Well, that was nice and instructive. I just finished the section in HRYC where Silman talks about not letting your opponent dictate your view of the board. He gives examples where a player makes a blunder based on a false belief, and the mere fact that he made the move convinces his opponent that the false belief must be correct.
So, of course, in my next game I proceeded to fall victim to that exact syndrome twice.
Opponent says: You just lost a pawn, because after Kxf2, I can play Qb6+ and win your bishop.
I say: Well, I think that's right. But I can play Kf1 instead and there's some interesting stuff that results in me coming out roughly even, maybe only a little behind instead of two pawns.
Reality says: Kxf2 Qb6+ Nd4 and I'm just flat up a piece for a pawn.
This next one was even better...
Opponent just played Nxe5, implicitly but confidently asserting that I can't respond Bxe5 because of my back rank weakness.
Which if of course rubbish, I can play Bxe5 and I'm just fine after Rd1+ Ng1. But he must have hypnotized me or something.
I went on to lose, but I consider that a useful loss because it really drove home a lesson I had just read.