Part V - I Statements

This is the fifth part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships.  If you've not read the first part, you may want to.  You can find it here.

---

For years, I've heard about a magical tool to improve interpersonal communications.  It's called the "I statement", or "I feel statement".  The concept is straightforward.  Instead of telling a person what THEY did (you statement), tell them how YOU felt about it.  Like my earlier story about my loud eating cubemate, instead of saying, "You're eating is driving me up a wall!", I should say "I'm really sensitive to eating noises, and I'm having problems concentrating."  In fact, it's pretty similar to the approach I suggested during that article.

While this seems simple, it's really very complicated for most people to actually put into practice.  After splitting up with my girlfriend, we both attended a class on healthy relationships.  They, of course, presented this concept during the class.  To help us out, they even gave us a fill in the blank phrase, that in the end, reminded me of Mad Libs.  Here are the two examples they gave:

•     "I feel _______ when you _______." 
•     "I feel _______ when you _______, and would prefer it if you _______." 

Seems pretty easy to do right?  Well, the teachers asked us to come up with a few, and share them with the class the following week.  Here are a few of the more bizzare examples students offered:

• I feel like you're a jerk, when you're mean to me.
• I feel upset when you don't tell me the truth.
• I feel taken for granted when you show up an hour late.

The teachers applauded each of us for a job well done.  I was flabbergasted!  BUT.... Those AREN'T I statements.  They're simply not.  Sure, they look a lot like I feel statements, but let's look under the covers!

Make sure you're using a "feeling" word after the phrase I feel.  In the first example, "like you're a jerk" is simply not a feeling.  It's a thought.  Granted, I'm sure it was her thought, and very real to her.  Still, it's not sharing her feelings.

Make sure the "when you ____" part is an undeniable fact.  The second example, "don't tell me the truth", is an accusation.  Who's to say they didn't tell the truth.  Remember, we all have differing perspectives on things.  In all honesty, the belief that the other person lied is based on your own interpretation and judgment.  Let's say it's something vague.  When asked if the dress makes her look fat, he says, "no you look beautiful."  Sure, maybe he was lying just to avoid her getting upset.  On the other hand, maybe he really believed his statement.  Regardless, it's debatable... it's a judgment... it's not an indisputable fact, so we can't use it.  More appropriate would be, "I felt upset when you told me the dress didn't make me look fat."  Or even, "I thought you were lying when you told me I didn't look fat." 

Sure, sure, there are some things which are blatant untruths, but even they're a bit fuzzy.  Let's say you ask "did you take money out of our bank account?"  And they respond, "No."  Even thought they really did take money out.  Even in this case, a lie is a judgment.  Why?  Because to lie, one must be aware of the truth and intending to obscure that truth from someone else.  It certainly is possible that they took out $60 at the ATM, and forgot they did it.  Maybe, they knew they took the money out, but had so much on their mind they said, "No" without really understanding the question you asked.  There are a zillion HONEST ways to answer a question incorrectly.  So it may not be a lie after all.

The third example is really tricky.  Sure, showing up an hour late is indisputable... you agreed to meet at 6pm, they showed up at 7.  The trouble with this one is that "taken for granted" is actually an accusation, not a feeling.  Yeah, it seems very close to a feeling.  Still, it's impossible to be taken for granted, unless someone's taking you for granted.  So, that statement really says, "You took me for granted by showing up late."  It's a you statement.

A true, genuine, good "I statement", is one that is purely self-focused.  Every conflict must have two parts:  Your action and my reaction.  By definition, if I tell you about your action, I'm being other-focused.  And, unfortunately, that's what I and so many people tend to do.  If, on the other hand, I speak about my reaction and take ownership of it, then it will undoubtedly come out as an I-statement.

Look at a GOOD, genuine I statement:  "I feel scared when you raise your voice."  I'm pointing out that they raised their voice, but that's indisputable.  I feel scared?  Sure, maybe you could phrase it, "You scared me when you raised your voice."  But, even phrased as a you statement, it's self-focused.  In that statement, I'm sharing information about my reaction to your action.  What's my natural response to a statement like that?  Most likely, I'd simply apologize.  Generally, though, I don't raise my voice unless I'm really, really upset.  So, in that state, I may not be able to apologize... but it certainly would take me off guard and motivate me to think about my own actions. 

So where am I now?  I know that the notorious "You statements" are really a way of communicating my own other-focused thinking.  So, I can add that to my equation:

you statements = other thinking = blame = sux

Part IV - Boundaries

This is the fourth part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships.  If you've not read the first part, you may want to.  You can find it here.

---

The boundary.  It's been a really rough concept for me to fully understand and apply.  The idea behind "boundaries" is that there's a delineation.... a conceptual line between you and me.  I own everything on my side of the boundary, and you own everything on your side.  Some people speak about boundaries, but in my mind, at least, there's really only one boundary.  Take a look at this picture showing the communication process from Part I of this series... I know, I know I'm not the world's most artistic guy. 

What does this show?  Well, starting at the top, something happens.  Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the person on the right is me, and the one on the left is you.  The Event (yellow star at the top) can be anything really.  Let's say you cough while I was talking to you.  Then I interpret the event.... "you're trying to tell me something by coughing".  Then I make a judgment, "you must not like what I've said."  I form a feeling about that, "I'm hurt that you don't like what I'm saying".  Finally, I react by saying, "What don't you like about that?"  Sure, maybe I read it right... maybe you did cough because you didn't like what I was saying.  On the other hand, maybe you coughed because you had something in your throat.  Saying my peace becomes the event on the bottom, and the whole process begins anew on your (left) side of the diagram.

Draw an imaginary line between the two yellow stars.  That's it!  That's the "boundary".  Everything that happens on the right is 100%, completely me.  Everything that happens on the left is 100% you. I have complete control over everything on my side, and there's not a darned thing I can do about the left side.  NOTHING!

The reason that the boundary is so important is that for years, I've taken responsibility for far too much of the stuff on other people's side of the equation.  For that matter, I tend to believe other people responsible for lots of stuff on my side.  It's really simple... my side is mine, your side is yours.  No gray area there at all.

Understanding the boundary means knowing that if I'm hurt, it's because I feel that way, not because anyone MADE me feel that way.  It's such a common phrase, "You hurt my feelings", yet it's bogus.  Why?  Because I own my feelings, and you have no control over them.  Look over the coughing example I gave above.  I was hurt that you didn't like what I had to say.  You hurt my feelings!  The problem there is, you may have been coughing for a completely different reason.  Perhaps, that's not how you felt at all.  Maybe, just maybe, you completely agree with my statements and had an itch in your throat.  Who hurt my feelings?  Me... by my interpretation and judgment.  Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you really did disagree with me and that cough was a subconscious response to your disagreement.  Okay, then who hurt my feelings?  Well, I'm still responsible for my feelings... I own them... I made them... you can't alter them.  No matter what, I am fully responsible for everything on the right, and you on the left.

I was talking, the other day, about a couple.  They're great people, who've had some serious relationship problems.  They almost got divorced, but have been working very hard on saving their relationship.  Here's the story:  she began going to the gym to work out.  She mentioned to her husband that she was chatting with one of the guys at the gym.  Actually, a very innocent discussion, some idle chit-chat while they're on the stair-stepper.  But he got pretty upset about it.  So, she quit going to the gym because he was so upset.

Looking at that in the context of this model what happened?  She told him about a conversation with the gym guy (event).  He believed they were flirting (interpretation).  He thought she may cheat on me with this guy if it continues (judgment).    He became scared or worried about the potential infidelity (feelings).  He got angry (reaction & new event).  On her side, she interpreted his actions as anger or perhaps fear, made the judgment that her actions caused his anger.  Felt empathy or sympathy, perhaps fear of losing the relationship.  She reacted by saying that she'd quit the gym if it meant that much to him.

Seems pretty straightforward to me... but there's a problem, in my mind.  She CAN'T hurt his feelings.  She can only affect her OWN feelings, and nobody else's.  She knew, deep down, that she just had an innocent conversation with the guy.  That she's very much in love with her husband.  She knows that she has no intentions of cheating.  Yet, when he became angry, she accepted responsibility for his anger.  WARNING BELLS to me, but they both missed that.  Remember, he owns everything on his side, she owns everything on her side.  He got angry in response to his own feelings.  He arrived at those feelings because of his own judgment and interpretation of the event.  All stuff he controls and she has no power over whatsoever.  Yet because she accepted responsibility for his feelings and changed her life to suit. 

This is called "blurred boundaries".  They blurred the boundaries between him and her.  As soon as they do that, and I'm guilty of doing that on a daily basis, they stepped into the abyss.  She set a precedent with her response.  They both now accept that she hurt his feelings.  So, next time he's upset, will they believe she is responsible for that too?  My guess is yes.  The more she changes to suit his mood, the more resentful and confused she'll become; at the same time, he'll become more and more resentful and angry that she keeps hurting his feelings.

But, if that was not such a cool thing to do?  How should she have responded?  Had she recognized that he owns his feelings, and she can't control them, she probably would have been better served to learn about his interpretations, judgments and feelings.  I suspect the smartest approach is to honor the boundary, and bring all boundary blurring into focus with good questions.  How about:

"You seem upset, are you?"
"Of course, I'm upset, you're flirting with some guy in the gym!"  [Blurred boundary - his thought, not her action]
"Why do you think I flirted with him?"   [Focus with question, and state "you think"]
"Well, you said you two were joking around."
"Yep, we were joking.  Honey, I know you think I was flirting with him, but the only man I have designs on is YOU!  I love you, and wouldn't jeopardize that for anything."  [The goal here is to validate his thoughts and feelings, they're real but they're his.  Don't accept his thoughts as your actions.]

I have real problems with this, quite honestly.  The second someone states their interpretation or judgment of an event as if it were fact, I get defensive.  She wasn't flirting with the guy, but he believes that she was.  "No, no!", I think.  That's not what I did at all!  Sure, it's true.    Still, saying "no, that's wrong." often comes across as "invalidating".  Invalidating is another form of blurring the boundary.  Basically, since he owns all his thoughts, she has no right to tell him that he's wrong.  That is REALLY what he thought.  It's very real.  Still, it doesn't match her intentions, so there's a conflict.

The trick is to recognize the conflict and honor the boundary with respect for the other person.  Yes, that's what he thought; his thought is real; at the same time, it's NOT your action.  Had he recognized his own thought for what it was, perhaps he'd have been better off asking if his thought matched her intent.  "Were you flirting with him?"  "No, honey, not at all".  Assuming he trusts her, the issue would have dropped right away.  Still, she has no control over him.  He didn't recognize the boundary, so the ball's in her court.  It's up to her to respect and validate him, at the same time enforce the boundary.

I do think, in a loving relationship, people have to make compromises... and even make changes to improve the relationship.  Those compromises, in my mind, need to be based on an understanding of what's going on below the surface.  Perhaps giving up workouts would solve the problem.  In this case, though, I doubt it.  Before we begin to compromise, however, we have to understand each other, and respect the boundary.  What are the facts:

They began to negotiate a resolution BEFORE they recognized the boundaries.  They THOUGHT they needed to negotiate about her flirting with the guy at the gym, so they arrived at her quitting her workouts.  We know that's off base.  Had they respected the boundaries, they'd recognize the issue was his fear of her cheating.  That has nothing to do with her working out at all.

My goal is to understand, recognize and respect the boundary.  Without it, I'll wind up taking responsibility or other people's thoughts and feelings.  I'll erroneously believe that someone else has control of my thoughts, feelings or actions.  If I don't recognize who's responsible for what, then I can never effectively fix problems.