I remember when I was the school overseer for years and personal regular organized and organization-encouraged shepherding calls was something fairly new. I couldn't get hardly anyone to agree to a visit. They were sure that elder visits were for those "in trouble." They were doubly sure that whatever they told me would get them a school talk assignment on that very subject.
I doubt much has changed over the years on this.
When I was "courting" my now-wife, some of our chaperones felt that they needed to tell the elders that we were getting too "familiar" with each other. So I found myself meeting with a couple of elders. I took their counsel seriously and thanked them. But I wound up back before them a few weeks later for the exact same reason.
This time, I asked what was I doing wrong. They talked about fondling and petting and the like. I told them none of that had taken place and I convinced them I firmly believed that. They ended with me and went and talked to her. She confirmed that none of that was so. They figured it was just the over zealous thinking of the chaperones.
So they meet back with me and asked why I didn't defend myself the first time. I said that I was "accepting" counsel and applying it whether or not I thought I needed it, just as the publications and the talks told me to do. They got all weird about it like I was not helping them by making it look like I was guilty of something when I did not object to the counsel I first received.
I learned to counter whatever counsel was received and actually gained more respect from the elders, and I suspect that many members do the same- counter whatever counsel is offered hoping it makes them look more "righteous" than just accepting counsel that the elders would automatically assume must have been needed.