when so engaged in Self-Justification!
Really? Okay...but then...what is self-justification?
Self-justification is that reaction-driven "thinking" you naturally engage - meaning you do so without any conscious, mindful awareness of doing it - to reconcile having conflicted and disturbing thoughts and feelings (a.k.a cognitive dissonance).
For example:
- One likes to smoke (and does) but is made painfully aware of the health risks (especially by others)...and yet finds a way to justify or excuse their indulgence (i.e., lighting up and smoking), or
- One wants to buy something they really aren't sure they can afford but - in the moment - does; and then finds all the "good and right" reasons for doing so...or
- One loses at a game "they should have won," but didn't because...or
- One has been unfairly criticized and becomes defensive, finding all the reasons the criticism is wrong or undeserved...or
- One has been fairly criticized - and becomes defensive...or
- Or, or...
______
Hey...we all "do it" and we do it a lot.
Engaging self-justification (SJ) is, in one sense, a human need, in that we have to believe we are a good person; one who is honest, genuine, trustworthy, caring, and deserving of love, esteem, and respect. If this is questioned or challenged - by our own feelings of self-doubt, or shame, guilt, regret, or by others(!) - we still have to live with ourselves...
...and such cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, often painful, even potentially excruciating.
In seeking such "relief," SJ involves both rational (i.e., truthful, logical, factual, accurate) and irrational (i.e., erroneous, deceptive, false, emotionally biased) thinking. And while it results to great benefit in feeling some measure of acceptable "reconciliation" - e.g., we can sleep at night - it may also, even likely(!), be delusional, harmful, and sometimes eventually disastrous.
In other words, sometimes SJ gets it right (i.e., when engaging in open, honest, rational, courageous, and discriminating thinking) and at other times it gets it wrong (i.e., when indulging dishonest, irrational, cowardly, avoidant, biased, and dismissive thinking). The difference - a best friend or a worst enemy - could be critical.
_______
So, before "the takeaway" (which follows) you might consider this website which provides a workable presentation of SJ's pros and cons, especially w.r.t. [with respect to] the dangers that "our best friend and worst enemy" can do to us:
______
A takeaway: Self-justification - "acting" as
either a best friend
or a worst enemy - can thus be constructive
or destructive.
One can learn to recognize such "thinking" - using
Step Back, DBT's "what skill" of
Observe, ACT's
defusion, or SQ's
Thoughts About Feelings - to confront the tendency/desire/"need"/or "indulgence" that can so easily
delude us. We're "told" that "ignorance is bliss" - well, that it may be, but...it can also be
quite debilitating.
