what am i

many people do not understand themselves, let alone the motives behind their words and actions. while it may seem very clear to them, while we consider that it is only natural for every man to think he knows himself best, surely not every man knows himself to the same degree.

now suppose a man chose to live in numbers instead of feelings, emotions and the unquantifiable, would not this logical, mathematical man be free of personal bias? less his preference for the impartial, would he be guilty of any other personal preference? he would be unswayable by argument as he would simply be a servant of numbers. while a normal man is conflicted by interests in himself, would not the logical man be the best judge of what is what?

how can we know best that a man is drunk? surely his own word weighs less than the word of the testing machine which has no personal interest. now if everything a man does or even does not do is measurable by an outsider, so would this outsider know of what is within the man. the act of understanding a man is reducible to a series of results from tests performed on his outward behavior, such that this new understanding of him would be more far more accurate (verifiable) than any statement he gives, even one of his own claims of self understanding.

there is one weakness to the methods of the analytical observer: that this observer knows only as much as the subject reveals, whether accidental or voluntary. yet because it is rare that a man cannot live without revealing his motives, the only man who can honestly claim that no one truly understands him, is a sociopath.