You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Does anyone else get the feeling that people want to murder them for speaking authoritatively on pretty much everything and citing STW as the source?
I find I can correct most people before they have finished their sentences by saying, 'No. They say on Singletrackworld that...'
For some reason, this seems to rub people the wrong way, but I don't get it. Why would people want to persist in ignorance when they could come to know the truth?
a generous 1/10, tell them STW said so.
In general, folk don't like to be corrected, it's an affront to their being (I'm certainly not immune from reacting defensively to helpful corrections 🙁 ). Being able to learn and change your viewpoint seems to be quite rare.
You realise we're only one communion and hail Mary away from being a religion? The STW church of the latter day pass stormers"
“The trouble with most of us is that we'd rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.”
folk don't like to be corrected,
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
John Kenneth Galbraith
In general, folk don't like to be corrected, it's an affront to their being.
I think you're wrong. People see correction as a path to enlightenment.
You're all wrong and I'm right (according to STW*)!
* Possibly...
Why would people want to persist in ignorance when they could come to know the truth?
Ignorance is bliss.
There is no way back from broad-minded. 😛
[img] 
[/img]
Does anyone else get the feeling that people want to murder them for speaking authoritatively on pretty much everything and citing STW as the source?
Don't try to be an expert on everything and especially not an expert on everything based on knowledge from an internet forum usually helps.
Can't say I'd be tempted to murder someone, one of those hard stares that Paddington used to do is more likely.
Why would people want to persist in ignorance when they could come to know the truth?
People are personally invested in their statements and opinions. When debating, the trick is to use neutral non personal language.
Saying things like "I think you're wrong" is personal; saying something like "that's rubbish" is dismissive, belittling of the person holding the opinion by association, and quite aggressive in style because it's short and brutal.
Something like "Ah that's interesting, I read that XYZ was the case instead" invites the discussion - it's giving equal value to their opinion and what you read, and it's sitting you nicely on the fence rather than taking up an opposing position and embarking on confrontation. Or saying something like "I'm not sure about that" which disagrees without actively taking an opposing stance - but still taking one. Both those invite the other person to expand on their point of view without aggression, where you can then perhaps both get somewhere with the discussion.
Just to be clear, I did write the OP with tongue firmly in cheek.
I find I can correct most people before they have finished their sentences by saying, 'No. They say on Singletrackworld that...'
....Joe Cocker is still alive? 😉
Something like "Ah that's interesting, I read that XYZ was the case instead" invites the discussion
Life it too short to waste it educating the terminally stupid.