[rokkamokka]

The other side of the coin is the needlessly defiant people. These believe themselves to be those that "have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it", but in reality they just disagree with everything and everyone except themselves. From a third party's point of view they're easy to discern, however.

[Buttons840]

I'm probably one of these defiant people, so I want to speak in their defense.

I really just want to be heard. I want to be heard and have a response from someone who has comprehended my point of view and fully engaged with it, but that rarely happens.

At my last job I was defiant because the company was storing plain text passwords and PPI in the test database, and every developer had access to it (I'm certain there is a reader of this comment whose password I had access to along with a good amount of PPI). I said this should be fixed but nobody really engaged with what I was saying; we had important product enhancements to work on. So I got defiant and pushed really hard and burned some of my political capital, made myself appear a trouble maker in some people's minds, and in the end the PPI was removed from the test database. This caused the test environment to break and some tests needed to be fixed. They still store plain text passwords though, because that assumption was spread throughout the code. I would have continued pushing to do the work and stop using plain text passwords, but I was laid off.

If a company prioritizes profit over ethics you will find trouble makers who are justifiably defiant. Judge for yourself how many companies do that.

[sorokod]

The bottom line is that you failed to achieve the goal you set out to achieve and got laid off.

How is that ”speak in their defense"? Can you think of an alternative approach that would have delivered the result over time without you loosing your job?

[ttoinou]

Oh those people disagree with themselves very often, that's how you can recognize them

[jerf]

Finding a reason to echo someone's own opinion back at them after a suitable time where they've forgotten they voiced it is a very effective test for disagreeableness, I've found. You don't need to chase them down about the contradiction. Just note it and take appropriate future actions.

It can even be a bit amusing, if they are insulting about it, to watch them vigorous call themselves stupid for expressing their previous opinions.

[qup]

I find many of my previous positions to be stupid.

[CamperBob2]

Right, as should we all. The key question is, when you're confronted with one of those opinions, do you defend it, deny it, or renounce it?

[n1b]

Agreed - and you will find not a single living person will pass this test over time. Therefore, it's a worthless, but deeply amusing, test. Human ignorance is so pervasive it even applies to people like you :)

[jerf]

I can tu quoque right back at you; can you conceive of a person who expresses some opinion (and this includes technical matters, things within the scope of your job, opinions you are being paid to have, not just random political things) only and solely because it is their real opinion? No, if you came at with me with my own opinion two weeks later, you would not find I have radically shifted very often, and even less often without realizing I've shifted, and virtually never insulting whoever held the opinion I held two weeks ago.

I don't base my opinions on whether or not I get to contradict someone else. Clearly some people do.