I was wrong I am totally delusional!...

[Pincho Paxton]

...isn't the title of the thread! :)

The title of the thread is...

A forum isn't the place to change opinions

I want you to watch this video, and imagine that Richard Feynman is talking directly to you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI

What you might have noticed is the pleasure in his face as he discusses science, and physics. The pleasure of a person comes across in a video, but not on a forum. If you were talking to Richard Feynman, and he spoke of something that you thought was wrong, and you say "I don't think that is quite correct." his facial expression then changes to a more questionable look, and you know that you are going to have to give him a good explanation...

My explanation to Richard Feynman...
You were speaking of water tension like the bodies were all pushing to get in, and this creates the curve in a drop of water. But what I imagine is that Gravity has a downward force + air pressure, and water has sideways pressure because of the way it is elongated around the Earth. If you combine a sideways pressure, and a gravitational/ air pressure the total of these pressures puts a diagonal area through the water that is the area of least resistance. So this diagonal area can bend the most, and create the curve in the water droplet. And I also think that you can see these pressures in the shapes of marine life. The fish squashed from the sideways pressure with fins through the diagonal area of least resistance.

... then he replies. And it is up to you to imagine his reply.

But now my reply is written on a forum. There are no facial expressions from my reply, no hand gestures, my enthusiasm is all missing. You missed the part where I passed him a beer halfway through my reply... :)

My reply on a forum is written in stone. And any following response from me will always have my reply written above it. So backing down, means that I am seen to back down with a reply still written in stone up above.

Let's just test that. Richard Feynman for example says to my argument...

Richard Feynman's reply...
Evolution makes the shape of the fish so that they will pass through the water more easily, it has nothing to do with a sideways pressure.

And then my reply...
I was wrong I see your point.

Ok so what you read here is how I back down. But I back down because Feynman is more fun when he is all jolly, and excited, and currently he is getting serious. I want us to have an entertaining evening.

The interactions on a forum are always written in stone, and have no body language, and enthusiasm is missing. Going back on your opinion lasts forever in the thread.

So the title of the thread was an example of an unlikely scenario in a forum. I probably stuns some people who read it for the first time. That was the idea.. to show how unlikely it is to change opinions on a forum. You actually feel that something amazing has happened... somebody has admitted that they were wrong.

But if you can imagine Richard Feynman speaking enthusiastically instead of me...
I imagine that Gravity has a downward force + air pressure, and water has sideways pressure because of the way it is elongated around the Earth. If you combine a sideways pressure, and a gravitational/ air pressure the total of these pressures puts a diagonal area through the water that is the area of least resistance. So this diagonal area can bend the most, and create the curve in the water droplet. And I also think that you can see these pressures in the shapes of marine life. The fish squashed from the sideways pressure with fins through the diagonal area of least resistance.

So if he used my own reply, and you can imagine his enthusiasm.. does it seem like a much better explanation?

I think it probably sounds better from him with his enthusiasm.

[Orenholt]

You're right, it is extremely rare to see people change their minds online but I myself have done it a few times on a number of subjects and I've always been grateful to be shown the error in my ways. In fact I have a very good friend who lives in the Philippines who I originally extremely disliked for his views but once he explained himself I came to understand and like him.

[oxytocinNA]

I am not quite sure why you bothered with this thread - despite your explanation.

If, for a person to understand "F", they need to understand (and have in proper context) A, B, C, D, and E, and it is clear they do not understand all of the first 5 (or enough of the first five combined with superior abstracting skills), why would you expect to get through to them?

I just watched one of the recent threads go on and on needlessly, as it was clear some of the participants were not capable of getting to the correct answer - the proper infrastructure and abstracting abilities in place.

At a certain point you are wasting your time (one of the most valuable commodities one has).

So if you have a correct answer and you attempt to steer a person towards it, trying a couple of times is OK, but after that .... why?

The only exception I can see to this, is if one is rearing a child.

[Pincho Paxton]

I am not quite sure why you bothered with this thread - despite your explanation.

If, for a person to understand "F", they need to understand (and have in proper context) A, B, C, D, and E, and it is clear they do not understand all of the first 5 (or enough of the first five combined with superior abstracting skills), why would you expect to get through to them?

I just watched one of the recent threads go on and on needlessly, as it was clear some of the participants were not capable of getting to the correct answer - the proper infrastructure and abstracting abilities in place.

At a certain point you are wasting your time (one of the most valuable commodities one has).

So if you have a correct answer and you attempt to steer a person towards it, trying a couple of times is OK, but after that .... why?

The only exception I can see to this, is if one is rearing a child.

The point of this thread is that it includes the psychology in the explanation. That your words are locked on a website, you don't want to go back on words that are permanently based in a location. A B C D E have nothing to do with this thread. You can realise that you are wrong at some point, but not want to post below your previous reply the opposite.

Say for example I write... I think that the queen is a lizard.

Later I realise that I was wrong.

I don't think that the queen is a lizard.

To back down, is to admit mental health on a website. Christianity is the same thing. You can't back down very easily without saying that Jesus walking on water was a delusion in your head the same as the queen being a lizard.

My own theory is very strange anyway. So I have to be careful that I am not being delusional. That an octopus sucker uses the same building structure as a sun is part of my theory. That sounds strange in itself. I am just making sure that I am not imagining things.

[oxytocinNA]

Ahh now I am there.

The protection of a fragile image (motives: weak ego, or political - protection of image, etc.).

Yes - immature / unhealthy.

Obvious statements:

The rational person stands on knowledge - facts set in proper context - to the degree they are available, and understood. They will accept correction as a rational action.

A fool stands on an image - a social power construct. They will not yield even in the face of evidence, as it means damaging the image they work to build (and this can tie back into another thread were the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" was posted).

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

You are quite right I think, it seems rare to see people changing their opinions in forums. I have encountered this in other forums. I have seen the so-called "rational" people attacking what they see as "charlatans", and yet they had no proof the charlatans were deceiving them. They say in forums, "But we KNOW so and so is cheating". I want to know, "If you are so sure, where is your proof?" If they are right, how is the truth concealed so well, by so many helpers of the charlatans? And yet the "rational" individuals I mentioned will not change their minds.

[Tenver-]

I think many people must think others mad on this forum. Madness is needed to think outside the box though and there is always some reason in madness. A person in the world either conforms or individuates or in other words, either consume or create. You cannot add to the culture of the world in the largest sense possible if you do not individuate. The rational man adopts himself to the world and plays by the rules of the world thus having added little by his death for his survivors and humans to come while the irrational man creates the world he wants to live in and thus perhaps having created a changed world for his fellow humans to live in past his death and thereby added to sum of the world or the consciousness of man in general.