Are your behaviors and attitudes toward others based on wisdom or poor self-serving rationalizations?
Conflicts are inevitable whenever people interact with others. How people approach and resolve these conflicts determines the quality and durability of their relationships.
A completely selfish person will demand what they want and manipulate others to obtain it. They don’t feel the need to justify their actions. Such an approach leads to shallow relationships that fail to endure because people don’t like to be used and abused with impunity.
To avoid a steady turnover of people in their lives, most people will at least try to offer justifications for their actions. Since selfish behavior is difficult to justify in a way that satisfies others, people come up with rationalizations to make them look less selfish, often fooling even themselves.
Selfish brutes often don’t see themselves as self-centered abusers even when they are. They lie to themselves to make their lies more convincing to others and to placate their guilt over their bad behavior. Some of the most pernicious lies are the ones we tell ourselves.
Rationalizations
Self-centered rationalization is a cognitive process where an individual justifies their actions, decisions, or beliefs in a manner that prioritizes their interests, needs, or perspectives, often at the expense of others’ considerations or the objective truth.
This kind of rationalization is a defense mechanism that allows individuals to maintain a positive self-image and reduce cognitive dissonance—the discomfort experienced when holding two conflicting beliefs or facing discrepancies between beliefs and behaviors.
In self-centered rationalization, the reasoning provided may seem logical to the individual but is typically biased to protect their self-esteem or personal goals.
It can manifest in various ways, such as blaming others for one’s mistakes, justifying unethical behavior by highlighting personal gain or dismissing the negative impact of one’s actions on others. This process can hinder personal growth, damage relationships, and lead to a lack of accountability.
Valid Reasons for Conflict
The motive behind a valid reason for conflict is often rooted in genuine grievances, needs, or concerns that have been unaddressed, violated, or compromised. It’s about seeking justice, respect, or fulfillment of legitimate needs.
Justifications for valid reasons for conflict are based on objective criteria, ethical considerations, or mutual agreements breached. The reasoning is more balanced, considering both personal perspectives and those of others involved.
When conflicts arise for valid reasons, they have the potential to lead to constructive outcomes if managed properly. When resolved effectively, such conflicts can prompt important conversations, foster understanding, promote problem-solving, and lead to growth and stronger relationships.
Key Differences Between a Rationalization and a Reason
Self-centered rationalization is inherently subjective and biased towards oneself, while a valid reason for conflict is grounded in objective fairness or mutual respect that has been compromised.
Self-centered rationalization lacks empathy and fails to consider the impact of one’s actions on others, whereas a valid reason for conflict often arises from concerns that involve mutual respect and understanding.
Conflicts based on self-centered rationalization are often destructive, leading to unresolved issues and strained relationships. In contrast, conflicts arising from valid reasons can lead to positive outcomes, including personal growth and strengthened bonds, with effective communication and negotiation.
While self-centered rationalization is centered on protecting one’s ego and interests, often at the expense of others, a valid reason for conflict seeks to address genuine issues, injustices, or needs, aiming for a resolution that respects and considers all parties involved.
Gray Areas Between Reason and Rationalization
It is often difficult to distinguish between valid reasons and. foolish rationalizations.
I know a couple nearing divorce due to their inability to resolve conflicts.
The wife says that she fears her husband’s anger when they argue. The husband claims he does nothing to make her fearful, and her reaction is irrational. There is no history of domestic violence.
In an incident a few months ago, the wife called the police. The police arrived and found no evidence of wrongdoing, and the calm husband had to explain her overreaction.
The husband is frustrated that she blames him for her reactions, claiming she takes no responsibility for anything she does when she feels fear.
The wife is frustrated that the husband does not change his behavior to stop triggering her fear. She is adamant that his expressions of anger and frustration are the cause of all their problems.
The situation has deteriorated to the point the couple is hesitant to have routine conversations because even the smallest conflict leads to a fearful reaction.
Is the wife being rational and providing a valid reason for her fearful reaction?
Is the husband realistic in assessing his anger and how he expresses it?
Is the wife failing to take responsibility for her reactions?
Is the husband failing to take responsibility for his expressions of anger?
I certainly don’t know. If you feel you know, you are mistaken. Either point of view may be valid. In fact, both points of view could be valid based on each person’s subjective experience.
The wife may perceive her husband’s expression of anger crosses a line. None of us can draw that line for her.
The husband may perceive the wife’s reaction to be irrational, particularly since there is no history of domestic violence and even no threats in the expressions of anger.
Each person considers his or her reactions wise and based on valid reasons. Each of them considers the other person’s wise reason to be a silly rationalization.
Empathy and Consideration
Neither the husband nor the wife will ever convince the other they are wrong. They’ve tried. Fruitlessly. It’s a fool’s errand.
Their only realistic option is to increase their empathy and consideration for the other. If they fail to find common ground, they will likely divorce due to irreconcilable differences.
If the husband increases his empathy for her reaction, he may work more diligently to avoid those behaviors that trigger her.
If the wife assumes more responsibility for her emotional state rather than remaining convinced she is the hapless victim of her husband’s actions, her increased resilience may prevent her from being triggered as easily.
If each of them remains convinced the other needs to make all the changes, they will never meet in the middle and find a compromise that works for both of them.
Constructing a Narrative of Rationalizations
Have you heard these stories from your friends and family? Do you find yourself taking sides?
People excel at constructing narratives where they are completely blameless, the hapless victim of some completely selfish and uncaring asshole.
Don’t be too quick to accept the truth of someone’s victim narrative. Most often, these stories are self-serving and full of distortions of reality.
This is particularly true if the narrative is your own.
