You're too close minded (an attempt at a serious disscussion)

[cascadeco]

Often, it's moreso 'you're close minded to what I believe in' which makes me chuckle since unintended irony can be quite funny.

I'd say this is what's going on at least half the time, if not moreso, that someone tells someone else they're being closed-minded.

 

[Lark]

While I definitely understand and can relate to how frustrating it can be to be interacting with someone who is incredibly black and white, won't budge on anything, is very much in their own bubble, etc etc, at the same time I don't actually think being super open-minded is an incredibly glamorous desirable thing either. I mean at the opposite extreme you have someone who is so bendable that they almost have no identity or personal values/opinions at all. Sure this can make for interesting discussions but at the same time this person can also be targeted by those who want to take advantage of that malleability (/ negative spin)

Anyway, I'm probably kinda in the middle. I can be insanely stubborn, because I do have strong values when it comes to some things (for example: nature/environmental stewardship/ not exploiting the land), and I really am not interested in 'exploring' the opposite side. Or I have my own beliefs around more philosophical/life views and perspectives, and while I can certainly listen to others and appreciate other viewpoints, I'm probably not gonna shift a whole lot since I've put lots of thought into why I believe what I believe, etc; but nor am I out trying to convince others either in some debate (I'm not a debate person). So, yeah. At one point in life, when I was younger, I think I thought it was a super negative thing to NOT be open-minded... but I'm kinda shifting as I get older and I am o.k. with being stubborn and set in some of my opinions and such.

You see what I've highlighted there, it was actually something that the author Erich Fromm wrote about as a "marketing personality", now what he wrote about was relatively extreme and he was writing at a time when books like The Hidden Persuaders, maybe did exaggerate the potential role of Madmen style marketing and PR to influence the public, plus all the scares about brain washing maoists on campus (the more things change, the more they stay the same).

However, he did write about a personality emerging which had a weak sense of self, someone who was totally mercurial, not simply like the characterisation in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progess, itself a sort of characterisation of persons depicted in the scriptural parable of the sower, of people likely to change their opinions under stress, crisis or in the face of difficulty but someone who just lacked all centre what so ever.

Orwell did a really good literary depiction of this in 1984, Winston Smith is someone who is perhaps well on his way to becoming this type of person, its depicted in his struggle with memory and forgetfulness which is the personal reflection of what is going on socially and politically as the regime switches its allies and tells the people its always been that way or invents persons and movements for them to direct seven minutes hate at.

I think the sorts of manipulation that are available to political ad men are way, way more advanced and sophisticated than what either of those writers were talking about back in their day, plus all the different sources of relatively stable institutional knowledge and precepts that individuals could draw upon, no matter how partially, have been seriously attacked, the alienation from them is now almost complete without any ready alternative for people to turn to instead.

 

[prplchknz]

Often, it's moreso 'you're close minded to what I believe in' which makes me chuckle since unintended irony can be quite funny.

I've been told that i see things in black and white because i wouldn't agree with someone completely it was like i sort of agreed but there was nuisances that they weren't seeing and i was trying to explain that to them,but they wanted me to completely agree with them, which i could not. also i've been called illogical (which i often am) but there reason why didn't make sense. so that also frustrated me.
'

edit: that being said i do have a habit of taking figurative things in a literal sense. always have, it's why i sometimes miss sarcasm or jokes unless it's super obvious

 

[Lark]

I've been told that i see things in black and white because i wouldn't agree with someone completely it was like i sort of agreed but there was nuisances that they weren't seeing and i was trying to explain that to them,but they wanted me to completely agree with them, which i could not. also i've been called illogical (which i often am) but there reason why didn't make sense. so that also frustrated me.
'

edit: that being said i do have a habit of taking figurative things in a literal sense. always have, it's why i sometimes miss sarcasm or jokes unless it's super obvious

You're nobody in Hollywood until that happens Prps

 

[cascadeco]

btw [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] I happen to love this topic / concept simply because I think open-mindedness is often touted as some dreamy end-all-be-all 'ideal' and I don't think it in and of itself is a wonderful trait. I think it *can* be wonderful, but I don't think it's always wonderful, nor do I see it as really something to be 'proud' of per se. It is what it is, is all I'm saying.

 

[highlander]

I believe there is being close-minded and there is the perception of close-mindedness. People with Te high in their function stack tend to get perceived as judgmental and close-minded where those who have Se or Ne higher in the stack tend to get perceived as less judgmental and close-minded. Feelers tend to be perceived as less judgmental than thinkers but Fe types perhaps more so than Fi types. It's a fallacy though because people's outward communication can come across as very open but internally, they may be stubborn as a mule. For those of you who are really close to an ISFJ, INFP, INTP or ISFP - you know exactly what I mean.

 

[Yuurei]

It can be the bolded but it can also be certainty about social and economic policies, relative to most destructive and least destructive. Even if someone logically lays out social and economic policies, if they're destructive to most and beneficial to very few even if I'm one of the few, I can't accept that.

Yeah the bolded just sounds like a type of stonewalling " If you disagree with me it's because you can't handle the truth!" Blah.

 

[ceecee]

It can be the bolded but it can also be certainty about social and economic policies, relative to most destructive and least destructive. Even if someone logically lays out social and economic policies, if they're destructive to most and beneficial to very few even if I'm one of the few, I can't accept that.

I'm not for anything that causes destruction. Certainly not in the destructive to most, beneficial to a few. I don't think you should accept that either, I don't think anyone should accept that. So I'm not sure if you are getting that from something I have said. If so, you are perceiving something that's absolutely not the case.

 

[Yuurei]

On what Lark said, there are times when I am vehemently stubborn and will not hear the other side at all. Almost always because the other person is trying to argue using assumptions about a topic they have no experience with while I, on the other, have intimate knowledge and experience in. On the same token, I don't talk much about issues with which I have little experience.

One deal breaker is to use words like "No." and "Wrong." during a discussion that is about anything other than concrete fact ( which, I know; what constitutes as a fact is even opinion these days.)

This is one of greatest annoyances with my husband; we can have a discussion on something that is purely opinion or preference and he will correct me. Even when we do agree overall but for different reasons he'll say " NO it's because..." and then I will have to correct him and say "Also". or " You think it's because..."

Anyone else does that to me though and I will be a total bitch about it, like just act as if they didn't say anything and talk right over them because they need to know what they did.

 

[rav3n]

I'm not for anything that causes destruction. Certainly not in the destructive to most, beneficial to a few. I don't think you should accept that either, I don't think anyone should accept that. So I'm not sure if you are getting that from something I have said. If so, you are perceiving something that's absolutely not the case.

I was adding to why people shut down, that it's not always fear/insecurity of the unknown since the unknown can often draw my interest.

 

[Tilt]

I am technically very open-minded in the sense that I have a need to understand other perspectives, regardless of how farfetched they may seem but I am far from selling the kool-aid that I am tolerant of everything and everyone though.

So close mindedness is a dismissal of ideas, at least to me.

 

[Luminous]

Now that being said, willingness to except differing opinions and concepts (open mindedness) doesn’t mean absolutely condoning others views for fear of appearing intolerant. You still might assess and judge the subject against your own opinions and beliefs and reject them. It’s the willingness to at least examine a position or concept and not just automatically dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your ideals. There are many things I disagree with or don’t mesh with my view but I attempt to understand them unless they are so morally reprehensible to me that they are fundamentally wrong according to my code. Even then I may understand something on a logical level but disregard it on moral grounds.

I'm very open minded to understanding what the world and people are. I'm more close minded as to what I want see and be within it.

Anyway, I'm probably kinda in the middle. I can be insanely stubborn, because I do have strong values when it comes to some things (for example: nature/environmental stewardship/ not exploiting the land), and I really am not interested in 'exploring' the opposite side. Or I have my own beliefs around more philosophical/life views and perspectives, and while I can certainly listen to others and appreciate other viewpoints, I'm probably not gonna shift a whole lot since I've put lots of thought into why I believe what I believe, etc; but nor am I out trying to convince others either in some debate (I'm not a debate person)

It's a fallacy though because people's outward communication can come across as very open but internally, they may be stubborn as a mule. For those of you who are really close to an ISFJ, INFP, INTP or ISFP - you know exactly what I mean.

All this.

I score very high on openness too. And I consider myself open-minded: open to considering new ideas and ways of looking at things, other ways of doing things. But as an old friend of mine was fond of saying, it's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out. Just because I am willing to consider, look at things in different ways, accept and, most importantly, respect, that others have differing viewpoints, ways of living, etc, doesn't mean I take all those ways as actually being correct, logical, moral, or right for me personally. I think open-mindedness reflects one's acknowledgment that one doesn't know everything, can't know everything, that the world is wide and wondrous, that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". But it does take courage: If there is more out there than we can know, well, it's all uncertain and in that way frightening. So I am open to the world revealing itself to me. But inside myself, I have firm closed ideas and ideals of some morals, truths, ultimate meanings, ways of acting and doing. Respecting where I end and others begin.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Kind of both.

I am openminded in the fashion that I don't dislike or display hostility towards something that is different from what I believe in. Be or say whatever you want, you'll feel very welcome and at ease while you're expressing yourself. If you happen to have outrageously deranged opinions that defy objective reality, I won't feel compelled to disprove or invalidate you. However, if I'm asked about my opinion, the closed minded bit manifests the crystallized knowledge and I'll calmly state what's on my mind as if I'm casually bidding you a good morning, even if what I'm saying defies every fiber of fabricated fallacious truth you believe in. Sure enough, I'm all ears if you have something substantial that could change or influence that, and I'll take your insights into consideration if our elevated discussion can enable growth and understanding from both sides.

 

[Forever]

Being too open-minded is closed-mindedness.

I believe myself to be a very open minded individual.. but in retrospect.. my inability to stick with a decision has come to regret from me going any way for sure.

 

[Dreamer]

to me it means not rushing to judgement, or if you do, being able to walk back that judgement and reassess.

i tend to test extremely high on open minded for OCEAN. just had to take the test again for my psych class and I got 96%... i think there is some truth to that, but maybe not to that extreme?

i can be pretty judgemental on some things, but i also find that there are very few exceptions, including politics, where i am unable or unwanting to reevaluate my position. it may not be easy with some entrenched thoughts and viewpoints. but i like trying at least and pushing through.

i find a good mix of both open and close. being too close-minded gets on my nerves if it comes off as being closed minded to just be close minded? a recent example is i made an offhand remark in front of my stepmother that i felt bad for melania because of how tight security in the white house is, and how being in that position would be such a prison. and she just went offfffffffffffffff on me. and yeah, i get it boohoo a billionaire's wife feels trapped. but at the same time i'm thinking of how terrible i would find it. how suffocating. and how much i hate being trapped by physical circumstances. (which is a big reason why i've never wanted kids is because the whole pregnancy thing freaks me out with the fact that you are trapped in that moment with pain and you can't charm or word your way out, you're just stuck pushing a watermelon out of your lemon aperture. no thanks.)

Same. This is more or less what can grate me when encountering new people, or when the discussion turns a bit more serious on topic. I don’t typically try to convince others of my viewpoint, really I couldn’t care less what you believe or if you think my point of view is valid or not in the end, but I’d hope that the person is at least willing to temporarily see and understand from a different viewpoint than that of their own once in a while. Maybe their world view may alter slightly or significantly, but hopefully, they could at least entertain another point of view, if not to change their stance, but to find themselves more sure of the stance they held all along by going through this process.

On the extreme end though, if someone flips the switch left and right at the drop of the hat, then I’d question if you even know yourself enough to at least hold someconviction, or enough to not only challenge your own ways of thinking with the thinking of others, but to challenge others as well. It’s hard for me to fathom a life of true personal growth if someone finds themselves closer to the extreme of either closed-mindedness or open-mindedness.

 

[1487610420]

it should be illegal to have different opinios

 

[Wunjo]

To speak fairly, I can be intolerant, blunt, abrasive, belligerent and even dictatorial, but these are mostly in matters concerning logic, objectivity and personal-intrapersonal matters. I am extremely open-minded about topics concerning morality, ethics (if they aren't messing up with efficiency) and "rights". I have no moral judgment about myself or others, I find having a moral judgment about anything biased, emotion-based and parochially arbitrary because when they empathize, I have noticed that people usually forget about the thin red line between the reality of an emotional state of being of a person and projective assumptions and behavioral idealizations concerning themselves on how properly one does behave or not, I don't think anyone should live trying to uphold some standards projected upon them, especially when it is actually the judgment of other people, that should be solely concerning them, up to a point. However, I have a lot of judgments about one's efficiency, intelligence, personality and behavioural residues. Trying to force an internal, non-objective judgment to the external world seems ineffective, silly and a bit melodramatic to me.

Note: I can identify a thing being morally wrong. That is something easy. I just am not pushed into action because of it most of the time.

 

[ceecee]

Could I ask what you are talking about here in the part I highlighted? I'm just interested.

In a nutshell, I want change just as much as anyone. I just want the change that is going to benefit more people than it currently does. So I decided to do more and talk less to make those changes happen. That takes my time and my money - something too many people aren't willing to part with. Or they are only willing to help the people they think are "their" people. They seem to have forgotten they are Americans same as me.

Also, as a matter of interest, how does telling people that they are lead by fear or that they are responding to appeal to their emotional, reactionary personality work in terms of bringing them around to your own way of thinking?

No where in my post did I say I tell them this. Why would I? They're aware. Let me ask you this - why do you think Trump remains so successful with a certain segment of the US population? Because he knows exactly what to appeal to - their fears. Immigrants taking jobs, a world that requires you arm yourself, women taking your jobs and masculinity, LGBT folks getting way too close to having the same rights as the straight people and that has to stop, the war on religion..... Emotional, angry and scared to death.

 

[Lark]

In a nutshell, I want change just as much as anyone. I just want the change that is going to benefit more people than it currently does. So I decided to do more and talk less to make those changes happen. That takes my time and my money - something too many people aren't willing to part with. Or they are only willing to help the people they think are "their" people. They seem to have forgotten they are Americans same as me.



No where in my post did I say I tell them this. Why would I? They're aware. Let me ask you this - why do you think Trump remains so successful with a certain segment of the US population? Because he knows exactly what to appeal to - their fears. Immigrants taking jobs, a world that requires you arm yourself, women taking your jobs and masculinity, LGBT folks getting way too close to having the same rights as the straight people and that has to stop, the war on religion..... Emotional, angry and scared to death.

Yeah, I guess that's the standard explanation.

You could as easily change a bunch of those words and have election success for liberalism. I'm tired of that whole to and fro and the first part of your post made me think you were too. Then I read the second.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Although I'm extremely open-minded, I do tend to make snap judgements of others based on limited evidence, as in I may analyze something a specific way and come to a stubborn conclusion about what insight that provides me. I generally have a really easy time circling back to reassess things and tweak a perspective, but struggle in doing this with those snap judgements... it usually takes me longer to accept that my perspective was a bit off from reality when it comes to analyzing others.