The article separates two demands that the word consistency mixes: fidelity to one's earlier words about oneself (self-descriptions) and fidelity to what they were said for, the values and commitments to people behind them. It draws on Emerson, Nietzsche, Montaigne and Whitman, the Analects of Confucius, the parable of the two sons (Matt. 21), Psalm 15 and the Qur'an (16:91–92), and on research into the stability of adults' values, the adjustment of opinion to action, cultural differences in choice consistency, the connection with one's future self and deliberate personality change; the resulting distinction is the authors' argument, not a tested method.
Questions explored
What does the demand to be consistent mix up when a person changes their view of themselves?
In the reading of the article's authors, the word consistency mixes two demands: fidelity to what I used to say about myself (a self-description), and fidelity to what I was saying it for, the values and the people to whom something was promised. The first easily turns into obstinacy; a change in one's view of oneself, in the authors' reading, cancels the self-description and does not cancel commitments to others. This is the authors' argument, not a tested method: the data read did not test this distinction.
Does Emerson reject every kind of consistency?
No. In the essay Self-Reliance he calls a foolish consistency, fidelity to one's own earlier words, the hobgoblin of little minds, and advises speaking what one thinks now in hard words and tomorrow what tomorrow thinks; at the same time he assumes a deeper constancy of character: a character is like an acrostic, and a ship sails in a zigzag of many tacks and still keeps a general course. In the reading of the article's authors, Emerson separates the consistency of words from the consistency of character. In the passage read, Emerson speaks about the opinions and actions of a free person, not about promises to other people.
How do the Analects treat fidelity to every word spoken?
Ambivalently. Those who are determined to be sincere in what they say and to carry out what they do are called obstinate little men in the Analects (Book XIII, ch. 20, Legge's translation) and placed only in the third rank of officers; at the same time Confucius requires constancy in virtue (XIII.22), says not to fear abandoning one's faults (I.8), and says that the superior man is correctly firm, and not firm merely (XV.36). In the reading of the article's authors, there is no contradiction: constancy is required in what is right, not in every spoken word. Confucius speaks of the officer and the order of his own time, and applying these ranks to present-day promises is the article authors' move.
What does the parable of the two sons teach about changing an earlier word?
The parable (Matt. 21:28–31) judges not by fidelity to what was said but by what was done: the first son answered “I will not”, but afterward repented and went; the second agreed and did not go, and the listeners answer that the first did the will of his father. In the reading of the article's authors, the change in the first son is not betrayal but correction. It is a parable about repentance and faith, not about changing a self-description; applying it to a change in one's view of oneself is the article authors' interpretation, and it rests on a single feature of the parable: the deed matters more than the first word.
Do texts that demand keeping one's word even to one's own hurt contradict a change of view?
This is the strongest objection: Psalm 15 (Psalm 14 in the Russian Synodal numbering) names among the righteous the one who swears to his own hurt and changes not, and the Qur'an (16:91–92) tells believers not to break their oaths once they have pledged them and not to be like her who unravels the thread she had strongly spun. In the reading of the article's authors, both texts speak of an oath and a covenant, an obligation to others and before God, and neither requires a person to keep their description of themselves forever; a commitment that can no longer be kept is renegotiated openly with those to whom it was given. This is the article authors' working criterion, not a conclusion drawn by the texts themselves: the psalm and the sura speak of oaths in a religious context, and a work promise is not an oath before God.
Who defends the right to change one's views, and does it extend to promises?
Nietzsche (The Dawn of Day, § 573) writes that the snake that cannot cast its skin perishes, and so do minds which are prevented from changing their views: they cease to be minds; Whitman (Song of Myself, 51) accepts contradicting himself without regret; Montaigne (Essays, II.1) does not defend such inconstancy but describes it as the ordinary human condition. In the reading of the article's authors, none of the passages read says that promises to others are cancelled along with an opinion: Nietzsche and Montaigne write about opinions and manners, Whitman about himself as a poet, and none of them discusses agreements.
How stable are adults' values?
In the panel study by Ingmar Leijen, Hester van Herk and Anat Bardi (2022), the values of 1,599 residents of the Netherlands were followed over 12 years across seven waves from 2008 to 2020: the order of importance of values within one person was, on average, noticeably preserved (average profile similarity about 0.6; the authors call values quite stable), while a person's position relative to others on a single value was preserved more moderately (average rank-order correlation over 12 years 0.44); the youngest generation changed most. In the reading of the article's authors, what changes with a new view of oneself may be the description rather than what the person values, but this is a cautious hypothesis, not a conclusion. This is one country and one panel, only about a quarter of the original sample was included in the analysis, and the study speaks about values, not about self-descriptions.
Can a new view of oneself be an opinion adjusted to what has already been done?
It can. In the study by Sebastian Cancino-Montecinos and colleagues (2018), Stockholm University students who opposed a proposal to cut student aid by 20 percent for every failed exam wrote an essay in its favour; on average, attitudes toward the proposal became more favourable and the shift persisted a week later, but not everyone moved: 38.7 percent came to view the proposal more favourably, 55.7 percent did not change their opinion and 5.7 percent came to view it less favourably (106 of the 127 people recruited were included in the analysis). In the reading of the article's authors, this is a warning: the opinion may be pulled toward the action, and the person may call this consistency. The study had no group without an essay, so these data cannot tell how much of the shift the essay itself produced; a laboratory essay is not a life decision or a promise, and the students of one university are not all people.
Is the norm of consistency the same across cultures?
In the study by Yukiko Uchida and colleagues (2017), 42 students in the US and 51 participants from two Japanese universities rated everyday items and chose one from each set: Americans overall more often chose what they themselves had rated higher, while Japanese participants chose more in line with their ratings when they saw schematic faces; for Americans the face condition did not change consistency. In an additional online survey of 376 Japanese and 372 Americans, the Americans agreed more strongly both that it is important to choose according to one's preferences and that being inconsistent in front of others means losing face. In the reading of the article's authors, the demand to be consistent is not a universal norm of one kind. The study's authors admit that the mechanism of the faces' effect remained unclear; these are everyday items and small student samples, and the study says nothing about life commitments or about changing one's view of oneself.
Is the sense of connection with one's future self linked to the willingness to stand by decisions?
In the first study by Ying Yang and colleagues (2024), with 370 young people aged 18 to 35, the more strongly a person felt connected to themselves ten years ahead, the less often they preferred a smaller sum now to a larger sum later in money choices (r ≈ −0.16; the authors report the correlation as significant and do not rate its size, and by the article authors' estimate it is weak), and the association was statistically significant only at high self-concept clarity. In the second study (234 of the 262 students recruited), those prompted to look for similarities between their present self and themselves ten years ahead chose the immediate smaller sum less often on average. In the reading of the article's authors, a person who tells themselves a story of radical change may find it harder to stand by decisions made for the sake of the future, but this is a hypothesis, not a conclusion from the data. These are money choices on a questionnaire and a computer, not promises to people, the samples are young, and the study examined neither promises nor changes in one's view of oneself.
Does a person change along with a new view of themselves?
Not by itself. A systematic review by Peter Haehner and colleagues (2024) brought together 30 studies of deliberate personality trait change published in 2014–2024: the wish to change without any help, according to the authors' summary, appears to be linked to small changes (d = 0.14), and the findings here are mixed; programmes with goal setting and tasks produced an average effect of about d = 0.22 (the 95 percent confidence interval runs from 0.005 to 0.433), apparently smaller than in psychotherapy (d = 0.37), and some programmes worked while others did not. In the reading of the article's authors, a new view of oneself is not yet a new person, and the commitments given in the meantime do not go anywhere. The review's authors warn that the literature is young, that programme effects were estimated by before-and-after comparisons rather than against control groups, and that the samples are young and affluent, from the US and Europe.
What should one do in practice if one's view of oneself has changed but the promises remain?
The article proposes a working sequence: divide the former self into self-descriptions and commitments (what was promised, to whom and until when); self-descriptions may be revised; a change of view does not cancel commitments to people, and if they can no longer be kept, tell those to whom the promise was made and agree anew; ask whether the new view is being fitted to what has already been done; name the values one wants to keep; do not expect a new view of oneself to make one different by itself. The distinction does not give the right to revise promises as soon as they become inconvenient. This is the authors' working sequence: these steps have not been tested in research.
When is it worth seeking professional help?
If a change in one's view of oneself is painful and gets in the way of life, the article considers it sensible to consult a doctor or psychologist; if thoughts of self-harm arise, one should seek help right away, and in immediate danger contact the emergency services of one's country. The steps proposed in the article are the authors' working sequence, and they have not been tested in research.
Key distinctions
In the reading of the article's authors, the word consistency mixes two demands: fidelity to what I used to say about myself (a self-description), and fidelity to what I was saying it for, the values and the people to whom something was promised. The first easily turns into obstinacy; a change in one's view of oneself, in the authors' reading, cancels the self-description and does not cancel commitments to others. This is the authors' argument, not a tested method: the data read did not test this distinction.
This is the strongest objection: Psalm 15 (Psalm 14 in the Russian Synodal numbering) names among the righteous the one who swears to his own hurt and changes not, and the Qur'an (16:91–92) tells believers not to break their oaths once they have pledged them and not to be like her who unravels the thread she had strongly spun. In the reading of the article's authors, both texts speak of an oath and a covenant, an obligation to others and before God, and neither requires a person to keep their description of themselves forever; a commitment that can no longer be kept is renegotiated openly with those to whom it was given. This is the article authors' working criterion, not a conclusion drawn by the texts themselves: the psalm and the sura speak of oaths in a religious context, and a work promise is not an oath before God.
In the panel study by Ingmar Leijen, Hester van Herk and Anat Bardi (2022), the values of 1,599 residents of the Netherlands were followed over 12 years across seven waves from 2008 to 2020: the order of importance of values within one person was, on average, noticeably preserved (average profile similarity about 0.6; the authors call values quite stable), while a person's position relative to others on a single value was preserved more moderately (average rank-order correlation over 12 years 0.44); the youngest generation changed most. In the reading of the article's authors, what changes with a new view of oneself may be the description rather than what the person values, but this is a cautious hypothesis, not a conclusion. This is one country and one panel, only about a quarter of the original sample was included in the analysis, and the study speaks about values, not about self-descriptions.
It can. In the study by Sebastian Cancino-Montecinos and colleagues (2018), Stockholm University students who opposed a proposal to cut student aid by 20 percent for every failed exam wrote an essay in its favour; on average, attitudes toward the proposal became more favourable and the shift persisted a week later, but not everyone moved: 38.7 percent came to view the proposal more favourably, 55.7 percent did not change their opinion and 5.7 percent came to view it less favourably (106 of the 127 people recruited were included in the analysis). In the reading of the article's authors, this is a warning: the opinion may be pulled toward the action, and the person may call this consistency. The study had no group without an essay, so these data cannot tell how much of the shift the essay itself produced; a laboratory essay is not a life decision or a promise, and the students of one university are not all people.
Not by itself. A systematic review by Peter Haehner and colleagues (2024) brought together 30 studies of deliberate personality trait change published in 2014–2024: the wish to change without any help, according to the authors' summary, appears to be linked to small changes (d = 0.14), and the findings here are mixed; programmes with goal setting and tasks produced an average effect of about d = 0.22 (the 95 percent confidence interval runs from 0.005 to 0.433), apparently smaller than in psychotherapy (d = 0.37), and some programmes worked while others did not. In the reading of the article's authors, a new view of oneself is not yet a new person, and the commitments given in the meantime do not go anywhere. The review's authors warn that the literature is young, that programme effects were estimated by before-and-after comparisons rather than against control groups, and that the samples are young and affluent, from the US and Europe.
The article proposes a working sequence: divide the former self into self-descriptions and commitments (what was promised, to whom and until when); self-descriptions may be revised; a change of view does not cancel commitments to people, and if they can no longer be kept, tell those to whom the promise was made and agree anew; ask whether the new view is being fitted to what has already been done; name the values one wants to keep; do not expect a new view of oneself to make one different by itself. The distinction does not give the right to revise promises as soon as they become inconvenient. This is the authors' working sequence: these steps have not been tested in research.
If a change in one's view of oneself is painful and gets in the way of life, the article considers it sensible to consult a doctor or psychologist; if thoughts of self-harm arise, one should seek help right away, and in immediate danger contact the emergency services of one's country. The steps proposed in the article are the authors' working sequence, and they have not been tested in research.
Limits of interpretation
- The texts of the traditions were read only in the places indicated, the paragraphs around the excerpts in copies from Project Gutenberg and azbyka.ru; the works were not read in full. The English quotations are given in the editions listed; the Russian edition quotes Matt. 21:29 in the Russian Synodal translation; Qur'an 16:91–92 follows the usual numbering (Rodwell gives no verse numbers).
- The studies were read in full text in the methods, results, discussion and limitations sections, not from the abstracts; the review by Haehner and colleagues (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) is only paraphrased.
- Each study is narrow in its own way: values come from one country and one panel; the adjustment of opinion from student essays without a comparison group; culture from choices of everyday items in small student samples; the future self from money decisions by young people; deliberate change from a young literature with before-and-after estimates. These are sample averages and should be applied to an individual with care.
- None of the studies read examined directly what happens to commitments when a person changes their view of themselves, or compared how others judge a person who changed their view of themselves but kept their promises.
- The distinction between commitments and self-descriptions, the working criterion and the practical steps are the authors' argument, not research findings; the article's hypotheses (on values and descriptions, on the future self) are marked as hypotheses.
- The traditions are tied to their own texts and contexts: Emerson and Nietzsche defend freedom of opinion, the psalm and the sura the sanctity of the oath before God, Confucius the judgment of what is right, the parable repentance. The article claims no shared teaching and no historical connection between them; the Buddhist side and the criteria of personal identity are deliberately left aside.
- The article makes no diagnosis and does not replace a doctor or psychologist; if thoughts of self-harm arise, seek help right away, and in immediate danger contact the emergency services of your country.
- Publication, library delivery and indexing were not performed in this task.
Sources
- Essays — First Series («Self-Reliance») — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E01, I-01-N04-E02, I-01-N04-E03): Essays, First Series: «Self-Reliance»; ibid., the same paragraph; ibid., the next paragraph. The work was not read in full.
- Leaves of Grass («Song of Myself», 51) — Walt Whitman
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E04): Leaves of Grass, «Song of Myself», section 51. The work was not read in full.
- The Chinese Classics, vol. 1: Confucian Analects — Confucius (records of his disciples)
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E05, I-01-N04-E06, I-01-N04-E07): Analects, Book XV, ch. XXXVI (Legge); Analects, Book I, ch. VIII, 4 (the same — Book IX, ch. XXIV; Legge); Analects, Book XIII, ch. XX, 3 (Legge). The work was not read in full.
- The King James Version of the Bible / The Bible, Russian Synodal translation — The Bible
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E08, I-01-N04-E09, I-01-N04-E10): Matthew 21:29 (KJV); Matthew 21:29 (Russian Synodal translation); Psalm 15:4 (KJV). The work was not read in full.
- The Dawn of Day — Friedrich Nietzsche
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E11): The Dawn of Day, Book V, § 573 «Casting One’s Skin» (J. M. Kennedy). The work was not read in full.
- Essays of Michel de Montaigne — Complete — Michel de Montaigne
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E12): Essays, Book II, ch. I «Of the Inconstancy of Our Actions» (Cotton tr., Hazlitt ed.). The work was not read in full.
- The Koran (Al-Qur'an) — The Qur'an
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N04-E13): Sura 16 «The Bee», v. 92 in the usual numbering (Rodwell). The work was not read in full.
- Individual and generational value change in an adult population, a 12-year longitudinal panel study — Ingmar Leijen, Hester van Herk, Anat Bardi
Full text in the saved copy: RESULTS — Results: value profile stability; value stability over time; mean value change (lines 34–117); DISCUSSION — Discussion (lines 118–129); METHODS — Method: data set, generations and values, data analysis, descriptives (lines 130–170); LIMITATIONS — Method: Limitations (lines 171–172). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N04-S08.txt
- Dissonance reduction as emotion regulation: Attitude change is related to positive emotions in the induced compliance paradigm — Sebastian Cancino-Montecinos, Fredrik Björklund, Torun Lindholm
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Study 1: design, participants, procedure (lines 34–40); RESULTS — Study 1: Results and discussion (lines 41–50); METHODS — Study 2: participants, procedure (steps 1–3) (lines 51–64); RESULTS — Study 2: Results and discussion (attitude change; emotions) (lines 65–96); DISCUSSION — General discussion, paras 1–3 (lines 97–100); LIMITATIONS — General discussion: what the findings do not reveal (lines 101–101); DISCUSSION — Conclusions (lines 102–103). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N04-S09.txt
- Do You Always Choose What You Like? Subtle Social Cues Increase Preference-Choice Consistency among Japanese But Not among Americans — Yukiko Uchida, Krishna Savani, Hidefumi Hitokoto, Koichi Kaino
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Materials and Methods (lines 35–45); RESULTS — Results (lines 46–51); METHODS — Supplemental Study: Method (lines 52–56); RESULTS — Supplemental Study: Results and Discussion (lines 57–58); DISCUSSION — General Discussion, paras 1–7 (lines 59–66); LIMITATIONS — General Discussion, limitation paragraph (lines 67–67); DISCUSSION — General Discussion, closing paragraph (lines 68–68). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N04-S10.txt
- The effect of future self-continuity on intertemporal decision making: a mediated moderating model — Ying Yang, Liangxiangwan Zhang, Weiguo Qu, Wei Fan
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — 2.1 Study 1: Method (lines 28–42); RESULTS — 2.2 Study 1: Results (lines 43–66); DISCUSSION — 2.3 Discussion of study 1 (lines 67–69); METHODS — 3.1 Study 2: Method (lines 70–95); RESULTS — 3.2 Study 2: Results (lines 96–125); DISCUSSION — 3.3 Discussion of study 2; 4 Discussion (4.1–4.3) (lines 126–136); LIMITATIONS — 4.4 Limitations and directions for future research (lines 137–138); DISCUSSION — 5 Conclusion (lines 139–140). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N04-S11.txt
- A systematic review of volitional personality change research — Peter Haehner, Amanda Jo Wright, Wiebke Bleidorn
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Methods (preregistration, search, inclusion criteria, coding) (lines 170–195); RESULTS — Results: descriptive statistics; two research strands (lines 200–204); RESULTS — Results: change goals without interventions — overview (lines 216–216); RESULTS — Results: findings on change goals without intervention (narrative summary) (lines 420–440); RESULTS — Results: interventions — overview (lines 446–446); RESULTS — Results: intervention effects, meta-analysis (average effect) (lines 1084–1100); RESULTS — Results: conditions, moderators, mechanisms (lines 1110–1112); RESULTS — Results: long-term effects, other reports, spillover (lines 1236–1244); DISCUSSION — Discussion (lines 1246–1266); LIMITATIONS — Limitations (lines 1268–1275). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N04-S12.txt