No, I am very very much not. I meant exactly what I said: what does he do when people think their identity trumps his knowledge. I explicitly stated as part of the premise that the person did not have appropriate knowledge in this case, and that they are assuming that their identity gives them something (maybe experience--it doesn't matter what) which is more valuable.

Your answer is, essentially, (1) identity probably wins, (2) identity probably wins, (3) identity definitely wins, (4) you didn't listen, and you thought identity doesn't win, and now you're going to get an earful.

A lot of situations are not shallow in this way, where identity-based experience is most reliable source of information. For instance, most everyone has experience with driving. But apparently 80% of drivers are better than average. This estimate holds up for decades, at least qualitatively.

So, if you're going to insist that, actually, only 50% of drivers (or fewer, if you admit "average" as having some width) could possibly have "better than average" driving, who are you to deny the view informed by the experience of a large portion of people in this group?

You ought not deny that most people have the subjective experience of being better drivers than average. But if you want to increase road safety you had better base your policy on something else.

(Admittedly, "Hey, asshole! Yeah, you--the one who thinks they're a better driver than average. You're NOT, do better!" is probably not a good PR strategy. You want to understand your audience's beliefs and emotional affinity if you're going to reach them.)