I’ve read a few blogs on this deal of having “strong opinions, that are weakly held” over the year 2020. People take sides on whether it is a good thing or not. But as I understand it, it is just science. Here’s why.
A “strong opinion” is one that has been formulated after a lot of thought, at least that is the idea here. This is consistent with science, you form a hypothesis initially as a casual observation, then you take steps to check if that idea might have legs, then you finally (albeit continually) test that idea using controlled testing and research. Having a strong opinion means you have thought and researched it well, not blindly repeated what some other mob has decided is true or “trending.” You are entitled to that strong opinion and can speak strongly about it because of this. If you have not put the time in saying, “I have no opinion” or “I only have a slight opinion about that” is always fine.
For example, this is how I concluded that NeoVim is absolute shit. I had a hunch it sucked and wondered why anyone would ever use it, but I asked around in an open way, I even tried it. I sincerely wanted to understand what was drawing people to it. Then I spent an entire Saturday reading through the entire change log discovering stuff that not even 50% of NeoVim users even know. I documented all their changes and addressed every explanation they cite in their own documentation. Then I published my new strong (and very unpopular) opinion. I can defend it specifically and frankly don’t give a shit when those who attack me for having it haven’t even put the same time in to discuss it. It’s not “cancelling” them. It’s not wasting time conversing with someone too lazy to put the time in to fully understand my conclusion and talk about it point by point.
This is the part that really grabbed me when I learned what it means. I change my opinions so frequently that I have developed the nick name “Flip Flop Rob” and have even been memed by my “students” in 2014 for it. But I’ve learned this isn’t a flaw, this is a sign that I’m following this part of the mantra and scientific method which states that in the face of new data and research you must change your conclusions if they contradict your earlier findings. This is the most fundamental principle of the scientific method and the one that is most frequently — and dangerously — broken that least to dogma and disaster. You must change your conclusions, and yes, this means you might have to change them every fucking week if you are moving that quickly in your discovery of new information and research.
In other words, changing your mind all the time because you have new information is a good thing, not “flippant” or “wishy washy”. It is true that before you publish you strong opinion you might want to wait a bit, but in our world of rapid change and constant new discoveries we must allow people to change just as rapidly and without attacking them and forcing backfire-effect (something discussed well on Adam Ruins Everything).
Allowing yourself and others to have weakly held beliefs — even that change weekly — is crucial to the development of a progressive society. Without it we all lose. Without it, not only would presidents of both parties not be allowed to change their position on inclusive marriage, but we’d be blood-letting everyone to “get out the bad blood”, or worse, using CoffeeScript.