Post: #1

I'm finding that I usually read stuff that I already have a favorable predisposition to. I'm thinking I need to change that. I'd like to think I'm "open-minded" (that term has been hijacked) but upon some introspection, I find that I'm actually a pretty rigid SOB when it comes to my worldview.

How often do you read books/articles that run counter to what you believe, if at all? Were you always interested in other viewpoints or is it something that you developed?

Post: #2

It depends on the topic. When it comes to politics I think it's important to see the different solutions to problems though politics itself is a problem. When it comes to science or engineering I am completely open since these subjects are about solving problems. When it comes to relationships or religion I don't care at all about people's beliefs regarding it. That's out of my control.

I only try to see other viewpoints because I don't believe you can debate anything properly without first fully understanding the other side first... something that most people don't seem to get.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being rigid. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Post: #3

I think this is one of the biggest issues for me, things that are settled in my mind and in the minds of those I read are completely ignominious when mentioned in much of the wider world. Even non contentious things like 'women prefer high status males, status is money, looks, power, fame, charisma or a combination thereof'.

Reading Vice to me shows what the leftoids are thinking and where their next target is in destroying civilisation. This week I saw an article of a guy who runs a horse brothel and wants bestiality legal, something that a few years ago not even fringe media would give the light of day to.

Reading books and articles I disagree with takes constant effort, have to decide whether I want to waste my time and life on things that are ridiculous against avoiding living in an echo chamber. Obviously I'm not going to start reading jezebel just to broaden my intellectual horizons, not to mention exposing myself to such slanderous and insane bullshit that I feel a visceral reaction to (such as recent vice article about culling 90% of men).

Debating or conversing with other people you know is usually a better idea so long as they are reasonable in respecting your views while presenting their arguments, that said most lefties are unable to be civil with people they disagree with.

Post: #4

I try to be an "open minded skeptic", yes.

Post: #5

Reading "The Manipulated Man" made me want to read some pro-feminist literature just to balance things out. So yeah, I like to at the least basically understand the different points of view on a given issue.

Post: #6

I would rather talk to someone who disagrees with me rather than someone who agrees with me.

It often forces me to think deeper.

None of my views are "set in stone". I enjoy challenging challenging my own views as well as the views of others.

Post: #7

(08-20-2014 03:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  I would rather talk to someone who disagrees with me rather than someone who agrees with me.

It often forces me to think deeper.

None of my views are "set in stone". I enjoy challenging challenging my own views as well as the views of others.

Agreed. Although, it's becoming more difficult to disagree with someone and still have a civil discourse. Many people argue from emotion, not just women. As soon as I smell emotion in a debate I'm having with someone, I'm getting the fuck out of there.

Post: #8

(08-20-2014 03:36 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  I would rather talk to someone who disagrees with me rather than someone who agrees with me.

It often forces me to think deeper.

None of my views are "set in stone". I enjoy challenging challenging my own views as well as the views of others.

Agreed. Although, it's becoming more difficult to disagree with someone and still have a civil discourse. Many people argue from emotion, not just women. As soon as I smell emotion in a debate I'm having with someone, I'm getting the fuck out of there.

That's why you speak with people who seem credible while holding opposing views. People who can acknowledge other possibilities while believing certain things you may not agree with. I always find those people quite awesome to speak with.

I find conversations with people who can't tolerate anything but their opinion funny.

1) They don't believe in XYZ, or XYZ shouldn't exist
2) I point out that XYZ exists in good quantity
3) At that point, a reasonable person would realize there are at least a few choices
---A) Consider the possibility that they are wrong
---B) Take point A and accept he or she is wrong
---C) Reframe it and just say ok XYZ exists but I won't do it or allow my kids to do it (something along the lines of that)
---D) Attack XYZ because his or her ego cannot handle it

Post: #9

^ Good point. Nassim Taleb says something to the effect that many people are too focused on what they think they know and not focused enough on what they truly dont know/cant comprehend.

I think a lot of people are suffering from information overload and simply arent able to filter through all of it. So they grab whatever soundbite theyre familiar with and push it on you.

Post: #10

I'm a very skeptical person, and some of my friends are even annoyed by my skepticism because I always question their actions, beliefs, and ideas. Skepticism expands your knowledge because it forces you to look at, or at least consider, an idea from another person's point of view. For example: most people will, if they find a book intriguing after they've read a brief description of it, look at its positive reviews. I try to keep an open mind and look at both the book's positive and negative reviews because I know if I read the positive reviews only, I'll read the book with the assumption that it's good, even if it's really bad, and vice-versa.

I often do what Gio and samsamsam described, too, which I believe is called the Socratic method. To me the best learners and intellectuals are those who can step outside their own "perspective bubble" and look at an idea from another's person point of view, even if you happen to disagree with them.

Post: #11

The media wants you to think black and white, god forbid you think for yourself.

Post: #12

There was once a saying that went something to the effect of "If you can only read one newspaper, read the other side's newspaper".

I've found you learn more about your own weaknesses and blind spots from the other side, than from reading your own press.

Post: #13

I don't much care to interact with the "other side" that much. It's a waste of time.

"Proponents" will just talk right past you and refuse to discuss your points, because these points are not relevant to them. If they do engage you, they counter your points with rhetoric and lies fabricated by their upper echelon. Everyone has a vested interest in making their side look good and reasonable, and they'll lie to make it so.

Consider "us" arguing with feminists. You don't get anywhere with those lunatics.

Now Samsamsam has a good point in finding people who hold other views but seem credible. Now if we could find credible feminists that would be a feat.

Post: #14

I readily take in all opinions and points of view. It's really the only way to sort out the truth, or make a relatively informed decision.

Post: #15

A philosophy teacher recommended we read works by opposing authors to understand the holes in ideas we hold.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that"- J.S Mill
Good idea although sometimes it's hard to find the contrasting opinion: is the opposite of the Bible the Satanic Bible? Atlas Shrugged? The Koran? Why I Am Not A Christian?

Reading something by an author you disagree with is always good; it helps to clarify your beliefs, which are often a bit vague, especially on the political, economic or religious spectrum.
Having a discussion of this kind is usually a case of two people listening to each other with their mouths, though.

Post: #16

I do. After coming across so much information that runs counter to the official line, in a wide variety of subjects, I look for more than one viewpoint before forming my own.

Post: #17

Yeah but the different points of view never change. They just repeat the same stuff over and over again, and yet no one budges their position. I can't remember the last time I heard a fresh idea. It's the same old groups constantly struggling against each other.

I think opposing beliefs exist for a reason, and I don't accept the relativist idea that all beliefs are just 'equally valid ways of seeing things'.

There exists an absolute best belief system, which puts mankind in the strongest long term position. This belief system must be determinable by rational thinking. There are reasons we collectively stop theft. There are reasons we collectively stop murder and rape and false imprisonment. And all these reasons can be explained in a straightforward and coherent manner.

Any regression or progress towards the ideal belief system (or 'moral code' if you will) must be caused by structural and constitutional incentives for certain people to benefit from deviating from this code.

Democracy is a good example. Regardless of the morality of stealing from some people just because you are more numerous, there is an immediate incentive for people to do it. If they don't vote to steal, they don't get free money with impugnity. If they do vote to steal, they do get free money with impugnity. For people who are never realistically going to become wealthy, this incentive is unavoidable. And if they have to invent a pseudo-moral justification for it to feel better about it, they will do so.

Feminism is another. Regardless of the reality of sexual dimorphism, there is an incentive for certain women to spread feminist ideas, without regard to facts or the long term social effects, since it increases their own power and priviledges.

In science, opposing beliefs are temporary. They exist for so long as it takes to discover sufficient facts. Science then 'moves on'.
In politics, opposing beliefs are permanent. They exist to the extent that people refuse to think in a rational manner (either by stupidity or incentive), and to the extent that deviating from the ideal moral code can yield benefits.

Post: #18

(08-25-2014 06:02 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Yeah but the different points of view never change. They just repeat the same stuff over and over again, and yet no one budges their position. I can't remember the last time I heard a fresh idea. It's the same old groups constantly struggling against each other.

The main problem I've found is that certain points of view are stamped out and no one is allowed to even read them, much less agree with them.

Supposedly we're living in a free society. I'd suggest that it's closer to the times of heresy and the Inquisition.

Post: #19

A bit too much. Truth is debilitating when it's not on your side.

Post: #20

"Do you expose yourself to different points of view?"

Fuck yes, I see my family once a month. Most of my work colleagues are drones and I work from home.

Then there is just going about my daily life doing stuff. Some days it's like I'm in the fucking Matrix.

Post: #21

Half of what I read when I check out the Everything Else forum. Hell, some of it straight up baffles me.

Post: #22

I am often exposed to different points of view when dealing with my friends and family. Generally I have to reel in my naughty, politically incorrect thoughts to a more reasonable, yet extremely right-wing position. I am exposed to other points of view and I understand where they are coming from. I dont ever agree with them though. I am pretty knowledgeable about both sides of the spectrum and am pretty firmly entrenched in my beliefs, especially since most other people I have met are no where near committed to their beliefs as I am. I enjoy an intellectual debate but they usually digress into them calling me a: racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, Nazi, corporate toadie who hates the poor.

Post: #23

These days I can't really stand politics, but I used to be huge into following politics. Obviusly anything framed the right way can make the same issue look good or bad. I used to make it a point to watch Fox News, LIsten ro rush and sean hannity but I'd also listen to NPR and watch MSNBc and stuff like that as well. I'm very conservative myself but liked hearing both sides. You come to realize both sides are full of shit and actually kinda laugh at how much the "news" frames an issue a certain way. Now I'm conservative so thats how I'd lean on most issues but I'd even find myself getting annoyed with hannity and others who were dishonest at times or framed things in a favorable way towards there side even if I agreed with them on the overall issue.

Post: #24

If you're here, aren't you basically forced to tolerate other points of view at school, work, among friends and every other place that you can't entirely control?

Read anything, as long as it was written pre-1940, is still seen as significant and has a reputation not based on any PC-related agenda.

Post: #25

One of things I dig about RVF is that you have guys from across the globe, with vastly different experiences and worldviews, but for the most part cats are respectful and tolerant of these differences.

There aren't too many parts of the internet/IRL where this type of forum exists, without hostility. Glean what what you can from another's experiences and what you don't relate to or agree with you discard. No big deal

When you stop learning - you die