Why DO we Irritate the Ones we Love?
From a workbook (I have since lost it and don’t have the author’s name) I picked up at a psychology conference in the December of 2019. It now seems timely given the events of March 2020…..The discussion points in this pamphlet took me back to observations that bewildered me as I came of age: My mother had intense dislike for her mother who was the only grandmother I ever knew. I loved my grandmother. I observed the simplest conversations between the two of them politely escalate, in an otherwise civil environment, in a manner that found me looking for a bomb shelter. If you could read a transcript of the conversation, you would not get an inkling that there was a problem. What was that?
Love. Love is not always LOVE. There is romantic love, sexual love, companionship love, friendship love, even workplace (practical) love. But if the object of love is important to you, it is good to —not only stop and smell the roses—-reflect on how love needs adaptation when you find yourself irritated by the object of your love. Love is not to be taken for granted and it can be fragile. If you are “normal,” with some insight, you already recognize this.
I think of love having a biological foundation: our lizard brains. That’s the romantic in me. The theory of this workbook is as follows: you feel a chemistry, an attraction to someone. It is an invisible connection and it is not a logical process. You don’t typically get out a legal pad and write down a pro and con column of traits to explain the attraction. You feel it. What are the words we use to describe the attraction? Chemistry? Magic? Fate? In fact, the influence of it being a feeling motivates you way beyond the capabilities of your logical brain. In fact, our logical brain enables our feelings to serve that lizard brain: Husband is gone every weekend for work retreats? He works soooo hard. Car broke down one night and he was really late getting home? Shit happens. Receipt in the pocket of a pair of pants to a hotel you have never gone to and is not in a city where he should have been? Wait a fucking minute! Your logical brain explained away something because it did not want to let the emotional brain down…..
Our brains, to keep us on the level, configure the environment and our feelings to give a coherent story (or narrative) that, “makes sense.” —Even when it doesn’t—-Early in a process of relationship building, most of us “default to truth” ie give the benefit of the doubt when our emotional brain wants it to be so. Only by thinking through patterns of behavior can you tease out the problems shared by you and your specific loved one.
The invisible connection at the root of our “chemistry” of love has a source—- and it is (his theory) linked to childhood experiences. By the time we are six years of age, we have certain emotional “jars” that reflect our experience and remain a source of friction/angst/trouble for the conscious brain, forever. You cannot just know what these things are; you are blind to them but they exist. The pattern of behaviors that trouble you, if observed and considered, can give you a clue as to what these “jars” are.
Your upbringing is tied to the jars. No matter how complete or “good” the parent (who, after all, have an impossible job), every child will have a problem(s) with their upbringing. Like the scorpion that stings the frog midway across the river, it is, “who we are.” Even if the pseudo Freudian idea that “it’s all about the parents” is not your belief, this system of sorting out behavior with loved ones can still hold. The cause is perhaps not the most important point—-learning to observe what you are otherwise blind to (the scorpion won’t sting the frog half way across the river because they both will die, right?—says the logical brain) and using those observations to communicate better, allow for growth, and a better level of happiness (and that of those you love) is the primary goal here.
The theory is that by being attracted to someone who opens those emotional jars, you have an opportunity (like in a video game) to “do over” what did not go well when you were a child. As I think about my jars in this theoretical system, that does not make clear sense to me but the notion that I react when my “jars” are opened is very clear to me. In the theory, when a casual comment on the part of your spouse (brother, friend, boss) elicits from you an angry response, it is not the content of the problem itself that likely drives that response, it is the lizard brain of a 6 year old raging against something that drives you crazy.
What fills an emotional jar? Examples follow:
lack of affection
lack of expression
fear/anger
loss /abandonment
physical neglect
fairness
respect
self centeredness
dependability
control
irrationality/inconsistancy
ambivalence/passivity
trust/loyalty
availability
criticism/perfectionism/self-esteem
guilt/obligations/responsibility
close mindeness/rigidity
The theory is that we all have at least three of these emotional triggers or “jars” which irritate us.
An interesting corollary of this theory is that the thing you want and need from your partner the most is the very thing that they give you the least. Ouch…….
You love someone; you have an argument, sometimes over a trivial matter. It links to the jars or issues from childhood; the reaction? Strike back just as a six year old would. Our unconscious wants to blame others for situations we find ourselves in. Even if you are insightful and recognize this, what are your options? 1) you process through them 2) you store them.
How do we process?
1) emotional (cry), scream, shout.
2) verbal cognitive expressions: talking, thinking and writing.
3) physical: aggression from striking out or to a diversion: exercise or chopping wood.
Corollary: you become dysfunctional if all you do is process—and yet, if you don’t do enough processing, it is stored and comes back to haunt you both.
For non-processors, when you finally vent, it is as if you are sending out a heat seeking missile the end product of which is:
a) pressure is released—you feel better…..until you see the damage done to your target and the reaction this sets in motion.
b) opportunity for mastery and control of this jar—to get it right, finally, is at least symbolically attempted. This process is systematic, motivated, and predictable—and the root cause is never solved. The venting serves no logical purpose and feeds the fire for the next round.
He summarizes:
1) we all have 2-3 issues from childhood
2) these issues come from parents who had an impossible job and without meaning to, bruised you to develop the issues—the cumulative bruising leads us to the jars.
3) The jars form a pattern of reactions (thoughts, feelings, interpretations, and behaviors)
4) When you are pissed by something someone did, your jar got opened.
5) Jars are unconscious so the situation gets your attention and not the underlying cause. The jar provides the emotional energy for the reaction.
6) If you cannot see it directly, how do you know it is there (unconsciousness/jars)? The answer to this lies in your ability to be insightful and thoughtful tying behaviors and patterns of behaviors to your specific jars.
You cannot not have jars; they are both assets and liabilities. How to you mitigate the liabilities as it regards to those you love?
The answer is not one your six year old emotional brain will like: The fact that we find a partner who is good at opening the jars is a blessing if you assume that life requires growth and improvement as in, overcoming vulnerabilities. It isn’t pleasant, but it is good for you.
“So, like all things,” says the retired Family Doctor, “it is like eating right and exercising regularly……not always pleasant, but good for you.”
If love is a “dance”— you have to learn steps. The work in this theory is observing and identifying the jars and the patterns of behavior that flow from them. They are not obvious. Discussion is needed to work through them and develop new patterns of behavior when the jars are opened and identified. In my world, this work is catalyzed and benefits from a third party, a counselor/advisor/therapist if the need is great enough. The rational brain has to interact with the emotional brain and it is one of the most trying things about being a human. Our emotions influence how we remember—our unconscious makes us blind to what is right in front of our eyes—that is why we are mostly terrible witnesses.
Example: an associate describes her husband as being happy-go-lucky and a pleasure to be around. In the same conversation, the issue is raised that he often seems unable to discuss problems with her on a deeper level. This unwillingness to argue can be a block to resolving conflicts they have. She likes a quality that actually sabotages a deeper need.
The workbook would be in agreement with Kernie who talks about “cake issues” and “Icing issues.” Some values and jars we have are singularly important and others are merely irritating. Both need to be addressed but you want to focus on the cake issues first: honesty is more important than tidiness.
To be effective in working through conflicts, you have to be open and have some insight. You have to have a realistic set of priorities for the relationship and work on those. “Don’t be the ER doctor totally focussed on the broken leg while the patient is having a heart attack.”
The one thing the author believes links those who have long term-commitments that are enjoyed……is the degree in which a person is willing to make the effort to stretch and grow. The ground to be covered with this topic is long, but the basic core emotional content is to express both affection and commitment over time—and be willing to test different styles of communication.
The sweet spot in the day-to-day is if your loved one “opens a jar,” that you develop the discipline to not retaliate immediately— 30% of the issue opening the jar is the situation and 70% is the jar itself. The jar is about you and not your partner. THAT perspective can allow you to moderate the response and avoid an escalation—the pattern of escalations that gets a person to buy a pamphlet like, Why do we Irritate the Ones we Love?.
If you are good at pausing, use this framework to sort out which jar was opened and consider the response: your partner will understand the 30% issue but not 100% of what you are experiencing. The work in part lies in separating the partner—the partner you love —from the trigger ie opening the jar which is mostly about you. If you grew up in the 60’s, you got some insight right off the bat because unlike our parents, we could verbalize our understanding that in the end, it is all about you…….
Have arguments, not blowups (for me, this is tricky—it is the kind of advice I started with when counseling weight loss ie “eat less.” In isolation, not so helpful). The tools to work with the de- coupling of the triggered jar and the situation leading to it being opened include:
Say your piece (argue) but develop strategies and agreements on “next time” approaches to the problem.
If you feel an adrenaline rush, recognize it and pause. Think before reacting. If you identify the trigger, you will de-escalate, with benefits that follow.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Success in relationship are not measured by a score of arguments won or “zingers” scored.
If the jars are clear to you, identify them and the sensitivity you feel with them; don’t convince your partner they are wrong, but rather ask for an adjustment in language, timing, tone, body language, all the things that help bring things to a head.
That is the summary. Some thoughts:
I keep writing “be insightful.” My experience is that is a Sisyphian task. For myself, just when I think I am insightful about a person or situation, I am humbled when I realize something I thought I had nailed down is all wrong or off-course. What I have found is I need to step up the insight game with a focussed discussion with mutual feedback. Over time. Forever.
This scheme is OK as far as it goes. I like the points that the rational brain tries to find explanations that feed the core emotional need whose roots are to say the least, mysterious. That makes sense to me. Taking a step back, I annoy people without it having to do with my “jars.” For example, I can be focussed on something to the point of not hearing what people are trying to communicate. I can be in pain and unfocussed. I don’t hear very well and make a game of repeating the question with absurd words that sound like what I heard. I can be blind to someone who has a need that is right in front of me. There are other mental processes that can interfere with communication or simply standing alone, be irritating. So, it isn’t all about your childhood.
Corrollary: if you fall in love with someone destined to have a deep depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia, the scope of the problem is more than this theoretical model. If you partner becomes chronically ill, you will irritate each other and the jars are a relevant but possibly peripheral issue. The tools of communication and setting ground rules are shared with the model in this workbook but the tension is “the new environment” of this life change. I have seen loving couples who had been happy for decades deteriorate emotionally in the face of chronic disease.
There was a chapter on how to pick a spouse. While I pointed out in my discussion that one’s connection to someone is a feeling and not something you pull out the legal pad to list pros and cons with, the chapter pretty much concludes that you have to watch for patterns of behavior that seem “OK” and test the implications. For example, the potential husband who speaks of responsibility at work that would have him in upper management and you find he is not even close, and with that claims to athletic proficiency or participation in charity work that you find is not real—-you have to get past, “he is trying to present his best potential, his personal vision of himself to you” and consider that he is not communicating honestly. Is that a cake or an icing issue? Get out the legal pad and start itemizing………
Comments