No, it's not a joke. Of course there are awful lawyers (and tons of corruption -- again, I work in the field and interact with lawyers, judges, politicians, researchers/those in public policy/health, etc, regularly so I've seen it all), but it's the same logic applied to "prove" that all cops (or "all *insert group here ____") are bad, or all doctors, etc, and that you should never trust them. Obviously you need to exercise judgement to discern the good vs the bad (and you hint at it and that you likely do at least combine your own research with the opinion or thoughts of experts and account for that), but if you genuinely feel that way, and, for example:
end up in a hospital for whatever symptoms. You get some tests done, and turns out you have pancreatic cancer. You now, on this premise, argue with the doctor over your diagnosis and/or course of treatment. You seek a second opinion, and hear the same (in terms of diagnosis and treatment), and so you continue seeking alternate opinions, getting told the same thing. But you know better, because you've read a few articles, a few peer-reviewed papers, done some research, and genuinely educated yourself just well enough to be (possibly) better informed than most, but far from the level of expertise you're getting from the consensus drawn by these medical professionals; and so you continue seeking further advice, and you finally find a doctor who offers some confirmation bias, and offers an opinion more aligned with yours.
You're right that nobody is a better self-advocate than yourself, but your distrust, while it can be beneficial, is equally harmful. I'm not saying to just blindly follow "the experts," or that you shouldn't do your own extensive research to inform yourself and draw your own conclusions. I'm simply saying that, too often, people who don't have a background or expertise in a certain area are often completely unwilling to alter, add to, change or even reverse their opinion/conclusion on some issues (that they may or may not be well-informed on themselves) even when a number of people who have invested far more time, effort and research into that very topic have something different or oppositional to say. I'm not necessarily saying this is you -- just that these kinds of people often say similar things/approach issues similarly. It's a poor and closed-minded position to hold, and everyone needs to always maintain an open mind -- while of course doing their own research and informing themselves; but instead, I often see these people unwilling to ever budge on their position.
When it comes to professions like these (medicine, law, policy, etc), the majority w/ expertise/credentials are at least well-intentioned, and far more informed, so to dismiss them because of either a distrust, knowing some who are bad, and/or "I know better," is foolish. When accounting for "expert opinion," your own research should often come less in the way of researching the actual matter, and more in the way of researching whoever the expert is, their history, possible research/publications, etc (to identify if they hold any bias, conflict of interest, affiliation w/ anything ranging from politicians, to think-tanks, non-profits/organizations, etc) -- you find those you trust, identify potential bias, and do a kind of comparative analysis amongst the conclusions drawn by these experts and their research.
My response was of course and admittedly based on many of my own personal experiences. It isn't to say "iM aN eXpErT wHo wEnT tO cOlLeGe sO IM RIGHT UR WRONG!!!" and I always maintain an open-mind, and understand that I may often be wrong (and I do often change my mind or perspective), but it is to say that, too often, I encounter people who simply don't have any personal experience and/or background/expertise in something that I have extensive experience and expertise in, that will argue w/ me about something in which really isn't all that debatable, or they demonstrate that they have no idea what they are talking about, yet will still never consider the mere possibility that they could be wrong
Edit: (for instance, last week on this board, I had someone tell me that "all addicts have shitty parents." Years ago, I was an addict for about 4 years -- not worth getting into, but it ultimately shaped my life more than anything; and that, plus the following ~8 years of recovery, and the path that led me down has shaped me in more ways than I can cover here briefly. Anyway, it takes a lot to offend me, but an attack on my mother is one of the few things that will admittedly anger me. Now, bad parenting of course often contributes to someone becoming an addict, but his statement was absolutely ludicrous. He was not only unwilling to concede that his statement was subjective/an opinion, or that he was generalizing, but he refused to step back from personally attacking me and my parents, despite not knowing us. Here, my own background and expertise is enough to know, objectively, that his statement and conclusion -- that ALL addicts have bad parents; no exceptions -- was absurd; but further, my own anecdotal/life-experience was enough: I know I have good parents, and was raised well -- something I don't need to defend to anybody and it wasn't even worth arguing, but again... go after my mother and I'm fighting back lol)
My apologies for anything in my earlier comment that may have come across as an unfair accusation or attack -- and I may have not been clear enough in the point I was trying to make -- but I simply wanted to point out a maddening scenario that I encounter too often.
No, it's not a joke. Of course there are awful lawyers (and tons of corruption -- again, I work in the field and interact with lawyers, judges, politicians, researchers/those in public policy/health, etc, regularly so I've seen it all), but it's the same logic applied to "prove" that all cops (or "all *insert group here ____") are bad, or all doctors, etc, and that you should never trust them. Obviously you need to exercise judgement to discern the good vs the bad (and you hint at it and that you likely do at least combine your own research with the opinion or thoughts of experts and account for that), but if you genuinely feel that way, and, for example:
end up in a hospital for whatever symptoms. You get some tests done, and turns out you have pancreatic cancer. You now, on this premise, argue with the doctor over your diagnosis and/or course of treatment. You seek a second opinion, and hear the same (in terms of diagnosis and treatment), and so you continue seeking alternate opinions, getting told the same thing. But you know better, because you've read a few articles, a few peer-reviewed papers, done some research, and genuinely educated yourself just well enough to be (possibly) better informed than most, but far from the level of expertise you're getting from the consensus drawn by these medical professionals; and so you continue seeking further advice, and you finally find a doctor who offers some confirmation bias, and offers an opinion more aligned with yours.
You're right that nobody is a better self-advocate than yourself, but your distrust, while it can be beneficial, is equally harmful. I'm not saying to just blindly follow "the experts," or that you shouldn't do your own extensive research to inform yourself and draw your own conclusions. I'm simply saying that, too often, people who don't have a background or expertise in a certain area are often completely unwilling to alter, add to, change or even reverse their opinion/conclusion on some issues (that they may or may not be well-informed on themselves) even when a number of people who have invested far more time, effort and research into that very topic have something different or oppositional to say. I'm not necessarily saying this is you -- just that these kinds of people often say similar things/approach issues similarly. It's a poor and closed-minded position to hold, and everyone needs to always maintain an open mind -- while of course doing their own research and informing themselves; but instead, I often see these people unwilling to ever budge on their position.
When it comes to professions like these (medicine, law, policy, etc), the majority w/ expertise/credentials are at least well-intentioned, and far more informed, so to dismiss them because of either a distrust, knowing some who are bad, and/or "I know better," is foolish. When accounting for "expert opinion," your own research should often come less in the way of researching the actual matter, and more in the way of researching whoever the expert is, their history, possible research/publications, etc (to identify if they hold any bias, conflict of interest, affiliation w/ anything ranging from politicians, to think-tanks, non-profits/organizations, etc) -- you find those you trust, identify potential bias, and do a kind of comparative analysis amongst the conclusions drawn by these experts and their research.
My response was of course and admittedly based on many of my own personal experiences. It isn't to say "iM aN eXpErT wHo wEnT tO cOlLeGe sO IM RIGHT UR WRONG!!!" and I always maintain an open-mind, and understand that I may often be wrong (and I do often change my mind or perspective), but it is to say that, too often, I encounter people who simply don't have any personal experience and/or background/expertise in something that I have extensive experience and expertise in, that will argue w/ me about something in which really isn't all that debatable, or they demonstrate that they have no idea what they are talking about, yet will still never consider the mere possibility that they could be wrong
Edit: (for instance, last week on this board, I had someone tell me that "all addicts have shitty parents." Years ago, I was an addict for about 4 years -- not worth getting into, but it ultimately shaped my life more than anything; and that, plus the following ~8 years of recovery, and the path that led me down has shaped me in more ways than I can cover here briefly. Anyway, it takes a lot to offend me, but an attack on my mother is one of the few things that will admittedly anger me. Now, bad parenting of course often contributes to someone becoming an addict, but his statement was absolutely ludicrous. He was not only unwilling to concede that his statement was subjective/an opinion, or that he was generalizing, but he refused to step back from personally attacking me and my parents, despite not knowing us. Here, my own background and expertise is enough to know, objectively, that his statement and conclusion -- that ALL addicts have bad parents; no exceptions -- was absurd; but further, my own anecdotal/life-experience was enough: I know I have good parents, and was raised well -- something I don't need to defend to anybody and it wasn't even worth arguing, but again... go after my mother and I'm fighting back lol)
My apologies for anything in my earlier comment that may have come across as an unfair accusation or attack -- and I may have not been clear enough in the point I was trying to make -- but I simply wanted to point out a maddening scenario that I encounter too often.