SITUATION
All your peers show extreme dislike for a particular person, but you try to find extenuating reasons as to why this person is not all evil, even if you understand exactly how your peers feel.
ANALYSIS
When you remain an impartial person, a lot comes into play. You're either (a) hardly negative about a person/situation or (b) always cynical. So the determinant of whether or not the objective person is either (a) or (b) is the victim's own highly static position on the subject matter, which will, at all times, be a partial subject matter to them.
EXAMPLE
Take for example, a superior of mine.
Although there is a general consensus about the subject (which, like I mentioned, is partial), I carefully and mindfully attempt to be as objective as possible, which would then, in this situation, place me in the previously mentioned category (a).
Often times, I find myself to be the only person with this objective view. Most of the times, with respect and dignity. Other times, like today, simply proven wrong.
CONCLUSION
What I learned, however, was that I'd rather be objective and proven wrong, then make a claim and be unforgiving when the person or situation does something rather joyfully unexpected. That joyfully unexpected thing has yet to happen, but regardless...
