Tolerance

Tolerance. Unfortunately it's a controversial word now, but how far should it go?

I fully support listening – really listening – to others' ideas, opinions, cultures, thoughts, and interpretations. But should that ever have a limit? Some would say no – we should respect everyone's ideas equally, regardless of whether or not we agree.

But is that wise? It is sensible? It's it even doable?

In practice, none of us actually do that. We always approach with our own preconceived ideas and "filters". We are all vulnerable to confirmation bias (sticking with the first opinion we have on something, minimising new information that contradicts that idea and giving extra weight to anything that seems to back up what we've already decided).

Everyone pre-judges others and others' thoughts.

A lot of the time, we do this as a kind of self-defence: no one wants to be wrong, so we protect ourselves from it (making us more wrong, unfortunately). Past trauma will cause us to avoid conflict, or to justify ourselves, or to vilify certain groups or behaviours.

So really, whether or not we think it's a good idea, no one is truly tolerant – not really. We're "tolerant" of people who share our version of tolerance. But rarely indeed are we tolerant of those we disagree with – or worse, who we despise (even worse when we've convinced ourselves that they deserve it).

At this point, you're probably thinking of someone else you know who's like that. I'm not talking about someone else. I'm talking about you – the person reading this. I'm talking about me. I'm talking about every one of us.

We should always strive to listen, to learn, and to put up with different ideas. None of us are good enough at that yet.

At some point though, there are actually ideas that we shouldn't put up with. If something is both false and harmful, it doesn't deserve tolerance (though it's usually still better to approach people who have such thinking with empathy and understanding, as simply trying them that they're wrong will only drive then further into self-defensive and increasingly extreme positions).

If there is an idea that's destructive by its very nature, it doesn't deserve air time, it doesn't deserve being promoted, and it doesn't deserve being treated the same as a better idea.

The entire point of tolerating others' thoughts is so that we can all find the best ideas, find our own blindspots, and learn to live with understanding among those who are different to us – but there are some ideas that work against those ideals.

It is the height of hubris indeed for us to think we know more than others on a subject when it's a thing we haven't studied in depth, and they have. One of my favourite quotes is, "No one has a monopoly on truth" (or it's corollary, "I don't have a monopoly on good ideas"). This is why I'm always asking questions – I want to learn from those who know more than me.

Which leads to a dangerous thing I see happening a lot at the moment: the idea that one of us knows more than thousands of experts on a subject. That's the highest peak of hubris: when someone thinks they, in a few minutes of though,t can know more than those who have dedicated decades of deep study to a discipline. Those who would have forgotten more about the subject than we'll ever learn, who have spent their lives around others who also know more than we do.

It's always a neat little kick of dopamine to solve a puzzle or work out a problem, but that kick can be deceiving – you can still get the little happy hit from finding the wrong answer. This is how conspiracy theories grow: they don't tell you the answers, they feed you tidbits of carefully-chosen information (some true, some not – most only half-truths), and let your brain layer the connections – usually ones they've prepared beforehand. This is how otherwise sensible and intelligent people get suckered into cults or recruited into extremist groups.

And this is why the words, "I've done my own research" are so very, very dangerous. You haven't: you've followed your own biases, slowly reinforcing the things you already wanted to believe, your brain carefully curating out the facts that don't line up (we as humans are very good at creating our own personal realities).

The great reaction I heard you someone who was told to "do their own research" went something like, "I would, but double-blind clinical trials are just so time-consuming and expensive!" (The second best was roughly, "Well, I've done a Masters and PhD in the subject and have been working in that field of research for a decade now, so I'm not sure how much more research you want me to do.")

People become experts through years of hard study and hard work, so we should be careful when we're willing to dismiss what they have to say on a subject. Yes, sometimes it's hard to tell if someone actually is an expert or not, as it's a pretty abused term today, but there are a couple of things we can watch out for: is this person actually qualified in the area they're speaking? For example, is a osteopath talking about vaccines? Second, see if you can find out the consensus among others in the field: is this supposed expert a lone wolf? Who do they work for? What do others in the field say? An easy one is to Google for, "<name> credibility" – it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than trusting someone who might be lying to you. See what others in the field say about them. See if there is consensus – after all, hearing from as many voices as possible is how we get the best ideas, so if the vast majority of specialists in a field are saying the same thing, we should sit up and take notice of that (even if we don't agree – in fact, especially if we don't agree!)

You might be saying, "But that all sounds like a lot of work!"

It is. It's called Research.

My thought is this: if something is important enough that it affects me or affects a lot of people, I am going to put in the effort to try and find out if what I'm hearing is valid. I'm going to be especially careful and dubious if I hear something that sounds like what I want to hear – after all, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true. (The opposite is also true: if it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't – so no, the world isn't run by a secret cabal who are out to get you).

So, if I hear someone say that they've "done their own research", I'm going to ask for proof. If it's a medical topic and they can't produce the results from their clinical trial or link me to their meta-study, I'm probably not going to believe that they have. If they're talking about climate change, and cannot show me where their work has been accepted into a major Journal, I'm going to doubt them (published meaning it passed muster with their peers – or, to put it another way, was an idea good enough that other experts could see it has merit). A "great idea" (or a "major concern") that isn't considered such by those who understand a field of study, probably isn't great nor major. ("Major concerns" are the worse kind of misinformation, because bad news travels easier than good, and it's always hard to prove a negative – and it takes more work to disprove misinformation than to create it).

So, should we tolerate every idea? Listen, yes. Treat equally? No. There is such thing as being wrong, so we should be prepared for ourselves to be the one who is wrong – especially if it's a case where nearly all the experts disagree with us.

It's a bit like the joke where a lady phones her husband who is driving home: "Honey, be careful, there's a madman driving the wrong way on the highway!" To which he replies, "One madman?! Everyone is driving the wrong way!"

Some bad ideas can hurt us (or others). Those are the ideas that need to be challenged – so someone telling you that you're wrong might be the most loving thing anyone says to you today (though it's not going to feel like it!)

Don't be afraid of someone calling your idea wrong. It might be a day where you get to become a little wiser (even if it comes at the cost of having to become a bit more humble, too – though the world can always use more humility as well).