We all have them. We all love to express them. We all wish that everyone else would stop giving them to us because we didn’t ask for them. Some are held strongly, others weakly, and still others weekly, in the form of a column. I’m referring of course to the dreaded “opinion,” the center of our social universe and the nadir of human epistemology. For all the opinions we have and hold, we spend very little time wondering what, exactly, they are.
Opinions really are a vague weird word. You talked about people passing of opinion as fact. (Annoying, except when I do it Radiohead actually factually is the best band of all time. Ful stop.) I think your secret war model is good for things that are properly in that vague borderland between preference and belief. But there's also some difficulty in discussing "opinions" as a concept because people are using the word in different ways. I know some people who one second talk about beliefs as beliefs, only to quickly shift to calling these opinions when they come across counter-arguments. "Well, that's my opinion." Like people aren't naturally drawing these boundaries well when they talk, is all I'm saying. Like I think I sometimes express facts as if they were opinions just to not come off as aggro.
You mostly talk about opinions around preferences and aesthetic things but one thing I think one could add here is that expressing opinions can be a way not to influence ones social surroundings, but to seek connection. If I'm ranting with my friends or online I think your secret war model works well. But if I'm expressing opinions about my favourite movie on a date I'm more likely just looking to see if she's someone I click with.
What about the CHAOS strategy? Adopt an ever-shifting set of preferences and opinions so that no one can ever figure out what you're representing. Then, you can gain status by other means, like violence, or smelling really good.
What about Shameless Self-Promotion? Thanks to the way social media blurs the lines between self-expression and marketing, haven't we all consented to the game of Opinion Marketplace?
So has evolution made us want to be superior? I haven't come across that notion... I had come to understand that it made us want to belong, to be accepted, to feel that we are safely part of a group, and to want to keep that belonging every day, sewing up any rifts or holes that may have taken place during the rough and tumbleness of life. Having certain opinions and rejecting others is part of that exercise--the "superiority" thing only makes sense in a communal sense (my ingroup is better than your (out)group). Superiority is not the same thing as being worthy of inclusion in the group, having something to contribute and being acknowledged as such... I mean, some groups are not accepting of "superior" people, and others are. So it wouldn't make sense for evolution to give us a feature that will make our survival harder in some contexts...
What about genuine long term concerns over health and that's why you don't está McDonald's? You're making it seem like there isn't good and bad actions and good and bad preferences, eating McDonald's isn't bad because it testes good, it does and no one can deny it, but because it makes people fat
This seems to address opinions as they relate to our own well-being and status. Where do opinions in the realm of social, economic and foreign policy fit in this framework where for many of us it’s about improving the lot of *others* in concrete ways?
Interesting- I read through your updated preprint, (thanks, I always like to see that kind of thing) and it doesn't seem to address the physical world quite as much as I would expect. I understand why, status and signaling don't tie super tightly to the physical world like they once did. You've made that point well, above. But it was our ancestors, with a tighter tie to the elements, that helped to select our present propensities and supporting social/cultural artifacts/memes.
I'm seeing a bit of work on how social structures start to break down in our environment of modern abundance. Only the people at the top seem to like the kind of thing you're writing about, status, opinion, etc. The mass middle still play at it as a means to rise up, but it's expensive. Our forebears had less stratification, less incentive and I suspect, less social distortion.
That's my new concept, Social Distortion... Ultimately, the facts of the world matter, but it can take a long time for them to filter their way into the sapiens social signaling system in a meaningful way.
You raise an interesting question when asking "What are opinions?" Thinking about it now, I understand opinions as views, perspectives, or our interpretation of the world. So opinions are more like beliefs to me (ideas we believe). Opinions can be factual or not and we can feel strongly about them or believe they are right/accurate or not feel so strongly about them. I think there's a relationship between how attached we are to our opinions and how certain we are of them. For example, some people strongly believe that women are to blame for the problems men face nowadays and they see this as a fact. I do not. To figure out which opinion is correct we need to define or express is more clearly and precisely and then check the data.
Perhaps I am naïve, but I think many (all?) opinions can be judged and *should* be judged. We can try to determine how correct/accurate they are and how universal they are. In my opinion, having accurate opinions is useful.
I don't think it all comes down to playing a game of status or imposing our opinions on others. I think we can talk about a hierarchy of opinions though, some being much better than others. For example, some people believe that "People are becoming less moral and young people are more depraved than they used to be in the past". Others believe that "Deep down, all people are essentially good". I think both views are inferior to an opinion that is fact-based such as " People vary in how good and moral they are and our society has actually become more moral on most (not all) measures".
Do I care what people think about this - and any other topic? Certainly. I care because a world where people hold opinions that are false and foolish is worse than a world where people hold opinions that are fact-based and rational. And if I try to persuade anyone that my opinions are better, I do this because those opinions - that happen to be mine - are better. Should their opinion be better (more accurate) than mine, I'll gladly adopt it. (Ok, I may not always be glad about being proven wrong in the moment, but after thinking about it or checking the information, I'll be happy to correct or change my belief with a better one). Is it still a game of status if I care about the hierarchy of opinions/beliefs rather than the hierarchy of the people who hold them? Is it a game of status if I don't even try too much to convince others that some of my opinions are better? I don't always share all my opinions/beliefs and when I do, I do it for those who are able to see their value.
Some countries drive on the left, others on the right. In each case it's the law. Cars are built accordingly, with the steering wheel on the left or the right.
Many people, hundreds of millions of people, comply, or give a good facsimile of complying with norms, social conventions, of which they don't agree. They didn't share the 'opinion', they don't want to conform, but everyone picks their battles, everyone wants to reduce the friction of their days. That's what norms do to people. Norms are often not at all normal, norms are rarely a shared opinion.
Macca's is a decision about food, it's neither a preference nor an opinion. Food has long been weighed down with a moral dimension, which you and others have absorbed as fact.
Now it is well known that a part of the US population objected to wearing a mask in public. So, one side was wearing a mask, which could have been based on a set of facts, or perhaps, an opinion, and the other side was what? Can you tell me what that is? A status thing? Also an opinion? How does this opinion stuff change when there are facts involved? I think I lost that thread. Was it just a status thing?
In my opinion (irony noted), you are leaving out an important factor - the feedback loop that is self-awareness of what you describe. Our opinions become legitimate objects of thought and as such, MIGHT actually be altered to serve what you would describe as their proximate (reason) rather than ultimate (propagate) purpose. Of course, it could be opinions all the way down...
10/10, chef's kiss
Opinions really are a vague weird word. You talked about people passing of opinion as fact. (Annoying, except when I do it Radiohead actually factually is the best band of all time. Ful stop.) I think your secret war model is good for things that are properly in that vague borderland between preference and belief. But there's also some difficulty in discussing "opinions" as a concept because people are using the word in different ways. I know some people who one second talk about beliefs as beliefs, only to quickly shift to calling these opinions when they come across counter-arguments. "Well, that's my opinion." Like people aren't naturally drawing these boundaries well when they talk, is all I'm saying. Like I think I sometimes express facts as if they were opinions just to not come off as aggro.
You mostly talk about opinions around preferences and aesthetic things but one thing I think one could add here is that expressing opinions can be a way not to influence ones social surroundings, but to seek connection. If I'm ranting with my friends or online I think your secret war model works well. But if I'm expressing opinions about my favourite movie on a date I'm more likely just looking to see if she's someone I click with.
What about the CHAOS strategy? Adopt an ever-shifting set of preferences and opinions so that no one can ever figure out what you're representing. Then, you can gain status by other means, like violence, or smelling really good.
What about Shameless Self-Promotion? Thanks to the way social media blurs the lines between self-expression and marketing, haven't we all consented to the game of Opinion Marketplace?
Is this an opinion piece?
So has evolution made us want to be superior? I haven't come across that notion... I had come to understand that it made us want to belong, to be accepted, to feel that we are safely part of a group, and to want to keep that belonging every day, sewing up any rifts or holes that may have taken place during the rough and tumbleness of life. Having certain opinions and rejecting others is part of that exercise--the "superiority" thing only makes sense in a communal sense (my ingroup is better than your (out)group). Superiority is not the same thing as being worthy of inclusion in the group, having something to contribute and being acknowledged as such... I mean, some groups are not accepting of "superior" people, and others are. So it wouldn't make sense for evolution to give us a feature that will make our survival harder in some contexts...
What about genuine long term concerns over health and that's why you don't está McDonald's? You're making it seem like there isn't good and bad actions and good and bad preferences, eating McDonald's isn't bad because it testes good, it does and no one can deny it, but because it makes people fat
This seems to address opinions as they relate to our own well-being and status. Where do opinions in the realm of social, economic and foreign policy fit in this framework where for many of us it’s about improving the lot of *others* in concrete ways?
Interesting- I read through your updated preprint, (thanks, I always like to see that kind of thing) and it doesn't seem to address the physical world quite as much as I would expect. I understand why, status and signaling don't tie super tightly to the physical world like they once did. You've made that point well, above. But it was our ancestors, with a tighter tie to the elements, that helped to select our present propensities and supporting social/cultural artifacts/memes.
I'm seeing a bit of work on how social structures start to break down in our environment of modern abundance. Only the people at the top seem to like the kind of thing you're writing about, status, opinion, etc. The mass middle still play at it as a means to rise up, but it's expensive. Our forebears had less stratification, less incentive and I suspect, less social distortion.
That's my new concept, Social Distortion... Ultimately, the facts of the world matter, but it can take a long time for them to filter their way into the sapiens social signaling system in a meaningful way.
You raise an interesting question when asking "What are opinions?" Thinking about it now, I understand opinions as views, perspectives, or our interpretation of the world. So opinions are more like beliefs to me (ideas we believe). Opinions can be factual or not and we can feel strongly about them or believe they are right/accurate or not feel so strongly about them. I think there's a relationship between how attached we are to our opinions and how certain we are of them. For example, some people strongly believe that women are to blame for the problems men face nowadays and they see this as a fact. I do not. To figure out which opinion is correct we need to define or express is more clearly and precisely and then check the data.
Perhaps I am naïve, but I think many (all?) opinions can be judged and *should* be judged. We can try to determine how correct/accurate they are and how universal they are. In my opinion, having accurate opinions is useful.
I don't think it all comes down to playing a game of status or imposing our opinions on others. I think we can talk about a hierarchy of opinions though, some being much better than others. For example, some people believe that "People are becoming less moral and young people are more depraved than they used to be in the past". Others believe that "Deep down, all people are essentially good". I think both views are inferior to an opinion that is fact-based such as " People vary in how good and moral they are and our society has actually become more moral on most (not all) measures".
Do I care what people think about this - and any other topic? Certainly. I care because a world where people hold opinions that are false and foolish is worse than a world where people hold opinions that are fact-based and rational. And if I try to persuade anyone that my opinions are better, I do this because those opinions - that happen to be mine - are better. Should their opinion be better (more accurate) than mine, I'll gladly adopt it. (Ok, I may not always be glad about being proven wrong in the moment, but after thinking about it or checking the information, I'll be happy to correct or change my belief with a better one). Is it still a game of status if I care about the hierarchy of opinions/beliefs rather than the hierarchy of the people who hold them? Is it a game of status if I don't even try too much to convince others that some of my opinions are better? I don't always share all my opinions/beliefs and when I do, I do it for those who are able to see their value.
Some countries drive on the left, others on the right. In each case it's the law. Cars are built accordingly, with the steering wheel on the left or the right.
Many people, hundreds of millions of people, comply, or give a good facsimile of complying with norms, social conventions, of which they don't agree. They didn't share the 'opinion', they don't want to conform, but everyone picks their battles, everyone wants to reduce the friction of their days. That's what norms do to people. Norms are often not at all normal, norms are rarely a shared opinion.
Macca's is a decision about food, it's neither a preference nor an opinion. Food has long been weighed down with a moral dimension, which you and others have absorbed as fact.
Facts.
Remember ruffs.
There is survival and viewpoint.
What is good for the duck hunter is not good for the duck.
Well written!
"And, of course, we neglect the possibility that nothing is objectively “right” or “wrong”—that it’s all arbitrary."
So, it took some time but eventually, studies showed that wearing a KN95 mask in a crowd reduced the chances of both transmitting and picking up COVID 19, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm. But ironically, the top search hit in my feed, the Mayo Clinic web page on masks, doesn't quote any numbers even though the title of the page suggests that it does, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449.
Now it is well known that a part of the US population objected to wearing a mask in public. So, one side was wearing a mask, which could have been based on a set of facts, or perhaps, an opinion, and the other side was what? Can you tell me what that is? A status thing? Also an opinion? How does this opinion stuff change when there are facts involved? I think I lost that thread. Was it just a status thing?
In my opinion (irony noted), you are leaving out an important factor - the feedback loop that is self-awareness of what you describe. Our opinions become legitimate objects of thought and as such, MIGHT actually be altered to serve what you would describe as their proximate (reason) rather than ultimate (propagate) purpose. Of course, it could be opinions all the way down...