{"id":284,"date":"2017-11-20T10:00:06","date_gmt":"2017-11-20T10:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=284"},"modified":"2017-11-18T14:28:18","modified_gmt":"2017-11-18T14:28:18","slug":"what-is-closed-mindedness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-is-closed-mindedness\/","title":{"rendered":"What is Closed-Mindedness?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 7 2017, Jason Chaffetz who was then a member of the US House of Representatives (R-Utah) told a CNN anchor: \u201cAmericans have choices\u2026.rather than\u00a0getting that new iPhone\u2026they should invest\u2026in their own health care. They’ve got to make those decisions for themselves.\u201d[1]<\/a> Later the same day, in a discussion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Fox News, Chaffetz reiterated his point: \u201cpeople need to make a conscious choice and I believe in self-reliance.\u201d[2]<\/a> Setting aside the debate over the ACA, Chaffetz\u2019 remarks point to a broader assumption about poverty in the United States\u2014namely, that it is the result of choice and laziness.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s use this as a starting point for thinking about closed-mindedness. Imagine that Donald believes that poor Americans are simply lazy. Like many upper class Americans of his generation, Donald grew up thinking that the United States is a land of opportunity where people would not be poor if they worked hard. He has stuck with these beliefs and is unwilling to engage seriously with competing ideas, summarily dismissing any that cross his path. When the conversation turns to low wages as a cause of poverty, Donald deems it nonsense and shuts down. When he sees an article arguing that lack of opportunity contributes to poverty, he thinks it silly and scrolls past it. Donald recognizes that such ideas compete with his own, and rejects them because they seem implausible. In short, Donald is closed-minded, and paradigmatically so, at least with respect to the causes of poverty in the United States.<\/p>\n

How can we avoid closed-mindedness? We can at least follow the dictum: don\u2019t be like Donald. But, will that be enough? The answer depends on what closed-mindedness is. Donald is unwilling to engage seriously with competing ideas. Is this the only way to be closed-minded, or are there other ways of being closed-minded that we will also need to avoid?<\/p>\n

I think there are additional ways to be closed-minded. Donald is closed-minded, but his case doesn\u2019t exhaust the category. The key point I will try to make is this: being unwilling to engage with alternatives to a belief is one way to be closed-minded, but it isn\u2019t the only way. Let\u2019s make this argument by exploring four features of Donald\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

(1) Already having beliefs about the topic<\/strong>. Donald already believes that poor Americans are lazy, and in dismissing alternatives to his belief, he is being closed-minded. But, does closed-mindedness require<\/em> already having beliefs about a topic? Couldn\u2019t we be closed-minded in the ways that we initially conduct inquiries into a topic, even when we don\u2019t have any beliefs about it? Imagine a person who has never been exposed to evidence about poverty in the US and has no beliefs about the topic. Assume that she grew up in a different part of the world, and that she is now being confronted with evidence about the causes of American poverty for the very first time. Even though she lacks any beliefs about the topic, couldn\u2019t she still arrive at an initial belief about the causes of American poverty by ignoring relevant evidence? Perhaps she does this because of an implicit bias that operates below the level of belief. And, when she ignores relevant evidence, isn\u2019t she being closed-minded? If so, closed-mindedness does not require already having beliefs about a given topic.<\/p>\n

(2) Ideas and evidence<\/strong>. Donald is closed-minded with respect to ideas and evidence. But, is the locus of closed-mindedness restricted to ideas and evidence? Or, are we also closed-minded when we dismiss relevant questions, sources, and methods? Imagine a person who dismisses poor Americans as sources of information about their own poverty. She thinks poor Americans are untrustworthy sources because they will be motivated to maintain their \u2018entitlements\u2019 to welfare, Medicaid, and so on. In dismissing sources, isn\u2019t she being closed-minded? If so, closed-mindedness is not restricted to ideas and evidence. One can also be closed-minded with respect to other intellectual options, like sources, questions, methods, and even which inquiries one pursues to begin with.<\/p>\n

(3) Engaging with intellectual options<\/strong>. In dismissing alternative ideas that cross his path, Donald does engage with those ideas, but only insofar as he recognizes and rejects them. He doesn\u2019t engage seriously with them\u2014he doesn\u2019t evaluate their merits in any way\u2014his engagement is entirely superficial. Let\u2019s now consider whether closed-mindedness requires even this much: does it require engaging<\/em> with alternative ideas and other intellectual options? Or, could one be closed-minded by failing<\/em> to engage? Suppose a person is oblivious <\/em>to intellectual options\u2014she fails to recognize or notice them in the first place. She might be so invested in \u2018the American dream\u2019 and its concomitant claims about poverty and laziness that she fails to notice defeaters\u2014she sees the working poor not<\/em> as industrious, but as demanding \u2018entitlements\u2019 and not working hard enough. Alternatively, a person might fail to seek out<\/em> intellectual options. Consider a conservative voter who fails to seek out moderate or progressive sources, who fails to look beyond her own echo chamber\u2014who only looks for sources and evidence that confirm her conservative views about poverty. In failing to engage with relevant intellectual options, aren\u2019t these people being closed-minded? If so, closed-mindedness does not require engaging (superficially) with intellectual options.<\/p>\n

(4) Willful refusal. <\/strong>Donald is unwilling to engage seriously with intellectual options\u2014he simply refuses. What about people who are willing, but unable<\/em>, to engage seriously with intellectual options? Are they also closed-minded? Imagine a person who, like Donald, believes that poor Americans are simply lazy. Unlike Donald, this person is genuinely willing<\/em> to engage seriously with relevant options. However, due to indoctrination, he is also systematically oblivious to these options\u2014he moves through the world utterly unaware of them. He fails to see poor people as credible sources about their own poverty, and fails to notice that poor people are industrious. He fails to engage seriously with these options because he is unable to perceive them. In being unable to engage with these options, isn\u2019t he being closed-minded? Even if his myopia isn\u2019t his fault and even if he shouldn\u2019t be blamed for it? If so, closed-mindedness does not require a willful refusal to engage with alternative ideas or other intellectual options. And, it might not even require being blameworthy in the standard sense.<\/p>\n

If the above is correct, none of these four features is required for closed-mindedness. This means that there are lots of different ways to be closed-minded. Donald\u2019s way is only one of them. Donald seems to have a specific sort of closed-mindedness: he is dogmatic. That is, he is unwilling to engage seriously with relevant alternatives to a belief he already holds. But, closed-mindedness is much broader than dogmatism. Roughly, it is an unwillingness or inability to engage seriously with relevant intellectual options. The upshot: if we want to avoid closed-mindedness, we will need to avoid dogmatism. But, we will also need to avoid much more than that. Former Representative Chaffetz clearly has some work to do. And, given the breadth of closed-mindedness, so do many of us.<\/p>\n

Image Padlock by Brenkee from Pixabay CC0 Creative Commons<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On March 7 2017, Jason Chaffetz who was then a member of the US House of Representatives (R-Utah) told a CNN anchor: \u201cAmericans have choices\u2026.rather than\u00a0getting that new iPhone\u2026they should […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":289,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3,19],"tags":[96,98,97,7,58],"custom_author":[95],"class_list":["post-284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-in-the-news","category-open-for-debate","tag-closed-mindedness","tag-dogmatism","tag-healthcare","tag-politics","tag-vices","custom_author-battaly-heather"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-4A","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-closed-mindedness-obstructs-effective-inquiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":0},"title":"How Closed-Mindedness Obstructs Effective Inquiry","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"In his recent book Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon describes his encounters with the two main protagonists of the 2003 Iraq war. Nixon, a senior leadership analyst for the CIA, was the first American to interrogate Saddam Hussein at length after his capture by U.S.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":819,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/places-of-formation-cultivating-open-mindedness-amongst-university-students\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":1},"title":"Places of formation: Cultivating open-mindedness amongst university students","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bethan Willis\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Ed Brooks In the ongoing discussions around Brexit our relationship to place, near and far, has become a central element of our political discourse. This has perhaps fed into the burgeoning interest in the civic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/12\/Unsplash-image-for-blog-post.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2119,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-should-we-live-our-intellectual-lives\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":2},"title":"How should we lead our intellectual lives?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This question has long preoccupied philosophers, but has recently taken on greater public urgency in response to fears about misinformation, disinformation, bullshit, tribalism, and other perceived epistemic threats. One answer to this question is that we should live our intellectual lives the same way we should live our ethical lives:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":21,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/open-for-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":3},"title":"We are now open for debate","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Welcome to 'Open for Debate', a blog associated with the project Changing Attitudes in Public Discourse.\u00a0We hope to use this space to debate all aspects and forms of debate. Ultimately, we would like to develop together, in the spirit of collaboration, some suggestions to improve the quality of discussions in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":142,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/rallying-the-troops-versus-quieting-the-indignation\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":4},"title":"Rallying the troops versus quieting the indignation","author":"Gregory Maio","date":"July 3, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"A new National Rifle Association (NRA) video advertisement in the United States sparked controversy this week. Critics indicated that the emotive ad barely falls short of calling for violent action against liberals, while further diminishing the potential for productive dialogue between left-wing and right-wing advocates. The emotive ad reminded me\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/track-1707790_960_720.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/track-1707790_960_720.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/track-1707790_960_720.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":463,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/am-i-in-an-echo-chamber\/","url_meta":{"origin":284,"position":5},"title":"Am I in an echo chamber?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Spend enough time tracking the liberal and conservative media worlds, and you\u2019ll notice a certain symmetry in their accusations. Each side thinks that the other is living in an echo chamber. Each side thinks the other is blind to the truth because their informational community has been corrupted. The usual\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/spiral-staircase-633744_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/spiral-staircase-633744_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/spiral-staircase-633744_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/spiral-staircase-633744_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284\/revisions\/288"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}