Open-mindedness is good, but I believe it can go way too far.
Having an open mind is only a problem if it consumes too much time. You can have an open mind and not accept any new idea. You just have to be open and listen to what others have to say. Closed mindedness is the real problem.
I theorize that there is a portion of the mind that deals with critical, skeptical judgement, and when inhibited or dampened, this can result in large amounts of 'open-mindedness'. However, based on my experience of how easy it was to believe in just about anything, and being slyly tricked into various delusions based on fallacies, I favor slightly more critical analysis over open-mindedness.
Again, there is no requirement to accept the ideas. You just need to use your best judgement to separate the good from the bad. Most ideas are abstractions of something that exists in reality, so they aren't wrong, they just don't have the tools to express or define what it is.
However, being open-minded is also crucial in brilliantly being able to wrap one's head around new complex ideas. It's a great aspect of taking in information. However, I find it important (at least for myself) to take in ideas carefully, and at least resist labeling things as true fact, and be sure to realize that many things are still merely assumption, not excluding my own ideas of things.
That's more of a right-brained thing than open-mindedness. The right side of the brain can process large amounts of data. The left side is critical and can only process one idea at a time.
You might be surprised how much you believe that is entirely based on indoctrination. "Words" for example are abstractions used to communicate ideas. The meanings of words are indoctrinated into our belief system, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same definition for the word. The "soul" is something that is defined differently by nearly everyone, so when it's used by people they may not be talking about the same idea. So words are logically inaccurate representations of ideas.
With that in mind, you need to release yourself from the definitions of words to truly understand an idea and analyze it critically.
The same thing applies to math and science. They are not perfect representations of reality, they are merely abstractions to help people understand reality. People aren't even open-minded about math and science. They are indoctrinated into your belief system.
Science (at least the scientific method) doesn't deserve such a bad light. I admire how there is clear distinction between hypothesis, testing for evidence and having a good outline for procedure, and coming up with unbiased conclusions on sound reasoning. Sure, it's an excruciatingly slow process, (at least compared to some people's standards), but really, it should be. It's too easy for some of us to get ahead of ourselves.
Science is not the problem, it's people who use it to pretend like they actually understand an idea. People need to realize that they are abstract ideas used to simplify something so that we can understand roughly how it works. Having a rough idea of how something works is generally enough to make it practical but it should not be accepted as fact. Science needs to be challenged or it loses it's value.
I have used the golden ratio in some of my artistic designs of various stuff, and photography, because I do find it to be subjectively 'pleasing' for some reason. At least in some aspects, others not so much. I wonder how it can make me a better poker player?
How good are you at poker now? It's not something that's very practical for someone unless they have a good handle on the game and basic strategy. I'm referring to poker games with some shared community cards, like Texas Hold'em, Horse, or Pineapple.
I use it to control the table, the flow of the chips, and peoples emotions. I move chips to people who are friendly, and take them from the asses. The friendly people usually will help you out in return, and the asses end up on tilt. The friendlier people aren't usually as good so it makes it easier to win later in the game if you're playing a tournament.
You can use it to get a read on someone to determine the strength of their hand. I typically test them during each betting stage. Most cases I will know exactly which two cards that they have before the river.
My favorite hand is when someone plays like they have the Ace with another Ace on the board. Then when the third Ace comes out, they push pretty heavy. I've called with Queen high and won more than once in this exact scenario. The odds of someone having an Ace when there are two already on the board is not very good. In most cases it's still in the deck or another player at the table tossed it out already.
It works just as well online as it does in person. It's like reading someone without seeing their face. Most of the time I don't care what my cards are; I just want to know what the other players have and if I can beat them. At all times, you need to know every possible hand that can be made between the cards on the table against what people could have in their hand. So I wouldn't teach it to anyone unless they could at least do that pretty quickly in their head.
I'm no stranger to the experience of 'understanding the universe'. I've had a couple spiritual awakenings over the last decade. The indescribable experience of everything making complete sense, and being able to explain the hidden workings of everything happening is both eerie and euphoric. It was as though I 'cracked the code' to my mind, body and spirit, and unlocked all the beautiful secrets of my life and it's relation to the entire universe.
Yep, it's awesome isn't it?
A few weeks of pacing, thinking deeper, and mumbling all kinds of bumble jabbo, afforded me a trip to the mental health unit, and from that point on, it took awhile to get me back on track again.
That sucks. I had my breakdown all at once, and it lasted maybe 5 minutes at the most. There's no way to convince anyone of your ideas because most people can not let go of their preconceived ideas of reality. E.g. Trying to understand an idea without words is impossible for someone who depends on them.
Currently, where I stand, I look back to it, and perhaps I did have valuable unworldly knowledge, but I somewhat doubt it. It all goes back to what I said about open-mindedness. I think my critical thinking was severely dampened or inhibited, or a more common explanation; too many neural connections with excess of a dopamine neurotransmitter, in certain portions of the brain.
In my opinion there is lots there that need more methodical experimentation and research before coming to solid conclusions.
Yep, that is absolute. The definition of "indoctrination" is to accept something without critical examination. They say that education isn't "indoctrination" but it absolutely is.
Understanding something with just math or the scientific method, or with our limited senses is not critical enough to validate an idea. You need to approach it from all angles and criticize every part of it.
Here's an exercise that you can use to figure out if you understand an idea or if it has been indoctrinated into your belief system...
Take an idea that you are pretty sure that you understand. For example, the concept of "square".
Then imagine how it sounds, what color it is, how it feels, what emotions that represents, and so on.
If you have a good understanding of "square", then you should be able to answer those questions. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, but if you haven't thought of it to this degree, then how can you say that you have analyzed it critically?
Don't think a "square" has a sound? Compare it to a circle.
The concept of sharp and dull, jagged and stable, boring and worldly can all be used to describe these shapes. These are inherent to the concepts of square and circle.
Next test... Can circles ever be square without changing their shape? (the answer is yes, but what form would it take to do this?)
. But hear me out on this one. 
(not just talking)
)
