Quite a few threads I saw used the phrase as per the title of this thread for its topic description, often when it is some kind of an sensitive issue, when more often than not, it is still being talked about somewhere else on the internet or IRL. These thread owners are indirectly criticising, openly being unaccepting, which ironically, being close-minded on their own towards the other so called closed-minded people. I would think that the more open-minded you are, the more accepting you would be towards differences, be it the difference in cultures, beliefs, opinions, preferences, behaviors, etc; yet, what gives?

It seems that, all of the sudden, the people who are labeled to be "close-minded" are second class people who shall be seen but not heard. Are we suddenly blessed with superiority, that suddenly being "open-minded" means we're now free to be with the "holier than thou" attitude. Which direction will a discussion lead to, or is there a specific answer we prefer to hear in place of the truth of the matter that cannot be achieved with the presence of close-minded people?

So where do we draw the line? When we call someone to be "close-minded", what do we have in our own mind? What are we closing down to? What justifies this behaviour? Should it be changed? How?

I know we're not supposed to take things on the internet seriously, but even off the internet, these people exists. How would you deal with them? Would you be brutally honest and point them their contradictory behaviour? Why so or why not?

I don't mean to be bitter and cynical, rather than, as V would put it, "remarking upon the paradox" and be anal about it.

TL;DR: Some "open-minded" people are not open enough towards "close-minded". What's up with that?

I second what you said. Though at times, the people who have already made up their mind about a topic tends to ruin the discussion, without giving proper insight on why they take their stand. I think instead of labeling threads "Closed-minded, back off", threads labels should rather read, "No blind statements"

Also, referring to the idea and not the main point of your topic, I'll include another scenario. There are some, who claim to not discriminate others, but while they don't discriminate against race, color, religion or culture, they do in fact discriminate "those who discriminate".

The human race is indeed a peculiar race~

Its not how open we are to other ppl....it is to new ideas and concept and willing to digest, without stereotyping, arguements from others.

If someone insults your religion and you can calmly debate back and/or explain, then I suppose you pass off as being open-minded. Those that rage, well they just fail.

Can you please define what is open minded not really open to accept the closed minded?
I am a little confuse with your statement, my idea of openness is simply allow debate and offer opinions while people who already made up their mind keep defending their thoughts, they cannot accept being doubted and it interpreted as insult.

Psychologically, everyone would abstain or at least deny the fact that they are associated in a term or phrase that has negative connotation. Until we are at a certain maturity level, we can not objectively tell "O.K, this is a subject where I can be very open/close towards other possibilities". We would prefer to think "I'm open-minded", because it seems that being open-minded is cool, seemingly intelligent. As if there is a mystical progressive sense with the phrase "open-minded. It is impossible to be associated with "lack of [solid] thought", "inability to conclude".

I would consider someone to have much more bravery and wit, by confronting and addressing these "close-minded" (or other "minds" for that fact), people who, as you put it, have made up their mind about a topic. Only this way you can truly evaluate for yourself whether someone is preaching with or without substance, whether or not the statements were made blindly, to influence or be influenced.

For example, say I ask "Why is the sky blue?", we can have quite a number of responds for it; some answer will be educated be it religious, some scientific, some would be anal and say "define 'sky' and define 'blue'". This discussion can go to various directions, the better the participants at articulating their thought, the more beneficial to anyone who reads. Had I pre-emptively prohibited a group of people I disliked, I would have missed the chance to address the most common misconception that is related to topic at hand, thus, incidentally co-produce "close-mindedness".



If the course of action we hold as the principle is to discriminate those who discriminate, then the very first subject of such treatment is yourself, isn't it? Doesn't seem to be the case.

There is a word for it, and we're sure it is what we use when someone does not practice what he or she preaches. But what do you make of this? Can we use the word?

Indeed.

To be open and willing to digest ideas indiscriminately is inclusive of us understanding why a person can become close-minded on a subject, wouldn't you agree? That is, to understand how an idea can be misunderstood or believed in the wrong way.

But, how well can or shall someone express their open-mindedness? Most of them seem to be open in one part but pretty wide shut on the others. Isn't this inconsistant?

===========

I just saw two new responds, let me work on it a bit.

This post has been edited by Sukebe: Feb 24 2010, 04:22 PM

open minded = people that agree with me.
close minded = people that dont.

you'd be surprised at how uncannily true this is.

Preseverance should have little to nothing to do with how open your mind is towards, say, insult. I can be very open-minded by intolerance of insults. Vise versa.

Let's say I claim to be an open-minded person, and I perceive that you are close-minded. Meaning I can believe anything, but you already have a set of belief and you are not willing to change it, but always ready to impose.

And I made this thread should the case be, that I refuse for people like you to post in my thread, so I put at the tag "close-minded people, back off".

This action, to me, is at best hypocritical, at least without wisdom. To have a discussion in an open forum is to address the myriads of thoughts that will poured into it. You therefore should not target the people themselves rather than the arguments.

I'm afraid so. Unfortunate.

This is a very good clip on what open-mindedness is....indirectly, u will understand closed-mindedness.


This post has been edited by maranello55: Feb 24 2010, 04:40 PM

Nice video. But I do believe the usage of "open/close-minded" can be more than just for ideas or explanation, though it is more appropriate to use it for these.

[In]Torelance to others are very much related to how open or close-minded you are too. This is what I'm marking.

Usually ppl that are close minded never realised that they are actually close minded. Many ppl that I know that says that they were open minded don't even know the true meaning of being open minded. To be open minded, one must realised that any possibilties of the truth is possible. To be a true open minded, we must also investigate on opinions that we don't agree or believe in. The more I know the more I realised how much I don't know.

BTW what's the difference between being close minded and being narrow minded ?


.

This post has been edited by Empathy: Feb 24 2010, 05:12 PM

In the case of religion, believers are closed minded about their god otherwise there will be uncertainty and must defend at all course from intelligent words to full scaled war over the centuries, it also segregate people by gang. Everyone have foolish self esteem and certain level of ego that sparks argument to win never to ration, they maybe stubborn but is able to continue doing a job and live a life so it works for them.

Do they care what is open minded? I don't think so, they only want attention and win otherwise in misery of doubt.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Feb 25 2010, 11:06 AM

non believers are closed minded about the possibility of the existence of some yet unobserved power

Not everyone free thinker are like that, the argument is all possibilities rather than lock down / closed the subject. The possibilities trigger good fantasies and creativity otherwise a chair is just a piece of wood log or stone, such creativity is the drive of human civilization and we now believe medicine can cure compare to praying. Those who totally deny the creator / god is frustrated of the reality (misery of the poor) and believe in nothing.

Not true, non-believers have just not been provided with the significant proof of the existence of some "yet unobserved power". Though they(we, myself included), are keen to know more about this "yet unobserved power" and if provided with proper backing, are more than willing to be "believers".

This post has been edited by Mesosmagnet: Feb 28 2010, 11:19 PM

the very foundation of religion (faith) means that no backing of any kind is necessary.

lin00b,

The PROBLEM is most people are "Pretend" believer. If a person is TRUE BELIEVER, why do they care whether ANYONE agrees with him/her??

TRUTH / FAITH is NOT a popularity contest. It either is TRUE or FALSE. It does not change based on number of people believing.

As I had said before, a person can CHOOSE to believe gravity or not, it does not change the FACT that gravity exists.

A TRUE BELIEVER believe the existence of their BELIEF like GRAVITY. It EXISTS.

I am a TRUE BELIEVER. I do not need to convince ANYONE of my belief. It is THERE for ANYONE that CHOOSE to see. If they don't, it is STILL there.

Only "Pretend" believer has to convince people of their belief.

Dreamer

although commonly used in matters relating to the supernatural, open/closed mindedness is not only limited to that. i'm sure copernicus had a difficult time convincing the closed minded that the sun is the center of the solar system. similar problems exist now for string theory, quantum mechanics and all the other more abstract physics.

while fact remains fact no matter what, it would be a sad day for science and human when scientist go "think what you will, i'm not going to bother to convince you, i'm right regardless of what you think"

lastly, humans are social animals, the desire to be acknowledged and accepted is one of our main drive, and so we spend a lot of energy trying to convince our community of our views.

lin00b,

<< while fact remains fact no matter what, it would be a sad day for science and human when scientist go "think what you will, i'm not going to bother to convince you, i'm right regardless of what you think">>

We are talking about religion here. So, this has NOTHING to do with science. For a TRUE BELIEVER, God / Karma/ whatever will affect the person regardless of whether the person believe or not. And, a person will suffer the consequences of the non-believing. If a person does not believe that, a person is a NOT a TRUE BELIEVER.

<<lastly, humans are social animals, the desire to be acknowledged and accepted is one of our main drive, >>

For an ENTP like me, I am anti-social. I do not want to be accepted. Do not ASSUME all human beings are social animal.

Are you sure that you are an INTP??

<<the desire to be acknowledged and accepted>>

That is NOT a motivation for that kind of personality. That only works for F.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Mar 1 2010, 03:07 AM

like i say, while open/close mindedness is commonly used in religion, it has other real life implication in the acceptance of new information, science, religion, business deals or otherwise. you are only looking at it in the religion context and ignoring all other aspect where acceptance of a new idea by others is more important than being right.

ok, statement corrected to "most humans are social animals..." since when does dreamer represent the world?

and despite what you claim, i do think that everyone have a base desire to be part of a group. difference is only a degree of "how much".

and i did not say that acceptance by others is MY motivation, i was making a general statement that (most) people have this motivation. and i understand that, though i do not empathize with that too much.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Mar 1 2010, 08:31 AM