From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 9:32 AM Monday
Subject: Control
Hi Bob,
I have some thoughts about our earlier conversation about control. I have been thinking about the ways in which people subtly control conversations instead of just relating to each other. Yes, some people would actually try to obtain compliance and agreement rather than seeking simple friendship!
I’m thinking particularly of Eve, of course. She always saw things in terms of her own frame — it was a way of controlling people. For instance, she always thinks people should answer her texts instantly, like within ten seconds or something. When we had an argument about the texts, she would have it all thought out — she had planned the whole discussion in advance. I think she would just sit and stew and mull things over, and by the time the fight happened she was prepared for anything I would say. She had to be the superior one who was “objective,” “wise,” and “right.” Underneath though, I think she just wanted to be in control — to get people to supply her with the immediate responses she needed. This was probably due to an insecurity on her part, although she never admitted that. In general, insecurity is the major cause of this kind of problem.
When people see things only in terms of their own frame, I call it “embedding.” By “embedding” I just mean an unhelpful pattern of thought, emotion, or conversation that someone gets stuck in. People think they know what is right and wrong, true and false, without realizing that their perspective is unhelpful and is leading to their own and others’ suffering. They leap to make assumptions, and they are motivated to make everything fit into their system.
Anyway, I guess Eve has a long ways to go. What do you think?
Write back soon,
Alice
From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 10:30 AM Monday
Subject: Re: Control
While writing the previous e-mail, I was somewhat distracted by my upstairs neighbor, who was very loudly practicing the woofwarr. It’s such a beautiful sound when played well, and so awful when played poorly! At any rate, in light of this fact, I thought I would write back to clarify a few points that I did not make very clearly.
I am not claiming that Eve _consciously_ knows she is being controlling. It’s more that the human brain is a control machine. When the brain wants something, it will try to calculate what it needs to do in order to get what it wants — in the same way that a neural network (in the sense of artificial intelligence) will do that. The more Eve considers the situation, the more she rationalizes and constructs frameworks that get her what she wants. What do you think?
Write back soon!
Alice
From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 11:45 AM Monday
Subject: Control
I think that for me to send a second e-mail after the first one was actually not very “responsive.” That is, it is not necessarily respectful of the conversation we are having. I should be waiting for your response. Communication is a two-way street, and it would be natural for you to be annoyed if I do not respect the turn-taking nature of our conversation. In fact, by bothering you again just one hour later, I was being a bit controlling instead of (as it should be with responsivity) just relating to you. Responsivity, then, refers to communicating in a way that values turn-taking, listening, authenticity, and perceptiveness. These are really just the conditions for communication to be constructive: I have to listen to and perceive your intent; I have to communicate my authentic intent to you; and we have to take turns communicating.
In any case, given that communication _is_ a two-way street, I expect you will write back soon.
Alice
From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 1:10 PM Monday
Subject: Re: Control
I realized that my third e-mail was just the sort of “embedding” that Eve uses, where she overthinks things and tries to be “objective.” Your response (or lack thereof) was to be explained within my philosophical framework about responsivity. I was so insecure that I leapt to try to pin you down before you even wrote back. I tried to manage and orchestrate the whole conversation myself, rather than allowing you to have a role in it. That was why I sent the third e-mail. How controlling of me! Fortunately, I stopped after that. But by sending you the third e-mail, I acted as if what _I_ have to say is all that matters. I assumed that I understood what was going on without even hearing what you had to say. If only I had just waited for your response before blabbering about my opinions. Sometimes we act as though “constructive communication” is about ensuring that the other person adopts our cognitive framework, when really the most important thing is to establish a relationship of trust.
Write back soon?
Alice
From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 2:50 PM Monday
Subject: Re: Control
I imagine by your lack of response that you are annoyed in some way. I understand completely. Say no more.
