I think this is a challenge that most "experts" face, and some work hard to be aware of and work on -- the lack of real listening skills or effort. It becomes very easy -- especially when you're pressed for time -- to short circuit conversations with people who need help -- to not listen to them fully, and give them a quick and easy diagnosis and solution and move on.
Actually, in cases like the ER doctor, that sort of behavior is a necessity. That doctor needed to be able to move on to the next patient -- giving you a quick answer was what made the most sense for him.
It's why a consumer -- a patient or whatever -- needs to be an advocate for themselves -- especially for important issues. It's why, when it's really important and the answers you're getting don't make sense to you -- why you need to do more than just accept that the expert is right because he said so and go back out and seek second and third opinions. Maybe that first expert was just moving too fast to listen. Or maybe he didn't explain the solution in a way you're wired to understand, and someone else will have a better way of explaining the same answer.
...snip...wind removal...snip...
All of that is just a longwinded, TMI way of saying that I don't agree with the idea that one should just accept what an expert is telling you -- ANY expert. On more than one occasion we've had to push our "expert" doctor when we find her suggesting options that are more convenient for her and her office, and that are not the thing that my wife needs most (best example -- delaying a necessary change in medication a few months until the new year because of the duplicate paperwork that will be required if we made the change immediately).
Experts are important -- vital and valuable. But the minute they start saying "trust me, I'm the expert" I know it's time to start looking for other sources of information & insight.
-rg
I'll play the opposing side. Remember, I am not a professional arguer, so my delivery may suck...
As somebody who has Knowledge that other people don't, but need, I've had to help a lot of people. What I see is that a lot of people are stupid, ignorant or inept, and usually those traits are in combination. They are also predictable. They all have the same problem, as some dead guy said, there's only so many things under the sun, and after the first 10 years, you've probably seen most of the cases.
The key to that alleged superiorty of Expertness is experience. I've been doing working with technology for 30 years. Not just setting the VCR, but programming computers, fixing them, actual very technical stuff. As with any of these kind of technical threads, folks like me will throw out their resume to justify why you should listen to them over somebody else. It's trite, and probably a bad habit.
However, when an Apple store employee tells you to do something, what's his credibility? He's probably an early 20 something. Maybe still in school. Like other stores with their "you can trust our experts" theme, how smart are these guys? Consider that in a large city like mine, there's probably a tech company or heavy IT shop in town. If the kid was REALLY good, he'd be making $20+ in support, or $60-$120K in the upper IT, development or engineering branches. I worked at a very large technology manufacturer. If you were good, you'd be there, not slinging cell phones at the Best Buy down the street.
Given how complicated it is what I do, and what doctors do, I do not expect the average human being to be qualified to judge my advice or a doctor's advice. Who are you to second guess a diagnosis? How would you REALLY know if it was wrong or right? If I didn't go to med school, I'm not going to argue whether I have some medical condition or not. I am not qualified to know, and for the most part nobody else is either.
So, how does that relate to the doctor's crappy bedside manner and whether or not you can trust an expert?
The key clues to BG and RG's stories are not in the technical solution presented by the doctor or the Nerd. It's poor rapport and listening. If your concern didn't get addressed (stop looking at the wrong bump!), then you have reason to not trust the assessment, because you can't be sure the expert addressed the correct matter.
The difference is subtle. If I did my job right, I listened to you and came up with a solution that will work, or explained why you can't be cured. And you should trust me because I did that right. If I rushed through and didn't actually talk about the problem you came with, then your beef with me is over that, not my actual solution because for all purposes I haven't delivered a solution to the problem you came to me with, I threw out a solution to the problem I thought you had.
Ideally, you trust me because I took the time to understand your actual problem, and not rush through it. If I come to a conclusion and don't test that my conclusion matches what you think your situation is, then I am failing to listen, and losing points on the Trustometer.
I think for folks like me, the trap is that we do see a lot of repetitious problems. People make the same mistakes, and the solution becomes rote. Personal email screwed up, switch to gmail, set it to IMAP. Set gmail to pop-move your mail from your old account so nobody has to know you changed addresses.
For practical purposes, this is an excellent solution. It almost always works, and it is almost always trouble-free.
But the act of handing out the generic advice (or being surprised by resistance or a unique situation) throws everything off kilter.
I think BG's scenario would have been different if he was one of my real world friends. He'd tell me over dinner about his trouble, I'd remember how he likes to seperate his email flow, and we'd talk through the options. I'd explain clouds and POP vs. IMAP. By the end of the conversation, he'd feel more comfortable switching to IMAP, even though he'd lose some of what he had before.
That kind of thing works, because BG would know me personally. He'd know what I do for a living and that I was the smartest computer person he knew. I wouldn't have to brag about it or try to puff up my qualifications. Part of the Expert trust equation is solved, and the other part would be the act of me communicating with him, instead of dumping an answer on him.
This is where the internet kind of fails. In the real world, it's easier to be that kind of Expert to my friends, than it is on the internet to strangers. There's more push and pull of information in a verbal conversation about a problem, than an internet post.
Thus, in a world of Experts and Absolute Answers (because many of us come from a "this is the policy we follow" doctrine), a question about "I just got my new SmartPhone, how do I set up email?" is easier to answer with the standard response. Bullgrit's fuzzier problem requires more interaction than we can apparently muster on the internet.
I said Absolute Answers, because while we all realize there can be multiple solutions to a problem, as a matter of standardization, the same problem must be resolved the same way. So once an Expert learns the solution, they must apply that solution every time. This is why electricians follow wiring standards. You don't want to come back to a problem and ponder "what did I do last time I was here". Especially to situations that really are the same, or can be MADE to be the same. It is the mark of Amateur Hour when we see somebody's work, and we see inconsistencies everywhere.
Anyway, that's a wall of text, but it is likely some of the mindset of Expert-type people. Except for the Experts who disagree. because I've given a stereotype response, and people do vary.
