[AbrahamParangi]

A heuristic I like to use is that when someone presents many reasons for why they like or dislike something, they’re usually excluding the main reason.

The rationale for this is that causes are often power-law distributed in importance, so the top reason will be most of it and the other reasons are merely supplementary or for the purpose of argument.

[warrenm]

Scott Adams calls this the "laundry list" argument: if you have to list more than a couple solid reasons for something, you probably don't really have any solid reasons for believing what you believe

[dragonwriter]

Yes, it is very Scott Adams to say “if someone points out many solid reasons why I am wrong, it means I’m really right!”

[warrenm]

Great job at totally missing the point

[AbrahamParangi]

I disagree with this framing, if only for the reason that “solid” seems to imply “true” here whereas I believe the criterion is actually whether or not the argument is “convincing”.

Often the real reasons are not “convincing”, but this does not mean they are not valid, sensible, or correct.

[warrenm]

Laundry lists tend to include lots of incredibly unsolid opinions, "reasons" - most of which can be easily refutable with facts

If you have facts that you start with, and explain your conclusions, you have valid reasons

Note - opinions are fine, too: but never confuse your opinion with a fact (which most people do) :)

I hate Chrysler products

Not because I'm a Ford Guy or a BMW Guy - but because they feel cruddy to me

And my opinion is all I need there

I can tease my Jeep and Doge and Chrysler owning friends who love their vehicles while they tease me about my cars - because it's all fun and games ..we all know those are opinions, not facts