Can we ever be too open-minded?

[Scott]

In the interest of encouraging some discussion, I'm going to post a couple of articles/posts/rants that I've written recently. The following one was written about three weeks ago. Please be kind; I'm young and naive.

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett

Though I agree with Mr. Pratchett, I don't think he's telling the whole story. People will insist on coming along and trying to put things in our minds, whether they're open or not. ;-) Being receptive to novel ideas just makes the whole job easier... for both sides.

I can recall a time, as I'm sure most of you can, when we were told, "Don't believe everything you find on the Internet!" (What? You mean they're actually still saying that?) Nowadays, of course, it's pretty easy to separate the useful content from the fluff, but 10-15 years ago, the Internet was a completely new - and terrifying - concept to many people. Fortunately, it didn't take long for us to open our minds to it. (If you pay much attention to politics, you might notice that the trend is reversing... but that's a whole separate rant.)

Now comes the tough part - the part you probably won't want to read. The part which will draw the most comments (and I always welcome comments), and the part in which I will attack a few closed thought patterns which are all too common, even in a university setting.

Politics: [leave anti-Bush bias here] Awhile back, I read an interesting study about politicians and their thought patterns. Specifics aside, the results showed that politicians, when analyzing arguments of their opponents, don't activate the regions of the brain responsible for reason. In short, they don't listen to the other side! No wonder Congress can never agree on anything! Folks, these are people that we (supposedly) elect. If you're a Democrat, listen to the Republicans. If you're a Republican, listen to the Democrats. If you're either of those, listen to the Independents. In fact, maybe everyone should listen to the Independents. [/pick up anti-Bush bias]

Religion (or lack thereof): The most annoying thing about trying to explain God to a closed-minded atheist is that they'll instantly reject it without "scientific" proof - it's as if nothing is possible until they can fully comprehend it. The most annoying thing about trying to explain evolution to a closed-minded fundamentalist is that they'll instantly reject it without "Biblical" proof - it's as if nothing is possible unless God has explicitly said that it was so. See the problem here? Regardless of the deity you do or do not worship, I guarantee that that deity will impart much more knowledge upon you if you simply choose to listen to it. Even in science, you have to be fully open to results you aren't expecting - otherwise, you risk the possibility of mis-recording them.

Races: If you haven't fidgeted a little by now, you probably will soon. If I'm to venture a guess, I would say that a vast majority of your close friends - if not all of them - are of your same race. Am I right? (I don't mean to sound "preachy"; I'm fairly guilty of this also.) Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why? It certainly isn't that we're all racists, and in fact studies have shown that it's psychological and that we don't even realize it. But doesn't it make sense that our communities would be healthier if our culture became more of a melting pot and less of a tossed salad?

I've got a few more, but it's getting late, and I think they'll be better saved for a Part II anyway. Though, given my track record, I may never write Part II. :-p Please do comment. I like it when people tell me I'm wrong; it makes me feel like they're paying attention. ;-)

Oh, and a quick bite for those of you who are screaming, "Gullible!":
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Care to change my mind? :-)

[A.K.Light]

I agree with Aristotle.

Can we ever be too open-minded? That's a good question, and I don't think that you'll find a common consensus. My first thought is, yes, we can be too open minded sometimes.

It's great to always be open to something new and better. Why hold yourself back?

But then, sometimes, it might be more advantageous to stick with what you already believe. If you don't firmly stand for something, then you stand for nothing... maybe.

I often think of it this way. If you encounter a problem where you need to make a decision and you end up making the wrong one, that same problem will come back to you again in another form and give you another chance to make a better choice, and it will continue to do so until you've made the decision that's right for you. As long as you're moving up, being wrong can't hold you back.

Being open minded is certainly a good thing, but I think you just have to believe whatever is right for you at the time. If any new idea doesn't pass your own logic, you can't accept it. I think it is possible to be too open, because then you'd be believing thousands of things that condradict each other, or you'd never be able to believe any one thing for sure.

Whatever you belief is true to you (subjectively), so I say go ahead and believe in the most positive thing that makes sense to you, and if it's wrong, it will be corrected later.

[KevinG]

I would say that you would be too open minded when you are so open minded that you no longer form an opinion of your own, or so much as choose a side.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by A.K.Light

I agree with Aristotle.

Can we ever be too open-minded? That's a good question, and I don't think that you'll find a common consensus. My first thought is, yes, we can be too open minded sometimes.

It's great to always be open to something new and better. Why hold yourself back?

But then, sometimes, it might be more advantageous to stick with what you already believe. If you don't firmly stand for something, then you stand for nothing... maybe.

I often think of it this way. If you encounter a problem where you need to make a decision and you end up making the wrong one, that same problem will come back to you again in another form and give you another chance to make a better choice, and it will continue to do so until you've made the decision that's right for you. As long as you're moving up, being wrong can't hold you back.

Being open minded is certainly a good thing, but I think you just have to believe whatever is right for you at the time. If any new idea doesn't pass your own logic, you can't accept it. I think it is possible to be too open, because then you'd be believing thousands of things that condradict each other, or you'd never be able to believe any one thing for sure.

Whatever you belief is true to you (subjectively), so I say go ahead and believe in the most positive thing that makes sense to you, and if it's wrong, it will be corrected later.

As stated in the farcical movie Dogma, I think that people should be bigger on IDEAS and less on BELEIFS, for the sole reason that perspectives change often (paradigm shifts) and new things are discovered frequently. Ideas are much easier to change than beleifs, and are much easier to debate. It's a really tough thing to change one's beleifs.

Think open-source! It seems to me to be the ultimate cooperational tool of the future, and maybe it should be integrated into a lot of other fields!

[A.K.Light]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

As stated in the farcical movie Dogma, I think that people should be bigger on IDEAS and less on BELEIFS, for the sole reason that perspectives change often (paradigm shifts) and new things are discovered frequently. Ideas are much easier to change than beleifs, and are much easier to debate. It's a really tough thing to change one's beleifs.

Think open-source! It seems to me to be the ultimate cooperational tool of the future, and maybe it should be integrated into a lot of other fields!

That makes sense. Do you think there's any advantage to having deep rooted beliefs? Or do you think it's better to rely on ideas most of the time, even if they are changing often? I can see benefits to both ways, but I like the idea method better. I guess that even the definitions of the two words (belief and idea) are subjective as well, because when I say belief, I just mean whatever idea or system I'm currently running on. Everything is subject to change!

I'm not a computer person so I didn't know what open source until I just looked it up! That's pretty interesting. I'm sure I'll be hearing more about it soon.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Scott

...I would say that a vast majority of your close friends - if not all of them - are of your same race. Am I right?

I guess I'm lucky in that Australia tries to foster multiculturalism. I don't actually have any close friends who are the same race as me.

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

As stated in the farcical movie Dogma, I think that people should be bigger on IDEAS and less on BELEIFS, for the sole reason that perspectives change often (paradigm shifts) and new things are discovered frequently. Ideas are much easier to change than beleifs, and are much easier to debate. It's a really tough thing to change one's beleifs.

Think open-source! It seems to me to be the ultimate cooperational tool of the future, and maybe it should be integrated into a lot of other fields!

I think ideas and beliefs are interdependent, and so focusing more on either one or the other will upset the balance between coming up with new ideas and turning those ideas into something substantial. If someone adopts an idea, they're much less likely to get something worthwhile out of it than if they made that idea a belief. Beliefs are strongly tied to emotion, and thus provide energy and motivation, whereas ideas provide the seeds which may germinate and ultimately form new beliefs. So I'd say open-mindedness means being willing to consider new ideas as well as the beliefs that may form from them.

Originally Posted by KevinG

I would say that you would be too open minded when you are so open minded that you no longer form an opinion of your own, or so much as choose a side.

I agree. I think of open-mindedness as a willingness to hear different opinions without judgement, and to explore those opinions fully before deciding if it's an opinion you'd like to adopt. If you don't carefully consider the alternate opinion but simply accept it, then that alternate opinion doesn't really become your own and you're not truly being open minded.

So I don't think you can be too open-minded, as long as you truly are being open-minded.

[Michael Chui]

Open-mindedness is a state of consideration, not acceptance. Like KevinG says, you're too open-minded if you do nothing but consider, and never conclude.

This is something a friend of mine wrote: Personality and the Closed or Open Mind.

And finally,

Originally Posted by "Mark Lapierre"

I think ideas and beliefs are interdependent, and so focusing more on either one or the other will upset the balance between coming up with new ideas and turning those ideas into something substantial.

From that same friend came a question, two months ago. He asked me: "Of all the things that are the most deep-seated in your worldview, your philosophy, which are merely “very important,” and which are “non-negotiable”?"

[Shaden]

I don't really know which way to go here. I think ideas are a wonderful thing and people should pursue them as long as idealism isn't something they are actively interested in. If the idea (or belief) in idealism doesn't run through the foundations of your entire view of reality then I think you can get pretty far with them. But if idealism is something which you have in your system then you run the risk of adopting beliefs and ideas before you consider the alternatives.

[Tobias Zimpel]

Originally Posted by KevinG

I would say that you would be too open minded when you are so open minded that you no longer form an opinion of your own, or so much as choose a side.

That's a good point. When open-mindedness stands in the way of forming an opinion of your own, there is something seriously wrong, isn't it?

Or isn't it possible that you're just not open-minded enough to see that simply none of the choices you seem to have feel right to you, and that you have to become more open-minded, and go on searching until you find something that really suits you, and decide to do that?

Or could it be that certain things look different from inside than they would for an outsider? Is it possible that you simply have to try maybe 5 different ways until you can decide which one - if any - fits you best?

In such situations, becoming less open-minded is certainly a solution - but on the risk of becoming a fundamentalist. Becoming more open-minded - or even only recognized that you were not as open-minded as you could be - is not only more chellangiging, but also much more rewarding in the long term.

Just my 0.02 $

Tobias

[Andy]

I've personally had in the past a huge problem with being too open-minded, however now I see it was simply the result of using the wrong approach. I remember as a kid I started hanging out with a new group of friends and realized that a lot of my beliefs or thoughts weren't really conducive to fitting in with others. So at that time I said to myself that most of my opinions were "wrong" and to instead take the opinions of the group to heart. Now while that worked...somewhat..at the time to help me fit in, it set up a lot of problems in the long run.

I became too open-minded in the sense that I would take everyone's opinions at face value and even when I had opinions that I valued myself, I'd see them start crumbling in the face of anything opposing them.

Originally Posted by Tobias Zimpel

Or could it be that certain things look different from inside than they would for an outsider? Is it possible that you simply have to try maybe 5 different ways until you can decide which one - if any - fits you best?

Somewhat recently though I found a solution which relates to Tobias' question, and I've been able to deal with other's opinions much better. Now I realize that everyone's opinion simply comes from their own perspective, and I always try to view opinions through this other perspective so I can better understand where they come from. If I go and view someone elses opinion just from my perspective then I'm not getting the whole picture and generally miss a lot of what went into the formation of that opinion. But by viewing it from the perspective of the source, it helps a great deal in understanding another person and to see more precisely why they hold an opinion, and also it allows the actual idea to be looked at separate from other factors that seem to come along with an opinion, such as personal bias, emotions, and any needs that are being expressed through the opinion. So then I use this separated idea and look at it through my own point of view to basically translate it into a way that works for me.

I basically now no longer think that an opinion can be absolutely wrong, since it will make a lot of sense to the person that holds it. And to look into why it makes that sense is a big step towards understanding it.

[Daniel Terhorst]

What do we mean when we speak of open- and close-mindedness?

If someone never listens to what they don't want to hear, it's called having a closed mind.

On the other end of the spectrum, some people will believe anything they see or hear. Some even want to be told what to believe. Is this open-mindedness? I don't think so. I think it's just a closed mind of a different form--one that is closed to reason.

I think it all comes down to "mind." To me, the greatest gift of the mind is the ability to discriminate. You get information... you reason about it... you assign it value... you make decisions based on what you think about it. Give it an exercise. That's what a mind is for, isn't it?

Whether you believe everything or nothing... they seem the same to me. It's the middle ground that's interesting!

You either use that wonderful thing called your mind... or you don't.

-- Daniel Terhorst

[Tobias Zimpel]

Originally Posted by Andy

Now I realize that everyone's opinion simply comes from their own perspective, and I always try to view opinions through this other perspective so I can better understand where they come from.

That's also basically my approach at the moment - and an approach most of the people around me would call exactly wrong.

I'm simply following this approach because I believe that 1. Everything happens for a reason and 2. I should not judge others - at least not by my own beliefs and values.

Originally Posted by Daniel Terhorst

I think it all comes down to "mind." To me, the greatest gift of the mind is the ability to discriminate. You get information... you reason about it... you assign it value... you make decisions based on what you think about it. Give it an exercise. That's what a mind is for, isn't it?

Whether you believe everything or nothing... they seem the same to me. It's the middle ground that's interesting!

Daniel, I agree with you that - as always - the extremes are too ...well, extreme, and that the middle way is the one to follow in order to be really open minded.

To me open-mindedness means that I have my own opinions, and I allow others to have their own, whether or not they are right for me, knowing that my own way is not necessarily the best one possible. And if I'm interested in personal growth, I'm constantly searching for other ways that are possibly better.

And that's what I meant when I wrote that things look different from inside.

For example: I'm vegetarian now for more than 20 years and never liked to eat dead animals from birth on(I'm 27 y/o). Last month I tried to go vegan, which from the inside looked much different than from the outside (Steve wrote about this in his blog some time ago...).

While for me being somewhere between vegetarian and vegan is right at least at the moment (I'm heading in the same direction Steve is going), still my girl-friend likes to eat steaks that have barely touched a pan or grill. To me there's nothing wrong with her doing so, while for me it'd be totally wrong.

And that's what open-mindedness is all about in my opinion.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Daniel Terhorst

On the other end of the spectrum, some people will believe anything they see or hear. Some even want to be told what to believe. Is this open-mindedness? I don't think so. I think it's just a closed mind of a different form--one that is closed to reason.

I think what you're referring to is called gullibility.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

He asked me: "Of all the things that are the most deep-seated in your worldview, your philosophy, which are merely “very important,” and which are “non-negotiable”?"

Personally, I have only one belief which I consider non-negotiable - that no belief is non-negotiable.

[carney77]

Humanity had a BELIEF that the world was flat.

Columbus had the IDEA that it was round.

Which one is stronger? Who is right and who is wrong?

Both, and neither! We're missing the bigger picture. Beliefs and Ideas come from the same source--our thoughts.

Sure, sure, Believers have more emotional ties to their thoughts, and Idealists have their heads in the clouds, right? But, they're still just thoughts. Perceptions. And our perceptions are based on what we've already experienced, more often than not. But that cannot be truth because it is from only one perspective. And even our experiences and what we think about them have been marred by parental, societal, religious perceptions. See the cycle?

For me, the only Belief that I hold is:
Treat others like you would want to be treated.
It's an oldie, but a goodie!!!

Good night,
carney77

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Scott

Personally, I have only one belief which I consider non-negotiable - that no belief is non-negotiable.

I would disagree that no belief is non-negotiable; however, I also haven't bought into the subjective reality bit. That seems to warrant some explanation... I haven't bought in partially because I disagree with the way "objectivity" is described. I believe that "objectivity" does not mean "no perspective", but rather "all perspectives". Thus, I see no reason to limit myself to just my point of view by adopting a subjective reality.

[Sean147]

I believe you can never be too open minded. Everything is open to question, if you have a belief that isn't open to question then it could be wrong. Why take the risk? Look at every option and make the best choice with the information you have.

[MrNotebook]

I believe we can never be too open-minded, however we can be too smart for our own good. Or we can be too close-minded.

Its best to avoid extremeties in any direction in life. Better to take the side of caution. And by saying that I'm not saying we shouldn't take risks.

[Rivelli]

I would think you can never be too open minded. Is there a good argument saying otherwise? Just by being open minded to something doesn't mean you agree with it so why would you discourage even a consideration?

I am a strong believer in the Socratic Method and question EVERYTHING, including my strongest beliefs (even the socratic method :P )

[hawkal]

Just going to dumb down this thread a little with a quote I read once that I found funny. It was from a list of "things you should know before your 30"

If your too open minded your brains will fall out

I think there maybe some more mature logic beyond the quote but I've not figured it out.

I personally don't think you can ever be too open minded because to be open minded simply means to equally consider all angles and come to a conclusion. Although I don't think it is easy to be completely open minded because that would require personal experience of each perspective otherwise your basing other peoples perspective on hear say and imagination which won't actually equate to equal consideration because you don't "really" know what it is like first hand.