UK Public
Increasingly Reluctant To Express Ill-informed
Opinions
An increasing number of
people in the UK are declining to express
definite opinions when asked about complex issues
of which they know little.
TV journalists first began
to detect this phenomenon in early 2017 when
undertaking random street interviews.
In order to add interest to
a news item, it had become commonplace for a
reporter to accost strangers on any high street
and seek their opinions on the subject of the
journalist’s report.
The journalist might, for
example, ask a passer-by whether increasing the
energy of the particle accelerator at CERN would
be likely to provide evidence for supersymmetry.
Such a reporter could then confidently expect a
deeply held conviction to be expressed on that
subject – based on no logical rationale
whatsoever.
Indeed, there were few
questions for which a random shopper could not
provide an immediate, simple, definitive solution
– even if the matter had vexed, for
generations, the minds of the world’s
greatest thinkers.
During 2017, however,
things began to change:
‘I first noticed it,’
recalled a BBC news reporter, ‘when I
stopped a lady on Oxford Street and asked her how
the West should best respond to the threats posed
by North Korea. I was astonished when she said
that she didn’t know. She went on to explain
that the situation was highly complex and that,
whilst there were some underlying principles that
might be applied to addressing the issue, the
optimum solution was very hard to gauge and would
require considerable thought by people who better
understood all the nuances of the situation.
‘I politely stopped
her at that point,’ the reporter confessed.
‘Not only had her words gone well beyond a
simple soundbite, but that sort of attitude was
never going to fuel a heated controversy between
the viewers who tweet their sad opinions to the
evening news programme for which I report.
‘I tried to recover
something from the interview,’ he admitted,
‘by asking if she thought Donald Trump
should bomb Pyongyang to rubble. She told me,
however, that I was being grossly over-simplistic,
and then she walked away.’
The above encounter might
easily have been forgotten had many more
journalists not reported similar public responses
on a variety of issues. A marked reluctance had
seemingly emerged for people to express decisive,
unambiguous perspectives on issues of the day
– frequently conceding that they lacked
sufficient knowledge of the complex political,
social and scientific issues involved to hold an
intelligent view.
‘Well, it’s all
rather complicated,’ said a typical
interviewee in response to a question about
national politics. ‘There are a huge number
of complex factors that bear on that issue and,
although I’ve knowledge of some of them, I
really don’t think I’m in a position to
draw a meaningful and worthwhile overall
conclusion.’
At the request of the BBC,
Professor Ariana Stotle, a leading Oxford
historian and philosopher, undertook a study into
this phenomenon.
She discovered that the
same reasoning as had been expressed to the TV
journalists had led many people to resolve to
become highly selective about voting in future
elections and referenda.
‘I used to express an
opinion when anyone asked me about anything,’
said a typical, random member of the public who
was interviewed by Professor Stotle. ‘I
thought I ought to have a view, and so I
just guessed an answer – an answer that
might change depending on the mood I was in. I
suppose that was all a bit of fun when it had no
consequences, but I recently realised that I did
exactly the same thing when I voted on polling
day.
‘When the effects of
recent elections and referenda, at home and
abroad, became apparent,’ this interviewee
confessed, ‘I realised that making
emotionally driven, wild guesses in the polling
booth was an entirely irresponsible way for me to
behave. I’m not stupid, it’s just that,
like most people, I’d absolutely no idea
about the consequences of leaving or remaining in
the EU. Also, I haven’t a clue which
politician or political party would best run the
country – mainly because I don’t have a
full grasp of the complexities involved in
managing all the interconnected facets of a
sophisticated, twenty-first century nation.
‘I'm not even sure why
you're asking me,' the same respondent
added. 'If you needed major surgery,’ he
continued by way of analogy, ‘you wouldn’t
ask me what to do. You’d go to an
expert surgeon. It’d be madness for you to
seek my opinion in the first place, and, if I
suggested removing your head as a treatment for
an ingrowing toenail, it would be even greater
folly for you to act upon it.’
‘This emerging popular
movement against the expression of ill-informed
opinions,’ suggested Professor Stotle,
‘seems to have arisen partially from a new
public awareness that it’s not shameful to
admit a lack of knowledge about a subject. It
also appears to be linked to an increasing
realisation that it’s not just stupid but
also morally wrong to contribute to important
decisions – decisions that affect the lives
of others – on the basis of blind guesswork.
‘This groundswell of
public consensus is a surprise to me,’
Professor Stotle admitted, ‘but it may be a
sign of increasing emotional maturity in the UK
population as we move further into the twenty-first
century.
‘Historically,’
she explained, ‘it became understood in the
West that everybody must be able to express their
political opinions and fairly elect their leaders.
Otherwise, those who feel disenfranchised will
inevitably revolt – and, sooner or later,
everybody will start killing everybody else. The
modern Middle East and parts of Africa sadly
illustrate this only too well.
‘The downside of
seeking opinions from the masses, however, is
that, because the greater number of them are not
adequately informed, and many are not very bright,
resulting decisions are effectively random –
you may as well toss a coin.
‘That’s what
Winston Churchill meant,’ Professor Stotle
clarified, ‘when he said that democracy was
the worst form of government except for all the
others. Stability is bought at the price of daft
decisions being made by the ill-informed.
‘History also shows,
however, that if people recognise their
limitations and don’t express opinions
unless they are knowledgeable and can maintain a
dispassionate view, then the chances of wise
outcomes are greatly increased. For some reason,
a new, adult, emotional maturity of this type
appears to be developing in the UK right now. The
reasons are not totally clear, but many who voted
Brexit have been profoundly shocked as the
consequences of a decision they supported have
unfolded. This has clearly made them think very
carefully about expressing future opinions.’
Professor Stotle’s
report reveals that this emerging popular
movement to reduce the existence and impact of
ill-informed opinions is rapidly gaining momentum,
but does not have unqualified, universal support.
Religious organisations
that she consulted for her report have treated
the new ideas with caution. ‘We are
certainly in favour of people considering the
facts,’ said a typical religious leader,
‘as long as they are the correct facts.
After all, only our religion understands
the real truth about everything, and thus any, so
called, facts that run contrary to our doctrines
are clearly unacceptable.’
Donald Trump has also
tweeted his concerns. He believes that basing
opinions on a reasonable appraisal of all the
facts does not feel right to the wonderful,
hardworking people who made America great, and
will make it great once more. ‘If it feels
true it is true, regardless of any
goddamn facts. I really feel that. God Bless
America.’ he recently tweeted.
Due to the rapidly changing
UK public attitude to this issue, journalists
attempted to gauge current views just prior to
the publication of this article: The general
consensus appears to be that more thought and
study is needed before individuals can draw
definitive conclusions. However, admitting
ignorance is seen as an honest response, and not
expressing opinions without having substantial
and sufficient knowledge of the subject in
question is increasingly being seen as self-apparent
common sense.
|
