I prefer "weak opinions, strongly held", as in, "I don't know. And I am pretty sure you don't either."
Won't sell me any books, but it's been my experience.
Won't sell me any books, but it's been my experience.
So, strong opinions: decisively go down one road; weakly held: turn around if information suggests it looks like the wrong road.
You can only update your opinions if you engage with reality, which demands a certain conviction in those opinions.
The number of times people think they are at such a fork where non-action is worse than any action is an order of magnitude more than in reality.
In my experience, most of these cases are reflective of a social issue. The problem at hand doesn't require one make a decision any time soon, but if you don't, you are viewed negatively. So the social systems around you push you to make a decision even when one is not needed.
Almost every time I've heard someone use the phrase "fence-sitter" it is this scenario. At my work, we have surveys where we rank things on a 5 pt scale: 1 is strongly against, 5 is strongly in favor, and 3 is neutral. There's a significant block of people who keep pushing HR to make it a 4 point scale so there is no neutral option. I've had several discussions with them, and they've never been able to give me a good reason, beyond statements like "You have to have some opinion!" and some negative comment about fence sitters.
But yes, for certain things (e.g. investing for retirement), it's probably better to pick a safe option than not pick anything.
People agitating for everyone to "voice their opinion now" are often looking to form a mandate from those opinions.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
Rather than seeming uncertain, one can seem certain that there's not enough data
I think it's a lot more common than you think it is - especially because not choosing does not simply mean not taking action, it means lacking focus.
A strong opinion will at least put all the wood behind one arrow, focus in an area. It might not work; deciding when to change tack is where the judgment is, but at least there ought to be some solid feedback to work with.
Is one dimension all that's needed? What about adding: how certain do you feel that your opinion is right
Like, severity + probability maybe?
It does bring up one of my issues with these pop philosophies. So many people interpret them differently while claiming to have the exact same interpretation.
But you can also fail by choosing wrong and sticking to that conviction too long.
I think the whole point is that how strong your opinion is and how strong you hold it are insufficient to know if you will fail or succeed.
Your interpretation sounds very much more similar to "weak opinions, weakly held" to my ear.
Tools that cultivate more position-taking of this sort, that's what I firmly believe is part of healing the world we've thoughtlessly created through digital mediation of everything.