IDMI And ITBC

I was initiated to the concept of "intention" by a friend about 20 years back. When something he did was not right, his reply would be that he didn't intend it that way. That response would leave me flummoxed. I didn't know then whether his response was appropriate, meaning relevant to my comment. But the response seemed to indicate that he wasn't at fault. And here I was left holding the baby (some thing that hadn't gone well which he was responsible for). And I had been intimated that it wasn't his fault. 

Something didn't sound right.

Fast forward 20 years. I still hear the same refrain "I didn't mean it" (IDMI) or "I didn't intend it".

IDMI is an interesting expression that addresses an issue between 2 parties. 

If you point out a problem that occurred because of what i did (or didn't) do, my IDMI essentially removes my culpability while perhaps acknowledging your predicament. It, hence, shifts the focus from a fault on my side to empathy shown by me towards you. It's likened to a scenesce where you tell me about your issue and I provide a shoulder to cry on. The IDMI changes the issue you raised against me to an issue you have that has nothing to do with me except that I am being nice enough to listen to your woes.

Wow that's a terrific change in balance of power, isn't it?

More recently I was talking to another friend of mine when I pointed out that he had not having discharged his responsibility. He told me that he had always deeply wished for it. Just that he didn't or couldn't do it (for years). 

I asked him. If he were a teacher grading a student's paper, would he give marks for correct answers or for the student's intention to write correct answers. He replied that he would give marks only for answers that were correct. Most teachers would agree with my friend.

It got me thinking. How is it that we expect a correct job while correcting an answer paper but in a social milieu we go by the intention to do the right thing? It's as though we have a dual operating system in our mind where "has to be correct" OS is switched on at certain times (example, when we are correcting a paper) while "intended to be correct" OS is switched on as in some social interactions. Read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/rita-and-sheila.html.
Often even within the context of social interactions, we sometimes use the "has to be right" mode while evaluating whole in other cases we go by the intention. The focus on the intention is basically used as a final "correction factor" to be applied on top of the evaluation based on normally agreed formula. The correction factor gives us the leeway to change the final grades. The beauty of it is that it's completely subjective while seeming to be perfectly fair.

The switching between one "OS" to another happens seemlessly. For example, while correcting a paper, we may take a break and talk to another teacher about some incident at school or about our personal lives when the "intended to be correct (ITBC)" mode is switched on.

Once I read an article which went like this:
First there was an assertion about some behavior (I forget what exactly it was). It was followed by a declaration that the said assertion was a myth. This interested me immensely. So I read further. The author went on to explain the reason why the behavior was exhibited. 
I thought then, so there is a reason for the behavior. Did the presence of a valid reason for a particular behavior have anything to do with whether the behavior is real or a myth?
The presence of a valid reason for a behavior is taken to imply that the behavior wantwa exhibited. Hence, if I do something wrong, I need to come up with a reason for my behavior. Then I didn't do anything wrong. IDMI is a way to nullify my negative behavior.

This ITBC cannot exist where words don't exist. An animal cannot communicate the ITBC sentiment. Animals only react to what some other animal did and not to what they intended to. A peacock cannot convey to a female that he intended to show more beautiful feathers but on the way they got ruffled and hence she should give the peacock a chance to pass on his genes. Uh uh.

Prior to the time before humans learnt to talk, we would not have known the ITBC concept. We would have evaluated and been evaluated based on what we did, rather than by what we intended to do. And then, somewhere in the world, the first human being uttered those words "I didn't mean it (IDMI)". Imagine the shock of the person who heard such a thing for the first time.

Over time, we have been moulded to give importance to what was intended apart from what was done.

One doesn't need a camera to see what was done. It's hugely more difficult to see what was intended. The rational reason behind understanding why something was done (understanding behavior) was replaced or confused with something that would induce empathy.

By replacing "correct behavior" by "intended to be correct (ITBC) behavior as our yardstick we have created a kind of an "equal opportunity" institution in the social arena. 

It doesn't matter as much if I didn't do the right thing so long as I can convincingly aver that I intended to be correct. The balance of power is moving towards those who can convince better from those who do better.

This would lead to the extinction of those who can't persuade or convince better, for example the peacock mentioned earlier. Read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/06/relation-between-nt-sf-natural.html

Additional Reading
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/01/survival-of-fittest-non-t.html