I used to have a strong opinion about something. I shared it publicly, more than once, with the kind of confidence that comes from genuinely believing you’ve thought something through.
And then I changed my mind.
Not dramatically. Nobody proved me wrong in a single conversation. I didn’t have a moment of sudden revelation. It was slower than that — a gradual accumulation of evidence, experience, and better arguments that quietly eroded the position I’d been holding. Until one day I realized I didn’t actually believe what I’d been saying anymore. That the version of me who had formed that opinion had been working with less information than I had now.
The belief had updated. The announcement hadn’t.
And what followed was something I didn’t expect: guilt. Not shame, exactly. Something quieter and stranger than that. This uncomfortable sense that I had been inconsistent. That changing my position meant something had gone wrong — either with the original opinion or with me. That the people who had heard me say the thing would now, reasonably, wonder what else I’d been wrong about.
Changing your mind is one of the most honest things you can do. And yet we treat it like a confession rather than a sign of growth.
I sat with that guilt for longer than I should have. And then I started paying attention to how other people handle the same moment — the moment when they realize they no longer believe what they once said — and I noticed something that bothered me.
Most people don’t update publicly. They go quiet on the topic. They stop bringing it up. They let the old opinion sit out there in the world, largely uncorrected, because correcting it feels worse than leaving it.
We’ve built a culture that rewards consistency so aggressively that we’ve made intellectual honesty quietly uncomfortable. And that’s a strange thing to have done to ourselves.
Order my new book: Strategic Life: How to Build a Life That Matters
What Consistency Actually Signals
I want to understand why we prize consistency so highly, because I don’t think it’s irrational. There are real reasons it carries social weight.
Consistency signals reliability. A person who says the same things over time is, in some important sense, trustworthy. You know what you’re getting. You can predict them. You can build a relationship or a working arrangement around some stable sense of what they believe and value. That’s genuinely useful. Nobody wants to work with someone whose positions shift with the wind, whose commitments evaporate, who holds whatever opinion is convenient in the moment.
Consistency also signals that your positions cost you something. That you didn’t form them casually and you won’t abandon them casually. That you’ll hold an unpopular view when the room pushes back, which is a form of courage worth respecting.
These are real virtues. I’m not arguing against them.
But somewhere along the way, we conflated consistency of character — being reliably honest, reliably curious, reliably willing to follow the evidence — with consistency of conclusion. We started treating the specific positions a person holds as the signal of their integrity, rather than the quality of reasoning they use to reach and revise those positions.
Which means we’ve accidentally made updating your beliefs into evidence of bad character. When it’s actually the opposite.
The Real Cost of Not Changing Your Mind
Here’s what I’ve started to notice about people who almost never change their stated positions: they get stuck.
Not immediately. Not obviously. But over time, if you commit publicly to a view and the social cost of revising it becomes high enough, you stop processing new information that challenges it. Not because you stop encountering that information. But because your mind, helpfully, starts filtering and reinterpreting it in ways that protect the existing position.
Psychologists call this confirmation bias, but I think that framing misses something. It’s not just that we seek confirming information. It’s that we’ve made the stakes of being wrong so high — the identity cost, the credibility cost, the social cost of being seen to have been inconsistent — that our minds genuinely can’t afford to find the challenging information compelling.
The position calcifies. Not because the evidence stopped coming in. Because the update became too expensive to process honestly.
I’ve watched this happen to genuinely intelligent, genuinely curious people. They form a view, share it publicly, build some part of their reputation or identity around it, and then find themselves unable to follow the evidence when it starts pointing somewhere else. They become defenders of the position rather than inquirers into the question. The original curiosity that led them to form the view gets replaced by something more like guardianship.
And then they wonder why they feel intellectually stagnant.
The person who can’t change their mind isn’t principled. They’re trapped. And usually they know it, which is the uncomfortable part.
What Changing Your Mind Actually Looks Like
I want to be specific here, because I think there’s a version of “changing your mind” that’s actually just drifting — adopting whatever the most recent compelling argument suggested, with no real engagement, no genuine reckoning with what you previously thought and why. That’s not intellectual growth. That’s just being impressionable.
Real updating looks different. It involves actually holding what you previously believed, understanding why you believed it, and being honest about what changed. Not “I was wrong and now I’m right.” More like: “Here’s what I understood then. Here’s what I’ve learned or experienced since. Here’s how that shifts my view. Here’s what I’m still uncertain about.”
That process is slow and uncomfortable. It requires admitting that your past reasoning was incomplete without dismissing it entirely, which is a delicate balance. And it requires tolerating the period where you hold the old position and the new one simultaneously, not quite sure yet which way you’ll land.
I changed my mind slowly about something career-related a few years ago. For a long time I had been certain about what I wanted my professional life to look like — the kind of work, the kind of impact, the metrics by which I’d measure whether I was doing something meaningful. I’d said it often enough that it had become part of how people understood me.
And then I had enough experiences that quietly contradicted the theory. Small things at first. Then bigger ones. Until I realized I’d been using the stated goal as a map, but the territory had revealed itself to be quite different. I spent about six months genuinely uncertain before I was willing to say, even privately, that I’d changed my mind.
The six months weren’t wasted. That’s what real updating takes.
The Accusation of Hypocrisy
The thing people fear most when changing their mind publicly is being called a hypocrite.
And I get it, because hypocrisy is a real and corrosive thing. Someone who claims to value honesty while being dishonest, who preaches boundaries while violating others’, who builds a following around a principle they privately abandoned — that’s a legitimate problem worth naming.
But we’ve stretched the word until it covers something completely different. We call it hypocrisy when someone says “I used to think X, and now I think Y.” Which isn’t hypocrisy at all. It’s just updating. It’s just what a thinking person does as they encounter more of the world.
The actual hypocrite is the person who still privately believes X but publicly claims to believe Y because Y is more convenient or popular. The person who changed their mind and tells you about it — who shows their work, who explains what moved them — is doing the opposite of that. They’re being more honest, not less, than the person who quietly stopped mentioning the old position while never formally revising it.
We have this backwards. The updating is the integrity. The silence is the hypocrisy.
John Maynard Keynes supposedly said, when challenged about his inconsistency: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” I love that response not because it’s clever — though it is — but because it reframes the accusation entirely. It makes consistency of position sound like the problem. Which, when the facts have changed, it is.
The People Worth Learning From
I’ve noticed something about the people I learn the most from. They all share a particular quality that I’ve come to look for deliberately.
They update in public.
Not carelessly. Not for social approval. But when they genuinely change their view, they say so. They explain what they previously thought and why. They describe what shifted. They don’t pretend the old position never existed, and they don’t treat the new one as though it requires no justification.
This is harder than it sounds. It requires a relationship with your own credibility that most people don’t have — one where your trustworthiness comes from the quality of your thinking rather than the stability of your conclusions. Where admitting you were wrong actually increases your authority rather than threatening it, because it demonstrates that you’re capable of following the evidence wherever it goes.
I find these people rare and genuinely valuable. Because I can trust what they say now, knowing they’ll tell me if it changes. Whereas the person who never updates — who holds every position with exactly the same unwavering conviction — I eventually stop trusting, because the conviction is too uniform. No honest engagement with a complex world produces identical certainty about everything.
The people who never change their minds publicly are either not thinking carefully, or they’re thinking carefully and not telling you about it. Neither is particularly useful.
What I Changed My Mind About
I’ll tell you what I changed my mind about, because I think that’s more honest than keeping this abstract.
I used to believe that the most valuable thing I could do professionally was to move fast — to take opportunities early, to optimize for exposure and experience, to say yes broadly and figure out the costs later. I said this often. It was my genuine view, formed from the years when moving fast seemed like the clearly right call.
I’ve changed my mind. Not completely — there are still contexts where moving fast is right. But I’ve come to think that the quality of what you build matters more than the speed at which you build it. That some of the slower, more patient choices I resisted as a younger person were actually wiser than I gave them credit for. That there’s a kind of depth that only comes from staying somewhere long enough to understand it, and I was leaving too many places before that depth became available.
I don’t think past-me was stupid. Past-me was working with the information available and the priorities that made sense at that stage. But present-me has different information and different priorities, and pretending otherwise would be a strange kind of loyalty to a version of myself that doesn’t fully exist anymore.
Permission to Update Out Loud
Here’s what I want you to take from this: changing your mind is not a character flaw. It’s the minimum requirement for honest thinking. And doing it out loud, when you do it, is one of the more courageous intellectual acts available to you.
You’re allowed to look at something you said two years ago and say: I don’t think that anymore. You don’t have to pretend the old opinion never existed. You don’t have to quietly abandon it while hoping nobody checks. You can say what changed, and why, and what you think now, and hold that with the same genuine confidence you held the original view — because the confidence comes from the quality of your engagement with the question, not from the permanence of your answer.
You’re allowed to be more trustworthy than consistent. To let people know that when you say something, you mean it now, and if you stop meaning it you’ll tell them — which is actually a far higher standard than simply never revising.
And you’re allowed to find the people who update in public and pay close attention to them. Because those are the people whose current views are actually reliable. They’re not managing a reputation. They’re doing the work.
The most interesting minds I’ve encountered don’t hold fewer opinions than everyone else. They just hold them more loosely. They’re more attached to the question than to the answer. And they’ve made their peace with the fact that following the question honestly will sometimes take them somewhere they didn’t expect.
That’s not inconsistency. That’s exactly what thinking is supposed to look like.
Subscribe to my newsletter: Join 500,000+ readers who get wisdom from ordinary experiences delivered twice a week.
Leave a Reply