It's good to periodically see these articles get traction. There are so many logical fallacies that we need to remain diligent in guarding against them.
Lately, in response to the relatively intense polarization of beliefs, I've been contemplating open-mindedness, and whether discussions starting with establishing an open-minded context could get people talking again.
To me, open-mindedness means that you're receptive to new ideas and experiences and generally do not reject them outright. When presented with implausible or seemingly impossible information, an open-minded person will listen to the basis of ideas, concepts and information and weigh that basis before making a determination about whether or not the idea is true and worth assimilating. Or they may try a new experience with less pre-judgment of whether they'll appreciate it.
In my view, there is a critical nuance in open-mindedness: It applies whether or not the idea is consistent with what I already believe to be true. As an open-minded person, I feel that I need to regularly reevaluate my beliefs as new information comes to light, even if that new information directly contradicts a basis for a firmly held belief.
I'm curious to know examples that you've had where you've learned new information that contradicted what you already firmly believed, and through open-mindedness, changed your belief accordingly.
Sidestepping your question, open-mindedness comes with its own costs. Properly analyzing an idea takes time away from other things you could be doing, and some ideas are so outlandish that your life will almost certainly be better by simply making the choice to spend as little time as possible flirting with such absurdities (except insofar as you might enjoy toying with "what-if" questions as an end unto itself). Are you practicing open-mindedness...everywhere?
It wasn't that long ago that some crackpot tried to convince me that the modern atmosphere had damaged my lungs, so to replace the oxygen I was missing I needed to buy hydrogen peroxide injections. The claim as a whole either needs to have major structural flaws or overturn sizable portions of modern chemistry and physics to have a chance at plausibility, and my biases strongly suggest that instead somebody was trying to skirt legal oversight in order to con me.
Good point. I'd say that for any new information, there does need to be an initial 'smell test' threshold. When confronted with something so outlandish, I typically switch to making a judgment about the person and how their thought processes work. I.e., ask them to explain the basis of their claim and look for overt logical fallacies, which we all get better at identifying over time.
It's also got to be a matter of sufficient consequence to be worth the time.
Bayes has you covered, if your priors rank something as exceptionally likely or unlikely, then you probably shouldn't pay much attention to new information (especially when it's from some random person and carries a high likelihood of being misleading).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.
There are things that aren’t likely enough or important enough for the individual to commit resources to explore intellectually. But these things may be likely enough or important enough for society as a whole for some small group or even individual to explore and report back on.
That is why it is important to support your local crackpot. Much as staid English society always valued their eccentrics. The more ultrarational the person, the more important for that person to spend quality time at the fringes.
> Properly analyzing an idea takes time away from other things you could be doing, and some ideas are so outlandish that your life will almost certainly be better by simply making the choice to spend as little time as possible flirting with such absurdities (except insofar as you might enjoy toying with "what-if" questions as an end unto itself).
There's also the claim that someone is being "close-minded", when they reject an idea they have soundly researched and therefore need not waste any more time on. As Harlan Ellison so eloquently put it: "I'd gotten all the literature I could handle on the subject from a certain Thomas Aquinas" in regards to the god hypothesis. More often than not, "close-minded" is a conversation stopper, designed to deflect from the accuser's very own ignorance and credulity.
Same thing goes for creationism, AGW denial, anti-vaxx, anti-mask, the QAnon cult, trickle-down economics, etc.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance – That principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -- Herbert Spencer
I find that breaking the habit of being quick to judge leads to open-mindedness. This is also a tenet of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - your first thought and subsequent feelings that arise from that thought are often wrong.
For me the term "open minded" is a label for close minded people that believe specific things they label as "open minded". Say for example legalizing drugs. They don't believe in being open minded about whether or not that's a good idea. Instead they believe supporting it is the "open minded" position and not supporting it is the "close minded" position. They have a similarly actually closed mind about most topics.
No, I'm open to discussing it, I haven't decided, I've heard good arguments on both sides.
but, in my experience, most people that put "I'm open minded" in a self description are signaling they believe in certain specific policies and they are actually close minded about whether those policies are good or bad. They've already decided they are good and won't consider (have an open mind) to any suggestions otherwise.
It can also help to occasionally play "devil's advocate" and argue for "the other side". This forces you to seriously consider the weaknesses of your own side and strengths of the other side. I've definitely developed more nuanced opinions as a result of playing devil's advocate
I prefer the idea behind the steelman technique (as opposed to a strawman argument): state the position of the person you disagree with so well they say "I wish I had put it that way!" then proceed to refute the central argument.
In my experience, knowing about these so called fallacies may help us correct others but it is much more difficult to realise when you are making the mistake yourself. People just think they are too smart to commit these mistakes.
As paradox as that may sound, in a sense the opposite of open-mindedness is needed. There needs to be more social pressure on people to keep discussions civil and to stay intellectually honest. The problem right now is that people advance argument for rhetorical purposes only, in order to "win" instead of solving problems together. Social pressure to change that requires people to be less tolerant towards intellectually dishonest people.
Of course, I agree with you that open-mindedness is important when dealing with intellectually honest people.
The paradox is "pressure to keep civil" to you may not be the same to me. Numorous times trying to call out someone not civil will put you in the not civil category. That's why systems like HN aren't necessarily encouraging of open discourse. Many don't want to get judged, and judging is all many do, downvoting based on rhetoric and neuance (or lack thereof). And, the achilles heel is the downvote as the not-civil vote, except there is no discourse because you can't reply to a downvote.
I agree it’s good that cognitive biases and better frameworks for thinking get traction here (or anywhere else). However this blog post doesn’t look to be backed by any research, or anything else for that matter. I predict people just start arguing politics below this comment due to some of the lexical choices, for example.
Ok. Probably you are holding a very firm believe that from sending 1 Million in bitcoin tona random person on the internet asking for it, nothing good comes out of it. Please challenge this view. My wallet is... wait need to look that up
Lately, in response to the relatively intense polarization of beliefs, I've been contemplating open-mindedness, and whether discussions starting with establishing an open-minded context could get people talking again.
To me, open-mindedness means that you're receptive to new ideas and experiences and generally do not reject them outright. When presented with implausible or seemingly impossible information, an open-minded person will listen to the basis of ideas, concepts and information and weigh that basis before making a determination about whether or not the idea is true and worth assimilating. Or they may try a new experience with less pre-judgment of whether they'll appreciate it.
In my view, there is a critical nuance in open-mindedness: It applies whether or not the idea is consistent with what I already believe to be true. As an open-minded person, I feel that I need to regularly reevaluate my beliefs as new information comes to light, even if that new information directly contradicts a basis for a firmly held belief.
I'm curious to know examples that you've had where you've learned new information that contradicted what you already firmly believed, and through open-mindedness, changed your belief accordingly.