Ok, had a breath of fresh air.
So, there are two ‘yous’ - one, the external you, which everyone sees. This you is demonstrated by actions, including speech actions, which everyone can observe/hear. And two, the internal you, which is the monologue you produce when you ask yourself, or more likely a questionnaire in a magazine asks you “what kind of person are you…?”
Which is the ‘real’ you…? Depends who’s answering.
We rationalize for two reasons, one personal, one social. Both though, stem from the same cause. Trust.
Say I’ve known Jim for ages. We met in “Don’t punch kids in the face club” back in '92. One day however, we’re walking down the street talking crap about some crap on tv. Then Jim just turns round and punches this cute little girl right into next week. Her lollipop lands next to most of her teeth on the floor.
Holy crap I think. Jim’s never done that before. In fact, most of my friendship with Jim is based on us not being the kind of people who punch kids in the face. Oh noes, my wasted emotional investment. Who is this guy…? I mean, shit, If he can do that - right out of the blue like that - he… he… could do anything…
Jim starts to splutter, “I, I never told you this Bob… but you see that girl’s dress yeah…? You see it’s an unusual combination of plaid and magenta…? That, that’s the exact colour that my abusive babysitter used to wear whenever she beat me as a child, I guess… I guess… I just lashed out… Oh God, I’m so sorry.”
Now, after that rationalization I can amend my view of Jim from “ex-friend, unpredictable maniac, do not approach.” To “friend, predictable, beware of color aversion, otherwise trustworthy.” I’m happy because via this social mechanic, I can retain my useful possession, ie. the object I denote as ’ my friend jim’ in which I have invested much time, and maybe some money. Loss aversion avoided - win.
From jim’s pov. his novel action, out of nowhere, deeply disturbed his internal sense of self. Cognitive dissonance hurts. So to mend the giant plot-hole that just exploded out of nowhere in his personal narrative, he instinctively rationalized. When we say cognitive dissonance, what do we mean…? This where our ‘to be in two minds’ bit comes in, the cake/not cake selves. Immediate desire, and long term planner. Any long term planner self has very much invested in the idea that 'the me I was last week, will be the same me as next week." You can’t make a plan about anything if the major variable involved (yourself in this case) is something you can’t predict.
So, to restore the trust essential to personal function Jim must immediately square away the unprecedented action of his ‘live’ self with his “planner” self. In rationalizing, by adding a condition to his self-observed action “I randomly punch kids” to turn it into “I only punch kids wearing magenta plaid” he’s allowed his planner self to trust his live self again, and get back to planning ahead, though now with an added proviso in the user-manual.
Whether the rationalization is actually true or not, doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is a), Jim is able to function on a personal basis, and b) Jim can function in the social arena without ostracism.
The little girl actually turned out to be an evil alien clone, shaped like a little girl. So that’s ok.