I think an exercise set to smoothen the learning curve is sorely needed. Apart from finding contradictions like the examples you gave, I think it would be useful to also know how to identify the forces themselves in a given snapshot of a given system.

This is just my perspective, but since everything is interconnected, it feels difficult to know where to delimit what constitutes a force whose contradictions you want to analyze with other forces. A force is a system in itself, with its own contradictions. How far do we zoom in or out? Maybe the answer is to just pick whatever suits your current needs, but it was confusing for me when seeing examples like plus/minus and water/steam. I thought “ok, so does this framework only apply to certain categories of forces, and if so, what criteria define these forces? Why water/steam, why not a contradiction between water at 40°C and water at 90°C? If there are no criteria, can I apply this to literally anything in the universe as a sort of master framework for understanding the world? Should math and natural sciences be restructured around contradictions?”.

I think we need to develop a sense for spotting contradictions that are useful to analyze for whatever problem we have at hand, and an exercise set could help build that. Or some heuristics for it, to make it even more explicit.

Literally the same BS in the previous UK elections, rich people in the news “threatening to leave the country” if Corbyn would’ve won, “oh no, not the rich, anyone else but the rich.” Clowns