Diversity of Thought and Tolerating Jackassery

by Amber on February 1, 2011

On the one hand, we’d all do well to expose ourselves to the opinions and thoughts of those we disagree with in order to broaden our perspective. See things from multiple angles. Understand motivations and behaviors of others so that our own decisions and actions are better informed.

In fact, the internet I live on and in talks about it a lot. We, in fact, are eager to critique those whom we feel are too insulated. We talk about the fishbowl or the echo chamber or those that fear criticism from others as being weak of conviction in their own ideas enough to defend them or stand toe to toe with their critics.

My friend Tom recommended a book I’m eager to check out called The Big Sort about how our tendency to gravitate toward like-minded people is detrimental to our communities and ability to relate to one another. It’s a fascinating idea.

But there’s a flip side.

Welcoming diversity of thought is one thing, tolerating those who deliver said thought with damaging effects? That’s another. And I’m not sure it’s an easy distinction.

For example, some political commentators make my blood boil, but if I step back for a moment I can at least learn something in the process about what I believe, or don’t, or what their angle might be. It’s depersonalized to a degree, so it makes it much easier to swallow, or at least process without so much emotion.

But I’m an admittedly emotional creature, so sometimes the price for accepting someone’s divergent opinion is personally difficult to pay because of the impact that their behavior has on me. Personally. My feelings about them, myself, my work…whatever.

In other words, does accepting diversity of opinion mean always tolerating jackassery? Do I have to suffer assholes simply because their viewpoint is different than mine, and hearing them out is somehow going to make me a better, more informed person?

I struggle with this, because then I feel as though I’m somehow less if I can’t find a way to let them in. Less tolerant. Less in control of my own reactions and emotions, and less sophisticated in understanding them. Less diverse of thought myself, and perhaps less nuanced than I thought I was or might like to be. Less capable of taking the high road that I so admire from down here in the sometimes ditch.

So..that’s my question. One for which I don’t really have a clear answer.

Is there a line between accepting diversity of thought and tolerating what we deem as poor behavior from others? When is it okay to shut the door? When do we need to step outside our comfort zone and get brave enough to face down things we don’t like or don’t understand? Is it ever okay to say no, I won’t entertain that not because the thoughts aren’t valid, but because you can’t find a way to deliver them in a way that’s not offensive?

I know these aren’t black and white answers and I’m not really expecting that. But I’m curious to hear how you process this stuff, or how you approach the world that is different – sometimes radically so – from your own. Not in the way you read in a self-improvement book about how you should do it, but how you do, warts and all.

I’m exploring. I’m sure there aren’t really good answers. But as with all things, I’m writing to discover what I think. That’s part of the adventure.

  • http://twitter.com/LoriMillerWHNT Lori Miller

    Acceptance isn’t the same as agreement. And acknowledgment isn’t the same as tolerance.

    You’ve gotta hear the message before you can disagree or agree. So exposure is always okay. But I have a problem with those who wield “the truth” like a club to bludgeon others.

    Here’s my personal code before I speak: It should be Relevant. It should be Kind (or helpful to the person hearing it). It should be Truthful. In that order.

    Can’t make others adhere to that code. But I can choose not to let the jackassery of others rent space in my head.

    • http://brasstackthinking.com Amber Naslund

      So here’s the rub, Lori (and thanks for your thoughts):

      Relevant to you may or may not be relevant to me. Kindness, too, is subjective, as is “helpful”. I’ve certainly experienced folks casting judgment or offering sometimes pointed criticism under the guise of “being helpful” to them, when the other person ends up hurt or offended. So it’s a tricky balance.

      I suppose ultimately all we can do is determine our own standards for behavior and adhere to them. As you said, choosing what we’ll rent space to. And as with anything else, THAT judgment will be subjective. Maybe what I’m struggling to make peace with is my own standards, and that they’re as legitimate as the next persons. :)

      • http://twitter.com/jamidix Jami Dix

        There absolutely is a line and I think it’s different for everyone. My line moves depending on the person and depending on their delivery. The line is crossed when I feel like you’re talking down to me, or when I feel like you have a condescending tone, or when I begin to feel inferior or stupid because I don’t think the same way as you. We are all individuals and at the end of the day I think want to be heard and respected. You can have differing opinions in a respectful way. When there isn’t respect, I think it’s okay to shut the door.

  • http://www.techguerilla.com/ Matt Ridings – Techguerilla

    There is no ‘answer’ in my opinion as it’s such a personalized topic.

    Specifically, in your case it may be a bigger challenge than for others because like me you seem to demand productive engagement from the person across from you. If you cringe at the notion that ‘volume’ equals ‘commitment’, if blatant hypocrisy goes unrecognized, if you expect them to disagree without being disagreeable, then you will be disappointed more often than not because that requires the other person be open to the fact that they may not be right. To actually listen vs. just try and convince. I have a few small groups of folks I gather with that can conform to those guidelines, but in general it’s a rarity. I do think there is a difference between ‘engagement’ and ‘exposure’ however, the latter also has value even if you can’t engage.

    I should also mention that I struggle with always following these same guidelines, I’d love to say I can always approach a topic intellectually and leave some of the emotion out of it but that’s just not the case.

    • http://brasstackthinking.com Amber Naslund

      You’re right about my want for “productive engagement”. I also want compassion, sensitivity, respect, self awareness. And I suppose those aren’t easy things to ask for. Or even to do myself well all the time.

      Like I told Lori, I think the truth is that I *have* standards for where the line is for me. When I can be open, and what behaviors make me shut down. It’s owning that that I’m struggling with, especially when I have people around me that seem like they’re so much better at tolerance than I am. So I feel inferior for reacting emotionally to things that I think I “should” otherwise be able to take in stride.

      Unsurprisingly, it’s an adventure not so much in seeking an answer, but making peace with a choice.

  • http://thudfactor.myopenid.com/ Thudfactor

    I’ve always thought that acceptance and tolerance were fairly low bars to jump. To be accepting and tolerant of people doesn’t mean you have to be attentive or even respectful. There are people I refuse to pay attention to because I believe them to be mean-spirited, untrustworthy, or both. And there are points of view that I cannot take seriously because — once I looked at them — they were frankly foolish. Attention is a scarce commodity, and I don’t think even the most open-minded people need to waste attention on people or ideas that don’t seem to be adding anything of value.

    I’m not, for example, going to waste too much time deciding whether or not Fred Phelps has a valid point.

    That’s not to I won’t listen to people who disagree with me; just that I expect them to be a) generally civil and b) not too insane.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Diversity of Thought and Tolerating Jackassery | Inaccurate Reality -- Topsy.com

  • http://mikehartcxo.wordpress.com Mike Hart

    I’m a visual person so I look at it as a bell curve where the median is how I think. As I slide down the bell curve on both sides I can have healthy debate within say one standard deviation. The further I go, say two standard deviations, I will tend to listen more than I talk and reserve judgment, respect their opinion and move on. Much beyond two and I’m not really interested because I know my brain doesn’t think that way and it never will. You set your own lines. There is no right answer.

  • http://twitter.com/sparker9 Steven Parker

    You’re not alone in wanting to have fair and respectful debates with thoughtful people of differing views and then wanting some sort of conclusion. Many of us do. But the fact is it happens so rarely that when it does, especially if in a public way like the all-too-rare civilized political debate, it’s a cause for celebration. (Whoever decided public high schools no longer needed or couldn’t afford debate clubs was a damned fool!)

    People who are rude, selfish, egotistical or disrespectful deserve to be ignored. It simply doesn’t matter whether their opinion is valid or not. If you pay attention to them, you’re voluntarily handing them the tool to goad and pester you. They should earn attention with common decency. It’s fine and courteous to assume everyone is decent until they prove otherwise, but once they do, you owe them nothing. Give yourself a free pass to ignore them.

    I’m guessing that the fact that so many people follow you and read your blogs and tweets–and also would like a chunk of your time–magnifies this problem for you. It’s much easier for the rest of us to not even notice.

    The only advice I have for avoiding getting your feelings hurt is, only invest your feelings in the opinions of those you care about. Don’t try to be Mother Theresa for the whole web. No one can do that. Besides, even she, confronted with ill-mannered jackasses, probably said something like “Shut up and go make yourself useful. Here, deliver this food to the poor.”

  • http://twitter.com/thompsonpaul Paul Thompson

    To quote Scott Stratten: “You are not required to be an asshole whisperer”.

    I try to use an energy equation to determine how far I’ll go trying to deal with a divergent opinion/perspective presented by a jackass. If I’m going to have to expend more energy to get value out of that interaction than the value is worth, I pass.

    There is so much valuable info/debate/perspective to be had out there that letting one person use up a disproportionate share of my attention and energy to absorb theirs just isn’t good self-management.

    As you noted though, the big challenge is figuring out if you’ve decided not to engage because they just piss you off (some of the best learning comes from those!) or because they truly don’t represent value for energy invested. I figure I’m doing well if I can hit 50/50 on my own “best practice”.

  • http://twitter.com/osillygirl Nicki Shanman

    There have been times for me when I have just had to determine where my measuring stick is. Clearly define for me where my values are, and just realized when the moral compass is in tune, it seems things fall into place a whole lot better. I’m a pretty emotional person myself, however if I’ve got that all in check, then I know when I have the ability to engage in certain conversations with people, and know that it really isn’t for me to sway or judge. Yep, sometimes I’ve found myself going back a few times and realizing that I’ve had to shut the door. That’s OK. That’s life. I’m not really judging, I’m just making the decision it’s not working for ME. Other times I know there are lots of differences and I can honor those differences because we share a lot of the same inherent values of treating people respectfully. So bring on diversity of thought, opinion, religion… life is richer. Doesn’t mean I have to tolerate cruelty or outright nastiness when an opposing viewpoint is delivered in that manner.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pam.demi.sec Pam Martin

    I’m all for broadening one’s perspectives and I believe that there’s room at the table for differing opinions. I enjoy a spirited debate as much as the next girl, perhaps even a little more :)

    BUT, when one’s tone starts to veer dangerously towards being strident… call it a fault, call it a shortcoming, call me small-minded, but I just shut down. I’m not listening to understand, I’m listening to find a chink in your armor of moral outrage and blustering superiority and knock you the fuck off your high horse. It is irresistible. I ALWAYS rise to the bait. I know this doesn’t say a whole lot about me. I’m working on it, but I don’t expect to go all Zen anytime soon. Sometimes one’s Bullshit Meter overrides one’s Moral Compass.