Some people will want you to explain everything back to the level of quarks. If you try to make your explanation too basic, you run into theory.
For example, it’s a fact that the sky is blue. However, some people might see pink when they look at the sky. Society educates these people to interprete pink as blue, so to them pink is blue! This is good, it is a necessary calibration.
If people can accept the principle that anything the color of the sky and the ocean is blue, then there are no disputes. People need to understand their guiding principles.
In electronics, it’s called calibration. In shooting, it’s called “Kentucky windage”.
Some opinions, conclusions, or judgments aren’t simple flip desires or whims, but the result of education and prior study. Someone that’s made a study of something may give a better answer in 1 second than another can give in a year.
It’s study. It’s education.
Nevertheless, the educated person should be able to trace his opinion back through principles to fact. The more sophisticated the opinion, the longer the explanation. Sometimes, things aren’t worth explaining. If we have to teach a novice how a computer works in order to teach keyboarding, it isn’t worth it.
In other words, people have to learn guiding principles. People can’t be given a complete grade, high school, and college education in order to communicate understanding for each idea that you are trying to communicate.
Some people want you to give them a complete education just to “win” your argument.
If somebody wants to learn “keyboarding” he must accept the computer as a black box and start his education from the keyboard –
One can have a set of principles that make him a MUCH better judge of character, etc.
Some people can tell when another is lying by noticing small details.
Chess – knowledge of details. Math – knowledge of rules and methods.
The value judgments of some are a LOT better than the value judgments of others.
For example, chess masters base their opinions on hundreds of little principles learned from past experience. A chess master has estimates, extrapolations, principles and formula. He will beat 50 players simultaneously if they have mere “value judgments” with no tested principles to back them up.
Some of the things a chess master uses to estimate a position seem pretty minute, but he can squeeze a win out of them. A lot of times a win relies on the correct “opposition” – who moves first. A chess master can calculate opposition twenty moves in the future. A “zugzwang” will win too. That is the knowledge of how to waste a move.
A novice would realize a master’s judgment was more than the “value judgments” of others even if his reasons for winning seemed negligible. Chess is a game in which your ideas can be quickly tested. A masterly chess g .
99% of all Americans could be given a mate in two and lose to a better player.
If you told them they had had a winning position they would say something like: “This is a free country, you can say what you want” or “That is your value judgment”.
Once you showed them the mate in two, they would at first be in denial. Then they would call you an Ahole.
My point: The majority are ignorant, arrogant, and verbally hostile.
No, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
My real point: Most people will not make the effort to understand something before giving an opinion.
