Do You Have a Values-Based or Opinions-Based Identity?
Do you have a values-based or opinions-based identity?
It’s an interesting question to think about for yourself, it is eye opening in regards to understanding the perspectives of others.
In his book Think Again (which I went into detail in a monthly Write Stuff column), Adam Grant lays out the difference between the two:
Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are your core principles in life - they might be excellence and generosity, freedom and fairness, or security and integrity. Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them. You want the doctor whose identity is protecting health, the teacher whose identity is helping students learn, and the police chief whose identity is promoting safety and justice. When they define themselves by values rather than opinions, they buy themselves the flexibility to update their practices in light of new evidence.
The conflict between values and identity can play out in different ways. I’ll highlight a few below.
In sports, most people have an opinions-based identity. While I certainly value the ideas of teamwork, healthy competition, peak performance, and individual accomplishment - ultimately, no matter how you speak about those values in regards to Michael Jordan, in my mind Lebron James is the GOAT. That is an opinions-based approach. My fandom is tied to a particular individual, or a particular team, and I will support them regardless of how well they uphold a particular set of values (go Astros!).
Having a disagreement with someone in the realm of sports can make for a lively and entertaining discussion, but the stakes are low. There is no real consequence to us disagreeing over who our favorite player or team might be.
What about when it comes to public health? This is both an extremely vivid and extreme example. Someone approaching the Covid pandemic (see: From Hadith Rejection to Covid Denialism 10 Critical Thinking Tools for Fighting Back Against Anti-Intellectualism) from a values-based perspective, their thought process will reflect the overriding values they are using to assess the situation. For example:
What will keep me safe?
What sacrifices do I need to make to help keep others around me safe?
How can we mitigate the spread of this infection?
What are public health experts recommending?
When someone approaches it from an opinions-based perspective, their thought process reflects that. For example:
Who is saying I need to wear a mask?
What are the leaders of my political party advocating?
Are the people recommending vaccines the same people who hold XYZ opinions [on unrelated issues] that I strongly disagree with?
How can I get vaccinated after making fun of other people for getting vaccinated?
If a values-based person is having a discussion with an identity-based person, they will go nowhere. At best it will be like two ships passing in the night. At worst, they will go increasingly frustrated and belligerent with each other (as we have seen play out).
Sometimes both approaches can look like they result in the same action, masking the underlying conflict. One such example is brilliantly detailed in Anand Giridharadas’ book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.
When someone values ending poverty, or values the idea that every human being deserves food and shelter regardless of circumstance, that will drive certain actions and behaviors. People with these values may push for systemic reforms - building of affordable housing, expansion of welfare benefits or free school lunches, tax redistribution to create more viable social safety nets, and so on.
What would an opinions-based approach look like though? For Giridharadas, it looks like philanthropy. It looks like extremely wealthy people donating large sums of money to feed the homeless and support other causes - doing what feels right to them. The problem is that these philanthropic efforts do not necessarily address the underlying causes of poverty. This likens them to a band-aid (albeit sometimes an expensive one) rather than a solution to the cause of the problem. It is a solution that does more to afford the donor the image (or identity) as being generous more than it does actually help those who need it. This is because addressing the root cause may lead to solutions - like tax reform - that will end up financially hurting the person in an amount that is more than what they donated.
A more cynical interpretation of this would be that many do not care about the causes at all, and are only doing this for PR. That is certainly the conclusion reached by Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel in their reporting (see An Ugly Truth Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination) on Facebook (now Meta) - that Mark Zuckerberg was flustered and upset that his charitable contributions were not doing enough to shift the narrative away from the evils perpetuated by his company.
Understanding whether someone is motivated by values or opinion is critical to understanding why they may advocate for certain things and not others. It gives us a glimpse into how people reach a state of cognitive dissonance without realizing it. It can also provide insight on how to better persuade someone.
We see this play out in discussions that are commonplace online. In discussions on issues such as abortion or racial justice, it is difficult to find a values-based framing. Discussions tend to escalate quickly into conflict when people cannot agree on values, or when someone is too strongly attached to an opinion. If someone has an opinion-based identity, they will not change an opinion if it appears that they will lose face, feel disrespected, or give up something that is a formative part of their identity.
The most challenging scenario is when two people are both coming from a values-based perspective, but conflict in the prioritization of their values.
Moonsighting policy is a great example. Do you value community unity? Do you value adherence to the truth (or at least your conviction on a correct fiqh opinion)? In a city where a majority may be following one opinion, one group of imams may be thoroughly convinced that the majority is following an invalid ruling, and they must stand for the truth. When both sides are values-driven, the work shifts to winning agreement on prioritization.
We all like to think we are consistently driven by our values. The reality is, we fall into opinions-based advocacy more often than we like to admit. We get tied to our own opinions, our own identities (i.e. wanting to be perceived a certain way), and often take cues by mimicking the opinions of people we look up to. Many times our political stances are shaped by opinions-based perspectives rather than values. Some people may make their opinion on one certain thing their entire identity (also known as Android users).
These are places where we need to stop and assess what our values are, and ask ourselves how things might look different if we follow them.
