Nearly every bitcoiner goes through a phase of wanting to explain bitcoin to people, and who wouldn't! Isn't it fun to explain new things?

Most people realize that the success rate of explanation is quite low and decide it is no longer fun. It is easy to say bitcoin shatters a lot of false beliefs for people and that "we" are so clever so of course the masses will be slow, but is this true?

Or might there actually be a profound epistemic flaw in the idea of explanation in and of itself as a method of spreading ideas? If a person thinks they are reasonable, would they not project that sense onto others, and thereby, affirm their view of themselves by giving someone else an explanation, about anything?

So who is threatened, existentially? Are you not the first to be by the mere implicit assertion that explanations are a thing that work? For if the possibility that you adopted a thing for a reason other than cleverness exists, what does that say about your understanding of the world?

Rather than giving you all my thoughts on these matters, do you see something that might have been broadly missed about the nature by which things are adopted?

And please, do not be so lazy to say that we are adopting plenty fast; this is a discussion on propagation dynamics, not an argument about what is or isn't "fast enough". Also, avoid the tautology that once it is adopted broadly, it will thus be culture. Finally, I posit that the adornments of bitcoiners to various lifestyles whether constructive or degenerate, diets, marital patterns, nomadism, etc. are not cultural inventions of bitcoin. Being wealthy, leisurely, and so on are cultural modes of being that exist outside bitcoin.