Should an inability to quantify an opinion negate it?

[Descartes]

In my line of work I usually find myself inundated with dogmatic references to the point of intense frustration. Little statements like "That's no good", "That's evil", "That sucks", etc. are quite common, but when met with a simple query as to why the dogmatic utterances usually cease.

So, I tend to ignore the opinions of anyone who offer admonishment without explanation. An opinion has to have a foundation of a perceived truth value, does it not? If not from an empirical truth, then from where? Is it an appeal to another authority (e.g. if someone perceived as holding a higher understanding simply say so then it gets regurgitated) or something else?

Anyone get what I'm saying? It seems to be a behavior so pervasive that it's at least worthy of a short musing.

 

[olds]

What do you expect when you mingle with the unwashed masses?

 

[aplefka]

Well, it should, but there's something about that lack of evidence doesn't prove something doesn't exist, so I'm going to gander that lack of quantification doesn't negate their opinion.

Though in my book it does.

 

[brigden]

I don't mean to be rude, but do you speak to people in the same manner? I find people like that pretentious and annoying.

As for your question, I agree. Unless an individual is able to back up their flip criticism, I usually ignore it.

 

[olds]

Is critical thinking taught in high schools?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: aplefka
Well, it should, but there's something about that lack of evidence doesn't prove something doesn't exist, so I'm going to gander that lack of quantification doesn't negate their opinion.

Though in my book it does.

Very true, but that's not the point. If I posit that something does or does not exist then I should be able to provide justification, empirical or otherwise (although I tend to lend myself more to the empirical than not). Beyond that we're talking too much about philosophy, and that's a discussion not so suitable for a medium such as this.

To offer a recapitulation, I am referring primarily to holding a position without an understanding as to why you hold it. It seems the more ignorant a person is the more fervently they pursue arguments relating to it, imo. That's all.

 

[her209]

You can thank MTV for that.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to be rude, but do you speak to people in the same manner? I find people like that pretentious and annoying.

As for your question, I agree. Unless an individual is able to back up their flip criticism, I usually ignore it.

Yes. Sorry you don't like my style, but at least you told me why

I try to articulate ideas with sufficient clarity, and the only way I see to do so is to choose words with most appropriately express my thoughts. If you have a better form of expression then please allow me to be privy.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Is critical thinking taught in high schools?

Doesn't seem like it. It just seems, to me, like there is a trend to forfeit the why and to simply accept the what. These seem to almost always derive from appeals to other authorities (doctors, lawyers, financial advisors, professors, or any other magisterium), and such appeals forfeit question, imo.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: aplefka
Well, it should, but there's something about that lack of evidence doesn't prove something doesn't exist, so I'm going to gander that lack of quantification doesn't negate their opinion.

Though in my book it does.

Very true, but that's not the point. If I posit that something does or does not exist then I should be able to provide justification, empirical or otherwise (although I tend to lend myself more to the empirical than not). Beyond that we're talking too much about philosophy, and that's a discussion not so suitable for a medium such as this.

To offer a recapitulation, I am referring primarily to holding a position without an understanding as to why you hold it. It seems the more ignorant a person is the more fervently they pursue arguments relating to it, imo. That's all.

I know what you are referring too and I agree 100%. For example, I'm in a radio/television class. Because I am one of only four people in the class who is good with computers, troubleshooting, and can work our switcher for the live broadcasts, I'm constantly doing work and unable to create segments for our shows. After every broadcast all I hear is how much it sucked. When I tell them how much work I have put into the class and how frustrating it is they seem to change their opinion slightly, or at least aren't so vocal about their discontent.

I don't think it's a matter of them being informed or even really caring about what they speak of, but that they know so little and just want to seem informed/involved.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Descartes
blah, blah, blah...

When I listen to someones else's opinion, I assign a value to that information based upon my impression of their intelligence and clarity of thought. I am then free to come to my own conclusions as to its validity.
I find that most people are not very intelligent and lack the tools needed to think for themselves. To that end, they regurgitate information fed to them by schools, the media and their peers. This information is often lacking any substance and almost always skewed towards the senders personal beliefs rather than facts.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: aplefka
Well, it should, but there's something about that lack of evidence doesn't prove something doesn't exist, so I'm going to gander that lack of quantification doesn't negate their opinion.

Though in my book it does.

Very true, but that's not the point. If I posit that something does or does not exist then I should be able to provide justification, empirical or otherwise (although I tend to lend myself more to the empirical than not). Beyond that we're talking too much about philosophy, and that's a discussion not so suitable for a medium such as this.

To offer a recapitulation, I am referring primarily to holding a position without an understanding as to why you hold it. It seems the more ignorant a person is the more fervently they pursue arguments relating to it, imo. That's all.

I know what you are referring too and I agree 100%. For example, I'm in a radio/television class. Because I am one of only four people in the class who is good with computers, troubleshooting, and can work our switcher for the live broadcasts, I'm constantly doing work and unable to create segments for our shows. After every broadcast all I hear is how much it sucked. When I tell them how much work I have put into the class and how frustrating it is they seem to change their opinion slightly, or at least aren't so vocal about their discontent.

I don't think it's a matter of them being informed or even really caring about what they speak of, but that they know so little and just want to seem informed/involved.

Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Descartes
....
Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

That's where our own intelligence has to take over. We can dissect the information and use what we can.
I don't disregard someone's opinion because they can't back up it up. I form my own conclusions as to it's importance.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Descartes
....
Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

That's where our own intelligence has to take over. We can dissect the information and use what we can.
I don't disregard someone's opinion because they can't back up it up. I form my own conclusions as to it's importance.

I agree with that as well. I guess my main concern is that it will result in others formulating the same opinion, and that's often quite difficult to reverse.

I often work in highly-political environments, and as such I often find great ideas that get canned due to the highly-pervasive opinion of one ignoramus. Most recently a very expensive project was completely canned and restarted, and there's still not a single person in the group that can articulate why any faults were perceived or what precipitated the need to change (well, to be fair, I do have some thoughts on it).

I try to be a person more of action than words (although some who only see my words might disagree), so this is unfortunate. I like to show results that are contrary to opinion, not simply try and speak louder.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Descartes
....
Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

That's where our own intelligence has to take over. We can dissect the information and use what we can.
I don't disregard someone's opinion because they can't back up it up. I form my own conclusions as to it's importance.

I agree with that as well. I guess my main concern is that it will result in others formulating the same opinion, and that's often quite difficult to reverse.

I often work in highly-political environments, and as such I often find great ideas that get canned due to the highly-pervasive opinion of one ignoramus. Most recently a very expensive project was completely canned and restarted, and there's still not a single person in the group that can articulate why any faults were perceived or what precipitated the need to change (well, to be fair, I do have some thoughts on it).

I try to be a person more of action than words (although some who only see my words might disagree), so this is unfortunate. I like to show results that are contrary to opinion, not simply try and speak louder.

It is the same way in many industries and far worse in others. In my industry everything is political and usually very personal.

Even attempting to ?show results that are contrary to opinion? can effectively end your career or at least make continuing it a very miserable experience.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Descartes
....
Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

That's where our own intelligence has to take over. We can dissect the information and use what we can.
I don't disregard someone's opinion because they can't back up it up. I form my own conclusions as to it's importance.

I agree with that as well. I guess my main concern is that it will result in others formulating the same opinion, and that's often quite difficult to reverse.

I often work in highly-political environments, and as such I often find great ideas that get canned due to the highly-pervasive opinion of one ignoramus. Most recently a very expensive project was completely canned and restarted, and there's still not a single person in the group that can articulate why any faults were perceived or what precipitated the need to change (well, to be fair, I do have some thoughts on it).

I try to be a person more of action than words (although some who only see my words might disagree), so this is unfortunate. I like to show results that are contrary to opinion, not simply try and speak louder.

It is the same way in many industries and far worse in others. In my industry everything is political and usually very personal.

Even attempting to ?show results that are contrary to opinion? can effectively end your career or at least make continuing it a very miserable experience.

Excellent point there as well. It's very difficult to present something contrary without it being perceived as a challenge to the person espousing the opposite. In my experience, some will take it as a challenge no matter how you approach it, but others are very receptive to positive criticisms. I happen to love criticisms, and I find myself almost vexed by a lack of challenge. I try to encourage people to speak up, but in so doing you often get the types of responses that this thread was created to discuss.

Balancing all of this nonsense takes proactivity, a great social acuity to anticipate change, and a lot of patience; I am working on the latter. I think one of the greater failures in these situations is when people don't learn from it, and so you have a stagnation that festers and repeats. I try to analyze every situation as much as possible (mostly independently), and in so doing I have found that my acuity has greatly increased over the years.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Descartes
....
Good point. I see that a lot as well, but there comes a point where it's rather difficult to bear, especially when you've put forth an effort into that which is blindly admonished. Also, consider how the problem is exacerbated when these things are said; others without an opinion might, for the same reason as the original utterer formed theirs, simply assume the same. So it seems to me you have this autocatalytic process that starts with one ignorant speaking louder than the others, and on it goes until an otherwise good idea succumbs unless its author can withstand the pressure.

That's where our own intelligence has to take over. We can dissect the information and use what we can.
I don't disregard someone's opinion because they can't back up it up. I form my own conclusions as to it's importance.

I agree with that as well. I guess my main concern is that it will result in others formulating the same opinion, and that's often quite difficult to reverse.

I often work in highly-political environments, and as such I often find great ideas that get canned due to the highly-pervasive opinion of one ignoramus. Most recently a very expensive project was completely canned and restarted, and there's still not a single person in the group that can articulate why any faults were perceived or what precipitated the need to change (well, to be fair, I do have some thoughts on it).

I try to be a person more of action than words (although some who only see my words might disagree), so this is unfortunate. I like to show results that are contrary to opinion, not simply try and speak louder.

It is the same way in many industries and far worse in others. In my industry everything is political and usually very personal.

Even attempting to ?show results that are contrary to opinion? can effectively end your career or at least make continuing it a very miserable experience.

Excellent point there as well. It's very difficult to present something contrary without it being perceived as a challenge to the person espousing the opposite. In my experience, some will take it as a challenge no matter how you approach it, but others are very receptive to positive criticisms. I happen to love criticisms, and I find myself almost vexed by a lack of challenge. I try to encourage people to speak up, but in so doing you often get the types of responses that this thread was created to discuss.

Balancing all of this nonsense takes proactivity, a great social acuity to anticipate change, and a lot of patience; I am working on the latter. I think one of the greater failures in these situations is when people don't learn from it, and so you have a stagnation that festers and repeats. I try to analyze every situation as much as possible (mostly independently), and in so doing I have found that my acuity has greatly increased over the years.

From what I have seen in my few short years in this industry the people that accept criticism as constructive are, by a wide margin, the exception rather than the rule.

Egos are constantly working overtime (many times to the detriment of the business concerned).

Knowing when to fight, wait, or evade is of great importance to people not in the top couple tiers. Some mistakes can be minor and are soon forgotten, others can gain you lifelong personal and professional enmity.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes
In my line of work I usually find myself inundated with dogmatic references to the point of intense frustration. Little statements like "That's no good", "That's evil", "That sucks", etc. are quite common, but when met with a simple query as to why the dogmatic utterances usually cease.

So, I tend to ignore the opinions of anyone who offer admonishment without explanation. An opinion has to have a foundation of a perceived truth value, does it not? If not from an empirical truth, then from where? Is it an appeal to another authority (e.g. if someone perceived as holding a higher understanding simply say so then it gets regurgitated) or something else?

Anyone get what I'm saying? It seems to be a behavior so pervasive that it's at least worthy of a short musing.

1. First of all, I understand what you're saying but I must say that your writing style is very awkward. Nearly all of your sentences could be simplified and still get the same point across. Usually such style is used to impress yourself or others. Cliffs: Don't act like Niles Crane.

2. In regards to your question, I think having a religious upbringing will do that to a person. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. It's rarely ever viewed as a simple conflict of interest, they seem to always have to find a "right" and "wrong" side to everything.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes
In my line of work I usually find myself inundated with dogmatic references to the point of intense frustration. Little statements like "That's no good", "That's evil", "That sucks", etc. are quite common, but when met with a simple query as to why the dogmatic utterances usually cease.

So, I tend to ignore the opinions of anyone who offer admonishment without explanation. An opinion has to have a foundation of a perceived truth value, does it not? If not from an empirical truth, then from where? Is it an appeal to another authority (e.g. if someone perceived as holding a higher understanding simply say so then it gets regurgitated) or something else?

Anyone get what I'm saying? It seems to be a behavior so pervasive that it's at least worthy of a short musing.

1. First of all, I understand what you're saying but I must say that your writing style is very awkward. Nearly all of your sentences could be simplified and still get the same point across. Usually such style is used to impress yourself or others.

I'm a little worried by the suggestion that any of the words I chose could be used to impress. No offense, but I find such a perception to be fault of the reader, not the author. Words are issue of an author's mind, not the other way around.

2. In regards to your question, I think having a religious upbringing will do that to a person. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. It's rarely ever viewed as a simple conflict of interest, they seem to always have to find a "right" and "wrong" side to everything.

Same argument applies there, but the primary fallacy, in my mind at least, seems to be how people derive meaning. I'd like to segue into a discussion on the various philisophical considerations around meaning derivation, but I'm guessing it's not something people would be interested in hearing.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes

I try to articulate ideas with sufficient clarity, and the only way I see to do so is to choose words with most appropriately express my thoughts. If you have a better form of expression then please allow me to be privy.

Ok, I'll help.

Translation:

I try to express myself as clearly as possible, and the only way I can do this is by choosing words which best express those thoughts. If you know of a better way, please let me know.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes

I'm a little worried by the suggestion that any of the words I chose could be used to impress. No offense, but I find such a perception to be fault of the reader, not the author. Words are issue of an author's mind, not the other way around.

If that were the case, it would be impossible for one to behave in a pretentious manner.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes
In my line of work I usually find myself inundated with dogmatic references to the point of intense frustration. Little statements like "That's no good", "That's evil", "That sucks", etc. are quite common, but when met with a simple query as to why the dogmatic utterances usually cease.

So, I tend to ignore the opinions of anyone who offer admonishment without explanation. An opinion has to have a foundation of a perceived truth value, does it not? If not from an empirical truth, then from where? Is it an appeal to another authority (e.g. if someone perceived as holding a higher understanding simply say so then it gets regurgitated) or something else?

Anyone get what I'm saying? It seems to be a behavior so pervasive that it's at least worthy of a short musing.

1. First of all, I understand what you're saying but I must say that your writing style is very awkward. Nearly all of your sentences could be simplified and still get the same point across. Usually such style is used to impress yourself or others. Cliffs: Don't act like Niles Crane.

2. In regards to your question, I think having a religious upbringing will do that to a person. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. It's rarely ever viewed as a simple conflict of interest, they seem to always have to find a "right" and "wrong" side to everything.

1. I agree for the most part but sometimes people just like using words that aren't used that often.

2. I disagree because I consider myself to be a pretty religious person and was brought up, but I realize there are two sides to every story. Hell, most people get mad at me for my feelings about abortion/death penalty and say "How can a person who claims to be religous say that?" I think it goes both ways, but in the end it mainly just comes from the uninformed idiot, religious or not.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: aplefka

2. I disagree because I consider myself to be a pretty religious person and was brought up, but I realize there are two sides to every story.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Depends on whether or not it's wrong.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes

I try to articulate ideas with sufficient clarity, and the only way I see to do so is to choose words with most appropriately express my thoughts. If you have a better form of expression then please allow me to be privy.

Ok, I'll help.

Translation:

I try to express myself as clearly as possible, and the only way I can do this is by choosing words which best express those thoughts. If you know of a better way, please let me know.

Meh... I find yours to be linear and lacking, to be quite honest. It seems purposed to the linguistic sensibilities (and by sensibilities I mean yours) of others as opposed to meaning.

Again, we all have our own styles. It's not as though I consciously choose the words used.