I think that former presidents of the United States (including the current president) "do not apologize" as a rule.

It's like, 'If I apologize, I lose.

They are such a stand-up guy that 'if I apologize, I lose' and 'if I admit it, I lose.

This situation is a national trait that has taken root in the United States.

However, my feeling is different.

------

I was in the U.S. for only two years, 20 years ago, but I have never felt a culture that says 'apology is a loss.

They would usually say "I'm sorry" to me when they delayed their work or if there was a problem (bug) with what they were making (programs, etc.).

I may not have encountered such a situation.

The only difference is that our Japanese team did not take a "blame the other party" attitude when there were delays or bugs in the work.

I think it was different in that I treated them as if they were 'Ebata (or the team) is in trouble' (they were actually in trouble), and I treated them in a way that said, "I want you to help me (us)."

In other words, I think that the difference between apologizing and not apologizing is not a matter of "culture" but rather a matter of "position" or "communication" - though this is only a hypothesis.

I would be happy if someone could verify this or refer me to a previous study.

-----

In contrast, in Japan, the leader of the ruling party constantly apologizes in the media for money and politics.

This situation is the opposite of those above: 'If I apologize, I win.

Our country's culture seems to be 'if I apologize, I win' and 'if I walk away, they forgive me. '

I wonder whether this is correct.

I feel that "apology" is often used as a superficial response.

-----

For example--

The man who is now a pundit in the media and who had served prison sentences in the past seemed "humble as if a person had changed" after release from prison, but now, there is no shadow of that person, and they are entirely "back to when they were before" they were released.

Another man who was ordered to pay a large amount of compensation by a domestic court and moved his residence to France (fled?) seems to have escaped the compensation by taking advantage of the legal territoriality principle and is still active as a public speaker and making money.

(By the way, a former U.S. president has bankrupted his business "five times" to escape massive debt.)

Incidentally, I have low sensitivity to "justice" and "morals", but I overreact when it comes to "money".

In general, I can say that "apology" is an effective "on-the-spot" response, but its duration is terribly "short.

-----

When I make an argument for something on my own, I take "justice" or "morality" as my starting point, but the argument for that argument is "logic" and "calculation."

Of course, "anger" and "displeasure" are in the background, but I don't put them at the forefront. I argue under the skin (or interface) of "logic" and "calculation.

The reason for this detour is that, as noted above, "justice," "morality," "anger," and "displeasure," though intense, are the duration time is short.

In comparison, "logic" and "calculation" have a longer duration (smaller decay constant), even if their impact is weaker.

So, in my columns and blogs, I build up the "Fukushima nuclear accident," the "Unification Association," and the "unreasonable words my boss said to me" with such precision and detail that I will never, ever forget them.

"At least, just me (Ebata), so I would not forget the "anger" at that time."

It differs slightly from "lying in bed(*)," but the approach is the same.

(*) To endure hardship in anticipation of future success. The word comes from the meaning of lying on firewood and licking the bitter taste. The original meaning was to suffer hardship and toil to avenge the shame of defeat.

-----

I also naturally apologize in situations where I should.

However, the meaning and significance of my apology are pretty different from those of the above apology.

I have discussed this often, so I will not discuss it today.