9 ms·

So that’s why I’m so tolerant of those idiots on the other side of the political spectrum… In all seriousness, as I don’t have access to the full text, I’m won

So that’s why I’m so tolerant of those idiots on the other side of the political spectrum… In all seriousness, as I don’t have access to the full text, I’m wondering how they measured tolerance in particular.

atoav 4y ago
In the methods section they mention a survey. So that is likely how they meassured it. Of course the particulars would be more interesting, but for this access to the paper would be needed.
tomlockwood 4y ago
Yeah same, the definition of tolerance is very important here. Like for example I think a lot of people would view me as very intolerant of transphobia, but I doorknocked 1000 doors in our recent state election here, so in some ways I'm very tolerant when encountering people that don't agree with me.
- atoav 4y ago
  Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. Freedom is a complicated thing, because it has both positive and negative definitions. You can have the freedom to do what you want on the one hand but also have the freedom to be placed into certain situations (e.g. tortured) on the other hand. Now obviously there is going to be a collision space where somebody wants to excersise the positive freedom to do a certain thing that hurts the negative freedom of another perspn or a group of persons to not be subjected to that very thing. Freedom in that sense is the attempt to constantly balance those two sides and allow the individual to be as free as possible, while also preventing malicous actors to take away the freedoms of others. The thing is that freedom in that sense takes constant effort and adjustment to keep alive and up date and this goes beyond just writing new laws and enforcing them. Intolerance toward the intolerant is a crucial thought if you want to keep your and everybody elses freedom as it is.
  - endominus 4y ago
    The paradox of tolerance, as it is commonly argued, has to be one of the worst philosophical arguments actually taken seriously. It basically boils down to an argument from fear - We all believe in the importance of {Sacred Value}, but the Evil Ones are coming to take {Sacred Value} away! By using our own good natures and {Sacred Value} against us, they will claim power, and then destroy {Sacred Value}! The only way to stop them is to destroy {Sacred Value}, thereby depriving them of the ability to use it against us! Incidentally, here's what Karl Popper himself had to say on the matter; "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."[0] The form of "intolerance towards the intolerant" he actually discusses in his essay is rather far removed from the sweeping authority to suppression that it bestows in the eyes of many of the people who invoke it. He does not recommend censoring or removing any liberties of the intolerant, unless and until they respond to rational argument by force. Unless they instruct followers to disregard rational argument as itself deceptive. Unless they are inciting actual criminal activity. The idea that some ideas are in and of themselves too dangerous to allow to exist in the public domain, that rational argument should be monitored, controlled, and suppressed to ensure that "tolerance" remains is nowhere to be seen. It is only when the methods of a liberal democracy (that is, open conversation, debate, the marketplace of ideas) fail catastrophically that Popper sees the need for open intolerance towards those who answer argument with violence. In fact, the argument of the "paradox of tolerance" is actually, you may be surprised to learn, an argument in favor of autocracy. Its whole point is that liberal democracies can't sustain themselves without a "benevolent despot". Popper was arguing against that idea. Per Wikipedia, again; "In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of despotism, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided. Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  I dont see how canvassing for a political agenda is tolerance of opposition. Sure, you'll run into people who disagree with you, but you don't tolerate their POV and are actively encouraging political action against their POV.
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    Actually, a lot more listening happens on a successful doorknock than most people would think. Listening and really hearing people is necessary, much more necessary than making a specific political point.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    This is a ludicrous definition of tolerance of opposition, if any active campaigning for your position is considered "intolerance"
    - tomlockwood 4y ago
      Also yeah, while I was actively campaigning I met many people from other parties - and the other side of the aisle, and stood next to them outside voting booths and had some nice conversations.
  - enkid 4y ago
    Encouraging people to rethink their political position isn't intolerant unless it cross over to some sort of coercion. There has to be an ability to argue what a best policy is, or there would be no reason for democracy in the first place.
endominus 4y ago
The first sentence of the introduction clarifies the definition of "political tolerance", which seems to be a term of art; "Citizen support for the rights and liberties of even those political groups that they dislike, commonly termed political tolerance, is an important element of liberal democracy." So what is being measured is support for the civil liberties of political groups that are disliked by the respondent. Survey respondents were given a list of groups and asked to rate, from -4 to 4, a. how much they liked that group, and b. how much they would protect that group's rights.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  Also worth pointing out that this was a sample of only Mechanical Turk users in America, and members of the Danish Military in Denmark.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Draftees in Denmark, which includes all men, plus women who volunteer. So it's skewed, but not quite as skewed as if you used only self selected people. I am told by people who do this kind of research that using Mechanical Turk isn't as pointless as it would sound. I have to take them at their word in that.
    - wheelinsupial 4y ago
      What do they say about Mechanical Turk? Is it that it's more representative of non-American point of view?
      - jfengel 4y ago
        In this case they filtered for Americans. They put some effort into validating identity, and into ensuring that you are taking the survey seriously (trap questions, for example). It doesn't strike me as sufficient but it's not my field.
        4y ago
ohCh6zos 4y ago
Given the summary I think they mean the "I hate your ideas but will defend your rights" kind of tolerance.
mcculley 4y ago
We all have access. Thank you, Sci-Hub! https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2021-09-02/07/rasmussen2021.pdf?download=true https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2021-09-02/07/rasmussen2021.pdf...
photochemsyn 4y ago
Looking into the paper (see the sci-hub link), it's a bit odd. Data source is Mechanical Turk respondents in the USA, and Danish military draftees in Europe, who had to take a 'cognitive ability test'. "Political groups" don't include members of political parties - they have 'neo-Nazis', 'Christian fundamentalists', 'socialists' and 'communists'. Seems like there are a great many other groups one could list. Social science papers are notorious for being non-replicabale and based on non-representative samples, so I doubt these conclusions really mean much.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  I don't see tolerance or threat columns for "socialists" and "communists" listed in the results table?
  - svnt 4y ago
    They are in Table 1 but not the results.

atoav 4y ago

In the methods section they mention a survey. So that is likely how they meassured it. Of course the particulars would be more interesting, but for this access to the paper would be needed.

tomlockwood 4y ago

Yeah same, the definition of tolerance is very important here. Like for example I think a lot of people would view me as very intolerant of transphobia, but I doorknocked 1000 doors in our recent state election here, so in some ways I'm very tolerant when encountering people that don't agree with me.

atoav 4y ago
Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. Freedom is a complicated thing, because it has both positive and negative definitions. You can have the freedom to do what you want on the one hand but also have the freedom to be placed into certain situations (e.g. tortured) on the other hand. Now obviously there is going to be a collision space where somebody wants to excersise the positive freedom to do a certain thing that hurts the negative freedom of another perspn or a group of persons to not be subjected to that very thing. Freedom in that sense is the attempt to constantly balance those two sides and allow the individual to be as free as possible, while also preventing malicous actors to take away the freedoms of others. The thing is that freedom in that sense takes constant effort and adjustment to keep alive and up date and this goes beyond just writing new laws and enforcing them. Intolerance toward the intolerant is a crucial thought if you want to keep your and everybody elses freedom as it is.
- endominus 4y ago
  The paradox of tolerance, as it is commonly argued, has to be one of the worst philosophical arguments actually taken seriously. It basically boils down to an argument from fear - We all believe in the importance of {Sacred Value}, but the Evil Ones are coming to take {Sacred Value} away! By using our own good natures and {Sacred Value} against us, they will claim power, and then destroy {Sacred Value}! The only way to stop them is to destroy {Sacred Value}, thereby depriving them of the ability to use it against us! Incidentally, here's what Karl Popper himself had to say on the matter; "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."[0] The form of "intolerance towards the intolerant" he actually discusses in his essay is rather far removed from the sweeping authority to suppression that it bestows in the eyes of many of the people who invoke it. He does not recommend censoring or removing any liberties of the intolerant, unless and until they respond to rational argument by force. Unless they instruct followers to disregard rational argument as itself deceptive. Unless they are inciting actual criminal activity. The idea that some ideas are in and of themselves too dangerous to allow to exist in the public domain, that rational argument should be monitored, controlled, and suppressed to ensure that "tolerance" remains is nowhere to be seen. It is only when the methods of a liberal democracy (that is, open conversation, debate, the marketplace of ideas) fail catastrophically that Popper sees the need for open intolerance towards those who answer argument with violence. In fact, the argument of the "paradox of tolerance" is actually, you may be surprised to learn, an argument in favor of autocracy. Its whole point is that liberal democracies can't sustain themselves without a "benevolent despot". Popper was arguing against that idea. Per Wikipedia, again; "In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of despotism, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided. Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
I dont see how canvassing for a political agenda is tolerance of opposition. Sure, you'll run into people who disagree with you, but you don't tolerate their POV and are actively encouraging political action against their POV.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  Actually, a lot more listening happens on a successful doorknock than most people would think. Listening and really hearing people is necessary, much more necessary than making a specific political point.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  This is a ludicrous definition of tolerance of opposition, if any active campaigning for your position is considered "intolerance"
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    Also yeah, while I was actively campaigning I met many people from other parties - and the other side of the aisle, and stood next to them outside voting booths and had some nice conversations.
- enkid 4y ago
  Encouraging people to rethink their political position isn't intolerant unless it cross over to some sort of coercion. There has to be an ability to argue what a best policy is, or there would be no reason for democracy in the first place.

endominus 4y ago

The first sentence of the introduction clarifies the definition of "political tolerance", which seems to be a term of art; "Citizen support for the rights and liberties of even those political groups that they dislike, commonly termed political tolerance, is an important element of liberal democracy." So what is being measured is support for the civil liberties of political groups that are disliked by the respondent. Survey respondents were given a list of groups and asked to rate, from -4 to 4, a. how much they liked that group, and b. how much they would protect that group's rights.

tomlockwood 4y ago
Also worth pointing out that this was a sample of only Mechanical Turk users in America, and members of the Danish Military in Denmark.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Draftees in Denmark, which includes all men, plus women who volunteer. So it's skewed, but not quite as skewed as if you used only self selected people. I am told by people who do this kind of research that using Mechanical Turk isn't as pointless as it would sound. I have to take them at their word in that.
  - wheelinsupial 4y ago
    What do they say about Mechanical Turk? Is it that it's more representative of non-American point of view?
    - jfengel 4y ago
      In this case they filtered for Americans. They put some effort into validating identity, and into ensuring that you are taking the survey seriously (trap questions, for example). It doesn't strike me as sufficient but it's not my field.
      - 4y ago

ohCh6zos 4y ago

Given the summary I think they mean the "I hate your ideas but will defend your rights" kind of tolerance.

mcculley 4y ago

We all have access. Thank you, Sci-Hub! https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2021-09-02/07/rasmussen2021.pdf?download=true https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2021-09-02/07/rasmussen2021.pdf...

photochemsyn 4y ago

Looking into the paper (see the sci-hub link), it's a bit odd. Data source is Mechanical Turk respondents in the USA, and Danish military draftees in Europe, who had to take a 'cognitive ability test'. "Political groups" don't include members of political parties - they have 'neo-Nazis', 'Christian fundamentalists', 'socialists' and 'communists'. Seems like there are a great many other groups one could list. Social science papers are notorious for being non-replicabale and based on non-representative samples, so I doubt these conclusions really mean much.

tbrownaw 4y ago
I don't see tolerance or threat columns for "socialists" and "communists" listed in the results table?
- svnt 4y ago
  They are in Table 1 but not the results.