[HN Gopher] Ask HN: How to be less opinionated?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: How to be less opinionated?
opinionated person = having and expressing very strong ideas and
opinions about things.
Author : pedrodelfino
Score : 63 points
Date : 2022-09-28 10:19 UTC (12 hours ago)
| ergonaught wrote:
| Step 1: Recognize that you are wrong. Everything you think you
| know is, at best, partial and incomplete. Certainty is a lie.
|
| Step 2: Recognize that other similarly mistaken viewpoints exist.
| Everyone, everywhere, is wrong about everything to some degree.
|
| Step 3: Recognize that functioning and advancing human
| civilization requires a bunch of mistaken (typically committed to
| remaining so) people directly and indirectly cooperating to
| varying degrees.
|
| Step 4: Develop a sense of perspective. Almost everything that
| concerns you is wholly irrelevant on almost every other non-local
| scale.
| tpoacher wrote:
| Simple.
|
| Prefer discussions over debates.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| I assume you're asking this because being 'too opinionated' got
| you into some trouble, maybe more than once. There is a key
| distinction between 'having' and 'expressing', and I might add a
| 3rd: 'forming'. The process of forming an opinion is often done
| via expressing a "wrong" opinion and getting corrected by others.
|
| - Are you willing to change your opinion given new information or
| convincing arguments? If not, you may have a trait that
| emphasizes rigidity. Searching around "rigid thinking" or
| "cognitive flexibility" terms might get you somewhere useful.
| Ultimately, it's something that CBT and DBT therapists focus on
| in therapy. They help you see opposite views of the same thing,
| and when you start to recognize that there are n valid
| perspectives on most situations.
| https://albertellis.org/2016/01/rigid-thinking-and-rational-... A
| purposeful therapy series (3-12 sessions) around some of your
| most conflicting issues can be an amazing investment.
|
| - Are you expressing your opinions in times and places where
| others don't feel it's appropriate? This is a filter issue.
| Executive function, which can be impaired by disorder,
| distraction, and drink, is the part of your brain that help you
| control when you blurt things out. There are lots of different
| approaches to fixing different causes executive impairment, but
| the goal is the same for all cases: teach yourself to say less.
| Learning to listen is a big part of that, but active listening is
| expensive. If you feel like you NEED to say something but its not
| an appropriate time or setting to do so, try intentional
| breathing instead. It works really well in my experience when I
| remember to do it.
|
| - Are your opinions wrong? Read more and listen more before you
| share.
|
| - Are you hanging out with the right people? Probably not. If
| you're trying to make yourself less opinionated, you might be
| surrounded with people that just can't keep up with you. It's
| REALLY OKAY to express strong opinions about stuff with people
| who fundamentally accept and value you. And it's really great if
| someone else has a strong opinion, opposing opinion and you can
| debate the truth with them enthusiastically. There are people out
| there that are safe to be your self and share your whole self
| with, it's just a matter of finding them and building trust
| together.
| sidcool wrote:
| Do you mean opinionated or judgemental? I feel it's not bad to be
| opinionated. Of course, it matters how the strong opinions are
| communicated.
| enahs-sf wrote:
| A friend once told me, "have strong opinions, weakly held". Be
| able to accept the opinions of others even if you don't
| necessarily agree with them.
|
| Being less opinionated doesn't sound all that great to me. Your
| opinion is the sum of your experience filtered by an idea. This
| distillation is the basis for your thought process.
|
| Opinions seem to work in an almost bayesian sense: you have some
| opinion A and upon learning B you update your priors.
|
| I've gone from basically shouting "you're wrong" at people when I
| was younger to now I will listen to pretty much anyone's
| seemingly wild opinion on anything. My curiosity has shifted
| towards learning why people believe certain things, seeing if
| they came to that conclusion rationally, and seeing if there's
| anything I missed on the topic. You typically form new ideas even
| by hearing bad ones from other people. Seems to jog the creative
| part of your brain where we as humans are wired to be social and
| collaborate.
|
| By understanding how other people think about things, it gives me
| a heat check on my own takes. It helps me form a clearer
| understanding of what motivates that person and where our
| irreconcilable differences lie.
|
| Tl;dr have opinions on stuff, but most hills aren't worth dying
| on. Listen to others and develop yourself and your thought
| process accordingly.
| ninethirty wrote:
| If you are very opinionated about a technical topic (X is always
| better than Y); you might not understand the tradeoffs or
| contexts.
| omgbear wrote:
| I have strong opinions about some things. The best advice I ever
| got was to 'Stop re-litigating the past'.
|
| This came after some contentious discussion with my product
| counterparts. (I'm a software engineer, but have thoughts on
| product design).
|
| Discussions, sometimes even arguments, are a great way to explore
| the idea-space and try to find the best solution. However, once
| there is a decision, everyone needs to accept and internalize it.
|
| Even when I disagree about what we conclude, if the consensus
| goes one way, I'll follow. I suppose if this happens enough,
| maybe it's time to find a new team that shares your views. (And
| note, I'm sure there are areas of security/privacy/etc. that
| maybe this shouldn't apply)
| binaryorganic wrote:
| I love your question! It's a great place to ask it, because
| merely asking a question like that in a place like this
| immediately demonstrates the need we all have to develop these
| tools. Appreciate you!
|
| Practice listening over hearing. Prioritize curiosity for its own
| sake.
|
| In terms of 1:1 communication: If dialogue is a venn diagram,
| strongly opinionated people can sometimes look for opportunities
| of intersection and commonality to bring things back into their
| sphere of control. Communication can become territorial in that
| way, with opinions acting as a kind of currency that gets used to
| buy influence. Try to be aware of where you're at, spatially, on
| this diagram. Try to be aware of what your intentions are in a
| given moment. If you lead with listening and curiosity, you'll
| quickly find yourself spending a lot more time in the other
| person's sphere.
| csydas wrote:
| For anything you are ready to go full-force on, first ask
| yourself:
|
| - How do I know this?
|
| - What is the basis on which I form my opinion?
|
| - What facts that I can demonstrate independently are available
| to be presented?
|
| - What are the counter-points to my position and what facts
| support them?
|
| - What would disprove my position? (If it's not disprovable, then
| very likely it's pure opinion without a substantial backing)
|
| - Are there any other feasible conclusions for the same item? Why
| do you consider them or why don't you consider them?
|
| Basically you need to challenge your own biases. Why do you think
| the things you think? How did you reach that conclusion and is
| there evidence that leads to alternate conclusions?
|
| Once you understand that there might be more answers or you have
| incomplete information, recognize it as such. You don't need to
| surrender your opinion entirely, but present it as opinion and
| explain how you got there. Acknowledge there are other possible
| interpretations, and explain why you find yours favorable. You
| should be able to do this for yourself, and when you're practiced
| at it, you can do the same with others. Suddenly, you're not
| highly opinionated, you're a lot more thoughtful and you approach
| items that require some interpretation/opinion with a lot more
| thoughtfulness and research.
|
| It seems like a lot at first, but it's a skill that needs
| practice. I used to be very opinionated also without even
| realizing it (more I was arrogant, IMO, as I was used to being
| right). Then in University I lived with an incredibly scientific
| minded guy who was direct and questioning to a fault. It rubbed
| me the wrong way at first, but then I realized _I was the one who
| was forcing an opinion_, all he was doing was asking questions.
|
| Very quickly, I became quite practiced at checking my biases and
| understanding and framed my statements and opinions a lot
| differently. I'm not afraid to have an opinion (I do so quite
| often), but it's far easier for me to bring someone up to speed
| on how I got there, and I'm much more receptive to alternative
| understandings I maybe didn't consider.
| Apreche wrote:
| Care less.
| rvz wrote:
| This.
|
| They're right you know.
| graderjs wrote:
| Be less invested, but remain involved. Be less sure you're right.
| Be more open minded. Summarize other's viewpoints and restate in
| your own words. Ask yourself when you hear or see something that
| doesn't make sense to you, "What would the world have to look
| like to someone for that to make sense?". Separate the "you" from
| the "view". Police your language: it's not you are "wrong" or
| "right", it's a view is "correct" or "incorrect". Maybe go even
| further: all these views are just pieces of the bigger picture.
|
| Convince yourself that you win, not when you are "right" and
| prove someone "wrong", but when you learn something new. Rewire
| your brain. Seek first to understand, only then to be understood.
| If you feel you need to "say something to that", instead "write
| an email to yourself instead saying what you want to say" (and
| then ask: does this need to be said? does it need to be said by
| me? does it need to be said now?). Cherish the viewpoints of
| others as interesting aspects of the world. Distinguish between
| the view and "the truth" (whatever that may be), by using
| language deliberately: "I get that you see it that way", "I
| understand that's how you feel about it". Always keep in mind
| there can be multiple valid perspectives, at the same time, about
| the same thing, and their differences do not make any "wrong".
|
| Finally...try some "awareness" experiments on yourself: your
| question and my answer, reminded me about this "awareness
| exercise" where you go into a large public art gallery, and walk
| around for an hour, but never ever look at any works of art. You
| only look at the empty walls, the space between them. It's
| interesting. You could see it as a way to get some space between
| a "compulsion" (of looking) and "you" (being deliberate). I think
| you can apply a similar thing to opinions: walk into a space
| (online or not) where there are lots of strong opinions you
| disagree with and practice not responding. Don't engage. What is
| that experience like for you? Explore that and similar
| things...push to some extent against the bounds of what is
| discomfort and unfamiliar for you.
|
| Thank you!!!!! :P :) xx ;p I think it's a noble quest what you're
| doing.
| rr888 wrote:
| Read "how to win friends and influence people". You can be
| strongly opinionated but avoid the "expressing" part. If someone
| you're talking to is wrong it isn't your job to change their
| mind.
| gjulianm wrote:
| A lot of context lacks here. Is this in the workplace? In your
| life?
|
| As other commenters have said, sometimes being less opinionated
| isn't good. There are some core principles that you maintain
| strongly.
|
| But, if you really want to be less opinionated in a certain
| aspect, try to understand why would someone have a different
| opinion, in a compassionate way (that is, if your conclusion is
| "someone having X opinion must be ignorant/careless/evil" or
| something to that effect, you're doing it wrong). Usually, trying
| to put yourself in a mental situation where you'd have a
| different opinion will reveal arguments that you didn't consider
| before.
| nodoodles wrote:
| Great question - I've struggled with the opposite, not being
| opinionated 'enough'.
|
| I've noticed I tend to have more faith in other people's
| convictions than my own, assuming, essentially, if they believe
| in something, there must be a great reason behind it
|
| My own opinions tend to be weakly expressed & weakly held. It's
| usually been good, allowing me to listen and understand others.
| However, growing in career, I feel my opinions not taken as
| seriously because the perception of their weakness.
|
| What I've tried, maybe the reverse of it might be helpful:
|
| 1. Consciously reflecting that other people have roughly similar
| amount of self-doubt, even if they don't express it. Even if they
| present opinions strongly, it doesn't necessarily mean these are
| right.
|
| 2. Lowering the bar for going from 'this might possibly be..' to
| 'i think this is..' to 'this is..' --- that has been very
| uncomfortable, and still is depending on the audience.
|
| I love working with peers who don't over-sell their opinions, but
| have adjusted to have a more equal playing field with those who
| are more opinionated (both kinds are great people).
|
| +1 to the mention of curiousity elsewhere in the thread -
| realizing there are many ways to look at anything, all 'right' to
| some definition of the word based on the person's background and
| context, can be quite liberating, a fight for being right becomes
| a journey to understand better how people work.
|
| My 2c, not strong opinions :)
| Rygian wrote:
| Same here, I'm aligned with what you describe.
|
| There are some exceptions, though (tabs are evil, etc...) where
| I have a strong opinion, and sometimes I fantasize about
| strongly holding it. I am conscious about letting any of those
| pet peeves become anything bigger.
|
| As of late, I make an effort to evaluate the person in front of
| me and decide, case by case, if they have enough self-doubt
| about themselves. Many times it reflects back on my own self-
| doubt and helps me gauge it.
| roenxi wrote:
| > However, growing in career, I feel my opinions not taken as
| seriously because the perception of their weakness.
|
| Hot tip, if you do have a problem it isn't the strength of your
| opinions and probably isn't your ability to express them
| either. Assess the situation to see if one of these 3 things
| hold:
|
| 1) You don't have a lot of experience in the domains in
| question.
|
| 2) The conversation is drifting away from how to reliably
| make/keep the situation good.
|
| 3) Multiple people don't see the things you think are obvious
| and would benefit from someone stating them - but you're
| focusing the conversation on things you are uncertain about
| rather than things you understand well.
|
| Picking a workplace classic, someone really confidently starts
| advocating that we need to migrate the database from Postgres
| to NoSQLDb. And who knows? Maybe they're right. If you want the
| play for an unopinionated person it is to loudly say "wow, this
| is risky but might have a big payoff!", and get a feel for the
| boss' appetite for risk. If low, talk up all the problems with
| NoSQL databases and give him cover to say no, or alternative
| low-risk strategies to try and fix the problem. If high, start
| talking about ways to embrace the change while keeping risks
| low (+ make a friend of the NoSQL guy because you're supporting
| him).
|
| Bam, everyone is a winner, particularly the dude with no
| opinion. The trap that was set is trying to take a strong
| position on something you don't understand. Workplace success
| comes from making the room better just by being there.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| i think some people have a "strong will to dominate", it has
| nothing to do with how much thought they put into their
| opinions (although putting down thought does help a lot), i
| think it just a psychological/physical phenomenon (a function
| of ego, pride, hubris, wanting to be the center of attention
| etc...) . Throughout my life, i saw myself as an individual on
| a journey to fulfill my curiosity, whenever circumstances
| dictated that i push my opinion onto others, i would rather
| retreat than to convince people that i was right.
| dasil003 wrote:
| It's true that some people want to dominate others regardless
| what course of action would give the best outcome. I don't
| think the modern knowledge economy--especially Tech--is
| particularly rewarding for these folks though. Modern
| civilization is so complex that real expertise is required to
| drive meaningful impact. Of course there are still domains
| like politics where charisma and force-of-will are the
| primary factors, but I think there's more opportunity for
| those without those qualities than ever before.
|
| On the other hand, being thoughtful and competent, but
| conflict-avoidant, is also potentially career limiting. I say
| potentially because you can still go quite far if the right
| people recognize your talent and you develop a reputation for
| being someone to listen to.
|
| The sweet spot though, is recognizing the power and need for
| influence, but in pursuit of outcomes, not personal glory. In
| such a framework your idea is no more valuable to you than
| any other idea. You also don't need to directly convince
| everyone of what you know, you can simply make timely
| observations and ask questions to nudge folks towards the
| right conclusion independently. Finally, you want to
| cultivate the humility and self-awareness to realize your own
| biases and limitations. All paths are tradeoffs, all
| narratives are reductive and all outcomes are probabilistic.
| saltcured wrote:
| To make matters worse, it's not just inner versus expressed
| confidence that varies. The confidence may or may not be
| warranted at all. Not everyone is aware of their own
| competency.
|
| Similarly, many real world problems lack direct visibility. A
| person or group may not know enough facts to know what problem
| they are facing. Ideally, this is a multi-stage problem (i.e.
| troubleshooting) where you first diagnose the problem and then
| think about how to address it. (Edit to add: and diagnostics
| can be iterative, where you have to form a hypothesis and test
| with a low-risk or low-cost solution to help gather more
| evidence.)
|
| But, a common group dynamics challenge is that members of the
| group may not communicate well enough and therefore lack a
| shared understanding. Once they diverge in terms of their
| belief about the problem at hand, subsequent debates can become
| mutually incomprehensible due to unstated assumptions. And, if
| one member realizes the divergence and tries to steer the group
| back together, they may face agitated resistance from the
| members who have already jumped to conclusions as "fact". They
| may not even realize that there was an earlier starting point
| and some of their "facts" are supposition...
| kamlaserbeam wrote:
| I don't have much to contribute to your post but I feel a lot
| of these struggles in my life. With opinions relating to
| technology I think most of it comes to me not having an
| industry experience (still in university). With topics such as
| politics or history sometimes I feel I can't have an opinion
| unless I've read a book or done very extensive research on a
| topic or field. I've recently tried to use your second point of
| lowering the bar of what constitutes a good strong opinion, but
| like you said it depends a lot on the situation and audience.
| rr888 wrote:
| This is a American culture thing as well. It regularly
| surprises me how people that sounded like experts actually
| turned out to know less than me. I've come to learn to discount
| anything American-raised people say and double the assumed
| knowledge of a quiet person from other places.
| mberning wrote:
| Self examination is the only way really. Why do you feel the way
| you do about X? What are your own biases? What are your own baked
| in assumptions? What details do you not actually know, but are
| allowing yourself to assume? Think about things which you have a
| strong suspicion are true, but for which you do not actually have
| ironclad proof. For example, why did the person in front of you
| run a red light? Maybe they were late for work because they have
| poor planning. That might even be likely. But you don't know.
| Maybe their spouse had an accident and they are rushing to the
| hospital. Less likely, but still possible. Again you don't know.
| Why have an opinion about something which you cannot know?
| klik99 wrote:
| Empathy obviously as many have said - you have to see the other
| side to know that every choice is a tradeoff.
|
| There's a pretty straightforward exercise you can try - spend a
| day pretending to be a true believer in something you just
| fundamentally don't understand or find truly ridiculous (not
| going to give examples because I may offend!). Start with the
| assumption that if you were born into a different circumstance
| you could have actually been this person. Avoid using
| stereotyping "I believe in X because I'm an idiot". Try it with a
| few different outlooks, taking smaller steps at first. Read a few
| blogs, if available, chat with a stranger who believes and see
| what makes them tick. Regardless of what your edgelord teenage
| self may have thought, people aren't stupid, they have reasons
| for believing things. But start with the belief/opinion and work
| backwards to justify it. Work yourself up to directly oppose your
| own opinions that you've found others disagree with, and try to
| falsify them.
|
| In all likelihood this exercise won't change your own opinions,
| but you'll have a better understanding of WHY they are correct,
| and why others might think differently, and you'll be better able
| to convince people of your point of view if you understand what
| others see as leaks in your opinion.
| jwilliams wrote:
| I'm going to jump to the conclusion that being opinionated is
| somehow negative socially for you? Or do you have another
| motivation?
|
| If that the case I'd suggest - Keep the opinions - but add in
| curiosity.
| zupatol wrote:
| Paul Graham wrote a great essay that's related to this: keep your
| identity small http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
| incomingpain wrote:
| Not too familiar with this paul graham person but I've read a
| few really good essays from him.
|
| What would you say are his top ones?
| rsstack wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=paulgraham.com
| incomingpain wrote:
| Also found this after asking:
| http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html
|
| I was moreso asking that person which were the best.
| zlovering wrote:
| For me it has been about learning more through reading and
| conversations. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I
| actually know and how nuanced most things are. For the things
| that I do feel fairly confident in my knowledge level (again,
| still with the understanding that there is still a lot to learn),
| I find that mentoring is an excellent way to test myself and
| grow. Together, I find myself being less opinionated.
| wyem wrote:
| It's okay to have strong opinions, but it's not okay to not
| listen to contrary views and not changing your opinion once you
| realise you are wrong.
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| This doesn't answer your question directly, but some very lucid
| discussion about a closely-related topic that might be of use to
| you, if you haven't seen it, came across HN earlier in the week:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32978355
| jorgeleo wrote:
| Remain curious
| Jach wrote:
| Four strategies I can think of right now, but this is off-the-
| cuff and not written very well...
|
| First, even if you have an opinion, regardless of how strong it
| is recognize most of the time you don't _have to_ voice it or
| lead with it. Electing to not do so makes it easier to continue
| not doing so. To make progress on this, try not leading with your
| own opinion in a conversation, first ask about others ' and
| linger on them. Occasionally be fine with "I don't know" even if
| you think otherwise. Play devil's advocate/contrarian with your
| own opinions when you can, see if you can make an almost
| convincing case for an alternative. See if you can find roots of
| disagreement that are ultimately stylistic in nature -- de
| gustibus non est disputandum -- and enjoy the diversity. Maybe
| there are tradeoffs you can elaborate. (Consider an analogy from
| table tennis on a grip style: https://gregsttpages.com/guide-to-
| table-tennis/beginners-gui... Could you write something similar
| for one of your opinions? Maybe you have an opinion about
| programming language typing?)
|
| Second, "make your beliefs pay rent". If your beliefs don't
| actually make you predict how the future will unfold any
| differently depending on whether your belief is right or wrong,
| it's a waste of space, better to drop it. It's also a good idea
| to inspect your opinions to see what could maybe change your mind
| about them. Suppose you strongly feel X is true. Now imagine X
| were in fact false -- how could you tell? If you can't think of
| any way to tell, why do you believe X is true now? For any new X,
| see if you can think up little experiments or data gathering
| exercises (even polling some friends is data, weak as it may be)
| that could give you more information one way or another. If you
| can't, it's better to just remain ignorant about whether X is
| true or false, and be a friend to "I don't know, what can we do
| to find out more?" Maybe later on you get a little supportive
| data one way or another, but keep things fundamentally
| probabilistic and you'll be less tempted to express positions
| very strongly. It may help to think in terms of bits instead of
| raw probabilities, you can transform a probability to bits with
| log_2(p/(1-p)), note that ignorance (50%) is 0 bits, a single bit
| of evidence jumps you to 66% (or 33% the other way), but you need
| 3.17 bits to reach 90% and 6.6 bits to reach 99%. To be 99.9%
| sure something is true, you really need to have 10 bits of
| distinguishing evidence you can point to. Evidence from some e
| about proposition x in bits is log_2( P(e|x) / P(e|!x) ). Stop
| letting yourself hold or express an idea strongly if it doesn't
| reach a high enough threshold. When you do have a high threshold,
| be happy that you can justifiably hold such a position very
| strongly; your main concern is probably going to be political
| consequences for whether it's wise or unwise to talk about it, or
| talk about it outside certain contexts. (Many people are happy to
| hear strong authoritative-sounding things from an authority at
| church, related to church topics, but some other strong opinion
| from the same authority, even if justified, about something else
| and in another context, can raise hackles.)
|
| Third, "When you don't create things, you become defined by your
| tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow & exclude
| people. So create." --why the lucky stiff. Think about how many
| hours you poured into the last fruitless argument strongly
| advocating for something. What if you had put those hours into
| making something instead? (Or heck, even something like playing
| lots of video games is probably better for you than to always be
| arguing with people if all you're doing is feeling and causing
| negative feelings from it.) Related to 2, perhaps you can even
| make something that gives a direct demonstration why your opinion
| is likely to be correct, rather than just rehashing arguments.
| Don't expect to convince many people though, the main benefit is
| that making things is a better use of your time and may even
| surprise you if you discover in the process that something you
| thought was true wasn't the case, at least all the time.
|
| Fourth, consciously gamify and try to have fun, especially about
| opinions that aren't paying their rent but you want to share
| anyway, or even taste differences like not liking mushrooms. Sort
| of similar to the 'strong opinions loosely held' mantra, it's
| just a commitment to treat many conversations where you share
| your opinions and even get a bit passionate as just bar-talk; as
| a means of having fun; playing a game. This is also a way to get
| out of sticky situations around 1 where you're basically being
| forced to generate an opinion about something you haven't really
| thought much about. Because conversation can be boring and
| tiresome if you are constantly qualifying yourself with the
| appropriate hedges and humble admissions and specific probability
| estimates and language, it can be more fun to just say a
| simplified and maybe even outrageous version of what you're
| thinking and go from there, especially if you're doing it off the
| cuff on request, but beware you may hurt some feelings if the
| other person doesn't really want a conversation about the thing
| but instead is just looking for support. For yourself, try not to
| get too upset when you seem to be losing on some argument, or
| that you're not changing any minds, and even if you call each
| other names don't let it get in the way of an actual friendship
| outside of the discussion. Lots of people in gaming say very
| unkind things about their opponents or their mothers, and in the
| actual game there's usually ebbs and flows of winning and losing
| or doing well and poorly, but for most people it's just not very
| serious and a way for them to have fun. If you can get your
| discussion partner into the same frame of mind, you can have
| wildly different opinions yet not let that get in the way of
| having a good time together. The proverbial political
| Thanksgiving conversation is an instance of this -- your family
| may have terrible political takes, and they may think the same
| about you, and you can even get heated and emotional during
| dinner, but the next day, the healthy attitude is that hey,
| you're still family, the argument was more of a game than
| something serious, you don't need to blacklist each other.
| Dwolb wrote:
| Before we get started, what is a "strong idea" anyway?
| [deleted]
| pfarrell wrote:
| Had a manager who emphasized the mantra for our team. "Strong
| opinions, loosely held".
|
| Over time I've come to appreciate this more and more. The
| "loosely held" portion is important for allowing respectful
| differences of opinion and building a team together. But the
| "strong opinions" portion is equally important. You _should_ be
| opinionated and understand why you hold those opinions and be
| able to defend them. But also learn to hear dissenting viewpoints
| and value them too.
| Prcmaker wrote:
| Very much this. I will have deep opinions, based in as much
| fact as is available. If new facts are available, I do my best
| to constantly re-evaluate what those opinions are.
| jacklar wrote:
| This right here.
|
| Be strongly opinionated, but be comfortable with updating that
| opinion once you have new information.
|
| Updating is the hard skill to master.
|
| You have to be willing to separate ego from ideas and thoughts
| and be okay saying I was wrong or my idea/thoughts are no
| longer valid / the most accurate with this new information.
|
| You also have to be willing to be curious and open to new
| information and counter points that will invalidate or weaken
| your opinion.
|
| Be opinionated, debate like hell, but once new information is
| available be willing and okay with changing and updating your
| view if it makes sense.
| cheschire wrote:
| An important aspect of the "strong opinion" for me has been
| taking the time to do some self analysis and, as you said,
| understand why I hold that opinion.
|
| Many of the issues I've seen in team engagements come from
| folks not being willing to dig deeper on their own feelings in
| an open setting. They end up passively resenting the path the
| team takes because their opinions are still very much a
| subconscious thing with poorly defined edges.
| erwinh wrote:
| Stand still and ask yourself these questions:
|
| Does anyone care about my opinion?
|
| Will my opinion have any impact on the situation?
| Theodores wrote:
| Learn from other cultures. Of course most are 'banned' in some
| way or another, however, there is plenty of wisdom to be gleaned
| from the East.
| enviclash wrote:
| Perhaps is more about how to express opinions, than just having
| them. Different people have different maps of the world. To me it
| is about expressing opinions while acknowledging the valuable
| ideas in (and connections with) their maps.
| pkrotich wrote:
| 1) Truly listen to understand... not to respond. 2) Try not to
| win through debates (high school debate mentality) but through
| your actions - how you express your opinions matter 3) Understand
| that truths are not necessary facts (be willing to change your
| mind) 4) Your strong opinion about something might be useful
| delusion to someone else (e.g religion) 5) Strong opinions often
| come from privilege (knowledge, money ...etc) - so check your ego
| and attachments 6) Try to be a teacher
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| The more you read diverse ideas, diverse political views, diverse
| paradigms, diverse worldviews, diverse literature, the wider your
| _conscience horizon_ you 'll have. That will make it more certain
| on where to be more or less opinionated and, more importantly,
| when is worth to express it.
|
| I'm very opinionated in a lot of things that I don't give enough
| f*ks to really care about other people understanding. Removing
| them from their ignorance would be so titanic that I prefer to
| stay humble and go with the flow.
|
| There is a line tho.
|
| If "go with the flow" means to be a slave of peer pressure and
| corrupt yourself being a price for it, then that's a deal breaker
| and will require the conscience to reflect and reevaluate on life
| course and update decisions on things that might lead you to
| change who will be around you in the future.
|
| The most powerful position is to be able to fire everybody if
| needed (specially employers) :D
| neverartful wrote:
| Read about Socrates and his approach to knowledge. In a nutshell,
| he was humble and readily admitted that there were many things
| that he didn't know.
| greenthrow wrote:
| Really truly internalize the fact that you can be and sometimes
| are wrong when you are certain you are right. Internalizing this
| knowledge helps take the edge off being so opinionated.
|
| Another thing is to realize that it is often much better for
| everyone if you can help other people come to the same
| realization(s) as you on their own rather than just persuading
| them to acquiesce. So when you have a disagreement, ask
| questions. Open ended ones, not leading ones, that address what
| you think are the problems with whatever they are proposing.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| If X is tied to your identity, you will have strong ideas and
| opinions about X.
|
| To correct this, perform some analysis and see if it is not
| really a weakness.
|
| Some probing questions:
|
| - What do you "win" when you force others to understand X is
| right?
|
| - Are you caught up in a relationship or para-relationship where
| someone else Y is actually winning because you are proselytizing
| X?
|
| - If so, is this relationship a net benefit to you? Why are you
| supporting Y, is Y benefiting you directly? Are you dependent on
| Y? Do you _want_ to be dependent on Y?
|
| - Could Y possibly be using explicit or implicit consequences,
| fears, or money to manipulate you?
|
| - "Warrior fallacy" - if you perceive yourself as "fighting" for
| a side, who really cares? Are you caught in social media outrage
| loops which is really a self-affirmation indulgence? How does
| your "battle" really affect important things like your paycheck
| or your mode/method of living up and above things you can do
| yourself?
|
| - "Individualism fallacy" = "if only each individual does X then
| problem Y is fixed" when the real problem is an entity much more
| powerful than a single individual. Refusing to deal the true root
| cause always results in failure, but you may feel like you are
| "doing something." Don't be blind.
| joshxyz wrote:
| Sir youre literally asking us how to lose your personality and be
| a people pleaser, you need a smack on the face.
|
| What you need to learn is to smile nod and agree, when the
| situation calls it.
| factorialboy wrote:
| I try to keep myself so busy and focused that I lack the time and
| energy to have opinions about things that don't concern me.
| takanori wrote:
| Listen. If you really listen to peoples opinion you'll see the
| truth in their conviction after a certain point. I will often
| stay silent while listening other than confirming words to
| indicate I'm listening for uncomfortably long. People break
| awkward silence by continuing to talk. They longer they go on,
| the stronger or weaker their opinion point of view becomes.
|
| Reflect. Revisit opinions you or others had in the past now. Are
| they still true. In my experience most opinions from the past end
| up being misguided. On this reflection I'm more skeptical while
| listening.
|
| Write. Writing is thinking. Don't start a newsletter or blog. Buy
| a cheap notebook and pen and write daily. That's how you develop
| opinions.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Don't worry. A lot of people who think they're very opinionated,
| are not opinionated at all. Rather, they adopt the views of their
| chosen media sources and have no serious opinions of their own.
|
| First, figure out if you're actually opinionated. For example,
| are you a democrat or a republican (it doesn't matter which). Can
| you name a couple of big positions you vocally disagree with your
| party on? If you can't name at least 1 big position you disagree
| with your "team" on, there's a good chance that you might not
| actually be opinionated.
| lcall wrote:
| In Ben Franklin's autobiography (on gutenberg.org, I think), he
| points out how he learned to get along better by prefacing things
| with "I think..." or "It seems like..." etc. That and observing
| one's own blunders and learning from them :) can help -- I mean,
| recognizing that none of us knows everything, we are limited and
| can be wrong. Listening, realizing that others have perspectives
| and experiences that we don't always have, and their input can
| increase our overall understanding.
|
| I've also found it very helpful to practice phrasing things as
| questions instead of strong statements -- keeps less egg on my
| face, in times when I just didn't know all the facts. I.e.,
| instead of "that is a bad idea", say maybe "wouldn't that lead to
| problems [, like maybe x, y or maybe z?". Then people can reply
| to the question instead of feeling attacked and attacking back.
| AnthonyMQ wrote:
| Having strong opinion usually mean that you don't know much about
| the subject.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
| [deleted]
| atmosx wrote:
| If we're talking about social issues, easy... Study social
| philosophy. Will drive all your convictions to the ground really
| fast.
| lbriner wrote:
| Learn to pause your train of thought and say, "I don't know, what
| do others think?"
|
| I find myself sometimes realising that I am talking a lot about
| something and then I wonder how it must come across. e.g. "The
| only proper way to do this is with microservices, this other idea
| seems to be doomed to fail....I don't know, what do others
| think?"
|
| Works wonders and helps you to realise something that you might
| not have thought about without sounding like a dickhead.
| andrewingram wrote:
| I kind of think of opinions as conclusions blended with personal
| values:
|
| "This thing is X" + "some of X aligns with my personal values" ->
| "X is great, we should do X".
|
| The trick is to untangle your personal values when they're not
| applicable. i.e. at work, it's a good idea to have a set of
| agreed team (and higher) tenets/values that you can apply instead
| of your own -- just don't join teams/orgs that fundamentally
| conflict with what your hold dear. This way, when there are
| inevitable disagreements, it's more about whether any particular
| idea is in alignment with the agreed values, rather than you
| perceiving them as a direct attack on your own.
|
| Not a perfect solution, but if you don't have that foundational
| agreement on "what matters", every single decision has a much
| higher chance of becoming a personal conflict.
| cardanome wrote:
| Chestertone's fence
|
| > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming
| them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which
| will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a
| certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of
| simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more
| modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't
| see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more
| intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you
| don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away.
| Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that
| you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'
|
| Applying it more broadly, we have a tendency to reject things we
| don't understand. But isn't rejecting something you don't
| understand just plain ignorance?
|
| So the next time someone has a opinion you disagree with, ask
| yourself why this person has the opinion. It is easy to say they
| are stupid and ignorant and that might be true but are you sure?
| Might there not be good reasons for their position?
|
| If you show a willingness to understand the opposing side, people
| will be more open to you and your ideas and working together will
| go more smoothly. Your own opinions will not rest on ignorance
| but on well qualified arguments.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > But isn't rejecting something you don't understand just plain
| ignorance?
|
| No. I should not have to know all of the reasons for everything
| a human has ever done before I act. Chesterton wanted to halt
| progress. I would call his view ignorant.
|
| Do I need to deeply ponder all the reasons why someone deserves
| to be thirsty before I offer them water? No.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Ancient wisdom says that we have two ears and one mouth to listen
| more than we speak.
|
| It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, but in my 10 years of
| startup/big tech experience is that those expressing these strong
| ideas and opinions don't tend to share the stage nor listen to
| others. Sometimes their ego gets in the way of always wanting to
| be "right" or "first". Getting rid of that is a whole different
| question itself.
| [deleted]
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| Talk less and listen more. Ask questions instead of firing back
| your own opinion: 'most people don't listen, they reload.'
| stdbrouw wrote:
| "I was just now ruminating, as I often do, what a free and roving
| thing human reason is. I ordinarily see that men, in things
| propounded to them, more willingly study to find out reasons than
| to ascertain truth: they slip over presuppositions, but are
| curious in examination of consequences; they leave the things,
| and fly to the causes." (Michel de Montaigne)
|
| I feel like open-mindedness is something you can practice. Strong
| and inflexible opinions are often the result of motivated
| reasoning, and motivated reasoning occurs when you feel that to
| believe certain things would harm your identity. But the thing
| is, it doesn't have to harm your identity unless you let it. You
| can feel strongly about social justice and equality, and still
| calmly read about e.g. minimum wage, all of the pros and cons and
| the results of empirical studies without, poof, instantly turning
| into a neoconservative.
|
| The other thing to realize is that being very settled in your
| opinions also means that you're probably closing yourself off
| from other perspectives and new information - you already know
| everything there is to know, which is why you're so vocal about
| it. But again, there's really no need for any of this. You can
| eat meat but listen to a vegan explain their choices without
| feeling the need to defend your own opinion and without feeling
| that not to immediately make a counterargument would make you
| lose the argument and to admit to being a bad person. Who cares
| about winning arguments? Try to learn something new instead, even
| if only why other people think what they think.
|
| When you think along those lines, over time you'll (hopefully)
| become less emotionally attached to your opinions, less tribal
| and less easily riled up whenever someone says something you
| disagree with.
| daniel_iversen wrote:
| Having and expressing very strong opinions isn't necessarily bad.
| But it is advantageous to still be open to new viewpoints and
| ideas ("strong opinions weakly held" etc). You should also strive
| to be effective at communicating your views while still be able
| receive feedback and continue to refine the topic with others,
| and try to ultimately arrive at the ideal outcomes and/or "truth"
| (and ideally perhaps achieve consensus with the other party
| around it).. Which part do you have trouble with or want to
| improve? (it spans lots of topics incl humility, introspection,
| intelligence, empathy, communication etc.)
| daoist_shaman wrote:
| Remove all external stimuli. Grab yourself a blindfold, ear
| plugs, and immerse yourself in a sensory deprivation tank. Stop
| observing your surroundings, and most importantly, stop living
| and acting like a human being (this is important, and I cannot
| stress it enough).
| karmakaze wrote:
| First of all, what's the motivation for being opinionated: e.g.
| to seem knowledgeable and advance in position, or to develop
| deeper understanding of topics? What about opinions on breadth of
| topics: focused or broad? Not having an opinion doesn't mean lack
| of capability but could be lack of interest or relevance.
|
| The only thing you really have to be aware of is having strong
| opinions strongly held without deep understanding or allowing
| your mind to be changed. Don't identify with your opinions--new
| information leads to new assessment and reformulated opinions.
|
| "When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?"
| -- Keynes
| ht_th wrote:
| Don't care about everything. However, if you care about
| something, care a lot.
|
| Over the years I've learned not to care too much about things I
| don't control, I don't know much about, or that I consider an
| individual choice. On the other hand, about the few things I
| consider myself an expert in, I care a lot. I have very strong
| opinions, and I don't hesitate to express them.
| kimburgess wrote:
| Having strong options isn't necessarily bad, it's how they're
| expressed that can be detrimental.
|
| One of (the?) original statements of "strong opinions, weakly
| held" (https://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-
| hel...) was to tear apart your own thought process, not express
| it as fact then expect others to do that for you.
|
| When forming an opinion spending time to think it through
| personally is a good practice. Be conscious that when expressing
| it though others may not be coming from a background where they
| may be comfortable to counter. Just because you speak more or
| louder than someone else don't let that reinforce your existing
| stance, or force that to diminish theirs.
| inphovore wrote:
| Ironic question for this forum.
|
| Don't be less opinionated. Lowering your standards is like
| poisoning your own well.
|
| The question should be "how to avoid sounding like an ass?"
| Opinions aren't the problem, lack of awareness and sensitivity
| towards others maybe.
|
| There are correct contexts and methods for everything, learning
| to recognize and adapt to these are imperative for social
| survival.
|
| Having opinions however is a sign of a restless mind. An arrow of
| longing so to speak. What is crude and obnoxious while young may
| flourish into insightful passionate interests given time and
| reflection.
| tyingq wrote:
| Some amount also of "pick your battles". If you're viewed as
| loathing anything that wasn't your idea, people will wonder
| about your motives. Save it for topics that matter.
| ctrlmeta wrote:
| I think it is a fair question. The older I get I see the less
| opinionated I get. The opinions get replaced with curiosity as
| I become old. The reason I am getting less opinionated is that
| as years go by I come across contradictions to strong opinions
| I held before which weakens the fervor with which I held those
| opinions. So I don't think that being less opinionated is
| lowering my standards. I think richness of life experiences can
| make someone less opinionated.
| inphovore wrote:
| Do you eat less healthy food? Or hang out with more dangerous
| friends? Or spend time doing more wasteful activities?
|
| Or do you have an inward peace which makes going on about
| such things impractical and irrelevant?
|
| I hear what you're saying, and I agree that restlessly over
| sharing is counter productive, though I also notice that
| society tries to suppress the standards of others in some
| attempt for bland conformity.
|
| Your answer regarding richness in life, as well as self
| reflection are merely your standards coming to fruition.
| sure_about_that wrote:
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I think in parts it's about how you relate to other people.
|
| When I was a teenager, I assumed in every disagreement:
|
| * I already know the truth
|
| * The only conceivable reason someone could disagree with me
| is stupidity
|
| * The goal of a debate is to defend the truth from
| ignoramuses, and pummel them into submission with superior
| displays of snarkiness and canned rhetoric
|
| With age, this has morphed in this direction:
|
| * I have opinions that may or may not be true
|
| * If someone holds a strong opinion that disagrees with my
| experiences, this is fascinating (how could we arrive at such
| different world views, while living in the same world?)
|
| * The goal of a debate is to examine how they could arrive at
| a different conclusion to mine and reconcile our disparate
| experiences
| orwin wrote:
| I don't think this is useful to be opinionated, as long as you
| are able to debate in good faith. Here i mean asking genuine
| questions, trying not to strawman much opposite views but still
| be able to reformulate them for yourself, and follow good debate
| etiquette.
| hericium wrote:
| But... why?
| bombcar wrote:
| If it is your area of expertise (actual expertise not "I read a
| bunch about it") then I'd expect you to have strong opinions.
| Linus Torvalds without strong opinions on C would be really
| weird.
|
| If it is not your area of expertise don't have strong opinions as
| they'd likely be wrong.
|
| This has interesting implications for politics.
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| This is 80% a very good point; for the other 20%, I think
| sometimes about how experts in my field will still disagree,
| vehemently, about stuff in the field, and seemingly show all
| the same biases -- they're defending territory, they're
| viciously contesting for status, vs trying to get closer to
| "the truth" through the scientific method.
|
| No one is immune, so whatever wisdom the OP gains on this quest
| will still be useful even if s/he attains the ultimate height
| of expertise on whatever topic.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, expert disagreement does occur (we can see it in real
| time on HN itself) and often it boils down to "I don't want
| to do more work" or "that is better but the cost/benefit
| isn't there".
|
| But even then it's better than uninformed arm-chair
| quarterbacking. And for those watching from the sidelines, if
| you watch long enough, you start to get a "feel" for the
| various sides.
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| I suppose it at least narrows the points of disagreement?
| So that, e.g., economists will agree on a _lot_ of stuff,
| even though their points of contention are so magnified
| that it appears they agree on nothing?
|
| The HN example is interesting. The one topic that comes up
| consistently on HN that I feel like I have expert-level
| knowledge of (bitcoin) reveals mostly tribalism / religion
| couched as rational discussion. It was the most visceral
| illustration for me of that construct (can't remember the
| term) about how you read about some topic in the newspaper
| where you have expertise and say to yourself: this is such
| crap, they've missed all the nuance. And then you go on to
| other parts of the newspaper and believe it un-critically.
| vehemenz wrote:
| It has interesting implications for philosophy too. Intelligent
| people often have strong, but uncritical opinions, despite a
| lack of training to defend their ideas rigorously.
|
| I don't mean in this in any gatekeeping sense, but this is my
| view as a philosopher who has lots of experience watching
| brilliant people fumble through their fervently held positions.
| fayalargeau wrote:
| the more empathy you can learn to have, the more likely you'll
| listen and understand where people are coming from. if you find
| yourself leaning too much to one side of things whether it's
| politics or something else, then you might be in an echochamber
| and aren't hearing what the other side is really saying.
| cranium wrote:
| If you ask it means having strong opinions came back to bite you
| and you don't want it to happen again. Keep this situation in
| mind, it's an excellent starting point to understand how you
| could react differently.
|
| In most cases, strong opinions are only problematic if there is
| miscommunication around. You may have good reasons behind your
| opinion, but you need to make your case to the other people. They
| don't live in your head or share your knowledge. Explaining is
| the most difficult part: you have to put yourself in the shoes of
| the other person. What's their background, what do they know
| about the problem, where does their opinion come from,... It's
| essentially an endless list but the better you understand the
| other person, the better you will communicate. Never attack the
| person or be condescending, you are the teacher and they are the
| student.
|
| ... So, that was the case where you were right, but you will be
| wrong sometimes and you have to know. It's also a communication
| problem: you need to find the information you were missing when
| you made up your opinion. If someone comes to you and says "we
| have a new project coming, it's on an embedded chip and we'll do
| it in Python". You may want to reply that Python is slow and we
| should do it in Rust otherwise there's no point of even doing it
| on embedded. And you'd be right for certain cases, but this
| project was meant be as an introduction to robotic for children.
| Without all the info, you reach the wrong conclusion. Here, you
| have two choices to not be perceived as an asshat: seek the
| information/explanation first "oh Python on embedded, is there a
| particular reason (for not using Rust/C)?" or admit you were
| wrong right away "yeah, teaching children about ownership models
| seems like a stretch..." (if you're not in the mood for jokes:
| "ok, makes sense"). Do this and people won't blame you for having
| strong opinions.
|
| If you are just holding strongly to your opinions without
| explanation, all the other person will hear is "I won't listen to
| you", "I don't want to change" and/or "I want to win". And I'm
| sure that's now how you want to appear.
|
| Another poster talked about "Strong opinions, loosely held." and
| that's pretty much the summary of my rant.
| theIntuitionist wrote:
| The idea isn't to be more or less opinionated, its to learn to
| respect other people enough that you can manage communication and
| relationships with others who have different ideas. Unless you
| can make space for other people, you can't reasonably expect them
| them to make space for you.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Opinions are facts mixed with emotion. If you're able to,
| separate the emotional element when expressing your ideas and
| should be left with simple objectivity.
| jefc1111 wrote:
| Save them for when they really matter. I have opinions about
| pretty much everything, but quite often nobody needs or wants to
| hear about them. So I try to say little, abut have strong
| conviction when I do. That way I find people stop and listen. If
| I have an opinion which is not strong, I'll get involve din the
| discussion, but more passively. But yeah, strong expression of
| strong opinions is saved for when it really matters!
| itcrowd wrote:
| Exactly. Pick your battles / hills to die on
| muzani wrote:
| Listen before speaking. Be willing to let another person change
| your opinion.
|
| If you're only here to enforce your opinion, then don't talk
| about the topic. This is why religion and politics are usually
| not welcome in most parts.
|
| There was an opinionated conversation on anarchy philosophy a few
| weeks ago on front page HN. Most of the comments came from people
| who obviously did not open the link at all. Some from people who
| copied snippets out of context to attack.
|
| This happens because they were not planning to have a
| conversation. They were not open to the idea that anarchy could
| be superior to democracy. It's fine to hold firm opinions, but
| pointless going into discussions with them.
| lol768 wrote:
| > This is why religion and politics are usually not welcome in
| most parts.
|
| This is a very "American" view. Plenty of folks manage to have
| conversations about these topics in a respectful way - and yes,
| that includes conversations with strangers and in the workplace
| too. I don't know why they're so polarising in some contexts,
| as if everyone has to maintain complete loyalty to their
| "sports team" and has no time for anyone with differing views,
| but it's a sad state of affairs to me.
| kamlaserbeam wrote:
| I've always been interested in differing experiences with
| discussing politics and religion especially outside of talks
| with close friends and loved ones. Outside of that it's
| almost always uncomfortable.
| choko wrote:
| Personally speaking, I stopped sharing opinions around these
| topics once I saw people losing their livelihoods for
| carrying the "wrong" opinions. I'll still discuss with close
| friends and family. My sister and I have some very spirited
| conversations around politics, but I wouldn't do the same
| with my boss. I don't even know what my boss's opinions are
| and I'm fine with that. As for the "American" comment, there
| are countries where physical altercations happen in
| Parliament over political disagreements. Holding passionate
| opinions is definitely not unique to Americans.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > This happens because they were not planning to have a
| conversation
|
| Interesting. Would you have a link?
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's good to be opinionated and share that opinion. However, it
| should be shared in a way to invite debate. Be careful not to tie
| your identity to your opinions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-28 23:01 UTC)