Before you try to analyze someone, at least out loud, you need to consider these 8 rules.
- It’s not rocket science. Newton said, “I can
calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of
people.” Psychology is not rocket science. It’s harder—harder
to do with any kind of precision, anyway. When speculating, speculate.
Don’t pretend you have a power to calculate greater than Newton’s.
- Caveat cleanly. If you’re in the touchy territory of telling people what you guess might be going on with them, let them know that it’s a guess through caveats like “I think that maybe...”, “I’m wondering if…”, or “It seems to me…”
- Be careful with pejoratives and when you use them, don’t pretend you aren’t. Plenty of clinical-sounding terms are also pejoratives. Take narcissist,
for example, a term both diagnostic and insulting. Or consider John
Gottman’s famous "four horsemen of the (relationship)
apocalypse"—criticism, contempt, stonewalling, and defensiveness. One
can claim that these are simple descriptive terms for independent
variables conducive to marriage
failure. But just try describing your spouse as employing any of these
four techniques. Actually, don’t; try to find more neutral words. And if
you can’t, then don’t pretend they have no pejorative connotations.
- Don’t caveat dirtily. Next of kin to such words as
“just” and “only” are little preambles we think can sugarcoat what
follows: “I don’t mean to be critical, but I think you’re
procrastinating"; or, “With all due respect, I think you’re lying.”
It’s not credible to caveat like that; it’s insulting. If you want to
say, “With all due respect…” follow it with “…I’ll let you decide
whether I’m showing you due respect.” Don’t think you can commandeer
someone else's interpretation.
- Take in as you dish out. Dirty caveats reveal a double standard, “I’m going to tell you all about your motives, but don’t dare try to tell me mine. I’ll
tell you mine, too.” In general, if you can’t take other people
psychologizing you, don’t psychologize them, at least not aloud.
- Throw two stones. When you throw a stone at another
glass house, toss one your way, too. Too often, when we guess at each
other's motives critically, the first thing to fly out of our minds is
any recollection of every having done whatever we’re critical of them
doing. We must actively counteract that tendency, not with some vague,
“Of course, I do it, too,” but recollection of specific times when we
did it in spades.
- Minimize leaping. There will be times when you have
to leap to a conclusion about someone’s motives and feelings; for
example if you find evidence that your spouse is cheating or your
business partner is embezzling. In such situations, the leap is
appropriate. You need its urgency for damage control; for example,
locking down bank accounts before you’re further fleeced. Otherwise,
leaping is dangerous and likely an expression of fear and other distorting emotions in you, not reflective of some sudden change in the psychology of the person you’re analyzing.
- Speaking your mind is optional. This one has always been hard for me, which is why I study tongue-biting friends. I can think whatever I want, and I can make whatever guesses I want about what drives people. But I don’t have to share those guesses, and when I do, it’s probably more “note to self” than to them. If I were to psychologize my own motives, I’d say that I share in part because I don’t trust that I’ll be able to resist the sway of their motives unless I call them on them. But increasingly, I’m learning to let them have their motives in peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment