I wish we could get past this (finding intelligence offensive while finding physical strength appealing) as a species. But until then it's good advice.
It's also a bit of a double bind: if you're not precise enough, someone will be offended by your ambiguity. If you're too precise, someone will be offended by your precision. It limits the rate at which experts can convey knowledge, which can be problematic at work as teams are limited to the pace of whoever is most offended.
If you want to go all mathematical, that's similar to just sticking a checksum on tcp packets and resending vs the lengths that CD-ROMs go to correct errors.
Or to bring another analogy, compare an interactive proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system) with a more conventional formal proof.
As an aside, people do admire intelligence in real life perhaps more so than physical strength, but a minimum of social acumen goes a long way.
File this under 'know your audience'. On HN (and other nerdy and text-based communication) precision is often much more welcome than in oral communication in real life. Even with the same sort of people.
That said, if we are ever able to establish communication with a species other then our own that evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, intelligence might at that point become an outdated concept.
In casual conversation however, per Gretchen McCulloch's book "Because Internet"[1], I tend to stick with phrases that are most accessible rather than those that are most precise.
My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb."
[1] Really a great read, my daughter got it for me for my birthday and I thoroughly enjoyed it.