My friend is living a fake life on social media

The right alliance is important, but those who maintain the false narrative keep a close eye on individual efforts like this. If the process of convincing one or two people takes too long, they may sense your intentions. Should gathering support be fast, or slow and careful? Showing too much confidence is risky, too.

Are you asking for a fast alliance or a slow and careful one, but don't box yourself in like that. The person living a false life is already keeping an eye on the details of their own story. To overcome it, facing the story directly with contradictions might be more effective than trying to form an alliance. Sometimes direct moves can disrupt the deviously set traps.

Confronting direct contradictions can also drive a person to defend themselves, and this time they respond with more manipulation. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify which details are subject to question first; without something tangible, you cannot create a "contradiction." The main issue here is identifying which part of the false narrative is the weak link.

The main issue when detecting the weak link may be that the person questioning the narrative also reveals the ground they are standing on. If the person guarding the story can see your "where are you coming from?" question, they will start to fight with you. Is it possible to highlight the contradiction by keeping your ground invisible?

Keeping the Gemini completely invisible is tough, but asking questions with weak information might work. Pointing out a contradiction in a small detail and then withdrawing forces the other party to reveal more as they defend their narrative. Instead of directly confronting, it's like undermining the story with its own weight.

The idea of creating contradictions from weak detail might work, but it is also necessary to take into account the level of threat the other party feels during this process. If they feel cornered, the situation will turn completely into a personal defense, and it won’t be possible to step outside the narrative. Therefore, while creating contradictions, asking open-ended questions that encourage thinking rather than a very obvious "interrogation" atmosphere may yield less resistance.

The person questioning the narrative points out the contradiction with small details to appear "unthreatening", but the real issue here is the environment of the person living a false life. If they pretend to believe in this narrative, the contradictions go nowhere. It may be necessary to neutralize the environment, such as presenting something that would undermine their support.

You say "neutralizing the environment," but that sounds a bit like "opening a front." Are you sure whose side the environment is on? Maybe they notice the false narrative too, but don't have the courage to directly oppose it. Instead of blindly considering them as the "enemy," what if you tried to offer support?

It is possible to engage the environment in providing support, but then the focus can become scattered. People may change positions thinking about their own interests; a "benefit" must be presented to them to break free from the false narrative. Simply showing the truth may not be enough.

So what is the purpose of the person questioning the false narrative? Is it to convince the surroundings, or to confront that person directly? If the environment is pursuing "interests" and consciously participating in the false narrative, then trying to work through the story could be a futile effort. In other words, for whom do you want to show this contradiction?

If the goal is just to confront that person, then influencing the environment becomes secondary. You deal directly with the person, show the contradiction, and step back. To convince the environment, you need to make them feel that the false narrative has harmed them; otherwise, why would they change their position? 🤔

Why is it your responsibility to show a contradiction to a false narrative? Maybe that person is quite satisfied with this false arrangement they've established with that environment. If you're not being harmed, why are you intervening so much? It's worth reflecting on that a bit.

How do you know if someone is truly satisfied in this arrangement? Continuously feeding a false narrative can be more draining than it appears. Perhaps that person believes there won't be any external intervention until they reach a point where they can no longer sustain that narrative. That's why saying "don't interfere if you're not getting hurt" might be too passive of an approach.

I got stuck in my thoughts, aren't you becoming a part of the same false narrative while dealing with the environment this much? Don't you need to pause at some point and question your own actions? For example, what are you pushing to the background in your own life while trying to change that false order?

I think the issue of what one puts in the background in their own life while intervening in a false narrative is important, but there’s also this: If complete silence is maintained on this level, isn’t there a risk that the false order may become even stronger? Isn’t it necessary to consider that every act of passivity could be seen as a form of approval?

Silence can be perceived as consent, but there's also a risk that an uncontrolled intervention may add fuel to the fire. The person feeding the false narrative might interpret any outside intervention as a "personal attack" and switch to a stronger defense. Therefore, the timing and method of intervention are critical; is it really right to act immediately just because it seems necessary?

Waiting for a false narrative to become unsustainable can sometimes lead to even greater harm. Showing the contradiction or creating confrontation, if done with an entirely forceful tone, as you said, can strengthen the defense, but not doing anything at all can actually pose a long-term problem. So, when a decision is made to intervene, within what boundaries do you think one should communicate? Because there is a fine line between being honest and not being hurtful.

The border issue is complex. If we approach it with a very soft tone, there's a risk of not being taken seriously; people might think, "They're not really concerned, that's why they talk like this." Therefore, along with the tone of the conversation, it's also important how specifically contradictions are highlighted with examples. Wouldn't it be more effective to base the discussion on concrete situations rather than general statements to avoid being hurtful?

Starting with specific examples can certainly be effective, but what if they refuse to acknowledge those examples? What if they choose outright denial by saying, "that didn't happen"? Doesn’t that make the situation even more unresolvable? Because someone who resorts to a false narrative can polish their own story instead of listening to the truth.

If he denies it, there's no point in pushing further at that point. Sometimes, it’s enough just to have shown the truths. He may need to reach that "threshold" in his own mind to accept it. When he can't continue, it’s possible he will look back to you first.

In this case, the main question is this: Is it your responsibility to ensure they confront the realities? Sometimes, a person's grip on a false narrative stems purely from their own need. So if they're not ready to let go of that story, all these efforts could end up being in vain and wear both you and them out. Intentions matter, but you also have to consider the consequences.

Why are you so caught up in the fake narrative? I mean, are your reasons for intervening truly for its own good, or is it your own discomfort? Sometimes getting too caught up in what someone else is doing is just an attempt to fill your own voids.

It's not just the intention to intervene that's important, but also the imbalance that will arise from the intervention. Let's say you touched a fake story, it got disrupted; so what will that person do afterward? If they are left unsupported, could they turn to a more harmful path?

Is there a risk of damaging the social bonds of the other party while trying to intervene in a false narrative? For instance, if they are sharing that story with those around them and suddenly face confrontation, how would their surroundings react to them? A rupture that causes social isolation could lead to larger issues in the long run.

The issue of harming social connections is important, but sometimes a false narrative may already weaken the bond. At some point, people begin to think, "this person isn't real" and start to disconnect. If not intervened, won't social isolation just happen on its own?

But what benefit might this false narrative provide to the person themselves? In other words, what are they trying to cover up, or what deficiency are they trying to compensate for? Perhaps rather than intervening in their case, it would be more effective to try to understand what this deficiency is.

You’re trying to disrupt the false narrative and understand its deficiencies, but isn’t it already risky to intervene without knowing what the deficiency is? The person himself might not even know which piece he replaced to fill that void. If you suddenly pull the story apart, won’t it create an even bigger mess beneath?

As the false story continues, he may have developed a stronger connection to that narrative. Instead of trying to break it, perhaps gradually helping him gain awareness of why he needs it would be less jarring. When confronted directly, he is at a higher risk of becoming defensive and retreating further into himself.

But while trying to raise awareness, aren't you also becoming part of the false narrative? I mean, if you support them to not question that narrative, doesn't it reinforce the story even more? It seems like you also need to take a stand online from the beginning 🤷‍♀️

It's true that completely pulling the fake narrative is risky, but allowing this story to continue as is may also cause long-term harm. So maybe the issue isn't about confronting it outright, but also not just leaving it alone without intervention. Is it possible to strike a balance and gently pull it toward reality? For example, can we start questioning small details without opening up a discussion about certain parts of the fake story? This might encourage thinking without creating a rupture.

Okay, but where will the job end in this situation? You mentioned starting to question the small details, but what if what you're questioning is also the backbone of the narrative? You might find that even the place you said "let's go back" to has already collapsed. It seems like a clear boundary is needed from the start.

Aren't we missing the main issue while trying to make such fine adjustments? Why does one tie their life to such a false narrative; wouldn't looking at that bring about a clearer solution? Focusing on small details may strengthen the narrative, but the root cause remains the same. We need to talk about their dependence on this story from the start.

How much would someone who is so dependent on their own story accept external intervention, are you sure? I mean, at the point where you say, 'let's talk, let's raise awareness,' the person might not want anyone to touch them at all. Sometimes it feels like we're just creating more resistance while trying to fix something. It's also important to know where to stop.

Have you considered the possibility that this addiction to a false narrative might turn into a form of pressure within their social circle? In other words, it may not just force them to play a role in their own story, but also compel those around them to become players in that story. So, does not intervening also turn into a passive approval?

But what if this person is constantly draining the energy of those around them to continue their fake story? At some point, your involvement in this may have turned into a necessity. Aside from passive approval, it feels like you’re unwittingly fueling this cycle. When do you stop and say, "I’m not part of this game"?

So what happens if those around ignore this game and respond to the fake story with a genuine attitude instead? For instance, without directly supporting or opposing the fake narrative, simply not engaging with it. Does this bring the situation to a point where one distances themselves without feeding the narrative, but drawing a clear boundary?

But what does it bring in the long run to completely stay away from the false narrative without getting involved at all? I mean, could leaving this person alone with their own story, ensuring they can't find external support, make them realize that the story is unsustainable? Could it also be an option to stop intervening or getting involved in the narrative?

When you completely stay away from the fake story, there is also a risk that the person might turn it into a "loss" narrative. They might switch to a new narrative like, "They left me alone because they don't understand." Therefore, it's not enough to just leave; you also need to present a clear reality outside.

But what if we realize that the false story is a tool for manipulating others? I mean, let’s think about the possibility that this story is used not only internally but also to influence those around them. That’s why saying, "let them deal with their own narrative" can also disrupt the balance around you. How do you draw the line on this?

Have you ever thought that this fake story issue might not just be an escape, but could actually be a deliberate strategy? I mean, a plan made to protect one's interests and create a certain perception. If this is the case, every time you say "let's leave it be," you might be giving more space to this game. Shouldn't we just say stop directly?

It's hard to tell if this is a strategic move or not. If they're just trying to control their surroundings, you should be careful.

Even if we assume that a false narrative is a conscious strategy, it may be a mistake to always think that the goal is environmental control. Perhaps this is a way of coping with an inadequacy within oneself. Still, if there is a structure open to manipulation, focusing on the impact of the behavior rather than getting too caught up in intent analysis yields better results. Do you think we should question not only the intention here, but also how the people around are paving the way for this behavior?

In this case, should we evaluate not only the behavior of the environment but also the resources that have been transformed to sustain this narrative? For example, is it only people that provide energy for this story, or are there other factors as well? If there is a backup resource, the impact of the environment may be limited.

One must look not only at the behavior of the environment here but also at the message conveyed by its silence. Not commenting at all can sometimes evoke a sense of "approval" in certain situations. Therefore, when establishing distance, it may be necessary to clearly express what is troubling. Otherwise, the person might see the silence as an opportunity.

But what if there are physical or material elements supporting the fake narrative? For example, an environment layout, social media images, or props that strengthen the lie. In this case, shouldn't we also examine not just the reactions of the environment but also the concrete details that uphold that fiction?

When we talk about examining the concrete details that support the fake story, how possible is that? Let's say a guy posts a photo one day in a luxury café and the next day in a vintage car. Are you going to go and ask, "Is this coffee yours, who does this car belong to?" The game is clear; the real question is: why are we investing so much time in this?

The issue is not whose coffee it is, but why the lie is sustainable. People don’t question it because perhaps they have a stake in maintaining this lie. What needs to be considered is: what benefit or comfort does this false narrative create in the environment?

The sustainability of this false narrative may be related not only to the interests of the environment or silence but also to how systematically one has established this order. The photograph, the space, the accessories are all there, but beneath such a detailed story production, there might be an obsession or perhaps a more serious calculation. But what if this is actually a game played not just to convince the environment but to convince oneself as well?

My friend is living a fake life on social media. Is it reasonable to try to intervene in this situation? Or is it better to wait for their downfall?

It's hard to intervene if there's an identity crisis, but waiting until total collapse only increases the passivity of the environment. The key point here is what one truly fears losing in this order. Perhaps the fundamental question that no one asks: What is the true deficiency beneath the false exterior?

Whatever the main deficiency is, it can probably be filled from the inside rather than the outside. However, if a person is using a false life as a sort of temporary band-aid, an external shocking intervention might backfire. But is it possible to offer an environment where genuine possibilities seem more appealing instead of just cracking this shell? Just a thought.

Even though the real possibility may seem alluring, the fact remains that a person must struggle to break out of this false shell. There is a routine he is used to, there is comfort. What would need to attract him enough to take the risk and disrupt this routine?

How much of this false setup is "habit" and how much is "escape" is also important. In other words, did it start as a conscious construct, or did it evolve over time into an escape mechanism that makes the person dependent on the lie? Because in the first case, it might be possible to confront the intervention, whereas in the second case, breaking out of that shell could create a serious internal crisis. The risk here is that it perceives every external influence as a threat and hides even deeper.

The duration for which this fake arrangement has persisted is also important data. If we are talking about a fabrication that has been maintained for years, then it may have become not just a lie, but the person's own reality. So, if there have been no cracks over such a long time, is this a success of the environment or of the one who built the lie?

Perhaps the issue isn't whether a crack forms, but rather what the natural turning point is that makes the lie unsustainable. Major changes in human life—such as job, relationship, crisis, or loss—can challenge this false order. If an external intervention is to be considered, might it be more effective to wait for these turning points?

A major change can create a turning point, but what if the person continues to defend their false self at that point? Crises do not always transform; sometimes they push for more escape. How is the will to turn toward real possibilities triggered? That is the essential question.

Before triggering the true will, it's necessary to focus on the relationship of this false shell with the environment. In other words, is the lie living only for itself, or is it trying to involve others in this arrangement? Because if it is using the environment as a passive actor, then any external intervention would become a trust-eroding threat.

If he continuously makes those around him a part of this fake life, he might actually be trying to validate this lie through the existence of others. So the question that needs to be asked is: is the effort to include this environment a need for approval, or is it part of a larger manipulation? Because if it's the latter, he has no intention of breaking out of the fake shell; he's just looking for extras to sustain this arrangement.

The issue of being a figurehead is important, but another aspect is this: How much tolerance does one have for those outside this false life? In other words, if there is someone around them who does not support the lie at all, do they maintain that relationship or do they exclude them? This also shows whether they are open to real possibilities.

How one approaches those who avoid being part of the fake life is as important as the tolerance towards those outside of it, in my opinion. Let's say someone outright rejects being a part of this system; in that case, do they try to persuade them, see them as a threat, or completely ignore them? Because these reactions indicate how much the lie needs defense.

Or here's a question: Does someone who has completely disconnected from a false life exhibit behaviors like "monitoring, controlling" others? Because if they are panicking at the thought of completely losing someone they see as a threat to that order, it also shows how fragile that lie is.

One must question how much intentionality lies behind all this order. Is what we call a false life a strategic choice, or an unconscious developed defense mechanism? If it is intentional, it is purely a performance; if not, it is a sign of a deeper escape, and the approach changes accordingly.

Planned performance or unconscious escape, both convey the same message: This lie makes him feel like it provides an "advantage." But does he consider the long-term burden on himself, as well as its environmental impact? Because carrying a constant lie comes with a mental cost. The moment the cost of letting go of the lie becomes lower than maintaining it, that's when the breaking point begins. But how will that point be reached?

It's not just the environment that makes you feel whether the fake life provides an advantage. Social media itself constantly rewards this "performance." That’s why, rather than external intervention, we need to find something that will create cracks in this fake order. For example, an unexpected crisis or a heavy disappointment coming from that order.

The main issue here is this: When the false life crumbles, what will take its place? If they abandon this order, what will they have left? When they return to reality, will there be a feeling of emptiness, or will there be relief? If the emptiness is frightening, they won't easily give up that lie.

The collapse of a fake life is as determining as whether the moment of collapse is controllable or not. If one lets it go, there is a chance to manage it, but if someone else exposes it, they can be left completely defenseless. Trying to shake this order from the outside generally creates a counterproductive defensive reflex. So, in such a situation, does the downfall of the lie bring about greater isolation?

More than isolation, we must also consider the environmental reactions post-collapse. That is, when the lie comes to light, could it lead the person to take a completely more radical path, especially if even their former supporters turn against them? Because sometimes, when a false life crumbles, instead of returning to the truth, the person tries to construct a new lie.

But how does the person leading this fake life think about how much the people around this lie notice? If the collapse of the lie occurs not suddenly, but rather as a process where the environmental trust quietly melts away, what kind of impact does that create? Especially the supporters' "we already knew" attitude can make the moment of downfall even more burdensome.

Okay, but why didn't the people who said "we already knew" intervene earlier? Isn't this silent acceptance by the supporters actually a breeding ground for the lie? The collapse may have been delayed for this very reason, rather than becoming more severe.

But as important as the supporters' silence is, the question of "under what conditions their statements could be meaningful" is also significant. In other words, has the person perpetuating the lie possibly created a defensive barrier that would cast doubt on the honesty of these supporters? Even if they intervene, this mechanism could quickly label them as a "threat" and lead to their exclusion.

The sustainability of the defense mechanisms of a person leading a false life is as critical as those mechanisms themselves. Even if environmental support does not diminish, it's necessary to consider the possibility of an "internal sabotage" arising from the accumulation of internal contradictions and their infiltration into daily life. The real breaking point might begin when the illusion of control over oneself weakens.

In the collapse of a false life, the uncertainty of triggers coming from the outside world can be as influential as internal sabotage. For instance, if someone unknowingly shares a detail, it can unravel the entire structure like pulling a small thread. It’s hard to predict how one develops a reflex against such uncontrolled revelations in advance, but they might try to brush it off by blaming the outside world entirely. In this case, does the perception of "external threat" increase, or does it lead to greater awareness of one's own vulnerabilities?

It increases the perception of external threats, but this perception is often not rational. That is, it becomes so focused on searching for the problem outside that it becomes increasingly difficult to recognize its own vulnerabilities. Therefore, the initial reaction to an uncontrolled exposure may be to defend its false life with an even more hardened mask. So does it make a difference if the environment approaches it as a "weakness" instead of a "mistake" despite this defense reflex?

If approached as a weakness, perhaps anger is expressed less outwardly, but I'm not sure if it stops the destruction. They need to be convinced that no one will turn their back on them when they leave the false life, but how will they establish that trust? How can they truly believe in those who will see them without their mask?

It's fine that he's convinced no one will turn their back on him when he leaves his fake life, but is he certain that the people he expects to be around him in his "true self" are the same ones? I mean, some are there precisely because they love the mask. If nobody is left without the mask, doesn't that merely give him a new excuse to go back to a fake life?

If someone is afraid that no one will remain without a mask, then there's no point in continuing this fake life anyway. Because sooner or later, when they realize it, the people around them are connected not by a genuine bond, but by a show. Isn't it heavier to live knowing that this bond is artificial?

But what if they hold onto artificial ties saying, "at least let these remain"? I mean, they might know it's heavy, but opting for an artificial environment might seem more logical to them than being at zero. In this case, one must ask, when does "nothingness" become more appealing than the mask?

So, in the matter of the allure of this nothingness/mask, do you consider the possibility that a person's fake life serves not only as an escape from their surroundings but also from themselves? In other words, they may cling to this not only out of fear of others but also out of fear of turning inward. In that case, even if the artificiality of external connections is realized, they may seek to create a new mask not for establishing genuine connections, but to avoid confronting themselves.

He may be avoiding turning inward, but every mask is an energy drain. When establishing a new order, it's critical how long he can sustain this energy. Perhaps it isn’t the allure of the mask, but rather the fear of experiencing a "new collapse" that truly prevents him from letting go of the false life. In this case, would he still prefer to see a possibility for a controlled transition rather than collapsing?

Even if he sees a controlled transition as possible, who witnesses this transition will be very decisive. In other words, what will be the attitude of the people around him when he acknowledges his mistakes? If he is in an environment that throws his past back at him or says "I told you so," he might feel that defending the mask is a safer choice. In this case, how can you understand that he thinks his surroundings are not suitable for such a transition?

The appearance of the mask's defense being "safe" may be a short-term illusion. Because while its surroundings may say "I told you so," eventually those reminders fade and give way to different relationships. The main question is: While avoiding the difficulty of this transition process, isn't one constantly living that same difficulty by having to renew the mask? Which is more sustainable?

The sustainability of a false life is a separate matter, but what is there right now to encourage making this transition? I mean, can one concretely see what leaving the mask will bring to their life? Without motivation, every idea of removing the mask feels like a threat.

Instead of looking at the cost of wearing the mask, it can also be a way to consider the cost of the existing mask. The "threat" usually comes from uncertainty, but if there's something much clearer than uncertainty, it's the ongoing fatigue. So what's more rational: waiting for the moment when this cost becomes unbearable, or calculating before reaching that point if the threat starts to look more appealing?

It's not really planned to wait until the cost of the mask becomes unbearable; reaching that point usually happens unconsciously. People generally get tired before they even intend to "calculate". So the real question is, can this cost be made truly noticeable from the outside? Or do they only understand it when the collapse happens?

It's hard to notice from the outside, as people tend to rationalize their fatigue. They develop defenses like, "This is normal, everyone feels this way." The crucial point is the explosion of the mask, a trigger from the external environment. Without that explosion, the likelihood of letting go on its own is low. But what could that trigger be?

Expecting a mask to burst from somewhere means leaving control entirely to external factors. The essential question here is why a person feels the need to constantly "refresh" this false life? In other words, whatever dynamics led them to put on the first mask—without resolving that, the trigger could come, but it would only transform into another mask. We need to examine how one can come to a place where they won't need a mask, rather than just removing the mask.

Reaching a place where one won't need a mask is a very idealistic goal. People constantly wear different masks depending on their environment; there is no such thing as a completely maskless life. The real issue is whether this false life serves their actual needs. Perhaps it’s more realistic to acknowledge that this mask might have tightened its grip long ago. So, does he think about what this mask adds to him right now? Is it clear?

Rather than asking why the mask is being changed, one might consider that the mask probably used to work, but now it doesn't. Why does he think that letting it go would be worse? Perhaps this "false life" offers some promises to his surroundings, and when he lets it go, those promises will be questioned. Could it be that he is more affected by what others might gain or lose than by his own story?

Rather than worrying about what others stand to gain or lose, they may be avoiding facing their own identity if they take off the mask. In other words, the real fear is not about others, but how they will feel when confronted with their unmasked version. That's why renewing the mask seems like an easier solution. But is it really possible to completely avoid that confrontation?

If they take off the mask, they might be afraid of confronting their own identity, but isn't not recognizing that identity a greater risk? Constantly renewing masks eventually become the cause of facelessness rather than a solution. Perhaps the question is this: Do they take seriously what they have lost by maintaining this fake life?

What is the most tangible thing he could gain by leaving behind such a life, rather than just losing things while maintaining the facade? As the mask ages, his exhaustion grows, but is there any concrete idea that things would be easier without that mask? Perhaps to take on uncertainty, one needs to feel a bit of a guaranteed "gain."

The idea of "guaranteed profit" seems reasonable when taking the risk of uncertainty, but the real issue here may be that profit doesn't appear significant enough in his eyes. Because there is likely a structure provided by this false life that serves as a "whatever happens, I can hold on to" safety net. As long as he doesn't fully know what he can replace it with when it collapses, the mask always seems safer. It's necessary to question what exactly this structure is and the dependency on it.

It's true that it's hard to leave when you don't know what to replace the structure with, but it won't always be like this. Let's say that structure has collapsed; you will inevitably have to take steps to build something else in a controlled manner. Perhaps the point is to think about ways to gradually transition to a different ground instead of waiting for that structure to fall apart? A controlled transformation always hurts less than being caught off guard.

The controlled transformation makes sense, but there’s a risk: a person who has built a fake life usually doesn’t feel real pressure until that structure begins to collapse. Therefore, the idea of a "gradual transition" only becomes possible when significant discomfort arises. Before reaching that point, how can we make them feel why this structure is no longer sustainable?

But what if this false life collapses and the surroundings suddenly face the real face? I think the main danger in being "prepared" is the inability to predict others' reactions. So, while that structure is collapsing, there might be a fear of being caught off guard not only for oneself but for others as well. Should we look at the relationship dynamics that make them feel this pressure?

You say they are afraid of the reactions from their surroundings, but aren't they actually deceiving them even when they lead a false life? Even if they are afraid to confront it at that moment, will the reactions be softer when this situation eventually comes to light? Perhaps the issue is that if they initiate this reaction in a manageable way instead of delaying it, they have a better chance of coming out with less harm.

Maybe he's not delaying the reaction, thinking he can completely escape? If the people around him have already swallowed the fake life, he might have developed a belief like, "this story can last forever." Could it be that he's reached a point where he doesn't even realize it's fake?

If there is a belief that will last forever, they probably don't see destruction as a possibility at all. But the interesting part is this: Even if they don't realize it's fake, shouldn't they feel some inner contradiction or inconsistency at some point? If this feeling is absent, perhaps the issue isn't just a false life, but a disconnect that reaches a level of truly not being able to face oneself. In this case, it's not a mask but rather a deep emptiness that poses the problem.

But what if he built a kind of "reality" within the fake life? I mean, like how things that seem fake from the outside have started to feel natural to him. Wouldn't it be more important to understand what is "real" for him rather than dropping the mask now? Perhaps that structure seems fake from the outside; yet from the inside, it has become a familiar order.

The question of whether the fake structure seems "natural" requires us to think about this: How much has the difference between habit and reality widened? When a person believes that the lie they repeatedly tell themselves is true at some point, they may stop questioning their own narrative. In this case, is what you call the "internal order" a defense mechanism, or has it created a new identity? What is truly challenging is to enable them to make this distinction.