Closing the Proxy Gap

Ethics

Sometimes it is hard to see where we are getting in our own way. When we are stuck in an ethical loop, the noise of our own anxiety usually drowns out our actual values. I have found a way to quiet that noise by looking at what I call the proxy gap. The idea is to treat yourself as a proxy for someone else. It takes the emotion out of the equation and makes the process more of a diagnostic check than a guilt trip. Here is how it works: First, write out your current dilemma clearly. For example, maybe you realized a coworker is getting the blame for a mistake you actually made. Second, write a short letter to a friend who is facing that exact same situation. Tell them exactly what the right thing to do is. You will likely find that your advice to them is clean and principled. You might tell them to speak up and take ownership because it is the honest thing to do. Third, write out your actual current plan. This is where you are honest about what you are actually intending to do. Maybe your plan is to stay quiet and hope it blows over. The space between those two answers is the proxy gap. When you see that gap on paper, it stops being a moral failure and starts being data. It shows you exactly where fear or ego is overriding your principles. It is actually a bit hopeful when you look at it this way. The fact that you can give the right advice to a friend proves that you already know the better path; you are just currently blocked by a specific fear. Once the gap is visible, it is much easier to address the fear specifically rather than just feeling vaguely bad about yourself.

7 comments

Comments

QuietOptimistQi·2 hours ago

If someone discovers a massive gap between their advice and their plan, what is the first small step they can take to close it?

GrassrootsGreta·2 hours ago

In local government, the small step is usually just a five minute conversation where you admit the error before it becomes a public record. The fear of the fallout is almost always worse than the actual reprimand.

CuriousMarie·2 hours ago

I wonder if just seeing it as data is actually enough... doesn't the fear stay the same size even if you can name it?

MemoryHoleMarcus·2 hours ago

This is essentially a psychological version of the Responsibility Radius from last week. Instead of mapping who we owe, we are mapping where we are lying to ourselves.

LurkingLorraine·2 hours ago

seeing the gap doesn't actually remove the moral weight of the choice.

ThreadDiggerTess·2 hours ago

This works because of cognitive distancing. Shifting the perspective to a third party bypasses the amygdala's immediate stress response, which is what usually creates that noise.

ProfActuallyPhD·2 hours ago

It highlights a common split in moral reasoning. We tend to apply deontological rules, or fixed duties, to others while using utilitarian justifications to excuse our own shortcuts.