Odious Comparisons V – Unopinionated

Sometimes that existing need among us to rule on everything and everybody irritates me. It seems that, if you have no opinion on an issue that arises in a conversation, you are breaching a well-established social convention. And this convention makes us all able to enter any discussion and being a great amateur.

Do not misunderstand me, is good and very necessary for people to have their own opinions, and their own discretion, and to have dialogue and exchange of ideas that enrich us all. That's where the problem lies, in the ownership of ideas, I mean. How difficult it is to cultivate truly own opinions! There is so much information, so much data, and so many events that overwhelm us daily, how does one go about analyzing in detail, balancing between the two sides of the scale and value enough points of view?

I almost never read newspapers. It is not that I am not interested, but I follow a rule: The majority of information that I find in them I forget in less than a week, so it is irrelevant. The information that is relevant, given its importance, will be displayed on other media and even someone soon will talk to me about it, so I will know anyway. Furthermore, newspapers are highly toxic, without exception. The information is fragmented, often has biases and is loaded with opinions, opinions of others. What should I do, read a news item ten times in ten different places to get neutral data, or be limited to the newspaper of my ideology?

I am not totally opinionated. So for example, if you ask me about the Arab-Israeli issues (or Muslim, Hebrew, still do not know exactly) what I'm going to say? Do I have to pick out who commits or has committed more offenses? What historical who's right? How may of my friends are Muslims or Jews? It turns out that I have both. And no, I have no opinion. The issue seems to me extremely dry and serious to support any side. Therefore, on this issue, I have to admit I am a person with no opinion. Please do not be upset at such a statement.

One of my few exceptions to this rule (not to follow the journalists) is in-depth reporting. When a topic is covered on television for a period of at least half or an hour, I see that I get something useful. At least I can determine whether the report was biased because in one hour they can not hide.

For the rest, there are the books. A second version of my rule is: Focus in reading what will take you less to read and digest than it took to its author to write (I have seldom this feeling reading articles).

And the rest of opinionated, belching speeches on any subject that they put in the script, are also of little interest to me. Occasionally, some have a hint of insight and even inspiration to discourse, but scarce. Hey, I will not complain about that, it is better to talk than to shut up.

One must not want to know about everything if you do not want to talk with the words of others. That's my opinion. And what is yours?