Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Here's a question to ponder...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Here's a question to ponder... - Page 2

post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeAmEye View Post
No, I don't mean that at all. I'm saying OM, being OM, should consider the fact that CM has considered all points, either previously or at the time OM presents it, and is firm in his/her belief.
But what if OM has spent a lot of time with CM and has come to a real-well-thought-out conclusion that CM is close-minded. OM can still agree with CM's opinion and think that CM is close-minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeAmEye View Post
Calling someone CM is basically saying that individual is not open to new or different ideas, simply because they don't agree with it (or atleast that's how most people seem to use the term).
Not true. Like in my previous example, OM believes that CM is correct, but still thinks that CM is close-minded because CM refused to listen to OM.
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamiTenshi View Post
But what if OM has spent a lot of time with CM and has come to a real-well-thought-out conclusion that CM is close-minded. OM can still agree with CM's opinion and think that CM is close-minded.



Not true. Like in my previous example, OM believes that CM is correct, but still thinks that CM is close-minded because CM refused to listen to OM.

It's a good question, and a possibility. That said, your example has one wrinkle. If OM now agrees with CM, then CM was right all along, and didn't need to listen to OM, because CM already had the right answer, supported by the fact that OM now agrees with CM. (not an exact science right there, I know)
post #18 of 28
We can not be truely openminded or closeminded, as long as human being has ego, logic and emotion altogether. It's rather subjective than objective, and is a matter of relativity. So... we could make an assumption but can not be sure it is a fact or not, because people do not act like a robot.
As I told you above, people called themselves as a openminded... think they are openminded regardless of what they really are. It has nothing to do with the fact itself. Let they do that, because they can. That's openminded... I mean, relatively.
And, as a side note, all people are biased in some ways due to their culture, education, way of life etc etc. There's nothing wrong with it, and it is good unless they do something bad to others. People called themselve openminded are acting just like closeminded is... I do not think that's the matter of openess. That's matter of manners, I think. Anyways, it is good to hear you're amused by what she has on others. :P
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeAmEye View Post
It's a good question, and a possibility. That said, your example has one wrinkle. If OM now agrees with CM, then CM was right all along, and didn't need to listen to OM, because CM already had the right answer, supported by the fact that OM now agrees with CM. (not an exact science right there, I know)
Oh I didn't mean that.

I used colors in my example because what color you think is better is a matter of opinion, therefore there is no "right" or "wrong". OM now likes blue better, not because it is "right" but because that is OM's new opinion.

If there was a way to actually "prove" someone's opinion was "right" there would be no arguments.

Sorry, if that was confusing.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeAmEye View Post
True, but how do we know when the line between logic/facts and emotion/ego is crossed in anther person? Is it possible that, in the example you provided earlier, your coworker has an understanding of the Middle Eastern culture, but has other reasons for his hostility? Perhaps what appears to be special rules for some cultures and not others is what's a play, maybe it's something else?
In this case I quizzed my coworker about his knowledge of his Muslim coworkers' habits, and he did not know very much. I thought maybe a little knowledge might help (in my least condescending voice ) but he just wanted an ear.

In another case, I found myself talking to a bigot at a company event. At first he told everyone he hated the French. I asked him if he had ever been to France? No. Had he ever met a French person? No. So why do you hate the French? And he told that old nugget about shady lanes in Paris cause the Nazi's like to march in the shade blah blah white flags blah blah hurrr. I mentioned that joke was about 60 years old. He went on with some other racial chestnuts but I was done. Everyone else laughed it off like he had too much to drink, but I had his number.
post #21 of 28
An open-minded person will be free to come to any relatively unburdened conclusion, should a conclusion be possible, necessary or desirable at that time (no conclusion is just as legitimate an option for many scenarios), after careful deliberation, including the possible conclusion that another is not open-minded or free, thus closed-minded. The open-minded person will be then open to reevaluate this position in the future.

Or to put in pectoral terms - this person is "open-minded":

post #22 of 28
My current working theory: we exist in an absolute system but interpret it from colored perspectives. Think of an absolute universe curved along many billions of points of individuality. There is concrete truth and possibly one right way of being, but that truth and that way aren't fully discoverable from within the relative landscape of perspective. Human beings bring a heap of stinking relativity to the table, and that relativity exists within the human system without much affecting the absolute system that encompasses it. The absolute system both can and certainly can't apply to beings that experience it differently, especially since the relative system is contained within the absolute. One's ability to identify as much as is possible the absolute system and the relative system in conjunction makes one somewhat capable of determining whether another person's opinions are evidence of closed mindedness. Usually closed mindedness is recognizable by its tendency to try to limit possibility. But that raises another question: is it possible to be too open minded?
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpredator View Post
Usually closed mindedness is recognizable by its tendency to try to limit possibility. But that raises another question: is it possible to be too open minded?
In common language, yes. I proper definition, no. It's the same with 'liberal'. To be "too open minded" would technically require a lack of perceived correct option(s) or perspective, no? Idea(s)/possibilities the 'viewer' would not be 'open to', right? In that case the person would still be not open-minded enough.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessingx View Post
In common language, yes. I proper definition, no. It's the same with 'liberal'. To be "too open minded" would technically require a lack of perceived correct option(s) or perspective, no? Idea(s)/possibilities the 'viewer' would not be 'open to', right? In that case the person would still be not open-minded enough.
But in simpler terms () let's just say that someone is open minded about everything. A smörgåsbord of everything being possible. Nothing more correct than anything else. Each and every idea exactly as valid as the next. Not too open minded?
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpredator View Post
Nothing more correct than anything else. Each and every idea exactly as valid as the next. Not too open minded?
It might make entry-level Buddhists happy, but your scenario requires the limitation of every idea being equal. Being open-minded would allow that every idea may or may not be equal. If I can assume a bit about your test scenario, all ideas or possibilities being equal would have to have some negative consequence (non-judgement, circular mental trap, non-continued progress, etc.) to imply 'too much', correct? In that case a 'solution' would be ranking all ideas or possibilities as unequal. One or more could indeed be better than the others. It's passing judgement - an action among the possibilities for an open-minded person to do. Being 'open' to this ranking would still be desired over the closed thinking rule of all ideas are necessarily equal. Thus your scenario is about closed-mindedness, not open.

To put it another way, if you create a test where you sit in a comfortable position and stare at a light bulb for X days, attempting to understand all of its 'light bulb-ness', until something negative, from your tests perspective, happens that you term 'too open-minded' - lose job, worry family, starve to death, etc., it's being closed to the possibility of going into work/calling family/eating/etc. that is the problem, not being open to those options.

Closed-thinking can of course appear open. Like a broken clock twice a day, a correct choice can occasionally be made by coincidentally being only 'open' to it.

There's something interesting about tense, that we tend to use 'open' instead of 'opened' and 'closed' instead of 'close' when discussing these perspectives.
post #26 of 28
I think the answer is simply that a truly open minded person accepts that others have different opinions and that this doesn't mean that they are open or closed minded - just wed to an opinion at this stage of their life.

A truly open minded person knows that even those who might be considered closed minded are that way because of their belief systems, prejudices and life experiences. The open minded person accepts this and that that others don't have to see the world the same way.

The truly open minded person would probably not try to convince someone that their opinion is better.

Using the example above:

Open-minded (OM) believes that red is the best color in the world.

Close-minded (CM) believes that blue is the best color in the world.

CM explains to OM why blue is the best color in the world (it's the color of the sky, the color of the ocean, blah, blah blah...)

OM attempts to explain to CM why he thinks red is better, but CM refuses to listen entirely.

After considering all of CM's points, OM now believes that blue is indeed the best color in the world. OM thinks that CM has considered this deeply and did an excellent job of convincing him.

Hence, OM is open-minded about the fact that someone had probably considered this more than he had and had a very convincing argument, and that CM is a rude ass for not providing him with the opportunity to express his views.

Closed minded-ness and being an ass are two different things.

The closed minded option would have been to disagree with CM because he's an ass. The open minded thing to do is accept an alternative view even if it is offered by a rude ass.
post #27 of 28
That's a stupid question.

But a stupid question is one that's not asked.

But that question has just been asked.

So it's not a stupid question.

As far as colors; I have happy memories of driving a pretty red Austin Healey under a pretty blue sky, so that's my answer.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessingx View Post
Or to put in pectoral terms - this person is "open-minded"
Or simply open-crotched.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Here's a question to ponder...