There are a rule of thumbs in signaling that can be re-applied to excessive apologizing: Listen to what is not being said, as it is stronger than their actions or their words. If they apologize but never change, they are either lazy or deceptive. If they apologize but acts of sincere change are routinely futile, they are dull or clueless. Promises without action (denying reasonable advice and effort) vs action without results (blindly following platitudes). Countersignaling vs Antimemetics.
good comment, another thing to look for is if they're apologising because know they're expected to and what that signals about willingness to coordinate
Willingness to signal coordination vs sincerely too dull to operate signal, is the other core problem. Might need some Carlo Cipolla (Laws of Stupidity) and Venkatesh Rao (Gervais Principle) to help draw boundaries on naivety vs malice. The naive overestimate their own skills (Dunning-Kruger), the expert low-ball their skill level (imposter syndrome), the deceptive will unfittingly excessively complement their victims relative to the skill level and deride others (external locus-of-control). In terms of apologies, being the punching bag vs sincerity to change vs blame-shifting.
There are a rule of thumbs in signaling that can be re-applied to excessive apologizing: Listen to what is not being said, as it is stronger than their actions or their words. If they apologize but never change, they are either lazy or deceptive. If they apologize but acts of sincere change are routinely futile, they are dull or clueless. Promises without action (denying reasonable advice and effort) vs action without results (blindly following platitudes). Countersignaling vs Antimemetics.
good comment, another thing to look for is if they're apologising because know they're expected to and what that signals about willingness to coordinate
Willingness to signal coordination vs sincerely too dull to operate signal, is the other core problem. Might need some Carlo Cipolla (Laws of Stupidity) and Venkatesh Rao (Gervais Principle) to help draw boundaries on naivety vs malice. The naive overestimate their own skills (Dunning-Kruger), the expert low-ball their skill level (imposter syndrome), the deceptive will unfittingly excessively complement their victims relative to the skill level and deride others (external locus-of-control). In terms of apologies, being the punching bag vs sincerity to change vs blame-shifting.
Side note: Hanlon's Razor vs Hanson's Razor have a chain of possibility: conscious malice/opportunism < blind idealism as stupidity < subconscious pragmatism https://archive.ph/eiHg5 https://archive.ph/QCx32 https://archive.ph/kfWgT