Twist

I hate to argue with people who basically agree with me, so, I'll simply say that I was in no way in support of accepting limitless amounts of data before drawing a conclusion (that point is taken). I simply think unfounded dismissiveness is ideologically lazy. If you have thought something through then I don't consider it closed minded. For instance, If you already have a good reason not to accept religion, then you certainly don't have to continue to listen to religious arguments. One need not immerse yourself in Catholicism for a lifetime in order say one disagrees with it. I haven't been arguing for the standard case of accusations of closed, or open-mindedness, I simply feel free to define terms by what they would mean logically to me. Ayn Rand may have reworded to "Active Mindedness," which is good, but it doesn't carry the connotation to consider possibilities that may seem wrong at one time, but with more evidence, are definitely right. No amount of Logic will allow you to make that jump, it takes a keen eye for the ability to stretch possibility (something I find Rand is in support of). I'm not going to argue over the semantics between active minded and open-minded further. I just don't feel the need for what generally is meant by something to limit what it can or should mean (with proper explanation). Well, I can't really produce concrete examples on Internet forums, though I would be happy to fill you in on certain experiences. One being a large scraggly looking bushy haired self proclaimed socialist, that I met while working to put myself through college. He was personally one of the finest minds I've ever come across. When asked about his views socialism he gave me a suggesting of reading both "The Jungle," and "Atlas Shrugged" along with other viewpoints on the subject. I later found out that he was working on his Ph.D. in history, specializing in third world dictators. A great many of his views I found palatable including the incorrect strategy of the united states of supporting oppressive dictators. He also predicted the 9-11 terrorist attacks stating that "people in the united states don't understand how much the people in the world really hate us, eventually its going to come to a boil, and probably soon" In August of 01. That statement, and the corresponding argument saved me some money considering I hedged some of my meager but aggressive investments. Though we generally disagreed, often in long sessions of debating, I gave his ideas a fair hearing, and I feel I'm better off for the experience. I consider myself open-minded for listening to him past my original view of him (he's fairly difficult as a person to get to know), even digging into his motivations, and trying to understand them more sincerely. Another experience I had was with a self proclaimed evangelical cristian... She gave me the best insight into questioning the devine inspiration of the bible that I ever recieved. Though I didn't need it they are helpfull argument tips, it was still supriseing, and definitely unexpected. I simply consider that a part of my intellectual curiosity that I would rather like to know how someone thinks rather than simply defining how I think they would think. Comeing to this Forum is also a bit of open-mindedness, My ideas have generally fallen closer to Empiricism rather than Objectivism, though it is sometimes a fine point, and I generall dislike unessisary lables. As I am not completely sure about Objectivism either, I'm simply honestly looking into it. I have read some of Ayn Rands work, and have liked it a great deal, but am no doubt less schooled in it than some here. I also dont yet consider myself competent to judge myself "Objectivist", untill I am sure.

David: Since I specifically stated an exception for danger I am not going to respond to the first part of your argument, since I consider it a straw man argument. You should know better you quoted it. I didn't suggest that anyone always had to be open-minded against their better judgment, just that it was a good idea in certain contexts where you don't have enough evidence. Especially in circumstances where you need more evidence. You can certainly weigh a perceived risk/benefit analysis on any situation and reject ideas you don't like. This rules out statements like "knife juggling might be fun." This goes along with the danger issue, which would also include disgust. What benefit could I possibly expect from eating slugs? Giving someone a hearing doesn't mean you have to go along with what is suggested. Giving people hearings when you know what they are going to say is idiocy, is also a waste of you're time. But if that is the case, I'm sure you've already had enough experience with that person, sometimes it takes very little time. Also trying new things isn't Always necessarily the best way to go when you have adequate reason to know better. By "Different" I mean unusual, in one way or another. I don't generally tolerate idiocy. If you need more specific examples I will be happy to inform you further. Putting words in someone's mouth is not generally a worthwhile argument tactic. If your asking someone to read Ayn Rand your asking them to try something different. Exposing them to new ideas. People who take you up on the issue are generally being "open-minded" in that case.

I believe there is some value to being open minded under certain contexts. If what you mean by open minded is gathering all necessary and relevant evidence before jumping to snap decisions. In this sense being open minded is actually being more objective. Leaving your personal prejudice and bias aside and giving things and people a chance to present themselves more fully. Someone should be open minded about trying strange things that don't pose a danger to them. Again, gathering and evaluating evidence, being open to experience and new ideas/interpretations. That doesn't mean you have to ultimately agree with everything you are presented, just willing to actually look at what is presented. I know what is sometimes meant when someone says "open-minded," but I generally state to someone, what I mean by open-minded. I know plenty of well "different" people, and have each given them their hearings and reached conclusions on them based on what they actually presented to me. I don't think uninformed gross generalizations ever help terribly much when dealing with specific people. Would what Galt have said in Atlas Shrugged mean anything different if he were a 21 year old man with tattoos, and big green spiky hair who rode a motorcycle. Would it have made him immoral? Would you still have viewed him as a "Punk" at first glance? Would what you view as a "Punk" necessarily make someone a "Punk"? I know that's not how it was presented, but it might be a good practice in throwing out irrelevant information.