This is important We don’t spend enough time thinking about WHY values drift or rule-violations get normalized. Use of “deviance” as a descriptor implies that the initial stated rule is correct and the deviations are undesirable. I’d argue that this is rarely the case—most rules and procedures are both oversimple (don’t cover many common situations) and incorrect (are not optimal even for common situations).
IMO, if you’re trying to establish a habit or live up to an ideal, there are two types of exception: those that actually improve the outcome (whatever reasons you have for trying those things), and those that recognize tradeoffs not considered in the initial establishment. The first kind of exception is good, IMO—you can meet your goal better with a more complicated model. The second kind can be good or bad, depending on your weighting of the tradeoffs.
This is important We don’t spend enough time thinking about WHY values drift or rule-violations get normalized. Use of “deviance” as a descriptor implies that the initial stated rule is correct and the deviations are undesirable. I’d argue that this is rarely the case—most rules and procedures are both oversimple (don’t cover many common situations) and incorrect (are not optimal even for common situations).
IMO, if you’re trying to establish a habit or live up to an ideal, there are two types of exception: those that actually improve the outcome (whatever reasons you have for trying those things), and those that recognize tradeoffs not considered in the initial establishment. The first kind of exception is good, IMO—you can meet your goal better with a more complicated model. The second kind can be good or bad, depending on your weighting of the tradeoffs.