When people are afraid to take a stand on a controversial issue, they sometimes hide behind questions and equivocations: “What do you think about this?” “Let’s discuss this more.” “It’s all relative, right?”
I catch myself doing this more often than I like.
In general, it’s easier to ask open questions than to give confident answers. There’s no social penalty for appearing open-minded – but if you take a stand and get it wrong (or just different), better watch out.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with wanting input from other people, especially people you respect. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with admitting you don’t have all the facts.
But it’s equally important to recognize the difference between genuinely not knowing the answer and lacking the conviction to accept the answer you already have.
***
Dictionary.com defines an authority as (among other things): “an accepted source of information, advice, etc.”
Authority is a social safety net. It’s okay to be wrong, as long as you can blame it on an authoritative source that is also wrong. It’s not as embarrassing to botch a basic scientific fact, if you can say that you were misled by an incorrect entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Most of the time, when people ask broad questions about difficult issues, they’re not so much looking for answers as for authority, for a safety net to fall back on.
Thus, people who are good at appearing authoritative often have a lot of power and influence. These people are willing to take the risk of having an opinion, and so others flock to them, like pedestrians running for shelter during a downpour.
This power can be abused – see political punditry – or it can be an opportunity. Wherever there’s rampant uncertainty, those who are willing to be certain (at the risk of being wrong) are given the chance to lead. This works in politics, in office politics, and in pretty much every social context.
***
Conviction is the strength to hold onto your personal opinion.
Confidence is the strength to share and defend that opinion in public.
Authority is the power you get as a result.
How can you apply this to what you do?
***
Even if you plan on having an open discussion, it’s usually better to go in armed with a point of view. You can always change it later if there’s a compelling reason. Here’s a good example of that approach in action.
***
George Crane once said, “You can have such an open mind that it is too porous to hold a conviction.”
Where do you draw the line with what you believe? How far are you willing to entertain opposing points of view, and when do you say enough?
18 Comments on “Thoughts on Conviction, Confidence, and Authority”
says:
“You can always change it later if there’s a compelling reason.” – I love this. I actually wish more people would challenge my points of view for two reasons:
1) It helps me backup my thoughts and opinions.
and/or
2) It helps me adapt or completely change my opinions.
That said, when people challenge my point of view without facts that’s where I draw the line, tune out, and don’t even involve myself in the discussion.
Karol
says:
I love a good debate, even if I have to play devil’s advocate against my own viewpoints to make that debate happen. So anytime you want to have a lively back-and-forth…
says:
I draw the line at reason. If their argument does not make sense to me or I can see no evidence that cannot be easily countered than I will not change my position. I will however play devil’s advocate to help the other person understand at least how someone could arrive at certain viewpoints.
says:
I find that if you are willing to listen, not only do you find that people start to make sense or at least you can understand where they are coming from even if their opinions are not made up of “Facts”. For myself I realized that I am an analytic and logical person. I found that people who follow their convictions often are “Emotional” people… Though emotional people don’t need a backed up reason. A lot of the time they “feel it”. This was a scary thought for me (someone who has to have “facts” and “concrete” reasons to back up my opinions. I am learning to let go of the “need” for “facts”. We have emotions for a reason and should listen to them. I still want to be reasonable but, there are things out there that our limited understanding doesn’t cover. Always remember, our “facts”
“over 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” ~David Mitchell
says:
This is excellent, Jeffrey.
For me, personally, I have a lot of opinions that I’m very sure of due to years of thinking or reading and so on, and, though many of them aren’t popular, I know others share them just because I know I’m not all that unusual–and I know that from years of discussing and listening and so on. That’s the thought behind my blog, and I haven’t even got to the controversial stuff yet :).
On the other hand, there’s lots of stuff I just don’t have enough information about to form an opinion. In those cases, it’s “I don’t know, not sure, have to look into it.”
I draw a line about what I believe only when someone is pushing their opposing beliefs onto me in some way that’s hurtful or requires me to take some action that’s against my beliefs. And I never mind discussing any viewpoint so long as the discussion is about the subject, not personal. Meaning shoot the message but don’t shoot the messenger. And do let’s be logical and factual; forget the cliches and folk wisdom.
Good example you linked to; I had an opinion on that one :)
I can apply all this to the article I’m currently working on, thanks :)
says:
Well, now I have to check out your blog to see what you’re referring to, Leah :) Clever!
One thing that often frustrates me is how, with many controversial topics, it’s hard to hold a logical discussion without people getting offended, angry, or hurtful – especially if there’s politics involved. The idea of respecting your enemies (or just people who disagree) has been running through my head for a while now. Still haven’t found the answer though :)
says:
I know what you mean, Jeffrey, about people getting offended while discussing controversial subjects. Their buttons get pushed. They have emotional reactions to stuff because it’s personal in some way and they aren’t able (or willing) to shut it off and stick to facts.
I try to avoid discussing the few topics I’m a little sensitive about or, if I do, I stay on the light side and stick with facts. Or if someone is going off on a diatribe I just smile and nod. Mmm hmm, yup. That’s fine, we all have opinions. And when I see I’m talking to an “emotional tape” I just back off. You can’t argue with that :)
I think it’s a live and learn thing. What an interesting topic though! Have to think on it some more :)
says:
See my reply to Justin Dixon. Not everything is “Fact”. Emotions must play a part in our opinions. Otherwise why have opinions at all…
says:
Insightful post, Jeffrey. This line: “Most of the time, when people ask broad questions about difficult issues, they’re not so much looking for answers as for authority, for a safety net to fall back on.” is totally true, and I have fallen into that before, without realizing what I was seeking when asking the question.
Personally, researching a topic and knowing a few different perspectives on it can really help me hone in my personal opinion. I think conviction can be developed with knowledge. I know that logical reasoning gives me conviction in my beliefs. I won’t be an expert on everything, and when those topics arise I can safely say I don’t know everything about them. For other topics that I do deeply care about, I will have enough knowledge and reasoning to support my opinion. Well-sourced knowledge [or personal observations] gives me both conviction and confidence.
says:
Lynn,
A lot of this post comes out of my personal experience, so I definitely know what you mean :)
Researching usually helps me too. I do know some people, though, that tend to develop confidence and conviction in other ways. For many people, confidence doesn’t necessarily come from having facts and figures, but out of a personal, psychological shift.
says:
Not to play devil’s advocate or anything, but…
1) The Socratic method values the question more than the answer, and so it isn’t always simply equivocation when somebody hedges your contention or question with another question. It might be dialectic (look it up).
2) Some people like to argue just to hear themselves. They should listen to their breath, and give space to the other.
3) Some people don’t want to get engaged with you, because the topic you are discussing is highly politicized (i.e., abortion, creationism, etc.) It isn’t that they are looking for authority, they just recognize that no amount of debate (or stating their opinion) will do any good to persuade you to their opinion.
says:
I think it can be hard to take a stand, mainly because we want others to like us. We want them to think we are kind, caring individuals.
That doesn’t always happen when you express convictions.
Have a great weekend, Jeffrey!
Melissa
says:
Very interesting post Jeffrey. I agree that it can be very hard to take a stand instead of just asking questions or bringing things up for discussion. I was just fighting that impulse on a blog post this week! I think that whenever we give in to that impulse, to ask a question or look for authority when deep down we know that we have an opinion, we are lying to ourselves and the world.
Living a ruthlessly honest life means acknowledging when we believe or think something, even if we are afraid of being made fun of or being unpopular. Likewise, to comment on Jabus’s point #2, being fully truthful means not giving an opinion when you don’t really believe in it, which cuts out a lot on the “talking to hear yourself talk” problem.
Incidentally, the post I was talking about above where I was having trouble not just putting something out there for discussion is about living a truly honest life. I think that this plays into that. It’s at http://www.lifeofcuriosity.com.
says:
I’ve learned more from people that question my convictions than I have from those that just follow along. That said, I also think that there is a lot of value in asking rather than telling, and in allowing someone else to find their way to a new answer without being “told.” The two are in balance, but I agree that it is important to know where you stand before you begin, and to recognize when your convictions shift. I guess I must show my convictions well enough, since I often end up in positions of authority, whether I intend to or not!
says:
Jeffrey,
I love discussions, especially with smart people who are able to handle their emotions & separate disagreement from personal vendettas.
I had a great experience with a fellow commenter on Colin Wright’s blog on how to confidently hold a conviction while still having a quality productive discussion. Good stuff.
http://exilelifestyle.com/debate-hate/
says:
Yes, Someone nailed it. Emotions are not bad in these discussions but, we should keep within scope of the discussion.
says:
Good Topic. I have recently engaged this personally. My family and I have taken on some of the social inconsistencies in our locale. (We have tried to raise breastfeeding awareness.) So from speaking on a local news channel and also helping organize a multi-locale rally; this is a hard subject. There are several reasons to listen to other people. The largest barrier is our need to feel approved of. No one needs to tell us we are “Okay”. We are great as long as we follow our dreams and make the best with the cards we are dealt. You help illuminate the dark areas that most people won’t talk about. Thanks. We need to continue to explore the social taboo as you are here.
Todd
says:
The hubby says that I am too aggressive on my convictions and tells me that when I get ‘really going’ that I ‘frighten’ people. I don’t think so, but that’s his opinion. I am very strong-willed and will argue to the end.