D07 Pain Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

All pain we suffer is pretty much the same. It comes down to making rational choices.

OR

We often prefer pain we’ve learned to handle over the frightening pain of the unknown.

Anankelogy

This one goes to Margaret and Jordan Paul, authors of Do I Have to Give Up Me to Be Loved by You?  They describe how couples getting into a fight will either remain guarded and closed off from each other, or remain empathetic and open to learn what each other needs.

Couples develop ways to cope with the frustration, the disappointment, and feelings of betrayal. Then soldier on with familiar coping mechanisms. They grow accustomed to their manageable pain. They will then typically find it easier to cope with this familiar dull pain than risk the sharp pain of facing the unknown.

They know how to handle another day of disappointment. They have so far. But they don’t know if they can handle the far less familiar path of being vulnerable and known for who they truly are beneath their guarded surfaces. They still have each other in some dysfunctional way, but to risk the unknown could result in devastating rejection.

One of them may remain more open than the other. And this potentially inspires their partner to drop their guard a little more. The more uncomfortably exposed, the greater the potential to relate better to each other’s neglected needs.

The closed partner can see their more open partner demonstrate a better way. And then test the waters of disclosing something never revealed before.

Otherwise the relationship suffers, along with those trapped in it. The relationship may have to end. Often, this dysfunctional relationship stumbles into the future in ways limiting the full potential of its individual members. In typically painful ways.

This aptly applies to any kind of relationship. Professional relationships rely more on mutually agreed terms defined mostly by impersonal laws. And we intuitively know the more powerful in such relationships can interpret and enforce those laws in their favor.

We generally accept those terms as given. We grow accustomed to any disadvantages that emerge. We become familiar with a reduced capacity to function. We get used to the pain that results. We learn to cope.

Powerholders in these professional relationships suffer in less obvious ways. The effectiveness of their leadership declines. Their reputations sink. They too grow accustomed to the resulting levels of discomfort.

They too favor this familiar path over the less familiar path of relating more personably to your affected needs. They see little alternative, since such alienation is the norm in our society.

In our current norms of preferring to avoid the discomfort of engaging the unknown, these powerholders rely more on impersonal norms. Which easily keeps us mutually estranged. They don’t know what they don’t know. Like the dysfunctional couple, they then fail to be effectively responsive to the needs of their constituents. Problems abound. Along with plenty of pain.

Need-response

Need-response exists to address this problem of normative alienation.

Reactive Problem

Runaway liberal ideas have strayed far from their ideal roots. The more we honor our interpersonal differences, the less we know and engage each other. We no longer intimately know those closest to us. Estrangement emerges as the new normal.

Breaking the ice to truly know another feels alarmingly painful. We generally prefer the mild discomfort of normalized estrangement. We rely more on written and unwritten rules to know how to respect each other.

Responsive Solution

Need-response aims to reconnect us with each other. We learn to accept the discomfort of being vulnerably exposed. We learn to prefer the sharp pain of the unknown, with its likely rewards, over the dull perpetuating pain of alienation.

We also learn to replace mutual hostilities with mutual respect by prioritizing respect for each other’s needs over elusive expectations. We let go of the soothing by failed myth that we each make rational choices. We acknowledge our decisions are driven by painful needs in the moment, no matter how rational or irrational they seem.

Need-response replaces the adversarial slant of impersonal laws with a more personable conciliatory style. Need-response enables us to be more responsible by being more responsive to each other’s needs. Need-response aims to replace your manageable pain-relief with ways to remove causes for such pain.

Now we can stop settling for mild familiar pain while allowing the sharper pain of growth to enrich our lives. Now we can resolve more of our needs, reduce or even remove the pain, as we reach more of our overlooked potential. Now we can replace outrage porn with such neglected character traits as forgiveness, empathy, resilience, humility, generosity, and love.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• I can’t see this working in my life, so I’m open to anyone sharing how it helps them.

• I have tried enduring more of life’s pain, but I don’t see how to sustain this.

• First get these powerholders to stop causing me pain, and then I’ll believe there’s hope.

• There’s no way to remove all the pain in my life, but I wish I could.

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle.

Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.