5 ms·

Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock f

Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock full of footnotes. I try to aim for "strong opinions, weakly held" - present a specific, actionable and strong position but be open to changing it if a better argument is made.

jacobolus 10y ago
More to the point, nuanced opinions are at odds with clickbait/flamebait. If you want to get lots of attention and start a big internet fight, say the most outrageous aggressive thing you can, and argue sloppily, with just enough reasoning behind you to get the folks who agree with you to come fight for your side.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Sounds like what happens in most diatribes against PHP and systemd I've read lately.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ianai 10y ago
  I don't consider internet "debates" something to seek replication.
  - qznc 10y ago
    It also works in presidential elections.
- _greim_ 10y ago
  Or, make the headline outrageous, but in the body apologize for the clickbait headline and proceed to say a bunch of nuanced and reasonable things.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  I'll take it one step further and say that nuanced opinions are at odds with modern society's increasingly short attention spans.
rexpop 10y ago
Where did you pick up the phrase "strong opinions, weakly held"?
- sublimino 10y ago
  Paul Saffo is a potential source: > Since the mid-1980s, my mantra for this process is “strong opinions, weakly held.” Allow your intuition to guide you to a conclusion, no matter how imperfect — this is the “strong opinion” part. Then –and this is the “weakly held” part– prove yourself wrong. Engage in creative doubt. Look for information that doesn’t fit, or indicators that pointing in an entirely different direction. Eventually your intuition will kick in and a new hypothesis will emerge out of the rubble, ready to be ruthlessly torn apart once again. You will be surprised by how quickly the sequence of faulty forecasts will deliver you to a useful result. http://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ http://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held...
- chucksmash 10y ago
  Lost to the mists of time. A little reconstructive memory spelunking via Google yields a plausible theory though: A blog post [1] quoting a blog post [2] quoting a guy [3]. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ [2]: http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio... [3]: http://www.iftf.org/bobjohansen/ http://www.iftf.org/bobjohansen/
- joeyespo 10y ago
  http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio...
imagist 10y ago
There's a parable of a guy who lost his keys in the park at night. Upon realizing he lost his keys, he begins to look for the keys in the street near a street lamp. When his friend asks why he's looking for his keys in the street instead of in the park where he lost them, the guy responds that the light is better in the street. It's true that espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds, but the fact is, reality is often nuanced. Glossing over that nuance to make your argument more effective is like searching where there's light. Sure, it's more persuasive, but if you are persuading toward an incorrect idea, what are you really accomplishing? Of course as Asimov's Relativity of Wrong points out, not all wrongs are equal. It may be worthwhile to persuade someone of a not-very-wrong given limited resources. But this sort of compromise has problems of its own. A social justice movement that ignores the nuance of handling white men's needs is effective until it needs white men's cooperation but instead generates backlash (Trump). The devil is in the details.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Ideas are unlike keys in that the details can be glossed over sometimes and you might still go in the right direction. In an argument about climate change with a denier I might say "Glaciers are shrinking" and until they bring up the the Tibetan glacier is growing I can be content with my intellectual honesty that all other glaciers are shrinking. I agree with your notion of using details to garner supporters.
- yarou 10y ago
  It's hard to make any true statement when terms are defined by what they aren't, rather than by what they are. For example, the term "SJW". What is an SJW? I can tell you what it isn't. It is not racist, not misogynistic, etc. But what is it actually defined as? I've never been a fan of post-structuralism, or any postmodern philosophical theory, but as of late I've been drawn to Jean Baudrillard. At the very least, our political landscape itself has become a simulacra of true political thought, as evidenced by groups defining themselves by the nihil or negation, i.e. there is no Universe where the statement "I am a bigot" can be made true.
- Imagenuity 10y ago

jacobolus 10y ago

More to the point, nuanced opinions are at odds with clickbait/flamebait. If you want to get lots of attention and start a big internet fight, say the most outrageous aggressive thing you can, and argue sloppily, with just enough reasoning behind you to get the folks who agree with you to come fight for your side.

chris_wot 10y ago
Sounds like what happens in most diatribes against PHP and systemd I've read lately.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ianai 10y ago
I don't consider internet "debates" something to seek replication.
- qznc 10y ago
  It also works in presidential elections.
_greim_ 10y ago
Or, make the headline outrageous, but in the body apologize for the clickbait headline and proceed to say a bunch of nuanced and reasonable things.
brazzledazzle 10y ago
I'll take it one step further and say that nuanced opinions are at odds with modern society's increasingly short attention spans.

rexpop 10y ago

Where did you pick up the phrase "strong opinions, weakly held"?

sublimino 10y ago
Paul Saffo is a potential source: > Since the mid-1980s, my mantra for this process is “strong opinions, weakly held.” Allow your intuition to guide you to a conclusion, no matter how imperfect — this is the “strong opinion” part. Then –and this is the “weakly held” part– prove yourself wrong. Engage in creative doubt. Look for information that doesn’t fit, or indicators that pointing in an entirely different direction. Eventually your intuition will kick in and a new hypothesis will emerge out of the rubble, ready to be ruthlessly torn apart once again. You will be surprised by how quickly the sequence of faulty forecasts will deliver you to a useful result. http://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ http://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held...
chucksmash 10y ago
Lost to the mists of time. A little reconstructive memory spelunking via Google yields a plausible theory though: A blog post [1] quoting a blog post [2] quoting a guy [3]. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/strong-opinions-weakly-held/ [2]: http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio... [3]: http://www.iftf.org/bobjohansen/ http://www.iftf.org/bobjohansen/
joeyespo 10y ago
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio...

imagist 10y ago

There's a parable of a guy who lost his keys in the park at night. Upon realizing he lost his keys, he begins to look for the keys in the street near a street lamp. When his friend asks why he's looking for his keys in the street instead of in the park where he lost them, the guy responds that the light is better in the street. It's true that espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds, but the fact is, reality is often nuanced. Glossing over that nuance to make your argument more effective is like searching where there's light. Sure, it's more persuasive, but if you are persuading toward an incorrect idea, what are you really accomplishing? Of course as Asimov's Relativity of Wrong points out, not all wrongs are equal. It may be worthwhile to persuade someone of a not-very-wrong given limited resources. But this sort of compromise has problems of its own. A social justice movement that ignores the nuance of handling white men's needs is effective until it needs white men's cooperation but instead generates backlash (Trump). The devil is in the details.

sqeaky 10y ago
Ideas are unlike keys in that the details can be glossed over sometimes and you might still go in the right direction. In an argument about climate change with a denier I might say "Glaciers are shrinking" and until they bring up the the Tibetan glacier is growing I can be content with my intellectual honesty that all other glaciers are shrinking. I agree with your notion of using details to garner supporters.
yarou 10y ago
It's hard to make any true statement when terms are defined by what they aren't, rather than by what they are. For example, the term "SJW". What is an SJW? I can tell you what it isn't. It is not racist, not misogynistic, etc. But what is it actually defined as? I've never been a fan of post-structuralism, or any postmodern philosophical theory, but as of late I've been drawn to Jean Baudrillard. At the very least, our political landscape itself has become a simulacra of true political thought, as evidenced by groups defining themselves by the nihil or negation, i.e. there is no Universe where the statement "I am a bigot" can be made true.
Imagenuity 10y ago