Boundaries in Conversations with the Opinionated

Invariably we find ourselves in situations in conversation with people who have opinions on everything, and people have opinions on something.  The former’s whole objective is to turn discussion from anything else onto whatever their opinion is and dominate.  The latter lurk for their opportunity—passion is awakened, and they transform the dialogue into monologue.

In both instances, it’s a case of instant regret for not only the uninitiated, but for seasoned conversationalists alike.  One way conversations where you become a conscripted audience are never fun.

Have you heard of the terms, OOE and OOS?  They stand for “Opinion on Everything” and “Opinion on Something”.  I didn’t come up with the acronyms, OOE and OOS.

Dr Rod Wilson in his little book, Thank You. I’m Sorry. Tell Me More.: How to Change the World with 3 Sacred Sayings, talks about these in a short chapter titled Being Opinionated.  His central point is, there’s a difference between having an opinion and being opinionated.  The difference, Wilson says, “revolves around the experience of the listener.”

Most if not all of us hate it when we find ourselves in a social situation where we’re dogged by an opinionated person—especially when we cannot easily make an escape.

Even when two or more people share the same opinion it makes for a very superficial and potentially dangerous conversation.  Pushed to the extremes, it’s how people are radicalised.  Birds of a feather with the same extreme views begin to live in a bubble.

Rod Wilson talks about the pleasure he gets when he’s surrounded by people who have opinions; when they can share openhandedly in a way that suggests they haven’t got everything worked out.

That’s real conversations, isn’t it?  When there’s flow that suggests we’re listening to each other.  When it’s clear that the other person is actually more interested in what you’re saying than in figuring out what they’re going to say.  When you discern that there’s space to share your opinion without it (or you) being judged.  Where you can affirm another person genuinely and not through a fawned response of not having another option for fear of the consequences should you disagree.  When you discern that there’s actually room to disagree somewhat or inject nuance into the topic.  When you sense the conversation goes to new levels when new information is injected.

The opinionated don’t leave people or conversations with such freedom.  They’re always looking to capitalise on the moment.  You even get the feeling that being in conversation with them is an inevitable trap—it’s only a matter of time before they turn the conversation toward promoting their view, to consuming the vocal bandwidth, to where “their wisdom” dominates.  As they share, they get to show you just how much they know, who they know, their achievements, etc.

It’s all a show of self-promotion, or it’s a case they’ve got a hobbyhorse they love to ride, incessantly, at others’ expense.  They never stop to appreciate the finer things about connecting with others in conversation.  It’s for mutual enjoyment and edification.

Boundaries are important for the opinionated, in much the same way that Gray Rock is used to protect empaths from their narcissists.

The bigger part of this is the awareness that the opinionated lurk in so many places that we’re constantly aware that we don’t want to give those situations our valuable oxygen—for both their good and ours.  The last thing opinionated people need is to be enabled and encouraged to spread their unhelpful and at times dangerous views.

When we’re in conversations with people who are opinionated, we can try to push back a little rather than agree with what we don’t agree with (which is a fawning response).  But I wouldn’t try more than once or twice.

After that I’m looking to depart, which is simply about being kind while walking away.