On subjects I'm an expert in? That undoes the evidence for trust, right?

On subjects I'm not an expert in? Well I can't know.

The problem here is that I'm not an expert in everything. In fact, I'm not an expert in most things. I feel like people are taking this test as a perfect test. Far from it. There is no such test and never will be. But to everyone that is trying to counter this I'll ask you the inverse question: "Why should I trust someone when they've proven to mischaracterize a topic?" That's the heart of this metric.

If you've proven that you won't do enough research, I have reason to not believe you. If you've proven that you will do enough research, I have reason to believe you. It is statistical. Everything is. It is imperfect. Everything is. If you got suggestions about how to extend this and improve upon this, I'm listening. But I'm not just going to abandon it and start listening to people that have given me strong evidence to distrust them. That's a bit insane. It is also exactly what the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is making fun of: trusting people in things you don't know about that proved to be untrustworthy in things you do.