"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." Terry Pratchett

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from (i.imgur.com)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

This is a logical fallacy. An open mind considers everything, it does not simply accept everything. An open mind is one that thinks about new ideas, it is not an empty vessel that others impose their will upon. Remember, comedians use subterfuge to induce cognitive dissonance, it helps them get audience reactions. And just because some comedians are all truest or well intent, doesn't mean all their arguments, or statements are meant for a greater cause.

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

What if someone feeds you an endless stream of nonsense though, should you spend your life considering every idea in that stream until you die? Doesn't that hijack your mental resources? Couldn't this technique be used as a weapon to disable people, by having them spend all day "considering" ideas that are actually totally unreasonable? At what point does a person draw the line and stop wasting mental resources on things that don't deserve consideration? I think in the age of the internet, this question is more important than ever.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is a valid point, but I can see people using this as an excuse to be unreasonable. So essentially the fist person who gets to you decides what you believe, then you lock up and can't be reached by any kind of reason.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well the "locking up" has to be decided by reason, not by just latching on to the first thing you see. And plus you can learn to differentiate between good information and bad information, just by the quality, and spent one's attention more wisely that way too

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

by having them spend all day "considering" ideas that are actually totally unreasonable?

Oh, one should always consider ideas that are unreasonable. It grants you insight into the arguments flaws. But that's a 'what if', and if we debate what if's we will be lost in minutia. That being said. You draw the line when you feel that the argument is being presented in bad faith.
On a side note: Text conversations and verbal conversations are processed in different manners in different parts of the mind. You wouldn't believe how many negative connotations I read into your post simply because our messages here are text based. I believe it is now more important than ever for us to converse in person and not soley through text. Talk to the people around you, ask them what they think is happening in our locked down world. Question everything.
I assume that's the bases for the duel up vote system, to encourage debate through the elimination of the down vote here at saidit. There is no retaliation here, only different aspects of feedback. One of the only true negative forms of feedback here is indifference. And that's something I can accept. It eliminates the echo chamber mentality, the tribalism.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You draw the line when you feel that the argument is being presented in bad faith.

I agree that's one way to draw the line, but there's also idiots who argue very stupid things in good faith. And those things often don't deserve deep consideration either, or else you'll spend your life arguing with idiots about nonsense, even if it is in good faith. So there needs to be an additional rule than just the bad faith rule, imo.

You wouldn't believe how many negative connotations I read into your post simply because our messages here are text based.

Oh I totally agree, it happens constantly. I write my messages with the assumption that whatever I write will be misunderstood, if it is possible to misunderstand. Then I try to word things in a way to avoid any misunderstandings. Even just using the wrong phrase can trigger an emotional reaction in people that then closes them off to logic. And this mechanism just feeds tribalism, like you said.

[–]Speak_Easier 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Favorite author.

[–]comments 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hadn't thought about it this way but yeah, this.