Psalm 131:1 is not, perhaps, ever going to be a popular credo for bloggers.
The older I get, the more I realize how little right I have to an opinion about most things. The realization typically lasts a few seconds, and then I resume pontificating on every topic under the sun. The fact is that much of what I present as knowledge is better described as dubious impression; and much of what I present as reasoned argument is better described as instinct and prejudice. I'm working on changing my style, but there it is.
That doesn't mean everything I say is worthless, of course - I consider my impressions, instincts and prejudices to be pretty close to the gospel truth - but consider yourself warned: caveat emptor.
You would think that self-knowledge would lead to greater humility. It should, but I can't say that it always works out that way. My not-so-humble self happens to think that most other people are in the same boat, having little right to their own miserable opinions, probably even less right than I have to mine. Which is comforting but, alas, nothing more than a clever form of hubris. (See, there isn't a single positive disposition that the devil can't turn against you!)
If you ever go on an extended silent retreat, upon returning to "the world" you will probably be struck by the frivolity and, yes, even the sinfulness of most human conversation. "In the multitude of words there shall not want sin." - Prov 10:19. Taken in a Christian way, one should nurture a solidarity and sympathy, rather than contempt, towards others whose opinions are just as quarter-educated and half-baked as one's own, or perhaps only a little more so. No, wait, that's not it - instead one should consider the mass of gossips, busybodies and poseurs as better than they sound, which in fact they probably are, and consider the worst of their verbal torrents as mirrors into one's own soul. If it was a good retreat, you will have at least learned that much.
I once had strong opinions about the proliferation of opinions, blaming it on American democracy, a system which unfortunately makes holding ill-formed opinions practically mandatory for political participation. But no, one finds this disposition among men everywhere, political and non-political, and it can even be argued that the subjects of non-democracies are more prone to conspiracy theories than citizens of democracies. American democracy confirms and ratifies a pre-existing flaw in human nature, but it doesn't create it and might even restrain it slightly (at least that's what my personal anecdotes would indicate).
A bigger contribution to the problem might be that of annoying, talkative, sanguine personalities browbeating more restrained and thoughtful personalities into expressing an opinion whether they have one or not. I've been known to do this to my older children and I'm quite sure it will be to the detriment of their characters. They usually manage to put up an admirable resistance, so there is hope for them.
It's encouraging to know that, even in America, one can be successful in politics without having pre-packaged opinions about everything. I recall how strange it sounded to me when a man running for city council a couple of years ago, while sitting on a debate panel, declined to answer numerous questions because he "just didn't know" and he "needed to study that some more". What? The other candidates had their answers down pat. I admit to thinking this candidate might be incompetent. I was seriously wrong; this humble farmer is now our highly respected mayor. But he's one small town mayor who's never going to be a congressman or governor.