Open minds and empty heads
Some people found it hard to take, but when I said that ‘the worst thing that can happen to a person is losing the ability to change their mind’ I really meant it. I know we are expected to admire people who, as we say, ‘stick to their principles’, but what does that really mean? The description may cover all-time heroes like Socrates or Nelson Mandela, but surely it applies equally well to Hitler or Pol Pot? We do not really admire people for sticking up for their principles when those principles strike us as mistaken and odious; instead we despise them for not having the courage to change their minds.
And what are ‘principles’ anyway?
The word 'principles' comes from philosophy, logic and mathematics, and it means propositions that we take to be self-evident, in that we would expect everyone to agree with them once they are properly explained. In other words, principles are propositions about which there can be no intelligible disagreement, or to which there is no sensible alternative. But when it comes to fields like politics, religion, morality or art, dissent comes with the territory. You may be overwhelmingly committed to one opinion, and have lots of good reasons for it too; but you have to recognise that other people see things differently, and indeed that they too have their reasons, which may indeed be stronger than you know. Anyway you cannot be sure that you have nothing to learn from opinions you disagree with, even if they do not make you change your mind.
You may be convinced that your opinion is correct, and – who knows? – you may by chance be right. But you will not even understand what your own opinion means if you cannot see why others don’t agree. You do not really know what you believe if you do not know where it fits in to the range of possible beliefs.
I have sometimes heard talk of people who are too open-minded – so open minded, as they say, that their brains have fallen out – but I don’t think I’ve met anyone like that. On the other hand I am sure there are millions of people who have the opposite problem: they are so disabled in their intellectual imaginations that they cannot understand why the whole world does not agree with them.
There is nothing I admire more than courage, and that includes intellectual courage. But courage is not the same as rashness or stubbornness. Courage does not mean blustering away in ignorance; it involves being aware of the strength of the opposition. And when appropriate, it means being able to change your mind.
"Some people found it hard to take, but when I said that ‘the worst thing that can happen to a person is losing the ability to change their mind’ "
Well as you know Jonathan there is always an opposing view?
If you've ever read the accounts of the American POW in Asia, you would know that 'the worst thing that could have happened to them would have been losing the ability to NOT change their minds'
The research on the topic clearly shows that despite horrendous 'brain -washing' practices and seemingly changes of mind, once the prisoners were released and back in their own countries the American psychologists found that they had never really changed their views. Their minds had done a remarkable thing - apparently changed, temporary to fool their captors!
But I would agree with you on 'principles' the origins of the word are of course comes from Latin - passing through French on the way "principium" latin for leader or Emperor.
So following the dictates of the Emperor was seen to be a good principle - probably was in those days when your head could easily by removed for not doing so.
but have a look at a full range of our modern day 'emperors' and many would not be good 'principiums' I would suggest.
Research both in the field of advertising and generally does show that 'changing the mind' is an extremely difficult task.
Professor Howard Gardner from Harvard Uni tell us:
"People underestimate how difficult it is to change minds...........we are natural mind-changing entities until we are 10 or so. But as we get older and have acquired more formal and informal knowledge, then it's very, very hard to change our minds...........on fundamental ideas on how the world works, about what your enterprise is about, about what your life goals are, about what it takes to survive—it's on these topics that it's very difficult to change people's minds...........Most people, by the time they're adults, not only have become used to a certain way of thinking, but in a sense it's work for them [to change] because their neural pathways become set..........
and I guess if we look around at life in general and the people we know, lets be honest his views are accurate. How often have you sat amongst friends and tried to change their minds on any topic. It doesn't mean our minds are not OPEN I would suggest, but just not easy to change and often for good reason.
Having worked with the mentally infirm from time to time their ever changing minds is a great misfortune and hinderance to a healthy life.
So beware the ever changing mind - it may lead to insanity!
I say stick with your principles as long as they are GOOD ones!
Principles are equipped with arguments, they are argued by men and women. Surely a principle carries with it more than a language and a calculus to state its axioms? Does it not have the full intellectual and emotional investment of the proponent? Is it not harder to change how you feel than it is to change how you think?
For any given argument that I consider there are always gaps in my knowledge, I span these gaps based on how I feel and what other choice is there for me to take? Omniscience is not something that we are capable of achieving as individuals with our limited lifespans, so our conclusions are always a mixture of what sounds right and what feels right. I imagine omniscience feeling smug.
Simply laying out the proof is no guaranty that it will be attended to. Intransigence is born of pride not of ignorance, we disable ourselves.
Very interesting, Fitz, but irrelevant. My point was about being able to change your mind, not being unable not to.
Jonathan
My dictionary tells me that a "principle" is a belief you have about the way you should behave; and/or a general rule or scientific law which explains how something happens or works.
I don't think these principles are necessarily equipped with arguments. Rather the person carrying the principle has the 'argument equipment' so to speak. The principle itself stands devoid of argument!
""Is it not harder to change how you feel than it is to change how you think?""
Feelings surely are the emotional result of a thought and so do not float around alone without a thought. It's the thought that generates the feeling.
Ever sat day dreaming on a hazy lazy summers afternoon and let your "thoughts" drift off to other times - the practice usually evokes some nice feelings.
So the psyhcological axiom ' I learn what I believe as I hear myself speak' tells us that we can change our thinking with sustained practice and effort and what will follow is a change in the feelings.
I would think that working on the feelings alone and leaving the erroneous belief system intake will not even change the feelings or the thoughts.
But to get back on topic - I have several principles that direct my life and behaviours - I may choose though to never argue about them - merely state them and move on.
There is not necessarily a need to argue - and in fact to do so may very well achieve little results at all. We will all stick to our own 'principles' and won't change.
""Simply laying out the proof is no guaranty that it will be attended to.""
Ah on this I do agree - based on all points above plus the fact that as you so rightly pointed out non on us have the full proof anyway!
We all indeed to have the capability to change our minds - and we see examples of this everyday - and as our thoughts get further away from 'priniciples' it gets easier to change the mind I would imagine.
And we can change our minds on our 'principles' but what it takes is a great effort on the part of the challenger to come up with very plausible information - and better still without the 'argument equipment' this just gets in the way!
""Very interesting, Fitz, but irrelevant. My point was about being able to change your mind, not being unable not to.""
this is a free thinking site?
How about NOTHING I repeat NOTHING is irrelevant in this world, the universe or the next. What makes something irrelevant is your own viewpoint and mind. Try to see beyond the obvious and the world will unfold with miraculous wonderment. It's called Free Thinking!
At risk of being pedantic - but I do think we have to get the grammar right -
isn't ""not being unable not to.""
the same thing as being able to??
I'd hate for us to be discussing the wrong thing altogether!
People whose brains can't dismiss most of their sensory input as irrelevant end up ill. No matter how nice it seems to include everyone's tiniest point it's going to remain what it always has been: impractical.
You miss my point - I am not suggesting that we cannot finally dismiss sensory inputs - we do it all day and everyday.
And yes you are right if we didn't we would get 'ill'.
What I was suggesting is that nothing in life is irrelevant - quite different from 'take on board' all material - if you can see what I mean?
I find many of the points made by Jonathan Ree, Fitz (1) and Eman (7) very intruiging. I can't understand the antagonism that seems to have stymied this discussion.
I have worked with the mentally ill myself, studied mental illness and sufferred mild psychoses. I would like to suggest that someone who is mentally ill, far from being excessively open-minded, is excessively dogmatic and is having to work hard to sustain a particular worldview and accomodate new information into it.
To seem degree, we all suffer from our own madnesses. Those beliefs one is unable to question get in the way of one's day-to-day life. I would argue that a healthly nervous system has a strong capacity to assimilate information and modify its 'beliefs'. Rational ideas are precipitated from a range of experimental states of mind, which I imagine as functioning somewhat like hypotheses.
Fitz (1) refers to the ability to adopt a functional state of mind in adverse circumstances, which can later be dispensed with. Clearly this is an important capacity in some circumstances. I would suggest that it is more generally indicative of neurological health.
I believe that Fitz (1) overstates the difficulty of changing one's mind. In my experience, it is merely a question of having the will to understand points of view, whether they are one's own or not. I would insist that such endeavours are conducive to one's health and not detrimental at all.
I wonder to what extent the dogmatism which is characteristic of many people's thinking is induced by fear. Perhaps many people come to arrive at the beliefs they have only because they fear the consequences of expressing something different. Fear of criticism of the beliefs expressed, fear of criticism of themselves for who the ideas make them seem to be, fear of the consequences of certain beliefs for their own actions! All this can result in a fear of thinking freely in general, which is all too common.
I don't know about Fitz, but I am only an amateur in speculations of this sort, so I hope Jonathan will be gentler in his appraisal of my views than he was with those of Fitz.