[Guest]

Just curious why it's so good to be open-minded? As a close-minded backwater hillbilly, I never understood and maybe that's the problem.

I think that I'm after Universal/Absolute Truth. I said I think because many people debate the definition of truth.

I'd rather avoid the religious debate, but I doubt I'll be so lucky, but why do I need to be open-minded? I guess my definition of the word must be flawed.

I'd say it means that you have to let everyone think what they want to think and be okay with that.

In a quest for Absolute Truths in this Universe, I have found that being (at least this definition) open-minded is inefficient. If you think someone's wrong, then you're free to think that, just not to really express it. If you tell them they're wrong, you're no longer open-minded (and being close-minded is apparently bad). Being close-minded is the easiest way to disqualify yourself from intellectual conversations. But, for me anyways, I want these intelligent people who engage in said conversations to look for truth with me. If the ideas they bring up are not compatible with my way of thinking insomuch that I can bring up a reasonable (I know, that's a very difficult word to define) objection to it that doesn't apply to my own life, then they are not on the track to Universal Truth since it is incompatible with my truth. Maybe this is an argument for the non-existence of Universal Truth, but please do not debate that on this thread. Feel free to start another. But I don't want intelligent people wasting their time spinning their wheels going in a direction that is by my account incorrect.

Being close-minded in my close-minded mind is a good thing. It means that I stand for something, that I have accountability. It means that I hold some truths to be self-evident and that violation of these truths is unacceptable. I don't think it's okay that you disagree with my truths. I'm not happy that you think differently than I do.

Another argument is that I feel that I am correct. If I weren't correct, I wouldn't think the way I think. I'd think the way I see as correct. Effectively, I'm right and if you don't think so, you're wrong. This sounds very militant, and it is to some degree. But what's wrong with thinking this way? If you don't think this way, then you're not sure of your truths. If you're not sure, then don't get on me for not being open-minded to your (apparently unconvincing) idea. Make a decision and become sure.

Please try to take this post as a whole. Don't grab pieces of it and take it out of context. It's not something that can be expressed line-by-line like that. This is a free flowing idea that is coming from the center of my very being. You can't break it apart and argue it piece-meal. It's a general sentiment, a whole idea. Don't pick me apart on semantics, climb inside this post and thusly inside my mind. Then tell me what's up.

Don't worry about what my truths are. That's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is: I want to know why I need to be open-minded, why it's such a good thing, and why being close-minded is such a bad thing.

I think if I said this as a stand-up comedian and punched it up a lot, you'd cheer for me like Lewis Black. But I hate that guy, so that's why it's here instead of there.

[Guest]

I would'nt say it was bad. If you make a statement you say it because you believe/know it is right.

However, if someone PROVED you wrong then you can change your thinking/mind. I guess closed is when you don't listen, bit like my wife. She needs proof to change her way of thinking. That's women for ya.

Stick solid by what you say or think if you want to do, even if it is because you are obstinate or NEVER wrong. That's your right (even if it's wrong ).

[unreality]

toddpeak: All good theories... if you're always right. But you're not. Nobody is. So what happens when you're wrong?

Your entire post hinges on your assumption that (direct quote), "If I weren't correct, I wouldn't think the way I do." That's a flawed assumption. You're basically saying that you're always right. Which is not only wrong, it's selfish. You're not the center of the universe. Get over your ego, there are many "intelligent people" (as you put it) studying certain areas and thus know a great deal more than you.

It's stupid to assume that you're always right... in other words, if you know you're always right then you're wrong. (paradox? No, cuz it's true) And going back to the definition of close-mindedness, are you really going to push away other people's opinions? When someone invents something new, do you say "I didn't invent that, so it's a piece of garbage." No, I doubt that you do. Get a grip.

Don't take this the wrong way... I know the words are coming out harsh, but I'm not trying to insult you. It's good to be open-minded because you're open to possibilities. We live in an ever changing world and if you refuse to adapt to it you're going to fall behind. No offense.

[Guest]

Unreality:

I'm not saying that I don't investigate ideas that are new to me. I'm saying that I'm not okay or open to the idea that someone else is wrong and I have to be okay with that or be labeled something negative.

Another thing is that I can't go through life assuming that I'm wrong. The truths that I've come to embrace aren't just arbitrary decisions but rather a series of rules that successfully coexists with the experiences throughout my life. I feel that I must go through life assuming that I'm wrong and force someone to knock me off my high horse. In many circles, that would be considered being close-minded and would label me as a non-intellectual or something worse.

Being open to someone else's spin on things is, I think you'd agree, useful in acquiring more information. At the same time, as you might not agree, this is how mass hysteria and general incorrectness starts. I could finger the media as an example if you'd excuse the political tone that would imply.

I have a great deal of trust in my own decision making process and don't feel the need to be open to every Tom, Dick, and Harry's idea. If it doesn't match my own, they are wrong and they should change. This is not very often the result (unless of course I can convince them that they are being close-minded to my idea and spin it in such a way to show them that the only way I would every consider them open-minded is to completely believe what I'm telling them.) A pretty old trick I must admit, but that's why I started this thread. I know the power that these labels hold for many, and I, for whatever reason, do not respect these terms.

[Guest]

this thread actually got me to thinking

I know it is good to be open minded, though perhaps not to a fault

but I couldn't think of why

but here goes

okay, so in your little closed-minded life, you closed-minded assumptions fit in with your closed-minded experiences

but your life would be quite different if everyone wer closed minded

why invent airplanes? We've been walking on ground for years

why invent stoves? Fire pits have done us good

why invent cars? A horse can go pretty fast too

the fact of the matter is

if it weren't for open-mindedness, we'd still be in the dark ages

[Guest]

First of all, let's start with your statement ...

Why do I need to be open-minded? I guess my definition of the word must be flawed.

I'd say it means that you have to let everyone think what they want to think and be okay with that.

Right from the start, you identified the problem with your use of the phrase "open minded." That's not what it means, so without clarification of what it is you're saying, this discussion will be an exercise in futility. For example, Ploper responded based on the actual meaning of the phrase, which is something along the lines of "a willingness to consider new ideas," but you said that's not what you have a problem with.

What I think you're saying is that if we have considered the facts and reached a conclusion regarding a particular theory, ideology, world view, etc., we are no longer obligated to accept conflicting opinions as possible. There's no need to continuously argue the details, because we have conviction that we are right and anyone that disagrees is wrong, and that conviction is basically a good thing. Is that a correct summation?

I'm with Unreality on this one. The way you present your ideas comes across as arrogant and selfish, even though I know that's not your intent. That you actually ask for feedback in a forum like this shows exactly the opposite character that you seem to be advocating. It shows you are interested in the opinion of others, you recognize that you don't have it all figured out, and you are willing to adjust your thinking when presented with new ideas. This is the very essence of open mindedness.

Now, don't get me wrong. I respect having conviction in one's belief. I believe in God, and lengthy discussions/arguments with atheists have not convinced me otherwise. And when I participate in these discussions, I approach it with the assumption that I'm right, and hence those who disagree must be wrong. We all do this to varying degrees, depending on how well we feel we have considered and evaluated the available evidence. If there is incontrovertible evidence to support our belief, and we are certain of it, then I agree that we don't have to waste our time considering conflicting views. If someone tries to tell me the Earth is flat, I might try to convince him of his error, but I'm not going to give any consideration to his arguments, and I don't believe that makes me close minded. That stance, however, hinges on that level of certainty, and when it comes to topics that are hotly debated (existence of God, origin of life, etc.), there is usually sooo much evidence that is open to interpretation, that it is very presumptuous to conclude that you've taken into consideration all the relevant information, and can thus summarily dismiss opposing viewpoints.

Even if you are completely confident in the truth of your beliefs, it is selfish to ignore the arguments of others. You say that you don't feel it's necessary to simply be OK with allowing others to be wrong. Fine, then what are you going to do about it? Let's say you have a picture of Earth from space in your wallet, and you're talking with a primitive who has never encountered the modern world and is trying to convince you that the Earth is flat. Are you going to show him the picture, or are you going to smugly sit there and think to yourself "boy, I'm sure glad I'm not an idiot like this guy."?

Unreality already pointed out the fallacy in your reasoning about correctness. It's a simple fact that we're not always right, and we haven't considered all the available evidence. Anyone who considers themselves to be a seeker of absolute truth simply has to consider new and contrary thoughts and ideas, to a point. And if there is to be any value resulting from their search for truth extending beyond their own self satisfaction, then they should be prepared to share and discuss ideas, and recognize that nobody is going to be convinced by statements of conviction ("Trust me, I'm positive I'm right!"). If your beliefs are so well-grounded that you feel you can dismiss conflicting views, then you ought to be able to defend and support those beliefs.

[TwoaDay]

To put my ideas simply:

I dont think Open-mindedness means that you think that you are wrong, its more like that you have your therories and i deas but if something else or some other idea is proven to be better or meor accutrate that yours that you would be willing to recognize and accept that idea. you can still belive strongly in your ideas and be open minded, as long as, with sufficient proof, you are willing to change them.

to me open-mindedness is a great thing.

and also, to me close-mindedness is when you do not even consider anyone else's ideas on the basis that you know you must be right.

Edited March 16, 2008 by TwoaDay

[onetruth]

Very well said, Duh Puck.

Toddspeak...I personally am very much on the close-minded side of things (just see my name). That's because so often to be "open-minded," one is expected to tolerate all things, as well as be ready to accept anything else as truth. Most of the people I talk to have to be pushed into a corner before they're willing to qualify "anything" to mean "anything that is logical and reasonable." Most people I talk to speak in generalizations. Personally, I don't see how Absolute Truth can be anything but specific (i.e. either there is a God or there isn't; either this world was created or it wasn't; this chair is either black or white).

I choose to defend my beliefs, my morals, etc. not by dismissing other people's beliefs, morals, etc., but by pointing out the flaws in theirs, and defending the ones they think they see in mine, to the best of my ability. And the truth is, I'm not open to other beliefs. But that's because nothing in my life has ever proven mine wrong. In fact, my life has been evidence of just the opposite. If anything were to ever happen to totally disprove my beliefs or show them to be harmful or hateful, I would change (although technically speaking, if my beliefs were correct AND harmful, that would be a conundrum -- good thing they're not). However, I can't imagine that siutation ever occuring.

And as for be tolerant...I don't see why we should be. To a degree, there has to be tolerance in order for society to work, but over all...I never have to tolerate another's actions as right, when I don't believe they are. That doesn't mean I need to be rude or mean or even butt in, but if my opinion is asked, I won't lie. An example? There are lots of people in my office that are married and sleeping around with co-workers. I'm very close-minded to that. It's wrong. Some of the supervisors hit on me. I don't tolerate it. I remind them that they're married.

So...I don't think that people need to be particularly open-minded. But I do think that people need to be in a constant state of learning so that they aren't close-minded to the point of arrogance or bigotry. And close-minded people should know why they believe what they believe and be able to defend it. Otherwise they're just idiots. Open-minded people should be able to defend their reasoning for being open-minded, and I don't think that a person's inability to settle on a definition of truth is reason enough.

"You're so open-minded that your brain fell out."

[Guest]

Firstly, you should define what you mean by open minded. Because what you seem to suggest is that open-minded is...agreeing. Open-mindedness is, in my humble opinion, the willingness to listen to another's thought on a topic, and improving your own opinion based on what that person has, or has not, said. To come up with your own conclusions on anything, it is IDEAL that you listen to what others say. No, that doesn't mean you have to agree. On the contrary, having another's opinion be clearly incorrect would give you a chance to improve reasonings on why you were right. Open-mindedness is listening, not agreeing.

It's really more for your benefit that anyone else's, because by listening, and analyzing another one's thought process, you grow as a person in your theories. The way you phrase it bothers me, because you make it seem like a thing of...propriety. And Open-mindedness is not. It's not being polite, or something. It's learning, strengthening. And if you don't want to learn, or grow in your own opinion, you shouldn't be arguing with them, or expressing your opinion in the first place.

[Guest]

Here is my response:

Beleive in what you believe in and hold your ground.

Aside from that, be open to suggestions of belief. Compare them with yours.

If what you know is too important to change leave it. It's not anyone's choice but you're own.

Also, aside from that as well, discover possibilities by yourself, let yourself explore different ideas.

You don't have to even subject your thoughts to other point of veiws...

Just agknowledge and leave it at that.

[Guest]

Firstly, you should define what you mean by open minded. Because what you seem to suggest is that open-minded is...agreeing. Open-mindedness is, in my humble opinion, the willingness to listen to another's thought on a topic, and improving your own opinion based on what that person has, or has not, said.

I also agree with that statement.