12 ms·

I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort.

• twic 10y ago
  > The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems unhelpful.
  • steveklabnik 10y ago
    One aspect you're missing here is time; just because something is true today doesn't make it true tomorrow.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • oxide 10y ago
    We all know arguing against a strongly held opinion usually results in the person with the strong opinion digging their heels in even deeper. At that point, things like reason kind of go by the wayside and don't have much effect. As a poor example, my mother has fully bought into a snake-oil scheme where they sell you concentrated hydrogen peroxide as a cure-all. She won't hear a word against it, she always brings the conversation back to "OTC hydrogen peroxide has stabilizers in it." Asking "what is a stabilizer" gets no response. The truth is, she doesn't know what a stabilizer is, but it's plausible enough to her that they could be "bad" that she's willing to buy the rest of the farm, along with the cow. How can you argue against that kind of strongly held opinion? When the other party won't listen because of how strongly held the opinion is, you might as well talk to a wall.
    • Animats 10y ago
      How concentrated? Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (> 90%) is a rocket fuel. Above 8% is considered somewhat hazardous. Above 28%, hazmat precautions (corrosive, burns skin). Above 35%, unstable. Above 50%, even large industrial users usually don't go.[1] [1] http://www.h2o2.com/technical-library/default.aspx?pid=76& http://www.h2o2.com/technical-library/default.aspx?pid=76&
      • oxide 10y ago
        I'm not sure, I believe it's 35% or more. She once mentioned that "it's not the legit stuff unless you have to sign a hazardous materials sheet" or something to that affect.
        • dredmorbius 10y ago
          Odds are good that the supplier's lying on both the benefits and qualities (concentration). A fake MSDS/hazmat sheet would be par for the course.
  • Mathnerd314 10y ago
    The end result of knowing a lot about a topic is often that you can't make very strong statements about it; they always end up being something like "you're kind of right because XYZ, but also kind of wrong because XYZ". So the ideal situation is more like "weak opinions, strong actions". Let's take the example of where someone yells "Duck!". Most likely, you weren't paying attention and you have no clue why they would yell such a thing. There is a high chance that it's some kind of prank. But, I argue, you should still duck anyway, because the potential benefits (not getting a concussion) outweigh the risks (looking stupid). Similarly, if you are running a startup, you should prepared to pivot at the first sign of customer mismatch, but meanwhile the majority of work will be in one direction, and you should work on it passionately.
  • macawfish 10y ago
    I think another way of thinking about this is "being open minded". Life is full of seemingly contradictory truths and perspectives, facets and angles.
  • adrusi 10y ago
    You don't need to understand something well to be justified in having a strong opinion about it. Your belief should be based on the evidence you have, even if that means a small amount that leads you to an extreme conclusion. Otherwise you will have a bias toward the median belief, and there's no reason to expect, in general, that a median belief is any better than an extreme one. The strength of your evidence should only affect the level of attachment that you have to your belief.
    • ball_of_lint 10y ago
      If you don't understand something well, then any opinion you might claim to have on it is not actually on it, but rather on what you currently understand it to be. In that case, why not just say that you simply don't know enough to have an informed opinion?
      • thwarted 10y ago
        In that case, why not just say that you simply don't know enough to have an informed opinion? Up against a dishonest debater, this is exploitable to lessen your influence, even if your position is relatively stronger, against (unsubstantiated) claims of being an expert. "ball_of_lint claims to be uninformed and doesn't have an opinion. That's okay, listen to me, I'm an expert"
        • Too 10y ago
          So you'd rather win one debate at the cost of loosing reputation for years? If someone strongly claims they know something and I later find out that they were wrong, I simply can't trust that person ever again.
          • thwarted 10y ago
            If someone strongly claims they know something and I later find out that they were wrong, I simply can't trust that person ever again. I'm glad you're a critical enough thinker to do that (although it's unfortunate that you don't account for honest conviction or that person obtaining further understanding such that they change their position; after all, not all strong claims revealed to be wrong are meant to deceive). Not everyone is that kind of critical thinker, especially up against a savvy, dishonest debater/character/charlatan. Some people just keep shouting "I know the answer" or "Believe me!" to every question or issue and they end up with a following.
  • TheBobinator 10y ago
    There are people for whom Ego and social status are more important than life itself. They, like you, and the OP who stated effectively "I can't converse with people who have strongly held opinions", are usually people with such little confidence that the only thing they have going for them is the hope that a nice suit and not rocking the boat will get them through life comfortably. There are people who are there to accomplish an objective such as completing a project or achieving a goal. Those people will present strong opinions to each other, and often will call each other names and hack things out. But, at the end of the day, they are motivated to explore the other sides opinion in order to discourage it and that fosters the growth of character that can admit they are wrong. They learn which discussions are important as a group, which cause the group to go in a completely insane tangent that will accomplish nothing, and which discussions don't matter; 90% of the debates you have don't mean a thing and often whether you're using one method or another is pointless so long as the work gets done to spec. People who debate on ego and their own inflated sense of importance do not present discreet arguments, and are incapable of having a discussion about achieving a goal or completing an objective. Forgive my vitriol, but after seeing those people flush untold millions down the drain and hurt people and families countless times, they belong flipping burgers or in a mass grave. If your job gets to the point, or is going in the direction of such catastrophe that you might as well not be there, it's time to have a "course correction" discussion with your boss. You don't have to walk in with your resignation letter in your pocket, but a simple "X is really stupid, here's why". Don't blame people, don't make assumptions, just point out the situation, how you got here, and where you think things should go. I've never, ever been fired for this. I have been fired for not having those conversations, however. Additionally, there's a sexist truth here, which is men are made to make women into their purpose for being, and women are made to follow them, this is how nature works. The kinds of corporate environments where strong opinions are eschewed or actively discouraged are usually those with lots of grown women and boys parading as men. Those environments exist usually as cargo cults for established enterprises such as utilities or governments. The work performed does not further society or the enterprise in any meaningful way and in order to compensate for that, management builds an ego farm of gullible, easily manipulated people that will do as they are told unquestioningly. It's like having a harem. Those environments tend towards managerial abuse, and end up going down like the Hindenburg. If you find yourself in that kind of environment, decide on your exit strategy early.
  • amag 10y ago
    Often I find the opposite, a better understanding of something means that you have to very clearly understand both its pros and its cons. So by understanding something you dislike well, you need to appreciate its pros, which will lead to a weaker negative opinion about it. Conversely, understanding something you like well, means you need to come to terms with its cons as well, which should lead to moderation as well.
• rdiddly 10y ago
  That sounds like something I might've said long ago, but today it seems to me that those at the extremes are the ones concerned about public perception. Like "Hey everybody look at me with my strong opinions!" It's a sales pitch for that person, for you to like and pay attention to them. And it will be necessarily very simplified and won't represent reality per se. A clickbait headline would get no clicks if it said "10 nuanced observations on the subtly complex and contradictory nature of reality, complete with all the exceptions. Number 6 will leave your mind totally blank as you stare out at the foggy hilltops!" Also look at Trump (if you can stand it). He sells himself by saying extreme stuff. You do want that "extreme" person in a position where they can sell your company! But sales is orthogonal to leadership. A person who appreciates subtleties, if a leader, will quietly lead you to a river of money and not make your life hell on the way there. Or if they're a worker-bee, they'll quietly write bug-free and dependable code at a steady pace.
• snupples 10y ago
  Sure the leader may have a strong opinion. But most people do, and often about complete BS, which is particularly obvious during election season. So it means nothing. The more important differentiator is the leader is more persuasive in backing the opinion. The nuanced opinion/argument is often more difficult to make persuasive though.
• BeetleB 10y ago
  >I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort. Or, you know, the issue is grey. Why take a strong stand when you have plenty of reasons not to? The funny thing is that I find the opposite. I call it the "cowardice of taking a stand". Being a fence-sitter in this culture is fairly negatively perceived (except out of academia). As such, I notice people are very reluctant to state the nuances - they're afraid of being labeled a fence sitter. Cowards, in harsher words. >The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. The people I look for are those who ponder over, and see the flaws in their stands before becoming a strong proponent. Wisdom is usually inversely proportional to posturing. This is very reminiscent of: "Do you want a fantastic firefighter on your team, or one who prevents fires?" The firefighter is very noticeable because he keeps saving teams from crises. The one who prevents fires doesn't get noticed because there never was a fire. Poor managers reward firefighters. I remember when I was interviewing for my last job, I would try to pose indirect questions to the potential manager to get an idea on whether they can handle uncertainty from their employees. If not, I would move on to the next interview. Managers who say stuff like "I never accept 'I don't know' for an answer" are to be avoided like the plague. They end up with a team of employees who are pretty adept at BS. Society wants people who take strong stands, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
  • hiou 10y ago
    I imagine the firefighter that prevents fires has strong opinions about how they start.
    • dahart 10y ago
      I am honestly curious... Do you feel like putting out fires is a matter of opinion? Do you think firefighters are leaders and not worker bees? How does this rhetorical statement speculating vaguely about firefighters support your argument that leaders should have strong opinions about an issue even when they don't fully understand the issue? FWIW, since you used the word "prevent", firefighters only put out fires that are already burning. The people leading in fire prevention aren't firefighters. Other people think about how to prevent fires. One example is the Forest Service in the US. The Forest Service is having nuanced debates about how to prevent forest fires, and one side of the argument is that many forest fires are natural. Fires have historically always happened, and they are part of our ecosystem. So, some of the thinking goes, we should let them burn. We are actually doing some ecological damage by putting out fires that start natually. We are also doing financial damage spending tax money on a "problem" that will never go away, and isn't a problem if we stop trying to live in the forest. Other people who have properties & cabins in the woods would prefer that their choice to build a cabin in the woods was protected by firefighters no matter how the fire starts. What is your opinion about whether naturally occurring forest fires should be fought?
• aswanson 10y ago
  That sounds to me like a loudmouth versus someone who thinks about what he's saying before saying it.