying to understand why I stopped using it. I think it's because it's not really actionable. The best you can do with it is understand what might contribute to a certain situation/behavior. If you tell it to a person to whom it applies, they'll just keep creating new arguments to support their position. And it's not a good way of arguing anyway. It's not a real argument, it's closer to an ad hominem. It's not persuasive to the person to whom it applies, though it might be persuasive when told to a third person.
