It seems that in this article, Robin is co-defining “opinion” with “belief”. This isn’t, exactly, incorrect, but I don’t think it maps completely onto the common use, which may be causing misunderstanding. If I say “it’s my opinion that [insert factual proposition here]”, then Robin’s remarks certainly apply. But if it’s my opinion that chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream is delicious—which is certainly a way people often use the word “opinion”—then in what way might I not be entitled to that? Unless I turn out to be mistaken in my use of the term “chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream”, or something, but assume I’m not.
Robin was clear about what he meant by “opinion”. From his first paragraph, with emphasis added:
You are entitled to your desires, and sometimes to your choices. You might own a choice, and if you can choose your preferences, you may have the right to do so. But your beliefs are not about you; beliefs are about the world. Your beliefs should be your best available estimate of the way things are; anything else is a lie.
Though I agree that it can cause problems to use “opinion” in an unusual way, even in the context of explicitly stating one’s unusual definition, when people are going to quote the conclusion as a slogan out of the clarifying context.
On the other hand, “You are entitled to your utility function but not your epistemology” would not make an effective slogan. (Well maybe, if it has enough “secret knowledge” appeal to motivate people to figure out what it means.)
In this case, it means that you’re not entitled to refuse to change a belief that’s been proven wrong.
If you think “everyone likes chocolate ice cream”, and I introduce you to my hypothetical friend Bill who doesn’t like chocolate ice cream, you’re not entitled to still believe that ‘everyone’ likes chocolate ice cream. You could still believe that ‘most people’ like chocolate ice cream, but if I was able to come up with a competent survey showing that 51% of people do not like chocolate ice cream, you wouldn’t be entitled to that belief, either, unless you could point me to an even more definitive study that agreed with you.
Even the belief “I like chocolate ice cream” could be proven false in some situations—peoples’ tastes do change over time, and you could try it one summer and discover that you just don’t enjoy it any more.
It also implies that you’re supposed to go looking for proof of your claims before you make them—that you’re not ‘entitled’ to have or spread an opinion, but instead must earn the right by doing or referencing research.
That article is entitled “You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion” and says:
If you ever feel tempted to resist an argument or conclusion by
saying “everyone is entitled to their opinion,” stop! This is
as clear a bias indicator as they come.
I don’t think Robin really means that people aren’t entitled to their opinions. I think what he really means is people aren’t allowed to say “I’m entitled to my opinion”—that is, to use that phrase as a defense.
There’s a big difference. When people use that defense they don’t really mean “I’m entitled to have an opinion”, but instead “I’m entitled to express my opinion without having it criticised”.
In other words “I’m entitled to my opinion” is really a code for “all opinions are equally valid and thus can’t be criticised”.
That said, I do think it is valid to say “I am entitled to an opinion” in situations where your right to expression is being attacked.
I’m not saying you always do have a right to freely and fully express yourself. But in situations when you do have some measure of this, it can be unfairly stomped on.
For example, you might be in a business meeting where you should be able to have input on a matter but one person keeps cutting you off.
Or say you’re with friends and you’re outlining your view on some topic and, though you’re able to get your view out there, someone else always responds with personal attacks.
Sometimes people are just trying to shut you down.
For example, you might be in a business meeting where you should be able to have input on a matter but one person keeps cutting you off.
Or say you’re with friends and you’re outlining your view on some topic and, though you’re able to get your view out there, someone else always responds with personal attacks.
I don’t see how “I’m entitled to my opinion” is a particularly optimal or meaningful response to these situations. What about “it’s unfair not to give me a chance to express my position” in the former situation, and “concluding I’m an asshole because I’m pro-X isn’t justified” in the latter?
Right, “opinion” is so overloaded with meaning that in order to determine if the use of “I’m entitle to my opinion” or “You are not entitled to your opinion” is virtuous, one should taboo “opinion”, and probably “entitled” as well, and express the thought in way that is specific to the situation, such as in your examples. And of course, having gone through the mental exercise of validating that what you say makes sense, you should give everyone else the benifet of this thought process and actually communicate the alternate form, so they also can tell if it is virtuous.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html
It seems that in this article, Robin is co-defining “opinion” with “belief”. This isn’t, exactly, incorrect, but I don’t think it maps completely onto the common use, which may be causing misunderstanding. If I say “it’s my opinion that [insert factual proposition here]”, then Robin’s remarks certainly apply. But if it’s my opinion that chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream is delicious—which is certainly a way people often use the word “opinion”—then in what way might I not be entitled to that? Unless I turn out to be mistaken in my use of the term “chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream”, or something, but assume I’m not.
Robin was clear about what he meant by “opinion”. From his first paragraph, with emphasis added:
Though I agree that it can cause problems to use “opinion” in an unusual way, even in the context of explicitly stating one’s unusual definition, when people are going to quote the conclusion as a slogan out of the clarifying context.
On the other hand, “You are entitled to your utility function but not your epistemology” would not make an effective slogan. (Well maybe, if it has enough “secret knowledge” appeal to motivate people to figure out what it means.)
Thank you. An opinion is a thought. What does it mean to say that you are not entitled to a thought?
In this case, it means that you’re not entitled to refuse to change a belief that’s been proven wrong.
If you think “everyone likes chocolate ice cream”, and I introduce you to my hypothetical friend Bill who doesn’t like chocolate ice cream, you’re not entitled to still believe that ‘everyone’ likes chocolate ice cream. You could still believe that ‘most people’ like chocolate ice cream, but if I was able to come up with a competent survey showing that 51% of people do not like chocolate ice cream, you wouldn’t be entitled to that belief, either, unless you could point me to an even more definitive study that agreed with you.
Even the belief “I like chocolate ice cream” could be proven false in some situations—peoples’ tastes do change over time, and you could try it one summer and discover that you just don’t enjoy it any more.
It also implies that you’re supposed to go looking for proof of your claims before you make them—that you’re not ‘entitled’ to have or spread an opinion, but instead must earn the right by doing or referencing research.
(And I agree with the two posters in the other comment-branches who pointed out that it’s a poor wording.)
That article is entitled “You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion” and says:
I don’t think Robin really means that people aren’t entitled to their opinions. I think what he really means is people aren’t allowed to say “I’m entitled to my opinion”—that is, to use that phrase as a defense.
There’s a big difference. When people use that defense they don’t really mean “I’m entitled to have an opinion”, but instead “I’m entitled to express my opinion without having it criticised”.
In other words “I’m entitled to my opinion” is really a code for “all opinions are equally valid and thus can’t be criticised”.
That said, I do think it is valid to say “I am entitled to an opinion” in situations where your right to expression is being attacked.
I’m not saying you always do have a right to freely and fully express yourself. But in situations when you do have some measure of this, it can be unfairly stomped on.
For example, you might be in a business meeting where you should be able to have input on a matter but one person keeps cutting you off.
Or say you’re with friends and you’re outlining your view on some topic and, though you’re able to get your view out there, someone else always responds with personal attacks.
Sometimes people are just trying to shut you down.
I don’t see how “I’m entitled to my opinion” is a particularly optimal or meaningful response to these situations. What about “it’s unfair not to give me a chance to express my position” in the former situation, and “concluding I’m an asshole because I’m pro-X isn’t justified” in the latter?
Right, “opinion” is so overloaded with meaning that in order to determine if the use of “I’m entitle to my opinion” or “You are not entitled to your opinion” is virtuous, one should taboo “opinion”, and probably “entitled” as well, and express the thought in way that is specific to the situation, such as in your examples. And of course, having gone through the mental exercise of validating that what you say makes sense, you should give everyone else the benifet of this thought process and actually communicate the alternate form, so they also can tell if it is virtuous.