Furthermore, someone being bad to you does not necessarily make them a bad person, just as their goodness towards you does not necessarily make them a good one. Your experience of a person is not an exhaustive account of their character. It is, at best, a partial encounter...
being a good person doesn’t automatically make you a good friend, a good spouse, a good parent, or a good leader.
Good intentions are not a substitute for good character.
Your impact on people matters more than the image you have of yourself.
2
17
67
1,357
with who they are, filtered through the particular dynamic that exists between you.
We all treat different individuals in radically different ways, so it'll be a big mistake to assume that the version of them you know is the version that everyone else experiences.
1
7
330
This distinction becomes interesting when we consider how people interpret selective kindness and selective cruelty.
When someone is generally ruthless, unkind, or indifferent towards others, yet treats you with unusual tenderness, you're inclined to personalise the experience.
1
5
72
Their kindness acquires a significance beyond the act itself because you perceive it as an exception to their established disposition.
You feel chosen, perhaps even uniquely understood. What makes their affection so compelling is not just its quality, but its exclusivity.
1
5
63
You've received something that others seemingly cannot, and its rarity makes it feel more precious. The contrast between their treatment of you and their treatment of everyone else becomes an evidence of your special place in their world.
1
5
56
Instead, you generalise their behaviour and conclude that they are simply unkind.
To personalise their cruelty would be to sit with the truth and agree that something about your relationship with them, their perception of you, or their feelings towards you has produced...
Oct 25, 2026 · 9:42 AM UTC
1
5
51
an ill treatment they do not extend to others. This can invite painstaking questions about your desirability, worth or your own conduct.
The ego has a vested interest in protecting us from such conclusions. It can preserve our self-image by externalising the explanation,
1
5
50
turning an individual's treatment of us into evidence of their general character rather than allowing it to become evidence about our particular relationship with them.
1
5
43
"They're just a cruel person" is psychologically easier to accommodate than "They're capable of kindness, but for some reason, they do not extend it to me".
Both interpretations can be self-serving and neither conclusion can be established merely by observing how they treat you
1
5
42
The point is that we don't evaluate character in a vacuum. We interpret people through the emotional consequences of our interactions with them. When their behaviour flatters our sense of significance, we are inclined to treat it as a revelation of our uniqueness.
1
5
47