I had the chance to experience some strong, uncerebral conviction from someone I, unfortunately, didn’t have much respect for. I imagine that it was caused by a refusal to understand anything outside of her frame of mind. She seemed so zealous in her opinion, so upset at any mention of the contrary, that any attempt to loosen her resolve proved to be more than fruitless.
It seemed as if she was making up for her ignorance in strength of opinion. In order to seem as if she was knowledgeable about the subject, she became extremely opinionated.
How can one argue with such a difficult person? My answer is simple; I don’t. Argument is something that I’ve given up on completely, in general. I now find discussion, as opposed to argument, to be an exercise in loquacity and conversation. At my age, it seems that most people have surpassed what Erikson believed to be the identity vs. role confusion stage. They have become confident in their beliefs, and there is little that can be done to show them a new view. Of course, there are always a few people who can keep a beautifully open mind, accepting the possibility of anything, perhaps something as adventurous as admitting they are wrong.
There always seems to be a fine line between someone who is opinionated for shallow, insecure reasons, and someone who is opinionated validly. Unless one attempts to understand both cases, they both seem the same.
The adventure becomes not the enlightenment of the former, but the distinction between the two.