Assuming the same quality of explanation either way, why would a person who changes their mind be evidence of a hidden agenda more than a person who doesn't?
I've seen a lot of people (e.g, on Twitter) who always seem to follow "the current thing", even if the "current thing" contradicts the old "current thing".
Said people rarely provide an explanation as to why they changed their mind, and so I distrust them.
If *some* explanation is provided, even if a simple "Dang, I was wrong" (perhaps *especially* if they admit they were wrong before), I'm inclined to trust them more.
Oh, yeah, that's useful nuance. I still maintain that following the current thing is mostly fine, for things we don't know that well, especially when like you say there's an acknowledgement/explanation for the change of mind, but it's true that there's a balance to be struck here.
Very profound topic. I've often thought about an essay on it but had to back off, because flip flopping touches on a whole host of fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind. But I keep changing my mind about writing on it. Or what to stress. QED! All the philosophical fun resides in the vagueness zone, the tidal flats, the area where small influences can flip positions. The flip flop zone.
Indeed, any topic that is even slightly controversial — for which it makes sense to "pick a side" — has to be like this! By random chance there should be many more people in the flip flop zone than at the extreme, and in practice that's probably true, even though we don't see it that much due to things like tribalism and media/writing incentives.
And in the process of writing the essays you might find that you do have a preferred side after all, which you arrive at through a valid, unbiased thought process, which your readers can see too. This is best way to do it!
There's a lot to be said for "Strong opinions, lightly held."
I'd trust flip-floppers more if they explained *why* they changed their minds.
Otherwise, I suspect they have a hidden agenda.
Assuming the same quality of explanation either way, why would a person who changes their mind be evidence of a hidden agenda more than a person who doesn't?
I've seen a lot of people (e.g, on Twitter) who always seem to follow "the current thing", even if the "current thing" contradicts the old "current thing".
Said people rarely provide an explanation as to why they changed their mind, and so I distrust them.
If *some* explanation is provided, even if a simple "Dang, I was wrong" (perhaps *especially* if they admit they were wrong before), I'm inclined to trust them more.
Oh, yeah, that's useful nuance. I still maintain that following the current thing is mostly fine, for things we don't know that well, especially when like you say there's an acknowledgement/explanation for the change of mind, but it's true that there's a balance to be struck here.
I cannot pick a side for the life of me. As soon as I learn more I flip flop!
Very profound topic. I've often thought about an essay on it but had to back off, because flip flopping touches on a whole host of fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind. But I keep changing my mind about writing on it. Or what to stress. QED! All the philosophical fun resides in the vagueness zone, the tidal flats, the area where small influences can flip positions. The flip flop zone.
Indeed, any topic that is even slightly controversial — for which it makes sense to "pick a side" — has to be like this! By random chance there should be many more people in the flip flop zone than at the extreme, and in practice that's probably true, even though we don't see it that much due to things like tribalism and media/writing incentives.
Je suis d'accord!
And in the process of writing the essays you might find that you do have a preferred side after all, which you arrive at through a valid, unbiased thought process, which your readers can see too. This is best way to do it!