>>67422
Not sure what exactly this semi-coherent shit is about, but I think I have a rough idea.
When I'm hit with proof that I might be wrong, I research and contemplate the issue for a few days, weeks or months and research it and then I decide whether I was actually wrong or just ignorant. Usually, it's the latter, for the simple reason that I underwent this process before and so most of my views are already solid, not some crap I adopted after one lost argument. It's got nothing to do with refusing to alter my static worldview because my faith in the Invisible Hand is too strong and trumps all evidence, and everything to do with me knowing the benefits of thorough inquiry.
That answer any questions you had?