Seems like a subtype of Bulverism; not aware of a more specific term.
I also find it hard to call out this type of behaviur when it happens, even when I can tell exactly what is going on.
Assuming you have a LWer-typical level of atypicality, you could say “I literally do/believe [outlandish but politically-neutral activity/opinion], there’s no way closed-mindedness is my problem.” (If it were me, I’d use donating to Shrimp Welfare; apparently most people think that’s strange, for some reason.)
I feel like if I try to defend my openmindedness I loose. It just opens up more attac surfaces to someone who is hostile and doesn’t argues in good faith.
I think it’s much better to call out why calling someone close minded for not listening is just invalid in general, not just this time in particular. And I do believe it is.
If someone isn’t listening to you. Them being to close minded is so faaaaaar the list of most likely explanation that. Much less likely than:
I feel like if I try to defend my openmindedness I loose. It just opens up more attac surfaces to someone who is hostile and doesn’t argues in good faith.
Yeah. The opponent’s move is establishing “you can change your mind and adopt my opinion” as the criterion to measure your open-mindedness. If you can switch to their position, you are allowed to keep calling yourself open-minded; if you don’t, you lose that right.
(The rational answer would be: yes, you are capable of adopting any position, including theirs, when there is a good reason to do so. Open-mindedness does not mean adopting random positions for no good reason, or simply because someone calls you a chicken if you don’t.)
So the essence of the move is “I decide what is the true (costly) signal of the trait you claim to have”. And the choice of the signal is obviously self-serving. I mean, in theory, they could have asked you to demonstrate your open-mindedness by adoption a position they don’t agree with; that would be an equally valid proof of your ability to change your mind. But of course there is no incentive for them to do so. Which shows that evaluating your open-mindedness impartially was never the true goal here.
Another thing is that there is a difference between “being open-minded” and “signaling open-mindedness”. Just because you are capable of adopting various kinds of positions, doesn’t mean that you should. To consider options X, Y, Z, and afterwards decide to stay with the original X, can be perfectly open-minded, even if from outside it may be difficult to distinguish from “the person did not consider Y and Z at all”. (It’s like when a gifted child solves a mathematical problem too fast, and the teacher accuses them of merely guessing the answer. There is a difference between doing the work, and demonstrating to other people that you did the work.)
Shortly:
open-mindedness does not mean “doing what you want me to do”; that’s called social pressure
it is perfectly open-minded to consider a hypothesis… and then reject it
(...) Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive.
Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence. (...)
(Lots more ranting about psychologizers. Schopenhauer energy.)
Seems like a subtype of Bulverism; not aware of a more specific term.
Assuming you have a LWer-typical level of atypicality, you could say “I literally do/believe [outlandish but politically-neutral activity/opinion], there’s no way closed-mindedness is my problem.” (If it were me, I’d use donating to Shrimp Welfare; apparently most people think that’s strange, for some reason.)
I feel like if I try to defend my openmindedness I loose. It just opens up more attac surfaces to someone who is hostile and doesn’t argues in good faith.
I think it’s much better to call out why calling someone close minded for not listening is just invalid in general, not just this time in particular. And I do believe it is.
If someone isn’t listening to you. Them being to close minded is so faaaaaar the list of most likely explanation that. Much less likely than:
Your argument are bad
Dissintrest in the topic
Other things they rather do right now
Yeah. The opponent’s move is establishing “you can change your mind and adopt my opinion” as the criterion to measure your open-mindedness. If you can switch to their position, you are allowed to keep calling yourself open-minded; if you don’t, you lose that right.
(The rational answer would be: yes, you are capable of adopting any position, including theirs, when there is a good reason to do so. Open-mindedness does not mean adopting random positions for no good reason, or simply because someone calls you a chicken if you don’t.)
So the essence of the move is “I decide what is the true (costly) signal of the trait you claim to have”. And the choice of the signal is obviously self-serving. I mean, in theory, they could have asked you to demonstrate your open-mindedness by adoption a position they don’t agree with; that would be an equally valid proof of your ability to change your mind. But of course there is no incentive for them to do so. Which shows that evaluating your open-mindedness impartially was never the true goal here.
Another thing is that there is a difference between “being open-minded” and “signaling open-mindedness”. Just because you are capable of adopting various kinds of positions, doesn’t mean that you should. To consider options X, Y, Z, and afterwards decide to stay with the original X, can be perfectly open-minded, even if from outside it may be difficult to distinguish from “the person did not consider Y and Z at all”. (It’s like when a gifted child solves a mathematical problem too fast, and the teacher accuses them of merely guessing the answer. There is a difference between doing the work, and demonstrating to other people that you did the work.)
Shortly:
open-mindedness does not mean “doing what you want me to do”; that’s called social pressure
it is perfectly open-minded to consider a hypothesis… and then reject it
Bulverism is a good term, thanks!
A more transparent term would be psychologizing:
See also Ayn Rand on this topic:
(Lots more ranting about psychologizers. Schopenhauer energy.)