![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sinviciousYes. What you are describing is a well-documented cluster of psychological reactions associated with forced or poorly prepared relocation. It is not a single diagnosis, but a convergence of several established mechanisms in psychology and behavioral economics.
Below is a structured explanation using the language typically employed in clinical, social, and migration psychology.
1. Cognitive dissonance and post-hoc rationalization
When individuals leave a country impulsively—often under fear, social pressure, or incomplete planning—they frequently encounter outcomes that contradict their expectations:
This creates cognitive dissonance:
“I made a major life decision” vs “The outcome is worse than staying.”
To reduce psychological discomfort, the mind often resolves this not by reassessing the decision, but by reframing the past:
This is classic self-justification, not objective reassessment.
2. Identity collapse after geographic displacement
Many people confuse mobility with migration competence.
Travel ≠ immigration
Escape ≠ resettlement
When people relocate without:
they experience identity degradation:
A common defense against this identity loss is externalization:
This preserves ego integrity at the cost of realism.
3. Moral superiority as a coping mechanism
A frequent pattern is retrospective moralization:
This is not ideological clarity—it is ego protection under loss.
4. Loss aversion and sunk-cost entrapment
Once significant savings are spent abroad, the individual faces loss aversion:
So the psyche doubles down:
This is textbook sunk-cost fallacy, expressed emotionally rather than financially.
5. Trauma-amplified black-and-white thinking
In crisis contexts (war, repression, instability), decision-making often occurs under acute stress.
Stress narrows cognition:
Result:
“Leaving = good”
“Staying = bad”
Later, when reality intrudes, this binary is defended aggressively because relaxing it would reopen the original fear.
6. Why this is especially visible now
This phenomenon intensifies when:
The rhetoric changes; the psychology does not.
7. A concise clinical summary
What you are observing is not hypocrisy, but a combination of:
People are often arguing with themselves, not with the country they left.
Final note
A psychologically healthy migration narrative usually includes:
When denunciation becomes compulsive, it is typically a signal of unresolved internal conflict, not clarity.
Below is a structured explanation using the language typically employed in clinical, social, and migration psychology.
1. Cognitive dissonance and post-hoc rationalization
When individuals leave a country impulsively—often under fear, social pressure, or incomplete planning—they frequently encounter outcomes that contradict their expectations:
- Financial depletion (“burning cash” rather than building capital)
- Loss of social status and professional identity
- Cultural marginalization rather than “freedom” or “safety”
This creates cognitive dissonance:
“I made a major life decision” vs “The outcome is worse than staying.”
To reduce psychological discomfort, the mind often resolves this not by reassessing the decision, but by reframing the past:
- Devaluing the motherland (“there was nothing there anyway”)
- Moralizing departure (“only fools stayed”)
- Rewriting motives (“I left for values, not fear or impulse”)
This is classic self-justification, not objective reassessment.
2. Identity collapse after geographic displacement
Many people confuse mobility with migration competence.
Travel ≠ immigration
Escape ≠ resettlement
When people relocate without:
- transferable skills,
- language capital,
- legal and economic integration pathways,
they experience identity degradation:
- Former professionals become marginal labor
- Social recognition collapses
- Agency is replaced by dependency
A common defense against this identity loss is externalization:
- Blaming the home country
- Blaming those who stayed
- Blaming “systems” rather than preparation gaps
This preserves ego integrity at the cost of realism.
3. Moral superiority as a coping mechanism
A frequent pattern is retrospective moralization:
- “Leaving proves I am smarter / more ethical / more enlightened”
- “Staying proves cowardice / ignorance / complicity”
- Converts economic or social failure into moral success
- Prevents the painful admission: “I misjudged my readiness”
This is not ideological clarity—it is ego protection under loss.
4. Loss aversion and sunk-cost entrapment
Once significant savings are spent abroad, the individual faces loss aversion:
- Admitting error would crystallize the loss
- Returning would mean accepting failure
So the psyche doubles down:
- Justifying continued hardship
- Amplifying criticism of the origin country
- Minimizing new country’s structural barriers
This is textbook sunk-cost fallacy, expressed emotionally rather than financially.
5. Trauma-amplified black-and-white thinking
In crisis contexts (war, repression, instability), decision-making often occurs under acute stress.
Stress narrows cognition:
- Nuance disappears
- Ambivalence becomes intolerable
- Complex trade-offs are simplified into binaries
Result:
“Leaving = good”
“Staying = bad”
Later, when reality intrudes, this binary is defended aggressively because relaxing it would reopen the original fear.
6. Why this is especially visible now
This phenomenon intensifies when:
- Migration is mass-driven rather than selective
- Social media amplifies performative narratives
- Exit is framed as virtue rather than strategy
- Political exiles
- Economic refugees with middle-class expectations
- Post-imperial emigration waves
The rhetoric changes; the psychology does not.
7. A concise clinical summary
What you are observing is not hypocrisy, but a combination of:
- Cognitive dissonance reduction
- Ego-defensive moralization
- Identity loss compensation
- Sunk-cost rationalization
- Stress-induced simplification
People are often arguing with themselves, not with the country they left.
Final note
A psychologically healthy migration narrative usually includes:
- Acceptance of trade-offs
- Recognition of preparation gaps
- Ability to acknowledge both loss and gain
- No need to denigrate those who made different choices
When denunciation becomes compulsive, it is typically a signal of unresolved internal conflict, not clarity.