Ep 39 – Triangles Part 2

I think I do want to get serious for a moment and ask you have you ever walked into and I know the answer to a place and someone that you, you know, hold in high regard or respect nonetheless says, Do you see that person over there? And then insert something that would negatively affect your opinion of them?

Has that happened? Absolutely.

I hate that. Yeah, it is so unfair,

I wish you would stop doing it.

I’d like to say I don’t do that. You don’t do that. It’s so unfair for that person. And I’m pointing across the room as if there’s somebody standing in the corner,

I had no idea. Do you agree? It’s it’s unfair, I think to try to unjustly shape one’s or someone’s opinion of another, based on your experience alone. And a proper response would be you know, to say, I regret that that was your experience. I have not, I can’t share that experience. My my interactions have always been very professional, very respectful.

What if there have not been even any interaction? How do you prevent yourself from being affected by that?

I don’t know that you can prevent yourself from now affected, and maybe the goal is to be affected and to respond to that effect. Well, to acknowledge, I now have a skewed perspective, not based on experience, but based on hearsay. And my responsibility is to do everything I can to achieve what I would call the second naivete. That’s what Paul Ricoeur French philosopher calls when you have to kind of debunk all that you know, and go into something as if it’s for the first time, you have to achieve that second naivete, and allow that person and your experience of that person to speak to you more than what you might have heard. People trying to disparage or assassinate the character of other people is anxious and anxious form of triangulation. Anytime there’s an instability between two people, a third person who is vulnerable to that kind of thing gets brought in, and one or the other of those original two are trying to bring that person into their side. So that now it’s two against one. And the vulnerable person is wisest to remain neutral to both parties, encourage them to work out their differences together, and to prefer neither while remaining connected to both, which immediately lowers the anxiety between the original two, and frees that third person from feeling like they have to make a choice to be on one side or the other.

That’s awesome to hear. So I’ve been on the receiving end, I’ve had people say, things to me about others, and in my mind, I’m like, dang it, I don’t like this person, and I don’t know them. And it’s not fair to them, I should give them I need to be more mindful of the fact. And I need to give them the opportunity to prove that person right or wrong. I like that triangulation.

Yes, interlocking triangles exist wherever there are two people who have an unstable relationship talking about at an anxiety lose our try, who’s our third P star triangle there, there are lots of them, right? So. So you and I and any other employee, those create triangles, but then there’s that employee, you and another employee, then there’s that employee, me and that other employee, then there’s that employee you would make. So they’re interlocking triangles all over the place. The point isn’t to kind of to get out of that the point isn’t to rid ourselves of that. That’s how it works. That’s how relationships work. The triangle is considered the simplest yet most stable structure, which is why we build bridges out of it. We’ve talked about this briefly in a previous episode. So rather than try to rid ourselves of these systems, we need to figure out how to function as maturely and responsibly as we can in them. So I’m not to prefer this child over this one. I’m not to prefer this employee over this one. I’m to have a unique one on one original relationship with each one, encourage the two battling employees in this context and scenario to engage with one another maturely and patiently to settle their conflicts and to stay in touch with both of them without preferring either of them. This is exactly what happens to children who they are one of many siblings or maybe they’re an only child and the parents have unmanaged anxiety between the two of them. marital conflict, fatigue, exhaustion, numbness, exasperation, a lack of tenderness or love or compassion. One of the children will typically be the person on to whom the couple projects that anxiety. It’s called Family projection process, so that that unmanaged conflict between the couple which they refuse to talk about refuse to resolve filters down to that child, typically it’s an old This child, not always, when you’re the only child, you’re the only recipient and that child will oftentimes become problematic, that child becomes the identified patient. Maybe they become symptomatic, poor grades, bad behavior, maybe becoming a bully or susceptible to bullying or maybe even physical symptoms might. And so that becomes something that the parents can focus on, rather than focus on the, the emotional process between the two of them. So children who aren’t behaving well oftentimes are symptomatic of a relationship problem somewhere else in the system. And it’s, it’s, that’s part of what I do in family therapy and couples therapy and individual therapy is to help people identify those systems, those processes and their functioning in them. And to improve their function. All it takes is one person, one key player improving their functioning. Somehow, theoretically, and it works affects the functioning every other relationship that they’re in. All it takes is one so family therapy, that’s great. All you need is one person.

neutralize the threat, right? Neutralize, just neutral,

be neutral. Prefer neither, but stay connected. That’s the key. Gosh, that’s awesome to stay connected.

Yeah. And so it actually for starters, just simply just don’t be that person to fling in slink dirt about somebody to someone else that may or may not know any better. All right. That’s

it? Yeah, let’s, you know, let’s put this put the hatchet away. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I have. Yeah, I have people who have intentionally tried to derail me, for various reasons, none of which do I think is is rational or even justifiable at all. It doesn’t matter. I don’t take it personally, I recognize it as a function of emotional processes, either between us or within their relationships with other people. And I try to, to not give a whole lot of thought to that. And I certainly don’t want to talk about other people. Now, if someone comes up to me and says, Have you ever had experiences with this person? I will say, you know, to what extent do you need for me to be forthcoming and candid about that, you know, if it’s a job interview or something, I’m going to be honest. If it’s socially It depends if you know if that brief I think that person is dangerous or has been abusive or or has manipulated and abused power. Before I might acknowledge that it you know, there’s, there’s a tendency there toward some dysfunction. But But I can’t speak to the person’s heart because I’ve never been in it.

Yeah. Can I like do one ad? Real quick? I’m not spinning my chair. I’m just asking. Yeah, okay. Do you think that my new burgundy suit would look good? No, you really don’t do. Why? Because it reminds you of Anchorman.

I’ve never seen that movie. That’s a truth.

What Why will you not like it? Do you just not like the thought of

personally, I’m not a fan of Maroon and burgundy. It is the color of my parents 1984 Pontiac Bonneville those were awesome. And I’m gonna Google that the interior was that kind of Volusia? Also, burgundy? And you know, I understand why you would like it because it’s dark. But now I have not a fan. shatter my dreams. Do I think you can pull it off? No.

Do you say 1984? Yeah,

Pontiac Bonneville look it up. Asked me a four door sedan had these little plastic lights. On the back you had kind of like a faux leather like a vinyl back piece that made it look like it could have been a convertible but it wasn’t.

Oh, wow. Yeah. This is good stuff. Dr. Carroll. So is this your Is this your whip?

Yeah, it wasn’t that large sedan. It was kind of the mid size family. So they didn’t have that long.

This literally looks like a barge a bar. Yeah,

it that looks like a gangster vehicle from the early 80s. That was it. That’s exactly it right there. Nathan has shown a picture of the 1984 Pontiac Bonneville

that’s fantastic.

Yeah. So no.

Well, on this 39th episode of you’ll die trying. We hope that I hope I can’t speak for you. But I would think that it’s your same hope that you will allow people to form their own opinions. stay neutral. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. be neutral. Stay connected to the people in your life and don’t give a lot of credence to to people who may ruminate or gossip or complain it just it breaks communities. We need to get out of what when author says they use the squirrel cage of being me into the landscape. But being us,

I like that. The goal is should be when you lay your head on your pillow at night for you shut your eyes, you can do so comfortably, knowing that you did the best that you possibly could today. That’s all we can do. The rest is just details. So I appreciate you, Dr. Carroll very much appreciate you too.

Thank you. We do not take you for granted. This is number 39 You’re trying I’m Jonathan. I’m Nathan. Thanks for listening