Search the Community

A quick video of mine on living with integrity, estimating people, and words versus actions.

I've been applying the philosophical thinking to fuzzy terms, as Stefan often does in shows - like "inappropriate", I've been able to tease out and dissect one of these fuzzy specimen, and put it on display on medium. I'd love to get some feedback! “Open-minded” is a Redundant Word"You're not open-minded. You're closed-minded to logic and evidence." There is no open-mindedness. There is only rationality. Without rationality, open-mindedness lets in both truths and falsehoods. Without rationality, closed-mindedness keeps out dangerous lies as well as useful, life-changing, and life-saving ideas. Rationality is the semi-permeable membrane of your mind. If you’re rational, you’re open to new ideas. If you’re rational, you don’t close yourself off to new ideas. You weigh an idea through logic and evidence. You deem an idea an hypothesis when the means of confirmation are not within grasp. You deem an idea sophistry when it’s unfalsifiable. You deem an idea a theory if describes all known evidence well, with few major errors. Charlatans’ weapon of choice is to use open-mindedness as a Trojan horse to sneak in falsehoods past the semi-permeable walls of skepticism (AKA rationality), and wail that you’re not open-minded if you reject any falsehoods they try to pass off with shoddy reasoning if any at all. You can recognize sophistry and manipulation by two when logic is actively avoided and it is substituted by emotional or economic incentives, positive or negative. “Maybe you’re just not the type of person or good enough for X” (classic variant of PUA neg-ing). “If you ask ‘why’ one more time, I’m not taking you to the video game store.” Implied in the accusation of not being open-minded is that open-mindedness is a good thing (this is the widespread positive tone people have with the term today). Perhaps it is a good thing. But if so, then so is being closed-minded, strictly speaking. Being open-minded to the point of accepting falsehoods is problematic. So is being closed-minded to the point of rejecting sound logic. So you see, the virtue people are actually appealing to when they use terms like “open-minded” or “closed-minded” is actually rationality. Thus open-mindedness and closed-mindedness are redundant concepts because they‘re relative to rationality. Poorly defined terms confuse and erect barriers to conversation. Everyone has experienced conversations that go to the point of hostility based on terms that never get defined — and funny enough, often times no one recognizes the need to define terms even after nuclear disaster . The predictable outcome based on game theory analysis of incentives (or even without it) is that most people end up avoiding philosophy and voicing differing opinions altogether. What a sad state of affairs. I believe there is a ton of learning that gets cut short. In such a destitute philosophical ecosystem, charlatans rise as prey becomes more plentiful. Arm yourself with clear thinking (also, please don’t be the A-hole predator charlatan). Being open-minded is not the opposite of rejecting BS. Being open-minded is not even the opposite of being being skeptical. There’s a blatantly false dichotomy if one ever existed. If the terms “open-minded’ and “closed-minded” as we commonly understand them to mean, then a few corollaries follow: 1) When you’re skeptical, you put ideas through the grinder of epistemology — how you know what’s true. You’re open-minded to any idea in that you’re willing to put it through that filter. You’re ready to accept any idea that passes the tests, no matter how unsettling, provocative, or unprofitable it may be— arguably the defining quality to watch for in people claiming open-mindedness. 2) To insistently accept falsehoods is not open-minded, but actually closed-minded to consistent, sound epistemology — the gates that guard against endless hoards of unfalsifiable nonsense. But of course, charlatans sure do manipulate using the “open-mindedness” tactic. As with any win-lose predator, their target of choice are the logically weak, and emotionally vulnerable. Far too often this is kids. And their weapon of choice is overwhelmingly the use of positive and negative incentives. A charlatan’s job is as easy as claiming “racism”, and hurling emotional and social incentives as red herrings to actual facts and logic. A charlatan’s job is as easy as giving heaven and hell to a baby. Every single one of us were born with a wonderful dual-boot defense/exploration system. It got bribed or crushed out of us through conditioning and being forced to be around toxic people. It was “rediscovered” and put into practice by industrial giants such as Toyota, and nurtured Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, and Kaizen. It’s a marvelous jewel that got stitched into our DNA. It’s a single word that’s far more useful and potent than “open-mindedness”: “Why?”