In an age dominated by information overload and social media, people suffer from an unacknowledged pressure to have an opinion on every subject. From global geopolitical conflicts to social justice issues, from wokeism to LGBT issues, from sports to religion- individuals find themselves compelled to take a stance and make it public. However, amidst the clamour for voices to be heard, a fundamental right deserves recognition—the individual right not to have an opinion on every subject. No-Opinion!
It is a rarity for me not to hold a firm opinion on a subject. However, there have been instances when I found myself in doubt, uncertain of the side I should take. This dilemma arises from my attempt to be rational and logical, evaluating everything based on facts and direct inferences rather than relying on gut feelings and beliefs.
I understand that It’s a challenge, and I firmly believe that one’s belief and value systems can come to the rescue, nudging the opinion. And, there’s no shame in not having an opinion; being open to suggestions, fresh thoughts, and new evidence. No-opinion could be so liberating.
Multiple Subjects and Questions.
Numerous incidents in the past and more to come often leave me indecisive. Questions like whether AI benefits humans, who is right in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, or whether brands should publicly state their stances on social issues are complex and polarising.
Such issues and the stance could divide communities, making it challenging to take a stance that doesn’t alienate others. Sometimes, putting thoughts to paper and conducting a pro-con evaluation help clarify my stance.
However, in such a situation, I remind myself that nobody expects me to have an opinion on everything. It is impossible to be aware of every event in my extended ecosystem surroundings or have enough knowledge to take a stance. I tell myself that it is okay to take a stance only if I have been conscientious, consistent, and coherent in my thinking. After all, my responsibility is first to myself, and I need to be fair and truthful to myself. And I reserve the right of no-Opinion.
The Pressure to Have an Opinion.
There is an overwhelming influx of information. Content generation and consumption are on the rise with the rise of the internet. The news cycle is short, relentless and sensational. Social media serves a constant stream of diverse perspectives and debates with a question- what do you think about it?
It asks the individuals to be well-versed on an array of topics, ready to articulate informed opinions at a moment’s notice. However, we must acknowledge the limitations of human capacity. No one can be an expert on everything, and an attempt to have opinions on every issue can only lead to superficial understanding and misinformed perspectives.
Therefore, the right not to have an opinion is a safeguard against the perils of information overload, allowing individuals the freedom to prioritise depth over breadth in their knowledge.
With their algorithms and echo chambers, social media platforms significantly contribute to individuals’ pressure to voice their opinions publicly and create biased narratives, often overshadowing the importance of thoughtful consideration.
Unfortunately, we are in a trap of perceptions. We are seriously afraid that the changing social expectations do not accept silence; there is pressure to take sides even when you may prefer to say, “I don’t know.” It should be entirely acceptable for someone else to have a different opinion based on logic, facts, expectations, experiences, or beliefs. Unfortunately, we often challenge the thinker more than the thoughts, working to find out whose side the other person is on.
The Right to No-Opinion Promotes Better Understanding.
In such an ecosystem, the right not to have an opinion is an unrecognised essential tool for self-preservation—avoiding the pitfalls of performative engagement and virtue signalling. The right not to have an opinion also protects against the potential consequences of expressing a viewpoint that may not align with prevailing narratives. It asks and allows the individual to engage with essential subjects at their own pace, allowing space and time for information collection, analysis, and genuine understanding before contributing to the discourse.
Right to No-Opinion Promotes Diversity.
The right not to have an opinion promotes cognitive diversity, something crucial for encouraging innovation and well-rounded decision-making. Society benefits from unique perspectives, including acknowledging one’s limitations in knowledge.
Embracing the right not to have an opinion encourages a culture where people feel comfortable saying, “I don’t know,” fostering an atmosphere of humility and continuous learning.
Implementing the Right. It will happen when society celebrates individuals who choose thoughtful contemplation over-hasty judgments.
One must note that the right not to have an opinion is not an abdication of civic responsibility but a recognition that genuine engagement with complex issues requires time, consideration, and a commitment to understanding nuance.
NETNET.
Exercising the No-Opinion right is an act of self-care and mental and emotional well-being. It is a statement acknowledging that one’s worth should not be determined by the frequency or tonality of their public declarations but by the depth of their understanding and the authenticity of their contributions.
If you agree, let us champion the right not to have an opinion. In doing so, we would honour the diversity of human cognition. We encourage genuine dialogue and create a space where thoughtful introspection is valued as much as vocal expression.
Before taking a public stance on a subject, ask yourself if you have enough knowledge to defend your position to yourself and if there’s a need to voice your opinion. If the answer is yes, proceed carefully, consistently, and conscientiously with your thinking. Avoid voicing opinions solely to please a particular group, fit into a community, or as an ill-informed immediate reaction.
BLOG/062/2023 To connect, send an email, join on Twitter S_kotnala or subscribe to the weekly update.
POST SCRIPT.
I respect that our POVs could be completely divergent- I respect and acknowledge them in both cases.
……………………………………………………….
Some Questions Where I Do Not Have A Clear POV.
I continue to debate some of these questions with no clear direction.
- Is AI good for Humans? Will AI be the tool that will cause the end of humans?
- Who is right – Ukraine and Russia? Who is right, Palestine or Israel?
- Is it okay to ban the display of HALAL certification?
- Is it wrong for parents to influence kids’ decisions on careers to pursue?
- Is it okay for brands to publicly state their stances on racism, war and ethnic conflicts?
- Do brands need a purpose other than functional advantage?
- Is the LGBTQIA continued fight and resultant acceptance good for society?
- Is it okay for companies to suddenly revert to working-from-office after Work-from-home, work-from-anywhere and hybrid working?
- Is the death penalty acceptable?
- Is it okay for the Supreme Court to override the decisions of the elected representatives?
- Is it okay to boycott some things based on religion?
- Is being woke a necessity or a right?
- Should the patriotism yardstick measure everything?
