OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

My Opinions Are OK

Entry 2132, on 2021-06-10 at 22:14:11 (Rating 3, Comments)

I have many opinons on many different subjects. Some of them are based on a fairly deep knowledge of the subject, such as computers, astronomy, technology, and other topics I know a substantial amount about. Others are mainly based on more philosophical leanings and can't necessarily be supported with objective facts. And others still are based on simple preferences and may not have a lot of backup from facts at all.

I think everyone has opinions based around these three epistemological categories, but many people have a lot of problems distinguishing one from the other, or if they do understand the difference they might fail to admit to that when the origin of their ideas is questioned.

So if anyone asks me what type of computer is best I will probably prevaricate to some extent, but eventually say I think the best general purpose computer for most users is a Mac. And yes, I know PCs are cheaper and better for gaming, but this is a question about the right computer for general use by most people.

I suggest a Mac because I am a Mac user myself, but I am a Mac user because I have used PCs and I really think Macs are faster, more reliable, better quality, easier to use, more secure, and better value when the overall cost of ownership is considered. I can support all of these with facts, although I realise a fair case against that can also be made.

And if anyone asks me what political agenda I prefer I might say something like: I think there are parts of conservatism, capitalism, socialism, and libertarianism which have some merit, but if I was asked to choose I would probably say I'm a libertarian. Note that in the past, before it strayed into Marxist territory, I would have said I was a leftist, but not any more.

That is a conclusion which is based on my philosophical preferences, so while I could list some real facts to support it, the real reason I prefer that ideology is because of a commitment to personal freedom and less government control, as well as a rejection of political correctness.

Finally, if someone asks what type of music I like I will say that I enjoy every genre, but I am particularly into progressive and symphonic metal at this time. Again, I could offer some reasons to back up this assertion, but I think the preference precedes the reasons, so I think this is based on something which cannot be articulated in purely rational terms.

So those are the three major mechanisms which I use to form my opinions, or at least that's the way I see it, because some people may disagree. But there is a fourth category which I see other people often succumb to: that is they have an opinion because they think they should have that based on other people's opinion within the group they identify with.

If you follow this blog you might already see where this is leading. There are two categories of opinion which I think are most clearly based on this mimicking behaviour: the first is in religion, and the second is in extreme politics.

I have a cartoon which shows a church with a sign outside which reads "Gather together to shout down your doubts, Sunday 10-11". Like most humorous observations of human behaviour, this has some element of truth in it. When people go to church they meet up with other people with the same worldview they have. And the church leader is only ever going to reinforce their religious ideas, no matter how irrational they might be.

And there is an obvious parallel in politics, because something very similar happens there. Political meetings don't tend to be places where multiple opinions are presented and a fully nuanced view is encouraged. They are more like a religion, and modern social justice movements seem to have an even greater parallel with religious belief. Maybe that is one reason that modern leftists often dismiss Christianity: they don't want competition to their preferred religion of wokeness!

Maybe the most malignant consequence of this way of thinking is the certainty it provokes. People who are so utterly convinced that their religion is correct, or their political position is the only true one. And as a result, they often think that people who don't think the same way that they do are in some way evil. Sometimes that word "evil" is what they literally believe, especially in a religious context.

So this is dangerous. People are told what to think by others, and their compliance with that way of thinking is ensured through constant reinforcement from others with similar views. They aren't thinking for themselves; they are being told what to think.

Compare that with the other three fundamental mechanisms for forming opinions I described first, and you can see that it is less likely to result in any truly deep contemplation, especially of alternative ideas, or of the idea that they might be wrong.

Sometimes this attitude can be recognised by the meaningless catchphrases being used. Other times it is more indicated by a reluctance to indulge in meaningful debate. And with others it is more simple ignorance which is the give away.

But am I being fair here? Do I ever indulge in these transgressions myself? Well, sure, I have to admit I do occasionally. Sometimes I especially like to use catchphrases. For example, I was debating some fundamentalist Christians recently, and I used one of my favourite phrases to demonstrate how belief in a particular god is irrational. I said "Many different people believe in many different gods. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong!"

I admit, it is a catchphrase, but I think it is relevant. It means that just because a person believes something doesn't make it any more likely to be true, because other people with convictions of the same type but with contradictory details also think they are correct. And I will explain that to my opponents if necessary.

So opinions are OK, but not all opinions are equal. Some are just naturally better, depending on their origin. People should recognise this in both their own and other's opinions. That would improve the quality of debate considerably.

Comment 1 (6742) by Jim on 2021-06-16 at 10:14:47:

So you are saying that your opinions all make sense but other people just act like mindless sheep? If they can be deceived into thinking they are right, why can't you?

Comment 2 (6744) by OJB on 2021-06-16 at 12:39:34:

Well sure, I agree that is a fair question. I guess there's never any easy way for a person to tell if they are deluded; that is all part of the delusion. I will say this: there is no one I agree with totally; I disagree equally with liberals and conservatives. Also, I try to look at as big a variety of news sources as I can. Finally, I throw my opinions out there and invite feedback. No one has clearly showed any of my major opinions as being totally wrong. there is always room for improvement, but I think I'm better than most!

Comment 3 (6745) by Anonymous on 2021-06-16 at 16:00:11:

"but I think I'm better than most!" - yes, I'm sure more than 50% of people do...

Comment 4 (6746) by OJB on 2021-06-16 at 20:28:54:

Indeed they do. For example (I think this is a real stat): 80% of drivers think they are better than average!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.