“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” goes a famous Emerson quote. People often drop the word “foolish,” suggesting that all forms of consistency are only for little minds. From the larger context of the Self Reliance essay though it would seem that Emerson was rejecting consistency when it means never changing one’s mind, not even after having a new insight or obtaining new information. Or when consistency means going along uncritically with the prevailing public opinion.

There is another way though in which consistency matters and can hold great power: internal consistency. For instance, the consistency of words and actions. Or the consistency of two positions held strongly at the same time (which is quite different from the consistency of one position over time). Emerson in his quote goes on to cite Pythagoras, Jesus, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton as examples of great minds who were misunderstood because they didn’t care about foolish consistency. These are all paragons of internal consistency (admittedly, to varying degrees).

The power of the internal consistency of words and actions is quite straightforward. Over time it gives rise to an authentic life, as opposed to one marked by hypocrisy. For anyone with a modicum of self reflection, this should be a goal integral to living a good life (and not as a means to an end, such as being authentic to gain more followers or make more money). The power of consistency of words and actions is in how one feels about oneself.

The second meaning of internal consistency is with respect to two positions one holds at the same time. Strongly held positions should be consistent. Conversely when they are in contradiction there is something that requires further inquiry. Maybe one of them should be less strongly held or reversed altogether. For example being pro-choice and simultaneously anti-sexwork is an example of a potential contradiction that should result in probing of one’s positions.

Internal consistency of positions will at times require departing from the prevailing public opinion on something. In other words seeking this type of consistency requires abandoning the “foolish consistency” of caring about what others will think. Instead, most people tend to either ignore the contradictions in their positions or they find rationalizations for why these positions are consistent.

Here the power of consistency is progress. This can be progress as small as a better understanding of one’s own positions, or as momentous as a profound scientific breakthrough. An early example of this of course is the reversal from the geocentric to the heliocentric view of the solar system. The breakthrough came from noting the inconsistency between the predicted and observed orbits of the planets. Now you might say, that’s not about internal consistency of positions, but rather about theory versus data. But this can easily be expressed as two positions: the position that the planets revolve around the Earth and the position that the astronomical observations properly measure those orbits. This isn’t just a slight-of-hand reformulation but rather an important aspect of science. Measurements can be wrong, imprecise, or downright impossible. For a fascinating example of the latter, I suggest watching the Veritasium video on the speed of light.

In my book World After Capital, I take a fairly controversial position on privacy. It is a position that represents a nearly 180 degree change from what I thought about privacy for a long time. And it resulted from asking myself what position on privacy is consistent with my positions on technological progress and on who should control computation. Similarly my position on the banning of Parler is the result of looking for consistency with my positions on democracy and corporate power.

Internal consistency is powerful but also hard to achieve both when it comes to consistency of words and actions and consistency of strongly held positions. This is exactly what makes it worthwhile as a guiding principle. 

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” goes a famous Emerson quote. People often drop the word “foolish,” suggesting that all forms of consistency are only for little minds. From the larger context of the Self Reliance essay though it would seem that Emerson was rejecting consistency when it means never changing one’s mind, not even after having a new insight or obtaining new information. Or when consistency means going along uncritically with the prevailing public opinion.

There is another way though in which consistency matters and can hold great power: internal consistency. For instance, the consistency of words and actions. Or the consistency of two positions held strongly at the same time (which is quite different from the consistency of one position over time). Emerson in his quote goes on to cite Pythagoras, Jesus, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton as examples of great minds who were misunderstood because they didn’t care about foolish consistency. These are all paragons of internal consistency (admittedly, to varying degrees).

The power of the internal consistency of words and actions is quite straightforward. Over time it gives rise to an authentic life, as opposed to one marked by hypocrisy. For anyone with a modicum of self reflection, this should be a goal integral to living a good life (and not as a means to an end, such as being authentic to gain more followers or make more money). The power of consistency of words and actions is in how one feels about oneself.

The second meaning of internal consistency is with respect to two positions one holds at the same time. Strongly held positions should be consistent. Conversely when they are in contradiction there is something that requires further inquiry. Maybe one of them should be less strongly held or reversed altogether. For example being pro-choice and simultaneously anti-sexwork is an example of a potential contradiction that should result in probing of one’s positions.

Internal consistency of positions will at times require departing from the prevailing public opinion on something. In other words seeking this type of consistency requires abandoning the “foolish consistency” of caring about what others will think. Instead, most people tend to either ignore the contradictions in their positions or they find rationalizations for why these positions are consistent.

Here the power of consistency is progress. This can be progress as small as a better understanding of one’s own positions, or as momentous as a profound scientific breakthrough. An early example of this of course is the reversal from the geocentric to the heliocentric view of the solar system. The breakthrough came from noting the inconsistency between the predicted and observed orbits of the planets. Now you might say, that’s not about internal consistency of positions, but rather about theory versus data. But this can easily be expressed as two positions: the position that the planets revolve around the Earth and the position that the astronomical observations properly measure those orbits. This isn’t just a slight-of-hand reformulation but rather an important aspect of science. Measurements can be wrong, imprecise, or downright impossible. For a fascinating example of the latter, I suggest watching the Veritasium video on the speed of light.

In my book World After Capital, I take a fairly controversial position on privacy. It is a position that represents a nearly 180 degree change from what I thought about privacy for a long time. And it resulted from asking myself what position on privacy is consistent with my positions on technological progress and on who should control computation. Similarly my position on the banning of Parler is the result of looking for consistency with my positions on democracy and corporate power.

Internal consistency is powerful but also hard to achieve both when it comes to consistency of words and actions and consistency of strongly held positions. This is exactly what makes it worthwhile as a guiding principle.