4 ms·

> [Lawyers] are overall much more willing to recognize when they aren't well-versed in other fields, including both substantively and in terms of mental models.

> [Lawyers] are overall much more willing to recognize when they aren't well-versed in other fields, including both substantively and in terms of mental models. That's a refreshing perspective. Any inkling as to why? I'm guessing prolonged exposure to the adversarial process would cause lawyers to be a bit more introspective about the limits of their knowledge, but are there other reasons, too?

ss108 5y ago
Thanks. My theory is there are 2 reasons: 1. Lawyers must really internalize an attitude of recognizing the limits of what they know. They have to speak precisely. They can't make claims they can't substantiate. They can't speculate. Sometimes lawyering involves making a lot of assessments of who knows precisely how much. It also involves dealing personally with a wide range of other subject-matter experts. So what you said about the adversarial process is correct, I think. 2. Many (not all) engineers seem to downplay non-STEM qualitative thinking. On phone, so hard to fully explain, but I think part of it is that they think that because what they do is specialized and hard, other stuff is easy. Lawyers are arrogant too, but in different ways. Maybe non-STEM stuff is easier, but it has its own complications, and I think engineers are not inclined to see them. Would like to hear if this is consistent with the experiences of others.
- sjg007 5y ago
  People think they know something well until they have to explain it or explain the opposing position. Lawyers have to do this all the time which is probably why there is more balance. Basically the trick is to ask folks to explain something to you as if you were five.
  - ss108 5y ago
    > People think they know something well until they have to explain it or explain the opposing position. Lawyers have to do this all the time which is probably why there is more balance. Yeah this is probably key.

ss108 5y ago

Thanks. My theory is there are 2 reasons: 1. Lawyers must really internalize an attitude of recognizing the limits of what they know. They have to speak precisely. They can't make claims they can't substantiate. They can't speculate. Sometimes lawyering involves making a lot of assessments of who knows precisely how much. It also involves dealing personally with a wide range of other subject-matter experts. So what you said about the adversarial process is correct, I think. 2. Many (not all) engineers seem to downplay non-STEM qualitative thinking. On phone, so hard to fully explain, but I think part of it is that they think that because what they do is specialized and hard, other stuff is easy. Lawyers are arrogant too, but in different ways. Maybe non-STEM stuff is easier, but it has its own complications, and I think engineers are not inclined to see them. Would like to hear if this is consistent with the experiences of others.

sjg007 5y ago
People think they know something well until they have to explain it or explain the opposing position. Lawyers have to do this all the time which is probably why there is more balance. Basically the trick is to ask folks to explain something to you as if you were five.
- ss108 5y ago
  > People think they know something well until they have to explain it or explain the opposing position. Lawyers have to do this all the time which is probably why there is more balance. Yeah this is probably key.