writes:

You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.

That's not true, at least in my case (I haven't audited all the threads in
which Le Chaud Lapin participates).

Many times, I get an answer that the poster believes to be correct, but it
conflicts with other sources I've consulted, so naturally I question it. Or I
get an answer that sounds intriguing, but when I ask for an explanation, the
person who gave me the answer has none--he learned it from someone and simply
accepted it, without caring about or looking up the supporting theory (if
any). Or I get multiple conflicting answers from several people, who then
start arguing with each other and trading insults--they cannot all be
simultaneously right.

I don't belittle anyone, but some people here are so incredibly insecure that
anything other than total, unconditional acceptance of anything they say is an
intolerable blow to their fragile egos, and they become defensive, resorting
to personal attacks, when confronted with anything less than total acceptance.
They are so sensitive, in fact, that they interpret every request for
clarification as a personal affront. People like this are hard to deal with
because they are so hypersensitive and emotional; however, they often don't
know much about anything, so dealing with them isn't always necessary.
Unfortunately, they are often among the first to respond. Once they learn
that their responses may not be instantly and totally accepted, their
subsequent responses consist of nothing more than personal attacks.

Many of the physics and other things in aviation are not
intuitive; that is, they don't make sense to the uninitiated, and
without well-rounded groundschooling and flight instruction they never
will make sense.

It's worse than that. I've discovered that many pilots just don't understand
those concepts, and asking about them only irritates them as they realize how
little they understand. The reality is that many of these concepts don't have
to be understood just to fly an airplane, and of those that might be useful to
understand, few are mandatory for safe flight.

Pilots are instructed by rote, just as most people are instructed by rote in
most things. The threshold of aptitude required to absorbe rote learning is
much lower than that required to understand theory, which is why it is usually
used. And rote learning accomplishes the purpose, as long as experience is
limited to situations covered by that learning. It only fails in situations
where inferences must be made for unforeseen situations based on theory, and
these are thankfully rare.

Flight simulators don't teach these things.

Nobody teaches them, apparently, or at least nobody in flight instruction.

At one time I believed that flight instruction was far more comprehensive. I
now know, from what I see here and from my own investigations of the training
materials, that it is much simpler than I believed it to be. This shouldn't
surprise me (because almost all training is like this), but it does.

No amount of insult, personal attacks, or trolling intimidates me, so I don't
know why people bother. It actually seems to bother them far more than it
does me, when they discover that I don't care.

I'd be content to discuss aviation, but some people turn every discussion into
a discussion of personalities instead.