Differences and Tolerance

[Celtic Princess]

In my current course of studies, I came across this while doing research on various personality tests. I thought I would share. It evoked a wide range of reactions for me, and continues to stir echos hours after I first ran across it. Perhaps it's the class or maybe it's just my state of awareness lately when it comes to those who blindly judge my peers.
The following comes from the Keirsey Website.

If I do not want what you want, please try not to tell me that my want is wrong.

Or if I believe other than you, at least pause before you correct my view.

Or if my emotion is less than yours, or more, given the same circumstances, try not to ask me to feel more strongly or weakly.

Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be.

I do not, for the moment at least, ask you to understand me. That will come only when you are willing to give up changing me into a copy of you.

I may be your spouse, your parent, your offsping, your friend, or your colleague. If you will allow me any of my own wants, or emotions, or beliefs, or actions, then you open yourself, so that some day these ways of mine might not seem so wrong, and might finally appear to you as right -- for me. To put up with me is the first step to understanding me. Not that you embrace my ways as right for you, but that you are no longer irritated or disappointed with me for my seeming waywardness. And in understanding me you might come to prize my differences from you, and, far from seeking to change me, preserve and even nurture those differences.

 

[minsue]

That's lovely.

 

[TxRad]

I agree with Minsue.... it's also the way life should be..... to bad so many people have never read this or spent the time necessary to think it through...

 

[hugo_sam]

Thank you for sharing that. Well thought out and delivered. More people should read it and absorb it's meaning.

 

[joeys-game]

Yeah, absolutely, i really wish people would live by this!!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, all right. Throw stones at the horse. I entirely agree that tolerance and understanding are excellent qualities. But the unsleeping rationalist that's querulously attempting to coexist with the Gnostic Romantic elements of my nature insists on pointing out that those requests endorse an utter suspension of all judgement to the point of condoning any and all actions. What murderer or child molester wouldn't be happy to request, "Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be"?

I think tolerance a wonderful thing. However, I also think that we only give ammunition to the intolerant by suggesting that tolerance can and should have no limits whatsoever. Unqualified and utter tolerance of all possible views and actions is a poor goal, and mercifully one that is nearly impossible to achieve. While indeed it is good to learn that there are different goals and perspectives for different people, I'm not actually interested in "preserv[ing] and nurtur[ing]" some differences, especially the more cruel and lethal ones.

Rocks, anyone? Five dollars a throw.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

I'm with Shang.

As I wrote a couple of years ago in an essay, "I will try to understand another person's motives and drives. That doesn't mean I won't judge them."

My ethics, my sense of right and wrong, will always colour my actions. Sorry, can't be helped.

On the other hand, I don't expect people to act or believe as I do. I can't and shouldn't change other people.

 

[Celtic Princess]

Oh, all right. Throw stones at the horse. I entirely agree that tolerance and understanding are excellent qualities. But the unsleeping rationalist that's querulously attempting to coexist with the Gnostic Romantic elements of my nature insists on pointing out that those requests endorse an utter suspension of all judgement to the point of condoning any and all actions. What murderer or child molester wouldn't be happy to request, "Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be"?

I think tolerance a wonderful thing. However, I also think that we only give ammunition to the intolerant by suggesting that tolerance can and should have no limits whatsoever. Unqualified and utter tolerance of all possible views and actions is a poor goal, and mercifully one that is nearly impossible to achieve. While indeed it is good to learn that there are different goals and perspectives for different people, I'm not actually interested in "preserv[ing] and nurtur[ing]" some differences, especially the more cruel and lethal ones.

Rocks, anyone? Five dollars a throw.

Shanglan

*snuggles the horsey*


No rocks necessary. When it comes to discussing philosophy and ethics there are many ways one can take the theories, as I'm sure you're more than aware.

When I read this, I do not read a call to ignore child molester because I am not following this to the extreme. There will always be extremes.

To me, tolerance of differences does not include tolerance of violent crimes, or any crime for that matter. However, given my own personality type and my education in criminal justice, this is not a surprise to me.

I agree, there will always be people willing to argue this further than I'm willing to apply it. Indeed, a pure theorist would settle for nothing less than the total acceptance and tolerance of every single memeber of humanity. The beauty of being a reader and not a theorist is that I can choose how far I wish to apply these ideals. I choose not to apply them to those who harm society as a whole- not because I do not accept them or do not tolerate them, but because I do not even consider them.

I believe that you do not have to accept the extremes in order to apply the heart of the principal.

 

[TxRad]

My first take on this was that it applied to interpersonal relationships and after rereading it I still feel the same way. So, unless you are in a relationship with a murderer or a child molester, then i don't think it applies to that wide a scope...

People find each other and pair off, either live together or marry... then one tries to change the other or both will.... I read this as a learning experience a growing experience between two people...


Maybe i'm reading it wrong or with shaded glasses on....

 

[BlackShanglan]

*snuggles the horsey*


No rocks necessary. When it comes to discussing philosophy and ethics there are many ways one can take the theories, as I'm sure you're more than aware.

When I read this, I do not read a call to ignore child molester because I am not following this to the extreme. There will always be extremes.

To me, tolerance of differences does not include tolerance of violent crimes, or any crime for that matter. However, given my own personality type and my education in criminal justice, this is not a surprise to me.

I agree, there will always be people willing to argue this further than I'm willing to apply it. Indeed, a pure theorist would settle for nothing less than the total acceptance and tolerance of every single memeber of humanity. The beauty of being a reader and not a theorist is that I can choose how far I wish to apply these ideals. I choose not to apply them to those who harm society as a whole- not because I do not accept them or do not tolerate them, but because I do not even consider them.

I believe that you do not have to accept the extremes in order to apply the heart of the principal.

I think you beautifully tolerant. And good point about extremes. The day-to-day living side of me knows this, of course; for some reason the logician in me was operating when I read it, and read it in the sort of absolute/black-and-white way that one tends to read when approaching from that direction.

The devil's in the details, though. Humans have such a way of defining "those who harm society" as "people who piss me off." I just read the most bizarre, rambling screed on gay marriage; it enunciated the theory, amongst others, that "marriage is primarily a Christian insitution" and of course concluded that any recognition of gay marriages would be a terrible loss to this amazing, imaginary construct the author had come up with. I wish I could laugh, but it hurts to even try.

I could tolerate a Guinness right about now. Pull you one, Princess?

Shanglan

 

[SeaCat]

I read this, then read it again before printing it. I love what it says about what should be true in interpersonal relationships. (Notice I said should be.)

unfortunately too many people like to think they have to be in charge, they feel they have to change other people to match what they believe is correct either from a fashion or a moral view. Too often they feel that what they is correct because they have money or have some sort of power. It's just too bad that these people often have truly warped views of what is correct.

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm just back for the snuggles. I got snuggles, and I am visiting them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

(And doesn't "Snuggles the Horsey" sound like the most wonderful cartoon character/stuffed animal?)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

*L* As I was reading that, I thought that I could say the same thing more succinctly:

fuck off!​

 

[cantdog]

Yep. Fear of being judgemental leads to paralysis. The idea that all cultures are equally precious doesn't hold up. If you forbear to judge, you can't reject Nazism, for instance. A person is responsible for their own growth. Judgement is important in the process. You needn't descend into hatred, of course, but if you can't tell the good from the bad, you need to introspect a little and dump the rational a moment.

 

[elsol]

Yep. Fear of being judgemental leads to paralysis. The idea that all cultures are equally precious doesn't hold up. If you forbear to judge, you can't reject Nazism, for instance. A person is responsible for their own growth. Judgement is important in the process. You needn't descend into hatred, of course, but if you can't tell the good from the bad, you need to introspect a little and dump the rational a moment.

*burp*

Part of the problem is that people don't use the same standard on themselves as they use on others.

Nazi Germany was evil, but the US was far more successful in its attempt at genocide... ask Cloudy.

Spain was very, very successful in destroying entire civilizations.

Evangelical Christians (and other Christians) can be very...hmm... unneighborly.

But when you turn the lens they point on others on themselves, they start whining about 'unfairness', 'prejudice', 'bias', 'not being understood', or my favorite 'that was in the past'.

So before I 'judge' somebody, I make sure I don't fail my own test.

So far, I've passed the pedophilia one... it's a hip and boobs thing, they're a requirement and I don't even like to TALK to eighteen through twenty-one year old girls.

On the murder one... I've got a list ready for when the doctor says 'You've only got X number of months to live.'

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[R. Richard]

I try, in general, to stay out of the lives of others. I, like all of you who are sane, will judge murderers, child molesters, etc. However, there are other, more subtle problems. In the neighborhood where I used to live there was a guy who would drive drunk. Even drunk he drove quite well. I told him and the police that he needed at least counselling and probably jail. He and the police told me that they had the problem in hand and that I should fuck off. He passed out, drunk at the wheel and wiped out a mother and two little girls. He went to jail and the courts judged him. Unfortunately, the courts decided that I really did not need to judge him, nor did the police; no charges were brought against the police who stood by while drunk boy worked up to manslaughter.

I don't claim to know the precise limits, but there are times when failure to judge others should be a crime.

 

[Guest]

*burp*

Part of the problem is that people don't use the same standard on themselves as they use on others.

Nazi Germany was evil, but the US was far more successful in its attempt at genocide... ask Cloudy.

Spain was very, very successful in destroying entire civilizations.

Evangelical Christians (and other Christians) can be very...hmm... unneighborly.

But when you turn the lens they point on others on themselves, they start whining about 'unfairness', 'prejudice', 'bias', 'not being understood', or my favorite 'that was in the past'.

So before I 'judge' somebody, I make sure I don't fail my own test.

So far, I've passed the pedophilia one... it's a hip and boobs thing, they're a requirement and I don't even like to TALK to eighteen through twenty-one year old girls.

On the murder one... I've got a list ready for when the doctor says 'You've only got X number of months to live.'

Sincerely,
ElSol

why does it feel like a bad sunburn for me to agree with you? *grin*
its true though and your words are exactly as i feel.

 

[Honey123]

If I gave this to my boss, do you think I might ruin my chances of a raise and/or bonus....

Actually, I really like this and am going to send it to my SO...maybe things will change in my life and I will be alot happier - and he will be alot happier with who I AM....

 

[sweetnpetite]

guilty.

It drives me crazy when my boyfriend believes some of the things he beleives. Especially the ones that are so conservative. I don't understand how anyone can think certain things.

Like it really drives me nuts that people think that same sex marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage or society or whatever.

And how the hell can anyone think like amicus?

 

[Celtic Princess]

I think you beautifully tolerant. And good point about extremes. The day-to-day living side of me knows this, of course; for some reason the logician in me was operating when I read it, and read it in the sort of absolute/black-and-white way that one tends to read when approaching from that direction.

The devil's in the details, though. Humans have such a way of defining "those who harm society" as "people who piss me off." I just read the most bizarre, rambling screed on gay marriage; it enunciated the theory, amongst others, that "marriage is primarily a Christian insitution" and of course concluded that any recognition of gay marriages would be a terrible loss to this amazing, imaginary construct the author had come up with. I wish I could laugh, but it hurts to even try.

I could tolerate a Guinness right about now. Pull you one, Princess?

Shanglan

Ah, but again, my statement was only meant to apply to what I believe. That is to say, I define those who harm society as those who break the law. I know that I make this distinction because of my background and personal beliefs. Others who do not share the same education or belief structure will exclude or include various people for different reasons.

And yes, some will exclude people on the basis that they "harm society" when in actuality all that person managed to do was piss off the one doing the defining. The example you and sweetnpetite used of same sex marriage haters is a very good elaboration of this point. To them, people in a same sex marriage harm society. Under my definition they need not be understood nor tolerated. Which is why I would only apply my standard to me.

I think the statement I posted is versatile enough that different people will get different things out of it. My hope is that someone who reads it will feel a little more self aware. I can't see someone reading it and not feeling that way.

Ultimately, I think I just don't want to consider the huge extremes that this could go to, I want to bask in the nice warm fuzzies it gave me.


And of course I want a Guinness, especially if you're pulling.

 

[Celtic Princess]

(And doesn't "Snuggles the Horsey" sound like the most wonderful cartoon character/stuffed animal?)

It might... but it won't stop me from doing it!



*snuggles the horsey again*


Why come visit them when you can get new ones?

 

[Celtic Princess]

I try, in general, to stay out of the lives of others. I, like all of you who are sane, will judge murderers, child molesters, etc. However, there are other, more subtle problems. In the neighborhood where I used to live there was a guy who would drive drunk. Even drunk he drove quite well. I told him and the police that he needed at least counselling and probably jail. He and the police told me that they had the problem in hand and that I should fuck off. He passed out, drunk at the wheel and wiped out a mother and two little girls. He went to jail and the courts judged him. Unfortunately, the courts decided that I really did not need to judge him, nor did the police; no charges were brought against the police who stood by while drunk boy worked up to manslaughter.

I don't claim to know the precise limits, but there are times when failure to judge others should be a crime.

I would almost agree with this... almost.

I can not judge someone on what they might do. There are instances however when I agree someone should be judged based on what they have done.

 

[Celtic Princess]

*L* As I was reading that, I thought that I could say the same thing more succinctly:

fuck off!​

*grin*

This could be why it appealed to me so much.

 

[carsonshepherd]

*L* As I was reading that, I thought that I could say the same thing more succinctly:

fuck off!​

actually, that's Step 3 in my Inner Peace In 3 Easy Steps plan.