Whenever a conversation causes one to feel diminished, disoriented or guilty of the feelings of another adult, it is likely not about a single rudeness but rather a trend. Language may serve as a system of control in relationships where narcissistic elements are involved: who is allowed to be right, who is allowed to have emotions, who is supposed to take the blow.
A brief series of repeated expressions has been outlined by Harvard-trained psychologist Dr. Cortney S. Warren and attributed to the need or thrill of superiority, entitlement, or dominance in a person. She does not focus on winning an argument, but in ways that help to save face and minimize escalation. A significant difference is beneficial: good reactions seek clarity and limits, but not arguments.
1. You’re lucky I even care
This is the line which puts basic consideration in perspective as a gift special and withdrawable. It challenges the other individual to haggle over crumbs of attention and tolerates disrespect as the price of entry to association. A more consistent reaction will sustain attention on norms instead of appreciation of injury: This is not working with me. Speak, you want to speak you must respect me. When the speaker reiterates the message, he or she has reached a limit which is the reply, turning off the telephone or walking out of the room and halting the conversation.
2. You are so weak / No one would take you
Those insults are meant to diminish the choices of a person, but they do not limit the person through action. The dependency purpose relates, and in case a person thinks that he is not lovable, he tolerates more. An action-oriented response is short and is more behavioral: Insults are not good. I’m stepping away. The essence of the reality of this dynamic has been condensed by Dr. Warren: the essence of their communication, she says, is a reflection of themselves, not a reflection of your value.
3. You need me
This is an effort to rephrase interdependence as slavery. The least risky reaction would be not to argue about the necessity but to declare autonomy: I will choose what kind of support I need. This topic is closed. It is possible to minimize the fuel of emotions when constant contact is unavoidable: co-parenting, working, or family. The gray rock approach revolves around remaining unemotional, responding succinctly and not giving more information that may be used as leverage.
4. I’ll ruin you if you cross me
Threats do not constitute a communication, these are coercion. Response is best minimal and action-oriented I am terminating this conversation. Boundary enforcement may include preservation of evidence, restricting the means of contact, and engaging with the help of the right people. In the case of the individual being insecure or continuously destabilized, professional advice may assist in the scheduling and the healing with the intimidation coupled with manipulation.
5. You are wrong to feel that way
Emotional invalidation compels a person to doubt his or her responses. The desired outcome is compliance: when emotions are wrong, the other individual has the right to determine the reality. Grounding response- Distinguishing feelings and agreement: You need not feel the same way so that my feelings will be real. Should the discussion continue to wind, repetition, the quiet restatement of the boundary with no defence, tends to preserve more energy than clarification.
6. My feelings are your fault
Accusations make another individual into an object of anger, shame or disappointment. The boundary reply reinstates possession: It is you who are in charge of your emotions and decisions. I’m responsible for mine. In the case of an adult child to controlling parents, this theme is prevalent within the confines of strict family roles wherein an individual is designated the role of maintaining the peace. It is possible to name the pattern privately and make it easier to stop volunteering to work on a job.
7. Everyone else is an idiot
This line develops superiority through maliciousness of other individuals and it can be used to find out whether the other person will join the fray and remain in the good terms of the speaker. Clean response declines the invitation: I do not feel at ease discussing people like that. In case contempt has turned into stonewalling, complete shutdowns, I have no time to listen to you, or strategic silence, then seeing withdrawal as information (not a problem to solve) can help avoid chasing.
In all these phrases, the healthiest of the responses have a similar format; they are brief, non-performance based and behavior anchored. They do not attempt to establish reality to one of those who commit themselves to the rewriting of reality. Boundaries are always violated and this can easily translate to changes where better replies can be replaced by less access, which is in most cases the safest way of communicating.
