Open-minded really means like-minded. This is something that becomes clear after one has adjusted to and survived within varying cultures with different value systems.
If you ask anyone about their own values, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that defines herself or himself as closed-minded. That is to say, we all like to think we're open-minded.
Even in fascist and repressive cultures, if you asked them, they probably wouldn't say they were closed-minded. They'd say they were enlightened or living life by the correct, true or virtuous rules.
Self-proclaimed liberals would change the lingo, but essentially the argument is about values. Whose values are more important? Whose values are higher up on the scale? Whose values are right?
Moving from Los Angeles to San Francisco has been a sort of wake-up call to the whole concept of open-mindedness.
There's nothing really open-minded about being open-minded. Because in defining oneself as open-minded, one is already creating a hierarchy of values: There are the “closed-minded people” and then there's “us — the open-minded”.
But the seeming community that is us is really no one. Because an open-minded community wouldn't be exclusive and hierarchical, would it? An open-minded community wouldn't tout itself as superior to another. In this sense, the whole concept of open-mindedness is defunct and lame.
The idea of open-mindedness should really be subsumed by an idea of survival. Could you get by in the enemy camp?
Would you be open enough to try walking in the others' shoes for more than a minute? Or, how difficult would it be to make a judgment after having the experience, instead of frothing nonsense at the mouth in a knee jerk reaction?
Something like that would be truly impressive, and not open-minded at all.