Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

Not a suitable criterion

I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:

• A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that Noah could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
• A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied information theory and knew how it negated the possibility.

A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

Philip J. Rayment 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--Aschlafly 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.

However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.

Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea? 2. If no, then would you? 3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--Aschlafly 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --Mtur 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--Aschlafly 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --Mtur 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?

1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.

2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.

2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--Aschlafly 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".

Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. Philip J. Rayment 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--Aschlafly 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --Colest 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--Aschlafly 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --Colest 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--Aschlafly 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)