Hello friends.

I sat in synagogue for Yom Kippur this week, where we were invited to publicly confess where we’ve missed the mark.

One of the thoughts that sincerely caused me to strike my breast was that when I’m stressed, I get argumentative. Almost anything that's proposed, I find something to dislike, instinctively taking the converse side. I end up criticizing, hurting and antagonizing the people closest to me, and I’ve been known to chop it up on group texts and social media too.

I notice I'm not the only one who pulls this move. There are some other people arguing on the internet, too.

Last week I got a chance to interview Kathleen Smith, a therapist who writes an incredibly useful Substack I recommend called The Anxious Overachiever. She comes from a Bowen family systems background. That means she invites readers to think about human behavior ecologically — how systems of people, together, attempt to manage stress, in more and less skillful and adaptive ways.

“You have all this sort of acute anxiety that could be based on a real urgent threat,” she told me. “But where people get tripped up, I think, is how they relate to each other about it.”

For example:

• “I’m gonna get really bossy and tell everybody else what THEY need to be doing.”

• “Or, I’m so allergic to your anxiety, I’m gonna go to the other extreme and totally deny that this is even happening.”

• “Or I’m gonna blame somebody for it.”

• “Or I’m gonna look to somebody else and say, well, what are YOU gonna do about this? You need to fix it!”

Painfully accurate!

These choices can all reliably produce interpersonal conflict. Then you can get into feeling angry, instead of afraid, which might make you feel safer or more energized.

Smith told me:

All the energy gets diverted into managing all of that. Versus, how does a system actually define the problem, and solve the problem, and be objective about what the threat is, and what the stakes are.

Taking this systemic view invites curiosity rather than judgment, which frees up energy for change.

Which brings me to the secret third thing.

The Secret Third Thing/Secret Third Option is an internet meme that's only a few years old but has scrabbled its way firmly into my brain.

The Secret Third Thing! A fantasy way out— a choice beyond the conflicts, binaries, polarities that are always being presented to us. Yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, good or bad, girl or boy.

Though the Thing is never identified, the “secret” “more complex” part suggests it's not some namby-pamby midway compromise option, but a definite, yet previously concealed z-axis.

The secret third thing is like a side door out of the tunnel vision that comes with stress.

BUT WHAT IS THE SECRET THIRD THING!?!?!?

I think I just found out.

Its name is Kirby.

Kirby by Anthony Moser

Anthony Moser posted this the other day on Bluesky. His context was the very common situation that progressives find themselves in, where we are constantly diverting our energy into contradicting, debunking, denouncing statements and propositions.

The “Debate me, bro!” trap, if you will.

Moser, referencing the work of George Lakoff here, explains that when people are arguing in bad faith or outright lying, when we respond to what they are saying, even by rejecting it we are accepting and inadvertently reinforcing their frame. We concede the terms of the debate. We lose before we begin.

What we need instead is a response that surrounds and explains their frame. Instead of reinforcing their frame, Kirby eats it.

Moser example:

FRAME: DOGE is a govt efficiency project to save $

NEGATION: Actually it made things less efficient and cost $

KIRBY: DOGE was a project to break and privatize federal bureaucracy

My example:

FRAME: Renewables are too expensive

NEGATION: Actually they are cheaper than fossil fuels now

KIRBY: Homicidal fossil fuel executives have been paying people to lie and deny the harms of their products for years. You are either getting paid by them to say that or else you were suckered by one of their paid shills.

Another example:

FRAME: It's aBoUT FaiRnESs in HiGh SChoOl GiRLS sPORtS

NEGATION: There are only a few trans athletes so it shouldn’t be that big a deal

KIRBY: We’re talking about this because the right wing— including fossil fuel interests— funded trans attacks as a hot-button culture war issue. Children's genitals are not a matter of national political interest.

Unless it's the Epstein files.

To be clear. I don't think this is a magic debate technique that is going to automatically win over the people putting forward these propositions. Often their salaries depend on their not seeing your point of view.

I also think that there are less inherently conflictual contexts where fact-checking, and arguing cases on the merits, are the right moves.

But what Kirby does is shift energy away from a usually fruitless back-and-forth and toward some key questions: Not who is right and who is wrong but why is this the conversation we are having right now? Who benefits from this being the topic under discussion? What's the broader context here?

Those questions move the terrain of debates. And because we live in a society where power is overly concentrated, the debate is likely to move in a direction that builds broader solidarity among what we used to call the 99%.

I also think that with some modifications, Kirby is a technique you can take into your personal sphere and reduce conflict there too!

An all too salient example:

Some people in my world right now are making plans to leave the country. Or they have already left. Or they are canceling public appearances, changing names of their group chats on Signal, telling others not to register online for protests, etc.

Others are determined to stay and fight as a matter of principle. They want others to join them in getting even louder. Or, they say or imply the first group is overreacting.

My Kirby:

Let’s acknowledge this is a very scary and unpredictable time. How do each of us personally understand and experience risk? What are the stories and experiences that we are bringing to this fast-evolving situation that affect how we parse risk? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches? And what are the key values we are putting front and center?

A more personal, pithy example from Joanna Goddard’s web site: when you have a baby, are stressed, and are arguing over this or that, just remember: your spouse is not the enemy. The baby is your common enemy.

(Baby not evil, hopefully. “Baby” = the stress on the system. You get the point.)

I know taking this step back is easier said than done. I know. This is my personal repair work right now and has been for years. I’m sharing in case it is useful for others to recognize this pattern.

We are entering an even more stressful moment: a government shutdown, various displays of violent force. The people around us will be more liable to turn on each other because that's how humans respond to stress.

The more I can take a systemic view; the more I can get upstream of conflict to ask who benefits from the battle; and the more I can take care of myself to try to reduce stress on my own being, the better chance I have of not just seeing, but becoming that secret third thing.

Some links

I enjoyed my friend Jay Michaelson ‘s Yom Kippur confessional, which also follows the theme of bridging divides.

Jessica Valenti ‘s “Ezra Klein Is Wrong About Abortion” is pretty important reading, especially if you’ve been checked out from what’s happening with reproductive rights around the country. Between her and W. Kamau Bell ‘s take, I don’t think you need any more Klein discourse.