 |
| Shutterstock |
“Do you think people are genuinely interested in your answer when they ask you for your opinion (on anything), or are they simply looking for affirmation of their own decision?”
“Have you ever offered an opinion (having been asked) that resulted in the questioner’s change of position or action?”
A sample of answers come up a bit later.
When the thought strikes, columnists write
Several years ago, when I was writing opinion columns for a large on-line news organization, I wrote a response to an April 6, 2015, Michael Gerson column in the Washington post, “If our heroism is hopeless.” Dated April 13, 2015, my opinion, titled, “I Give America 75 Years… 100 at Most” included these thoughts:
“We were a nation on the move, growing and exploring, building, advancing relentlessly with a selfish sense of divine destiny driving our wheels along ever-lengthening tracks. In the process, we overwhelmed and nearly obliterated another culture — the First Americans — and we abused millions of newcomers — Chinese, Italians, the Irish, slavs and, slaves — who were nothing more to the sons and daughters of the Founders than cheap labor, good for little more than cotton-picking and pick-and-shovel duty. Their discarded bodies enriched the soil along every railroad track, and in every plantation field. The feet that stepped off the Mayflower, now pressed down on the necks of the unfortunate millions who missed that boat.
“Our national budget is a farce; our debt is deplorable; some of the most basic institutions set in place to help the poor, sick and homeless are held hostage by Capitol Hill hysterics and shut-down threats. Our national defense is stretched so thin by our incessant need to solve everyone else’s problems that the young men and women who are doing the fighting — and dying — are coming home in bits and pieces, even when they look whole.
“The White House has been held by a string of do-nothing presidents, Republican and Democrat, incapable, apparently, of recognizing the real threats to our national security: a failing education system and racial and economic divides that are tearing us apart faster and faster each day.
“What has happened over the years since the Civil War is a dilution of the original spirit of the Revolution — national entropy has set in and all our institutions are slowly winding down, no longer able to address the needs of a burgeoning, racist, dumbed-down society. There are the occasional glimmers of our prior greatness — but I cannot name one right now. Oh, yes…our men and women in uniform and our veterans. They represent the goodness of our national soul. But they, too, are a dying breed."
Michael Gerson’s column almost got it right: we are in peril. But not from without, but from within. I give America 75 years…maybe 100 if we’re lucky.”
I wasn’t wrong; I was just too optimistic
Today, April 28, 2020 — five years to the month after Gerson’s and my columns were published — the only change in my opinion is that we now have less than 50 years of serviceable life as a first-world democratic republic.
But that opinion doesn’t matter
While my reassessment reflects my thinking over the past three years of watching the nation’s accelerating rate of fall into the abyss of third-world nations and banana republics, two opinion pieces published within in the past week further reinforced my world view.
The first is the Irish Times’ Fintan O’Toole’s April 25 piece, “Donald Trump has destroyed the country he promised to make great again,” [I’m sorry there is a paywall for this…but it has been copied and published on Facebook if you look for it] and the second is Umair Haque’s Medium column of April 25, titled, “The Age of Suffering: How America Abused Itself to Death.”
Now, what do these two opinion pieces, and my own from five years ago have to do with the headline of this article? Simply put, they are proof that opinions have little or no value to those whose minds are hardened to their own “facts” and views.
Shouldn’t some opinions count?
It is understandable that my opinion is valueless; I am not a well-known writer or influencer. I have limited credentials consisting primarily of 20 years as working journalist, and 35 years as a federal appointee or career employee, writing for elected officials and Cabinet appointees. My kind are a dime a dozen, and our views are neither asked for or required.
Gerson, on the other hand, does bring reasonable measures of experience and gravitas to his work; and Haque is a widely-read, highly prolific author of books and articles spanning a broad range of social and economic issues. Both writers enjoy large followings. Their reputations in the crowded world of opinion writers lifts them above the mists of mediocrity, whether you agree with them or not. And that is my point.
I like to read Gerson’s and Haque’s pieces in part because both men write very well. Their thoughts are clear, their logic processes are well-informed by research, and they write passionately about their views. But I don’t read them to inform my own opinions. Nor does anybody else, I suspect. I read them to validate my worldview, and I use their language to build a thicker wall around my own prejudices.
Silos of thought dominate our American landscape
Evidence — empirical and anecdotal — suggests a ramping up of a stove-piped American society, with obvious political, economic, and media examples: entrenched party divisions, diverging economic theories, and pendulum-swinging media choices among the most visible. It is fair to say that one can also find statistical support for intractable racial biases and historically long-lasting regional counter attitudes.
These subjects and conditions are not without controversy, but for the most part I think we can agree that there are certain silos of philosophies, prejudices, biases, and distrust that shape our society and wall off open and fruitful debate.
One needs only to review The Pew Research Center’s 2017 paper, The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider, as cited in an even more expansive article on national polarization in Psychology Today’s article, “Why Has America Become So Divided?” to run smack into very inconvenient truths.
My two questions, however, did not deal with these macro conditions. I was merely curious about the day-to-day interactions among people who, out of politeness or sense of obligation, ask others for an opinion about whether to take a certain action, read a certain book, watch a certain movie, accept a certain job, take a certain risk of the heart, etc.
Do we really want to know what others think?
In short, do we ask for others’ opinions in order to seek reasonable alternatives to our decision-making process (with the possibility we will actually consider those opinions and possibly act on them), or is the act of asking for an opinion a dead-on-arrival pro-forma obligation or begrudged courtesy.
Part two of my question stemmed from a genuine interest in knowing whether anyone has given advice in the form of an opinion to someone who subsequently took that advice? I’m not interested in the outcome of the decision, just the initial reaction.
A plumber’s opinion trumps a pundit’s or a president’s
For context, I am on multiple [interest/hobby] sites where people are asking for or giving technical advice and adding helpful hints and process commentary daily. They are very open to hive advice, but not necessary hive opinion, with a few exceptions — do-it-yourself (DIY) help, and hobby help.
These are the only areas I have found on the internet in which advice and opinion work hand-in-hand: in DIY and hobby categories (but even then, opinions are very carefully couched). Once we step outside the “Which-is-better?-the-two-handled-faucet-or-the-one-lever-faucet?” area of opinion and advice, we close ourselves off to other points of view, particularly in politics and social issues.
Just try saying to an artist, “I think that sky should have a bit more blue, don’t you?” That paintbrush shoved up your ass will hurt.
Answers that should not be surprising
An unedited sampling of answers to my questions looks like this:
Questions:
“1. Do you think people are genuinely interested in your answer when they ask you for your opinion (on anything), or are they simply looking for affirmation of their own decision?”
“2. Have you ever offered an opinion (having been asked) that resulted in the questioner’s change of position or action?”
Answers:
“1. this is hugely dependent upon context 2. this is hugely dependent upon context”
“People’s responses to other opinions or advice is tremendously context dependent. How emotionally invested one might be in a given position, for example. But in general, people can be and are very closed minded about anything that affects them personally, and are largely looking for affirmation when seeking advice
“1. Sometimes. 2. Yes. More often since I turned gray.”
“Most are looking for affirmation. We tend to stay in circles of likemindedness. Usually, you won’t change someone’s opinion.”
“I’m going to say most people are looking for affirmation. And no, I’ve never changed anybody’s mind, but I have given them things to think about with no expectation of change. I’ve learned that doing the right thing is always the right thing, without expecting others to do what you consider the right thing. Because for others, their “right thing” might be different."
“1. Yes, interested if they are a friend or somewhat who respects your opinion and appreciates your knowledge about a particular subject. 2. Very rarely.”
“1. I know probably 10 people whom I would believe seriously want my opinion on things. 2. The rest appear to be looking for confirmation.”
“Question 2: Maybe once or twice, ever, and I’m not certain of those.”
“They want agreement only, and NO.”
‘1. Sometimes. 2 Yes”
“Most want affirmation”
As unscientific a poll as this was, the responses are not surprising and probably fall well within the central zone of a bell curve of most-likely answers. In the end, while we may think asking for an opinion is simply an accepted thing to do, we don’t much care one way or the other what someone else has to offer.
For the most part, we just end up thinking (or, if we are socially unfiltered, we say aloud), “Well, that’s just your opinion.”
Of that response, John Covino, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Wayne State University writing in The Philosopher’s Magazine, says,
“Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction? One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake. But there’s another, more pragmatic reason. Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper. It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute. (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
“Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own. In recognising [sic] that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion — no better than anyone else’s.” This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility. On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”. Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.”
The next time you are tempted to offer an opinion, ask yourself two things: “Why is my opinion important, and will it make a difference once I give it?
My opinion is America has about 50 years left before we become a sad footnote in world history, and that opinion is neither important nor will it change anything.
