Does tolerance have a limit?

    Does tolerance have a limit? La tolerance it is included in several
    ways; there are those who think that it is the ability to assimilate influences
    harmful without having a rejection reaction while others go further stating
    that tolerance is the virtue of knowing how to coexist with the different without nourishing
    prejudices. Certainly when we hear the word "tolerance" they come to us
    immediately to mind all its meanings: flexibility,
    condescension and also the words: submission, cognitive acceptance but not
    emotional. Through time
    tolerance has taken on a negative meaning which is expressed in the sentence: “you
    I accept but I don't understand you (much less I want to do it) "; it is a content
    of emotionally negative value that is associated with resignation. Like this,
    tolerance is also placed in the popular imagination in relation to
    stoic resistance and passivity. The word
    tolerance implies in the first place: “a situation or a person / group of
    people to tolerate ”and secondly:“ a reason why be
    tolerant
    ". But to go beyond who or what we will have to tolerate, the part
    interesting lies in the motivation for which we decide to be
    tolerant. Imagine a situation that you have been in particularly
    tolerant, why did you do it? When we are
    tolerant because we believe we can do nothing about it, we are
    showing a kind of learned despair, we are giving up in the face
    to the situation or person. Obviously, in this case the tolerance
    acquires negative contours because we turn into apathetic people,
    disinterested and not compromising with reality. When we manifest
    tolerance because we believe that we will not be able to influence the situation we are in
    living, we are closing ourselves in a circle of stillness, we accept what
    we cannot change but without agreeing with the same. The trick is
    in the fact that once a tolerant attitude is assumed, the levels of
    perceived conflicts are reduced enormously, and this helps us to maintain
    things as they are. So when there
    we aim to be tolerant the first step we should take is to
    analyze our reasons. If we are tolerant why not we have none
    hope to change things then
    we will enter a forced circle that leads us to disinterest ourselves, and this does not
    leads nowhere. However, there is the
    active tolerance, a tolerance that does not imply passivity until
    understands (cognitively and emotionally) the other or the situation in question. In
    in this case the tolerance does not take on gray outlines since this form of
    tolerance means coexisting with and understanding the other, even if we are not
    willing to follow their behavior. Even if the
    difference between the passive tolerance and positive tolerance may seem
    very subtle, certainly the simple fact of emotionally accepting a fact,
    understand it from a cognitive point of view and take it, not as an opportunity
    desperate but as conscious decision making, it makes a difference
    remarkable in our attitude towards the situation and towards ourselves. In
    in this case the tolerance would not be the minimum but rather the maximum of
    how much can be achieved regardless of the differences. Anyway,
    for tolerance to be a positive process, some have to present themselves
    factors: - Availability
    to grant and establish a relationship of reciprocal exchange - Maintain a
    fair relationship in which the parties both hold sufficient power that
    make sure there is no submission - Prioritize
    a number of common interests - The possibility of
    have and freely show contradictions and differences These factors
    guarantee that tolerating is not just an act of submission or one
    unique alternative but rather a conscious decision. However, when these
    factors occur, usually there is also a contradiction: the
    people don't want to be tolerant just out of fear or because they are too much
    rigid in their patterns of behavior and evaluation of the other (but this is
    a different theme). But besides the fact
    of whether to adopt an attitude of passive or positive tolerance, there are those who do
    asks what the limit of tolerance is. In this regard, I am pleased
    to think that tolerance represents a developing area, a space still
    not properly developed but
    reachable with the help of others. This future growth zone will be more or
    less limited by prejudices, habits, stereotypes or beliefs than
    everyone has and the stiffness or flexibility you show to change them
    themselves. Accepting the tolerance as a zone shared with others and entered
    in a given situation, we can understand that a behavior can
    be tolerant "here and now" but may not manifest tomorrow when the
    environmental (or person's) conditions have changed. In a general sense,
    the limit of tolerance (positive tolerance) will be established at the in point
    which the person cannot go beyond because his value system is
    prevents, due to the fact that what he considers "good and adequate" does not
    apply more to the case in question. I would like
    end these reflections / inflections on tolerance by remembering a sentence
    by Perls who stresses the importance of being tolerant while preserving the
    individual differences: “I manage
    mine and you in your own way. I'm not in this world to meet your expectations,
    much less are you there to satisfy mine. You are you and I am me. If for one
    randomness we meet will be nice. Otherwise, there will be nothing to do ".
    add a comment of Does tolerance have a limit?
    Comment sent successfully! We will review it in the next few hours.