Why Certain People Annoy You And How To Handle It

Shaun (00:00)

Do you frequently find yourself frustrated and disappointed with the people you work with? It’s often because… Welcome to In the Arena. My name is Shaun Dyke, managing partner with DoorTwo. Chris. We’re filming later. That’s relevant because normally, we have cups of coffee in our hand as we film these. Right now, cheers, kind sir.

Chris (00:25)

I mean, I really appreciate your 12-year Macallan that you lent, you know. This is above my pay grade.

Shaun (00:30)

It’s a necessary moment for this conversation because in this conversation, we are talking about people that annoy us.

Chris (00:40)

Yeah. I mean, they’re everywhere, right? I mean, genuinely, I think that’s why I grabbed your Macallan is because today, I think I experienced some as well. So, are you here to tell me that you can solve for this?

Shaun (00:55)

I can solve for this. We can solve for this. Better said, you can solve for this. I can give you a frame for some thoughts around it. But let’s start with this. There’s an old saying, it’s a pretty good one. It’s that if you wake up in the morning, you begin your day, and you bump into an asshole, at the end of the day, you met an asshole. But if all day long you bump into assholes, then it’s quite possibly that you are the asshole.

Chris (01:24)

I kinda knew where that was going. Yeah.

Shaun (01:26)

Yeah. So the general sentiment around it is most of us don’t wake up in the morning thinking about how we are contributing to our frustration. Most of us wake up, navigate the world, and we encounter people that bring us joy. We encounter people that help us along our plight, whatever that might be, and we also encounter people at times that bring present frustration in us. Saying it that way on purpose. The way they show up, the way they interact, the way they speak, the way they question us can create frustration in some way. Now, there’s an additional phrase that you know we say often, which is really the core premise of this whole conversation, and a lot of people don’t like it. It is that there is way more offense taken in the world than is ever given. So behind that is this difficult confrontation of truth that commonly, we choose to be offended by things that aren’t necessarily offensive. Now, I’m gonna pause this there before we go too far. There are many things that are offensive.

Shaun (02:43)

There are many things people do that are worthy of being frustrated. There are people that do things that are condescending, dismissive, rude, inconsistent, arrogant, inconsiderate. Like, all of these things certainly warrant me being a bit irritated or frustrated or incensed. That is true. However, and we’ll chase this a fair bit, you still have agency over how you choose to respond to it. That’s one of the versions we’ll talk to. The one I wanna initially spend some time on is when someone behaves in a way or says something that we choose to give meaning to that in turn, is offensive to us. That is different than them doing something that is offensive. Does that distinction make sense? Let me start there.

Chris (03:40)

It does. However, there’s a couple of, not caveats, but questions I have for it. Which is, offense in this instance, and in really all instances, is in the eye of the beholder in this case, right? And so what justifies or what determines the difference between a truly offensive, you know, action or behavior and one that I’m just deciding to be offended by? Because if I can’t clearly delineate those, then I would imagine I will often opt to believe it was their fault. Which limits the argument or the discussion we’re having.

Shaun (04:18)

Yeah. So let’s, let’s think about. Let’s just do real easy ones ’cause easier ones, at least for illustration of this. If you and I were at a park, and there were families playing around, and an adult walked up to a child and pushed the child down. You and I would both probably look at that behavior and interpret that as not okay. We would see that’s not all right. Shouldn’t do that. If we’re in a meeting and someone is speaking and an individual just interrupts them and says, “Hey, look, I appreciate…” Or not even I appreciate. Like, “Could you just stop talking because you’re not adding any value?” The vast majority of us will run it through a pretty normative lens on that’s not okay. It was a bit rude. It was dismissive of the individual, and we would see that behavior commonly among most of us. Where it starts to get different is if I’m sitting with someone and they ask me a question, and what I choose to believe is that they’re doubting my competency. If they disagree with me, and instead of me choosing to believe that they have a different vantage point, I decide to interpret that as disrespect. So if they give me feedback, and I choose to lens that as judgment. So it is when there are behaviors that can be interpreted, and I decide that I am going to lens those through a negativity lens.

Chris (05:49)

Yeah. You know what I was just thinking of? So go back to our PCM framework we’ve done in other podcasts. I was thinking about which personality types, and specifically I think harmonizer, but there’s many, replays interactions and conversations after they happen. I wonder if most of the times when we’re analyzing a previous conversation, if that’s a good reference for when we may be adding an intent that wasn’t there. Because you know what I mean?

Shaun (06:20)

You know, entirely.

Chris (06:20)

‘Cause the ones that are egregious or obvious, typically in the moment, that emotional reaction that you feel warranted from, those are the ones you’re saying, “that could have been offensive.” It’s the times often when we go back after the event and say… We analyze. We say, “Where did I go wrong? Where was I this? How was I interpreting that?” Those might be the ones we have to evaluate for what was meant by that.

Shaun (06:46)

So I would say definitely that is a incredible telltale moment of where I’m choosing to ruminate on an experience and I reiterate it and I replay it and I replay it and I replay it multiple times. 100 percent. That’s probably a trigger for me to take stock of, “Why am I replaying this? Why am I giving this so much space in my mind? Why am I letting this occupy my senses?” So, definitely, we’ll. I think we’ll talk to that headspace in a minute. I’ll. I wanna jump us back to just kind of a real simple frame for someone to think about on… L-let’s, let’s take it back to that initial premise of, like, someone is annoying me. So I would say in those spots, the thing we want you to think about is the behavior is theirs. The story is yours. So they do a thing. You now interpret the thing. Now, that story may be dead on accurate. It also could be completely overinflated, inaccurate, or outsized based on a myriad of variables that could be going on in your mind.

Chris (07:49)

You know what? But what gets challenging about this is, humans by nature are a communal species. I think deeply ingrained in our evolution is the want to connect and be with others and build community.

Shaun (08:05)

We’re social animals.

Chris (08:06)

Right. Therefore, we have these heightened senses. We have the ability to interpret, you know, micro expressions and things of that nature. How do you balance what I think is a useful tool in analyzing the moment, analyzing what somebody means, determining, you know, truth and intent versus taking offense?

Shaun (08:34)

Yeah, I think there’s, I don’t know, there’s 20 different things. The thing that jumps into my mind is that great statement that’s, “What somebody thinks of me is none of my business.”

Chris (08:40)

You’re so full of these things, dude. It kills me. Where do you pull them from? I don’t…

Shaun (08:46)

But that. In that lane, right? Like, so why am I going to over-index my mental and emotional state on the behavior and action of someone when I don’t actually know whether or not it’s warranted? Now let’s go back to the space where the individual sitting at a conference room table is genuinely just dismissive or inappropriate. Now, that may warrant some version of intervention. Now, I hope that if it’s directed at me if someone was disrespectful and dismissive or they were rude to me, I would like to believe that I’m gonna maintain a sense of self that is strong enough to not emotionally react, even though my internal pressure may show up that way. But I’m gonna be able to externally pause and say, “Hey, Chris, may I pause you?” You’ll probably say yes, and I’ll get to say like, “Can I ask what that was? What was your intent? Did you mean to dismiss me in that moment?” Now, that then that’s potentially useful. Potentially, I brought a behavior that you didn’t even recognize you were doing present. Maybe you just had a blind spot. On the flip side, if you did that and I just internally shut down, and in my mind I thought, “What an ass. Like, what a jerk.” And by the way, we see this all the time. Anyone listening sees this. You see when someone does something in a room of people, leadership team meeting, anywhere, someone says or does something, and the way they said it is interpretable, meaning they’re not entirely certain were they trying to be mean, did they mean to be dismissive are they being a jerk? And you can see all the non-verbal shifts going on in the room. But most of the time, no one says anything. So it goes back to a phrase we say all the time, that all behavior is interpreted. All. You look on a behavior of an individual, and you run it through an interpretation lens. Often, your interpretation is accurate. Often, your interpretation is inaccurate. And the difficulty lie in you have agency over how you choose to interpret it. And if you don’t know what it is, are you gonna choose to just default to believing something or are you gonna seek clarity to understand whether or not your reaction’s warranted?

Chris (11:02)

All behavior is interpreted. And we often use the, idea of a lens, right? It’s through a lens. What color is that lens, or what shape is that lens? Do you know yours? Because if, let’s go back to the framing of this episode, you’re often annoyed by people. We’re not saying this is true, but it’s worth thinking about, is that the lens you have habitually filtered through? And that’s an important question to ask. There’s one I dealt with a long time, I’d say probably between 25 and 35-ish. Which is, I believed there was a right answer. Right? I’ve had this,

Shaun (11:46)

Do you know how many people listening just said, “There is”?

Chris (11:49)

Exactly. It just so happens that was when I was in my thinker phase, by the way. There is a truth. They have… They had a meaning when they said that or did that. And anything other than knowing that meaning is not the truth. Anything other than that. And so that’s where the rumination would come in. I think what you’re saying and what we’re advocating for Yeah, that’s, that’s true. But ultimately, what is the usefulness in that?

Shaun (12:20)

Yes. L-let me even. Let’s give it 2. Let’s bifurcate it for a minute. Let’s say version one, the individual said something that was not okay. They did it with malintent, and it was truly like they were being a jerk to you. I now have agency over how I choose to respond. That’s one. So I run it through this rubric. I do the math, and I say like, “Man, that was an aggressive statement.” I actually know them. I actually think they meant it that way. I’m certain it was. Okay, now what do I wanna do with that? I can choose to get angry, offensive, defensive. That tends to translate into less valuable behavior. I can choose in that moment to try to have influence. I can choose in that moment to ignore it. I have a lot of choices available to me. When I am responding to a genuinely offensive comment, the other is also true. I don’t know what you meant by it but for whatever reason, and we’ll give you a couple reasons on why you tend to do this I’ve decided that you meant that with malice. You meant that negatively. You meant to be offensive then. And to your point, I’ve locked into there’s no other interpretation. That’s why you’re doing that one. So why do people do that? Why do we sitting across the table, interacting with a colleague, we give meaning to their behavior, and the meaning we give to it is negative? Why do we do that? There are a couple reasons we tend to do it. Actually, there’s a myriad of them but we’ll touch on 2 that are prominent. One is simply negativity bias. We are wired to detect threat, so we tend to look through a doorway more frequently of negativity. I really wish this wasn’t the case. And there are people that are listening right now that will probably say like, “That’s not me.” And I would agree. There are folks that exist in the world that tend to lens things through rose-colored glasses that’s more positive. But many of us, most of us, tend to use more of a negativity bias. When something is unclear, we assume negative. So if we are having to interpret, you and I are walking down the hallway, you’re headed toward me, I’m headed towards you. I say, “Hey, Chris, you just walked past me.” What do I default to?

Chris (14:42)

You’re a jerk.

Shaun (14:42)

I default to, “That was rude.” “The hell’s wrong with Chris?” “That was irritating.” I may not have any idea that in your other ear was a earbud and you were on a call with somebody, and you were just intently focused on it. But I’m choosing to give meaning to your behavior that is negative. That’s negativity bias. We do this often, and we don’t seek clarity.

Chris (15:08)

We don’t. Why not? It invites discomfort. Just talking about this invites discomfort. It’s easier for me to make an assessment, call you a jerk, keep moving, feel justified in that emotion, and move on with it than to pause and say, “Hey, man, you okay? That was the…” Playing this out in my head, I don’t even know what I would say to you in that like genuinely.

Shaun (15:31)

So fun part, let’s go there for a second. Being offended can serve me. Why? ‘Cause it gives me things like moral high ground. I get to build a case.

Chris (15:46)

I’m a better person than you.

Shaun (15:47)

I’m a better person than you. I wouldn’t do that. I get to justify a confirmation bias I have about you.

Chris (15:54)

I like this example ’cause it’s simple. We’re walking past each other in the hallway or on the street, let’s say 2 strangers. I say, “Hey, how you doing?” And the other person, head down, keeps walking. I don’t know they have an earbud in the other ear. That’s fine. But think about this. So first, I interpret that behavior. Second, I might do it through a negativity bias, but even if I’m not a negative person, most people are gonna say that wasn’t standard human protocol.

Shaun (16:19)

It wasn’t warm. It wasn’t inviting.

Chris (16:21)

At all. Like, man, how hard would it be to just say hi back, right? So now I’ve made up this whole story. I’ve interpreted it. Then I get to say, “That person is rude. I am not. Look at how good I did trying to say hello.” You know, in this city, we’re in Long Beach, we could use more of that. I just went through a whole host of imaginative s. You know, emotions and conversations out of literally nothing.

Shaun (16:50)

I just hit with like 9 things that I wanted to vomit out. Dr. Daniel Amen, good old brain scientist. He talks about one of the most corrosive and destructive things that we do is called ANTs automatic negative thoughts. It is the application of negativity to a behavior, and then we ruminate on it. And how often do we do this all the time? Now some of us do it through a doorway of insecurity. We interpreted the event. We’re worried about it. We don’t confront the individual. We we may not other apply it as like, “That person’s an ass.” We may self-apply it and sort of beat ourselves up a bit. And then there are situations where we just get to make the other person the problem. So I’m, I’m so always conscious. I think about the people in my life that end up center stage in these dialogues that when they listen to these things, are they like, “Man, I’m just gonna. I’m not gonna interact with Shaun anymore.” I’m, I’m watching,

Chris (17:47)

Don’t use names. It’s fine.

Shaun (17:48)

Well, this is gonna be pretty clear. I’m watching a movie with my wife last night.

Chris (17:52)

Oh, yeah. There’s only one of those.

Shaun (17:53)

I won’t use names. Yeah, exactly. And we’re, we’re sitting across, like, next to each other in these 2 chairs, and she had reached over and like, extended her hand, and so I had reached back and I was holding her hand for a second. And then, like, I needed to, I don’t remember what it was, shift a blanket, do something, and so I brought my hand back, and then the show started and I was watching it and it’s maybe a minute and a half in, and the movie pauses. And I looked over and I was like, “What’s up?” And she goes, “We okay?” And I said, “Yeah. W-what do you mean?” And she was like, “Well, we were holding hands, and then you just, like, let go and didn’t come back.” And it. I didn’t even… And I’m a harmonizer. It didn’t even fire for me, like, something that happened there. But for the full 90 seconds, she was running a narrative, interpreting the behavior, giving meaning to the behavior that was never intended. And I got to say, “Oh my gosh, I am so sorry. Not at all.” My favorite part of that is then we like, reengage we’re holding hands.

Chris (18:50)

And it’s gotta be awkward ’cause now we know it’s forced.

Shaun (18:53)

No, but it was like. It w-w-but it was okay. We were fine. But the funny part was, after, like, 3 minutes, I think it was an awkward hold, so both of our hands were getting awkward and numb.

Chris (19:01)

Sweaty and purple.

Shaun (19:01)

And we were both like, “This is a drag. Let’s stop holding hands.”

Chris (19:03)

That’s the same thing about, like, cuddling at night. You’re like, “Okay, that’s enough of that.”

Chris (19:08)

“Come on.” Like, “Can we just… Can we can we go to our. Back to our separate beds?”

Shaun (19:12)

So I think there’s this world where when I choose to be offended and I look at it through negativity bias it allows me to make you the problem, not me. Which is kinda nice. ‘Cause I get to now abdicate self from the situation. It’s a you thing. I get to have a moral high ground. I buil. Get to build a case against it. And by the way, it’s not like we’re usually just sitting here, like, running this math in our mind. It’s just sort of a default setting that we drop into. That’s where we get to do the process of, like, sort of, like, this three-word, approach is stop, challenge, choose.

Chris (19:53)

No, I don’t know that one.

Shaun (19:54)

When I get an emotional spike that invites something other than comfort or happiness, I. If I can stop for a moment, if I can challenge the thinking, and then I can choose the more probable response. So is it likely that Chris walked past the hallway and decided he was gonna be dismissive to me and didn’t like me? No. That’s not probable. It’s likely more probable that just something was going on. And if I choose to believe that one, then everything about my state settles. I don’t just spike around it. So why do we do it? One of the reasons we do it negativity bias. The other one is kind of interesting, is more it’s identity threat. So I get offended when something touches a self-image I’m trying to protect.

Chris (20:38)

Tell me if I’m on point with this one. I heard something one time where somebody said, like, “We typically only get offended about the things we are very concerned about.” So if somebody says to me, “Hey, Chris, looks like you put on a couple pounds,” I might be like, “Ooh, gosh, that hurt.” But if somebody says, “Hey, your blue hair looks stupid,” I’m like, “Well, I don’t have blue hair, so I don’t care in the slightest.” Is that kinda what you’re alluding to?

Shaun (21:03)

Yes. If somebody asks me a question and I don’t have the perfect answer in my mind, or I don’t know what it was, and I really wanna be competent, then I might have a little bit of an internal defense mechanism fire that says, “They’re questioning my competence.” So there’s a triggered threat response in it. Or if someone is excessively loud or dominating a dialogue, maybe I don’t have as much of an ability to command a room or a space, and I’d really like to be able to own the space more readily, but I just don’t have that. And so I determine them to be bloviating and pompous and just overly verbose in it. And by the way, they may be. Again, in all these situations there could be truth in the reality. I just have to be mindful that I’m applying interpretation and meaning to behavior. Why am I doing that? Maybe the answer is because it’s true. Maybe the answer is because I’m threatened.

Chris (22:06)

Yeah. And either of those are gonna elicit a response. You know, as you say this, we all have those, we’ll call them triggers. And I say this on the spot, real time, I’m sure you have them, but you don’t often, in my experience, drop into this. You do a really good job of either walking towards it if you feel it if you feel a tension, if you feel something that needs to be addressed, walking towards it in a way that is mutually beneficial, like not an attack or not letting it rattle you.

Shaun (22:47)

So it’s. But yeah, so I think you…

Chris (22:49)

Wait. Bup. How do I do that? How does anybody listening do that? Because look, it’s really easy to know this. We talked about the knowing-doing gap.

Chris (23:02)

But man, like, if somebody says something to me that does kind of hit at the core, maybe a core no one else knows, there’s an emotional response. And we know that emotion comes before logic. So how do I… You know? First I have to recognize, oof, that’s emotion, not logic. Then I have to say, “It’s their story, not mine.” Then I have to… I mean, these are a lot of steps to something that is, ingrained in us.

Shaun (23:29)

Man, there’s so much tied into this. The, like. I’ll, I’ll give you a couple rapid fires, and then we’ll come back to some things. Like think about the idea of state. And so if my psychological needs are compromised, I’m in a distressed state. My my ready state to get offended, to get frustrated, to respond is so elevated. So how do I do that? I manage psych needs. I manage my state. I try to keep myself… By the way, I screw this up all the time too, but I am effective at… When I say I mean one. One is effective at managing their state such that they are solid enough that whenever wind blows they can let it blow through them or they’re not gonna get blown over by it. But if I’m fragile, right? So if I’m a, if I’m a bruised reed, and then, man, I am just, I am ready to collapse with a little bit of push on it. So I personally try to maintain a state that I’m not in that spot. One. I also, through a lot of years of work harmonizer world, started realizing that I’m not a puppet. You know this phrase, I’ve used this before with you where I choose not to give my puppet strings to people. Very few do I give them to. Those that I know about. Why? Because there. We all have a lot of undone work in us, and if I give a string to you and when you pull on that string, you affect me physically and emotionally. And you may not be in a spot that I should give you that string. So it’s like handing your keys to a drunk driver. You know that’s a bad idea. Don’t do that. But we all walk around the world, and we willingly give power away. We hand people strings, and then when people don’t behave perfectly in the way that we want them to, we react negatively to it. Now, one of the things that I will say with this,… Somebody said this to me once. They said, “You never get mad.” And I said, “Oh, it’s just completely inaccurate.” You might not see me look mad but that doesn’t mean I’m not mad. So that’s. That was learned through a negative lens. That was learned through suppressing harmonizer. So I learned to suppress anger because it wasn’t pleasing. So this way that was acquired was probably unhealthily. But now, it’s more of a standpoint of, recognizing what is the outcome I want from this situation. And yeah, I do tend to, in those moments, someone says something that’s offensive or irritating. I don’t like the word trigger.

Chris (26:00)

Yeah. A lot of people don’t. I mean, I don’t.

Shaun (26:01)

And the reason I don’t is because it’s all external locus of control.

Chris (26:04)

It gives away the power.

Shaun (26:05)

It does. So it says there is a stimulus that I don’t have emotional or intellectual ability to regulate my response to it. And what I would like to believe is that I have agency over all of my thought and emotion. I don’t have to respond to that situation. So it’s an invitation, but I don’t have to accept the invitation. So someone says something rude, dismissive, evil, mean, that oftentime is with an intentional bait. It’s looking for an emotional response. I don’t have to give in to that one. So folks that we coach probably get really annoyed with, you know this phrase, when someone will say, “Chris made me mad,” we will stop them. We’ll say, “You allowed Chris to make you mad.”

Chris (26:50)

Oh, I do that with my kids, and my wife’s like, “Chris, they’re 8.”

Shaun (26:55)

Start ’em early. Start ’em early. Someone doesn’t make you mad. Someone also doesn’t make you happy. You allow them to make you happy. You allow them to make you mad. These are myths that we think, and that’s kind of a complex piece to grapple with because, Chris, you could certainly do things that would be kind that would make me happy. But if I choose not to interpret those in that way, then they don’t make me happy.

Chris (27:17)

Ooh. Wait, that’s such a good point. You just flipped what we’ve been talking about, right? Yeah, ’cause some of us have heard these things where it’s like, “Yeah, okay, I’m choosing to interpret it this way.” But we don’t often talk about the flip side, which is, okay, let’s assume you’re right, and you can control other people’s opinions, and you can act your way into the relationship and all these things. That’s just as presumptuous, right? Well, then that means that you know what behaviors will elicit the response you want. And you might be right the majority of the time, and you might have based a lot of the way you act on that but it’s just as much of a guess as…

Shaun (28:01)

Now, hopefully we take some learned experiences from it and we have pattern recognition. And we do all those things, but that is absolutely the case. And so when we talk about getting psychological needs met, there’s also an interpretation. So if you remember, the way we’ve had this conversation before is if you said to me, “Just wanted to say I really appreciated that moment,” and I decided to lens that through, like, “He’s probably just being condescending. He’s probably just being nice. I don’t know what he means it.” I’m not gonna let any of that land. So I’m going to just choose to interpret the way you interacted with me not positively because I’ve got this negativity bias that just continues to flow. So there’s, I think, a lot of the power in this is knowing that you get to choose what meaning you give to a situation. And sometimes the meaning is clear, it’s easy, and it’s accurate. And sometimes it’s more elusive, and it needs interpretation. And the question you get to ask yourself is, what are my default settings? Do I drop to pessimism, negativity, frustration, irritation, annoyance? Do I choose to interpret the behavior from somebody, the undone work of another human in the pile of humans just trying to make their way through life, do I choose to interpret that in a way that’s outsized for the situation and that’s frustrating me so that I then work the rest of my day ruminating, giving total agency away to someone? I mean, you ever been cut off in traffic and then they drive on and then you’re mad for 10 more minutes? And they have no idea that they did it.

Chris (29:49)

That you’re mad. Yeah.

Shaun (29:49)

And you’re just bent around it. So it goes back to that moderately crude comment at the beginning around if all day long you’re encountering people that you interpret as difficult and challenging and frustrating, maybe we need to examine the source. Maybe it’s not those you encounter. Maybe it’s how you’re choosing to interpret those realities.

Chris (30:12)

A lot of the difficulty I have with this is that let’s say I’m now aware of this, or I’ve been aware of it. That’s knowing. That doesn’t necessarily make doing easier. It is the precursor But what do I do? Okay, I’m pretty self-aware, or I’m willing to pay attention, and then I’m still habitually mad at them for it.

Shaun (30:45)

Yeah. It would be really reductive to say like, “Well, there’s just a 2-step process-” -and then we’re all done. You know that.

Chris (30:50)

I’m more asking kind of like you said, you’ve done a lot of the work. We have a lot of these frameworks. What are some things I can kinda hang my hat on?

Shaun (30:56)

So let’s go, let’s go with the first thing that when we work in a coaching construct, what do we do with somebody? So let’s assume that when you are. If you’re choosing to be offended or frustrated by the individual, that it will have a physiological response. Right? You’ll feel it. You’ll be irritated in some way, shape, or form. So when I work with folks, I tend to ask them, “Do you know when you’re in distress?” Most people will say, “Yeah,” or shortly thereafter. Okay, cool. The second question I want you to identify, so you get to answer this one really, do you know your physiology tied to what you’re dis. It’s your red flag. So do you know yours? So someone says something to you and you’re thinking, “The hell? That was just weird or irritating or frustrating.”

Chris (31:44)

I’m gonna introduce something, and I don’t know if we have to edit this out because it might be more than I can bite off, but that’s your job. I know the physiology a little bit in there’s a little stomach, there’s… But it’s a feeling I can’t quite describe until I heard the framework that DoorTwo taught me when I didn’t work here, which was the “I’m okay. You’re okay.” I very much notice it through the lens of you’re okay, I’m not okay. When I feel like they’re good, it’s my issue, and just assume the fact that they didn’t cause it, I caused it. That’s my. Now my trigger.

Shaun (32:24)

Right. Are you want me to chase that piece?

Chris (32:27)

I kinda do because I actually think the… One, we’ll do a whole episode on it. So for those that wanna learn more, make sure you subscribe, follow, all that good stuff. But high level, it’s it’s, it’s easy to initially comprehend enough to be beneficial.

Shaun (32:41)

Okay. So we’ll give the super fast version of it. It’s, it’s called life positions. It’s tied into, a gentleman named Eric Berne. And the basic description is that let’s just take 2 people for this simple situation, and we’re gonna use you and I. But you and I get to tend to occupy one of 3 life positions at any state. I’m gonna use me in these. It’s just easier to describe it as first hand. So I get to sit down with you and there’s a book written by this or written about this from quite some time ago in the ’70s. A lot of folks know it. It’s called “I’m Okay, You’re Okay.” Great language. So occup. Or life position number one is that I’m okay, you’re okay. What does that mean? It means that I’m in a spot where I don’t feel like you have any ill will, any malice, any hidden agendas. I just feel like you’re here being here, which I do is the ca. I do believe that. And I feel like I’m fine. I’m not stressed out. I’m not overwhelmed. I’m not in a panicked state. I mean, even though we got lights and cameras shining on us it’s fine. This is We’re good.

Shaun (33:36)

I’m okay, you’re okay. Second state is I’m okay, you’re not okay. So I come into the situation immediately assuming there’s something wrong with you. You are acting out of malice. You are acting with ill will. You’re deceptive. You’re hiding something. You’re incompetent. You’re not worthy. Whatever that lens is, I know I’m right. You’re the one in a spot that’s making a mistake or an error or an issue in some way, shape, or form. That mindset is often correlated and connected to when I choose to believe the world around me is filled with assholes. That’s more of the I’m okay…

Shaun (34:12)

You’re not okay.

Chris (34:12)

Yeah, that’s fair. Yeah.

Shaun (34:14)

Right? That’s that lens. The other lens is I’m not okay, you’re okay which is what you’re describing. In that situation, I assume, we call it like a one-down posture. Like, I think you’ve got it figured out. You know what you’re doing. You’re probably in the right. What you did probably made sense. I was probably the one that messed up. I get some rejection anxiety. I get conflict avoidance showing up, and then I tend to over-adapt to you and I will tend to absorb the responsibility for it. That life position, the individuals that drop into that life position don’t as frequently occupy the space that the world is filled with assholes.

Chris (34:55)

I’m glad you said that because, in truth, I don’t experience a lot of jerks…

Shaun (35:02)

Jerks in the world.

Chris (35:03)

In the world. It’s, it’s not the primary lens. Now, I’m aware of it and there are some, but I think it’s because of what you just said. And so given the framing of this, let’s kind of double down on that I’m okay, you’re not okay. Because given what we’ve been talking about, that might be the life position that those listening tend towards.

Shaun (35:23)

Are occupying. So it goes back to the same thing. Like, if that is part of your life position, and if we just string a bunch of stuff together and if you’re listening and you don’t know these things, click back a few. There’s more episodes. Think or persister personality types in the PCM model more tend to occupy the I’m okay, you’re not okay mindset. When distress comes at me, it threatens something about my identity and I have a defense mechanism, a reaction that looks like, “Well, that’s because that person is wrong. They are discounting me. They are disrespecting me. They are doubting me.” So I run it through this lens of I’m choosing to be offended because of whatever it was that individual did. Now, if I said, “Maybe it’s a me problem. Maybe that’s about me that’s working through it,” well, that’s threatening to me, right? That. Now that orients me as the issue not you as the issue, which would be inconsistent with I’m okay, you’re okay. So we will drop into that headspace. It’s still linked into identity threat…

Chris (36:25)

All of these.

Chris (36:27)

That’s what I love about it. I mean, look, this is a lot of the work we do. We had a workshop going on out there for the past couple days. We have, you know, a Santa’s bag of models and frameworks. And it’s not that they are the answer. But it’s that they often, one or 2, can help you get the result you want, which is what we’re trying to do. I’m realizing we have named a lot of them, and if you are at a place where you can quickly recap them, that would be helpful.

Shaun (36:59)

Sure. So yeah, let’s bring it back to the beginning, and I’m gonna add something too ’cause we wouldn’t be doing this episode without this phrase that I need to say in a minute. But, so if we take it back to we said, we started with the beginning of, like, do you often find yourself frustrated or disappointed with the folks in your life? And the reason is likely because you are incorrectly assigning meaning to their behavior. Now, that is hard because now that’s saying you have agency and you have ownership over it and it is a you problem, not a they problem. That is true in many situations and circumstances. It’s also true that people are difficult and frustrating at times, and they invite you into being offended. You still have agency over how you choose to respond to when true offensive behavior shows up. So we talked about first this idea of it is less about the event, and it is about how you give meaning to the event or the behavior of the individual. In the firm, we talk about the event does not equal the outcome. The event times your response to the event equals the outcome. So agency over how you’re applying meaning to the behavior of an individual. We then said, “Well, why do we get offended to begin with?” And we gave it 2 reasons. One was because we tend to come through a doorway of negativity bias, which is a bit of a self-protection approach. We look for something that is potentially threatening to us, which ties into the next thing, which is identity threat. So I’m competent, I’m capable, I’m smart, whatever those lenses, I’m kind, whatever those lenses that I wanna look through, the way you are behaving is pushing on that. It’s creating threat to me, and I don’t love that feeling state and how it’s showing up. And so I’m gonna react in some way. I think we then tried to talk about, like, is it serving me, and how is it serving me? And I have to confront a couple truths. It might be serving me ’cause it’s giving me moral high ground. It might be serving me because it’s letting me form an argument. It might be serving me because it’s free feeding and fueling a confirmation bias I have about the individual. Now, that’s serving me, but it’s not serving me. It’s hurting me in some ways that it shows up because it costs me. It makes me potentially less curious. It can make me more reactive. It can make it so that I struggle to manage the relationships in the way that I want to. And we always say every interaction is either relation separating or relationship building. Am I managing that on my end how I go through it? Oh, and then we spoke about this idea. This was resonant for me because I didn’t like the idea that I didn’t have control of my thoughts and emotions. And I’m not a control freak kinda guy, but when I realized when someone behaves in a certain way and then I elevate intellectually and emotionally I just gave them power, 100 percent. They now puppet me. I gave them a remote control.

Chris (39:49)

Wait say that again.

Shaun (39:51)

When someone does something action or behavior and I allow it to elevate me emotionally or intellectually, it’s like I gave them a remote control of me. They’re now in control of me. If they move, I move. I don’t have control over it. So if I’m working with somebody and I wanna be really provocative with them, I will say to them like, “No, I understand. It’s fine. You’re probably not smart enough to regulate your emotions and your intellect based on what other people say.”

Chris (40:18)

You know what I like about this idea that we’re coming to in the 11th hour of this podcast is many people listening or people that are seeking this advice are probably in positions of power, influence. You wanna hook ’em. Tell ’em that like, “Oh, so you’re just being manipulated.”

Shaun (40:39)

I mean, it’s kind of. I literally by design with provocation and with a smile…

Shaun (40:43)

On my face, I will say that.

Chris (40:45)

To incite growth in them.

Shaun (40:46)

Yeah. I get it. I understand. You have not intellectually or emotionally matured enough to regulate your response to the individual. That’s fine. And of course, it’s kind of a It’s not desi. It’s not real. But it is at times.

Chris (40:59)

Well, if we’re trying to change behavior, sometimes we gotta snap the…

Shaun (41:02)

Snap out of it a bit. So this is that phrase that we say all the time that some people don’t love. Some of our colleagues don’t love it. It’s the idea that you get what you invite. So if you are surrounded with trauma, ask yourself the question, are you inviting it? If you’re surrounded with irritants, are you inviting it? If you’re surrounded with defensive behavior, are you inviting it? Because if you are constantly surrounded by it’s improbable that every person that you have somehow encountered in your sphere of influence are all filled with irritating, frustrating, and annoying people. It’s quite possible you’re inviting it through your behavior and through your interpretation.

Chris (41:40)

Well, listen, here’s a couple things. One, my Macallan is empty.

Shaun (41:44)

Oh, it’s sad for you. Mine still has full.

Shaun (41:46)

You’re, you’re a fish.

Chris (41:47)

Well, I think you’ve been doing the majority of the talking which is what we’re here for, number one. Number two, we’ve covered a lot of ground, much of which we will continue to cover in variations and go deeper in the future, right? Because all of these could be an episode in themselves. However, one thing I really wanna say, and God, this sounds so promotional, but is we probably covered 6 models. If you want access to them, if you want to have them in written format, if you want to be able to digest them in a different way, sign up for the newsletter. You know, just go to doortwo.com/signup. And I say that simply because some people are on the way driving, going, “What? I need the notes.” We do recaps. We’ve got articles. We’ve got all these things, doortwo.com/signup. Shaun, genuinely appreciate you walking through these things, bringing out the variations of models, many of which you teach or bring through your coaching. For those listening, we’ve gone through a gauntlet in this one. Final words.

Shaun (42:50)

If you’re this individual, maybe ask yourself a couple questions. One, is the internal and/or external reaction you are having bigger than the event? And if it is, maybe consider taking stock of what is it that is driving that. Second one, you teed it up earlier, so we’ll go there. If you find yourself certain about the motivations and the meaning of why someone said the thing they said, it may be worth examination because so many of those things are informing and influencing the way you navigate and think about the world. And at the end of the day, why does this matter? Because you have 168 hours a week, and if you are allowing a large majority of those hours to be consumed by thought that is not serving the people you are leading and loving, then what are we doing?

Chris (43:43)

Couldn’t have said it better. Why didn’t you say that at the beginning?

Shaun (43:47)

It just took a while.

Chris (43:48)

Okay, well, appreciate it. Shaun, thanks for doing it.

Shaun (43:51)

Chris, always fun.