You claim that the content of the opinion is the only thing that is valid, not the source. This is false. The knowledge, experience and reasoning that leads to the formulation of the opinion is what is important. This should not be confused with the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" in which the line of reasoning is substituted.
You simply said, you prefer the opinion of Person X over the opinion of Person Y, without explaining, why you do that. You might think it´s self evident, but it isn´t. I already mentioned that issue briefly here
If it would´ve been the other way around and hypothetically Pele would´ve said you can´t improve by playing table football and the fan would´ve claimed the opposite, which opinion would you have followed then?
If it would´ve now been the fan´s opinion, then your argument would be obsolete.
If it would still be Pele´s instead, then you obviously didn´t give anything about the content of the opinion, but only about the person, who voiced it.
So do you follow every opinion, that is voiced by a person involved in F1? Or is it just JYS? And if so, why? Because he´s a WDC? MSC for example once made clear, that he finds the idea of giving another pilot driving lessons quite silly. So whom should I believe?
In your example, Pele is known to have been successful in his chosen endeavour - football. It is reasonable to assume that this success both depends upon and has helped reinforce a level of knowledge that the anonymous football fan has not demonstrated.
It should be evident from your own statement that Stewart is not one of the set of vast majority of drivers. It therefore does not follow that his opinion on different driving forms can be discounted based on the lack of versatility of a set that he does not belong to.
I´m afraid, it´s the other way around. Stewart´s success beyond F1 has little importance for what I said. How does that change the fact, that the vast majority of drivers (even very successful drivers, who obviously know what they are doing) can´t just keep up their performance level for every single type of car, especially if they completely differ?
Do you think JYS could´ve helped Raikkonen to improve in Rallye as well? That´s about as close to modern F1 cars as the cars 40 years ago were…not at all – not to speak of some garden variety road car, which was the tool JYS chose to “help” Magnussen.
I don't know whether he could have or not. I do believe that he is better placed to answer that question than I am.
What are you trying to prove with that statement? That Stewart is wrong? It doesn't prove that, simply that past experience does not mean he has to be right. It doesn't even prove that Lauda was wrong, as it does not even discount the possibility that an ape may be better at driving a 2001 F1 car that Lauda was on that day.
Niki Lauda also once thought he had so much insight about driving modern F1 cars, which eventually tempted him to say, that even an ape could drive these modern cars (around 2001)…until he tried it himself and spun like 13 times or so.
No it isn't. One lesson can be enough to change a mindset, or a single bad habit. It is more likely the former in the case of a single coaching session, the benefits of which won't be visible immediately, but will lead to improvement later.
Yes I did. I said, it´s extremly unrealistic to expect that one can suddenly improve a driver, who competes since his childhood, for the demands of F1 by driving him around in an ordinary car one or two times. That has little to do with JYS himself.
Which has no bearing on his actual coaching, merely on his preferences.
He constantly voices his opinion about the style of certain drivers and always makes clear, that he rates certain approaches over others. That´s why. And yes, that´s just an assumption, but it´s also quite secondary for my whole argument.
What experience have you had of his coaching that leads you to claim that he can only ever teach one style? What leads you to believe that this style can be irrelevant or deleterious to the student's long-term performance?