"wouldn't say it has to come to a standoff. In my mind, the rules I specified in my last post mostly govern how to appear confident in statements you are sure of,"
"or want people to think you are sure of."
It's the second quotation here I had issue with, which was what my post was about. You are treating truth like conviction. And that's not bad, because what people call truths are convictions. It's when you want others to believe what you do while stonewalling, that I see a problem. You narrow your own perspective.
"Whether or not you actually are isn't as important I think."
I agree. It should be about the concept itself, not who portrays it.
"I'm not the best at reading others, but much of the time I see people doing their utmost to defend statements they made or they say they believe in. Even if their actual faith in the statement seems shaken."
Cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
"I know I often feel silly if I go back on a statement I previously made. the more clearly and loudly I made the statement, the sillier I feel."
It's a positive thing to be able to be amenable to changes in how you think.
"That was part of the reasoning behind the first 'variable' in my earlier post. Strange as it may sound to some to some, I don't like feeling silly while sober, I expect many feel the same. Don't get me wrong, there are ways to publicly change one's mind. One great way PR strategy that can work for me (and for many politicians as well I'm sure) when I change my mind on something I just said is to wait a while before publicly voicing my opinion. That way I'm still honest enough, while the flip-flop is less blaring (and therefore I feel less silly)."
From personal experience, this is not uncommon behavior. It is understandable, as saying something many disagree with can put you at odds with them. As I said in another thread, I only do that when I need to. Anything beyond that seems to me like being overly self-conscious.