It must be remembered that belief in a thing can create a reality behind it of an existing useful idea to many while completely bogus to others. Example I'll use is Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. Everything in his studies points to the fact we were visited by beings alien to our planet many millennia ago. He has a big following that agree with his findings, then there are other scientist that say Erich von Däniken's theories are way off base and they point to the fact that he has his facts wrong.

So there are scientist that agree and scientist that disagree with this and both consider themselves to be right and the others wrong, both have big followings of people after them that fully agree and both have studies and people writing reports on why they are right.

If you ask me, I find it funny how much humans have to be right and have the others proven wrong. I find it interesting and like the wonder of it all, to think wow this could be or maybe not but it is an interesting idea to study either way. In other words in the mystery of possibility and wonder is the joy of the wow experience, when you actually find the answer it is gone.

Your question is implying that there is "A TRUTH" that all people have to understand and follow and as a result, we will all lead a happy life as we will all be in agreement.

I don't think that there is a "single universal truth or idea" that we should all agree to. We just choose to believe in something from the evidence that we observe in our daily lives and that is all that matters. That we choose to believe in that thing and therefore that thing stands "true" in our reality and benefits our expansion. It does not matter what anybody else thinks or believes.

It does not mean that if an idea benefits or has benefited somebody that it will definitely benefit somebody else. We should observe our realities and only believe the things we want to believe from it and if we don't like certain things in our reality, I think it is perfectly fine to believe in something that we make up if that makes us happy.

Also, I wanted to point out that I would absolutely hate to always meet people who always agree with my beliefs and ideas. The conversation would be so boring....

Simple answer: Joe's idea is very useful.

I don't know if the idea can be perceived as useful but there is no point arguing with that person who believes they are right, even if you know they are wrong. In their world they are right and their mind cannot perceive your point of view because their awareness has not expanded enough to do so.

It depends... some will find it useful and others won't for different reasons.

Is it important? I don't know. The bigger question at this point for me is: "Is any idea or belief important?"

My answer to that is no. We give importance to our beliefs for whatever reason... but they are all choices, none of them are really more valid or important than others.

What is useful to me is how well an idea or thought can serve me personally. It doesn't matter how well it serves everyone else, but if it can serve me greatly, than it is useful to me.

It doesn't matter what the book says, really. It doesn't even matter if any one else in the world finds the idea useful. But if Joe finds it useful, finds that it serves him in whatever way, than it is useful to Joe.

Let's take... the color brown and five people. Four out of those five dislike brown. The fifth loves brown. Does it make brown a bad color because the majority dislike it? No- brown isn't good or bad, it just is. One chooses to make it good while others make it bad.

The idea itself is not what's important or useful- if Joe finds it useful, than it's useful to Joe, even if it is illogical to Bob. :)

It all comes down to the preservation of the species (which is an innate natural instinct).

The uselfulness of an idea is always true for the one that believes it or percieves it to be real. Until that person realizes the world is not flat, what can you do? They will live their life accordingly. Isn't that ok?

Joe's answer is useful in that you know where you have Joe and where Joe really stands.The quote "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer" came to mind but that's another question all together .Peace

Here is a beautiful quote from Osho

"Life in itself is an empty canvas; it becomes whatsoever you paint on it. You can paint misery, you can paint bliss. This freedom is your glory."

Now to answer the question; when we perceive misery it is a reflection of our inner state of misery, our inner vibration ... when we perceive bliss it is a reflection of our inner state of bliss, our inner vibration. Perception is being aware directly through our senses, it is entirely subjective and depends on what is going on in our mind. If our mind is full of hate we will see and feel hate all around us, if our mind is full of love we will see and feel love all around. If our mind is still and empty we will enter into harmony with perfection and perceive and feel perfection all around us. When we have an idea, that idea has a certain vibration corresponding to the nature of that idea that will attract into our reality those things and people that vibrate at the same frequency. This is the whole principle of how the tarot deck functions. The idea of a person is always true for that particular person, is always a specific vibration for that person at that particular point in time and space. Personal truth and personal reality are interdependent, we create our own truth, our own reality.

When I have to deal with 'Joe' Awareness I remember something my mother told me long ago."They are doing the best they can with what they have. You still have to love them." Seldom to we expand their consciousness with words.It is our expanded consciouness vibrating like a tuning fork and sometimes Joe's expansion takes awhile and sometimes we see results somewhat quickly. Useful? For 'Joe' when he looks back on where he was, he can rejoice at his own progress. And if you are still in Joe's life you can also.

How useful is an idea that is true for only one person? Is Joe's idea useful in any way, and if so, why?

In the context you put it in, it is not very useful. The idea is false to begin with. That will get Joe absolutely nowhere. Even though he believes it to be true through and through, it will not benefit him one bit. Actually he may and will be ridiculed at some point. Believing a lie is a sad state of affairs.

As an example: In a friendly discussion one time, a person told me that Jesus Christ was an Italian. I explained to him that Jesus was Jewish. He contested. I asked him if he knew the song 'O little town of Bethlehem'. He said yes. I explained that song is about Jesus Christ. He agreed. Then I asked him, where in Italy is Bethlehem situated. He couldn't answer and still argued Jesus was Italian. A year later I met again. He said to me that he checked out what I told him the preceding year and that I was right and thank me for correcting him.

Had he continued in his belief, he would have been mocked or ridiculed. I took the opportunity to dispel that falsehood. It could have gone only to ways. He could have continued believing a false premise or change his 'idea' for a correct one.

Wade mentioned, "I find it funny how much humans have to be right and have the others proven wrong."

It's not a question of proving one wrong, I look at it as helping someone on a wrong road find the right one. Just as you did, trying to simply make the point to Joe that he mis-read that portion in Darwin's book.

Joe's response about interpretation is completely off track. It has absolutely nothing to do with interpretation. It has to do with regular reading comprehension.

The comment you made to G16, "Do you have to be "expanded" to recognize truth?" I would tend to say no. How expanded do you want to be when you clearly show Joe (someone) in plain black and white the point you are making. I have been in situations where an explanation with proper examples proved a point, moved me to a position to reconsider my facts with what I was presented with. Had my ego been part of my decision , I would have stayed with my original 'idea'.

For myself, truth is the foundation of any belief system. Acceptance of any 'truth' does not imply rigidity or constraint, or denote dogma. Instead, as new data become available, previous explanations are revised and improved, or rejected and replaced.

When you have a 'truth', it leads you to a belief, only when it is challenged do you see its soundness. Joe is a good example of this.

As time passes, the truth you have believed in will be tried, tested and finally be found true.

Honestly, the dialogue should have gone like this.

JOE: By the way, did you know that Darwin renounced evolutionary theory late in life?

ME: So? Why are you telling me?

JOE: He replaced it with sexual selection.

ME: *I see, You just want to argue for the sake of re-assuring your righteousness by persuading me about your opinion, don't you.*

JOE: Well it says in [Insert arbitrary book title here] that Darwin  replaced his Natural Selection theory  with Sexual Selection.

ME: I read the book and it is not so.

JOE: Well, that's just your interpretation.

ME: Can you say 'In denial' ? You need to get your head out of your as* Joe, seriously.

*JOE now probably stops thinking about Darwin's theory and starts thinking of himself. Especially if "ME" could bring up true intentions of why JOE has started the conversation. Consequently JOE becomes more vulnerable to what "ME" says from there on. In most of the cases oblivious to the fact that "ME" now has bigger influence of him.*

As I said in the comment section light years ago...Focusing on the object of argument is dead ground. But focusing on the person's intention that brought the argument up is a way to tackle him.

Nice example would be, a person A decides to go somewhere, person B tries to stop person A from going by trying to argue about the place A is planning to go to. = B fails to stop person A from going.

However, if person B attacks person A's intentions which are the drive of wanting to go to that certain place, not only can B stop A from going, B may make A go somewhere else.

Ultimately, unaware people's actions take place, because they feel the need to strengthen their identity. By focusing on their intentions (attempt to strengthen the identity) you can negate their actions effect and undermine their identity. Which would set them back and in doubt.

And although some may argue that this is way to manipulate others, it's also the way prevent any headache when dealing with various people.

Btw, Gordon Ramsay does this perfectly in his shows (e.g. kitchen nightmares)... if you want to see it used, watch some of them.

This is a frustrating situation. Any subject dealing with a physical reality (math/science/econ) has verifiable relationships that lead to verifiable conclusions. But some people simply don't accept them, and choose to ignore reality.

This often comes up when discussing politics. You use the White House budget & Consumer Price Index to show how run-away spending causes inflation, and people respond by quoting vague sound-bytes to you. They don't understand the facts, so they get mad and respond with meaningless generalities.

You can respond one of two ways. a. Drop the subject. b. Explain the principle in dispute simply, concretely, and point-by-point. Go through it step by step, like a geometry proof. Make sure Joe understands all the steps, and make it clear that you're explaining and not arguing. He'll have no choice but to understand the principle, unless he gets mad and walks away. In that case, he might not admit it, but he'll know that he's off base and might comment around eventually.