I've believed for a while now that how I react to things is all about me, and not about the stimulus. And the opposite: how someone else reacts to things (even if that thing is me) is all about them, and not about the stimulus. At some point, though, that stops being entirely true. I mean, even though I'm totally not responsible for other people's emotions and behaviors, it's still not ok for me to go around slapping people and calling them rude names. Those two things are clear to me. What hasn't been very clear is where that line is, or how to figure out where that line is.
So tonight in my group therapy we were listening to a CD of a woman sharing some of her ideas about boundaries and how they get set and that kind of thing, and I was struck with the inspiration for a bit of a formula for figuring out my dilemma.
If I am in a relationship with someone (any kind of relationship: significant other, friend, relative, customer service/customer, whatever) and some stimulus that I give creates a response in them that they don't like (and of course, the vice versa is true as well), there are four options:
1. We (or one of us) can decide we will no longer continue the relationship.
2. I can decide that I am willing to change my stimulus-action.
3. The other person can decide they are willing to change the beliefs they hold that result in the feeling/thought/behavior reaction that they don't want.
4. We can decide that it's a livable issue and agree it doesn't need to be addressed further.
Note: I don't think it's necessary to discuss this in every relationship. If I don't like the way the cashier at the grocery store speaks to me, I'll just put up with it for the 3 minutes I have to deal with her (as long as it's not abusive or whatever, of course), and then probably choose to avoid her line in the future. That's me deciding first number 4 (I can live with it for now) and then number 1 (I won't continue the relationship). Things like that, I don't think need to be talked about. But in deeper relationships, I think discussion might be important.
It's helpful for me to have this kind of framework for where two ideas meet in a very fuzzy way, so I thought I'd share in case it turns out to be helpful for anyone else.
So tonight in my group therapy we were listening to a CD of a woman sharing some of her ideas about boundaries and how they get set and that kind of thing, and I was struck with the inspiration for a bit of a formula for figuring out my dilemma.
If I am in a relationship with someone (any kind of relationship: significant other, friend, relative, customer service/customer, whatever) and some stimulus that I give creates a response in them that they don't like (and of course, the vice versa is true as well), there are four options:
1. We (or one of us) can decide we will no longer continue the relationship.
2. I can decide that I am willing to change my stimulus-action.
3. The other person can decide they are willing to change the beliefs they hold that result in the feeling/thought/behavior reaction that they don't want.
4. We can decide that it's a livable issue and agree it doesn't need to be addressed further.
Note: I don't think it's necessary to discuss this in every relationship. If I don't like the way the cashier at the grocery store speaks to me, I'll just put up with it for the 3 minutes I have to deal with her (as long as it's not abusive or whatever, of course), and then probably choose to avoid her line in the future. That's me deciding first number 4 (I can live with it for now) and then number 1 (I won't continue the relationship). Things like that, I don't think need to be talked about. But in deeper relationships, I think discussion might be important.
It's helpful for me to have this kind of framework for where two ideas meet in a very fuzzy way, so I thought I'd share in case it turns out to be helpful for anyone else.