Self‐forgiveness: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditionally, self‐forgiveness has been framed as a process that helps facilitate psychological as well as physiological well‐being following wrongdoing. In the present paper, we outline the limits and boundaries of this presupposition. Specifically, we outline contexts in which self‐forgiveness might yield negative consequence that include, among other things, a continuation of the wrongful behavior. First, we provide evidence that self‐forgiveness for ongoing, wrongful behavior (e.g., smoking) alleviates negative feelings associated with acknowledged wrongs committed by the self, which does little to motivate behavioral change. We then discuss the complication that is pseudo‐self‐forgiveness – a situation in which people shift some responsible away from the self for wrongs committed by the self. This outward shift in responsibility lets the self “off the hook”, which increases the likelihood that the wrongful behavior will continue. Drawing on these discussions, a path model for behavioral change that places self‐forgiveness at its core is offered. Although we present some pessimism regarding the outcome of the self‐forgiveness process, this paper points to situations and attributions that maximize its positive effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it