GUIDE 3
"Didn't Know vs Didn't Want to Know"
Distinguishing Real Ignorance from Willful Blindness
Core Truth:
Not all "I didn't know" is the same. Some people genuinely lacked information. Others actively avoided information that would require them to change. Learning to tell the difference protects you from exploitation.
Why This Matters
People use "I didn't know" for two very different situations:
- Genuine ignorance - They literally didn't have the information
- Strategic ignorance - They avoided information that would require accountability
The first deserves grace and education. The second deserves boundaries and consequences.
Confusing these two means either being too harsh with people who genuinely didn't know, or too lenient with people who chose not to know.
The Core Difference
GENUINE IGNORANCE
- Didn't have access to the information
- Lacked framework to understand what they were seeing
- Information existed but wasn't accessible to them
- When given information, they engage with it
- When corrected, they adjust behavior
WILLFUL BLINDNESS
- Information was available but avoided
- Chose not to look closer
- Shut down information that would require change
- When given information, they deflect or minimize
- When corrected, they make excuses
Markers of Genuine Ignorance
1. Curiosity When Information Appears
When you show them something they didn't know, genuine ignorance responds with interest:
- "I didn't realize that. Tell me more."
- "How does that work?"
- "I want to understand this better."
- "I didn't know that was harmful. What should I do differently?"
They're interested in learning what they didn't know.
2. Behavior Changes With New Information
When they learn something new, they adjust:
- They stop doing the thing once they know it causes harm
- They ask questions about how to do better
- They integrate feedback into future behavior
- They might mess up again, but it's inconsistent, not a pattern
Learning changes their trajectory.
3. Takes Responsibility Once They Know
Genuine ignorance accepts accountability after learning:
- "I didn't know, but now that I do, I need to make this right."
- "I should have asked instead of assuming."
- "I'm sorry. I'll do better now that I understand."
They don't use "I didn't know" as a permanent shield from consequences.
4. Reasonable Explanation for Why They Didn't Know
There's a clear reason they lacked the information:
- They're new to the situation/field/community
- The information wasn't public or accessible
- They have a documented processing difference that affects how they receive information
- The context in which they were operating didn't include this information
Their not-knowing makes sense given their context.
Markers of Willful Blindness
1. Deflection When Information Appears
When you show them what they "didn't know," willful blindness deflects:
- "That's not what I meant."
- "You're being too sensitive."
- "I can't be expected to know everything."
- "Other people do it too."
- "You're making a big deal out of nothing."
They're defending against the information, not engaging with it.
2. Behavior Doesn't Change With New Information
Learning doesn't affect their actions:
- They keep doing the same thing after being told it causes harm
- They make surface changes but the core pattern continues
- They "forget" what they were told
- They agree in the moment but don't follow through
Information doesn't create change because they don't want to change.
3. Uses "I Didn't Know" as a Shield from Consequences
Willful blindness weaponizes claimed ignorance:
- "How was I supposed to know?" (when the information was clearly available)
- "Nobody told me." (when multiple people did)
- "I didn't know it would hurt you." (when any reasonable person would know)
- "Oops, my bad!" (but repeats the same behavior next week)
"I didn't know" becomes a Get Out of Jail Free card they play repeatedly.
4. Actively Avoided Available Information
The information was accessible but they chose not to engage:
- They ignored warnings or concerns raised by others
- They refused to read materials that would have informed them
- They avoided conversations where they would have learned
- They changed the subject when the topic came up
- They "didn't have time" to learn what they needed to know
Their not-knowing was a choice, not a circumstance.
The Selective Ignorance Pattern
One of the clearest markers of willful blindness is selective ignorance - when someone manages to know some things very well but claims ignorance about things that would inconvenience them.
Examples of Selective Ignorance:
- Knows exactly how to navigate complex systems when it benefits them, but "didn't know" basic rules when following them would cost them something
- Remembers details that support their position, "forgets" details that don't
- Understands nuance when it serves them, claims everything is black-and-white when that's more convenient
- Has sophisticated knowledge in their area of interest, claims incompetence in areas where competence would require accountability
Red Flag:
If someone is strategically incompetent - somehow always managing to not-know the exact things that would require them to do work or face consequences - that's not ignorance. That's weaponized helplessness.
The Reasonable Person Test
A useful diagnostic: Would a reasonable person in this situation have known or found out?
Ask yourself:
- Was the information publicly available?
- Did they have access to sources that would have told them?
- Were they in a position where they should have asked?
- Did they have responsibility to know this?
- Would most people in their position have known or checked?
- Did they have the capacity to understand if they'd engaged with the information?
If the answer to most of these is "yes," and they still claim they didn't know, you're likely looking at willful blindness, not genuine ignorance.
Context Matters: When "Didn't Know" Gets Complicated
Gray Areas:
- Trauma-informed ignorance: Someone in an abusive dynamic may genuinely not be able to process certain information due to active gaslighting. This looks like willful blindness but is actually protective dissociation.
- Cultural/contextual differences: Information that's "obvious" in one context may be genuinely unknown in another.
- Neurodivergent processing: Some people genuinely don't process implicit information the way others do. What looks like "choosing not to see" may be "literally cannot see it without explicit instruction."
- Developmental factors: Someone might lack the cognitive or emotional development to integrate certain information even when presented with it.
In these gray areas, look at the response to correction as your guide. Even if someone's ignorance is understandable, if they don't adjust after learning, you still have a problem.
What to Do With Each Type
GENUINE IGNORANCE
Appropriate Response:
- Provide information
- Allow learning curve
- Expect adjustment after learning
- Be patient with genuine mistakes
- Notice if behavior changes
WILLFUL BLINDNESS
Appropriate Response:
- Set clear boundaries
- Hold to consequences
- Don't keep re-explaining
- Stop accepting "I didn't know"
- Protect yourself from repeated harm
The Accountability Gap
Here's the key distinction:
Genuine Ignorance:
"I didn't know" → Information provided → "Now I know" → Behavior changes
There is a clear through-line from ignorance to learning to change.
Willful Blindness:
"I didn't know" → Information provided → "I didn't know" → No behavior change → "I didn't know"
The claimed ignorance is a loop that prevents accountability.
If you've explained something multiple times and they keep saying "I didn't know," they're not telling you about their ignorance. They're telling you they're not going to change.
Protection Strategy: Track Patterns, Not Incidents
Don't get caught up debating whether they "really didn't know" in each individual instance. Instead, track:
Pattern 1
Do they learn from correction, or do they keep making the same "mistakes"?
Pattern 2
Does their ignorance always benefit them and inconvenience others?
Pattern 3
Do they show curiosity about things that matter to them but claim incompetence about things that matter to you?
Pattern 4
Does "I didn't know" appear whenever accountability arrives?
One instance of "I didn't know" → Could be genuine.
A pattern of "I didn't know" that always shields them from consequences → Willful blindness.
When to Stop Giving Benefit of the Doubt
You've provided information. You've explained the impact. You've given them chances to adjust. If they're still claiming ignorance, here's your permission slip:
Stop Explaining When:
- You've told them the same thing three or more times
- They keep "forgetting" what you've explained
- They argue about whether they "should have known" instead of just adjusting now that they do
- Their claimed ignorance is hurting you repeatedly
- They know similar things perfectly well when it serves them
- You're more invested in their learning than they are
At a certain point, whether they "really didn't know" becomes irrelevant. What matters is: they know now, and they're not changing. That's all the information you need.
The Bottom Line
Core Framework:
Genuine ignorance is temporary and dissolves with information.
Willful blindness is permanent and persists despite information.
Watch what they do after they learn, not whether they claim they didn't know before. That tells you everything about whether you're dealing with someone who genuinely lacked information or someone who is strategically maintaining ignorance.
Protect yourself accordingly.