I wrote a post about this last week saying why this sort of thought is wrong. In summary it is basically this: As people of power in a position to make important decisions it is their PROFESSIONAL. ETHICAL. DUTY. to know all the facts that pertain to the situation. At no point is it our fault to not understand their system in its entirety but it IS their fault to be making conscious decisions that effect people and s…
While I agree, I can relate as to why this will never be the case. Think back to when you first started programming, or were otherwise involved in technology. It was near impossible to know what you didn't know. And every now and then, that ignorance gave you the belief of being more of an expert than you actually were. This area is an uphill battle of constantly being reminded how little you actually know.
I think it'd be dangerous to have them learn just enough without being actively engaged. It would give them the false belief of being an expert since they'd stop once they feel they have a firm grasp on the subject.
> They HAVE experts talking to them, or at least trying.
This may be the case. However, they can't tell the difference. To them, any "nerd" using technical jargon may or may not be an expert, and there's no way to know which. Dealing with so many unfamiliar subject areas, I'm sure they're experienced enough to know people lie. So ignoring the advice may just be a defensive measure, realizing they have no idea what's being advised or even how true it really is.
It's a bad situation. I don't know how to solve it, but I believe trust is the key quality. More important than expertise.