To Be Logical And Consistent

Being logical and consistent and being an example are concepts that are reminiscent of each other, yet they are different. In this article, we will review the differences between them.

Weaving logically and consistently can be considered as personality traits. They either refer to your position on a particular topic or a by-product of a conclusion. Furthermore, it is positive for your mental health to straighten out your vital thoughts and experiences. 

Nowadays, there are many people who think that public leaders should lead by being an example. Social networks promote the materialization or externalization of values ​​that are essentially visible in a vague way.

However, you can disguise the materialization of morally rewarding behavior under a repertoire of values ​​and also other forms of behavior that may be unethical. For example, donating money to those who need it most can be an act.

However, there will be some who question the donation on the basis that the money was obtained in an unethical way.

The importance of contextualization

What does it mean to lead by being an example? Is it something that depends on a concrete materialization? Maybe it depends on an external evaluation or an already established action?

If someone has more resources to be a leading example, then are they a better role model to follow? The answer is no. Being a leading example has more to do with the primary meaning of conformity.

According to the golden rule, to be a leading example is to “be towards others as you want them to be towards you”. In contrast, the word “conformity” has its etymological origin from Latin, consistentia,  meaning harmonious, internal connection.

It attributes the quality of an internal and global connection or a relationship in its various parts with another.

Such a definition highlights the internal nuance of its conceptual essence. “Being an example”, however, seems to have a greater significance for the external component: One’s behavior, as if it were a necessary or adequate state.

Therefore, the behavior or a repertoire of role model behaviors does not determine compliance. This is because the cognitive component is one of its essential conditions, such as that which refers to the assumption of ethical values. You can value consistency through the relationship between your own experiences and history and your thoughts and decisions.

The truth is logical and consistent

We forget the difference in the nuances of the concept of conformity in everyday language, and we use both concepts interchangeably. It also happens in the philosophical studies of theory of conformity. According to these, this theory is not a historical, monolithic doctrine. Instead, it has significantly different shapes.

The Viennese circle studied the theory of truth as a coherence, and it proved to be a conventional approach. This theory received criticism for its circular thinking, which raised the question of what it really means to be consistent.

The German philosopher Schlick clarified the critique of this theory when Otto Neurath and Carnap came into possession of logical neo-positivism. He warned that there was a circular approach and insisted on the presence of ethics in the truth. 

Consistency from the psychology behind thought processes

You can learn some valid kinds of arguments, as well as the most common fallacy thoughts, from the psychology behind thought processes. If you use inductive argumentation, one of these fallacies is to believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

In contrast, errors also occur when you draw a conclusion without knowing the premises, or even perhaps when you know them.

You can observe these biases in recent, social phenomena, such as post-truths and populism. The latter is an example of categorical, syllogistic argumentation. The conclusion is drawn from a deficiency of the primary assumption with the smaller assumption, leading to fallacy thoughts.

You can regard post-truths as a form of formal and unconditional fallacy. This is referred to as confirming the consistent,  a kind of fallacy that occurs when you take a true, consistent statement and invalidly derive the opposite. 

Keep in mind Einstein’s contribution when he referred to the existence of hidden variables (before making a judgment, assessment or measurement). According to him, the results of the measurements should be predictable. If you can not predict them, it is only because there is information you do not know. It is one of the theories of hidden variables.

To be logical and consistent and health

Aaron Antonovsky, a well-known sociologist, presented the concept of experience of coherence (OAS) as a salutogenic variable in 1987. This variable mediated health in stressful situations. This construct was studied as a measure of survivability and is related to self-esteem and better resilience to stress.

The positive value of conformity was studied in a constructivist form of therapy. They labeled it as consistent therapy. Interestingly, it integrates what is effective in the clinical practice of psychology, confirmed by neuroscience.

Consistent therapy achieves effective results by being able to intervene with the blocked, emotional experiences. It integrates them into a person’s memory to make it consciously meaningful. In other words, therapy seeks to restore the personal and global coherence of the individual.

This global character, which consists of the truth of an individual’s experience, is the primary characteristic of coherence and conformity. Truth acts as a guide to moving on a path. It is sometimes dark, other times not.

Each person has different experiences and is aware of reality to some degree. Therefore, instead of trying to follow a specific example, you should follow your own cornerstone: Coherence.

Conclusion

The value of being logical and consistent, of being an invisible value, seems to be less remarkable in recent times. Either this, or it’s just not a valued behavior of role models, which is much more remarkable.

However, you can be more consistent by being more discreet than those who preach or lead by example. Knowing that there are more realities than you can conclude from a simple, external connection, it will be possible for you to access the truth.

It will also enable you to develop a greater, mental openness and understand the ethical form of coherence.