[00:00:34.090]
Welcome to episode 208 of The Non Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. Today's episode is based on an article by Eric Barker. This is how to have emotionally intelligent arguments. Barker opens the article with a story about a man named Mark who accidentally cut off a guy driving a pickup truck, and the pickup truck responded by honking repeatedly. Mark tried to nod at him as if to say that he was sorry, but a few minutes later, he accidentally cut off the guy again. Of course, the driver of the pickup did not know that this was accidental and considered this a provocation. He raced his truck forward and blocked Mark's car. Both vehicles were now stopped, and the driver, who was about 605 and £300, got out of his truck and headed towards Mark's car. He started yelling at Mark and banging his fist on Mark's driver's side window. So what do you think Mark did next? He rolled down his window and he said, have you ever had such an awful day that you're just hoping to meet someone who will pull out a gun, shoot you, and put you out of your misery? Are you that someone?

[00:01:55.250]
The man looked at him and his jaw just dropped. Yeah, I really mean it. I don't usually cut people off, and I never cut someone off twice. I'm just having a day where no matter what I do or who I meet, including you, I seem to mess everything up. Are you the person who's going to mercifully put an end to it? The man suddenly changed into someone who was calm and reassuring, saying, hey, come on, man, it'll be okay. Really, just relax. It'll be okay. Everyone has days like this. They actually ended up having a nice conversation for a few minutes, and the man got into his truck and drove off, waving to Mark in his rearview mirror. Barker points out that what Mark did was avoid the mistakes that most of us make when dealing with somebody who has lost their cool, somebody who is reactive. As Barker says, he did not say, Calm down your overreacting, which is a phrase with a success rate of about zero. Instead, what Mark did was he leaned into the conversation. He was paradoxical, he avoided a conflict of wills by not arguing with a man, by actually stating his own feelings about how he was having a bad day.

[00:03:09.570]
I love how this story illustrates the power of that kind of paradox, where we are staying emotionally connected with another without arguing with them, without engaging in a conflict of wills. It turns out that Mark is Mark Golston psychiatrist and author of Talking to Crazy how to Deal with the Irrational and Impossible People in Your Life. And of course, the story is found in the book. I'll paste a link to the book and to Barker's article in the show. Notes barker's article is a summary of Goldstein's book, and it offers four steps in how to deal with people who've lost their cool. How to Deal With Reactive People The first step in dealing with reactive people is no surprise. Control yourself. This is self regulation. Barker says it's time to be one of those cool, under-pressure people. And we would say, in family systems theory, this is the time to be a nonanxious presence. The way to do this, of course, is to pause, breathe deeply, and Barker recommends actually focusing on the left eye of the other person. He notes that there is no research to indicate that this will work, but his own experience is that you find that it will help you to take what others say less personally.

[00:04:37.850]
What the research does recommend is to label your emotions. So if you're feeling angry, label that. Say I'm feeling angry or I'm feeling scared or I'm feeling anxious. This is tough to do in the moment, but if you can do it, you will actually find yourself getting control of your automatic reactions. You'll be able to think more clearly. I go into how to do this in episode 206 how to Be a Non Anxious Presence. The second step to managing reactive people is to lean in when others are making extreme accusations like I hate you or you're the worst person in the world, leaning in helps you to avoid a conflict of wills while maintaining emotional connection, Barker writes, "Now, if you're one of those extraordinarily rare people who actually thinks before they speak, you might mistakenly believe that other people do this too rarely a good assumption, especially when people are overwhelmed by emotion. In all likelihood, they don't want you to take them literally, and you don't want to take them literally either. If this is someone you're close to, it's probably not hate their feeling, it's disappointment. So reply obviously you're really angry at me.

[00:05:55.440]
Tell me, do you hate me? Or are you just incredibly disappointed in me for doing X or failing to do X." There are two things here I want to note. First, this is a bit of paradox. It's leaning in to the idea that the other person hates you. So rather than saying don't hate me, or I didn't do it, or Why do you hate me? You say, do you hate me? You're leaning into that expression. The other part of this is there is a bit of curiosity. There is an approach similar to nonviolent communication where you're trying to get to what the other person is feeling. Both paradox and curiosity help you to avoid that conflict of wills. Help you to avoid getting defensive or argumentative or being reactive on your own. It also helps you to avoid being adaptive, which is to just give in and take it. Instead, what you're doing is you're engaging in what is hopefully a productive conversation. The third step in managing reactive people uses the acronym AEU apologize, empathize, uncover. Even when this feels unfair, barker reminds us that relationships are two way streets. Rarely is one person 100% right or wrong, so chances are you are not 100% blameless.

[00:07:18.470]
Apologizing for your part in the situation, however small, is taking responsibility for self. As well as acknowledging that from their perspective they have a valid beef. It's also moving closer. It's maintaining that emotional connection. This is where self-differentiation is so important. By apologizing, you're not taking the other's reactivity personally. You realize that whatever has them worked up has as much or more to do with something else going on inside of them as it does with you. Otherwise they would have calmly expressed their anger or disappointment or fear or whatever else is going on. The important point here is by apologizing first, you are valuing emotional connection over self definition without giving in. As Barker notes, you don't have to fall on your sword, you just have to go first. He also emphasizes to say I apologize and not I'm sorry. The latter can be viewed as sarcastic and insincere, whereas the former is more about taking responsibility for self. Again, you may not feel that you have done anything wrong, but you're trying to find out how the other might perceive your role in this. It's important to be specific here the more so the better.

[00:08:38.040]
For example, you can say, I apologize for doing X. It seems like I really disappointed you. Barker says if you can come up with paragraphs, that's even better, "Apologizing is an incredibly powerful way to start. Why? Because people almost never do it. Apologies are fabric softeners for the soul. It's really hard for things to escalate when someone starts by sincerely apologizing." This is not manipulating. It's taking responsibility for self and avoiding a conflict of wills. By letting go of your need to be right. When you empathize, you are trying to describe in detail how hard this must be from their perspective. You're not saying that they're right, you're just showing that you're trying to understand. When you uncover, you're trying to identify their worst thoughts about you, knowing these are reactive emotions, not rational thoughts. This is where a little paradox and playfulness can come in as well. Barker recommends saying something like you probably hate me. You wish you never married me. Sometimes you probably hope I would just die. Note how this is not arguing with the other. In fact, it's taking what they are saying and hyperbolizing it. It's taking it to the Nth degree in a way that will typically get them to say I don't hate you.

[00:10:01.070]
It's just that or it will help them to uncover what's really going on with them. This leads to the fourth step in managing reactive people, which is to have a future focus. This helps you to avoid falling back into the same pattern of reactive behavior and you apologizing. Barker suggests saying something like "I can tell that I'm doing or failing to do a lot of things, and this has upset you for a long time. Going forward, what would you like me to do differently? And then continuing, Can I ask a favor? You don't need to agree to it, but I hope you will. Going forward, could you let me know what you need me to do or not do and tell me in a loving way so I won't feel like I'm under attack." Again, this is a combination of self-differentiation and nonviolent communication, because what you're ultimately trying to do is to get at what their request is. What do they want you to do differently? But then you're self differentiating because you're making your own request. You're saying you want them to let you know what you can do to avoid this reactive behavior.

[00:11:12.000]
I also want to note that Barker suggests saying you don't need to agree to it when you make that request. And as Marshall Rosenberg says, in nonviolent communication, a request is only a request if you're willing to accept a no. If not, it's a demand. To me, this is the essence of self-differentiation, which is expressing yourself without requiring the other to actually go along. Barker does note that a different approach is needed in step four when someone is intentionally or unintentionally manipulating, the key here is to not take responsibility for their problems. Because when they are manipulating you, they are showing dependency. They are showing that they can't take responsibility for self, and they want you to take responsibility for them. Barker writes, "First thing, don't get angry or defensive. When it's obvious they're trying to manipulate you, they'll call you paranoid or use your negativity to justify guilting you. The key point is this leave their problems as their problems. Never accept the responsibility they're trying to foist on you. But most folks you have arguments with aren't manipulators. They're good people having a bad day. If you keep that in mind, you'll do much better."

[00:12:32.270]
This highlights the idea that self-differentiation is knowing where you end and another begins. If you don't see the other person as a threat, just as a good human being having a bad day, you can stay compassionate despite them losing their cool. This is what non anxious leaders do. That's it for episode 208. You can find the show notes at thenonanxiousleader.com/208 and I'd love to hear from you about what you like about this podcast, what topics you'd like me to cover or what questions you might have. You can do that by emailing me at jack@christian-leaders.com. Until next time. Thanks and goodbye.