Pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance can be contrasted with the false consensus effect. In pluralistic ignorance, people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief), while the false consensus effect causes people to wrongly assume that most people think like they do, while in reality most people do not think like they do (and express the disagreement openly). For instance, pluralistic ignorance may lead a student to drink alcohol excessively because she believes that everyone else does that, while in reality everyone else also wishes they could avoid binge drinking, but no one expresses that due to the fear of being ostracized. A false consensus for the same situation would mean that the student believes that most other people do not enjoy excessive drinking, while in fact most other people do enjoy that and openly express their opinion about it.
Exclusivism
Pluralism was borne out of a criticism of exclusivism, saying that no single tradition has a monopoly on revelation or salvation, and that we have no way to judge between the salvific claims by adherents of any faith tradition. Paul Hedges suggests that each religion knows ‘transcendent reality (“God”) yet in partial perspective,’ much like the oft-quoted parable of the seven blind men and the elephant. Gavin D’costa says pluralists have two main critiques of exclusivists: people of other religions are god and loving and that they do not know their own Scriptures well enough. Alvin Plantinga says that pluralist’s problem with exclusivism stems from its immorality and arrogance. He quotes William Cantwell Smith: ‘Except at the cost of insensitivity or delinquency, it is morally not possible actually to go out into the world and say to devout, intelligent, fellow human beings: “…we believe that we know God and we are right; you believe that you know God, and you are totally wrong.”’ Along with Smith, the leading proponent of pluralism is John Hick, who writes: