outcome]." In response to an accusation: "At least I didn't [worse action than accused action]." As a form of false choice: "Doing [undesirable action] is a lot better than [a worse action]." In response to unfair or abusive behaviour from a separate individual or group to the person: "I must have done something wrong if they treat me like this." Based on anecdotal and survey evidence, John Banja states that the medical field features a disproportionate amount of rationalization invoked in the "covering up" of mistakes. Common excuses made are: "Why disclose the error? The patient was going to die anyway." "Telling the family about the error will only make them feel worse." "It was the patient's fault. If he wasn't so (sick, etc.), this error wouldn't have caused so much harm." "Well, we did our best. These things happen." "If we're not totally and absolutely certain the error caused the harm, we don't have to tell." "They're dead anyway, so there's no point in blaming anyone." In 2018, Muel Kaptein and Martien van Helvoort developed a model, called the Amoralizations Alarm Clock, that covers all existing amoralizations in a logical way. Amoralizations, also called neutralizations, or rationalizations, are defined as justifications and excuses for deviant behavior. Amoralizations are important explanations for the rise and persistence of deviant behavior. There exist many different and overlapping techniques of amoralizations.A Model of Neutralization Techniques Collective Collective rationalizations are regularly constructed for acts of aggression, based on exaltation of the in-group and demonization of the opposite side: as Fritz Perls put it, "Our own soldiers take care of the poor families; the enemy rapes them". Celebrity culture can be seen as rationalizing the gap between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, by offering participation to both dominant and subaltern views of reality. Criticism Some scientists criticize the notion that brains are wired to rationalize irrational decisions, arguing that evolution would select against spending more nutrients at mental processes that do not contribute to the improvement of decisions, such as rationalization of decisions that would have been taken anyway. These scientists argue that rationalizing causes one to learn less rather than learn more from their mistakes, and they criticize the hypothesis that rationalization evolved as a means of social manipulation by noting that if rational arguments were deceptive, there would be no evolutionary chance for breeding individuals that responded to the arguments and therefore