(It’s good to have less social pressure against odd-seeming positions, so that they can be freely examined according to their more carefully construed meaning rather than surface appearance.)
Having less pressure against unorthodox or novel positions is a good thing. But I think it makes sense to have minimal social pressure to give some account of apparent discrepancies between actions and beliefs—since it suggests (though doesn’t necessitate) contradictory beliefs somewhere.
This seems to act as an incentive for both resolving the conflict, and for obscuring its presence or nature. I feel that the latter effect can be more damaging, so it might be safer to avoid this pressure. For example, drawing of attention to the presence of an apparent conflict (if it’s plausible that it has been missed) that isn’t accompanied by (implied) disapproval.
(It’s good to have less social pressure against odd-seeming positions, so that they can be freely examined according to their more carefully construed meaning rather than surface appearance.)
Having less pressure against unorthodox or novel positions is a good thing. But I think it makes sense to have minimal social pressure to give some account of apparent discrepancies between actions and beliefs—since it suggests (though doesn’t necessitate) contradictory beliefs somewhere.
This seems to act as an incentive for both resolving the conflict, and for obscuring its presence or nature. I feel that the latter effect can be more damaging, so it might be safer to avoid this pressure. For example, drawing of attention to the presence of an apparent conflict (if it’s plausible that it has been missed) that isn’t accompanied by (implied) disapproval.
My original comment was about as devoid of implications of disapproval as I could make it. I’d be interested to hear better formulations.