Do you assess opinions based on WHO makes them or what they ARE?

[sibelian]

?

[Just Saying]

1. Both

If it's an opinion, who says it and how much I trust and respect them comes into it.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. My position exactly.

It makes good sense to take a source's track record into account. Kind of like Bayesian models in statistics.

[sibelian]

10. Why?

How can the level of trust and respect you have of a person have any effect on the meaningfulness of what they say?

Don't you think it should be the other way round?

[Just Saying]

16. OP asked how we assess opinions

Of course you would take into account the level of trust and respect you have for someone when weighing their opinions. And naturally one thing feeds the other. You come to respect and trust people based on their opinions and behavior.

Not sure what your agenda is here or what answer you're looking for ??

[sibelian]

35. I don't have an agenda in particular, I suppose

I just wanted to know what people thought. I have a rather deep aversion for prioritising the messenger in assessing content, is what I guess I should say.

*I* don't place much emphasis on the content deliverer. There seems to be a great deal of it on this board. Where I come from it isn't so much like that.

It's this "throwing person X under the bus" thing. It seems to carry this enormous emotional charge. I don't see how it's different from "disagreeing with X", which I contend ought to be allowed.

For example - I agree with Richard Dawkins ideas about evolution but I entirely disagree with him about some of his problems with religion. I wouldn't "throw him under the bus" because he's anti-religion or believe what he says because he's him, I've read his work on evolution and it makes sense on its own terms and I've heard him talk about religion and sounds as if it's motivated entirely by emotional disturbance.

[Just Saying]

36. Well I believe the messenger is important.

You used the word "opinion" and you know what they say about those.

But more to my point, for example I would take my father's opinion on home improvement for one because I trust him and also because I know he has a lot of experience with it while if a stranger gives me advise I would take it with a grain of salt as I don't know their level of experience.

Another example, if we're discussing climate change, wouldn't you give more weight to a scientist than say, an Exxon executive? Even if the exec is knowledgeable, his relationship with a company that pollutes the environment would likely have you questioning his opinions.

When you hear the news, do you evaluate everything equally or are there some sources you trust more while others you dismiss outright?

I think there's a difference between throwing someone under the bus and weighing their character. Character, integrity these things matter.

That being said, just because you respect someone doesn't mean you have to agree on everything.

[Nay]

2. On what they are......but I've come to see I'm a minority in that, even on a supposedly

logical and thoughtful board like DU. I understand that some posters may be trolls, but still, there seems to be a preponderance of character assassination going on lately. And not just with Snowden.

[sibelian]

13. I think it's bizarre.

I've no idea how to relate to it.

[onehandle]

3. 'I am a Libertarian and my opinion is...'

Shut up. I don't give a fuck what you think.

[sibelian]

14. I don't know anything about libertarians, being from the UK.

There aren't any where I live.

... other than that they seem to want to abandon all personal responsibility toward society and are confusing that with opposing State oppression. Many of the things they oppose seem to be entirely trivial in comparison with any genuinely oppressive machinery the State likes to impose. "I WANNA DO WHAT I WANT!" isn't the same as "YOU SHOULDN'T CLAIM POWER OVER PEOPLE YOU DON'T NEED!", the second statement including people other than oneself.

IMO.

[onehandle]

18. Libertarian Party (UK)

The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects its brand of libertarianism, favouring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets and strong civil liberties. The party's main policy is the lowering of income tax and a reduction of "red tape" on businesses. Its social policies include minimum restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, the decentralization of the education system, and the introduction of school vouchers. The party favours a withdrawal from the European Union and reform of membership of the United Nations for a non-interventionist foreign policy. On health care, the party believes in the decentralization of the National Health Service and the "migration from State monopoly to an insurance-based system" but remains strongly committed to the long term care of the elderly and mental health services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(UK)

- For some reason the link doesn't include the _(UK) as part of the link. Copy the entire line and paste -

[sibelian]

22. ... without a single seat in any house, founded in 2008.

In the United Kingdom local elections, 2009 Andrew Hunt came bottom in Cambridgeshire, Wisbech South, with 140 votes.[4] In the United Kingdom local elections, 2010 Stuart Heal came bottom in Manchester City Council, Miles Platting and Newton Heath ward.[5]

The party participated in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. Nic Coome stood in Devizes, coming last with 141 votes (0.3%), and Martin Cullip in Sutton and Cheam, coming last but one with 41 votes.[6][7][8][9][10] On 28 November 2010, Andrew Withers was elected as party leader. In the May 2011 local elections, Withers was elected as an independent parish councillor for Clevedon Walton ward in North Somerset, resigning around March 2012.[11]

... not much of a political force...

Never heard of them.

These people are probably better known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

The first Raving Loony to win as a result of a straight vote rather than an uncontested election was Stuart Hughes, taking the "safe" Conservative seat of Sidmouth Woolbrook on East Devon District Council in May 1991. He then took a seat on Sidmouth Town Council from the Conservatives the following day. His success was met with hostility from the local Tories. Hughes' reaction was to attempt to make their lives a misery for the next three years by refusing to pay his Community Charge (also known as the Poll Tax), then dumping scrap metal in the middle of the council chambers to the value of his unpaid tax when threatened with legal action. He also formed an alliance known as "The Coastals" (because of the seats they held) of Independents and the sole Green Party councillor, giving East Devon's ruling Conservatives the first true opposition they had faced for decades (the local Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties being negligible).

[Buzz Clik]

5. Both, of course.

Whose opinion on race relations would you pay to hear:

His:


or hers:



(actually, the wording in the title of the OP is horribly vague: "Do you assess opinions based on WHO makes them or what they ARE?" Is "they" referring to the person making the opinion or the opinion itself?&quot

[sibelian]

12. But....

The reason you don't pay attention to the second isn't because it's HER, it's because the opinions she spouts are obviously stupid. If her opinions weren't stupid...

In my head your position turns into a loop.

[Buzz Clik]

21. I constructed a worthless argument. Let me try again.

Paul Deen has no credibility to comment on race relations, so her opinions are pretty much meaningless.

However, let's create a scenario similar more relevant: Let's assume that Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond both came out supporting the Supreme Decision to strike key provisions in the VRA. If both of them gave the same rationale, my reaction would be different according to who gave the opinion. I like Jesse Jackson, but I think he can be extreme and intentionally edgy. My reaction would be, "What is he doing now?" and dismiss his comments. It would different with Bond: "Really? Julian Bond supports the SC decision? Let me think about what he said."

So, it's who is saying the stuff, even when I disagree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. What they "are", mostly.

There are a handful of opinions that start from a negative premise. I assume they are wrong until they are proven right. The CATO and Heritage institutes are two good examples.

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. On what they are.

I couldn't care less who the source is. But that takes analysis, and that isn't automatic, it has to be learned. There's no substitute for thinking.

[H2O Man]

8. Both are important.

I think that citizenship both offers rights and requires responsibilities; being aware of the "who, how, and why" Constitutional Law is made seems an important responsibility to me.

[HappyMe]

9. Both.

I'm not going to give much credence to an Alex Jones, an Ann Coulter or somebody telling me what my opinion should be.

[sibelian]

15. But isn't that largely because they aready expressed idiotic opinions?

I think it's a kind of loop that carries the unfortunate shadow of similar short-cutting when discussing the positive case.

[Recursion]

11. Everybody does both to some extent

On subjects I know something about (say, UNIX, electromagnetics, or classical Arabic) I tend to ignore who an arguer is and just address the argument. On subjects I know nothing about (say, oceanography, saxophones, or 18th-century woodcutting) I can pretty much just use the arguer's credentials to judge the argument. Most subjects are somewhere in between those two categories for me.

[sibelian]

20. OK, thanks, that's v well put.

I suppose what got to me was the extent to which various detractors and supporters were bandied about duing the main thrust of the Great Snowden Debate.

[geek tragedy]

17. depends if the person's judgment and credibility is relevant to the validity of the opinion. nt

[sibelian]

37. nicely put.

[Duer 157099]

19. Of course

A broken clock may be right twice a day, but the rest of the time it is wrong. Knowing it is broken in advance influences whether I tend to believe it or not. The chances are that it is wrong, but it can also be correct at times.

[Rex]

23. Doesn't everybody do that?

At one point in time?

[sibelian]

24. Assuming you mean "believe what's said because X said so"... I don't know.

I don't, particularly.

I'm possibly being slightly disengenuous, if someone's got an history of outright lies, then clearly future stories are going to be less credible but if someone expresses an opinion on something that's different.

[Rex]

25. Do you think the Bush Library makes him more or less credible.

We always analyze information in the easiest way we know how to interpret it. Sometimes that is through opinions and sometimes that is through historical facts. Sometimes that is through misinformation and when we don't know any better - sometimes stuff made up out of whole cloth. The truth can be illuminating and humiliating. Good learning experience too.

I know you've heard it before; depends on the situation. It really does.

[sibelian]

28. The Library isn't something that affects my assessment of his opinions.

The Library is something that affects my assessment of his mental health. To be honest I've always felt a little bit sorry for him.

I don't automatically analyse information in the easiest way I know how to interpret it, I try to analyze information in the way that seems most likely to yield useful results. I don't always succeed.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Yes

Mine is not a black or white world.

[Rex]

27. My biggest fear would be to become a binary thinker.

Too many of those out there already making America suck by ignoring our true problems.

[sibelian]

30. Huh?

I don't understand how what I asked relates to binary thinking?

What IS binary thinking, actually?

[Rex]

31. My comment was meant for his reply, not the topic at hand.

He said, 'black and white world' which is just another way of saying binary thinking.

Do you know what binary is?

[sibelian]

32. I know what binary is, yeah.

I don't think I've heard it in a political context. Do you mean inappropriately categorising phenomena according to a over-simplified dualistic model? #sheldoncooper

[Rex]

33. ...

Oh you are bad!

[sibelian]

29. Eh?

What you mean "yes"? My question proposed 2 options. You've completely confused me.

[LanternWaste]

34. More often than not, I take many concerns into consideration

More often than not, I take many concerns into consideration. Who and what being only two among that list. For example, a co-worker on his first day back from a two-week suspension I gave him allowing me his opinion on the clothes I'm wearing today gets much less consideration than the same onion given me by the person I'm dating.

"than the same onion given me..." Should obviously be 'opinion', but it makes me giggle, so I'm leaving it there.