This is the second article (although the first was just a Tweet..) today about changing your mind. Here on the internet, I'm not surprised see how much hatred there is of people who change their minds/opinions. It's easy to see that folks appreciate consistency over correctness. This is obvious, primarily because folks who are consistent are easier to predict, in action and motivation, and therefore easier to plan for.
This is a great personality for leaders/CEOs/politicians because the time-scale of large multi-person coordination requires that change is limited in scope and that only justifiable/authorized change is allowed. Allocation of power and authority being the purpose of social organization.
If you are not a leader, than you need to stop holding onto this terrible world view. The only path to truthy-knowledge, that we know of, is empirical observation and testing of hypothesis; The Scientific Method. Believe it or not, leading people is a skill older than science and has it's foundations in manipulation and control. And, in this system, "truth" does not matter at all. Or, even worse, "alternative truth" is acceptable as long as it suits your power-structure and social goals.
I am not a king/CEO/Pharaoh/President and, as such, hold consistency in about as high regard as used toilet-paper. I am, alternatively, an engineer and I have an ethical obligation to be correct. I have this duty, regardless of what people and their "common sense" or opinions may be. In other-words: I reserve the right to change my mind, at any time, when presented with new information.
It absolutely must be this way. It may infuriate folks around me and make me look like a fool; yet, what is ethics if it's not doing the right thing in the face of adversity?
I'm also going to leave this [here](https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-c...) as a starting point for any young or maturing software engineers who need a foundation or jumping-off point to expand their understanding about ethics.
With regards to The Scientific Method (and other ideas mentioned), I found some of David Deutsch's work thought-provoking. Namely, the idea that deductive reasoning is more effective than inductive when seeking new hypotheses. The Beginning of Infinity is a decent starting place [0]. Also related to some of Nassim Taleb's work.
This is a great personality for leaders/CEOs/politicians because the time-scale of large multi-person coordination requires that change is limited in scope and that only justifiable/authorized change is allowed. Allocation of power and authority being the purpose of social organization.
If you are not a leader, than you need to stop holding onto this terrible world view. The only path to truthy-knowledge, that we know of, is empirical observation and testing of hypothesis; The Scientific Method. Believe it or not, leading people is a skill older than science and has it's foundations in manipulation and control. And, in this system, "truth" does not matter at all. Or, even worse, "alternative truth" is acceptable as long as it suits your power-structure and social goals.
I am not a king/CEO/Pharaoh/President and, as such, hold consistency in about as high regard as used toilet-paper. I am, alternatively, an engineer and I have an ethical obligation to be correct. I have this duty, regardless of what people and their "common sense" or opinions may be. In other-words: I reserve the right to change my mind, at any time, when presented with new information. It absolutely must be this way. It may infuriate folks around me and make me look like a fool; yet, what is ethics if it's not doing the right thing in the face of adversity?
I'm also going to leave this [here](https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-c...) as a starting point for any young or maturing software engineers who need a foundation or jumping-off point to expand their understanding about ethics.