Spectator - Christmas Crossword -...
Crosswords3 mins ago
Opinions
34 Answers
Like the old saying, opinions are like bum holes, we've all got one, but how flexible do you think you are in your opinions? I imagine that we ALL think that we are flexible in our take on things but are we? On this site we have a raft of opinions on almost everything under the sun from politics and religion to diet and health. For my own part I will admit that I often read posts that conflict with my own ideology and make me at least question my beliefs and presuppositions on various issues. Its always an education even if I DONT change my view on a subject. (but I always get to see the 'other side' of an exchange which can only be a good thing) Theres been times when I might have had a drink or two or a bad day and my mouth (or posts) might have run away with me but on rereading later I always find points of other posters that I have to ponder.
SO...how flexible do you think you are in your opinions and has AB ever made you rethink any viewpoints that you have had?
Thanks
SO...how flexible do you think you are in your opinions and has AB ever made you rethink any viewpoints that you have had?
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@naillit
Being scientifically inclined, it is a core value to seek additional data at all times. The catch there is that I can have empirical evidence - things I have observed or measured personally - or I can have globally accepted evidence - published, peer-reviewed research or books built on it - or I can have anecdotal evidence - posts on an internet forum (opinions, per your OP) or blogs or non-peer-reviewed books or stuff people say.
The opinion category I have to accept - or reject - at face value as you cannot measure some other person's experience, after the fact. I'd assign it a "weight", according to the perceived veracity of the source and adjust the balance of my opinion accordingly. Some newspapers influence me more than others (note: I rarely buy any); some news channels more than others; TV docos more than "bloke down the pub" and so on.
I can comfortably reject thousands of anecdotes if "science" says they are wrong. My own life experience shows no measurable signs of Einstein's theories yet any amount of anecdote will not change the results gathered, in support of it, to date.
Science aside, my general opinions *can* be changed but it takes an awful lot of nudging. If it's a subject I'm genuinely ignorant about then I have no opinions, cannot add to the thread and just read it, although I'm more likely to just avoid clicking on it.
Being scientifically inclined, it is a core value to seek additional data at all times. The catch there is that I can have empirical evidence - things I have observed or measured personally - or I can have globally accepted evidence - published, peer-reviewed research or books built on it - or I can have anecdotal evidence - posts on an internet forum (opinions, per your OP) or blogs or non-peer-reviewed books or stuff people say.
The opinion category I have to accept - or reject - at face value as you cannot measure some other person's experience, after the fact. I'd assign it a "weight", according to the perceived veracity of the source and adjust the balance of my opinion accordingly. Some newspapers influence me more than others (note: I rarely buy any); some news channels more than others; TV docos more than "bloke down the pub" and so on.
I can comfortably reject thousands of anecdotes if "science" says they are wrong. My own life experience shows no measurable signs of Einstein's theories yet any amount of anecdote will not change the results gathered, in support of it, to date.
Science aside, my general opinions *can* be changed but it takes an awful lot of nudging. If it's a subject I'm genuinely ignorant about then I have no opinions, cannot add to the thread and just read it, although I'm more likely to just avoid clicking on it.
Tell you what surprised me most when I came on here/ got on the internet.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Tell you what surprised me most when I came on here/ got on the internet.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Tell you what surprised me most when I came on here/ got on the internet.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Tell you what surprised me most when I came on here/ got on the internet.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Tell you what surprised me most when I came on here/ got on the internet.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
Finding out 'real' people actually take political correctness seriously. Before that, I'd always presumed it was, mainly, made up by the media and/or something indulged in by whacky Americans. Guess working on site and drinking in working men's pubs, you never come across it.
-- answer removed --
@Svejk
Its literal meaning only has currency for those seeking political office and they will scrape the bottom of any barrel of obsequiousness in order to garner votes from the most obscure of minorities, sometimes.
For the rest of us it is just about climbing the greasy pole, or trying to. Anyone with an ounce of ambition is going to have to satisfy the demands of the Equal Opportunites Act. Indeed, just to remain in post - in public service, especially - you need to not say disparaging things out loud about "race, colour or creed". It is more than just being fair to all, one must *be seen to be* fair to all, in dealing with the public.
In truth, most of us are doing the grunt work and are not in HR, hiring or firing people. Now that is the sharp end of being "empowered" to discriminate - as illustrated in the experiment where candidates applied under English-sounding pseudonyms and got called in to interview, whereas the exact same CV, under a "non-English" forename or surname gets a rejection letter.
So, if you're not in charge of anyone and you're working in some remote location where the general public cannot hear you express your opinions, it is only your workmates who could be bothered by them. You can sort out your differences after the odd pint, or five.
Its literal meaning only has currency for those seeking political office and they will scrape the bottom of any barrel of obsequiousness in order to garner votes from the most obscure of minorities, sometimes.
For the rest of us it is just about climbing the greasy pole, or trying to. Anyone with an ounce of ambition is going to have to satisfy the demands of the Equal Opportunites Act. Indeed, just to remain in post - in public service, especially - you need to not say disparaging things out loud about "race, colour or creed". It is more than just being fair to all, one must *be seen to be* fair to all, in dealing with the public.
In truth, most of us are doing the grunt work and are not in HR, hiring or firing people. Now that is the sharp end of being "empowered" to discriminate - as illustrated in the experiment where candidates applied under English-sounding pseudonyms and got called in to interview, whereas the exact same CV, under a "non-English" forename or surname gets a rejection letter.
So, if you're not in charge of anyone and you're working in some remote location where the general public cannot hear you express your opinions, it is only your workmates who could be bothered by them. You can sort out your differences after the odd pint, or five.
