Uneducated, Unaffiliated, Disinterested

The setup is simple: casting an opinion on the matter.

There are 3 parameters to evaluate between the person and the matter:

• Personal affiliation: either having some degree of emotional attachment to the matter beyond baseline empathy that most people would have.
• Interest: To be economically attached or not, i.e. skin in the game.
• Education: having a very high degree of proficiency such that they know the matter at hand almost at full.

And the simple conclusion can be that all 3 parameters should be maximal to achieve a good opinion. But is that always the case? some counter examples that I have encountered in my life:

• Education: In many technical conversations between those that are experts in a sub-system, it is super useful to have the opinion of someone who has some degree of high level information, but is not an expert and therefore can provide an out-of-the-box opinion. I have been on both sides of this myself.
• Interest and Affiliation: I am from Iran, and consider myself educated about conditions of living there, but because of living abroad for many years, less so emotionally and economically attached. In other words, I am in a position of privilege compared to those that actually still live in Iran. and I have found myself to sometimes have differing opinions about Iran, and think that this position of privilege can actually be useful (see My Thoughts On Iran's Political Situation in 2022).

In short, what I would conclude is that in a given situation, it is useful to incorporate opinions that are either (somewhat) uneducated, unaffiliated and uninterested.