I have often heard of sincerity, I was myself a follower of the religion of sincerity, let's face it, I say what I think.

One day, a friend told me: "With this excuse of sincerity people think they can say any nastiness".

That sentence smoldered inside me and I began to dwell on it.

I therefore start from the beginning, from where, in my opinion, the first problem begins.

In our brain an infinite number of thoughts "revolve", at various levels of consciousness, normally they have to pass a rather important series of consensus criteria, before they come to be formulated as "what I think".

These thoughts that wander in our mind are multiple, contradictory and finally that we do not agree.

Passing them through our rational, emotional, ethical, aesthetic, moral filters, etc. most are eliminated, they cannot overcome one of these sieves and do not reach the level of "our idea".

In particular conditions, in the middle of a fight, under stress, when we are threatened, when we feel in danger, we tend not to filter using all our sieves, our deep thoughts tend to come out through shortcuts that make us "say things that we don't think".

In other words, we express thoughts that, with due calm and rationality we would not have expressed, in a nutshell, are not our thoughts, because we simply do not agree.

This is an experience that we all have, more or less, in our lives we have asked ourselves: "What did I say?"

When we become adherents of the religion of sincerity, we often tend to mistake the mere exposition of "what goes through our heads" without filters, without the scrutiny of our consolidated skimming system, except then, in retrospect, to realize that what we have said it was not exactly what we thought and / or was not exposed in the most appropriate way to be correctly understood by the recipients of our sincerity.

This is why, as my grandmother used to say, up to 10 should always be counted before speaking, rather than 20 in doubt.

This is why it is said, I have reflected on it, indicating that process, which is not immediate, that passes between a flow of thoughts and the often difficult delivery of a thought that reflects what truly conforms to what I am and what it is my thought system.

There is then another problem, in my opinion, the misunderstanding between the sincere exposition of one's vision of things and the truth.

Even when you counted up to 1000, the compatibility between your thinking and our screening system of its validity has been thoroughly verified, the fact remains that you must always keep in mind that what you are exposing is your sincere and visual dispassion about reality.

The reality, the truth, as abstract entities do not exist after all, there are the facets that everyone sees, from their own point of view of a certain question, situation, fact.

We all tend to exchange our opinion, which, however sincere it may be, is certainly not reality or truth, with an incontrovertible vision; two antithetical versions of the same fact can easily coexist in our universe and can do so even in the opinions of a single person, let alone in that of a multiplicity of people.

Sincerity is subjective, if I have examined all my thoughts on some subject, I have selected the one with which I am most in agreement and I express it in the best way to ensure that it is understood, I have done the maximum that I can do, so I am subjectively sincere.

But I am neither objectively sincere nor can I ever be so, no matter how much effort I can make there is no objectively sincere person except in the sense that he always tends to be subjectively sincere, that is intellectually honest.

Finally I believe there is another way to "unleash hell" that is inside each of us, because believe me, there is in each of us.

I would define it: give an opportunity to the beast.

Under the layer of conventions, ethics, rationality, etc. hatching, within each of us the beast with its absurd, evil thoughts, thoughts perhaps of hatred, gratuitous malice, irrationality, of "cupio dissolvi".

Offering opportunities to let off steam can sometimes be cathartic: a carnival.

However, it can also be very dangerous: when the cage is opened and the beast comes out, it is not so easy then to make it come back and, above all, it could do considerable and irreversible damage while it is running around freely.

I like to mention a very beautiful story that talks about this: "The false hitchhiking" by Milan Kundera.

If you are interested you can find it, if I remember correctly, in the collection of stories "Amours ridiculous".

In the story two boyfriends decide, as a game, to pretend not to know each other, she will ask for hitchhiking and he will get her into the car, both pretending to be unconscious.

At first the game is fun, until it degenerates; both substantially lose control over their identity and end up hating each other, being disgusted by the other.

Why does this happen?

Because our identity is made up of a stratification of thoughts, of actions, of a way of being, of speaking, of behaving.

However, just for fun or seriously, we get out of this scheme that we have built over time, which allows us precisely to filter into the sea of our thoughts, what must emerge and what not, we go out of ourselves towards an unknown and dangerous land, where we no longer know who we are, what we really think and what we don't.

Attention, therefore, to these that may seem innocent games, because they are not at all.

When it is let out, the beast that is in us gets excited because it is finally free and making it re-enter the ranks is not always easy and painless.

Thinking before speaking and even before acting is a favor that we do first of all to ourselves and then to all the people around us, it is an effort, of course, but it is what, ultimately, expresses the concept of civilization and defines us as a civil person.