#21: The Power of Self-Regulation and Calling in Our Loved Ones
How often do you look at someone else’s behavior and think: “Well if I were them, I’d do that differently”?
You see a parent ignore her screaming child and think, “If that were my kid, I would acknowledge their pain and calm them down.”
Your boss sends you a cryptic email and you think, “If I were in charge, I’d provide clearer instructions.”
Your friend goes back to her cheating ex, again, and you think “If I were her, I wouldn’t give him the time of day.”
You see an uncle share a Facebook post and cringe, saying “If that were my husband, here’s what I’d say.”
It’s natural to see things from our own point of view. And yet this one thought pattern is our single biggest obstacle to clear communication, deeper understanding, unconditional love, self-mastery, and social progress.
Someone posts something people disagree with or clumsily expresses an opinion and we’re quick to judge and slow to question. We cast accusations, regardless of whether they have merit. We jump to outrage…pointing fingers and yelling “here’s the bad person—RIGHT HERE,” as though there are only good people--those who agree with me--and bad people--those who don’t agree with me.
There’s no gray area, which is a problem because life just isn’t this clear cut. It’s full of ambiguity. This approach—this belief that the way to make change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people—is wholly ineffective. Shame is seldom (and maybe never?) an effective strategy. In fact, it breeds cycles of harm, not change.
People tend to see cancellation or call-outs as either wholly good — “Hey! There are new consequences for saying or doing bigoted or otherwise untenable things.” — or wholly bad “People can lose their reputations and in some cases their jobs, all because a person or a group has taken undue offense to a careless or out-of-context remark.”
I think we’re losing sight of something much bigger, more powerful, and more important: the power of self-regulation and calling in others.
In recent months, I witnessed an exchange on Facebook among loved ones that I want to talk about today. Because what I observed is so common--not just among people I know and love. I see it everywhere in the world. So I’m going to attempt to unpack it today...offering a point of view that’s hopefully more nuanced and empowering than the debate so many are having about calling out people or cancel culture. And, by the way, I’ve been planning to share this episode for a while...it’s not tied to the problematic ways of Rachel Hollis, whom I’ve never personally followed or endorsed.
To begin, I’ll share a quick synopsis of what I observed between members of the same group on social media--it’s a common scenario in these times we’re living in.
Pete posts an image on Facebook.
Amy sees the image and posts a comment to tell Pete the photo was hurtful. I personally don’t recall the actual words used but the essence was “hurt.”
These two choices from Pete and Amy set in motion a series of subsequent choices by each of them, as well as a chorus of people who knew them. And as a result of the many interpretations and choices made by various people--both in the Facebook comments and in subsequent conversations and actions--there was a lot of suffering.
The exact details here don’t matter. And--to be clear--I’m not making any judgment about anyone’s choices as being good or bad, right or wrong. What I hope to offer today is a way to look at these experiences differently to produce better outcomes for all. Big, inclusive love, yo. That’s what I want.
Amy saw Pete’s post that she chose to interpret in a particular way—as though she was the reference point for it. It was one possible interpretation of several options. She chose to read into Pete’s post through the lens of her own life experience and her story about Pete. Then, when Pete didn’t respond appropriately in the eyes of Amy, Amy chose to interpret that, too...again, through her own experience, not Pete’s experience or, in this case, his facility with even using Facebook. So then Amy chose to call out Pete...to bring him to account…to set him up for a public flogging to uphold her interpretation of events. And this produced a cascade of other choices, which I’ll get to in a bit.
But first allow me to wax philosophic: Too quickly and easily, we forget our shared humanity…that we have much more in common than most would like to believe. Pete thinks he’s posting a message along the lines of “if you hurt someone I love, I’ll hurt you.” But Amy chose to center herself in the post and take offense, inferring that Pete was mocking people with certain conditions or aspects of identity. This is giving Pete a lot more credit than is warranted, in terms of being sophisticated about microaggressions and being anti-oppressive. And, by the way, Amy calling out Pete was actually carrying out that very same message of “if you hurt someone I love, I’ll hurt you.”
Here’s what I saw: I saw two people who each have some personal work to do. I mean, really...don’t we all? In this case, Pete can do more work to be more inclusive. Amy can do more work to be more emotionally responsible. I’ll explain what I mean by this in a little bit.
As we’re wont to do on Facebook, other people then made attempts at offering support for both Amy and Pete...bringing a lot of their own stuff into the comment thread. These were problematic for a number of reasons.
First: it’s easy to react at a keyboard, on a screen…and it makes us feel just and right and virtuous…all while creating further division and not really solving the problem.
Second: the commentary on Facebook becomes gratuitous criticism…because we can’t get to the necessary nuance and depth by emotionally typing posts back and forth. This happens when our communication technology outpaces our actual efforts to get to know or understand the other person.
Third: In this instance, there was so much prioritizing of the experiences of certain individuals and a secondary acknowledgement of other people’s lived experience and little grace extended...instead offering versions of “this is the right or best” response.
Fourth: We like to think we’re rational. But, essentially, we’re all beholden to our feelings and emotions, making half-formed snap judgments that are based on little more than how we feel, which has become an unchallengeable point of view in the public sphere.
The meaning of Pete’s post doesn’t exist, except in our minds. If we woke up with amnesia tomorrow, the past would not exist to us. In this instance, Amy had a particular thought about, and made meaning of, Pete’s post that created an entire cascade of reactions.
So Amy was suffering, but she’s not suffering because of the photo Pete posted. Amy’s suffering because of her thought about it…about what she’s making Pete’s behavior mean.
What’s the thought pattern Amy’s actually having that’s causing her emotional suffering that she’s blaming on the picture Pete shared? I won’t pretend to know exactly what Amy was thinking, but allow me to run with one example:
Circumstance: Pete shares an image on Facebook
Thought: This post is hurtful toward my loved one
Feeling: Angry, sad
Action: Tell Pete how hurtful this post is
Result: Reinforces the original thought, fuels division
The circumstance is what it is—it always remains the same (i.e., Pete shares an image on Facebook), but there are so many other different thoughts Amy could have had: “Wow, what a dumb post.” “Well, that’s unfortunate.” “Hmmm…cringe-y.” “I appreciate that Pete wants to protect his loved ones.” “Okay, I guess that’s one way to support loved ones.” “Not my bag, but c’est la vie.” “I might need to set a boundary for myself and block Pete for a while.” “I agree, Pete. I also want to protect my loved ones.” Literally, there are probably 15 different interpretations/stories immediately available, without even having to do any mental gymnastics. And each of those stories creates a different cascade of effects…that either help or harm us, both individually and collectively. If at this point you’re like, “But Meghan, we need to talk about intent and impact, tho.” I’ll get to that soon--I promise.
But first…I want to clarify...as I said in the beginning, one of my aims in this article is focused on achieving social progress through an aspect that’s often missing: our self-regulation. This isn’t just my personal POV--the science backs me up here, too.
I’m not here to tell Amy what to think or how to feel because then I’d be a hypocrite for taking her to task for the very thing she did with Pete. Also, there’s no need to label or judge thoughts or feelings or actions or results as good or bad. Thoughts and feelings and actions and results simply exist—they’re not good or bad..there’s no moral evaluation. Amy’s allowed to feel what she wants to feel…all of her feelings are valid and we need emotional contrast—it’s what gives meaning to our lives. As humans, we need to allow, embrace and process our full range of emotions. But we need to do so in a responsible way—and we need to remember that just because we’re offended, doesn’t mean we need to react.
And we need to remember that feeling our emotions is different than how we choose to express them.
And we need to remember that feelings aren’t facts.
And we need to remember that feelings are just data, not directives.
And we need to remember that feelings don’t just emerge spontaneously—they’re created by a thought.
And we need to remember that other people don’t create our thoughts—we do.
And we need to remember that we have agency in how we feel because of the thoughts we choose.
So a big step in emotional responsibility is not blaming other people for our feelings. Our feelings are created by our thoughts, not other people. Which means the next step is always to figure out what those thoughts are. The question to ask is “So what?” So what that they did or said this thing? That question will tell us what we’re making it mean that this person took this action. What our thought is now about it.
Have you ever noticed, for instance, that you say or do one thing, and two people interpret it two totally different ways? That’s because their thoughts are different.
Or have you ever noticed that you can say or do the same thing, and the same person reacts differently on two different days? That’s because they’re having different thoughts.
Amy’s own thoughts that she wasn’t okay in response to seeing Pete’s post were causing her pain...and pain for anyone else who’s not doing this type of personal work. It’s not being registered in a big ledger of what was and was not okay. It’s not changing the past. And it’s not making Pete engaged or feel more connected to reflect on or change his actions.
As humans, we have thoughts that cause feelings that cause actions that cause results. All the rest of it is our stories about what that means. We evaluate these cycles and we decide who’s good and bad and who’s nice and mean and who loved us and who hurt us and who is worthy and who is not. But these thoughts cause so much suffering and they’re entirely optional. And they get in the way of our self-regulation and self-mastery. And they’re everywhere in our society.
Also, when our brains are in the habit of judging others, they’re also in the habit of judging us, too. Any time we’re strenuously blaming someone else and very attached to them being wrong, there’s also a shadow side…and it’s about ourselves. So the beauty of understanding that thoughts create feelings, which create actions, which create results is that we can see that we’re all just always living in some point of that cycle. Not in a bad way. It’s just a neutral math equation. We decide what to make them mean. All of the meaning we have in the world is made up of human thoughts by human minds.
I often come back to Viktor Frankl’s wisdom: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Even though I have all sorts of certifications and training in positive psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, and coaching science, this is still very much a practice for me…from which I’m always learning, and it has implications in every area of my life.
So let’s now talk about intent and impact, especially within the broader context of oppression.
These days, we’re seeing oppressive acts everywhere. And we’re seeing a lot of attempts to publicly hold people accountable to help them make different choices. To be clear, I see value in calling out others, such as:
When we need to let someone know that their words or actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated
When we need to interrupt so we can prevent further harm
These moments will likely feel hard and uncomfortable, but they can be necessary. Also, they allow us to break the momentum.
In this example, though--when dealing with loved ones from the same group of people--I’m advocating for a different approach: calling in. A “call in” is an invitation to explore deeper, focus on reflection rather than reaction, understand different possibilities and perspectives, and encourage paradigm shifts about our choices and their impacts.
Research shows that one of the most effective strategies for social change is to focus on change within our own groups. If people feel like someone is judging them critically, it can make them reject the ask – and it can make people intensify their prejudice. That’s why a call-in can be so powerful.
In this instance, it’s important to acknowledge that Pete’s post communicated arguably problematic norms about gender and ability. Did Pete know this when he posted it? No. Was it an accountability and growth opportunity for Pete? Yes. Did Pete’s accountability and growth happen as a result of public shaming from a loved one? No. Did it happen through a personal, direct conversation to help him understand the impacts of his Facebook post? Yes. Did Pete make himself accountable to Amy? Yes. And via a direct phone call turned voice message.
What I observed was a very sad commentary about the world at-large…and, more importantly, my loved ones. We like to toss around this notion of love. But it’s a very conditional, insincere, and performative love based on shallow attempts at understanding and connection via social media, which can be a toxic medium for many reasons:
First: it creates false and arbitrary positions—agree or disagree—when there are so many more options.
Second: we’ve adopted this practice of managing relationships through social media posts as the NORM of engagement, signaling our support and our own virtue through likes and quick hit comments…when there are so many other means for making time for actual dialogue.
Third: we assume all others are on social media and, thus, their silence is a tacit endorsement of a particular opinion…because we’ve created this ridiculous microcosm of experience…and of meaning…and of posturing. It’s a very shitty proxy for actual connection.
I’m simply not interested in fueling the flames on Facebook or other social media. I definitely used to be. Like even mere months ago. And I probably will be again. #workinprogress. These days, though, I’m not interested in upholding five-dollar reactions to nickel provocations. And I’m not interested in publicly calling out loved ones on a flawed, unchecked premise. To be clear, I support both calling in and calling out. But when personal relationships are involved, calling in is so much more powerful and effective toward achieving the end goal.
Yes, words create our reality. But the power in this statement is in how we’re talking to ourselves…not in what others are saying…because we can’t know the perspective of others without asking them…we can’t control others…and we suffer in pain when we attempt to do this. When we let go of viewing ourselves as the reference point, we’re able to appreciate that humans are as varied and complex as the Universe itself. And this enables us to move through our lives more freely and agile with our emotions, and with curiosity and astonishment at the world, and live in the possibility that exists for us beyond what we may be able to see from our singular perspective at any given moment.
The more we all can practice de-centering ourselves as a reference point in our own minds, the more we can appreciate our loved ones for who they are, rather than how much they validate our beliefs. And this allows us to love them even if we choose not to interact with them because of our preferences, rather than our assumptions or biases about what their behavior means and how they feel about us.
I also need to make an important distinction here between beliefs and being, especially in the public sphere. Let’s go back to the beginning when I mentioned Rachel Hollis. If you center yourself, for example, as a black woman responding to Rachel Hollis, it’s so important and necessary to call her out for perpetuating systemic problems...and how they harm your very being. I want to be clear that I uphold and advocate for this call-out approach all day. Black lives matter.
When it comes to loved ones...rather than getting sucked into an argument or avoiding a topic--two extreme positions, I’m actively looking for a different path forward. I’m interested in helping people liberate themselves from their pain by seeing how they’re creating certain results in their life through their thoughts. I’m interested in creating a more inclusive world that never posts jokes at the expense of someone’s identity, especially when power dynamics of all types of “isms” are at work. And I’m interested in the healing and growth of our loved ones through calling in, more so than calling out or shaming. My choice is to see the humanity of our loved ones and to get curious about them—their patterns, socialization, preferences, and priorities—before making assumptions, casting aspersions, or telling them how they should think, feel, or behave. In this way, I can see them as complex, unique human beings rather than as movie screens for my projections about myself or the world. This is a way forward to create the conditions for healing, growth, and positive social change.
You may also like…
