As do most people.
Sol even likes some posts so much he logs in an alt to double that liking.
If anyone deserves it, it’s you. “The plan” certainly changed how I (And so many others) played the game.
Mr Epeen 
1 Like
The question; Why do so few people successfully get another to look at a particular topic in another light?
The answer; Everyone here likes to practice verbal karate instead of verbal judo, with the rather predictable results that attacking the person instead of the topic along with refusing to show any empathy to whomever they’re ‘debating’ has about as much success as a Ferdinand tank trying to climb a mountain road.
to be fair, some people here are definitely short more than a few brain cells
1 Like
Yeah, ‘The Plan’ was definitely a milestone marker, it was used as reference material and added to various 3rd party Eve Wiki’s and Eve guide sites. In fact on 10-26-2011 CCP Spitfire posted a good endorsement for it in the Eve Forums. (Post #5 of 17)
6 Likes
Zip, zilch, nada, none. Sometimes I cannot even convince myself.
If this was a plan to get the people with dunning-kruger to highlight themselves in the poll it greatly succeeded.
Apart from that, if someone on the internet changes his/her position, that doesn’t mean you are the clever one, the person changing the position probably is.
4 Likes
Wow, you can’t even get that one right.
While there may indeed be a difference in the choice different people make in the set of known and possibly contributing factors for a given question, that does not equate to them all not being rational. Rationality will make use of logic, which is anything but emotional. The quality of the conclusion however will depend on the correctness of the choice of factors (which should be the starting point of any rational deduction).
However, even having knowledge of all contributing factors, and giving each factor its proper importance, is already a challenge for any honest participant in a discussion, even (and not always visible to, let alone understood by the layman) in science. Rationality comes from the use of verifiable elements. which is the hard core of any well developed scientific discipline, following clear, agreed-upon rules.
The non-conversation/discussion starts with certain people not agreeing on verifiable facts (regardless whether they are indeed verifiable). Those discussions will, from at least one side, be controlled via emotion, such as denial, or feeling attacked, over-whelmed, inferior. They will use unverifiable statements or worse, fabrications if the person is willfully sabotaging an exchange for any (self-serving) reason.
So when is a discussion honest and hopefully rational ? When all parties involved have a demonstrated willingness to learn, accept a common starting position and discuss the value and relevance of each added element during the exchange, followed by logical deduction. Retorts like “I don’t believe x (facts) or y (rules)” are indicative of unwillingness to discuss. Without recourse to verifiable elements, mutual willingness and open positions one is better off doing some vacuum cleaning around the house. It is never easy to keep emotion out of all discussions, but the ground rules for a healthy exchange allow to at least minimize its impact on the reasoning. Needless to say that people on social media are rarely inclined to accept, or even have knowledge of, the ground rules.
That is very true. They may focus on different partial aspects, but the overall meaning should be intact. Walking away with subtly different views is indicative of a complicated subject, with many factors involved (and some maybe still undiscovered or undisclosed by the teacher), not of a level of irrationality if the solid ground rules for rationality were used (as in deducing formulae and natural laws). This holds true for even the most verifiable scientific disciplines, like physics and chemistry. One never has complete control over all possible influences in an experiment - there are too many unknowns - but one can at least significantly reduce the possibility and impact of unknown influences if the experimental setup is done correctly or, in contrast, capture their presence and increase their influence, making the discovery of a new factor if it appears “something else” is contributing. That of course does not exclude some scientists from having heated, emotional debates and feuds when they think their scientific reputation is at stake, or simply hate the other guy for being successful. Life in academia is not unlike life in lowsec.
In conclusion, here is a fine example of the same teacher explaining the same hard science subject in five different ways, pertaining to five different levels of understanding. All are correct, and all are completely adapted to the audience. Only one represents the highest level of understanding, and even that one isn’t complete, yet. But all 5 are equally rational.
Astrophysicist explains gravity in 5 levels of difficulty It’s worth going through the entire video.
But be at ease, I never expect to convince anyone. You will have to convince yourself, based on the verifiable facts and cold logic 
2 Likes
The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One’s Own Ignorance - ScienceDirect
lol
Solecist Project … my secret alt no one knows about!
Please don’t ruin it for me! Oh noes, please don’t!
You know that’s not what we’re discussing. Stop with the weaseling.
It’s about you being so pathetic as to post multiple likes with multiple alts as noted above. And how weird of a behavior that is. It makes no sense.
Mr Epeen 
Except that I don’t. You’re seeing ghosts where there are none …
… and every time I called you out on it, asking which character I’m also supposed to be …
… you fail to simply mention the name.
Oh boy, why would that be? 
Because you’re just making ■■■■ up, thinking there’s a point to it?
Or is it because you’re a complete wacko who lost his mind long ago?
So … all you really ever do is begging for my attention …
… and instead of noticing it in a mirror …
… you believe to see this in me.
I don’t know what psychological trauma you’re suffering from …
… but if constantly begging for my attention helps you …
… and not even you can deny that you’re constantly trying to get my attention …
… then feel free to just keep going. 
Now you have just demonstrated that you can find stuff on the internet and link them. However, prior comments clearly show that you can’t process the content of the very citation you just posted.
You’re not going to ruin my thread with your carebear-ish rage. 
Now you’re just being willfully ignorant. Maybe you should take a break, sober up and then scroll up the page to where I answered you with a screenshot last time you asked . Do you need me to circle and label the pictures of you side by side? You don’t recognize the two Sols?
Maybe this from another post:
So sleep it off and we’ll pick this up tomorrow.
Mr Epeen
Sometimes the fundamental part to discussion is nothing you know, you stand on a peak seeing few metres down, and the base of montain is below clouds, so you dont even know how high you are. In such case what is better is to keep silent and actually start going down.
1 Like
(Places checkmark beside “Fishing for argument” on clipboard. Adds “Attention-seeking behaviour” under Observations. Circles “As predicted” under Outcome column. Tucks pencil behind ear.)
1 Like
Words have precise meaning when used in rational deliberations. When I wrote there is an inherent flaw by having to choose factors from a myriad of known possibilities (with the chance there are even some unknowns) that can be called “subjective” in the sense that the person may have limited access or a different working hypothesis (which should be divulged and discussed as well). However, an honest speaker will know the limits and the provisos of his/her approach and be open about it. That is crucial to having a (scientific) rational exchange. Or he/she might just have too little knowledge. Best to forget about discussing then, only teaching is the remaining option.
In order to make progress on anything, including discussions (what else would be their purpose ?), one has to build on the knowledge of others. There is a divide between normal skepticism and offhand rejection of what other people bring to the discussion. The former is required to have high quality conclusions that anyone following the same process can accept. The latter is destructive posturing based on self-interest.
So you think a statement about the destructiveness of not accepting verifiable facts as valid elements is dangerous ? Do you then think it is safe to deny verifiable facts ? And that would serve which purpose exactly ? What is the more dangerous aspect, speakers drawing conclusions based on facts, or people forming opinions merely on what they like regardless of evidence, or following some leader type ? That is historically and demonstrably a serious attack on any human society and on progress. Emotion isn’t bad per se but it will be dangerous when it tramples and denies facts.
Emotion leads to power play, which has nothing to do with facts or understanding, and only has submission as its goal.
Emotions are rarely constructive in any discussion. That does NOT mean that emotions are not important in certain subjects for discussion. Beliefs and sensitivities are important factors in handling a conversation and guiding it to a peaceful and constructive conclusion (ask any diplomat), but they should never be in a position to flatly overrule verifiable fact. That would be destructive in the long term. Emotions are limited in variety, while aggression is the easiest (and commonest) to pop up its ugly head. The best starting position for any (non-scientific) discussion would be to show respect for beliefs, sensitivities, cultural differences and, to a lesser degree, emotions. That is what living together requires. But as soon as verifiable facts are presented I would suggest to let the neocortical part of the brain prevail over the more primitive cortical part.
And btw, the whole idea behind the scientific method is to take the bias and the emotion out of the equation, and to make the conclusion verifiable via strict rules and methods, that people over the centuries have concluded (rationally) are the surest method to come to understanding, with predictability etc. If a student walks away with a different idea, or worse, “personal opinion” (instead of “current level of knowledge”), he/she should probably start studying and dive into the facts and the alternatives that over time were rejected based again on verifiable facts and experiments. Knowing only a little bit about the facts is the worst advisor possible. Facts are not negotiable, they are measurable and elemental, in other words, verifiable. They retain the exact same metric value, regardless of who looks at them. A glass of beer filled with 10 cl of a possible 20 cl is the measurable, verifiable fact. Half full or half empty, that’s subject to non-rational and non-verifiable - indeed individual - preferences and do not matter when discussing the exact content of that glass, but may provide some insight into an emotional state. If you want to call that an element of the autism spectrum you will probably have verifiable evidence to back it up.
Too much discussion is about “being right” and “winning”, not enough about “understanding”. Now, which one is the emotional and which is the rational approach ?
No argument there. Plenty of examples.
Then the discussion changes into what is more important, the rational or the emotional element ? The answer will depend on the motivation of both parties. The subject of the original discussion is irretrievably lost. The crux is both parties were talking about entirely different things from the start, there never really was a conversation but isolated speakers (or shouters 
)
I could agree here, if the fact is being misused for self-serving purposes. But then, that would not be an honest debate in the first place.
If people in a conversation start from emotion on one side and facts on the other, there won’t be a conversation, only confusion and frustration - any married (mutatis mutandis for the modern era) couple will confirm this, lol. The thing is, both are talking about totally different aspects for totally different reasons, likely. Superiority/inferiority should not be an element, but will be when emotions are involved.
Since the time of the Greek Civilization there have been rules / methods to guide discussions. The philosophical schools of thought each had their own set (so do the modern ones). The scientific method is an evolution of those methods. If emotion creeps up in scientific discussion you can be certain it is no longer a scientific discussion, leave the room and go and have a beer.
I guess some will behave that way. On the other hand verifiable facts need to be countered / matched with other verifiable facts, not emotions - it would only confuse the more rational oriented person. And by extension, if the so-called rational person refuses to acknowledge another verifiable fact he/she is not an honest partner unless the new factor is verifiably wrong or irrelevant (as a factor).
This is why we dont have Mining Lasers That Cause Targetted Damage To Modules.
Or exploding ice.
Yet.
It boils down to this: what is the purpose of a discussion ? Especially on these forums and other social media. Exchanging knowledge and from there work towards new insights ? Or being emotional and, more often than not, venting frustration ?
You single out certain elements, zoom in, quote. But you refuse the invitation to see the larger picture or the more crucial elements I brought forward. That is unfortunate. I function in a rational environment, I’m afraid. Still, I enjoyed our exchange. I just don’t like endless repetition, my knowledge of the English language is not sufficient to keep it interesting or entertaining.
Oh, and about those flying pigs. No verifiable proof equates to no new knowledge, no understanding, it stops right there and then. It violates every rule in the book of how to gain verifiable knowledge which can be shared with and verified by other scientists. Knowledge only has value when it can - independently - be verified. Remember that cold fusion experiment of the 80’s ? What a mistake to make…