I agree with your take and I'll support it with different phrasing. Skepticism and practice resolving it helps you develop a validation framework you can stand

I agree with your take and I'll support it with different phrasing. Skepticism and practice resolving it helps you develop a validation framework you can stand on. Is this right or wrong? How right or wrong? How valid or invalid? Over time, you train yourself on that framework. I'm an actuary by training but currently in a SaaS sales role. The nuance is some roles have lots of opportunities for validation while others are much more qualitative. As an actuary, there's lots of math that you check as either right or wrong, and other math that you validate as accurate (not right or wrong) with some list of assumptions and caveats for error/noise. I see a lot LESS skepticism in sales peers. People that don't want to buy must not get it, or they're not the right customer, or any number of reasons. A revaluation of the pitch, the approach, the discovery of the problem is much less present. Moreover, what is right/wrong or valid/invalid? I'm fascinated by how it all works in sales (and in math) but the contrast of my experiences tells me you've never hurting your case by looking for validation, by naturally applying some doubt and trying to make the case for outcome.