Contradicting ourselves is not as bad as it sounds

Consistency is a virtue most of the time. People like to be consistent and some even brag about how they are consistent throughout their lives. I also believe that consistency is a good characteristic, it demonstrates that the person is reliable and doesn't do a flip-flop when the time comes to stand by what they said or did. However, the inability to contradict ourselves, especially in the presence of new information and data just for the sake of being consistent, is also a problem. We all live with many biases, prejudices, and perceptions, and we form our opinions based on these things. Some of these opinions are about our own and other religions and political and social views. Rarely, do people change their opinions about their own religion and political views, not because there is not enough data available but not to contradict themselves and the people around them who helped them to formulate these opinions. However, the same people love to use scientific research or other available data to prove others' views and opinions wrong. This not only shows that we refuse to change our opinions and views even when data to the contrary is available but also shows our selective use of data to prove someone wrong but ignore the same when it comes to proving ourselves wrong. I try my best to avoid this rigidity, it is not easy, as we are not trained to do this, but it is very helpful to learn new things and understand different perspectives. This is why I seek information that helps me to refine my opinions and if I find reliable and verifiable information/data that contradict my views I don't hesitate to update my views, even if it means I contradict myself. It is important to remember that this contradiction or updating of our views is not for some selfish reasons like being accepted in some group or being pressured by the establishment but because there is enough contrary data that shows that we need to update ourselves. There is a difference between flip-flopping for selfish reasons and being an opportunist and being open to new information that contradicts your own principles and ideas.

The obligation not to contradict ourselves under any circumstance is what bad politicians and their supporters do. These people try to justify everything and anything they do either by pointing fingers at others or turning a blind eye to all the evidence offered to counter their arguments. It seems that most people don't want to truth, they just want and actively seek constant validation that what they already believe in is the truth. However, my aim is not to become such a moron. The fact is that anyone can be proven wrong based on experimental evidence and that's the time when we accept that we were wrong and update ourselves to be consistent with the new evidence until again proven wrong the next time. This cycle will go on as long as the human species exists. 

Also, not accepting that you can be wrong and believing in all conspiracy theories is not just a sign of stupidity it can be a sign of a narcissist. Narcissists want to feel special, they think they are better than everyone else and don't want to accept that they are wrong. One can see that most politicians fit this definition and the ones that don't are not traditionally considered charismatic or strong leaders. However, things are changing slowly, vulnerability is not a sign of weakness but a leadership attribute. When we are proven wrong and we have to contradict our previous statement, we feel vulnerable, only actual leaders can withstand this, narcissists can't. So, be vulnerable, be brave, and avoid being a narcissist. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com   

Difficulty of being neutral

Recently, during one of my Facebook discussions, one of my Facebook friends expressed concern about the problem of finding neutral voices in India. His question was pertinent and I am sure many people have the same question, how neutral are the voices who are popular on social media, in the print media, or who can shape or influence public opinions. The answer is not so easy. It's hard to be neutral or impartial. We all would love to be perceived as neutrals or impartial people. However, it's not easy to be neutral about our views. We all have some explicit or implicit biases and they shape our opinions. At the same time, we can be conscious of those biases, and recognize them while expressing our opinions or accepting them if someone points them out to us. Knowing about our own bias definitely helps us to be neutral or impartial. Actually, neutrality and impartiality are not the same, there is a subtle difference between them, but that difference does not matter for our discussion here.

Neutrality has to do more with the consistency of our reactions than their intensity or frequency. It does not mean that one reacts to each and every incident, as it's practically impossible in today's age and time. It also does not mean one reacts with equal intensity every time because our emotions vary from time to time depending on so many reasons, and many times it's not intentional. Neutrality means there is consistency in our reactions. It means we do not base our reaction based on who did it but based on what happened. If we condemn mob lynching in one incident and implicitly justify it in another it's not consistent, it's not a neutral reaction. People can choose to remain silent for a variety of reasons Sometimes they might feel that their voice is not needed as there are already enough people who are raising the same issue. Sometimes they think that they have nothing additional to add than what is already said. Sometimes they think that their voice won't be counted. Sometimes they feel that there is no use in speaking based on their past experience. Sometimes they are scared, frustrated, or depressed. Sometimes they are busy with other things or just forget to register their opinion. Just because most of us have social media accounts does not mean we need to speak and express ourselves on each and every issue. We can pick and choose when we want to speak, but the important question is, are we consistent whenever we speak? This is easy to verify, just check the history of that person. Do they speak only on certain issues? If they speak are they consistent about their stance? Do they justify something for some incidents and then criticize the same thing for another incident?

As I said, it's not easy to be neutral, especially if you identify yourself to be a supporter of any particular political party or ideology. If you are not neutral, just don't pretend to be one, as I said it's easy to figure it out, we have our footprints all over the internet. Being biased is common, but being neutral is not, however, pretending to be neutral is also very common. Decide what you want to be, after all, the choice is entirely yours.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.