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?

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

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.

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.