Although it’s nice to say that people should take accountability for their feelings, most of the time people don’t. So having the skills to respond non-defensively to typical ways that people express criticism is essential. In an ideal world everyone would express themselves like your second example of Jill, but we don’t live in an ideal world.

The other key concept I think is important is that Radical Non-Defensiveness is not simply a technique, it is also a way of thinking. Remember this point I made in the article:

Radical non-defensiveness means that we shift our core belief about ourself to, “I am a flawed human being. I make many mistakes. I can improve on almost anything I do. But even with my flaws I am a worthwhile and valuable person.”

So even when our partner is cranky, tired, hungry, or stressed, we can acknowledge that we could do a better job loving them. And not feel upset when they point this fact out.

Again, thanks for a great comment, it encouraged me to clarify some important issues.

In your first example it was acknowledged that Jack was feeling hungry and cranky. While I agree that for Jill to respond to his emotional behavior in the way you suggested will prevent a fight, Jill may be left with some residual feelings of resentment at his treatment of her. After she has guessed at what might be causing him to behave this way (hungry, tired) and empathized with him, she may need to talk about how she feels when he comes home cranky. As an adult, Jack needs to own his feelings and express them in a more helpful way.

In your second example, where Jill accuses Jack of not caring about her because he is on the computer and she wants to spend time with him, how about Jill take accountability for her feelings and instead of attacking Jack she says to him “I’m feeling lonely and stressed tonight. I wonder if you could spend some time with me in a little while, after you’re done there.”

Thanks for another great question.

This is a very complex question. First of all, I totally agree that the first job of non-defensive listening is listening. Jumping to solutions or problem solving too quickly can further annoy the other person. That said, just empathizing without any apology, problem solving, or effort to resolve the problem will also tend to annoy most people. So it’s a delicate balance.

Your second question was about how to respond non-defensively to an accusation of “I can’t ever trust you again.” First of all, you have to look at the truth behind the criticism. Is there some way in which you have been genuinely untrustworthy? Or is this an over-generalization? If the former, an honest acknowledgment of truth in the criticism might start the conversation. If the latter, I’d find some truth in the criticism and acknowledge that. I’d certainly want to hear more details about how the other person has come to this conclusion…”tell me more.” can be a good way to get at this.

Remember, acknowledging some truth can be as simple as “I realize I let you down when I did ________.”

These skills are subtle, and that’s why I teach them in therapy and role-play them extensively with both couples and individuals.

Here’s a couple examples to maybe help clarify:

Imagine your friend/wife/etc says the following after you have let them down a number of times in the past…
“How can I ever trust you again!?”
“I told you I could never trust you again!”

Those seem hard to disarm to me without affirming your untrustworthiness. If you say, “You know I am untrustworthy at times” that doesn’t seem like it’s going to encourage people to change their perspective, but saying “I am trustworthy just give me one more chance!” also obviously isn’t going to make too much headway either. This is also a place where the difference between problem solving early vs. waiting could be important. If someone is as upset as they likely would be above, how are you supposed to get them back on your side? Does early problem solving trivialize what they might be feeling?

Hi Steve, thanks for the interesting comments. The key with a grain of truth is that it actually has to be accurate. So if someone called you the “biggest loser in the world”, I might say “you know you sound really frustrated with me. I do make a lot of mistakes and I’ve obviously made a big one with you. Can you tell me more about it? What specifically are you frustrated by?” Most of the time the negative labeling the people use is just a sign of their frustration, and isn’t even really what they want to say to you.

Generally these skills are best used with people that you have a relationship with that you care about. If someone’s just being a jerk, you can simply ignore them or to avoid them. If anything I think nondefensive responding is more honest and less manipulative than most of what people do.

The other issue that a lot of people worry about is the whole doormat issue. But the truth is is that getting defensive typically makes people more critical and more abusive towards you. Unless you escalate into high-level hostility, you’ll probably end up being a doormat anyway. If you instead respond non-defensively you stay calm and can certainly be assertive. So that’s really the opposite of being a doormat. Non-defensiveness is never about apologizing at its core. Sometimes an apology is appropriate, but most of the time it’s better to actually suggest problem-solving or problem resolution. Talk is cheap, and most people prefer to be heard and for a solution to be proposed rather than a simple apology.

Your comment at the end about perfectionism is an important one. Most of us are really remarkably perfectionist about ourselves, so it’s very hard to admit openly and are flaws and weaknesses. We assume that people will attack us if we do so. But getting defensive about these flaws almost guarantees that people will counterattack. The truth is we are all very flawed human beings. The sooner we accept that, the happier we can be. The core of non-defensiveness is a lack ego and a loss of perfectionism. Thanks for encouraging me to think more about this.

Your response