Perhaps we don't need open minds.

I'm wondering if an open mind is a mind that doesn't have a point of view.

And, I'm of the opinion that a point of view acts like a filter for us. When we receive new information about the world, the point of view filters that data into evidence we use to hopefully inform our beliefs about the world. The point of view doesn't inform the data, the data informs/mutates the point of view.

What does it mean to be open minded? And here, I claim that it means being open about your point of view, allowing that view to be challenged, and be willing to update it as you learn more.

My view on music is informed by my experience in music, my sense of taste and what I believe is correct. If I encounter some new music that I immediately judge as poor, I would acknowledge that and then do the following: state my point of view (perhaps to myself), invite the music to challenge me by giving it a few deep listens, maybe solicit input from listeners I know that like that music, and then decide if I need to change my view. Maybe I don't change my view, maybe I can hold my opinion and tolerate that there are other different things kinds of music out there. Maybe I do, maybe I change my view and I decide that what I experienced is better than what I believed before. Maybe I do something else.

What does it mean to be closed minded? I claim that means not being willing to allow data to update your beliefs about the world; and instead, looking for data to reinforce a belief.

I believe the world is much richer when we're willing to state our point of view, allow ourselves to be challenged, and be confident enough to challenge the views of others — and then, after all is said and done — get to decide if we need to make an update.