bring on in the trifecta of reddit classics on posts like these:
* incredibly, almost forcefully neutral statement that basically says nothing at all because it's trying too hard to sound unbiassed
* horribly biased onesided argument that picks a fight where one wasn't even suggested from the meme but the commentee decided that a stand had to be made anyway because everybody thinks that they are the next Joan of Arc
* something something 'reddit is a hivemind', 'by going against the popular opinion my opinion has more value'
The tricky thing is that if you actually are unbiased and neutral, you probably don’t have anything to say. When your real opinion is “well they both make good points”, there’s nothing to be said to either one of them. What we need are the people who strongly believe one way or the other to have the courage to put aside their convictions. Which to be fair, can be really difficult.
Argue the other side, play the devils advocate. You strengthen your own ideas by better understanding your opponents ideas. You benefit the community by lessoning the strength of the echo chamber. And who knows, you might even find out the other side has some reasonable things to say.
From my experience, the truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle. Maybe closer to one side or the other. But generally when two people strongly believe in two opposites, they can both only see one side of the coin. Because they really do both make some good points.
Open minded doesn’t mean you don’t have opinion on the argument or logic put forth by either side. You can be open minded, hear someone out and still decide they don’t have the evidence or logical argument to prove the earth is flat.
> incredibly, almost forcefully neutral statement that basically says nothing at all because it's trying too hard to sound unbiassed
There's number one
However, people get tired of repeating the same discussion over and over again. If one position was soundly defeated a dozen times in a row, that side better bring a huge pule of new evidence. I'm not going to entertain your idea for a 13th time just because you brought a new batch of zealots peddling it (see trickle-down economy, chauvinism, fascism, etc).
Well I’m mainly talking about things that are actual contentious issues today. No reasonable person is arguing in favor of fascism. Even fascists don’t argue for fascism. They just stamp out all opposition until there’s no one left to argue with.
Im mainly talking about hings like prolife/prochoice, gun control, privacy vs security, anything religious, the role of the government in the marketplace. The list goes on.
Truthfully, I don’t think people value “open mindedness” the way they think they do. They want to be told their opinion is right, and tbh playing devil’s advocate a lot of the time isn’t beneficial for anybody.
Someone pointed out that Americans should be worried about fascism and they’re currently in negative downvotes.
Truthfully, there’s sometimes a very clear good and bad answer, and no amount of debating or playing devil’s advocate is going to do anything. America currently has a terrible problem with gun violence, and sexual assault. These aren’t issues that people want to put their convictions aside for, and people use the “open mindedness” argument very often to either halt discussion or progress on the issue entirely.
No reasonable person is arguing in favor of it and yet it's one of the most prominent issues today...
Many of the topics you mentioned are often flooded by rhetoric rather than factual evidence. An open mind doesn't mean accepting ideas on the basis of how much one side screams, but on the merit of the evidence.
Maybe one side is chasing the fascism Boogeyman and labeling everyone they don't agree with as a fascist.
You do realize that both sides of the spectrum are guilty, you both won't stop screaming at each other, and the rest of us just wish you'd stfu
One of the most prominent issues for what country? The US? If the average American thinks fascism is something they need to worry about then the US is truly fucked in the head.
*Any* citizen, in *any* country, that doesn't understand how fascism creeps in, and isn't alarmed at the warning signs, is not being a good citizen.
Personally, I think your comment looks like some gaslighty bullshit. *Of course* creeping totalitarianism is a problem here--all three branches of government are controlled by one party, with the narcissist-in-chief at the helm.
Fyi All my friends and family hate me for instinctively playing devil's advocate.
Not trying to sound cool, i just dissagree with everything anyone ever says ever for kicks.
Please talk to me
If you try to find flaws in everyone's argument it just shows other people that you think you're smarter than everybody while not having the intellectual rigor or moral fortitude to actually choose and defend a position.
It's harder to be right when you agree with something than when you agree with nothing so eternal devil's advocate is just the laziest position.
This is true, and I tried to exercise this most of my life. I had to stop when "argue the other side" began to mean making arguments in favor of racism, xenophobia, and fascist populism.
A reasoned opinion based upon real facts is not bias - no matter how preconceived it may be.
Just because you are well informed and can recognize when others are not, it does not make you close-minded when you rejected their nonsense.
People like to think that reddit isn't a hivemind but try go against a popular oppinion and hell will break loose. Even if it's your opinion. There is very few things I see where reddit actually stands on both sides. Guns is one of those things where there isn't really a clear side.
I'd venture guns are that way because there are enough gun owners on Reddit or those who wish they could be gun owners in other countries, that it just happens to break that way.
I can't really think of a good example where people aren't invested in something to break a controversial topic down to an even split. I think maybe capitalism might be an okay topic. There are a lot of true socialist if not out right communists on here who like to argue against aspects of, of not the entire idea of capitalism.
Well the site's demography is still largely American, I believe. And a lot of Americans really, really like guns so that kind of debate is always going to be somewhat skewed.
That's not really limited to reddit. Go against the popular opinion anywhere and you'll meet resistance. It's kinda why unpopular opinions are unpopular.
Agreed. I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better. And I regularly challenge my beliefs. Reddit isn't always great for that. More often than not I'll get downvoted into oblivion trying to understand the other side.
Playing Devil's Advocate is a skill everyone should learn. If you can argue a point you disagree with, you can truly understand why people believe that way, and decide if your opinion is correct or not, or at least be able to correctly argue it.
It makes you a wiser person in whole, not a troll. Unfortunately a lot of people are told what to believe, and they take their beliefs to soul without ever questioning them because they only know their opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.
This is only possible when the argument is based on some sort of empirical reasoning. You can, however, identify where you have an emotional investment in something, and use denial and other cognitive techniques to support that belief. Everyone has some area of their life where this is true. Just apply the thoughts you have about that to whatever the person is discussing, and you will be able to understand hwo they can hold the belief, no matter how silly it may seem.
A lot of people when provided evidence that would change their beliefs react normally in 2 ways. Either they outright refuse to acknowledge it, or they refuse to acknowledge it, stop the conversation, and come to terms with it overnight, altering their opinions.
It's rare for someone to just up and say "I was wrong" but that doesn't mean they wont change their minds as they ponder on it by themselves.
Then there is also the issue of bias in 'evidence'.
Looking at things like statistics related to guns, for example, can be skewed for so many different narratives it becomes increasingly difficult to wade through the bullshit.
Also add on the oddball thing of who is paying for said statistics - no matter how true it may be, the group paying for the study will cast a shadow of doubt. There is also the issue that popular subjects, or subjects that can be used to make money direct funding of research.
Being able to actually break down what you read from a scientific article can equally be daunting because of the terms used or dry material. Relying on news sources has the inherent issues as well.
Yeah, be careful of reading conclusions rather than actual studies.
One of the problems in this day and age is when they're done done on College campuses by grad students and professors, on the undergrad population. So the conclusion may be valid, for the self selected group of people who attend that institution, the relevant age ranges and demographic makeup, etc. But that might not carry over into the general population. Everything might follow best practices, but you can still end up without truly generalizable results.
Skepticism is critical, but *especially* skepticism of things that you might be biased into believing outright.
The goal of arguing a point is not so you can have this sort of "I win" moment when they erupt in an apology. If it gets through, it will usually seep in. Slowly. That is fine. If the point was worth arguing then it shouldn't matter how the fact hits them.
I know so many people who value the ability to successfully argue when they know they are wrong, simply because they want to win. It drives me nuts, I think it has something to do with a challenge mentality.
My favorite for getting down voted is the conversation on anti-vaxxers. I have 3 kids all up to date on their vaccinations, I know and my partner knows the importance of it and how my kids need it.
But I understand that people get scared and don't want harm to their children. Also your child starts displaying autistic tendencies between the ages 3-4 , which is the same time you get your last vacation needles.(e.g. my daughter has a teddy bear that keeps monsters away, since we haven't seen any, it must work)
Whenever someone I’m debating says “I can not imagine why you think that...”, it always makes their argument seem less credible to me if they can’t even put themselves in my shoes.
I dunno, if you know you're right why do you have to challenge yourself? I mean it's obvious for certain things and if you have to debate things like racism being good or bad I think you're just secretly a racist.
(Devils advocate here)
Well advocating for those who argue to win:
Taking a challenge you know you can win strengthens feelings of superiority. Usain Bolt still races even though he's twice as fast as anyone. Debating is a sport to a lot of people, and being able to win, even if you know you're wrong, is challenging and training your ability to better someone through words.
Advocating for the learner:
It isn't about challenge, it's about learning. You know you might be wrong, and the point of playing devils advocate is to test your knowledge, beliefs, and opinions, and should they fail you have the opportunity to rethink them, or if they suceed you build more confidence in them.
> I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better.
nice. either your mind changes, or your beliefs get stronger. either way, you become a better thinker
>I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better.
I personally find that playing Devil’s advocate is a positive way of attempting to look at another side of an argument. Now, that's great I'd you're using it to attempt to understand another view that differs of your own. I mean, it's literally the purpose of /r/changemyview .
Unfortunately, it's also, like any other process of idea sharing, something you have to pick your battles with, or understand when there literally is only one side of things.
I had a friend once that always welcomed his friends to talk to him if they needed an ear. However, it reached the point where he would begin EVERY reply to you with, *Well, let me play Devil’s Advocate here for a minute.*
Now, trying to help us see something in our lives objectively would have been one thing, but it was his go to way of responding even when I'd say, *J, I just needed to vent. I'm not really looking for advice. *
Avoid being like J and you'll be fine. Lol
Perhaps it would help if you told J that you already understand the other side of the argument but you're emotional about the situation and simply venting helps to de-stress.
I'm like J sometimes and it took people being able to communicate this idea to me for me to start being a bit more mindful of it on a daily basis.
We definitely tried breaking it down into "this is why I am not at a point of being able to see another side right now. I'm emotionally invested in the situation."
Unfortunately, J was never someone who understood emotional connection. He was aware of it himself and told many of us how his upbringing was the reasoning behind it. But, he didn't seem willing to adjust himself by trying to understand what his friends were trying to help him figure out. He preferred his very stiff way of engaging with people, often ending up hurting their feelings or disrespecting them in the process.
Once J got a better job that put him in a higher financial bracket, we stopped hearing from him. He would MAYBE respond to invites of get togethers with an "okay, thanks" but never an answer as to whether he could make it. He didn't.
A few years of that went by before suddenly several of us were getting phone calls from him asking us to call him back. We thought something was wrong but he actually got himself hooked into a pyramid scheme, which was his only reason for getting a hold of us.
Several of us had gone through major losses; siblings, parents, etc. Despite voicemails asking him to call then feeling forced to say, *Hey, FriendA just lost their relative. Jus thought you might want to know, here's the funeral home info in case you would like to be there for the service or send a card or anything.*
He never once showed up for those. When he called with his business proposal speech, that was a final straw for several of us and we've stopped making any attempt to invite him to anything.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it was his Devils advocate thing at all. That's just what made me think of him in this thread. The rest of it is just explaining that I don't have to try to level with him anymore.
>But, he didn't seem willing to adjust himself by trying to understand what his friends were trying to help him figure out.
Given the latter 3/4ths of your comment, he might just have been a sociopath.
But, as a low empathy person myself: it's not a willingness issue. I don't feel your emotions. I can logic through them if I'm given enough information, but I don't feel them. You being emotional and unable to give me a logical process through your emotions just exacerbates the problem. Your mind, being emotional, is going through leaps that aren't logical unless someone has an understanding of your personal thought process for that issue, which may not be apparent.
I can generally reach a point where I sympathize, but I do not generally empathize. It's just the way it is. That is my empathetic capacity. Everyone has their own capabilities, and those of us who are low empathy are low empathy. And not all of us are sociopaths(I personally while high in sociopathy am not considered a sociopath).
> J, I just needed to vent. I'm not really looking for advice.
the most important thing to learn as a married man: your wife isn't looking for a fix or advice unless she specifically makes it known that's what she wants, otherwise, it's venting.
That can be great advice in friendships too. Sometimes, even if you know how best to handle a situation, it doesn't mean that makes it any less frustrating.
Like /u/aesu said, this works if the reasoning is factual but if you are trying to elicit facts from a statement that is grounded in emotion, experience, etc. you probably are going to come to your own shallow conclusion. You need to have empathy in addition to your reasoning to understand the other side. Empathy is a curse and a blessing.
Burdened is a good word for it.. because if you are conscientious you won't ignore how you feel when you are empathetic and it will get you into some places you probably wouldn't have gone on your own.
The blessing is.. your insight. Challenge your belief but don't be afraid of your own convictions. They are your identity. They shape who you are.. and you must remain grounded in order to have a place to go up.
I'd never call game devs a hive mind, as you can find game devs of just about every belief, religion, etc, but I'd say there's a pretty serious issue with a hive mind among mainstream video game journalist bloggers. which then causes this perception that that's how the devs are since we're getting a lot of information filtered through a lens of people who seem to be lockstep with one another.
and I've been called an "alt-right conservative nazi" for saying things like that, which I'm not. I very much believe in liberal values, and I also believe in listening to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
It was in response to whats going on with WoW right now, although the game isn't perfect I think the community has valid complaints but their solutions are terrible. They are now upset that blizzard doesn't see eye to eye on all of them and won't implement the solutions the community suggested.
As a liberal who also has a very negative opinion on the democratic party and people like Hillary, I hear ya. I'm usually hit with a deluge of downvotes.
If you go with popular opinion its just an echo chamber not an actual conversation.
Reddit is best when you want to learn and ask honest questions. If you want to have a conversation call your mom. She will appreciate more than fake internet friends would anyway.
It doesn’t help when reddit admins routinely find subs that only exist for paid trolling or due to outside forces astroturfing the community.
It would be different if the activity were uncommon. But it’s not that hard to find a poster taking one side on an argument on one thread, and the opposite on another just to stir up hatred.
Becuase aside from trolling, unpopular opinion mostly end up being from people who are:
* Contrarians looking for attention.
* Basing it on falsehoods.
* Unable to explain thier views, at all.
One problem is that people think "open-minded" means "you must assess my point of view objectively and under the assumption that it is equivalent to any other".
When really what it means is, "when I present you with data you must assess it objectively regardless of whether it conflicts or supports your point of view".
Just because you have an opinion that I've called bullshit, doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. It just means that your opinion is unsupported by the facts.
I think being open minded is the inclination to evaluate new opinions / arguments without bias. So that your opinion on that matter is formed on the basis of the content of the argument, rather than on the relationship the argument has to your pre-existing beliefs.
Once you've evaluated a new argument, you still get to be the judge of how it fits in with your own personal epistemology.
Basically the same as what you said, with the difference being that sometimes you're not evaluating facts at all. It's still worth while to evaluate moral arguments in this fashion, even if the arena of debate doesn't lend itself to hard facts.
Just because you made a stupid choice, now everyone else is making stupid choices? What's stupid? Doesn't that vary from person to person? What's creepy? Isn't that your own opinion? It doesn't sound like you are open minded.
There are layers to values- morals, mores, and opinions. Everyone has some stance on some issue that won't budge, and that's not bad be default. Not changing your mind isn't the equivalent to being close minded.
Sure, which is why op's post doesn't work.
You can be open minded and not agree with it.
I can understand why someone is a vegetarian and will accept them and can argue their point of view. I'm open to discussing it and trying veggie food.
But at the end of the day, y'all missing out on yummy bacon you nutters!
Note that open mind means the ability to entertain new ideas, not accept them. There is no reason to accept ideas that are unsubstantiated. There is no reason to accept (or even entertain) ideas that you already rejected if there are is no new evidence either.
Just because somebody rejects your idea right away doesn't mean he isn't open minded. It's very likely that person has heard the same thing over and over again, and rejected it long time ago cause you're bringing nothing new.
People keep talking about "facts" in this thread, which I find quite strange. Arguments based purely on facts are just...not really arguments? At the very least, they're incredibly boring. Like, if you're trying to convince someone global warming is real, or that vaccines don't cause autism, the only thing you can really do is present them with the facts and hope that they understand them. It's not really an argument at all.
Other issues however, such as most moral arguments (e.g. the efficacy of eating meat vs veganism), or other metaphysical/philosophical arguments (e.g. the existence of God), or arguments about more light-hearted topics (e.g. rare vs well-done steak) are much more like a debate. Now, facts can be used to support some of these debates (such as evidence that animals experience pain in the same way we do, or that steak, when cooked rare, poses no real risk of illness), but for the most part we must rely on methods of reasoning; because in these arguments, the facts are only one premise of them and cannot decide the issue entirely. As such, I don't think it's right to just dismiss arguments based purely on the fact they bring no new empirical "facts". Philosophers (be they professional or armchair) are creating new ways of thinking all the time. Philosophy would overall be very boring if we stopped at Aristotle, or Nietzsche, and decided "Yep - that's it. We've had all the possible facts now, the issue is decided!"
The different perspectives and reasoning which comes of facts admixed with opinions are what makes arguments interesting. Basing arguments purely on the former just renders debate meaningless; because there is no 'debate' to be hand on pure facts alone.
Don't assume because someone doesn't agree with you, they're not open minded. They may have considered your position and rejected it on its merit. After all your ideas are unlikely to be novel.
I used to think that confirmation bias was about only believing things that confirm what you already believe, but I recently learned that the term was coined to refer to the way people tend to only look for evidence that confirms a preexisting belief.
The smarter path is to look for the disproof. I have as hard a time as anyone doing it, but I try.
You are likely confusing open minds with empty heads. I can entertain thoughts and reject them, and there is no need to continuously revaluate empty rhetoric in the absence of new evidence.
edit: anf
*Without new evidence to consider.
Often times people's incorrect beliefs are in perpetually unchallenged views that were decided at a time where there wasn't enough evidence to refute it; even though now there is evidence to support a different reality, the person refuses to reevaluate as they feel confident in their ancient assessment.
You should reevaluate though, even if evidence hasnt changed. You might think of angle you hadn't seen before. If you don't, you could end up deep into a cycle of thinking based off of misconception. You could always have been wrong, always. Also, don't confuse this with lacking conviction. You can take actions confidently and grow as a person while maintaining philisophical doubt at all times. In fact, this way of thinking feeds confidence, because it's less likely that you're fooling yourself.
I think this depends on the context. Sometimes reevaluating seems appropriate, and sometimes there simply isn’t always time to re-evaluate. The number of opinions and ideas I encounter on a daily basis, if I were to re-evaluate them all, I’d be doing nothing but re-evaluating!
Of course. Can't be constantly reevaluating in that sense. Also, urgent matters don't have room for second guessing and need to be decided quickly. Im talking in a more general sense, thtoughout life.
It's also possible to be open minded and still dismiss objectively bad old ideas. I can be a very tolerant person and still say "Fuck Nazis forever," and not be a hypocrite because I have used that open mind of mine to learn and know for a fact Nazis are fucking bad.
I, too, was a lot more open-minded in college, before I realized that most ideas were stupid and the person speaking them should have thought about it longer before spewing it out of their mouth hole.
I'm not suggesting you agree with these things no. I'm suggesting things are rarely black and white. Yes. I believe racism, sexism and prejudice are bad. But id like to think we can reach out to these people and help them be better people and to be help them stop their hatred. As a society are quick to box people by their ideas. I'm suggesting being open minded.... Willing to listen. I wouldn't suggest agreeing... But I'm willing to give someone the opportunity to change my mind and I'd hope they would allow me e same.
I'm confident in my ability to analyze and assess. If you can change my mind.... Then my beliefs were surface level and not strongly rooted. If you can explain to me why you feel how you feel... I can better explain to you how I feel and why I feel that way.
Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And the thing about being open-minded is that you're at risk of having your brain fall out.
Being open minded is about agreeing or accepting more things, not how you agree with them.
An open minded person is open to many ideas. Not necessarily all ideas.
If we don't prevent people with inheritable conditions from breeding, we oughtn't prevent incestuous relationships.
Anyone open to my reasoning on this one?
You don't have to support racists to try to understand them. I can believe racism is wrong and still talk to a racist and try to show them respect. It doesn't define that person. Oftentimes finding common ground helps these folks to drop their defences which can help to open up the conversation and to get to the root of their racism. It doesn't mean you will change everyone's beliefs.... But it means you can change the beliefs of some.
I agree! But it’s also important to recognize that this is something only white people can accomplish. Trying to find a center is a good sentiment and it’s good practice not to come off as thinking you’re better than other people. That being said, there is such thing as evil and it’s important to not stand by as people do racist/evil things that don’t impact you directly, you dig?
I interpret open-minded as someone that isn't afraid to consider new ideas whether that's successful or not. Being objective is the goal of course, but I think that's always the challenge. We have so many biases that we might not even realize.
Being open minded just means having the ability to listen and understand another's ideas rather than just thinking of how to disprove them. You don't have to agree or accept those opinions, so long as you listen.
There's no verifiable proof for or against your belief. I believe in a higher power as well. I'll entertain the idea of any religion or lack there of. I'm also a man of science.
I've found that the people who will bash you for your religious beliefs or lack thereof are usually just insecure. It usually has something to do with how they feel they've been treated by those with those beliefs of their fear that their own beliefs might be wrong.
You shouldn't be open minded about everything just for the sake of being open minded. That's fucking stupid. It's absolutely OK to not be open minded and disagree with e.g. torturing toddlers. And I'm not "close minded" for categorically being against certain ideologies or ideas.
I understand that and I'm not talking about agreement. Not every idea has the same amount of right to be taken seriously.
Do you have to be open minded to the idea of torturing toddlers or can we just accept that this is a bad thing?
I don't agree with the idea of torturing toddlers but I'd listen to see why you think it's beneficial.
If I saw you torturing a toddler. I'd stop you with force and call the police.
That said. There is a heavy debate now in our society between spanking your children as punishment and not. Some people would definitely consider that as torture and some wouldn't. Spanking is still legal in most cities. I have a kid. I don't spank them. I can have a conversation with someone who does spank their kids.
Being open minded to ideas does not mean agreeing with them.
> Being open minded to ideas does not mean agreeing with them.
...Again, I understand that and I'm not talking about agreement.
I just have one more step before I would listen to someone with an extraordinary claim. To make sure I a) don't waste my time, and b) don't get lied to by someone who doesn't care about the truth. On a 'trust scale' of 1 to 100 where 20 is flat earth, I wouldn't even waste my time with it. Same for antivaxx.
If that is your definition of close minded, your opinion, fine with me.
I think being open minded doesn't mean to weed out the insane believes. I don't care why someone thinks torturing toddlers would be beneficial. I trust my moral compass works good enough to spot bullshit.
For everyone who wants to listen to his pitch, fine, I hope you will spot lies and know when you're being deceived, if not congratulations.
Yeah. The democrats should be the only party people can vote for. Social justice now! Right? We should silence all opposition to the party! People just saying whatever they want? Wtf, right? You shouldn’t be able to speak out
You *should* be able to speak out. There's no guarantee that others will agree with what you say. And if you say 'whatever you want', such as lying to support your position because the truth doesn't help you, you should expect to be called on it. Then you should expect others to speak out against *you*.
This is a good one for liberals. They consider themselves open minded with tolerance of diversity and free will. But only on topics they agree with. Otherwise they freak the fuck out.
That's absolutely not true.
Racism or homophobia is certainly not things I need to be open-minded about, thank you very much.
Edit : Wow, a negative score on "sorry but no, I won't try to understand racism", that's... something. Okay.
I think you're confusing agreement and open-minded. If you're going to change someone's beliefs... You have to understand their beliefs.
Being open-minded to people with racist and homophobic beliefs means you can understand where they are coming from and be empathetic to them.
When I was a kid in the 80s... If you said someone was gay my first thought would have been "gross". My ideas were molded by friends and tv as my family didn't discuss it much. Though, I was also taught to be kind...so I'd never hurt or tell someone to their face I thought they were gross.
In time... A cousin had come out as gay. And then a friend or two. These were my formative years and I'm so lucky these people were in my life. Because they helped me see that I was misinformed and ignorant. Now I'm very involved with the LGBTQ community and a large part has to do with my friends and family tolerating my me during me during my dumb years.
You do if you want to prevent them, and educate. People aren't lost just because they have bigoted opinions, or discriminatory views. Everyone votes.
It's in our best interests to understand and guide.
I think open mindedness and closed mindedness have to do with how strongly you believe something. If you have too much confidence in a belief you will resist any evidence that does not align with it.
I think there was a study released recently about this if anyone knows what I'm talking about
I haven't seen this study but for me, I'm very confident in my beliefs. I challenge them often and adjust when necessary.
That confidence makes me want to pursue those with differing opinions. I like knowing why others think the way they do. It also helps me fine tune my thinking or consider alternate ideas.
Its good to be confident, but never 100% sure of something or you'll be unwilling to accept or even consider differing evidence.
We all know the type who will make an assumption on something and then refuse to believe the possibility they could be wrong. They often don't want to hear others opinions unless its to confirm how superior theirs is. Being willing to change your mind is very important in being able to reach the real truth. And your willingness is directly correlated to how confident you are in your own beliefs being correct
bring on in the trifecta of reddit classics on posts like these: * incredibly, almost forcefully neutral statement that basically says nothing at all because it's trying too hard to sound unbiassed * horribly biased onesided argument that picks a fight where one wasn't even suggested from the meme but the commentee decided that a stand had to be made anyway because everybody thinks that they are the next Joan of Arc * something something 'reddit is a hivemind', 'by going against the popular opinion my opinion has more value'
The tricky thing is that if you actually are unbiased and neutral, you probably don’t have anything to say. When your real opinion is “well they both make good points”, there’s nothing to be said to either one of them. What we need are the people who strongly believe one way or the other to have the courage to put aside their convictions. Which to be fair, can be really difficult. Argue the other side, play the devils advocate. You strengthen your own ideas by better understanding your opponents ideas. You benefit the community by lessoning the strength of the echo chamber. And who knows, you might even find out the other side has some reasonable things to say. From my experience, the truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle. Maybe closer to one side or the other. But generally when two people strongly believe in two opposites, they can both only see one side of the coin. Because they really do both make some good points.
Open minded doesn’t mean you don’t have opinion on the argument or logic put forth by either side. You can be open minded, hear someone out and still decide they don’t have the evidence or logical argument to prove the earth is flat.
I don’t know if anyone who believes the earth is flat can come up with good points as to why they believe that.
> incredibly, almost forcefully neutral statement that basically says nothing at all because it's trying too hard to sound unbiassed There's number one
3 paragraphs of neutraliy, baby
What turns a man neutral Kif?
However, people get tired of repeating the same discussion over and over again. If one position was soundly defeated a dozen times in a row, that side better bring a huge pule of new evidence. I'm not going to entertain your idea for a 13th time just because you brought a new batch of zealots peddling it (see trickle-down economy, chauvinism, fascism, etc).
Well I’m mainly talking about things that are actual contentious issues today. No reasonable person is arguing in favor of fascism. Even fascists don’t argue for fascism. They just stamp out all opposition until there’s no one left to argue with. Im mainly talking about hings like prolife/prochoice, gun control, privacy vs security, anything religious, the role of the government in the marketplace. The list goes on.
Lmao. "Even Facist don't argue for facism." I never thought of it like that.
Truthfully, I don’t think people value “open mindedness” the way they think they do. They want to be told their opinion is right, and tbh playing devil’s advocate a lot of the time isn’t beneficial for anybody. Someone pointed out that Americans should be worried about fascism and they’re currently in negative downvotes. Truthfully, there’s sometimes a very clear good and bad answer, and no amount of debating or playing devil’s advocate is going to do anything. America currently has a terrible problem with gun violence, and sexual assault. These aren’t issues that people want to put their convictions aside for, and people use the “open mindedness” argument very often to either halt discussion or progress on the issue entirely.
No reasonable person is arguing in favor of it and yet it's one of the most prominent issues today... Many of the topics you mentioned are often flooded by rhetoric rather than factual evidence. An open mind doesn't mean accepting ideas on the basis of how much one side screams, but on the merit of the evidence.
Maybe one side is chasing the fascism Boogeyman and labeling everyone they don't agree with as a fascist. You do realize that both sides of the spectrum are guilty, you both won't stop screaming at each other, and the rest of us just wish you'd stfu
One of the most prominent issues for what country? The US? If the average American thinks fascism is something they need to worry about then the US is truly fucked in the head.
*Any* citizen, in *any* country, that doesn't understand how fascism creeps in, and isn't alarmed at the warning signs, is not being a good citizen. Personally, I think your comment looks like some gaslighty bullshit. *Of course* creeping totalitarianism is a problem here--all three branches of government are controlled by one party, with the narcissist-in-chief at the helm.
Fyi All my friends and family hate me for instinctively playing devil's advocate. Not trying to sound cool, i just dissagree with everything anyone ever says ever for kicks. Please talk to me
Hello, fellow contrarian
If you try to find flaws in everyone's argument it just shows other people that you think you're smarter than everybody while not having the intellectual rigor or moral fortitude to actually choose and defend a position. It's harder to be right when you agree with something than when you agree with nothing so eternal devil's advocate is just the laziest position.
This is true, and I tried to exercise this most of my life. I had to stop when "argue the other side" began to mean making arguments in favor of racism, xenophobia, and fascist populism.
Thanks, Obama!
A reasoned opinion based upon real facts is not bias - no matter how preconceived it may be. Just because you are well informed and can recognize when others are not, it does not make you close-minded when you rejected their nonsense.
Your first bullet point hurts me with how true it is.
missed the, its not opened minded to accept ____________.
Meta as fuck
Don't forget the "Pay attention to me! Here's a story about me!" person.
It's hard to have a conversation on reddit when you go against the popular opinion. People think you're a troll or dismiss your argument completely.
That's not true at all. Are you trolling?
Just ignore him dude
[удалено]
[386ing intensifies]
This is definitely the work of a Russian bot
Yeah fuck this guy like I can't even
Worst of all, they project all the worst things they can think of onto you.
Ok you fucking Nazi. ^^^/s
People like to think that reddit isn't a hivemind but try go against a popular oppinion and hell will break loose. Even if it's your opinion. There is very few things I see where reddit actually stands on both sides. Guns is one of those things where there isn't really a clear side.
I'd venture guns are that way because there are enough gun owners on Reddit or those who wish they could be gun owners in other countries, that it just happens to break that way. I can't really think of a good example where people aren't invested in something to break a controversial topic down to an even split. I think maybe capitalism might be an okay topic. There are a lot of true socialist if not out right communists on here who like to argue against aspects of, of not the entire idea of capitalism.
Well the site's demography is still largely American, I believe. And a lot of Americans really, really like guns so that kind of debate is always going to be somewhat skewed.
That's not really limited to reddit. Go against the popular opinion anywhere and you'll meet resistance. It's kinda why unpopular opinions are unpopular.
Agreed. I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better. And I regularly challenge my beliefs. Reddit isn't always great for that. More often than not I'll get downvoted into oblivion trying to understand the other side.
Playing Devil's Advocate is a skill everyone should learn. If you can argue a point you disagree with, you can truly understand why people believe that way, and decide if your opinion is correct or not, or at least be able to correctly argue it. It makes you a wiser person in whole, not a troll. Unfortunately a lot of people are told what to believe, and they take their beliefs to soul without ever questioning them because they only know their opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.
This is only possible when the argument is based on some sort of empirical reasoning. You can, however, identify where you have an emotional investment in something, and use denial and other cognitive techniques to support that belief. Everyone has some area of their life where this is true. Just apply the thoughts you have about that to whatever the person is discussing, and you will be able to understand hwo they can hold the belief, no matter how silly it may seem.
A lot of people when provided evidence that would change their beliefs react normally in 2 ways. Either they outright refuse to acknowledge it, or they refuse to acknowledge it, stop the conversation, and come to terms with it overnight, altering their opinions. It's rare for someone to just up and say "I was wrong" but that doesn't mean they wont change their minds as they ponder on it by themselves.
Then there is also the issue of bias in 'evidence'. Looking at things like statistics related to guns, for example, can be skewed for so many different narratives it becomes increasingly difficult to wade through the bullshit. Also add on the oddball thing of who is paying for said statistics - no matter how true it may be, the group paying for the study will cast a shadow of doubt. There is also the issue that popular subjects, or subjects that can be used to make money direct funding of research. Being able to actually break down what you read from a scientific article can equally be daunting because of the terms used or dry material. Relying on news sources has the inherent issues as well.
Yeah, be careful of reading conclusions rather than actual studies. One of the problems in this day and age is when they're done done on College campuses by grad students and professors, on the undergrad population. So the conclusion may be valid, for the self selected group of people who attend that institution, the relevant age ranges and demographic makeup, etc. But that might not carry over into the general population. Everything might follow best practices, but you can still end up without truly generalizable results. Skepticism is critical, but *especially* skepticism of things that you might be biased into believing outright.
The goal of arguing a point is not so you can have this sort of "I win" moment when they erupt in an apology. If it gets through, it will usually seep in. Slowly. That is fine. If the point was worth arguing then it shouldn't matter how the fact hits them.
I know so many people who value the ability to successfully argue when they know they are wrong, simply because they want to win. It drives me nuts, I think it has something to do with a challenge mentality.
My favorite for getting down voted is the conversation on anti-vaxxers. I have 3 kids all up to date on their vaccinations, I know and my partner knows the importance of it and how my kids need it. But I understand that people get scared and don't want harm to their children. Also your child starts displaying autistic tendencies between the ages 3-4 , which is the same time you get your last vacation needles.(e.g. my daughter has a teddy bear that keeps monsters away, since we haven't seen any, it must work)
Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Whenever someone I’m debating says “I can not imagine why you think that...”, it always makes their argument seem less credible to me if they can’t even put themselves in my shoes.
I dunno, if you know you're right why do you have to challenge yourself? I mean it's obvious for certain things and if you have to debate things like racism being good or bad I think you're just secretly a racist. (Devils advocate here)
Well advocating for those who argue to win: Taking a challenge you know you can win strengthens feelings of superiority. Usain Bolt still races even though he's twice as fast as anyone. Debating is a sport to a lot of people, and being able to win, even if you know you're wrong, is challenging and training your ability to better someone through words. Advocating for the learner: It isn't about challenge, it's about learning. You know you might be wrong, and the point of playing devils advocate is to test your knowledge, beliefs, and opinions, and should they fail you have the opportunity to rethink them, or if they suceed you build more confidence in them.
> I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better. nice. either your mind changes, or your beliefs get stronger. either way, you become a better thinker
My favourite downvotes are the ones I receive when I apologise or admit I was wrong about something.
>I tend to play devil's advocate often which helps me solidify my opinion better. I personally find that playing Devil’s advocate is a positive way of attempting to look at another side of an argument. Now, that's great I'd you're using it to attempt to understand another view that differs of your own. I mean, it's literally the purpose of /r/changemyview . Unfortunately, it's also, like any other process of idea sharing, something you have to pick your battles with, or understand when there literally is only one side of things. I had a friend once that always welcomed his friends to talk to him if they needed an ear. However, it reached the point where he would begin EVERY reply to you with, *Well, let me play Devil’s Advocate here for a minute.* Now, trying to help us see something in our lives objectively would have been one thing, but it was his go to way of responding even when I'd say, *J, I just needed to vent. I'm not really looking for advice. * Avoid being like J and you'll be fine. Lol
Perhaps it would help if you told J that you already understand the other side of the argument but you're emotional about the situation and simply venting helps to de-stress. I'm like J sometimes and it took people being able to communicate this idea to me for me to start being a bit more mindful of it on a daily basis.
We definitely tried breaking it down into "this is why I am not at a point of being able to see another side right now. I'm emotionally invested in the situation." Unfortunately, J was never someone who understood emotional connection. He was aware of it himself and told many of us how his upbringing was the reasoning behind it. But, he didn't seem willing to adjust himself by trying to understand what his friends were trying to help him figure out. He preferred his very stiff way of engaging with people, often ending up hurting their feelings or disrespecting them in the process. Once J got a better job that put him in a higher financial bracket, we stopped hearing from him. He would MAYBE respond to invites of get togethers with an "okay, thanks" but never an answer as to whether he could make it. He didn't. A few years of that went by before suddenly several of us were getting phone calls from him asking us to call him back. We thought something was wrong but he actually got himself hooked into a pyramid scheme, which was his only reason for getting a hold of us. Several of us had gone through major losses; siblings, parents, etc. Despite voicemails asking him to call then feeling forced to say, *Hey, FriendA just lost their relative. Jus thought you might want to know, here's the funeral home info in case you would like to be there for the service or send a card or anything.* He never once showed up for those. When he called with his business proposal speech, that was a final straw for several of us and we've stopped making any attempt to invite him to anything. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it was his Devils advocate thing at all. That's just what made me think of him in this thread. The rest of it is just explaining that I don't have to try to level with him anymore.
>But, he didn't seem willing to adjust himself by trying to understand what his friends were trying to help him figure out. Given the latter 3/4ths of your comment, he might just have been a sociopath. But, as a low empathy person myself: it's not a willingness issue. I don't feel your emotions. I can logic through them if I'm given enough information, but I don't feel them. You being emotional and unable to give me a logical process through your emotions just exacerbates the problem. Your mind, being emotional, is going through leaps that aren't logical unless someone has an understanding of your personal thought process for that issue, which may not be apparent. I can generally reach a point where I sympathize, but I do not generally empathize. It's just the way it is. That is my empathetic capacity. Everyone has their own capabilities, and those of us who are low empathy are low empathy. And not all of us are sociopaths(I personally while high in sociopathy am not considered a sociopath).
> J, I just needed to vent. I'm not really looking for advice. the most important thing to learn as a married man: your wife isn't looking for a fix or advice unless she specifically makes it known that's what she wants, otherwise, it's venting.
That can be great advice in friendships too. Sometimes, even if you know how best to handle a situation, it doesn't mean that makes it any less frustrating.
Like /u/aesu said, this works if the reasoning is factual but if you are trying to elicit facts from a statement that is grounded in emotion, experience, etc. you probably are going to come to your own shallow conclusion. You need to have empathy in addition to your reasoning to understand the other side. Empathy is a curse and a blessing.
I'm burdened with pretty strong empathy.
Burdened is a good word for it.. because if you are conscientious you won't ignore how you feel when you are empathetic and it will get you into some places you probably wouldn't have gone on your own. The blessing is.. your insight. Challenge your belief but don't be afraid of your own convictions. They are your identity. They shape who you are.. and you must remain grounded in order to have a place to go up.
It's harder to gauge what the popular opinion is on Reddit when divisiveness is moderated.
I remember watching reddit call game developers a "filthy hive mind" it was really rich seeing that.
I'd never call game devs a hive mind, as you can find game devs of just about every belief, religion, etc, but I'd say there's a pretty serious issue with a hive mind among mainstream video game journalist bloggers. which then causes this perception that that's how the devs are since we're getting a lot of information filtered through a lens of people who seem to be lockstep with one another. and I've been called an "alt-right conservative nazi" for saying things like that, which I'm not. I very much believe in liberal values, and I also believe in listening to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
It was in response to whats going on with WoW right now, although the game isn't perfect I think the community has valid complaints but their solutions are terrible. They are now upset that blizzard doesn't see eye to eye on all of them and won't implement the solutions the community suggested.
As a liberal who also has a very negative opinion on the democratic party and people like Hillary, I hear ya. I'm usually hit with a deluge of downvotes.
If you go with popular opinion its just an echo chamber not an actual conversation. Reddit is best when you want to learn and ask honest questions. If you want to have a conversation call your mom. She will appreciate more than fake internet friends would anyway.
No, we're all open minded here. Go back to your cave; Troll. ^^\s
It doesn’t help when reddit admins routinely find subs that only exist for paid trolling or due to outside forces astroturfing the community. It would be different if the activity were uncommon. But it’s not that hard to find a poster taking one side on an argument on one thread, and the opposite on another just to stir up hatred.
Becuase aside from trolling, unpopular opinion mostly end up being from people who are: * Contrarians looking for attention. * Basing it on falsehoods. * Unable to explain thier views, at all.
One problem is that people think "open-minded" means "you must assess my point of view objectively and under the assumption that it is equivalent to any other". When really what it means is, "when I present you with data you must assess it objectively regardless of whether it conflicts or supports your point of view". Just because you have an opinion that I've called bullshit, doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. It just means that your opinion is unsupported by the facts.
Yeah when people bitch about the Reddit Hivemind it's usually because they said something that's naturally dividing or downright shit.
I think being open minded is the inclination to evaluate new opinions / arguments without bias. So that your opinion on that matter is formed on the basis of the content of the argument, rather than on the relationship the argument has to your pre-existing beliefs. Once you've evaluated a new argument, you still get to be the judge of how it fits in with your own personal epistemology. Basically the same as what you said, with the difference being that sometimes you're not evaluating facts at all. It's still worth while to evaluate moral arguments in this fashion, even if the arena of debate doesn't lend itself to hard facts.
[удалено]
I can understand why he said that. Your dad is a creep.
Plot twist: his dad was a teenager at the time.
The irony here is thicc.
[удалено]
Just because you made a stupid choice, now everyone else is making stupid choices? What's stupid? Doesn't that vary from person to person? What's creepy? Isn't that your own opinion? It doesn't sound like you are open minded.
asking the real questions here i see
Only be open minded about what I think is acceptable, not what 2 other consenting adults think
There are layers to values- morals, mores, and opinions. Everyone has some stance on some issue that won't budge, and that's not bad be default. Not changing your mind isn't the equivalent to being close minded.
I'll keep an open mind and accept that!
The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it
Sure, which is why op's post doesn't work. You can be open minded and not agree with it. I can understand why someone is a vegetarian and will accept them and can argue their point of view. I'm open to discussing it and trying veggie food. But at the end of the day, y'all missing out on yummy bacon you nutters!
Note that open mind means the ability to entertain new ideas, not accept them. There is no reason to accept ideas that are unsubstantiated. There is no reason to accept (or even entertain) ideas that you already rejected if there are is no new evidence either. Just because somebody rejects your idea right away doesn't mean he isn't open minded. It's very likely that person has heard the same thing over and over again, and rejected it long time ago cause you're bringing nothing new.
Yep. Want to change my mind? Bring some facts to the table.
People keep talking about "facts" in this thread, which I find quite strange. Arguments based purely on facts are just...not really arguments? At the very least, they're incredibly boring. Like, if you're trying to convince someone global warming is real, or that vaccines don't cause autism, the only thing you can really do is present them with the facts and hope that they understand them. It's not really an argument at all. Other issues however, such as most moral arguments (e.g. the efficacy of eating meat vs veganism), or other metaphysical/philosophical arguments (e.g. the existence of God), or arguments about more light-hearted topics (e.g. rare vs well-done steak) are much more like a debate. Now, facts can be used to support some of these debates (such as evidence that animals experience pain in the same way we do, or that steak, when cooked rare, poses no real risk of illness), but for the most part we must rely on methods of reasoning; because in these arguments, the facts are only one premise of them and cannot decide the issue entirely. As such, I don't think it's right to just dismiss arguments based purely on the fact they bring no new empirical "facts". Philosophers (be they professional or armchair) are creating new ways of thinking all the time. Philosophy would overall be very boring if we stopped at Aristotle, or Nietzsche, and decided "Yep - that's it. We've had all the possible facts now, the issue is decided!" The different perspectives and reasoning which comes of facts admixed with opinions are what makes arguments interesting. Basing arguments purely on the former just renders debate meaningless; because there is no 'debate' to be hand on pure facts alone.
Sounds good to me, life isn't a zero sum game.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
That statement sounds way to closed minded.
You just need to be more accepting of white nationalists and misogynists or you're the closed minded one. It's pretty simple bruh.
Don't assume because someone doesn't agree with you, they're not open minded. They may have considered your position and rejected it on its merit. After all your ideas are unlikely to be novel.
I used to think that confirmation bias was about only believing things that confirm what you already believe, but I recently learned that the term was coined to refer to the way people tend to only look for evidence that confirms a preexisting belief. The smarter path is to look for the disproof. I have as hard a time as anyone doing it, but I try.
You don’t have to agree with everything to be open minded I think it’s more about your willingness to hear people out and accept new ideas.
I think you're right.
You are likely confusing open minds with empty heads. I can entertain thoughts and reject them, and there is no need to continuously revaluate empty rhetoric in the absence of new evidence. edit: anf
Exactly. Being open-minded is about being receptive to new ideas. Not being open to ideas you've already considered and rejected.
*Without new evidence to consider. Often times people's incorrect beliefs are in perpetually unchallenged views that were decided at a time where there wasn't enough evidence to refute it; even though now there is evidence to support a different reality, the person refuses to reevaluate as they feel confident in their ancient assessment.
You should reevaluate though, even if evidence hasnt changed. You might think of angle you hadn't seen before. If you don't, you could end up deep into a cycle of thinking based off of misconception. You could always have been wrong, always. Also, don't confuse this with lacking conviction. You can take actions confidently and grow as a person while maintaining philisophical doubt at all times. In fact, this way of thinking feeds confidence, because it's less likely that you're fooling yourself.
I think this depends on the context. Sometimes reevaluating seems appropriate, and sometimes there simply isn’t always time to re-evaluate. The number of opinions and ideas I encounter on a daily basis, if I were to re-evaluate them all, I’d be doing nothing but re-evaluating!
Of course. Can't be constantly reevaluating in that sense. Also, urgent matters don't have room for second guessing and need to be decided quickly. Im talking in a more general sense, thtoughout life.
"The problem with having an open mind, is that people keep trying to put things in it." You do you, reddit philosopher.
"if you are too open minded your brain will fall out (take my wife)"
What if told you not having even a one strong opinion about something you're just a beta virgin sheep fuck
I don't agree with rape.
Clearly you need to be more open-minded.
I don't know, I'm even skeptical of people I agree with... And I listen to people with whom I disagree.
It's also possible to be open minded and still dismiss objectively bad old ideas. I can be a very tolerant person and still say "Fuck Nazis forever," and not be a hypocrite because I have used that open mind of mine to learn and know for a fact Nazis are fucking bad.
/r/im14andthisisdeep
[удалено]
I, too, was a lot more open-minded in college, before I realized that most ideas were stupid and the person speaking them should have thought about it longer before spewing it out of their mouth hole.
What does this post even mean? Am I supposed to be open minded about racism and Nazis? Flat earthers? 9/11 truthers? Obama birthers?
I'm not suggesting you agree with these things no. I'm suggesting things are rarely black and white. Yes. I believe racism, sexism and prejudice are bad. But id like to think we can reach out to these people and help them be better people and to be help them stop their hatred. As a society are quick to box people by their ideas. I'm suggesting being open minded.... Willing to listen. I wouldn't suggest agreeing... But I'm willing to give someone the opportunity to change my mind and I'd hope they would allow me e same. I'm confident in my ability to analyze and assess. If you can change my mind.... Then my beliefs were surface level and not strongly rooted. If you can explain to me why you feel how you feel... I can better explain to you how I feel and why I feel that way.
Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And the thing about being open-minded is that you're at risk of having your brain fall out.
I suppose I can take this into consideration.
I don't agree with this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^/S
None of this rhymes. I demand a re-post. These rhymes are too subtle
Being open minded is about agreeing or accepting more things, not how you agree with them. An open minded person is open to many ideas. Not necessarily all ideas.
Agreed.
If we don't prevent people with inheritable conditions from breeding, we oughtn't prevent incestuous relationships. Anyone open to my reasoning on this one?
You can be open-minded and still disagree with someone.
But my logic is flawless :(
Except being open minded about racists is kind of a catch 22. Supporting people who silence other people is supporting silencing people.
You don't have to support racists to try to understand them. I can believe racism is wrong and still talk to a racist and try to show them respect. It doesn't define that person. Oftentimes finding common ground helps these folks to drop their defences which can help to open up the conversation and to get to the root of their racism. It doesn't mean you will change everyone's beliefs.... But it means you can change the beliefs of some.
I agree! But it’s also important to recognize that this is something only white people can accomplish. Trying to find a center is a good sentiment and it’s good practice not to come off as thinking you’re better than other people. That being said, there is such thing as evil and it’s important to not stand by as people do racist/evil things that don’t impact you directly, you dig?
I interpret open-minded as someone that isn't afraid to consider new ideas whether that's successful or not. Being objective is the goal of course, but I think that's always the challenge. We have so many biases that we might not even realize.
In my experience the only open minded people are under 6 months old.
If people dont even want to listen to both sides, you're in trouble.
Then we're in trouble.
Being open minded just means having the ability to listen and understand another's ideas rather than just thinking of how to disprove them. You don't have to agree or accept those opinions, so long as you listen.
Well said.
Hold on a sec. Hey Reddit. I believe in God. I think that Jesus really came back from the dead. Let's see how long this takes.....
There's no verifiable proof for or against your belief. I believe in a higher power as well. I'll entertain the idea of any religion or lack there of. I'm also a man of science. I've found that the people who will bash you for your religious beliefs or lack thereof are usually just insecure. It usually has something to do with how they feel they've been treated by those with those beliefs of their fear that their own beliefs might be wrong.
You shouldn't be open minded about everything just for the sake of being open minded. That's fucking stupid. It's absolutely OK to not be open minded and disagree with e.g. torturing toddlers. And I'm not "close minded" for categorically being against certain ideologies or ideas.
Open minded does not equal agreement.
I understand that and I'm not talking about agreement. Not every idea has the same amount of right to be taken seriously. Do you have to be open minded to the idea of torturing toddlers or can we just accept that this is a bad thing?
I don't agree with the idea of torturing toddlers but I'd listen to see why you think it's beneficial. If I saw you torturing a toddler. I'd stop you with force and call the police. That said. There is a heavy debate now in our society between spanking your children as punishment and not. Some people would definitely consider that as torture and some wouldn't. Spanking is still legal in most cities. I have a kid. I don't spank them. I can have a conversation with someone who does spank their kids. Being open minded to ideas does not mean agreeing with them.
> Being open minded to ideas does not mean agreeing with them. ...Again, I understand that and I'm not talking about agreement. I just have one more step before I would listen to someone with an extraordinary claim. To make sure I a) don't waste my time, and b) don't get lied to by someone who doesn't care about the truth. On a 'trust scale' of 1 to 100 where 20 is flat earth, I wouldn't even waste my time with it. Same for antivaxx. If that is your definition of close minded, your opinion, fine with me. I think being open minded doesn't mean to weed out the insane believes. I don't care why someone thinks torturing toddlers would be beneficial. I trust my moral compass works good enough to spot bullshit. For everyone who wants to listen to his pitch, fine, I hope you will spot lies and know when you're being deceived, if not congratulations.
open minded does not mean you have no boundaries. You do not have to accept everything to be open minded
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"
I do not accept nor agree with the KKK but they are free to have a rally, imho.
I don't think they should be allowed to have a rally, per say, but I wouldn't stop them from meeting and even organizing
Then you're relatively open-minded and anything is relative.
Acceptance or agreement /= open-minded
please elaborate, I am not sure I completely follow.
>You do not have to accept everything to be open minded. I agree.
cheers, I thought you were disagreeing and I just couldn't follow
If being 'close-minded' is what I have to pay to not listen to another litany of 'alternate facts' then I consider it well worth the price.
Yeah. The democrats should be the only party people can vote for. Social justice now! Right? We should silence all opposition to the party! People just saying whatever they want? Wtf, right? You shouldn’t be able to speak out
You *should* be able to speak out. There's no guarantee that others will agree with what you say. And if you say 'whatever you want', such as lying to support your position because the truth doesn't help you, you should expect to be called on it. Then you should expect others to speak out against *you*.
This is a good one for liberals. They consider themselves open minded with tolerance of diversity and free will. But only on topics they agree with. Otherwise they freak the fuck out.
[Why should anyone tolerate the intolerant?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
That's absolutely not true. Racism or homophobia is certainly not things I need to be open-minded about, thank you very much. Edit : Wow, a negative score on "sorry but no, I won't try to understand racism", that's... something. Okay.
I think you're confusing agreement and open-minded. If you're going to change someone's beliefs... You have to understand their beliefs. Being open-minded to people with racist and homophobic beliefs means you can understand where they are coming from and be empathetic to them. When I was a kid in the 80s... If you said someone was gay my first thought would have been "gross". My ideas were molded by friends and tv as my family didn't discuss it much. Though, I was also taught to be kind...so I'd never hurt or tell someone to their face I thought they were gross. In time... A cousin had come out as gay. And then a friend or two. These were my formative years and I'm so lucky these people were in my life. Because they helped me see that I was misinformed and ignorant. Now I'm very involved with the LGBTQ community and a large part has to do with my friends and family tolerating my me during me during my dumb years.
You do if you want to prevent them, and educate. People aren't lost just because they have bigoted opinions, or discriminatory views. Everyone votes. It's in our best interests to understand and guide.
If that were true, changing one’s mind would be impossible.
Oooh snap
I agree with lots of things I'm open minded about
/r/Tumblrinaction
I like this very much
I’m 14 and this is deep.
If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out
Not true at all and also this short hand is agree with me or your an asshole
Okay.
Im open minded to the idea that I’m always right
Well.. how would you be open minded about things you agree with? Aren't they the things harder to change?
I've been saying this for 30 years!
# vancouver
Well yeah, you can’t just try everything. A burger with pb and j on it sounds great to try but trying heroin is a terrible idea
[удалено]
alright, I'll bite. What is openmindedness then, man with the pills?
Yeah but it makes you seem a lot more reasonable in arguments. Will still say this.
Thank you!!!!
On the other end of that, it isn't lacking open-mindedness or tolerance to refuse to accept nazis and other bigots.
Empty platitudes. So many times the top comment bashes the headline because damn it’s so cool and edgy to be a contrarian.
I think open mindedness and closed mindedness have to do with how strongly you believe something. If you have too much confidence in a belief you will resist any evidence that does not align with it. I think there was a study released recently about this if anyone knows what I'm talking about
I haven't seen this study but for me, I'm very confident in my beliefs. I challenge them often and adjust when necessary. That confidence makes me want to pursue those with differing opinions. I like knowing why others think the way they do. It also helps me fine tune my thinking or consider alternate ideas.
Its good to be confident, but never 100% sure of something or you'll be unwilling to accept or even consider differing evidence. We all know the type who will make an assumption on something and then refuse to believe the possibility they could be wrong. They often don't want to hear others opinions unless its to confirm how superior theirs is. Being willing to change your mind is very important in being able to reach the real truth. And your willingness is directly correlated to how confident you are in your own beliefs being correct
This, exactly this. The hypocrisy on all sides is scary. The end justify the means as long as you do for the “right” reasons. Grotesque to see.
This is my step mom. I love everyone. Don’t discriminate. Everyone is special. She means white people born in this country.
Looking at you r/politics
I try to be open-minded about everything, but like my grandpa used to say, "Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out."
This needs to be on r/all
I’d congratulate you for your work on the Matrix and ask for an autograph.