People who listen to noone but themselves (ergo have no education and no outside resources to rely upon) will come to the conclusion that the earth is flat, because the concept of a round earth needs quite a bit of understanding to even come up with that idea.

But you are shifting your point now. Now it’s not about whether listening to people is good or bad, but about which people to listen to. You are not acknowledging that you are shifting your point but claim that this was your point all along.

That argumentative tactic is called the motte-and-bailey fallacy:

• You start with a sexy, controverisal but hard to defend position (the “bailey”): Listening to people is bad. People should listen to themselves.
• When you see that you can’t defend that point, you switch to a more easy to defend position (the “motte”), but claim that it’s the same argument: Well, people should actually listen to the right people, and sometimes use intuition, especially to discern who to listen to.

These two points are wildly different. The first one is plain nonsense, the second one is close to a tautology.

And that’s the point of this strategy: If people agree to the second position, you claim that this is just a rephrase of your original position, even though that’s really not true.

It’s a commonly used strategy (Jordan Peterson has practically built his whole career on that strategy), but that doesn’t make the style of argumentation valid.