"High Fidelity" author Nick Hornby tells us that it's not what you are like that's important, but what you like. John's Third Law is not dissimilar: it doesn't much matter what you believe; it's why you believe it that matters.
This philosophy oft puts me in the position of admiring those with whom I disagree and cringing at people whose opinions align with my own. If there's anything more de-validating than the chiming agreement of someone who's put no thought whatsoever into an issue, I certainly haven't found it. It's the intellectual equivalent of a women pointing and laughing the first time she sees me naked. I hear.
The whys are huge. Are you vegetarian for moral or health reasons, or are you so vapid as to allow fashion to dictate something as important as diet? Are you trying to convert me to your religion because you're personally worried about my eternal soul, or is it merely what you've been told to do by the other goose-steppers? Are you as considerate when people aren't watching as when they are? Are you law-abiding out of a sense of conviction, or are you just afraid of consequences? Do you hate Bush because you're actually conversant about the issues, or have you just mindlessly hopped the Bush-hatin' train?
To someone like myself who thinks that almost all human behavior stems from a need for validation, the act of choosing invalidation is a heroic act of intellectual integrity. I have a friend who's a born-again Christian, a longtime Republican voter, and a staunch environmentalist. She is an independent thinker. To me, there should be statues of this woman built in town squares, but instead she's abused by both camps. She personally dispels the stereotypes they use to vilify those with whom they disagree, so she is marginalized. To her credit, she does not capitulate and toe the line. Invalidation doesn't feel good, I'm sure, but stupidity would feel worse. We disagree on much, but she's one of my heroes, and our conversations are among the most stimulating I've ever enjoyed.
Now for the flip side. A friend was recently railing that the disastrous Bush economy needs "saving."
"How does it need to be saved, again?" I asked, genuinely curious.
"What rock are YOU living under?!" he sneered, disdainful.
The rock with books, apparently. Books that tell me 1) entirely too much credit/blame is given to the President for the economy, and 2) the economy's nothing great, but it's in the black. It's slow-growing. Inflation is slow, interest rates are still near their record lows, and unemployment is under the 5% figure my college Econ professor said constituted "full employment" at any given point in time. I shared this and asked what leading economic indicators he was using. I expected to hear about unchecked spending, staggering debt, rising gas prices, flat wages, a poor stock market. Good arguments all. Bupkis. He had his hate for Bush, and behind that, nothing at all. Oh, how it thrills me to know we voted the same way.
Moral: leave the hating to the professionals.