[tialaramex]

Actually I think it probably is suspicious to have the exact same opinion after studying something over a long period of time. My opinions are more likely to remain consistent, rather than growing more nuanced or sophisticated, if all I've done is trot out the same responses over a longer period of time.

I've struggled to think of an especially unexamined example because after all they tend to sit out of conscious recall, I think the best I can do is probably that my favourite comic book character is Miracleman's daughter, Winter Moran. That's a consistent belief I've held for decades, I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about it, but it's not entirely satisfactory and probably there is some introduced nuance, particularly when I re-examined the contrast between what Winter says about the humans to her father and what her step-sister Mist later says about them to her (human) mother because I was writing an essay during lockdown.

[staticassertion]

> Actually I think it probably is suspicious to have the exact same opinion after studying something over a long period of time.

This seems really odd, probably fundamentally incorrect. "Believing something over time means it is less likely that you are engaging in good faith"? Totally insane take.

[tialaramex]

On the contrary it's suspicious if I happened to guess exactly right with much less data and so have the same conclusion after learning more. I suggest that the more likely reason is that I didn't learn anything at all.

[staticassertion]

> On the contrary it's suspicious if I happened to guess exactly right with much less data and so have the same conclusion after learning more.

No it isn't? If I guess what time it is and then look and see that it's around sunset, which is evidence towards my initial guess being right, it is not "suspicious". This is just a fundamentally broken model of evidence.