You can also listen to this episode on Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Meg Josephson is a psychotherapist and the author of the instant New York Times bestseller, Are You Mad at Me?: How to Stop Focusing on What Other People Think and Start Living for You.

I’m not surprised that this book and Meg’s approach has struck such a nerve in the culture. I certainly relate, and suspect many of you will, too.

Today, we’re talking about the fawn response that Meg writes about and helps her clients with. You’re likely familiar with the other responses: fight, flight, freeze, and perhaps faint.

The fawn response has a lot to do with people-pleasing tendencies; with a desire to be liked; and with a desire to keep the peace in a given situation. If you worry about disappointing other people…if you worry about other people being mad at you…if you’re like me and your first thought is often, Am I in trouble? — You may be prone to the fawn response.

As we talk about today, the fawn response is really a protective and wise strategy that many of us have learned and used to keep ourselves safe. And at the same time, we may have gotten to the point where we are overusing it, and we may want to choose something else for ourselves and our relationships.

So, Meg breaks down what she sees as the five archetypes or behavioral patterns typically associated with the fawn response—because this can look different for different people. And we also talk about what underlies these archetypes; and how—in recognizing ourselves in them—we can also begin to expand into new ways of being, and into new relationship patterns.

I loved talking to Meg about all of this.

Are You Mad at Me?: How to Stop Focusing on What Other People Think and Start Living for You

Follow Meg on Instagram

ELISE:

It’s really nice to meet you and congrats on the success of your book. Thank you. That’s always thrilling to have something that’s clearly so resonant, understandably resonant in the culture.

MEG:

Yeah. I mean, it was ... I’m sure you can relate to this feeling of when you’re sharing something so personal. My experience was I was writing it for me. I was writing it for a past version of myself, and even while writing it, I felt pretty alone in the feeling. I knew it would resonate. I see this feeling in my private practice. I know other people feel it, but there was still this voice that was like, “Nah, just you. “ No one else feels that. So I was really comforted by the resonance of, wow, other people-

ELISE:

Everyone else. Yeah. Yeah. And obviously fawning is having a moment and it’s always fun to read a book that’s mostly grounded in stories and practices. I love an academic book, but not everyone does.

MEG:

Totally. Yeah. Yeah. And you never know what the entry point is for the reader. I would hate for someone to turn away from it because it felt intimidating or too clinical. So I was really mindful of that while writing it. I want to share research and ground information, but I also, I don’t know who’s reading this and I want it to feel accessible to whoever’s picking it up. So that’s a tough balance though, because people are at different points in their process.

ELISE:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I’m sure every other reader of the book, I’ve found myself nodding along and diagnosing myself. And I’ve definitely had that conversation with my therapist where, and I have this reaction to getting any sort of text where someone wants to speak to me. It’s always like, am I in trouble? I mean, it’s wild. I’m a 40. How old am I? 46, something like that. Maybe I’m 47. But yeah, that’s a recurrent thought for me. Not so much with my parents, but more sort of within the culture where it’s like someone’s of disappointed someone. And I recognize that’s both highly abnormal and also incredibly so common, right? You’re naming something that I think is so common and yet previously not discussed that it’s like, “Well, I thought we all operated like this. “

MEG:

Totally. And so much of it is happening in the privacy of our minds. So I think that adds to the loneliness. Someone may look very confident and cool and collected in their relationships, but then what’s happening internally, we’re not let in on that. Or maybe we are, maybe the other person, I love your cats just like- Zooming

ELISE:

Around. Yes.

MEG:

Four. I have

ELISE:

Four. Yeah. Oh,

MEG:

Wow. I love that.

ELISE:

Yes.

MEG:

I actually like your point of age because it’s a timeless feeling because I think for many of us, it’s this younger part of us that has learned to be hypervigilant and learned to be scanning the environment. Do they like me? What do they think of me? That part of us is always there, whether we’re 25, 45, 85. And that to me is the beautiful part of this work is creating a relationship with that part of ourselves, knowing this part is not going anywhere. We can kind of be friends with them in some ways.

ELISE:

Yeah. It’s also, I think when we talk about, and I learned the fear responses in addition to the ones that you name, fight, flight, freeze, fawn. I also learned faint. I know it’s maybe not quite as discussed or people feel like it’s too close to maybe freeze, but that’s like the playing dead version of it. But I think that what is also important to normalize and that these are all ways in which we engage with life and maybe we each have sort of a tendency mine is certainly fawn, but that the underlying fear, which drives us into this behavior is just part of life. And we all are going to respond, particularly now, where we’re dealing with all these poly crises and confronted with it daily. So it’s not even just AI and the climate and ice and it’s the economy, whatever it is, it’s just ... And then we read it, we see it all day.

And so these are wise patterns for trying to manage our own anxiety. And you see how it shows up. Right. So wise. How do I calm myself down? And you can understand too how these responses get so aggravated in a culture where you’re like, “Well, I better not get fired.”

MEG:

I can’t afford to get fired. I have to appease, I have to abandon myself to keep the security. And that’s where I think the nuance of the fond response is so important where I think we’ve kind of overcompensated in mainstream psychology, just the way we talk about it in our culture of, “Oh, just set a boundary or just say no.” And there’s nuance. Sometimes we can’t. Sometimes it’s unsafe to, and the fond response is very protective, brilliant, wise to your word strategy to keep us safe. Sometimes we need it, whether it’s to be safe, whether it’s to get a paycheck, whatever it may be to survive within our systems, it becomes hurtful to ourselves and to our relationships when we’re doing it all the time, when we’re doing it with our loving partner or with our best friend that we’ve known since childhood and they’re very safe, when we’re people pleasing in all relationships when we don’t need to be, that’s when it takes a toll on us.

ELISE:

Yeah. It’s wild. I mean, I don’t want to take the conversation deep into this direction too, but even just thinking about the tragedy of Renee Goode and her, she elicited a fond response in the moments before she was shot in the face three times, right? She said, “It’s okay, dude. I’m not mad at you. “

MEG:

I was about to say the fact that you said those words, “I’m not mad. I’m not mad.” And sometimes it’s still not enough. It’s not enough against the oppressive forces that we are working against. Yeah, it’s very real.

ELISE:

It’s super real. And I think that ... And so again, just caveating before we dive into this, that even as you will invariably diagnose yourself in the pages of your book and in this conversation and be like, “Oh my God, I do that all the time.” And we can choose to do something different.

And it’s a completely understandable response. And it’s, I think, very relieving. And there was that piece that really punctured the mainstream in the New York Times in terms of how women respond to sexual trauma. It can be very reassuring or confirming that you’re not necessarily collaborating with your abusers or asking for whatever might be happening to you. You’re just trying to stay alive, right? It is a way to mitigate the threat to minimize harm and too often until the last five years maybe, we’ve been caught holding that bag as though we are sort of co-creators or co-participants and whatever’s happening to us because we didn’t fight or we didn’t run or we didn’t ...

MEG:

We couldn’t have.

ELISE:

Yeah.

MEG:

Yeah. And I think that’s what can be confusing about the fond response if we’re looking at just those four, but even I think faint would fall into this as well. Of those other, the fight, flight, freeze, if you were to do that at work or in a setting that it wouldn’t be socially acceptable, there’s some punishment for that. If you’re fighting, flighting, freezing at work, or in a situation where someone is trying to control you, that’s going to compromise your safety even more, but the fon response is the only one that we’re applauded for. “Oh, you’re so easy. You’re so agreeable. Oh, you’re such a good girl. There’s such a conditioned socialized element to it as well, which differs highly from the other threat responses. So it’s very reinforced.

ELISE:

Yeah. I’m assuming, and I don’t know if there’s research that fawn is more commonly practiced by women, although not exclusively, certainly. Whereas what do we want? What’s the culturally mandated fear response for men, fight?

MEG:

I would say fawn is interesting where I think it is ... I see it all the time in men, but I think it presents differently where I think because the fawn response is about finding safety by sometimes being a chameleon or silencing yourself. I think for women, if I’m generalizing, it tends to be more active. “Oh, I’m so sorry, overapologizing, whatever you think, it’s more of an active approach. I find that for, again, generalizing for men, it tends to be more self-silencing emotions, which is true for women as well, but blending in with the male, the group that they’re trying to accommodate to. And I see that in my practice, if it’s a closeted gay man and he’s changing how he’s speaking to fit in with the super masculine group that he’s with, changing how he speaks or how he talks. And I think it appears differently.

But most importantly, what I’m saying here is it’s every person it’s different. It can look so different. It can be more active. It can be more self-shutting down in some ways, but the thread is the same, which is, “ I find safety through pleasing you. I can’t be safe until I know you like me. I can’t know that I’m good until we’re good. “So that will look different based on the identities that you hold and the spaces that you’re entering, but I definitely think it’s more socialized for women, that’s for sure.

ELISE:

Yeah. No, you have to wonder too, we’re recording this in the days after the men won the gold and men’s hockey and you have to wonder how many players ... I know five players did not go to the White House. I don’t know if they did it for political reasons or not or in solidarity with the women, but you have to wonder how many of those boy/men did not know how to respond in that

MEG:

Moment

ELISE:

Versus those who were like, “ This is so great to be partying

MEG:

With

ELISE:

Kesh Patel. “Oh, so embarrassing. My husband’s a huge hockey fan and he was so humiliated. So mortifying. So mortified by his support. It’s such a bummer. It’s like, “ God, it’s not that hard.

MEG:

“God. I know. Such a bummer. And oh my gosh, it speaks to such an important piece of it. When someone is in power and it’s so easy to collapse and fawn under them because there’s this authoritative, there’s this control thing happening. Even if you’re on the phone with Trump and you agree with him or you don’t, there’s some fear,” Oh, this person’s in power over me. “That can also mess with the phone response. I need to please this authoritative figure. Totally. “This authoritative figure can’t be mad at me, “ or whatever it may be. So, oh my gosh. Yeah, that was- Well,

ELISE:

Corporations across the country are fawning, right? As a mass action. Yeah.

MEG:

Totally.

ELISE:

At the beginning, you sort of outline, I would call them archetypes almost, the caregiver, the lone wolf, et cetera. Can you take us through the, I guess you would call them behavioral patterns that people might relate to?

MEG:

Totally. I wrote these archetypes to showcase just how different they can present different the fond response can present amongst all of us, whether it was in your early environment, whether it’s in adulthood. And I really view these archetypes not diagnostically. And I don’t view the fond response diagnostically either, but to your exact point, it’s a pattern. It’s showcasing, it’s putting words to a behavioral pattern that we have that has kept us safe and sometimes we need it, sometimes we don’t, and we’re cultivating awareness to recognize the instances where we’re using it when we don’t need to, so that we can shed that pattern. So another thing just to preface is you might resonate with all of them, you might resonate with four of them, you might resonate with one of them. There’s meant to be overlap. They’re not personality types to cling to, but rather just reflective prompts.

So the peacekeeper is the first one, well, just one of them, the first one that comes to my head though, they’re not ranked. There’s no hierarchy to this.

ELISE:

Enneagram nine for people who love the Enneagram.

MEG:

So don’t attach to the order in which I’m presenting these. So the peacekeeper is really focused on how is the harmony of the environment? How’s the harmony of this relationship, whether that presents itself in a lot of hypervigilance. So just scanning people’s facial expressions and did they laugh at my joke and are my parents fighting? What can I do to make their relationship more harmonious? So this peacekeeper quality I think presents itself in all of the archetypes, but the peacekeeper is, I think, unique in that that’s their main sense of value is my sense of self comes from keeping the peace, however that may look in each situation. And then another one is the performer. So I actually loved writing this because I think of someone said this quote, I wish I’d remember, some comedian said this quote of, people often ask, “Oh, you’re a comedian where your parent...” Damn it, I already messed up.

You’re a comedian where you depressed growing up. And the comedian said, “You should really be asking were your parents depressed because how is humor be used to soothe the tension at home growing up?” Doesn’t have to be the case sermonly for every comedian and not for every performer archetype, but the performer really finds safety in putting on a bit of a show. And whether that’s through humor, whether that’s through orchestrating conversation so that the other people are connecting, there’s this sense of performing, but not in a fake ... It doesn’t mean you’re being fake. It just means you’re really on all the time. And the performer often feels, and this is true, I think for all the archetypes, but especially performer, no one really knows me because no one can really get to know me beneath this character that I’m putting on for people. And again, that is true for all of, I think, the fond response, which is it keeps people at a distance.

If we’re only showing people the most perfect, curated version of ourselves, how can people know our fears and our needs and our preferences because we’re just saying, “Yay, yeah, whatever you think. “ And no, that’s totally fine. But then inside we’re resentful and upset and angry, but we’re not able to express it ever. So the performer feels that a lot. I’ll just stick with the peas. The perfectionist is another one, which the perfectionist finds safety in often overachieving, in just appearing and being perceived as perfect. And I think with perfect also is good. Being perceived as good as a good person will put a lot of value in how much external validation they’re getting and just really hard on themselves because if you’re perfect, there’s nothing to criticize, right? Ideally. So if they’re kind of staying ahead of the criticism, that’s sort of the core belief.

I need to be perfect to be loved. No one’s going to love me if I’m messy or ... But that’s also very lonely. What is perfect doesn’t exist, as we know, and what does it mean to be perfect? It means we’re concealing humanity within ourselves. I think a good-

ELISE:

Two Cs and an L.

MEG:

Yeah, perfect. I’m going to segue to the caretaker because I think it’s a good segue from perfectionist, which is my values in being helpful. The caretaker finds safety and self-sacrifice. And it just doesn’t mean that if you’re healing this part of you, you’re never helping anyone, but it’s coming from a different place. The caretaker finds value in being seen as helpful. Even if they’re resentful about it, even if they don’t actually mean it, they don’t want to do it. It’s coming from a place of being perceived as nice as opposed to true, genuine compassion doesn’t mean that there isn’t genuine desire to help. It’s coming from that people please place. So the caretaker may have had to caretake for their parents or a disabled sibling growing up. It can present a lot of different ways in childhood, but how it presents in adulthood is often being drawn to a partner that you kind of need to mother or parent in some ways.

It mimics that dynamic that you experienced growing up. Oh, I should have done that for all of them of what you’re kind of attracted to from that,

But what about this feels familiar? We like what’s familiar because we say, “Oh, I’ve seen this before. I know how to do this. “ So if we’re with someone, if we had a very critical caregiver unconsciously, keyword unconsciously because we’re not trying to, we’re going to be drawn to someone that’s critical because we think I know how to act with this person. And then there’s a deeper belief that says, “Oh, if I can be good enough for this person, it’ll fix the original wound that I have, the core wound.” Of course, it doesn’t work, but that’s the unconscious gravitational pull. And when we can become aware of that, that’s when we can start to break it.

ELISE:

So just to retread on the other piece, so the performer might want to ... I mean, I think we all know those people who can’t be intimate or serious, right? They turn to humor to avoid any ... Everything feels uncomfortable, I would imagine. Vulnerability is

MEG:

Very scary. Yeah.

ELISE:

Yeah. Yeah. That would make sense to me as the adult partner seeking part of that.

MEG:

Totally. Yep.

ELISE:

And then what was the first one?

MEG:

Peacekeeper.

ELISE:

Peacekeeper.

MEG:

Peacekeeper. Yeah. I would say, I mean, as I said, they all kind of overlap. I think peacekeeper ... I just get a sense of this quote type is, “I don’t know you. I almost know you, but I can’t quite get my grip on you. I can’t feel you here with me because there’s just this distance because your focus is on harmony, not depth.”

ELISE:

Extreme avoidance, I would imagine.

MEG:

Yeah. Avoidance of all of them, all of these avoidance of conflict is a huge, huge theme because we think, “Oh, if I’m in conflict with someone, there’s no going back. The relationship is ruined.” This has been such a big thing I’ve had to work through to the point where when I got my dog, this is insanely embarrassing, but it’s just true. I honestly was scared. He was mad at me. If I’m training my dog, I was like, “Oh my gosh, does he not ... I didn’t give him a treat because he didn’t sit. Are we okay now? Or do you think that the relationship is over?” There was this permanency in my mind, it’s such a silly example, but it applies to human relationships too, of there’s no going back. We can’t recover from this because we probably didn’t witness repair growing up. We never saw a coming together, an acknowledgement after the conflict.

I know for me, conflict was, it was very explosive, very rageful, and then it was never talked about again. And that happened pretty much daily. And that’s so confusing for a child because we learn it’s my fault, I’m the problem here. So yeah, I’m pivoting all over, but I know I’ve-

ELISE:

No, it’s

MEG:

Okay.

ELISE:

People can track it. We have chameleon and lone wolf.

MEG:

Yes. So let me start with ... I’ll start with the chameleon, because I view lone wolf as a little different from the others. So chameleon finds safety in blending in, as the name suggests, and will kind of morph themselves to fit whoever they’re with, their opinions, their preferences, maybe even how they dress, how they talk, and can just leave them feeling, “I don’t know who I am. I actually have no idea what my true personality is, “ which is also very lonely. All of these have, there’s a loneliness to all of these, but on the outside, it may appear on the surface, “Wow, this person is just like me. We get along so well,” but the person being the chameleon feels a bit lost, a bit like they’re betraying themselves every time they morph.

ELISE:

Well, it’s a little bit like maybe those hockey players or when you are participating

MEG:

In a

ELISE:

Culture that you’re like, “I’m so deeply uncomfortable.” But what was striking in reading the book too about chameleon, and I can understand this deeply, is that when you are so other oriented, which so many of us are, particularly when you’re managing these external environments

MEG:

Growing

ELISE:

Up, trying to peacekeep or caretake or whatever it may be, you lose contact or maybe you never develop contact with that internal ballast or who you are, what you want. I mean, you write about this a lot. So I would imagine for a chameleon, there’s this feeling of uneasiness and also, but I don’t have anything to replace it with. I feel disconnected, confused, and what duck am I following?

MEG:

Totally. And that becomes the sense of self is finding it in other people, finding what other people are thinking and doing. And I found personally that that chameleon aspect comes out the most in adulthood because as a child, I think it’s really laid out what quote success is or being quote good is get good grades. And maybe if you’re on this path, go to college and whatever, it’s more laid out. But I think once we’re adults, we now need to decide, well, what do I want to do with my time? What do I think? What are my opinions? What are my passions? And when we haven’t had connection with our inner world for two decades, those questions are very scary. There’s no anchor. It’s hard to tether ourselves when we have found safety in hyper focusing on the external and being completely disconnected from the internal.

So yeah, that’s definitely a huge, huge piece of chameleon.

ELISE:

Yeah. Before we get to the lone wolf too, one thing that I think is so consistent across this pattern, which you also explore, but there’s this overempowerment, right? These big little kids, I’m sure many can relate to that feeling where I definitely felt this way, where I had a lot of power to, or at least that was my perception, to manage the energy of a room or to bring things into concordance or create resonance. And that’s theoretically all well and good, except you grow up with a very distorted sense of how much responsibility you have for the feelings of other people, which is core to your book and your work, that you’re responsible for how they feel, which is wild when you say it, but I think a deep belief for many of us and that you can control the environment to ensure everyone feels good, also a wild belief and that it’s your responsibility.

And it brings with it also this extreme self-consciousness, which is ironic because you spend your whole life focusing on not your own interior experience, but how do I manage my interior experience by managing all of you?

MEG:

Exhausting. It’s

ELISE:

Exhausting.

MEG:

You use the perfect word. I love the word distorted for that because we’re overestimating how much control we have and oh my gosh, how tiring to think that we can control someone’s behavior or reactions or perceptions if we can’t, obviously, we can’t control how we’re being perceived, how someone’s going to react. We can only control our own words and behaviors and reactions ourselves, but if we go through the world thinking we can control everyone, that takes such a toll on the body, which is why I think many people who find this work or they reach a point where they’re picking up a book about this topic is, “I’m exhausted. I’m resentful. I feel like I’m giving so much and it’s not being reciprocated or I’m overthinking everything in my life.” We can’t do it forever. It gets to a point where the body says, “No more.” Whether it’s showing up somatically, whether it’s presenting itself in other ways, it’s going to talk to you.

It definitely is. Yeah.

ELISE:

All right. Talk to me about the lone wolf. Lone

MEG:

Wolf. Yeah. So

Lone Wolf, I was almost even a little surprised that I put it in because you might associate the other archetypes, you might associate the fond response, rooted in more anxious attachment. It’s more leaning in, “Are we okay? Are you mad at me? Is everything okay?” But I think the lone wolf is really important. It skews more avoidant if we’re speaking in attachment theory, but the lone wolf is still focused on what do people think of me, but find safety in Retreating. Because if you disappear, you can’t inconvenience anyone. And if you have no needs, you can’t be let down. If you’re never asking for help, you can’t be disappointed. And so I think that can often coincide with these more anxious behaviors because we’re never sharing how we’re feeling. We’re never sharing our vulnerabilities or our struggles because I’ll handle it. I can do it.

I’ll figure it out myself. There’s the hyperindependence to it, which is something that I think is my greatest thing to work on in this lifetime is just asking for help. And it’s so hard. It’s hard because when you’re super self-sufficient, you get good at it. Well, I can count on me. I got me, but it’s not connection. Connection is everything. So yeah, that’s the lone wolf. Oh, the lone wolf can feel, I think unlike the other ones, can feel very smothered very easily. They also tend to ... They may not ask, “Are you mad at me? “ But they’re thinking it. They’re dealing with it by probably not responding or by avoiding and shutting down as opposed to trying to fix it right away. So the lone wolf is just, yeah, they retreat for safety. They become small for safety. So yeah.

ELISE:

Yeah.

MEG:

Those are the archetypes.

ELISE:

Yeah. I think, I mean, I relate to components of all of them, but I definitely was like, “Oh, I’m a lone wolf.” The overcompetence, that resistance to help, even though I so desperately, I’m like, “God, I would love to have a me for me. “ And yeah, like doing that for other people and yet struggle to find that or accept that or not be disappointed in that. Yeah. So definitely, I mean, it was self-identifying. We all love that, right?

MEG:

We do. That’s why I always preface it with, this isn’t a personality. We do love those things. We love categories. We love understanding ourselves. And these aren’t meant to be personality types because they’re not permanent. Nothing is, but we’re identifying something actually so that we can move through it and forward from it and detach our identity from, “Oh, I’m such a peacekeeper. I’m such a this. “ Creating some distance. This has protected me a lot in the past. It will continue in the future, but this is not all of me. I have enough awareness and space to observe it as it’s

ELISE:

Happening. Yeah, to see the tendencies. I mean, they really do. There aren’t nine of them that you’ve outlined, but they do. I don’t know how well you know the Enneagram, but they very much align with the Enneagram. The type five would be the lone wolf. The type two would be the caregiver. The type nine is the peacekeeper. So it’s interesting to sort of see them in that context. The perfectionist is the type three.

MEG:

Is it one or three that find safety in being good? Which one is that?

ELISE:

One. Yes. The one is all about integrity. Yes. Yes. So that would be perceived

MEG:

As

ELISE:

Perfectionists. So

MEG:

Fond in general. I’m like-

ELISE:

One, three. Yeah. The three is the achiever. So that’s sort of that part of the perfectionist. I’ll just go and win and create sort of an island of excellence over here. The performer would be more of the seven. Let’s just get us out of these hard feelings. Yeah.

MEG:

Yeah.

ELISE:

Those

MEG:

Parallels. I love that.

ELISE:

Yeah, it’d be fun. It’s your next book. Just kidding. Yeah.

MEG:

Perfect.

ELISE:

Let’s talk about anger because obviously that’s a big part of the book. And I will just preface this by saying, as I was reading the book, reading about sort of stewing and resentment, which is far more familiar to me than

Anger. So I want to talk about resentment as this low grade anger, but also as someone who identifies with what you’re putting down, my relationship with anger has been ... I didn’t really understand it until recently, how much I stuff. And I’ve had some experiences with actually feeling my anger in a contextless way where I’m suddenly like, oh, I’m just full of anger and working with energy healers and whatnot. But what was really interesting to me too, and I felt seen in this book is that often when I’m engaged in something in a conversation, I can’t identify in the moment. I am so self-managed and I’m so cognitive that I will be furious and I don’t know that I’m furious until hours, if not days after, which can be very confusing to people because I don’t have a flared rage response. It’s so contained. And I can’t feel that fast, Meg.

I don’t know what it is because I’m so cognitively quick, but it’s a really weird experience. Do you relate to that?

MEG:

Yes, me too. And I actually think that’s-

ELISE:

What is that?

MEG:

I think that’s very normal because when self-management, when being a peacekeepery, people please type is familiar to you, that’s so deeply embedded where it’s okay if your understanding of anger comes a little later because it also is a deep emotion that perhaps takes time to even process that this is anger because anger is saying something isn’t right, something is unjust, this isn’t aligning with something I feel or believe in. And sometimes because those are values, that’s something so deeply embedded within us, sometimes we don’t have that space in the moment, in the conversation to access that, or it’s unsafe to access it. I know for me with anger, I almost always will give myself a little bit of time to sit with it. Well, what is happening here? And once I start having a fake argument in my head, that’s what I know. There’s unprocessed anger in the car saying, “I’m okay.” Yeah, there’s something here, but I think it’s okay.

That’s been my experience with anger as well. I think it’s a hot, tight, fiery emotion, but it’s also a slow burning, can be a slow burning one. I think because we associate anger and we associate the reaction to anger as anger, you know what I mean? Anger is also- As like an

ELISE:

Eruption, as a conflagration, a big conflict.

MEG:

Yeah. I think that it’s so important. I actually love what you’re saying because let’s separate anger, which is what I just said of it’s saying something isn’t right here. The reaction to anger is maybe someone’s yelling or slamming a door or saying something insulting, that’s a reaction in the moment to anger, but that’s not anger. That’s the reaction to it. Anger itself is the information. And so I actually think it’s warranted and appropriate that it takes a little bit of time because information takes time to come through into our bodies and into our minds. So I think it just means you’re not reacting to it, you’re giving it some space. I certainly have the same process where even in the moment I could have a conversation be like, “Oh, that was great.” And then after the fact, I’m like, “Wait, what just happened?” And then sometimes it takes days for me to process a conversation that didn’t sit right with me or was hurtful.

So anger is more-

ELISE:

No, I very much relate to that. Yeah. And it’s a weird experience to then ... Sometimes I’ll be present and I’ll be like, “I can tell how irritated I am or upset or how violated I feel

MEG:

Or

ELISE:

Betrayed and I don’t know how to respond and often I need to do it sort of in writing, but it is a weird experience. It’s been very present for me. I had a falling out in the last year where as it was unfolding, I couldn’t figure out how I felt. And it took me a week or two to be like, wait, whoa.” For my feelings to catch up with all the rationalization and justification that my mind had already done because I’m so quick to be like,

MEG:

“It’s okay.” Of course. Yeah. Yeah.

Even that though, you mentioned something so subtle of even if there’s a shift of you find yourself being even more people pleasy than you would, that could be a sign that some anger is coming up in the moment because there’s a part of you that believes I need to control this. Reel it in. I can’t be feeling this right now. So I’m going to be like, “No, no, no. It’s totally okay.” That can often be a sign that anger is presenting itself. It just might be covered by something else, maybe covered by compliance or however it’s presenting. And you also mentioned somatically, tapping into the body can feel very hard for fauners because as we’ve discussed, disconnecting from the body has been the go- to, sensing something’s off, something’s changed. I feel my palms are a little sweaty. My heart is starting to race. That can just be a sign that something is happening.

It’s okay if you can’t acknowledge it or do anything with it in the moment, take some space and revisit it. What happened here? Close your eyes, put your phone down and just tune into even that sensation I think is a helpful starting point without needing to figure it out or analyze it, but it’s just there. Just notice that shift, which can be so hard to do and we haven’t learned how to do that. So it’s very challenging.

ELISE:

It is. And I think as a perfectionist too, giving myself and giving ourselves some grace in terms of how we react, the pressure that sometimes I feel to really do it right and have it not be messy and have it be so abundantly clear is

Unwarranted or just not human. Yeah. I also find, and this is a persistent thing for me that I don’t know if this is ... Sorry, I’m turning this into a personal- Oh, I love it. Therapy appointment. I love all of your thoughts. But I mean, so much of my work is about goodness and women and the way that we do this. And so the other thing that I find is that I have these certain, I don’t know if I would call them values or needs or just hopes really in relationships that I don’t make people pass some crazy loyalty tests, but there are just certain lines for me. And it feels very weird to be like, “This is the line.” And yet, do you know what I mean? I continually am shocked by how people justify ... I don’t know. I get very confused. I’m not being specific here intentionally, but-

MEG:

Are you

ELISE:

Saying you’re confusing

MEG:

Your own lines or other people’s lines?

ELISE:

Well, I get confused where I’m like, “It’s not that hard. This doesn’t feel like this line is that hard. And I’m not going to tell you this is a line. I’m not going to control your behavior and yet how can you be surprised that this is a line?” I don’t know.

MEG:

I think it’s good information of, I’ll often discuss this of, you’re either getting closeness or clarity, you’re either getting, “Okay, we’re on the same page, we have the same values and we are both good communicators and that will lead to closeness.” And sometimes I think with people we may not be on the same page with or we’re not able to meet each other in that way, if we can’t have that closeness, we have clarity. “Oh, okay. I just simply can’t expect this from this person. This is more of an internal shift now. I can’t change this person. I’m not going to force this to work. I instead need to let go of what I’m expecting this other person to give me or who this person is. “I don’t know if I’m speaking to

ELISE:

What- No, it is. I mean, this is the conversation in the book about where you’re clarifying this idea of boundaries, which obviously gets bandied around. And while we can’t set boundaries for the behavior of other people, we can set boundaries for what we ourselves will tolerate or allow, right? I mean, am I understanding that distinction? And again, what I’m talking about is here’s a boundary for me, that boundary has been violated. Now I feel bad that I have this boundary that’s been violated or that this is a boundary for me. And I guess what you’re saying is, well, it’s just really good information.

MEG:

It’s information. Yeah, absolutely. And I find ... Yes, I love everything you’re saying. And I talk about boundaries as sometimes they’re certainly to protect us in hurtful relationships or harmful relationships. And I find for the relationships we want in our lives, they’re actually a really important, necessary form of connection because they’re saying to the other person,” In order to be in a relationship with you long-term, which I want to be, this is what I need and I’m trusting you enough to let you in on that. I could easily not and then I’ll feel resentful and this will be a short-term relationship because it can only go on for so long, but I find boundaries to be such a form of intimacy because you’re letting the other person in on something so vulnerable, our needs are just some of the most vulnerable things. And yes, sometimes it’s closeness, other times it’s protection.

It just depends on the relationship.

ELISE:

I think where I get stuck in this, as I’m thinking through this, is that we each don’t come with our own set of sort of rules and regulations, right? So many of these boundaries I think we find when they’ve been violated and it’s, well, that wasn’t okay. And some of them feel ... I mean, I’m just going to give myself away here, but I love The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. And for those who have watched the show, one of the through storylines, which is actually getting quite boring, but it’s all these women going through simultaneous divorces and there’s this boundary. There’s a line where one, Kyle Richards, she says she’s not doing it anymore, but was talking to Dorit Kemsley’s soon to be ex- husband, PK. They were maintaining a friendship through text. And that’s a good example, I think, of does that need to be spoken?

That’s a boundary for

MEG:

Me.

ELISE:

You know what I mean?

MEG:

Yeah. We don’t do that of time

ELISE:

Before

MEG:

It even happens, do I need to express that

ELISE:

Line? Yes, I think so. And then it’s, is that a silly line? Is that ... But I think that many of us go through life being like, does that need to be stated in order for me to have a legitimate feeling about it? Are these not collective? Oh, I know what you’re saying. We don’t go through life saying, “These are my expectations that you’re not going to talk to my ex- boyfriend.” Totally.

MEG:

Like you enter a relationship, you’re like, “Just so you know, here are the six guidelines that I would like you to find.” Yeah, that’s very unnatural, but once it happens, it’s confusing because it’s like, how did you not know that was a line? How is that not aligned for you? And it’s information about differences that are arising.

ELISE:

And I think fauners, I’m going to go out and say that faunners have a really hard time saying, “This feels like a really clear line.” Totally. “I’m mad at you. “ Totally.

MEG:

Yeah.

ELISE:

“Should I not be mad? Am I being restricted? Whatever.”

MEG:

Because to have a line, you need to be connected to what’s going on internally, which if we have found safety and not being connected internally, it’s going to be hard to know what that line is. What are the needs? That’s what a line is. It’s a need. It’s a comfort level. And I think even if a line is crossed in a relationship that maybe we didn’t even know we had that line ourselves, “Oh, I’m uncomfortable with you talking to an ex because ... “ And I didn’t even know that that was uncomfortable for me. I think it’s having that conversation, even though it’s already happened, we can still have that conversation. And again, same thing, clarity or closeness. We’re either going to have, they’re going to be receptive, “Oh my gosh, thank you so much for telling me that. “ What a blind spot. I had no idea.

Take accountability, they’re acknowledging it, or they’re defensive and shut it down or say, “What are you talking about? You’re being dramatic or whatever.” That’s clarity. It’s just information, kind of clarity about compatibility in many ways.

ELISE:

But it’s a neat thing, right? I mean, I’m just thinking about my own life and that context and not to call out my college roommate and my ex- boyfriend and I love my college roommate, but our relationship definitely suffered and there’s only peace in this circumstance ultimately, but she persisted in staying really close to my ex- boyfriend and would hop out of bed to go get pizza with him at midnight and I just distanced myself. I abandoned that relationship for many years because I was like, “I’m not going to make you choose.” And it’s funny- That’s tough.

MEG:

That’s a tricky situation to be in. It is a

ELISE:

Tricky situation. But I think that that’s also where if I’m identifying with this book where I’m like, “I’m never going to ask you to give something up on my behalf, you have to give something up on my behalf.” And maybe that’s unfair. When you’re

MEG:

Speaking exactly to how I view boundaries of a boundary isn’t ... You can’t go see him. If you’re not allowed to do that, that’s controlling the other person. A boundary is, wow, it makes me uncomfortable when my roommate sees him. I’m not able to spend as much time with her because this is making me uncomfortable. That’s a boundary about your time and your energy. It’s about us, right? And kind of an everyday example is if your partner is calling you while you’re at work and so a boundary wouldn’t be ... Stop calling me while I’m at work. It would be, “Hey, I just want to let you know, I can only talk during my lunch break, and so I will call you back then.” It’s talking about our time and what our capabilities are. That’s how I think of it. And I find that to be relieving for both parties doesn’t mean there’s no agitation, doesn’t mean that, but it feels clear.

It’s just practicing clear, direct communication, but it ain’t easy.

ELISE:

It’s not easy. And to be fair, I felt really bad about the action that I was taking, but in retrospect, at no point did my roommate say, “Hey, I really miss our closeness and I can feel you finding other friends elsewhere and it makes me sad. Can we talk about it? “ So we never haven’t had the conversation. Never had the conversation. So completely avoidant and in that way choices were made and I don’t know-

MEG:

That’s hard

ELISE:

Too.

MEG:

Yeah. That’s hard because sometimes I struggle with this and I think it’s a nuanced topic of when is it worth having a conversation and when is it not? And it’s a really challenging one because I think the question under that is, will the other person be able to hold it? If we’re trying to, I’ve had many instances with a parent of wanting to let them in on what I’m feeling, thinking they’ll get it now, they’ll understand, but sometimes they won’t. There will be defensiveness or no, that’s not true or who knows how your roommate would’ve reacted in that situation if you had had the conversation regardless though, whether you decide to have a conversation or not, the baseline is, can I at least acknowledge and validate this emotion within myself? Yeah. If I’m not going to have a conversation with my roommate or my parent or my friend, whoever the person is, okay, at least pause and say, “I’m feeling angry, feeling angry because I feel like they’re kind of going behind my back or I feel I’m not being heard.” And can you validate that emotion within yourself?

Because often I find if we’re seeking a conversation with someone that has hurt us, we’re trying to find validation, we’re trying to get the person that hurt us to validate that they heard us. But oftentimes I find that if the person was capable of hurting you in that way, they’re probably not going to be capable of seeing it or validating it. So if that’s not an option, I believe you, that was hard. We can say that to ourselves. The words that we’re craving from the other person, we can say that to ourselves just to start.

ELISE:

Yeah.

Well, it’s interesting. I mean, I haven’t thought about this in, I don’t know, 25 years or something, but it’s interesting too to be like, “Oh, there’s my lone wolf part of me too that was like, ah, fine You guys go off together.” And they’re still incredibly close. To be fair, she probably made the right choice and we’re friendly. I mean, there’s really no bad beat, but I think it confirmed for me too, I’m not worth ... Closeness with me would not be worth fighting for or the other will always get chosen and I probably played that out or looked for proof of that in my life. Of course. That’s just what I’m putting together in this moment.

MEG:

I love that. Thank you for sharing it. Yeah.

I like how you said that. That is what happens. If we have a core belief, I’m not worth fighting for or they’re always going to choose the other person. If that’s the core belief, we will find information to prove that to be true. And what’s scary about the brain is then we then shut out information that disproves it. All the instances where you’ve been chosen or all the instances where someone fought for you, the brain isn’t looking for that. And so that’s why just acknowledging those beliefs is so important because then we can start to loosen our grip on them and maybe broaden and see, oh, but look at all the counter evidence as well.

ELISE:

Yeah. Well, and I think having empathy or sympathy or compassion for ourselves that wanting some sort of loyalty in that instance or a singular devotion is a reasonable request. I think that’s where I stumbled. None of my needs are valid and not being able to sort of confirm for myself. Actually, I think that that would be a really reasonable-

MEG:

A hundred percent. ...

ELISE:

A reasonable expectation. And again, as you say, you might not get what you want, but you could define that as a value for yourself.

MEG:

Might not get what you want from that relationship, but by identifying that line or by identifying, “Oh, actually, no, this feels true to me. “ It opens up the possibility to find it somewhere else. But if we are continuing to stay contorted and, “Oh, nevermind. I guess that doesn’t matter to me. “ We’re never going to open ourselves to allowing that line to be okay. We’re closing ourselves.

ELISE:

Right. And I think so many women, and you write about this a bit in the book, but when they’re looking for a partner or they’re dating, are accepting of all sorts of behaviors that are anathema to what they would expect in a future partner. I mean, I did this too. You’re trading off all sorts of things. I don’t know why. It doesn’t make rational sense when you’re not in lust or in love, but yeah, standing for those values and then taking in the information to be like, “This just can’t be my person.”

MEG:

Yeah,

ELISE:

Of course. Unfortunately.

MEG:

Underneath that, it’s usually, “Well, I don’t deserve more than this. So if I want love, this has to be good enough for me. Oh, maybe I don’t care about if you really want a monogamous partner and they don’t, you’re like, maybe it’s not important to me. Nevermind.”

ELISE:

Maybe

MEG:

It’s a

ELISE:

Ridiculous need. Right.

MEG:

Whatever it is. Yeah. We bend because we think maybe this is it. Maybe I can’t do better than this. And that’s why I think reflecting on what those values and needs, whether it’s romantic or friendship, relationship, reflecting on those while we’re not in love, reflecting on it while we are in a grounded, steady place is really important so that when we are in love or when we are feeling a bit more in the clouds, we can remind ourselves what our past self reflected on.

ELISE:

Yes. I think that’s a really good exercise and I’ve never done it, but what are my values for relationships? What are my values for partnerships? What are my values for expectations at

MEG:

Work?

ELISE:

I can only imagine. I mean, it would be hard, but

MEG:

Worthwhile. Yeah. I think to make it easier, and even more importantly, what does it feel like? Because I think we can get ... I see this with clients a lot. It can get quite listy. “Well, I want this and this, and it becomes kind of a checklist. I think tapping more into the emotion of it, it feels safe. It feels calm. It feels like I don’t need to wonder where they are if they’re not texting me back for two hours. How does it feel? Because it might look different. You may not be able to predict how it looks, but when we can tap into the emotion, that’s what we want to remind ourselves of.

ELISE:

Yeah. Yeah. 100%. Well, thank you for your work. Thank you for the book. It’s great. And I can’t wait to see what you do next. Thank you. You’re just at the beginning.

Well, I know my friend Holly Whitaker had the same response and she had told me when this book first came out, you need to read this and talk to Meg that on the first two pages she was flipping out because she felt so exposed and seen. So I hear you if you’re feeling that way about this conversation or about, are you mad at me? This is not something that I say out loud, but I think it all the time. So fellow foners, I’m with you. I hear you. I see you. I relate and I celebrate our wisdom and I also would love for us to learn how to do something new. All right, friends. I will see you next time. If you got something out of today’s episode, I would so appreciate your help spreading the word. Please rate and review the episode, follow pulling the thread on your preferred podcast platform, and share this episode with a friend who would also enjoy it.

That’s how we grow this thing. It’s so helpful. Thank you.