In the realm of human expression and discourse, words hold immense power.

Information with little to no evidentiary support, proof of data or scientific backing can uproot the grounds of civil debate and even personal relationships. In a world where, with a few swipes of your thumbs, you can safely cyber-nest in the echo chamber of your choice, the repercussions of society’s inability to listen to and recognize opposing opinions or even proof-supported facts have yet to be fully manifested. Conjecture and social opinion gave birth to the new American Prometheus: cancel culture. It has a first cousin: the inability to hear and accept opposing ideas. They share a familiar friend: a fractured society.

Two terms often interchanged in language definition are “conjecture” and “opinion.” While they share the common ground of subjectivity, their nuances are distinct and crucial for navigating the diverse landscapes of thought and communication.

Conjecture is akin to speculation across a swath of possibilities. It involves making educated guesses or drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. Picture a detective at a crime scene, piecing together fragments of evidence to form a plausible narrative. Conjecture is the bridge between known facts and the realm of uncertainty, a thoughtful exploration into what might be.

The critical characteristic of conjecture lies in its foundation — rooted in evidence or logical inference. While it may not be a certainty, it is not devoid of a connection to reality. Conjecture involves carefully considering available information, allowing individuals to speculate within the bounds of reason.

Conversely, opinion is the tapestry of subjectivity woven by individual perspectives, values and personal experiences.

It’s a declaration of what one believes to be accurate, often shaped by emotions, biases and cultural influences. Unlike conjecture, which has a rope to evidence, an opinion is a self-contained entity — a proclamation of personal truth.

Opinions are as diverse as the individuals who hold them. They can range from matters of taste and preference, like the best flavor of ice cream, to more profound philosophical beliefs about the nature of existence. Opinions are not tethered to facts or evidence but reflect the full scope of human subjectivity. Significantly, they contribute to the rich tapestry of dialogue and foster a pluralistic understanding of the world.

While conjecture and opinion inhabit distinct territories, there exists a zone where the lines blur — a space where educated speculation transforms into personal belief. This intersection is often subtle, and individuals may navigate it differently based on their approach to critical thinking.

Consider a scenario where someone hypothesizes about a potential scientific breakthrough after analyzing all available data. Initially, this may be an exercise in conjecture — connecting the dots based on existing knowledge. However, if the individual becomes emotionally invested in the hypothesis, it may evolve into an opinion. The transition occurs when the speculative proposition transforms into a belief that holds personal significance.

Understanding the distinction between conjecture and opinion is paramount for fostering clarity in communication and critical thinking. In a world saturated with information and diverse perspectives, acknowledging when offering an informed guess versus expressing a personal belief promotes transparency in dialogue.

Recognizing the difference aids in evaluating the reliability of information. A conjecture, rooted in evidence and logical inference, can be subject to verification and refinement as more data emerges. Opinions are less susceptible to objective validation but serve as valuable windows into the diversity of human thought.

In everyday conversation, individuals verbally dance between conjecture and opinion. It shapes the narratives we construct, the beliefs we hold and the understanding we cultivate. The danger lies when a statement contradictory to your own incites an emotional reactivity that shuts down your ability to hear and attempt to understand the other person.

Think of the last time you were engaged in a discussion or scrolling through social media and something triggered you. What was the statement, and why did it cause the reaction you experienced? The ability to navigate the intricacies of language and thought is not inherently given to people. This is a continual exercise in exploring and understanding, utilizing critical thinking skills and asking listening-centric questions.

People often debate whether social media creates “echo chambers” by showing users content that matches their politics, increasing polarization.

A broader research project examining the role of social media in U.S. democracy, known as the U.S. 2020 Facebook and Instagram Election Study, was the first of its kind, providing social scientists with social media data that previously had been largely inaccessible.

Seventeen academics from U.S. colleges and universities teamed up with Meta, the parent company of Facebook, to conduct independent research on what people see on social media and how it affects them. The project built in several safeguards, including preregistering the experiments. Meta could not restrict or censor findings, and the academic lead authors had the final say over research and writing decisions.

The study included two main components. The first measured how often all adult Facebook users in the U.S. from June to September 2020 read content from like-minded sources, which the researchers define as sources on the same political side of the aisle as the user. (“Researchers Examine ‘Like-Minded Sources’ on Social Media,” Amy Olson, Dartmouth University News, July 2023)

Olson states about the findings: “The results showed that the median Facebook user received 50.4% of their content from like-minded sources, 14.7% from sources with the opposite political leaning (‘cross-cutting’ sources), and the remainder from friends, groups, or users that were neither like-minded nor cross-cutting (near the middle of the political spectrum).

“When the authors broke down these exposure levels, they found that 20.6% of U.S. adult Facebook users obtained 75% or more of their exposures from like-minded sources; 30.6% got 50% to 75% of their directions from like-minded sources; 25.6% received 25% to 50% of their exposures from like-minded sources; and 23.1% got 0% to 25% from like-minded sources.”

As we near 2024, we usher in a new presidential election year. The onslaught of polarizing opinions loudly stated as fact within the cyber-realm threatens to fray the fabric of our nation’s democratic weave. Appreciating the art of informed speculation, thereby recognizing the richness of individual perspectives, provides the weave and depth of the tapestry of stronger societies.

Are you willing to listen to opposing opinions?

Exposure to opinions rather than those you hold fires up critical thinking skills. We are compelled to identify what triggers us, and therein lies the opportunity to get curious. Why am I reactive, rather than interested, about what is stated? Is this opinion, conjecture or a statement based on evidentiary evidence? Why am I reacting to what I have read, heard or seen? Can I get curious about my triggered response?

Our society has stomped barefoot on concrete for too long, and the telltale signs of stress fractures are evident. Continuously using an injured foot can cause permanent damage and need healing. Rather than actively choosing sides, usher in space for empathetic listening before we lose both feet. Stand gently for what you believe, with grace.

Born and raised under the shadow of Mount Timpanogos, Camille Heckmann is relieved to be back in Utah County. A grad school dropout, former Army wife, mother to four kids and 21 moves, all followed by divorce and tragedy during her adult life, have provided enough texture to observe and write about the human condition. You can follow her exploits and writing career on Instagram at @millie_writer.

Newsletter