Strong opinions, weakly held

[strawman]

I imagine many here have run into this idea before, but for those who haven't:

A couple years ago, I was talking the Institute’s Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that – to deal with an uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have “strong opinions, which are weakly held.” They've been giving this advice for years, and I understand that it was first developed by Institute Director Paul Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren’t inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important, however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it undermines your ability to “see” and “hear” evidence that clashes with your opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of “confirmation bias.”

(source)

 

[GasBandit]

While laudable, it's about as likely, given human nature, as advising you to "have a hot girlfriend you never bang."

 

[TommiR]

An interesting read. Personally, I've always thought that, when unsure of the accuracy of your position, it's better to err on the side of caution and express a more moderate view, than it is to take a firm stance and run the risk of getting royally blown out of the water by people who actually know what they're talking about. The latter tends to erode your credibility in future exchanges.

But that's just a personal view, with nothing more than my personal experiences backing it up. Mind you, I've also run into plenty of people who seem to think that when you don't really know the matter and have no actual evidence to back your position up, the proper recourse is to just shout louder. Sadly, pithy catch phrases and simple explanations to complex issues seem to work on too many people. So strong opinions can and often do trump proper arguments in a debate - feels-good seems to appeal to more folks than wishy-washy.

 

[Adam]

I had written a strong opinion on this, but meh, couldn't be bothered to type it out.

 

[@Li3n]

While laudable, it's about as likely, given human nature, as advising you to "have a hot girlfriend you never bang."

So it's as likely as being gay?
Added at: 09:12

An interesting read. Personally, I've always thought that, when unsure of the accuracy of your position, it's better to err on the side of caution and express a more moderate view, than it is to take a firm stance and run the risk of getting royally blown out of the water by people who actually know what they're talking about. The latter tends to erode your credibility in future exchanges.

I think the idea was that you need to care enough to know what you're talking about...

 

[TommiR]

I think the idea was that you need to care enough to know what you're talking about...

It's very easy to pick your battles online, and research the topic at hand before posting. Offline, that's not really possible, and you are still expected to be able to deliver a reasoned opinion on pretty much anything, to do it with style and grace, almost at the drop of a hat, or be considered a simpleton.

I sometimes wonder if we're all supposed to have wireless neural interfaces to access Wikipedia.

 

[Ravenpoe]

While laudable, it's about as likely, given human nature, as advising you to "have a hot girlfriend you never bang."

No no, see, you have a hot girlfriend that you bang like a sex fiend, but you leave yourself uncommitted enough to bang a hotter chick should one appear.