Why are so many people opinionated without doing much, if any researching?

Question

Stupid is what stupid does!!!!!

I suspected that some of you would answer with STUPID answers and comments. You people are soooooo predictable. My question didn't require research, it has been a human life experience. They say that opinions are like as$holes, everybody's got one. Also, I like what I see in the mirror.

Answer 1

It is a lot easier to form an opinion based on one's value system than to find the information on a subject and make a decision based on the facts.

http://www.handlethetruth.net

Answer 2

It depends on what you mean by research. Some sources are flawed, while others ar authentic. Often people answer questions based on supposed experience or on intuition. I agree, many people should do more research.

Answer 3

Well logically "opinion's" don't need research or validation.
They are subject to personal belief.

Quoting Forrest Gump's mother huh?

Answer 4

Quit looking in the mirror.

Answer 5

because it is easier to have someone tell you mis information that you accept as fact....... instead of spending a little time to research the matter

Answer 6

Because I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. heh, if that were true I would be much further along in my plans for world domination...

Answer 7

Laziness and ignorance....deadly combination!

Answer 8

And where is your research on that assumption?

Answer 9

If I did research then I would be ACTUALLY WORKING, not PRETENDING TO WORK...

Answer 10

It's an evolutionary holdover (and convenient crutch for the mentally lazy/infirm).

Man did not always think as well as he does today. Accepting without question the great body of "knowledge" passed down from parents and others in one's little clan/tribe/whatever was very useful as one did not have to keep reinventing the wheel (hmmm... how inapropriate is that considering I'm talking about a time before the wheel was invented?) and could concentrate on those edges here and there where something niggled at one's mind. And since many decisions had to be made quickly (or ELSE), having a basically unquestioning mind probably usually served one well. Pausing to argue a point could do the opposite, serve one up, rare.

Few things get lost over time when it comes to the brain, only tempered. For instance, consider a fireplace about 800,000 years ago, ten-twenty humans about, half kids, foods cooking, been a long day and dangerous for the men, some damned kid knocks your food over into the fire and kicks sparking embers onto you when bouncing around with a couple others. Well, anger takes you and you grab the kid, then start to really beat his inside out. Before you do though, the kid's mother's man flies into a massive rage, leaps upon you and the fight is then between you and him. Kid escapes unharmed, mostly. That kind of instant-on rage and willingness to attack has obvious advantages for mothers through untold ages. It lingers today in battered women. (Thank your grandmamas ladies.) It is being tempered nowadays, but is nowhere near gone.

Today, it seems like a good idea to have a similar approach so maybe this one will never be tempered at all. Soooooooo many things to know today, so many subjects, so much depth in each, it is OVERWHELMING for many. Choosing authorities in one's mind and accepting with minimal or no question their pronouncements hoping that enough are correct and useful to overcome the harm caused by the other kind and add a net overall goodness to one's life is not necessarily a poor choice. I would suggest, however, that one should leave such authority in the hands of people pronouncing on subjects one is not equipped/trained to question or to develop worthwhile knowledge in. For instance, how much can I evaluate an astronomer's pronouncement? Usually such stories do not even include her techniques and analysis methods much less her present and past academic posts and her corporate connections so I cannot even evaluate her inducement to lie about having results, much less the results themselves.

An example. A man wrote a book not long ago claiming the Chinese roved round the world around 1420, mapping it, setting a couple colonies (not out of choice), leaving wrecks and at least one repair facility behind. Am I in a position to prove or disprove his claims as to the worth of the evidence he presented or even said evidence's existence, much less its actual meaning? Not really. Seeing his publishing house, assuming they are not whores like the Harlequin people, I might think they required some minimal level of proof be shown them and maybe sought professional opinions on the matter. What do I know of him to help evaluate reasons he might have for lying? Well, he got paid for the book and perhaps more than if he had presented it as fiction. Do I know though? How am I to approach this? Is he an authority I can accept then, and give his opinions when presenting my own? Should I think from his "facts" and come to conclusions or think "garbage in, garbage out"? Perhaps professionals have given opinions. Can I find them? Maybe "The Skeptical Inquirer" did an article that will frame the situation well for me. (They did.) So maybe it's just easier and carries little direct penalty to me to just accept him as an authority and move on? (Actually, very late in the book, it becomes incredibly apparent why he wrote the book, why he takes the stance he does, and what he stands to gain from it. There are several mounds (four I think) that he has some kind of title to in, I think, the Bahamas, but cannot get permission from the government there to dig into them. He proposes they are Chinese ships filled with 600 year old porcelin and a careful guess at what those four mounds might contain once sold could be, say, $120,000,000. But only if he convinces the government there that they are not indigent archeological sites, but rather something extraneous and, therefore, treasure for salvage. So no, I do not need take him as any kind of authority, just one more money-whore who will go to any extent to have a fortune drop into his hands. Yet... I still don't know just how real any of his evidence is and how valid any of his reasoning is!)

So humans have a propensity for accepting others' opinions and passing them on, sometimes stridently, for this if no other, reason. I propose though, there's at least one more.

We humans seem to enjoy and value mistaking wished for futures and facts with reality. You know how so many older people long for "earlier times — things were so much simpler then"? Yeah, well, "things" were NOT simpler then, they were though. They did not have the wide(r)-ranging knowledge they have now. Many cause and effect relationships were completely foreign to them in those "earlier times — things were so much simpler then." Life was always this complex, they were just ignorant of it. Picture the average 16-22yo today. Oh... an actor I think is just dreamy says George Bush is a retarded monkey! So he is! And I will drum that beat to everyone who will listen because it makes me feel like that dreamy actor and I are soulmates... My parents have always been Union folk and so I support any rabble-rousing (Democrat) who never in his life cared for me or anyone else beside himself when voting... You know the type I mean. Obama! Did you read his book? O "Bama" — he'd make such a good President! I know he never voted for any bill not proposed by hardline Communists or Reparations Blacks, but in his book he sounded so reasonable so I'll just join the bandwagon and not stand out among my friends! Oh, I just couldn't take their approbation and scorn... That type. They come in religious striping, political striping, social awareness striping, selfish striping. Lots of kinds out there and some have more than one set. Given the stupid nature of their "beliefs" even the slightest chip in the edifice would make the whole untenable so they tend to be a bit rabid in their defense of the beliefs. That translates to even the slightest pronouncement or conclusion drawn from them having to be TRUE. Or ELSE.

That kind of person aboundeth and asnwereth many questions in here. He also proposeth many a question about things like religion and doeth so not in the ghetto designed for his ilk, but rather in the mainstream which bothereth many, but lets him feel more secure as the mainstream seldom bothers with him while his ghetto containeth many who will rip and tear his edifice because it threateneth their own cherished beliefs. (So he's actually a coward doing it in the mainstream no matter how much he pretends he is bravely seeking the heathen.)

If I may, I'd also like to point out one more reason and let it stand as its own explanation: lots of people are stupid, QUITE stupid, apparently not aware of it, and bulling right through regardless.

Um... not me, of course...