Expansiveness, continued

A friend suggested to me that there might be a possible contradiction between Expansiveness and being outright critical of wrong-headed ideas. Understanding and open-mindedness can only go so far, he argues, before one must take a stand against the propagation of nonsense. (For example, those who believe that global warming is a hoax are just ignorant, and their views are not worthy of respect.)

I don't see a contradiction. Expansiveness has very little to do with empathy; wrong ideas are not deserving of empathy, and people who consider Expansiveness a virtue have no obligation to blunt their criticism of wrong ideas under the banner of "open-mindedness." Expansive people are generally well-read, well-researched, relatively unbiased, and familiar with the competing arguments, and therefore they are in prime position to let the Know-Nothings have it. The more knowledgeable they are, the less mercy they should show.

The thing that distinguishes expansive people from other knowledgeable people is that they conceive of their minds as works-in-progress, even on topics where they can claim expertise. A few implications follow: First, they are aware of the limitations of their own knowledge, and are actively seeking to overcome those limitations. (Which reminds me of the first rule of book discussion groups: "If you haven't read the book, shut the hell up.") Second, they are conscious of the fact that "knowledge" is a socially-produced phenomenon, and as such, oftentimes what seems like knowledge is actually a case of groupthink. Expansive people do what they can to maintain independence, or at very least, to be honest about the ways in which they are influenced by the crowd. Finally, they relish the opportunity to learn something about a field of knowledge that was previously a mystery, whether it be the inner workings of a lawnmower, an old book, or the history of soap.