Speaker: 0:03

You've been building up to telling them for a fortnight. You get about eleven words in, something about attachment and how you'd worked out why you react the way you do when they're quiet, and they look up and say, "Isn't that just putting people in boxes?" Not unkindly, almost fondly, and that was the end of it. So you said, "Yeah, probably", and you changed the subject, and you've been carrying the small, hot feeling of it ever since. Not because they were harsh, because you'd found something that explained a great deal of your life, and it turned out to be unsayable at your own kitchen table. You're not doing anything wrong. There's a reason a word like attachment lands the way it does when it arrives in a room, and it has very little to do with whether they care about you, and there's a way to say all of it without ever using the word. If any of that sounds familiar, you're not broken. You're not too much. Your nervous system may be doing exactly what it learned to do long before this relationship began. I'm Dr Narelle Duncan, a Clinical Psychologist drawing on 30 years of helping people understand themselves. This is Steady and Connected. Each episode, I'll bring you the science, the tools, and the clarity to understand what may be happening when anxiety shows up in love, and what you might do with that understanding. Let's get steady and connected. This is the last of four episodes looking at things from your partner's side as well as your own, and it's about what happens when you try to share any of it. What's usually being rejected, why a category lands as a claim rather than as information, why the dismissal can hurt seemingly out of proportion to what you said, and one move that moves you closer to what you wanted from the conversation without needing the word attachment. Let's be careful about what actually got refused in that kitchen because it's almost never you, and it's usually not the idea either. When a word like attachment arrives in an ordinary conversation, it tends to arrive carrying three things at once, and the person hearing it receives all three together. The first is a category. Four types, and almost everyone gets put in one. Categories applied to people are a hard sell at the best of times, and they're a harder sell in the room where someone lives. The second is a claim about them. Say you have an anxious pattern in a relationship and the arithmetic completes itself immediately. If you're the anxious one, they're the other thing. Nobody said that out loud, and it lands anyway, and now they're being described in a system they haven't agreed to. The third is a source they didn't choose. It came from a podcast or a book or a quiz, which means an account of them has been arrived at somewhere else by someone they've never met and presented to them as settled. So the sentence, "Isn't that just putting people in boxes?" May not be a judgment about psychology. It's often a reasonable response to receiving a category, a claim about themselves, and an outside verdict in one sentence. And I'd add the part that's easy to skip. Attachment often gets presented as four types, and some people take those up as an identity, as in, "I'm just the anxious type." If that's the version your partner has met, then what they're objecting to is fair enough. Attachment describes patterns of behaviour, and patterns of behaviour can shift. It was never meant to describe who a person is. So here's what tends to come back. Notice which one resonates. The personality quiz line. "Isn't that a bit like one of those personality quizzes?" Usually said lightly, and it ends the conversation as effectively as anything could. The everyone version. "Everyone's got something." True, and it dissolves the specific thing you were trying to say into a general fact about humanity. The completed arithmetic. "So what are you saying I am?" The claim about them arriving on cue, and now the conversation is about them rather than about you. The sourcing question. "Where's all this coming from?" Which can be plain curiosity and can also be a way of finding out whose voice has been added to the conversation, the podcast or the book, and what it's been saying about them The polite nod. "Right, yeah, that makes sense." And nothing whatsoever happens afterwards, which is harder to hold than an argument because there's nothing you could reasonably object to. The counter-reading. They tell you what they think your actual problem is, which may be sincere and which is not what you asked for. If any of those landed, it's worth taking notice of, and here's what they have in common. Each of them can be a response to being handed a framework. None of them is a response to what actually happened between the two of you because the conversation never got as far as the evening itself. Notice what lands and notice what doesn't. Now the mechanism, and it's about the shape of what you handed over rather than whether it's true. When you share a framework, what arrives in the kitchen is a finished conclusion. Someone else has already done the sorting, and a finished conclusion leaves the person hearing it with two options, which are to accept it or push back on it. There's very little room to be curious about it because there's nothing left to work out together. A specific evening is different. Last night when you were on your phone, I asked if you were annoyed with me. You said no, and I asked again twenty minutes later. There's nothing in that to accept or dispute. It happened and you were both there. It's closer to a shared piece of the record, and the natural response to a shared piece of the record is to add to it rather than rule on it. There's one more difference, and it's about who the account is about. A framework turns your experience into a claim about the two of you, and only one of you was part of working it out. A specific evening stays with what you noticed in your own body and at a time you can both name. And this may be the most useful part. The framework was the vehicle. It got you somewhere, and that was its job. What you want at home isn't for them to admire the vehicle or to agree to ride in it. It's for them to arrive at the destination, which is a better understanding of how you work. They can arrive at the destination without ever knowing the road you took. If you'd like to be clearer about how your own pattern shows up before you go anywhere near a conversation about it, the free quiz at steadyandconnected.com.au is a good place to start. It's for self-reflection, not a clinical assessment, and your results come to your inbox in a short email series that goes deeper on what they mean for you. It's worth a moment on the size of the feeling afterwards because from the outside it looks disproportionate, and from inside it doesn't. From outside, someone made a mild joke about a psychological idea. That's all that happened. There's no injury in that description, which is why it can be difficult to explain to anyone afterwards, including to yourself. From inside, something else got refused. The framework wasn't a piece of general interest you happened to mention. It was the first account of yourself that made sense of a great deal, and probably the first one that didn't come with the conclusion that you're too much. Handing it over was closer to handing over a piece of self-understanding than to raising a general topic. And underneath that, the layer that can be uncomfortable, the thought that forms is usually, "I can't even talk about this with you." And it tends to arrive with a second thought behind it about how much of yourself is going to stay unmentioned. That second thought may be misguided. It draws a conclusion about the whole relationship from a single form of words. Refusing a framework is not refusing the person holding it, and the two can look identical from where you were standing at the time. So let's go back to those 11 words and walk it through. You said, "Attachment," and three things arrived at once: a category, a claim about them, an outside voice. They reach for the fastest available way of setting all three down, which happened to be a light remark about boxes, said fondly with no intention of ending anything. You heard the joke land on the one account of yourself that had ever fitted, so you agreed with them and changed the subject, which was the fastest available way of setting that down. And the fortnight you'd spent building up to it and everything you actually wanted them to know is still sitting there entirely unsaid because none of it ever got as far as being about you. So what were you after in that conversation? It looks like agreement about attachment. It's very unlikely to be that, and there's a straightforward test. Imagine they'd said, "Yes, that's a real field. That's well-established." You'd have got a fact confirmed, and nothing about you would have moved an inch. What you were more likely after is to be known specifically for one particular thing about how you work, to be known by the person you live with so that the next time it happens, there's a shared reference for it instead of a private one, which is a much smaller thing than agreement, and it doesn't require them to believe in anything at all. It requires one accurate piece of information about you to be received. That's it. No theory has to be accepted for that to happen, and no category has to be assigned to either of you. That's the whole difference between the two conversations. One of them asks someone to sign up to a way of understanding people. The other one tells them something true about you. So here's the one thing for this episode, and it's a subtraction rather than an addition. Take what you wanted to say and remove three things from it: the word, the category, the source. Then say what's left, which will be one specific evening described plainly. Something like, "Last night when you were on your phone, I asked twice whether you were annoyed with me. I wasn't really asking about you. I'd become really anxious, and I just couldn't settle it." That's the practice. No conclusion at the end of it, no request, no mention of where the understanding came from, which is not dishonesty. It's just leaving out the part that isn't about the two of you. This is a gentle experiment with no right result. Sometimes it opens something, and sometimes it gets a, "Yeah, I noticed that." And a "Yeah, I noticed that" is a great deal more than the boxes conversation produced. And on scope, this isn't a script and it isn't couples therapy, and if the pattern in your relationship is that nothing you say about yourself gets taken seriously by them, that's a different thing to a light remark about boxes, and it's worth taking to someone who can sit with both of you. If you'd like help getting your own evening down to its plainest version, I've made you a one-page guide called One Evening, Not a Theory: What happened, what happened in you, and what you noticed afterwards. It's at go.steadyandconnected.com.au/one-evening. Free and yours to keep. That's the end of this four-episode series which looked at things from your partner's side as well as your own. Where we go next is a decade rather than a conversation. There's a stretch of life where reactions that were manageable at earlier life start arriving faster and louder in later life, and a lot of people meet it thinking their relationship has changed when what may have changed is the volume. That's where we're going next time. And one more thing before I go: understanding the pattern is where this starts. What tends to shift is doing something with the understanding, and not just once, repeatedly in the ordinary moments where it actually runs. That's what I built the workbooks for, three of them and a start here guide so what you learn here gets put into practice. They're at steadyandconnected.com.au That's everything for this episode. If today resonated, follow Steady and Connected wherever you listen, so the next episode lands automatically. And if someone came to mind while you were listening, share it with them. If you'd like to know which attachment pattern is most active for you, take the free five-minute quiz at steadyandconnected.com.au. Your results come straight to your inbox, along with a short email series that goes deeper on what they mean for you. If today's conversation has brought up anything you need support with, please reach out. Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14. And if you're ready to explore this work more personally, I offer individual telehealth sessions at getlifedirection.com. I'm Dr Narelle Duncan, Clinical Psychologist. Take good care of yourself, and I'll see you in the next episode.