So, I dove into reflecting on appreciation and what that meant to me. In explaining my process of reflection, the person I was talking to got upset. Their claim was that I was over intellectualizing my process and that I was putting my safety on to them. In my mind, they were not listening as I tried to explain, so let’s dive into these three things in this order: Safety, Dealing with someone who won’t listen, and intellectualization.
My therapist asked me a very important question: What do you mean when you say safety? And that is the problem here. The person I was talking to reacted to a different definition of safety. When they said it is not their job to bring safety… they were right in one sense. What I believe they are hearing is for them to bring emotional regulation, soothing, or making them responsible. And for that person’s definition of safety they are right. Those are my jobs. I am solely responsible for regulating my nervous system. No one can do that work for me.
But that is not the safety I am talking about.
When I say safety, I am not saying to make me feel OK, fix my anxiety, manage my emotions, or be responsible. If I meant this, then their boundary would be appropriate. This definition, however, is personal safety. What I am talking about is relational safety.
Relational safety is the absence of threat in connection. That is it. Nothing more. Safety in this sense is not regulation, rather predictability, non-punishment, and emotional calm. Examples include not being made fun of, not weaponizing needs, no resentment, and no dismissal.
As such, this is not about fixing me, but about how someone shows up in proximity to me. I cannot control how someone shows up, so this safety cannot be personal safety, and must be regarded as relational safety. And while it is my job to manage my own nervous system, we can all recognize that a relationship can increase or decrease the nervous system threat.
So, why did that person react this way to my process of reflection? I would assume they heard me asking them to be responsible for my emotional state, but what I was actually saying was when appreciation shows up in certain ways my nervous system reads that as threat instead of connection. These are different things.
But when someone is triggered they don’t listen for nuance. They listen for blame. So, let’s transition to dealing with someone who won’t listen.
First, do not argue for understanding. This is so hard, but arguing for understanding creates the lack of safety I am explaining above. If I push then I become the pursuer and they become the defender. The conversation then collapses into power instead of meaning.
Second, reclaim responsibility without abandoning your truth, and thereby abandoning yourself. This can act as a disarming mechanism. For instance, I might say that I agree with them that my emotional regulation is my responsibility, and that I am not asking them to manage that.
Say this once, and do not over-explain.
Third, if OK to move forward, clarify safety as behavioral and not emotional. Only now, clarify the distinction. For example, I tell them I don’t mean for them to fix me, rather that we show up for each other in vulnerable moments. Safety, for me to feel appreciation, is about how connection is handled, not about carrying my emotions.
If the person does not listen. Stop talking and start observing. If someone cannot hear a clarification, more words will only deepen the rupture. At this point, your work is no longer communication, rather boundary clarity.
My internal note-taking is asking the questions: Can this person tolerate vulnerability without reframing it as blame? Do they hear nuance or only accusations? Do they respond with curiosity or self-protection? These are not questions wrapped in judgment, but in gather data to make informed decisions.
You stop trying to be understood and start deciding what you will participate in. No anger. Not resentment. No withdrawal. Just clarity.
Remember, it is OK to share how you feel. I am overwhelmed, can we talk later? I don’t think this conversation is good right now and I need to take a step back. This is not avoiding. It is self-respect.
Here is an important distinction: The person was not wrong. I am not wrong. We are talking about two different responsibilities: personal safety and relational safety. In the former, I am responsible, but the latter is about an environmental relationship, which necessarily includes each person in the environment. As such, the danger here is not disagreement, since we actually agree. The danger is collapsing those two definitions into one and then fighting about it.
Finally, let’s deal with over-intellectualizing. My processes can look like that. This does not mean it is wrong, but it can be a problem dependent upon timing and function.
Let’s stop for a second, and try to understand what people mean when they say “over-intellectualizing.” They are probably not criticizing my accuracy, rather reacting to the function of my process in the moment. So, they might believe I am explaining rather than feeling. My words might feel organized and structured, which can feel planned or manipulating. They might feel like they are talking to my ideas instead of talking to me.
For that person, this might seem like distance or control. In this instance, they might not be communicating I am wrong, rather they don’t feel I am here with them.
Let us make a proper distinction: intellectualization versus integration. We must not reject thinking, instead we reject thinking used as armor.
Thinking as armor might look like staying regulated instead of staying connected, avoiding vulnerability, maintaining control, and preventing emotional exposure. Some signs of this are being calm, but unreachable. You are not relationally present. This is avoidance, not safety.
Processing requires both emotion and understanding. As such, thinking is used after the emotion has been felt to reflect. Thinking is used to translate experiences once you are grounded. It is also used to make meaning without bypassing the need for presence.
Signals of this right thinking are the ability to say you don’t know, or pause without explaining. You can tolerate being seen without resolution. This is earned safety, and not rooted in control.
In reflection, my process was not over-intellectualizing, but my lived moment in the conversation was. What I intended was macro-processing, or meaning-making, creating frameworks, and getting clarity. What they were asking for was micro-presence, which is rooted in presence, tone, and affect. This difference can be triggering for both.
Therefore, the issue is not that I think deeply, but when my thinking replaces connection. The answer is not to think less, but to lead with presence.
Over-intellectualizing can be dangerous when it keeps you from being seen, or creates a condition that being understood is required for vulnerability. Connection is not a seminar… it is a felt, present moment. People that struggle with this are often avoidant processors, high-insight people, or people that learned that emotion was unsafe unless it was contained. I fit in all three groups, so I have to be keenly aware of this.
Again, thinking is not the enemy, but thinking cannot replace exposure. I am not wrong for having a structured process, but they are not wrong for feeling distance.
The repair for this is not abandoning my process, rather sequencing it differently. It should be presence, then feeling, then meaning, as opposed to meaning, then defense, then distance.