Dialogue with Person 1
Me: So, what does
it usually take for you to change your mind?
1: A well thought
out argument, or new information that I did not know before.
Me: Does it happen
often, do you feel, that you have to change your mind?
1: No, rarely, but
I remember this one time... So, all in all, I was given a new
perspective from a very productive meeting with people who'd done their homework.
Dialogue with Person 2
Me: What does it
usually take for you to change your mind?
2: I don't know. I
guess it just happens when it happens.
Me: So when you go
into a discussion, do you consider it likely that you will change
your mind?
2: No, I never
change my mind in a discussion. Sometimes I'm able to convince the
other guy, sometimes not.
Dialogue with Person 3
Me: You say you
change your mind when presented with good arguments. Let me take an
exaple. If a random stranger and a known authority was having a
disagreement, who would you listen to? Let us say that the discussion
was about which food is healthy and what is not, and the random
stranger had much better arguments. Who would you listen to?
3: Definately the
authority.
Me: So what do you
think is the most important factor when there is a complicated choice
to be made, the authority or the arguments presented?
3: The arguments
are relevant, but authority is the most important.
Dialogue with Person 4
Me: Is there any
beliefs you have that are unchangeable, areas where you will never
consider redesiding?
4: There are some
things, like my atheism, that I have investigated for so long that I
am now sure of.
Me: Let us take
ateism as an example. If some entity were to float down from the
heavens now, and tell you that it was God, and then continue to prove
it to you by moving that mountain over there [we had a nice view where we were], what
would you think?
4: I would look
for any other explanation before re-evaluating my atheism.
Me: Does that
include "I am hallucinating"?
4: Yes.
Me: So would you
consider your belief about autheism to be a "holy" truth, excuse the
phrasing, that no amount of evidence would ever change?
4: Yes, I think
so.
Dialogue with person 5
Me: You said you
would believe the scientist over the politician, why?
5: Well, the
politician has a vested interest in the truth, and the truth is
mostly what suits him, and, of course, the stuff that is undeniable.
While the scientist, mostly, doesn't care what's true, he/she just
wants to know.
Person 6 correspondence:
He decided to
answer the specific questions I asked, in writing. See the previous post for the questions.
- In the long term, as in months and years, I feel it happens automatically, but then again, I do a lot of thinking and reflection in my spare time. In the shorter term, I sort of imagine discussions as existing along a spectrum from exchange of opinions to a no holds barred duel. I think it's generally a good idea to try to keep the heat down, particularly if you have to reach an agreement - not only to win the opponent over more easily, but also to avoid committing yourself to a position you might not want to defend. I think this is more subtle than it might sound - changing your mind from A to B, even if you never really meant A in the first place, but that was somehow how he wound up misinterpreting you, is a lot harder than keeping your options open and hitting closer to B the first time around.
- I don't really flag any of my beliefs read-only, but some of them are definitely more fundamental and support more load and are in that sense more resilient to change. I do have a sort of religious conviction that choosing to lead a reasonably selfless life is not actually a personal sacrifice, but counter intuitively the sort of optimal path to happiness. This is not a belief I try to challenge regularly, but nothing I would have trouble discussing either, so it probably doesn't count.
- I started writing down a lot of completely irrelevant examples. I think what you really want here are examples of arguments or data which made me change my mind about something as some sort of discrete event. I have a really hard time giving any of these. I have a feeling that a lot of examples which could have gone here are sorted differently. Even when the catalyst is really something someone said, it tends to just remain as some sort of lingering memory, and some day you give it appears camouflaged as your own idea and you imagine you figured it out all on your own. For example, I don't think you'll hear somebody tell of their religious crisis when Bob told them you'd have been a Muslim if you were born in Pakistan - inside your own mind, it tends to appear as if you just had a private epiphany.
- If I have to give an example, I remember when my flatmate told me to watch Death Note because it was great, and I said it probably sucked, but he insisted, so why not, and for the first two episodes I was thinking I was right, Jesus, this is some stupid, contrived shit and then I watched the whole show in about five days.
- I'm afraid 3 sort of swallowed everything I could have said here. I think presenting new data is always a good idea, though - if nothing else, it makes a lot more sense to say oh, I didn't know that, guess you're right than oh, I guess I was being stupid and your reasoning is better than mine. The Socratic dialogue can also be an eye-opener - being told what you ought to mean isn't very pleasant, but the whole if you mean A, do you also then mean B? can be a great way to discuss. Again - it is easier to find a good idea when you don't first have to abandon an old one which you might have invested some prestige in.
- It sounds ridiculous to vaccinate yourself against ever changing your beliefs - it doesn't sound very likely that you currently are right about something but could be fooled into changing your mind to something wrong. If you ever want to discuss something with someone, it would be unfair to not be open to new ideas yourself. Altogether, though, I don't feel any urgent need to become either more or less open minded.
