
Never Apologize For Having An Opinion — Especially When You’re Right - foobar2k
http://massivegreatness.com/neutral-or-neutered
======
j_baker
Much as I hate to agree with a (somewhat notorious) tech crunch writer, I
agree. Once you put an idea out there, you shouldn't back down. That doesn't
mean that writers need to stick to their guns in the face of evidence you're
wrong. Rather, it means you should value your ideas and not back down just
because others feel threatened by them.

------
dmk23
No greatness has ever come from being a namby-pamby.

It is a lot better to be polarizing yourself and find your natural
constituency than fail to connect with anyone by trying to be "safe".

------
beering
It was a bit disheartening to see that despite presenting its argument in a
logical way, the article was blasted by a lot of highly visible people like
Linus Torvalds which really stoked the fires. To the Internet masses, you're
either pro-Android/anti-Apple or pro-Apple/anti-Google.

------
stretchwithme
There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion, even an incorrect one. And
nothing wrong with expressing it, despite what political correctness dictates.

As long as you still think it is correct, and you are open to evidence and
logic, you should stick by it.

------
lutusp
All else aside, the concepts "opinion" and "right" are orthogonal. An opinion
doesn't need to be right, or even plausible, to be an legitimate opinion.

~~~
philh
Can you give an example?

(Perhaps we mean something different by "legitimate"? I think I basically
consider an opinion to be legitimate if it's plausible-or-better.)

~~~
lutusp
> Can you give an example?

I prefer blondes to brunettes -- that's my opinion.

I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream -- that's my opinion.

You're saying "opinion" when you should be saying "theory" or "hypothesis,"
both proposals about the true content of reality. An opinion isn't a proposal
about reality, it's an expression of personal preference.

> I think I basically consider an opinion to be legitimate if it's plausible-
> or-better.

But that's not an opinion, that's an observation that may or may not have a
connection with objective reality. Opinions by definition are not "legitimate"
except in the sense that everyone is entitled to his own. By design, they have
nothing to do with reality-testing -- that's reserved to hypotheses, proposals
about the content of reality.

------
tomrod
This piece is interesting as a side defense of the original article's
outlandish claims. Predatory pricing is unsustainable in the long run.

------
ioanpopovici
I'm sorry but you should really read the Journalist Ethic Code. You should not
express opinions but facts. That is your job as a journalist and I'm sick of
people doing otherwise, especially engadget. "Like any other citizen, the
journalist has a right to political and other convictions. However, in his/her
professional activity he/she should remain neutral and objective." You present
the facts undistorted and unbiased, not your own opinions and we form our own
opinion! This is how it's supposed to work...

~~~
enoch_r
That is how it has worked for a relatively short period of time, since the
appearance of modern newspapers--at the earliest, in the 1830's. With the
advent of cheap, instantaneous publishing, it seems that our expectations are
getting closer to the days of partisan pamphlets. I'm not really sure that
this is an obviously bad thing, just different.

------
jared314
This has the feel of a public letter you only write because the recipient
wouldn't read it otherwise.

~~~
aneth4
Is that a problem?

Seems to have worked.

------
SeanA208
I think Linus Torvalds' comments may have been a driving factor in the
update/apology.

[https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/8KBkzumM...](https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/8KBkzumMEc1)

------
activepeanut
Apologizing, in general, makes you look weak.

~~~
denzil_correa
No it does NOT. Not apologizing if you're wrong makes you a douchebag. There
might be something you missed and therefore you want to correct yourself. It
happens all the time - no big deal in an apology.

PS - This is a general comment on tendering apologies and has got nothing to
do with the OP.

~~~
shawn-butler
Experimental evidence seems to indicate otherwise[0]. Specifically outside
observers punish insincerity (coerced or feigned apologies) more harshly than
insensitivity (no apology) and in far greater degree than the wronged party
punishes either.

So if there are third parties present, the best strategy is not to apologize
unless you are fairly certain it will be viewed as sincere. In the absence of
a 3rd party, apology is the winning strategy regardless of sincerity.

I found it interesting that the recipient of the apology is made to feel
better not because the wrongdoer cares enough to apologize but because it is
an opportunity to be seen by others and affirm one's self-image as magnanimous
and gracious by accepting. We are such odd creatures.

The best course of action is to express regret without accepting
responsibility unless you actually believe you were at fault.

[0] <http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/92/3/418/>

~~~
denzil_correa
Aw man! You have made it sound so complicated. I would say if you are wrong
apologize; if not do not. I don't think your apology should be viewed as
something against you. If it is; I think you are are working for the wrong
organization.

