In the beginning there were facts. They stood still, clear, and patient. They existed so two people could share a world without guessing what was real. They were meant to be the foundation. The ground. The place where minds could meet without slipping into fantasy.
Then came along the irrational folk whose feelings are so loud that they cannot even hear facts…
Their judgments arrive faster than their thoughts, which is convenient because the thoughts never arrive.
They treat emotion as revelation. They believe they have understood something simply because they have felt something. They mistake the intensity of a feeling for the accuracy of a belief.
A feeling is an internal event, but they treat it as an external fact, never checking whether the feeling matches what actually occurred. They cannot separate perception from evidence, so they cannot tell when their interpretation is wrong.
And when you try to correct them, they offer their favourite shield…
“You are invalidating my feelings.”
It sounds profound, but it often means, “Do not challenge my interpretation even if the facts contradict it.”
The thing is… a feeling can be acknowledged without accepting the conclusion built on it. Some feelings are invalid precisely because they demand reality bend to them without justification. Emotion cannot overwrite evidence.
This is why subjective reasoning fails. It does not update. It does not test itself. It does not correct its own errors. It protects the first interpretation at all costs, even when that interpretation is demonstrably false.
And this leads to the next flaw: They assign motives based on insecurity rather than behavior.
What they fear becomes what you intended.
What they imagine becomes what you meant.
Their assumptions fill the gaps where analysis should exist.
They respond to their inner world and assume it describes yours.
The pattern also spreads into ideology and morality. They form positions based on emotional resonance rather than understanding. They defend beliefs they never examined. They repeat ideas because the familiarity feels like truth. They confuse comfort with correctness and fear with moral clarity. They cling to inherited ideologies as if they personally forged them on Mount Sinai. This is not faith, that is different. Faith requires wrestling. Faith demands awareness. Faith asks questions. No, these ones are simply uneducated loyalists of the family brand.
Ask them why they believe something. They cannot tell you. Ask them to examine it. They cannot tolerate the discomfort. Their worldview is only stable as long as it is never questioned. That is why they discourage valid lines of questioning to the point of equating the mere act of questioning to blasphemy. The irony is that when they come across a person that inherited a different belief and similarly refuses to question said belief, they label the other person as ignorant.
At the core of all this is the absence of metacognition. They cannot observe their own thinking. They cannot interrogate their conclusions. They cannot test a belief against evidence. Without this skill, reason is impossible and compatibility is impossible.
And that is the final truth…
The subjective person cannot share reality with you because they do not believe reality is binding. Facts, to them, are simply raw material that can be bent, softened, or ignored if their emotions require it. And this makes them incompatible with anyone who lives in the real world.
Two people cannot connect unless they have agreed on the world they are standing in. The factual world we are standing in, reality, is the only thing that can be measured consistently from any perspective and so it is the only true common ground or frame we can build our relationships on. You cannot build trust with someone who defends their reaction instead of the truth. You cannot resolve conflict with someone who believes their feelings define the facts. You cannot reason with someone who treats introspection as an attack.
Consider a simple conflict. You tell someone, calmly, “I was frustrated with the situation, not with you.” This should resolve it. But the subjective person hears an entirely different sentence. They hear, “You are the problem.” They hear an insult you never gave, a tone you never used, a meaning you never intended. You repeat your words. They repeat their feelings. They insist that because they felt targeted, you must have targeted them. You bring up evidence, timelines, the exact phrasing. They reject all of it because their emotional interpretation arrived first and has already been canonised as truth. At that point the conflict cannot be solved. You are trying to address the event. They are defending the story they wrote inside their head. You are negotiating with reality. They are negotiating with emotion. There is no overlap, no shared ground, no agreement on the facts from which resolution could even begin.
In the workplace, the subjective are walking interruptions masquerading as colleagues. They derail projects with imagined insults, stall decisions with emotional weather, and drain everyone else’s time because their feelings are louder than their competence.
The subjective also cannot form real friendships either, only alliances with people as unproductive and delusional as themselves, since only the equally unexamined can tolerate the constant reinterpretation of reality.
And as for the dating pool, they do not belong in it at all. Romance requires clarity, stability, and shared truth, and they offer none. Any relationship with more than zero subjective-emotional irrationals is doomed to fail, either immediately, or after a period of exhausting chaos fueled by the subjective person’s cognitive limitations.
Yet the subjective remain fortunate in a way. Their illusions protect them. Their assumed certainties comfort them. Their unexamined emotions mean they never face themselves, and so they assume they are whole.
Now depart, for the Scripture has been spoken, and may the truth follow you more faithfully than you follow logic.