Being Open Minded

‘Open-minded is you may well have a point of view, but you're open to changing it.’

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
NPR, September 14, 2010

I picked up on this blurb the other day while listening to the Justice being interviewed on the local radio channel. Though simple, it resonated with me as open-mindedness is something that I have been thinking about a lot lately.

Why are our beliefs and opinions so sacred to us? Many of us hang our hat on them and are unwilling to budge one way or the other as it seems to be a sort of personal defeat. Is it really the compromise of self-identity to say, ‘maybe I don’t know’?

All too often, we’re wrapped in our beliefs, however hazardous they may be to our own safety or those adjacent to us; we’re unwilling to consider that we may not have the full understanding of whatever it is we’ve decided to champion. This type of thinking, as author Michael Specter points out in this excellent TED speech on science denial, is dangerous.

At what point do we decide that we’ve learned enough about the world and we no longer need to think critically about how we regard it? I am baffled by people who have cantankerous opinions on social-political issues but have done no investigation into whatever it is they are defending or playing activist against. Is it because sometimes we’re ignorant of our own ignorance, or metaignorant?

On metaignorance, fellow critical-thinker Jeff Ellis writes:

‘This unawareness or unwillingness to admit their ignorance subconsciously prods them to make (wrong) assumptions in order to fill the void in their knowledge’.

Thought metaignorance is forgivable to some degree, it’s when one becomes aware of their ignorance that things start to get ugly; one realizing that they’re ignorant, but they defend their position for the sake of the defending the position. This really isn’t a flavor of ignorance so much as it is intellectual dishonesty and lazy. To realize that you’re not educated on the topic of concern and to defend your position with vitriol, is unbecoming. Lying, really.

To make a claim on the basis that it is fashionable, or mysterious, controversial, etc., while knowing that you’re either making shit up or that there are gaps in the information that are critical to drawing reasonable conclusions is an exercise in mental masturbation, a stroke of the ego.

Some may say that I suffer the fate of being dogmatic as a skeptic, as skeptics are regarded as ‘anti-something’ most of the time, following talking points like a political party. How can I know for sure that vaccines are safe, that the warnings from climate scientists should be heeded, and that homeopathy is a sham? I can’t be 100% sure. But I am willing to change my mind based on the evidence - not anecdotal - but scientific evidence.

I do not cherry-pick information to support my beliefs, rather I dislodge, move and refine my beliefs using the ideas that challenge them as a lever. I actively seek new data and perspectives with goal of better understanding the world. I do not know everything, but I’m willing to learn. I’m open-minded.

I am willing to change my mind, for the sake of truth.  In skepticism and critical thinking, there are no sacred cows.