The biggest issue is where a point’s been made by the author, someone disagrees because of a personal opinion, and the author backtracks and jumps the other way.

Why?

If you didn’t believe in the thing you wrote about or spoke of in the first place, why mention it? Was it to court popularity? Or appear that you’re agreeing with the majority when instead the opposite would have been true?

The funny thing is that this is happening more and more, and instead of showing that you’re open to debate and differing views it suggests that you can’t make your mind up. Or worse still, are hesitant on the validity of your own beliefs (business and personal).

If that’s the way some people want to play, fair enough – everyone’s entitled to handle themselves the way they feel is best for them.

But just because someone disagrees with you, do you really need to then agree 100% with them on their point? Or does that just weaken your original argument and authority on the topic at hand?

I’m all for admitting that your original thoughts may not be completely right and understanding other points of view, but don’t lose your voice because of it. One of the best examples of someone that stays true to their beliefs is Geoff Livingston. We’ve butted heads in the past and I don’t always agree with his approach, but I respect him 100% for staying true to himself.

The one thing that separates you from everyone else is your belief. It’s what makes you who you are. It’s your conscience; your moral fibre; your business mantra; the reason people either respect you or don’t.

When you lose that, you lose yourself and any respect that people may have built up in you. Surely that’s more important than any perceived popularity contest.

Isn’t it?

photo credit: ATIS547

Why Being Yourself is the Only Thing That Matters originally appeared on Danny Brown - under a Creative Commons license.