This has essentially already been said but I'll put my twist on it.

'Open minded' means that you aren't afraid to re-evaluate what you believe. You're not afraid of evidence to the contrary of your beliefs and not afraid of adjusting those beliefs based on that evidence.

What would such a premise look like? I want to say that we all have some of these absolutes within our knowledge base, do we not?

I didnt really have a clear cut example. In order to be considered "closed minded" by someone else, the assumption would need to be that you reject their premise or believe it not to be as valid as whatever you have decided upon.

You can fill in the blanks from there. Whatever two people are going to debate about and on this particular forum, it seems to very often be religion but not always.

I practice my own form of open mindedness by being inquisitive about everything. I consider all evidence in the light of my own experiences, logic, science and peer review. I make up my mind based on all those evidences, but keeping open the door that new evidence may force me to reevaluate those decisions.

Most of the time its the other way around, form my experience anyway. Its always the closed minded that end out being the loudest.

But openmindedness for me is someone that listens to a another person point of view even if they disagree.

fix for clarity

The ability to consider other's views of their world, my world and our world...lol

The quiet types tend to listen more and are more observant which I would think tends to lead to being more open minded.

I agree with the above statement because I recognize where it applies in some cases. It would seem to be a rejection of premise(s) that would lead one's inability to consciously and deliberately listen to what follows from it(them) about a subject matter.

However, an issue of the same sort can very well arise from conclusions as well. This is especially true when one lays conclusions prior to premises during discussions.

Could an assertation of closedmindedness be a senseless thing to even think? If one claims closedmindeness about another, does not the need arise to comprehensively explain why it is so? Does this explanation itself not display the very same content which is being ascribed to another, in duplicate form?

How could one lay out an argument for another's closemindedness without being it?

Is it a senseless argument?

Openminded and closedminded in my opinion has nothing to do with talking. It has more to do with vision and understanding. Granted you wouldnt think that was true consideirng I just "skimmed" through all of the posts on this bulletin instead of reading them all. But this is my take.

A while ago I posted this statement about monsters. About how there are monsters out there and how we have no proof there are not.

In my opinion that is a good example of being openminded. I did not do any "speaking" perse' though. Granted. I "typed" it and may have spoken my opinion to many people. But whether or not I allowed anyone to know my views it is that I first had those views which was, as I said, the "vision" and "understanding".

I do NOT want to get back on the monster thing, because I have since realized to get my point across I could have used something other than monsters. But it was just that at that given moment (no I wasn't stoned) I was thinking about how there really are "monsters" out there, its just that childrens minds are so vivid that they "create" them and we as adults do not allow ourselves to any more. But we all have "monsters." That gets me to my second point. Which is that some people think in "color" and some do so in "black and white."

Which is my best way to summarize what openmindedness is----it is not that people think "colorfully" or with rainbows all around. No, but its like, society has just adapted to make things easier on themselves. To allow it to be "black and white." Which is "closeminded." But then sometimes we get "colorful" or openminded and we get scared or taken by surprise and usually revert back to something black and white. Like for instance: "Oh no, that isn't a ghost, its just a breeze coming from the heater" or some rational explanation we need to hear. Then...some people...some people who are more "openminded" like to think in "color" more often, though even those people still unfortunately need to be black and white once in a while. Know what I mean?

Thats my take on it. Whatcha think?

By the way -- AWESOME POST! GREAT TOPIC!

Closed minded to me only applies to someone unwilling to engage in the examination of either premises, or conclusions.

Our education, and background shape how we engage, but the fact that we did engage means we are not closed minded even if our conclusions are wrong.

The term closeminded gets thrown around a lot even when IMHO its not applicable.

I think "closed minded" is a title that is normally said in anger when someone just refuses to agree with you on forum or even hear you out or try to comprehend what you saying. So out of nothing more than frustration people will accuse you of being "closed minded."

But are you really?

I think close minded might actually mean anyone who just wont agree.

The irony and senselessness behind it all is, in my opinion, the fact that the ones who so often accuse another of being closedminded are in fact often displaying the same mind-set that they are accusing the other(s) of having. It is like the reflection 'syndrome'...

If one truly understands what it is that another is trying to say, then that understanding can be written down and further examined. If it is done so in an honest attempt at making sense of it, then closedmindedness cannot apply, can it?

I find that the term itself is often used as an incorrect assessment of another's expressions in what is truly a matter of certainty - which is based upon preconception(s).

Now that term - more often than not - invokes negative implications within conversation. I currently find that it is not equal to being closedminded, although the majority of people with whom I have had the opportunity to speak with initially think otherwise, just as did I long ago. Because one has a history of contemplating a topic, does not necessarily mean that they would not entertain another version about the same thing...

I do just that all the time in order to increase the liklihood of being exposed to a transitional truth. Meaning some bit of information which would be unthinkable to deny the validity of. In fact unless one is newborn or mentally challenged, we all have preconceptions about different things, and to deny this is to deny learning itself.

I have witnessed those who blatently state or imply that we cannot know anything. I find that to be an incorrect assessment on all points, no matter how it has been worded...

On that I am absolutely closedminded.

That is nonsense in the worst kind of way. Those who are speaking cannot deny the fact that they know - at least- what some of the words they are using mean.

To attempt to deny this would be unthinkable. Therefore we do know things, and it is the content of these things which determine our ability/inability to be able to contemplate another point of view regarding a previously established personal truth...

A preconception.

A fresh brain waiting for instructions to be written.