On the other hand, when faced with a fork in the road, it's important to choose. Often it doesn't matter which - but if you vacillate, and especially if you are leading - then you can fail by not choosing.
So, strong opinions: decisively go down one road; weakly held: turn around if information suggests it looks like the wrong road.
You can only update your opinions if you engage with reality, which demands a certain conviction in those opinions.
> On the other hand, when faced with a fork in the road, it's important to choose. Often it doesn't matter which - but if you vacillate, and especially if you are leading - then you can fail by not choosing.
The number of times people think they are at such a fork where non-action is worse than any action is an order of magnitude more than in reality.
In my experience, most of these cases are reflective of a social issue. The problem at hand doesn't require one make a decision any time soon, but if you don't, you are viewed negatively. So the social systems around you push you to make a decision even when one is not needed.
Almost every time I've heard someone use the phrase "fence-sitter" it is this scenario. At my work, we have surveys where we rank things on a 5 pt scale: 1 is strongly against, 5 is strongly in favor, and 3 is neutral. There's a significant block of people who keep pushing HR to make it a 4 point scale so there is no neutral option. I've had several discussions with them, and they've never been able to give me a good reason, beyond statements like "You have to have some opinion!" and some negative comment about fence sitters.
But yes, for certain things (e.g. investing for retirement), it's probably better to pick a safe option than not pick anything.
I've seen people with analysis paralysis at the lowest level of development, and I've seen opportunity-chasing in different directions of different market segments at the top of orgs - sometimes fence-sitting takes the shape of trying to go down both roads, rather than no roads.
I think it's a lot more common than you think it is - especially because not choosing does not simply mean not taking action, it means lacking focus.
A strong opinion will at least put all the wood behind one arrow, focus in an area. It might not work; deciding when to change tack is where the judgment is, but at least there ought to be some solid feedback to work with.
Being decisive has nothing to do with a strong opinion.
It does bring up one of my issues with these pop philosophies. So many people interpret them differently while claiming to have the exact same interpretation.
So, strong opinions: decisively go down one road; weakly held: turn around if information suggests it looks like the wrong road.
You can only update your opinions if you engage with reality, which demands a certain conviction in those opinions.