The concept of "open minded"

[mrhnau]

I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".

It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".

Should we indeed exalt these noble "accepting and understanding" figures and isolate those people capable of forming an opinion? Must being "closed minded" imply the rejection of people rather than the rejection of their life choices? Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Even the most amoral person holds judgment about some issues, so is that indeed still being open minded? Or is it only acceptable to be open minded about the correct moral content?

When faced with a moral question, of course I will consider it, often from many angles, then I will form my opinion. Chances are it won't be changed, barring extraordinary evidence. I tend not to be swayed by polls and social trends too much unless they actually make sense. Does that make me close minded? If so, I'll happily wear that mantle...

People are allowed to make their choices as well as state their opinions. However, I also hold that same right, permitting the proper medium asian: Bob)

 

[Rich Parsons]

I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".

It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".

Should we indeed exalt these noble "accepting and understanding" figures and isolate those people capable of forming an opinion? Must being "closed minded" imply the rejection of people rather than the rejection of their life choices? Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Even the most amoral person holds judgment about some issues, so is that indeed still being open minded? Or is it only acceptable to be open minded about the correct moral content?

When faced with a moral question, of course I will consider it, often from many angles, then I will form my opinion. Chances are it won't be changed, barring extraordinary evidence. I tend not to be swayed by polls and social trends too much unless they actually make sense. Does that make me close minded? If so, I'll happily wear that mantle...

People are allowed to make their choices as well as state their opinions. However, I also hold that same right, permitting the proper medium asian: Bob)

One can disagree and even have an argument. (* Look it up one might be surprised at what it means *) The point is that both sides need to acknowledge the fact that the other side has a point, even if one decides to disagree. If you express why one has the opinion and you recognize that another opinion than yours is possible then it can be a discourse or argument. If one of neither side acknowledges the other side than there is no point in the discourse. To acknowledge a point does mean one has to agree with it nor support it. It does mean you recognize that there can be different opinions than yours.

I like steak well done or no pink. Many people think I am crazy and I ruin the flavor of the meat. One can still have flavor and have it not be pink, it just requires skill to cook. Now, for me it is how my stomach digests the meat, and well done and leaner is better for me. But, I recognize that many others have a different take on this and have no problems with someone eating rare in front of me. I support their choice of eating for themselves. But when asked what I prefer I tell them.

 

[Big Don]

Some people are TOO open minded. All ideas are NOT ok. Child molestation, rape, murder, theft, etc, etc, may be fun for some people, should we be open minded and accept that? Of course not. Sadly, some do.

 

[morph4me]

I have to agree with Rich, closed minded isn't the rejection of an idea and acceptance of a person, it's the unwillingness or inability to accept that the other persons point of view lacks validity. You can totally disagree with a persons choices, lifestyle, or whatever, and still accept that their opinions and choices are just as valid as your own.

 

[Grenadier]

People have a right to choose. They have a right to disagree with each other as well. As long as someone isn't breaking the law, then they should have the right to do as they please.

I sometimes wonder about the people who start screaming at others just because they don't respect someone's choice of lifestyle. Yet, by not allowing someone to believe as he wants to believe, is this not akin to the pot calling the kettle "black?" The knife cuts both ways...

I may not like your choices, or what comes out of your mouth, but as long as it's within the law, I will fight for your right to do so.

I posted something similar to this in another forum, and it bears worth repeating here.

I was reading an old Captain America comic book, where the bad guy who had telepathic powers, asked Cap what his beliefs were towards prejudice and hatred of mutants. Cap says that it's the people's choice to be who they want to be. What they DO is their responsibility, though.

So, the bad guy uses his telepathic powers to cleanse Cap's mind of any possible hatred of mutants, and then asks the same question. Cap surprises him by saying "I still believe that someone has the right to choose, even if he is a racist!"

We could learn a lot from Captain America, even if he is just a comic book hero.

 

[Big Don]

All points of view are not equal.

 

[jkembry]

This is just me kinda thinking outloud...but to me an 'open mind' is one that is willing to listen to many points of view...from the good, bad and indifferent and then making appropriate decisions on each. Yes some idea are bad as indicated above...child abuse...etc. But none the less are ideas. If action is taken on ideas and opinion then one must also be willing to accept the responsibility and consequences of those actions.

- Jeff -

 

[Twin Fist]

I listen to anything, then i put it in to a slot.

1. I agree
2. i dont agree, but I can see why they think that
3. something to think about
4. Utter crap

to end up in cat. 4, something has to lack a factual basis. Sorry, if it isnt based on FACT, i am not gonna accept it as valid. Things that are purely "opinion" go into either 2 or 3

I consider myself very open minded, because I think things through before I accept them or dismiss them.

 

[shesulsa]

To echo Rich and morph, being open minded doesn't mean someone doesn't have an opinion, it means that one can accept they might not see the whole picture or happily own one's own opinion without damning a person with an opposing or different opinion.

If the open minded point out you're closed-minded does that automatically mean judgment? Because I see judgmentalism as different from closed-mindedness. Perhaps we're really talking about the difference between being decidedly opinionated and judgmental.

Open-minded people do not automatically accept child molesters or rapists - that's a horrible and incorrect comparison.

 

[Archangel M]

“I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.”
-Harold T. Stone

 

[zDom]

Open-minded people do not automatically accept child molesters or rapists - that's a horrible and incorrect comparison.

I agree. At a certain point, you just have to take the Karl "Slingblade" Childers stance:

"Don't you say another word about that boy. Fact'o business, don't you say another word to me. I ain't listening to you no more."


Mmmmm-hmmmm


One of the most disturbing pieces of fiction I read was "Red Dragon." It is dangerous to be led toward empathizing with a character like Francis Dolarhyde, to be lured into following his thought processes.

I imagine it must be even more dangerous to WRITE a character like that ...

"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he..." (Proverbs 23:7)

 

[thardey]

One of the things that helped me a lot in this area, was when I began to understand the nature of a person's World View.

Depending on the context of the conversation, the specific definition of a worldview can change, but for me, it's basically this:

Certain ideas are established as a foundation. (Sometimes called a priori beliefs)
Certain Facts are introduced.
These facts are interpreted through those foundational ideas, and a conclusion, or argument is concluded.

If someone has a different worldview than I do, then I have to understand and accept that they will interpret these facts differently. As long as their conclusions aren't contradictory to the foundation of their worldview, there's not much I can say, other than "I don't agree with the framework, but the logic does work."

I think of this as "Open Minded".

If, however their logic contradicts their worldview, or if they begin mixing incompatible worldviews to make a point, then I call "Bull." The logic of the argument fails, and I reject it as false.

Religious worldviews are different that social/political worldviews, but it doesn't take long (if you're actually listening) to determine what someone's a priori beliefs are. They usually pop up. At that point, arguing a priori beliefs are pointless, because no one's been able to come up with an unbiased method of testing those beliefs. There's no common ground to argue them from.

Some people can't tell the difference, and if you don't accept their a priori beliefs then you're called "Closed Minded." This would be false.

 

[Sukerkin]

Couldn't have put it better myself, Thardey :tup:.

To be open-minded, in the sense that I think we're discussing here, is to retain the critical facility to assess the information that comes to you.

If the information contradicts what you think you already know about the world, then you can further analyse both the background to the new datum and also re-examine your current view to see where the contradiction occurs.

If it turns out that the new information carries a more accurate view, then the open-minded person will change their stated opinions accordingly wheras the closed-minded person will maintain their previous stance.

A blunter way of phrasing it is that the open-mind learns whilst the closed one ossifies.

Sadly, it would appear that natural selection has not been very effective at weeding out the closed-minded - I blame advancing technology and medicine which preserve them from the consequences of their general failure to adapt and learn .

 

[Xue Sheng]

I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".

It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".

Should we indeed exalt these noble "accepting and understanding" figures and isolate those people capable of forming an opinion? Must being "closed minded" imply the rejection of people rather than the rejection of their life choices? Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Even the most amoral person holds judgment about some issues, so is that indeed still being open minded? Or is it only acceptable to be open minded about the correct moral content?

When faced with a moral question, of course I will consider it, often from many angles, then I will form my opinion. Chances are it won't be changed, barring extraordinary evidence. I tend not to be swayed by polls and social trends too much unless they actually make sense. Does that make me close minded? If so, I'll happily wear that mantle...

People are allowed to make their choices as well as state their opinions. However, I also hold that same right, permitting the proper medium asian: Bob)

I don't think you are talking about open or close minded here at all you are taking about morality and belief systems.

Open Mind - A mind receptive to different opinions and ideas,

Close Minded - Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

aaaa no this is like saying it is wrong to tell someone that is wrong they are wrong.

To say someone is close minded is to say that they are Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others. Not saying what you believe is wrong more that someone that is close minded is likely not to except any beliefs or opinions of others that do not agree with theirs.

It is possible to tell someone you do not agree with what they are saying but except the fact that their beliefs or opinions are different from yours and that is their right. That is as long as what they are saying or doing is not harming others.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Regardless of what is accpeted being open minded means one of two things:
1, You have your own oppion, but are willing to examine the same issue from the side of your oppostion, and thus grow, or develop a new understanding of the issue at hand.
2, You don't really have your own oppion, so, you are examining all possible sides to a discussion, and deciding which makes the most amount of sense.

However, being close minded just means that you have your oppion and are unwilling to let anyone else's oppion be even remotely legit. However, the concepts of close minded-ness and bias have (de)evolved to being nothing more then insults, and ways of syaing that your opponent is automatically wrong. That's called the 'ad hominem fallacy'.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yet, by not allowing someone to believe as he wants to believe, is this not akin to the pot calling the kettle "black?" The knife cuts both ways...

Not really. You can decide someone is a scumbag, a Nazi, a racist, or just a jerk for holding the beliefs they do. However, that is not the same as "not allowing" them to believe as they do, and you could fight for their right to do so. The classic example would be the ACLU fighting for the rights of the Nazi party to march in Skokie, IL. Free speech does not mean people can't decide you are a bad person for what you are saying.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sorry, if it isnt based on FACT, i am not gonna accept it as valid.

I agree. Does that mean you share my atheism?

 

[Empty Hands]

At that point, arguing a priori beliefs are pointless, because no one's been able to come up with an unbiased method of testing those beliefs.

Sure we have, that would be empiricism. People just tend to ignore it though when their foundational assumptions about the world fail to match up to reality. That sort of profound reflection and reorganization of a worldview based on such a paltry thing as real world evidence is beyond most people.

 

[Archangel M]

The "closed minded" accusation is used more as a weapon against someone you disagree with rather than an actual fact.

 

[Twin Fist]

I agree. Does that mean you share my atheism?

I am kind of an agnostic, oddly enough. I dont really understand atheism.