Open-minded people seek new experiences without realizing that new experiences can be bad experiences. Closed-minded people are the ones who suggest things like, “You might want to cook that before you eat that,†“Does this really work?†and “Lock your car doors.†We’re sort of like the weights in hot air balloons. We keep people who are dumb enough to get into a hot air balloon from flying into harm’s way.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Is this one of those “satire indistinguishable from the real thing” things, or someone who’s really that thick?
Either way, my brain feels sullied.
( grumblemumble … “You might want to cook that before you eat that†… P’feh! Ruin perfectly good sushi … grumblemumble)
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Like Doc up there, I’m not sure if I’m supposed to take this seriously or not. Assuming I am, I’m going to have to come out in firm opposition to it. I absolutely don’t think judging other is necessary – if a man is coming at me with a chainsaw, I don’t need to judge him to shoot him. I’m just protecting my own life. I’m all for that. We do it in war all the time – shoot individual people we have absolutely no grudge against (it’s unfortunate that the “War on Terror” has blurred this distinction a bit).
If the above makes me sound jingoistic, I’m probably just expressing it wrong. I’m a largely pacifistic person. I’m all for the touchy-feely understanding and not judging thing. That said, if a man’s coming at me with a chainsaw, I will shoot him. Nothing personal, I just have to protect my own ass.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hot air balloons are the Bad Word deleted by The Bad Astronomer. These are the kind of people that will be lined up and shot when I’m in charge.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I always liked the saying “Don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out”.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Stephen, you are being closed-minded. You are just assuming that a masked man who is running at you with a bloody chainsaw in the middle of the night intends to hurt you. You need to be more open-minded, talk with him to find out if he really intends to hurt you are not. Thinking that he is going to hurt you is a judgment. You are not judging his motives, you are judging the actions you think he will take. But that is just as closed-minded.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“if a man is coming at me with a chainsaw, I don’t need to judge him to shoot him. I’m just protecting my own life. I’m all for that.”
–Stephen
Hmm… See, in my opinion, you are judging him. You are judging that his life is worth less than yours and that its better that he die rather than you. Of course, I completely agree with the “shoot him to protect yourself” line of action that you advocate–I would do it myself, though probably feel absolutely terrible afterwards. Just wanted to point out that you are, in fact, judging this person’s worth relative to your own.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
If that’s satarical sarcasm, it’s just kind of poorly done.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It makes more sense if you read the whole article that the BA linked to. The author is basically saying that being too open-minded is just as bad as being too-close minded. After all, all those psychics, etc. try to validate their existence with phrases like “keep an open mind” or “science can’t explain everything.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Not only is it poorly done sarcasm, but he doesn’t really get it. Being open-minded is not about ignoring potential hazards, but about being willing to accept new ideas and experiences if they entail reasonable risks. Emphasis is on the *reasonable.* You have to be open to both the benefits as well as the consequences. Trying something new with reckless disregard for negative consequences is a form of closed-mindedness.
An open-minded person will reach out and try to understand the maniac with a chain saw, but only after he is separated from said saw and safely under restraint. The first order of business is to eliminate the threat. A closed-minded person will shoot first and not ask questions later.
An open-minded person will try that sushi, because she knows 100 million Japanese aren’t getting sick from eating it. But she’s going to cook that spinach. A closed-minded person will just go to McDonalds.
An open-minded person will lock the car doors when he parks in a strange place. A closed-minded person will not travel.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I think Dave’s got it (we’ll skim over the fact that I eat lunch at McDonald’s nearly every day – when there are other food joints just as close.)
and I always lock my car doors – but never the doors to my home.
The open minded are the ones who try new things and insist that ‘what’s good enough for my dad ain’t good enough for me!”. Open minded people are the ones who are taking us into space.
Closed minded people aren’t the ballast on a balloon – they’re the lead weights on our ankles taking us to the bottom of the river before we have time to get our SCUBA gear on.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
The closed minded are the ones who are the weights on the hot air balloon while everyone else has moved on to heavier-than-air supersonic planes.
This is idiotic though. Open-minded does not mean eating raw pork when you know full well there’s a good chance it has pathogenic bacteria in it. That’s called being an idiot.
Being open minded means you are “open” to new ideas. Not that you “accept” all new ideas. Simply that you will consider them.
I like to consider myself open minded but if someone tells me to go do something idiotic I’m going to say “No, sorry, that’s stupid. I considered the idea for about a nanosecond but never figured out a non-stupid take on it.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
>>Hmm… See, in my opinion, you are judging him. You are judging that >>his life is worth less than yours and that its better that he die rather >>than you. Of course, I completely agree with the “shoot him to protect >>yourself†line of action that you advocate–I would do it myself, though >>probably feel absolutely terrible afterwards. Just wanted to point out >>that you are, in fact, judging this person’s worth relative to your own.
It is not a judgment of the worth of another at all. You have a right to live and so does he until he attempts to take the life of another. In that case it is justified to defend your own life because the chainsaw dude has instigated the incident. He did so knowing that he would be subject to force to stop him and you are not responsible for the actions which need to be taken to protect yourself.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Someone (who?) once said about Feynman-
He would always try anything once, but if he didn’t like it then he’d never ever repeat the experience.
That seems like a fairly good rule of thumb to me. After all- there’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, it’s probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on … shame on you. It fool me. We can’t get fooled again.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Why the metaphor with hot air balloons?
It’s wicker propelled by fire! What’s wrong with you people?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’d think Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were all rather open minded individuals. Open enough to entertain radical new thoughts, but also rational enough to follow the whims of their open minds with sound reasoning.
(And, hey, maybe the guy with the chainsaw DOES have bud lite.) (Sorry. Had to go there. I prefer IPA’s, myself.)
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Closed-minded is someone who makes a choose without waiting for facts. They can be identifies but the phrases
“The impossibleâ€,
“all the test results are fakeâ€,
“Because I don’t understand, it is no realâ€
An open-minded person will wait for the facts and only says, “That is interesting, but I will wait to see the all the factsâ€
Closed-minded people are afraid of world around them. They build walls with absolute answer to scary question.
If someone is afraid or don’t like the idea of God they call themselves an atheist.
An open-minded people would ask “Want it this God idea, and how do we test it?â€
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
People judge others instinctively and uncontrollably. Obviously you shouldn’t judge someones character on appearance alone but if someone chooses to look a certain way then you can discern a fair amount of information from that.
Personally I detest the ‘open-minded’ argument. I’ll be open-minded when trying new food or listening to new music but you just can’t convince me peoples moods/fertility/fortune are affected by crystals/star patterns/lucky coins.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Here. I fixed it for everybody:
“Closed-minded people avoid new experiences without realizing that new experiences can be good experiences.
Open-minded people are the ones who suggest things like, “Maybe you should try to vary your diet,†“Let’s find out if this really works!†and “Have you tried living in another neighborhood with a lower crime rate so you won’t have to worry so much about car theft?â€
We’re sort of like the hot air in hot air balloons. We keep people who are dumb enough to put too many weights into a hot air balloon from spending their dull little lives land-locked, uneducated, and unaware of the greater world around them.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Now class, for today’s test please translate the above post into standard English
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I think we need a new term for people who have an open mind, but just accept as true whatever is only remotely possible, rather than investigating honestly.
Maybe we should call it having a “sponge mind”. Someone who just soaks up whatever is new or different. Plus they probably have the IQ of a sponge.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
>>. judging this person’s worth relative to your own.
No, he’s acting on an impulse for self preservation that comes from brain levels far too primitive to support any concept of judgement.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 am
Strange. If anyone here came at me with a chainsaw I’d inquire as to what they were about to cut down with it, seeing as how it’s about a hundred million times more likely to be a tree than it is a person, despite any appearances to the contrary.
Really, people ’round here carry guns, axes, chainsaws, knives, iron bars, bats, screwdrivers, and so on. They also drive multi-ton vehicles at high speed within a couple feet of me all the time without ever trying to kill me with them. Never occurred to me to shoot any of them, what with me not being violently insane.
I wonder, does that make me open minded?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
The comparison with hot-air balloons was lost on me because hot-air balloons don’t use weights. The author probably confused the hot-air balloon with the gas balloon.
Gas balloons make use of a lighter-than-air gas, such as helium, in a closed envelope. To ascend or descend you either drop ballast weights or release gas through a valve on the top of the envelope. For pilot and passenger safety, when the balloon runs low on ballast or gas, the flight should be terminated as soon as possible.
A hot-air balloon on the other hand, will heat the air through the open bottom with a propane burner to ascend or let the air cool to descend. The difference in piloting technique is enough that both require a different type of licence to fly. Now that I’ve cleared up this little misunderstanding, I still don’t know why the hell the author uses balloons to make his point.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 am
Boy, nothing’s quite as cringe-worthy as crappy satire. Dave Barry has a lot to answer for. I’m not going to bother answering any of the comments in the actual article, because when you’re as smug a writer as Mr Cook, you can deflect any criticism by saying ‘Oh, don’t be stupid! That was the satirical part of the essay! Aren’t I clever?!’ I’m sort of embarrassed that Phil chose this as worthy of pointing out, but he must jsut have been having a bad day.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 am
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 am
@zeb
“I think we need a new term for people who have an open mind, but just accept as true whatever is only remotely possible, rather than investigating honestly.”
The word “vacuous” seems appropriate for such a mind since it’ll suck in any bit of fluff it happens to come across. We could even make a distinction between the normal use of the word (e.g. meaning “empty-headed”) by spelling it “vacuuous”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
The dangers of being too open minded.
Also one of the main problem of being too open minded.
http://www.glasbergen.com/images/sat.gif
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
well, yeah…but you’ve got to have a sufficiently ‘open mind’ in order to recognize danger and where things can go wrong, nay?
By my personal definitions of these insufferably popluar terms, most of the ‘closed-minded’ folks i know tend to ignore important details like statistical evidence of potential harm, while ‘open-minded’ people are sufficiently alert to the possibility.
I’ll readily admit SOME RELATIVELY SMALL PROPORTION of the ‘open-minded’ are hyper-credulus to all sorts of nonsense. These may be balanced by a similar proportion of ‘closed-minded’ folks who couldn’t tell whether its dangerous to sleep on train tracks even after they’ve consulted their favorite soothsayer.
MAYBE, if “closed-mindedness” can ALSO can be defined as an inability to accept and rationally process real information, AND “open-mindedness” can ALSO be defined as a capacity to accept new information, then (MAYBE) the terms as so often ‘defined’ aren’t worth the considerable breath expended on them.
In my humble opinion? Attaching to these ambiguous terms the presence or lack of intellectual wherewithall is an extraordinarily ‘closed-minded’ exercise that isn’t nearly ‘open-minded’ enough to suit the messy details that are evident in the actuality. Closed or open, it is ludicrously meaningless, and tiresome beyond endurance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
“No, he’s acting on an impulse for self preservation that comes from brain levels far too primitive to support any concept of judgement.”
I think my definition of “judgement” is different than yours… and probably different than most peoples. I’m going to have to think about this.
I agree that self-preservation is pretty much instinctual, btw. I’m just not sure if I agree with what level of intelligence and thought is needed for a “judgement” to occur.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
[quote]Someone (who?) once said about Feynman-
He would always try anything once, but if he didn’t like it then he’d never ever repeat the experience.
That seems like a fairly good rule of thumb to me. After all- there’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, it’s probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on … shame on you. It fool me. We can’t get fooled again.[/quote]
Close, it’s
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”
At least that’s how it goes here in Texas.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Bringing my own plow to some already fairly well worked-over turf:
If there’s a line to be drawn between skepticism and mere nay-saying, or even downright cowardice, these comments have crossed it.
“New experiences can be bad experiences,” is so incontrovertible as to be meaningless, akin to a reminder that we are going to die some day.
The possibility of failure and/or disaster exists in every human undertaking. Whether it be going from the earth to the moon, from europe to the New World, or from your house to the grocery store, yes indeed, something bad can happen.
So. Not only can NEW experiences be bad experiences, so can the ones you’ve had a hundred times before. Clearly the smart move is to eschew not only the novel, but the routine as well.
I am surprised that the BA — who posed smiling and proud (and justifiably so) in front of the Space Shuttle, would put forth the effort to cut-and-paste such tommyrot.
[As others have noted, if the quoted comments were simply very poorly constructed sarcasm (one hesitates to use the word satire), please forgive my two cents.]
October 4th, 2007 at 6:57 am
@Crazycowbob: The “misquote” is a direct quote from your president: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I