4 ms·

This essay fundamentally misrepresents "strong opinions, loosely held," and is therefore misleading and useless. -- that's a strong opinion, loosely held. Let

This essay fundamentally misrepresents "strong opinions, loosely held," and is therefore misleading and useless. -- that's a strong opinion, loosely held. Let me explain: The word "strong" in "strong opinions" doesn't mean what the author thinks it does. For example: "toxic certainty" and "overconfidence". That is not what "strong opinions" means here. In fact, the author alludes to the correct interpretation later when they say "The idea of strong opinions, loosely held is that you can make bombastic statements, and everyone should implicitly assume that you’ll happily change your mind in a heartbeat if new data suggests you are wrong." Emphasis mine. Putting it plainly, "strong" refers to the position being taken. "Tesla makes a good electric car" is a weak position. "Tesla makes the best electric car on the market, no one else even comes close" is a strong position. Note that in neither case is my conviction in making the statement in evidence. "Loosely held" is contradictory to the expressed descriptions of "toxic certainty" and "overconfidence". So: the point of the saying is that people should stake out positions of significance without worrying so much about whether they have firmly researched and can support those positions. In a general way, the expression is refining the expression "for the sake of argument." The article then goes on to reasonably criticize the actual idea by suggesting that it is an ideal rarely lived up to in practice, and offers a solution (stating that you are not 100% certain) that actually reinforces the actual point of the original saying. So the title should be something like "Strong Opinions Loosely Held is the Most Abused Idea in Tech -- I'm 90% Certain of That." But this is all just a loosely held idea, I'm happy to be dissuaded.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
"Most abused" is a good way to put it (maybe it's not the most abused, but that's just pedantry). Certainly this idea can be abused and I'd be easily convinced that it is being abused but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
michaeljnatkin 4y ago
I'm the original author. Thank you for reading the article and engaging with it! I don't fundamentally disagree with your point that "Most Abused" is accurate. My experience is that it abused so frequently, and depends so much on a cultural context that generally doesn't exist anymore (if it ever really did), that it needs to be fundamentally rethought. And fortunately the main fix is really simple: even a tiny level of qualification makes a massive difference to how invited other people feel to the discussion. To take your example, if you said "In my opinion, Tesla makes the best electric car, no-one comes close... and I could be wrong, I'd love to hear the counterargument", that minimal adjustment can make a big difference to your coworkers. And presumably you want to get the best out of them!
- gcanyon 4y ago
  Hey! Thanks for not taking offense at my (very purposefully) "strong" opinion :-) To be clear, I'm not fundamentally opposed to your point. That said, strong opinion incoming -- I think adding the "in my opinion" and "I could be wrong" doesn't actually solve the problem. It's like the boss who says, "my door is always open" when nothing could be further from the truth. Or adding "no offense intended" to a clearly offensive statement. What matters is the environment, not the words spoken. If the environment is right, the words are unnecessary. If the environment is wrong, the words are a lie.
  - michaeljnatkin 4y ago
    You are 100% right that the words have to be consonant with the environment. And I still think there is a ton of value in making the words explicit. E.g. if you are a manager, and in fact your door is always open, but you don't say it and you assume your employees will gather that from your demeanor and behavior - you could find out years later that you were totally wrong and employees (especially junior employees and those from underrepresented groups) may not realize it was ok to approach "the boss".

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

"Most abused" is a good way to put it (maybe it's not the most abused, but that's just pedantry). Certainly this idea can be abused and I'd be easily convinced that it is being abused but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

michaeljnatkin 4y ago

I'm the original author. Thank you for reading the article and engaging with it! I don't fundamentally disagree with your point that "Most Abused" is accurate. My experience is that it abused so frequently, and depends so much on a cultural context that generally doesn't exist anymore (if it ever really did), that it needs to be fundamentally rethought. And fortunately the main fix is really simple: even a tiny level of qualification makes a massive difference to how invited other people feel to the discussion. To take your example, if you said "In my opinion, Tesla makes the best electric car, no-one comes close... and I could be wrong, I'd love to hear the counterargument", that minimal adjustment can make a big difference to your coworkers. And presumably you want to get the best out of them!

gcanyon 4y ago
Hey! Thanks for not taking offense at my (very purposefully) "strong" opinion :-) To be clear, I'm not fundamentally opposed to your point. That said, strong opinion incoming -- I think adding the "in my opinion" and "I could be wrong" doesn't actually solve the problem. It's like the boss who says, "my door is always open" when nothing could be further from the truth. Or adding "no offense intended" to a clearly offensive statement. What matters is the environment, not the words spoken. If the environment is right, the words are unnecessary. If the environment is wrong, the words are a lie.
- michaeljnatkin 4y ago
  You are 100% right that the words have to be consonant with the environment. And I still think there is a ton of value in making the words explicit. E.g. if you are a manager, and in fact your door is always open, but you don't say it and you assume your employees will gather that from your demeanor and behavior - you could find out years later that you were totally wrong and employees (especially junior employees and those from underrepresented groups) may not realize it was ok to approach "the boss".