I think the amateur is seeking approval from his audience by the feedback of the experience. By that urge to seek, is a consequence of not fully committing to it like the expert has.
The expert has already dug his hole.
Discussion
OK, except for the hole thing.
I'm probably poking the bear here, but a real expert knows he's not an expert. He knows this, because he can see a vague glimmer of all the things he doesn't know.
I think that may be a self referencing logical fallacy. I thought that was the amateur. So the expert is now an amateur and an expert. So how do we define the amateur if there is no boundary?
There is no boundary.
Unless you are a financial advisor who has passed the relevant exams and are now qualified to give billionaires advice on how to make money, while earning a little above minimum wage.
That sounds like the Apeal to Authority logical fallacy.
I think A logical statement only works with the exclusion of logical fallacies. If I follow a mathematical proof and find an incorrect statement, the standard procedure is to hault. The logical fallacy would need to be excluded if it exists, and a collaborative effort helps to identify and clarify the intention.