In today’s post we will be looking at some of the metaphors offered in John A. Sanford’s Between People, a brilliant little book about one-on-one communication that draws heavily on folktales and mythology. Here we will be looking at what Sanford does with Proteus, the old man of the sea.
In Greek mythology, Proteus was the shepherd of Poseidon’s flock. Every day at noon he would climb out of the water and rest on a rock with the seals. People came from all around to ask him things, knowing he could see the future.
When people came to ask their questions, Proteus would not answer straightaway. He was a shapeshifter. In response to a question, he might turn into a lion, then into fire, a tree, then a dragon. This would frighten most people away. Or they would lose track of him and give up. If a person persisted, however, if they held on, then Proteus would tire and turn back into the old man of the sea, and only then provide a straight answer to the question asked.
Proteus, Sanford notes, is all of us. When you ask someone a question and they evade and change the subject, it is like they are shapeshifting. People “play Proteus”, as Sanford puts it, for two reasons. Either they find what you’re saying disconcerting, or they want to have some effect on you without taking responsibility. Sanford outlines three such “Protean games”. They are Shifting the Ground, The Bird in the Bushes, and You Shouldn’t Feel That Way.
Shifting the Ground
This is the typical politician, dodging the question asked. Let’s say you want to discuss with someone how they behaved in a meeting with an external vendor. Instead of focusing on the issue raised, they keep bringing up your decision to hire the vendor in the first place. It’s a case of, “Hocus pocus change the focus.”
If you take the bait and start defending yourself, then the ground has effectively been shifted. They are trying to dodge the issue, and you need to dodge their distraction. They can try to change the subject and answer a different question all they want. It is up to you to steer attention back to what was actually asked. The more you do this, the more apparent their dodging will become.
The Bird in the Bushes
This game has to do with veiled remarks. Here, someone makes a comment, and you sense an undercurrent, an added implied meaning. It is like you hear something in a nearby bush that flutters and chirps. You assume it’s a bird, but to really know…you would have to go look in the bush.
Say you give a talk and ask another presenter how you did. They say, “Well, good, but your work is different, isn’t it?” Of course, this makes you pause and think. As Sanford notes, often once you’ve thought about what the real message might have been…the perpetrator is long gone. Kicking yourself, you later think of what you should have said. Let’s say you ask and receive the reply that of course your talk was better because your work is not as complicated. (There’s the bird!)
For me, this is one of the most powerful metaphors in Sanford’s book. It is far more helpful than the oft-repeated advice that you should “always assume positive intent”. Though well-meaning, this can be a bit naïve. The fact is that colleagues do not always have your best interest at heart and sometimes do not want you to succeed. Further, sometimes you have to work with toxic people.
Another common piece of advice is to “trust your gut”. Well, you can’t do both—you often cannot both trust your gut and assume positive intent. A quick aside might be helpful here. In his excellent “Three Puzzles of Mindreading”, Bertram Malle draws a distinction between “effect” and “cause states”. Effect states, such as emotions, are inferred based on things that have happened. Cause states, such as motivations, desires, and intentions, are posited as the causes of actions.
In general, effect states are easier to infer. Cause states, on the other hand, have more to do with intention. Borrowing a page from philosopher Alexander Rosenberg, this “intentionality” is what distinguishes action from behavior. Consider, for instance, the difference between a wink and a blink. Unlike blinking, winking is typically done to convey something. In other words, it’s an action and, as such, it has a meaning behind it.
And this brings us back to our Protean game: This underlying meaning is the proverbial “bird in the bushes”. When people play this game, they are trying to maintain plausible deniability. They are aided by the fact that cause states are more difficult to infer—and likely they implicitly know this. Here your “mindreading” may more often veer into projection and catastrophizing. This is likely what the advice of “assuming good intent” is meant to avoid.
A better way out of this trap is to build the habit of using your suspicions as a trigger for new responses. Don’t assume positive intent. Don’t assume bad intent either. (Don’t assume intent!) Instead, notice what is happening, label what you are feeling, and learn to look in the bushes. Build a habit of repeating back what was said and asking follow-up questions.
Even if the other person is lying—and if they are playing this game then they probably are—your probing will still put them in the hot seat. If they don’t come clean, they will still know that you are onto them, and it will often appear to others that they are digging their own hole deeper. So instead of assuming what is “in the bushes”, take it as an opportunity to practice your active listening skills!
This brings us to Sanford’s final Protean game.
You Shouldn’t Feel That Way
This is when you share with someone how something they did made you feel, and they respond by arguing why you are misinterpreting the situation. The trick being pulled, Sanford states, is that the other person is trying to turn a simple statement about feelings into an intellectual debate. That you in fact felt the way you did is just that, a fact. When someone says, “Well, you shouldn’t feel that way,” they are trying to change the subject.
As Sanford notes, this ignores that feelings cannot be eliminated by shoulds and oughts. Sometimes people playing this game are genuinely trying to help. Sometimes they are not skilled at discussing emotions. Often, however, people go this route because intellectual debate is more in their comfort zone.
When you tell someone how something they did made you feel, it can seem to them like an accusation. They may then be prone to shifting the ground (or changing shape!) and shepherding you into a debate they feel they can “win”. To avoid this, remember that, as Sandford puts it, “Feelings are facts, and as such they are not arguable, nor do they have to be justified, for they simply are.”
As an example, say you share with your manager how the behavior of a colleague made you feel. Further, you are often left feeling this way after interacting with this person. Your manager responds by saying, “Well, you need to assume positive intent,” and continues by explaining what the person in question may have been trying to do.
Your manager failed to appropriately respond to your feelings and in the process probably made you feel worse. Telling someone to “assume positive intent” often feels dismissive, like you are being waved aside. Here you need to stick to your guns or, rather, “stick to your feelings”. Feelings are facts of relationship, and, in a relationship, it is our feelings that need to be discussed most of all. To quote Alvyn M. Freed, “Your feelings are as real as your big toe. Do you need a reason to have a big toe?” Of course not.
Conclusion
To avoid being pulled into a Protean game, you must first recognize that one his happening. As Sanford states, “But to see what is happening we need to keep a sentry posted. We need to detach a portion of our awareness and set it aside where it is in a position to see what is happening in a personal transaction.”
This is sometimes referred to as “perceptual positions”, a concept from Fritz Lang. Develop the habit of viewing your own interactions as though you are watching a stage play. Observe your own responses, behavior, and reactions as though you are a character in this play.
If you are also the author and director, sitting in the auditorium, how would you change this character that is also you? What would you want this character to do differently? These desired changes should become habits you build to the point that they become automatic reactions to specific triggers or scenarios. When emotions get heated, or when you suspect a bird in the bushes, you learn to pause, to step out of first person, to create some space, to label what is happening, and to use your creative listening skills.
This will help you become more conscious. You are in fact helping the other person as well by getting better at communicating. As Sanford eloquently puts it, “When you genuinely listen and the other person feels heard, this decreases their sense of isolation in the world. This has a healing effect on the other and a maturing effect on you.”
Until next time.
I really loved this article. It's my fav. I'm going to read the books mentioned in it. There are several elements such as games, and transactions, and perceptual positions, all of which remind me of Transactional Analysis, and which I am not an expert in, yet. Wouldn't it be fascinating if a community of curious people (not necessarily clinical professionals) were to emerge around this field?