Advertisements

What’s So Threatening About a Changed-Mind? (Resisting the Term “Flip-Flopper”)

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I love words, and because I love words, I get defensive when they are misused. (And yes, I know how dorky this sounds.)

I don’t mean that I’m the type who gets all bent-out-of-shape when someone uses “who” instead of “whom,” or “can I” instead of “may I.” I get defensive when people use terms like “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice,” or “anti-family” instead of “pro-equality.” It irks me so much, I find myself defending groups I do not even associate or agree with, when they are mischaracterized by the willful abuse of language. Calling the pro-choice movement “pro-abortion,” for example, immediately creates a hostile environment in which to carry on a conversation. No one that I’ve ever met that identifies themselves as pro-choice has ever been pro-abortion, and to insinuate that they are is insulting, and is evidence of how disinterested one is in hearing the convictions of others. Just because we do not agree does not give me the right to characterize you as something that you’re not.

“Flip-Flopping”

So. When I hear the term “flip-flopping” being tossed around (in the context of political or moral convictions or beliefs), I usually become irritated. Because when people say so-and-so is a “flip-flopper,” the connotation is usually that the person in question is pandering to their audience, in an effort to remain likable by all involved parties. The connotation is that the person in question is a shill. Or a ideological whore. Whatever floats your boat. And sometimes that is genuinely the case, and in those circumstances, I’m all for “calling a spade, a spade.” But usually? Usually people throw out the term “flip-flopping” as a way of discounting the journey one has made to come to the conclusion one is at.

A personal example: I’ve often been called a flip-flopper because of my conversion from Atheism to Christianity. Those that label me a flip-flipper, in that regard, are looking to devalue the experiences that led me to a point of conversion. They are establishing security in their beliefs, by choosing not to acknowledge my experiences, and instead, insinuating that I haven’t thought the whole thing through entirely, or that I am weak-minded, because I changed my mind. It is much easier to label me as as weak-minded, spiritual flip-flopper, than to consider that I’ve actually changed my mind based off new information and experiences.

In the same way, I hear people calling politicians flip-floppers all the time. Yes, sometimes politicians are flip-floppers–in that they’re compromising themselves for the sake of winning votes–but often, they’re just changing their minds based off of new and better information. (The way any sane person should.)

What’s So Threatening About a Changed-Mind?

To acknowledge that someone weighed an issue thoroughly, and then changed their mind, is to acknowledge that you might change your mind also. And for many, many of us, the very idea that there is a possibility that we might someday change our mind, is all-out frightening, because so much of our identity is wrapped-up in the labels we stick on ourselves. So, as a preemptive defense, rather than asking someone how they came to a point where they changed their mind, we quickly call them a “flip-flopper,” and continue sheltering ourselves from new experiences and information. (And if you ask me, that’s no way to live.) And please understand that I am not pointing fingers here: just as many Christians do this as Atheists, and just as many Republicans do this as Democrats. We are all equally guilty of not listening to the stories and journeys of others, and considering their implications.

Seeing the Value in Others’ Experiences

This is all to ask that the next time you’re about to label someone as a “flip-flopper,” that you stop for a moment and consider what you’re saying. Do you really believe that the person in question is pandering to an audience, or is there a chance that the person actually changed their mind? And if there’s a chance that the person legitimately changed their mind, what makes their journey any less worthy or valid than your own? And, if you’re in a place to speak directly to the person in question, maybe ask them how they came to their decision, because I guarantee you there is a great story there. There is so much to be learned from the journeys of others, if we would only ask them. We will find ourselves much better able to communicate with others, if we simply make an effort to understand their story, rather than shutting them down, and moving on. We will find ourselves better able to love others if we would only listen to their journeys with open hearts.

When we humble ourselves, and open our ears to those that we do not typically align with, we’re venturing out into fertile ground, and that’s the first step to cultivating a non-adversarial relationship. And if there is anything this country needs, its fewer adversaries, and more allies.

When was the last time you listened to the journey of someone with an opposing perspective? Have you ever shared an unexpected connection with someone of an opposing perspective? What was that like? Share your stories in the comments below. 🙂

(I’ll be back tomorrow with a little bit more on Sincerity.)

xoxo,

mj

—————

Let’s be friends!

Facebook | Twitter | Pinterest | Instagram | YouTube

Advertisements
Leave a comment

32 Comments

  1. Karla Porter Archer

     /  August 13, 2012

    oh mercy…. can I relate to this. And I thank you for so clearly summing up so many of my own thoughts 🙂

    I’ve done a TOTAL change around on many of my long-held convicitions over the course of the last two years. And I am constantly (once a week, at least!) getting messages from others who know me/thought they knew me asking why I’ve changed so much. But the tone is never a genuine question. The implication is always that I am a flip-flopper, and eventually the conversation shuts down.

    Reply
    • “But the tone is never a genuine question.” GAH this bothers me so much. I get the same thing, at least once a week. Why do people get so defensive? I still don’t think I understand it. :/

      Reply
  2. once again u express many of my thoughts exactly. thank u! sharing on fb and twitter!

    Reply
  3. Great post, Jenna! People can be so quick to pass judgement. We really do need to know the full story or understand the person’s journey… not just base our info on 30-second sound bites or hearsay.

    Reply
    • Thanks! I think a lot of it has to do with economy of time. We’re just too busy to give people the attention they deserve, and as a result, they feel shortchanged. I have to make a conscious decision to be a really good listener every single time.

      Reply
  4. When I changed from Christian to Atheist, this happened as well. Many christians, some of them family members, think I’m just going through a phase. And some specifically do not want to talk about my reasons for becoming an atheist. For some reason, it seems to make them uncomfortable.

    Reply
    • I know I’m generalizing, but I get the feeling that many Christians are afraid of learning the hows/whys people leave their faith. Like it’s contagious or something. Personally, the more I hear from others, the more strengthened I feel in my faith. Sometimes though, a nonbeliever will ask a great question, or call me out on something, and it’s a wake-up call. I love that! Because then I’m forced to understand myself and ,y beliefs better, and that is ALWAYS a good thing.

      Reply
  5. Tricia

     /  August 13, 2012

    Thank you!! I completely agree. Plus, I absolutely love the fact that you started this with a quote from one of the Christians that I admire most.

    Because of the fact that I stay open and listening to various opinions and try to actually dialogue, I have been accused by some friends (though not by the majority) of not having opinions- or at least not strong ones. I find this interesting. I do have opinions, very strong opinions on some things. However, I recognize that others have strong opinions as well, and that acting like their point of view is completely irrational or evil seems to be dismissive. When I hear people out- I don’t always change my stance, but it gives me new perspectives both into the reasons that people may have an alternative point of view, and in particular why *this* particular friend or random person has the outlook that they have. I think that it broadens my ability to relate with compassion, and it humanizes the “argument”. It is easier to attack *those people* when we don’t know them.

    I’ve been able to witness to many friends who I’ve met online by really taking the time to actually listen to what they struggle with about Christianity and the church in particular. It is interesting to me that when they start ranting about Christians, that they make sure that I know that they do not group me in this perspective. It isn’t always easy to listen to the venting and I do have to step away sometimes, but I feel like the fact that they know that I will not sit in judgement over them and will listen and be their friend makes a difference. I had one friend end up going back to church and I didn’t say one word specifically about that she should go. I’ve had many ask me deep questions about the faith. I’ve never had people be offended by my offer of prayer, and I’ve actually had a few people (who normally scoff at the idea), actually privately ask me to pray for them.

    This truly humbles me to see the vulerability and try to be able to share my light in a way that points beyond me to the Light and Love of the world.

    Sorry for my little novel here. I very, very much appreciate your thoughtful post.

    Reply
  6. I totally get where you are coming from and for the most part I agree. However, I see more and more Christians wanting to use soft words, alternative politically correct words to discuss issues with people who could care less anyway. You don’t have to be “in your face” to witness to someone and use terms that are actual descriptions of what is happening. Pro Choice is Pro Abortion. If as a Christian you support a persons right to kill, murder or terminate the life of an unborn child you are pro abortion regardless of whether you would do that yourself. You are advocating for the right for someone else to do be able to do it so you are for it, you are PRO meaning FOR something. We need to stop making light of this and all other issues that are contrary to God’s word. As far as the term Flip Flopper used in the context of politics. I have yet to see a politician who was confronted about his “change of mind” and then give a reasonable explanation why if it relates to his conscience or change of heart. It is almost always due to their voting record and a reason why they didn’t vote for something because there was another issue attached to the vote that they could not vote for or against, etc. The only other reason politicians flip flop is as you said to appease a new voter base which is and has nothing to do with their conscience or convictions. I have never heard a politician stick to his convictions but say he will do for the people and voters who voted them in what they want not what he wants. Either side. It sickens me that this America has come down to the right to kill children.

    Reply
    • “Pro Choice is Pro Abortion.”

      No it’s not.

      I’m decidedly anti abortion. But I’m also pro-choice. Because I realize that there are situations in which the best outcome would be an abortion. (If both the mother and the infant would be killed if they went through with the full pregnancy, for example. Or if the child would have a terribly short, painful and suffering life if not aborted.)

      In the same way, I am not pro-killing but would support killing someone in self defense if that was my only option. I won’t let pascivism get in the way of my own survival.

      There is nuance. Ignoring nuance makes you more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.

      Reply
      • Agreed. Neither side thinks “Abortion is awesome!!!”- the issue is whether it should be available as an option if someone is in a bad situation that may or may not justify it.

        I think Carran is trying to say that terms like “pro-choice” cover up the awfulness of abortion. That may be true, but the way to solve this is NOT to misrepresent/accuse those you disagree with.

        Reply
        • Thank you PerfectNumber628 that is exactly what I was saying. I will also add that abortion in any form is still abortion, still killing, still conscious termination of a life that was created by God and for a reason. I do not believe that any life should be terminated for any reason. The scripture says that “I knew you before you were created and I knit you together in your mother’s womb” (paraphrasing) It says nothing about taking this life if it is not perfect. I know many circumstances where mother’s were told they had some kind of problem or the baby would be crippled and deformed and when the baby was born it was prefect. There are also situations where the baby was aborted and lived. I do not judge those who have done this. I have done just as many harmful things in my life but I can tell you there is forgiveness and mercy and grace that abounds for those who ask for it. I know we all have tough decisions to make in life but we seldom consider the consequences when make some of those choices.

          There is a great movement right now concerning breast cancer. All the pink groups pushing for a cure for breast cancer, but none of the supporters trying to abolish breast cancer will speak openly about the proven scientific fact that breast cancer is much higher among women who have had induced abortions and much lower in those who had a natural spontaneous miscarriage.

          I think this article speaks volumes.

          http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-01-038-f

          Reply
          • Please consider your source on the “proven scientific fact” that abortions cause breast cancer. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that there is no causal relationship…. The whole point of this post: check beliefs against evidence/facts.

            Reply
  7. This is a great post! I’m going to link to it from my blog. I have also noticed how people criticize others for changing their minds- why? Sometimes you find out more information, you realize you were wrong, etc- the right thing to do is change your mind.

    Have you heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Basically, it’s when people believe that since they already put a lot of work/time/money into something, they HAVE to keep doing it. (For example, if you already bought concert tickets, but then you feel sick on the day of the concert, you should still go and have a terrible time, otherwise it’s a “waste of money.”)

    Ever since I found out about the sunk cost fallacy, I see examples of it everywhere, and I think people’s resistance to changing their minds is an example.

    Reply
  8. Most atheists I know (myself included) were once religious believers and many were even quite devout believers. We have demonstrated that we have the ability to change our position. Many of us are still willing to go back to religious belief if there was some valid evidence to do so. But as it turns out, none has been presented… not even by the one who would be most capable of providing that evidence… namely God.

    With that said, we should clarify what an atheist is. You were an atheist because you lacked the belief in a God. But I do wonder how knowledgeable you were in the arguments for and against God when you were an atheist. I wonder if you had any involvement with the greater community of reason. While it is certainly possible that you did, it just seems that it is far more common for religious believers to deconvert to atheism than for knowledgeable atheists to convert to religion. If I may ask, what was it that convinced you that not only does a God exist, but that it must be the God of the Bible?

    Most atheists who do convert to religion tend to do so during a particularly vulnerable moment in their life. While most religious believers who deconvert to atheism tend to do so over many years of nagging doubts and contemplation.

    I am willing to admit that I am wrong and that the God of the Bible or any other God or Gods might be real if their is convincing evidence presented. Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong if your beliefs are shown to be false?

    Reply
    • Is it really possible to prove or disprove God?

      Semantics is important here. What do you define as “God”? What do you mean by “prove”?

      The reality is that for most people who are serious about their faith or lack of faith, it is often due to personal experiences, ie. when going through a tough time someone has an experience that converts them to religion, and on the other hand when someone goes through years of nagging doubts they convert to atheism.

      Experiences are experiences, it’s hard to discredit them without discrediting the person who had them and even if you did do that, it doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything, you’ve only “proved” that those experiences were not valid data points to be used in arriving at a particular assumption (whatever that assumption may be).

      Reply
      • Is this a response to my comment? Because I didn’t say anything about proving or disproving. I am talking about evidence and personal experience doesn’t really count as evidence. But feel free to ignore my entire comment and just try to strawman what I said into what you would like to argue against even if that had nothing to do with my position at all.

        Reply
        • Yes, it’s a response to your comment. I’ll try to explain the relevance.

          I _think_ your position (since you didn’t chose to clarify) is that you are willing to admit you are wrong (change your mind?) if there is convincing evidence that God is real. And you sought to get a confirmation that Melissa is willing to admit she was wrong if her beliefs are shown to be wrong.

          Seeing as the entire blog is about changing one’s mind I feel safe in saying that there is no issue here. We’re all (sane) people who will change their minds given enough evidence.

          So seeing as there’s no disagreement here, there is consensus I sought to highight, in my mind, related points.

          Firstly, you talked about evidence.

          But what do you mean by “evidence”? I merely trying to point out that personal experience is often the most compelling evidence. (see “Seeing the Value in Others’ Experiences” in the blog above).

          You say, you didn’t use the “words” proving / disproving. Ok, let me try again, using your terminology – convincing evidence.

          My second point is – Is is really possible to find evidence to convince people to convert/deconvert?

          Isn’t it possible that the same evidence (e.g. suffering in the world) could be convince to one person but not convincing to another? Is there “objective” evidence” whose interpretation is unequivocal?

          And in case you think I’m just being pedantic, I believe it’s common sense that defining terminology is important in discussions about whether God is real / not real otherwise you can get stuck due to differing a priori assumptions. ie if you base your discussions on differing sets of assumptions you’ll never get consensus.

          Otherwise we end up saying platitudes that nobody disagrees with (ie reasonable people change their minds when given new opposing evidence) but achieve little in understanding each other’s reasons for holding our respective beliefs / positions.

          ps I was going to respond differently because you appeared to have taken my comment wrongly whereas I was trying to raise, in my view, a legitimate point in response to your comment but I’m trying to respect Melissa’s admonishment not to be adversarial.

          Reply
          • I think I clarified God when I said the God of the Bible or any other God or Gods. While in some conversations this would not be clear, in this context is it sufficient. My view is that it is one thing to talk about changing one’s mind on this issue or that, but when our entire identity is based on that view, that view becomes a deeply held belief, resistant to change. So I was asking MJ is she is willing to change her mind on this particular issue if her reasons for her belief are shown to be invalid. I then asked what her reasons were. What convinced her? I also made a point to ask for clarification about her previous position of atheist. Was she an atheist merely because she lacked belief in a god or Gods (which is totally fine) or did she have a strong identity as an atheist (i.e. was part of the greater community of reason) My point here is a clarification about how deeply her lack of belief was. For me, my atheism is a deeply held lack of belief so for me to change it would be quite dramatic. When I was a believer, that too was a deeply held belief and so it was quite dramatic when I left (although not as dramatic as it would be for others). So I still don’t see your point here. Perhaps you could clarify.

            BTW personal experience does not count as solid evidence. At best is it anecdotal and that is considered to be a fallacy. But I never said anything about proof. I am talking about convincing evidence and in the absence of convincing evidence the default position should be skepticism when it comes to fantastic claims.

            Reply
            • My view is that it is one thing to talk about changing one’s mind on this issue or that, but when our entire identity is based on that view, that view becomes a deeply held belief, resistant to change

              Totally agree

              “how deeply her lack of belief was. For me… …to change it would be quite dramatic. When I was a believer….. it was quite dramatic when I left…”

              Also agree that the deeper you hold your beliefs the more dramatic the change to unbelief would be.

              “So I still don’t see your point here. Perhaps you could clarify.”

              I agree basically with what you are saying.

              But my point is that you and I can insist that people change hold only beliefs that have been arrived at after careful consideration of evidence but the reality is that the reason people believe / don’t believe _includes_ (what you define as) non-evidence based reasons.

              And also I disagree that the default position should be skepticism.

              An equally valid position would be to have faith.

              Example, when faced with facts, one comes up with a thesis or hypothesis to explain them. One can legitimately, despite lack of convincing evidence, hold a particular position. [this next bit is important] But this does not absolve an honest person from then holding up this thesis to examination, to see – as one accumulates more facts / evidence, whether they agree or disagree with the thesis. One then either confirms the thesis (for the moment, always being open to examining it in the light of new facts) or modifies the thesis to account for the additional facts / evidence or changes their minds and now believes in the anti-thesis.

              In physics people often make hypothesis which may appear fantastical, or contradictory to “common sense”, these then need to be tested to confirm them / deny them. This can lead to “fantastical” conclusions, light is both a particle and a wave, the Schrodinger’s Cat is, until the box is opened, both dead and alive.

              I hope this makes sense… (God I hate discussions via the written word, slow, you lose body language and tone, etc, etc)

              Reply
    • Johnny

       /  December 6, 2012

      Hi Staks, So I was reading your comment and the banter back and forth, and I have to ask, “Why does it matter to you if anyone (let alone MJ) believes in God?” If you are an atheist, then that is your belief, just like someone who believes in God has their belief. I believe in God (although I don’t follow any specific religion) and there is absolutely nothing that could ever deter that belief, based on my personal experiences. But whether you or anyone else believes in God (or doesn’t) is of zero concern to me. So I wonder why you concern yourself with why MJ went from being an atheist to a believer.
      In reading your comments (and maybe I am reading them wrong), it looks to me that you think you have some vested interest in proving her belief/conversion incorrect. You wonder how knowledgeable she was in the arguments for and against or how much she interacted with the greater community of reason? Sound to me like you are making two distinct statements there.
      1. She must not have really been an atheist, because if she was, she would never have really converted.
      2. Those who do believe in God (or some form of deity) are outside the community of reason, ie. unreasonable.
      Again, maybe I am reading your comments and tone wrong, but if not, then it sounds to me like you have some serious underlying insecurity/issues with your belief that there is no higher power and can’t tolerate someone else believing the opposite. You just have to prove them wrong.
      Like I said in my opening, I do believe in God, based on years of evidence in my personal life. Would that same evidence convince you that there is a God? Probably not, since it wasn’t personally experienced by you. But again, I am not trying to convert you nor am I attempting to prove to you that there is a God. Whether you or anyone else believes or doesn’t, does not affect me in the slightest. I really don’t care. Which is why I wonder why you cared enough to leave a smarmy “I know better than you” string of comments.
      But hey, maybe I read your intent wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time that has happened on the internet. Ha ha!

      Reply
  9. Brandon Barkley

     /  August 13, 2012

    The one arena where I understand the term “flip flopper” is in the political arena when a politician “flips” on a long-held position and claims afterward “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia” (my favorite 1984 reference).

    That being said, I think this is primarily seen as a problem because of the prevalent lack of sincerity in these changes. It is hard to tell whether the person in question has truly had an epiphany or if it is just them “running to the center” in an election cycle.

    Basically what I am getting at is that I agree it is wrong to belittle those who change their convictions earnestly, but it is not wrong to investigate their motive and sincerity to figure out if real change has been affected or not.

    Reply
  10. I think Brandon Barkley hits it on the head. People can change their minds – but when it comes to politics, it’s hard to trust their sincerity. Were both positions truly heartfelt or are they going with whatever gets the vote? More times than not, one can’t help but feel they lied in the first place and are now revealing their true colors, although the reverse could be likely, too. Even if they truly changed their minds, the people who elected them may not have and will, understandably, feel betrayed.

    As for the terminology of pro-life/pro-choice/pro-abortion/anti-etc. – I think both sides are equally guilty of trying to put a negative spin on the opposing side’s position. Like the recent Chick-fil-a thing.

    Reply
  11. Great post! Here’s my 2 cents worth…

    >>Yes, sometimes politicians are flip-floppers–in that they’re compromising themselves for the sake of winning votes–but often, they’re just changing their minds based off of new and better information. (The way any sane person should.)

    Whether we label them as compromisers or changing their minds on better information boils down to whether we trust them or not.

    >>We are all equally guilty of not listening to the stories and journeys of others, and considering their implications.

    Sometimes it’s because they don’t want to listen but lots of times it’s because they don’t have TIME. Seriously, it’s not because we don’t care but we don’t have time to care, there are a million other things to worry about/do that we don’t have time to listen to everyone’s story.

    To sum up, people will listen when they care and trust about the person speaking to them, which I guess is why we should build bridges before Bible bashing [#sarcasm] someone…and it has to be building bridges in love, not building bridges solely for the purpose of later Bible bashing them – and people can tell the difference!

    I think this is why there are so many different types of Christian (personalities), so that we can reach out to a diverse world. 😉

    Reply
  12. Great post! So true. 🙂

    Reply
  13. My main man RW Emerson wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
    We should all strive to test even our most dearly held beliefs/ideas–and, if they don’t conform to evidence and/or facts, be willing to discard them, no matter how difficult.

    Reply
  14. Great topic and conclusions. Thanks!

    Reply
  15. Tricia

     /  August 15, 2012

    @ Carren

    It is perfectly fine that you believe that abortion in all instances is murder. However, many thoughtful Christians (including Rev. Billy Graham) do feel there are times where there are gray areas and are relatively alright with it. I know many individuals who are “pro-life” in other areas, but don’t necessarily comfortable with making it entirely illegal.

    Regardless…. when you call people “pro-abortion” it is not making it about the issue, the term automatically polarizes. Have your opinion- have it passionately- however…. think about this. I know Many Christians who do not have a problem with various wars that our nation has fought. Would it be productive, kind, or even really true to state that they are “pro-war”? No. What about if you believe in guns for self-defense? Are you “pro-gun”, or “pro-killing”?

    It seems to me that this blog post is about moving beyond the almost “name-calling” that people often do, to get to actual dialogue. It doesn’t mean “wishy-washy” or not having beliefs. It means that you aren’t SO salty that people spit you out, or SO glaring that people cannot see. We are called to be salt and light that Draw people to the Way the Truth and the Light.

    Reply
  16. Great insight. It’s a bit sad that we can be so adverse to changing our minds because we are afraid of the flip flop label.

    Reply
  17. Great to find out a little more about your testimony Melissa, and your points are well made. I journeyed to this point from the opposite way I guess, growing up in a wealthy, super-conservative household that was suspicious of “liberal, elitist” education institutions that implicitly “indoctrinated” young folks with teachings about evolution and diversity. I get frustrated by the political hypocrisy of Christian Conservatives, especially this year, and the unspoken assumption that I am some how “sinning” or going against God by not voting for their guy and speaking out for a candidate that they may not agree with. The truth is I feel like I have always use the Bible as a guide for my social and political beliefs, and I think the politics of the party my family supports and that I grew up supporting has shifted so far from what Jesus instructed that I can’t, in good conscience, vote for them.

    Your points about “pro-choice” versus “pro-abortion,” etc. are very well said too. Keep up the good work.

    Reply
  18. Jonna

     /  May 1, 2013

    Another great topic! You have a knack for picking up the greatest tid bits to mull over!!
    I definitely heard my fair share of “flip-flopping” during a past election and as a young child, you believe what you hear, because, well, politics are confusing and your parents seem to know more than you.
    Concerning a political debate, I am more firm in the “flip-flopping” arena, because the sole point of a campaign is to stake out your beliefs for the purpose of being elected based on your beliefs. It is not a time to start questioning your values, or maybe you should reconsider the task at hand.
    In other cases, concerning religion and any thoughts in general that may change drastically….I’ve said things that people will quote back to me later and I don’t particularly agree with what I said at the time. Why? Because we all change. That old saying about learning somethign new every day is the perfect example; as we grow, we start to get a better understanding of everything, or maybe we start to question our understandings. This is completely normal. We are thrust into situations which we could have never predicted and from those experiences, we see that maybe what we thought wasn’t so right, after all.
    With that I leave you this quote:
    “To improve is to change;
    To be perfect is to change often.
    -Winston Churchill

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: