Are You Really a Fence-Sitter?
When we call someone a “fence-sitter,” we usually mean they believe whatever they hear—they lack conviction. In other words, they only trust the last opinion they encountered.
The term fence-sitter is undoubtedly pejorative, while the opposite type of person is often praised for staying true to themselves and having strong convictions.
Wait a moment. If we used different words to describe these two types of people, the picture might look completely different.
A is someone who adapts quickly and listens to others, while B is someone who is stubborn and self-righteous.
At first glance, A leaves the impression of an open-minded person, while B comes across as rigid and arrogant.
Notice something? Simply by flipping the positive/negative connotations of words with similar meanings, the message changes entirely.
If you agree with my point, then let me ask you again: since I’ve convinced you, does that mean you’re really a fence-sitter?
You probably don’t consider yourself one—at least you’re reluctant to admit it. You want to argue back, but the distinction between the two is hard to articulate.
Actually, the difference is simple. Let me share my thoughts.
You’re the One Labeling Yourself a Fence-Sitter
Perhaps you’re actually engaging in a form of “moral blackmail“ against yourself—convincing yourself to abandon new information and perspectives in order to protect your “convictions.” What’s worse, this is likely an implicit process; you may not even realize it’s happening.
The following passage is from Asking the Right Questions, which I read recently. It might give you something new to think about.
Our culture has little tolerance for people who change their minds. We often call them “fence-sitters” or “hypocrites,” without recognizing that when new evidence emerges, changing our views is not only natural but also a responsible and accountable thing to do.
—— Asking the Right Questions by Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley
This passage struck a chord with me and sparked many thoughts. Often, it’s we ourselves who impose moral constraints that make us over-reflect on our own behavior—and it’s precisely these constraints that hinder deeper analysis and thinking.
I’ve always opposed using a simple label to silence someone, to deliver a “final verdict” on them. What’s more frightening is that such labels invisibly cause our brains to operate according to System 1, as described in Thinking, Fast and Slow. When we evaluate others’ opinions, we unknowingly put on tinted glasses.
System 1 roughly means the brain gives quick, direct responses based on existing experience—in simple terms, it “takes the easy way out.”
Under the “fence-sitter” label, we may unknowingly shackle our brains and hinder our thinking. After all, “sticking with” our original views is the path of least resistance for the brain. The scary part is how hard it is to notice this happening.
I imagine you still have a question: when does someone count as a “fence-sitter,” and when are they “listening to others”?
Actually, that’s simple.
My view is that good thinking should be:
- Making reliable judgments based on continuously emerging new information, then updating your beliefs;
- Rather than selectively accepting information based on your existing beliefs.
No one is perfect. No one is always right, and no viewpoint is flawless from the moment it’s born.
Positions and viewpoints are born from reliable information—not the other way around, where you filter information through pre-existing positions and views.
That said, the crux of the issue becomes: how do you identify “reliable” information? That’s a topic for another day. I’ll share my understanding when I get the chance. Noted for later
We shouldn’t view other perspectives or evidence through “tinted glasses”; instead, we should maintain a neutral stance. At the same time, when we think about reasons that support our own views, we shouldn’t avoid factors that might work against them.
At this point, you might ask: isn’t that just contradicting yourself? Who would look for reasons that don’t support their own position?
Seeking Truth OR Seeking Victory?
This brings us to the purpose of our thinking: seeking truth OR seeking victory?
We’ve all experienced this: two people debate a point, and neither can convince the other. Each starts from their own viewpoint and position, searches for the strongest arguments to support their case, and eagerly presents them. The result is usually that the debate fizzles out, with neither side budging.
It’s a bit like a debate competition: both the affirmative and negative sides spare no effort in presenting arguments for their position while attacking the other side’s. But the difference is that in a debate, a judge scores the performance and declares a winner; the two sides would never change their stance or concede the other’s point mid-debate (at least, I’ve never seen it). In that game, their goal is to win.
Unfortunately, life isn’t a debate competition, but for various reasons, opportunities to seek truth are all too rare.
But when a person sits quietly, thinking not for any other purpose, I hope we can set everything aside—even our existing positions—and look at issues neutrally, consider others’ viewpoints, and analyze the reliability of information… Although this is nearly an impossible task, “though I may never reach it, my heart yearns for it” is still a commendable attitude.
A Note
This is the first time I’ve actually organized my thoughts into a blog post and published it. In the past, I might have just mulled things over in my head or discussed them with friends, but this time I wanted to share my thinking with more people.
I’ve named this series “Gengdu“ (cultivating through reading). In this increasingly fast-paced society, having the leisure time to read and think is truly a luxury. So, although I wish it weren’t so, this series might only contain this one article.
Of course, I didn’t write this post to convince you—just to offer a direction for thinking about problems. If you disagree with my views, feel free to reach out. I hope we can seek truth together.