How Open Minded Do You Consider Yourself?

[angus]

In particular to those that answered the top 2(but anybody can answer) is there a particular style of argument you tend to prefer? Do you feel more comfortable "letting your guard down" among others that have similar views to your own or is it pretty equal no matter what their views are in relation to your own?

I answered "moderately open minded." 

I like when an expert tells me something.  Like, if I'm arguing about how to pronounce something in chinese with another gringo, and a Chinese person steps in and says, "Well, it's like this..." then I usually shut up.  Or, if I'm saying that this is what you need to do to please a girl, and my friend says, "no, you dork, this is what you should do..." and then an actual female walks in and says, "Well, you should actually do this..." then I shut up and listen.

For policy questions, I also listen to experts, but less.  Because there's not usually a really objectively right answer about those, the way there is when it comes to things like speaking Chinese correctly, or giving a good tumble.  Policy is usually just one person's prediction versus another's.  But usually on policy questions, I listen politely to anyone who disagree with me, and if I start hearing something often enough, then I start to erode over time.  For example, I used to think that we ought not to bail out the banks.  This was back in fall 2008.  Then, a bunch of smart posters like beet and jmfcst and others started ticking off the reasons why we should.  And when I objected to their reasoning they'd offer rebuttals to my rationale.  In the end, I started to be convinced that it was an acceptable thing to do, so long as there were strings attached. 

[angus]

I think by "not usually a really objective answer about those" you are meaning to say something like "there is an objective correct answer to policy, but since many issues are so complicated and complex in a lot of cases how can most people tell", right?

I'm not so sure about that.  For example, I think you could make some assumptions and show that the Chicago school had it all figured out, but with other assumptions you could show that Keynes was right.

Or, to use a better example, some folks would tell you that the doctrine of Pre-emption makes us safer since it destroys the threat before it has a chance to become significant, while others will argue that it diminishes our national security since it alienates our allies and also makes it harder for individuals (including US citizens) to trust the government.  

Only time will tell which is the right answer, and sometimes not even time tells us the answer.  For example, in another thread, we are still arguing about whether Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives than they extinguished.  

It also depends upon your goals.  Yes, there's a right answer to the question "Will the wealth be more evenly distributed if everyone donates their savings to a communal fund and then we divide up that fund evenly between all people?"  But that's not the sort of question policymakers generally ask.  They're more likely to ask, "Will the nation's long-term economic security be more secure if our foremost goal is even wealth distribution?"  That question may or may not have a clear-cut answer.

This is why we argue.