In the Aug 13th, 2011 Scott Adams blog (Dilbert), Scott asks the following:
“…When you hear an argument about a complex issue presented as a certainty, do you reflexively downgrade its value? Or does the certainty mixed with a credible source make it more persuasive to you?…”
To answer the first part, I HATE when someone presents an idea, especially one not demonstrated, as certainty. I can’t stand the type of person who presents the world as a cut-and-dry interpretation. It tends to be about a subject that largely subjective to begin with. Politics, religions, sports – all of these tend to be the largest offenders.
As for the “credible” source part, it does make a difference. I will at least THINK about the idea or opinion if it is from someone who normally seems to be rational and responsible. But if Brad Pitt spouts off about the efficiency of a supply-side economic principle, I’m not listening.
Or if a friend/family member who has never been able to balance a checkbook starts pontificating about what’s wrong with the economy… Of if someone I know who is kind of an ass and preaches anything religious, my eyes roll over.
As I like to remind myself, on any given subject…If countless people smarter than me, some of who have spent their entire lives studying a subject, can’t agree, chances are great that no one can be sure and that it’s mostly opinion.