Opinions Obstruct Thinking

In spite of my title, opinions are not completely bad. We all have them and they are needed. But as with many things in life, opinions are a double-edged sword. In this blog I will address the less desirable side of opinions.

Most of us believe that we think objectively, but this is honored more in the breach than the practice, and the reason is often opinions. Consider two contentious issues about which most people have strongly held opinions without a single actual fact: human-caused climate change and the minimum wage. Very few of us have the slightest understanding of the scientific models used on either side of both of these issues. We certainly do not understand why one model is more valid than another. We accept one side or the other because of a pre-existing disposition. I believe (or do not believe) that the minimum wage is beneficial for workers and society because I prefer that view, not because I have definitive, supportive facts. It is my opinion.

We all have authorities we rely on to guide us in complex situations which we cannot understand. True enough. But we still make a choice of which authorities to rely on, and that choice is itself a function of the way we want the world to work, or for it to be. It is a subjective choice, and that opinion has nothing necessarily to do with objective reality. The authorities we have chosen to put our faith in (and it really is faith) could be dead wrong and we would never know it. Nor would that matter in many cases. Studies show that people with strong beliefs that are objectively incorrect and who are presented with the correct information, will not only reject the latter out of hand, but actually harden into their original incorrect view.

Making this matter of authorities more complicated yet is that those experts themselves are prone to select data for their models that appeal to their already existing biases. Two archaeologists can look at the same set of humanoid bones and come to different conclusions as to what they represent. Part of these interpretations is due to their academic and experiential focus, and part will be due to their preferences, or opinions. These account for the sometimes very unpleasant, often viciously ad hominem, fights among academics, none of which help solve anything.

And this leads to perhaps the most troubling aspect of opinions. We take them very seriously, as though the mere fact that we hold them is itself prima facie evidence of their correctness. Having “decided” our opinions are correct, and having infused the latter with strong emotion, any contrary information must be destroyed. The merging of our opinion as established fact, and its unverified correctness, with very strong emotion means the death of inquiry and objective thought. This explains the often substantial level of hostility that people experience when their opinions cross, a regrettable every-day happening. Recall any interaction between two people on opposite sides of the minimum wage issue---usually very unpleasant and not at all uplifting.

But what if one person’s opinion is factually correct? Surely that matters? In the absence of an emergency, it matters little on the positive side and very likely a lot on the negative side. The problem is not the actual correctness, but the manner in which the person presents his opinion. If both are playing fair and respectful, and not allowing emotional needs to win, etc., to overcome the conversation, things can go rather well. If one or both people needs to be right or to prevail, then the interaction will be characterized by unpleasant and disrespectful emotional conflict. Thinking in such situations is retarded, and a deeper understanding of the issue is sacrificed.

It is clear that holding an opinion simply because it makes us feel good or because we need it (and ourselves) to be right is anathema to thinking. People holding their opinions in a death grip and attempting to overwhelm others with those opinions are acting from pure emotion. Thinking is not part of this scenario, even though the opinions’ articulation is often accompanied by supposedly supportive data, mostly in the form of facts or pseudo-facts. The goal in using such facts is not to have an open and expansive conversation, but to overwhelm the other person. In order to save internal “face,” people imagine that such supportive elements are evidence of their thinking prowess, but their emotive foundation is completely ignored. And, once aroused, the emotions must win.

If we are going to have opinions, and this is a normal thing, we had best hold them very lightly, as we would a butterfly that landed on our hand. We are not really holding the butterfly, only giving it a place to rest. We do not wish to control the butterfly and we do not desire that it remain. It is natural that it comes, stays a while, and then leaves. That is how we should treat our opinions, as mere concepts that may be dispensed with easily.

Nice as this idea sounds, achieving this state demands much of us---emotional and intellectual fearlessness, an openness to the new, and the desire for a deeper understanding of the world. Many people think they have these characteristics. Sadly for them and for those around them….

Taoist literature offers wisdom on the issue:

            When nothing is left to argue with

            and there is nothing to oppose,

            you will find yourself at peace

            and in harmony with all things.

Vulnerability Creates Invulnerability

I can hear the shouts now. We all know that opposites cannot co-exist, so what kind of nonsense is this? And certainly one opposite cannot arise out of another! More nonsense. And what could such ideas have to do with thinking, anyhow?

In my usual way of thinking, I contend that at one level these concerns are valid and at another, more sophisticated level, they are not. Further, appreciating the latter enables us to achieve a higher state of emotional well being. And, lastly, I also believe that understanding the more subtle level is at least an indirect aid to our thinking.

Whether these two words and the concepts they represent can exist together depends not on any superficial sense of incompatible opposition, but on how the words are used. We all understand what invulnerability means---we are armored-up and cannot be harmed. Simple and true enough. None of us wants to be or be seen as vulnerable, and for good reason. If we are vulnerable to physical attack, for example, we will naturally experience fear and a strong desire to avoid the challenges, creating anxiety.

But vulnerability is not limited to the physical. We may fear emotional vulnerability, which can be a normal response. But it may be much more threatening if it is the result of a person’s unbalanced inner state. As an internal condition, the vulnerability is present all the time, just waiting for an excuse to show up. And it shows up most often and most dramatically when we are under stress.

For much of my life the big vulnerability was shame, the idea that others would find out who I really was as opposed to the carefully (and entirely unconsciously) crafted image that I wanted to portray. I was under stress nearly all the time trying to maintain this fiction. My vulnerability arose because at some level I sensed that if someone found out “who I really was” they would dismiss me or dislike me, and I would be shamed. This had to be concealed. If someone asked me how business was going, as just one example, and it was not going well, I would assure them all was fine. I was not consciously lying---I believed exactly what I was saying, all to reinforce the story I told myself that I really was worthy, a view that in my deepest recesses I knew to be false.

My vulnerability came from a weak sense of myself that I could not let anyone see, a characteristic that, like it or not, nearly all of us share. This is dysfunctional vulnerability because, in my case, it was built on a great fear causing me to try and hide aspects of myself that desperately needed exposure and the strong light of day for emotional health. Most people think they are immune from such fears, and from the distortions that follow from them, but that is only because the fears are lodged deep in the unconscious. Our powerful inner needs to protect the false stories must go unacknowledged. My particular need was to avoid shame, but there are many others, such as the need to control, to be right, to win, to be perfect, to be loved, and so forth. These are all large vulnerabilities that need feeding, but which can never be fed enough to resolve them.

From these needs and fears we construct a reality that does not exist, usually a set of stories that give us the illusion of feeling and looking just fine. The stories enable us to keep these troubling aspects below conscious level so they are deniable, which we imagine allows us to avoid vulnerability. But in trying to make ourselves invulnerable by hiding who we are, and by our protective stories and mis-representations, we actually produce the opposite outcome.

The effort to create invulnerability results in unhealthy vulnerability.

Adding to the challenge is the fact that our inner selves “know” that we have failed to achieve invulnerability, fueling the firing of anxiety. Perhaps even worse is the fact that our real vulnerability is obvious to others because they can often see the inconsistency between who we are portraying ourselves to be and how we act, which is who we really are.

But there is a positive side to vulnerability. One cannot love and be loved without some emotional vulnerability, without taking a chance on love or affection or friendship. At some point, we have to say, “I love you,” and hope for a good outcome. That vulnerability is necessary for a healthy emotional life. Vulnerability also has a normal situational aspect. The death of a loved one or the loss of a job may leave us temporarily emotionally vulnerable. Healthy people will recover over time from these losses.

In the positive and most healthy sense, vulnerability means openness and fearlessness, and a willingness to give up the hold that our fears and stories have on us. We see ourselves as we really are and have no apprehension about letting others see this, including our mistakes or weaknesses. Paradoxically, it is this attitude that creates invulnerability. If we have no weak ego to defend, no false story to protect, openness is easy. We have no armor, and need none, and yet we are invulnerable. With nothing to shield from critical eyes---and there are plenty of those---we have nothing to fear because no one can hurt us. We see that wonderful things are gained from transparency. Others will respect us much more for telling the truth about who we are, and our relationships with them will be improved immeasurably as they sense the demise of our earlier falseness. But perhaps most importantly, we will be more emotionally healthy as the fear of being exposed disappears. A great weight is lifted from us as the emotional energy used to maintain the illusions is no longer needed, allowing us to deal with the world and its challenges with greater integrity.

So, invulnerability arises out of vulnerability.

Finally, how is thinking enhanced in all this? Simple---as we adopt openness and fearlessness, our inner clarity increases and the need to protect our opinions and views recedes. Since strongly held opinions can be anathema to objective thought, reducing the grip our opinions have on us frees us to look at things as they really are rather than as how we want them to be. The adverse impact of opinions on thinking is so important that I will address this challenge in the next post.