Responsibility for rebooting the meltdown

Is authentic learning a fragile dynamic that is very prone to system crashes?
Only in adversarial contexts. Learning is a very robust dynamic (resilient, self-repairing, quick to rebound) in a developmental context which trusts the learning process, values the phases it goes through and welcomes the setbacks as part of the learning. Learning so often appears vulnerable to collapse because the context is so unfriendly to learning. The same could be said of automotive paint finishes not holding up to battery acid and fruit blossoms falling to pieces in hail storms.

I've never seen a classroom teacher, corporate trainer or conference presenter "reboot the learning" when the audience gets the impression the information is useless. Are you being realistic to suggest a "sage on stage" should be responsible for restoring the learning after a systems crash?
The rebooting happens all the time in conversations with a presenter after a class session. It's common fare for every tutor, mentor, advisor, counselor and therapist. It's perfectly natural in dyads, interactions and conversations where reciprocity overrules the expertise. It's only unrealistic to expect rebooting when the learners are "packed together like sardines" in a set-up for the passive consumption of expert information.

What about hard core resistance to learning where students are dead-set against being taught anything?
They provide a perfect reminder for experts to avoid being over-responsible for someone else while also insisting on shared responsibility for learning. Those hard-core adversaries are a clear indication that the context sucks like acid spills and hail storms. Their "cry for help" says it's time to step outside the incessant belief system.

How do you see "totally-turned-off learners" that sets you up to reboot their learning?
I see them as teachers who will show me what I'm not seeing, understanding or using effectively thus far. I see them as having learned to stop learning from authority figures who keep making bogus claims about the usefulness of their expert information. I see them having very robust crap detectors that are quick to detect BS, scams and pure hype. I see them wanting respect as someone who sees the stupid game they are being asked to play and sees how to deservedly game the system. I see them as having never stopped learning really, and only faking "arrested development" to get control of a situation that's set up against them. I see them in need of a development context that nurtures learning and sees them the way I've just described.