What is Open-Mindedness, and How Could We Assess It?

Plus: how do we become more or less open-mindeded?

What is open-mindedness precisely? What is the line between skepticism and denial. How does open-mindedness relate to a (broad) definition of rationality (is a rational person an open-minded one)? What about "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"? Open-mindedness can't mean entertaining all hypotheses equally – it is a) impossible in a strict sense b) vulnerable to bisection fallacy hacking.

Can we assess open-mindedness? I think you can tell when you see it. Here's some ideas on assessment:

• Ask for a belief they hold strongly. Ask what new information would cause them to question or change their view.
  • If the answer: is "there is no evidence" score 0. The clearer and more plausible the evidence example the more points up to 5.
• Narrate them an example case e.g. about MMR vaccine and ask them what they think. Or pick an example like hot hand in baskteball.
• Ask them a question like: X is a basketball scout. They have to evaluate players. They are generally tentative in their evaluations. Y is also a scout but is generally much more certain. If asked about a player they will give a definite yes or no. Which do you think is a better scout.
  • Repeat for politician predicting the economy or the impact of their fiscal policies.
  • Repeat for a consultant predicting oil prices.
  • The more they prefer definiteness the less likely they are to be open-minded. (We should be uncertain about basketball scouting or the future of the economy)
• You stay at a hotel. When you go down to breakfast you have a choice of two high-quality newspapers: one that is aligned with your general politics and outlook on life and one that is from the opposite persuasion. Which do you choose?
  • You might want to adjust this question by discovering their politics first and then framing around that type of newspaper.
  • Do you find the news you currently read annoys you with its political viewpoint (if, yes this is a good sign)
  • Do you prefer your newspaper because: a) it is more aligned with your pre-existing political viewpoint b) because it is higher quality (if they say (b) they are probably just deluded ;-))
• Do you think the adverts you see affect what you think or how you perceive the world?
  • No: 0 points. Yes: 5 points.
• Do you think the political slant of your newspaper affects your own beliefs?
  • No: 0 points. Yes: 5 points.

Background

Done quite a bit on this recently e.g. for AET workshop. Basic question goes back decades: why did my father keep reading the newspapers he knew were unreliable, why did no-one seem to change their mind in debates, why could I not persuade Miles Parr crime was improving, or Wilf and Raymond that politicians were not getting more corrupt? Given my own commitment to rational (and all too aggressive) argument as a child and teenager I had begun to realise by my 20s how futile it seemed (though there were retrospective surprises – people might not change their mind at the time but sometimes later you'd find a surprisingly large impact).

History: previous in depth discussions include Sahara (esp encounter with Daniele Orner – and her interesting lack of open-mindedness). Was thinking there based on work for AET workshop.