# A Critique of Opinions as Normal Variation By:: [[Brian Heath]] 2023-05-16 [[Steven Denman]] wrote a [[Yea, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Thinking of opinions as normal variation.|post]] on thinking of opinions as normal variation. It's an interesting and valuable thought, but the trouble with thinking of opinions as natural process variation as described by [[W. Edwards Deming]] is progress and human suffering. With opinions, there is no discernable way to determine whether an opinion is good or bad. Right and wrong largely have no relevance. The point of statistical process control is to detect what is normal variation and detect variation as a change in the underlying system. Sometimes this change is good and intentional. Other times this change means something has gone off course. However, with opinions who is to say what normal variation is and what are good or bad changes in the system? It is very easy to get it all wrong. If you are socio-economically "on top," you'll view the variations in opinions very differently than someone who is at the bottom of the food chain. Perhaps you'll want to reduce opinion variation as much as possible to align with your opinion, but is that "good?" Who are you to say? In the end, variation in opinions reflect endless permutations in variations of beliefs and experiences. Statistical opinion control seems like a slippery slope to propaganda and dictatorship. All this said, it is a valuable thought to prepare yourself for inevitable conflict and disagreement. It's good to remember that people are different and your experiences are unique. Thinking is valuable. Recognizing differences as systematic is valuable. Thinking of beliefs and opinions in statistical terms with economically derived value must be done so with extreme caution. The world is full of stories where this mistake was made, and it only increased human suffering. #### Related Items [[Statistics]] [[Variation]] [[Opinions]] [[Thinking]] [[Suffering]] [[Progress]]