Do the Math! (The Application of Rational Principles)

The objective of this article is to assist in the understanding of how what you believe about your past experiences influences and affects how you behave, inevitably influencing and affecting present and future expectations and experiences. The purpose of this is to not merely persuade but to convince you that, either the pain hurts enough to be a catalyst for change, or that it’s imminent that the pain you’re experiencing now will get worse until it’s so severe you can no longer bear it.

To review Do the Math! part 1, click on this link.

Here are the questions you can be asking yourself:

Have irrational beliefs that have led to negative behavioral outcomes and painful emotional consequences led to enough struggle in my life?

Do I hurt enough to make needed change in how I think and behave?

Have I finally come to realize that these behavioral experiences run contrary to what I truly want most for my life?

How does what I do, and what I say, get me closer to what I want most for my life?

First: Identify what you want most for your life.

Take an honest look at yourself. What do you want? Be careful not to limit what you want by cynically considering what you may believe to possible. Do you want happiness, whatever that even means? More clearly stated, do you want to experience joy? Do you want to be free… free of anxiety and stress… free of fear… free to experience healthy love? Do you want peace and contentment in your life? Do you want to obtain more knowledge and wisdom? Do you want emotional stability? Do you want better, more effective and productive relationships, wherever they are? What all do you want that really matters to you? Sit down and write out a list.

Second: Identify all of the barriers and obstructions in the way of what you want most for your life.

Make a list. The list might begin with painful memories (perhaps traumatic) that makes its way in to fears and resentments. The list likely gets into failed expectations, broken promises, and betrayals, including all of the disappointments along the way. The list will include all of the deceptions, distortions, and lies you have come to believe about yourself, your life, and the world you live in. Barriers in the way of what you want will involve feelings of loss, grief, and regret. The list goes on: rejections, jealousies, bitterness, unforgiveness, and feeling unforgiven; grudges you hold and grudges held against you. Experiences of abuse and violation, being bullied physically and/or emotionally.

Experiences likely date back to your childhood circumstances and relationships. There may have been divorce growing up, and everything that goes with it. Maybe your family was poor and constantly in need. Perhaps their was alcoholism and addiction in your household growing up. Breakups and heartbreak can still get in the way of what you want and need to be healthy.

I’ve given you a whole bunch to consider for your list. When I ask teenagers who’ve been embattled internally to develop their list of barriers in the way of what they want most, they identify experiences and feelings that touch my heart so deeply it’s hard not to tear up in their presence. When someone tells me that she feels empty inside, or he tells me he is invisible, it hurts me. I cannot imagine growing up feeling like that. It wasn’t my experience.

I will ask those I am counseling to consider attaching an experience to a feeling they have listed, or to attach a feeling to an experience, and ask them to write down what they believe about themselves, accordingly. Then I have to ask… What might be true about that belief, and what might be a distortion, or even a lie, about the belief? The distorted lie is typically something that cancels the truth, and renders the belief to be irrational.

Third: Identify strategies truly necessary to overcome the barriers in the way of what you want most.

Begin with the obvious. Eliminate remedies that you know, when you’re entirely honest with yourself, are causing you problems or making existing problems worse. Eliminate methods for managing feeling and coping with stress that offer temporary relief, but you are aware are adding to your stress.

It is time to seriously consider what you are learning and identifying as beliefs about how you see things that are less than rational. As you become increasingly aware of irrational beliefs in response to experiences that trigger stress for you, it is time and necessary to dispute those beliefs. Refer to your list of barriers in the way of what you want most for your life.

If, for example, toxic relationships are on your list, which of those relationships are optional for you to be involved in that you can eliminate altogether? It may be time to consider counseling and support groups to learn how to manage in toxic and dysfunctional relationships that are not optional. You are stuck with them, and may have all kinds of love for them. If you find yourself taking on their problems, and taking responsibility for cleaning up their mess in order to alleviate your own anxiety and fears, you are in one or more ‘codependent’ relationship. Relationships that are so burdensome because you are carrying the full weight of them can destroy anyone without help. Whether it’s with a spouse or companion, with a friend, or even relationships with your children, regardless of age, it may require the support of a small group, a trustworthy friend or sibling, a mentor, or perhaps a professional therapist.

Counterfeit measures 

Another obvious irrational belief is that potentially addictive drugs (including marijuana and nicotine) and alcohol abuse is helping you to manage your stress and anxiety. As your body learns to depend on remedies to relieve growing discomfort, and your mind becomes convinced that these so-called remedies are necessary to calm down and relax, you are on the road to addiction; as obvious or subtle as it may be.

If you are still reading this and believe that using drugs and alcohol is an effective remedy for stress and managing discomfort, it is time to challenge that assumption; dispute that belief. It does not come from the rational (logical thinking) area of your brain. You are trusting feelings that are feeding into irrational beliefs; distorting your reality, and lying to your intellect. The same thing can be said for staying in toxic relationships that are eating you alive from the inside out. Feelings can insist that you need the thing or person in your life that is stealing your joy, and driving you to a place where you will die inside if there isn’t real change taking place; and soon.

Remedies with the potential for harm, will in fact harm. To entertain the notion that you or anyone is immune to the danger of potentially harmful remedies, is beyond naive. It’s ludicrous; baseless; and altogether wrong in every sense. The belief that proven harmful remedies are a legitimate means for relieving discomfort is ultimately insane.

The truth is that doing the same harmful, self-destructive things over and over again to attempt to feel better, is going to continue to increase stress, pain, and suffering through the severity of difficulty and disappointment. Remember that truth is truth, and facts are facts, whether one chooses to believe it or not. To not believe this is to be a slave to the emotional brain since the thinking, rational brain knows what it knows about this truth, whether the thirsty, starving remedy seeker is willing to accept it or not.

Communication strategies to manage conflict

A critical element that is truly paramount to advancing each one of us closer to where we want to be in life is how we interact with one another. Not only is what we do in how we behave critical to our progress, but what we say, and how we say it, is an element of behavior equally important.

How do you engage someone when working to resolve a conflict? How do you manage confrontation in a difficult situation? Have you and the other party agreed to negotiate in an attempt to arrive at a solution, or have you both dug in, ready with ammunition to attack the place that is most vulnerable to exploit some kind of advantage. Have you done that with words only to discover that your words did more harm than good, and dug you deeper into a hole.

Who gets hurt when interactions between you and others gets messy? When conflict resolutions strategies don’t go beyond escalating the conflict, how are you affected? How does how you communicate with others, ranging from those you love most to less emotionally consequential relationships (acquaintances), build and grow your relationships, and how does how you communicate lead to tension and increased conflict?

How have you been conditioned to engage in confrontations and challenging conversations, according to your  experiences growing up? How might unhealed wounds incline—even compel—you to overcompensate in how you fight to defend your interests? How does what you see growing up impact your interactions today?

Something I’ve enjoyed teaching while doing substance abuse work with inmates at the prison, and now adolescents and adults at the hospital, is this model for human interaction that a man named Eric Berne developed in 1964. This brilliant model of how adults tend to interact, referred to as Transactional Analysis (TA), in found in Dr. Berne’s book, Games People Play.

Similar to Sigmund Freud’s three ego states (id, ego, and superego), Dr. Berne’s TA also applied three ego states—personalities—to his model of how adult-aged people interact and communicate. Dr. Berne referred to these ego states as parent, adult, and child.

My interpretation of this model for adult communication is what I am applying to this discussion. Above, I supplied the links if you would like to read more about Dr. Berne’s theory, but here you’ll read how I utilize these principle’s to suit what I intend to communicate to you.

The Parent ego state may not be what you think when talking about how adult people communicate. Parent is a role, a personality or character, played by one adult interacting with another adult. Anytime the Parent speaks it’s as a parent talking to a child. It might be nurturing, but typically is critical and condescending to one extend or another, whether obvious or subtle. The tone of the Parent addressing the Child may vary but generally comes with an expectation of submission. It is then common for the receiver to take on the Child role when responding to the sender, interacting as the Parent. The receiver of the message may feel that his or her interest is being threatened, and so the Child responds in kind to the Parent with a message, usually with a resistant tone; a tone of rational justification. The Child (receiver) typically responds to the Parent (sender) as a child would to a parent.

We begin learning early on as young children how to interact with people. Some grow up in families where they were at the top of the food chain among their siblings, and perhaps get used to getting what they want from a position of strength. Speaking for myself as the oldest of four children, I never felt all that threatened when it came to getting what I believed I deserved. I am quite certain that I developed a strong sense of entitlement early on in my childhood. I also developed a way with words as a young kid and learned how to talk my way into getting my way. Whatever I lacked physically to be a force to be reckoned with, I could intimidate my peers with persuasive words.

Not all oldest children grow up that way, though. The oldest child in a severely dysfunctional home setting can be a child expected to do all of the chores, and the second he or she is out of line with their emotionally, and possibly physically, abusive parents (including single parents, stepparents, boyfriends and girlfriends of single parents, etc.), can become so emotionally fragile that as adults have developed very low self-esteem and lack confidence.

In my case, friends in college were going deep into their problems hoping for some sage advise from me, which being a bit full of myself, I was more than happy to offer. A few adults in my family would ask for advice regarding their own issues with raising their teenage children. I believe I was sincere listening to them, and then slobbering all over them with my wisdom, but I definitely had the arrogance and bravado to take on the Parent ego state when interacting with other adults.

It may or may not make a difference where you were at in the food chain among your siblings growing up but we are usually conditioned according to our experience as children to interact with others the way we do. If you had to scratch and claw your way to getting what you wanted as a child, you may be more likely to take a more defensive posture interacting with others, particularly when navigating through conflict. If you more often than not didn’t have to try all that hard, living in privilege growing up, you may be more likely to expect more from a place of feeling entitled, whether you realize it or not. It doesn’t require you to be mean about it, but it could affect how you communicate your wants and needs.

Lots of people get together with partners in life naive to the environment of living in a house together, having to sacrifice for the sake of their mate. The happy couple can struggle mightily when faced with the conflict of having to give up “freedoms” and enjoyments that came with only managing themselves, doing mostly what they want, when they want. These conflicts—okay, let’s call them what they are: fights—can become very confrontational. How do they communicate? What language do they use? How are they preconditioned to interact when forced into challenging negotiations that feels as though their livelihood is on the line?

Keep in mind that these are both adults interacting with one another, having taken on the personality of Parent and Child. It is a necessary point of emphasis to stress that neither the parent or child ego states in this state of interaction is particularly mature. It tends to be less than mature, and the longer these adults communicate from these positions, the less mature the dialogue, facial and bodily expressions becomes.

All of the communication here between these adult people is exchanged between the Parent and Child ego states. The Parent addresses the Child, and the Child responds by addressing the Parent. It appears these two are conjoined. You might from the exchange assign gender to one party or the other, but the exchange is intentionally gender neutral. The conflict involves a purchase. The purchase could be a furniture set, and it could be high-end electronics (i.e., television, security). Who knows?

The Parent might address the child saying, “I can’t believe you just bought that! What were you thinking?

The Child responds, “It was on sale, half off. I’ve been telling you I was waiting for this to get marked down.”

Parent: “We can’t afford that; same thing I told you the last time you brought it up. I thought we agreed to talk about how we spend that kind of money. I don’t recall discussing anything. You just do whatever you want.”

Child: “It’s something we need. I thought you’d be happy that I waited for the half-off sale.”

Parent: “I don’t understand where you’re coming from. It’s not something we need; it’s something you want. Now, you have to return it. Today, please!”

Child: “You’re overreacting! Why do you do that? Why do you shoot down every decision I make?”

Parent with a hint of Child added to the mix: “Overreacting? Your choices are selfish. You know we can’t afford something like that. You only think of yourself. No one else matters.”

Child: “Why can’t you trust me? I’m not stupid!”

Parent, now stooping into Child territory: “I’m not so sure about that?”

Child: “You’re an (profanity bleep).”

Child, formerly Parent: “What’d you call me?”

Child: “You heard me.”

Child B, formerly Parent: “(Profanity bleep) you! You want to talk to me, like that? Then, (profanity bleep) you.”

Child A: Puts hands up in disgust.

Child B: Fold arms in disgust and looks away.

Who won? Who got their way? Who feels good? Who’s happy about this? Who’s looking for cover? Where do they go from here?

Something else that occurs in this interactive dialogue sequence is when the confrontation breaks down to the point of attacking each other’s character. The Child cannot take it anymore. There is no winning. The confrontation has escalated to the point that the Child uses buzz words targeting the nerve of the Parent, who loses his or her nerve, an triggered, also assumes the Child ego state, as most of us have been conditioned to do when desperately defending our interest.

Understand, that both the Parent and the Child are dysfunctional and self-defeating. Both Parent to Child and Child to Parent interaction, and especially Child to Child interaction is a losing battle for control.

The fight for power and control is all about taking; seizing the opportunity to win. Each participant is dealing with intense anxiety, while experiencing a slew of emotions, including feelings of anger and rage, resentment, and perhaps some pent up jealousy and guilt. Passive-aggressive tendencies can include feelings dating all the way back to childhood.

The one who appears to get their way does so at the expense other’s happiness. Both Parent and Child ego states are takers. Only Adult ego states in this interactive model are potentially givers.

Power of the least interested party

In relationships, the form of interactive communication is conditioned for both the sender and the receiver. The “stronger” person in the relationship tends to take on the Parent persona, and the “weaker” person tends to respond more as the Child.

The stronger person in a relationship tends to be the person less emotionally invested. Even relationships where two people love each other deeply tend to have someone at least slightly less invested emotionally than the other; and it can be a back and forth thing, according to who cares more in a given situation. It may not appear that way then the more invested party so kindly and politely, and nonchalantly, defers to other so seamlessly the “weaker” part doesn’t see it; not even loving couples who their family and friends say are so great are together. The less invested, stronger party can be so “humble” about how they usually get there way and what they want, that it is also harmonious in its presentation. And, they may in fact get along beautifully… wonderfully… spectacularly.

Nearly thirty years ago, my psychology professor in college taught me something he referred to as “the power of the least interested party” principle that occurs in relationships. One party might be 51 percent invested emotionally and the other 49 percent. The party 49 percent invested typically has most of the power. Even when the least interested party defers control, it’s because it within his or her power and choice to let go.

Sadly, relationships commonly are not all that close to 50/50 when it comes to emotional investment. Like me, you might know people whose relationships are closer to 60/40, 70/30, maybe even 90/10, where the party 90 percent invested, is clinging to the 10 percent investment of the other party, who cares just enough that the person 90 percent invested deems it worth it to stay in the relationship. These relationships are highly dysfunctional to the point that it’s tragic how sick the relationship is.

Do you know which relationships apply “the power of the least interested party” principle within the scheme of how the participants interact? Would you like to hazard a guess?

If you answered, “All of them,” kudos to you. You answered correctly.

Family, friendships, romances, professional relationships, casual acquaintances; even this relationship between writer and reader apply this principle. You could say that you have the power if you’re reading this, and don’t particularly care about it. You could say that I have the power if you feel like you want more from me.

Parents think their children have the emotional control in the relationship, and children feel the need to rebel to fight for they want and deserve. Who is least invested among spouses and friends? Employers are afraid of losing good employees and employees fear losing their jobs and/or resent not earning enough money. People run into each other and one person is wanting to meet, and the other just wants to keep walking.

What is real is that when interacting with another person, the person less emotionally invested is more likely to take on the parent ego state, and the one more invested is more likely to assume the child ego state while interacting with one another.

Winning with empathy

The Adult ego state is the healthiest of the interactive characteristic within this model since it’s agenda is typically effective and productive interaction. The Adult ego state directs its message to its counterpart, the receiving Adult ego state. The challenge to somehow sustain Adult to Adult interaction. In theory, the Adult only sends its message to the Adult ego state of the receiving party. It is the nature of the Adult personality to do so. The objective is to appeal to the Adult ego state in the receiving person.

The Adult ego state is generally the one that is most logical and reasonable, making rational, sensible choices throughout Adult to Adult interaction. That being the case, the Adult as receiver of the message is less affected when receiving messages delivered by either the Parent or Child ego states of the sender.

Should the Parent sender address the Child ego state of the receiver, the receiver responds as the Adult would to the Adult. It might go something like this:

Parent to Child:”I can’t believe you just bought that! What were you thinking?”

Adult to Adult response: “I understand, you’re concerned about our finances. Maybe I was a little hasty.”

Parent to Child, sounding a little more Adult: “You know we can’t afford that now. It’s the same thing I told you the last time you brought it up.”

Adult to Adult response: “I get it that you’re concerned. I felt the markdown was too good to pass up on something we could use.”

Parent to Child, coming closer to the Adult ego state: “Are you sure it isn’t something that you could really use?”

Adult to Adult response: “Please, let me explain how it’s good for you, too. It’s why I pulled the trigger to take advantage of an awesome sale.”

Parent transitions to the Adult communicating to the Adult: “You still spent a lot of money. Will you agree to return it if it turns out were strapped for cash?”

Adult to Adult response: “I can agree to do that, but you’ll see how this is good for us.”

The other Adult responds: “Alright, I guess will see then. Promise to talk to me before pulling the trigger next time?”

Adult to Adult response: “Promise.”

How did that just happen?

Central to the Adult ego state winning over the Parent during that interactive sequence is the application of empathy as an interactive communication skill. As the Adult applies empathy in its responses to the Parent, the Adult is acknowledging and validating the feelings, not of the Parent ego state, but of the Adult ego state of the receiving party. The Adult is not pursuant of power grab, or control, since such a thing will not get the Adult ego state what it wants from the interactive exchange. The logical intended outcome is resolution to the conflict, which aids in preventing the confrontation from escalating.

As the person in the Adult ego state is able to rationally consider the feelings of the receiving party, and validate them (“I understand, you’re concerned about our finances. Maybe I was a little hasty… I get it that you’re concerned.”), it has a logically disarming effect. The “kill ’em with kindness” approach can go along way toward negotiating a solution while engaged in conflict. And isn’t that, in the end, what both sending and receiving parties want?

Parent to Child and Child to Parent transactions prove to be less than successful too much of the time. It proves to be no more than a power struggle where nobody wins. No one is willing to come out from their foxhole and find some middle ground. Because both parties are entrenched in seeking only what each believes it wants and needs, inconsiderate of what the other wants and needs, neither party gets what they want and believe they need. When the communication is Adult to Adult, both parties are more likely to win, both people getting what they want and believe they need. The best negotiations are always when both parties win; getting enough of what they want most that the negotiation is deemed a success.

Of course, even when communicating Adult to Adult, according to this model, feelings are involved. Feelings are always involved. But since the use of empathy is more available and practiced, involving more of the logical area of the brain, the interactive exchanges between parties are not governed as much by emotion. Feelings don’t have near the control they do when the Adult ego state is disengaged from the interactive process. The Adult ego state tends trust more in what it knows than in what it feels.

The opportunity to experience what you know rationally you value most in your relationships are far more likely when permitting yourself to trust more in what you know, and trusting less in what you feel.

Evidence that demands a verdict

How does the way you interact with people reflect what you want most from your life?

How would you say that the way you communicate with others might be inconsistent with what you want most, or at least present challenges in getting you closer to what you value?

How does the way you navigate your way through adversity and conflict draw you closer to what you value most?

How might the way you handle adversity and conflict drag you farther away from what you want most?

How does the way in which you manage feelings of discomfort, anxiety, and stress move you closer to contentment and satisfaction, according to what you value most?

How does what you do and say to cope with anxiety and stress generate more (perhaps considerably more) distance between where you are in life and where you want to be?

How does the outcomes produced by your behavior support and reinforce what you believe?

How have negative outcomes produced by your behavioral choices led you to reconsider certain beliefs, perhaps be willing to dispute certain beliefs entirely?

Having experienced some major bumps in the road, can you identify beliefs that have crept up on you over time that you admit may be irrational?

If you have been reading this and you’re feeling something about it, I would encourage you to write out your answers to these questions.