I think having an open mind means that you don't instantly deny things that are against your own beliefs, but you know how to look at them from the opposite point of view. At least this is what I mean to myself if I claim to be open-minded. I try to think objectively so I can form my own opinions and it's important for me to know why I think the way I do. Although questioning myself by having conversations with different kind of people is rather just common sense and not so much open-mindedness.
Hi, upon seeing the title, I got rather excited, as it’s a topic I think about a lot. I think that there is an important distinction to be made between being open minded, and lacking conviction in one’s beliefs. As you said, people often conflate the two, but I think it is critical to distinguish the two in order to have a clear discussion. When considering open mindedness while separating conviction, I think open mindedness is generally less of a concern in terms of being willing to try anything, but more of just a drain on mental computing power. I think when considering open mindedness in the more distinct form, it seems to be more of a decision on how much you are willing to accept new information, as well as how much you are willing to put thought into a differing opinion than yours. At the closed mindedness end, you think yourself correct in all you do, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, as compared to an average person may be more open to being proved wrong but still be rather hesitant to change their opinion, and require quite a bit of convincing. Meanwhile, at the more open minded end, I think there are two directions in the ways it can go, there are people who upon new information are much more ready to change, and are able to reevaluate their worldview with the new information and turn on a dime, and there are people who spend considerable effort in order to question their beliefs and put in work in order to change their minds. For myself, I’m somewhat open minded in the dimensions mentioned, however I’m also about as stubborn as a goat. Of course I’m sure this can be read as justification or lying to myself, and I appreciate any discourse on the matter. I do think that they are distinct entities tough, as I’m generally very happy to be proven wrong, and work to expand my knowledge quite a bit, but then I also require quite a bit of proof in order to change what I hold to be true. I think to some extent it’s due to general laziness and lack of capacity to think so much about every little detail, and I think that can apply more at large for open mindedness in general. I think open mindedness is a balancing game between how much mental effort to expend on new information, lack of knowledge, and nuance, versus the ease of pattern seeking, laziness, and black and white clarity. People on the more open mindedness end of the spectrum are willing to put more thought into new information, up until the extreme of being paralyzed in thought, unsure of anything and unable to make any decisions as they have to consider each new thing anew, while the people on the more closed minded end are less willing to question their beliefs, require the other person to do the thinking for them, or may not be amenable to changing their opinions at all when they find facts that disagree with their opinions. I think it’s also an interesting consideration to think about what is open mindedness from an intrinsic perspective as compared from the people who generally are asking others to be more open minded or judging people based on their standards. Fascinatingly it often seems that people who tell others they should be more open minded often are themselves rather closed minded. Moving more to the political end of things, I always found the American political system rather confusing. Considering the main pillar of conservatism is wanting things to stay the same and protect what we have, I think that nature and climate change should be the pinnacle of conservative values, which seems to not be so much of the case now. Going back a few decades, it did use to be more so the case, as for example, the EPA was formed under Richard Nixon’s presidency. The systematic approach to politics and political systems is rather fascinating, and I often find myself pondering how to make a system that aligns incentive structures further while avoiding inefficiencies. Somehow I doubt I’ll figure it out but it’s a fascinating thought experiment that has helped me understand my own positions better, as well as making better informed political decisions as well. Given that I have a similar proclivity towards working absurdly hard on something for a while and then completely forgetting it. I wonder how it affects my happiness in life. I think I often work on things until I am at the point I was working towards, and the moment I get there, it’s unimportant and no longer consequential. I know people say focus on the journey and not the destination, but I think everything should be done in moderation and I find myself often going far too much towards journey, and never destination, with the caveat of also working a lot on shifting the asymptotic destination of my life, which is in fact something I prioritize quite a bit. By this I mean that what things can I do at the beginning that will benefit my life as a whole, rather than what gives a momentary impact. For example, I’ve bought a very good set of tools now so I can build whatever I want for my entire life, which will increase the amount of things I can do and the speed at which I can do them instead of dealing with crap for a while, and upgrading a few times along the way. So pretty much I spend quite a bit of focus on how I can change the slope as a whole instead of just raising it a bit at one point. Moving to the money part of your video, While living in Singapore I’ve met quite a few people who are more on the Scrooge McDuck end of the scale, and I find that while it might not be money that they think about as much, I would definitely say they do still focus on their wealth quite a bit and are often constantly trying to grow it as a main focus of their life, despite having more than enough to have whatever they want for the rest of their life. It’s just a lot of scope creep. A less well off person may be worried about how they will pay their rent that month, while the uber wealthy are worried about whose rocket (company) is biggest. Definitely agree with you on the open minded end of things though, could definitely make a case for me trying to be more open minded rather than actually being so. It definitely does require constant active work, though I do believe that that is inherent in open mindedness, and someone who says it’s effortless is likely more closed mindedness than they espouse to be. I would however add cherishing other worldviews to your definition of open mindedness being tolerating that other worldviews exist without judgement and criticism. I think there is an option of getting more towards the point of cherishing other worldviews that would be far more of the ideal in terms of open mindedness, rather than just tolerance. P.S. Hot take, there are situations where racism, prejudice and stereotyping have been / are beneficial, and in some cases even necessary to some extent. Admittedly a lot of the following is as much if not more an argument in semantics as much as it is a defence of any concept in particular. In terms of racism, it has been abhorrent for so long, that different treatment based on race is beneficial in some circumstance to right those wrongs, which is definitely differing treatment based on race, even if it might not necessarily be what one thinks of when thinking of racism. Prejudice meanwhile makes much more sense in a historical time with much more distinct classes with greatly variable amounts of knowledge, specific expectations for how people live, as people were more able to make judgments based on one’s social status and class, that would apply to their being as a whole. In the modern world however, with an availability of information, much more ability to be distinct, and the amount of free time we have to carve out our own personality, it is much less functional now, and I could even be convinced of its generic harmfulness in the modern era. Stereotyping I would argue is widespread, and even crucial for the human experience, and it just goes under different names in order to be more socially acceptable. When dealing with our increasingly interconnected modern world, we meet so many people as to be unable to deal with all of them as distinct individuals with no expectations of their background, history, or opinions to lean on. It’s much more easy to remember that Jaakko is generally rather similar to most Finns, but is somewhat talkative, than it would be to try to understand him from a completely blank slate. Just goes to prove that no matter what, it is always a bit of good and bad, and there is no pure black or white. P.P.S. Definitely agree a lot with what you’ve said, but I greatly enjoy trying to provoke thought, even to the point of being more of a devils advocate than purely expressing my own perspective. It reminds me of an old joke a friend once told me about arguing with an engineer: It’s like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a while you realize they’re enjoying it.
Более высокое социальное положение русских в бывших республиках было связано только с тем что туда ехали работать люди на 99% с высшим образованием: инженеры, врачи, учителя естественно, так было принято ,что их дети так же добивались подобного уровня образования и получали соответствующий социальный статус, конечно если сравнивать в общем с населением республик то выглядело все так что русские имели некие "особые привелегии" хотя все руководство состояло исключительно из местных и это была сознательная политика в СССР, наоборот если ты был русским то получить действительно значимую должность было почти невозможно. Миф о "привилегиях" русских это одна из примитивных манипуляций местных националистов. Вы лучше найдите данные , а они открытые, сколько русских вместе с их семьями были просто убиты во время распада СССР этими самыми националистами под лозунги о русской оккупации.
В перестройку при подготовке распада СССР западные специалисты вплотную работали с этими националистическими кадрами в республиках, это все была часть одной операции по развалу СССР и все это курировалось западными спецслужбами.
@spacegangster2588 Мне кажется , что в Киргизии , что в Армении, так как она там работала, у нее был определенный круг общения, эти люди видели в ней американку которая возможно будет иметь отношение к потокам которые идут , через НКО, на финансирование групп важной частью деятельности которых, является антироссийская пропаганда.
I think having an open mind means that you don't instantly deny things that are against your own beliefs, but you know how to look at them from the opposite point of view. At least this is what I mean to myself if I claim to be open-minded. I try to think objectively so I can form my own opinions and it's important for me to know why I think the way I do. Although questioning myself by having conversations with different kind of people is rather just common sense and not so much open-mindedness.
Hi, upon seeing the title, I got rather excited, as it’s a topic I think about a lot. I think that there is an important distinction to be made between being open minded, and lacking conviction in one’s beliefs. As you said, people often conflate the two, but I think it is critical to distinguish the two in order to have a clear discussion. When considering open mindedness while separating conviction, I think open mindedness is generally less of a concern in terms of being willing to try anything, but more of just a drain on mental computing power.
I think when considering open mindedness in the more distinct form, it seems to be more of a decision on how much you are willing to accept new information, as well as how much you are willing to put thought into a differing opinion than yours. At the closed mindedness end, you think yourself correct in all you do, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, as compared to an average person may be more open to being proved wrong but still be rather hesitant to change their opinion, and require quite a bit of convincing. Meanwhile, at the more open minded end, I think there are two directions in the ways it can go, there are people who upon new information are much more ready to change, and are able to reevaluate their worldview with the new information and turn on a dime, and there are people who spend considerable effort in order to question their beliefs and put in work in order to change their minds.
For myself, I’m somewhat open minded in the dimensions mentioned, however I’m also about as stubborn as a goat. Of course I’m sure this can be read as justification or lying to myself, and I appreciate any discourse on the matter. I do think that they are distinct entities tough, as I’m generally very happy to be proven wrong, and work to expand my knowledge quite a bit, but then I also require quite a bit of proof in order to change what I hold to be true. I think to some extent it’s due to general laziness and lack of capacity to think so much about every little detail, and I think that can apply more at large for open mindedness in general.
I think open mindedness is a balancing game between how much mental effort to expend on new information, lack of knowledge, and nuance, versus the ease of pattern seeking, laziness, and black and white clarity. People on the more open mindedness end of the spectrum are willing to put more thought into new information, up until the extreme of being paralyzed in thought, unsure of anything and unable to make any decisions as they have to consider each new thing anew, while the people on the more closed minded end are less willing to question their beliefs, require the other person to do the thinking for them, or may not be amenable to changing their opinions at all when they find facts that disagree with their opinions.
I think it’s also an interesting consideration to think about what is open mindedness from an intrinsic perspective as compared from the people who generally are asking others to be more open minded or judging people based on their standards. Fascinatingly it often seems that people who tell others they should be more open minded often are themselves rather closed minded.
Moving more to the political end of things, I always found the American political system rather confusing. Considering the main pillar of conservatism is wanting things to stay the same and protect what we have, I think that nature and climate change should be the pinnacle of conservative values, which seems to not be so much of the case now. Going back a few decades, it did use to be more so the case, as for example, the EPA was formed under Richard Nixon’s presidency. The systematic approach to politics and political systems is rather fascinating, and I often find myself pondering how to make a system that aligns incentive structures further while avoiding inefficiencies. Somehow I doubt I’ll figure it out but it’s a fascinating thought experiment that has helped me understand my own positions better, as well as making better informed political decisions as well.
Given that I have a similar proclivity towards working absurdly hard on something for a while and then completely forgetting it. I wonder how it affects my happiness in life. I think I often work on things until I am at the point I was working towards, and the moment I get there, it’s unimportant and no longer consequential. I know people say focus on the journey and not the destination, but I think everything should be done in moderation and I find myself often going far too much towards journey, and never destination, with the caveat of also working a lot on shifting the asymptotic destination of my life, which is in fact something I prioritize quite a bit. By this I mean that what things can I do at the beginning that will benefit my life as a whole, rather than what gives a momentary impact. For example, I’ve bought a very good set of tools now so I can build whatever I want for my entire life, which will increase the amount of things I can do and the speed at which I can do them instead of dealing with crap for a while, and upgrading a few times along the way. So pretty much I spend quite a bit of focus on how I can change the slope as a whole instead of just raising it a bit at one point.
Moving to the money part of your video, While living in Singapore I’ve met quite a few people who are more on the Scrooge McDuck end of the scale, and I find that while it might not be money that they think about as much, I would definitely say they do still focus on their wealth quite a bit and are often constantly trying to grow it as a main focus of their life, despite having more than enough to have whatever they want for the rest of their life. It’s just a lot of scope creep. A less well off person may be worried about how they will pay their rent that month, while the uber wealthy are worried about whose rocket (company) is biggest.
Definitely agree with you on the open minded end of things though, could definitely make a case for me trying to be more open minded rather than actually being so. It definitely does require constant active work, though I do believe that that is inherent in open mindedness, and someone who says it’s effortless is likely more closed mindedness than they espouse to be. I would however add cherishing other worldviews to your definition of open mindedness being tolerating that other worldviews exist without judgement and criticism. I think there is an option of getting more towards the point of cherishing other worldviews that would be far more of the ideal in terms of open mindedness, rather than just tolerance.
P.S. Hot take, there are situations where racism, prejudice and stereotyping have been / are beneficial, and in some cases even necessary to some extent. Admittedly a lot of the following is as much if not more an argument in semantics as much as it is a defence of any concept in particular.
In terms of racism, it has been abhorrent for so long, that different treatment based on race is beneficial in some circumstance to right those wrongs, which is definitely differing treatment based on race, even if it might not necessarily be what one thinks of when thinking of racism.
Prejudice meanwhile makes much more sense in a historical time with much more distinct classes with greatly variable amounts of knowledge, specific expectations for how people live, as people were more able to make judgments based on one’s social status and class, that would apply to their being as a whole. In the modern world however, with an availability of information, much more ability to be distinct, and the amount of free time we have to carve out our own personality, it is much less functional now, and I could even be convinced of its generic harmfulness in the modern era.
Stereotyping I would argue is widespread, and even crucial for the human experience, and it just goes under different names in order to be more socially acceptable. When dealing with our increasingly interconnected modern world, we meet so many people as to be unable to deal with all of them as distinct individuals with no expectations of their background, history, or opinions to lean on. It’s much more easy to remember that Jaakko is generally rather similar to most Finns, but is somewhat talkative, than it would be to try to understand him from a completely blank slate. Just goes to prove that no matter what, it is always a bit of good and bad, and there is no pure black or white.
P.P.S. Definitely agree a lot with what you’ve said, but I greatly enjoy trying to provoke thought, even to the point of being more of a devils advocate than purely expressing my own perspective. It reminds me of an old joke a friend once told me about arguing with an engineer: It’s like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a while you realize they’re enjoying it.
Братааан, чувааак, уважуха😅и вообще : "У самурая нет цели , только путь."
Еб... ть ковырять красавчег))
Jesus.. that's a nice novel, buddy.
ik vind het leuk! een leuke wandeling. veel succes Mik.
reminds me of magazine article from somewhere. W= ;)-
I am 🎉
Потому что откровение переводится на греческий как апокалипсис.
Оу, вы наш будущий президент США!
Более высокое социальное положение русских в бывших республиках было связано только с тем что туда ехали работать люди на 99% с высшим образованием: инженеры, врачи, учителя естественно, так было принято ,что их дети так же добивались подобного уровня образования и получали соответствующий социальный статус, конечно если сравнивать в общем с населением республик то выглядело все так что русские имели некие "особые привелегии" хотя все руководство состояло исключительно из местных и это была сознательная политика в СССР, наоборот если ты был русским то получить действительно значимую должность было почти невозможно. Миф о "привилегиях" русских это одна из примитивных манипуляций местных националистов. Вы лучше найдите данные , а они открытые, сколько русских вместе с их семьями были просто убиты во время распада СССР этими самыми националистами под лозунги о русской оккупации.
Белые расисты в США тоже могут доказать что они живут лучше чёрных оттого что они лучше образованы...
В перестройку при подготовке распада СССР западные специалисты вплотную работали с этими националистическими кадрами в республиках, это все была часть одной операции по развалу СССР и все это курировалось западными спецслужбами.
@spacegangster2588 Мне кажется , что в Киргизии , что в Армении, так как она там работала, у нее был определенный круг общения, эти люди видели в ней американку которая возможно будет иметь отношение к потокам которые идут , через НКО, на финансирование групп важной частью деятельности которых, является антироссийская пропаганда.