Hello everyone,
The issue of dealing with close-minded people is a very interesting topic, especially the assumption it's based on. That is, the problem begins with the assumption that others are close-minded, and need to be "dealt" with, and that we are open-minded, have the correct beliefs and are assessing their opinions objectively. A few important questions we need to ask ourselves when considering the existence of close-mindedness are: Are *we* close-minded or not? What is our evidence for accepting the beliefs we hold? What is the evidence people present for their own beliefs, and how valid are they?
To assume that only others are close-minded perpetuates close-mindedness, because we see ourselves cured of an epidemic that we are a victim of.
The reason why others do not accept our beliefs could be because we didn't explain ourselves properly, or that people attach implications or meanings we didn't intend by our words, or that our evidence or approach is very weak in defending our beliefs ("I feel it", or "I would like it to be" aren't really valid proofs), or a string of other reasons. We need to pin-point the actual reason, as opposed to defaulting to: "he's close-minded."
An issue I have about using the response : "You *could* be right" is if this response isn't followed by any effort to understand why others disagree, and what merit *their* beliefs hold (afterall, we would need to know what they believe in, in order to understand the basis of their opinion of our beliefs), then it is merely a tactic to shut people up, as opposed to exchanging ideas with others. That, to me, is what close-mindedness is all about.
"You are right" - in my humble opinion
- is a disaster, especially since I don't subscribe to subjectivism, and for many (hopefully valid!) reasons. Sadly, many people focus on the psychological benefits of subjectivism in not feeling compelled to force others to accept your beliefs, nor be compelled to follow other people's beliefs, but they don't take into consideration many of the harms that come along with subjectivism.
For one thing - and this is a massive reason why I'm against subjectivism - is that it assumes all beliefs have equal consequences, as long as you want to have those consequences. And, above all, that they are all right (!). Therefore, the belief that the earth is flat is equal to the belief that the earth is round. Belief that dictatorship is good, is equal to belief that liberty is good. Can we really say that? Can we say that a person believing he can butcher people for his pleasure is morally equivalent to a person who seeks to make the greatest contribution he can?
I am staunchly objectivist, but grant others the freedom to come up with their own conclusions. This is because I value their free will, and their own efforts to reach the truth, as opposed to having me force my beliefs on them. To grant people the freedom to come up with their own beliefs doesn't necessarily require that you accept their beliefs as true.
I usually try my best to convince others of my opinion not in order to defend my opinion because it's mine, but because of the benefit I see it bringing to the other person (and that benefit is an extension of the truth of my opinion, as opposed to a marginal benefit that can come about from concocted opinions). For example, I always try to change a person's perception of himself, if he doesn't believe he's worthy of leading a good life (or living at all!). This is because the belief he's holding has devastating consequences, and I wouldn't like to see anyone living the consequences of such a horrific belief. But I would always leave the decision to make the ideological change to the person I speak to. It's impossible to make decisions on behalf of others (otherwise, they're not really decisions).
As a wise man once said: "You can't be an advisor to someone who doesn't have an inner advisor."
All the best!