An exploration of intolerance: A rising tide. Can it be addressed with caring?

     Intolerance is mostly defined by the root word, which is tolerance. To be intolerant is to NOT be tolerant. Tolerance is one of three basic categories of the parables and lessons of Jesus Christ. “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her” is a common translation of the contents of John 8:7. This projects tolerance as a characteristic of self-examination. It is not saying that the behavior is correct according to the perceiver’s societal norms but it is saying that no one is perfect and we should address our own imperfections and foibles before we complain about those that we perceive within others.

     “I am tolerant of all things except intolerance”. Tolerance is not a straight-forward topic because of the huge variance of viewpoints. For example, jokes which were once acceptable (and desired to still be acceptable by some people) can be considered a type of verbal violence. And, certainly, if a person is within a group where something is considered okay to think, say, or do then anyone who disagrees with that must be, themselves, in the wrong? Correct?

The perception of wrong and abstraction of something often encountered.

     The aspect of perception is an important aspect of tolerance. If I believe that certain clothing is wrong but I am “tolerating” that anyway, it does not mean that that clothing IS wrong. It is my perception of something that, in itself, has very little (if any) attribute of good/bad right/wrong about it. It was a defining characteristic of the Puritans that their entire definition of right or wrong was based on their own opinions, and interpretations, of proper behavior within their own group. Alas, they had no qualms about using that intragroup specification as a criterion for OTHER groups.

     A basic problem about discussing tolerance/intolerance is that there ARE very distinct, varied, viewpoints. I know which ones I consider to be “right” and you very likely know which viewpoints that YOU consider to be “right”. They may be the same, there may be some overlap, or they may be completely opposite viewpoints of each other. But the concept of tolerance, or intolerance, is still important BECAUSE there isn’t a single structure of viewpoints.

A matter of boundaries

     One of the tricky aspects of intolerance is that of the extent of the perceived wrongness. It is not a fixed matter. The degree of boundaries indicates the amount of conflict between the observer and the person perceived to be wrong. It might be said that the amount of conflict is an indication of just “how tolerant”, a person interacting with the perceived wrong, is. In my arbitrary categories, the numbers increase as the perceived wrongness becomes “in your face” or difficult to ignore.

     At the most self-contained, the perceived wrongness has no visible or other sensory indication (speech mannerisms, for example) that the person, or item, has any of the perceived wrongness within them. This is the basis of “don’t ask, don’t tell” types of rules and regulations where one group imposes their own definitions of wrongness upon another group but will “tolerate” the behavior as long as they are unaware, or can pretend they are unaware, of the perceived wrong behavior. Call this category one.

     The next step up for boundaries may be visible, auditory, or via some other sensory perception. People can detect defining characteristics of the perceived wrongness without a need for investigation or inquiring. If the perceived wrongnesses are fully involuntary such as skin color or a limb missing, they could be considered category two-a. The perceived wrongness may be an external characteristic that is voluntary but noticeable everyday. Payot (long sidelocks) or dreadlocks or a tonsure on men or a yarmulke (skullcap) might exist as part of the person’s expressed identity. These signs, considered part of their identity, fall into category two-b. Shouting slogans or displaying signs are where the one group voluntarily demonstrates a behavior that others may perceive as wrong. This would be category two-c.

     A pair of boundaries (or lack thereof) is broken when there is interaction between people. The items of this pair are similar in action but different in intention. Mutual, consensual behavior where both are in agreement about the behavior could be called category three. When a person, who has a perceived wrongness, forces their behavior upon others it can be considered category four.

     These categories are primarily useful for purposes of discussion. As mentioned earlier, the categories are defined to increase in number as it becomes more difficult, for the person noticing, to ignore.

An inversion of standards

     The most intolerant of people are forbidding of people who are in category one. There is no effect upon the perceiver. They may even be heartily approving of the person before discovering the aspect of perceived wrong within them. Knowledge of the existence of the perceived wrongness, alone, is sufficient for them to forbid. Note also that some groups, such as the Puritans, consider it a part of their existence to be fully intolerant of any deviation from what they consider wrong.

     Categories two-a and two-b are not that different, from the point of evaluation, from category one. The only difference is there is no need, for the person who perceives wrongness, to investigate (or “discover”) the perceived wrongness. Category two-c may bring additional perceptions of wrong to the perceiver. The Pilgrims and Puritans were highly intolerant, coming in at the category two of perception. Note that, from Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” both Hester Prynne and the minister were considered good citizens until they left category one.

     Category three is the last area (in my opinion) where tolerance may be pursued on the part of the perceiver. Nazis, KKK members, white supremacists, and such are at the category four as their actions are violent against others in many different ways. (This is part of their self-definition.)

Levels of reaction

     Silence about perceived wrongness is the most tolerant. Criticism is less tolerant/more intolerant. Acting upon the perception is quite intolerant and may include enacting laws and penalties, or even active violence.

     In parallel with the general group ethics of the Puritans, it is possible for a group to have intolerance as part of their identity. Their intolerance may be restricted only via legislation or physical restraint.

When should one become intolerant of tolerance?

     As mentioned above, I don’t think that anyone should be tolerant of a category four situation. Being tolerant of such is becoming an accomplice and, by definition, category four situations are violating the rights, and sometimes liberties and lives, of others.

     I can understand, but not agree with, the problems of being tolerant of categories two-c and three behaviors. It is difficult, or impossible, to ignore yet the behavior is not directly hurting anyone and not directly infringing on the rights of the perceiver or other people voluntarily participating. If a person wears a t-shirt indicating perceived unpleasantness or yelling slogans or insults over a megaphone, is this actually falling into category four? Even if not directly affecting others, it is a type of forced non-consensual behavior of one person, or group, upon another.

     I remember the scene in “The Blues Brothers” where a group of Nazis is encountered by the Blues Brothers. AT THE TIME, they were only practicing behaviors in category three but, by their own self-definition, they were a category four group. The Blues Brothers ran them off the road into the water. Legally, they were in the wrong as the action was within category three. But, morally?

     The biggest hurdle may be a fear of expansion of a behavior. If one is tolerant of category two-c or category three behaviors, is this encouraging escalation into “higher” categories? And, if you are in agreement with that behavior, then “obviously” you would consider the behavior to be accepted which is beyond toleration. But, if not in agreement, …

No real conclusion just thoughts

     Tolerance and intolerance are reflections on the diverse viewpoints within society. What was once unacceptable might now be accepted, or something of which tolerance is encouraged. And it may also occur in the other direction. Behavior which was once tolerated, and even accepted by some, can become something that is no longer acceptable or tolerated by society.

     Life is complex but, as long as people have varieties of behavior and thought, tolerance allows us to interact. That is the importance, and need, for tolerance.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Recalibration: it is rarely a matter of comparing apples to apples

     My wife and I belong to a book club (she belongs to several, but we go to one together). A couple of books ago, we read the book “Happiness Falls” by Angie Kim. Not particularly giving a spoiler, the title is involved with something called a “happiness quotient”. The idea is that your recent past history will reset your scales.

     Say that I attended a pretty good happy film. As a 1 to 10 life experience (as opposed to a rating of the film itself), I rate it a 6 — pleasant and better than average. Now, envisage having just lost your job. You attend the same film but since you are likely feeling pretty rotten, watching that pretty good happy film might win a 8 for you as it was “just what you needed” at that time. Or your down feelings might negatively affect your appreciation of the film and you might get only a 4 for the experience of going to the film. In either case, you have altered your scale for evaluation.

     The range may also depend on the local environment. In a town where there are few restaurants and little competition, it is likely that a restaurant might get a 4/5. In a different area, with more restaurants and competition, it might get a 3/5. Same restaurant, same quality but looked at (and rated) differently according to the competitive environment.

     Let’s proceed towards the topic of “Happiness Falls” as mentioned above. If I have had a series of mishaps, or tragedies, occurring in my life, a well-prepared birthday party may seem like an 8/10 whereas if I just received the Nobel prize, I might consider it only a 6/10.

     I have a high pain threshold (which isn’t always to my advantage). I used to have my teeth filled without anesthesia. My current dentist doesn’t give me that option. But I know of some others who have to have general anesthetic before any dental work can be done. Our scales of 1 to 10 for pain are quite different.

     This is one of the many reasons why we cannot truly “walk in another’s footsteps”. Not that efforts to understand are not worthwhile — they are. But your feelings of pain, alienation, love, hate, and every other physical and emotional feeling are very unlikely to be at the same level as that of the other person. Your scales do not have the same endpoints.

     What evaluation scales do you have that seem to be out-of-sync with that of others?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ho, ho, ho: A matter of definitions

 

    Do you believe in Santa Claus? It seems that it is still a question that is posed to people of different ages. At what age did you stop believing in Santa Claus? "Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus". Perhaps, it is this latter reply, or explanation, that was published on September 21, 1897 that is the closest at heart to what I believe. Yes, I do believe in Santa Claus and I have never stopped believing in Santa Claus. Even during moments in history when it is extraordinarily difficult to believe, I do believe.

     But much of the examination of, and the full disclosure for, this reply is based on the definition. Is Santa Claus a pudgy old white male with snow white beard and hair? (I fear I might qualify for this -- especially the pudgy part -- in December some children do look twice at me.) Certainly, there are more and more pudgy (or pillow-stuffed) men whose skin is closer to the color of chocolate or ebony who don the traditional apparel and strive to bring joy to children of all ages. I see no reason why the gender and age should matter much. In "Miracle on 34th Street", Alfred, the younger man who helps Santa and dons his own suit, is certainly not of the old man variety. There is still an "icy ceiling" that shifts women over to the role of Mrs. Claus -- but also some that break through that barrier and represent Santa at their jolliest.

     Now, alas, that doesn't mean that everyone accepts every variant of Santa Claus as the one that meets the needs of their heart. And that's fine as long as all of the other incarnations of Santa are free to bring joy to the hearts of others.

     As for me, I love them all -- I love their purpose of bringing joy to all. I enthusiastically accept that the spirit of Santa Claus has a place while being very aware of the religious foundations of the holiday. In spite of the commercials that bombard us and the banners that assault us in vast numbers, I believe in the simple joy and generosity of Santa. A homemade card and an eraser and paper clip doll can bring the brightest smile if it is done with caring and to someone still open to that emotion. Sometimes, it only needs a smile and a cup of soup.

     So, to all and everyone ("God bless them everyone" sayeth Tiny Tim) -- Ho, ho, ho and may the day be one of many joyous memories to sustain one through more difficult times.

Percentages: A desire to claim authority

 

     Stereotypes often have a grain of truth within. How large of a grain? It varies a lot. Any time that you find yourself saying -- Xs do this or Ys do that -- you know that there are those who don't fit that criterion. Many males do not like to ask for directions (in my household, my wife is the one who doesn't like to ask). Women, in general, have faster reflexes and higher pain thresholds. Much of the time, such statements are stated as absolutes. "Men don't ask for directions." This is true even when we are quite aware of exceptions -- with either men asking for directions or other genders not wanting to ask.

     But yet another generalization which doesn't fit everyone -- people (especially men) want to be perceived as being an authority -- knowing what they are talking about. "70% of all men have dandruff." "93% of all drivers don't come to a complete stop at stop signs." People could easily say "most drivers don't come to a complete stop" but which sounds more as if the person has done their research and knows what they are talking about -- "most drivers ..." or "93% of all drivers ..."?

     How do such percentages come about? Occasionally, the person may have read a paper stating some percentage. That percentage may, or may not, have been accurate and the person may, or may not, have remembered the percentage correctly. But there WAS some percentage associated with the event so recreate it.

    "Most becomes 70%." "Almost all becomes 94%." "Almost no one become 1%." You may have some favorite numbers that you use.

     This doesn't happen just in everyday life. It also happens in studies. Each study has a statistical range for all numbers and there is a general recognition that there may be constraints that have been omitted from the study or aspects of the population pool might make a difference with other followup studies. Yet, the results don't get summarized as "35% chance with a +/- error range of 5% under specific conditions."

     Finally, there is sloppy usage of well-defined words. The word "cause" is an oft-misused one. Somehow, in the summaries, "correlates to" or "seems to usually be present" becomes "causes". If A causes B then EVERY time A exists then B happens. There aren't a lot of absolutes in life. Even doses of arsenic will not necessarily cause death (though it certainly can raise the likelihood -- botox or plutonium have even smaller likelihoods of not being fatal). Each time I read of a study that indicates causation, I say to myself "uh-huh. How about under this condition? How about this 'exception' that I read about? ..."

     Does this apply to you? Will at least 82.5% of you read this and think about how it may apply within your life?

The Elasticity of Time: Faster, slower, in reverse?

 

     One of my blogs from five years talked about the "inner child". Actually, it was more that -- within us -- about the reality that we still have that 5-year-old and that 15-year-old and such other periods in our lives. But, there is another aspect of time and that is our perception of it as we move through our lives.

     When we are young, perhaps five years old, then that final month until the holidays takes forever. But, at a modest sixty-five years of age, that month takes only an instant. One way of approaching this difference is that, at age five, a month is 1/60 of our life so far. And, at 65, a month is only 1/780 of our life so far. So, that period of a month is proportionately much longer when we are young.

     But the difference in perception does not necessarily depend on chronological measurements. Time is, after all, a human definition according to perception. The amount of experiences may change the perceptions also. In general, a 65-year-old would be expected to have more experiences than a five-year-old. But, a five-year-old who is growing up in a war zone will have different (and perhaps more) experiences from a five-year-old growing up on a rural farm or a five-year-old growing up in a poor section of a large urban center. Those experiences will vary according to physical, social, and societal environments. And those experiences will also affect perception of time. I propose that future time perception is shortened by greater amounts of experience.

     But an hour to that five-year-old is not always the same. That hour until school lets out is not the same as an hour until they have to leave an amusement park. Yet the time that has elapsed on a clock indicates the same number of minutes. What is the difference? One way of looking at it might be that of desire. When you are anticipating, or desiring, an event in the future it seems slower. When you dread it, it seems slower.

     But that may be a matter of focus. When you focus on that future event then you are NOT focusing on what is going on from minute to minute. Those things that are happening in the now shorten the distance to the future if they are focused upon. Ride the roller coaster one more time. Read one more chapter of that fantastic book you hope will never end. If your focus is on other things then that future period of time can come so quickly. In the world of work, that means that if you are doing something interesting and challenging, which requires focus, then quitting time gets forgotten (for better or worse).

     All of the above is about the speed of advancing towards the future. But what about the past? Well, so far at least, there is no going back in time to the general past. But OUR past? Every time we find ourself thinking about something that once happened, we are on a personal time trip. Within dreams, they may vary and become more detailed. It is even possible to reach a depth where time is perceived as being re-lived. And, unfortunately, some can get stuck and disappear from the present.

     As best we know, time goes along with entropy -- as the universe decays and becomes more chaotic, our perception follows along. But, within that general direction, our perception of time can do many things. What is particularly interesting about time to you?

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

     The United States (most of it) just went through the Spring ritual of changing to Daylight Savings Time. Or, as a cartoon published during my childhood indicated, cutting off one end of the blanket and sewing it on the other end. Along with the changing to DST comes the biannual articles and discussions on whether we should stay with Daylight Savings Time (I assume that it would then become the new "Standard" time and the old "Standard" time would disappear) year round.
     Personally, I don't know the "best" answer. But it does call out vividly that time, as displayed on a clock, is arbitrary. What we call time is a human invention. Of course, time as a reflection of entropy (physical movement towards disorder) exists without humans -- but it is unknown whether the manner in which we perceive time (past -> present -> future) is fixed or a matter of perspective.
     Within the general human situation, perception of time is generally more important than the numbers with which we associate it. It takes "forever" to receive an anticipated message or event. Children grow up "so quickly". In my experience (I cannot say about yours), looking back at time seems much shorter than looking ahead.
     I have a personal theory that perceived length of time is proportional to one's chronological age. Thus, for a five-year-old, a year is an enormous amount of time because it is 1/5 of their life so far. But, for a 60-year-old, a year seems much shorter.
     Perception of time is also cultural. Some cultures (stereotypical for the Swiss citizen) are "ruled by the clock" -- everything must be done exactly "on time" and the schedule rules. Other cultures (it is supposed to be traditionally true for many in the First Nations) see it as a general framework. Thus, "tomorrow morning" may vary plus or minus a day. And yet other cultures make an assumption of inherent delays in most planned events -- so a plane that takes off at "7pm" might actually take off sometime between 6:30pm and 9pm (or later, if mechanical or staffing problems intercede). And that is OK because punctuality is not expected.
     Another variable of perceived time is focus. If I am focused on doing something -- because of a deadline or because I really love doing it -- then I am concentrating on the task and not on the time and time will go "fast". If I am thinking of things other than the current task, "waiting" for something "better", or trying to keep in mind multiple things that should happen within the same period, time goes "slowly".
     One more parameter to the perception of time is emotion. If you are dreading something, time usually seems to go faster. If you are looking forward to something, then it "just never arrives". Perception of time seems to be the inverse of how much you want the event to arrive. I don't want it, it happens "faster". I do want it, it happens "slower".
     So, to answer the original question -- no, probably no one really knows what time it is. Does anyone really care?