About my supposed inconsistency regarding the voice of majority:
Regardless of BlueWing's interpretation, all that really matters was my reason and my intent, because I'm the only one that can be certain knowing what they were. They were my own thoughts. If I phrased it in a confusing way, point taking, sorry about that. But in the end, for the purpose of understand the cognitive process that goes in my head, all that matters is understanding what was going on in my head at the time I wrote those things.
My emphasis on the plural opinion had nothing to do giving into feelings.
It was indeed based on the notion, that if there are fifteen people, one of them supports one idea, and the other fourteen support the opposite idea, then supposing they are all equal educated on the subject, the one dissenter is more likely to be wrong than the fourteen others who are in agreement with eachother.
I am well aware that this notion alone is no where near good enough to hold a whole argument, or to completely disassemble another argument. That was my point about how it's "not much", but is one of many valid points in the bigger picture, and was on my side in that particular argument, which is why I brought it up.
As for BlueWing's comment about proving whether or not people are experts... That's just not a very good point. I know of no way to prove that any of the were experts on the subject. BlueWing didn't suggest any way. If I prove that all the others are experts, then should we have to prove BlueWing is an expert as well, to get this even? I can't seem to prove that he is, either. In the end, I assumed all parties equal because I don't think any of you are qualified experts. Not BlueWing, and not any of BlueWing's opponents. It's just a bunch of people that dabbled in Jungian theory and came to this forum.