Reminder I am not a lawyer.
Trained lawyers have two skills, capacity to communicate and capacity to reason which both factor into greater problem solving capacity, greater capacity to delegate.
There is a reason why lawyers and problem solvers have potential to do better in society more times. Greater capacity to communicate one’s point of view is powerful. Greater capacity to defend others, which also factors into capacity to defend self (sometimes safety in numbers) is powerful. Greater capacity to defend self, self’s reasoning behind do and do not do, will be a risk, will not be a risk, is sufficient risk, is not sufficient risk is powerful.
Trained to communicate better, to reason better, to solve problems better does not equate to a requirement to teach others to do the same. Thus lawyers have the potential for profiting in society to greater extent than others at time – they might have more capacity to know what will cause a problem, when it will cause a problem, how it will cause a problem, and how to mitigate risks if there is a problem.
Great communicators are powerful. Power is sometimes viewed as risk, a risk to plans and goals, objectives of Politicians or Revolutionaries. Thus even those with the most powerful words and reasoning capacity might have potential to be walked around, superseded. Just because one might be brilliant, an excellent speaker and orator, highly profitable does not equate to all will have to like you, are required to appreciate your charm.
Charm is damaging at times – wrecks goals and ambitions, including ones like marriage, that might be superseded by grabs for power (can’t have, have instead mentality). Better at communication, better at reasoning does not equate to a requirement to bring others up to your level, not bringing others up to your level has potential to create tension, perception of lost profit, competition that might not equate to ideal access to communicate, or data required to reason – people like electricity take the path of least resistance many times, and if someone that is a better speaker is more profitable, limits their profit they might desire to go around, work around and that is potentially not all unreasonable (Golden Rule throughput is LTI (less than ideal) and is based on less than ideal perception and comprehension).
One that can’t guarantee profit and stability for others is always trusted at a similar level as someone that is known to guarantee profit and stability? People sometimes latch onto new (different leaders, new words, new ideas) in tough times, and there is a historic precedent for that is not all good.
Reinforcing trust and inclusivity factors into defense of others, which also facilitates capacity to reinforce trust and inclusivity. Any counted out, dismissed equates to less support for them, less support is more risk, more risk is not ideal reduced risk to capacity to communicate and solve problems in the future.
Thus, more counted in, as matters equates to less risk, greater sustainable capacity to communicate and solve problems. Being the only one that profits is a less than desirable path forward. We don’t need to fix this or that blissed is not always bliss. There is profit in educating others, increasing comprehension, trust, and profitability of others – factors into capacity to profit self, reason, have sufficient data for comprehension and communication, problem solving. A society that profits together is more likely to communicate warnings like High Voltage when national debt and failing infrastructure collide.
My Tech Blog 