River: On snapdragons

[mdlbear]

This came out of an incident toward the end of this weekend's trip.

Snapdragons:

The snapdragon is a pretty flower with a fierce-sounding name. It looks as though it's set up to eat insects, but in fact all it wants to do is hold on to them long enough to deposit some pollen on them to send to the next snapdragon they visit. But sex by proxy is an entirely different story.

The snapdragon effect

It turns out that cflute, who we were visiting over the weekend, is even more sensitive than I am to what she calls "crosstalk". If she's trying to talk or write, words directed at her will break her concentration. We were engaged in a rather complex and stressful project when pocketnaomi derailed C's train of thought and got "snapped at". She was, understandably, hurt and upset, and said so. This got C angry in turn; N left the room rather than let it escalate. (edited 0719t1535 in response to a correction in comments.)

It turns out that N is at least as sensitive as Colleen is to phrasing and tone of voice. It's a hypergolic mixture. And C doesn't have the benefit of 30-odd years' experience with this problem.

When it happens between me and Colleen the usual result is Colleen bursting into tears, but it's the same thing. I wrote this up back in February in this post, where I attributed the phenomenon to the confusion of being yanked out of a state of flow, but it seems to be a lot more general than that.

Whether you're a geek or non-geek, whether you're in flow or just concentrating on something tricky, there's that moment of confusion when you're jolted out of your concentration by a chance remark, an innocent question, or even a vitally important but ill-timed message. During that moment, if you say something, there's going to be stress in your voice. You're going to snap at the source of the interruption.

And, especially if they love you, the source of the interruption is going to interpret your tone of voice as angry. Both effects, the snap and the reaction to it, are near-instantaneous and totally automatic. It's all over before either person has a chance to collect their wits and think about what they're saying or hearing.

In most cases, you didn't even notice. What you said and how you said it didn't even register on a conscious level -- you were thinking about something else, after all. The first thing you notice is the reaction.

All you can think to do, once you get that totally unexpected and, to you, totally unfair and unwarranted reaction, is explain what you think happened. All your poor partner/spouse/lover/friend/kid can think is that you're still angry and giving them a dressing-down. Don't go there: you're making things worse. Apologize as quickly as you can, and shut up.

The snapdragon solution

I'm suggesting the code-word "snapdragon" for this -- it's memorable, and somewhat descriptive. "Are you being a snapdragon?" "Sorry; I was a snapdragon there." Actually, just "snapdragon" works fine if you both know the code-word; Colleen has already used it that way this evening, less than an hour after I introduced it.

It'll work in both directions: the first one to notice a snapdragon interaction gets to tag it. Once you've confirmed that it was a snapdragon, you can -- and should -- drop the subject and move on. Preferably move on to something like a kiss or a hug, along with pride at having successfully averted a serious breakdown of communication.

I've already mentioned "Basingstoke" in a similar function, but it doesn't seem to have stuck in this context, perhaps because it's neither as memorable nor as specific. I think I'l save that one for use in the rather different situation where my disagreeing with something Colleen says comes across as not listening.

Just as a linguistic aside, my reaction at being accused of snapping at Colleen used to be something like "I didn't snap at you; you startled me and I couldn't control my voice." Rubbish. I snapped at her. I might not have been angry when I snapped, but "snapping" is the correct word for what I did. Sorry about that, Love.

Comments

[jeffreycornish.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do like that Idea. Shiny. geojlc will likely appreciate it.

And thank you for your insight into the household's social dynamics.

[mdlbear]

You're welcome, on both counts. I've seen C and N dance this measure before a couple of times, and Colleen and I have been dancing it for over three decades now. I'm hoping that I've been able to capture the pattern in a way that will help all of us. Sounds like I'm getting there.

[jeffreycornish.livejournal.com]

Have you read ozarque's "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense"? Marvelous book on the subject of how to identify and defuse/deflect verbal abuse.

I also highly recommend her LJ. She has a very keen mind.

[mdlbear]

No. And this wasn't abuse, exactly. But it looks useful.

[jeffreycornish.livejournal.com]

Well, it's also about identifying things that one is saying that fall into certain patterns. Not that one would intend to be abusive.

It's also helpful just in general for workplace, public and other social (and anti-social) occasions

[mdlbear]

OK, that sounds more generally useful.

OTOH, looking quickly at the FAQ, it really does seem oriented toward abuse, defined as hurtful and intentional. The thing about the Snapdragon pattern is that it's not intentional on either side; the purpose of the keyword is to get in and control the damage as quickly as possible by referring to a discussion that has already taken place. There's probably still a lot of useful stuff in the book, but...

SHE"S ON LJ?

[capplor.livejournal.com]

I read that book years ago (and gave it to my mother, who really needed it!)

Re: SHE"S ON LJ?

[jeffreycornish.livejournal.com]

Yes she is. Fun to read.

[joecoustic.livejournal.com]

I like that you have named the action without ascribing an emotion or reason. I can end up on both sides of this situation, and this may be a point of view that's not too loaded for either side to address before it cycles out of control.

[mdlbear]

Exactly -- the idea is to tag the event with a "severe fire danger" sign, take a deep breath, and skip the emotionally-loaded discussion that we've already had.

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

This is brilliant; it will come in useful in our household!

[mdlbear]

Thanks!

I've always suspected

[capplor.livejournal.com]

that a lot of these things could be reduced to equations.

-- Robin

Re: I've always suspected

[mdlbear]

With me it's usually math, but the chemistry was just too apropos in this case.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

That's not actually precisely what happened. cflute did snap in the way and for the reasons you suggested. I then publicly told her that I didn't like it and I didn't think it was fair to me. She then got angry at me for criticizing her publicly. I then left the room. Not because she was criticizing me publicly, because I didn't want to get into a fight and it was heading that way.

[mdlbear]

Thanks for the correction -- will fix. My memory for conversations is practically nonexistent, I'm afraid.

a related thought

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

One thing I’ve found is that our brains are programmable. It’s possible, not necessarily easy, but possible, to define a certain type of situation and then put in place a new automatic reaction.

I did this with anger reactions—I started with specific instances, where in retrospect I believed I’d over-reacted. Since changing my generalized reaction to being angry was, and always has, been intractable, I started with tiny steps. For one specific instance where I felt strongly that my anger had made things worse, instead of better, I programmed in a mental pause, long enough to present myself with the question “is this really worth getting angry?” And it worked! So then I took another instance, and programmed in the same pause and question. And then another. And another. Eventually, my brain got the idea that there were whole categories of things where getting volcanically angry made the situation worse rather than better, and stopped dumping so much adrenaline into my system at the drop of every hat.

How did I do the programming? Well, “mind over matter” is probably a good label. I willed it to happen. I practiced it happening in imagination. And I’m stubborn, so I plastered it in place with stubbornness.

How did I keep it happening? That was easy because I liked the results. I liked not being suffused with that much adrenaline for some little thing. I liked being able to moderate my volume and choose my communication strategy while trying to convince the perpetrator of the annoyance that there IS a better way. And I liked the social consequences of being more relaxed and level-headed.

Why did this come to mind in response to your “snapdragon” post?

It’s because (like a certain someone putting things in the freezer without closing the freezer bag, which will predictably waste food) being interrupted while tightly focused on something is a clearly defined instance that you know will happen again. I theorize that you (this is of course the generic “you”) could program yourself to automatically say something like “I’m in the middle of a thought, give me a minute” in a pleasant or neutral tone of voice, while mentally “parking” the mental project, hopefully in a state where you can pick it up again.

Your snapdragon suggestion is a great way to recover social closeness after the fact, I do want to acknowledge that. I hope the phrase catches and spreads.

But I also wanted to share my thought that if you can program in, to the point where it’s a rote, automatic reaction that doesn’t interrupt your main train of thought, a polite verbalization, and an initiation of the process of putting the mental project on pause, it might reduce the number of hurt feelings that need healing AND reduce the number of lost mental projects that you have to recover. If you can find them again.

I HATE losing my train of thought, and having it vanish into the ether!

Re: a related thought

[mdlbear]

Many thanks -- this sounds like a good idea. I've programmed in a few responses for other situations; this one might be less tractable because the bandwidth is already in use, but it's definitely worth a try.

[jilara.livejournal.com]

Hmm, Andrew says he figured out early on that I growl and grumble when I'm--yes, pulled out of something I'm concentrating on, or am suddenly confronted with something unexpected: "What did you do to this gate? Why doesn't it open fully?" But that it's nothing personal, and gone almost as soon as it manifests. But another person could read all sorts of things into it. So I hear you.