Thread: Is there a metric for Toleration of Controversy?

We have a metric for Toleration of Ambiguity.
But is there a test for Toleration of Controversy. . . or the ability to remain calm when discussing controversial topics?
Onias Hoffman

"a metric for Toleration of Ambiguity"

I've seen a description which might function as a definition, but we can't measure such a thing in any reliable way or apply a scale to any given person's thinking or argument.

As for controversy. I find most people are pretty reasonable most of the time discussing something where there's a genuine lack of definite information or clear guidance from research.

The biggest issue with discussions where a participant claims that the view they're advancing is controversial is that very often they've failed to distinguish between controversy and contrarianism. Taking up a differing or an opposing view simply in order to create an apparent disagreement is not discussing a controversy - it's being a pain in the neck. To tell the other participants that they can't tolerate controversy in such circumstances would be just an ugly cherry on a very stale cake.

shades of:
"A modest proposal"?

I find what makes it problematic is when someone is trying to further a personal agenda, usually people who don't have an agenda other than for knowledge sake are more capable of discussing differing sides of an issue.

Yes, a personal agenda can interfere with objectivity, but rigid (or OCP) people are often angry with opposing opinions even when they have no skin in the game.