Dealing With Close-Mindedness (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Dealing With Close-Mindedness

[Nneka]

"You are right" is even better than "You could be right." In reality, they are just as right as you are from their perspective. Taking this position is like missing a blow.

I always remember this line from the the movie Enough, "It takes more energy to miss than it does to hit." When you tell someone they are right and mean it, it is totally disarming. There is nothing to engage in and both parties are free to move forward with their own opinions and ways of dealing with life.

It's fantastic!

[ashvini]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Dealing With Close-Mindedness

Steve, you say :
"I accept their position and allow them to have it, but I don’t take ownership of it myself. "
what is 'it' in this sentence - Does the 'it' refer to your thoughts and opinions ? are you saying that you dont take ownership of your ideas , and so opinions of closed minded people dont bother you ? or are you referring to the position that closed minded people take, and saying that you dont take ownership of the positions held by the closed minded ? Please clarify . thanks.

[ReallyGoodIdeas]

Ashvini, I took it as meaning all of them, Steve's and the other persons' ideas and opinions. But someone else could be right on that! ;-)

Being an EFT zealot, I have tangled with close minded people (skeptics) a lot. Some of my best friends in fact, and I made the mistake a few times of being over-zealous, and just annoying them.

But I ended up today doing EFT on "even though I HAVE to be right,..." because i realised that what i've thought of as closed minded people are really just mirrors for my own closed-mindedness. It's such a laugh when you think about it. I have to admit, I ended up laughing just tapping on it! :-)

Joy and laughs to you!
Hazel

[minnie]

Steve, you always have the perfect post whenever I need it. I think this is so incredibly brilliant --- I've been acquiring so many new and out of the box ideas of reality and life in general, some that would even seem blasphemous to some people, and I love what you said about franklin, how he never took ownership of his ideas, the idea of bringing a "third party" in so that you don't get fixated on protecting the ideas as a part of yourself and so that you bring the other party to a more middle ground, that's wonderful.

And just the realization that from their point of view, they ARE right, because that is what is "RIGHT" in their reality, in the world that they perceive - it just goes back to the whole law of attraction thing in a way, in that whatever we believe, it becomes, so in a way, anything could be right on some level, it just depends on who's doing the looking.

I've felt such rigid resistance to people in my life, afraid that they're going to attack my beliefs and attack myself, but the separation of beliefs and self really makes a lot of sense to me - I've been defending myself so much, and I didn't know how to hold a belief without making it part of my position - I've been so inundated in the idea that in order to live, you need to have a position and be firm in it, believe that it is right and everything else is wrong. While I still have my beliefs, realizing the reality and truth that lies in other beliefs, even if they're completely contradictory to my own, is really eye-opening and I feel so much more relaxed now that my defenses are loosening up a little...

Once again, thank you for another awesome post.

[Abhey]

You could be right about some of your wackier ideas.

[shiatsustudent]

Steve,
Thanks for the post it came at the perfect time for me.

Over most of 2006 I have been dealing with a situation at work where my manager had a view of me in his mind that I could not dispel. Eventually, I was dumped out of his team.

It was perfectly timed because as a second year student of Shiatsu I have been looking at this situation using its theories. This weekend at college we were discussing the link between eating and ideas; that is when someone cannot accept an idea and constantly chew and churn it over in their minds. In Chinese medicine digestion is associated with the Earth and in turn this is controlled by Wood, which is by nature flexible and creative.

Your post today reminded me of that connection. My response should have been one of acceptance and more creative. I just ended up being as closed off as my manager.

Thanks for the site and your insights.

[stephencp]

Being REALLY open minded means being really open minded not just appearing to be or just successfully "dealing with" other supposedly close minded people.
I like the "you COULD be right" line if you really mean it and are interested in truly understanding the other's position/opinion so that you might change your own. I don't care as much for the "you're right" line, since it seems more of an attempt to defuse situations and shut people down, than it does a recognition that they really are right from YOUR OWN perspective too (otherwise you're still being close minded.) This could also be true of the "you could be right line." You should be striving to clarify and improve your mind, not just looking for gimmicks.

Personally, I've changed (and sometimes changed back) my political, religious, spiritual, social and physical paradigms.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[Nneka]

because i realised that what i've thought of as closed minded people are really just mirrors for my own closed-mindedness.

ReallyGoodIdeas, this is so true. In the end, what I observe in other people is all stuff that I am dealing with. At the time that it is presented, I have a great opportunity to heal something within me or shift my perspective and let more of my light shine.

I don't care as much for the "you're right" line, since it seems more of an attempt to defuse situations and shut people down, than it does a recognition that they really are right from YOUR OWN perspective too (otherwise you're still being close minded.) This could also be true of the "you could be right line." You should be striving to clarify and improve your mind, not just looking for gimmicks.

Stephen, the way I look at is that the person is truly right. They have their own experiences from which they are drawing their conclusions. When I realize that their resistance is something I am dealing with, AND I am willing to chip away that resistance in myself, I listen intently to what they are saying and ask leading questions until I have recognized in myself the thing that I am resisting.

For example, I believe strongly that we create our reality. For a long time, I believed it at an intellectual level. When I would get into heated discussions with people over this topic I could not understand why they were so against it. The argument would invariably come back to people who were homeless because they lost their jobs and their lives spiral.

One day I was having one of these discussions, but instead of fighting it I listened. I realized that that was a countering belief that I held. I just kept listening and it just washed away. I said to my friend, "You are right. That has been your experience." I genuinely meant it.

I didn't adopt their opinion. On the contrary, it strengthened my own belief because I was able to deal with one of my internal barriers to accepting that belief at a deeper level.

Does that make sense?

[munish]

Originally Posted by ashvini

Steve, you say :
"I accept their position and allow them to have it, but I don’t take ownership of it myself. "
what is 'it' in this sentence - Does the 'it' refer to your thoughts and opinions ? are you saying that you dont take ownership of your ideas , and so opinions of closed minded people dont bother you ? or are you referring to the position that closed minded people take, and saying that you dont take ownership of the positions held by the closed minded ? Please clarify . thanks.

“It” is ego ,and from the point of view of subjective reality system,you are not your ego.YOU are the awareness.

Munish Bhasin

[Starbucks]

Brilliant article; you hit the nail with a sledgehammer.

I'm sure we all know one or two people who consistently put up a fight whenever their ideas are challenged, while going out of their way to raise hell and provoke those arguments in the first place. Many times, I find it is easier to agree wholeheartedly, and wait for their hot temper to settle.

Textbook example:

I share an apartment with my brother, who was at home yesterday when I opened the door after a long day of work. I tolerate an obscenely lengthy commute, so my 9 to 5 workday usually becomes a 7 to 7 ordeal. Needless to say, while I'm not angry when I step in the door, I'm not exactly in the mood to "agree wholeheartedly".

Him (Immediately): "You haven't washed any dishes in a week. Do some tonight."

Me: "Believe me, I would love to completely empty the sink of foul, disgusting silverware, but I just haven't had the time. You know my schedule. I'll take care of it as soon as I can."

Him: "Not good enough."

*Argument Ensues*

At about the point where I thought one of us might toss the other through our second-story kitchen window, I realized that it would just be easier to agree with his point of view, promise to wash some dishes, and thereby defuse the situation. I stopped right there, apologized, and scrubbed away for maybe... MAYBE five minutes.

And that was all he needed. I didn't have to completely solve the disgusting kitchen situation - only agree, to defuse the argument, and restore normality. Afterwards, he understood that sometimes life calls for a sink full of nastiness. He wasn't mad at me - he was mad at the situation. First I needed to end the argument, and now I can focus on solving the problem.

Because, of course, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by ashvini

Steve, you say :
"I accept their position and allow them to have it, but I don’t take ownership of it myself. "
what is 'it' in this sentence - Does the 'it' refer to your thoughts and opinions ? are you saying that you dont take ownership of your ideas , and so opinions of closed minded people dont bother you ? or are you referring to the position that closed minded people take, and saying that you dont take ownership of the positions held by the closed minded ? Please clarify . thanks.

it = "their position"

As Buddha said, "If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?"

[stephencp]

Originally Posted by Nneka

"You are right. That has been your experience." I genuinely meant it.

I didn't adopt their opinion. On the contrary, it strengthened my own belief because I was able to deal with one of my internal barriers to accepting that belief at a deeper level.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Saying "your're right" and truly believing that from THIER experience, they're right and they might even be right in not believing you for THEM, that doesn't = you could be right for me too right now given MY experiences.

Perhaps I"m clouding an "open mind" that is willing to listen to anything with an mind willing to actually change. Actually changing your mind is very rare (and often denigrated by others a "flip-flopping".) Not changing your mind about other people (which is also hard ie. getting rid of racism, prejudices, etc.) by changing your mind about YOU (and even what "YOU" are.)


Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[Andrew Brunelle]

Steve, I love that quote from Buddha, I remember reading the story online one day, and some man starts hurling insults at the Buddha and he just stands there, saying and doing nothing and eventually the man who was hurling all of these insults gets frustrated and leaves, infuriated. And the Buddha says, "If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?" It's very true. If someone is trying to force their beliefs on you, and you don't accept them a true, they don't belong to you.

[JBRU]

The problem that I see in the Franklin method you outline in your post, Steve, is that many people (indeed, most that I've seen use this technique) do not approach it from a position of intellectual honesty. That is, they are not presenting the ideas of a non-present third party in order to focus the discussion on the ideas and come to a resolution of any kind, but are rather putting forth these ideas to continue the argument for the purpose of arguing. They are getting an ego stroke by keeping what they perceive to be an "upper hand" in the discussion and if pressed as to their point fall back on "not my idea" insulation of the technique.

The frustration I feel with this is surely my own ego getting in the way, but I think the danger of using the technique, that is, its appeal to the ego for purposes other than intellectual honesty, needed mentioning.

[Nneka]

Perhaps I"m clouding an "open mind" that is willing to listen to anything with an mind willing to actually change. Actually changing your mind is very rare (and often denigrated by others a "flip-flopping".) Not changing your mind about other people (which is also hard ie. getting rid of racism, prejudices, etc.) by changing your mind about YOU (and even what "YOU" are.)

Ironically, when I need to change my mind about something, I offer no resistance. It is the strangest thing.

However, every time I find myself resisting, I ask why until I get to the root of what is in me. I am getting better at doing so while the discussion is going on rather than walking away and churning over it later.

I personally feel like everyone is entitled to their opinion and I should honor their experiences.

[Andy]

Great blog post, I was wondering something though. Separating ideas/beliefs from your ego was mentioned, but what exactly are some ways to do this? Is it simply thinking "this idea isn't mine, but I can use it if I wish"? I'm just a bit curious as to how to look at this situation, when there are ideas that you hold but want to see them as not your own. Is it thinking that you don't have/own any ideas at all, even if you came up with them?

[Steve Pavlina]

@Andy: Check out Podcast #013 - Beyond Religion for the answer. Equating your ego with your beliefs is like equating your computer with the software it runs.

[kevinw1]

What do you do, though, in a situation where the disagreement is about how to do something which has to be done? I want to do it one way, he wants to do it another way: we have to come to some resolution or the thing doesn't get done.

Kevin

[wolfgang]

I can't believe you all are beliving all that in the blog! Accepting someones else's position is a weak minded way of caving in and letting someone run all over you! --OK, I wrote that just so you can notice how easy it is to polarize, I really like the article. I'm shaking now after writing that little bit from the devil's advocate. I wonder how many of you were ready to jump on me.

I like that part that being accepting of someone's position opposing you is part of the equation to defuse the polarizing defense. I'd like to add something I carry - seek first to understand. Like how do you accept someone's position unless you know what it is? Maybe the understanding is implied, between the lines, but I think we should try to understand what it is they are opposing.

I tried that with that argumentative bix poster. I was reflecting back to him what he was saying - "so you mean you have no fear and there's no value in looking at fears that interfere with goals?" I wanted to understand him first so that I can accept where he was coming from, instead of just jumping to conclusions about what he was opposing. I tend to not want to believe much of anything just so I don't have to defend anything, but really it's more like the blog entry - anything I might believe is not so hard and part of my identity that needs defending.

I believe most beliefs are a form of attachment - and I'm attached to that belief. So try to tell me I'm wrong and I'll defend that belief!

[PhoenixBlossom]

I read recently about a society in which disputes were handled such that each person had to make the case for his/her opponent. I think that's an amazing idea.

That Ben Franklin - what a guy!

[haider]

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 decisi