Picture this: You're at a dinner party, tossing out a spicy take on, say, free speech or the delusions of climate policy. Half the table nods furiously if it aligns with their tribe; the other half? Eyes glaze over, jaws clench, or worst case they ghost you forever. Sound familiar? According to philosopher Nina Power's recent chat on The Jolly Heretic podcast with Ed Dutton, a measly 7-9% of folks can actually handle dissenting ideas, Left or Right. Not just tolerate them, engage without imploding. That's the Overton window's secret sauce: a sliver of open minds dragging the rest of us toward progress. But why is the pool so shallow? Does it spell doom for discourse? And, does that minority really matter?
First, the why: It's not laziness; it's wiring. Humans are tribal beasts, evolved to huddle in packs for survival. Dissent? That's a threat signal, back in the savanna, questioning the alpha could get you exiled (or eaten). Fast-forward to now, and our brains still freak: Enter cognitive dissonance, that gut-punch when clashing info hits your worldview. Leon Festinger nailed it in the 1950s, folks don't pivot; they double down, twist facts, or demonise the messenger to soothe the ache. Psychological studies back it: Exposure to opposing views spikes negative emotions like anger or disgust, making us slam the door.
Layer on myside bias, we're suckers for low-quality info that strokes our egos, dodging the good stuff that doesn't. A fresh paper from classics professor Jakeand crew calls it "epistemic secession": Ideological silos where facts bend to tribe, not truth. It's bipartisan poison, Right-wingers cherry-pick on AI, Lefties on gender, but social media's the accelerator. Algorithms feed your echo chamber till the "other side" feels subhuman. As Layne Norton, PhD, drops on X: 30 years ago, disagreement meant talking, now it's visceral rage because we never cross paths. Result? A 2023 meta-analysis on actively open-minded thinking (AOT), that rare trait for weighing alternatives, shows most score low, with only a fraction (hint: around that 7-9% ballpark) truly engaging counter-evidence without shutdown.
Society piles on. From cradle to cubicle, we're conditioned to conform: Parents bark "listen up," teachers drill "one right answer," bosses reward yes-men. By adulthood, self-doubt's our default, so foreign ideas are rejected.Politics amps this to cult levels: Two-team binary forces lockstep loyalty, where nuance is treason.
Extremists? They're the loudest, sharing views 2-3x more than moderates, per a 2009 Ohio State study because their certainty feels like strength. But that 7-9%? They're the AOT all-stars: High openness in Big Five traits, comfy with ambiguity, spotting biases like hawks. Power and Dutton unpack this evolutionarily; maybe that percentile's the heretics who sparked fire or the wheel, outliers thriving because groups need them to adapt.
Does it matter?Yes. When 91%+ can't cope, we get dichotomous thinking: World splits good/evil, no gray, nuance vanishes, discomfort = danger. Matt Baran warns on X: It poisons discourse, turns debate to shouting, erodes institutions. Polarisation skyrockets, Pew says 80% of Americans view the other party as "immoral" now, up from 40% in 1996. Kids learn intolerance early: By 6, they tolerate private dissent but hate public expression. Flash forward: Consensus flops because dissent's ignored.
Worse, it warps reality itself. We're in parallel universes, Trump's an assassin magnet or democracy's saviour; borders a crisis or compassion. No common facts? No compromise. Duke Manyweather adds: Tribal "winning" kills humility, leaves us blind to sense-making views. Steven Lubka echoes: Politics isn't black-and-white; disgust at disagreement screams your fragility.
But here's the plot twist: That minority does matter, a lot. Overton's window, the mean of public opinion, isn't shifted by majorities; it's the vocal fringe making "radical" thinkable. Gay marriage? Once heresy, now norm, thanks to 5-10% activists grinding for decades. Civil rights? MLK's crew was tiny, but relentless. Dissent drives innovation: McKinsey says teams with encouraged pushback solve 87% better.
Heretics aren't bugs; they're features. Society needs that 7-9% to question, adapt, evolve, else we stagnate in silos.
Bottom line: 7-9% isn't enough for harmony, but it's plenty to hurl rocks at the Overton window!
https://www.jollyheretic.com/p/why-only-79-can-handle-dissenting