I think there is an important distinction between cheap and expensive tolerance. If I am sitting on a plane and don’t have a good book and am talking to my seatmate, and they seem stupid and irrational, being tolerant is likely to lead to an enjoyable conversation. I may even learn something.
But if I am deciding what authors to read, whose arguments to think about more seriously, etc., then it seems irrational to not judge and prioritize with my limited time.
And this relates to indirect tolerance—someone who doesn’t judge and prioritize good arguments but instead listens to and talks to everyone is someone whose links and recommendations are less valuable because they have done less filtering. On the other hand, they are more likely to convert people, and when they do find good ideas they are more likely to be good ideas I wouldn’t otherwise encounter. So it’s tricky. Seems like the ideal is to read people who are intolerant but read tolerant people, so they have the broadest base of ideas, but still select the best.
The advice isn’t about your attitude towards your seatmate’s stupidity and irrationality. It’s directed at your rationalist buddy sitting on your other side—she’s being advised not to be annoyed at you if you choose to be tolerant.
I think there is an important distinction between cheap and expensive tolerance. If I am sitting on a plane and don’t have a good book and am talking to my seatmate, and they seem stupid and irrational, being tolerant is likely to lead to an enjoyable conversation. I may even learn something.
But if I am deciding what authors to read, whose arguments to think about more seriously, etc., then it seems irrational to not judge and prioritize with my limited time.
And this relates to indirect tolerance—someone who doesn’t judge and prioritize good arguments but instead listens to and talks to everyone is someone whose links and recommendations are less valuable because they have done less filtering. On the other hand, they are more likely to convert people, and when they do find good ideas they are more likely to be good ideas I wouldn’t otherwise encounter. So it’s tricky. Seems like the ideal is to read people who are intolerant but read tolerant people, so they have the broadest base of ideas, but still select the best.
The advice isn’t about your attitude towards your seatmate’s stupidity and irrationality. It’s directed at your rationalist buddy sitting on your other side—she’s being advised not to be annoyed at you if you choose to be tolerant.