I don’t know since when, the word “neutrality” has been given a not-so-good color. Is this probably related to historical international relations? Many countries condone powerful forces under the name of “neutrality”.

The country's trampling of weak countries gives the word "neutrality" itself a hidden, biased meaning.

In other words, the so-called neutrality is ultimately a preference for the strong, because under the premise of the same level of interference or no interference, the strong have an innate advantage over the weak.

Of course, my approach does not take into account the derogatory connotation of neutrality in the social context. Every word has its original symbol and connotation corresponding to its meaning, and it also has the connotation given to it by the social context.

As for the new connotation, what I am discussing here is only the neutral correspondence between the original symbol and its meaning.

The neutrality discussed here is a practical mode of operation, that is to say, it is a guideline for practicing this concept under the guidance of a specific concept, and this concept is to believe in human rationality.

Of course, we all know that human beings are not absolutely rational creatures. When they are emotionally excited, human beings will use more emotional methods. People who always remain rational are a kind of freak in life, forcing themselves to be at all times.

Remaining rational at all times often manifests itself as a constraint on human nature.

However, even so, I will still believe in the rationality of human beings themselves, because this is the most important thing that distinguishes human beings from ordinary beasts. At the critical moment of making decisions, human beings should not be bound by their emotions by sensibility.

Making decisions that are not conducive to the results you pursue, but are just to satisfy your own temporary emotional needs.

In other words, the premise of absolute neutrality is rational decision-making.

So, what kind of decision is a rational decision? First of all, it is certain that it is a decision that hopes to achieve one's goals to the greatest extent possible. The goals here are not always in one's own interests.

Maximization is about doing things that best meet one's own expectations. That is to say, sometimes, some people will give up part of the benefits they may obtain due to some special reasons. If the decision is made with this as the goal, it is also rational.

So, the next question is, is a rational decision-making necessarily a successful decision? This is not the case. A rational decision-making is a decision that is most likely to achieve your goals based on weighing the information you have, because

Incomplete information mastery, as well as various accidents that may occur temporarily when humans achieve their goals, are beyond the reach of rational prediction. Therefore, rational decision-making is only the decision with the highest probability of success, rather than a certainty of success.

decision.

So, when you find that the other party's decision may not be successful, does it mean that neutral behavior loses its own value? Not so, because, as an individual like the decision-maker himself, the information you have is not

You will have more information than the decision-maker himself, and even the information you have will be a kind of interference for the decision-maker. When the other party has gone through rigorous screening and analysis, it has chosen the most effective and feasible option for itself.

After trusting the information and making a decision, the unfiltered information you have is just adding invalid information to the other party. Therefore, neutrality is necessary at any time.

However, an important premise for this approach is, can humans really be rational when making all decisions?

I used to think so, and this is also the premise for me to judge everyone's behavior. However, recently, I discovered that this is not the case. All human beings are more susceptible to emotional judgment than I thought, and even this kind of

Emotional judgments and irrational actions cannot be realized by humans themselves.

A recent example is Minister Iizuka. I once thought that when it came to dealing with the light music club, both Minister Iizuka and Kitahara-senpai were rational in their approach. Of course, judging from the results, it seems that Kitahara-senpai did indeed

He tried his best to fight for the light music club, but his efforts were unsuccessful. However, what we want to discuss is that Director Takeya Iizuka made a mistake in his judgment during this decision-making process.

From the perspective of hindsight, Minister Iizuka's trust in Kitahara-senpai was simply abnormal, that is to say, he unconditionally trusted Kitahara Haruki to be able to solve this incident. However, the fact is that Kitahara-senpai did not solve this incident.

In the entire process of Kitahara-senpai's resolution of the incident, although the minister's approach cannot be called indifferent, it is definitely worthy of the word "negative". The only thing he did was to meet Yanagihara Tomo and the light music club.

When the conflicts between the other members could no longer be reconciled, they temporarily suspended their quarrels, did not appease any party, and did not win over any party. They completely passively waited for the result of Kitahara-senpai's handling.

If we imagine a situation where Kitahara Haruki does not exist, then Minister Iizuka's approach will definitely not be so passive. He will definitely take a more proactive approach to stop everyone's behavior and try to resolve conflicts - but, he

He did not do so, not because the information he had was insufficient for him to make such a move, but because his blind trust in Kitahara-senpai led to his hasty and conservative actions.

This is an irrational approach - people can of course interpret this approach as a rational approach that takes into account Kitahara-senpai's ability before making a decision, but the fact is that Minister Iizuka has not considered the consequences of Kitahara-senpai's failure at all, so

,Obviously, in this situation, they have no alternative.

In other words, human beings' rationality does not depend on whether they know whether they want to be rational. In many cases, social concepts and social habits will lead humans to make irrational choices.

Secondly, under the premise of rationality, the principle of neutrality is applicable to family members. Just as I will unconditionally care about Sister Yui's affairs many times, Sister Yui will also express unrestricted intervention in my situation. This is

From my perspective, is this kind of intervention certain?

In the case of other people, the conclusion is undoubtedly negative, but, as I said, family members are always an exception. Of course, some people in the existence of family members also fall into the category of mutual use, but

, more often than not, the so-called family members are people who do not care about rational judgment at all in terms of value judgment - the same situation may also apply to some couples in love, but the proportion of the latter is smaller than the former.

Therefore, when facing family members, because the premise of rational thinking is abolished, it is naturally impossible to talk about an absolutely neutral role.

Moreover, as Hikigaya and I have said, losing the principle of absolute neutrality in front of my family can of course be explained by the other party's logical framework that does not conform to mine, but more importantly, even if I myself

The unwillingness to admit it is actually a kind of relaxation under the high-pressure logic of self. In other words, if there is such a thing as nature, human nature should be inclined towards social intervention - I am no exception, but now

I'm forcing myself to make a neutral choice.

However, if neutrality is really the best choice, why do human beings, as rational actors, or me, as a rational actor, express a repressive attitude towards this approach?

There are only two possible explanations: one is that neutrality is not the best choice, and I, a rational actor, do not accept this approach; the other is that I am unable to achieve the level of rationality, so I cannot achieve the ultimate goal required by rationality.

The best neutral state.

The results of these two explanations are actually the same - absolute neutrality, with irreconcilable self-contradictions in logic.

----------------------------------ps------------------

----------

I decided to add the PS to the main text. If it were posted in the author's remarks, I was worried that everyone would not see it - because I almost ignored it.

After all, this chapter is so confusing that I still need to tell everyone about it. Of course, in fact, it’s best if everyone doesn’t understand the last chapter, because if you understand it, you will probably complain about it. Of course, if someone patiently understands it, then
Chapter completed!