Strong Opinions, Strongly Presented

The phrase "Strong Opinions, Weakly Held" (sometimes "Loosely Held") is attributed to Paul Saffo, and originated as a framework for making decisions in the face of certain uncertainty. Its general hypothesis is that it's less costly to make an imperfect decision than to delay until enough information has been gathered in order to make a more perfect one — and that moving forward with a decision unsticks the brain in a way that allows new information, and actions, and decisions, to continue flowing. Holding the opinion weakly, loosely, allows for that new information to alter the decision at hand or alter its following steps, without allowing ego or sunk cost to attach any unhelpful importance to the act and artifact of deciding.

I am not the first to say that a common application of Saffo's idea allows for certain folks to stridently declare their strong opinion in such a way as to exclude feedback from anyone unwilling to force an equally strident debate. The Thunderdome, The Octogon, The Cage Match of Ideas — where the strongest survive and all others perish — can sometimes be fun, but the conflict-laden language is adversarial and can be exclusionary. It self-selects for the style of an idea's presentation rather than the quality of the idea. It excludes folks who prefer a more chill discussion, or who are working through conflict avoidance, or where power dynamics make direct opposition feel unsafe.

Strong Opinions, Equivocated

It's important to form opinions, to share advice, and to make decisions, because it's helpful to other people. The great Bell Hooks quotes M. Scott Peck in her book "All About Love" to say that "the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth" is at the heart of the act of love. This is a strong and specific word, and I do not mean to co-opt her nuanced and important work in order to make a small point about professional life. Still, I think it's better to at least care for the people that I work with than to not — at least when I'm able. This is part of the responsibility that comes with knowledge: to share it in order to helps others grow, and to share it in a way that is helpful for them to receive.

Attempting to silently disappear from the world, or to equivocate an opinion into meaninglessness, is unhelpful. It fills a meeting with awkward silence or, worse, dithering noise. We're left with an obligation which includes the added complication of having to carefully think of others and how to invite them kindly into the conversation.

Strong Opinions, Qualified

I've found a strategy that I think works pretty well; it's in two parts. The first part is drawn from common advice on giving advice: to center my opinions in my own experience. Adding something like "what's worked for me before" acknowledges that my opinion is based on my circumstances, which are not universal, and so may or may not match with others' present situation. The second part I call the Opinion Zone™ and involves an imaginary box that's drawn in the air.

Some folks may joke that I'm outlining the soapbox that I'm about to metaphorically stand on, and it's true that have a tendency to speak in (brief!) diatribes. What I intend to call out, with a little humor, is a bit of shorthand by way of the gesture. To say that I have some thoughts to share, and that while I believe they are helpful, to reiterate that they are my own and are subject to my circumstances. To note that they are fallible and that I am fallible. To invite others into the conversation and to leave room for their own Opinion Zones® which may or may not overlap with mine.

To admit my likelihood for being wrong is a small act of humility that I find to be a helpful reminder: to be a little less serious; to be a little more flexible; to be a little more open to the opinions and advice of others. To try to help anyway is some part of my responsibility to care for others. I hope you find this helpful, too.

Thanks for your time and attention.