How can you have an opinion?
Between the Socratic paradox and the Dunning-Kruger effect, by now the problem of the awareness of one’s own knowledge has acquired meme status, at least in my mind. Not only is knowledge never definitive or complete, but the more you learn, the less you think you know. It kind of makes sense: the more (disgustingly ignorant I am, the fewer tools I’ll have to evaluate my knowledge; the more I learn, the more aware I’ll be of how much I still don’t know. If I want to be intellectually honest, whether I’ve studied a lot or very little, I must always keep in mind how limited my knowledge is. My recent problems in forming opinions arise from these premises.
It seems that human beings instinctively impose judgments on reality, in the sense that inventing opinions is a component of our automatic system. From an evolutionary point of view, the argument seems sound if we consider that the ability to quickly judge the outside world can be advantageous: pissed-off lion = bad → I run away. So when I write that I find it difficult to form opinions, I don’t mean that I can’t, because not having opinions is (close to?) impossible. I will always have an opinion about anything, albeit instinctive and irrational. What I mean is that I find it difficult to form opinions that seem to me to be sensible, credible.
I was recently reading The Perils of Perception, where the author attempts to look at what people think, assess how far these beliefs deviate from reality, and ask why. The argument is based on the results of a set of surveys aimed precisely at understanding what we think (or what we say we think). For each of the issues mentioned in the book, the reader is asked to answer for himself to test their perception before discovering the results of the survey and the most factually relevant answer. For example, one survey asks participants to estimate the percentage of immigrants of their country’s population while, another one, how many times their fellow citizens have had sex in recent weeks. To similar questions — and here my issue with forming opinions pops up — I felt compelled to answer, “How the turbo-heck would I know?” Sure, I can give you an estimate: it will be based on instincts and what I have seen in the limited slice of the world that has come into contact with my limited slice of existence. But how could I ever consider that estimate credible, since it is based on basically nothing? To have an opinion that wants to be meaningful, I should at least analyze the objective data first.
A similar episode happened to me while watching a stream of an Italian channel (WesaTwitch) in which, among other things, the guy discussed the topic of minimum wage. I had come across this topic a few times before and had happened to read different opinions in different contexts. For example, I had heard people suggesting to raise it in the United States, but also domestic discussions about the proposal to introduce it in Italy. There was a time when I tended to agree with the idea of minimum wage, and then a time when I tended to be against it. Today I’m confused and I don’t know what opinion to have on such a complex issue. Is it better to have ten workers earning 10 each or one worker earning 100 and nine unemployed? Would the minimum wage increase the frequency of undeclared work? How does it relate to and affect geographic diversity of labor supply and pay? Would it lead to bankruptcies and unemployment or would it stimulate consumption and the economy? Should we leave people free to choose underpaid jobs or eliminate choice? We have already regulated other problems in this regard — for example, you cannot legally become a slave, even if you want to — but where do we draw the line between justice and paternalism that went too far?
I don’t expect any real answers to these specific doubts (but if you have any, please let me know). The case of The Perils of Perception and the minimum wage issue are just excuses to highlight a problem that, in my opinion, you experience if you decide to be humble in your ambitions for truth and reason, as you exist in a world that is fucking complex and in which the most honest answers often boil down to: “it depends,” “maybe,” and “I don’t have the faintest idea.” They sound inconclusive because they are, as well as unattractive. If you look around, however, you see certainties shouted with arrogance. Absolutes. You know it feels good. Knowing you know and being sure you’re right and others are wrong. But no. That’s not the path. Honesty then humility, if being honest is the choice.
How can one have an opinion?
I guess you try to become more pragmatic (more than your brain would like). You try to reason based on the knowledge and information you have, infer conclusions and assign them the appropriate level of confidence, and always remain open to re-evaluate that confidence based on new data. When your knowledge and information are not good enough, you resign to default to the absence of opinion, since instincts are not part of this game. It’s all imperfect and partial, but it is still more credible than any non-negotiable absolute.