How to respond to - "WELL, tell me WHEN did I actually do that? WHERE?
June 18, 2021 12:16 PM Subscribe
You are talking to someone, and mention a pattern, a repeated action of the other. In a kinda nice way.....saying well, "you do that a lot".
Not really accusing, but carefully pointing out, bringing to attention, a behavior. Not trying to start an argument, but maybe begin a look at a behavior.
But the immediate response is DEFENSE. When? Where? Give me an example. The tone shifts immediately, from empathy to argument. From a wandering line of conversation, back and forth, changing course.....to a straight line, fixed and rigid. Fact-based. Proof.
And that is fair enough, I suppose. But if one responds with dates and times, witnesses, or videos,
the conversation is over, accelerated into a lopsided exchange,
When one side aligns with anger and defense, the point is lost, the empathetic becomes hard, and someone walks away with I won, they lost.
Oh really? Tell me when?
That's not the point.
But you are accusing me of....
I don't remember......sputter.....let me think......
Or, I remember exactly, blah, blah
That's not true, I wasn't there...........
OK, that's the end of THIS conversation. And after 1 or 2 of these, you feel burn't.
But the immediate response is DEFENSE. When? Where? Give me an example. The tone shifts immediately, from empathy to argument. From a wandering line of conversation, back and forth, changing course.....to a straight line, fixed and rigid. Fact-based. Proof.
And that is fair enough, I suppose. But if one responds with dates and times, witnesses, or videos,
the conversation is over, accelerated into a lopsided exchange,
When one side aligns with anger and defense, the point is lost, the empathetic becomes hard, and someone walks away with I won, they lost.
Oh really? Tell me when?
That's not the point.
But you are accusing me of....
I don't remember......sputter.....let me think......
Or, I remember exactly, blah, blah
That's not true, I wasn't there...........
OK, that's the end of THIS conversation. And after 1 or 2 of these, you feel burn't.
If you & I had a friendly relationship and you said "Oh look you're doing that thing" I would be open to receiving this information in a friendly way. OK sure you have spotted a pattern. I can accept that. I wouldn't be angry about it. But if it was some behavior that I wasn't aware of, my first reaction would still be "What are you talking about? I don't do that. When did I do that?" And depending on how you framed it, it might come out a little loud if I feel like I'm being criticized unfairly or accused of something I would never do. That's just a natural impulse when tells you X is a pattern and you have never seen X before, no matter what kind of thing X is. If you're going to point something out, you have to be prepared to provide evidence.
However this person is doing a thing where they leap to anger right away. So what you know is that this kind of thing is especially provocative for this person. I know someone who hates it when I do this, so I have made a point of stopping before I say something like this and think about a better way to put it that would be received better. Why am I bringing this up? What do I really need them to do or know? What's the most direct way to communicate it without getting sidetracked? I like the guidelines that Buddhism provides for thinking about the best ways to communicate. Guidelines for right speech
posted by bleep at 12:32 PM on June 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
However this person is doing a thing where they leap to anger right away. So what you know is that this kind of thing is especially provocative for this person. I know someone who hates it when I do this, so I have made a point of stopping before I say something like this and think about a better way to put it that would be received better. Why am I bringing this up? What do I really need them to do or know? What's the most direct way to communicate it without getting sidetracked? I like the guidelines that Buddhism provides for thinking about the best ways to communicate. Guidelines for right speech
posted by bleep at 12:32 PM on June 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
If you're making broad statements but can't provide any evidence, then I'd say the conversation is "lopsided" because it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about a baseless accusation. If you can provide an example, I can say "oh, you're right," or "no, you misinterpreted," or whatever. But if you're just saying shit without anything to back it up, then there's nowhere for the conversation to go. It is incredibly frustrating to be with someone like this. If you don't have even a single example, then don't bring it up.
posted by HotToddy at 12:39 PM on June 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by HotToddy at 12:39 PM on June 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
As a general rule, you can't provide feedback on another adult's behaviour or personal habits and expect that they will take it well, unless you were invited to provide it, and often not even then. Most people just generally aren't open to constructive criticism on how they live their lives. Some people are less open to it than others and will immediately get hostile, but some level of defensiveness is a pretty normal reaction.
How you can approach things to increase the chance of success depends somewhat on whose problem it is. If you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for your benefit, that's different than if you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for someone else's benefit, which is different than if you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for their benefit.
A couple of thoughts that might help generally, though:
Use 'I language'. "When you did X, I felt Y." This frames the problem as being about how you feel rather than about what they did.
Begin with a focus on a present or very recent example -- don't start by describing a pattern, start by focusing on the incident that just happened. You can expand the scope of the conversation to the idea that it has happened before, but you can't walk back 'you do this all the time!'
But also, do be prepared in advance with a small number of specific examples so you don't have to do the hemming and hawing thing. It's hard to be prepared for a spontaneous conversation, of course, but if it isn't a pattern that's been a problem for long enough to have a mental list of past incidents, it's probably not worth bringing up and definitely not worth bringing up as a pattern.
Don't exaggerate -- don't say things like 'you do this all the time', because no one does anything all the time except breathe. They do it more or less frequently. Have a sense of what the frequency is "I feel unsafe when I discover that the door has been unlocked while I've been home alone. Once a week or so, you forget to lock it when you leave for work."
posted by jacquilynne at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2021 [21 favorites]
How you can approach things to increase the chance of success depends somewhat on whose problem it is. If you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for your benefit, that's different than if you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for someone else's benefit, which is different than if you're trying to get them to change their behaviour for their benefit.
A couple of thoughts that might help generally, though:
Use 'I language'. "When you did X, I felt Y." This frames the problem as being about how you feel rather than about what they did.
Begin with a focus on a present or very recent example -- don't start by describing a pattern, start by focusing on the incident that just happened. You can expand the scope of the conversation to the idea that it has happened before, but you can't walk back 'you do this all the time!'
But also, do be prepared in advance with a small number of specific examples so you don't have to do the hemming and hawing thing. It's hard to be prepared for a spontaneous conversation, of course, but if it isn't a pattern that's been a problem for long enough to have a mental list of past incidents, it's probably not worth bringing up and definitely not worth bringing up as a pattern.
Don't exaggerate -- don't say things like 'you do this all the time', because no one does anything all the time except breathe. They do it more or less frequently. Have a sense of what the frequency is "I feel unsafe when I discover that the door has been unlocked while I've been home alone. Once a week or so, you forget to lock it when you leave for work."
posted by jacquilynne at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2021 [21 favorites]
Unless there's a power differential (a parent trying to make corrections to a child's behavior, a supervisor pointing out problems with an employee's performance), it's really not good form to be informing someone of things they do without their permission to have the conversation.
If you're in therapy, there's a tacit understanding that the therapist's job is to help you see things and that you've agreed to this type of conversation. If you're in couples counseling, again, there's a tacit agreement that you've agreed with your partner to discuss things that undergird the mutual problem. But if you're having this discussion with a friend or partner, there has to be some sort of stated agreement that you accept having your flaws/behaviors pointed out to you. Even with best friends or partners, feelings can be hurt if there's not strongly implied agreement, at the very least, that expressing these things is...a thing.
So, not knowing the roles these two people play in one another's life, I'd say the first thing required is to either gain permission to have this sort of relationship (both overall, and in the context of the conversation). My best friend of 35+ years can say, "Yeah, you've done this before and..." but if my sister (of several more decades) said the same thing, it would be a deal-breaker.
So, you have to reconsider whether you have the kind of relationship with this person where you have the right to state these things (by right, I mean, the acceptance of the conversational partner), and then whether your reason for saying it makes sense. If you are not the person's parent (and the person is *a* child, not just your child), supervisor, or therapist, consider what your reasoning is for "illuminating" this person. This defensive reaction may be overboard, but you may have overstepped the boundaries of what that person accepts with the rules of the relationship.
So, why are you pointing out a person's behavior to them? Have they asked you to? Does their behavior impact you? And if the latter is true, it's better to say, "When you do X like you just did, right now, here, in the last five seconds, it makes me feel Y." Not, "Here, I've identified this pattern in you because I've been playing amateur detective" but "I've been experiencing this thing, and I'd like us to discuss it with you, if you'll accept that, because this impacts both of us." And if it doesn't impact you, why the heck are you commenting on someone's behaviors?
Yes, I realize I'm telling you how not to get into the situation without conversational permission in the first place. But if you insist on doing the thing I'm advising you not to do, then the only response appropriate is, "Before I proceed, are you sure you want me to specify the when/where/how, or would you rather I apologize for raising the issue and we can drop this conversation and go get ice cream?"
posted by The Wrong Kind of Cheese at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2021 [9 favorites]
If you're in therapy, there's a tacit understanding that the therapist's job is to help you see things and that you've agreed to this type of conversation. If you're in couples counseling, again, there's a tacit agreement that you've agreed with your partner to discuss things that undergird the mutual problem. But if you're having this discussion with a friend or partner, there has to be some sort of stated agreement that you accept having your flaws/behaviors pointed out to you. Even with best friends or partners, feelings can be hurt if there's not strongly implied agreement, at the very least, that expressing these things is...a thing.
So, not knowing the roles these two people play in one another's life, I'd say the first thing required is to either gain permission to have this sort of relationship (both overall, and in the context of the conversation). My best friend of 35+ years can say, "Yeah, you've done this before and..." but if my sister (of several more decades) said the same thing, it would be a deal-breaker.
So, you have to reconsider whether you have the kind of relationship with this person where you have the right to state these things (by right, I mean, the acceptance of the conversational partner), and then whether your reason for saying it makes sense. If you are not the person's parent (and the person is *a* child, not just your child), supervisor, or therapist, consider what your reasoning is for "illuminating" this person. This defensive reaction may be overboard, but you may have overstepped the boundaries of what that person accepts with the rules of the relationship.
So, why are you pointing out a person's behavior to them? Have they asked you to? Does their behavior impact you? And if the latter is true, it's better to say, "When you do X like you just did, right now, here, in the last five seconds, it makes me feel Y." Not, "Here, I've identified this pattern in you because I've been playing amateur detective" but "I've been experiencing this thing, and I'd like us to discuss it with you, if you'll accept that, because this impacts both of us." And if it doesn't impact you, why the heck are you commenting on someone's behaviors?
Yes, I realize I'm telling you how not to get into the situation without conversational permission in the first place. But if you insist on doing the thing I'm advising you not to do, then the only response appropriate is, "Before I proceed, are you sure you want me to specify the when/where/how, or would you rather I apologize for raising the issue and we can drop this conversation and go get ice cream?"
posted by The Wrong Kind of Cheese at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2021 [9 favorites]
Unless you're purely in it for the moral superiority points, I'm not sure it makes much practical difference whether the other person truly does "do X a lot." The question is, what do you want them to do for you instead? Reframing around your needs for the future (rather than their transgressions in the past) provides a nice positive way forward for everyone. For example,
"You always forget to take out the trash, and it drives me crazy" becomes "I think we really need to make sure the trash gets out on time this week, should I maybe set an alarm?"
"You always subtly insult my mom when we visit" becomes "Can we be super-positive about my mom's cooking today? I've noticed she's a little low-spirited lately."
"You always immediately dismiss my work problems" becomes "I need you to listen quietly for the first five minutes of anything I'm ranting about with work, OK? It really helps when I have a non-judgmental sounding board."
posted by Bardolph at 12:52 PM on June 18, 2021 [25 favorites]
"You always forget to take out the trash, and it drives me crazy" becomes "I think we really need to make sure the trash gets out on time this week, should I maybe set an alarm?"
"You always subtly insult my mom when we visit" becomes "Can we be super-positive about my mom's cooking today? I've noticed she's a little low-spirited lately."
"You always immediately dismiss my work problems" becomes "I need you to listen quietly for the first five minutes of anything I'm ranting about with work, OK? It really helps when I have a non-judgmental sounding board."
posted by Bardolph at 12:52 PM on June 18, 2021 [25 favorites]
Ha, this is actually something my therapist and I are working on right now, both me doing it to other people and other people doing it to me. The distinction we're working on is emotion vs. reason, how to tell when the speaker is looking for an emotional reaction or a logical one. If it's an emotional one (i.e., "you always do this and it makes me mad"), the response should be emotional as well. The response should understand and validate those feelings, even if they're disputing the actual substance of the allegation. Listening to understand as opposed to listening to respond. Ideally, the conversation progresses in a way that allows you to express how something is making you feel, without putting the other person on trial. This is what I think you mean when you say "that's not the point" in your example. It's not a question of whether the other person did x action on a, b, and c days, and since 3 occurrences is sufficient to establish a pattern that the other person is a habitual x-action-doer. It's a question of something has happened, more than once, that makes you feel a certain way. You're going to have to be more explicit on your side that this is an emotional conversation.
On the other hand, if you're trying to make a logical point, and the other person is disputing your facts, well, the solution is to get your facts straight. One of the reasons I'm working on this is because it feels pretty shitty to keep a running list of times other people do things that upset you, especially if the majority of time the other person is someone who's quite nice and caring. But if you see it from the other person's perspective, it's actually helpful. Imagine if someone told you that you were doing something that you were under the impression you don't do. Like, if you pride yourself on being on time for stuff, and someone said that you'd been running late a lot recently, that can really mess with your self-image. Now, it's possible that you didn't know you'd been late (maybe your watch is wrong), or you rationalized it (the kids were acting up a couple times this week), or whatever. Sometimes this type of feedback is helpful to close any gaps between reality and self-image. But if you've been at your desk 15 minutes before the start of your workday every day for the past several months, and someone says you've been tardy a lot recently, one person is clearly mistaken. And in general, it's the person making the allegation who bears the burden of proof. So have examples; write them down if you need to.
That being said, though, if I had to bet, I'd say this is probably more of an emotional conversation than a logical one.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, if you're trying to make a logical point, and the other person is disputing your facts, well, the solution is to get your facts straight. One of the reasons I'm working on this is because it feels pretty shitty to keep a running list of times other people do things that upset you, especially if the majority of time the other person is someone who's quite nice and caring. But if you see it from the other person's perspective, it's actually helpful. Imagine if someone told you that you were doing something that you were under the impression you don't do. Like, if you pride yourself on being on time for stuff, and someone said that you'd been running late a lot recently, that can really mess with your self-image. Now, it's possible that you didn't know you'd been late (maybe your watch is wrong), or you rationalized it (the kids were acting up a couple times this week), or whatever. Sometimes this type of feedback is helpful to close any gaps between reality and self-image. But if you've been at your desk 15 minutes before the start of your workday every day for the past several months, and someone says you've been tardy a lot recently, one person is clearly mistaken. And in general, it's the person making the allegation who bears the burden of proof. So have examples; write them down if you need to.
That being said, though, if I had to bet, I'd say this is probably more of an emotional conversation than a logical one.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
While you may not be an authority on their behavior, you are an authority on *your perception* of their behavior. Depending on the kind of friendship you have, you may be able to lean into acknowledging and even highlighting the subjectivity of your feedback.
This requires a level of mutual trust and good faith between the two people. Not everyone wants to hear what their friends really think, but social connections can also be a vital part of self reflection, of pointing out blind spots and problematic behavior that a therapist might not have the perception to notice.
A conversation might be a friend expressing frustration with how something is going in their life, you saying, “do you want to hear my thoughts about it?” And IF they say yes, follow up with “Based on knowing you for X years, seeing you in Y experiences and listening to stories about Z, my brain puts together conclusion Q. Conclusion Q may not be objective reality—I have my own biases, but conclusion Q exists for me and may exist for other people. If you want to be seen as something other than Q, I will take it into consideration, but your behavior would also need to exhibit NotQ.”
That’s kind of approach would work for my 3 closest friends and a handful of others that are specifically open to blunt feedback (neurodivergece-hey-o!), but with other friends I’m more likely to try to lead them to admitting the pattern though asking questions, trying to draw out their empathy, but also detaching when it looks like a wholly losing battle.
posted by itesser at 1:26 PM on June 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
This requires a level of mutual trust and good faith between the two people. Not everyone wants to hear what their friends really think, but social connections can also be a vital part of self reflection, of pointing out blind spots and problematic behavior that a therapist might not have the perception to notice.
A conversation might be a friend expressing frustration with how something is going in their life, you saying, “do you want to hear my thoughts about it?” And IF they say yes, follow up with “Based on knowing you for X years, seeing you in Y experiences and listening to stories about Z, my brain puts together conclusion Q. Conclusion Q may not be objective reality—I have my own biases, but conclusion Q exists for me and may exist for other people. If you want to be seen as something other than Q, I will take it into consideration, but your behavior would also need to exhibit NotQ.”
That’s kind of approach would work for my 3 closest friends and a handful of others that are specifically open to blunt feedback (neurodivergece-hey-o!), but with other friends I’m more likely to try to lead them to admitting the pattern though asking questions, trying to draw out their empathy, but also detaching when it looks like a wholly losing battle.
posted by itesser at 1:26 PM on June 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is very dependent on the nature of the behavior, the context, and the relationship.
If it's a serious topic and an important relationship and you are trying to set a boundary, you're better off having this conversation relatively close to an occurrence and simply say "this morning when you insulted my mother's cooking to her face, that's not okay and I need it to not happen anymore". You will need to have decided what you will do if they are not positively responsive, but you can't control their actual response. But doing it this way prevents the loop of "you ALWAYS" and someone wanting court evidence that it's ALWAYS and not only 90% of the time, as if insulting your mother 90% of the time is fine and now in fact mandatory because you incorrectly worded your request.
(Tip: dump that person.)
If you are observing a general behavior, like "you always get a rash when you eat scampi and that's worrisome" or "it makes you really anxious when music is too loud in a restaurant" or "you're a jackass to the woman who runs the corner store" and the other person's priority continues to be evidence, just tell them you'll point it out next time. The evidence is so much less important than the problem, just don't engage in the distraction.
Note though: this kind of "Where's the EVIDENCE huh?!? You accuse Miette??" behavior can be a form of DARVO.
But sometimes you may have just hit a sore spot, and people aren't always at their best in that case. If you told me I always undertip or that it's unpleasant to go shopping with me because I'm so indecisive or that I'm mean to your cat, I don't think of myself as a person who is those things and I'd be really shocked and hurt that you saw me that way. I would also examine my behavior, because I'm going to believe you're telling me these things in good faith and not just for entertainment to make me feel bad, but my first reaction probably isn't going to be elegantly crafted. Still, though, if you really hated my first reaction, that's your right - you feel how you feel. What you choose to do about further interactions with me is all up to you, but you don't get to tell me I have to do it some specific way.
posted by Lyn Never at 2:13 PM on June 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
If it's a serious topic and an important relationship and you are trying to set a boundary, you're better off having this conversation relatively close to an occurrence and simply say "this morning when you insulted my mother's cooking to her face, that's not okay and I need it to not happen anymore". You will need to have decided what you will do if they are not positively responsive, but you can't control their actual response. But doing it this way prevents the loop of "you ALWAYS" and someone wanting court evidence that it's ALWAYS and not only 90% of the time, as if insulting your mother 90% of the time is fine and now in fact mandatory because you incorrectly worded your request.
(Tip: dump that person.)
If you are observing a general behavior, like "you always get a rash when you eat scampi and that's worrisome" or "it makes you really anxious when music is too loud in a restaurant" or "you're a jackass to the woman who runs the corner store" and the other person's priority continues to be evidence, just tell them you'll point it out next time. The evidence is so much less important than the problem, just don't engage in the distraction.
Note though: this kind of "Where's the EVIDENCE huh?!? You accuse Miette??" behavior can be a form of DARVO.
But sometimes you may have just hit a sore spot, and people aren't always at their best in that case. If you told me I always undertip or that it's unpleasant to go shopping with me because I'm so indecisive or that I'm mean to your cat, I don't think of myself as a person who is those things and I'd be really shocked and hurt that you saw me that way. I would also examine my behavior, because I'm going to believe you're telling me these things in good faith and not just for entertainment to make me feel bad, but my first reaction probably isn't going to be elegantly crafted. Still, though, if you really hated my first reaction, that's your right - you feel how you feel. What you choose to do about further interactions with me is all up to you, but you don't get to tell me I have to do it some specific way.
posted by Lyn Never at 2:13 PM on June 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
I am an argumentative person who tends to provoke argumentative responses in others. and yet I get reliably positive responses when I tell someone what they habitually do: whether it be "You always have such good ideas for places to go on weekends" or "You're so nice to my friends every time we see them;" "You keep thanking me for small favors and you really don't have to, I was happy to do it" or "You know, you really do show up when I need you, time after time," I don't think I've ever had someone reply with a Fuck you, PROVE it.
not to play dumb: I understand, of course, that these reactions happen because you don't mean this type of evaluative statement; you mean pointed criticism.
I think that your emotional characterization of the critic as serenely contemplative, musing, philosophical, contrasted against the defensive sharp angry criticized person, is unlikely to be accurate or objective, even though it probably feels true to the critic. I think that people become defensive when other people become offensive. they defend themselves against attack. you can correct that to "perceived" attack, but ideally you would be willing to add a "perceived" to defense, too.
and I do not think that a productive conversation can be had when "fact-based" is positioned as the opposite of "empathetic."
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:12 PM on June 18, 2021 [19 favorites]
not to play dumb: I understand, of course, that these reactions happen because you don't mean this type of evaluative statement; you mean pointed criticism.
I think that your emotional characterization of the critic as serenely contemplative, musing, philosophical, contrasted against the defensive sharp angry criticized person, is unlikely to be accurate or objective, even though it probably feels true to the critic. I think that people become defensive when other people become offensive. they defend themselves against attack. you can correct that to "perceived" attack, but ideally you would be willing to add a "perceived" to defense, too.
and I do not think that a productive conversation can be had when "fact-based" is positioned as the opposite of "empathetic."
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:12 PM on June 18, 2021 [19 favorites]
Me and my partner have these conversations, not a lot but sometimes. We can both be easygoing about some minor annoyance thing but sometimes things can get to a tipping point where it's like "Hey that thing you do a lot, I'd really like it if you could try to do it less" or something. And often that is an okay conversation but sometimes it turns out the way you describe. I learned a lot about "rejection sensitive dysphoria" (kind of facile article about it but you can get the idea) which is not uncommon with folks with ADHD which my partner has. No big deal, but it really helped me understand why we could go from casual chatting to "WHY ARE YOU ACCUSING ME?!" in five seconds flat. So, I got better at bringing things up earlier and he got better at being able to hear a non-accusing "Hey you're doing that thing again" in a way where he didn't take it as an accusation. Because we're both kind of scrappers so if he asked for the evidence, he'd get it (in a nice way) but I don't think that's a super healthy way to interact and so we both really tried to not go there.
But as others have said, this really depends on your relationship with the person. With a partner I think it's fair game. With a friend, maybe, depends on the friendship, with a family member, maybe, with a work colleague, unless it's work-related I probably wouldn't.
posted by jessamyn at 5:19 PM on June 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
But as others have said, this really depends on your relationship with the person. With a partner I think it's fair game. With a friend, maybe, depends on the friendship, with a family member, maybe, with a work colleague, unless it's work-related I probably wouldn't.
posted by jessamyn at 5:19 PM on June 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
So, you see this behavior issue in some person. Call him Fred. Chances are that Fred sees his behavior from the inside and you see it from the outside. Maybe he sees it as being helpful and you see it as being pushy. You want to get both points of view on the table. Acknowledge that there might be validity to Fred's point of view, at least for the immediate discussion.
Mentioning an instance with a third party may help. "Did you get any pushback from Angela? I got the feeling she felt you were invading her space by insisting David be on the team."
posted by SemiSalt at 9:21 AM on June 19, 2021
Mentioning an instance with a third party may help. "Did you get any pushback from Angela? I got the feeling she felt you were invading her space by insisting David be on the team."
posted by SemiSalt at 9:21 AM on June 19, 2021
If this is positive feedback, something you like about them or think they might like about themselves, then feel free to point it out in this way.
If this is negative/critical feedback, something you don't like about them or think they might not like about themselves...
a) Does it affect you? If not, why do you need to point it out? In my experience everyone is hard enough on themselves and they don't need their friends/coworkers/loved ones pointing out more flaws.
b) If it does affect you, and you would like to discuss it, it's a pretty well-established idea that you should give feedback that is specific and immediate. Point it out one time when they do it, as soon as possible after they do it, and try to discuss that specific time (not "you often" "you always" "this happens a lot" -- just "Today when you said ___ I felt hurt.")
posted by amaire at 5:22 PM on June 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
If this is negative/critical feedback, something you don't like about them or think they might not like about themselves...
a) Does it affect you? If not, why do you need to point it out? In my experience everyone is hard enough on themselves and they don't need their friends/coworkers/loved ones pointing out more flaws.
b) If it does affect you, and you would like to discuss it, it's a pretty well-established idea that you should give feedback that is specific and immediate. Point it out one time when they do it, as soon as possible after they do it, and try to discuss that specific time (not "you often" "you always" "this happens a lot" -- just "Today when you said ___ I felt hurt.")
posted by amaire at 5:22 PM on June 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
As a person who's been on the receiving end of this feedback in the past, specifically about my tone in telephone conversations at work, my asking "When did I do this? Please tell me," was because they never supplied specifics, just said I sounded unfriendly, and I had no idea where even to start. And it was extremely frustrating to get this criticism multiple times from people who were unable or unwilling to explain how I sounded unfriendly, or even what "friendly" was supposed to be like, and were not willing to say "That call you just finished. You didn't X, Y or Z" so there was literally no way I could fix the problem.
This might not be the sort of situation you're talking about, but I thought I'd bring it up in case there were elements of this involved. I got very defensive and angry every time it happened because it sounded like they thought I knew what the problem was and I didn't, and I could see no way of fixing it.
(I mean, now, a couple of decades later, I think it was a Southern culture thing where I didn't spend several minutes discussing life with the clients on the phone before taking their order, but at the time I could not comprehend why being what I thought was professional and to-the-point on the phone would be considered unfriendly.)
posted by telophase at 12:50 PM on June 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
This might not be the sort of situation you're talking about, but I thought I'd bring it up in case there were elements of this involved. I got very defensive and angry every time it happened because it sounded like they thought I knew what the problem was and I didn't, and I could see no way of fixing it.
(I mean, now, a couple of decades later, I think it was a Southern culture thing where I didn't spend several minutes discussing life with the clients on the phone before taking their order, but at the time I could not comprehend why being what I thought was professional and to-the-point on the phone would be considered unfriendly.)
posted by telophase at 12:50 PM on June 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
It sounds like your friend is not being cooperative in these conversations.
However, it can be genuinely difficult to respond productively to broad characterizations of your behavior, like "You do that a lot" where "that" is being offered as something bad and a target for correction. Some reasons for this. First, your friend may not see these patterns in their own behavior. Second, general negative characterizations of your behavior can feel like condemnations of your character.
Both difficulties can be ameliorated by making an effort to call attention to specific instances of the pattern when they arise -- but not as a way of saying "I told you so about the pattern." Rather, they are opportunities to signal the alternative behavior you want in a particular circumstance. If these overtures are repeatedly rejected, ignored, or forgotten, then a conversation about the pattern may be necessary, but it will be easier given the track record of specific instances.
posted by grobstein at 9:26 AM on July 8, 2021
However, it can be genuinely difficult to respond productively to broad characterizations of your behavior, like "You do that a lot" where "that" is being offered as something bad and a target for correction. Some reasons for this. First, your friend may not see these patterns in their own behavior. Second, general negative characterizations of your behavior can feel like condemnations of your character.
Both difficulties can be ameliorated by making an effort to call attention to specific instances of the pattern when they arise -- but not as a way of saying "I told you so about the pattern." Rather, they are opportunities to signal the alternative behavior you want in a particular circumstance. If these overtures are repeatedly rejected, ignored, or forgotten, then a conversation about the pattern may be necessary, but it will be easier given the track record of specific instances.
posted by grobstein at 9:26 AM on July 8, 2021
This thread is closed to new comments.
The famous "ding training" method may work.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:31 PM on June 18, 2021 [5 favorites]