How Good Are Your Opinions?

Which of the followin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">individuals is likely to be most successful at persuadin" rel="nofollow">ing the public to buy a certain" rel="nofollow">in brand of runnin" rel="nofollow">ing shoes? Explain" rel="nofollow">in your reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing. Anexperiencedtrain" rel="nofollow">iner AnOlympicrunnin" rel="nofollow">ingchampion A podiatrist A physician in" rel="nofollow">in general practice The surgeon general of the United States How Good Are Your Opin" rel="nofollow">inions? To me truth is precious. . . . I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong. . . . The holdin" rel="nofollow">ing of the views herein" rel="nofollow">in set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellow men. I am looked upon as bein" rel="nofollow">ing odd, strange, peculiar. . . . But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn again" rel="nofollow">inst me, I will clin" rel="nofollow">ing to truth still.1 Stirrin" rel="nofollow">ing words, those. You can envision their author bravely facin" rel="nofollow">ing legions of reactionaries in" rel="nofollow">intent on imposin" rel="nofollow">ing their narrow dogmas on him. In the background you can almost hear a chorus sin" rel="nofollow">ingin" rel="nofollow">ing “Stout-Hearted Men.” Stand tall, brave hero. Never give in" rel="nofollow">in! But wait a min" rel="nofollow">inute. Just who is the author? And what exactly is the opin" rel="nofollow">inion he is valiantly defendin" rel="nofollow">ing? His name is Charles Silvester de Fort. The quotation is from a booklet he wrote in" rel="nofollow">in 1931. And the opin" rel="nofollow">inion is—are you ready for this?—that the earth is flat. People have always taken their opin" rel="nofollow">inions seriously, but today many people embrace their opin" rel="nofollow">inions with extraordin" rel="nofollow">inary passion. “I have a right to my opin" rel="nofollow">inion” and “Everyone’s entitled to his or her opin" rel="nofollow">inion” are common expressions. Question another person’s opin" rel="nofollow">inion and you’re likely to hear, “Well, that’s my OPINION.” The unspoken message is “Case closed.” Is that a reasonable view? Is it in" rel="nofollow">inappropriate to challenge the opin" rel="nofollow">inions of others? The answer depends on the kin" rel="nofollow">ind of issue in" rel="nofollow">involved. If it is a matter of taste, then the standard is the undemandin" rel="nofollow">ing one of personal preference. If Agnes fin" rel="nofollow">inds Regin" rel="nofollow">inald handsome and Sally disagrees, there’s really no basis for a meanin" rel="nofollow">ingful dispute. Ditto if Ralph drools over an orange Camaro with brass wire hubcaps and purple upholstery and Carla is repulsed by it. Some people put catsup on hot dogs, while others prefer mustard or rel- ish, and perhaps at this very moment someone, somewhere, is slatherin" rel="nofollow">ing a hot dog with mayonnaise or blueberries or pureed brussels sprouts. So what? Vive la différence! However, consider this very different use of the term opin" rel="nofollow">inion: A news- paper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opin" rel="nofollow">inion in" rel="nofollow">in a contro- versial case. Obviously, the justices did not state their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, pain" rel="nofollow">instakin" rel="nofollow">ingly arrived at after thorough in" rel="nofollow">inquiry and deliberation. In the context of critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, the term opin" rel="nofollow">inion refers to expres- sions of judgment rather than to expressions of taste.* In some cases, unfortunately, it is not clear whether someone is expressin" rel="nofollow">ing taste or judg ment. A friend might say to you, as you leave a movie theater, “That was a wonderful film,” which could mean “I liked it” or “It meets a very high standard of cin" rel="nofollow">inematography.” If she is merely sayin" rel="nofollow">ing she liked it, and you didn’t, the disagreement would be over personal taste, which is poin" rel="nofollow">intless to debate. However, if she is makin" rel="nofollow">ing an aesthetic judgment, you could reasonably challenge her, citin" rel="nofollow">ing specific film standards the movie failed to meet. Is everyone entitled to his or her opin" rel="nofollow">inion? In a free country this is not only permitted but guaranteed. In Great Britain" rel="nofollow">in, for example, there is still a Flat Earth Society. As the name implies, the members of this organization believe that the earth is not spherical but flat. In this country, too, each of us is free to take as bizarre a position as we please about any matter we choose. When the telephone operator announces, “That’ll be nin" rel="nofollow">inety-five cents for the first three min" rel="nofollow">inutes,” you may respond, “No, it won’t—it’ll be twenty-eight cents.” When the service station attendant notifies you, “Your oil is down a quart,” you may reply, “Wrong—it’s up three.” Bein" rel="nofollow">ing free to hold an opin" rel="nofollow">inion and express it does not, of course, guar- antee favorable consequences. The operator may hang up on you, and the service station attendant may respond unpleasantly. Actin" rel="nofollow">ing on our opin" rel="nofollow">inions carries even less assurance. Consider the case of the California couple who took their eleven-year-old diabetic son to a faith healer. Secure in" rel="nofollow">in their opin" rel="nofollow">inion that the man had cured the boy, they threw away his in" rel="nofollow">insulin" rel="nofollow">in. Three days later, the boy died. The parents remain" rel="nofollow">ined unshaken in" rel="nofollow">in their belief, expressin" rel="nofollow">ing the opin" rel="nofollow">inion that God would raise the boy from the dead. The police arrested them, chargin" rel="nofollow">ing them with manslaughter.2 The law in" rel="nofollow">in such matters is both clear and reasonable: We are free to act on our opin" rel="nofollow">inions only as long as, in" rel="nofollow">in doin" rel="nofollow">ing so, we do not harm others. We might be tempted to conclude that if we are free to have an opin" rel="nofollow">inion, it must be correct. That, however, is not the case. Free societies are based on the wise observation that people have an in" rel="nofollow">inalienable right to thin" rel="nofollow">ink their own thoughts and make their own choices. But this fact in" rel="nofollow">in no way sug- gests that the thoughts they thin" rel="nofollow">ink and the choices they make will be rea- sonable. It is a fundamental prin" rel="nofollow">inciple of critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing that ideas are seldom of equal quality. Solutions to problems vary from the practical to the impractical, beliefs from the well founded to the ill founded, argu- ments from the logical to the illogical, and opin" rel="nofollow">inions from the in" rel="nofollow">informed to the unin" rel="nofollow">informed. Critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing serves to separate the more worthy from the less worthy and, ultimately, to identify the best. Evidence that opin" rel="nofollow">inions can be mistaken is all around us. The weekend drin" rel="nofollow">inker often has the opin" rel="nofollow">inion that, as long as he doesn’t drin" rel="nofollow">ink durin" rel="nofollow">ing the week, he is not an alcoholic. The person who contin" rel="nofollow">inues drivin" rel="nofollow">ing her gas guzzler with the needle on Empty may have the opin" rel="nofollow">inion that the problem bein" rel="nofollow">ing signaled can wait for another fifty miles. The student who quits school at age sixteen may have the opin" rel="nofollow">inion that an early entry in" rel="nofollow">into the job market ultimately improves job security. Yet, however deeply and sin" rel="nofollow">in- cerely such opin" rel="nofollow">inions are held, they are most likely wrong. Research shows that people can be mistaken even when they are makin" rel="nofollow">ing a special effort to judge objectively. Sometimes their errors are caused by considerations so subtle that they are unaware of them. For example, before Taster’s Choice coffee was in" rel="nofollow">introduced, it was tested and sampled with three different labels—brown, yellow, and red. People who sampled the brown-labeled coffee reported that it was too strong and kept them awake at night. Those who sampled the yellow-labeled coffee found it weak and watery. Those who sampled the red-labeled coffee judged it to be just the right strength and delicious. All this even though the coffee in" rel="nofollow">in each jar was exactly the same. The people had been subconsciously in" rel="nofollow">influenced by the color of the label.3 Opin" rel="nofollow">inions on Moral Issues The notion that everyone is entitled to his or her opin" rel="nofollow">inion is especially strong in" rel="nofollow">in the area of morality. Questions of right and wrong are presumed to be completely subjective and personal. Accordin" rel="nofollow">ing to this notion, if you believe a particular behavior is immoral and I believe it is moral, even noble, we are both right. Your view is “right for you” and min" rel="nofollow">ine is “right for me.” This popular perspective may seem emin" rel="nofollow">inently sensible and broad- min" rel="nofollow">inded, but it is utterly shallow. Almost every day, situations arise that require reasonable people to violate it. Have you ever heard anyone claim that burglary, spousal abuse, or rape is morally acceptable for those who believe it is? When someone is convicted of child molestin" rel="nofollow">ing, do citizens parade in" rel="nofollow">in front of the courthouse with banners proclaimin" rel="nofollow">ing “Pedophilia may be wrong for us, but it was right for him”? If your in" rel="nofollow">instructor discov- ers you cheatin" rel="nofollow">ing on an examin" rel="nofollow">ination, will she accept your explanation that you believe the end justifies the means? If a Breathalyzer test reveals that your classmate was drivin" rel="nofollow">ing with a blood alcohol level higher than his grade poin" rel="nofollow">int average, will the police officer commend him for livin" rel="nofollow">ing by his moral conviction? Virtually every professional organization and every corporation has a code of ethics that specifies the behaviors that are required or forbidden. Every country has a body of laws with prescribed penalties for violators. There are even in" rel="nofollow">international laws that govern affairs among countries. All these codes and legal systems don’t appear out of thin" rel="nofollow">in air. They are the products of moral judgment, the same mental activity in" rel="nofollow">individuals use in" rel="nofollow">in decidin" rel="nofollow">ing everyday issues of right and wrong. And they are subject to the same limitations and imperfections. Opin" rel="nofollow">inions about moral issues, like other opin" rel="nofollow">inions, may be correct or in" rel="nofollow">incorrect. Are there criteria we can use to in" rel="nofollow">increase the chance that our moral judgments will be correct? Defin" rel="nofollow">initely. The most important criteria are obligations, ideals, and consequences.* • Obligations:Obligationsarerestrictionsonbehavior,demandsthat we do or avoid doin" rel="nofollow">ing somethin" rel="nofollow">ing. The most obvious kin" rel="nofollow">inds of obliga- tions are formal agreements such as contracts. Others in" rel="nofollow">include profes- sional and busin" rel="nofollow">iness obligations, and obligations of friendship and citizenship. When two or more obligations conflict, the most impor- tant one should take precedence. • Ideals :In the general sense, ideals are notions of excellence, goals that brin" rel="nofollow">ing greater harmony within" rel="nofollow">in ourselves and with others. In ethics they are also specific concepts that help us main" rel="nofollow">intain" rel="nofollow">in respect for per- sons. Some noteworthy examples of ideals are honesty, in" rel="nofollow">integrity, justice, and fairness. When two or more ideals conflict in" rel="nofollow">in a given situation, the most important one should be given precedence. • Consequences: Consequences are the beneficial and/or harmful results of an action that affect both the person performin" rel="nofollow">ing that action and other people. Any examin" rel="nofollow">ination of consequences should consider the various kin" rel="nofollow">inds: personal and societal; physical and emotional; immediate and eventual; in" rel="nofollow">intended and unin" rel="nofollow">intended; obvious and subtle; and possible, probable, and certain" rel="nofollow">in. Actions that achieve ben- eficial consequences should be preferred over those that do harm. Whenever the consequences are mixed (some beneficial, others harmful), the preferred action is the one that achieves the greater good or the lesser evil. Even Experts Can Be Wrong History records numerous occasions when the expert opin" rel="nofollow">inion has been the wrong opin" rel="nofollow">inion. In ancient times the standard medical opin" rel="nofollow">inion was that headaches were caused by demons in" rel="nofollow">inside the skull. The accepted treat- ment ranged from openin" rel="nofollow">ing the skull and releasin" rel="nofollow">ing the demons to givin" rel="nofollow">ing medicin" rel="nofollow">ines derived from cow’s brain" rel="nofollow">in and goat dung. (Some Native American tribes preferred beaver testicles.)4 When the idea of in" rel="nofollow">inoculatin" rel="nofollow">ing people again" rel="nofollow">inst diseases such as small- pox first arrived in" rel="nofollow">in the colonies in" rel="nofollow">in the early 1700s, most authorities regarded it as nonsense. Among them were Benjamin" rel="nofollow">in Franklin" rel="nofollow">in and a number of the men who later founded Harvard Medical School. Again" rel="nofollow">inst the authorities stood a relatively unknown man who didn’t even have a medical degree, Zabdiel Boylston. Whose opin" rel="nofollow">inion was proved right? Not the experts’ but Zabdiel Boylston’s.5 In 1890 a Nobel Prize–win" rel="nofollow">innin" rel="nofollow">ing bacteriologist, Dr. Robert Koch, reported that he had found a substance that would cure tuberculosis. When it was in" rel="nofollow">injected in" rel="nofollow">into patients, though, it was found to cause further illness and even death. In 1904 psychologist G. Stanley Hall expressed his professional opin" rel="nofollow">inion that when women engage in" rel="nofollow">in strenuous mental activity, particu- larly with men, they experience a loss of mammary function and in" rel="nofollow">interest in" rel="nofollow">in motherhood, as well as decreased fertility. If they subsequently have children, the children will tend to be sickly.6 Today this idea is laughable. Between 1919 and 1922 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in" rel="nofollow">in New York City bought seventeen gold vessels that experts determin" rel="nofollow">ined were authen- tic treasures from a 3,500-year-old Egyptian tomb. In 1982 the vessels were discovered to be twentieth-century fakes.7 In 1928 a drug called thorotrast was developed and used to outlin" rel="nofollow">ine certain" rel="nofollow">in organs of the body so that clearer X-rays could be taken. Nin" rel="nofollow">ineteen years later, doctors learned that even small doses of the drug caused cancer. In 1959 a sedative called thalidomide was placed on the market. Many physicians prescribed it for pregnant women. Then, when a large number of babies were born deformed, medical authorities realized that thalidomide was to blame. In 1973, usin" rel="nofollow">ing refin" rel="nofollow">ined radar mappin" rel="nofollow">ing techniques, scientists decided that their earlier claims about the surface of Venus were wrong. It was not smooth, as they had thought, but pockmarked with craters.8 In the 1980s and 1990s one of the hottest topics in" rel="nofollow">in the publishin" rel="nofollow">ing and semin" rel="nofollow">inar in" rel="nofollow">industries was co-dependency. Anyone related to an alcoholic or drug addict was considered to be a contributor to the problem, chiefly by unconsciously encouragin" rel="nofollow">ing the person’s habit or enablin" rel="nofollow">ing the person to in" rel="nofollow">in- dulge it. Soon the idea of co-dependency became the diagnosis of choice for any situation characterized by out-of-control behavior. Co-dependents were urged to buy books, attend semin" rel="nofollow">inars, and join" rel="nofollow">in their troubled family member in" rel="nofollow">in counselin" rel="nofollow">ing. Then one curious researcher, Edith Gomberg, examin" rel="nofollow">ined the scientific research base on which the movement was founded. She found . . . zip, nada, nothin" rel="nofollow">ing. In her words, “There are no surveys, no clin" rel="nofollow">in- ical research, no evaluations; only descriptive, impressionistic statements.”9 For most of the twentieth century, the universally accepted scientific opin" rel="nofollow">inion was that stomach ulcers are caused by excess stomach acid gener- ated by stress. Then Barry Marshall demonstrated that ulcers are caused by bacteria and can be cured with antibiotics. Remember the brontosaurus with his head stretchin" rel="nofollow">ing to the treetops in" rel="nofollow">in Jurassic Park? That scene reflected the traditional scientific opin" rel="nofollow">inion that the big din" rel="nofollow">inosaurs din" rel="nofollow">ined on leaves thirty or more feet off the ground. In 1999, however, Michael Parrish, a northern Illin" rel="nofollow">inois researcher, experi- mented with a computer model of the neck bones of large din" rel="nofollow">inosaurs and discovered that they could never have lifted their heads above the level of their bodies. If they had, their neck vertebrae would have collapsed. They couldn’t have stood on their hin" rel="nofollow">ind legs, either, because the demands on their blood pressure would have been excessive.10 For years physicians told us that fiber lowers cholesterol and protects again" rel="nofollow">inst colon cancer. Eventually, medical research established that it doesn’t lower cholesterol. Then researchers demonstrated that it doesn’t protect again" rel="nofollow">inst colon cancer.11 To this day, many experts are convin" rel="nofollow">inced that the cause of crime is a bad social environment and that the solution is to pour millions of dollars in" rel="nofollow">into poor neighborhoods for a variety of social programs. Other experts are equally convin" rel="nofollow">inced that the cause of crime is an emotional disorder that can be cured only by psychological counselin" rel="nofollow">ing. But a leadin" rel="nofollow">ing researcher, Stanton Samenow, disputes both views. Samenow argues that “bad neighborhoods, in" rel="nofollow">inadequate parents, television, schools, drugs, or unemployment” are not the cause of crime—crimin" rel="nofollow">inals themselves are. They break the law not because conditions force them to but because they choose to, and they choose to because they consider themselves special and therefore above the law. In Samenow’s view, the key to crimin" rel="nofollow">inals’ rehabilitation is for them to accept responsibility for their behavior.12 Is Samenow correct? Time will tell. It is impossible to know what expert opin" rel="nofollow">inions of our time will be overturned by researchers in" rel="nofollow">in the future. But we can be sure that some will be. And they may well be views that today seem unassailable. Kin" rel="nofollow">inds of Errors Opin" rel="nofollow">inion can be corrupted by any one of four broad kin" rel="nofollow">inds of errors.* These classifications, with examples added for clarification, are the followin" rel="nofollow">ing: 1. Errors or tendencies to error common among all people by virtue of their bein" rel="nofollow">ing human (for example, the tendency to perceive selectively or rush to judgment or oversimplify complex realities) ? 2. Errors or tendencies to error associated with one’s in" rel="nofollow">individual habits of min" rel="nofollow">ind or personal attitudes, beliefs, or theories (for example, the habit of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing the worst of members of a race or religion again" rel="nofollow">inst which one harbors prejudice) ? 3. Errors that come from human communication and the limitations of language (for example, the practice of expressin" rel="nofollow">ing a thought or feel- in" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">inadequately and leadin" rel="nofollow">ing others to form a mistaken impression) ? 4. Errors in" rel="nofollow">in the general fashion of an age (for example, the tendency in" rel="nofollow">in our grandparents’ day to accept authority unquestionin" rel="nofollow">ingly or the tendency in" rel="nofollow">in ours to recognize no authority but oneself ) ?Some people, of course, are more prone to errors than others. English ? philosopher John Locke observed that these people fall in" rel="nofollow">into three groups: Those who seldom reason at all, but thin" rel="nofollow">ink and act as those around them do—parents, neighbors, the clergy, or anyone else they admire and respect. Such people want to avoid the difficulty that accompanies thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing for themselves. Those who are determin" rel="nofollow">ined to let passion rather than reason govern their lives. Those people are in" rel="nofollow">influenced only by reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing that supports their prejudices. Those who sin" rel="nofollow">incerely follow reason, but lack sound, overall good sense, and so do not look at all sides of an issue. They tend to talk with one type of person, read one type of book, and so are exposed to only one viewpoin" rel="nofollow">int.13 To Locke’s list we should add one more type: those who never bother to reexamin" rel="nofollow">ine an opin" rel="nofollow">inion once it has been formed. These people are often the most error prone of all, for they forfeit all opportunity to correct mistaken opin" rel="nofollow">inions when new evidence arises. Informed Versus Unin" rel="nofollow">informed Opin" rel="nofollow">inion If experts can, like the rest of us, be wrong, why are their opin" rel="nofollow">inions more highly valued than those of nonexperts? In light of the examples we have con- sidered, we might conclude that it is a waste of time to consult the experts. Let’s look at some situations and see if this conclusion is reasonable. Novum Organum, Book I (1620). What are the effects of hashish on those who smoke it? We could ask the opin" rel="nofollow">inion of a smoker or take a poll of a large number of smokers. But it would be more prudent to obtain" rel="nofollow">in the opin" rel="nofollow">inion of one or more train" rel="nofollow">ined observers, research scientists who have conducted studies of the effects of hashish smokin" rel="nofollow">ing. (At least one such group, a team of army doctors, has found that heavy use of hashish leads to severe lung damage. Also, if the smoker is predisposed to schizophrenia, hashish can cause long-lastin" rel="nofollow">ing episodes of that disorder.14) A giant quasar is positioned on what may be the edge of our universe, 10 billion light-years away from us.15 (To calculate the distance in" rel="nofollow">in miles, just multiply the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, by the number of seconds in" rel="nofollow">in a day, 86,400; next multiply that answer by the number of days in" rel="nofollow">in a year, 365; fin" rel="nofollow">inally, multiply that answer by 10,000,000,000.) The pin" rel="nofollow">inpoin" rel="nofollow">int of light viewed by astronomers has been streakin" rel="nofollow">ing through space for all those years and has just reached us. The quasar may very well have ceased to exist millions and millions of years ago. Did it? It may take millions and millions of years before we can know. If we wanted to fin" rel="nofollow">ind out more about this quasar or about quasars in" rel="nofollow">in general, we could stop someone on a street corner and ask about it, and that person would be free to offer an opin" rel="nofollow">inion. But it would be more sensible to ask an astronomer. Can whales communicate with one another? If so, how far can they transmit messages? Would our auto mechanic have an opin" rel="nofollow">inion on this matter? Perhaps. And so might our grocer, dentist, and banker. But no matter how in" rel="nofollow">intelligent these people are, chances are their opin" rel="nofollow">inions about whales are not very well in" rel="nofollow">informed. The people whose opin" rel="nofollow">inions would be valuable would be those who have done some research with whales. (They would tell us that the humpback whales can make a variety of sounds. In addition to clickin" rel="nofollow">ing noises, they make creakin" rel="nofollow">ing and bangin" rel="nofollow">ing and squeakin" rel="nofollow">ing noises. They’ve been found to make these sounds for as long as several min" rel="nofollow">inutes at a time, at an in" rel="nofollow">intensity of 100 to 110 decibels, and audible for a distance of 25,000 miles.16) Similar examples could be cited from every field of knowledge—from antique collectin" rel="nofollow">ing to ethics, from art to crimin" rel="nofollow">inology. All would support the same view: that by examin" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing the opin" rel="nofollow">inions of in" rel="nofollow">informed people before mak- in" rel="nofollow">ing up our min" rel="nofollow">inds, we broaden our perspective, see details we might not see by ourselves, consider facts we would otherwise be unaware of, and lessen our chances of error. (It is foolish to look for guarantees of correctness— there are none.) No one can know everythin" rel="nofollow">ing about everythin" rel="nofollow">ing; there is simply not enough time to learn. Consultin" rel="nofollow">ing those who have given their special attention to the field of knowledge in" rel="nofollow">in question is therefore a mark not of dependence or irresponsibility but of efficiency and good sense. To be considered in" rel="nofollow">informed, an opin" rel="nofollow">inion must be based on somethin" rel="nofollow">ing more substantial than its familiarity to us or the length of time we have held it or our presumed right to thin" rel="nofollow">ink whatever we wish. It must be based on careful consideration of the evidence. And when we express an opin" rel="nofollow">inion in" rel="nofollow">in formal speakin" rel="nofollow">ing or writin" rel="nofollow">ing, we should support it adequately. Authors Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker, for example, assert that the reason teachin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the United States has not been a highly respected profession is that most schoolteachers traditionally have been women. To support this contention, they trace the relevant historical development, citin" rel="nofollow">ing admin" rel="nofollow">in- istrative directives and statements of philosophy, presentin" rel="nofollow">ing hirin" rel="nofollow">ing patterns (from 59 percent women in" rel="nofollow">in 1870 to 86 percent in" rel="nofollow">in 1920), detailin" rel="nofollow">ing significant shifts in" rel="nofollow">in curricula, contrastin" rel="nofollow">ing male and female salary statistics, and demonstratin" rel="nofollow">ing the relative powerlessness of women to negotiate professional-level salaries and workin" rel="nofollow">ing conditions.17 As this example illustrates, in" rel="nofollow">in most responsible expressions of opin" rel="nofollow">inion, the statement of opin" rel="nofollow">inion takes up only a sentence or two, while the sup- portin" rel="nofollow">ing details fill paragraphs, pages, and even entire chapters. Keep this in" rel="nofollow">in min" rel="nofollow">ind when writin" rel="nofollow">ing your analytic papers. Formin" rel="nofollow">ing Opin" rel="nofollow">inions Responsibly One of the thin" rel="nofollow">ings that makes human bein" rel="nofollow">ings vastly more complex and in" rel="nofollow">in- terestin" rel="nofollow">ing than cows or trees is their ability to form opin" rel="nofollow">inions. Formin" rel="nofollow">ing opin" rel="nofollow">inions is natural. Even if we wanted to stop doin" rel="nofollow">ing so, we couldn’t. Nor should we want to. This ability has two sides, however. It can either lift us to wisdom or mire us in" rel="nofollow">in shallowness or even absurdity. Here are some tips that can help you improve the quality of your opin" rel="nofollow">inions: 1. Understand how opin" rel="nofollow">inions are formed. Like every other human bein" rel="nofollow">ing, you are constantly perceivin" rel="nofollow">ing—that is, receivin" rel="nofollow">ing data through your senses. Also like everyone else, you have a natural drive to discover meanin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in your perceptions. That drive can be enhanced or sup- pressed, but it can never be entirely lost. In practical terms, this means that you cannot help producin" rel="nofollow">ing opin" rel="nofollow">inions about what you see and hear whether or not you take control of the process. When you are not in" rel="nofollow">in control, your mental system operates in" rel="nofollow">in the uncritical default mode. Here is how that uncritical mode compares with the conscious and more conscientious critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing mode: Uncritical Default Mode Perceive?Let an opin" rel="nofollow">inion “come to min" rel="nofollow">ind” Focus on in" rel="nofollow">information that supports the opin" rel="nofollow">inion Embrace the opin" rel="nofollow">inion Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing Mode Perceive?Investigate the issue Consider alternative opin" rel="nofollow">inions Decide which opin" rel="nofollow">inion is most reasonable 2. Resist the temptation to treat your opin" rel="nofollow">inions as facts. This temptation can be powerful. Once you’ve formed an opin" rel="nofollow">inion, it is natural to bond with it, much as a parent bonds with a baby. The more you call your opin" rel="nofollow">inion to min" rel="nofollow">ind and express it to others, the stronger the bond becomes. To question its legitimacy soon becomes unthin" rel="nofollow">inkable. Nevertheless, you can be sure that some of your opin" rel="nofollow">inions have been uncritically formed and therefore need to be challenged. The prob- lem is that you can’t be sure which ones those are. The prudent approach is to question any opin" rel="nofollow">inion, even a cherished one, the moment evidence arises that suggests it is based on habit, impulse, whim, personal preference, or the in" rel="nofollow">influence of fashionable ideas rather than reality. 3. Monitor your thoughts to prevent the uncritical default mode from takin" rel="nofollow">ing charge. Whenever you begin" rel="nofollow">in formin" rel="nofollow">ing impressions of a person, place, or situation, follow the advice of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus: “Be not swept off your feet by the vividness of the impres- sion, but say, ‘Impression, wait for me a little. Let me see what you are and what you represent. Let me try [test] you.’” This approach will prevent your impressions from hardenin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">into opin" rel="nofollow">inions before you determin" rel="nofollow">ine their reasonableness. By followin" rel="nofollow">ing these three steps, you will gain" rel="nofollow">in control of your opin" rel="nofollow">inions, and that is a considerable advantage over havin" rel="nofollow">ing them control you.