"Open your mind!" This is a phrase I have heard repeatedly over the years from a huge diversity of people, both online and in-person. It's better to be open-minded than closed-minded, isn't it? I think it is. If you're closed-minded, you're highly susceptible to blindly believing or doing things that may be wrong, right? Better to be open-minded and to know better than all those closed-minded people, correct?
Now here's where I differ in my thoughts from the popular advocates of this principle in the modern world. I differ primarily in definition. The popular advocates tend to push the liberal side of controversial subjects and spend quite a bit of their energy labeling those that don't agree with them as being closed-minded. The definition of "open-minded", as a consensus of several of the most popular dictionaries, is being willing to consider other arguments or ideas. This does not mean blindly accepting or automatically biasing toward those ideas. It means to be willing to consider them, to study them, and to work out where you stand based on reason, evidence, and good-conscience. Being closed-minded, on the other hand, would be an inverse of that concept. It would be unwillingness to hear or consider other ideas. It would be a blind acceptance of something without reasonable examination.
But today's common "open-mindedness" doesn't quite follow that definition. In popular culture, and as heavily peddled by the media, being open-minded tends to be exactly what I previously mentioned. It seems that this liberal touted "open-mindedness" is more a rejection of anything that goes contrary to their own rather closed-minded agenda. What they are calling "open-minded" is only “open-minded” if it in some way supports their agenda, or at the least attacks agendas they choose to be poised against. If it contradicts their agenda, even if accompanied by strong evidence, it seems to be immediately discounted and filed under the mislabel of "closed-minded". And conversely, this type of "open-mindedness" is in fact deceptively mislabeled closed-mindedness.
This is what I have a problem with. Not open-mindedness itself, as properly defined, but mislabeled closed-mindedness. If you are truly open-minded, you are willing to hear both sides of controversial issues, consider them, and reason out your views rather than blindly labeling it as false just because the vocal ones in the media tend to do so. And even when you’ve made up your mind, you should still be open to considering new arguments and new information and potentially changing your stance on a topic.
I've been accused of being closed-minded countless times simply based on my religion, political views, or views on other controversial subjects. However, I feel that is quite unfair, as I do consider other views. I spend quite a large amount of time studying, even to the point of calling into question things I've long believed. I've changed my views on quite a few things as I've studied and contemplated and I'm not afraid to continue doing so.
On the other hand, I see countless posts and articles that focus on attacking subjects and people in quite a closed-minded fashion. They rely heavily on generalizations, assumptions, status-quo, and calling whoever sides with what they're attacking as closed-minded. And unfortunately, too many people tend to blindly agree with the author, as long as they share a political view and the author associates their opinion with "open-mindedness."
Instead, I think it's important to really understand what being open-minded is all about, and then to be so on an individual bases, rather than following some crowd that thinks they're "open-minded", while being closed-minded all the while. Be open to other points of view, study, contemplate, and be willing to change your own views. That doesn't mean you automatically side with pop-culture and vocal liberals, but it does mean you consider their views.
