I got pretty good at this - it's not all it's cracked up to be.

If you're really open minded & empirical, every time you talk to a specialist or hobbyist, you'd change your mind - simply because they have more data available. You're not at the mercy of the best idea, just the best argument; you're simply outsourcing your opinions.

It's less "thoughtful" and more "spineless"

Your comment strikes at the core of the matter. Changing your mind is perceived as being spineless, or lacking in some essential moral component. It's unfortunate. Think of the millions who have died needlessly in large and small ways because humans were unable to admit the folly of their ways, even if they could clearly see it.

I stand by my original comment. True bravery is being willing to change your mind about important things.

I think there's a balance. Changing your mind when given sufficient reason to do so is bravery. Changing your mind when given inadequate reason to do so is spineless.

But that begs the question: What is adequate reason? curiousllama is saying that many of us will change for inadequate reasons, because we run into someone who knows more than we do on that particular topic. Not who is right, just who knows more. And if we adopt their position, we learn any more, just adopt their position.

So I think that maybe you have to know why they hold that position, and whether that "why" is valid. But if it is, sure, be brave enough to adopt their position. But if you don't know the why, and whether the why is valid, and you adopt their position anyway... that's kind of spineless.

> I stand by my original comment

Not unexpected. After all, I did try to change your mind by saying "you should not change your mind."

I feel like you’re implying “I am willing to change my mind” is equivalent to “I believe whatever the last thing I heard was”. But surely this is not so.

I feel like this little interaction should be written into a play. It'd fit perfectly in Waiting for Godot.

Is it wrong to follow the opinion of someone with far more data than you?

In the modern world, the vast majority of people (including me) don't have the mental capacity to examine everything. Whether we're talking about politics, science, art, whatever else. Most of us become narrow specialists who are pretty much incapable of forming a good, defensible opinion or concept for a great number of subjects -- both important and trivial ones.

Granted, I don't know how you'd pick which experts to listen to and believe in a given field. I don't, personally, pick a subject matter expert and decide to believe them on everything. But I actually wish I could do that; there's just no social mechanism for picking those people.

data != useful information

information != knowledge

knowledge != wisdom

E.g. there are mountains of astrology "data" daily, but my priors are strong enough to not let them affect my posteriors.

"The problem with having an open mind is that other people will insist on trying to shove things in it". ~Terry Pratchett