posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:51 PM
Originally posted by underspaceAt some point conviction for your beliefs is a good thing, and I guess that by definition is a closed
edit on 24-8-2011 by underspace because: (no reason given)
Not quite. Got to remember that humans are balls of
Freudian psychotic mental toxins. We do things that are not logical because they are natural to humanity.
It is quite possible to be open-minded yet convicted in your stance. This is a middle ground comprimise, or more eassily understood as a balanced
approach. The extreme of being open-minded is being gullible. Being on mental lock-down or truely closed minded is the extreme of convicted.
Generally speaking, gullibility requires 1 of 2 things: either innocence or a lack of expecting deceit or wrong-ness from the direction it is comming
from. This is why it is easy for small children to be taken by a stranger. For most adults, it comes from trusting the source of the "information"
due to it being something you came to a positive conclusion on.
Being closed-minded, on the other hand, is more like a defense mechanism, often due to gullibility handing you your own backside a few times. You
don't even have to have been scarred from the confrontation at hand: it could just be that the particular belief being questioned is something
you've geared whole years of your life around--and no one likes thinking that they wasted their life. (Think: Atheist wakes up one day staring in
the face of God--how is he going to feel about what he's lived his everyday life believing? It works the same way for every religion going towards
atheism, too.) No one likes seeing the value of their whole life slip away jsut from one chance change of belief. So they fight tooth and nail,
never bothering to listen to the other side to see if there's a chance that they are wrong. Generally this behavior is bracketed by name-calling--so
it's pretty easy to tell when someone might be doing it.
Those who seek a balance in this area are often well-informed about what they truely believe, and can argue it tooth and nail, but there's a part of
them that looks at each new piece of evidence and asks, "can this invalidate my beliefs?" You're open-minded enough to note the merit of the
countercliam, and if it doens't hold enough value, or stems from a mentality that is not balanced istelf, hen your opponant has done nothing but
strengthen your belief. If they have a good point, and it checks out thoroughly, you fit it in to your belief system and go on about your business.
2 years down the road, the information turns out to be false, you dump it and go back to what you were convicted of from the first--unless this one
undermined position left you open enough to research in the new direction and find things far more concrete than the original issue that started
Really a simple concept, but hard to stick with, since it is far easier to be gullible when you're guard is down and closed-minded when your guard is