All unusually insightful people are misunderstood  --
(revision): all people who call  themselves unusually insightful are misunderstood,
(expanded revision):
all people who call themselves unusually insightful believe they are misunderstood,   ah hell!  --  everyone is misunderstood  -- 
and those who aren’t  --   believe that they are.
 

Dense witted men ne’er think of themselves as being misunderstood, but rather that some other men with whom they speak are themselves so dense that they cannot understand what they are talking about, (related thereto would be their wife not understanding that she is supposed to accept whatever stories he tells her to
explain his late night absences,
[a deficiency which he commonly attempts to rectify with a right cross]),
but as men become more mentally educated and culturally sophisticated,
they only then begin to experience  --   being misunderstood.
 

This is a matter most deserving of a would be rebel’s attention:
in the routine civilian setting: those with minimal thought activity
do not think in terms of being misunderstood  --
while those with a quite active mental life constantly do;
the greater be a man’s impression of himself as a deep, insightful thinker  --
the more persistent does he feel that when he expresses his insights to others,
the most common result is him being totally misunderstood,
(put cartoonishly: Alfred E. Neuman is never misunderstood; Einstein --  constantly [that would of course be from Albert’s perspective]).
 

Put on your secret, Private Investigator’s cap and consider this affair
from as mentally far away from city concepts as possible,
(in other words: ignore and by pass any explanations your brain immediately offers
in regard thereto): consider:
why, if you do not think that you know anything especially worth you talking about,
do you never think of yourself as being misunderstood when you do talk about the things you normally talk about,
but when you believe that you know valuable things which most (or maybe all) other people do not know, and you talk about them, you are commonly misunderstood,
(it's as though if you’re shoveling out manure  --   no one says anything,
but if you offer up caviar --  everyone mistakes it for manure).

Forget the picture of a man’s great ideas being constantly misunderstood by others, and focus on men believing this to be so (for the ultimate end of you seeing for yourself what is going on, it is your mental activity that must be studied,
not that of others’ apparent reaction TO yours),
so the case under specific investigation is:
why do men who believe they know something unusually worthwhile also habitually say they believe they are misunderstood when they express same?  –
and abandon the meaningless question of whether other people do, or do not
actually misunderstand  --  the proper inquiry is into the matter that: all up-to-speed, mentally active men believe they know some things (or perhaps just one big thing)
that most other men do not know, and whose importance is such that
they would assuredly be better off TO know, and yet, when in proper form,
it is verbally presented to them  --  they relentlessly misunderstand what was said.
It seems to fly contradictorily to the overall progress of mankind intellectually:
why should men with minds which utter only harmless blather
live free of feeling they are routinely misunderstood,
while men with minds full of things unusually insightful, helpful, and significant
feel that their words are misunderstood almost as a rule,
and need it be noted as always here, that the reference is to matters intangible:
a man who knows what makes an air conditioner work can explain same to another interested party with what he says being perfectly understood,
but a man, ipsedixit (or credentialed) expert in: literature, music, art, psychology, philosophy, politics, theology, and all other matters cultural as opposed to technical,
can scarce say anything thereabout without being (from his perspective) misunderstood (a chemist’s descriptions of calcium are not normally misunderstood,
but a critic’s of a painting’s flaws, regularly [again, in his view]).
 

A rule could be expeditiously set: if you talk about a thing that other men can touch, what you say will not be misunderstood,
but if what you speak of, no man can lay hands to, you can expect to feel that what you say will be misunderstood  --  regardless of how certain you are
of your understanding of the subject.

Is this not a curious and interesting blind spot in humanity’s collective mental sight?!
A man can talk about mundane, material matters and fully anticipate his ideas
being understood by others as he intended them to be,
but when he expresses ideas regarding any of the multitudinous incorporeal subjects which increasingly occupy the thoughts of a civilized man with a reliable food supply,
he can, on the other hand, fully expect to find that what he says is not what others
say they heard him say;
is this not a most puzzling case?!  --   and yet:
its explanation could not be more glaring  --  and yet:
invisible to ordinary I’s/eyes.
 
 

P.S. A sure signal that you have not seen the full depths of a particular matter is if you believe that,
        through words you can make what you DO see visible to another suitably intelligent person.