Orange County deputy alternative defender (I likely got the position wrong, but feel confident that, if so, I will be swiftly corrected) Lee Stonum sent me an email to both make a point and vent a bit.  On the one hand, he came face to face with the Perpetual Listserv Conundrum: 

Stupid people ask stupid questions answered by other stupid people who either don’t have a clue or just make stuff up, making everyone the worse for participating.  I don’t want to waste my time by getting involved and enabling stupid people.

But, if no one who knows anything participates to help the stupid to learn the correct answer, then they will forever be stupid.

Yes, it’s a vicious circle.  We each have to make a choice as to whether we want to become embroiled in the mess or just walk away.  I’ve found myself on both sides of this conundrum at various times, which I conveniently attribute to age-related mood swings. 

Ultimately, my choice was to disengage, both because I reject the idea that I have the capacity, right or responsibility to tell others what to do, and because I believe that these listservs tend to enable the lazy and encourage the ignorant.  As the latter, I write not of the questioner, but the answerer, who responds, “I don’t know nuthin’ about birthin’ no babies, but I think . . . ” 

The thought that keeps coming into my head is, “what did we do before one could peck out an email to ask a couple hundred people whose qualifications to answer are unknown, if not dubious,” and in reliance thereon, put a person’s life at risk?  We used to seek out the advice of someone we believed to be well-qualified to answer.  We used to do the research and figure it out.  We took personal responsibility for ourselves.  But hey, that’s hard work and risky business. Why not just ask the crowd?

Lee’s secondary problem, however, is less easily answered.  What of the elder statesman who chimes in, calmly noting that he has decades of experience unlike the young pups and turks, and whose word is final?  While Lee didn’t quite say this, his point was clear:  An old fool is worse than a young fool.

He brought this to my attention because I, as opposed to some of the others around the blawgosphere, qualify as “old”.  He rubs my nose (unintentionally, I’m sure) in the very true point that experience alone doesn’t make one right.  If I was more adept at computers, I would make a graph at this point with quadrants for experience and intelligence to show that the two are not necessarily connected.

Sometimes Lee really pisses me off, because he’s absolutely right and I don’t have a rule of thumb to counter his assertion.  An old fool is worse than a young fool.  Young fools can learn.  Old fools had the opportunity to learn and didn’t.

We all know lawyers who have been around forever, and have been hacks their entire careers.  Some old lawyers are kindly and warm.  Some old lawyers are curmudgeonly.  Some old lawyers are friendly and others are distant.  Being old, however, is not conterminous with being right.

The best reaction I can offer is that experience is a pretty good teacher.  Not perfect, but pretty good.  Live through enough and you usually learn something.  Make enough mistakes and most us gain a little insight from it.  It’s likely how we avoided being run down by cars since our youth, remembering that they’re big, fast and can hurt us very badly.

Whether that means we’ve learned enough from experience to compensate for our other flaws, be they moral, intellectual or otherwise, is another matter.  I tend to believe that I’m right much of the time.  It comforts me to do so.  But that doesn’t mean that anyone else has to agree with me, and lord knows many don’t.  I’m okay with that, however, since I know that I’m right and they’re not.  They can be as wrong as they want, as far as I’m concerned.  Notice how I’ve rationalized the problem away?

And now watch as I wrap this post around to the beginning,  On another listserv, I recently saw an extremely well-regarded old-timer (much, much older than me) who enjoyed an illustrious career, respond to some kid who asked an extremely simple question that could have been answered by google faster than waiting for a listserv response, had he just made the effort to do something for himself rather than take the lazy route.

The well-regarded old-timer responded to the kid’s query by telling him to “look it up, you lazy dope.”  He used much nicer words.  Within minutes, a swarm of flies descended on this old-timer admonishing him for his rudeness and antagonism toward the Slackoisie.  How dare he tell someone to exert effort when the entire purpose of the listserv is to facilitate laziness and stupidity?

Mind you, the well-regarded old-timer gained nothing by being engaged with the listserv.  He offered his experience and knowledge to the children, but the children offered nothing but agita in return.  For his kindness, he was smacked.

After reading this exchange, I thought to myself, “well, that’s the last time the well-regarded old-timer will offer any help to this bunch of dopes.”  The next day, however, the well-regarded old-timer was back, answering stupid questions.

So yes, an old fool is worse than a young fool.  But young fools have the option of taking their advice or rejecting it.  Young or old, you’re still responsible for your choices, whether it’s heeding foolishness from the voice of experience or coming back to help the young despite their lack of appreciation and lazy ways.  But then, what do I know?