What is a "Mature Position" to you?

[Material Defender]

I've spent a good part of my life just philosophizing to myself and trying to understand just what my positions are on issues. But I don't really think I became mature with how I treated my positions until I was nineteen when I started to have crystallized positions.

And I just am curious what constitutes maturity?

Is it unerring skepticism of all ideas without proof? It is the ability to accept that others have different opinions from you which can be equally valid and meaningful? Is it that two sides of a debate crop up not always from lack of information, but because there is no easy clear cut answer to what the end result is? Is it a complex melding of the whole.

I'm tending to think there are three big stages (I'm sure there's better speakers than me on the issues.)

One where you are a child and tend to accept whatever you are told to an extent, with some room for BS detection and the flights of fancy that is prone to child.

The adolescent which either finds a position and stubbornly clings to it like it is required for their survival, which may be just as much a rejection of their parents position as it can be acceptance... or what I did, which was bend and twist my position to whatever new fact seemed to overwhelm the one before and strong positions tended to swing me around.

And a Mature position which is based off personal preference, while allowing others to their personal preferences. On positions of policy and important decisions, these are positions based off personal facts and values, but there is a mature ability to debate with someone who holds another mature position. Perhaps with some insult humor thrown in, but it is only humor if the other man laughs with you. Sometimes the only option is to agree to disagree because you know the facts are the same, but what you value is entirely distinct from the other person.

But I am probably just playing amateur philosopher here. So other viewpoints and discussions is welcome.

[Old Viking]

A mature position is the one I hold, as contrasted with the shallow, juvenile tripe espoused by my opponent.  I might also note that I am adamant, that guy is stubborn, and my opponent is pig-headed.

[JohnE]

I think woman-on-top is a mature position.

[Distind]

I'd require two things myself, an actual understanding of what your position is and attempting to understand why someone would oppose it. I'm reasonably sure everyone's seen the teenager arguments that don't involve even a remote clue as to what the topic is or it's implications.  Then of course you have the righteous crusader who will save the world with their enlightened and utterly correct views, who doesn't for a moment wonder why people don't listen to them.

It takes a bit of work, and actually talking to those who oppose your position, but in the end you'll be able to handle discussion of it without resorting to infantile tactics or insults assuming you have some patience.

As a bit of a plus I'd also say remember to question your own positions on things. Do your tactics mirror those of people you'd despise? Has the state of the world changed to where your position is no longer progressive or even acceptable? But this should be part of understanding your position, it's just a matter of continuing to understand that position as the rest of the world moves on.

[Old Viking]

JohnE for Benign Dictator!

[m52nickerson]

For me a mature position is one that is taken out of experience.  No amount of reading or studying something can replace life experience. 

[Material Defender]

For me a mature position is one that is taken out of experience.  No amount of reading or studying something can replace life experience.

The problem is that with policy issues that effect a slew of people, personal experience either may be entirely anecdotal or insufficient to make an educated response. Thus leading to either not having a position or one based off of extremely poor evidence. Experience is good for doing things, not for understanding how policies effect a huge number of people.

[m52nickerson]

The problem is that with policy issues that effect a slew of people, personal experience either may be entirely anecdotal or insufficient to make an educated response. Thus leading to either not having a position or one based off of extremely poor evidence. Experience is good for doing things, not for understanding how policies effect a huge number of people.

Yes, if a person is just basing their policies on personal experience and nothing else, or the person has limited life experiences.  If a person wants to see how policies effect people nothing can replace a person going to those people and seeing things first hand.

[Material Defender]

The problem is that with policy issues that effect a slew of people, personal experience either may be entirely anecdotal or insufficient to make an educated response. Thus leading to either not having a position or one based off of extremely poor evidence. Experience is good for doing things, not for understanding how policies effect a huge number of people.

Yes, if a person is just basing their policies on personal experience and nothing else, or the person has limited life experiences.  If a person wants to see how policies effect people nothing can replace a person going to those people and seeing things first hand.

Oh, you mean it like that! Well that can seem reasonable, but you need to get a good sample pool. 30 is considered the bare min for a good sample.