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.
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.
I hope there's at least a tinge of joking in there. If you do something wrong you should apologise. If you rear end someone or walk into them while texting apologising is the right thing to do. I do agree with the point of the article though. If you have an opinion and you can justify it then there's nothing at all to apologise for.
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.
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.
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.
No, it makes you look intelligent and human. Apologizing at the end of an article like this only shows that there are higher powers at play trying to shush you up.
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.
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.
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.
Not really. For example, "I think broccoli tastes delicious" is a legitimate opinion. On the other hand, "I think broccoli tastes like sulfuric acid" is not a valid opinion because it is absurd. Namely ingesting sulfuric acid in any real quantity to make a determination of flavor would have killed me.
> On the other hand, "I think broccoli tastes like sulfuric acid" is not a valid opinion ...
Of course it is. By definition, opinions aren't statements about objective reality, they're expressions of personal taste and subjective experience.
The only sense in which an opinion is "legitimate" is the idea that everyone is entitled to his own, never that an opinion might correspond to reality. The latter isn't an opinion, it's a hypothesis.
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...
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.
23 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 44.9 ms ] threadAs long as you still think it is correct, and you are open to evidence and logic, you should stick by it.
PS - This is a general comment on tendering apologies and has got nothing to do with the OP.
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/
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".
Seems to have worked.
https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/8KBkzumM...
(Perhaps we mean something different by "legitimate"? I think I basically consider an opinion to be legitimate if it's plausible-or-better.)
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.
Of course it is. By definition, opinions aren't statements about objective reality, they're expressions of personal taste and subjective experience.
The only sense in which an opinion is "legitimate" is the idea that everyone is entitled to his own, never that an opinion might correspond to reality. The latter isn't an opinion, it's a hypothesis.
Editorials follow a different set of principles.