3 ms·
Quite frankly that is the worst possible thing. For some bizarre reason we expect politicians to have an opinion, never change it and be right. I'd much rather
by rogerbinns 14y ago
Quite frankly that is the worst possible thing. For some bizarre reason we expect politicians to have an opinion, never change it and be right. I'd much rather a politician update their opinions based on new information, evidence and research that comes in. Slavishly sticking to something despite changes in information, evidence and research is really stupid.
- eggnet 14y agoUnwavering means not constantly changing the weight you give to specific pros and cons which ultimately results in changing your mind about the main issue in question. It is the opposite of indecisive. You are confusing unwavering with stubborn. A stubborn person would not react to new evidence that invalidates their beliefs. An unwavering person would.
- jeremyjh 14y agoThis sounds good at first, but I don't know how to apply it since I do not have access to information about the "weighting" a political figure assigns to particular values. The only information I have relates to the outcomes of their decision process: speechs they give, statements they make to media (or reported by media), bills they sponsor, their voting record, etc. Because this is all political theater, I don't even really know what they are actually trying to do by making these statements, these votes, etc. So there are at least two layers of obfuscation between the ideas a person holds sacred and my ability to measure those things. The result, is that when we say a political figure is unwavering, we really just mean that these little plays they act out for us always have the same theme. Even if their beliefs change they cannot afford to rewrite their own character in the middle of the scene. That would just be confusing. Better to bring in a new character entirely.