Normalize not having an opinion on things you donโt understand.
You're allowed to say, โI don't know enough about this to have an opinion on it.โ
Normalize not having an opinion on things you donโt understand.
You're allowed to say, โI don't know enough about this to have an opinion on it.โ
@FluentInFinance I'd rather not normalize that, because my immediate thought is U.S. Republican Senators and Members of Congress saying "I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on it." with respect to mass shootings, and whether or not gun control should be legislated.
If it is your job to have an opinion on it, you can't claim ignorance.
@silverfish @FluentInFinance Sure, but they're not the only person I would apply this too, just the most obvious.
And if the issue is within your field specifically, you should know enough to have an opinion on it, even if that opinion is "I'd need to know more before I can comment on it properly, *but* my understanding is...".
@lispi314 @FluentInFinance The big problem with this is them being the ones to define what is necessary for their job.
And they wrote that one act that meant the CDC could not fund research that advocated for gun control...which left the CDC to basically not fund any research into it, because the evidence kept advocating for gun control.
@FluentInFinance a lot of times, when you tell someone something new, they'll loudly say "But I thought (random assumption)." As a kind of opposing proposition. They ACT like it's a question, but if you don't bite, they just start arguing.
My god is that annoying. Why spout off your uneducated assumptions like that. I don't want to argue with you. Why ask me? Why am I even talking to someone with so high and opinion of themselves and so low an opinion of me.
That's not how you ask questions.
@cykonot
> ... high opinion of themselves and low opinion of me
I don't get why you'd feel negative about a counter-statement.
โข people think others are like themselves, so they may have thought you were just building on different assumptions than them
โข how much "research" (Googling) can beat common-sense assumptions
@[email protected] @FluentInFinance because a counter statement isn't even an argument. And I said I don't get why they'd ask me, implying I was referring to instances they'd asked me a question.
If you can't understand how inefficient of a way to interact that is, while defending "common sense" and implying I lack all expertise (again, I was thinking of times people asked me a question), you're saying a lot about yourself. You could just ask a question, but clearly you prefer combative jackassery
@FluentInFinance making statements like that allows someone to pack in many unspoken assumptions, which can be tedious to address. Also, figuring out precisely which assumptions (false or otherwise) lead to their statement requires assumptions on your end, or for you to ask THEM. Plus, I get the feeling those people didn't have a belief before hand, and made something up on the spot. Then when you address issues with it, they start rationalizing in real time.
A thoughtful person just asks.
@FluentInFinance generally I'd say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" if I didn't know. If I'm answering, I probably don't want their opinion. So sitting there while they explain their assumptions generally won't interest me.
Sometimes it's because they're speaking to a different usecase / domain. But that is very rare. If we both just made assertions past each other, we wouldn't be going anywhere. I can't read their minds.
Just a tedious, tactless, context-free interaction.
Best response?
"ok."
@FluentInFinance cuz what am I supposed to do with their assumptions? I DON'T just say "ok, and?" Because I like being productive, but its what they deserve.
If they can't make their own point, why should I for them? If they can't formulate a clear rationalization, why should I?
The kind of behavior people who lack theory of mind engage in, frankly. Also 2 narcissists I know do that after asking me specific questions and it's just so extremely tedious. And then they'll Google it. Why ask? ๐๐ฎโ๐จ
@FluentInFinance they were pretty much always just riffing, anyway. They didn't HAVE a real thought before. Just a feeling.
Exceptions, ofc. Sometimes they say something interesting. I wouldn't count this as one of those times. Willfully ignoring social cues and context is generally not fun to deal with. I could have just asked "what makes you say that," but I'm not that interested. Not like you asked me, anyway.
@FluentInFinance This is pretty hard to do in an environment, where you're supposed to have some knowledge and an opinion about all sorts of things.
Some will criticize your, because they mistake your refusal to have an opinion as cowardice.
Others will criticize you, because they mistake your lack of knowledge as (willful) ignorance or idiocy.
Also knowing and noticing when you enter the realm of half-truths and speculation can be tricky as well bc it requires self-reflection.
@FluentInFinance Perhaps it could even read:
You're expected to say, "I don't know enough about this to have an opinion an it", as long as this deems true.
The hardest thing for a human brain to do is: nothing.
We always have to make up a story, especially when we don't know anything.
@FluentInFinance Most surveys don't have a box to tick for that, so, quite often, no, you're *not* allowed to say that.
Survey designers please note.