ChrisN Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Hello all. I've recently been doing some thinking about how to discuss feelings with another person. I listened to the RTR audiobook and I get as far as 'I feel X' without immediately putting the blame on them (ex. You pissed me off). I get a lot of 'Why are you sad/angry/mad/irritated (insert feeling here)' after that and I'm at a bit of a loss as how to respond to it in an appropriate manner. I'm not sure if it would be right to say 'Well I'm irritated because I don't think I'm being listened to' but without doing that I'm not sure how to discuss my feelings beyond what I am feeling. How can you discuss why you have a certain feeling that you might think is related to the other persons actions without blaming them (leading down to a chain of bashing each other rather than actually talking about the feelings and finding a productive solution). If anyone has a good example that might help too. Thank you very much in advance.
ribuck Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 If you were to say to the person "I'm irritated because I don't think I'm being listened to", wouldn't you expect the other person to respond "I'm listening to you now"? In which case, maybe there's a cause of your irritation other than the actions of the other person.
Pepin Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 "I don't know, what do you think?". Talking about protection far prior will be helpful to their understanding that identifying the true problem is not as easy as you think it is.
dsayers Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Self-knowledge can take a lot of the surprise out of these sorts of things. Still, if an emotion catches you by surprise, it usually means you're not going to be able to explain why in the moment. It's something you can think about or in the case of interacting with somebody that truly cares about you, something you can explore together.
scarlett Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Putting forward a theory about the cause of your feelings being in the other person is not the same as blame. If the other person dislikes that, you already know they are not into self knowledge, and you can disengage. A lot of people mistake RTR with some sort of "thou shalt not blame", as if the option of disengaging was not there and the relationship was holy.... Of course a lot of our feelings are genuine responses to attacks, and RTR is just a way to find out the source of these things - which can be a choice the other person makes. I remember reading On truth and Stefs mother saying "of course I listen to you", which is another way to say "you do not exist" or "I am not interested in the truth"...........
Lians Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Why not respond with the truth? Reason and evidence is what you rely on if you don't know the truth. Start by gathering the available evidence: "I don't know. I felt X when you did Y. What were you feeling when you did Y? Here's a list of instances when I've felt X in my life..." You can put forward a tentative theory when you gather enough evidence, and until you reach an acceptable answer, you continuously revise this theory using reason and evidence . For an RTR conversation to be productive, both sides need to be experienced in philosophy and self-knowledge. You need philosophy to make sure you're sticking to the evidence and putting a theory together using reason. Self-knowledge is required for an authentic expression of your feelings and an understanding of your defences.
JamesP Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 It's not meant to be a formula, but it also depends what happens when you hear that question. It may be that my irritation intensifies. I may experience an opening of my heart. I may not really know why I am feeling that way, either, just that I am having this experience. I'm sure to have thoughts about it but if you are new to RTR, it's worth holding the conclusions back until you're sure. You may still not know after you get some experience, but if you have not been doing this at all before, skepticism is a worthy approach. Also, RTR starts with the self. We are loaded with all kinds of conclusions about ourselves by the time we reach adulthood. They may be true, but you don't know until you examine the evidence. Does that make any sense?
ChrisN Posted May 26, 2014 Author Posted May 26, 2014 Thank you very much for the responses everyone. So if I'm understanding it, we use RTR to find out the true reasons behind things through discussing the emotions we feel in the moment. For anyone who is genuinely empathetic, I imagine they would ask about why you have a certain feeling which you may or may not actually have any real clue about. Then from there you can start checking with each other putting forward evidence and theories like "Well I felt angry when you brought up my parents like they are great people and I think it may have to do with my childhood" for example. Then with someone compatible with RTR you can get into a discussion that might unveil some things about yourself or them too. However, like Lians points out it might not be the approach to take with most people as they need to be "experienced in philosophy and self-knowledge". I recall in the book, there were characters that would just respond with aggression and zero empathy when confronted with statements of emotion about feeling sad / angry. So theories are good for getting to the correct conclusion which may be very different than the initial feeling, it's just that kind of automatic negative non-response to an emotion that's not really compatible with RTR. Sound about right?
Lians Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Thank you very much for the responses everyone. So if I'm understanding it, we use RTR to find out the true reasons behind things through discussing the emotions we feel in the moment. For anyone who is genuinely empathetic, I imagine they would ask about why you have a certain feeling which you may or may not actually have any real clue about. Then from there you can start checking with each other putting forward evidence and theories like "Well I felt angry when you brought up my parents like they are great people and I think it may have to do with my childhood" for example. Then with someone compatible with RTR you can get into a discussion that might unveil some things about yourself or them too. However, like Lians points out it might not be the approach to take with most people as they need to be "experienced in philosophy and self-knowledge". I recall in the book, there were characters that would just respond with aggression and zero empathy when confronted with statements of emotion about feeling sad / angry. So theories are good for getting to the correct conclusion which may be very different than the initial feeling, it's just that kind of automatic negative non-response to an emotion that's not really compatible with RTR. Sound about right? It's up to you how you choose to approach a particular interaction. An RTR conversation can provide a lot of clarity where you feel ambivalence. Stef often advises people to RTR with their parents because the familial bond is a great source of ambivalence for most of us. If people respond with aggression and lack of empathy, then they value their defences more than they value you, and RTR will give you both the intellectual and emotional clarity to leave them behind and move on with your life. An empathetic and curious response, on the other hand, can be a foundation for a stronger connection and deeper understanding of both yourself and the other person. Personally, I view RTR as a methodology for deriving truth about relationships--the scientific method applied to human relationships if you will. This includes your relationship with yourself--self-RTR. Let's say your girlfriend does something that triggers pain in you. You immediately come up with a theory that explains what you felt. Question is, how do you know this theory is accurate? As I said in my previous post, this is where self-knowledge, empiricism and reason come into play. Is your explanation an emotionally defensive reaction? Did you factor in the actions and experiences of both sides, stripped from the justifications? Is your theory logical? You can access a wealth of knowledge using this methodology, but the actual application, as with most things in life, is more of an art form. To analogise, there's nothing in the scientific method that says, "This is how you come up with the theory of quantum mechanics!" Be curious and creative, stay vulnerable, trust your instincts, and commit to the methodology; the rest is experience. That's the best advice I can give you. Here's a podcast where Stef goes into the history of what later became RTR: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/192/curiosity-and-personal-relationships
Recommended Posts