Month: December 2025

What’s the difference between an ‘excuse’ and a valid ‘reason’? Sometimes excuses sound like reasons.What’s the difference between an ‘excuse’ and a valid ‘reason’? Sometimes excuses sound like reasons.

This is a subtle but important distinction—excuses often sound like reasons, which is why it can be confusing. Let’s break it down clearly.


1. Core difference

AspectReasonExcuse
DefinitionAn explanation for why something happened, based on facts or legitimate circumstances.An attempt to justify or defend a behavior, often to avoid blame or responsibility.
PurposeTo clarify or explain objectively.To deflect responsibility or make oneself appear less accountable.
TruthfulnessUsually true and relevant.Can be true, partly true, or sometimes fabricated; often selectively presented.
EffectHelps others (or yourself) understand the situation.Helps avoid criticism or guilt; may not genuinely resolve the issue.

2. How they feel in practice

  • Reason example: “I missed the meeting because the train was delayed due to an accident.”
    • It’s factual, external, and unavoidable.
  • Excuse example: “I missed the meeting because traffic was terrible.”
    • May be partially true, but it avoids full responsibility, like leaving early, not planning ahead, or not checking alternatives.

Sometimes excuses can sound like reasons if they include a kernel of truth. The difference is often intention and accountability:

  • If the explanation acknowledges your role or is verifiable, it’s a reason.
  • If it shifts blame or deflects responsibility, it’s an excuse.

3. Quick test to distinguish them

Ask yourself:

  1. Does this explanation take ownership of what I could control?
  2. Is it meant to inform or to justify?
  3. Would I offer the same explanation if I were fully accountable?
  • If yes → Reason
  • If no → Excuse

everyday examples of reasons vs. excuses across different areas. I’ll show why some things sound like reasons but are actually excuses.


1. Dating / Social Life

ScenarioReasonExcuse
You cancel a date“I have a high fever and shouldn’t go out.” “I was too tired, traffic was bad, and it was going to rain.” ❌ (shifts responsibility to external factors rather than personal choice)
You forget to reply to messages“I was on a work trip with limited phone access.” “I didn’t reply because I was busy and you wouldn’t understand anyway.” ❌ (blames the other person and avoids owning the choice)

Key: A reason explains something honestly. An excuse tries to minimise perceived fault. Key insight here:

A statement can be part reason, part excuse. The difference often comes down to which element you emphasise and how you frame it.

  • Valid, reason-focused version: “I’m really exhausted and need to rest tonight so I can be ready for tomorrow. Can we reschedule?”
    • Takes ownership, honest, emphasises your physical/mental limit.
  • Excuse-heavy version: “I didn’t want to go because traffic was bad, potential rain, and I was tired.”
    • Blames external factors first, makes it sound like avoidance rather than legitimate self-care.

Your perception matters. If fatigue is real, it’s a valid reason, not an excuse. The “excuse” label is mostly about statements that use partially true or exaggerated external factors to justify avoidance, rather than honest, understandable limits.


2. Work / School

ScenarioReasonExcuse
Missed a deadline“I underestimated the time needed for this task; I’ll adjust my schedule next time.” “The instructions weren’t very clear and the system was going slow, so I couldn’t finish.” ❌ (shifts responsibility, even if partly true)
Poor performance“I didn’t have enough data to make a complete analysis.” “The team didn’t give me enough support, so it’s not my fault.” ❌ (focuses on others rather than personal accountability)

Key: Reasons acknowledge what happened and provide context. Excuses often imply “it’s not really my fault.”


3. Personal / Everyday Life

ScenarioReasonExcuse
Late to a social gathering“The bus broke down and I left early to catch it.” “I left on time but buses are always late.” ❌ (blames circumstances without taking steps to prevent being late)
Didn’t keep a promise“I forgot because I put it on the wrong calendar; I’ll set a reminder next time.” “I forgot because I’ve been too busy and stressed.” ❌ (partly true, but framed to deflect personal responsibility)

4. Key Patterns to Spot

  • Reason: Explains what happened, takes some ownership, is often verifiable.
  • Excuse: Explains why it’s not your fault, often blames external factors or minimises responsibility.
  • Trick: Excuses can be dressed up with facts, which is why they sound like reasons—but the difference is ownership and intention.

    There’s a substantial body of psychological research that touches on excuses, reasons, and how people justify their behaviour.


    1. Excuses in psychology

    • Often studied under concepts like self-justification, self-handicapping, and impression management.
    • Key idea: People sometimes give excuses to protect self-esteem or avoid negative social judgement.

    Examples from research:

    • Self-Handicapping: When people create obstacles for themselves (e.g., “I didn’t study because I was tired”) so if they fail, they have an excuse. This is well-studied in educational and performance psychology (e.g., Jones & Berglas, 1978).
    • Impression Management: Excuses can be used to manage how others perceive you—making yourself look less at fault or more sympathetic (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
    • Moral Psychology: People distinguish between excuses (to deflect blame) and justifications (to explain actions as morally acceptable). Excuses are seen as reducing personal responsibility, whereas justifications are claiming the act is okay under circumstances (Shaver, 1985).

    2. Valid reasons

    • Studied more under attribution theory: how people explain causes for their behaviour.
    • Internal vs. external attribution:
      • Internal: “I didn’t finish because I didn’t plan properly.”
      • External: “I didn’t finish because the bus was late.”
    • A valid reason often corresponds to an explanation that is fact-based, relevant, and seen as legitimate by social norms, while an excuse may rely on controllable factors framed as uncontrollable.

    Research highlights:

    • People are more likely to accept explanations as valid reasons if they acknowledge personal responsibility (Miller & Ross, 1975).
    • Excuses are more likely to be accepted if they appeal to external constraints beyond one’s control, even if the person could have done something differently.

    3. Subtle distinctions in research

    • Excuse: Often functions to protect self-image or avoid punishment/blame.
    • Reason: Functions to inform others of causality; it may include personal responsibility and is usually perceived as legitimate.
    • Studies show that people are much more forgiving when a reason signals honesty and unavoidable constraints, versus an excuse that signals avoidance of responsibility.

    4. Practical implications

    • Being clear about whether you’re giving a reason or an excuse affects trust and credibility in relationships.
    • Psychologically, framing your explanation around ownership and unavoidable factors makes it more likely to be perceived as a reason rather than an excuse.

    Same-sex dating challenges when you’re over 30Same-sex dating challenges when you’re over 30

    1. High selectivity is normal, especially as we get older

    When you enter the post-20’s dating world, your life experience has shaped your preferences. You’ve likely developed clear ideas of what you want in a partner, both in terms of personality and compatibility.

    • This means it’s natural to not feel interested in most people you date.
    • Selectivity isn’t a problem—it often reflects self-knowledge and maturity.

    2. Same-sex dating dynamics can be tricky

    • In male same-sex dating, especially in places like Sydney, there can be a stronger focus on physical attraction in initial meetings.
    • That can make it harder to find someone you genuinely click with emotionally or mentally, because a lot of initial dating chemistry may feel superficial or performance-based.

    3. Emotional vs. physical attraction

    • Your emotional and intellectual connection becomes [more] key to your interest.
    • You may feel attracted physically to some, but if the emotional or personality resonance isn’t there, you simply won’t want to continue. That’s perfectly normal.

    4. Reciprocity matters a lot

    • Humans are wired for reciprocal interest: when it’s not returned, our brains often disengage emotionally to protect ourselves from disappointment.
    • This can make dating feel discouraging because your standards and their feelings don’t always align.

    5. Psychological patterns that could be at play

    • High self-awareness: You know what you want and won’t settle.
    • Emotional caution: After multiple dates where interest isn’t reciprocated, your mind may naturally limit attachment until someone truly matches your criteria.
    • Confirmation bias in dating: You notice quickly when someone isn’t “right,” which is good for avoiding poor matches—but can also make you feel like genuine connections are rare.

    6. This is very common for mature adults dating

    • Many people in their late 30s–40s experience the same thing.
    • Your dating pool is smaller because you’re looking for someone with very specific qualities (age, personality, emotional intelligence, compatibility).

    Practical advice for dating in this context

    a. Broaden [wisely] your dating strategies

    • While selectivity is good, small adjustments in mindset can increase your chances:
      • Look beyond initial “type” indicators and give people a bit more time to reveal personality.
      • Join social groups or interest-based communities (sports clubs, arts, volunteering, LGBTQ+ meetups). Often chemistry develops in shared activity contexts rather than first-date settings.

    b. Focus on quality interactions

    • Instead of increasing quantity, increase meaningfulness: fewer, more intentional dates with people you have some natural overlap with (values, lifestyle, humor).
    • Online apps can be helpful, but try to filter for shared interests or mutual values to save time and emotional energy.

    c. Work on internal calibration

    • Reflect on what triggers your strong attraction. Are there patterns (personality, energy, humor, confidence)?
    • This helps to recognize potential even if it’s not immediately intense, and also helps articulate your preferences clearly to prospective dates.

    d. Manage expectations

    • It’s normal for the dating ratio (you like → they like) to be low, especially with high selectivity. Patience is key.
    • Celebrate the small wins: every connection you explore, even if it doesn’t last, builds social and emotional insight.

    e. Emotional self-care

    • Rejection is part of the process and rarely personal—it’s more about compatibility.
    • Maintain supportive friendships, hobbies, and self-affirmation to avoid over-investing emotionally in every date.

    Mindset shift suggestion

    Instead of thinking:

    “There are very few people I want to see again, and they don’t feel the same way”

    Try:

    “I’m selective and I know what I want. Meeting the right person may take time, but each date helps me understand myself and my preferences more clearly.”

    This subtle mindset shift reduces pressure and anxiety, while keeping your standards intact.

    Understanding Addiction: A Modern, Integrative PerspectiveUnderstanding Addiction: A Modern, Integrative Perspective

    Abstract

    Addiction is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that has been described variously as a disease, disorder, syndrome, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, learned behaviour, or spiritual malady. Modern scientific understanding emphasises addiction as a chronic brain disorder shaped by neurobiological changes, learning, and social context. This article examines each conceptualisation and presents an integrated definition that aligns with current neuroscience, psychological, and public health evidence.

    Conceptualising Addiction: Labels and Their Accuracy

    No single label fully captures addiction’s complexity; each highlights certain truths while overlooking others.

    Disease

    From a medical perspective, disease is the closest match. Addiction involves persistent neurobiological changes in reward, stress, and self-control circuits, increases relapse risk over years, and shows substantial genetic vulnerability (~50–60%) (NIDA, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Treatments improve outcomes but rarely “cure” the condition. This framing is used by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), NIDA, WHO ICD-11, and DSM-5-TR (as “Substance Use Disorder”) (NIDA, 2018).

    Disorder

    Disorder is also scientifically accurate and slightly less medicalised. DSM-5’s “Substance Use Disorder” captures behavioural, psychological, and biological criteria and recognises functioning and harm rather than framing addiction strictly as a lifelong disease (Heather, n.d.; Heilig et al., 2021).

    Syndrome

    Addiction may be described as a syndrome because it is a cluster of symptoms with behavioural and physiological manifestations, without a single causative factor. However, the term is too generic for practical use outside clinical texts (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

    Obsessive and Compulsive Learned Behaviour

    Addiction involves learning, habit formation, and compulsion through reinforcement of rewarding behaviours (Hyman, 2005; Hausotter, 2013). Yet describing it solely as learned behaviour ignores genetic predisposition, neuroadaptation, withdrawal, and social factors.

    Spiritual Malady

    Some mutual-aid traditions characterise addiction as a spiritual malady. While this may be meaningful for individuals, it is not scientifically explanatory: addiction can be adequately explained via biological, psychological, and social mechanisms (Lewis, 2017).

    Modern Integrative Definition

    The most accurate contemporary description of addiction is:
    “A chronic, relapsing disorder of brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control, shaped by learning, environment, and social context”.

    This definition encompasses:

    • Disease/disorder: medical accuracy
    • Learned behaviour and compulsion: neuroscience and behavioural accuracy
    • Social determinants: public health relevance
    • Flexibility for personal or spiritual interpretations

    In short, addiction is best understood as a bio-psycho-social condition that is treatable and sometimes reversible, rather than a deterministic, lifelong curse.

    Neurobiology: Why Addiction Is Considered a Brain Disorder

    Repeated substance use alters structural and functional brain circuits involved in reward, stress, motivation, memory, and self-control (Nwonu et al., 2022; NIDA, 2018). These changes can persist long after use stops, explaining why addiction is more than a matter of “bad habits” or weak will (NIDA, 2025).

    Chronicity and Relapse

    Addiction is often chronic and relapsing. Even after long periods of abstinence, cues and stressors can trigger relapse (Meurk et al., 2014; SAMHSA, 2023). Key regions implicated include the basal ganglia (habit formation), extended amygdala (stress), and prefrontal cortex (decision-making) (Kirby et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many individuals achieve stable remission, highlighting heterogeneity in clinical outcomes (Heilig et al., 2021).

    Learning, Memory, and Habit Formation

    Addiction exploits neural mechanisms of learning and memory: rewarding behaviours are repeated and consolidated into habits, with cues triggering compulsive responses even when the substance’s reward diminishes (Hausotter, 2013; Lewis, 2017). This intertwines biological disorder and learned behaviour.

    Critiques and Limitations

    Some scientists caution that framing addiction strictly as a brain disease is simplistic:

    • Brain changes may resemble those from other motivated behaviours (Lewis, 2017).
    • Many recover without formal treatment (Heilig et al., 2021).
    • Social, environmental, and psychological factors are crucial to understanding addiction (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

    Thus, while the disease model is powerful, it does not fully represent addiction’s heterogeneity or socio-psychological dimensions.

    Implications for Treatment

    Addiction is treatable, not simply curable. Interventions combining pharmacological and behavioural approaches, alongside social support, can foster long-term recovery (Liu & Li, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Like other chronic conditions, management — rather than elimination — is often the realistic goal (NIDA, 2018). Neural circuits can gradually readjust, particularly when environmental and personal factors support recovery.

    Conclusion

    Addiction is a learned, compulsive brain disorder with chronic potential, shaped by neurobiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Recognising addiction as both a disorder and a behavioural learning condition avoids extremes: it is neither an unchangeable fate nor merely a moral failing. This integrated perspective supports nuanced understanding, compassionate care, and effective treatment strategies.


    References

    Blithikioti, C., Fried, E. I., Albanese, E., Field, M., & Cristea, I. A. (2025). Reevaluating the brain disease model of addiction. The Lancet Psychiatry, 12(6), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(25)00060-4

    Hausotter, W. (2013). Neuroscience and understanding addiction. Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network. https://attcnetwork.org/neuroscience-and-understanding-addiction

    Heather, N. (n.d.). What’s wrong with the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA)? Addiction Theory Network. https://addictiontheorynetwork.org/brain-disease-model-of-addiction

    Heilig, M., MacKillop, J., Martinez, D., Rehm, J., Leggio, L., & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. (2021). Addiction as a brain disease revised: Why it still matters, and the need for consilience. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(10), 1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00950-y

    Hyman, S. E. (2005). Addiction: A disease of learning and memory. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(8), 1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1414

    Kirby, E. D., Glenn, M. J., Sandstrom, N. J., & Williams, C. L. (2024). Neurobiology of addiction (Section 14.5). In Introduction to Behavioral Neuroscience. OpenStax. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/…/14.05:_Neurobiology_of_Addiction

    Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science, 278(5335), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45

    Lewis, M. (2017). Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics, 10(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4

    Liu, J. F., & Li, J. X. (2018). Drug addiction: A curable mental disorder? Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 39(12), 1823–1829. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-018-0180-x

    Meurk, C., Carter, A., Partridge, B., Lucke, J., & Hall, W. (2014). How is acceptance of the brain disease model of addiction related to Australians’ attitudes towards addicted individuals and treatments for addiction? BMC Psychiatry, 14, 373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0373-x

    National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction (Rev. ed.). https://irp.nida.nih.gov/…/NIDA_DrugsBrainsAddiction

    Nwonu, C. N. S., Nwonu, P. C., & Ude, R. A. (2022). Neurobiological underpinnings in drug addiction. West African Journal of Medicine, 39(6), 874–884. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36063103

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023). What is substance use disorder? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-use/what-is-sud