top of page

The Emotioncracy -- How Sensitivity Can Corrupt (And How to Reduce Sensitivity)

Updated: Mar 20

A royal girl.

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis

In a fictive world where sensitive people form the elite, their principal value is emotional empathy. They will censor every unsettling aspect of reality, limit freedom of expression, and promote cancel culture. They reject rational cognitive empathy because their understanding of reality is based on emotions and insecurities. We should oppose such a sensitive elite and encourage the development of assertive, strong, and courageous characters instead. Also, there is no place for sensitivity in philosophy, as the philosopher must present the truth, regardless of the emotions it evokes.


I guess I should say that this article is going to offend some of you, even though I'm just critiquing an concept I devised about a specific trait in some human beings. If you are easily offended, find some ways to cope with your emotions. And don't expect me, a random stranger on the internet, to be responsible for your emotions and insecurities. Consult a mental health professional instead.

Disclaimer No. 2: I am referring to emotional sensitivity, specifically, in this article.


"Vulnerability is the result of being unable to psychologically process sensitivity. People are sensitive creatures by nature. Vulnerability could be nothing more than a result of too much sensitivity to things that you are not familiar with. Think of it as becoming too easily stimulated by things" -- Mr. Nathan Lasher


I theorize that a new elite might rise up in the world. This elite will be made up of people who deem their shortcomings as virtues. They will prefer that the world be a nicer and kinder place, even if there is no widespread agreement or consent for their ambition to come to fruition.

These people will deem their vulnerability as a way to understand other vulnerable beings. They won't necessarily understand the value of cognitive empathy as a feature, while they are already sensitive enough emotionally, despite less suffering included in cognitive empathy.

After all, one can be both resilient and empathetic using their cognition, thus reducing their own vulnerability, while still maintaining understanding of other people's situation. It's also a skill to be developed, but I digress.

They will regard the pain of love as something that is worth experiencing. They will see their emotional impression as the true testimony of reality that exists beyond their minds. They would oppose anyone who disturbs their feelings even if that person is not an actual threat on them. They will threaten others and nurture cancel culture to enable their sensitivity at the price of the freedom of expresion.

They would also encourage to diminish and censor anything that is dark, but part of reality, through the promotion and usage of trigger warnings. They will see assertive people as threatening and arrogant, simply because they experience some unease from them. They will use the term "violence" in a much broader sense than a physical fight, even when their own usage applies to their actions as well. As such, they will regard even something as simple as a prank as an act of violence. They will regard a loud voice as an attack, as well, an attack that destroys their fragile endeavor for niceness.

They would also promote the creation and management of safe spaces, as a way to protect themselves and others from harm that doesn't really exist beyond their own mentality. That is despite the shortcomings that involve safe spaces.

They may try to hinder exchange of ideas, like in some subjects involved in philosophy, because some subjects hurt their feelings by the mere mentioning of them.

Finally, they will be confined to the limitations of their feelings, and might struggle to see things beyond the metaphorical flashlight that it provides.

And a bonus -- they will "throw" their emotions on you, as if it is your problem to deal with. It's as if the cause is always held responsible for the effect, as if the cause deserves so much power over something that can be worked on. As if it's your field of authority to make sure their emotion will be just like they want it.

However, in a reality whose people we can't quite control, we must become mentally stronger in the name of actualizing our potential. It's something that can bring much contribution to your own survival, in some cases (like in content creation).

Therefore, such theoretical elite is to be criticized and opposed in the name of a greater liberty in society. It's how we can further preserve and expand the possibility of exchanging ideas and expressing ourselves without having to walk on eggshells, so to speak.

From Eggshells to Steel

I used to be extremely sensitive most of my life, and it had its ups and downs. However, the downs deluded me to believe that there is no escape from high sensitivity. It is with the use of reason that I became braver and tougher. Confidence can get you in a lot of places in life, and open a lot of opportunities for you to seize.

If you don't grow up mentally, you will remain emotionally underdeveloped, and be offended by minor things that don't deserve much power. Such is possible through assertiveness, which is a core component in being confident.

But if we do not teach the next generations the importance of building character, they will remain mentally weak and extremely irritated by many things throughout their lifetime unnecessarily. And that will, in a domino-like effect, make others be irritated themselves, thus reducing social harmony, cooperation, and mental health through petty disputes. This can harm their growth in life in many ways: financially, socially, romantic, and so on.

Should we escape struggle like the plague, we will not let it build up our spirits, and make our nerves, be of steel. As such, adversity can be like a medicine to the mind.

A generation of cowards afraid of derogatory terms like "cowards" because it does not feel nice, is one that may hide from becoming a better version of itself. It's a generation that may condemn the otherside through the fallacious self-defense mechanism of whataboutism, instead of understanding the other side. Should it not build self-confidence, it will remain insecure and may regard many things as threatening. From eye contact, to reasonable things that trigger unusual emotional reactions on their part.

As such, sensitivity corrupts not only individual freedoms in society, but also our own understanding of some aspects of reality. It contains a cognitive-based corruption.

Should we normalize sensitivity as a good thing, we would need to force others to accept the flaws in us that can be worked on by ourselves. We would hinder our ability to advance and develop in life through cooperation with tougher and more-blunt people, even though they can be assets to our hopes and dreams, just because we are very attached to our emotions. This in turn will unnecessarily limit the pool of people we would allow ourselves to work with.

Becoming tougher, however, would expand our pool of human resources, along with the assets of the same useful people.

Otherwise, on a collective scale, freedom of expression will be censored by the PC trends. The freedom of religion will backfire, and censor anything that hurts people's religious feelings, including nudity in art museums. And so on and on.

And let us not talk about the freedom of thought, because there might be a "harmful" or "dangerous" thought, and one that does not. This can greatly reduce our right to exchange ideas, as expected in philosophy and other intellectual areas.

To be sensitive to others requires an active reduction of personal freedoms all around, whether justified or otherwise. One cannot be sensitive to another without personalizing their reactions to the person's personal sensitivities. However, the more we won't accept others as beyond our control, the more we will unnecessarily suffer.

The collective "sensitization" of individual behavior is there order to preserve a nicer, safer place for everybody. However, since those who are not sensitive, don't really need it, that "place" is only within the interest of those who are more sensitive, and/or those who refuse to become tougher.

We need sensitivity to a reasonable degree. We need it to have emotional empathy, for example, when we lack the intellect for a consistent execution of cognitive empathy, which is independent of sensitivity, which is part of many of us by default.

But when it calls for the limitation of other people's legitimate behavior, should we accept our above-average sensitivity? In the name of altruism, we should not use it to limit the freedom of others, when we can see our sensitivity as a problem to be solved.

By solving it we would suffer far less and others would suffer less from us as well. Thus, we can be leading ourselves to a win-win situation, where general suffering is reduced without resorting to escapism. This fragility is what makes us walk on eggshells around others and censor ourselves in fear of being canceled.


I say this as someone who used to be very sensitive, and as someone who has met people who are even more sensitive than I ever was. In the name of greater functioning in society, sensitivity is to be seen as a problem, rather than a virtue.

With the "Same Result Problem" theory of mine we can understand the value of being there for others and of caring about them without the alleged necessity of being sensitive. How come? Being tougher ourselves would better allow us to help others in their time of need, despite the discomfort involved when someone else is in distress.

Why Resilience Wins in the Public Interest

In the real world, many people will not care about you unless they have some kind of personal interest in doing so. It usually involves themselves, as a part in our brains naturally reduces our altruistic tendencies. You cannot force someone to care about you just because you are sensitive... Unless you do it at gunpoint? Anyways, the conscious choice of caring about your vulnerabilities lies with them, regardless of who they are. It is not yours to make.

Why would it be in the public interest to compromise ourselves for the sake of a minority of people who are more sensitive than most? If we combine the desire for a more caring society with unchecked emotions, we get an "emotionocracy" - a nation ruled by feelings rather than reason.

The more emotional someone is, the more they might be treated like a fragile snowflake who needs protection and care, "exempt" from judgment. Given the fact that we can change other people's behavior using our own, we can be treated differently ourselves.

It is ridiculous that we live in a world where people can lose their jobs for being truthful to our bosses due to the prioritization of tact over problem-solving! Problems that can be worked on! This highlights the importance of building resilience. True growth comes from facing challenges and learning from criticism, even in spite of hurt feelings over poor-quality tact.

As such, resilience could help everyone, regardless of their social and/or professional status.

The Role of Sensitivity In Philosophy

This is why emotional fragility has little place in philosophy. The core of philosophy is the relentless pursuit of truth, as unearthed through rigorous inquiry. A philosopher's role is not to sugarcoat reality or appease sensitivities in the name of political correctness. Their duty lies in uncovering and presenting the truth, regardless of how comfortable it may be.

If you seek wisdom through philosophy, be prepared to confront challenging truths and potentially offensive ideas. Being "wise" yet unwilling to confront these truths is akin to deceiving the audience. It's about presenting the best available understanding of reality, even if it clashes with pre-existing beliefs or desires.

Philosophers might be perceived as arrogant for their unwavering commitment to truth. But is it truly arrogance to fulfill your role with integrity? A mechanic wouldn't be considered arrogant for honestly diagnosing a car's problem, even if it's expensive to fix. Similarly, a philosopher seeking truth shouldn't be condemned for their findings.

The pursuit of truth often comes with challenges. Be prepared to face criticism, even harassment, from those who may find the truth unsettling. This isn't a popularity contest; it's about intellectual rigor.

Sensitivity is admired for a softer, "socially wise" approach, while the philosopher's pursuit of truth is sent to the corner. However, true wisdom lies in understanding the complexities of the world, even if it means confronting uncomfortable truths.

Their dedication to truth ultimately contributes to a more profound understanding of the human experience. Sensitivity, on the other hand, can only repel it, if anything.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback:

"Living an emotionless life is no way to live. Emotions however should only be used to support existing thoughts. They become a problem when your emotions are creating initial thoughts in your mind.
Sensitivity is not a bad thing. It allows us to be aware of things. Important to have but just don’t let it control your life. Use sensitivity for self awareness and nothing more.
We are sensitive towards ourselves so you don’t have to be sensitive towards other people.
Isn’t that what sensitivity is at its core? Built in alerts for the human body.
I might be coming from a different place with my responses. Autism resulting in heightened senses and the savant thing resulting in making it hypersensitivity. Sensitivity is way better than none. We sense to become aware of things. We must train our minds to be sensitive about the right things."
Controlling your emotional sensitivity is actually a physiological problem. We must learn to control the actual release of emotions. If you don’t want to have the psychological response to the physical act of emotions being created then simply learn a way to lessen it.
Sensitivity can be a wonderful thing if you don’t give in to the impulsivity which often accompanies it.

106 views1 comment

1 comentario

Thank you for sharing this article; I like the idea of using emotions as an alarm; after all, this is why it exists I think! Having emotions is not bad, but, learning how to use those is the whole point I think!


Me gusta

Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosocom's Founder & Writer

I am a philosopher from Israel, author of several books in 2 languages, and Quora's Top Writer of the year 2018. I'm also a semi-hermit who has decided to dedicate his life to writing and sharing my articles across the globe. Several podcasts on me, as well as a radio interview, have been made since my career as a writer. More information about me can be found here.

צילום מסך 2023-11-02 202752.png
bottom of page