The Delusion Of Impartiality

It’s often presented that men are out of touch with their emotions and woman are the opposite in touch. Or it’s presented that woman are overly emotional and men are not.

I don’t see evidence of these claim at all.

What I see is some people think they are impartial and some people do not. It’s not that people are in or out of touch with their feelings, or that some people are overpowered by their emotions while other’s have them ‘under control’.

The difference is that some people think they are so aware and so baseline impartial that their feelings are purely dependent on the situation and therefore always appropriate and therefore there’s no point in examining them.

Let’s use an absurd example to keep this fun.

You and a friend, a friend with delusions of impartiality, own very similar shoes.

One day you tell them they are wearing your shoes and they say they are not. Already the delusion of impartiality is showing, they don’t feel wrong so they don’t accept the honest possibility that are. As the conversation goes on they start getting upset.

Second phase is saying they’re not upset, they’re just correcting what you said. Now maybe you’re totally spineless and you walk off mutter that they are your shoes but you just don’t want to fight about it and you vent to everyone else who will listen while never dealing with the actual problem again but let’s hope you’re not that person.

Then phase three, they admit that they are upset but it’s only because of what you said and how you aren’t listening.

At this point they’ll start pulling other things you’ve said or done into the conversation, airing grievances past or attacking your character.

It’s not arrogance per se that makes people reinforce their feeling of correctness with increasingly shitty tricks, it’s fear.

True arrogance would respond to those are my shoes with yeah, I’m borrowing them. Delusions of impartiality respond with remember when you were wrong about O.J? You always do this.

Now let’s say the conversation goes on and you prove the friend was wearing your shoes. This where they’ll pivot. Because they have to maintain the idea that they are impartial, they are not emotional, they still have to somehow have been right. So they’ll look passed the fact that you were factually right and justify being angry because at the time it really looked like the shoes belonged to them.

A truly impartial person would say you were right and I was wrong, someone with delusions of impartiality will act like no one was right, it was all up in the air until they decided it wasn’t.

You hear the accusation leveled at a lot of people that they always think they’re right. Which of course they do, we all do, no one walks around holding onto to opinions they assume are wrong. The always right accusation actually comes after when the person starts twisting after being shown the truth and they still need a way to feel right. Sometimes that means moving the goal posts, claiming relativism, or in the case of delusions of impartiality saying that they were only acting the way they did because you were acting the way you did, or whatever other external forces caused them to. It’s the last defense against admitting that their emotions can be dismissed the same way they dismiss the emotions of others.

Advertisements

Singer/songwriter, jerk.

Posted in Pragmatism
%d bloggers like this: