Forum:Genuine openmindedness

< Index | General discussion

Other than the Schafly variety of open mindedness, that is to say "Believe what I do uncritically or you're close-minded", an open mind can be considered a good thing. But as humans, we suck at it. What's a good, moderately objective self-test for being open to different ideas? What does it look like to try to be open to viewing things a different way, without being credulous? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Have an effective devil's advocate, kinda like the null-hypothesis used in scientific discussions? Even if it's yourself, just try to earnestly defend the opposing viewpoint, to get an idea of the general mindset. Trick (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The hypothesis/null hypothesis/test driven approach seems like a good first pass, but what I find is that I more often end up with strawmen that outrage those I'm talking to. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on the length of the discussion, in some respects. If it's something that comes up frequently I suppose you can dedicate a little bit of actual time and study to immerse yourself in the topic at hand, kinda pretend you're part of it to get the experience of it. It's extremely woo-ey, but there's something called "Chaos Magic" that uses this principle for their "magic." They adopt a view or religion and live it rigorously for a short time, whether they believe it or not, just to see if it actually works for them, and to fully understand it. The rest is pretty nonsensical, but their methodology is admirable. Trick (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)