Decision derision?

I'm increasingly concerned that we're not allowed to change our minds any more.

"You're going to change your mind a thousand times. That's a good thing. Only imbeciles never change their minds." ~ Anna Rascouët-Paz 

Reading this quote from the French journalist, I was reminded of a conversation I had the other day; should a job applicant be turned away from their interview if they redid the first year of university 3 times having changed their course.   We decided it was unfair, but that the applicant would probably appear somehow too indecisive to employ in anything but the short term.  Can we really equate a change in educational aspirations with a lack of commitment to a career?  Beyond a contractual obligation why should we be expected to be loyal to a job? 

We observe throughout history that adaption or a change in direction has been necessary to preserve a way of life, or to push a company to greatness.  Rome welcomed Goths into its fold, the industrial revolution came rumbling from our agricultural and household industrial stagnation, even Apple computers refocused on mobile devices with the iPod and its parodically named spin-offs.  These have been seen as essential, even perhaps triumphant changes in tack. The phrase 'a leopard never changes his spots' is damning of those who refuse to be consistent.  Yet society still operates on a double standard where a significant change of heart and mind is only acceptable some of the time.

Politics is an area where I am particularly concerned that consitency is being praised above success.  This aged article may not be relevant in its subject matter but it does illustrate my problem.  A party or a single politician is seen as being weak for having changed their mind, and here Gordon Brown uses inconsistency as grounds for political criticism.  Consistent opinion should not be a criterion for success or popularity, yet there is a trend in current politics that says it is essential.  I do however see the other side of the argument, that inconsistency on certain issues and policies can be threatening and damaging.  Janet Daley's comments on Obama and Cameron show a lack of cohesion in foreign policy, something which could cause problems in the future if there is a perception of 'favouritism'.  Nevertheless, does inconsistency mean certain failure or could it be an important step to approaching each challenge in its own context, unbound by rigid policy that could restrict governments from making the correct decision?  A difficult question. 

On top of my soapbox I urge us to judge our leaders, or employees and our fellow people on Earth not by the strength or longevity of their decision but on more important things such as getting it right.  A consistently stubborn, poor choice is not a desirable feature.

The monstrous Skindred will play us out with the track Choices and Decisions.