January 13, 2025 • 40 mins
What if the key to healthier relationships begins with recognizing the destructive communication patterns we're accustomed to? Dr. Nicole Zmuda, a seasoned social work professor and clinician, helps us uncover the insidious roles of Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse--criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt in our daily interactions. Witness how these Four Horsemen storm through not just our personal circles but also our professional landscapes, hindering workplace dynamics and psychological safety. Together, we explore practical strategies to mitigate these behaviors, paving the way for greater understanding and respect across the board.
The current climate of societal polarization is heightened by these toxic communication patterns, and we aim to dissect their impact on public discourse. By examining the prevalence of ad hominem and straw man tactics, we shed light on their detrimental effect on critical thinking and dialogue, particularly in political arenas. Learn how these tactics create echo chambers and foster division, while we emphasize the necessity of fostering empathy and understanding to bridge ideological gaps.
We navigate the turbulent seas of social media and its potent influence on our emotions, discussing how platforms exploit our fight-or-flight instincts. Through historical anecdotes, like the friendship between LBJ and Everett Dirksen, we illustrate the potential for compromise even amidst conflict. Dr. Zmuda and I advocate for the power of personal responsibility in communication, urging listeners to adopt respectful dialogue techniques to maintain personal connections, even when disagreements arise. Tune in to discover how embracing accountability and open communication can revive not only personal relationships but also societal discourse.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Are you feeling stuck , trapped by barriers holding
you back from reaching your fullpotential?
Well, let's bust through thosebarriers so that you can live
your best life.
Hi, I'm Matt Brooks, founder ofMatt Brooks Coaching, and I'm
passionate about helping peopleovercome barriers to achieve
success.
Join me for insights,strategies and inspiring stories
(00:34):
as we explore practical tipsand powerful tools to unlock
your true potential.
This is the Barrier BustingPodcast.
Okay, so I am back today withDr Nicole Zamuda If you didn't
(00:56):
listen to last week's show, youmissed a great show with her and
she's agreed to do two with usto talk about Gottman's Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse,which is about killing
relationships.
These are four things that killrelationships.
Last week, we talked about thatin terms of our relationships
(01:16):
with our significant others andour family members, but we're
going to broaden that today andtalk a little bit about our
relationships with the world,our relationships with coworkers
, our relationships with peoplein our neighborhood, our
relationships with society ingeneral, which there is no one
who could tell me that we arenot more polarized today than
we've been in my entire lifetime, and there's got to be a way
that we can start comingtogether and respecting each
(01:37):
other for our differences again.
So we're going to talk aboutthat a little bit today.
Just to recap, if you didn'thear last week's show, my guest
is Dr Nicole Zamuda, who iscurrently a professor of social
work at Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity in New Jersey.
She holds a bachelor's degreein art and psychology and a
master's degree in social workfrom Marywood University, and
additionally holds a master's ineducation and a PhD in human
(02:00):
sexuality from the Center forHuman Sexuality Studies at
Widener University.
Human sexuality from the Centerfor Human Sexuality Studies at
Widener University.
She is a licensed clinicalsocial worker with almost 20
years of experience in substanceuse disorder treatment and
behavioral health care, and sheis continuing to work as a
clinician while she is in herwork as a professor.
Welcome back, Dr Zamuda.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Good to be back with you today, Matt.
Thanks for having me again.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah, so, okay.
So we talked last week aboutthe four horsemen.
For those that didn't listen,give us a brief recap of what
these four horsemen of theapocalypse are in terms of
relationships.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, so the four horsemen comes from John
Gottman's work on relationshipsand they are the behaviors and
communication that, as you said,will kill relationships.
They are criticism,defensiveness, stonewalling and
contempt, and these behaviors,as we talked about last time,
(02:58):
are actually quite common.
I don't know that there are anyrelationships that haven't had
these manifest at one time oranother, even today, but there
are ways that, if we can be moremindful that they're happening,
there are ways that we canchallenge them in ways that we
can mitigate their presence andtheir overall effects.
(03:19):
So there are ways that we canwork around them and reduce
their impact.
We can work around them andreduce their impact.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
So and basically it really falls down to even though
there's four different horsemen, they're all negative but it
falls down to familiarity breedscontempt.
We get too close to people,we're contemptuous to those
people.
We tend to not be able toexpress our frustrations with
the world at work or in othersituations, so we kind of take
it out on people at home, right?
How does the four horsemenaffect work relationships?
(03:46):
You're on university faculties,which can be.
I know you have a really nicefaculty there because I went to
that school.
But I do have enough exposurein my, or I've had enough
exposure in my life to academiato know that.
You know, henry Kissingerwasn't wrong when he said why
are the politics and academia soreplete?
Because the relationship orbecause the stakes are so low.
(04:07):
That was his line, right, and?
But I know that things can getin any work relationship, any
place where you're working intight contact or close contact
with people, things can get outof hand.
How do these things affect work?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, yeah, Relationships are relationships,
no matter what kind ofrelationships they are, and the
four horsemen, which essentiallyare negative communication
behaviors, can manifest in anyof those relationships,
including the workplace.
If they're present, they can dothings like disrupt team
(04:40):
dynamics, hinder effectivecommunication, team dynamics
hinder effective communication.
They can even create thosehostile or toxic work
environments that are certainlydrivers of attrition and
employee dissatisfaction.
I don't know if you're familiarwith the concept of
psychological safety.
(05:01):
There's been a lot in theresearch around psychological
safety, particularly in theworkplace, is like how do we
create an environment whereindividuals feel safe to speak
up about ideas that they have,to change processes or to
(05:21):
address policies, any questionsthey have, concerns or mistakes,
without fear of retribution orpunishment?
These four horsemen killpsychological safety.
They basically create a culturethat prevents that open
communication and dialoguethat's critical to that
(05:42):
psychological safety.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Let me just make the point, though, for anybody out
there thinking, oh yeah, I'vedone these things.
Look, these four horsemen arealso signs that we're human,
that we breathe, that we think,that we have fears, that we have
all the emotions that make ushuman.
So they are actually thingsthat are part of the overall
package that make us great if wereally understand them.
(06:04):
And when it comes to the fourhorsemen in the workplace, a lot
of times people are afraid tospeak up or speak up too much or
whatever, out of paranoia.
They're afraid if they speak uptoo much, they're going to be
ostracized.
They're not going to get apromotion.
They're afraid if they don'tspeak up enough, they're going
to be ostracized and not get apromotion.
(06:26):
So it's a pretty fine line towalk delicately and have your
career not be affected by otherpeople's paranoia in particular.
And that's why these fourhorsemen are so important to
understand, because they're notonly about your relationship
with your significant other, butthey do come into play at work,
(06:46):
and contempt in particular is abig one, and if anybody
listened to last week's show,contempt is the number one
killer of relationships,according to Gottman.
Does Gottman talk at all aboutparanoia?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I'm not so familiar with any of his work as it
relates to paranoia, but I think, if I can kind of generalize,
he recognizes that the presenceof these kind of drivers of
unsuccessful relationships theydon't occur in a vacuum, right,
(07:26):
they have significant effectsnot just on the relationship but
how, you know, someone mayenter into other relationships,
right?
You know, we kind of we weretalking last time about how
defensiveness can manifest, youknow, seemingly out of the blue,
but what's really going on forthat person in terms of their
(07:48):
level of defensiveness is thatthey maybe have been on the
receiving end of some criticismor some contempt, whether in the
current relationship or thepast relationship.
And so I think there'ssomething to be said for things
like attachment styles and howwe interact with people across
relationships.
And so you know, if this ideaof paranoia or this maybe
(08:10):
sensitivity to criticism orsensitivity to attacks, that can
certainly inform how someoneengages with any relationship,
including relationships in theworkplace, right, If someone's
coming from a hostile workenvironment, they leave that
situation and they go into amore productive or healthier
(08:31):
workplace environment, that'snot to say that they're not
going to have that level ofsensitivity kind of built in.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
They're still going to be on alert at all times.
Once burned, twice shy, right?
Okay?
Well, let's talk about this now.
In terms of our larger societalsituation, there's polarization
we are having.
I don't talk politics on thisshow, so we can keep the
politics out of it if possible,but we are very polarized, in
(08:58):
particular, with our politicaldialogues.
We seem to be run by ourpolitical dialogues now.
We don't seem to be able toseparate.
I know a lot of people my agethink back to a time when, you
know, we talked politicsoccasionally, but it didn't, it
wasn't on our mind all the time,it didn't inform every decision
we made.
Now it seems to, and theproblem is is that we're clearly
50-50 in this country.
(09:19):
I mean, we might go 56-44, blah, blah, but it's roughly split
and we're now at a point whereif you're on that team, you're
wrong.
I don't want to talk to you.
We got to end this, and thesefour horsemen, I see, are the
critical things in any one ofthese discussions that destroy
any ability for us to cometogether.
(09:39):
Talk a little bit about howthis relates to our political
dialogue or just ourpolarization in general.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yeah, I think you're really onto something, these
four horsemen, that can manifestin any relationship we can see
in the discourse that we haveabout larger social and
political issues.
Right, we take an ideologicalposition and then we find
ourselves engaging in attacks orcriticism of the folks in the
(10:13):
other camp, whatever that otheris right.
It kind of is a breeding groundfor this us versus them
mentality which I think isinherent in that divisiveness
that you're speaking about.
Right, like, I only have acertain number of years on this
planet, right, and I don'tnecessarily have the perspective
(10:35):
around how long this us versusthem mentality has been with us
collectively, socially.
You know, political scholars,sociologists might be better to
speak about that, but somethingtells me that, you know, maybe
our country was kind of foundedon this idea of us versus them.
(10:56):
Right, those differences inideologic views around how
things should be run kind ofresulted in us separating from,
from England, right.
So I think that's kind of beenpart of our foundation, part of
our roots.
That's a good point.
But but it.
But it doesn't necessarilycreate an environment where we
(11:18):
feel like we can come togetherwith open communication and
create meaningful progress.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Well, I think that's a really great point.
I'm glad you brought it up.
We should be reminded that wewere founded kind of on this,
but we still have to be able towork together in a society and
communicate with each other.
I know there's always beendivision, but there seems to be
something more serious about itnow than anything I've witnessed
in my life, and I'm hoping thatwe can, you know, affect some
(11:46):
positive change going forwardhere.
There's two things, there's twotechniques that are often used
that I think could easily fitinto these four categories, and
I'm not going to lie, thesethings really piss me off.
They really do, and that's adhominem arguments and straw man
arguments.
What are ad hominem and strawman arguments and why are they
(12:06):
so for lack of a better word,bullshit, I'm sorry.
They really are.
They're horrible.
We all do it.
We got to stop.
Explain this to us.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Sure.
Well, I can say that thestudents that I teach research,
they hate these things becausethey don't quite understand them
and they think well, why do Ineed to understand this?
And part of it, even outside ofthe research context, is being
able to think critically aboutarguments or claims that people
(12:36):
are making right.
They're fallacies and logicabout ad hominem attacks.
They're attacks made on aperson's character rather than
their ideas or their policies ortheir research findings.
And we see that a lot inpolitical discourse.
Where people point to anindividual's history of
(12:59):
infidelity is why we shouldn'ttrust their decisions on
domestic policies for example,right.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
One of the simple ones is well, he's fat.
So why should we listen to himabout anything, right?
I mean, why does he get a validopinion?
He's fat?
You know what a ridiculousthing.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right, right.
I think there was some researchthat talked about JFK's polling
numbers because he was sohandsome and he got a lot of
people to vote for him becausepeople liked the way he looked,
right.
I mean, that's exactly thatkind of character based
decision-making that is risky.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Um straw man is slightly different than that
right.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Yeah, and so the straw man is when we take um a
view or an idea and wemisrepresent it in a way to more
easily dismiss it.
Right, and it's we're kind ofgeneralizing their policy or
their viewpoint and it's it'sindicative of defensiveness,
(14:01):
right.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Yeah, I want to be careful with the examples that I
make Cause again, we don't talkpolitics but right, but you
know it's.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You're basically distorting an opponent's
argument by oversimplifying orexaggerating it in some way,
Right?
So you know you're not actuallyaddressing the argument, You're
addressing some, something.
You can pull out a thin airthat has some little bit of
relationship to what you'retalking about distracting.
I call that just deflect anddistract, deflect and discredit
(14:29):
you know you're deflecting theargument from what it really is
and, in doing so, discreditingthe person making the argument.
So these are things we.
I would like to see laws thatbad and hominin and straw man
tactics.
All right, let's go to the fourhorsemen specifically now and
talk about how they're relatingto our.
You know how they play a rolein social polarization.
(14:51):
So the first one was criticism.
Now, in relationships, we knowthat this erodes trust and bonds
between people.
What are the effects ofcriticism on social polarization
and what impact does it have onour public discourse?
And, in particular, we havethis thing now called social
media, which we use all the timefor this sort of thing.
(15:12):
So talk about criticism in thelarger perspective.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Yeah, so criticism, especially when it's personal
and harsh and this is kind ofthe type of criticism that we
tend to see on social mediaoften it essentially deepens
those divisions that you spokeabout and it really highlights
this us versus them mentalitywhere, instead of engaging with
(15:40):
differing perspectives andhaving a productive dialogue or
discourse, we're using thingslike inflammatory comments which
quickly escalate into hostilityand you know the the it becomes
productive very quickly.
It kind of fosters echochambers right where we're just
(16:03):
creating and engaging withpeople who share similar
viewpoints as ours and opposingviews are dismissed or, in this
case of criticism, reallyvilified.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
It's kind of like comfort food, isn't it?
We only want to be aroundwhat's comfortable.
We only want to talk aboutwhat's comfortable.
We don't want to be challengedwith opposing points of view.
Am I oversimplifying that?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
I mean, listen, I like a good oversimplification.
I think it helps make thingsyou know, especially concepts
like this, accessible.
But yeah, I think there'ssomething to be said for that.
And it's also oh gosh, I'mnever going to eat anything that
has Brussels sprouts in it,because I don't like Brussels
sprouts, and so I'm going toeliminate everything Brussels
sprouts from my diet.
And that may not be the case.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, yeah, it may not make any sense, all right,
next up the one that really doesthe damage contempt.
Yeah, contempt in relationshipswe discussed last week is the
most harmful of the fourhorsemen, and I'm pretty sure
it's the same in the broaderpicture of our society and
polarization, and something thatI see a lot of on social media.
(17:13):
Talk about contempt in ourbroader social dialogue.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Yeah, I'm also seeing a lot of that contempt,
especially in the politicaldiscussions and social media,
the things that are being postedon ex-formerly Twitter.
It really fosters thisdeep-seated disdain and
disrespect for people withdiffering or opposing views, and
(17:41):
in the public discourse itmanifests that through mockery,
sarcasm, belittling language,right the same things that we
would see in the romanticrelationships that we talked
about last time.
But it creates an environmentwhere empathy and understanding
and compassion don't exist andit creates barriers to, you know
(18:07):
, the important collaborationthat needs to happen across
ideological lines.
You know, whatever those arefor individuals, it kind of
keeps you entrenched in yourlane and it makes it difficult
to kind of foster solutions thatwork to everyone's benefit.
Right, I'm not going to workwith them because X, y, z.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Yeah and I.
A couple of things about thisone for me.
First of all, you know I had a.
My dad was a world war II vet.
He was a.
He was what we call a hard ass,and you know, his thing was how
do you know you're right?
How do you know you're right?
And I mean no, you're right now.
It's important to believe whatyou believe and fight for what
(18:49):
you believe in.
But what are you accomplishingwhen you're just shutting down
anybody who doesn't tacitlyagree with everything you say?
What is being accomplishedthere?
That's my question.
Nothing is being accomplishedthere, right?
That's not helping the thing.
And if you, you know, if youwant to bring someone to your
point of view, invite them in.
(19:10):
Don't shut the door down.
Am I right with that?
Would you agree?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
A hundred percent.
A hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Stop thinking that.
You know.
I mean, I had a collegeprofessor once tell me when I
was in my twenties and I wasacting a little uppity one day.
He was a college professor witha Swiss accent, so that made it
even more profound and he saidMatthew, god did not anoint you
to do a fucking thing.
And it was probably thegreatest lesson I got.
(19:36):
It was totally worth what Ipaid for the whole degree,
because his whole point was whoare you to think that you're
100% right?
Believe in what you believe in,fine, fight for that.
But don't just walk aroundassuming that everybody who
disagrees with you is wrong.
Fight for that.
But don't just walk aroundassuming that everybody who
disagrees with you is wrong.
Be a little more open to that.
Your brain will whine.
All right, this is a good placefor us to take a quick break.
When we come back, we'll have alittle more with Dr Nicole
(20:01):
Zamuda and the four horsemen ofthe apocalypse in terms of our
general society.
Hang tight.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Feeling overwhelmed, Struggling to find balance in
your daily life?
At Matt Brooks Coaching, we getit and we can help.
With over 25 years of nonprofitexecutive experience and an MSW
with a clinical focus, MattBrooks offers personalized
coaching designed to help yourise above your challenges and
live your best life.
(20:30):
Whether you aim to advance yourcareer, enhance your skills or
simply find more clarity andpeace, Matt is here to be your
partner and ally.
Visit mattbrookscoachingcom tobook your free discovery session
today.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Take the first step towards a brighter tomorrow day,
take the first step towards abrighter tomorrow.
Okay, picking up where we leftoff.
We got through two of the fourhorsemen.
We're going to pick up with thethird right now, which is
defensiveness.
Again, listen to our show lastweek.
You'll get a more thoroughdiscussion about what
defensiveness is in arelationship.
(21:06):
But let's talk aboutdefensiveness and, in particular
, let's discuss it in terms ofidentity.
Okay, because I think a lot ofour defensiveness in society
manifests from our identity, oursense of identity and sense of
other people's differences, andI think it comes our
(21:26):
defensiveness comes from when wefeel our identities are under
siege.
And I think it comes, ourdefensiveness comes from when we
feel our identities are undersiege.
Am I right, phyllis?
And what is defensiveness interms of the four horsemen and
how it relates to all this?
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Yeah.
So you know bell hooks is, youknow, known for, you know her
kind of claim that the personalis political.
And I think that for manypeople, when they perceive that
a particular issue that ispersonal to them is under attack
(21:58):
, is being criticized, we seethat defensiveness manifest, and
appropriately so right, becauseyou know people have you,
people have skin in the game, asit were.
But we also see thisdefensiveness when folks are
engaging in, again, thatdeflecting responsibility or
(22:21):
accountability, and so theyexperience that defensiveness
around a particular position andthen they may respond with
attacks and criticism themselvesand again it all serves to shut
down constructive dialogue.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
All serves to shut down constructive dialogue.
I want to hammer that because,again back to the question I
asked right before the breakwhat good are you doing?
What good is going to come ofthis if you just hold firm, if
you're sitting in the sandboxholding your breath because you
couldn't get your way?
What good is it doing?
Right?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Yeah, exactly, and I appreciate the emphasis on that
because really all of this comesdown to fostering more
productive communication in allof our relationships and I think
that you know to your pointabout the divisiveness.
Anything we can do to move theneedle forward to foster more
(23:20):
productive communication,particularly in these divisive
issues, is is a win in myopinion.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
You know, I worked for a while in a state that is
fully a different color than mypolitical views and I was
raising money as part of my workand so I had to keep my
political views to myself, whichis fine that's what I prefer to
do anyways.
But I got to know a lot ofpeople who believe very
differently than what I believe,and because I had to work with
(23:47):
them on a who believe verydifferently than what I believe,
and because I had to work withthem on a regular basis, after a
while I started noticing youknow, these are good family
people, these are good people.
These are people who contributeto their communities.
They aren't all just fanaticsor whatever.
Maybe there's something they'reseeing that I'm not.
It didn't necessarily change myviews, but it did open my mind
a little bit to say I'm notgoing to just shut these folks
(24:08):
out.
I need to pay attention becausethere's, there were some things
that I learned from them andhopefully, some things they
picked up from me, and that'show we we, we make our society
more productive.
Okay, let's go to the last oneof these four horsemen, again my
favorite, to hate this one.
I just hate this one.
It's called stonewalling.
Now, in relationships, we knowthis is a withdrawal from an
(24:29):
interaction and, as you coveredlast week, it can often be a
personal defensive move asopposed to you know, you're not
necessarily saying screw you toyour partner, you're kind of you
need to step back for yourself.
Okay, do you see parallels withpeople checking out of social
or political conversations, andis this a bad thing?
Speaker 2 (24:51):
out of social or political conversations, and is
this a bad thing?
You know?
I think that question reallyhints at the nuance that exists
in this area in particular and Iappreciate you're picking up on
that.
When people withdraw from theseconversations or these debates,
whether through disengaging,ignoring opposing views or just
(25:12):
altogether avoiding having theconversation to begin with,
avoiding these hot-button topics, they essentially stop
participating in dialogue thatcan be really meaningful and,
again, that prevents resolution,that prevents a path forward.
But we also have to rememberthat oftentimes, especially in
(25:35):
personal cases, right backtemporarily can be productive,
but just ignoring it altogetherand stepping out completely is
(25:56):
not the solution, that's not thelong-term solution and that
turns into apathy.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
It also seems a little bit cowardly to me.
You know, I mean stepping backfor a minute to regroup yourself
, totally fine, totally fair.
Stepping back for a week toregroup, but to walk away
completely, it just seems likeyou know, I'm just, you know, if
you believe so strongly in whatyou believe in, then be willing
to stand up for it, even whenthe going gets tough, even when
(26:26):
you're confronted with peoplewith solid arguments against you
.
For the most part, I thinkyou're both.
Both sides are going to comeout better for it.
But to just walk away, if it'snot in a sense of I need to, to
just take a take, you know,regroup myself, but if it's, I'm
just putting my hand up tothese people.
I'm never going to payattention.
I find that to be cowardice.
(26:47):
I do Now again.
I was raised by a World War IIvet who I said was a hard ass.
So you know, you confront yourproblems.
That's what I was raised with.
But do you, am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
I don't think you're wrong.
I also think that there arefolks for whom the disengaging
is an act of self-preservationand and it's it's necessary for
their survival, and that maybesounds hyperbolic, but I think
(27:17):
that there are some for whomthat is true, and so I think it
is on kind of like a case bycase basis and if, if you're
someone who had not engagedbecause it would, you know,
create further harm to you, thenyou know, find an accomplice
who can kind of step in and dothat work.
But if, if you have thecapacity to do it, I agree with
(27:40):
you.
I think.
You know I'm kind of someonewho believes that we have a
social responsibility.
I know I have an ethicalresponsibility to kind of engage
in those discussions, even ifthey're uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Well, I'm glad that we're having this conversation
because, as you know, I have areal pet peeve with ghosting.
I like really think it's like ahorrible thing.
But in doing some research onghosting, which I've been doing,
trying to learn more about, andI have read that there are
times where you ghost people forself-preservation, where you're
, in that sense, you're morecreating boundaries for yourself
and your life, and there arecertain people you're walking
(28:11):
away from.
You know, I might have a fewfamily members who I've walked
away from.
I know a lot of people who havethat.
But when you go someone justlike who's a friend and then
suddenly say you heard somethingthat upset you from someone
else and so you ghost thatfriend rather than confront it,
that that's just horrible In myopinion.
(28:32):
I really think that's just theworst thing ever.
All right, this has been agreat discussion, let's.
We've touched on this already,but how potent a force is social
media when it comes to the fourhorsemen in our current society
?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
social media when it comes to the four horsemen in
our current society,no-transcript using the four
horsemen more accessible or evenreferred right.
So we see kind of clickbaitarticles.
(29:13):
We see comments on someone'spost on social media.
There's a criticism right, aharsh personal attack that gets
reactions, which drivesengagement, which then
oftentimes drives monetizationright.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
No, it's totally it.
Fear is the number one hotbutton, button, right.
You press that button, you'regoing to get a reaction and if
it's on social media, that'sgoing to create more just what
you said more engagement, whichis going to create more revenue
for whoever's doing it.
So I'm sorry to interrupt you,but I think we've got to take
personal responsibility torealize that in some ways, we're
(29:52):
being played.
We're being played because ofour amygdalas.
Our amygdalas are the part ofour brain that puts up fight or
flight, right, fight or flight,and it's our protection
mechanism.
Fight or flight and it's ourprotection mechanism.
And there are people purposelymessing with it to get us upset
so that we'll keep clicking onthese things and they can make
more money.
Sorry to interrupt, but that'smy little rant for the day.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
No, I think it's appropriate right, and I'm glad
that it resonates right, thatyou're also seeing it right, we
have these structures, theseapps, these platforms, and it's
really designed to.
I mean, there are some goodplaces out there, right, there
are some social media for good,but a lot of it, like you said,
(30:38):
there are people that design itspecifically to capitalize on
our fears, our anger, and theymake money off of that.
And again, it kind of createsthat echo chamber and you know
the anonymity and distance thatis involved in social media,
right, like everybody, kind of,most people wear a mask on
(31:01):
social media, right, you don'treally have to know who each
other is.
That, I think, gives peoplelicense to go hard or go deep
with their attacks and theircriticisms because there's no,
you know, there's no consequence.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And I just wish people would understand exactly
what you just said, tounderstand that it will allow
you to let the worst of yourselfout, and maybe letting the
worst of yourself out is notsuch a good thing.
I'm just going to throw thatout there for people to mull in
their heads, but I don't wantsomething like you know.
I think a lot about mobmentality.
I've done a lot of reading onthis over the years.
(31:36):
Charles Mackay wrote the firstbig treaties on this in like
1850.
It is so easy to work up a mob.
It is so easy Like all you gotto do is touch that fear button
and everybody's got theirtorches lit and they're ready to
go.
And I think we've all got totake a little more
responsibility to stand up tothis because, yes, social media
has its wonderful elements, youknow, namely reuniting with
(32:00):
people you haven't seen in 30years.
You know things like that arewonderful, but we are.
Our fears are being played uponor preyed upon, in my opinion.
All right, okay, there wereantidotes to the four horsemen
that we talked about forrelationships.
How do they play out in thisbroader context?
Are there antidotes we can use?
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Yeah, I think the antidotes that are applicable in
our romantic relationships andour family relationships are
applicable in this broadersocial context.
So things like takingaccountability for things that
you may have said that are lessthan polite, less than
(32:41):
respectful, right Kind of owningthat and doing better, doing it
differently next time, thosegentle startups, those I
statements, can replacecriticism with more respectful,
solution-focused conversations.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
In case anybody didn't hear last week, talk a
little bit briefly about Istatements.
What do you mean by Istatements?
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Yes, thank you for that reminder.
So, in the context of debate orconcern or conflict, I
statements are ways that you canexpress what you're seeing,
what you're noticing, whatyou're feeling, without blaming
(33:25):
or accusing or drawing anyconclusions about what the other
person is doing intentionallyor what might be going on for
the other person.
So I feel disappointed when yousay things like fill in the
blank, as opposed to, you'resuch a jerk, how could you say
(33:47):
that?
It sounds very different, yeah,yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
How we couch it Okay.
Yeah, I think we've got a lot.
We need a lot of anecdotes.
We need, we need some to beflying out of I don't know in
our atmosphere, in our water orsomething.
We all need to chill out just alittle bit.
We just do, we just got to calmdown a little bit.
You know, I remember I used tobe really obsessed with studying
presidential history andpolitical history and I think
(34:15):
it's really interesting that youbrought up how our country was
founded, might in some way speakto polarization.
I think I'm going to really letthat swirl around in my brain
for a while and think thatthrough.
But I do remember that in thepast political enemies in
quotations I say we're oftenfriends behind the scenes they
embrace the idea that politicsis the art of compromise,
(34:36):
politics is war.
You know they, and one of myfavorite stories I'm going to
tell really briefly has to dowith LBJ and Everett Dirksen,
who I believe was a Senatemajority leader or something
back in the time, and they were,you know, everett was a
Republican and LBJ was aDemocrat, I believe, and they
were often opposed to each otherbut they would get together in
the evening and have drinks.
(34:57):
They were both Southern boysand they'd laugh and joke about
how they were fighting eachother all day on TV.
But it was, you know, it's allpart of the game to them, right?
And they would.
And there was this great storythat Jack Valenti, who was a
senior advisor to LBJ, told insome documentary I watched,
where apparently they gettogether and they have drinks.
And you know, lbj would say now,everett, I need these three
(35:21):
votes, you got to give me thesethree votes, you got to get them
for me.
And Everett would say well, mrPresident, I'll take a look at
those ideas and we'll see whatwe can do.
And then they'd go back todrinking for a while and then
they'd laugh and they'd have afew things.
And then, about 20 minuteslater, everett Dirksen would say
now you know, mr President, Ihave here a list of three names
of people that I'd like to seeon the federal bench.
(35:42):
I hope you will give them yourevery consideration and hand
over the list.
And the president would say Iwill definitely have these names
vetted, we'll see what we cando.
And the deal was done.
In other words, they each gotsomething they needed, they
wanted.
So they found a way, despitetheir division.
Now some people might saythat's corrupt.
It's not corrupt, that's that's.
Our government is set right nowon a two party system, so they
(36:04):
found a way to work together toeach get something that was
important to them.
I wish we could get back toengaging each other like that,
you know, and I hope we can,because these negative patterns
of the four horsemen, I think,are eating us alive and I think
we're all walking around angry,am I right?
We're all just.
It just just seems like there'sjust anger in the air all the
(36:25):
time.
Wouldn't it be nice to get backto I'm not talking painting
happy little pictures in ourstudios at home, but we could
chill out just a little bit.
Any final thoughts on this fromyou, dr Z?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Well, I'm a fan of Bob Ross and his happy little
trees, so we could maybe do alittle bit more with them.
But I hear you, I think thatthere is something to be said
about the lost art of compromiseand negotiation, and it's not
so much that kind of quid proquo that I think people like to
look at with side eye.
But it's really okay.
(36:56):
How can we come together andhow can we work for the common
good?
It's not just what I want or myagenda, because to your point,
you may have a good idea, butthat doesn't mean that's the
only idea or that is the idearight.
We have to find ways to buildeverybody up.
(37:18):
And I, you know, sometimes Ifeel like and this is, you know,
maybe maybe just me butsometimes I feel like we're
descending into an idiocracy.
I don't know if you've seenthat movie, mike Judge movie,
but I try to do my part, youknow, and I think, as a
therapist, I encourage folks to,you know, use skills so that
(37:38):
they can kind of take care ofthemselves when they feel like
they may be under attack andthey're feeling defensive, how
they can continue to engage inprogressive dialogue or focus on
the solution.
But you know, I try to employsome of these antidotes into my
social interactions, asdifficult as it may be.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
And you know, compromise doesn't necessarily
mean you're selling out.
Compromise shows respect fordifferent points of view.
It shows that you know, I thinkwhat LBJ and Everett Dirksen
were doing was respecting eachother's positions.
They each had jobs to do.
They each worked for adifferent political party, they
each had responsibilities.
They were going to help eachother meet a couple of those
(38:18):
responsibilities.
And respect, boy, there issomething we got to get back to
respect.
I respect the fact that peoplegrew up believing something
different than me, because whoam I to know that I'm right?
You know, I think I'm right.
I'm going to stick with what Ibelieve, but I'm really not
going to bash anybody who feelsdifferently anymore.
It's not doing any good, anygood at all, all right.
(38:41):
Well, dr Nicole Zamuda, you arethe best.
I hope I'll get you back on oneof these shows again in the
future for another interestingtopic.
But a million thanks for comingon.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Happy to be here and can't wait to hear the episode
about news resolutions.
I know I need help with that.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
It's a short one too.
That's a six, 17 minute one, so, but it's just.
It gives you some ideas aboutwhy we don't carry through with
our resolutions and a fewthoughts about how to do it.
But the real way to carrythrough with a resolution is to
hire Matt Brooks as your lifecoach.
I'm going to help you with allyour resolutions, anyways, thank
you all for listening today.
Again, if you have an idea fora show that you'd like to hear,
(39:19):
please shoot me an email, matt,at Matt Brooks coaching dot com.
I'd love to hear from you andget your ideas at
brookscoachingcom.
I'd love to hear from you andget your ideas, and if it's
something that I feelcomfortable with, I will be
happy to do it.
For now, thanks to Dr Zamuda.
Thank you all for listening.
Be well, and I'll catch younext time on the Barrier Busting
Podcast.
Thank you.
Are you feeling stuck , trapped by barriers holding
you back from reaching your fullpotential?
Well, let's bust through thosebarriers so that you can live
your best life.
Hi, I'm Matt Brooks, founder ofMatt Brooks Coaching, and I'm
passionate about helping peopleovercome barriers to achieve
success.
Join me for insights,strategies and inspiring stories
(00:34):
as we explore practical tipsand powerful tools to unlock
your true potential.
This is the Barrier BustingPodcast.
Okay, so I am back today withDr Nicole Zamuda If you didn't
(00:56):
listen to last week's show, youmissed a great show with her and
she's agreed to do two with usto talk about Gottman's Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse,which is about killing
relationships.
These are four things that killrelationships.
Last week, we talked about thatin terms of our relationships
(01:16):
with our significant others andour family members, but we're
going to broaden that today andtalk a little bit about our
relationships with the world,our relationships with coworkers
, our relationships with peoplein our neighborhood, our
relationships with society ingeneral, which there is no one
who could tell me that we arenot more polarized today than
we've been in my entire lifetime, and there's got to be a way
that we can start comingtogether and respecting each
(01:37):
other for our differences again.
So we're going to talk aboutthat a little bit today.
Just to recap, if you didn'thear last week's show, my guest
is Dr Nicole Zamuda, who iscurrently a professor of social
work at Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity in New Jersey.
She holds a bachelor's degreein art and psychology and a
master's degree in social workfrom Marywood University, and
additionally holds a master's ineducation and a PhD in human
(02:00):
sexuality from the Center forHuman Sexuality Studies at
Widener University.
Human sexuality from the Centerfor Human Sexuality Studies at
Widener University.
She is a licensed clinicalsocial worker with almost 20
years of experience in substanceuse disorder treatment and
behavioral health care, and sheis continuing to work as a
clinician while she is in herwork as a professor.
Welcome back, Dr Zamuda.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Good to be back with you today, Matt.
Thanks for having me again.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah, so, okay.
So we talked last week aboutthe four horsemen.
For those that didn't listen,give us a brief recap of what
these four horsemen of theapocalypse are in terms of
relationships.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, so the four horsemen comes from John
Gottman's work on relationshipsand they are the behaviors and
communication that, as you said,will kill relationships.
They are criticism,defensiveness, stonewalling and
contempt, and these behaviors,as we talked about last time,
(02:58):
are actually quite common.
I don't know that there are anyrelationships that haven't had
these manifest at one time oranother, even today, but there
are ways that, if we can be moremindful that they're happening,
there are ways that we canchallenge them in ways that we
can mitigate their presence andtheir overall effects.
(03:19):
So there are ways that we canwork around them and reduce
their impact.
We can work around them andreduce their impact.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
So and basically it really falls down to even though
there's four different horsemen, they're all negative but it
falls down to familiarity breedscontempt.
We get too close to people,we're contemptuous to those
people.
We tend to not be able toexpress our frustrations with
the world at work or in othersituations, so we kind of take
it out on people at home, right?
How does the four horsemenaffect work relationships?
(03:46):
You're on university faculties,which can be.
I know you have a really nicefaculty there because I went to
that school.
But I do have enough exposurein my, or I've had enough
exposure in my life to academiato know that.
You know, henry Kissingerwasn't wrong when he said why
are the politics and academia soreplete?
Because the relationship orbecause the stakes are so low.
(04:07):
That was his line, right, and?
But I know that things can getin any work relationship, any
place where you're working intight contact or close contact
with people, things can get outof hand.
How do these things affect work?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, yeah, Relationships are relationships,
no matter what kind ofrelationships they are, and the
four horsemen, which essentiallyare negative communication
behaviors, can manifest in anyof those relationships,
including the workplace.
If they're present, they can dothings like disrupt team
(04:40):
dynamics, hinder effectivecommunication, team dynamics
hinder effective communication.
They can even create thosehostile or toxic work
environments that are certainlydrivers of attrition and
employee dissatisfaction.
I don't know if you're familiarwith the concept of
psychological safety.
(05:01):
There's been a lot in theresearch around psychological
safety, particularly in theworkplace, is like how do we
create an environment whereindividuals feel safe to speak
up about ideas that they have,to change processes or to
(05:21):
address policies, any questionsthey have, concerns or mistakes,
without fear of retribution orpunishment?
These four horsemen killpsychological safety.
They basically create a culturethat prevents that open
communication and dialoguethat's critical to that
(05:42):
psychological safety.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Let me just make the point, though, for anybody out
there thinking, oh yeah, I'vedone these things.
Look, these four horsemen arealso signs that we're human,
that we breathe, that we think,that we have fears, that we have
all the emotions that make ushuman.
So they are actually thingsthat are part of the overall
package that make us great if wereally understand them.
(06:04):
And when it comes to the fourhorsemen in the workplace, a lot
of times people are afraid tospeak up or speak up too much or
whatever, out of paranoia.
They're afraid if they speak uptoo much, they're going to be
ostracized.
They're not going to get apromotion.
They're afraid if they don'tspeak up enough, they're going
to be ostracized and not get apromotion.
(06:26):
So it's a pretty fine line towalk delicately and have your
career not be affected by otherpeople's paranoia in particular.
And that's why these fourhorsemen are so important to
understand, because they're notonly about your relationship
with your significant other, butthey do come into play at work,
(06:46):
and contempt in particular is abig one, and if anybody
listened to last week's show,contempt is the number one
killer of relationships,according to Gottman.
Does Gottman talk at all aboutparanoia?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I'm not so familiar with any of his work as it
relates to paranoia, but I think, if I can kind of generalize,
he recognizes that the presenceof these kind of drivers of
unsuccessful relationships theydon't occur in a vacuum, right,
(07:26):
they have significant effectsnot just on the relationship but
how, you know, someone mayenter into other relationships,
right?
You know, we kind of we weretalking last time about how
defensiveness can manifest, youknow, seemingly out of the blue,
but what's really going on forthat person in terms of their
(07:48):
level of defensiveness is thatthey maybe have been on the
receiving end of some criticismor some contempt, whether in the
current relationship or thepast relationship.
And so I think there'ssomething to be said for things
like attachment styles and howwe interact with people across
relationships.
And so you know, if this ideaof paranoia or this maybe
(08:10):
sensitivity to criticism orsensitivity to attacks, that can
certainly inform how someoneengages with any relationship,
including relationships in theworkplace, right, If someone's
coming from a hostile workenvironment, they leave that
situation and they go into amore productive or healthier
(08:31):
workplace environment, that'snot to say that they're not
going to have that level ofsensitivity kind of built in.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
They're still going to be on alert at all times.
Once burned, twice shy, right?
Okay?
Well, let's talk about this now.
In terms of our larger societalsituation, there's polarization
we are having.
I don't talk politics on thisshow, so we can keep the
politics out of it if possible,but we are very polarized, in
(08:58):
particular, with our politicaldialogues.
We seem to be run by ourpolitical dialogues now.
We don't seem to be able toseparate.
I know a lot of people my agethink back to a time when, you
know, we talked politicsoccasionally, but it didn't, it
wasn't on our mind all the time,it didn't inform every decision
we made.
Now it seems to, and theproblem is is that we're clearly
50-50 in this country.
(09:19):
I mean, we might go 56-44, blah, blah, but it's roughly split
and we're now at a point whereif you're on that team, you're
wrong.
I don't want to talk to you.
We got to end this, and thesefour horsemen, I see, are the
critical things in any one ofthese discussions that destroy
any ability for us to cometogether.
(09:39):
Talk a little bit about howthis relates to our political
dialogue or just ourpolarization in general.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yeah, I think you're really onto something, these
four horsemen, that can manifestin any relationship we can see
in the discourse that we haveabout larger social and
political issues.
Right, we take an ideologicalposition and then we find
ourselves engaging in attacks orcriticism of the folks in the
(10:13):
other camp, whatever that otheris right.
It kind of is a breeding groundfor this us versus them
mentality which I think isinherent in that divisiveness
that you're speaking about.
Right, like, I only have acertain number of years on this
planet, right, and I don'tnecessarily have the perspective
(10:35):
around how long this us versusthem mentality has been with us
collectively, socially.
You know, political scholars,sociologists might be better to
speak about that, but somethingtells me that, you know, maybe
our country was kind of foundedon this idea of us versus them.
(10:56):
Right, those differences inideologic views around how
things should be run kind ofresulted in us separating from,
from England, right.
So I think that's kind of beenpart of our foundation, part of
our roots.
That's a good point.
But but it.
But it doesn't necessarilycreate an environment where we
(11:18):
feel like we can come togetherwith open communication and
create meaningful progress.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Well, I think that's a really great point.
I'm glad you brought it up.
We should be reminded that wewere founded kind of on this,
but we still have to be able towork together in a society and
communicate with each other.
I know there's always beendivision, but there seems to be
something more serious about itnow than anything I've witnessed
in my life, and I'm hoping thatwe can, you know, affect some
(11:46):
positive change going forwardhere.
There's two things, there's twotechniques that are often used
that I think could easily fitinto these four categories, and
I'm not going to lie, thesethings really piss me off.
They really do, and that's adhominem arguments and straw man
arguments.
What are ad hominem and strawman arguments and why are they
(12:06):
so for lack of a better word,bullshit, I'm sorry.
They really are.
They're horrible.
We all do it.
We got to stop.
Explain this to us.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Sure.
Well, I can say that thestudents that I teach research,
they hate these things becausethey don't quite understand them
and they think well, why do Ineed to understand this?
And part of it, even outside ofthe research context, is being
able to think critically aboutarguments or claims that people
(12:36):
are making right.
They're fallacies and logicabout ad hominem attacks.
They're attacks made on aperson's character rather than
their ideas or their policies ortheir research findings.
And we see that a lot inpolitical discourse.
Where people point to anindividual's history of
(12:59):
infidelity is why we shouldn'ttrust their decisions on
domestic policies for example,right.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
One of the simple ones is well, he's fat.
So why should we listen to himabout anything, right?
I mean, why does he get a validopinion?
He's fat?
You know what a ridiculousthing.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right, right.
I think there was some researchthat talked about JFK's polling
numbers because he was sohandsome and he got a lot of
people to vote for him becausepeople liked the way he looked,
right.
I mean, that's exactly thatkind of character based
decision-making that is risky.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Um straw man is slightly different than that
right.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Yeah, and so the straw man is when we take um a
view or an idea and wemisrepresent it in a way to more
easily dismiss it.
Right, and it's we're kind ofgeneralizing their policy or
their viewpoint and it's it'sindicative of defensiveness,
(14:01):
right.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Yeah, I want to be careful with the examples that I
make Cause again, we don't talkpolitics but right, but you
know it's.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You're basically distorting an opponent's
argument by oversimplifying orexaggerating it in some way,
Right?
So you know you're not actuallyaddressing the argument, You're
addressing some, something.
You can pull out a thin airthat has some little bit of
relationship to what you'retalking about distracting.
I call that just deflect anddistract, deflect and discredit
(14:29):
you know you're deflecting theargument from what it really is
and, in doing so, discreditingthe person making the argument.
So these are things we.
I would like to see laws thatbad and hominin and straw man
tactics.
All right, let's go to the fourhorsemen specifically now and
talk about how they're relatingto our.
You know how they play a rolein social polarization.
(14:51):
So the first one was criticism.
Now, in relationships, we knowthat this erodes trust and bonds
between people.
What are the effects ofcriticism on social polarization
and what impact does it have onour public discourse?
And, in particular, we havethis thing now called social
media, which we use all the timefor this sort of thing.
(15:12):
So talk about criticism in thelarger perspective.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Yeah, so criticism, especially when it's personal
and harsh and this is kind ofthe type of criticism that we
tend to see on social mediaoften it essentially deepens
those divisions that you spokeabout and it really highlights
this us versus them mentalitywhere, instead of engaging with
(15:40):
differing perspectives andhaving a productive dialogue or
discourse, we're using thingslike inflammatory comments which
quickly escalate into hostilityand you know the the it becomes
productive very quickly.
It kind of fosters echochambers right where we're just
(16:03):
creating and engaging withpeople who share similar
viewpoints as ours and opposingviews are dismissed or, in this
case of criticism, reallyvilified.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
It's kind of like comfort food, isn't it?
We only want to be aroundwhat's comfortable.
We only want to talk aboutwhat's comfortable.
We don't want to be challengedwith opposing points of view.
Am I oversimplifying that?
Speaker 2 (16:29):
I mean, listen, I like a good oversimplification.
I think it helps make thingsyou know, especially concepts
like this, accessible.
But yeah, I think there'ssomething to be said for that.
And it's also oh gosh, I'mnever going to eat anything that
has Brussels sprouts in it,because I don't like Brussels
sprouts, and so I'm going toeliminate everything Brussels
sprouts from my diet.
And that may not be the case.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, yeah, it may not make any sense, all right,
next up the one that really doesthe damage contempt.
Yeah, contempt in relationshipswe discussed last week is the
most harmful of the fourhorsemen, and I'm pretty sure
it's the same in the broaderpicture of our society and
polarization, and something thatI see a lot of on social media.
(17:13):
Talk about contempt in ourbroader social dialogue.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Yeah, I'm also seeing a lot of that contempt,
especially in the politicaldiscussions and social media,
the things that are being postedon ex-formerly Twitter.
It really fosters thisdeep-seated disdain and
disrespect for people withdiffering or opposing views, and
(17:41):
in the public discourse itmanifests that through mockery,
sarcasm, belittling language,right the same things that we
would see in the romanticrelationships that we talked
about last time.
But it creates an environmentwhere empathy and understanding
and compassion don't exist andit creates barriers to, you know
(18:07):
, the important collaborationthat needs to happen across
ideological lines.
You know, whatever those arefor individuals, it kind of
keeps you entrenched in yourlane and it makes it difficult
to kind of foster solutions thatwork to everyone's benefit.
Right, I'm not going to workwith them because X, y, z.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Yeah and I.
A couple of things about thisone for me.
First of all, you know I had a.
My dad was a world war II vet.
He was a.
He was what we call a hard ass,and you know, his thing was how
do you know you're right?
How do you know you're right?
And I mean no, you're right now.
It's important to believe whatyou believe and fight for what
(18:49):
you believe in.
But what are you accomplishingwhen you're just shutting down
anybody who doesn't tacitlyagree with everything you say?
What is being accomplishedthere?
That's my question.
Nothing is being accomplishedthere, right?
That's not helping the thing.
And if you, you know, if youwant to bring someone to your
point of view, invite them in.
(19:10):
Don't shut the door down.
Am I right with that?
Would you agree?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
A hundred percent.
A hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Stop thinking that.
You know.
I mean, I had a collegeprofessor once tell me when I
was in my twenties and I wasacting a little uppity one day.
He was a college professor witha Swiss accent, so that made it
even more profound and he saidMatthew, god did not anoint you
to do a fucking thing.
And it was probably thegreatest lesson I got.
(19:36):
It was totally worth what Ipaid for the whole degree,
because his whole point was whoare you to think that you're
100% right?
Believe in what you believe in,fine, fight for that.
But don't just walk aroundassuming that everybody who
disagrees with you is wrong.
Fight for that.
But don't just walk aroundassuming that everybody who
disagrees with you is wrong.
Be a little more open to that.
Your brain will whine.
All right, this is a good placefor us to take a quick break.
When we come back, we'll have alittle more with Dr Nicole
(20:01):
Zamuda and the four horsemen ofthe apocalypse in terms of our
general society.
Hang tight.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Feeling overwhelmed, Struggling to find balance in
your daily life?
At Matt Brooks Coaching, we getit and we can help.
With over 25 years of nonprofitexecutive experience and an MSW
with a clinical focus, MattBrooks offers personalized
coaching designed to help yourise above your challenges and
live your best life.
(20:30):
Whether you aim to advance yourcareer, enhance your skills or
simply find more clarity andpeace, Matt is here to be your
partner and ally.
Visit mattbrookscoachingcom tobook your free discovery session
today.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Take the first step towards a brighter tomorrow day,
take the first step towards abrighter tomorrow.
Okay, picking up where we leftoff.
We got through two of the fourhorsemen.
We're going to pick up with thethird right now, which is
defensiveness.
Again, listen to our show lastweek.
You'll get a more thoroughdiscussion about what
defensiveness is in arelationship.
(21:06):
But let's talk aboutdefensiveness and, in particular
, let's discuss it in terms ofidentity.
Okay, because I think a lot ofour defensiveness in society
manifests from our identity, oursense of identity and sense of
other people's differences, andI think it comes our
(21:26):
defensiveness comes from when wefeel our identities are under
siege.
And I think it comes, ourdefensiveness comes from when we
feel our identities are undersiege.
Am I right, phyllis?
And what is defensiveness interms of the four horsemen and
how it relates to all this?
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Yeah.
So you know bell hooks is, youknow, known for, you know her
kind of claim that the personalis political.
And I think that for manypeople, when they perceive that
a particular issue that ispersonal to them is under attack
(21:58):
, is being criticized, we seethat defensiveness manifest, and
appropriately so right, becauseyou know people have you,
people have skin in the game, asit were.
But we also see thisdefensiveness when folks are
engaging in, again, thatdeflecting responsibility or
(22:21):
accountability, and so theyexperience that defensiveness
around a particular position andthen they may respond with
attacks and criticism themselvesand again it all serves to shut
down constructive dialogue.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
All serves to shut down constructive dialogue.
I want to hammer that because,again back to the question I
asked right before the breakwhat good are you doing?
What good is going to come ofthis if you just hold firm, if
you're sitting in the sandboxholding your breath because you
couldn't get your way?
What good is it doing?
Right?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Yeah, exactly, and I appreciate the emphasis on that
because really all of this comesdown to fostering more
productive communication in allof our relationships and I think
that you know to your pointabout the divisiveness.
Anything we can do to move theneedle forward to foster more
(23:20):
productive communication,particularly in these divisive
issues, is is a win in myopinion.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
You know, I worked for a while in a state that is
fully a different color than mypolitical views and I was
raising money as part of my workand so I had to keep my
political views to myself, whichis fine that's what I prefer to
do anyways.
But I got to know a lot ofpeople who believe very
differently than what I believe,and because I had to work with
(23:47):
them on a who believe verydifferently than what I believe,
and because I had to work withthem on a regular basis, after a
while I started noticing youknow, these are good family
people, these are good people.
These are people who contributeto their communities.
They aren't all just fanaticsor whatever.
Maybe there's something they'reseeing that I'm not.
It didn't necessarily change myviews, but it did open my mind
a little bit to say I'm notgoing to just shut these folks
(24:08):
out.
I need to pay attention becausethere's, there were some things
that I learned from them andhopefully, some things they
picked up from me, and that'show we we, we make our society
more productive.
Okay, let's go to the last oneof these four horsemen, again my
favorite, to hate this one.
I just hate this one.
It's called stonewalling.
Now, in relationships, we knowthis is a withdrawal from an
(24:29):
interaction and, as you coveredlast week, it can often be a
personal defensive move asopposed to you know, you're not
necessarily saying screw you toyour partner, you're kind of you
need to step back for yourself.
Okay, do you see parallels withpeople checking out of social
or political conversations, andis this a bad thing?
Speaker 2 (24:51):
out of social or political conversations, and is
this a bad thing?
You know?
I think that question reallyhints at the nuance that exists
in this area in particular and Iappreciate you're picking up on
that.
When people withdraw from theseconversations or these debates,
whether through disengaging,ignoring opposing views or just
(25:12):
altogether avoiding having theconversation to begin with,
avoiding these hot-button topics, they essentially stop
participating in dialogue thatcan be really meaningful and,
again, that prevents resolution,that prevents a path forward.
But we also have to rememberthat oftentimes, especially in
(25:35):
personal cases, right backtemporarily can be productive,
but just ignoring it altogetherand stepping out completely is
(25:56):
not the solution, that's not thelong-term solution and that
turns into apathy.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
It also seems a little bit cowardly to me.
You know, I mean stepping backfor a minute to regroup yourself
, totally fine, totally fair.
Stepping back for a week toregroup, but to walk away
completely, it just seems likeyou know, I'm just, you know, if
you believe so strongly in whatyou believe in, then be willing
to stand up for it, even whenthe going gets tough, even when
(26:26):
you're confronted with peoplewith solid arguments against you
.
For the most part, I thinkyou're both.
Both sides are going to comeout better for it.
But to just walk away, if it'snot in a sense of I need to, to
just take a take, you know,regroup myself, but if it's, I'm
just putting my hand up tothese people.
I'm never going to payattention.
I find that to be cowardice.
(26:47):
I do Now again.
I was raised by a World War IIvet who I said was a hard ass.
So you know, you confront yourproblems.
That's what I was raised with.
But do you, am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
I don't think you're wrong.
I also think that there arefolks for whom the disengaging
is an act of self-preservationand and it's it's necessary for
their survival, and that maybesounds hyperbolic, but I think
(27:17):
that there are some for whomthat is true, and so I think it
is on kind of like a case bycase basis and if, if you're
someone who had not engagedbecause it would, you know,
create further harm to you, thenyou know, find an accomplice
who can kind of step in and dothat work.
But if, if you have thecapacity to do it, I agree with
(27:40):
you.
I think.
You know I'm kind of someonewho believes that we have a
social responsibility.
I know I have an ethicalresponsibility to kind of engage
in those discussions, even ifthey're uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Well, I'm glad that we're having this conversation
because, as you know, I have areal pet peeve with ghosting.
I like really think it's like ahorrible thing.
But in doing some research onghosting, which I've been doing,
trying to learn more about, andI have read that there are
times where you ghost people forself-preservation, where you're
, in that sense, you're morecreating boundaries for yourself
and your life, and there arecertain people you're walking
(28:11):
away from.
You know, I might have a fewfamily members who I've walked
away from.
I know a lot of people who havethat.
But when you go someone justlike who's a friend and then
suddenly say you heard somethingthat upset you from someone
else and so you ghost thatfriend rather than confront it,
that that's just horrible In myopinion.
(28:32):
I really think that's just theworst thing ever.
All right, this has been agreat discussion, let's.
We've touched on this already,but how potent a force is social
media when it comes to the fourhorsemen in our current society
?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
social media when it comes to the four horsemen in
our current society,no-transcript using the four
horsemen more accessible or evenreferred right.
So we see kind of clickbaitarticles.
(29:13):
We see comments on someone'spost on social media.
There's a criticism right, aharsh personal attack that gets
reactions, which drivesengagement, which then
oftentimes drives monetizationright.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
No, it's totally it.
Fear is the number one hotbutton, button, right.
You press that button, you'regoing to get a reaction and if
it's on social media, that'sgoing to create more just what
you said more engagement, whichis going to create more revenue
for whoever's doing it.
So I'm sorry to interrupt you,but I think we've got to take
personal responsibility torealize that in some ways, we're
(29:52):
being played.
We're being played because ofour amygdalas.
Our amygdalas are the part ofour brain that puts up fight or
flight, right, fight or flight,and it's our protection
mechanism.
Fight or flight and it's ourprotection mechanism.
And there are people purposelymessing with it to get us upset
so that we'll keep clicking onthese things and they can make
more money.
Sorry to interrupt, but that'smy little rant for the day.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
No, I think it's appropriate right, and I'm glad
that it resonates right, thatyou're also seeing it right, we
have these structures, theseapps, these platforms, and it's
really designed to.
I mean, there are some goodplaces out there, right, there
are some social media for good,but a lot of it, like you said,
(30:38):
there are people that design itspecifically to capitalize on
our fears, our anger, and theymake money off of that.
And again, it kind of createsthat echo chamber and you know
the anonymity and distance thatis involved in social media,
right, like everybody, kind of,most people wear a mask on
(31:01):
social media, right, you don'treally have to know who each
other is.
That, I think, gives peoplelicense to go hard or go deep
with their attacks and theircriticisms because there's no,
you know, there's no consequence.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And I just wish people would understand exactly
what you just said, tounderstand that it will allow
you to let the worst of yourselfout, and maybe letting the
worst of yourself out is notsuch a good thing.
I'm just going to throw thatout there for people to mull in
their heads, but I don't wantsomething like you know.
I think a lot about mobmentality.
I've done a lot of reading onthis over the years.
(31:36):
Charles Mackay wrote the firstbig treaties on this in like
1850.
It is so easy to work up a mob.
It is so easy Like all you gotto do is touch that fear button
and everybody's got theirtorches lit and they're ready to
go.
And I think we've all got totake a little more
responsibility to stand up tothis because, yes, social media
has its wonderful elements, youknow, namely reuniting with
(32:00):
people you haven't seen in 30years.
You know things like that arewonderful, but we are.
Our fears are being played uponor preyed upon, in my opinion.
All right, okay, there wereantidotes to the four horsemen
that we talked about forrelationships.
How do they play out in thisbroader context?
Are there antidotes we can use?
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Yeah, I think the antidotes that are applicable in
our romantic relationships andour family relationships are
applicable in this broadersocial context.
So things like takingaccountability for things that
you may have said that are lessthan polite, less than
(32:41):
respectful, right Kind of owningthat and doing better, doing it
differently next time, thosegentle startups, those I
statements, can replacecriticism with more respectful,
solution-focused conversations.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
In case anybody didn't hear last week, talk a
little bit briefly about Istatements.
What do you mean by Istatements?
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Yes, thank you for that reminder.
So, in the context of debate orconcern or conflict, I
statements are ways that you canexpress what you're seeing,
what you're noticing, whatyou're feeling, without blaming
(33:25):
or accusing or drawing anyconclusions about what the other
person is doing intentionallyor what might be going on for
the other person.
So I feel disappointed when yousay things like fill in the
blank, as opposed to, you'resuch a jerk, how could you say
(33:47):
that?
It sounds very different, yeah,yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
How we couch it Okay.
Yeah, I think we've got a lot.
We need a lot of anecdotes.
We need, we need some to beflying out of I don't know in
our atmosphere, in our water orsomething.
We all need to chill out just alittle bit.
We just do, we just got to calmdown a little bit.
You know, I remember I used tobe really obsessed with studying
presidential history andpolitical history and I think
(34:15):
it's really interesting that youbrought up how our country was
founded, might in some way speakto polarization.
I think I'm going to really letthat swirl around in my brain
for a while and think thatthrough.
But I do remember that in thepast political enemies in
quotations I say we're oftenfriends behind the scenes they
embrace the idea that politicsis the art of compromise,
(34:36):
politics is war.
You know they, and one of myfavorite stories I'm going to
tell really briefly has to dowith LBJ and Everett Dirksen,
who I believe was a Senatemajority leader or something
back in the time, and they were,you know, everett was a
Republican and LBJ was aDemocrat, I believe, and they
were often opposed to each otherbut they would get together in
the evening and have drinks.
(34:57):
They were both Southern boysand they'd laugh and joke about
how they were fighting eachother all day on TV.
But it was, you know, it's allpart of the game to them, right?
And they would.
And there was this great storythat Jack Valenti, who was a
senior advisor to LBJ, told insome documentary I watched,
where apparently they gettogether and they have drinks.
And you know, lbj would say now,everett, I need these three
(35:21):
votes, you got to give me thesethree votes, you got to get them
for me.
And Everett would say well, mrPresident, I'll take a look at
those ideas and we'll see whatwe can do.
And then they'd go back todrinking for a while and then
they'd laugh and they'd have afew things.
And then, about 20 minuteslater, everett Dirksen would say
now you know, mr President, Ihave here a list of three names
of people that I'd like to seeon the federal bench.
(35:42):
I hope you will give them yourevery consideration and hand
over the list.
And the president would say Iwill definitely have these names
vetted, we'll see what we cando.
And the deal was done.
In other words, they each gotsomething they needed, they
wanted.
So they found a way, despitetheir division.
Now some people might saythat's corrupt.
It's not corrupt, that's that's.
Our government is set right nowon a two party system, so they
(36:04):
found a way to work together toeach get something that was
important to them.
I wish we could get back toengaging each other like that,
you know, and I hope we can,because these negative patterns
of the four horsemen, I think,are eating us alive and I think
we're all walking around angry,am I right?
We're all just.
It just just seems like there'sjust anger in the air all the
(36:25):
time.
Wouldn't it be nice to get backto I'm not talking painting
happy little pictures in ourstudios at home, but we could
chill out just a little bit.
Any final thoughts on this fromyou, dr Z?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Well, I'm a fan of Bob Ross and his happy little
trees, so we could maybe do alittle bit more with them.
But I hear you, I think thatthere is something to be said
about the lost art of compromiseand negotiation, and it's not
so much that kind of quid proquo that I think people like to
look at with side eye.
But it's really okay.
(36:56):
How can we come together andhow can we work for the common
good?
It's not just what I want or myagenda, because to your point,
you may have a good idea, butthat doesn't mean that's the
only idea or that is the idearight.
We have to find ways to buildeverybody up.
(37:18):
And I, you know, sometimes Ifeel like and this is, you know,
maybe maybe just me butsometimes I feel like we're
descending into an idiocracy.
I don't know if you've seenthat movie, mike Judge movie,
but I try to do my part, youknow, and I think, as a
therapist, I encourage folks to,you know, use skills so that
(37:38):
they can kind of take care ofthemselves when they feel like
they may be under attack andthey're feeling defensive, how
they can continue to engage inprogressive dialogue or focus on
the solution.
But you know, I try to employsome of these antidotes into my
social interactions, asdifficult as it may be.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
And you know, compromise doesn't necessarily
mean you're selling out.
Compromise shows respect fordifferent points of view.
It shows that you know, I thinkwhat LBJ and Everett Dirksen
were doing was respecting eachother's positions.
They each had jobs to do.
They each worked for adifferent political party, they
each had responsibilities.
They were going to help eachother meet a couple of those
(38:18):
responsibilities.
And respect, boy, there issomething we got to get back to
respect.
I respect the fact that peoplegrew up believing something
different than me, because whoam I to know that I'm right?
You know, I think I'm right.
I'm going to stick with what Ibelieve, but I'm really not
going to bash anybody who feelsdifferently anymore.
It's not doing any good, anygood at all, all right.
(38:41):
Well, dr Nicole Zamuda, you arethe best.
I hope I'll get you back on oneof these shows again in the
future for another interestingtopic.
But a million thanks for comingon.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Happy to be here and can't wait to hear the episode
about news resolutions.
I know I need help with that.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
It's a short one too.
That's a six, 17 minute one, so, but it's just.
It gives you some ideas aboutwhy we don't carry through with
our resolutions and a fewthoughts about how to do it.
But the real way to carrythrough with a resolution is to
hire Matt Brooks as your lifecoach.
I'm going to help you with allyour resolutions, anyways, thank
you all for listening today.
Again, if you have an idea fora show that you'd like to hear,
(39:19):
please shoot me an email, matt,at Matt Brooks coaching dot com.
I'd love to hear from you andget your ideas at
brookscoachingcom.
I'd love to hear from you andget your ideas, and if it's
something that I feelcomfortable with, I will be
happy to do it.
For now, thanks to Dr Zamuda.
Thank you all for listening.
Be well, and I'll catch younext time on the Barrier Busting
Podcast.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com