When I began to ponder over the nature of opinions, the first thing I did, as usual, was check the definition of opinion: A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This surprised me a little. The bit about view or judgement was expected but the “not necessarily based on fact or knowledge” make an opinion seem irrational. I must presuppose that people want to be right about things though. Based on this definition of opinion, the more opinions you hold, the more your world view isn’t fact based. You should strive to hold as few opinions as possible for this reason.
Opinions are usually held when something is not yet known, and may never be. It’s a shame I have to say “usually” since people still think that “the earth is flat” is an “opinion” that can be had. When things cannot be known, it’s best to choose the best option. If you’ve never been into our atmosphere I guess you can play around with some idea of a deceptive government and media that are out to deceive you. The idea, however, is very far fetched. Conversely, it’s not very far fetched that a group of people with a strong predisposition to confirmation bias and social proof end up in a self-fulfilling of cycle of confirmation of said opinion.
What’s the difference between opinions and beliefs though? I had a look around because they do seem very similar on an idea level, though contextually they differ, in English at least. One opinion (ha) on the matter was that belief is an expression of truth, something you hold to be true but which is ultimately subjective. An opinion is rather something… shit. No one holds an opinion that they think is false. I’m more inclined to view opinion as just a weaker form of belief. I think that’s what I’ll follow through with for the rest of this post, not that it matters much anyway.
The Danger of Holding Bad Opinions
Before anyone tries to increase their chances of being right, one must first decide why they should make the effort. There’s a valid excuse not to assert oneself in the pursuit of correct opinions; the answer may never be knowable (in the cases where this is true). If you can’t know, ever, if you’re right, why try?
The danger is in what I stated previously, you’re more likely to be wrong if you don’t scrutinise over the details. That statement presupposes being wrong is inherently bad. For a long time we were wrong about the earth being spherical, however, now equipped with this knowledge of a spherical earth, are our lives better? The same? Worse? After all, having a closed shape means limited possibilities, less dreams, and a set amount of land to be discovered; before we invented the rocket that is.
How Should You Hold An Opinion?
I heard the quote that best sums up my opinion on opinions while listening to a Tim Ferriss Show episode with Marc Andreessen. It was apparently coined by Paul Saffo, director of Palo Alto’s Institute for the Future:
“Strong opinions, loosely held”
It’s got everything you want in an opinion. “Strong opinions” means it holds up against counter arguments. It means you’ve done your research and deep thinking to form the opinion. “Loosely held” suggests you’re not afraid to change your mind. You don’t identify with your opinion. Identifying with opinions is dangerous. There’s nothing good that can come from it. You either perceive a loss of face in yourself (i.e. lose self-esteem), or you stubbornly hold an inferior opinion in order to save that face. You should always been on the look out for the next update, bug fixes are never a bad thing.
What Should we do with Bad Opinions?
This is the hard part. It’s all good if you, as an individual, wish to pursue a better life for yourself, a life of truth, however, is it not better for you if everyone else gets the truth too? If everyone has the same true opinions, there is no unnecessary argumentation, only progress.
Some of the most intelligent and rigorous of philosophers disagree with each other, yet, only one can be right. From their perspectives they’re both right. This is an important thing to remember when encountering an opinion different from your own; especially one that’s radically different.
To begin exploring what should be done in the case of colliding opinions, let’s assume that we can know we’re right. What should be done about the opposition then? Certainly killing them would win you the clash. However, it comes at the cost of sanity and virtue. Jihadism doesn’t work; but they believe it does. The path to extremism is very similar to the path of bad opinions, just the former is more extreme.
Logical discussion ought to be the method of resolution. (Why do I always end up saying discussion for truth’s sake is the solution?) The difficult thing about discussion is that it’s a very rare thing that both parties want to discuss something.
Personally, I find it hard to believe one wouldn’t want to know they’re wrong. Is it a reputation thing? I’d much rather have a reputation for strong opinions than being unwilling to admit I’m wrong, to live a life of stubborn faith. Once both parties are together and willing to listen honestly, I think the conflict goes from intractable to easy. You only have to use objective measures of truth, which is much easier to do when you have two parties willing to criticise opposing ideas with the intention of coming to an agreement.
So, what do you do when the “other” doesn’t come to the table literally or if they do come but with intellectual dishonesty? Is there a solution? Raising people to value good arguments and valuing truth, rather than “saving face” is a preventative solution, but it’s no cure.
If it hasn’t been evident in my writing, the act of persuading, is usually frustrating for me. It’s frustrating because people would be better off if they genuinely criticised their beliefs before I do (within reason). Not many people seem open to change their minds. It’s also because my approach to such situations, for better or worse, is always to appeal to rationality. However, emotional appeals are potent if applied correctly.
Emotions
Our emotions are an evolutionary mechanism, developed to keep us alive. It’s why emotional appeals can be so powerful; they get to the very core of people, thereby changing the position from which they see an issue. Consequently it opens new paths for rationality. Emotional appeals are about opening paths. However, an opinion’s justification cannot be solely reliant on how it makes one feel; it can be a start, however you must make these reasons explicit eventually or you risk holding a weak opinion.
Since an emotional or “common sense” morality is the most common first step in the process of deriving opinions it makes a good first step in breaking down someone’s stance. If you can hit an emotional cord, the topic transforms from objective into real subjective experience, no matter the emotions stirred.
Is this manipulation though? Intention is the decider. If your intentions are honest and you act for the sake of the other’s well-being then it’s a moral good. The question reminds me of a (paraphrased, unsourced) quote about marketing vs manipulation:
“Marketing is selling to someone who won’t regret it, manipulation is selling to someone who will”
Once someone is open to considering something, when they’ve begun questioning their own beliefs, it allows you to explicitly question their beliefs with decreased chances of running into the brick-wall that is their ego. The rest of the process is putting forward good arguments. Like I said, that’ll be another post.
The above was focussed on persuading others, however, the process is just as applicable to oneself. If you intellectually understand that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer, yet you still smoke, it’s no different to someone telling you about the adverse effects, and you not being willing to fully concede i.e. by quitting. Arguing against yourself is just this, your intellectual/rational self against your emotional self.
By the way, you don’t have to have an opinion. Personally, I’ll respect you more if you say “I don’t have an opinion because I don’t know enough about it.” than if you try to justify why the coin landed on heads. If you think something is important, do the research, think about it, then form an opinion. Definitely talk about it when the opportunity arises and don’t hesitate to play devil’s advocate to challenge people, even those you agree with; that includes yourself.
