Close Minds vs Open minds

[NoID10ts]

I hear the words "open minded" and "close minded" used a great deal (here and elsewhere) and have been thinking about it alot lately. As INTP's, I think we almost use the words "close minded" as a form of insult. I have been wondering about this concept and am just curious what others think.

What do we mean when we say someone is "close minded"? To me, that means they are not open to new ideas. But could it be that some people we refer to as "close minded" are actually "open minded" people who are just not enamored with our particular ideas? I suspect that just because someone doesn't accept a premise, doesn't necessarily mean they are "close minded". It just means they disagree, and maybe passionately so. I think there must be a distinction made.

If someone disagrees with you without considering or ever having considered your argument, then I would say they are "close minded". But if someone considers you argument, or has considered it in the past, but does not agree, must they also be labeled "close minded"? Is an open minded person allowed to disagree or must they just accept everything in the spirit of open mindedness?

At what point, if ever, is it appropriate to make a stand for what we think is correct?

[flow]

I'd say a close-minded person is one who refuses to think. An open-minded person is thoughtful. Whether they agree with you or not is not the question, it's whether they even thought about what you said.

[Dissident]

This was partly discussed in the "who blew up the twin towers" thread, so Ill paraphrase what I said there bacuse I havent changed my mind yet (and mostly 'cause Im lazy):

Being closed minded is to reject something without evaluating it, without thinking it through. Being open minded is not to agree on everything (thats strictly imposible, and stupid anyway), but to consider different ideas serioulsy. Now, if you evaluate an argument and come to the conclussion that its wrong, if then somebody else brings it up he will think you are closed minded when you dismiss it right away, I think in that case all you would have to do is to see if the argument is exactly the same ot there are differences. Of course all that would rely on how good was your reasoning when you came to the conslussion that it was false (or the ammount and quality of information you had), if you were wrong it would cripple your chances of finding out that you made a mistake, which brings me to the next point:

It also means to know what you DONT know, to realize where knowledge ends and belief begins, and we should be always ready to drop our beliefs. As long as you dont have all the facts your idea about something is a theory, and those necesarily fallible.

So basically, being open minded is just that, keeping you eyes open and your mind active.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I think that like a dictionary will have more than one definition for most words, open minded and close minded can have multiple definitions. I see close minded in several ways, a form of stubborness, intellectual laziness and as the result of an egotistical mind thinking he/she is right therefore alternative ideas must be wrong and can be dismissed out of hand.
I see open minded as the willingness to explore other ideas, the willingness or ability to change opinions once previously unknown facts come to light or the ability to recognise and admit to being wrong when evidence proves such.

I'm about to leave for the evening so I don't have time to find a link to this but a study recently concluded with people who considered themselves conservative and those who considered themselves liberal (American definitions of the terms) found that conservatives were more likely to be originally skeptical of a story but oddly enough when presented with evidence discrediting that story, they became more likely to believe it. It was odd and I'm doing a terrible job of describing it so if anyone wants me to find the link to the story, just say so and I'll try to find it tomorrow.

[Agent Intellect]

i like to think of myself as open minded, but i'm not always too sure. a lot of times i feel like my own logic is so strong (and if you met some of the people i work with, you'd agree with me most of the time) that i sometimes, usually unconsciously, disregard others opinions outright. much of the time, if i take a while for some of my good ol' introverted self reflection, i'll get that "damn, that actually makes sense!" feeling, even if i initially dismissed it.

i guess, to me, being open minded is being open to other logic. i consider myself a fairly logical person, and i usually trust my own, but there are certainly times where someone else will drop a logic bomb on me and make me reconsider my own. being open minded to me is being able recognize when someone elses logic makes more sense then your own and being able to admit it to yourself and to others that you were wrong.

and what Dissident said. i agree with that too.

[eudemonia]

I see open minded as being on several levels.

Firstly, there is the philosophical angle. Whether they have any knowledge of philosophy or not, an open minded person will sense the limit to human knowing. They will have a 'naive' social constructionist mindset - sensing that we construct our knowledge according to time, place and culture. Hence, they will be able to step out of paradigm - e.g. seeing the scientific paradigm and its values and epistemology as useful in a particular domain but also limited and limiting in other domains. They develop a certain sense of irony and detachment to knowledge and truth claims. They try to cultivate a 'beginners mind' where they can. They develop meta-cognitive skills - an ability to observe their own construing in order to deepen and accelerate their learning. Open minded people are always questioning their own beliefs.

Second there is the cognitive angle. It's late so I haven't really got time to go into this (or look it up as its been a long time since I read this) but Kelly's personal construct theory has these two notions of 'differentiation' and 'integration' of constructs. Basically, he claims the the more integrated a person's constructs, the more likely he will do his utmost to defend them. He claims that we have core constructs that are crucial for our sense of identity. Some people have constructs that are tightly integrated to the core constructs so that any change would cause the whole system to collapse. It's like fundamental Christians believing the earth is 6000 years old and all their Christian beliefs and their sense of identity hang on this belief. In this case they would be very resistant to change and not at all open minded.

You'll also be resistant to new ideas if your constructs are not highly differentiated. That's like a Christian who has few constructs on which to base his notion of Christianity. If you attack any of those constructs he doesn't have much to fall back on. However, if you have more cognitive complexity (like a mature tree with lots of branches) you can change your constructs much more easily because the whole structure is not dependent on these constructs. Changing constructs for someone who has lots of them is like pruning a tree; if you don't have that many constructs (or branches) then if you attack one of them then there's not much left. And one of your main vehicles for making sense of the world is taken away from you. So it helps to have lots of differentiation and very loose integration, which looks and feels like openness and readiness to consider other ideas. Also other people's ideas make sense to you; because of your cognitive complexity and flexibility of construing you can see their point of view.

Thirdly, there is the emotional element. The more the learning gets near to changing core constructs, the more pain and anxiety is involved. Also, the less you are in control of what you are learning, the more pain and anxiety is involved. So the more you can sense your own emotions and channel them to prevent defensiveness from kicking in, the more likely you are to be open minded.
HIghly anxious, angry and fearful people are less likely to be open. OPen mindedness I associate with calmness, curiosity, creativity and fun.

Fourthly, there is the spiritual element. This is an attitude of wonderment, curiosity and openness to the mystery of the world. People who think that the world is essentially a massive machine may cultivate a scientific curiosity but may miss whole domains of truth which cannot be rationally explained. If you have no curiosity for the mysterious that makes you closed to lots of thought systems. Its a bit like the first point - you have to develop a detachment from your own epistemology.

Fifthly, there is the behavioural element. Some learning can only be reaped by changes in behaviour. If you have not/cannot/will not change your behaviour you are limiting yourself in terms of ways of knowing and being in the world. For example, you may dismiss Tai Chi as a load of nonsense. But the only way you'll really find out is by doing it. If you do not try it then you are closed to this way of relating to the world.

Another area is values of course. This can be an area of great closed mindedness. Do we ever question whether democracy is really the best system of government. Do we question freedom or independence? How open are we to the possibility of taking on board some of the Islamic values?

There, sorry about that. I'm off to bed!

[eudemonia]

Hey, NoID0ts, I'm waiting for a reply. You more than anyone should know the meaning of openmindedness.

[FusionKnight]

"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded"

I used that quote elsewhere tongue-in-cheek, but I think it's actually quite true. Closed-mindedness and open-mindedness can both be virtues or vices depending on your reasoning.

[NoID10ts]

I have just been processing the responses. I guess I am examining this because I have been accused of being closed minded (dogmatic even) in some circles and then extremely open minded in others (too open minded as far as some are concerned). It just seems like arbitrary labels that are thrown around that all to easily become a way of writing another person off.

I guess my thoughts on this are that it is ultimately futile to try to know what is going on in the mind of someone else. The longer we know someone, know their history and their context, the closer we can come to approximating how open minded they really are, but it is all very subjective, and really comes down to a judgment call. Who are any of us to say?

I can lay out the case for atheism to a believer, and they can dismiss it immediately and I may walk away thinking they are very closed minded. But for all I know they have spent 20 years honestly examining all of the evidence I am presenting to them and already deemed it unsatisfactory. Upon my presentation, at that point in time, they immediately dismiss it, and I may get the impression that they are closed minded, but in fact, that may not be the case. Would it be right for me to describe them as closed minded just because they didn't accept my particular premise?

I also think it is impossible for any one of us to be completely open minded, because being open to one thing very often necessitates being closed to another. It is a matter of degrees. We can't possibly accept everything, and there aren't enough hours in the day to try everything out to see if it fits. We must use our time wisely and explore the options that merit exploring according to our own understanding. If that earns us the closed minded stigma then so be it.

I think the language of open and closed minded has become a kind of conventional wisdom. I hear it used to describe people all of the time in social, religious, and political settings and I keep wondering what it really means.

I think that we have to be careful about labeling people, period, but especially before we have the means to accurately do so.

But that's just my opinion and under no circumstance am I willing to change it.

[fullerene]

"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded"

warhammer!

[Agent Intellect]

closed mindedness is when people don't accept what i'm telling them as the truth. or, at least thats what a lot of people seem to think closed mindedness is. i suppose, even if you are going to dismiss what somebody says, if you can still listen to it, process the information, and come up with a reason why you dismiss it, that could still be considered open minded. its when people don't listen to what you have to say ("waiting for their turn to talk" for you fight club fans) or just immediately dismiss it on the grounds of... nothing, is when i'd certainly consider somebody to be closed minded.

i know that the debates on this forum have certainly made me more open minded. i don't know if anyone else has seen the commercials for that movie "Religuous" or whatever by Bill Maher, but when i saw the commercial for it, and heard the arguments he was making against religion, all i could think was "i bet the people on the forum would have some crushing counter arguments to that." and i know that, before i came to this forum, i probably would have agreed with a lot of the shit he was saying.

[eudemonia]

This forum has certainly made me more open minded about things which I never really questioned before - about aspects of myself and about others and their values. It has also made me more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments and those of others. I have changed my position somewhat and I also have new questions. So as long as you're learning through the discussion, like AI said, you are being open minded. It doesn't mean that you'll agree with what others are saying but as you let their thoughts into your thoughts an interesting process takes place. Once you let someone into your mind, you will be changed by them - in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Scary eh?

[Jennywocky]

Originally Posted by eudemonia

.... So as long as you're learning through the discussion, like AI said, you are being open minded. It doesn't mean that you'll agree with what others are saying but as you let their thoughts into your thoughts an interesting process takes place. Once you let someone into your mind, you will be changed by them - in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Scary eh?

I think that is one of the prime reasons people are close-minded. They don't know how their lives will have to change to accommodate new truth, and they do not WANT things to change (or have to invest energy to do so).

I agree with the general consensus. You do not need to agree with everything you hear to be open-minded. You just need to truly be able to listen and invest some energy in consider what is being said... at the very least so that you can understand someone else, even if you have different priorities and starting assumptions and thus cannot arrive at the same answers. (This is why reflective listening is so powerful -- it removes the burden from the listener to deflect the speaker's ideas and instead asks the listener to be able to repeat and hopefully follow the speaker's reasoning.)

That's part of "love" to me -- treating someone else as you would treat yourself, with equal validity.

I think where things get crazy is when people want to control the outcome of what someone else believes, rather than just sharing their own perspective and/or narrative. If you have a vested interest in having someone else believe what you want, now you have a power struggle and people seek to dominate. In those situations, people are more prone to become close-minded even if they are not already.

[FusionKnight]

You gotta be really careful though, because when you let in destructive, false, or manipulative ideas into your mind you will also be changed by them in unpredictable ways. Thus comparing the mind to a fortress. You do have to be careful what you let in, because it all has an effect.

[Decaf]

I think most INTPs are fairly confidant in their ability to filter out the really bad ideas. At least the ones that require logical reasoning to justify (not the ones that attack us emotionally, like conspiracy theories).

I feel bad for people with introverted thinking as their inferior function. How tough would it be for them to resist a compelling argument if they let everything in? I imagine the prevalence of close minded ESFJs and ENFJs is a defense mechanism. Maybe they feel bad for me for having to put a wall between me and the emotional lives of others.

[Jennywocky]

Originally Posted by Decaf

I think most INTPs are fairly confidant in their ability to filter out the really bad ideas. At least the ones that require logical reasoning to justify (not the ones that attack us emotionally, like conspiracy theories).

I thought a lot about this over the years and do have more compassion on non-Ti-primary people.

When I was growing up in the church, there was a popular phrase called "Garbage in, Garbage Out." People would use it as a means to avoid experiences and ideas they felt would taint them. I could see why it might be good for them, but I never felt it was very useful to me. At the time I just blamed myself, I feared I was wrong; then later in life I realized that I actually processed information differently than many others.

Basically, with many of them (especially the Si types), they take information inside and incorporate it without really filtering it much. Thus, experiencing something -> incorporating something. They HAD to install external filters in order to prevent themselves from absorbing bad stuff.

But Ti people in particular have a HUGE filter process that goes on before information is deemed "acceptable." IOW, we can hold a set of ideas or experiences at arm's length and examine it in detail before incorporating it into who we are. And we are very critical, so we throw out a lot before it comes inside.

(It's the sort of thing that allows INTPs to also observe and analyze things some people see as horrific -- an interest in the dark, macabre, eerie, socially unacceptable, etc. -- without being too changed by it.)

Thus, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is not nearly as useful for us... and in fact might even be negative because it would keep us from acquiring information to process.

I feel bad for people with introverted thinking as their inferior function. How tough would it be for them to resist a compelling argument if they let everything in?

Yes, that is why I sympathize with said people now and try to take that into consideration before I hit them with hard things.

The Si oriented people (ISxJ) have a big issue with Ne too -- they are afraid to try new things (including entertain new ideas) because they do not have the ability naturally to sensibly "intuit". until they get some experience, their intuitions can become full of paranoia and unreasonable concerns.

Funny how type really does impact the acquisition and processing of information, and I think we really need to consider who someone is before we judge their response to information.

[Agent Intellect]

the problem with dominant Ti people, i think, is they are great at filtering external ideas, but not internal ideas. we are more apt to be self delusioned by our own ideas and concepts that sometimes the external "filter" might already come slightly dirtied by our own ideas.

[Decaf]

Good point... I find a good dose of reality to be very helpful when I get off track (which happens with disturbing consistency).

[fullerene]

the problem with dominant Ti people, i think, is they are great at filtering external ideas, but not internal ideas. we are more apt to be self delusioned by our own ideas and concepts that sometimes the external "filter" might already come slightly dirtied by our own ideas.

very well put... which makes fusion's idea make a little more sense to me too

[Jennywocky]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

the problem with dominant Ti people, i think, is they are great at filtering external ideas, but not internal ideas. we are more apt to be self delusioned by our own ideas and concepts that sometimes the external "filter" might already come slightly dirtied by our own ideas.

I agree that that is the flaw on the dominant Ti's.

Every strength has its opposing weakness.

...although Ti is a judging process, honestly.
The logic process itself is pretty sound, it's just what gets fed into -- the starting assumptions -- that gets really screwy. Or the Ti judging process that thinks the "rules" are universal and it turns out some of the rules aren't quite so good.

Internal "ideas" actually is more Si or Ni, those are internal means of perception that are fed into the Ti hopper.

So you see Ti + Si INTPs who don't use much Ne, and they thus are working from limited information and just feed on their own preconceived realities. This usually happens because Ti + Si are both introverted processes, so the INTP can withdraw from society and just "churn away" happily, to avoid others. Ne is mandatory for an INTP to be healthy.

Usually Ni misuse happens with INTJs, who have a Ni+Te process ... so they have these wild inner ideas and all they care about is if they can implement them, and they'll push away opposing ideas because they can.

[grey matters]

I recently read a book that looked at open and closed minds from a different perspective. It defined thinking as a state of either open consciousness or closed consciousness. An open conscioused person can switch from one thought to another and another and back again with ease. A closed conscioused person has difficulty doing this but has better ability to focus on one thought without drifting off.

For example, when sitting in class an open conscioused person will focus on the teacher and then switch to looking out the window, and then switch to focusing on the fly buzzing in the corner, while all the time having a song in the background of their mind and, intermittently, wonder how it is possible for two morbidly obese people to have sex. While a focused conscioused person will focus on the teacher without distraction. Kind of like a horse with blinders on. With those blinders on that horse can better concentrate on the road.

According to the book there are different types of meditation techniques that can train a brain to think in an open or focused conscioused state.

Anyway it looks like there are similarities between open and closed states of consciousness and the common definitions of open and closed minddedness and also, possibly, of MBTI personality types. It seems possible that someone with an open conscious might be more open minded because he or she is able to entertain more thoughts. Furthermore that person might find it hard to be closed minded because of all the possibilities that pop up in his or her mind. Just a thought.

[NoID10ts]

Originally Posted by grey matters

For example, when sitting in class an open conscioused person will focus on the teacher and then switch to looking out the window, and then switch to focusing on the fly buzzing in the corner, while all the time having a song in the background of their mind and, intermittently, wonder how it is possible for two morbidly obese people to have sex.

That's just ADD. Drug them until their zombies, drooling on their desks, and they'll be fine.


Interesting concept. By that definition you couldn't even come close to calling me close conscioused. I think like I watch tv, one channel to the next and rarely settling on a program I can really focus on for any length of time.

[grey matters]

I wonder if there is some sort of connection between ADD and personality type. Exactly where that connection is is difficult to discern, and I blame this difficulty is due in part to the rather fuzzy definition of ADD. I suspect it has to do somewhat with open and closed states of consciousness. I could be wrong.

Perhaps I should just take some ritalin and go drool in the corner.

[Agent Intellect]

i'd say i'm more closed conscious. the problem is, what i'm thinking about usually has nothing to do with whats going on, giving me a real "head in the clouds" look. i often think so deeply about one thing or another that i'm completely oblivious to my surroundings. and, unfortunately, its usually about stuff that has no real practical application (as of late, discussions on this forum occupy my thoughts a lot while at work).

EDIT- its funny, though, it seems like once i really articulate something in my head to where it makes really good sense to me, i kind of lose interest and start thinking about something else, but before i have it to a point of good understanding, i can't stop myself from thinking about something.

[grey matters]

I think I need to make a small disclaimer about the book I read. It is an unscientific theory in that it is supported by very little scientific research. I entertain the theory because it is interesting and perhaps it has some merit, so if anyone out there thinks this theory is a bunch of baloney you may be right, but I still choose to entertain the theory until I can prove to myself that it is baloney.... and yes, I know that baloney is luncheon meet.

My example was of an open conscioused person who is bored. How about an example of an open conscioused person who is working on a problem. Another way to explain open and closed consciousness is vertical or horizontal thinking. According to the book a vertical thinker will bang on a locked door until it opens and a horizontal thinker will look for another way in. The goal of both thinkers is the same, the approach is different. Open conscioused people can take in more information and from this be able to come up with creative alternative solutions.

According to the book ADD people are open conscioused people, they can "hyperfocus" (in this context the word obsess seems more appropriate) on a problem untill it comes to some sort of state of resolution and then afetr this resolution they may loose interest. ADD people can "hyperfocus" (or as I say obsess) for hours days or even months. In order to hyperfocus the subjuct must be interesting to the person. Resolution does not have to result in a finished product like a paper one can publish in a scientific journal, it can be as simple as a mental understanding of a concept.

So in other words open conscioused people can focus, it is how they think when they are focusing on a single thing. I.e. they may be focusing on getting into a house but look around for other alternatives like a window, a roof vent, a cell phone to call to a person in the building for help, an axe, some sort of deception, and explosives might not be beyond the realm of possibilities either.

Now, A.I. please don't think that I am trying to stuff you into my little theory (which may be just a bunch of bullshit after all), but perhaps you are open conscioused I am just really bad at explaining the concept. I apologize if it seems that I have catagorized you or stuffed you into my theory I am just entertaining a theory and considering possibilities.

[Agent Intellect]

no need to apologize, i'm entertaining the theory as well.

but what you said makes sense. i guess the horizontal open conscious describes me quite well. i do hyperfocus on single things, but i turn the idea over in my mind and try to look at it from every angle in order to make sense of it, often times even arguing on the side i don't advocate, usually questioning myself and then attempting to answer those questions to myself. as i described it on another thread, my thinking process often takes the form of an internal interview, or as i see it a lot, someone who knows nothing of the subject being able to ask an expert to attempt to explain it to them in simple, articulate terms and clear up any inconsistencies that may arise.

[grey matters]

Sometimes I think like that, -as an argument or an interview. Sometimes I look at a problem like it was a multifaceted object. I turn the object around and around in my mind looking at it from different angles.

There is a memory technique called mind mapping. You can find videos on Yutube on this. Mind maps are like organic branching structures of related ideas. It's hard to explain. I see really complicated problems as a sort of 3D mind map.

The book I read is called "Attention Deficit disorder: A Different Perception" by Thom Hartmann. The book goes into how people think and how in ancient history (hunting and gathering or pre farming) the ADD way of thinking was a survival skill. And after farming was invented how another more focused way of thinking was the new survival skill. He makes a connection between ADD and open and closed consciousness and I am wondering how personality type can come into play (if at all). The author does not mention MBTI at all. The two big problems is that ADD is not clearly defined and the book may be biased to the author's personality type. It is an interesting theory but not very scientific.