Our Gemara on Amud Beis states :

שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ שִׂיחַת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים צְרִיכָה לִימּוּד

Even the conversation of Torah scholars requires analysis.

The Rogotchover (צפנת פענח בשלח יג) discusses this concept and which kind of Talmid Chacham we are referring to, in a surprising way. He first begins with quoting the famous dispute between Shimon HaAmsoni and Rabbi Akiva about what the את attachment clause in את ה׳ אלוקיך תירא could come to include (Bava Kama 41b):

כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה כיון שהגיע (דברים ו, יג) לאת ה' אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהן אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך קבלתי שכר על הפרישה. עד שבא ר' עקיבא ולימד את ה' אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים:

⁦As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word “et” that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. ⁦The word “et” in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall fear the Lord your God”: The word “et” serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.

It is important to note from Shimon HaAmsoni’s language, “Reward for withdrawal”, an implication that he knew a pshat, but chose to withhold it. Why? According to the Rogotchover it seems unlikely that Shimon HaAmsoni could have missed the obvious idea that respect for Torah scholars could be one step removed and included in fear of God? Thus, the Rogotchover understood that Shimon HaAmsoni knew full well that THEORETICALLY the “את” clause could apply to a Torah scholar. The problem is, that not all Torah scholars are equal. There are those who are simply intelligent and devoted to Torah study and have gained mastery of Torah, yet still lack in fear of Godthat is commensurate to their level. Such scholars should NOT be respected as God Himself because they do not embody this spirit. Shimon HaAmsoni did not consider it safe to try to differentiate as it might lead to degradation of honor of legitimate God fearing Sages. However, Rabbi Akiva in his time, felt it necessary to encourage the support and respect of Sages, regardless of their degree of God-fearing, as the basic need of strengthening respect for the Sages overrode other concerns. 

The Rogotchover goes onto say that the phrase,   שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ שִׂיחַת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים צְרִיכָה לִימּוּד even the conversation of Torah scholars require analysis, is referring to the secondary kind of Torah scholar. That being, one who is not an exemplar of God Fearing behavior. The speech of This kind of sage, even though his Torah is closer to ordinary speech, requires analysis and distinction to pick up the truth embedded within, while not always perfectly and literally accurate. Because of their lack of superior character, he will miss out on some truths. Yet since even the idle speech of a sage requires study, surely there is wisdom to find within the words of these secondary Sages, yet it requires careful study.

We see from here that the archetype of a great learned person who still can be lacking in character development is an old one. There is a Midrashic idiom, “Talmid Chacham She’eyn Bo Da’as”  “A sage who has no sense” (VaYikra Rabbah 1:15) which might be referring to the same kind of archetype. The Rogotchover’s retelling of the dispute between Shimon HaAmsoni and Rabbi Akiva is about the problem inherent in such characters, as well as the problems in discussing their existence, as it can lead to an overall denigration of worthy Sages.

I conclude with this thought: These days BH thanks to incredible yeshivos and powerful data search tools, any shnook who loves to learn and keeps at it, can really speak like a Talmid Chacham. After all, look at how much I accomplished on these psychology of the dafs with a little help from Sefaria and a lot of siyaata dishmaya! Keep in mind, words from Sages such as this require further study and refinement to extract the truth and wisdom latent within.