The Danger of a Too-Open Mind
This is an edition of the Books Briefing, our editors' weekly guide to the best in books. Sign up for it here.
At a moment when just asking questions can feel synonymous with bad-faith arguments or conspiratorial thinking, one of the hardest things to hold on to might be an open mind. As Kieran Setiya wrote this week in The Atlantic on the subject of Julian Barnes's new book, Changing My Mind, 'If a functioning democracy is one in which people share a common pool of information and disagree in moderate, conciliatory ways, there are grounds for pessimism about its prospects.' But what should the civic-minded citizen do with that pessimism? Knowing about our tendency toward rationalization and confirmation bias, alongside the prevalence of misinformation, how do we know when, or whether, to change our minds?
First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic's Books section:
What Shakespeare got right about PTSD
The life of the mind can only get you so far
The last great Yiddish novel
'Coalescence,' a poem by Cameron Allan
Another article published this week presents a possible test case. The Yale law professor Justin Driver examines a new book, Integrated—and, more broadly, a surge of skepticism over the effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision that ordered the racial integration of American public schools. The book's author, Noliwe Rooks, was 'firmly in the traditional pro-Brown camp' as recently as five years ago, Driver writes. But America's failure to accommodate Black children in predominantly white schools, combined with the continuing lack of resources in largely Black schools, led Rooks to conclude in her book that Brown was in fact 'an attack on the pillars of Black life': that integration, as carried out, has failed many Black children, while undermining the old system of strong Black schools.
Should this case of intellectual flexibility be celebrated? It certainly makes for a lively debate. Driver calls Rooks's 'disenchantment' with the ruling 'entirely understandable,' but he sticks to his own belief that Brown has done more good than harm, and he makes a case for it. For example, Rooks portrays Washington, D.C.'s prestigious all-Black Dunbar High School as a hub of the community, staffed by proud and dedicated educators. Driver complicates the history of those 'glory days' by quoting its most prominent graduates: 'Much as they valued having talented, caring teachers, these men understood racial segregation intimately, and they detested it.' And he notes that, beyond changing education, 'Brown fomented a broad-gauge racial revolution throughout American public life.' He demonstrates that we can absorb new information—in this case, evidence of the many shortcomings of American school integration—without forgetting the lessons of the past.
Barnes makes a similar case in Changing My Mind, a book that is, in fact, mostly about why the novelist hasn't altered his opinions and ultimately doubts that trying to is worth it. To adopt new beliefs, he writes, we would have 'to forget what we believed before, or at least forget with what passion and certainty we believed it.' Setiya chides Barnes for his view that, given our hardwired biases, we might want to give up on being swayed at all. But he concludes that such stubbornness is 'not all bad.' Perhaps keeping an open mind is overrated—at least if it means 'coming to accept the unacceptable,' as Setiya puts it. And how should a person determine what's unacceptable? 'When we fear that our environment will degrade,' Setiya writes, 'we can record our fundamental values and beliefs so as not to forsake them later.' Once we know what our principles are, we can more easily weigh new information against our existing convictions. Without them, it would be easier to change our minds—but impossible to know when we're right.
It's Hard to Change Your Mind. A New Book Asks If You Should Even Try.
By Kieran Setiya
The novelist Julian Barnes doubts that we can ever really overcome our fixed beliefs. He should keep an open mind.
Read the full article.
, by Whittaker Chambers
This 1952 memoir is still thrust in the hands of budding young conservatives, as a means of inculcating them into the movement. Published during an annus mirabilis for conservative treatises, just as the American right was beginning to emerge in its modern incarnation, Witness is draped in apocalyptic rhetoric about the battle for the future of mankind—a style that helped establish the Manichaean mentality of postwar conservatism. But the book is more than an example of an outlook: It tells a series of epic stories. Chambers narrates his time as an underground Communist activist in the '30s, a fascinating tale of subterfuge. An even larger stretch of the book is devoted to one of the great spectacles in modern American politics, the Alger Hiss affair. In 1948, after defecting from his sect, Chambers delivered devastating testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee accusing Hiss, a former State Department official and a paragon of the liberal establishment, of being a Soviet spy. History vindicates Chambers's version of events, and his propulsive storytelling withstands the test of time. — Franklin Foer
From our list: Six political memoirs worth reading
📚 Free: My Search for Meaning, by Amanda Knox
📚 Sister Europe, by Nell Zink
📚 Twist, by Colum McCann
What Impossibly Wealthy Women Do for Love and Fulfillment
By Sophie Gilbert
Watching the show, I found myself stuck on one question: Whom is this for? Is there an underserved niche of Santa Barbara moms with their own pristine vegetable gardens who have previously been too intimidated to attempt baking focaccia? And yet, as With Love, Meghan went on, it started to hit a few of the classic pleasure points. A beautiful woman with a wardrobe of stealth-wealth beige separates and floral dresses? Check. A fixation, both nutritional and aesthetic, on how best to feed one's family, down to fruit platters arranged like rainbows and jars of chia seeds and hemp hearts to sneak into pancakes? Check. A strange aside where she details what it meant for her to take her husband's name? Ding ding ding: We're in tradwife territory now. This is absurd, of course. Meghan isn't a tradwife; if anything, she's a girlboss, a savvy, mediagenic entrepreneur with a new podcast dedicated to businesswomen and a nascent retail brand. So why does she seem to be trying so hard to rebrand as one, offering up this wistful performance of femininity and old-fashioned domestic arts that feels staged—and pretty familiar?
Read the full article.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Sign up for The Wonder Reader, a Saturday newsletter in which our editors recommend stories to spark your curiosity and fill you with delight.
Explore all of our newsletters.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
10 minutes ago
- UPI
Australia awaits American decision on AUKUS nuclear submarine pact
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, Calif. in March of 2023. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 12 (UPI) -- Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles announced Thursday he feels that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal which connects with the United Kingdom and United States, will continue after the Trump administration reviews the pact. "I am very confident this is going to happen," he told ABC News, as he believes AUKUS is of strategic interest to all three nations. The Pentagon has expressed that the 2021 deal is being reassessed to make sure it's a fit with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda before he meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the G7 summit taking place in Canada next week. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also had met with Marles, who is also Australia's Minister for Defense, earlier this month and recommended Australia increase its defense spending to 3.5 percent of its GDP. Albanese said in a press conference Tuesday that he thinks "that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defense" when asked about a defense spending boost, while not directly addressing if he would risk losing the AUKUS deal over that decision as questioned. The Pentagon review is being led by U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, who in the past has been critical of the deal made under the Biden administration to arm Australia with nuclear subs that use advanced American and British technology. "In principle it's a great idea," Colby posted to X about AUKUS in August of 2024," but added he's "agnostic" about the program. However, Colby also posted that day he was "convinced we should focus on Asia, readying for a war with China" in order to avoid it. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian announced Thursday in a press conference when asked about his nation's opinion on the possibility of an end to AUKUS that China opposes "manufacturing bloc confrontation and anything that amplifies the risk of nuclear proliferation and exacerbates arms race."
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Democrats demand probe of Ed Martin's pledge to 'shame' Trump's opponents, other actions at DOJ
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are pushing for an investigation into top Justice Department official Ed Martin over his stated plans to "shame" political opponents of President Donald Trump who he's unable to charge criminally, as well as a host of other politically charged matters Martin has publicly pledged to pursue in his new position. "I write to express my grave concern about Ed Martin's stated intention to abuse his new roles as lead of the so-called 'Weaponization Working Group' you constituted at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and as DOJ's Pardon Attorney," Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a letter transmitted to the Justice Department, which was first obtained by ABC News. "Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ." The DOJ did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment on the letter. MORE: Ed Martin, Trump's DOJ pardon attorney, says he'll review Biden's outgoing pardons Martin's controversial tenure as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., in the opening months of Trump's presidency thrust the office into turmoil and led several Senate Republicans to state publicly they wouldn't support his permanent confirmation in the role. But once the White House announced they were pulling Martin's nomination, Trump said Martin would instead be appointed to several top positions working out of DOJ's main headquarters -- serving as an associate deputy attorney general, the U.S. pardon attorney and director of the so-called "Weaponization Working Group." Martin celebrated the news on his X account, posting 'Eagle Unleashed,' and in various interviews celebrated what he described as a mandate from Trump directly to target the alleged 'weaponization' of the department under the Biden administration. 'It's classic Donald Trump, right? That somebody tries to block him and block his pick, and he decides to double down,' Martin told Breitbart News last month. 'This is probably the greatest job I could ever envision.' MORE: Trump US attorney nominee distances himself from antisemitic Jan. 6 rioter he once praised In a news conference announcing his departure from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, Martin confirmed he planned to launch a probe of last-minute pardons issued by former President Joe Biden just before he left office -- and suggested that officials he's unable to charge would instead be publicly "shamed." "There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people," Martin said. "And if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them ... And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed. And that's a fact. That's the way things work. And so that's how I believe the job operates." The approach would directly conflict with longstanding DOJ policy that prohibits prosecutors from naming or disparaging individuals who they don't intend to charge criminally. When asked about that policy by ABC News during the news conference, Martin said he would "have to look at what the provision you're referring to, to see -- we want to square ourselves with doing the things correctly." The letter from Senate Democrats said Martin's statements "are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual's prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons. Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public's trust in the department in irreparable ways." MORE: Bondi, as new AG, launches 'Weaponization Working Group' to review officials who investigated Trump In his early days as pardon attorney, Martin said he advised the president in his pardon of former Virginia county sheriff Scott Jenkins, who had been sentenced to ten years in prison for a federal bribery conviction. "No MAGA left behind," Martin posted on X in response to the pardon. Durbin's letter further cited reports Martin has "personally advocated" fast-tracking pardons for members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy stemming from their roles leading up to the attack on the Capitol, after President Trump initially opted to commute their sentences in his sweeping clemency action for the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with Jan. 6. Durbin's letter requests Bondi provide a host of records related to Martin's appointment and early days as head of the Weaponization Working Group and Pardon Attorney's Office. It's unclear whether DOJ will ultimately respond to Durbin's demands given Democrats' minority position on the committee. Senate Democrats demand probe of Ed Martin's pledge to 'shame' Trump's opponents, other actions at DOJ originally appeared on


E&E News
14 minutes ago
- E&E News
Hill Republicans applaud climate rule rollback
Republican lawmakers welcomed the Trump administration's Wednesday proposal to roll back limits on power plant emissions. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin unveiled a plan to wipe out power plant pollution limits and carbon storage requirements that were instituted under former President Joe Biden. The proposal would leave the power sector without a federal mandate to address fossil fuel emissions. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quick to welcome EPA's actions. They downplayed potential climate impacts, instead pointing to the need to bolster fuel production to power artificial intelligence and lower energy prices. Advertisement 'These regulations promulgated during the Biden-Harris administration threaten American businesses and workers without making a meaningful difference toward addressing pollution,' said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the House's Energy and Commerce Committee, at EPA's Wednesday rollout event.