Some argue that everyone’s opinions are equally valuable because every human is equal and different. This is based on the ideal of the democratic process, where everyone’s opinions are given equal weight, and this collective wisdom is used to arrive at a reasonable decision or output. Such can be applied to a democratic voting process, where all citizens above a certain age are eligible to vote to decide a government, to the voting for a contestant in a talent competition, to the eyewitness identifications of a suspect, or even to simple, everyday affairs such as deciding on the place for lunch. Because every person is different and unique in their own way, and have different preferences and perspectives, they come from various viewpoints that may all be important for a certain matter at hand. For instance, a classic example that illustrates the effectiveness of collective intelligence is English statistician Sir Francis Galton’s 1907 observation of a contest in which villagers attempted to guess the weight of an ox. Although not one of the 787 estimates was correct, the average of the guessed weights was a mere one-pound short of the animal’s recorded heft. Since each person adds or contributes to the process in this own different/unique way, each opinion is of equal value and is equally considered for the enhanced, most comprehensive consensus/decision to be made.
However, in reality, while it is true that opinions are different, the accuracy of the opinion is also an important factor in deciding its value. Hence, not all opinions are equally valuable. Specifically, those given by people who are supposed to be more knowledgeable/professional, are generally considered to be more important, while those opinions by the layperson are less valued. Opinions are one’s subjective thoughts, not necessarily based on true facts or knowledge. But, if these are given by experts in a certain field, their opinions are inevitably given more weight, because they are more likely to be evidence-based, hence true and accurate. Compared to the layperson, who may not actually know much about the subject at hand, their opinion hence becomes less valuable because these may not be true or applicable to the situation. This is also one of the most common criticisms of the democratic process; when done on a large scale involving a nation or a state, should all really be considered equally to decide the government? It is only ideal if every citizen is well-informed and capable of searching and sieving for information that is accurate or true of their country, and such is made even more uncertain with the regulation and control of the media and other information sources that may only present bias views on a certain aspect. Untrue, biased, or irrelevant opinions may detrimentally affect the final decision made, so such opinions are considered less, or phased out, and hence not everybody’s opinion is of equal value.
Furthermore, in certain situations, differing opinions are, in reality, not desired. In fact, in a decision-making process, the different or conflicting views, especially if given by a minority population, may not matter as much. This is most true if the group is large, and many people are involved. Such is known as the phenomenon “groupthink”, wherein the group, participants will strive for consensus. Such will cause those with different or opposing opinions to cast away their ideas and adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Instead of voicing their opinions, they remain quiet to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity. This psychological response automatically means differing opinions are not even considered at all (as they are not said for consideration), and loses its real value in the decision-making process, even though it may have been a crucial factor. This psychological response has a physiology aspect to it as well. From the Emory University’s neuroscientist Gregory Berns, he found that when people take a stance different from the group’s, the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection, is activated. He calls this “the pain of independence.” Hence, if individuals instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own, their opinion, realistically, loses all its value, and as such, not all opinions are of equal value.
Lastly, opinions are not of equal value, because in reality, every human is actually not equal. Society inherent discriminates against certain groups of people, causing their opinions to become repressed and unheard. On the other hand, if it comes from a person in power or status, such opinions may be given more weight. This factor sometimes even overrides the accuracy aspect of the opinion. This is especially true in rigid societal systems with the hierarchical or patriarchal organization. For instance, in a hierarchal system, the population is separated into classes by birth, and the lowest classes are inevitably discriminated against and ignored. In India, this is prominent with the presence of the deep-rooted caste system in their society, causing the existence of the class known as Dalits (untouchables). Even though the Dalits were also human like the rest of Indian society, they had the poorest standard of life, and were heavily discriminated against; for instance, they were not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, or drink from the same cups in tea stalls. Now, with certain societal progression and bans against discrimination, many Dalits have improved quality of lives, and broken professional barriers, but many more are still trapped in repulsed jobs, such as disposing of dead animals and cleaning sewers. In 2017, around 90 sewer-cleaners, all Dalits, were fished out dead from India’s drains, an activist group reports. Such shows that Dalits’ needs, opinions are still not entirely met for and heard, due to long-standing discrimination and repression. As such, not everybody’s opinions are of equal value; depending on who it comes from, values are assigned accordingly.