… the primary reason for their anger seems to be neither that X happened to them nor that my doing X was careless, but rather that I did X knowing full well what the consequences were… even when they could see that that was not true.
There is, however, another possibility. Now, I do not mean to gainsay your account of any situations you have actually found yourself in, but rather to note the possibility of a superficially similar, but critically different, scenario—namely, one in which your accuser knows, indeed, that you did not apprehend the consequences of your action… but believes that you should have known, and that the fact of your ignorance itself constitutes a blameworthy act of negligence.
A special case of this pattern is the idea that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (that is, ignorance does not absole an offender of liability).
The reason for holding, and enforcing, a norm like this, should be obvious: because to do otherwise would create an incentive to be ignorant of whatever facts that, if known by a perpetrator, would cause them to be knowingly transgressing. This, in turn, incentivizes (or, more precisely, fails to properly disincentivize) wrongdoing, by removing the usual penalty.
Anger, then, stems from the sense that someone is trying to “get one over you”—to evade responsibility, and to be able to act wrongly without fear of punishment—by cultivating ignorance, and by failing to make the effort to learn the rules/consequences/etc.
It is important to distinguish between such cases, and cases of mere lack of “information empathy” (a.k.a. “theory of mind”); in the former sort of case, the accuser is in the right, and the transgressor (though unwitting) is in the wrong.
critically different, scenario—namely, one in which your accuser knows, indeed, that you did not apprehend the consequences of your action… but believes that you should have known, and that the fact of your ignorance itself constitutes a blameworthy act of negligence.
Ah yes. My phrasing was weak, but this is what I meant by:
that my doing X was careless
I admit, my memories of these situations are hazy. They’re from my childhood, and nowadays it doesn’t really happen because the filter I place in front of my friend group doesn’t allow this sort of person through (e.g. the kind who actually fails to exhibit information empathy, not the kind who enforces the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” norm). The specific person I have in mind is the sort who might semi-consciously decide to enforce that norm, but then take it to an unwarranted extreme, blaming others for things they couldn’t possibly have known not to do. Then again, they are also somebody I may be biased towards finding faults in. It’s possible this has rarely/never actually happened to me, but I figured the term is still a good one to throw out there.
There is, however, another possibility. Now, I do not mean to gainsay your account of any situations you have actually found yourself in, but rather to note the possibility of a superficially similar, but critically different, scenario—namely, one in which your accuser knows, indeed, that you did not apprehend the consequences of your action… but believes that you should have known, and that the fact of your ignorance itself constitutes a blameworthy act of negligence.
A special case of this pattern is the idea that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (that is, ignorance does not absole an offender of liability).
The reason for holding, and enforcing, a norm like this, should be obvious: because to do otherwise would create an incentive to be ignorant of whatever facts that, if known by a perpetrator, would cause them to be knowingly transgressing. This, in turn, incentivizes (or, more precisely, fails to properly disincentivize) wrongdoing, by removing the usual penalty.
Anger, then, stems from the sense that someone is trying to “get one over you”—to evade responsibility, and to be able to act wrongly without fear of punishment—by cultivating ignorance, and by failing to make the effort to learn the rules/consequences/etc.
It is important to distinguish between such cases, and cases of mere lack of “information empathy” (a.k.a. “theory of mind”); in the former sort of case, the accuser is in the right, and the transgressor (though unwitting) is in the wrong.
Ah yes. My phrasing was weak, but this is what I meant by:
I admit, my memories of these situations are hazy. They’re from my childhood, and nowadays it doesn’t really happen because the filter I place in front of my friend group doesn’t allow this sort of person through (e.g. the kind who actually fails to exhibit information empathy, not the kind who enforces the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” norm). The specific person I have in mind is the sort who might semi-consciously decide to enforce that norm, but then take it to an unwarranted extreme, blaming others for things they couldn’t possibly have known not to do. Then again, they are also somebody I may be biased towards finding faults in. It’s possible this has rarely/never actually happened to me, but I figured the term is still a good one to throw out there.