6 ms·

It's good to periodically see these articles get traction. There are so many logical fallacies that we need to remain diligent in guarding against them. Lately

It's good to periodically see these articles get traction. There are so many logical fallacies that we need to remain diligent in guarding against them. Lately, in response to the relatively intense polarization of beliefs, I've been contemplating open-mindedness, and whether discussions starting with establishing an open-minded context could get people talking again. To me, open-mindedness means that you're receptive to new ideas and experiences and generally do not reject them outright. When presented with implausible or seemingly impossible information, an open-minded person will listen to the basis of ideas, concepts and information and weigh that basis before making a determination about whether or not the idea is true and worth assimilating. Or they may try a new experience with less pre-judgment of whether they'll appreciate it. In my view, there is a critical nuance in open-mindedness: It applies whether or not the idea is consistent with what I already believe to be true. As an open-minded person, I feel that I need to regularly reevaluate my beliefs as new information comes to light, even if that new information directly contradicts a basis for a firmly held belief. I'm curious to know examples that you've had where you've learned new information that contradicted what you already firmly believed, and through open-mindedness, changed your belief accordingly.

umvi 6y ago
It can also help to occasionally play "devil's advocate" and argue for "the other side". This forces you to seriously consider the weaknesses of your own side and strengths of the other side. I've definitely developed more nuanced opinions as a result of playing devil's advocate
- _qulr 6y ago
  There's a huge difference between playing devil's advocate in your own mind and doing it publicly. The former may be useful. The latter is usually just annoying.
- nekopa 6y ago
  I prefer the idea behind the steelman technique (as opposed to a strawman argument): state the position of the person you disagree with so well they say "I wish I had put it that way!" then proceed to refute the central argument.
ErikAugust 6y ago
I agree it’s good that cognitive biases and better frameworks for thinking get traction here (or anywhere else). However this blog post doesn’t look to be backed by any research, or anything else for that matter. I predict people just start arguing politics below this comment due to some of the lexical choices, for example.
dubeyaayush07 6y ago
In my experience, knowing about these so called fallacies may help us correct others but it is much more difficult to realise when you are making the mistake yourself. People just think they are too smart to commit these mistakes.
hansvm 6y ago
Sidestepping your question, open-mindedness comes with its own costs. Properly analyzing an idea takes time away from other things you could be doing, and some ideas are so outlandish that your life will almost certainly be better by simply making the choice to spend as little time as possible flirting with such absurdities (except insofar as you might enjoy toying with "what-if" questions as an end unto itself). Are you practicing open-mindedness...everywhere? It wasn't that long ago that some crackpot tried to convince me that the modern atmosphere had damaged my lungs, so to replace the oxygen I was missing I needed to buy hydrogen peroxide injections. The claim as a whole either needs to have major structural flaws or overturn sizable portions of modern chemistry and physics to have a chance at plausibility, and my biases strongly suggest that instead somebody was trying to skirt legal oversight in order to con me.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  Good point. I'd say that for any new information, there does need to be an initial 'smell test' threshold. When confronted with something so outlandish, I typically switch to making a judgment about the person and how their thought processes work. I.e., ask them to explain the basis of their claim and look for overt logical fallacies, which we all get better at identifying over time. It's also got to be a matter of sufficient consequence to be worth the time.
  - esc_colon_q 6y ago
    Bayes has you covered, if your priors rank something as exceptionally likely or unlikely, then you probably shouldn't pay much attention to new information (especially when it's from some random person and carries a high likelihood of being misleading). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  There are things that aren’t likely enough or important enough for the individual to commit resources to explore intellectually. But these things may be likely enough or important enough for society as a whole for some small group or even individual to explore and report back on. That is why it is important to support your local crackpot. Much as staid English society always valued their eccentrics. The more ultrarational the person, the more important for that person to spend quality time at the fringes.
okareaman 6y ago
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance – That principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -- Herbert Spencer I find that breaking the habit of being quick to judge leads to open-mindedness. This is also a tenet of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - your first thought and subsequent feelings that arise from that thought are often wrong.
gfxgirl 6y ago
For me the term "open minded" is a label for close minded people that believe specific things they label as "open minded". Say for example legalizing drugs. They don't believe in being open minded about whether or not that's a good idea. Instead they believe supporting it is the "open minded" position and not supporting it is the "close minded" position. They have a similarly actually closed mind about most topics.
- otreblatercero 6y ago
  So you think open minded people support prohibition? and I reckon you are against legalization of drugs. That's why you are open minded.
  - gfxgirl 6y ago
    No, I'm open to discussing it, I haven't decided, I've heard good arguments on both sides. but, in my experience, most people that put "I'm open minded" in a self description are signaling they believe in certain specific policies and they are actually close minded about whether those policies are good or bad. They've already decided they are good and won't consider (have an open mind) to any suggestions otherwise.
andi999 6y ago
Ok. Probably you are holding a very firm believe that from sending 1 Million in bitcoin tona random person on the internet asking for it, nothing good comes out of it. Please challenge this view. My wallet is... wait need to look that up
13415 6y ago
As paradox as that may sound, in a sense the opposite of open-mindedness is needed. There needs to be more social pressure on people to keep discussions civil and to stay intellectually honest. The problem right now is that people advance argument for rhetorical purposes only, in order to "win" instead of solving problems together. Social pressure to change that requires people to be less tolerant towards intellectually dishonest people. Of course, I agree with you that open-mindedness is important when dealing with intellectually honest people.
- unabst 6y ago
  The paradox is "pressure to keep civil" to you may not be the same to me. Numorous times trying to call out someone not civil will put you in the not civil category. That's why systems like HN aren't necessarily encouraging of open discourse. Many don't want to get judged, and judging is all many do, downvoting based on rhetoric and neuance (or lack thereof). And, the achilles heel is the downvote as the not-civil vote, except there is no discourse because you can't reply to a downvote.

umvi 6y ago

It can also help to occasionally play "devil's advocate" and argue for "the other side". This forces you to seriously consider the weaknesses of your own side and strengths of the other side. I've definitely developed more nuanced opinions as a result of playing devil's advocate

_qulr 6y ago
There's a huge difference between playing devil's advocate in your own mind and doing it publicly. The former may be useful. The latter is usually just annoying.
nekopa 6y ago
I prefer the idea behind the steelman technique (as opposed to a strawman argument): state the position of the person you disagree with so well they say "I wish I had put it that way!" then proceed to refute the central argument.

ErikAugust 6y ago

I agree it’s good that cognitive biases and better frameworks for thinking get traction here (or anywhere else). However this blog post doesn’t look to be backed by any research, or anything else for that matter. I predict people just start arguing politics below this comment due to some of the lexical choices, for example.

dubeyaayush07 6y ago

In my experience, knowing about these so called fallacies may help us correct others but it is much more difficult to realise when you are making the mistake yourself. People just think they are too smart to commit these mistakes.

hansvm 6y ago

Sidestepping your question, open-mindedness comes with its own costs. Properly analyzing an idea takes time away from other things you could be doing, and some ideas are so outlandish that your life will almost certainly be better by simply making the choice to spend as little time as possible flirting with such absurdities (except insofar as you might enjoy toying with "what-if" questions as an end unto itself). Are you practicing open-mindedness...everywhere? It wasn't that long ago that some crackpot tried to convince me that the modern atmosphere had damaged my lungs, so to replace the oxygen I was missing I needed to buy hydrogen peroxide injections. The claim as a whole either needs to have major structural flaws or overturn sizable portions of modern chemistry and physics to have a chance at plausibility, and my biases strongly suggest that instead somebody was trying to skirt legal oversight in order to con me.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
Good point. I'd say that for any new information, there does need to be an initial 'smell test' threshold. When confronted with something so outlandish, I typically switch to making a judgment about the person and how their thought processes work. I.e., ask them to explain the basis of their claim and look for overt logical fallacies, which we all get better at identifying over time. It's also got to be a matter of sufficient consequence to be worth the time.
- esc_colon_q 6y ago
  Bayes has you covered, if your priors rank something as exceptionally likely or unlikely, then you probably shouldn't pay much attention to new information (especially when it's from some random person and carries a high likelihood of being misleading). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.
onecommentman 6y ago
There are things that aren’t likely enough or important enough for the individual to commit resources to explore intellectually. But these things may be likely enough or important enough for society as a whole for some small group or even individual to explore and report back on. That is why it is important to support your local crackpot. Much as staid English society always valued their eccentrics. The more ultrarational the person, the more important for that person to spend quality time at the fringes.

okareaman 6y ago

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance – That principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -- Herbert Spencer I find that breaking the habit of being quick to judge leads to open-mindedness. This is also a tenet of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - your first thought and subsequent feelings that arise from that thought are often wrong.

gfxgirl 6y ago

For me the term "open minded" is a label for close minded people that believe specific things they label as "open minded". Say for example legalizing drugs. They don't believe in being open minded about whether or not that's a good idea. Instead they believe supporting it is the "open minded" position and not supporting it is the "close minded" position. They have a similarly actually closed mind about most topics.

otreblatercero 6y ago
So you think open minded people support prohibition? and I reckon you are against legalization of drugs. That's why you are open minded.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  No, I'm open to discussing it, I haven't decided, I've heard good arguments on both sides. but, in my experience, most people that put "I'm open minded" in a self description are signaling they believe in certain specific policies and they are actually close minded about whether those policies are good or bad. They've already decided they are good and won't consider (have an open mind) to any suggestions otherwise.

andi999 6y ago

Ok. Probably you are holding a very firm believe that from sending 1 Million in bitcoin tona random person on the internet asking for it, nothing good comes out of it. Please challenge this view. My wallet is... wait need to look that up

13415 6y ago

As paradox as that may sound, in a sense the opposite of open-mindedness is needed. There needs to be more social pressure on people to keep discussions civil and to stay intellectually honest. The problem right now is that people advance argument for rhetorical purposes only, in order to "win" instead of solving problems together. Social pressure to change that requires people to be less tolerant towards intellectually dishonest people. Of course, I agree with you that open-mindedness is important when dealing with intellectually honest people.

unabst 6y ago
The paradox is "pressure to keep civil" to you may not be the same to me. Numorous times trying to call out someone not civil will put you in the not civil category. That's why systems like HN aren't necessarily encouraging of open discourse. Many don't want to get judged, and judging is all many do, downvoting based on rhetoric and neuance (or lack thereof). And, the achilles heel is the downvote as the not-civil vote, except there is no discourse because you can't reply to a downvote.