I've Changed My Mind (again)

I get a sense that "changing your mind" about something is seen today as a negative trait to have. Perhaps it started with the mocking of John Kerry as a "flip flopper" or perhaps the belief that someone who changes his or her mind frequently cannot be trusted has roots going back much further.

Frankly, I find that view quite puzzling - especially in today's information-rich world. Psychology teaches us that we're constantly forming judgments based on the information we have access to. As more information comes in, we are forced to change those judgments (of course, there is enough evidence that these judgments are resistant to change and the marginal impact of new information on judgments is smaller than if it was the first piece presented, but that is unnecessarily complicating for the point I'm trying to make). Since we are bombarded with so much information, and since that information is presented in condensed "sound-bite" form, I assume that most people form ealry judgments with the expectation that it could change as more information becomes available. But, I'm getting the feeling that "sticking to your guns" and staying with principles is instead seen as a more appropriate response.

Contrary to what you may believe, this has nothing to do with our current political situation. A friend recently warned me (again) that posting opinions on a blog is dangerous and will come back to bite me if I express a "non-politically-correct" opinion here. This warning hit me on several levels. First, it scares me that there really are people who think that freely expressing opinions in this country can get them in deep trouble. Second, he rejected my response that "these are just opinions based on the information I had at the time." He insisted that people are held to always believe things that they may have expressed at any point in their lives. While I must consider the fact that he may be right, I still struggle to understand this.

Perhaps it is my mental make up that focuses on evidence-based reasoning that I am always expecting to change my opinions when more convincing evidence presents itself. That is also probably why I get along well with people generally. I never hold anything against people in the long run. If you're nasty to me one moment and then do something nice the next time we interact, I am much more willing to shift my judgments of people to the favorable side than others. I find it difficult to hold grudges over the long run.

On the other hand, it could be that this expression of a willingness to change opinions is just a normal defense mechanism to prevent from ever being held accountable for what i say and write. But then again, maybe not!

Opinion Ate Ed

File this post under the "introspection" section of this blog. I realized recently that although I am very opinionated and hold many strong opinions about a variety of things, I think of them merely as opinions. That is, about almost every issue, I am quite open to changing my opinions. Essentially, I love evidence-based reasoning.

I realized this is also why I love to argue, especially with people who don't get personally vested in the argument. It forces me to listen to contradictory opinions in order to see if my opinions are worth changing (if they are well justified enough). There is no opinion I can think of that I hold so strongly that I feel I won't change if you can present strong evidence against it. This is also why I often take stronger positions on certain issues during an argument than I really believe. I enjoy the game of hearing how people counter those positions. I almost want you to talk me into giving in and realizing that I have no counter argument against your assertions.

Even when I work on my research, rather than simply working independently, I find it easier to work on something, develop some ideas and "test it out" on a colleague. So, I am constantly popping into colleagues' offices bouncing ideas off them. If they blow holes in it, I go back to the drawing board and counter their arguments. This process really helps me refine ideas as I develop them.

I wonder if this view weakens my ability to really be a leader. While I think, as a consequence of this view, that I am a great listener, I rarely feel I am so right about an issue that I will act on it no matter what you have to say. Perhaps a dictatorial streak is important to getting things done. That will never work for me. If you can present strong counter arguments, I tend to want to listen. Does that make me a flip-flopper?