I'm sorry, but this just sounds like the "Forbidden Knowledge" Trick (think of it as a cousin to Galileo's Gambit)

(1) In your most authoritative tone, state something as fact without citation.

(2) Say major testing-based orgs are never going to give you the real truth.

We have a system for knowledge. I think it is an absurd mess, but I trust it way more than anything presented in the format you’ve just used.

Maybe this is just a formatting issue and you have credible information to back your claim, but as it is currently presented it does not pass the sniff test.

So, as politely as possible, pass.

Good news: I wasn't trying to sell you anything!

Read other people's experiences, and feel your own body.

Or, politely as possible: don't, I don't care.

It's truly up to you.

Wait, what? Of course you were!

Heck, you still are; "Read other people's experiences and feel your own body." That is a mode of interacting with the external world and processing knowledge. You didn't even suggest I do it; your sentence was a directive. Furthermore, it was packaged in that cool detached "above it all" way that humans sometimes use to convince others.

It's good/okay/whatever to try and sell people on your worldview. I was engaged and conversing that is the social cue to do so. The fact that you didn't convince me is whatever on the internet. But playing it off like you weren't doing that... why?

I'm pretty sure the number of times someone has been convinced on the internet wouldn't even correctly round in IEEE double-precision floating point.

I didn’t try to sell you anything that I would benefit from.

Incentive structures matter.

I'm "above it all" because it's a casual internet comment; I've got nothing on the line.

Reading matters, too...I never said "never", and everything you've been saying since then has been a weird dress down.