There is a funny little concept called the Gentlemen’s Queue. Three very well mannered chaps arrive at a door, and the first opens the door like a proper gentleman and says, “after you”. Not to be outclassed, gent #2, turns to gent #3 and says, “oh no, after you”. Gent #3 is of exquisite etiquette and turns to gent #1 and nods, “after you my dear sir”. These very proper gentlemen continue their most civilized exchange ad infinitum, or at least until they die of starvation. Great intentions, great approach but the execution fell short.
What we can deduce from our chivalrous loop is that sometimes by representing the needs of others we arrive at an undesirable outcome, despite our best intentions. This phenomenon is seen repeatedly in decision science and organizational psychology. The eminent John Nash was among the pioneers of game theory, which effectively demonstrates that two actors will arrive at the worst possible outcome in most situations. Or the concept of groupthink, which has been firmly established in organizations to bring groups to the one outcome that nobody wanted.
We can’t alter human nature, but we can leverage these concepts in our personal relationships. A dominant theme in couple’s counselling is that one party (Bob) feels taken for granted by another party (Ling) who oddly never gets what she wants. How could this be? This is because without provocation, Bob decides to represent Ling in the relationship. And Ling doesn’t want this. Ling wants Bob to be present and express his wants. So to prevent this lopsided representation of Ling’s desires, Ling is forced to take more drastic action, like representing Bob. What?
Let’s say Bob really likes Italian. Ling knows this. Ling really likes sushi. Bob knows this. What should they do? A wise partnership would have both parties express what they want, understanding that chivalry will result in an undesirable outcome. But instead Bob, who fancies himself a great partner, immediately suggests sushi. And Ling accepts because she wants to please Bob’s apparent craving. But tonight she wanted Mexican and tonight Bob actually wanted Greek. They were both too courteous to represent themselves, and both ended up having meals they didn’t want and have landed themselves in therapy for chronic dissatisfaction of each other assumedly because this same approach extends to excursions, purchases and all the other things in relationships that benefit from robust and accurate representation. Yet they were both being giving and well-intentioned!
Somehow having cravings or preferences is self-regarded as selfish and so we’ve taught ourselves not to express them. Curious. We have somehow coupled the notion that if we express our preferences we are bad partners. First, expression is not a decision. Decisions belong to the partnership, expression is individual. Second, information is empowerment and it is our duty in a relationship to express ourselves. Third, true partners bring themselves to a relationship otherwise it is not a partnership. No relationship needs 2 Lings or 2 Bobs. It needs the two people who decided that they liked each other for who they were at that time and so the relationship will not benefit if there’s unequal representation.
It’s a little radical, but Ling could consider saying, “I want you to be happy and tonight I’m craving Mexican”. And Bob could respond, “I want you to be happy and tonight I’m craving Greek”. Then they can each go out with their friends instead of being together. Kidding! Then one party can compromise for that evening or they can find something else that works for both of them, or stay home and cook. This way they are both present, heard and authentic in a balanced relationship and not queued at the door courteously on their way to therapy.
This same dynamic exists in all relationships. There is a great book called The Responsibility Virus where, as the name implies, we learn that the more responsibility someone takes on in the workplace, the less responsibility others take. They wait for that person to request things, dictate things, etc. and rather than contribute proactively they become reactive and expectant despite having full ability. This extends to parent/child relationships too. A profoundly insightful parenting book called Drop the Worry Ball similarly outlines how parents have subsumed worry from the lives of their children who then never live with it, resulting in a generation without many skills needed to navigate their own lives. These children rather worry about other things where they feel empowered. So parents are still feeding and cleaning up after older children, and their children are personally disempowered but worrying about things outside this dynamic like the environment and human rights.
Friendships have similar learned dynamics too. If friend A seems upset, friend B wants immediately to know ‘what’s wrong’. Friend B describes his feelings and friend A tries to move friend B back to feeling comfortable by ‘solving’ the issue. This is typical of ‘good friends’, yes? Like we learned about happiness, sitting in discomfort is a fundamental part of the human experience as it facilitates learning, experiment and growth. If someone is upset because their room is messy should you be a good friend/parent/spouse and clean their room? That may make them feel less discomfort, but what has happened? Let’s explore.
Mr Messy Room now has not learned about himself. There was some great self-awareness that could have emerged that could have been extrapolated to better understand environmental preferences, but that awareness is lost. Mr Messy could have sat in the room until he was compelled by his own internal forces to make a change. He would have discovered one of the most precious lessons – the internal forces. He could have learned how to clean his room and to what level of cleanliness he enjoys. Now he settles for whatever standard is achieved by someone else. He could have learned how being upset feels and how this scales to the cleanliness of the room. So many more lessons, and this vital portion of growth was cleaved by a ‘good person’ because they wanted to relieve some upset. A huge lost opportunity that disempowers and create expectations and dependence.
What should a good friend/parent/spouse rather do when they detect someone is upset? Bring them to awareness and then stop. Share an observation that does not end in a question mark. “You seem down today.” “I detect a difference in your behaviour today.” Sharing awareness (and only awareness) is perhaps the greatest gift in a relationship because it helps someone see beyond their limited perspective or feelings, and can subsequently trigger a soulful or free-willed response from that person. Trying to solve something impedes free will and wrecks the awareness and growth gifts that would otherwise result.
So we conclude by mixing two popular metaphors: you can bring a horse to water but cannot make it drink, and, it’s better to teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish. A ‘good friend/parent/spouse’ can bring a horse to water and show him the fish, and then say sayonara.
