River: Feedback

[mdlbear]

It happens pretty often when I'm driving in unfamiliar territory: I make a wrong turn, say something grumpy, and the first thing Colleen says to me is "don't panic" in a rather frightened voice. The next thing you know I'm shouting at her that I'm not in a panic, just frustrated, and she's shouting back or in tears. It's a feedback loop. She expects me to panic, and everything I say to assure her that I'm not only reinforces her belief that I am.

It happened again a couple of days ago: I was in the middle of a rather ticklish task amid both distractions and knee pain; I dropped something and... I'm not sure whether she actually said anything to try to calm me down, or just gave me a look that I interpreted as being upset. I tried to calm her down, which made her more upset, and I lost it. Feedback.

You've heard it in concerts: all of a sudden there's an intolerably loud whistling sound, and somebody yells "turn down the gain!". The sound guy turns a knob, and there's blessed silence again. If he's really good, and he really needs that gain, he'll adjust a notch filter to take out the one frequency in that room that's ringing.

Positive feedback (in the engineering sense -- they may be negative emotions, but the level increases and that's what makes it positive feedback) happens in any closed-loop system with a gain greater than one. The signal gets reinforced each time it goes around the loop, and all of a sudden you have an earsplitting shriek.

It doesn't take two people, of course. "I'm too nervous: I'm going to screw this up... See, my hands are shaking... Oh, shit!" But having two people in the loop almost inevitably brings up the question of who's responsible for it?

The correct answer is that it doesn't matter. You have a system with two amplifiers and positive gain: the only meaningful question to ask is which gain control is within reach, and how do you turn it. After that, if you need a little more gain, you ask who has the better-tuned filters.

If you have some magic phrase or agreed-on keyword like "calm down", or "safeword", or "Basingstoke" that you can use to get the other person to reduce their gain, use it. A hug, if possible in the situation, might calm both of you down. But in most cases, it's your own gain control that's within easy reach. Use that. What works for me is to take a deep breath, shut up!, and either put some more space between us or go on with whatever I was doing but calmly and without trying to say anything to make things better. Your mileage may vary.

Comments

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

It would be good if you and Colleen did have a keyword, but, lacking that, your decision to control your own behavior is reasonable. It's really not possible to control another person's behavior without their participation.

[mdlbear]

Exactly.

from my Wise One

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

I saw this in my workday morning and sent it to dunkelpig. Her reply to me follows, unedited except for names. (crankyinfrance and bensanaz are our daughter and son, respectively.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ok, there are two things I see here.

One is patterns. If there is pattern, if you're stuck in a rut, you need to change it. Lost, grump, don't panic, aarghh! is a rut. Steve will invariably get lost some time or other, so the only options ar either to say something cheerful when it happens, or to calmly respond to Colleen when she says don't panic. He could insist Colleen change her reaction to him, but if he's serious about change, it is much faster and easier for himn to start with himself. If it's not faster and easier, then he needs to think about it. A lot.

crankyinfrance insists on doing her practice driving with me, although she is perfectly aware that thnidu is as good or better driver than I am. Partially it's because I'm better at giving directions, and, because I'm less secure about lane changing, am aware when changes will be needed and give her a heads up. But mostly, she says, it's because I make her less nervous. She doesn't seem to wonder if she makes me nervous, although she has requested that I not gasp.

The other thing is to communicate very clearly what you do mean. Whether it is don't panic or balderdash, both Steve and Colleen need to agree on what is meant by the remark and what is meant by the response. When Steve gets lost, is he always merely annoyed? Or is he panicking sometimes? How can Colleen tell the difference? Do they have different speech responses? Is what Steve sees as a demand - DON'T PANIC! - for Colleen the equivalent of saying a sympathetic "There, there," offering neither advice or demand, but an expression of empathy?

thnidu, you know full well this is not just Steve's issue. You and I have discussed conversational patterns and responses, and I have talked it over with my therapist, particularly when you were unable to figure out what your stepmother was talking about while I had a reasonably sensible conversation with her, using the patterns of conversation which I use with my women friends, but which you object to.

crankyinfrance points out that thnidu and I chose each other, but that she and bensanaz are under no obligation to be patient with me. Merits of that argument aside, Steve and Colleen chose each other, and each does have an obligation to be patient with the other. But, as I have noted before, change is usually easier when you start with yourself. And, if Colleen is ill, she may be limited in how much she can contribute at this time, putting even more of the burden on Steve.

Re: from my Wise One

[mdlbear]

Very wise advice -- thank dunkelpig for me.

Yes, any changes have to start with me: that's really the only thing I can change.

I've learned the hard way that I cannot give driving lessons -- I'm a lousy passenger, and don't think fast enough on my feet to be useful.

So far I've been totally unable to convince Colleen that what I say about my own mental state is more accurate than what she thinks she perceives. Totally. That's one of the things I'm seeking help for.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Would it help if rather than saying "I'm not panicking" which may seem like refusing her request rather than correcting her perception, you just said "Okay, I won't." ? I mean, you're not panicking, so it's not like you're lying or anything.

Or if you can't say anything without reinforcing the gain, maybe just nod?

[mdlbear]

That might work - anything not to sound flustered or uncertain.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

Colleen: "Don't panic!"
You (suggested): "Don't incite panic!"
Her (likely): "I'm not inciting!"
You (endgame): "I'm not panicking, either, but you're jumping to conclusions and are acting that I am."

Yes, I agree... but your feelings are just as important as hers. In fact, arguably, since you're taking responsible for the physical safety of both of you (operating a piece of heavy machinery where she's in the passenger seat), it's almost more important that *she* take as much responsibility for not inciting your gibber as you have to for not letting her do so.

The latter is something you have to think about, something you have to take attention away from the road (or setting up her equipment) in order to implement. This, in my opinion, is more dangerous than her being quiet when she's worried that you're panicking -- when she hasn't allowed you to show your mettle in a crisis and deal with it calmly and appropriately.

(in other words: if her saying "don't panic" causes you to react in a way which creates feedback-panic, you certainly do need to put in safety valves that you can use -- but you also have every right and responsibility to ask that she try not to do the things which make you use them.)

[mdlbear]

Let me repeat: "who's responsible" is irrelevant. The only question is, given the two people and personalities involved, how best to break the loop. What you suggest would make matters worse -- I've tried it.

[pwl1.livejournal.com]

This may sound silly, but personal experience has taught me that knowing there actually is a loop is the first step towards breaking it. It's similar to having a knee jerk reaction to something. When you recognize what it is that causes that reaction - the reaction starts to happen less and less.

[mdlbear]

Not silly at all - it's just like any debugging problem: the first step is noticing that there's a problem. Once the problem has been properly analysed, the solution is often straightforward.

In this case, now that we both know about it, it's a lot easier to break the loop.