The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances.
To me it's the difference between a leader and a worker bee.
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.
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.
[1] http://www.h2o2.com/technical-library/default.aspx?pid=76&
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.
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"
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.
That's one way of thinking, but I reject it. You'll easily be manipulated by political and corporate agendas if you think this way.
Often my own intuition is at odds with the "evidence I have" and I turn out to be right later. If I had jumped to the (extreme) conclusion that smoking was healthy back in the 70s and 80s because of the evidence big tobacco was pushing from the shadows (doctors recommending brands, etc) I might not be here today.
Often my own intuition is at odds with the "evidence I have" and I turn out to be right later.
I mean evidence in a broad sense, encompassing all information available to you for basing your worldview upon, including your intuition. If your intuition has been reliable in the past, and the scientific evidence was being put out by entities with obvious incentives for a certain conclusion, then it's rational to weigh your intuition highly relative to the scientific evidence.
I think the people who are against forming strong opinions on little data, thinks it essentially means being confident, speaking your mind, and influencing others towards seeing things your way, when you haven't done much research into a topic. Which I think is a bad idea, because it has a high chance of propagating misinformation.
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.
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.
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.
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?