Thoughts from a Therapist

Category: Communication

The ‘communication’ category contains thoughts on how you might improve you interactions with others.

  • Ineffective Solution Strategies – without a simplified problem, a solution is unlikely

    Quick summary – In this post I will be talking about deconstructing (specifying and simplifying) a problem to more manageable variables. Often times the problem is either to big to be adequately addressed by one simple solution (ex. – to solve pollution lets outlaw gasoline) or the proposed solution neglects to address other related problems (often the proposed solution is to remove someone else’s solution without offering a replacement solution for the more fundamental problem). Successful solution acquisition strategies are something that I have worked very hard on (I have developed a solution engine) – I will start by simply explaining how to identify what I will call the “foundational problem” – or the problem that is at the source of the issue.
    Often times in a disagreement we can not even start to look for a solution as we have not truly agreed upon what the problem is – I see this all the time in couples – they believe that they are having a disagreement about the same thing only realize later that they were discussing one solution for different problems.
    –                          Example – a couple is in an argument concerning the topic of visiting their families for the holidays. One partner believes the problem to be that her partner does not want to go to her family’s house at all… meanwhile the other partner was planning on visiting both families, but believes the problem surrounds which family they will visit first. There are two problems = 1, the order of the visits – 2, if they will go at all. – They are unlikely to find a solution until they both start talking about the same concern.
    Politics has become a mess in this country because politicians are not deconstructing problems. Many Politicians are spending countless amount of our time arguing over problems that have not been properly deconstructed or simplified… the result is a national focus on polarized issues instead of a focus on resolving more fundamental problems (that we mostly all agree on); Ironically often times fixing the more fundamental problem will either directly or indirectly work to resolve the surface level problem.
    –                          Example – it seems unlikely that this country (or any large group of people) will come to an agreement concerning war. What is a variable that would reduce the occurrences of war? War often has something to do with resources. How about ‘lack of self-sufficiency” being labeled the problem instead? What about ‘lack of energy independence’? How many people in this country would disagree with a plan which promoted energy independence?
    Problem Questions – finding the broad, surface level or unspecific problem (sample questions)

    • What is the obstacle that you will have had to overcome when your desired solution is present?

     

    • What is the difficulty that you will fix when the solution is in existence?

     

    • If the problem was observable and measureable what would we observe and what would we measure?

     
    Deconstruct the Problem – making the problem as specific and ‘foundational’ as possible.

    • In order to create solutions that everyone can agree upon you must deconstruct a problem to its most simple parts.
    • If your problem was caused by anther problem than you have not deconstructed enough.
    • If what you are labeling as the ‘problem’ is currently a solution in place for another problem… then you have not deconstructed enough.
    • Deconstruction allows you to understand the issue in its entirety. Often when people attempt to ‘fix’ a surface level problem without looking at all the components of the problem… they can end up making the situation worse.
      •  Example – if someone had food poisoning and you label the problem as “throwing up” your solution might be to give that person something that reduces the symptoms of nausea. With this solution the sick person does not throw up so your solution seems successful…but… the individual needed to throw up to remove the food poisoning from their body and this ‘solution’ will make the individual even sicker. In this example if the problem had been deconstructed to “poisonous food in the stomach” instead of “nausea” then a better solution could have been implemented.

     
    Deconstruction questions

    • What are the variables that impact the problem… what are the components of the problem?

     

    • What caused the problem to exist in the first place? Was there a good intention at the source of the problem… what was the intention?

     

    • Would anybody suggest that the ‘problem’ which you are trying to fix is actually a solution to a more fundamental problem? If so, what is the ‘problem’ attempting to resolve? If some people view the ‘problem’ as a solution what are they proposing that it is fixing?

     
    The Current political solution strategy – Our current strategy is exactly the opposite of what I am proposing… If you would like to increase the harmony in your own relationships it would be helpful if you avoided the following strategy. The ineffective strategy is to –

    • Create a broad and often exaggerated problem
    • Identify one solution to address that one broad and complicated problem
    • Attack the other party’s solutions without the two parties ever specifying an agreed up on and deconstructed problem.
    • They spend the majority of their attention on refuting solutions instead of on creating solutions.
    • The primary objective is not to find a solution but rather to discredit the adversary.
    • Use emotionally charged subjects with existential, religious, and cultural themes to distract people from the fact that the solution strategy itself is fundamentally flawed.
    • Encourage dichotomous or polarized views of subjects that can in truth be deconstructed to a point of agreement. As you will find in my blog about dialectics I think that it is enormously detrimental to encourage dichotomous (black and white) thinking in adults (especially if you desire a functional democracy).

     
    I will now list some deconstructed problems. You should answer the following two questions –
     
    1.) Can the deconstructed problem be deconstructed further?
     
    2.) Do you believe that it would be easier to find an agreed upon solution to the deconstructed problem?
     
    1.) Your driving stinks – I don’t like it when you accelerate before turns
    2.) The basketball team is awful – the team has a poor turnover rating
    3.) Health Care – people are sick and injured
    4.) I have nothing to wear – it is snowing and my shoes are not waterproof
    5.) Lack of intimacy in a relationship – no time without the kids present
    6.) War – lack of energy self-sufficiency
    7.) Global warming – pollution interrupting the view of the mountains
    8.) “You never listen to me” – when I am expressing emotions you try and look for solutions instead of simply comforting me.
    9.) I don’t like that restaurant – that restaurant does not have the ability to deal with my allergies
    10.) Education – too many kids in the classroom
     
    The point is that we need to make sure that we are talking about the same subject in order to move forward… deconstructing a problem not only ensures that we are both trying to fix the same thing, it also makes it more likely that we will agree on both the problem and the related solution.
    “If deconstructing problems can increase our ability to be united and to work together around more simple solutions then we will become more empathetic and open-minded to all those people with whom we share this wonderful country.” – Will
    “Working together is a solution itself.” – Will
    There is a reason that we as humans tend to focus more on our disagreements than on our agreements… I will cover this topic in a future blog post.
     
     

  • Timeouts for adults – conflict resolution and avoidance strategies

    Quick summary: Timeouts are not just for children – adults should use them at times as well… the difference being that you should give yourself a timeout, and not your partner (if you tell your partner to go take a timeout you are likely in for a bit of conflict). There are many different things that affect our emotional disposition (our mood)… and there are some emotional states which are not best suited for certain interactions. It is helpful in a relationship if a partners can monitor their feelings and make the appropriate choice to take some space (a ‘timeout’) if they are sensing that they will not being able to engage an interaction with their partner in a constructive, honest or reasonable way. Often we present anger when we have not had the time to understand our emotions for ourselves… if you look back on some of your experiences of anger you will probably find that the underlying emotion (the emotion who truly desired to express) was a different feeling – sadness, embarrassment, confusion etc.
    “Anger is a secondary emotion” – this is a phrase that I have heard many times in the therapeutic community. The phrase is meant to illustrate how anger almost always seems to be the result of a more primary emotion – which is usually sadness and fear. Many therapists hold that anger is a way of avoiding feelings like sadness – especially in a culture in which the expression of anger is considerably more visible than other forms of emotional expression.
    Timeouts to not have the intention of giving you the time to avoid or to suppress your emotions – the timeout is for the person to get in touch with the way they are feeling before they try and express that feeling to a partner.
    Taking a timeout can give you the time to understand how you are really feeling – think of the arguments that you have had in your life with a significant other that had nothing to with that person. (Your boss was asking irritating questions all day and you come home and argue with your partner when she asks you if you want Caesar or blue cheese dressing).
    Stress, anxiety and the need to calm down before your engagement with your partner – work can ask you to function in a fashion that is ideal for completing your job, but not ideal for interacting with people in your home life. This is especially true for people in high stress jobs such the police – these jobs can require a hyper vigilance that necessitates quick decision-making skills that are not always as useful while at home. Take the time to settle down if you feel as though your engagement with someone in your household might lead to conflict.

    • Some people need a daily timeout (about 15 minutes) when they come home from work – this can be difficult for the partner at first, but once it becomes a habit it can be mutually beneficial. If those 15 minutes will enable you or your partner to interact positively, this can make all the difference.

    Some therapists suggest that your first interaction with your partner will dictate your interaction patterns for the rest of that night. 
    If you take a timeout you need to tell your partner when you will re-engage (be reasonable and empathetic) – take your walk, go on a run, go meditate, do your breathing exercises, get something to eat, or engage in a hobby, but let your partner know that when your stress reduction activity is done – you will be available. 
    The partner must respect the timeout – and don’t ask for an explanation – the person might need the time out to ‘explain’ their feelings to themselves. It is a huge gigantic, enormous, step for many people to be able to reach a point where they can notice their emotions to be bit volatile and to ask for some space – huge. This is extremely hard for many people to do (instead of allowing their anger to govern their behavior). So it is very important that a partner reinforce this progress by kindly respecting the ‘timeout’ which has been asked for.
    In a relationship you will have times when you have to have a difficult discussion – such as a conversation in which you know there is disagreement, or you know that a partner did something that saddened the other person. For these conversations to be more effective it is best to set a time when both partners will be most ready to engage. In this way you have a “timeout” until an agreed upon time – obviously that time needs to be reasonable “tomorrow at 6” is usually more reasonable then “in a couple weeks.” Be specific with the set time – at “5:30” or “in an hour” and not “later”.
    Adults will sometimes need a timeout in the middle of a disagreement – sometimes you and your partner will start the interaction and it will not go well – you notice explosive anger and your heart feels like it is going to beat out of your chest – take a timeout, tell your partner that you need to walk around the block and cool down for a minute. In such an example it is best that you do an activity that you know will reduce your stress level. 
    Sometimes the timeout is the solutions – At times partners will find that there actually was not a conflict pertaining to the two people in the relationship (bad day at work, low blood sugar, worried about a friend etc) and the timeout illuminates the fact that everything is just fine. In these cases, often an explanation or an apology is a nice idea – “sorry I was such a grouch at the movie store… I really needed to eat something.”
    Timeouts can help you to avoid instances in which your emotions dictate your behaviors – and avoiding this cycle can help you to better understand your emotions. It is perhaps harder to notice your emotions if you are automatically reacting to them – often your reactions can confuse your ability to understand the depth of that primary emotion.
     

  • Talking with Teens– Try using authentic open-minded empathetic curiosity.

    Quick Summary: For a teenager, the brain development is at a stage where they are generally dichotomous thinkers (black and white thinking – you are right or you are wrong – no middle ground). The thinking patterns of this developmental stage can make teens difficult to converse with when there is a disagreement. I find four interaction strategies to be of paramount importance in such an instance. I use authenticity, open-mindedness, empathy, and curiosity – With sincerity, I ask clarifying question that have the sole intention of better understanding the teen’s individual opinion and feelings; at the same time I avoid trying to get the teen to arrive at a universal ‘truth’.
    To answer the question regarding the elephant in the room the answer is – YES, there are many adults that are still stuck in using primarily dichotomous thinking, the difference is that most adults are at a stage of brain development that would allow them utilize more open-minded thinking patterns.
    Part of normal development for humans is to go through different stages of brain development, which are all characterized by fairly universal thinking patterns depending on a person’s age. In the beginning of life we all think that we are quite literally the center of the world – we then become teens and start categorizing the world using dichotomous thinking (I like that person or I don’t like that person) – By the time a human is in their senior years many have reached a point of acceptance with the concept that any instance can be good and bad – its all relative, and interdependent (there is no good without bad – “I am good and bad at the same time”).
    The most common dichotomies that I’ve heard expressed (and that I expressed myself in my teenage years – and admittedly after as well:)) are the following: I am either independent or I am not independent (and they generally want to believe that they are independent), If a rule is valid than it should apply to everyone the same (“I should not be in trouble for drinking because you drink too”), I am right or I am wrong, If I am right (about any part of the argument) than you are wrong, and If you misspeak or are incorrect about any part of the argument then you are wrong.
    So what do you do when you are in involved in a conflict with a teen (he/she got caught engaging in unsafe behavior – or they disagree with a rule or a task that you assigned to them)?
    Try Authentic Open-minded Empathetic Curiosity
    Reasons for:
    Authentic – This pertains to the empathy and open-mindedness that you will present. You can’t fake it – so choose the time for your interaction wisely – such as when you feel like you are in control of your emotions. Try reminding yourself that your brain functions differently and look at the interaction as a unique chance to better understand the teen’s dichotomous thinking stage that you went through yourself in your teens.
    Open-minded – If you approach the interaction with the belief that what the teen has to say is absolutely valid in some way or another then you will encourage the teen to express him/her self with greater depth and with less guarded emotions. Emotions are very important – If a teen believes that you are honestly listening (not being defensive) and that you are not openly threatening their independence – then the positive emotions that they hold for you will have a better opportunity to impact their decisions. (Remember the dichotomous thinking – “if you don’t listen to me – I don’t listen to you.”)
    Empathetic – Try walking in their shoes and to honestly try and feel what they are going through. It can be hard being a teen and sometimes, if you listen empathetically, you might see that though their story line is unsafe and somewhat irrational – it does make a bit of sense given the way that they think.
    -ex. “mom I had to get in the car with Dave even though he had been drinking cause if I didn’t he would have gone off with some other girl and besides, the police were coming and they always give out tickets to the kids that are left behind.” Now it might not be possible for you to accept that the teen was with a drunk driver, but it is possible for you to feel the teens fear around getting a tickets and to feel the teen’s insecurity about how she relates to the boy in the story.
    Often the empathy you give will impact the empathy you will receive – so remaining empathetic increases the likelihood that the teen will feel your feelings concerning the decision that was made.
    Curious – Though teens might be dichotomous thinkers they are neither stupid nor are they totally irrational. If you, as the adult, lecture too much they will often turn their focus on finding a fault in your logic (“but what if… no that is not true it was 10:00 and not 10:15 when I got home…”etc). If you approach the interaction with curiosity you will give the teen the opportunity to find the faults in their own logic… In my experience when a teen concludes by his or her self that they were wrong, the lesson is infinitely more valuable then when an adult tells them that they were wrong.
     
    The most important aspect of this intervention: If this method increases the teen’s likelihood of simply talking with you then you have already done excellent work. The more that a teen engages with his/ her family the less likely they are to engage in many unsafe behaviors.
    In in addition to these four interaction strategies I use emotional regulation and my understanding of the difference between knowledge and understanding (these methods will be in a future blog).

  • Argumentative? – substitute the word "but" for "and"

     
    Quick Summary – Are you Argumentative? Always use the conjunction “and” instead of the conjunction “but” to dramatically reduce defensiveness, to encourage harmonious conversation, and to increase your dialectic ability (which is basically open-mindedness).
    I had a wonderful teacher in graduate school who would correct her students any time that they used the conjunction “but” in class. To some this was extremely annoying… to others (like myself) I found that this trick reduced my argumentative interactions to almost zero. There is almost no example that I can think of in which it would not be appropriate for you to switch the conjunctions. And the more you increase your dialectic ability (your ability to see that every issue has two sides – the old ‘there is two sides to every coin’ expression) the more evident it is that the word “but” creates a false dichotomy (black and white thinking – either/or thinking instead of both/and thinking) that is at the source of most arguments.
    Example: a couple wakes up and has a day of errands… both are a bit cranky… it is 9:00 am in the morning. The wife says to the husband, “Honey I need to get to the bank before 12:00.” The husband responds, “But I need to get gas because the car is empty.”
    An argument then begins… why? The word “but” made the interaction imply as if the statements were add odds with each other… to specify the word led them to believe that either the husband needed to get gas or the wife had to get to the bank by 12:00. The truth is that both statements were true and the only problem (the source of the entire argument) was the wording.
    Substituting “but” for “and” example. The wife says to the husband, “Honey I need to get to the bank before 12:00.” The husband responds, “And I need to get gas because the car is empty.” the wife then respond, “ok.”
    Feel how you respond to the examples below if you are not yet sold. For this exercise I want you to say the statements out loud or in your head and monitor how your body reacts.
    These examples are all based on common dialogs.
    “Honey I would love to go to the beach” response “But I am really hungry… I need to stop at a restaurant”
    “Honey I would love to go to the beach” response “and I am really hungry… I need to stop at a restaurant”
    “Let’s go take a swim” response “but I don’t want to get my watch wet”
    “Let’s go take a swim” response “and I don’t want to get my watch wet”
    “I would like to watch a movie sometime today” response “but I need to get some exercise”
    “I would like to watch a movie sometime today” response “and I need to get some exercise”
    And perhaps the most famous-
    “I like the Democratic candidate for his views on the environment” response “but I think that the Republicans will help business owners.”
    “I like the Democratic candidate for his views on the environment” response “and I think that the Republicans will help business owners.”
    How does the “and” feel to you… can you see how the “but” makes statements seem mutually exclusive when they are not? Try it… I bet it will improve your relationships by reducing arguments.