Here are three questions for you:
1. What is the best technique for performing brain surgery.
2. What is the best engine design for a rocket to Mars.
3. What is the best way to bring about peace in the Middle East.
Most people are willing to admit that they don’t know the answers to the first two questions. There’s a reason “rocket scientist” and “brain surgeon” are slang for really smart people. If there were a debate going on about these subjects among actual brain surgeons or rocket scientists, and they were to ask your input, you would be comfortable admitting that you had no opinion on the matter and weren’t qualified to respond.
The alternative would be pretty silly. Picture these brilliant experts discussing concepts you have zero comprehension of. You don’t even understand half the words they’re using. Then you spout off a bunch of complete gibberish to the people who know far more than you, and insist that if they disagree they’re evil and stupid.
But what about the third question: How to bring about peace in the Middle East. This is actually a harder question than the first two. There are people capable of performing brain surgery and building rockets, while bringing about Mideast peace has stumped the most brilliant experts for thousands of years.
Yet quite a few people think they have the answer. And they’re so sure of their answer that they’re willing to insult anyone who disagrees.
I propose an alternative: To simply confess that you don’t know.
You don’t know how to perform brain surgery. You don’t have an opinion on the best teams in the Lithuanian hockey league. And you have zero clue how to bring about peace in the Mideast.
And that’s okay.
The world is incredibly complicated. You can’t know everything. Especially things that are most likely beyond anyone’s comprehension. So give yourself permission to have no opinion on issues, even when those issues are in the realm of politics.
There are many benefits to this. First is the pure epistemological: It’s a good habit to make a clear distinction between what you know and what’s opinion. And within that category of things that are opinion, it’s good to distinguish between those ideas that you have a reasonable basis for believing, and those that you are, for lack of a better way of describing it, completely pulling out of your butt.
Additionally, when you avoid taking an opinion on an issue where you lack the qualifications or understanding necessary to come to an informed opinion, it keeps you out of pointless arguments. Why should you argue when you have no real justification for your belief and no reason to think you’re right?
Forming a belief on these issues doesn’t serve any purpose. You’re not a diplomat or in Congress, just as you’re not sitting in an operating room in front of someone’s exposed cerebrum. Potentially your opinion could influence how you vote, but why would you change your vote based on an issue you don’t understand? (Also, usually the causation goes the other way: People base their opinions on complex issues by assuming their preferred political party/candidate is right and the enemy political party/candidate is wrong.)
The same goes for other hyper-complicated issues that nobody really understands, like macroeconomic policy, healthcare policy, and crime policy. These issues are so difficult that no human could possibly figure out the “right” way to handle them.
Obviously policy-makers have to do something, and we’d hope that they make the best decisions they can using the best expert analysis and advice available. (Though considering how much expert analysis and advice conflicts with each other, determining what is the “best” is itself a hyper-difficult task.)
But that’s not your job. Be thankful you don’t have to deal with it. You don’t have to sit in front of blueprints and design a rocket engine. You don’t have to poke a scalpel around someone’s brain with their life in your hands. And you don’t need to sit at a negotiating table with a bunch of people that want to kill each other.
So you don’t need to, and in fact you shouldn’t, form an opinion on these things. Save your mental energy for the things that either make you happy or where you are capable of having an impact.
I would make a distinction between having an opinion on the how, vs having an opinion on the what. Not everyone agrees on the what. For example, does the military industrial complex want peace in the middle east? I think having an opinion on the what, rhetorically obligates the speaker to also present an opinion on the how, and that’s where we run into problems.
I like your distinction between the What and the How.
But I’m not understanding your position that having an opinion on the What obligates someone to have an opinion on the How. If you have a loved one going into surgery, you want the outcome of the surgery to be successful. That doesn’t obligate you to have an opinion on what techniques the surgeon should use.
Moreover, I think in the overwhelming majority of cases, most people are in agreement on the What. How many of the people that you see arguing on Facebook about the Middle East are actual war profiteers that want there to be violence so they can make money off of it? Nearly everyone of all political orientations genuinely wants a peaceful world where people of all races, religions, and nationalities are free to thrive.
But because they disagree on the How, they assume the people who disagree also want different Whats. They think, “I want what is good in the world, and this is how I think we should achieve it. Since this person I’m arguing with doesn’t want to follow my plan, they must want what’s bad in the world.” When the reality is it’s just that their opponent thinks their plan will make things worse rather than better.
I’m not denying that there are some people who may want something different, or that there are a few debates where the What is truly divergent. But these are the exception rather than the rule.
Given the current climate of racial tension, it seems like your article is advocating for something that many people wholesale reject. There seems like a ‘tsunami of public opinion’ that one MUST have an opinion and that opinion must be THE correct one. How would you respond to that today?
One thing to keep in mind is that social media does not represent reality.
80% of tweets are written by 2% of the population. And that 2% tends to be ultra-extremist argument addicts (of various ideologies) who are wildly unrepresentative of normal people.
You simply can’t get an accurate picture of the world from social media. It’s just not possible because the people active on social media are so different from normal people.
In terms of those who demand you have the “right” opinion, especially on hyper complex issues that nobody truly understands, the best thing to do is just avoid engaging with them and ignore them.
My article on ways to avoid arguments on Facebook goes into more detail on this.
I hope you find this helpful.
Yes and thank you for your reply! Just found your site and I’m really enjoying it.
Glad to hear it.