 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
I was thinking about
consistency, its one of those words that is thrown about around here.
Consistency is a sort of secondary characteristic, though perhaps the
Army cannot realistically ask for anything higher that that, given the
varied population of it. I would argue that the primary characteristic
would be reason. The definition of reason that I am referring to is:
"the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially
in orderly rational ways." If a person is reasonable, they don't
need to be consistent. Unless you were going to be picky and insist
that I need to say a person needs to be consistently reasonable, though
a reasonable person would understand that consistency is implied.
The benefit of consistency
is that it's convenient, it's predictable. It's similar to the concept
behind stereotyping. Stereotypes are good because they provide a quick
reference that a person can act upon. When walking down the street at
night and you notice a van start to follow behind you it's probably
good to have the stereotype that a van following you at night might
just try to kidnap you. Likewise it's nice to have a person consistently
be a jerk or strict so you know to consistently avoid him. Consistency
is an absolute.
In psychology, then
highest stages of cognitive and moral reasoning concern the ability
to transcend situational (ie cultural or institutional) values. The
majority of college graduates do not achieve that ability. This is why
consistency is a realistic characteristic to ask for from the Army as
a whole. However, as a individual, I think I should strive for a higher
level of reasoning because I think I'm capable of it given my diverse
background and type of education/level.