It is acknowledged to consider transparency as a means of direct access to knowledge. Having no intrinsic obstacle, the transparency of acts and thoughts seems to be the most ergonomic one to move in the cognitive field. If the person can see the unity to be considered how couldn’t he/she understand its parts? All these considerations could only be regarded as a truism for the one who doesn’t remember the period of transparency (glasnost) in Soviet Union and the following setbacks of Gorbatchev. How explaining these events if we consider transparency as a simple phenomenon? In reality, transparency is only simple for the one detecting its characteristics, for the other ones, it is transparent in essence and as a matter of fact, invisible. And without structure, it is considered as easily comprehensible. However, one would forget that the main feature of strategy is precisely the transparency of actions, the invisibility of thoughts. A visible strategy is a predictable strategy and so, doomed to failure. Everything is at stake in the transparency and the invisible. So, transparency of actions represents an obstacle for the thought of others in the negative way, being opponent in a conflict as well as in the positive way, being partner in human relationship. The intrinsic problem comes from the fact that it is difficult to judge a transparent act or behaviour. In essence, it is hard to apprehend. It is easy to defend oneself meeting an aggression as much it is difficult to face a disinterested and selfless action. In a competition dominated world how analysing the behaviour of the altruist? How ignoring a hidden reason under this transparent surface? Is it an evolved way of hypocrisy just like a fire attracting beings via its light in order to trap them? How detecting what the individual can’t see? How trusting without knowing? We just find the same mental schema in law. How can the court face innocence? As regards the culprit, it knows how to act, at least theoretically and to what extent. However, how facing innocence or even more simply the alleged culprit? How accusing and sentencing someone with no evidence of his/her guilt. Now, we can see via altruism the problematic that underlies transparency in the social world. The latter, devised by the mass and for the mass, is unable to extend its domain of validity to all its inner singularities. How managing these singularities that represent nothing for the mass and everything for humanity? Without them, the mass would look like it, but humanity would make no sense. Now, it is clear that the behavioural transparency of singularities represents a real obstacle for the majority not used to this kind of human relation. The problem with relations doesn’t come from hidden reason but on the contrary, in consequence of transparency, from the apparent absence of reason. With no apparent reason, the singular behaviour becomes eerie and suspicious for transparency is a cognitive obstacle. Man only sees what he understands so that singularity remains invisible to him. Thus, the very nature of transparency leads to a huge lack of understanding between those who are alone and those who are all.