Keeping an Open Mind

I try to keep an open mind about things. In many cases it comes naturally. I’m usually pretty good at seeing several sides to a situation, even when I don’t particularly agree with them all. This is beneficial when dealing with people, as being able to understand how they are affected or perceive something helps relating to them. It can also be problematic, such as when you see the benefit of all dinner choices and spend hours trying to decide what to eat.

But I’m just as susceptible to extremist views of things as everyone else. I was reminded of this fact earlier tonight while reading Super Freakonomics. In one chapter they authors talk about global climate change.  They, and the group of scientists they interview, take a position that at first seems completely counter to my opinion. They state that the impact by Human’s, particularly carbon pollution, is overstated, the negative projections are uncertain and that the media and politicians, particularly Al Gore, are simply trying to generate fear by overstating things. These sentiments ring very close to the many Climate Deniers.

At first I started to dismiss what I was reading on that basis. Everything I’ve seen and read has convinced me there is indeed some form of climate change going on, Human’s are likely at least partially responsible and all of the people that dismiss this are backed by oil companies or are anti-science fundamentalists. The chapter in the book talked about how alternative energy sources (wind and solar for example), conservation efforts or attempts to change habits won’t do anything to fix the problem. And then I realized something. The authors, and the mentioned scientists, were talking about ways to FIX the problem. They were making a case against some of the proposed solutions and against some of the hyperbole used by many climate change advocates. They weren’t denying the basic science that supports the claim climate change is occurring.

I had failed to keep an open mind while reading, simply because it appeared to contradict my opinion. They were taking a more economics based look at climate change, which is more practical and less idealistic then most of the more vocal climate change advocates. I found that I had been swayed by extremists on the environmental side, that I had come to view all dissenting opinions the same as those held by the extremists on the anti-science side. Once I realized that, I took a closer look at what the authors were saying, and realized I didn’t disagree with most of what they said. They even pointed out that the approach they advocated (finding a simple and cheap solution, such as geo-engineering) could back-fire and be used as a license to pollute more.

Sadly, extremist viewpoints can have polarizing impacts on opinion. When you lean slightly in one direction, and the extremists on the opposite side get very loud, it causes you to shift further away from them. Once that happens, finding the ideal solution, usually in the middle, becomes harder. Al Gore is just as much to blame as oil companies that fund anti-climate change studies.

This served as a reminder to me to be more circumspect about my opinions. The current political climate is very polarized, and while I think a lot of things need to be opposed, especially from the radical tea-party right, I need to be careful not to be blinded by the extremists on the other side. I’m primarily opposed to polarized, dogmatic opinions (which is why I’m not a fan of the two party system) more than any particular belief.  But I definitely have a liberal slant for things involving education, economic disparity, workers rights, healthcare, climate change, evolution and gay rights. And all of these things can generate some real wackos who make it really hard not to hate them and dismiss out of hand everything they say.