• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we all just 'shut our mouths'?

Can you have a well informed opinion about something you haven't experienced?


  • Total voters
    24

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Put another way, can you have a well informed opinion about something you haven't experienced? For example, can someone who has not been in the Marines have a well informed opinion about how Marines should behave in war? Can someone who has not been President of the US have a well informed opinion about how the President should develop and support policy? Can someone who has never had an abortion have a well informed opinion about what women who do not want children should do when they become pregnant?

In another thread, this question and variations of it have been debated for a while now and I think the topic deserves its own space because its implications go far beyond the subject of matter being handled there.

In regards to the question, I've always believed that while one cannot understand the totality of what another individual or group experiences, one can certainly educate oneself enough to develop a well informed opinion about actions, people and institutions that one has never directly encountered. Many psychiatrists are not mentally ill and yet they can certainly have well-informed opinions about mental illness. Many political scientists have never been diplomats and yet they can certainly have well-informed opinions about foreign policy.

What do you think? Should everyone just "shut their mouths" about things that they have not directly experienced?

*Shut your mouths is a quote from Allen West posted in the previous thread that resonated with those of the opposing opinion which is why I used it.
 
Last edited:
Thread title doesn't agree with poll question.

And yes, I think we can have informed opinions about things we've never personally experienced. You don't have to have personal feelings to be able to examine the consequences of a decision.
 
Thread title doesn't agree with poll question.
The question is what underlies the title. The reason people think others who have not directly experienced X should "shut their mouths" is because they don't believe people who haven't directly experienced X have well informed opinions.
 
Put another way, can you have a well informed opinion about something you haven't experienced?

If you have insight outside of your own experiences and circumstances, then yes you can. It doesn't take a genius to look at history and project into the future, based on human nature and predictive odds. If you have a good understanding of human behavior, psychology, and sociology, then you can understand concepts as opposed to experiential evidence.
 
The question is what underlies the title. The reason people think others who have not directly experienced X should "shut their mouths" is because they don't believe people who haven't directly experienced X have well informed opinions.

What I'm saying is, if the answer to the thread title is "no", the answer to the poll question is "yes". It's confusing.
 
Nobody should shut their mouths. How else do we all learn from each other??
 
Put another way, can you have a well informed opinion about something you haven't experienced? For example, can someone who has not been in the Marines have a well informed opinion about how Marines should behave in war? Can someone who has not been President of the US have a well informed opinion about how the President should develop and support policy? Can someone who has never had an abortion have a well informed opinion about what women who do not want children should do when they become pregnant?

In another thread, this question and variations of it have been debated for a while now and I think the topic deserves its own space because its implications go far beyond the subject of matter being handled there.

In regards to the question, I've always believed that while one cannot understand the totality of what another individual or group experiences, one can certainly educate oneself enough to develop a well informed opinion about actions, people and institutions that one has never directly encountered. Many psychiatrists are not mentally ill and yet they can certainly have well-informed opinions about mental illness. Many political scientists have never been diplomats and yet they can certainly have well-informed opinions about foreign policy.

What do you think? Should everyone just "shut their mouths" about things that they have not directly experienced?

*Shut your mouths is a quote from Allen West posted in the previous thread that resonated with those of the opposing opinion which is why I used it.

Yes, I think one can have informed opinions about things they haven't experienced. It's when they dwell into motivation and begin to assassinate character that they may need the actual experience.

A cop fires six shots at a suspect coming at him with a knife. I can have an opinion that it was overkill. A copper would likely explain that, with adrenalin pumping madly, a cop knows his odds of hitting his target are much diminished. Another cop might know that cops are trained to fire multiple rounds. Heck, I've even seen some posts in similar scenerios where someone has said, "Why didn't they just shoot to wound?" Might sound reasonable to a lot of people. But I think most coppers would tell you that's movie stuff.

Of course, the reason you posted this thread has to do with the thread about the soldiers urinating on the dead Taliban. We're all entitled to our opinions as to what they did. (It was wrong.) But when we start to assign motives and assassinate their character for what they did, I think we (lay people, so to speak) cross the line. Those of us who have never experienced war in real time, with our own asses on the line, cannot be expected to understand the mindset of people who have.
 
Oh. I see now. It IS kinda confusing. So...I'll answer this way, although I already voted no.

I meant yes. But no.:shock:

[h=2]Can you have a well informed opinion about something you haven't experienced?[/h]

YES

Should everyone just "shut their mouths" about things that they have not directly experienced?

NO
 
Are you in Ben Bernanke's position? No, but surely you take a position on his recommendations.
 
Are you in Ben Bernanke's position? No, but surely you take a position on his recommendations.

That's a great example. Disagreeing (as an example) with one/more of his recommendations makes perfect sense, and is everyone's right. But when one begins to say the man's incompetent, that's where I think most people's opinions don't matter. Do you think the average layperson with an opinion is privvy to the inside information Bernanke uses to make his decisions? Or has the same level of understanding? I don't. And, therefore, aside from expressing one's opinion...going further and assassinating his character, in my opinion, is out of line.
 
I think you can, but a little consideration should be given to those in high pressure situations with little time for a decision. People shouldn't be so critical when they have the benefit of hindsight and the person living the experience didn't have that advantage.

We can criticize the cop for killing instead of wounding the madman charging with cleaver, but have a little heart if you've never been under that type of pressure. He had a split second for a decision. We have literal days to think about it. We can criticize the quarterback for passing to the covered receiver instead of the open one, but have a heart. He had a split second before a lineman blasted him into unconsciousness. We get weeks to analyze the result.

We should have a little consideration for the person who was there, without our benefit of hindsight.
 
Should you have an opinion and view in regards to actions taken or opinions stated by someone when you don't have similar experience to said person? Absolutely.

Should your opinion be viewed as equally valuable as someone who has had experience in a similar situation? Possibly depending on other factors.

If your opinion seems oblivious to issues regarding that situation then is it understandable that those who have been in a similar experience may take your opinion with a grain of salt? Absolutley.

Take the Berneke argument. To me, there's a difference between disagreeing with his policies and making a statement of something like "I'd never do it that way" if he took some kind of drastic action after a major stock fall. Disagreeing with his policies despite not being an economist or ever serving on the Fed is reasonable and your opinion should be regarded as much as anyone else whose a casual observer...give or take some amount of regard based on your history with those listening to you. However, I think a bit of skeptisism is realistic if you'd say that, with the amount of pressure and weight on you that Berneke has, that you'd react in a cool, collected, perfectly logical and singularly focused on principle way during an economic emergency.

Or more to the point of what this thread is about...

When it comes to dealing with the thought of killing people, of entering into firefights, of existing in a place where you've seen friends die or become mutilated, I take the opinion of someone whose experienced those things at a typically higher level than I take of those who never have. That doesn't mean those people can't or shouldn't speak their opinion, but that they shouldn't be surprised when their opinion on that issue isn't highly regarded. And this phoney clinging to "history" or "human psychology" is pure and utter bull**** in the instance directly spurring this, as historically we have seen that typically in wars countries do have to in a sense "reprogram" soldiers to dehumanize the enemy to allow for the brain to even attempt to cope with the notion of what is being done. If someone is attempting to judge a person in an entirely different mindset and world based on their every day situation and the logic that applies to those things, then yes...I don't give a damn about their opinion because their opinion seems squarely based on ideology and exterior things rather than an honest reading of a situation.

Experience in a particular situation IS a valuable asset in forming an opinion. Lack of that experience can be a deteriment. However, the worth of opinion isn't held singularly in how much or how little experience one has. There are other factors. Those other factors can potentially make an experienced persons opinion worthless and an inexperienced persons opinion priceless. However, looking at JUST experience, by and large its a positive to have when forming an opinion.
 
Yes, people can have informed opinions about things they have never experienced, especially if they have been close to others who have experienced such things. I have a problem with the "WELL informed" description though. I have informed opinions about the actions of various US presidents, but I come to those opinions without the totality of information available to make it WELL informed. My experience with human behavior and reactions to trauma allow me to have an informed opinion about how most people react in a life-and-death war situation; however, since I myself have not been in such a situation, my opinion is not WELL informed. My husband has an informed opinion about the human body's response to pregnancy and childbirth. Since he has never been pregnant, carried a child to term, or experienced something akin to excreting a 10-lb watermelon through a bodily orifice, his is not a WELL informed opinion. Mine, however, is WELL informed.

Everyone is entitled to watch events in the world, process those events through their own prism of thought and experience, and form an opinion. Unless one actually has the totality of all relevant information, has walked in those shoes, or has lived through that nightmare, such opinions are not WELL informed.

In other words, we cannot know what we do not know, and to pretend otherwise is the epitome of hubris.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom