Summation

[adderslj]

There are (broadly speaking) two ways you can approach new data entering your mind:

"How can this data support my current opinions?"

"How could this data change my current opinions?"

I think the latter is the more important question. I think the former is the one more commonly asked.

Hell, I could be wrong. But that's where I am right now.

Comments

[fraserspeirs.livejournal.com]

Also important is "how complete is this data?", but I'm not sure whether it goes before or after the two you mention.

[nerd-king.livejournal.com]

People's opinions and beliefs are a complicated web of interlinked things.

Some new data is easy to assimilate, even that which contradicts your current opinions. When that opinion is linked to a number of *other* opinions (some of which might be well-established parts of your belief system) then the psychic barriers go up to protect yourself.

"If fact X is correct, my opinions on A, B and C must be all wrong - therefore X must be incorrect."

[adders.livejournal.com]

I think that's a very insightful point.

The danger, of course, is that eventually the evidence can become overwhelming and bring a particular belief system crashing down, with difficult consequences for the person it happens to.

I prescribe an open mind at all times. :-)

[andrewducker]

Robert Anton Wilson divides the brain into The Thinker (which holds opinions) and The Prover (which looks into the outside world and uses the facts to prove whatever The Thinker thinks).

It's very easy to sieve for facts.