Okay, your argument makes much more sense when you put it that way. Thanks for making the effort to explain it like that.

I spend most of my working days now surrounded by the bureaucrats you describe. And I ask them questions, talk to them about their design choices, their assumptions and the math behind their traffic model. They are open to what I have to say, and listening to them they know a whole lot more than I do about running the model. Nobody thinks the other side is stupid and progress happens.

I have also had discussions with professors and technicians who are breathlessly arrogant and close-minded about their methods. They think they are the only source of knowledge, the one and only knowledge authority. You seemed to imply that because you know more, you are always allowed to close your mind for those idiots who know less (while simultaneously deciding on their behalf). The experts aren't stupid and often know best. But they are also imperfect and it is dangerous to assume they aren't. I was concerned with experts who might do stupid things because they call everyone else stupid from their seat of superiority and absolute authority. I've seen that happen more than a few times and it angers me to no end, and I thought you were advocating that.

What your examples make clear is that you don't want the knowledge minority to rule over the knowledge majority, and I fully agree with that. The expert should make the final call because they are likely the least imperfect. But they should at least be able to listen. I have had consultants and technicians and professors and engineers argue that they don't need to listen, which disappointed me and led me to believe they don't put enough thought into it.

The only way you could want this is if you hold deeply the idea that "people" aren't already doing it.

Or if they don't do it enough? Like, the bureaucrats admitted to me that they discuss about how to model something but not enough about why they pick that model or algorithm. Or that they often pick an indicator that they know how to calculate and communicate over a number that serves the intended goal. That they find it hard to keep up with newer lines of thinking in academia and what it implies for their practice and policies. What I wanted to talk about before this derailed is how to reduce these practice imperfections and improve the numbers. So I wonder if it can be done more thoughtfully. Does that still make me sound like an arrogant choad?