Well, since I said CParso had the correct response, it follows that I disagree. But...I get your point. :thumb:
I disagree with that. I'm an open minded thinker and I can pull up one of many posts where I was wrong, somebody set me straight and I thanked them and/or apologized. I know I have a strong stance on whatever the issue is, but if I'm wrong, I definitely can see where I'm wrong, when new information is introduced. Now that people aren't interested in facts that don't support their beliefs from everyone else, that's clearly obvious from this thread.
I always tell people, "I can admit when I'm wrong, it's just that I'm never wrong." I'm sure most people think they aren't guilty of being biased & closed minded, but it happens. I'd say that as a whole, the board is fairly close-minded about lots of subjects. But on an individual basis, pretty much every regular poster here keeps an open mind & we can all have good conversations on a range of topics. If I had to vote for most open-minded poster - it would have to be Crawfish. IMO, the most openminded posters are the ones not associated with a particular party. Only once you don't identify yourself with a certain party can you truley analyze all of it's positions. When I was a republican I was much harsher on liberals and easier on republicans, even though I didn't agree with lots of things the republican party stands for. Psychology has proven that simply chosing a side will strengthen your allegiance to it's philosophies. Beyond that, it has also proven that arguing one of their points (as we often do here in FSA) makes a person even further committed.
I am very open minded. When someone comes up with irrefutable evidence contrary to my opinions, I will readily admit that I'm wrong. Speculative crap like CC keeps throwing out as fact, though, ain't gonna cut it. Contained Chaos is guilty of the very thing he moans that other people are guilty of.
Um, that's not being open-minded. If the evidence is irrefutable then there shouldn't be any decision left. A rational person would be forced to agree. Only an idiot or a politician (wait, isn't that one in the same?) would continue to argue the opposite point.
i am not really open minded, i am already almost 100% right about everything. why would i have an opinion if it wasnt right or didnt know what i was talking about? i dont have any goofy party loyalty, the parties need to have martin loyalty. i was open minded before i figure out all the answers. but thats was a while back. you guys need to be open minded in the sense that you need to think exactly what i tell you to.
You're confusing open-mindedness with being wishy-washy. I listen to opposing views but I rarely agree with them because I haven't been convinced. I go through this in my job. My team finds errors and point them out. I then have to listen to rebuttals and determine whether to overrule the original findings. Managers argue with me that I'm wrong and they are right but they don't provide the necessary evidence/documentation to back up their point. You can't just scream at me and tell me I'm wrong. Show me I'm wrong.
Not everything can be proved with irrefutable evidence. If it could, there wouldn't be a need for opinions - there'd just be facts. Most things require people to make their own opinions. Admitting you are wrong when you are presented with opposing evidence is not open-mindedness, it's intelligence. Just because you don't change your opinions doesn't mean you can't be open-minded. I hardly ever change my opinions & I consider myself pretty open-minded. I came to my own conclusions for a reason & I've most likely already considered any evidence being presented before I created my opinion. Thus I'm unlikey to change my mind. The difference is when people automatically dismiss information & opinions because they are not the same as their own. I always consider whats being presented & make my own decision - regardless of whether I agree with the person's ideas/philosophies or not.
