An Open Mind

[avevale_intelligencer]

So I saw this graphic on Facebook. I have no idea how to find it, and Googling the site it apparently came from (GoingToHellForLaughing) brought up several images that I would really rather not have seen, so you will have to be content with a description. The background is generic; the point is in the text.

At the top, in black, the words "I am a Christian. You can ridicule me. You can torture me. You can kill me. But you will never change my mind," are clearly the original text of the card.

Underneath, in lolfont, have been added the words "I am an atheist. Christians ridiculed, tortured and killed us for centuries in an effort to coerce acceptance of their claims. No idea worth believing requires coercion.[italics mine] I will still change my mind if reasonable evidence is presented supporting your claims." And then, "It's called having an open mind. You should try it."

The last line, of course, is entirely superfluous and makes the writer of the appended text seem arrogant and condescending, but that's par for the course, as is the petulant, pseudo-heroic tone of the original text in a world, or at least a section of the world, where very few people are tortured or killed for being Christian. The whole thing is a nonsense, just another FB soundbite intended to start arguments, because people for some bizarre reason enjoy doing that.

But it led me to consider one of those questions everyone takes for granted:

What's the virtue of an open mind? Why's it good?

I speak as one for whom the answer is obvious, on the face of it. I have an extremely open mind on many things; I am not only prepared to change my mind on what I consider to be reasonable evidence, I'm prepared to consider the possibility that there might be forms of evidence that seem less than reasonable to me and yet point as truly to facts as footprints or DNA traces. I don't know how much more open I could be.

In science, obviously, it's absolutely necessary to keep an open mind. In law, impartiality is the ideal to which we should aspire; not quite the same as open-mindedness, but in the same ballpark, certainly. But how about normal life? Getting up, going to work, watching telly, playing games? Does having an open mind about certain obscure philosophical questions actually help with that? I don't see how it does.

I've mentioned before that (to the best of my ability to imagine) a religious belief carries as much weight as a fact to one who believes it. It can't be abandoned just because it's unpalatable, any more than it was embraced because it was desirable. The fact that other people do not have one's own conviction, or see the reasons for it, makes no more difference in itself to that conviction than the fact that I've never seen an electron makes to the validity of particle physics in the minds of those who know about it; the "absence of evidence" that atheists stress is to a point as subjective, to a believer, as the "evidence" that believers cite in support of their belief. By which I mean that you may tell me that you have no inner conviction of the existence of deity, but I've only got your word for it; you might be plagued constantly by a feeling for which you can find no objective basis, be fighting tooth and nail to deny it every moment of every day...or you might not even recognise it for what it is. I might be in the same boat, for all I know. I can't know your mind any more than you can know mine, and that's why inner conviction does not fall into the category of "reasonable evidence" as defined in the graphic.

But (getting back to my original question) is it absolutely necessary, or even desirable, that everyone's mind should be open...or at least open in the sense of "willing to accept any evidence which one can be reasonably sure will never actually appear"? Am I happier, do I function any more effectively, for my lack of convictions? Would I be happier or more effective if I were to abandon a set of convictions which gave me comfort and assurance for one which might please someone else but would feel barren and lifeless to me? If I were able to be closed-minded on this, might I find it preferable?

Because the virtue of being closed-minded is quite clear, and it's the refutation of the italicised sentence above. If one's mind is closed to a certain idea, it doesn't matter how worthy of belief it is, or even how true; some degree of coercion will be required before the idea will be considered. The use of coercion is therefore not a reliable index of an idea's worthiness or unworthiness, but only of its audience's receptivity. Atheists today have it relatively easy where evidence is concerned--there is a wealth of scientific fact providing mundane explanations for things once deemed the work of gods, and legends no longer carry the same authority as historical documents. In former times, when science was in its infancy and no evidence existed to differentiate between myth and fact, to be an atheist (to be tortured and killed for atheism) must have been a far sterner, lonelier thing. It must have taken a firmness of conviction at which one can only guess, to hold to unbelief in those times of persecution. It must (it must) have taken a degree of closed-mindedness. And that closed-mindedness, in that context, must have been a virtue. (Surely?)

So, if my reasoning holds so far, the conclusion is clear. There are times when open-mindedness is good, and times when closed-mindedness is good, and times when it really doesn't matter. Neither is a perfect ideal for all seasons, and no reason exists why one should "try it" unless specific and unequivocal circumstances require it.

Not to try to force one's convictions on others, that is "common" courtesy, and I know Christians and atheists who honour that courtesy and I have encountered Christians and atheists who do not. But within the confines of my own head, the doors and windows may be as wide open or as tightly closed as I like; and the same for you, and for everyone else.

Comments

[batyatoon]

I can think of at least one way in which having an open mind is of immense benefit to everyday life: a genuinely open-minded person can't be a bigot.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

True, O Queen...but leaving aside for the moment the fact that while bigots are closed-minded, not all closed-minded people are bigots, and also leaving aside the fact that neither you nor I like bigots and we think there should be fewer of them...what's in it for the bigot? What reason can we give a bigot to be less bigoted that will make sense to the bigot?

The last thing a closed-minded person wants is to be open-minded again. There they are, spent years trying to shut the thing, sitting on the lid, bouncing up and down, forcing the locks to engage, so that it'll be easier to lug about, and here we come trying to open it again when they're not looking. And that's the thrust of my question. What's the virtue of an open mind that we can communicate to closed-minded people? How can we make opening one's mind seem less like unfinishing the symphony, unbuilding the house, unwriting the novel, undigging the ditch? What is there that is so all-fired great about deciding that after all you don't know something, when knowing something is so obviously the goal and purpose of existence?

[batyatoon]

Well, there is one obvious hitch with communicating anything new to a closed-minded person, which is that such a person can be astonishingly resistant to any communication that carries a message they don't want to receive.

(I say this as though "closed-minded people" is a set of people somehow distinct from everybody else, and as though you and I are comfortably in the "everybody else" category. It's a spectrum, of course, and most people are likeliest to have minds that are open to some matters and closed to others. But moving on from that disclaimer ...)

The benefit to deciding that after all you don't know something is that then you can learn better. If knowing something is as you say the goal and purpose of existence, and if it better to know something true than to be certain of something false, then obviously it's better to be willing to reexamine the things you know in order to check if they're as true as you originally thought. Sort of a mental cleaning-out-the-fridge.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, and that's all obvious and true from our point of view...but to the closed-minded person, it's equally obvious that they already know something true, and we're asking them to unknow it. And the more firmly their life is built on what they know, the more fervently they will resist.

I'm the first to admit that my mind is as firmly closed on some things as it is wide open on others, and I will be very resistant to anyone who, say, wants me to reconsider the possibility that torture might be a good thing. And understanding that resistance enables me at least partially to understand the reluctance of others to reconsider ideas that might seem to me obviously false. Take someone who's spent his entire life conducting enhanced interrogation in his country's name--his morality, his sanity, his very life, could depend on the strength of his conviction that he's done the right thing. An open mind is the very last thing he wants or, indeed, needs. For him, it's a bad thing. What could you or I say to convince him otherwise?

[batyatoon]

Probably nothing, unfortunately.

The problem is that most people who are closed-minded believe that they have already examined their beliefs and found evidence to support them. Convincing people of the importance of being open-minded doesn't work if they think they already are.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. Which brings me back to the question: what is the virtue, the absolute, communicable virtue, of an open mind? If the second guy in the graphic says "You should try it" and the first guy comes back with a totally understandable "Why?" what can the second guy say that will work? Where's the unique selling point?

And if there isn't one--if a life with a closed mind can be just as meaningful and rewarding to the liver as a life with an open one (however irritating either may be from the viewpoint of the other)--then how can we honestly recommend it? If we think open-mindedness is the greatest good, as I think we do, then shouldn't we in all honesty be open-minded about being open-minded?

[batyatoon]

Okay, hold on -- you're conflating two different things. "Why is this good?" is not the same question as "How can I explain why this is good such that person X will agree with me?"

The reason we can't prove that it's good is not that it isn't actually provably good; it's that people who are closed-minded will not listen to proof. That is in fact part of the definition of being closed-minded.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

But in the case of an abstraction, such as open-mindedness, whose qualities are largely subjective, "good" can only be defined in terms of the person doing the defining. Open-mindedness is good to us, in ourselves and in others; to someone else, who is closed-minded and prefers being that way, it's not provably good at all. They don't listen; but are they not listening just to annoy us, or are they not listening because they are happy the way they are, and if so how can we know they would be happier if they were like us?

We preach to the choir because nobody else is listening...but if we have no argument that can convince someone who doesn't already agree with us, how can we be sure we're justified in our preaching?

[batyatoon]

Because the operative description here isn't "doesn't already agree with us," but "refuses to be convinced of anything they don't already agree with."

I can actually prove the many ways in which open-mindedness is better. But if the problem with X is that they won't listen to proof, then the fault is not in my failure to demonstrate the benefits but in X's failure to accept the demonstration. This isn't a matter of subjectivity; it's a matter of stubborn emotional aversion to changing one's way of thinking, even when that change would provably be beneficial.

Refusing to try the alternative does not constitute a demonstration that you really are happier the way you are than you would be if you changed.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Okay, what would your proofs be? GIven that the reasons you've already mentioned, the opportunity to learn better and so on, even if they were listened to, would cut no ice with someone who believes they know best already...what proofs would you offer?

I don't intend to suggest that failure to demonstrate the benefits is a fault on anyone's part--just that, to someone who thinks differently from us, they are not benefits.

[batyatoon]

And I still think you're conflating "they are not benefits" with "they are not perceived as benefits."

I can't agree that the benefits of open-mindedness are entirely subjective. Greater flexibility when confronted with the unfamiliar, for one, is a proven survival trait.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

As is having a faster reaction time when confronted with the unfamiliar, because your response is predetermined and at least workable. "I know what to do because [Preconception X] tells me so; if I didn't have [Preconception X] I'd have to think about it. When I have seconds to react, how would that be better?"

We see flexibility as a good thing. Others don't. We may be convinced we're objectively right, but so are they. From a practical point of view, it's a difference that makes no difference, between "this is good" and "I see that this is good." The whole question of open- vs. closed-mindedness is about how we perceive things, and how we judge those perceptions; what intangible, immeasurable qualities we regard as absolutes, for good or for ill, and what we don't.

And the proof is that there are large numbers of people who are to an extent closed-minded on some subjects, and who regard closed-mindedness as an advantageous trait, who in terms of this world and by their own standards have done very well for themselves and ensured the survival of their progeny, often by employing that very closed-mindedness (ruthlessness, singleness of purpose, lack of imagination) to assist them. In their terms, the reason someone like me has not been as successful as they have is precisely that I am fuzzy-brained, directionless, a dreamer, a time-waster; open-minded. The survival argument, in the world in which we live, doesn't work.

[batyatoon]

... hang on, I think we may be working with different definitions of open- and closed-mindedness.

While there may be considerable overlap, there's a difference between a willingness to reconsider preconceptions in light of new data and a constant preoccupation with hypothetical questions. Ruthlessness and singleness of purpose have nothing to do with whether one is open- or closed-minded, in the way I've been using the term.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't think we are, though there may have been some drift...much as these comments have "drifted" to the right-hand side of the page.

By open-mindedness I do mean "a willingness to reconsider preconceptions." (In fact I'd go further and call it an "obligation.") "New data" is a complication I've been avoiding, because in this Disinformation Age "data" is not what it used to be. Most of us, those not actively engaged in scholarly pursuits, go to the net first of all, and the net is so crammed full of made-up statistics, outdated myths, refutations of refutations and just plain lies, that anyone can find a reference for whatever "data" best suits their preconceptions.

Faced with the task of picking hard information out of the welter of nonsense, closed-mindedness (confidence in the validity of one's preconceptions in the face of all attempts to unseat them) can be a positive time saver, and does enable ruthlessness and singleness of purpose in a way that the uncertainty that comes with an open mind does not. It may seem to us "wrong" to continue to believe something when a few hours' surfing might turn up "data" which could cast doubt on the validity of that belief, but it would be hard to explain that "wrongness" to someone whom the belief has served well and faithfully for many years, and who has better things to do than re-examine his whole life and the decisions he's made. And if the "wrongness" only exists in our minds, then how can we be sure it's real...without becoming closed-minded on the subject?

[batyatoon]

I suppose that depends on whether you believe that (a) objective observable truth of any kind at all exists, and (b) there is inherent value in knowing it.

By "inherent value" I mean that it is good in itself; that it is better to have accurate knowledge than false beliefs, not because it serves any other purpose but for its own sake. I doubt very much that you will find many people who will argue that this isn't so, that knowing the truth is only valuable insofar as it makes one successful or comfortable or happy.

I think it's important to recognize that closed-minded people generally do not think they are closed-minded, and do not think of themselves as clinging to preconceptions and refusing to recognize counterproofs. They think knowing the truth is important, but they simultaneously think the best way to know the truth is to hold on to what you already know and reject anything that contradicts it. This is provably false.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I do believe both a) and b). I can't prove either, though.

I think there are people who believe that only useful truth matters. In fact I know there are; I grew up among them, they live in my town. They wouldn't argue the point, because they would never get into that kind of discussion. They never think outside the compass of their lives; they have no reason to. They are often intelligent people, decent enough by their own lights, and they believe what they read in the Daily Mail and see no reason to trouble their lives with anything that differs from the view they already have. You keep saying "provably false"...you can prove it to me, because we operate on the same postulates, but could you prove it to them?

[batyatoon]

One can only consciously believe that only useful truth matters if one does not believe (a) and (b) above. If they don't believe those things, then no, I couldn't prove it to them -- because if they don't believe that objective truth of any kind exists, then nobody could possibly prove anything at all to them, and it's pointless to try.

Your best bet in that case, if you really badly need to convince them of something, is demagoguery. Persuasiveness without recourse to logic or rationality.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't think they think about it one way or the other. They take "objective truth" for granted, and equate it to "truth as they see it"; anything else is irrelevant. The farmer who told me proudly that he was brought up to work, not to read and write, was one of them. I could never justify anything that I do to someone like that; it would literally be like explaining one's religion to a secularist. And no more can I find any absolute standard whereby my worldview is "better" than theirs; I can only say that it's better for me.

[batyatoon]

The point I've been trying to make is that I'm pretty sure you could find such an absolute standard -- it would just utterly fail to convince anyone who makes a point of not being convinceable.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Then how could I know that it was an absolute standard? I don't see a way...

[batyatoon]

Well, you could theoretically measure the costs and benefits to the individual and to the society, and thus (hopefully) show a quantifiable advantage to one side or the other. The trouble with that is that while costs and benefits may be measurable, open- or closed-mindedness is harder to pin down.

Regardless, though, the failure of people to concede the truth of an idea does not make the idea less objectively true. When you ask how you could know whether a standard is absolute if it doesn't convince people who are refusing to be convinced, you are giving far too much weight to the opinions of fools.

Either that or you're placing too much hope in the concept of an absolute standard, believing that if you could just find the right proof then even the most closed-minded people would have to agree with you. Which, sadly, is not the case.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Hm, I understood him exactly the other way round:
Who agrees with whom is not the point at all. But I may be wrong.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

You're speaking of ideas in general; I'm still focussed on this specific idea, which as it is about open- versus closed-mindedness itself is not measurable by any standard of objective truth. In the case of an individual like those I mentioned, the cost to him of restructuring his mental outlook could be high. the benefit, to him or society, practically negligible.

And by the same token, the number of people who subscribe to an idea does not make it more objectively true, nor does it make people who refuse to be convinced by it "fools." (I was waiting for one of those words to turn up.)

So the answer seems to be that having an open mind only has value (outside the previously stipulated areas of science and law) if you believe it does, or if you have one already (which itself implies belief). I will admit I was hoping for a different answer; still, as I said in the post, I believe everyone has the right to govern their own personal minds as they see fit. The alternative is unconscionable.

[batyatoon]

I don't think refusing to ascribe to any one idea in particular makes one a fool, no. I do think that consciously refusing to be convinced of anything that goes against one's preconceptions, on matters that are within the realm of the provable/falsifiable, does make one a fool.

I'm afraid I have to remain in disagreement with your insistence that the advantages of open-mindedness are not measurable by any objective standard.

We can definitely agree, though, that everyone has the right to govern their own personal minds as they see fit. I'm just not about to concede that they're right just because they're happier being wrong.