| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | | | |
| | One way to measure openmindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible I do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility. | | One way to measure openmindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible I do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Example Questions and Topics == |
| | | | |
| | For example, did our subject think that President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility? | | For example, did our subject think that President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility? |
| Line 16: |
Line 18: |
| | | | |
| | A series of ten such questions can be posed, and one's openmindedness can be scored based on how often they declare something to be impossible and thereby demonstrate a level of being "receptive" to ideas. | | A series of ten such questions can be posed, and one's openmindedness can be scored based on how often they declare something to be impossible and thereby demonstrate a level of being "receptive" to ideas. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Follow-Up Questions == |
| | + | |
| | + | The each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate: |
| | + | |
| | + | '''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. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::2bc. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time, do you still criticize the idea anyway? |
| | + | |
| | + | == Further Refinements == |
| | + | |
| | + | A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindedness. For example, the openmindedness variable O could be: |
| | + | |
| | + | :<math>O = t/60</math> |
| | + | |
| | + | where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics. |
| | | | |
| | == References == | | == References == |
| | | | |
| | <references/> | | <references/> |