Can a neurotypical person please explain the differences between a reason and an excuse? When asked “Why did I do it this way?”, I’m going to explain my process and thinking because they asked. But as I start talking they’ll go “I don’t want your excuses!”

This will always come down to their perspectives and opinions. But generally:

- “Reason” They view your response as legitimate
- “Excuse” They view your response as unacceptable

In my view a reason is why you "did" something a certain way and an excuse is why you "didn't" do something a certain way.

I've always understood it to be that a reason is something outside of your control and an excuse is something within your control.

Example: " Why didn't you make this call?" Reason - the phones were down. Excuse - I didn't have enough time or had too much anxiety.

I will say that posting in a bowl for adhd professionals asking for a neurotypical response is probably just getting adhd interpretations of what a neurotypical response would be but these do seem to be pretty good

My dbt based understanding is that reason is based on rational thought and excuse is affiliated with shame and propels defensive reasoning. Like the wise mind practice of approaching the discussion with self confidence in your emotions and honest conviction to create a neutrality that builds understanding. whereas excuses most often than not have a negative influence on the conversation and potentially creates an unwanted power struggle and conflict.

Excuses are reasons for not completing / doing something.

I have the same issue. Was told recently I come across as defensive when answering a question. So, I’ll propose that the rejection sensitivity causes us to view questions as criticisms. So our natural response is defensive? Maybe a neuro typical cares so little about what others think, they assume it’s a compliment and they respond as “no thanks required. This comes naturally for me. Would you like me to teach you how?”
We also tend to not be understood by NTs (we are unusually insightful). So we get used to over explaining.
Let’s see what happens if we assume it’s a compliment. Answer with confidence. —Never complain, never explain—.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behavior/never-complain-never-explain/

This sounds like a poor manager, to be honest.

The reasons are obvious:
1. Process issues
2. Execution issues
3. People issues
4. Expectation issues

The problem isn't WHY your process is how it is. It could be because whoever came up with the process is inexperienced or not sufficiently aware of the implications of how they're doing it.

The more useful questions as a manager are:

1. What's the process? Some of this doesn't meet the requirements, so let's figure out what the processes need to be to cover the gap. (N.B.: just because a process worked well for one person to meet expectations DOES NOT MEAN that the process is perfect and doesn't need adjusting... that previous person was very likely adept at accommodating for the shortfalls of the process - we see this all the time and its usually something they do without noticing - these are the unknown knowns).

If the process seems fine, then we look at execution:

2. Is there anything preventing you from following that process fully? Are there things we need to speed up to get out of your way? Things that need unblocking, other people that need to be pulled into line?

This is where you can identify genuine reasons (things out of your control).

But if that's all unblocked...

3. So what's your day week and month been like? Is this your normal mode? Is there anything we can work on that YOU can improve that would help meet expectations?

(N.B.: this is where excuses kick in)

Then and only then is it really worth asking:

4. Do differently need to be adjusted to accommodate? Can the business afford to do so?

Kindness and compassion vs being an ahole.

In my opinion, a lot of it is ableism. Specifically from neurotypicals/other able-bodied people.

Ive had this problem my whole life. not in a work environment but from my parents even to this day I'll hear my parents say this to my son and I get furious. When they ask a question and I give my honest truth answer, I never understood what drew the line between reason and excuse. Everything that came out of my mouth was just an excuse but if I questioned them they gave reasons. Which was confusing because anything I told them was verifiable and the truth what they would tell me and still tell me doesn't make sense unverifiable and seems to just lessen the responsibility that they have.. after realizing that everything they taught me was pretty much backwards to the truth I've come to the conclusion that a reason is an honest explanation that is typically accepted as valid whereas an excuse is often seen as a way to deflect blame or avoid responsibility and can be viewed skeptically. I'll give examples of the difference:

R: I couldn't attend the meeting because I had a doctor's appointment that I scheduled months ago.

E: I couldn't attend the meeting because I felt too tired even though I had time to rest.

See a reason is an explanation for why something happened or why a decision was made based on facts and provides a rational basis for an action or event.

An excuse is perceived as an attempt to lessen responsibility or avoid blame by offering an explanation that might not be entirely truthful or sufficient.

Characteristics of a reason are objective and acceptable.
It tends to be based on verifiable information or logical reasoning generally seen as legitimate and understandable

Characteristics of an excuse are subjective and avoidance
Often viewed as less credible and more self-serving seen as a way to avoid accountability or responsibility

But when it comes to power dynamics, I often see those who feel like dictators, the ones in charge, the ones who do nothing wrong- often use these words synonymously and don't realize when they do its usually backwards, they do it to establish dominance or superiority.

Soo, not neurotypical, so maybe take the opposite of what I am saying; that usually works.

“An excuse”, if we reframe the term, would be ‘the thing that would excuse one from some thing.’

To that end, a bell excuses the class, and the class was excused by the bell ringing. The excuse for the class leaving is the bell ringing. Maybe it was an electrical error causing all the clocks to read 3:10 and the bell ringing even though the teacher just checked their phone a minute ago and it was 2:54, so they’re mad and yelling down the hall about how school isn’t over yet.

You can be excused and/or ask to be excused in a crowded hall way, “excuse me [please]” after brushing into someone unintentionally. You can be excused from the table, excused from a job, excused from jury duty.

I honestly think the issue here is that most neurotypical people were conditioned to hear excuse and think it means a lie, or an attempt at justification *

*The issue here [in my disorderly opinion] being that neurotypical people almost exclusively use the word justification incorrectly (or… language evolves and I’m the one who is actually using it “wrong” but what I mean is they aren’t referring to the denotation of the word, instead are only referring to the [negative] connotation], and because of that, according to what I’ve seen/heard, to them justification == attempt to justify (presumably a failed or insufficient one). I believe they are inherently opposites.. to justify is to make correct, to align, to bring to account or in accordance with. You can justify text if you want to just keep it simple for a use people still are acquainted with today.

I believe this must be due to phrases like, “don’t attempt to justify yourself” which makes the takeaway “justify bad” being quite understandable in all honesty, albeit incorrect [IMDO]. The original speaker was referring to false justification, an attempt to justify, that specifically *DIDN’T* justify, because say it with me, “Justification is good!”

Attempted robbery -> bad

Robbery -> bad

If Attempted A -> bad
Then “A” itself has to be bad, right?

Attempted justification (A) -> bad? (I mean according to the way the boss was yelling at the neurotypical/their coworker, for sure, definitely bad) bad.

(A) Justification -> bad? (I mean.. if trying to justify is bad, then… justify must be bad, right)?

The above is a blatant logical fallacy and as the neurodivergent who thought it was fun to study philosophical reasoning and literally took a course entitled just “Logic,” it’s one that is a pet peeve of mine that people don’t recognize more easily, but at any rate, the nuance of true justification vs a fraudulent attempt at justification is lost when someone is just yelling “Don’t try to justify yourself!” or “You’re just attempting to justify what you did!” - even if the speaker does know what it means. The takeaway for the listener may be: justification = bad,

I think the main failure is in understanding that “justify yourself” example - true justification can usually only come as a joint effort or consensus. You can’t drive by the bank and throw an envelope of money through the mail slot and proclaim - “I’m all paid up, BYE!” Someone will start running after you to see if you’re okay, or maybe just call the cops, but they definitely aren’t just crediting that to your account and calling it good, and especially not without counting it and/or checking your ID and/or needing your card or account number and/or making you fill out a deposit slip and giving you a receipt.

There needs to be a reconciliation, and even if I may think the processes at banks in person today are a bit archaic, I can understand that it would be even more ludicrous to allow people to self-certify or justify their own account, *especially* if there is a discrepancy or a failure of either party. This is where the nuance gets kind of thick.. if the customer misses a payment, for instance, you can *not* just pay it late - even if it’s the next day - and *expect* everything is good; that you are “justified” or that all is well with your account. Depending on the situation it may be anything from a “We understand, you dont need to do anything else, we appreciate you letting us know it’s on the way and we’ll make a note for your account to not be marked as late, we appreciate your business, have a great day! 😁” OR a simple late notice warning you about potential actions that will be taken against you/your account if payment is not received in X, Y, and/or Z days and maybe even include a statement saying something to the effect of, “if you’ve already sent the payment, we appreciate your business and please disregard this notice” OR a $35 late fee shows up OR they report it to the credit bureaus OR you get an eviction notice or you get served with a lawsuit for breach of contract, but what you *can’t* do is say, “bUt i pAiD” and expect someone to go, “oh, yeah, our bad” as if you weren’t the one to make the mistake. That would be an attempt at justification that would not actually justify, and, without the other party, it is them “trying to justify themselves” instead of appealing to the mercy of the other party, usually involving an expression of apology, and/or a change in behavior, and/or request for leniency, but again, what one *cannot* do is return the car they stole and then go before the judge mad at them for ordering you be brought before them and shout, “I tOoK it bAcK!!”… “,your honor” because that doesn’t right the wrong. Right? So “trying to justify yourself” *is* - at least usually - “bad” simply because it’s wrong (like there’s an argument that it’s ethically/morally wrong, but also I mean more specifically that it’s wrong in that it’s mistaken in that that’s not how it works). One cannot “excuse themselves from the table” just as one cannot “excuse myself” from bumping into you, nor can they do anything else that would make right something they did wrong that caused harm to anyone else.

To give a more practical example, maybe you got pulled over on the way to work. Maybe you had even left early that morning because there was an important meeting. Maybe you didn’t even do anything wrong and were just driving the same make model year and color vehicle as the escaped axe murderer is, but nevertheless, you’re now late for work. You have done nothing wrong, *but* neither has your work/coworkers; something just happened. Things happen. To make things “right” you could text them to ask if the meeting time could be changed, you could even just text them to provide the information as a matter of fact/update without an apology or request for forgiveness, but one can do “their part” in response to the situation - caused by them or otherwise (even if it’s no one’s fault and even if it’s your coworkers fault or someone entirely separate) to rectify the problematic situation. *Similarly,* your coworkers and/or manager, etc.could be flexible on the time, understanding of the situation, start the meeting and catch you up, not be jerks about it. We can all come together to be aligned, united. No one needs to be mad with you, in fact I would go as far as to say there exists an ethical and societal obligation to not be mad with the person who had something bad happen with/to them, *but* if you just walk in, without letting anyone know anything or requesting accommodations of any kind for the thing that happened whether or not it was your fault, and your co-lead on the project gives you an exasperated look and the CEO turns around and kind of shakes his head, you can’t just be like, “I wAs PuLleD OvEr; I gOT heRe As fAsT aS i CoUlD” in a snooty tone and expect everyone else is going to apologize to *you* in response to you attempting to justify yourself and then ask if they can all pause the meeting to make you breakfast.. however, if you went with the doing what you could, and you worked on an especially awesome team, and they decided to postpone the meeting 15 minutes to accommodate you, not exclude you from benefiting from the discussion, not taking away the opportunity for others to benefit from your opinion/insights on their stuff, not have to go over things twice or put undue stress on your co-lead for whatever your part is, etc. and they didn’t really have anything else to do until then, then - and this is not hyperbole - they will all go grab something from a snack area or kitchenette, prep it while responding to emails, and grab an extra for you, and you’ll show up a bit winded and be told the seat with the hot bowl of oatmeal, juice, and banana is for you, because they figured you wouldn’t have time to stop for anything on your way in.

Mileage may vary, of course, and I also want to be beyond explicit in saying that it is not your job (as in a reasonable term of employment) nor is it your ethical, moral, or societal responsibility to individually respond to 32 clients’ emails while you’re on bereavement explaining that you won’t be in the office because you’re on bereavement leave, when you’ll be able, whom they can reach out to if they have any questions or immediate needs, etc. IFF (if and only if) you actually had to be the one to do it - as in, if you had to monitor your email the whole week and regularly take time to individually work to tell them you weren’t able to work. HOWEVER, since, instead, this problem has unsurprisingly been faced before, and we’ve implemented auto responders/vacation mode on every major email provider, it very much *IS* reasonable for your employer/clients to expect such a responder be set up - even if a day or two later - if you’ll be gone for an extended period. Now I want to make something further even less ambiguous, if you’ll take reasonable measures to inform people of X, let them know when you’ll be back, and suggest options to handle intermediate needs, and they respond unreasonably, such as demanding further explanations or details or doing something truly diabolical like asking if HR has approved your absence or attempting to require you to check your email while on leave, then they can by all means continue to send you such emails and you can ignore them without even considering if you need to respond or giving it another second of thought (although practically speaking I do understand how hard that can be for some of us, you are allowed to.. you have done your part). You are, to use another of our vocab words, “excused” from needing to respond to emails you would normally be obliged to. More accurately for the folks who actually know English, I would think the correct subject would more accurately be something like: “The obligation [that you would normally have] is excused [from you]” similar to one being excused from a table.

SO! We’ve come to the answer to your question.. or at least the answer to the question you didn’t ask, which is what it means from a denotational perspective, which is functionally useless for use in modern society, *BUT* I would argue, does at least possibly remove some frustration from having people use these words and terms and ideas and mixing them all up in the way they have decided they should be used, and, therefore, language, as a tool to express what people means, has changed shape to, well.. express what the people mean, even if the words they’re using may have meant the exact opposite not long ago…

An excuse is something that excuses, that is to say it is the noun to the verb, “I don’t want to hear your excuses” *actually means* [in the way my mind would say it in my own head] “I don’t want to hear your attempts at excusing yourself” and to extend the meaning further for clarity’s sake, “I don’t want to hear your attempts at excusing yourself [because that is, according to our current arrangement/relationship/situation, something reserved for me to give [if I choose to do so], not for you to take or decide you do [or even could/can] deserve]” in most cases, just like justification, one cannot excuse themselves, especially where one’s actions harm other people or represent a material failure to fulfill one’s preexisting obligations - even if the proximate cause is not their ‘fault’ - you missing the meeting is still your problem to work with, and knowing you would be late ahead of time definitely suggests there could/would be an obligation to mutate the damage as far as you reasonably/easily can - like sending a quick text once you know, and when you have a minute to safely do so.

An excuse would, does, inherently, excuse.
Someone’s having or ‘making up’ “excuses” is just what we call it since we don’t have another word for ‘the things they wish were an excuse but in most cases aren’t legit’

Justifying, similarly, is something that would result in justifying. So “justifying yourself” would result in “justifying [one]self.” Conversely, when people say “justifying yourself” they mean “[making a failed attempt at] justifying yourself[, because that’s [at least in this and most situations] not even something that’s possible].” Similar to saving your own life with CPR, just isn’t how that works, and could even be satire or used sarcastically, “you’re going to be safe diving along?! What are you going to resuscitate *yourself* if something happens!?” Similarly, “stop trying to justify *yourself*” since that, like CPR, isn’t normally how justification or excusal works.

Also… and this is a tough one.. “even” neurotypical people need some grace sometimes when it comes to emotional/intellectual regulation in professional/societal situations where tensions often run high from pressure coming from all directions; all added to whatever things they are dealing with that day internally.

I see people do things that are counterintuitive every day. I think, okay, but the evidence is beyond clear that yelling at or spanking kids doesn’t teach them to listen, it just makes them unsure you love them unconditionally, which makes them listen less well over time, so are you *sure* you “just want them to listen”😅 - this being an analog for whomever said they don’t want to hear someone’s excuses. I am [over]confident they would say, if asked directly, it is/was because they want the person to perform up to expectations/obligations, and [because cognitive dissonance is stronger than reason] continue the practice after being informed it’s objectively detrimental to do that, and, if they don’t want to go to the effort of handling it effectively, it would be optimal for them to literally not say anything, much less waste their own energy, time, or mental space getting upset about someone else’s perceived failure.

And that leads me to the answer to the second question: A reason is simply an articulation of your thought process.

What was your reasoning when deciding to do what you did? That’s your reason. It might not be a good one (although most people definitely use it that way and call the bad ones ‘excuses’, which as we’ve covered they are definitely not, because a reason would inherently have to be good and fully satisfactory to be an excuse, although, as I mentioned at the start, that is almost certainly the exact opposite of what they’ll be meaning when they say any of these words, so that’s fun. 🙃😵‍💫