6 ms·

Tied to this topic seems to be the ability to tolerate unpleasant emotions. My impression is that avoiding negative emotions is something we all impulsively at

Tied to this topic seems to be the ability to tolerate unpleasant emotions. My impression is that avoiding negative emotions is something we all impulsively attempt, and it takes practice to increase one's ability to tolerate them. This, in turn, seems necessary to tolerate positions so different to our own that they cause us to feel threatened, which can, if the fear is intense enough, lead to outright hatred. I assume quite some intolerance can be linked to this principle. It seems our earlier evolutionary impulses (fight, flight in this case) can easily take over unless we not only learn to become aware of them but also to tolerate them.

gavinray 4y ago
I don't know that it's necessarily so much unpleasant emotions Let me paint a picture: My maternal grandparents are country folk, from Kentucky. My grandfather was an electrical engineer and a sort of whizz kid type. Architected/drafted and built his own house, made youngest highest-ranking naval officer in Coast Guard history, stuff of that sort. Having lived their entire lives together, they are on very different sides of the political spectrum. My grandmother is... unfortunately, a somewhat stereotypical Kentucky old white lady. You can guess her stance on things like immigrants and who she voted for. I love her but I have to try to blank out some of the things she says. My grandfather on the other hand will just say things like "Well, you have to try to see it from their side.", and "Don't you think that's a bit of a generalization?" But God help you if you cross the old man. I've done it once in my life and rarely seen a scarier thing. So (IME), you can have political tolerance separate of your emotional tolerance and emotional experiences. Political tolerance (for me) really boils down to: "Treat others how you want to be treated; Live and let live" which seems to me the most logical/reasonable way to go about it.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > "... Live and let live" which seems to me the most logical/reasonable way to go about it. Only if you assume we're not a society, and that there's no social benefits to enforcing socially desirable behaviors and suppress socially undesirable ones.
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    You assume that there is and of a right aught to be enforcement. Others view that social evolution as up to god. We all cooperate and the least rigid will adopt the best and we’ll all copy one another.
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
      We have 3000+ years of very detailed data on how well that works, and all the “cooperation” that can be achieved…
      - weard_beard 4y ago
        Prisoners dilema. We have 3 billion more to get it right.
  - Thursday24 4y ago
    Remove the law, and all that remains is a jungle, where the strong domineer the weak.
    - bitwize 4y ago
      So! Now you would give the Devil the benefit of law?
      - jfk13 4y ago
        For my own safety's sake.
  - gavinray 4y ago
    "Live and let live" is based on the hope that everyone adopts that philosophy. Obviously with humans this can never be the case, until we modify our own brains/neurochemistry. IMO, adhere to it so long as the "Non-aggression Principle" holds, once that's breached, do whatever it is you have to do. "Leave me alone and I leave you alone. Poke me with a stick, and..."
- tstrimple 4y ago
  > Live and let live This isn't possible when one major political party refuses to allow that to happen. Many conservatives claim to just want to be left alone and then turn around and try to legislate who can marry who, how people live their lives, who is "worthy" of being part of our country, what books are available in libraries. You can't live and let live when you're constantly being attacked for intrinsic traits and being disenfranchised.
  - gavinray 4y ago
    > Many conservatives claim to just want to be left alone and then turn around and try to legislate who can marry who, how people live their lives, who is "worthy" of being part of our country, what books are available in libraries. That's not very let-live at all, is it? I don't like to get into politics, but in my very unread and not-up-to-date opinion (I didn't even know some kind of election was happening recently, I care that little) neither end of the political spectrum is a good place to sit. Sitting on an end means you have an agenda and a strong set of ideals. I have my own morals/ethics, but they sort of start and end at the boundaries of my own being. As long as you have people who think that other people ought to behave/think more like them, you'll have conflict. I hold out hope for biohacking advanced enough that we mod ourselves out of this in a few hundred years.
- brainchild-adam 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing. I might be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from your description that your grandfather simply did not get "ticked off" by the same things as your grandmother. Those topics do not seem to have generated strong emotions in him. But they seem to have done so in your grandmother. What raises strong emotions in people seems to be highly subjective. To what extent you are able to have those stronger emotional responses while at the same time not succumbing to the impulses that go along with them, is what I would argue determines your ability to tolerate the stimuli that generate these emotional responses. Since these responses are physiological, rooted in our survival instincts, they greatly affect our ability to be rational, open, and contextualize. Instead, they move us into increasing levels of black-and-white thinking and fight or flight, first mentally, then physically. Whenever I explore topics that stir up strong (negative) emotions in myself, I find that they are usually tied to this, if I can get deep enough in my exploration. After all, we're just animals trying to survive and procreate, even though we have become very elaborate and ornamental in our pursuit of these goals.
  - svnt 4y ago
    You are dismissing a level you are apparently incurious about — that of why certain seemingly irrational responses happen. Using “highly subjective” for something that is much better understood than you are implying is only an indicator of where you’ve chosen to draw your own boundary in pursuit of a constrained cognitive ability. It’s also an indicator of this limit that the two things you’re inaccurately taking as given are intimately linked: emotionality and reproduction. When things get too complex you conversationally reduce humans to emotional animals and end of.
    - brainchild-adam 4y ago
      I am sorry, but your comment is so terse that I find it quite difficult to really understand. I am very interested in learning and growing, though, so maybe you can help me understand what you were trying to say. This is what I got and my associated comments and questions: > You are dismissing a level you are apparently incurious about — that of why certain seemingly irrational responses happen. You seem to be saying: There's something (a) you think I'm incurious about (b) that also is relevant to this discussion. My thoughts: What exactly is this "level" you are referring to? I do have thoughts on "why certain seemingly irrational responses happen", but I'd first be curious to know what you are referring to. > Using “highly subjective” for something that is much better understood than you are implying is only an indicator of where you’ve chosen to draw your own boundary in pursuit of a constrained cognitive ability. You seem to be saying: There is "something" (a) that I qualified as "highly subjective" in my comment ("What raises strong emotions in people"), and (b) that me qualifying it as such is an indicator of a "boundary" (c) which I have drawn (d) in order to "constrain" my "cognitive ability". My thoughts: I am not sure where your argument against my statement is. How is "What raises strong emotions in people" "much better understood" "than you are implying"? What am I implying in your opinion? > It’s also an indicator of this limit that the two things you’re inaccurately taking as given are intimately linked: emotionality and reproduction. When things get too complex you conversationally reduce humans to emotional animals and end of You seem to be saying: (a) I am limited in my cognitive ability, (b) as evidenced by my inability to realize how emotionality and reproduction are linked, (c) the two of which I also "inaccurately tak[e] as given". I also (d) flee from complexity by referring to the fact that we are animals. My thoughts: How am I taking emotionality and reproduction as given, and how so inaccurately? Where do I dispute a link between the two? What are we in your opinion if not animals? Also, I read an undertone of both "you are stupid" and "you are evil" in your comment. Was that intentional or am I misunderstanding you here?
passwordoops 4y ago
I had a thought the other day if the current intolerance is due to the growing infantilism that's been occurring since the 90s. This whole notion that interactions must be positive, pursue good feelings, people need protection from "harmful" content, etc. is the root of the current climate. If everything you've been told up to now is "be positive, be happy!" then it follows that unpleasant emotions are to be avoided.
- synu 4y ago
  I seem to find the opposite, that people appear to be admired and build audiences based on how much they can troll or generally how nasty they can be to whichever rival group. People aren’t avoiding each other to stay in safe, happy and positive bubbles, it’s more like rival football club ultras out to kill each other.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Those views can go together, can't they? If you've never learned to accept the existence of things you don't like, and feel entitled to have everything done your way, you'll love people who are fighting for your side. If you also believe that "the others" aren't doing it because they are different from you but because they are evil and know better but hate you and all things that are good, then you'll especially enjoy the vicious and nasty attacks on them. I don't think they could avoid each other, given that they're trapped within the same reality. If anyone manages to fork the simulation into multiple branches strictly divided by tribe, will they be happy places? Or will new factions form, and the process repeat?
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  As someone who grew up watching the media of that era, I have trouble agreeing with that characterization. Most of what I saw wasn’t encouraging Stepford/Disney saccharine positivity nearly as much as it was encouraging basic decency and politeness in day to day interactions, including those with groups that traditionally hadn’t enjoyed that. It didn’t even discourage arguments but rather emphasized being productive with them — in other words, argue to find solutions, not to stoke each others’ emotional bonfires. If anything based on the steep decline in basic decency in the past couple of decades, I think it could be argued that the messaging of the 90s was unfortunately a failure.

gavinray 4y ago

I don't know that it's necessarily so much unpleasant emotions Let me paint a picture: My maternal grandparents are country folk, from Kentucky. My grandfather was an electrical engineer and a sort of whizz kid type. Architected/drafted and built his own house, made youngest highest-ranking naval officer in Coast Guard history, stuff of that sort. Having lived their entire lives together, they are on very different sides of the political spectrum. My grandmother is... unfortunately, a somewhat stereotypical Kentucky old white lady. You can guess her stance on things like immigrants and who she voted for. I love her but I have to try to blank out some of the things she says. My grandfather on the other hand will just say things like "Well, you have to try to see it from their side.", and "Don't you think that's a bit of a generalization?" But God help you if you cross the old man. I've done it once in my life and rarely seen a scarier thing. So (IME), you can have political tolerance separate of your emotional tolerance and emotional experiences. Political tolerance (for me) really boils down to: "Treat others how you want to be treated; Live and let live" which seems to me the most logical/reasonable way to go about it.

rayiner 4y ago
> "... Live and let live" which seems to me the most logical/reasonable way to go about it. Only if you assume we're not a society, and that there's no social benefits to enforcing socially desirable behaviors and suppress socially undesirable ones.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  You assume that there is and of a right aught to be enforcement. Others view that social evolution as up to god. We all cooperate and the least rigid will adopt the best and we’ll all copy one another.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    We have 3000+ years of very detailed data on how well that works, and all the “cooperation” that can be achieved…
    - weard_beard 4y ago
      Prisoners dilema. We have 3 billion more to get it right.
- Thursday24 4y ago
  Remove the law, and all that remains is a jungle, where the strong domineer the weak.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    So! Now you would give the Devil the benefit of law?
    - jfk13 4y ago
      For my own safety's sake.
- gavinray 4y ago
  "Live and let live" is based on the hope that everyone adopts that philosophy. Obviously with humans this can never be the case, until we modify our own brains/neurochemistry. IMO, adhere to it so long as the "Non-aggression Principle" holds, once that's breached, do whatever it is you have to do. "Leave me alone and I leave you alone. Poke me with a stick, and..."
tstrimple 4y ago
> Live and let live This isn't possible when one major political party refuses to allow that to happen. Many conservatives claim to just want to be left alone and then turn around and try to legislate who can marry who, how people live their lives, who is "worthy" of being part of our country, what books are available in libraries. You can't live and let live when you're constantly being attacked for intrinsic traits and being disenfranchised.
- gavinray 4y ago
  > Many conservatives claim to just want to be left alone and then turn around and try to legislate who can marry who, how people live their lives, who is "worthy" of being part of our country, what books are available in libraries. That's not very let-live at all, is it? I don't like to get into politics, but in my very unread and not-up-to-date opinion (I didn't even know some kind of election was happening recently, I care that little) neither end of the political spectrum is a good place to sit. Sitting on an end means you have an agenda and a strong set of ideals. I have my own morals/ethics, but they sort of start and end at the boundaries of my own being. As long as you have people who think that other people ought to behave/think more like them, you'll have conflict. I hold out hope for biohacking advanced enough that we mod ourselves out of this in a few hundred years.
brainchild-adam 4y ago
Thank you for sharing. I might be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from your description that your grandfather simply did not get "ticked off" by the same things as your grandmother. Those topics do not seem to have generated strong emotions in him. But they seem to have done so in your grandmother. What raises strong emotions in people seems to be highly subjective. To what extent you are able to have those stronger emotional responses while at the same time not succumbing to the impulses that go along with them, is what I would argue determines your ability to tolerate the stimuli that generate these emotional responses. Since these responses are physiological, rooted in our survival instincts, they greatly affect our ability to be rational, open, and contextualize. Instead, they move us into increasing levels of black-and-white thinking and fight or flight, first mentally, then physically. Whenever I explore topics that stir up strong (negative) emotions in myself, I find that they are usually tied to this, if I can get deep enough in my exploration. After all, we're just animals trying to survive and procreate, even though we have become very elaborate and ornamental in our pursuit of these goals.
- svnt 4y ago
  You are dismissing a level you are apparently incurious about — that of why certain seemingly irrational responses happen. Using “highly subjective” for something that is much better understood than you are implying is only an indicator of where you’ve chosen to draw your own boundary in pursuit of a constrained cognitive ability. It’s also an indicator of this limit that the two things you’re inaccurately taking as given are intimately linked: emotionality and reproduction. When things get too complex you conversationally reduce humans to emotional animals and end of.
  - brainchild-adam 4y ago
    I am sorry, but your comment is so terse that I find it quite difficult to really understand. I am very interested in learning and growing, though, so maybe you can help me understand what you were trying to say. This is what I got and my associated comments and questions: > You are dismissing a level you are apparently incurious about — that of why certain seemingly irrational responses happen. You seem to be saying: There's something (a) you think I'm incurious about (b) that also is relevant to this discussion. My thoughts: What exactly is this "level" you are referring to? I do have thoughts on "why certain seemingly irrational responses happen", but I'd first be curious to know what you are referring to. > Using “highly subjective” for something that is much better understood than you are implying is only an indicator of where you’ve chosen to draw your own boundary in pursuit of a constrained cognitive ability. You seem to be saying: There is "something" (a) that I qualified as "highly subjective" in my comment ("What raises strong emotions in people"), and (b) that me qualifying it as such is an indicator of a "boundary" (c) which I have drawn (d) in order to "constrain" my "cognitive ability". My thoughts: I am not sure where your argument against my statement is. How is "What raises strong emotions in people" "much better understood" "than you are implying"? What am I implying in your opinion? > It’s also an indicator of this limit that the two things you’re inaccurately taking as given are intimately linked: emotionality and reproduction. When things get too complex you conversationally reduce humans to emotional animals and end of You seem to be saying: (a) I am limited in my cognitive ability, (b) as evidenced by my inability to realize how emotionality and reproduction are linked, (c) the two of which I also "inaccurately tak[e] as given". I also (d) flee from complexity by referring to the fact that we are animals. My thoughts: How am I taking emotionality and reproduction as given, and how so inaccurately? Where do I dispute a link between the two? What are we in your opinion if not animals? Also, I read an undertone of both "you are stupid" and "you are evil" in your comment. Was that intentional or am I misunderstanding you here?

passwordoops 4y ago

I had a thought the other day if the current intolerance is due to the growing infantilism that's been occurring since the 90s. This whole notion that interactions must be positive, pursue good feelings, people need protection from "harmful" content, etc. is the root of the current climate. If everything you've been told up to now is "be positive, be happy!" then it follows that unpleasant emotions are to be avoided.

synu 4y ago
I seem to find the opposite, that people appear to be admired and build audiences based on how much they can troll or generally how nasty they can be to whichever rival group. People aren’t avoiding each other to stay in safe, happy and positive bubbles, it’s more like rival football club ultras out to kill each other.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Those views can go together, can't they? If you've never learned to accept the existence of things you don't like, and feel entitled to have everything done your way, you'll love people who are fighting for your side. If you also believe that "the others" aren't doing it because they are different from you but because they are evil and know better but hate you and all things that are good, then you'll especially enjoy the vicious and nasty attacks on them. I don't think they could avoid each other, given that they're trapped within the same reality. If anyone manages to fork the simulation into multiple branches strictly divided by tribe, will they be happy places? Or will new factions form, and the process repeat?
kitsunesoba 4y ago
As someone who grew up watching the media of that era, I have trouble agreeing with that characterization. Most of what I saw wasn’t encouraging Stepford/Disney saccharine positivity nearly as much as it was encouraging basic decency and politeness in day to day interactions, including those with groups that traditionally hadn’t enjoyed that. It didn’t even discourage arguments but rather emphasized being productive with them — in other words, argue to find solutions, not to stoke each others’ emotional bonfires. If anything based on the steep decline in basic decency in the past couple of decades, I think it could be argued that the messaging of the 90s was unfortunately a failure.