My Friend's Friend

Randall Geddings, a therapist, shares an experience of conflict with a close friend. Rick started hanging out with someone Randall didn't trust.  When Randall expressed his feelings to Rick, their argument escalated. Randall reflects on how his calm, analytical approach to arguments clashes with those who expect emotional intensity. Ultimately, the conflict was resolved by a mutual understanding of each other's perspectives, but it also led Randall to reconsider how he navigates future disputes.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Let's start today with some Latin. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. This Latin phrase translates to, After this, therefore because of this. Let's nickname this post hoc, so I don't have to say Much more Latin post hoc is a mistake of assuming that just because one event follows another The first must have caused the second and this happens so often in history and sports debates and elections in daily life Here's a big example after Rome's collapse in 476 ad Many claim that the rise of Christianity caused the Empire's downfall.

Michael Lee: The logic here is pretty simple. Christianity gained more influence in the Empire right before the fall. But, of course, the fall of Rome was caused by a mix of [00:01:00] incredibly complex factors. Military decline, economic instability, corruption, not just the rise of a new religion. In sports, this fallacy shows up all the time.

Michael Lee: Take a simple example from baseball. Imagine a player's on a losing streak, or bad hitting streak, and then they switch their bat for a new game. After using the new bat, they start hitting home runs again. Some fans might say, well, the bat is what made them hit better. In reality, it's likely the player's overall skill and practice had a bigger impact than this new bat.

Michael Lee: Let's take the case of an NFL kicker. The Baltimore Ravens hypothetically lose to the Miami Dolphins, 28 to 24, and the Ravens kicker missed three field goals in the game, going one for four on field goals. Well, the argument goes, if he had made two more field goals, the Ravens would have had six more points and then won the game 30 to 28, but Those additional field calls could have changed the game completely after he made them.

Michael Lee: The coaches, for instance, would have called [00:02:00] completely different plays. Even claims that can seem obviously true can become post hoc fallacies without proper evidence about causality. This party nominated this candidate and won. Or this party nominated this candidate and lost. If you don't have evidence that the party was likely to lose without the personal force of the winning candidate, you really risk the post hoc fallacy.

Michael Lee: Post hoc fallacies are attractive, even seductive, because they make something mysterious in the world, cause and effect, seem really simple. But post hoc fallacies can lead to real misunderstandings and poor decision making. If we mistake coincidence for causality, we might overlook the real factors at play.

Michael Lee: In medicine and public policy and our personal relationships, misidentifying cause and effect or even just simplifying cause and effect can have harmful consequences. I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. [00:03:00] Our guest on When We Disagree is Randall Gettings.

Michael Lee: Randall is a clinical social worker who serves as a therapist at the College of Charleston's Counseling Center. Randall, tell us an argument story. 

Randall Geddings: Hello, so my argument story is something that has actually stuck with me for a number of years after the argument has happened And it started as a really simple argument that we're probably all familiar with so in a small town setting Factionalism is pretty common where it's like, oh you don't talk to Joe Joe isn't a good dude if you hang out with Joe We're gonna have a problem, right?

Randall Geddings: Okay, and I had a super close friend who I had known since 2017 Who started to hang out with someone who was on my persona non grata list, right? Or didn't want them to be hanging out. And so I confronted them on that in a polite way where I'm like, Hey, I've noticed that you guys are spending time together.

Randall Geddings: I'm seeing it in social media. What's going on? And that's where the argument started. And as you can imagine, the person was a little bit [00:04:00] defensive. There was some back and forth on me being curious about why they were engaging with one another. Like, Hey, what's the. The thought process behind interacting with this person when you know they've done me wrong in the past.

Michael Lee: Okay, let me pause for a second and we can just assign hypothetical names, um, to stick with the anonymity. You have a friend, Rick, and then you have a persona non grata in your small town named Jeff. Sure. You see that Rick is hanging out with Jeff. You've, you've talked ahead of time that Jeff is not a cool person for you to be linked to through the transitive property of mutual friendships.

Michael Lee: You confront Rick about this. And 

Randall Geddings: as we have this dialogue, Rick shifts the conversation from the whys and hows of how that initiated to, Hey, I know you're mad at me. I already know that you think I'm a bad friend. I know you think this is a big betrayal. Go ahead and say it so that we can get it out in the open and we can deal with it.

Michael Lee: Okay. 

Randall Geddings: And that caught me off guard because I'm like, hold on, I [00:05:00] don't actually truly believe those things about you. Yes. Do I feel betrayed? Absolutely. But I want to actually stay calm and have a productive conversation. And they're like, no, I need you to get mad with me, otherwise I don't think you're being authentic.

Michael Lee: Oh. So. Just to take Rick's point of view for a second and inhabit the Rick position. You confront Rick about hanging out with Jeff. Rick doesn't want to talk about the particulars of it and immediately goes kind of bigger. A little more nuclear in a sense of like, well this is just revealing about how you, Randall, feel about me, that I am bad, I am the betrayer, I am a bad friend, and wants to escalate pretty massively.

Michael Lee: Is that a fair characterization? 

Randall Geddings: That's a fair characterization, though, to also give them a little bit of credence. I was also being a little bit interrogative, like trying to figure out all the specifics and details. 

Michael Lee: Which they were avoiding talking about, which then probably made you a little [00:06:00] bit more interrogating.

Michael Lee: Curious, you'd be like, hold on, 

Randall Geddings: what do you mean this was a whim? You had to be a little bit more specific than that, like, because you knew that would hurt my feelings. It couldn't have been more than just a whim, right? Come on. 

Michael Lee: Uh, was there It sounds like it was on social media, so you learned about it third party, but you learned about it through a third party publicly available site.

Michael Lee: And so is there a part of you that thought that this was either kind of reckless? in the sense that they were recklessly flouting a friendship or something else that that Rick knew that you wouldn't like? Or did you feel like perhaps this was deliberate? Like a provocation? 

Randall Geddings: No, I didn't think it was a provocation, necessarily, because social media is what it is.

Randall Geddings: People will post photos, you get tagged in it. It's not necessarily something he put out there. But that's just how small towns and small cities kind of work. 

Michael Lee: And what so what did you do when when Rick? Escalated and wanted to talk about this just this just shows that you [00:07:00] have always thought that I'm a bad friend And I'm a bad person 

Randall Geddings: So that's when I was like kind of caught off guard by that because it's like hold on No, that's not what i'm actually trying to get across.

Randall Geddings: I want to actually understand What your point of view was what led you to make the choices that you did? We've been friends for years I don't want this to be a like nuclear button moment for us and me staying calm helps achieve that if I were to Say every intrusive thought that just sprung into my mind You can't take those words back the next day.

Randall Geddings: Yes. I am feeling betrayed But that doesn't mean i'm gonna feel betrayed a week from now 

Michael Lee: How is your calmness received? 

Randall Geddings: Not well 

Michael Lee: Say more 

Randall Geddings: so, uh Rick, right? Yeah. Rick was not appreciative of, uh, that particular take, again, leaning into the notion of authenticity, where the exact words were, I know that you're therapizing me in this moment, and I'm like, hold on.

Randall Geddings: No, I'm not therapizing you. This [00:08:00] is still my authentic self. Yes. Can I like flip a switch and be a lot more calm and a lot more clinical? Before I end. Perhaps emotionally, um, not distant, but removed from the situation in a way. Yes. Does that mean this part of myself is still not an authentic piece that I bring to the table?

Randall Geddings: No, it's still very much who I am. 

Michael Lee: I'm really curious about, about this. So, um. If you are being accused and because you're a therapist, the clinical counselor, so if you are in a conversation with somebody about an emotional issue, whether it's your own emotion, their emotion, something relationally impactful between you, what is your relationship with?

Michael Lee: Your profession in that moment. In other words, you spend all day, every day talking about these kinds of difficult issues. You have a therapeutic persona that you bring to the room, a kind of posture, things you say a lot, I presume, a kind of [00:09:00] demeanor and tone and the way you hold your hands and make eye contact and all this sort of stuff.

Michael Lee: Right. And then somebody who you're talking to then feels on the spot and it's like, Oh, well now you're using a tactic. Against me. Mm hmm. You're not being genuine to our relationship Mm hmm, and they feel like it's manipulative. How do you how do you respond to that accusation? 

Randall Geddings: So it's a really harsh accusation it really certainly stings right because those types of skills that you develop in my line of work are meant to be Facilitating towards healing and in a clinical setting when I'm working with a client I as a therapist don't have skin in the game And so those skills are used in a way to specifically help that person right in front of me and only them What I want and what I need is not even on the So in relationships, it's not even therapy.

Randall Geddings: Yes, there's going to be some skills that I have that help facilitate the flow of dialogue, help build [00:10:00] rapport and try to get at to what this person's feeling and understanding. But there is no great way to just like say a specific thing and then get the thing that you want. That's not how it works. 

Michael Lee: Do you get concerned?

Michael Lee: Have you ever been concerned in a personal relationship and there's conflict, whether it's with hypothetical Rick or somebody else that. the, that since you don't have skin in the game in a therapeutic setting, that you might have skin in the game in a relational setting, and that you can have, try to get towards a very specific relational outcome through the use of therapeutic tactics.

Randall Geddings: So have I ever had that worry before? Yeah. 

Michael Lee: In other words, just to just to take Rick's allegation to the end of the line. 

Randall Geddings: Sure. So personally, no, I haven't had that type of concern before, because those skills aren't meant to, like, develop a specific. outcome. It's helped to build insight to help express emotions, to develop mutual understanding and see perspectives from a wider angle.[00:11:00] 

Randall Geddings: So my outcome is merely to be understood, not to then have them accept that my reality is the only one, but for them to be able to say, I see where you're coming from and I get why you feel the way that you feel. Yeah, that's all the expectation that I have from a particular 

Michael Lee: exchange. I have this, it's not a similar experience, and so I don't want to make a false equivalency here, but I have experienced this allegation, a similar allegation on my end, which is to say that I was on the debate team, which I've talked about before.

Michael Lee: And so there are particular, to quote Liam Neeson, there are particular set of skills that come with doing debate for a very long time. And I've of course been in arguments with close friends and family members and really close people in my life. And I've heard, well, now you're just trying to debate me.

Michael Lee: All right. And so and then my reaction I think is somewhat of your reaction, which is no, I'm arguing and this is the way that I argue. I see these the debate and [00:12:00] the arguments is inseparable, right? This is who I am. And I'm showing up authentically. But I could also see it from their point of view, which is that you're just trying to win.

Michael Lee: Right, you're trying to get your way in this moment. And so you're laundering a personal outcome that you desire, which is winning this argument in this moment through a set of skills that you have that are not shared in the conversation. In other words, the other person doesn't have the same training that you have.

Michael Lee: So I can see that argument from their point of view a little bit. So what would winning in that context be? Concession. 

Randall Geddings: So concession being, yes, I did a wrong, I shouldn't hang out with this person. Oh, in your context or my hypothetical? In my context. 

Michael Lee: In your hypothetical context, I think that, that, yeah, that would be, um, concession, accountability, repair.

Randall Geddings: So ironically, the accountability piece for me in that dynamic later on wasn't actually having them stop interacting. It was merely give me more information about what [00:13:00] your thought process was because that's what they were refusing to do at the time, 

Michael Lee: and 

Randall Geddings: they later elaborated on. what their logic was.

Randall Geddings: And did I agree fully with what their thought process was? No. Did I appreciate that they were willing to disclose that to me? And did I be like, okay, if that's where you're at, okay, you do you, but I don't want to be a part of whatever y'all's interactions are. Please keep me out of it. 

Michael Lee: And that that is what you got in the end.

Michael Lee: Yes. So that the relationship was more or less repaired. You reasserted the boundary, at least as far as I don't want to be involved in your relationship with Jeff, if you're going to have a relationship with Jeff. Correct. And you got to understand the motivation. But 

Randall Geddings: though it did lead to a deeper, um, kind of, underlying Conflict that went beyond just this relationship Regarding the anatomy of the argument on how we're supposed to argue So I like to stay calm.

Randall Geddings: I like to present [00:14:00] Um the thing that I need and how I can get that need met and wait for them to share the same They want it to be a bit more heated. They want more emotion involved. They want a deeper passion In argumentation in the process of an argument, and I'm like, hold on. I don't find that actually helpful at all.

Randall Geddings: And so that's what stuck with me the most between this argument was that they felt I had to be angry. I had to show a lot of emotion in order for me to be authentic. And so after that Entire argument despite the repair. I went on later to like ask a lot of my friends and a lot of my peers Hey in an argument, how do you like those arguments to play out?

Randall Geddings: And something that I found was there was a small number of people who actually took that stance too Where they wanted people to say what was on their mind to go ahead and voice Every little mean thing that was in the back of their mind so that they could address it in the moment And i'm like, whoa I don't see how that's helpful, but Cool.

Randall Geddings: Thank you for sharing and I've changed the [00:15:00] way I, um, approach conflict with these particular people in order to like, uh, looking for make a concession in a sense. 

Michael Lee: In other words, you, you try to, if somebody has a particular antagonistic style, which is that they prefer to argue more emotionally or loudly or.

Michael Lee: Make more extreme claims that you will then fight fire with fire. Is that what you're saying? 

Randall Geddings: No, it's more so I lead from an emotional point of view. So I am more open to being like, Hey, that actually really hurts my feelings. This is why versus just trying to say, Hey. That bothered me, say more, you know what I mean?

Randall Geddings: Like I try to lean more into the emotion piece still without getting fully heated, but just trying to be a little bit more upfront and touch base with what they're trying to touch base with. Do 

Michael Lee: you feel like? In conflict, and, and I, it's certainly been guilty of this too, of suppressing emotion in the [00:16:00] conflict and then maintaining the image of the more rational, what the computer who's just neutrally trying to understand competing points of view.

Michael Lee: Um, do you feel like some people when they, when they argue in these situations, they, they want to see your anger for particular reasons? Maybe they, maybe they can want to see your anger because it shows them on some level that you, that you really care. Yes. Maybe they want to see your anger because they actually feel some sense of control if they can control your emotional output.

Randall Geddings: Well, I think for a lot of people, depending on what they're like, Conflict template was beforehand, um, certain heated moments or displays of passion can be a sign of caring, right? It can show, hey, I'm really invested in this. This means a lot to me. Whereas if you stay distant and detached, it can make it feel like you are not interested.

Randall Geddings: You're not as involved. You could easily wash your hands of the situation [00:17:00] and move on, right? And that can be upsetting to some people. 

Michael Lee: So how did you get from Um, I would just casually label this and correct me if I'm wrong, the shame response to the guilt response. So if I'm hearing your the way that conversation with Rick went down, you make the confrontation about the hangouts with Jeff that you're not.

Michael Lee: And these are two want to understand and you're not particularly cool with Rick says, I don't want to talk particulars. I just, it's very clear to me that you just think I'm bad. I'm the bad friend. I'm the bad one. And then you move from there, which I think is a shame response to a little bit more of like a guilt response, which is I have done bad.

Michael Lee: Not I am bad. So I've done bad. And now I will actually tell you what I was thinking and try to make the repair and be accountable. How did you, how did you move from shame to guilt? 

Randall Geddings: Cause I think there was a mixture of [00:18:00] that on both sides. Right. So I definitely felt, um, like I was partially at fault for potentially stepping on a landmine, aggravating the situation, not necessarily approaching it in the most perfect way.

Randall Geddings: Right. And also they had a pretty defensive reaction that was disproportionate to what I was bringing to the table as well. Right. And so we were able to kind of talk about. Reasoning behind why we approach the situations why we did and once we found that mutual understanding of me trying to understand and him feeling like he was being accused of doing something wrong that we were able to be like, Hey, I'm not trying to accuse you.

Randall Geddings: I just want to know what you were thinking so that I can like, put my thoughts to rest because I will assume the worst. Unfortunately, that's just how my brain works until I have what the actual reality is in front of me. This anxious brain, how rude. 

Michael Lee: I really liked your phrase, conflict templates. How do you [00:19:00] assess somebody's conflict template?

Michael Lee: What their desired mode of warfare is, basically, how they would like to Conduct these arguments whether they've thought through this themselves or not 

Randall Geddings: So I think a person's conflict template is heavily based off of how they have viewed Conflict during their upbringing whether it was with their parents siblings their peer groups teachers, etc Depending on what those conflicts look like around them that can shape the way how they want to pursue relationships, too So if they're used to seeing a lot of bickering yelling, etc That could feel really familiar.

Randall Geddings: It can feel safe and be like, eh, that it can, like, you learn through modeling. Right. That can also push you to the opposite ends where it's like, I don't want to actually replicate that at all. I'm going to swing the pendulum to the completely opposite side. So I think it depends 

Michael Lee: on what their upbringing was.

Michael Lee: That's right. And then how do you assess it as a, as a [00:20:00] friend, even as a counselor? As somebody in relationship with all of us who have at least implicitly and perhaps explicitly a conflict template, 

Randall Geddings: I get into a conflict with them and then you just see and you just see what happens. Right? Yeah.

Randall Geddings: Essentially. Now, I don't seek it out obviously, but their only way to really know what a person's. Conflict template is, is to learn by doing. And so eventually we're human. We're going to have moments where we disagree, where we're going to have moments where we're not going to be fully on the same page.

Randall Geddings: And as we learn and grow and interact with one another, we're going to pick up context clues around how a person usually addresses conflict, though you can also have a conversation with them about it too, necessarily to be like, Hey, when a conflict arises, what usually happens for you? 

Michael Lee: Uh huh. Let's, let's close with a kind of big question or a big topic.

Michael Lee: And, um, I talk a ton on this show and elsewhere about healthy conflict and unhealthy conflict and a healthy conflict and workplaces, [00:21:00] democracies, relationships everywhere. And it really links up with this idea of the template too. So do you think that there are healthy and unhealthy templates? 

Randall Geddings: Yes. I would say so.

Randall Geddings: So, I think the templates, though, can be just as diverse as people, right? Depending on what the conflict can be, the way we approach that conflict can be different. So, like, attachment styles in relationships. So, some people can have a secure attachment with family, but they might have anxious attachments with friends, right?

Randall Geddings: So, depending on what the topic is, a person may have really harsh Conflict templates when it surrounds politics, but they might be really good at handling interpersonal disputes with loved ones. 

Michael Lee: That's right. And so I guess what I'm trying to get to is we have these templates that are the products. Of our upbringing and [00:22:00] what's been modeled for us.

Michael Lee: But that's, that's the, that's the status quo. That's not necessarily what's a healthy or unhealthy template. That's just what we have. And so that's not even like our aspirational template. It's just. What I was taught to do or the way in which my nervous system helped me react by swinging the pendulum the other way, right?

Michael Lee: And so at least and I don't want to generalize too much But at least for yourself and certainly in your line of work and what you've learned from this argument that you had with Rick and presumably Others, what does a healthy template conflict template look like for you? And then perhaps a lot of other people in the population 

Randall Geddings: Sure, so first off, I do think a person's template can grow and change as well, depending on the circumstances are and how much energy they put into shifting how they engage in arguments.

Randall Geddings: So what does a healthy template look like a really hard question? And so I think a. Healthy template is one where both people are able to adequately navigate how [00:23:00] their needs can be met, and if they can't mutually meet one another's needs, there at least is some measure of reciprocity in finding out how they can meet their needs in alternate ways.

Michael Lee: And I keep saying this, but I'm going to do it again. Last one. How do you distinguish between needs and wants in that context? 

Randall Geddings: So, in the context of an emotional need, 

Michael Lee: necessarily? Of an argumentative dynamic. If we're talking about an argument that you and I are having, and I say, You know, I don't think that this is really meeting my needs.

Michael Lee: Is there a meaningful distinction there between needs and wants? 

Randall Geddings: Sure. So I think at least in regards to the emotional needs and emotional wants, everybody's going to have Um, different takes to that, right? So I might have an emotional need that's going to be different from Joe's or Jim's or refrigerator, right?

Randall Geddings: And it becomes a [00:24:00] question of what is a person willing to concede on, right? So if it's something that feels like a really core value or something that We're not willing to put on the table necessarily for any other reason, then it sounds like that's really important to us and that's going to become part of our needs.

Randall Geddings: Whereas if it's something that we're willing to give a little bit of flexibility on, then it feels like it's a more transactional, not, transactional is an incorrect word, but it's something that we're able to put into the process. Negotiable. It's a negotiable. Exactly. And then it becomes more of a want that we're able to say, actually, this is something that, um, I'm able to have some breathing room on.

Michael Lee: Well said. Randall Gettings, thank you so much for being on When We Disagree. My 

Randall Geddings: pleasure. 

Michael Lee: When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. [00:25:00] Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com.