Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever disagreed with a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) about something in the professional's (but not your) field of expertise, and kept at it, just you against the professional? If so, why would you do that?
A leader of my homeowner's association decided to pick a fight with me about legal matters, such as interpreting legal documents. I'm a lawyer; he's not.
Well, guess who won that disagreement, after months of battling, and guess who lost that disagreement and incurred a lot of damages? Go figure. (Hint: I won, he lost, and he even lost his role in the association because of it.)
I'm curious as to why someone would pick a fight with a professional in the professional's field of expertise. If I disagree with my doctor, perhaps I'll get a second opinion...from another doctor, but I'm not going to fight with him about his medical opinion. Same for a computer scientist; if I disagree with him or her about some software, I may enlist another computer scientist to battle with him, but I'm not battling him myself because I know very little about software.
There are idiots in every field. You need to trust experts, but blind trust is a bad thing too. I'm glad you won your fight, but there are times when 'professionals' are not correct.
If I (not a doctor) blindly trusted a few doctors years ago, I'd have permanent nerve damage today. Not every 'expert' is trustworthy.
Have you ever disagreed with a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) about something in the professional's (but not your) field of expertise, and kept at it, just you against the professional? If so, why would you do that?
A leader of my homeowner's association decided to pick a fight with me about legal matters, such as interpreting legal documents. I'm a lawyer; he's not.
Well, guess who won that disagreement, after months of battling, and guess who lost that disagreement and incurred a lot of damages? Go figure. (Hint: I won, he lost, and he even lost his role in the association because of it.)
I'm curious as to why someone would pick a fight with a professional in the professional's field of expertise. If I disagree with my doctor, perhaps I'll get a second opinion...from another doctor, but I'm not going to fight with him about his medical opinion. Same for a computer scientist; if I disagree with him or her about some software, I may enlist another computer scientist to battle with him, but I'm not battling him myself because I know very little about software.
Thanks.
.
People watch TV shows and believe because they know how to read they think they understand a profession such as the law. They don't know what is not written in a contract can be far more important than what is written in there. They aren't aware how much they are missing. Some have to learn by losing. Hopefully they eventually do learn.
Yes. I am not intimidated by people's resume. The wisest and humblest people I know are not "professionals" by society's standards, and I'd rather spend time with them than some credentialed a-hole who looks good on paper.
I actually have an example regarding legal professionals who should know what they're doing, but don't. I had a workers comp case in CA just when our laws changed here under Schwartzenegger. I was in law school at the time and had read and heard on the news that the workers comp laws were changing, so I looked them up. My lawyer started to argue under the old laws, and I respectfully told him he was wrong. He rudely told me to shut up and that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I fired him.
I went to my hearing representing myself and the state worker's comp lawyer started arguing under the old laws. I respectfully told the judge that the new laws were different. He rudely interrupted me when I started to quote the new statute, and he was saying the old statute number. I said, respectfully, under the new statute, which was a different number, I won by default because the employer didn't offer me modified work. He paused, grabbed his new law book in front of him and asked the state attorney if they offered me modified work and that atty asked for a recess, only to come back and claim incorrect venue.
Under the new law it said I "may" go before the current judge, which I told him, and he said I was putting a lot of emphasis on the work "may" and granted the change in venue.
The judge afterwards, did apologize to me privately for not knowing the new law.
These were workers comp specialists and judges - and they didn't know the new law in their field of expertise. I actually had a conversation with one of the lawyers in the hearing room, during the recess and he was whining about how complicated workers comp law was. I told him all he had to know was one field of law and even though it was all over the news that the laws had changed in his area of expertise, he didn't know them and that was ridiculous. I told him, heck, I'm just a student and all I had to do was look them up on the internet.
I did end up winning my case, as the new law was clear.
But, if I had trusted all of these "professionals," I would not have won my case. Because I didn't trust them, I won about $6,000.
So, sure, a lot of people will trust anyone just because they are a professional. But, really, the smart people out there aren't going to trust people just because they have a degree. Having a degree doesn't mean that person actually knows what they're doing or that they've actually put any effort into learning their area of expertise or kept up with new laws, etc. It's not a given that someone with a degree or license knows what they're doing.
There are idiots in every field. You need to trust experts, but blind trust is a bad thing too. I'm glad you won your fight, but there are times when 'professionals' are not correct.
If I (not a doctor) blindly trusted a few doctors years ago, I'd have permanent nerve damage today. Not every 'expert' is trustworthy.
Agree with this. Everyone is human, and being human means they are not perfect. I rarely directly disagree with a professional, but I will question them. Also a lot of professional may be very knowledgeable, but they may not know what's best for you based on your personal circumstances.
Agree with this. Everyone is human, and being human means they are not perfect. I rarely directly disagree with a professional, but I will question them. Also a lot of professional may be very knowledgeable, but they may not know what's best for you based on your personal circumstances.
Exactly. Another example for me, is this trend in healthcare today in America to just prescribe a pill for everything. And that the supposed research keeps lowering the numbers for when we supposedly need drugs - for instance cholesterol or blood pressure numbers. If you look at what was considered a normal range a while ago, or what is even considered normal in other countries that aren't profit-driven by big pharmaceutical companies, like Great Britain, you'll see how big pharm companies are pushing drugs on us - especially drugs like statins for high cholesterol. Statins are the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. And supposed research keeps lowering the "normal" range for high cholesterol, and doctors just trust these research articles and simply tell everyone they need to take statins.
But statins have horrible side effects. I can personally testify to this. I stopped taking them, against doctor orders, and feel 20 years younger.
It's just easy for doctors, who are usually really overworked, to just look at a blood test and say, okay take these drugs, next! Instead of talking to you about stress and nutrition and sleep, etc.
In Great Britain, for instance, where their healthcare system is not profit-based, the "normal" levels of cholesterol is much higher than in America.
Statins stop your body from making its own cholesterol. Cholesterol is needed by all of our cells, and for good brain function. So, you have to wonder if it's statins causing the higher numbers of Altzheimer's, etc. You'd think that a medical school graduate would question the reasonableness of a person taking a drug that stops the body from making a needed substance for cell health and brain function. But, most of them will simply follow the prescribed method of - your numbers say you need this drug, so take this drug.
I actually had to fight with my doctor regarding going off of statin drugs and changing my diet and lifestyle. She'd rather I just took the drugs.
So, again, questioning this "professional" is reasonable, in my opinion. We all need to think for ourselves and not blindly trust anyone.
The student graduating last in his medical school class is still called doctor and the worst student in your law school, if he's able to pass the bar can still put that silly "Esq." after his name. Surely you know some bad lawyers who could be outresearched by a fairly adept layman.
Titles do not convey competence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
