Mind Gym (23 page)

Okay, so maybe you are not dealing with a disagreement, but instead you have to relate some bad news—you’re breaking up with someone, firing someone, or sharing other challenging news. In “Navigate Difficult Conversations,” you’ll read about the secrets of dialogue, how to frame your conversations, and the two principles of keeping your dialogue out of the argument zone.

Even before you begin this next part, you’ve probably already thought about the one person who drives you crazy and with whom you are always in conflict. Guess what? You are playing a psychological game with that person. In “Take the Drama Out of Relationships,” you’ll find out about the markers of common conflict behavior and how to recognize and transform all those arguments that seem to repeat themselves over and over again. You’ll understand the role you play in the conflict game and the role your “opponent” plays. Plus, you’ll finally learn how to remove yourself from the game—coincidentally, without too much conflict.

This is a tough section. It’s the one you’ll want to turn to when you’re facing that nasty little thing called conflict. You can’t avoid it, so you might as well learn how to deal with it.

I
t was a massive argument. It was a battle of epic proportion. It was ugly. But what was it all about?

When it comes to arguments, big things often come in small packages. The most trivial difference (e.g., where to put the frying pan) turns into accusation (e.g., “You don’t do anything around the house”), personal affront (“or care about me”), and in extreme situations, action (“I’m out of this relationship; my mother always said you were a selfish jerk”). And it all happens in seconds.

Whether you’re on the receiving end of the venom or you’re the one dishing it out, the trick to stopping arguments from escalating is to separate form from content. And that’s what this chapter is about: identifying the poisons you regularly reach for and recognizing the poisons favored by the people around you. While this knowledge may not be enough to stop tempers from flaring, it will help you prevent the spark from turning into a fire.

Here’s a brief toxicology of six nasty argument poisons. We identify their symptoms (so you’ll be able to see them coming), how to prevent them (in case you feel tempted to use them), and some antidotes (for when someone uses the poison against you).

“You’re being pedantic,” “You’re overreacting,” “You’re being ridiculous and unreasonable,” or “You’re angry/unhappy/insecure/flaky.”

There aren’t many things more irritating than people assuming they have a superior knowledge of your feelings. If you weren’t annoyed before, being told you’re angry is sure to push you over the edge. Even worse is being told what you should do: “You need to listen to other people,” “You need to get your facts straight before you make claims like that,” “I suggest you stop shouting.”

Unless the other person has shared their feelings, don’t presume to know—or tell them—how they feel in that moment. Assuming you know what others are experiencing makes them react badly, because there’s a good chance your assumption is wrong. After all, there can be a variety of interpretations for someone’s behavior. A man is screaming. Is he upset, angry, physically hurt, or overwhelmed with joy? Until he tells you why he’s screaming, you don’t know for sure.

To avoid inadvertently using this poison, separate the observable facts from your interpretation of the other person. Keep your voice neutral and tell the other person what you are observing. Give them a chance to correct any mistakes in the facts or your interpretation. For example, “This conversation is getting louder. How are you feeling?” Compare that to “You’re shouting” or “I know you’re angry.” The word “shouting” is a strongly nuanced word, suggesting the other person is out of control. Using “I know” suggests you can read the other person’s mind. It’s likely to elevate the argument into an explosion: “Oh no I am not,” “Oh yes you are . . .”

Consider another example: If someone is repeatedly making the same point over and over, rather than telling them “You keep repeating yourself,” which is loaded with negative connotations and inevitably makes the other person feel patronized, try saying “I have heard the same thing three times, and I’m still not getting it. Can you explain what you mean in a different way?” This approach helps the other person confirm that you’ve read their feelings correctly: “You bet I’m angry.”

Once the other person confirms you’ve read their feelings correctly (i.e., that you understand they are angry), you are in a position to empathize with them: “I too would be angry in your situation,” “I completely understand why you don’t feel heard.” Empathy gets you on the same side, rather than encouraging the other person to feel hostile toward you.

Here are some simple phrases that can turn the “I know you” attitude to “I am responsible.”

When someone uses this poison against you, assume the best intentions. It’s tough to do so when someone is telling you they know how you feel or what you should do about something. But try to consider why the other person is saying these things. What’s the most generous explanation? Are they frightened rather than angry, careless rather than malicious, stressed rather than rude? Put on an “armchair psychiatrist” hat and try to figure out what’s really bothering them. A few words of support or a hug (if they are someone you know well) may be all that’s needed to stop the poison from spreading.

Another way to respond to someone who is delivering this kind of poisonous statement is to agree with them. If someone tells you you’re angry, agree: “Yes, I am angry. I feel that my effort has been wasted.” Then pause. Allow the other person to respond. You’ll probably find that you’ve taken the wind out of their sails. At the very least, showing your vulnerability will change the tone of the conversation.

Finally, if the person who is using this conflict poison is someone you love, you might employ what psychologists call “positive sentiment override,” which entails recognizing that the person who’s upset with you is still the person you love; they’re just making it tough right now. For example, a young man named Cody described to us the relationship he was having with his newly pregnant girlfriend. She was suffering from morning sickness, and when she wasn’t vomiting, she was getting annoyed with him. Cody could have lashed back at her (after all, she was being totally unreasonable, shouting at him for doing things she’d asked him to do only moments earlier). But instead, he considered what was driving her behavior (e.g., she’s tired and feeling lousy). Positive sentiment override requires you to look for the positive explanation of the other person’s behavior rather than assume they are being difficult. When you love, admire, or respect that person, this response can become a natural habit and a very healthy one for robust relationships.

Under the influence of this particular venom, you become all-knowing. Without pausing for breath, you generalize everything from the specific to the universal. So, not only do you feel the other person is not listening, you insist they
never
listen. Not only is your team member late with his report, you tell him he is
always
late, and while you are on the subject, you shout, “Nothing ever gets done on time around here!”

“Nothing.” “Ever.” Really?

DO YOU SEE BLACK AND WHITE OR SHADES OF GRAY?

People who are generalizers (otherwise referred to as “absolutists”) pride themselves on ‘knowing what I think.’ They have clear rules they apply every time they encounter a similar situation. They see things in black and white. Gray, in their opinion, is for flaky wimps. What they don’t realize is that the people who see things in shades of gray are much more likely to be open to new ideas, solve problems, and have strong relationships.

It appears, too, that absolutism is inversely correlated with wisdom. In a study by Alistair Ostell and Susan Oakland, eighty teachers were classified as “absolutist” or “non-absolutist” in the way they handled two work problems.
¹
When the teachers were interviewed, results showed that the absolutist teachers perceived themselves as less effective at managing their emotions and handling problems, and they experienced their jobs as less pleasant than the open-minded and more flexible non-absolutist teachers. They also had poorer mental and physical health. The non-absolutist teachers—those who saw things in shades of gray rather than black and white—also reported finding problem solving easier and experienced better health.

It’s untrue, of course. There are always exceptions. Even the employee who is often late will meet a deadline occasionally. If you are using the generalizing poison, the minute someone corrects you (e.g., “Actually, my presentation was on time last week”), your temperature rises and—bingo—you’re in the middle of a full-on battle.

Under the influence of this poison, certain words elbow their way to the front: “always,” “never,” “every,” “forever,” “anything,” “anyone,” “everyone,” “typical.” They are often combined with “you,” and they sound like this:

   
•   “You always know best.”

   
•   “You never take my advice.”

   
•   “You never give any thought to me / the children / the cat / the future.”

   
•   “Nothing ever gets done properly.”

   
•   “Typical of you to forget something.”

   
•   “Every time it ends in disaster.”

   
•   “This always happens.”

   
•   “You never listen to anyone else’s view.” (Double whammy: “never” and “anyone.”)

In a court of law, the jury comes to a decision based on the evidence of the case in question. Previous convictions are not taken into consideration. In this way, the jury is encouraged to arrive at an unbiased judgment about the specific offense. This approach—judging the specific offense—is a discipline you should adopt if you’re trying to avoid this particular poison.

When ascribing a cause to someone’s behavior, keep to the specifics. If your partner arrives home late one night, be angry about that night. Resist the urge to bundle it up with all the other times they’ve been late or forgetful (e.g., “You never do anything that you say you will”). They’ll just get defensive. Instead, keep focused on the details by using these antidote phrases:

   
•   “On this occasion”

   
•   “It tends to be”

   
•   “With this particular (client, event, product, etc.)”

   
•   “Right now”

   
•   “During the (quarter, month, full moon, etc.)”

   
•   “When you are (tired, excited, stressed, busy, etc.)”

With this particular poison, the secret lies in controlling the borders.

If someone uses this poison against you, don’t rise to the bait. Recognize their sweeping statements for what they are: a single incidence of anger. Ignore the inflammatory comments; picture them as arrows and see them falling short of their target, dropping harmlessly to the ground a couple of feet in front of you. Then steer the conversation back to the matter at hand: “There may well be wider implications to what you are saying. For the moment, can we focus on resolving this particular issue?” or “I understand. On this particular occasion, what do you think we should do next?”

Name calling, character assassination, and mudslinging are all forms of this nasty poison we call attacking. Someone attacking you for what you say or do is one thing. But when someone launches an attack on your identity, it takes real restraint to keep cool.

The explicit version of this poison is pure name calling and labeling (e.g., “You’re lazy, cunning, cruel, insensitive, and stupid, and you’ve lost your touch”). There are other variations of the poison that are more cunning and subtle, such as accusations made by association: “Only a fool would think like that,” “A child could do better.” Still other varieties of attacking invite us to work out the insult for ourselves: “Is this the first report you’ve ever written?” And let’s not forget this particularly nasty insinuation: “What happened to your sense of humor?” To boost the venom, other people may also be brought in to hammer home the message: “Everyone thinks you’re out of your league,” “All our friends believe you’re a fool.” Or if that’s too factual for your attacker, they might try hypothesizing: “I bet if you asked your family, they’d say you are a fool,” “Any sane person would agree that you are wrong.”

When you feel yourself reaching for this particular poison, you need to make a swift mental turnaround to redefine those negative characteristics as positive ones. So, instead of using the word “lazy,” consider her “unmotivated.” Instead of denigrating his “stubbornness,” admire his “determination.” Don’t worry that she’s “passive”; just be pleased that she’s “calm and relaxed.” And don’t wait until things get tense; take preemptive action.