Sam: “Well, you’re not very interesting either!” or
Sam: “What do you mean . . . you talked more than I did during the luncheon. You’re the one who dominated the conversation!” or
Sam: “You know, I didn’t need you to dump all of your own insecurities on me!”
So, for good reason, I will probably respond to Sam’s request for disclosure (my Quad Three material moving to Quad One) with superficial statements that enable me to disengage quickly from this mildly disturbing relationship:
Bill: “I’m doing fine and like the conference. Sorry, I have to dash off to a meeting with an old friend [not another session, because Sam might join me.]”
Before we leave this disturbing (and disturbed) relationship, there are two other observations to make about the shift in windows after my (unlikely) feedback to Sam. You will notice that it is not only my Quad Two that increases in size. Sam’s Quad Three also increases. He now must add further information to his hidden self (Quad Three)—information about the guy at a conference who verbally attacked him (or thoughtfully confronted him) with impressions of his behavior during an informal luncheon meeting with several colleagues. Does Sam share this experience with anyone else in his life? His wife? His best friend? His therapist or coach?
In sharing this information from his expanded Quad Three, might Sam find that there is some truth in what I said to him? Even though Sam might have wanted to kill the messenger (me), might he learn something about himself through his own disclosure to supportive people in his life, or through his own ongoing processing of this feedback? It is rare that we are not defensive when receiving difficult, negative or disconfirming feedback from other people.
