Something I can’t explain is when the honesty of others is denied. Some claim a certain opinion would always be a lie. To me they seem to have trouble grasping that others even have a different point of view. I can imagine upbringing conditions which result in such difficulty. But such conditions did not exist in those people’s homelands during their lifetime. So this can’t be the explanation.
Even the original society had complex skills. It was impossible for each and everyone to possess all such. Instead there was a mutual exchange of goods and services. Such cooperation only works if people are open to the possibility that others can other things. You can’t use the competency of others if you refuse to trust it exists. Do deny other points of view would be outright self-destructive.
Consequentially humans are normally born with the ability to learn this. Then it is a matter of if we got the chance to learn. The few which then can’t can neither learn to talk normally. (Learning to talk and understand others requires partially the same ability.) At worst the person does not learn to talk by him- or herself. To learn the person talk one has to show the usefulness of this. Then there are those which entire language consists of a small number of standard phrases. Moreover, these standard phrases are used wrongfully. At best the person learns to create own sentences. However, there is then a limited and oftentimes faulty understanding of even simple everyday words. Expressing themselves like those deniers is far above the ability of such. So this can’t be the explanation either.
In the modern Western society everyone has grown up with the opportunity to learn to know their fellow beings. This must sensibly have consequences for people’s view of each other. A present-day sports fan does not believe all other humans to be. Much less take it for granted all supports the same. Alternatively supports his or her opponents because they are evil. Or would do that because they get paid. So why believe something comparable in other contexts? Why would they be essentially different?
The first I saw deny the honesty of others were young earth creationists. They made the error in attempt to disprove established scientific ideas. Such are claimed to be incompatible with one thing or the other. But the only incompatibility they show is with their own way of thinking. If it were universal other people’s ideas would never had came into existence. Them misunderstanding the ideas of others does not help either.
Others denying their opponents’ honesty are what we can call xenophobes. They have a hostile attitude to visible minorities. At the same time there are individuals being against their hostility. The xenophobes accuse the later of hating the majority. That people can lack hostile attitudes to any population at all does not seem to occur to them.
Maybe worst are conspiracy talkers when people contradict them. Their opponents are then confronted as if it was taken for granted they got paid for lying. For one who in fact has a different opinion this appears absurd. His or her reactions to this absurdity are then seen as signs of guilt. Is there any reaction which would not indicate it? Or is it a predetermined conclusion?
Others contradict you because they have different capacities and habits. Humans’ mental characteristics in reality vary enormously. This does not mean others would be incomprehensible. Instead one has to figure out how they differ from oneself. For example it is possible that they can incorporate new knowledge in an existing world-view. Or have gotten used to people looking differently. They may also consciously reflect on what they should trust. Explanations like these always have to be considered. Otherwise one only appears like a big freaking idiot. At least to individuals being genuinely different from oneself.
Uploaded on the 17th of Mars 2026.
Commercial rights reserved by Lena Synnerholm if nothing else is stated.
This site was last changed on the 24th of Mars 2026.