Compassion and Tolerance (continued)

Last time I wrote about how the terms compassion and tolerance are often used, even in academic circles, without sufficient regard for clear definitions.  It’s the old “I know it when I see it” approach.  I explained how compassion is a tricky concept.  Just seeing someone with difficulty and automatically lending assistance may provide satisfaction to the helper while being a disservice to the one with the problem.

Now I will look at tolerance the same way.  Again, it’s impossible to see into the mind, so the only evidence we have of another’s tolerance is observed behaviors that fit a clear definition.  Tolerance is usually defined as a willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviors one does not necessarily agree with.

Ideally, everyone would be tolerant of any opinion or action that does not cause a direct threat to one’s personal safety and wellbeing.  Let speakers speak on any subject to anyone interested in listening.  Let demonstrators demonstrate peacefully without disrupting the lives of others.  Let people marry anyone they want to.  Let people take the drugs to cure disease or just to feel better, e.g. pain relievers, caffeine, heroin.

The only exception should be for direct responsibility:  parents for children, teachers for students, military leaders for their troops, etc.  But this gets tricky in a couple of ways.  In a society where everyone’s medical costs become everyone else’s responsibility because of insurance, perhaps your health habits should be everyone else’s business.  But in this area we tend to pick and choose.  Smokers are shunned, but to scorn or shame the overweight is seen as rude and insensitive.  Alcohol is acceptable in moderation, but recreational drugs are illegal.

Also, for Christians, Jews and even Muslims there is that pesky chapter in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel where the Lord orders everyone to step in to keep your neighbor from sinning or you will suffer the same punishment.  It concludes in Chapter 3, verse 21:  “But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”  Based on that premise, some opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, are not haters at all.  They genuinely care about the salvation of others and themselves.  (I warned it would get tricky.)

It seems tolerance must be narrowed down to make any sense.  A reasonable starting place is the current commotion over freedom of speech where college students and others on both political extremes heckle, shout down and even riot to keep speakers from delivering their message.  It’s a safe bet that these people have not been inspired by reading Ezekiel nor are they doing it out of concern about their health insurance premiums.  Instead they seem to feel that allowing contrary opinions is immoral, dangerous, or offensive.  They imply by their actions that everyone else is too stupid or ignorant to resist the lure of a faulty or insidious argument, so they must step in to silence the messenger.  Apparently, the alternative of answering ideas with ideas is passé.  The default becomes shouting accusations of being evil – either fascist or communist.  If anyone needs an example of a critical thinking disaster, this is it.

A more passive way to shut people up is to claim their opinions are offensive.  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.

If we can’t even agree on something as basic as freedom of speech, that tolerance we all seem to cherish ends up in practice being tolerance only for what we deem appropriate.  We have little tolerance for those intolerant people who don’t agree.

When concepts like compassion and tolerance are promoted as worthy goals, people tend to nod in agreement.  Deeper thought shows that the two are not as straightforward as they appear.  There is a lot of room for discussion and many instances for honest disagreement.  When clearly defined, compassion and tolerance are probably good things, but both require a degree of moderation and a less cavalier acceptance of vague, unexamined notions.

Whenever we try to peer into the minds of others to find compassion or tolerance, or for that matter, economic understanding, discipline, responsibility, critical thinking, and perspective, the only way to get there is through observation and interpretation of behavior based on clear definitions or examples.  That is why I have posted 670 (and counting) explanations and examples to foster agreement about what we are looking for in the five key dimensions and the dangerous consequences of not finding it.

Don't Trust Opinion Polls

The information from opinion polls is unreliable.  That is not always the result of poor polling techniques, inadequate sample size or leading questions.  The primary reason opinion polls are unreliable is that opinions are unreliable.

Take, for example, the latest release from CBS News analyzing polls about guns laws in the US.  The article provides a table showing the change in opinions over the last two years.  Those who favored stricter gun laws were 46% in January 2011.  After dropping to 39%, they increased to a solid majority of 57% immediately after the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident in Connecticut.  Now, a year later that percentage is back down to 49%, almost where it began.

What facts have changed over that period?  There was a shooting in the theater in Colorado in July 2012 and in Newtown, Connecticut last December.  There were really no major incidents over the last year other than the trial last summer of George Zimmerman for the Trayvon Martin shooting, which occurred in February 2012.  It is impossible to explain such variability of opinion over that period except to say that it was based more on emotions and feelings than on facts.

Such results make it very clear why the news media, advertisers and politicians work so hard to get us feeling angry, scared, insecure, or even inspired.  They count on us to make decisions, make purchases or cast ballots, before the critical thinking kicks in.  In highly charged cases like gun control, for some people the critical thinking never kicks in, but others seem to eventually settle back to their original assessment.  In most cases there is a period, and psychologists have done many experiments to prove it, when feelings and judgments are very much influenced by recent exposure to positive or negative experiences.  These experiences may be personal, or they may be intensive news coverage or peer pressure.  Scientists have even shown that locating polling booths in a school makes voters more likely to favor school-related referendums.

Though it’s clear that opinion polls must be taken with a grain of salt, how many of our laws and election outcomes are a result of this short-lived irrational behavior?

Popular Means Good

Is it true that if something is popular it must be good or right?  Cicero didn’t agree when he wrote, “I am of the opinion, that though a thing be not foul in itself, it cannot help to become so when commended by the multitude.”  Wow, strong words, and even a bit snobbish, but our word vulgar is derived from the Latin word vulgaris, pertaining to the general public.

Although ancient Romans may not have had a high opinion of popularity and what is popular, the opposite is true in modern America.  Advertisers try to get us to buy their products, not based on their merits, but on the endorsement of our neighbors and fellow citizens.  This car is the most popular.  That television show is a surprise hit.  This brand is the best-selling toothpaste.  Another video (of cute kittens or puppies or someone dancing as if he’s riding a horse) has gone viral.  Evening network news programs sometimes close with the day’s most popular video for anyone who missed it, as if this were something wonderful and newsworthy.

Popularity is looked on so favorably that popular people are allowed, even expected to express opinions in areas where they have no expertise.  Celebrities take sides in political campaigns and on political issues like gun control and energy policy.  They tell us which animals to save and which diseases should receive more funding.  As a result, the amount spent on major diseases and conditions in the US does not come close to corresponding with the number of deaths or their overall social impact.  Stars represent products that it’s unlikely they have ever tried – do you think Henry Winkler got himself a reverse mortgage?  People who have become famous by being victims of a crime or tragedy are called upon to give their opinions regarding the situation and to recommend remediation.  Parents of kidnap victims or gunshot victims are treated like authorities on preventing kidnapping or on gun control.

Polls on scientific subjects imply that majority opinion is as good as evidence in a search for the truth.  “At least 75 percent of U.S. adults say global warming has been happening…”  A strong argument in favor of global warming was that the majority of scientists agreed that it was real.  On another topic, polls, not science, drive the decision to establish 20 weeks as a cut-off for abortion laws “based on the theory that this is the point at which a fetus can feel pain.”  These are a few of many examples where, as in advertising, authorities and advocates try to substitute popular opinion for evidence.

The way these stories are presented only adds to the confusion.  Science is not a voting matter.  Back when most people, including the Pope, thought that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that was absolutely not the case.  Voting on a subject may make it the law, but it cannot make it true.  

Movie stars, singers and Facebook friends are no better informed about politics, science or medicine than you or I, especially if we do a little research.  Popular ideas may be right or they may be wrong, but when we start accepting opinions over evidence, the real dangers of social media become clear.  The choice between making a decision based on opinions or based on facts and evidence should be a no-brainer.  It’s OK to go along with the crowd to avoid conflicts or bad feelings about small matters, but on important issues you are more likely to find the truth if you are not persuaded by the popular appeal and think for yourself.  

Be Wary of Polls

Polls have become very popular in recent years.  Most of them have to do with politics or current issues.  This makes sense in a democracy where politicians are always looking over their shoulders to guard against being on the “wrong side” of an issue when election time rolls around.  Polls, along with demonstrations, marches, e-mails and phone calls, have become an effective way to influence political decisions between elections.

Many polls ask people about their practices and habits, helping manufacturers, service providers, retailers, or advertisers discover our interests and how our tastes have changed.  (Is that why there are 14 types/colors of the same brand of dishwashing liquid to choose from at the grocery store?)

Since we are constantly inundated with poll results, here are a few tips.

The reason for polling is to find out what people think – all people.  It’s too expensive to ask everyone, so they ask a sample.  Professional outfits carefully plan to get a representative sample.  Others may not, and a non-representative sample, a "non-scientific poll, is pretty much worthless.  They must also get a large enough sample.  Usually around 1200 subjects will yield an accuracy of plus or minus 3%.  This is good enough, because increasing the accuracy requires many more subjects.  Return on the extra effort is marginal, and it’s still not 100% and never will be unless you ask everyone.

Wording of the questions can lead people to a particular conclusion.  Many news reports for the sake of brevity summarize responses.  Often different polls get seemingly conflicting results on the same issue.  This may be due to slightly different wording of the question.  Another wording-related issue comes with the time frame: “Has he experienced X in the last year?” or “Has he ever experienced X?”  Not knowing the precise wording can blur the picture.

I'm always wary of self-reporting.  When polls ask, do you do something or approve of something, it often leads to exaggeration, trying to please or trying to impress.  From this article about a budgeting poll we learn: “People want to be seen as good citizens, so when they’re asked by a pollster whether they do things that are generally seen as positive, good-person activities, they fudge a little. Pollsters call this ‘social desirability bias,’ and a great example of it is voting. Without fail, more people tell pollsters that they turn out to vote than actually do.”  Accordingly, they view the budgeting responses a little skeptically.  Think about how easily this bias could apply to questions on subjects like food choices, hygiene habits, drug usage or sexual activities.  (The above source also gives a good example of two similar polls with different wording.)  

Finally, do they ask facts or opinions on things that can’t be changed or don't really matter?  These are reported frequently in the news and are virtually meaningless.  An example comes from a CBS news poll: “"How likely do you think it is that a major earthquake will happen in the U.S. in the next 20 years?”  Opinions don’t cause or prevent earthquakes, but it might help some politician or marketer to play on people’s fears.  Here’s one on gun laws: "Regardless of how you feel about the issue, how likely do you think it is that the President and Congress will pass any laws that will bring about significant changes to gun policy by the end of this year?”  Do they want some psychic prediction or are they just measuring the general discouragement on progress?  Finally, “Americans are divided as to whether fathers today are more involved or less involved in raising their kids than they were 20 years ago.”  So what?

Polls can be tricky and the polltakers can use them to manipulate us, to unintentionally mislead us or just to clutter our minds with more useless information.