If I understand you correctly, you seem to be alluding to the thought that as long as a result is satisfactory (good argumentation), the internal reason for why one has achieved the result is irrelevant?

If so, it is certainly an interesting point. However, I see a potential flaw with it. It would appear to me that withholding the true reasons from yourself for why you desire to achieve a particular result would lead to ingenuity towards yourself.

"I volunteer at the church because I like to spread the word of God" and "I volunteer at the church because spreading the word of God makes me feel validated by like-minded people".

The second reason has introspective soundness to it, and the first one does not. A person who would use the second justification is far more confident with who they are as a person. And as a result, that person would be more likely to remain motivated in their undertaking to achieve the desired result.

If my argument is valid, then my post is certainly not exempt from its conclusions.


That's precisely why I differentiated intellectual validation from social validation.

While most intellectual validation is social validation, not all social validation is intellectual validation.


Are you trying to argue that social validation does not increase one's status within the socioeconomic hierarchy, or are you trying to argue that a high placement within the socioeconomic hierarchy does not increase one's chances of survival?


This entire reply reeks of ignorance.

The concepts of social validation and normative social influence are well studied and play a critical role in modern psychological paradigms.