Psi: How Open Minded are You Really?

[bennyboy]

I don't think of myself as closed-minded, but I do believe in the two-process model of cognition. We use slow, rational, critical thinking on evidences that are incongruent to our worldview, whereas we use a much faster and less critical process when encountering evidence that is congruent to our worldview. I notice this in myself. Is there something wrong with being skeptical and critical? I don't think so, but I do think we employ a double standard. We might just as well ask the reverse: Psi: Are you too open-minded?

I think you're missing something: the heavy use of superstitious half-beliefs as motivators for action. AFAIK, all smart animals use "hunch" behaviors, rather than non-action, when they notice any correlation among multiple events but cannot discern a causal relationship. I suppose this means that those animals accept as candidate realities things which are not real, and allow them to function as parts of their worldview. So NEW information might get considered carefully, as you suggest, but false or incomplete information will still get a free pass, since until it is actively disproven, it will stand as a candidate belief-- in particular when the behavior will not negatively affect chances of getting a desirable result in a particular set of circumstances.

It seems to me that inaction is usually more dangerous than superstitious action: the former involves a chance of death at the hand of misunderstood forces, and the latter a chance of inefficient use of energy. Therefore, and this is admittedly speculative, it seems to me that all highly evolved creatures are likely to hold, and act on, superstitious beliefs. The next question, then, is this: are we advanced enough that we should respond to mysterious circumstances with inaction, rather than superstitious action? Or is an aversion to superstition potentially dangerous to our survival if (for example) we colonize Mars, or encounter space aliens?