It’s not even obscure, context dependent errors. I’ve had many professional system administrators not understand what “connection was closed by peer” meant.

But most error messages are in plain English first (plus some numbers and codes).
No, they see white (gray actually) blocky text on a black background, they think the machine is broken and go into panic mode. Instead of reading.
Which is kinda what you said.

I don't need to make sense of error messages. Which is good because I usually can't.

I just need them copy/pasteable cuz that shit is going in Google and I'd rather not manually type it.

but some people don't seem to be able to read one goddamn paragraph ever.

I had a problem with my car. It felt strange while driving. Made some unusual noise. Then a bit later the motor warning light came on.

I went to the garage, told them about the warning light and what I noticed the time before, what I suspected and such. A short while after the mechanic came to me and asked for a few details, as my description "wasn't helpful" and the repair would be much faster with more details that told them where to look etc. Turns out the guy who checked in my car only noted "a warning light is on" and nothing else of my ramblings.

So sometimes it's also paying attention to what might be important and relaying information.

To be fair, techs don't usually talk to the people who can read, so they're only ever going to see idiots. There are competent people in the world, they'll just never need your help, so you don't see them.

Last time I called tech support, it was for a Dell, and I interrupted their speech to tell them I already looked up the diagnostic. They asked which numbers were lit on the error panel to confirm I had the right diagnostic, and passed me directly to who I needed to talk to. I only called tech support because the cpu socket died and I was putting in a warranty claim, otherwise they would have never even heard from me because I could just install a new motherboard myself.

edit: speeling

At this point, if a student brings in a laptop, explains what doesn't work, and leaves me to diagnose and fix it, I consider it a good report because it means that the student didn't get any overconfident ideas. If a student also explains what they were doing when a thing failed, I'm giving them preferential treatment.

Then there are comp-sci students who attempted something. I had one who disassembled their laptop and tore a ribbon cable. I had one who plugged in a random mis-matched RAM stick that turned out to be busted and wondered why Windows kept crashing. I had one who completely fucked up the registry. I had one who wanted to install Ubuntu for dual booting and accidentally wiped the entire SSD.

I would rather spend an hour babysitting their computers than an entire afternoon un-fucking something they thought they could handle. If it were up to me, I would restrict the crap out of their user accounts, but the faculty leaders insist, against empirical evidence, that they're smart enough.

They’ll refuse to attempt to understand the problem then get mad when they get ripped off.

Kama Sutra?

Don't fuck the manual!

I already know that if I die and go to hell, my punishment will be IT helpdesk for hangry boomers.