Open-mindedness explained

[INTP]

 

[A window to the soul]

That goes without saying. [IMHO]

 

[INTP]

That goes without saying.

Not to many

 

[A window to the soul]

Not to many

It's also equally important to note that sissy limitations in one's ability to think outside of the box != 'open-minded'. As I stated in another thread this morning, the irony of fearing the unknown and only considering the 'known' is that you think you are somehow more open, flexible, sane, and intelligent than the rest of us who study, analyze, and embrace possibilities of the unknown with fearless vigor.

The video example is too simple. The guy that sees the lampshade moving and considered other 'out of the box' possibilities first, is not necessarily close-minded. Looks like he may be uneducated. My first consideration would have been the 'knowns' around the room, with particular attention to the heater below the lamp where warm air is rising.

If the guy is ENTP, then he's open-minded by nature.

(Clearly, the guy in the vid that missed the heater running right in front of him, isn't ENTP. I'd like to believe an uneducated ENTP would at least wonder if the running heater played a role.)

 

[Lark]

couldnt watch the vid on my mobile, what's the summation?

 

[EcK]

I think we should stay open minded about defining open mindedness.

Also when it comes to attitude vs behavior the utterance of 'i'm an open minded person' is generally directly proportional to level of idiocy

 

[tinker683]

As I've stated before on numerous occasions, the problem may not be that I'm closed minded...just that your argument sucks.

 

[Stanton Moore]

that vid just made me remember how much the English annoy me.

 

[Salomé]

Awesome thread is awesome.

 

[wolfy]

I like how the video is posted in such a way as nothing is in the post. Now that is open mindeness explained.

 

[INTP]

I like how the video is posted in such a way as nothing is in the post.

Me too

 

[FigerPuppet]

Wow, that video sucks.

"OH LOOK AT ME, I'M SO OPEN-MINDED!"

Do you masturbate to Dawkins, [MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION]? I bet you do, you little zealot you.

 

[INTP]

Wow, that video sucks.

"OH LOOK AT ME, I'M SO OPEN-MINDED!"

Do you masturbate to Dawkins, Salomé? I bet you do, you little fanatic you.

I dont think the point was to show how open-minded the guy who made the video is, but to explain why some people who think that they are open minded, are actually really close-minded

 

[Salomé]

Wow, that video sucks.

"OH LOOK AT ME, I'M SO OPEN-MINDED!"

Do you masturbate to Dawkins, @Salomé ? I bet you do, you little zealot you.

Do you masturbate to my posts? You seem to follow me around like a drooling poodle.

I mostly enjoyed the comments. They were all hilarious. For assorted reasons. Apart from yours. Which are retarded. As usual.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Do you masturbate to my posts? You seem to follow me around like a drooling poodle.

Maybe.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Salomé]

I hate and despise Dawkins as I hate and despise all INTJs.

/open-minded

 

[Stanton Moore]

I hate and despise Dawkins as I hate and despise all INTJs.

/open-minded

TAKE NO PRISONERS (I like this!)

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

I think the scientific process is well intentioned to discover more but ultimately would have to be defined as the more close-minded paridigm because it's in constant denial that truth exists before proof ever does or could. In science, truth is only determined to exist once the empirical framework of proof has been built under it, yet truth is totally independent of our means of proving it. Therefore there is no objective person, but only truth and different tolerances for believing it. Since there is no objectively true person (besides Jesus Christ but know I am suspending my knowledge to write this) then there is no absolutely objective human methodologies, only religions which attempt to reflect truth to varying degrees of success, science being the most successful because by its nature is to rigorously isolate itself from anything personal.

Science seeks to isolate itself from anything personal because, as I said, there is no objectively true person. Therefore, it is an disillusioned jump in reason to think we have created an absolutely objective methodology. To do so is to merely believe in science rather than truth, and a person only does this because they have a low tolerance of belief. You may intuit now, correctly, that believing in science will never be the same as believing the truth. It is better, and more true, to believe.

 

[Nicodemus]

I think the scientific process is well intentioned to discover more but ultimately would have to be defined as the more close-minded paridigm because it's in constant denial that truth exists before proof ever does or could. In science, truth is only determined to exist once the empirical framework of proof has been built under it, yet truth is totally independent of our means of proving it. Therefore there is no objective person, but only truth and different tolerances for believing it.

You are using the same word for two different things. When you speak of scientific truth, you speak of a predicate that is attributed to propositions that correctly describe the world. When you speak of the other truth, you speak of the world.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

You are using the same word for two different things. When you speak of scientific truth, you speak of a predicate that is attributed to propositions that correctly describe the world. When you speak of the other truth, you speak of the world.

How can I speak of the world as the other truth if the world predominately believes in scientific truth?