Opinions, Beliefs, and Conviction
— by Luke Roush
One of the challenges we have as a society is that, as individuals, we have difficulty expressing the difference between our Opinions, Beliefs, and Convictions. Particularly in writing (even in this article), it can be difficult to distinguish amongst these terms. As a refresh on definitions:
1) Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Examples - i) "I think the Warriors will get beat by the Lakers tonight.", ii) "I think it's going to rain this afternoon.", iii) "I think solely distance learning for students is a bad idea."
2) Belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Examples - i) "I believe that professional sports are an important part of American culture." ii) "I believe that it's difficult to predict the weather." iii) "I believe that our educational system needs reform, and we must find ways to make college more affordable."
3) Conviction - a firmly held and stable, long-term belief. Examples - i) "I'm convicted that extracurricular activities, properly framed, can be a great teacher for young people.", ii) "I'm convicted that we are called to steward the environment and care for creation.", iii) "I'm convicted that men and women all over the world are entitled to receive an education, and that it is critical for peace, prosperity, and progress."
Opinions are transient, formed regularly, and evolve quickly as data emerges. Beliefs have more staying power, but can shift as data and lived experiences occur. Convictions are powerful life-long truths that we should be prepared to debate vigorously while defending them. Collectively, they create a lens through which other information passes through. In my view, we should have a multitude of opinions, plenty of beliefs, and a handful of convictions. Most of my convictions tie back into my Christian faith, which is inextricably linked to an understanding of what it means to “love God”, and "love my neighbor".
Positional Intensity - To avoid burying the lead, I believe that most of us are looping FAR too many issues into the “belief” and “conviction” buckets, as opposed to the “opinion” and "belief" buckets. We are confusing our opinions for beliefs, and our beliefs for convictions. Our dialogue on COVID-19 is the latest example of an issue where we should all have opinions and some beliefs, and yet we speak and argue as though we have convictions on any number of related issues - mortality rates, masks, quarantines, re-opening protocol, Chinese labs, Fauci’s latest comments, Trump’s twitter feed, etc. As I’m writing this, the conversation around race is escalating in our nation and around the world. What we do about the problems that persist will be another flashpoint in our discourse.
Escalation of Rhetoric - The debate about whether culture is upstream from media, or that media is shaping culture, is for another time. However, the circular linkage between the two is undeniable. Our elected officials are a reflection of this breakdown, and their current behavior isn’t helping us move towards a functional national dialogue. We could once rely on public figures to bring us back to a more balanced and healthy discussion, but those days are long gone on both sides of the political aisle. Likewise, what we read on social media and see in the mainstream media gets reflected in our own posture and communication. Our consumption of this content drives the media towards ‘upping the ante’ on headline value. It’s analogous to a drug addict needing to steadily increase the dosage to experience the same high. It’s not a helpful environment for us to hear one another and chart a course forward.
The ‘Why’ of Escalation - Lest we think other areas of society are less impacted by this polarity, reference Jim Rome, Max Kellerman, and Stephen A. Smith. While they didn’t invent it, they certainly perfected the ‘hot take’ on sports news. This refers to an emotion-filled perspective shared in full candor on a current issue. Previously these 'hot takes' might have been referred to as ‘angry rants’, but we’ve now coined a less derogatory term for the same thing. Why does the media serve this content up? Because it garners views. Why do we view this content? Because we seek out individuals who agree with us, and who say out loud what we might only be thinking. We also seek out individuals with whom we disagree, though usually the aim of that effort is to brutally deconstruct their position amongst friends. This phenomenon breeds polarity, and creates a monetization stream for media companies struggling with failed or changing business models. Sensationalism sells, and media is in desperate need of sales. And so, here we are. :-)
Tribalism - But, what is going on at a deeper level? For one, the increasing tribalization of society polarizes our views. As we find others like us, our opinions become more polarized and extreme. It’s well documented that social media facilitates tribal association, and it’s within our tribe that many of us become more confident expressing opinions as “beliefs” or “convictions”. Due to the echo chamber effect, we often aren’t exposed to other views. We think of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and we dehumanize ‘them’. This increases the confirmation bias that comes within an echo chamber. Does this mean that facts are in question, or truth doesn’t exist? No. I believe that absolute truth DOES exist far more broadly than most of us might want to acknowledge, but the loss of civility in public discourse is a problem that needs to be taken seriously by citizens. In the absence of it, it’s difficult for the truth to stand out in the marketplace of ideas.
Diversity of Thought - Just exposing ourselves to alternative views and engaging with them is hard work. And, it can be socially dangerous. If we quote the wrong person, or don’t virtue signal in the right way, our tribe will ostracize us. Particularly outside of very close family and friends, tribes aren’t forgiving. This trend applies on both sides of the aisle in Washington, and within almost every group we can associate with these days. Understanding different viewpoints is challenging, and changing one’s mind is difficult and socially dangerous. While active debate on an issue has been shown to sharpen a group's thinking (thus the need for a devil's advocate in decision-making processes), most individuals choose not to play that role. Why? We all have a strong need for belonging, and as other community institutions (family, church, social organizations) have lost momentum in many parts of the country, the pressure to 'belong' to various thought tribes has ratcheted up.
A Pathway to Change - How do we work together to change this pattern? As citizens, we must commit ourselves to a re-examination of how we communicate our opinions, beliefs, and convictions. While we may have strong views rooted in facts, we need to re-examine our level of intensity in communicating those positions. This doesn’t mean we become milquetoast, but it DOES mean we need to consider how we talk and write about our views. Writing, in particular, can be problematic. Verbal in-person is a FAR better context for sharing views and listening well. This mode of communication pushes us to exhibit humility and humanity as we engage.
Focus - Additionally, we must actively avoid reductionism, and a natural bent to transpose one area of disagreement into generalized disagreement and, ultimately, despise. While we may be right on an issue, and someone else is wrong, it doesn’t mean that we’re right on all issues and they’re wrong on all issues. We need to 'pick our spots' where we feel convicted to dig-in. We need to be prepared to "die on the right hill" and not the hill that society or the media would push us towards. This world is constantly looking for martyrs, and we need to avoid gratuitous martyrdom for the wrong issues.
Looking Ahead - Changing our behavior doesn’t mean that we accept flawed views being forced on us, but it DOES mean that we look to de-escalate vs. escalate in our dialogue, even amongst friends who believe as we do. We need to maintain the freedom (and give it to others) to change our views. As we encounter others who share our convictions but have different opinions or beliefs, we should celebrate our common convictions as a strong foundation for civil discourse. Time usually presents more facts and clarity, and we need to allow space for our opinions and beliefs to shift, without fear of reprisal or shaming. Rather than only looking for facts that confirm our views, we need to be prepared to examine facts as they emerge, listen actively to others, and adjust accordingly based on logic and reason. As folks change their minds, we must not lambast them and claim victory, but instead move forward together. As we change our own minds, we shouldn't beat ourselves up or fear shame. We should straighten up, acknowledge that God has given us the ability to reason and think, and move forward in celebration of that. His timeline for affecting change in our hearts often takes time. In certain situations where we will inevitably "agree to disagree" with others, we must not become angry and create unfair caricatures of "them". Righteous anger is a real and appropriate emotion on some issues, but I explain away too much of my own behavior with that excuse. It is always reasonable to listen carefully to the views of others, and be civil in my discourse. It’s through friendship and conversation that understanding can occur, and that truth will win out.
*A special thanks to my good friends, Tim Macready and Jake Thomsen, whose engagement in this topic helped refine the thinking!