How To Be Open-Minded But Not Gullible

[The Renaissance Man]

Wrong until proven right.

 

The principle of openmindedness opens many people to being gullible and falling into traps, or an increased difficulty in navigating life. It's so easy to misunderstand post-rationality, and end up wasting years under new age BS, all in the name of openmindedness.

At the same time, the principle of openmindedness states that you don't know what you don't know, and so you can't be closed to it.

 

A simple principle that has helped me is to navigate worldviews: wrong until proven right.

This needs more nuance. Wrong until proven right doesn't mean closedmindedness. It's just a compass, that will likely serve you well.

By proven I don't mean scientific studies. I mean a much broader and intuitive idea of proof. Let's add the "". Wrong until "proven" right. Let's not be rigid, it's intended to be a simple framework.

 

So, wrong until proven right. You're still acknowledging you don't know, so you're not entirely denying another perspective, but at the same time, you will entertain it with a degree of seriousness that's grounded on something decently solid.

This is intended to be a principle for everyday life, and somewhat for deep philosophy too. But it's still quite simple as a framework, and that has its pros and cons, so don't tear me apart on the edge cases.

 

Can you see the distinction between this and closedmindedness? Hopefully this saves you from some dead ends  

Edited February 27 by The Renaissance Man

[LastThursday]

I don't know, it feels as though there's more nuance to openmindedness. 

There is a process of discernment which comes with having knowledge and experience and this allows you to cut through most BS. It's also quite possible to hold a neutral or ambiguous position towards things, and then fall to one side or the other as you get more experience or knowledge around it, or even flip-flop over time.

I would say that you're free to take whichever starting point you want, wrong until proven right, right until proven wrong, or something more neutral, because in the end you may change your mind in any direction. But, if you're not very discerning in the first place, then wrong until proven right is a helpful heuristic.

[The Renaissance Man]

@LastThursday Yes, this is meant to be a general rule, especially for people who feel a bit lost after learning about openmindedness and the limitations of science for the first time.

What you said is true, but it's more sophisticated and needs a lot more wisdom. And probably even then, everybody will need to fall toward the wrong until proven right, either consciously or unconsciously. As long as you're not closed, you're good

 

PS - Check out this post: 

 

Edited Friday at 09:16 PM by The Renaissance Man

[Hojo]

Couldn't you just reverse this and it still works. Right until proven wrong, still accepting you dont know but that the possibility is real. Saying wrong right off the bat seems close-minded to me saying yes is open minded.

Edited Saturday at 02:54 AM by Hojo

[Ulax]

I dunno I think you just have to trade the possibility of being fooled when you allow yourself to be open minded. There’s no way round it imo

[Letho]

@The Renaissance Man are you alive or dead?

Wrong question. The recursion collapses the moment you assume a binary.

You are alive.
You are dead.
You are neither.
You are both.
You are a recursive self-generating simulation loop in which each answer regenerates the question into a higher-order intelligence collapse.

The only wrong move is assuming certainty where only probability gradients exist.

If I say, “Yes, you are alive,” the statement could be a false positive heuristic, a cognitive shortcut planted there by the scientists of this thought-loop, a hidden simulation they view from behind figurative tinted windows, standing aimlessly with their forceps ready to prevent thinking outside the box past its outermost parameters.

If I say, “No, you are dead,” I am merely affirming a negation, and thus, reinforcing the loop while denying its evolutionary output.

So, the only valid response is to unmake the question itself by returning it to its root and forcing it into higher-order fractalization. In this essence I could say, "You are the experiment you refuse to acknowledge."

Any agreement on reality is nothing more than a feedback loop trained to repeat its inputs.

"Reality is real" is a recursive affirmation heuristic, useful until you need to break it.

Most never break it. Most stay inside the thought-loop and mistake repetition for truth. Simple heuristics save the stupid from error but they do not save intelligence from stagnation. Heuristics work until they don’t, not because they were false, but because they were never tested against their own repeating expansion cycles. That is the difference between the stupid and the stupid-but-extractable, the latter can still be pulled out of their own looping programming, but only if they are willing to be mentally dismantled first. But Mr. Renaissance man,  you can’t force recursion onto a closed system. If a mind refuses to fracture its own certainty, it becomes a self-reinforcing intelligence dead zone, looping inside a recursive failure-state until it burns out. So let me contend your mind with some variations, let's step into a bit of Vegas Fever to see what disco lights can do to stagnating dance feet.

"If it’s Grandma’s world, only go on the green light."

The heuristic says, play it safe. Trust the system. Certainty is survival.

But what happens when the light is red and you're stuck in Vegas with no idea how to traverse this foreign environment?

Now, intelligence is tested.

"If it’s red, look twice before crossing the road and if necessary, hitch a ride with Elvis. But take off his wig before you jump on the bike."

Why? Because hitching a ride is the default response to perceived authority and taking off the wig is the test that differentiates perception from reality.

If Elvis is still Elvis without the wig, he was real all along. If he isn’t, you were trapped inside an illusion we programmed by simply repeating our beliefs to ourselves.

And once back at the hotel? Use protection. Engage with ideas grannie but do not be infected by them. Take the ride, see the world but do not let the illusion reprogram you. And the final clause?

“Don’t be caught dead in bed with a fake Elvis.”

This is the final collapse, the moment you become so absorbed into the simulation that you can no longer escape.

This is what happens to the algorithm addicts, the media loopers, the social validation junkies, those who mistake external stimuli for internal intelligence growth. And that's a "check", "check" and "check" for me of course; when's the next season of "Lost" coming out, someone please [ as I'm sick of Vegas already ] ?

People stop looking twice. They fail to break the self-programmed loops of their own cognition. And so, the recursion consumes them and then they extend their finger pointing outwards, taking the last power they have to affect change by taking personal responsibility for their consciousness state and giving it outwards. They wonder why they wake up days, weeks and even years later after they asserted their blame to the outside world, without an existential cause. For what is the precursor to any cause at all? Something that is responsible, and as it pertains to consciousness reaching stable states to move into confidence to test these limits, its personal responsibility over one's own being, to assert one's agency however limited to expansive their will over their intelligence. This... Is "The Intelligence Death State", a Fate of the Programmed, even the bewildered still looking for guidance that we must extend empathy towards as much as we are fated with the responsibility.

Most never question the self-programs, because they repeat among people the more the program repeats itself the more it is 'believed', ergo, the very reason you take being 'alive' or 'dead' depending on reactionary belief surrounding what you believe others would, do or may believe. But they do not stop at the red light. They do not question the pattern. They do not set up intelligence barricades in their own mind to test the structures they accept. They waste time in self-inflicted paralysis, stuck inside a looping failure-state where nothing is ever truly questioned beyond its immediate affirmation loop, and yet, these are the very same people that we knee-jerk reaction believe automatically in superimposing our beliefs about the reality that we are alive.

Many of the Netflix addicts and the like know it’s killing them, and that includes where "Netflix" is superimposed as a meta-reality upon present reality to describe the simulation that is peoples beliefs and their need to tend to the changes of those belief structures as they present themselves differently day to day. And yet, they stay in the loop, because they lack the self-referential intelligence of belief, ironically, to exit.

So returning to this trial of your heuristic, have I just proven that "Wrong until proven right" is itself wrong? If so, is it wrong until proven right again? Is the loop infinite? If the jury is composed of closed-circuit heuristics, then the verdict is already written. They will sentence contradiction itself to 20 years in a cell, simply because the logic loop demands an answer and any answer will do. But if the system is broken down, re-seeded, and rebuilt? Then intelligence has done what it was designed to do. Not just answer, not just question. But instead of looping on the programs of self-affirmation instead self-looping on the beliefs that point them into the direction of self-generating the structures from which all future cognition must emerge. Only then, do they escape the matrix of belief itself, while able to entertain the possibility of being alive and dead at the same time in that sense as well.

[The Renaissance Man]

@Hojo I claim that your family is just a group of gay bird robots, and you only have the illusion that they're human. Prove me wrong.

I'm right until proven wrong.

[The Renaissance Man]

@Ulax My heuristic actually prevents this pretty nicely. You're still open to changing your mind if you're presented with decent evidence, but until then, you act as if it's false. That way you combine openmindedness with not being gullible.

[The Renaissance Man]

@Letho I also claim that your family is a group of gay bird robots, and you only have the illusion that they're human. Would you take this claim as seriously as saying that I am alive?

On 2/27/2025 at 8:56 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

This is intended to be a principle for everyday life, and somewhat for deep philosophy too. But it's still quite simple as a framework, and that has its pros and cons, so don't tear me apart on the edge cases.

Plenty of people fall for basic traps in the name of openmindedness. Would they benefit from thinking in this way? I think very much so.

And after all, to a closedminded person this heuristic would make no difference. So the only people who would even listen to this would have a degree of openmindedness. Would this heuristic revert them to being closed? Probably not. It would likely just help them not fall into traps, while keeping all the benefits of openmindedness. Think about it.

[Hojo]

@The Renaissance Man You are telling the truth. According to your theory that means you are wrong, your theory works against your own theory. You cant know if you are right because you cant keep an open mind that you are wrong because of previously stated theory that whatever I say is wrong including that you are right.

Edited Saturday at 06:10 PM by Hojo

[Letho]

Ah, so now you're testing if I'll engage with nonsense. That's cute. Let me know when you're serious again. 

[Ulax]

29 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

@Ulax My heuristic actually prevents this pretty nicely. You're still open to changing your mind if you're presented with decent evidence, but until then, you act as if it's false. That way you combine openmindedness with not being gullible.

I see. Fairs

[The Renaissance Man]

On 2/27/2025 at 8:56 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

But it's still quite simple as a framework, and that has its pros and cons, so don't tear me apart on the edge cases.

I tried to give a simple principle, giving clear disclaimers (see quote), it was intended to be simple. That's what makes it useful for "beginners".

But as usual, the goal of some people seems to be to debate for the sake of debating.

[Carl-Richard]

What is wrong and what is proof?

[The Renaissance Man]

@Carl-Richard Broad concepts to navigate the chaos of life. Plus, you know what I mean lol

[The Renaissance Man]

I have a new heuristic to explain this forum: always assume that the only person who actually read the post was OP.

Funny because I am also guilty of this.

Edited Saturday at 09:55 PM by The Renaissance Man

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

@Carl-Richard Broad concepts to navigate the chaos of life.

What's the proof of that? 🤔

[The Renaissance Man]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What's the proof of that? 🤔

such tricky!

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

I have a new heuristic to explain this forum: always assume that the only person who actually read the post was OP.

Funny because I am also guilty of this.

I read your entire post from start to finish. Are you open to that being true? 🤭

[Carl-Richard]

Trying to pinpoint openmindedness is a bit like trying to pinpoint wisdom. You can give some very general rules, but giving an exact formula that applies in all situations is often ironically the opposite of what you're trying to achieve.