Literalists = rigidity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorting people into categories seems like rigid thinking.

And people who take the constitution (or Bible, etc) literally? You believe they have actually thought through alternatives before settling on a literal interpretation?

I have no idea. You can't measure people from a single metric. If this is your single data point to determine if someone is a rigid thinker, then I humbly suggest you have some rigid ideas.

So let’s word the question differently. In your experience, do most of the people you know who take certain “authoritative” documents literally (Bible & constitution, for example), tend to be rigid in other areas of their life?

Not asking for a diagnosis, just your observations.

I observed this recently and I’m wondering if it’s common. That’s all.

I don't know any people like this. Who are you hanging out with?

We live in a diverse area with people from lots of of different backgrounds.

Yes, I agree. I haven't met any that literally interprete the Bible or the Constitution. I repeat, who are you hanging out with? Supreme Court judges? Because we all know that's where you are headed with your arguments.

You sound weirdly defensive. If you don’t know anyone like this then why are you responding?

Do you know anyone like this?

Yes, a few. Which is why I started the thread after hanging out with them again recently.

If you don’t know any you should get out more. There are all types.

[Anonymous]

Funny thing I've found is people who are literal about certain texts (Bible, constitution) are only *selectively* literal. Some passages they recite as carved-in-stone, and others they either debate or completely ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing I've found is people who are literal about certain texts (Bible, constitution) are only *selectively* literal. Some passages they recite as carved-in-stone, and others they either debate or completely ignore.

Interesting! I wonder how they choose which sections they take as literal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, there is a certain personality type that's drawn to rules, and feels more secure when things are black and white.

So, yes, kinda?

So it sounds like they aren’t comfortable with ambiguity. I wonder why that is.

[Anonymous]

I would think so.

Interesting term by the way.

The Bible as well as The Constitution were written a LONG time ago, especially the Bible.

I think it should not be taken too literal however I think the basic principles + teachings would be a great foundation to build off of.

But that would leave too broad an area up for simple human interpretation, right? 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think so.

Interesting term by the way.

The Bible as well as The Constitution were written a LONG time ago, especially the Bible.

I think it should not be taken too literal however I think the basic principles + teachings would be a great foundation to build off of.

But that would leave too broad an area up for simple human interpretation, right? 🤔

Yes, some ideas didn’t age well at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion discourages critical thinking.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of rigidity in thinking! Also, one that betrays deep ignorance about the spectrum of religious modes, a good number of which are as rigid as the way you categorize things, but many which are not.

How about people who take the Bible literally - do you think that demonstrates rigidity?

I find that even the folks who pretend to take the Bible literally are apt to pick and chose.

[Anonymous]

Taking a rigid "literal" approach to the Constitution is so weird to me. It's a *constitution* not a code. Constitution evokes the idea of something living and organic. Not dead letters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taking a rigid "literal" approach to the Constitution is so weird to me. It's a *constitution* not a code. Constitution evokes the idea of something living and organic. Not dead letters.

It was even designed to evolve over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people who take certain documents literally (bible, constitution) really just suffering from mental rigidity?

That would explain a lot…

We see a lot of this kind of behavior with people on DCUM, who won’t/can’t look at a poster’s intent. Worse are the grammar/spelling police who can’t get past obvious unintentional errors on a casual social media site like this.

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t Scalia a bit like this? At least from his “Reading Law” book, it appears so.

[Anonymous]

Yes, literalists are rigid, pretty much by definitiion. And they're frustrating.

Put aside big ticket subjects like the Bible and the Constitution, and think about those people in your life who absolutely cannot abide interpreting even vague rules in a way that makes sense for what you're trying to get done. People who would rather accept a bad outcome than use what the rules don't say to reach the optimal one.

They also tend to have poor senses of humor, and are often unpleasant to be around as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Religion discourages critical thinking.

Not all of them. Most encourage it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t Scalia a bit like this? At least from his “Reading Law” book, it appears so.

No. He pretended to be, but he was selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing I've found is people who are literal about certain texts (Bible, constitution) are only *selectively* literal. Some passages they recite as carved-in-stone, and others they either debate or completely ignore.

This is logical (though wrong behavior).

If all you have in your arsenal is is binary True and False, your only option is to accept or reject, not seek nuance and interpretation.

To be fair, being non-litetal and non-rigid has flaws too: it invites the reader to project their own meaning into the text, and then claim he text supports it.