A few recent incidents while driving got me thinking about the issue of differing trajectories and its effects on problems in driving. A few weeks ago I was driving at a leisurely pace (at about or slightly above the posted speed limit) on a local highway. I wasn’t paying much attention to what was going on behind me when I was suddenly passed by a really angry woman with a van full of kids (off to a game?). Even though I was doing nothing wrong, I hadn’t notice a van right on my heels, desperately trying to pass me. What struck me was the angry glare from the driving mom, who clearly was experiencing a dramatic spike in physical and emotional arousal. But why? I was driving safely and she clearly wanted to drive fast. We we are on different (and conflicting) trajectories.
In a separate incident, I was the one experiencing sudden and dramatic physical arousal and anger. I was trying to get out of a parking lot on campus and another driver was moving much slower, in search of a parking spot. I raised my hands to make it clear that she was “screwing up” and should “get out of my way.” This time I was the one being irrational (did I think that the other driver taking seconds to find a parking spot was really creating a significant drag on my schedule? My sense of time was distorted, but my trajectory was clearly being messed with.
I now see the problem of “conflicting trajectories” in many walks of life: College students turning to their cell phones and Facebook in class while a professor plods through content (The “talking head” professor meets the multi-tasking, speed addicted student). The colleague who drops in my office to talk about his kid or his car or his golf game, while I’m preparing for class or reading or ordering a shirt on Lands End online. The conflict in agendas combined with the change in speed is a recipe for a kind of autonomic reaction which translates in to anger or anxiety.
People make several mistakes when in contact with conflicting trajectories. One is cognitive: A tendency to personalize the other person’s behavior and to believe that it is personally directed toward oneself (“the slow driver is trying to ruin my day”). Such conclusions are obviously wrong: The slow driver has every right to drive slowly and may actually be viewed as a model for safe rational driving. As for the bored college student seeking refuge in Facebook or I.M., growing up in a speeded up, visual image based culture obviously leads to a clash with the verbally and content oriented professor. The second error has to do with Attribution: a tendency to attribute to the “other person” a personality type (e.g., “she’s an “old lady” driver” or the college student is a “superficial” member of a junk culture).
And, the connection of trajectories to relationship problems are many and varied. The older adult couple where one is retiring and slowing down, while the other continues professional engagement at a high level; The Middle School girl who becomes focused on academics versus her close friend who is attracted toward non-academic activities. The couple where one becomes intensely focused on family while the other seeks a more independent lifestyle.
While conflicting trajectories can not always be resolved (ie., the college student will want more action in class than most professors are able to provide), it may be helpful to simply be aware of these issues. A quick “treatment algorithm” might look like this:
Step 1: Radical Acceptance of your emotional response (“I’m angry”)
Step 2.: Identify any conflicting trajectories
Step 3: Identify errors in personalizing
Step 4: Catch yourself making personality type attributions
Step 5: Glasnost (openness): Talk about these differences with offending persons whenever possible.
A few recent incidents while driving got me thinking about the issue of differing trajectories and its effects on problems in driving. A few weeks ago I was driving at a leisurely pace (at about or slightly above the posted speed limit) on a local highway. I wasn’t paying much attention to what was going on behind me when I was suddenly passed by a really angry woman with a van full of kids (off to a game?). Even though I was doing nothing wrong, I hadn’t notice a van right on my heels, desperately trying to pass me. What struck me was the angry glare from the driving mom, who clearly was experiencing a dramatic spike in physical and emotional arousal. But why? I was driving safely and she clearly wanted to drive fast. We we are on different (and conflicting) trajectories.
In a separate incident, I was the one experiencing sudden and dramatic physical arousal and anger. I was trying to get out of a parking lot on campus and another driver was moving much slower, in search of a parking spot. I raised my hands to make it clear that she was “screwing up” and should “get out of my way.” This time I was the one being irrational (did I think that the other driver taking seconds to find a parking spot was really creating a significant drag on my schedule? My sense of time was distorted, but my trajectory was clearly being messed with.
I now see the problem of “conflicting trajectories” in many walks of life: College students turning to their cell phones and Facebook in class while a professor plods through content (The “talking head” professor meets the multi-tasking, speed addicted student). The colleague who drops in my office to talk about his kid or his car or his golf game, while I’m preparing for class or reading or ordering a shirt on Lands End online. The conflict in agendas combined with the change in speed is a recipe for a kind of autonomic reaction which translates in to anger or anxiety.
People make several mistakes when in contact with conflicting trajectories. One is cognitive: A tendency to personalize the other person’s behavior and to believe that it is personally directed toward oneself (“the slow driver is trying to ruin my day”). Such conclusions are obviously wrong: The slow driver has every right to drive slowly and may actually be viewed as a model for safe rational driving. As for the bored college student seeking refuge in Facebook or I.M., growing up in a speeded up, visual image based culture obviously leads to a clash with the verbally and content oriented professor. The second error has to do with Attribution: a tendency to attribute to the “other person” a personality type (e.g., “she’s an “old lady” driver” or the college student is a “superficial” member of a junk culture).
And, the connection of trajectories to relationship problems are many and varied. The older adult couple where one is retiring and slowing down, while the other continues professional engagement at a high level; The Middle School girl who becomes focused on academics versus her close friend who is attracted toward non-academic activities. The couple where one becomes intensely focused on family while the other seeks a more independent lifestyle.
While conflicting trajectories can not always be resolved (ie., the college student will want more action in class than most professors are able to provide), it may be helpful to simply be aware of these issues. A quick “treatment algorithm” might look like this:
Step 1: Radical Acceptance of your emotional response (“I’m angry”)
Step 2.: Identify any conflicting trajectories
Step 3: Identify errors in personalizing
Step 4: Catch yourself making personality type attributions
Step 5: Glasnost (openness): Talk about these differences with offending persons whenever possible.