Close-minded
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Close-minded
I'm not closed-minded but I'm definitely closeted-minded. Here be skeletons. 0_o

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 12:21 PM
RE: Close-minded
(12-04-2013 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 09:23 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I am close-minded to long posts.

Dodgy Fine

TL;DR version

Every group (including atheists, free-thinkers, and scientists) have close-minded assholes in their ranks. Don't be a close-minded asshole.


I think in your TL;DR version that you seemed also frustrated that because you were the one person who didn't agree with the others that they seemed to not listen (close minded), kinda like a mob mentality. Am I right in seeing this? I hate mob mentality. Groups of closed minds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Close-minded
(12-04-2013 12:21 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Dodgy Fine

TL;DR version

Every group (including atheists, free-thinkers, and scientists) have close-minded assholes in their ranks. Don't be a close-minded asshole.


I think in your TL;DR version that you seemed also frustrated that because you were the one person who didn't agree with the others that they seemed to not listen (close minded), kinda like a mob mentality. Am I right in seeing this? I hate mob mentality. Groups of closed minds.

It's hard to say if it was mob mentality because A) not everyone spoke up B) some would not have dared speak up because they were undergrads or young grad students and there were professors in the room.

But in a way, yes. My frustration is because someone had to have at least thought to themselves "maybe." But they sure didn't say it.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Close-minded
Hey, Beard.

Yeah. That's the counterintuitive part. There's nothing inherent in science that makes people more or less likely to return to the discourse. I mean, there's the fact that really compelling evidence will make people open the books again, but other than that, it's just as monolithic as everything else. You shouldn't expect all scientists to want to return to the discourse. You should more be aware that many won't, and think about how to convince them to do so.

As a general rule, "should" has no bearing on "is".

I mean, I like to think that I'm a snappy dresser and that I know enough about ideology that I can see through it most of the time. But that's a fucking delusion on my part Cool I'm just as much a slave to ideology as the next guy (guy being an ideological term lol).

As far as agreeing to disagree to does not compute <head explodes>, I've always dug the wisdom of the Hagakure:
Quote:It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything else that is called a "Way". If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all Ways and live more and more in accord with his own.

To everyone,

You are all totally just waiting for someone to do this. Don't fucking pretend you're not. You asked for it. You fucking begged for it. So here you go. I HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!




Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
12-04-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Close-minded
(12-04-2013 02:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Beard.

Yeah. That's the counterintuitive part. There's nothing inherent in science that makes people more or less likely to return to the discourse. I mean, there's the fact that really compelling evidence will make people open the books again, but other than that, it's just as monolithic as everything else. You shouldn't expect all scientists to want to return to the discourse. You should more be aware that many won't, and think about how to convince them to do so.

As a general rule, "should" has no bearing on "is".

I mean, I like to think that I'm a snappy dresser and that I know enough about ideology that I can see through it most of the time. But that's a fucking delusion on my part Cool I'm just as much a slave to ideology as the next guy (guy being an ideological term lol).

As far as agreeing to disagree to does not compute <head explodes>, I've always dug the wisdom of the Hagakure:
Quote:It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything else that is called a "Way". If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all Ways and live more and more in accord with his own.

To everyone,

You are all totally just waiting for someone to do this. Don't fucking pretend you're not. You asked for it. You fucking begged for it. So here you go. I HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!




Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I was an idealist in my naivety when starting out in both communities. The realization sucks, but it came from an observation of my own developing closed-mind and the realization I had to stop it from happening. I have no idea if I was successful or not, as I would never admit being close-minded if I were.

Which is problematic... Consider

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: Close-minded
(12-04-2013 07:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) "Agree to disagree" is one of the most absurd phrases uttered by man. It means "I have my opinion on (insert political/social/environmental topic here) and fuck your opinion." There is no attempt at discussion, reason, rationality, or even the simple notion of trying to view your opponents argument from their perspective. It is a garbage statement.

And as Tim Minchin says in Storm
2) "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out." There is obviously a limit to just how close-minded you can be and still be rational (indeed, one might criticize my use of the examples of Big Foot and fluorine as such examples). But it is only with something that is either so obvious, that it need not be debated or something so ridiculous or odd, that it warrants review. Those that take it at face value (gullibility) are really just guilty of not having used their brain enough.

There is the fool and the hypocrite.

I'll agree to disagree with a Muslim extremist: I'll disagree that it is moral to blow people up in a suicide bombing, but I'll agree to not despise them and want them dead, if they only run, with their bombs strapped to chest, into crowds of foolish hypocrites.

Human beings are naturally irrational, and there really isn't any thing you can do about that; but we do live in a society/societies that promote being irrational, and ultimately that's the problem and the problem we can/need to solve.

I'd say for no longer agreeing to disagree is a good start, especially for people just in daily life. I don't think I've ever been scolded, chastised, demeaned, etc. for any action as much as I have been before for simply asking a question (or one question too many). It's almost like a good challenge: see how many questions you can ask a person before they start responding negatively or disregard you.

I'd have to ask if a negative reaction to thinking/questioning is something innate or something socially contrived? I'd go for the latter, and add, further, that it is something easily reversible.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
13-04-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Close-minded
I dunno..the whole "agree to disagree" is a polite way of saying the discussion is going no where. And I think there are times it's completely appropriate to allow bygones be bygones.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 12:18 PM
Re: Close-minded
But it shuts off dialog in the discussion. If the discussion is over sports, fine. If the discussion is over human rights? Fuck that. We are going to sit and hammer it out because there is something at stake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: Close-minded
(13-04-2013 12:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But it shuts off dialog in the discussion. If the discussion is over sports, fine. If the discussion is over human rights? Fuck that. We are going to sit and hammer it out because there is something at stake.

Oh I'm not suggesting that it's not unsatifying -- because it is. However at some point someone must recognize the argument has become circular. One can only restate the same things in different ways so many times before the realization sinks in. You cannot change the thoughts and feelings of everyone.

People can view many things as "human right" issues. That's a position of perspective. An example might be when people try to argue about reproductive rights as being a "human rights" issue, or capital punishment.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: Close-minded
Hey, Beard.

But your determination to hash it out stems from the premise that there is a single solution to be found. If we work without that premise, all agreeing to disagree means is, "We have differing opinions that are in conflict. We won't resolve that conflict because the ideas are incompatible. We could argue from now to the end of time, or, having heard each other and understood where the other is coming from, we agree with one another that we disagree with one another, negating the need for any further fruitless argument. We can now live in peace with one another."

In terms of the discourse, the discourse's function is not to determine the one solution. It is to generate knowledge. That knowledge is not the objective truth.

Returning to the discourse has more to do with checking in with how well your ideology works. Gender ideology is fast unraveling because of the pressures of transgenders, intersex, homosexuals and even for political reasons. People are demanding a return to the discourse so that a new knowledge can be generated that will lead to an ideology that better fits the need. It's not for, say, getting people to adopt a completely alien model that you might be proffering.

I guess to offer a clearer example, Muslims could return to the dialogue to discuss the ideology of martyrdom. To a large degree, the extremists within Islam have hijacked that discourse and, as a result, directly impacted Islamic ideology. A return to the discourse is about examining that ideology, not about abandoning Islam in favour of Christianity or Atheism.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Wrote:...if we move [a reference to the "Ground Zero Mosque"], that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

The discourse is about throwing out the bathwater, not the baby.

In Canada, we're in the throws of a discourse on public health care. So is the United States. But if an American tried to tell me that a private system was better, I'd have to agree to disagree with him.

I suppose that it could also mean, "Yeah, fuck you," but... well but nothing. That's a dick move.

In the end, I get what you're saying about how it can just shut things down. I think that all I'm driving at is that it can be positive in certain situations instead of just negative in all situations. If it's due to a hegemonic drive to restrict discourse, then it's negative. If it serves to let two peoples in disagreement come to terms with the differentiation of their positions, then it's positive.

To be clear though, dialogue is a very specific thing. Convincing the other or winning the argument has nothing to do with dialogue and is in fact categorically NOT dialogue. Dialogue is a form of communication that is simply about hearing and understanding the other person.

Daniel Quinn Wrote:Dialogue is thinking about something with two minds instead of one.

Dialogue is talking to someone else the way you talk to yourself. You never get mad at yourself when you're talking to yourself. You never lose patience or try to pretend to know things that you don't actually know.

Willingness to engage in dialogue implies a willingness to learn, but willingness to learn doesn't imply that you're ignorant or dumb. I think of myself as knowledge-able and smart, and I know that I have great and important ideas to impart to others, but I'm completely open to dialogue - even with people who know very little and have had little time to develop ideas of their own.

False modesty and false pretentions are equally obstructive to dialogue.

When I say I'm open to dialogue, I mean that I'm open to learning something from a conversation. What I learn doesn't necessarily come from the other speakers or from their words alone; it may come from the experience as a whole.

It isn't necessary to feel that you have something to learn from someone in order to have a dialogue. What is necessary is that you are both open to the possibility of learning anything at all.

People who are always learning are always ready to engage in dialogue. People who feel they already know everything or who are afraid to learn cannot engage in dialogue.

Dialogue can only begin among people who respect each other, who know the limits of what they know and don't know, and who can comfortably acknowledge those limits to each other.

It shouldn't be thought that "dialogue is wonderful" and "discussion is worthless." Each has its place. In simplest terms, here is the difference between them:

In dialogue, people are focused on enhancing their understanding.

In discussion, people are focused on airing their views and discovering the views of others, usually in hopes of seeing their views win acceptance.
-Daniel Quinn, "Thoughts on Dialogue"

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: