{
  "author": {
    "name": "Dylan Fitzgerald",
    "url": "https://dylanfitzgerald.net/"
  },
  "blyg": "0.4",
  "changelog": [
    {
      "at": "2024-11-21T05:25:00Z",
      "note": "Imported from the Ctrl+Shift archive",
      "version": 1
    }
  ],
  "content_hash": "sha256:f3125527c069365f0a98cd1f5149e154b487dce369067c733622c31e682cce26",
  "content_html": "\u003ch1\u003eStrong opinions, weakly held\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe idea: hold your opinions strongly enough to advocate for them, but weakly enough to change them when presented with new information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI mean, \u003cem\u003eokay\u003c/em\u003e. The values here are solid. But this industry truism is predicated on the idea that people want to argue about things and then change their minds\u0026ndash;and I\u0026rsquo;ve found that, by the time someone\u0026rsquo;s arguing about something, they\u0026rsquo;re already pretty dug in. It\u0026rsquo;s going to be an ego hit for them to turn around and say: this thing I\u0026rsquo;ve been all-in for? Nope. I was wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNobody likes to do a wholesale, boolean reversal. Y\u0026rsquo;know what\u0026rsquo;s doable? Shifting along a continuum. If your opinions are nuanced and your attachment to them not a black-and-white proposition, you can shift the details as new information comes in without the self-compromise. You can say: \u0026ldquo;I was wrong about this part, but I still think this other part is important.\u0026rdquo; Or: \u0026ldquo;I was 80% in on this being the best way, but now I\u0026rsquo;m only 60%\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf you can do this for yourself, your ability to grow will be higher\u0026ndash;and less painful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf you can do this for your team, together, you\u0026rsquo;ll be unstoppable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI\u0026rsquo;m about 70% sure of it.\u003c/p\u003e\n",
  "content_md": "# Strong opinions, weakly held\n\nThe idea: hold your opinions strongly enough to advocate for them, but weakly enough to change them when presented with new information.\n\nI mean, _okay_. The values here are solid. But this industry truism is predicated on the idea that people want to argue about things and then change their minds--and I've found that, by the time someone's arguing about something, they're already pretty dug in. It's going to be an ego hit for them to turn around and say: this thing I've been all-in for? Nope. I was wrong.\n\nNobody likes to do a wholesale, boolean reversal. Y'know what's doable? Shifting along a continuum. If your opinions are nuanced and your attachment to them not a black-and-white proposition, you can shift the details as new information comes in without the self-compromise. You can say: \"I was wrong about this part, but I still think this other part is important.\" Or: \"I was 80% in on this being the best way, but now I'm only 60%\".\n\nIf you can do this for yourself, your ability to grow will be higher--and less painful.\n\nIf you can do this for your team, together, you'll be unstoppable.\n\nI'm about 70% sure of it.",
  "created": "2024-11-21T05:25:00Z",
  "id": "4b2eqn71wr4216ev1kc40bsq2w",
  "kind": "thread",
  "media": [],
  "origin": "https://dylanfitzgerald.net/blyg/",
  "page": "https://dylanfitzgerald.net/blog/strong-opinions-weakly-held/",
  "transclusions": [],
  "updated": "2024-11-21T05:25:00Z",
  "version": 1
}