Pseudo-Conviction About Having Conviction

Do you ever catch yourself realizing that you don't actually have a strong opinion about something you've just shared a strong opinion about?

Someone shares something that doesn't resonate with you, or that you are unfamiliar with, or that you maybe think you disagree with even though you've never really given it much thought.

But instead of being curious, instead of reflecting, instead of examining your beliefs, instead of leading with equanimity. . .

. . . you go all in with a response as if it's the most important thing in the world, as if it's super urgent, as if a mild or curious response – or no response – is not an option.

Do you notice that about yourself? How you get caught up in expressing yourself with such ferocity that your argument ends up being defending the ferocity of your argument as opposed to the argument itself?

Because once you're all in, you don't want to be seen as a wuss and back down. You think you have conviction, but really you just have pseudo-conviction about having conviction.

I see this approach a lot when White people talk about race and racism.

The knee-jerk reaction to disbelieve, to invalidate, to gaslight, to point to exceptions, to uphold White supremacy.

I invite you to stop doing that. You're causing a lot of harm.