I'm not saying expertise == good decision making, I'm saying there's a greater chance of an expert making the correct decision than a layman. That article also

I'm not saying expertise == good decision making, I'm saying there's a greater chance of an expert making the correct decision than a layman. That article also only talks about how experts can "double down" on mistakes (and only overprecision) when there is negative feedback, it doesn't comment on the validity of their decisions as compared to layman. Isn't that like the perfect example of comparing apples to oranges? Wouldn't the danger of trusting a doctor require comparing the outcome of trusting a doctor to the outcome of not trusting a doctor?