Chemists Have Solutions .
You are, however, impervious to the evidence of your own incompetence, so no amount of factual information will sway your perception of adequacy.
Which the average person can see is perfectly predicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect when someone who is utterly incompetent assumes themselves to be of above-average competence.
To explain it in a more relevant way to the particular discussion at hand, earlier I discussed your teacher's failure to "indoctrinate" you into an adult level of reading comprehension. They may have attempted to "indoctrinate" you, but since you were impervious to their efforts (as would be expected from a person on your end of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum), you failed to become "indoctrinated".
Thus, despite the valient, perhaps even herculean, efforts of your teachers, nobody can ever claim that you've been "indoctrinated" to an adult level of reading comprehension as the attempt was clearly unsuccessful.
Going back to your initial incompetently worded sentence, you said "After being indoctrinated throughout the school year that the lunches are so much better, of course those results would be expected."
Now, you have made it clear that you used better to mean something akin to "tastier" or "more likable" rather than "healthy". This is, in and of itself, an incompetent use fo the English language, but we'll leave it alone for now as it is not necessary to demonstrate your astounding incompetence with the word indoctrinated.
For the Students to have been indoctrinated that the food is tastier or more likeable, they would actually have to believe that it is tastier/more likable.
Your incompetent attempt to support your incompetent sentence was to claim that the teachers indoctrinated them. Due to your failure to comprehend English language, however, you failed to recognize that there is a clear and obvious distinction between "indoctrinating" and "attempting to indoctrinate". The former is successful in altering the indoctrinated person's beliefs to be in accordance with the indoctrinator's views, while the latter scenario leaves an unindoctrinated person who has not conformed to the indoctrinator's views.
When I asked if your position was that the children were told that they liked the food, therefore they liked the food, you claimed I didn't comprehend the word and cut and paste a definition which you clearly did not comprehend as defense for your incompetent use of the English language.
The key failure of your sentence (besides you utterly incompetent use of the word "better" in the context of the discussion) was the use of "after being". If the children were indoctrinated, then their views had conformed. If your use of the word better" was, as you claim, intended to be about "liking" rather than "healthier", then your sentence states, unequivocally, that telling the kids that they liked the food was effective in causing the kids to actually like the food.
But these are merely facts. As the Dunning-Kruger effect indicates, you are utterly incapable of perceiving facts in an adequate fashion so they will not have any affect upon your own flawed self-perception of competence.
Now it's time for you to say "Wrong again" and "says the guy who didn't comprehend the definition" in a fit of grandiose delusion.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Holy delusional ****.
We are speaking of that between us. No one else.
Do try to focus.
You were wrong and continue to be so, which is the only reason you are told you are. Because you are wrong. Which is just something else which you can not comprehend. Further providing an example of how Dunning-Kruger applies to you.
Your verbosity doesn't change that.
"The law is reason, free from passion."