# Towards a Categorization of Adlerian Excuses

*\[Author's note: LLMs were used to generate and sort examples into their requisite categories, as well as find and summarize relevant papers, and extensive assistance with editing\]*

*Context: Alfred Adler (1870–1937) split from Freud by asserting that human psychology is teleological (goal-oriented) rather than causal (drive-based). He argued that neuroses and "excuses" are not passive symptoms of past trauma, but active, creative tools used by the psyche to safeguard self-esteem. This post attempts to formalize Adler’s concept of "Safeguarding Tendencies" into categories, not by the semantic content of excuses, but by their mechanical function in managing the distance between the Ego and Reality.*

*Abstract: When a life task threatens to reveal inadequacy, people initiate a strategic maneuver to invalidate the test. We propose four "Strategies of Immunity", Incapacity, Entanglement, Elevation, and Scorched Earth, to explain how agents rig the game so they cannot lose. *

The Teleological Flip
---------------------

In the standard model of behavior, an excuse is a result. You are anxious; therefore, you cannot socialize. The cause (anxiety) produces the effect (avoidance).

Adler inverted this vector. He argued that the *goal* (avoiding the risk of rejection) recruits the *means* (anxiety). You generate the anxiety *in order to* avoid the task.

To Adler, an excuse is a Safeguarding Tendency. It is a structural load-bearing wall designed to protect the "Fictional Final Goal" (the self-ideal) from threats to the identity.

To debug these behaviors, we ignore the content of the excuse (the headache, the busy schedule) and analyze the maneuver. Which direction is the agent moving to secure immunity from judgment?

*Within this categorization, the directions of Down and In correspond to Anxious/Merging in Attachment Theory terms, Up and Out corresponding to Avoidance.*

1\. Immunity via Incapacity (the broken wing)
---------------------------------------------

The Direction: Moving Down.  
The Logic: Pleading "No Contest" due to structural damage. This strategy operates on *Debt Relief.* The agent declares structural insolvency (illness, trauma, incompetence) to gain a permanent exemption from the "tax" of social contribution. They trade away their agency in exchange for safety, but inadvertently court pity.

You cannot judge a man with a broken leg for failing to run a race. Therefore, if the agent can demonstrate that they are broken (physically or psychologically), they are safe from the shame of losing. They transfer from the category of "Acting Agent" to "Suffering Patient."

*   The Symptom-Shield: Using anxiety, depression, or somatic pain as a "Noble Obstacle." The symptom absorbs all the blame so the Ego remains pristine.
*   The Victim Narrative: Citing history (childhood, trauma, bad luck) as a permanent restraining order against expectation. "I am an effect, not a cause."
*   The Animal Reversion: Claiming loss of higher brain function. "I was drunk," "I saw red," "My instincts took over."

The Result: The judge is forced to become a caretaker, or risk moral opprobrium for 'harming' the helpless.

2\. Immunity via Entanglement (the human shield)
------------------------------------------------

The Direction: Moving In.  
The Logic: Dissolving the Self into the Other. This strategy is a *Risk-Pooling Scheme.* The agent refuses to operate as a sole proprietor, forcing a merger of ledgers so that any potential loss is distributed across the group. By making liability shared, individual failure becomes statistically impossible.

A target is easy to hit; a mist is impossible to hit. By blurring the boundary between "Me" and "You," the agent ensures that any judgment directed at them hits the partner as well. This is the strategy of distributed liability.

*   The Liability Handoff: "I can't do this without you." The agent forces a partner to co-sign the loan of life. If the business fails, the partner is equally liable.
*   The Benevolent Jailer: "I’m too busy taking care of *you* to work on *me*." The agent avoids their own vertical growth by expanding horizontally into someone else's problems.
*   The Chameleon: "I’ll do whatever you want." If I have no preferences, I can never be "wrong." I am merely a reflection of your own leadership.

The Result: The court is collapsed. There is no Defendant or Judge, only "Us."

3\. Immunity via Elevation (the ivory tower)
--------------------------------------------

The Direction: Moving Up.  
The Logic: Denying the Jurisdiction of the Court. This is *Protectionism and Price-Fixing.* The agent inflates the value of their own currency (potential/virtue) while refusing to trade in the open market, claiming the external exchange rates are unfair.

The agent claims they are not failing the test; they are *above* the test. The task is too small, too corrupt, or too boring to be valid. This transforms avoidance into a status symbol.

*   The Moral Fortress: "I’m too honest for office politics." The agent reframes their inability to adapt as a surplus of virtue.
*   The Perfectionist’s Pause: "I won't start until conditions are perfect." This preserves the *Potential Self*. A perfect idea that is never executed remains perfect. An executed idea is merely average.
*   The God-Complex: "Rules are for sheep." The agent grants themselves a special exemption from the laws of social reciprocity.

The Result: The test is trivialized and dismissed. The failure belongs to the world for being unworthy of the agent's participation.

4\. Immunity via Scorched Earth (the table flip)
------------------------------------------------

The Direction: Moving Out.  
The Logic: Destroying the Value of the Outcome. This strategy is a *Market Crash*. By devaluing the prize (love, success, effort), the agent ensures that their own poverty is no longer a disadvantage. If the currency is worthless, the beggar is equal to the king.

If the agent cannot win the game, they burn the board. If the currency (success, love, intimacy) is proven to be counterfeit, then being poor is no longer a sign of failure.

*   Strategic Hopelessness: "It’s impossible, so why try?" By declaring defeat *before* the battle, the agent eliminates the anxiety of the fight. You cannot kill what is already dead.
*   Cynicism/Nihilism: "Success is a scam." This is an active devaluation of the prize. The fox claims the grapes are sour so he doesn't have to admit he can't reach them.
*   Spite: "I will fail just to deny you the satisfaction of my success." The weaponization of self-sabotage.

The Result: The people administering the test, the prize itself, and the whole context are compromised. The agent hasn't lost; they are cannily avoiding hopeless games.

Conclusion: The Courage to be Imperfect
---------------------------------------

Adler assumes a 'milieu of judgment' based on community, a finite circle of neighbors, colleagues, and family. In that world, the goal was belonging.

In the digital era, the 'Court' has changed. We have moved from community (relational judgment) to audience (attentional judgment).

Social media gamifies Life Tasks. This shift reinforces the Strategies of Immunity because the "Judge" is no longer a human being, but an abstract, infinite, and metric-driven Crowd.

Adler would diagnose our collective anxiety as a category error: We are confusing visibility with belonging. Adler warned that neurosis comes from caring more about *impression* than *contribution*. Social media is designed to measure impression, reinforcing defensive strategies. The "Audience" is an insatiable fiction; you can never be liked enough to silence the fear of inferiority.

Crucially, Adler did not view these strategies as static traits. He saw them as dynamic tools deployed against the three specific "Life Tasks" of human existence: Work, Society, and Love.

A person is not monolithic. You might observe a man employing Immunity via Elevation at work ("I am too talented for this menial role") while also deploying Immunity via Entanglement in love ("I cannot function without my partner"). The specific strategy reveals where the agent feels acute senses of inferiority.

To identify the game being played, use Adler’s famous diagnostic tool: The Question*.* Ask the agent: 

*"What would you do if this symptom or obstacle were removed immediately?"*

*   If the answer is "I would apply for the job," the obstacle is a structural defense against the risk of *Work.*
*   If the answer is "I would go out more," it is a defense against the judgment of *Society.*

The cure is not to fix the "Broken Wing" or debate the logic of the "Ivory Tower." The cure is Social Interest, the willingness to engage with these Life Tasks despite the risk of failure. It requires what Adler called *"The Courage to be Imperfect"*: the realization that one does not need to be immune to judgment to be worthy of one's place.

So courage is the counter-habit Adler encourages us to build. Courage is not a feeling one waits for; it is activity combined with social interest. To dismantle the fortress of the ego, Adler suggests we attack the structure of the excuse from three angles: recognition, action, and valuation.

The first step is investigating the specific utility of the defense. We rely on our excuses because they provide a hidden payoff: the comfort of safety or the thrill of superiority. To break the loop, we explicitly name the maneuver in real-time. When we catch ourselves feigning incapacity or standing in judgment above a task, we acknowledge that we are currently running a strategy to avoid risk. This act of observation reduces the excuse of its power to comfort us. We may still choose to withdraw, but we can no longer do so while deceiving ourselves that we are noble victims. By exposing the machinery, we drain the excuse of the emotional fuel it needs to operate.

Once the defense is exposed, we bypass the demand for emotional readiness. We often wait until we feel confident to act, but the psychology of courage works in reverse; the feeling follows the movement. We inhabit the posture of the person we wish to be, treating the terrifying moment as a low-stakes simulation rather than a final referendum on our worth. By playing the role of a courageous person before we actually feel like one, we prove to our nervous system that the catastrophe we fear does not occur when we act. This lowers the stakes of the environment, turning a life task into a simple experiment.

Finally, we fundamentally alter the currency of our self-worth. The strategies of immunity are designed to protect our vertical status, the need to be special, superior, or distinct. To heal, we shift our focus to horizontal contribution. We stop judging the actor and start valuing the act itself. When we measure ourselves by our effort and our usefulness to others rather than our reputation or prestige, failure ceases to be a death sentence and becomes merely data. The goal is not to perfect our defense, but to accept that we do not need one. This is the courage to be imperfect: the realization that we can be flawed, average, and vulnerable, and still find value and meaning in contribution.

### Relevant works:

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). *The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from His Writings*.

Dreikurs, R. (1970). *The Courage to be Imperfect.*

Mosak, H.H. (1999). *A Primer of Adlerian Psychology* 

Kishimi, I. & Koga, F.  (2018). *The Courage to Be Disliked*