Confirmation

Sometimes it’s a good thing. You think you know the answer to that question on Sale of the Century (is that show still on? or did I just show how long its been since I watched game shows on TV?) but its still satisfying to hear that answer called out and confirmed as correct.

Sometimes it’s a bad thing. Like thinking your partner is cheating, and then seeing him/her with the other person, and having it confirmed.


For a long time I have struggled with perspective in my life. I have accorded some people, some things, some events a value that far exceeds what they are due. And of course, the inverse is equally true. I have learned in the past say, 3 years or so, that this is not smart, or healthy, or right. I have totally re-evaluated my perspective and in fact, continue to do so daily. And as I do, people, things and events keep happening, and nowadays these all confirm that I am doing the right thing, or at the very least, travelling down the right path with my thinking. Maybe its not how things should be in an ideal world, but they sure as hell are how things are in this one. And I’m nothing if not a realist.

What is bothering me at the moment is something I thought a while ago, but brushed aside in my usual haste to feel guilty and try to "fix" things, make everyone else "better", and take all the "blame" for. And that was perspective, but in another, secondary form.

Now, two fellow bloggers have recently written about a similar dilemma. Well, a vaguely similar one at least. Neither went into detail. They simply stated that someone did something wrong. Neither said exactly what, but for argument’s sake, I'm going to use the analogy of being unfaithful. Cheating.

So, hypothetically.......

One wrote that they had been cheated on. That they were hurt. That they understood and accepted the reasons for it, that it made sense. That they had come to question, given the status of their relationship, that perhaps they had no right to expect such a level of fidelity. They posed a question to their readership - "what do you think?"

The second wrote that they had done the cheating. That they had no intention of hurting anyone. That there were reasons for it, that it made sense. That although they thought it was ok at the time, in fact, that they were  within reason to do what they did, that it was acceptable given the circumstances. That now they had come to question their actions, that perhaps a level of fidelity should have been given anyway. They posed a question to their readership - "what do you think?"

Both writers received a number of responses. The majority of responses to both were that they did the right thing, they that were entitled to feel/act as they did. They both were reassured that they were good people, kind, smart, caring.......

So how can the "perpetrator" and the "victim" both get the same response?

I may be wrong, but I think it comes from perspective. I think we perceive those we care about to be inherently good. That even when they act in a way we don’t approve of, that we mediate our response, make excuses and justify their actions because we know in our hearts that they are "good people" and would not intentionally harm others.

I think too that it comes also from how it is first brought to our attention. And from how the informant phrases the information.

If your first knowledge of an event is to be told "THIS GUY NAMED STEVE IS A THIEF AND IS GOING TO GAOL!" then I'm sure your first reaction is going to be "good - let the criminal rot in prison". But if you first hear your friend Steve tell you how he "stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving children because he lost his job and his wife left him and took all their savings"...... well, while you mightn't approve of committing a crime when he could have gone to the Salvo's, and you might think he should do some community service, I'm fairly sure you wont demand they "throw away the key". Now if you knew Steve, but didn't know about his recent unemployment and abandonment, and he told you he felt bad about something and needed to tell you what he did, and told you "I stole something" you would most likely, without even knowing what the theft was of, or the reason for it, start lessening the crime in your mind, because you "know" him and he isn’t "a bad person" and must have “had his reasons” even if you don’t know what they are.

Now theft and adultery are two totally different things, and I'm not for a minute implying that these are comparable examples, not to each other, not to these two bloggers' posts, or to my own situation, but I am implying that there are alot of things that are taken into consideration when forming an opinion/judgement/decision etc about a topic, well beyond the "facts".
And alot of that is both from whom, and in what way we first hear the story.

The “who” I've covered above, in that we automatically side (at least somewhat) with our friend. Partly because we like them, partly because we dont want to think our friend is "bad", and partly because we dont like to think that we like/made friends with a "bad person". Just like you always seem to lean more towards your friend than their partner when a couple breaks up.

As for the how? Well, I honestly believe that we all "make excuses". We all justify our actions. Mostly because we are good people with good intentions. Even when we fuck up. Even when we do things we know are wrong, but do them anyway. Even when we hurt someone without even meaning to - like "cheating" when we didn't realise the other person thought we were exclusive, but in hindsight probably should have seen the signs.

There are always two sides to every story. And when you only hear one, your not hearing it all - even when they tell you that you are. We all make excuses for ourselves, we all justify our actions whether they be good or bad or even neutral. We all tell the story how we want people to hear it, no matter how impartial we try to be, there is always a slant.

In reading those two posts today, and seeing people comment about the same crux issue, with such opposite opinions, knowing almost zero in the way of facts.....

To me it was confirmation that opinions and comments should be kept in perspective - both the negative and the positive.

To me it was confirmation that people’s motives far outweigh their actions.

To me it was confirmation that people’s comments and opinions mean nothing if they don’t have all the facts. Especially since some of these opposing comments were left by the exact same people.


Most importantly, it was confirmation that the opinions that truly matter are your own.

Because in the end, ONLY you yourself can truly know what you did, and why. And no matter how many people jump on that band wagon with you, in the end, its all on you baby. So you better be OK with it, even if nobody else is.

And it was good to get confirmation that I am indeed OK with what I have done, and why. Even if some of those things only become OK when viewed with what I am doing now because of then.