Philters: Magic potions that cure by filtering the truth.

I’ve bothered a few readers and writers here with my persistent arguments against cherished forms of wisdom, ideas like “be present,” or “If you’re annoyed by what your partner does, most likely it’s you.”

In the case of the latter, Jay Dixit, the author of the PT cover story with the “most likely it’s you” sub-heading has written to tell me that I misread the article and that actually it wasn’t arguing that “most likely it’s you.”  I continue to think it implies just that, if not saying it outright, but I think I might be able to find common ground with Jay and with others if I clarify something.

First a confession: Though I continue to find fault in the article’s wisdom, I have been living by it for the past few months and it is working wonders for me. I think the article is wrong, and yet it is excellent medicine for me just now. Just what the doctor ordered.

In fact I’ve taken it so seriously that I’ve pledged to a month hiatus from saying anything at all that could be construed as criticism of my partner’s behaviors. It is going so well that I think I’ll extend the policy indefinitely.  Given the fundamental fit between my partner and I and given my natural tendency to over-analyze and and bring up everything that concerns me, the article’s core advice to not do that is really really helpful. I find that my partner is taking more responsibility for the things I used to nag her about and is nagging me less too.  Thank you, Jay.

So why do I still argue the article was wrong?  Keep an eye on me. Maybe I just don’t want to admit I’m wrong. 

I hold to my original point. There’s a real choice to be made whether to bring up a problem your partner. The article implies that there isn’t--there’s a rule which is don’t bring it up. Jay points out that he wasn’t talking about not bringing up the important stuff. The full subheading was “Petty annoyances erode even the best relationships.  When you’ve picked up your husband’s 2543rd dirty sock, something’s gotta change. Most likely it’s you.”

Jay reminds me that he’s only saying don’t bring up petty problems.  If it’s serious, obviously you should bring it up.

“Don’t bring up petty stuff,” isn’t half true advice, it’s tautologically empty advice, the equivalent of saying “Don’t bring up the stuff that’s not worth bringing up.” The question remains what stuff to bring up and what stuff to ignore.  

But I think the common ground we can find is around a predicament we face as clinicians.  We are supposedly scientists, trying to understand human behavior accurately. And we are helpers trying to say what’s useful. Sometimes what’s useful isn’t accurate. 
I benefit from the medicine in Jay’s article. It’s like a magic potion that helps me compensate for my tendency to bring up too many things with my partner.  The magic potion is that much more potent since it reads as an absolute.  He wasn’t arguing that it might work. Rather that it’s a true principle of the universe of relationship. He implies that it’s a scientifically proven fact. He’s not saying that sometimes it’s pragmatic to assume the problem is you, but that it’s just true. 

Even though that’s not accurate, even though it’s half the story promoted as the whole story, in my case at present it’s just what the doctor ordered.

A philter is a magic potion with the power to change you. A filter is a screen that lets some stuff through but not other stuff.  I think a lot of what we therapists, gurus, coaches and self-help guides provide are philters, filtered arguments that leave out important truths so as to emphasize the half-truths that will serve certain clients in certain situations. If you worry too much, take a philter that says “don’t sweat the small stuff and it’s all stuff.”  If you nag too much take a philter that suggests that there’s never a reason to call your partner on his bad behavior. If you tend to be so distracted that you’re not productive, take a philter that says “be here now.”

The philters won’t be powerful enough to change you completely. But that’s fine. In fact that’s a good thing given that the truth is that you’re best off worrying some (about the right things), nagging some (about the right things and in the right way) and thinking about the past and future (in the right ways). 

In addition to my new zero-nag policy, I also have a zero tolerance policy on carbohydrates this month.  This month I’m taking a philter that says carbs are absolutely bad for me. Of course they aren’t, so my inability to comply completely is a good thing.  By absolutely no carbs I mean absolutely not many at all really.

So take whatever philters help you out in your current situation. Thank you Jay for your helpful philter.  But also, it’s useful to recognize them for what they are. They’re filters,filtering out one full half of what constitutes real wisdom, for example the wisdom to know the difference between what you can and can’t change in your partner. Filtering out half of wisdom can be dangerous.

We take magic potions to maintain our powers and to change our powers. Taking a philter to compensate for a habit of over-nagging is an attempt to change my powers. But that potion can get into the hands of someone who can use it to maintain and strengthen an already dangerous tendency. 

Suppose a woman in an abusive relationship has tried to call her partner on his abusiveness but he dismisses her saying his abusiveness is “no big deal,” in other words, petty. She’s too yin for her own good as it is, and somehow she gets her hand on Jay’s article, a philter is basically making her abusive husband’s point for him. Maybe he gives it too her, or maybe a well-meaning but misguided friend does.

Or suppose her husband gets hold of some self-help book about standing up for oneself. Suppose a recklessly irresponsible person gets hold of “don’t sweat the small stuff.”  I knew a woman once who was having an affair with a married man just as her own husband was struggling with brain cancer.  Her favorite book was “Don’t sweat the small stuff and it’s all small stuff.” It was her sacred source of justification for behaviors that she later regretted.

It was the wrong medicine for her and there’s no warning label.  Philters that say “here’s the absolute truth are like ADD meds labeled “Good for the whole family!” They would calm the hyperactive, but could give the non-hyperactive a heart attack. 

Here’s the fundamental problem we face in this profession: We’re scientists. We want to tell the whole truth about human nature and we want to be helpful, and the whole truth is that sometimes what is most helpful is partial truth.  So we produce philters, magic potions tailored for our particular patients, philters that filter out some truths and emphasize other truths.

I just think that it’s important that we warn our patients that our tailored potions are not for everybody, and that they’re philters, not science. Because the behavioral sciences can’t filter out truths or wisdom just because they may confuse one kind of patient or another.

My philters are all about the importance of seeing both half truths at once. They’re in the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s quote:  "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Are my philters for everyone?  Certainly not. If you’re someone who needs closure and clarity, a real plan of action or a real compensation for a strong tendency to be wishy-washy, please read someone else.  The sign of a first-rate intelligence may be the ability to know when you need to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and when you need to hold just one, and filter out its opposite.