Heliocentrism

In ancient times scientists believed that the heavens revolved around the earth. The geocentrists, as they were called, were in charge until around the 16th century when those crazy heliocentrists started to make some in-roads. There was hot debate, in those days, about what was at the universe’s center. The debate was a bit stilted, though, as many of the last bastions of geocentrism were religion masquerading as science.

The debate over what the world revolves around continues today, however. People are not concerned over which celestial body is the center, though — they’re simply unclear as to which person occupies that coveted position.

There are a seemingly endless number of candidates for the spot, but instead of simply asserting their centrality, they demand that their friends and acquaintances treat them as if they were, while outwardly denying that they feel that way.

In the 16th century, religion masqueraded as science. Today, selfishness hides behind uncertainty.

Yesterday I had an email exchange with a person who so perfectly displays the archetypal symptoms of the selfish that, at times, it is difficult to believe that she actually exists.

I could do a weekly series chronicling her various ridiculous, childish incidents and would have enough material to blog well into next year. More interesting to me, however, is the concept of plausible deniability.

How do these Would-be Center-points maintain their status amongst their friends? It’s simple: they hang around primarily with people that they can control or who, at the very least, will avoid conflict. Once that’s done, they just need a way to make sure that their friends know when they have done something wrong.

But how? If the self-centrist is overt, calling people out for their “transgressions” the friends will figure out pretty quickly what is going on. He or she needs to achieve some plausible deniability… so that everyone will know what’s being said, but without anything actually being said. That way, if one of those conflict-avoiders actually wanted to stand up for him or herself, the self-centrist just says “Oh, you misunderstood” or “That’s not what I meant!” and is immediately above reproach.

So how does one get that plausible deniability?

Consider a hypothetical girl… we’ll call her “Jane”¹. Some of Jane’s actions are criticized in the comments of a friend’s blog by her friend’s friend. Jane is furious. How dare anyone criticize her? And her friend actually let them say it! As though they were entitled to have such an insulting opinion! Gah. She needs to let her friend know that she’s unhappy with her… but if she actually says something like “Why did you let your friend say such a horrible thing about me?” the inevitable reaction comes up: “She’s entitled to her opinion… you should talk to her if you have a problem.” And then Jane will have to actually confront someone who is not afraid of her and who is not afraid of confrontation.

That simply will not do. Instead, Jane hatches a clever plan. She’ll make an off-handed comment on her own blog! If she claims that she’s going to stop blogging with the comment: “I’ve had my fill of blogs, I think it’s kind of immature to continue keeping one”, her friend should get the point.

That’s how these folks work. Lather, rinse, repeat… but that’s not the only way to achieve plausible deniability. It’s important to diversify.

Say our hypothetical Jane gets into an argument with the commenter on her friend’s blog. We’ll call the commenter “Susie”. Jane claims that she has powerful lawyer friends who really wanted to sue Susie for her comment. In reality, though, Jane hasn’t spoken with any attorneys or, if she has, they told her that Susie hadn’t done anything actionable. Now, if Jane threatens to sue, Susie can call her bluff. Especially if Susie has a bit of legal education herself. If that happens, Jane will be exposed for having played the old “my daddy’s bigger than your daddy” game… and that would be horribly embarrassing. Instead, she claims that it was her own mercy that prevented the suit. Jane tells Susie that she just couldn’t bring herself to do that to her, but that she should be more careful in the future since not everyone will be so nice. She gets all the benefits of threatening someone with a lawsuit, but with none of the costs of actually bringing one. It’s perfect… and all because of plausible deniability… Susie has no way of knowing² for sure whether or not Jane talked to any lawyers.

It’s pretty remarkable… how a little plausible deniability can facilitate self-centered and cowardly people of all stripes. The more nagging question, in my mind, is how you get someone to stop behaving that way. The geocentrists evolved over time and abandoned their claims of science arguing from a strictly religious standpoint… but that took centuries, and it seems as though problems with self-centered individuals will sort themselves out much more quickly.

1. Jane is a fictional person. Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is strictly hilarious coincidental.

2. Of course, Susie could have a pretty good idea of how she’d fare in a suit, but there are no shortage of stupid people and stupid lawyers… so it’s still possible that Jane found one who didn’t know a defamation action from a hole in the ground and who might actually be stupid enough to file a suit.