I'm still not sure I follow the reasoning, but maybe: I meant that bcs of the unimaginable randomness of cases and impossible vastness of data. You absolutely don't have free access to all the data (you don't know what I keep in my tin box at home). You can purposely (or not) only access the data that is by chance accessible to you.
So within this context I find it weird differentiating between purposely vs accidentally (if that is the opposite?) acquiring knowledge bcs even if you pick up a book you chose it's still very much random & nothing in comparison to all the data in existence (and the comparison was between overlapping experiences of different people, so another dimension of random selection).
That's why I was presenting it as random (but active or passive learning - it makes no difference to that point, so that's why I didn't initially get what you were saying).
Ofc you have experts in their fields, they gathered knowledge "on purpose" to that end - and yet when I hire such an expert, first day on the job that idiot doesn't even know where their desk is.