If that is how you interpret what I said, no wonder you think it's a contradiction.
It's not about "convincing guests" at all. It's demonstrating understanding how people react to crowds vs what they say. People assume crowds = bad; they aren't consciously aware of the multiple times they actually use crowds as a POSITIVE. One of those is that people use the presence of a crowd as a proxy for quality. If two restaurants with similar cuisine are side by side, and one has a line out the door and other has only one customer, people will, more often then not, choose the restaurant with a line because people will assume the food must be really good. A few people will prioritize speed of food delivery over food quality, but not usually. If there is a certain brand of pillows, or shoes that continually goes out of stock, people will also want to buy that thing because then they don't have to do the work of researching what is good; someone apparently already did it. People don't want to make wrong choices, especially when the item is pricy, so they direct their behaviors to things other people have already selected vs picking a more unknown quantity. But despite people wanting to choose the sure thing, as proven by seeing all the other people selecting it they don't want to wait. They don't want an empty shelf. Despite popularity, people want the thing to be available when they want it. When people say crowds are bad, they are saying, "I couldn't do the thing, at the exact moment, I wanted to do it." or "I couldn't do all the things I wanted." Therefore people want line skips because they can visualize that as a solution.
Disney wants things they can sell, and things they can market. Disney doesn't want underutilized spaces. People don't want line skips for things that only have 10 minute waits. People may not even get in line for an attraction that only has a 10 minute wait, because they have already decided... it can't be that good, where's the thing with the 45 minute ride. I want that, but only if I, personally, can get on it in 10 minutes. Therefore, Disney doesn't want 10 minute waits. So they don't intentionally build attractions with a consideration toward minimizing wait times. They look at the budget, they look at the marketability of the IP, they look at the future merchandise sales and what they get is what they get. You are asking how come new things don't alleviate crowds, I said *because they weren't designed to.* Disney doesn't say, Frozen IP is so strong it should be worthy of a 2200 pph attraction, lets build one. Disney says, we have this underutilized 1000 pph thing, lets put Frozen IP on it. The intentionality is that no one bothered to say, "It's a dumb thing to take something as popular as Frozen and stick it on a 1000 pph ride system, it will create a crowd and a lot of upset guests." Or if someone did, someone dismissed the point with, "Oh, but we'll put Fastpass on it." This is what I mean by thinking things are intentional.
FOP is supposed to be the anchor of Pandora, but again 1400 pph. Significantly less than Safaris, Everest, Dinosaur and Kali the anchors of other lands. That's what's contradictory. Alarm bells should be ringing in your ears about how you can't alleviate crowds by opening signature things that are relatively smaller vs the other things you have done. Which means they can't have been built with the intention of seriously alleviating crowds. IMO, Pandora was built not for crowds, but to extend the length of time people stay in Animal Kingdom. Disney wanted more people at AK, not less. The opposite of alleviating crowds. And if it's too many people, Disney doesn't say, oops we underbuilt this thing. It's we'll fix it with Fastpass. Or now... we can charge people, even better.