New rationalists always seduced by the dark side

[Craig24]

I think that's a correct interpretation of the open-minded dogma; it's also closed-minded to accept the validity of open-mindedness. An open-minded person must be open to the possibility that open-mindedness is not morally better than closed-mindednes; well, no, that was too narrow a statement. Rather an open-minded person must be open to being open-minded about the possibility of there being an error in open-mindedness. But leave out the "must" part.

In VOS, Ayn Rand makes the following remark about the word "selfish":

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

Now consider here remarks in P:WNI concerning the phrase "open mind":

[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything.

I wonder why she did not treat these two the same way.

[Jas0n]

It's my impression that this step out of the closet of religion (so to speak) generally leads people not to "liberalism" (as taken to mean "political leftism"), but rather pragmatism. There, reason is applied, but only selectively and without consideration of ideas or ideology as pertains to the whole of reality.