When I have talked about controversial and opinionated topics on this blog, I have generally tried to take a dispassionate, analytical approach. And although I have not always been perfect at this, I have discussed politics (for example) from an analytical or technical viewpoint. My goal has long been to say things like “this is what the political situation looks like”, rather than things like “candidate X is the better candidate and everyone should vote for her”.
In large part, I set out to write in this way because I hoped to avoid turning this blog into a space of political rants and the inevitable vitriol that such sites produce. I am happy to report that, without fail, the few of you who have added comments have done so as well.
But while the goal was civility, I am discovering a side effect that offers a much more compelling reason to avoid taking an opinionated stance on controversial issues. After reading Influence by Robert Cialdini (specifically Chapter Two: “Consistency and Commitment”), I was reminded of the psychological effects of stating a preference.
Decades ago, social psychologists began to recognize that inducing an individual to publicly express an opinion causes them to be more dedicated to that preference than they would otherwise have been. As a consequence, they are far less likely to give fair weight to contradictory evidence, and are likely to become stubborn advocates of their stated stance.
In other words, the very act of stating a belief can help render one an ideologue.
I am not sure if I had this in mind when I decided to avoid taking political stands here, but I am glad that I have (for the most part) avoided doing so directly. But I am starting to worry that these effects will alter my thought process on any topic I write about. I write to delve into various topics, but is it possible that, as a result, I am inadvertently creating an unwavering commitment to underdeveloped ideas?
Probably, but I hope to minimize the effect.
One strategy to minimize the danger of blogging is to use conditional language where possible. I have always done this, often to excess, but I am glad that I do. By using words and phrases such as ”perhaps”, “almost”, “may very well”, etc., I believe that I am giving my subconscious a potential escape route should evidence come to light that should change my opinion.
But I wonder if there are any other strategies? Has anyone out there encountered this issue before? Do you have any ideas on how to write about things without cementing opinions? More importantly, how do you think that these dynamics will affect how other bloggers (who may not be cognizant of these problems) view themselves and the world?
