SkipCaptcha
175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 517:
Line 517: + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 14:43, February 1, 2012
, 14:43, February 1, 2012→A comment on #2 and problems with #20: new section
I don't see how this question tests open-mindedness: "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 4 January 2012 (EST)
I don't see how this question tests open-mindedness: "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:Given the current very unfriendly relationship between the two countries, it seems unlikely that the relationship will improve to a point where the two countries will reunite. Additionally, with North Korea slowly becoming more proficient with nuclear weapons, they are becoming more of a threat to the rest of the world, which makes it more likely that another country will have to take a forceful hand with their attitude towards North Korea. The point is, it is unlikely that they will reunite peacefully into a single country. And whether someone thinks that just because an event is unlikely doesn't make it impossible, is a test of openmindedness. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:18, 1 February 2012 (EST)
:Given the current very unfriendly relationship between the two countries, it seems unlikely that the relationship will improve to a point where the two countries will reunite. Additionally, with North Korea slowly becoming more proficient with nuclear weapons, they are becoming more of a threat to the rest of the world, which makes it more likely that another country will have to take a forceful hand with their attitude towards North Korea. The point is, it is unlikely that they will reunite peacefully into a single country. And whether someone thinks that just because an event is unlikely doesn't make it impossible, is a test of openmindedness. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:18, 1 February 2012 (EST)
== A comment on #2 and problems with #20 ==
Firstly, with 2, using an argument you know to be flawed can, in certain situations, be useful. On the rare occasion, I have used it when my purpose is to teach them/make them think more. I would use the flawed argument, knowing the flaws in it, and try to help them find the flaws in the argument. However, in that case I was trying to make them think, rather than convince them I was right.
And with #20, firstly, possible grammar problem, you're comparing one person to two people, so can someone who knows the intricacies of grammar check to make sure it's right, caus it just sounds weird. But more importantly, that question is a test of closed-mindedness, not openmindedness. Firstly, by giving no additional information about any of them, it suggests that if you do not think that a woman who is: straight, a radical Muslim intent on destroying America, a serial killer and abuser of children... is a better mother than a woman who: is gay, attends Church every Sunday, volunteers at a homeless shelter, is charitable and treats everyone and all animals with kindness... then you are closedminded. This interpretation is perfectly allowable under the current form of the question. Secondly, by effectively suggesting that ALL straight woman are better mothers than ALL gay woman, the question is a test of closedmindedness. Regardless of which you believe is more likely to be a better mother, it is closedminded to think that it is impossible for a gay woman to be a good mother. Openmindedness is about two things: accepting that what you believe, may be wrong, and being willing to change your mind about an issue. This question doesn't address the second (which is fine), however it rejects the first and suggests that if you don't agree with the statement, then you are wrong, because the statement is unquestionable and IS NOT WRONG. I strongly suggest either changing the question to reflect a test of openmindedness, or removing it entirely. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:43, 1 February 2012 (EST)