Things that make you go hmmm…
In the age of “reality-TV” politicians, fake news and rampant conspiracy theories, it is natural to become quite suspicious. After all, in a post-virtue society, where integrity and reputation effects seem inconsequential, on what basis can we trust anyone? And it isn’t just the news media and social networking platforms that have to wrap their precious algorithms around this predicament… It is every single one of us who has to deal with this new reality and figure out a way around it.
Whether for determining the veracity of a piece of news, evaluating the suitability of a new business partner, or even the trustworthiness of a nugget of wisdom from a friend, I have found consistency to be a fantastic proxy for credibility and trustworthiness. These are the 3 areas of consistency I most watch out for:
Logical consistency
Do your counterpart’s arguments follow the basic rules of logic and make arguments and assertions that are internally consistent with one another? This is usually the easiest one to detect. Logical consistency demands that “P” and “not P” cannot be held to be true at the same time. Imagine you are playing backgammon with someone and whenever you win, they complain that there is something wrong with the dice, whereas they are perfectly happy with the same dice when they win. As I am sure you are familiar, that is how many seem to reflect on administrative processes, judicial rulings or even results of elections. Another way logical inconsistency gets manifested is in the way some tend to take credit for successes and not assume full responsibility for failures.
Temporal consistency
Is your counterpart maintaining the same position over time? This one requires a bit more familiarity and interaction with your counterpart. Although people can validly change their minds, less trustworthy sources tend to lose track of their own positions as time goes by. In my experience, liars are forgetful. They may be ardent defenders of one position at one point in time, and then argue quite the opposite later. I remember a founder who would passionately argue against raising money from VCs, but then a year later raised a substantial round of venture funding. Of course, there may have been very valid reasons for that founder’s change of heart, but it was a red flag for me. Watch out whenever you notice such inconsistencies and inquire into the underlying rationale. I encourage you to walk away if you are not satisfied with the explanation offered.
Application consistency
Is your counterpart consistently applying the same position to themselves and others? Are they asking you to “do as they say, not as they do”? For me, this is the hardest one to detect. But if the credibility of your source or counterpart is important to you, then it is well worth investing the time to determine whether your counterpart holds a consistent position regardless of whom their advice or observations applies to.
Now, while I consider consistency to be a necessary condition for trustworthiness, it is not in and of itself sufficient for me to rely on. If I need to rely on a piece of advice or information, I also look for thoroughness of research, depth of analysis, and expertise of sources consulted. But those are meaningless if I am not dealing with someone or a source that meets the basic requirements of consistency above.
