I had earlier referred to the often uttered "I didn't mean it (=IDMI) in https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/idmi-and-itbc.html
IDMI was an expression that was constantly on my thoughts as I tried to figure out why some people use it so often while others don't. Even those who use it often will use it only on certain occasions and on others they play the victim role.
I wanted to reduce this transaction to the simplest terms.
If you look at the "Perpetrator who says IDMI and the "Victim" who says SIA (= "Someone Is Affected") there are important assertions going on. I list them below.
- The Perpetrator (the person who said I DIDN'T MEAN IT =IDMI) is saying that he doesn't care whether the Victim got affected but he didn't meant it and hence he is not responsible.
- The Victim is saying that someone got affected and it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator intended to or not.
Now THIS is wonderful. The Perpetrator and Victim are discussing two DIFFERENT areas of the same issue. It's like a game that people play (Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)). Neither the Perpetrator nor the Victim directly negates what the other is saying. The Perpetrator doesn't tell the Victim that the latter isn't affected. The Victim doesn't say that the Perpetrator definitely intended to affect him. Yet their dance around each other is rather painful. And if each of them continues to play the same role, one mostly as a Perpetrator and other mostly as a Victim, the baggage accumulates in the Victim. And the Victim is not even consciously aware of the issue - that he is talking about being affected whole the other is talking about intent. The issue remains unresolved.
Additional Reading
No comments:
Post a Comment