A common problem that leads people to therapy is a recurring pattern of self-destructive behaviors in response to complex situations. The issue and the nature of the relationship can very widely, even though the pattern itself is similar might be a marriage that seems to be falling apart, losing a job, or not knowing how to help your spouse who is struggling with a drinking problem. So, what’s the common pattern: “false dichotomies.” What do I mean by that? I mean the incorrect or false belief that there are two and only two solutions to a problem. The belief is false when there are actually more than two solutions to a problem or more than two ways of seeing a situation. The dichotomy is in seeing a problem as having two sides. Therapists will sometimes call this pattern “splitting.” Its “either/or” but not “both.” This is actually not what I mean, or at least its not all that I mean. Let me explain.
Splitting happens when someone believes they have to make a choice between two extremes. A good example, and one which is currently used in the common language of therapy is the “fight or flight response.” This is also called the “wounded animal” response, and seems to be tied to the limbic system in our brain. I’ve also heard this response referred to as our “reptilian response,” because it is viewed as simplistic, occurring at the base of our brain, rather than at the top. Sometimes, this knee-jerk or immediate response is the best quick solution to a particular situation. Sometimes, an extreme situation calls for an extreme response. The “fight or flight” response becomes a problem when the situation doesn’t call for it, which is often the case. When we respond with fight or flight, we often make the situation worse—we escalate it when we choose fight, or we fail to resolve it when we choose flight. Resolution might call for a third solution. This is what I mean by “thinking in thirds.”
Before explaining “thinking in thirds,” I want to spend a minute distinguishing between “splitting” and “false dichotomies.” Splitting can be a kind of false dichotomy, but not all false dichotomies amount to splitting. The reason? Sometimes a solution is neither one thing, the other, or both. Sometimes a solution calls for something completely different than either of the two proposed for splitting. In the fight or flight response, which is a kind of a splitting, a “both” or “and” solution would be to not leave and not fight. That can be a good solution, but might not be. Thinking in thirds allows the possibility of not restricting yourself to some combination of the two choices in splitting.
When I am in a therapy session with a client who seems to be dealing with a situation by creating a false dichotomy, I will often draw a simple table on my whiteboard. I will draw two columns with their two proposed ways of seeing the problem or the two proposed solutions. We will look at the pros and cons of each column. Then, I will draw a third column on the whiteboard with nothing in it but a question mark.
| Solution 1 (Either) | Solution 2 (Or) | Third solution? | |||
| Pros | Cons | Pros | Cons | ||
Like I said, the third solution might be some combination of solution 1 or 2, or it might be something completely unrelated, but not considered before. My reason for drawing this table can be a “solution-focused” approach, in which I am just trying to help a client sort out the best way to solve a problem. Mostly, though, I view it as an “experiential” exercise in which I am really trying to help the client see the situation in a completely new way, which can open up all kinds of solutions or responses never previously considered.
Let me offer an example that’s come up a number of times in slightly different ways. I am meeting with the spouse of someone with an alcohol or drug addiction that has come to the point of necessitating a choice between continuing to care for him or her or asking them to leave. See the either/or here? Stay or leave. Care for spouse to my own detriment or abandon them to the street. Extreme solution vs. extreme solution. Now they stay or they leave and never come back. This is not a problem simply because it ignores other possibilities. It is often mostly a problem because it forces you to choose a bad solution to avoid an even worse solution. A client may come to see me after enabling a mostly out of control spouse for years on end, thinking that their only other choice is to abandon them to the streets. What choice is that? They can’t do that to their spouse, the parent of their children, can they? Think in thirds!
If that client can bring themselves to see another option, it doesn’t have to be so dire one way or another. The problem may be extreme—he is killing himself with alcohol by destroying his liver, but that doesn’t mean there are only two choices left. Think of the parable of the Prodigal Son. The father could not allow the son to behave irresponsibility at their home, and involve the entire family in his misguided behavior. So, the son left. Father had two choices right? Son can stay, or be gone? No. Think in thirds. The father told the son he couldn’t stay, but he didn’t have to be gone forever, that he was welcome to come back if ever the son decided to change his behavior. So, the client whose spouse is drinking himself to death can tell her spouse, “you cannot stay here and do this anymore, you need to leave, but if you go to treatment, if you get sober, you may be able to come back.” I would not recommend that my client wait forever, but if the client was still able to see a possible future with the spouse when sober, then this third alternative is readily available. This doesn’t mean its easy, especially if you believe the spouse is not likely to make the choice to be sober. But that’s their choice, not yours, and it frees the client from the awful, but false, dichotomy of choosing between the two extremes of enabling vs. abandonment.
Thinking in thirds can be used as a way of seeing many different kinds of problems in an entirely new way. I suppose its another, but more specific way of “thinking outside the box.” Its more particular because it is a way of thinking about the particular problem we often create by thinking in twos. Once you leave that box, you can then come up with a third, a fourth, a fifth solution, and so on. Once you leave the trap of false dichotomizing a situation, the ways of seeing that situation really open up.
Tags: personal growth, self-awareness, solutions
