I agree, Trope.

"Experts" tend to be much too regimented in their thinking. Here’s an exchange between myself and a very good friend of mine:

.

WHY I LIVE TO POKE HOLES IN THE GASBAGS OF SOCIETY:

PB: "They need to be told WHAT AND HOW TO THINK!!!!!! Especially if their parent is a mastermind like me!!!! That is the same approach I took with my students. I was quick to remind them that there's a reason why they were student's and I was the Professor...although the need to do so was exceedingly rare. And always at the beginning of the semester. Even after they became Professors they often sought my advice and comment on their work."

.

Wattree: I have to disagree with you here, P.
.
You were the professor because you had information on a given subject to impart. That’s fine. But by the time our children reach college we should have already educated them to the point where they are independent enough in their thinking not to take the information that you’ve imparted at face value.
.
As a professor, your job is to relate "facts," not to dictate how those facts should be manipulated. Because the fact is, just because you’re the professor, that doesn’t mean that you’re more intelligent than every student in your class. Therefore, there may be students in your class who are capable of taking the facts that you’ve related and draw insights from those facts that you’ve never considered.
.
That’s why it’s very important that one of the very first things we learn in life is to be an independent thinker. While we should ALWAYS consider incoming information from ANY source, we should NEVER give anyone else’s ability to think priority over our own. That’s how and why Cornel West was able to bamboozle the people for so long. The vast majority of people made the erroneous assumption that he was more intelligent that they were, so even when they thought that he’d said something ridiculous, they just wrote off their own thoughts. We should be EDUCATED to never make that mistake. I raised my son and daughter to question EVERYTHING - including me.
.
As I posted on your wall earlier today, when Socrates was alive they called him a hood rat, because he didn't hold any credentials or stature in society. He was just a brother who liked to stand out on the block and discuss reality. We wouldn’t have even heard of him if he hadn’t drawn the attention of "youngsters" like Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon, because he never wrote a thing. When I think of him he reminds me a lot of old Gigglin’ Willie from my hood. And just like Gigglin’ Willie, the powers that be had so little respect for Socrates that they profiled him, and later, killed him. But today, in spite of his former stature as a hood rat, scholars the world over agree on one thing - they agree that Socrates was the father of modern thought. So here’s a question: What if Socrates would have subordinated his thinking to some zip just because the other guy had a title or more credentials? If he had, the world would have sustained a tremendous loss.

.

PB: "What i am talking about has nothing to do with credentials, since I am an autodidact. The fact is that i knew more than them and therefore I was not much interested in what they thought because when I would give them a chance to speak I could see how uninformed they were. I have a very hierarchical approach to teaching. Its simple: If we are intellectual equals then we will treat each other as colleagues. If you are more knowledgeable than me in a subject - it goes without saying that nobody knows everything, so I am speaking of areas where we have expertise - I will keep quiet and listen, respectfully asking questions. But when I am the most knowledgeable, and I can usually tell that in about 15 minutes max, then I expect the student to pay attention and not waste my time with bullshit arguments. After all, they are not only wasting my time but the other students too. That's my approach and I'm sticking to it! you have your way and have mine. That's the long and the short of it. And by the way, I am a good teacher."

.

Wattree: I don't doubt that you're a good teacher, P. But having information and having the insight to manipulate that information are two different things. If the music teacher who taught Charlie Parker music theory would have told Bird, "I know more than you, and therefore, I’m not much interested in what you think, because I can see how uninformed you are," he would have been making a huge mistake, because just because the professor knew more ABOUT music than Bird did, that didn’t mean that he UNDERSTOOD music like Bird did. So there’s a big, and very important, difference between simply having information and facts, and having insight and understanding. That’s why the knowledgeable TEACH, while the insightful CREATE.
.
The reason for that is, if you take a surgeon with an IQ of 120, and a high school dropout with an IQ of 140, while the surgeon may have more information at his immediate access due to his educational advantage, he’ll never be as smart as that high school dropout. So if they were placed in a situation where all things were equal, the high school dropout would be able to connect the dots more efficiently than the surgeon every time.
.
I learned that when I was a teenager and going in and out of juvenile institutions. While I was a high school dropout at the time, I could manipulate those social workers and Deputy Probation Officers to do or write damn near anything I wanted them to. They had more education than I did, at the time, but they didn’t have the G-2.