Community Chat

[itiswhatitis]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While that may be an interesting study,anyone posting here would only be doing so on conjecture or limited to their personal experiences. 

---

Why do you say this @CrazyDaisy.

---

Because everyone will answer this question based upon thier own experience and belief system.  As an example, if you have never met, spoken or gotten to know a person from the Amish community you will have a very different percieption than someone who has.

---

*****************************

That's not really true, there have been numerous studies on cloistered groups.  These things are studied in Sociology and Anthropology.

---

Well since the question did not ask for the discussion of specific studies, rather individual answers I stand by my reply.

---

Yeah but @CrazyDaisy, the studies had outcomes.  We're discussing those outcomes.

---

No the discussion is not the outcomes, it is each individuals belief.  If you would like to referrence a study, then each of us could read it.  Then we can discuss the outcome or conclusion of the study.  Till then every response is based on the individuals experience and belief.

---

The discussion IS about the outcomes of studies that @Noel7 made mention of.  Studies have established what we're discussing here.  Simply put, the studies tell us what we already know.  Cloistered individuals will likely have a harder time understanding cultures for which they are not part of, or have been included in ~ in shape form or fashion.

[Moonchilde]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

I have known and continue to know people who firmly believe that if they haven't personally experienced something, don't have a close friend or family member who has experienced something, or "have never heard" of something - it simply doesn't exist, isn't true, cannot be and anyone who insists otherwise exaggerates, is a liar, stupid, etc., etc.

I have never seen a common denominator among them as to worldliness or lack thereof, insulation in a "community" or anything like that. In fact I'd say more the opposite in my personal experience - IMO it's often people who should "know better" as they *have* been exposed to a variety of peoples, situations and viewpoints.

---

What you describe is choice.  No hindrances to knowledge of other cultures.  

---

The OP asks:  

Do you think people that grew up in or live socially cloistered lives tend to be more inflexible in their thinking, tolerance and acceptance of differences than those from more diverse communities?

For the purpose of this discussion "socially cloistered" means an environment where nearly everyone has the same background and exposures that would limit how they see society beyond their individual experiences (i.e., I've never seen/heard that, who would think that way, that can't be true).

::::::::::::

My response was that I don't believe being socially cloistered is the only, or even a major, deciding factor in intolerance. It *might* be, and sometimes is, but my own experience has been that the most UNcloistered have the capacity to be just as intolerant as anyone else.

CAN the socially isolated be intolerant? Yes.

Are ONLY the socially isolated intolerant? No.

Once socially isolated, always socially isolated, ever unchanging in outlook and POV? Perhaps, but not necessarily. It's not a given.

---

I agree with what you said.  The ones who are intolerant who are not socially isolated are doing so by CHOICE!

---

Ah. Agreed.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While that may be an interesting study,anyone posting here would only be doing so on conjecture or limited to their personal experiences. 

---

Why do you say this @CrazyDaisy.

---

Because everyone will answer this question based upon thier own experience and belief system.  As an example, if you have never met, spoken or gotten to know a person from the Amish community you will have a very different percieption than someone who has.

---

*****************************

That's not really true, there have been numerous studies on cloistered groups.  These things are studied in Sociology and Anthropology.

---

Well since the question did not ask for the discussion of specific studies, rather individual answers I stand by my reply.

---

Yeah but @CrazyDaisy, the studies had outcomes.  We're discussing those outcomes.

---

No the discussion is not the outcomes, it is each individuals belief.  If you would like to referrence a study, then each of us could read it.  Then we can discuss the outcome or conclusion of the study.  Till then every response is based on the individuals experience and belief.

---

*************************************

Definitely not true, thank goodness.

---

If you would like to cite your "referrences" for your responses then I will consider your conclusions, till then just your opinion.

[Noel7]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While that may be an interesting study,anyone posting here would only be doing so on conjecture or limited to their personal experiences. 

---

Why do you say this @CrazyDaisy.

---

Because everyone will answer this question based upon thier own experience and belief system.  As an example, if you have never met, spoken or gotten to know a person from the Amish community you will have a very different percieption than someone who has.

---

*****************************

That's not really true, there have been numerous studies on cloistered groups.  These things are studied in Sociology and Anthropology.

---

Well since the question did not ask for the discussion of specific studies, rather individual answers I stand by my reply.

---

Yeah but @CrazyDaisy, the studies had outcomes.  We're discussing those outcomes.

---

No the discussion is not the outcomes, it is each individuals belief.  If you would like to referrence a study, then each of us could read it.  Then we can discuss the outcome or conclusion of the study.  Till then every response is based on the individuals experience and belief.

---

*************************************

Definitely not true, thank goodness.

---

If you would like to cite your "referrences" for your responses then I will consider your conclusions, till then just your opinion.

---

***************************

I already have. 

[itiswhatitis]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While that may be an interesting study,anyone posting here would only be doing so on conjecture or limited to their personal experiences. 

---

Why do you say this @CrazyDaisy.

---

Because everyone will answer this question based upon thier own experience and belief system.  As an example, if you have never met, spoken or gotten to know a person from the Amish community you will have a very different percieption than someone who has.

---

*****************************

That's not really true, there have been numerous studies on cloistered groups.  These things are studied in Sociology and Anthropology.

---

Well since the question did not ask for the discussion of specific studies, rather individual answers I stand by my reply.

---

*****************************

You can't assume everyone bases their opinion on their own experience/belief system.  Some study for years or have traveled and experienced contact with different groups.

Anyone can go to the library and pick up a book about any subject and expand their knowledge. 

---

Yes you can read a book, yet not every book says the same thing.   

---

*******************************

And that's where critical thinking comes in.  That, and weighing the evidence.

---

Yes I agree.  I said earlier up thread that it's best to have immediate world experience to dispel any mistruths one may have about other groups.  I also said the media gives a glimpse but it can never ever give you first hand experience.

[SaRina]

Yes.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

There are some religious societies that are pretty cloistered, even still.  You are only allowed to believe certain things, think a certain way, and consider everybody who doesn't think like you, or believe what you believe, to be the dammed.  

Stuff like that leaves a pretty narrow world view.

---

A narrow view of the world still would not make a person or society intolerant or not accepting of differences. 

---

************************************

It usually does.  If people aren't introduced to a variety of ideas they usually don't learn to think on their own, or they may not consider new information that challenges what they already think.

---

Exactly.   It's conditioning.  Sure, some will break out of it and acquire a broader view, learning to understand that life is so much more faceted.  Some won't and will continue on feeling that everything is as they were told it was because that is comfortable and secure for them.

---

Just because a group of people chooses to continue to do what they are doing, does not make them intolerant and not accepting of differences.  In fact it is starting to look like people are intolerant and not accepting of their choices because they are different from what they think they should be doing.

[MyGirlsMom]

---

@Marp wrote:

Do you think people that grew up in or live socially cloistered lives tend to be more inflexible in their thinking, tolerance and acceptance of differences than those from more diverse communities?

For the purpose of this discussion "socially cloistered" means an environment where nearly everyone has the same background and exposures that would limit how they see society beyond their individual experiences (i.e., I've never seen/heard that, who would think that way, that can't be true).

---

***

YES, absolutely and positively YES! 

[Noel7]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While that may be an interesting study,anyone posting here would only be doing so on conjecture or limited to their personal experiences. 

---

Why do you say this @CrazyDaisy.

---

Because everyone will answer this question based upon thier own experience and belief system.  As an example, if you have never met, spoken or gotten to know a person from the Amish community you will have a very different percieption than someone who has.

---

*****************************

That's not really true, there have been numerous studies on cloistered groups.  These things are studied in Sociology and Anthropology.

---

Well since the question did not ask for the discussion of specific studies, rather individual answers I stand by my reply.

---

*****************************

You can't assume everyone bases their opinion on their own experience/belief system.  Some study for years or have traveled and experienced contact with different groups.

Anyone can go to the library and pick up a book about any subject and expand their knowledge. 

---

Yes you can read a book, yet not every book says the same thing.   

---

*******************************

And that's where critical thinking comes in.  That, and weighing the evidence.

---

Yes I agree.  I said earlier up thread that it's best to have immediate world experience to dispel any mistruths one may have about other groups.  I also said the media gives a glimpse but it can never ever give you first hand experience.

---

**************************

@itiswhatitis

I don't know a lot about the 14th Dalai Lama but he's such an amazing man.  I assume he was trained in a cloistered setting, but he's such a tolerant man and very loving toward everyone.

[itiswhatitis]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

There are some religious societies that are pretty cloistered, even still.  You are only allowed to believe certain things, think a certain way, and consider everybody who doesn't think like you, or believe what you believe, to be the dammed.  

Stuff like that leaves a pretty narrow world view.

---

A narrow view of the world still would not make a person or society intolerant or not accepting of differences. 

---

************************************

It usually does.  If people aren't introduced to a variety of ideas they usually don't learn to think on their own, or they may not consider new information that challenges what they already think.

---

Just have to disagree.  You are making sweeping generalizations about groups of people based upon what. Your personal experiences and beliefs. 

---

No @CrazyDaisy, based on studies and how it really is in the real world. These are facts.  Humans self-segregate for the purposes of being with those who look like them and share the same values.  It's true and has always been true.  Nothing more than being human.  Humans do this, just like animals do.  A wolf pack contains what?  Wolves.  A herd of elephants contain what?  Elephants. Humans do the same thing.  The problem when humans doing it ~ since we're the higher species is to further sub categorize based on many other social constructs like race, ethnic group, and wealth.

If a wealthy minority community moves into a wealthy White neighborhood you would think that at least one other sub culture is eliminated.  That one would be where wealth is a criteria.