Someone with open mind has a priori with at least slight probability assigned to unlikely (for them!) hypothesis while on the other hand very religious people for example have 0 in their priori when it comes to possibility of their religion being made up so they are forced to ignore evidence to the contrary (because bayesian updating breaks for them due to division by zero and mind's way to signal this exception is denial). In general someone with a lot of weight on given hypothesis is "stubborn" or just very convinced and someone with uniform or close distribution just doesn't know anything about given problem.
Someone unable to build heavily weighted distributions is a conspiracy theorist, someone reluctant to - a sceptic and someone too much eager to a fanatic. Someone with very bad priors is un/badly educated (in given domain) or biased or maybe just stupid, someone with good priors is an expert. It's possible to combine expert with sceptic attitude or expert with fanatic or all too often stupid with fanatic (very bad and very heavily weighted priors with possible 0's on some options).
Once you start thinking this way you start expressing yourself differently, you start adding those probability qualifiers to your sentences: "I am very sure it's the way to go", "My intuition tells me this but I am not really sure", "I am very convinced and it's not worth discussing" (yes, it can be rational and good attitude) or "I would do X but I need more evidence to be reasonably sure".
It's all there in people's mind, language and interactions once you start thinking this way it's whole new world of perspective and understanding.