Nora: I agree that people should respond to new evidence, but changing your mind too often can make you look unreliable. At work, people need to know what you stand for. Malik: Consistency matters, but consistency is not the same as refusing to update your position. If the situation changes and your opinion never does, that may be stubbornness rather than strength. Nora: But some people change direction whenever the room changes. They agree with whoever spoke most recently. Malik: That is not thoughtful revision. That is social pressure. Changing your mind should involve reasons, not simply a desire to remain popular. Nora: I had to think about this last year. I strongly supported a remote-first policy for my department. I believed flexibility would improve concentration and help employees manage their personal lives. Malik: And did it? Nora: For many people, yes. Productivity remained high, and experienced staff appreciated the freedom. But several junior employees told me they were struggling. They received fewer informal explanations, found it harder to build relationships, and were uncertain about when to ask for help. Malik: So you changed the policy? Nora: Eventually. At first, I defended it. I pointed to the productivity data and said people needed more time to adapt. But then I realised I was measuring only the outcomes that supported my original position. Malik: Was it difficult to admit that publicly? Nora: Very. I had recommended the policy in several meetings. Changing it carried a social cost because I worried people would think I had made a careless decision. Malik: That is one reason people resist changing their minds. A belief can become connected to a public position, a group, or a professional identity. Then criticism of the idea feels like criticism of the person. Nora: Exactly. I was no longer only evaluating the policy. Part of me was defending my identity as the person who had introduced it. Malik: What did you do? Nora: I proposed two shared office days each week, while keeping the rest flexible. I explained which evidence had changed my view. I also admitted that the original policy had worked well for some employees but had created costs for others. Malik: That is important. Changing your mind does not require pretending your previous view was completely foolish. Nora: Still, there is a danger in celebrating flexibility too much. People can use “I changed my mind” to avoid responsibility for poor judgement. Malik: True. Responsible revision needs standards. Before making a decision, ask yourself: what would change your mind? If the answer is “nothing,” you are not really testing the belief. If the answer is “anything,” you do not have a stable position. Nora: So the amount of change should depend on the quality of the evidence. Malik: Yes. One comment may make you curious. A consistent pattern may require action. Strong evidence should produce a larger update than a temporary reaction or a confident opinion. Nora: I also think principles and conclusions should be separated. My principle was that people should have the conditions they need to work well. The evidence led me to a different conclusion about how to provide those conditions. Malik: That distinction makes revision easier. You can remain committed to a value while changing the method. Nora: How should someone explain a change without losing credibility? Malik: Say what you believed before, what new information appeared, and why it matters. People often trust a clear revision more than a false performance of certainty. Nora: So changing your mind is not throwing away the map every few minutes. Malik: No. It is revising the map when the landscape shows that part of it is wrong. Nora: Then perhaps the real skill is knowing when stability protects a useful principle and when it only protects your pride. Malik: Exactly. Changing your mind is not automatically weakness or wisdom. Done carelessly, it is inconsistency. Done honestly and in proportion to evidence, it is intellectual courage.