What is more important, determination or a political conviction? Is a strong exponent of an “evil” doctrine better or worse than a timid exponent of a “righteous” one?
values have no inherent value. the answer to your question is: it depends on what you value.
conviction isn’t worth anything when you’re wrong
sure it is. at least if you have conviction about something you have a better chance of being corrected, whereas if you are too timid to voice your beliefs or too veiled about your point you will rarely have the benefit of being understood and, if in the wrong, corrected.
in terms of moral convictions, conviction is everything. because influence is everything.
people of strong conviction do not take well to being corrected - in the case of moral convictions, the problem is even worse
i think a healthy skepticism about one’s own beliefs is vastly preferable to strong conviction
they may not take well to it, but it’s still important that it happens. conviction makes things happen. skepticism slows action down. i wouldn’t say that one is better than the other, but they both have their uses.
sure conviction can be immensely useful - but only so long as one is not wrong in their convictions - conviction magnifies error
exactly. it makes error easier to see.
EDIT: which is valuable.
Who gets to say which convictions are right and wrong? And if we can’t determine that perhaps [in some contexts] having convictions is less admirable than a willingness to compromise them with others equally willing moderate their own views. You see this all the time in the democratic process.
Barry Goldwater once said that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And that’s all well and good until we get around to deciding just what liberty is. And here extremists can be very dangerous.
This, basically.
From an experimental standpoint, it is better to express a strong value, test it to see whether it works, and then re-evaluate one’s position afterwards. But that isn’t usually the sort of thing discussions in social sciences revolve around. In terms of politicians, I’ll take the tepid “right” over the bombastic “wrong” every single time. Indeed, it is through such a process that those on the outside of the political mainstream are contained.
+1 
A strong conviction to me suggests an emotional attachment to the opinion whereas the “timid” might simply be an awareness that other points of view exist, and may be just as valid, thus, preventing one from being able to be completely convinced.
I’m wondering if not strong convictions can be seen as strong instincts, which would make them valuable. I tend to think that life is very much about “drive”, and that convictions are one way for drive to manifest itself.
What should we think of instincts? The same question could apply: what is better, a strong “evil” instinct or a timid “righteous” one? In terms of survival the answer would seem that anything strong is better than anything timid. But actually that only goes in case of individual animals. In a group/herd social environment, a timid “righteous” instinct is less likely to get you killed than a strong “evil” one.
I would agree that convictions may ultimately be driven by instincts. However, since instincts are there to serve the survival of the species I think it unlikely that there would be an instinct for “evil” or “righteousness”. Instincts are related to meeting needs such as nourishment, safety, belonging, independence, etc. I suppose how one goes about meeting one’s instinctive needs could be classified as evil or righteous but the instincts themselves are neither evil nor righteous in themselves.
Surely depends on the situation which gives meaning to the values.
It’s the same as with a glass of water, normally you wouldn’t pay 100 $ for just a glass of water, but if you have thirsted for days in the desert and you are lost, you would gladly pay 1000 $, if not more.
What exactly do you mean when you talk about an “evil” doctrine?
Doctrines that value negatively. The resentful core of nazism, for example, or the doctrine behind the inquisition, or Stalinism. Everything that is unable to set positive values above negative ones, that is unable to adapt to life; rigid doctrines, where the doctrine is taken to be the signifier of life - superior to life itself - instead of a regulator of lifes natural significance.