Reaction: Rule #10 – Be Precise in Your Speech

Matthew 5:37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Continuing my chapter-by-chapter reading of Dr. Jordan Peterson’s ’12 Rules of Life – an Antidote to Chaos‘ brings us to Rule #10 – Be Precise in your speech.

A bit of ‘bait and switch’

I am not quite sure of the title of this Rule. Jordan starts by talking about and explaining the importance of precision of speech, largely as a defense against the chaos of an infinitely connected world. An important point and one that is hard to disagree with if you were looking to disagree.

A Biblical point

And its a Biblical point/rule too! Let your ‘yea be yea and your no be no’. Be simple and direct. Dr. Peterson than goes on to, quite eloquently and directly, present a case that demonstrates how critical it is to UNDERSTAND things precisely – because only then can you speak about them precisely. All well and good – I am still here, bobbing my head in agreement.

But we are humans and there’s the rub

And since we are individual humans and prone to misunderstanding each other and failing to see the world through other’s eye (remember Rule #9 about listening to each other?) then we must be willing to risk conflict with each other to ‘confront’ misunderstandings and problems that naturally arise when we try to live with another flawed human being. He makes an analogy about a small monster that, when ignored, grows bigger and greater and meaner until it CAN’T be ignored, and is now too big to slay. It consumes everyone and everything in the relationship. So the Rule about being precise in your speech morphs into a chapter on the importance of direct confrontation early enough in an emerging problems ‘life cycle’ that it can be dealt with directly and resolved while still resolvable. Dr. Peterson acknowledges the high level of courage this takes, even when a problem is small – risking direct conflict with a loved one to resolve a problem is difficult. And Jordan takes it a step farther, strongly suggesting cowardice for those unwilling to have these direct confrontations with a closely held loved one -let’s be direct here, usually spouse.

Psychiatric agreement

Sounds great! Sounds so good that every psychiatrist would clap their hands, stomp their feet, and cheer this argument. This bit of relationship wisdom is championed, almost word-for-word, by another prominent relationship expert, Dr. Emerson Eggerichs in his ‘Love and Respect’ series. His argument adds that it is fair to ‘confront’ your loved spouse with something that is bothering you about the relationship and that failing to do so is highly disrespectful/unloving and a very damaging form of lying. Geez, even eminent psychiatrist Dr. Frasier Crane is well-known for his strong insistence on confronting and resolving problems! (Sounds like I am setting up for something here doesn’t it… 😉

But it doesn’t work

There I said it. I don’t believe these three relationship experts are right. I have no logical argument against their thesis. It SHOULD work like that. It would be nice if it worked like that. But it doesn’t. There are 8 billion people on this globe, and I am sure many of them have a different experience than me – but my empirical evidence suggests that the whole ‘confront and resolve’ advice is wrong.

It seems to work one way

Let me clarify, it doesn’t work for BOTH partners in a relationship. It most certainly works for one of them. In my almost half century of life I have witnessed the ‘confront and resolve’ technique work many many times. But only for one of the members of the relationship. One person gets to ‘confront and resolve’, the other is better off letting the water flow off their back. If the ‘duck’ decides they are tired of letting water slide off their back, tired of getting wet endlessly, and tries to sip from the ‘confront and resolve’ cup, the same cup their partner drinks from daily, all hell breaks loose. There is no catastrophe greater than the ‘wrong’ partner confronting their partner. I have NEVER seen it work both ways. Never. Not once. Ever.

One partner ‘pours’, the other ‘absorbs’

Think of your kitchen sink. There is one faucet, and one drain. The faucet fills, the drain drains. If the drain tries to become a faucet – we call that a backup and water gets everywhere and a plumber is usually involved. You can’t have two faucets. Same in a relationship – one person ‘confronts and resolves’, the other ‘absorbs and accommodates’. Maybe it isn’t ideal. I can think of no argument to offer Peterson, Eggrichs, or Crane to support the desirability of this arrangement. But it is how it is. I guess its encouraging that scientists still can’t explain gravity, or (actual) Medical doctors can’t cure the common cold. The simple things are unsolvable and unexplainable. It simply is.

So, I call this Rule ‘Psychobabble’

Horse hockey, BS, rubbish, pie-in-the sky. Maybe in the rest of the 8 billion people on this planet there is a couple (maybe many) that have achieved this ‘two faucet’ trick. Who are happily ‘confronting and resolving’ problems before they grow out of control. But I have never met them. I have never seen this dynamic work – though I have seen it tried many times, never to good outcome for the ‘drain’ or the ‘duck’. No, the member that has to be confronted about every problem usually has only one option to keep Dr. Peterson’s little dragon in the corner from growing – starve it to death. Patience, kindness, temperance, meditation, prayer, ‘letting go’, just breath. Be the drain – drain all that resentment away, as best you can. If you aren’t the one doing the ‘confronting and resolving’ now, it will only be a disaster if you try.

And you know this, don’t you?