DaVinci Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Recently I've been asking myself what the difference is between being open minded and closed minded. Why does one person accept new information in, and another refuses that same information? I know from my own experience that when I hear someone say something that I've never heard anyone say before that makes sense to me I investigate what they said further. But why do I do this? Why do I do this and other people don't? In trying to figure this out I stumbled upon this quote: [There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear. I read this quote and thought "I never thought it about it like that before.". Here I am trying to have a better understanding of why someone is open or closed minded, and in researching it I find myself thinking exactly the same thing I mentioned before "I've never heard it phrased that way before, and that makes sense". But why do I think this way? What separates a person with an "active" mind from a person with a "passive" one? I sometimes wonder if it is some kind of life trauma that is blocking an active mind, but my own life has been traumatic. I've wondered if it is a crappy government education, but I had a crappy government education. So then is it not trauma but the degree of trauma? Is it not crappy education, but the degree of crappy education? Can anyone give me some insight into this? Have you run into this in your own life?
dsayers Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 What separates a person with an "active" mind from a person with a "passive" one? I sometimes wonder if it is some kind of life trauma that is blocking an active mind, but my own life has been traumatic. I've wondered if it is a crappy government education, but I had a crappy government education. So then is it not trauma but the degree of trauma? Is it not crappy education, but the degree of crappy education? These elements aren't deterministic, so they can still be contributing factors even though they present differently in different people. It's like asking why an alcoholic, abusive parent of three children finds these children 1) drinking to be like their parent, 2) not drinking to avoid being like that parent, and 3) drinking on occasion, not at all influenced by the abuse that harmed them. Why does it present differently? I don't know. I don't know that it matters though. Because it's not deterministic, people can change form one to the other. So I think the better question is why would somebody have what is here deemed as a passive mind in the first place? I think one reason is baked right into the nomenclature: intellectual sloth. We are social creatures and with SJWs running rampant, not wanting to take a stand can seem beneficial. Secondly, I think it would stem from a NEED for contrary information to be true. For example, somebody might reject that spanking is assaulting defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children because their parents assaulted them. They NEED for that information to not be true, lest the people they regard as saints are in fact monsters who tortured them and robbed them from untold health and success in their lives. It's a defense mechanism. Both of these explanations tie into self-preservation, so it's understandable that it would manifest in such a pronounced way. Does that make sense or at all help?
DaVinci Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 These elements aren't deterministic, so they can still be contributing factors even though they present differently in different people. It's like asking why an alcoholic, abusive parent of three children finds these children 1) drinking to be like their parent, 2) not drinking to avoid being like that parent, and 3) drinking on occasion, not at all influenced by the abuse that harmed them. Why does it present differently? I don't know. I don't know that it matters though. Because it's not deterministic, people can change form one to the other. So I think the better question is why would somebody have what is here deemed as a passive mind in the first place? I think one reason is baked right into the nomenclature: intellectual sloth. We are social creatures and with SJWs running rampant, not wanting to take a stand can seem beneficial. Secondly, I think it would stem from a NEED for contrary information to be true. For example, somebody might reject that spanking is assaulting defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children because their parents assaulted them. They NEED for that information to not be true, lest the people they regard as saints are in fact monsters who tortured them and robbed them from untold health and success in their lives. It's a defense mechanism. Both of these explanations tie into self-preservation, so it's understandable that it would manifest in such a pronounced way. Does that make sense or at all help? Yes, that does make sense. I can certainly understand how there might be a defense mechanism related to self preservation. However, I'm not sure that a defense mechanism necessarily equals intellectual sloth. I think someone could have a defense mechanism and still be able to critically evaluate ideas. The question seems to come back to why some information hits the defense mechanism and some is evaluated. So for example, when someone learns math do they run up against these self preservation based defense mechanisms? I'm not sure we can know the answer to that unless someone has self reported that information, but it seems unlikely. Unless of course the math is tied to something happening in the world that is unpleasant.
Wuzzums Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 open-minded person = no emotional attachment, resistance to new ideas is because of skepticism which will disappear after receiving facts closed-minded person = emotional attachment, resistance to new ideas is a defense mechanism which will only strengthen after receiving facts 2
A4E Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Open / closed minded are much better terms imo. You did not just go to school. Maybe you talked to friends, kept thinking for yourself, played games, made new stuff, tried new things, etc... of which being open minded can even be mandatory. And everyone starts out open minded. I see that Wuzzums posted the apparent blueprint.
Recommended Posts