Michelle: Alright Mark, what do you know about the book Talking to Crazy? Mark: Honestly? It sounds like the secret manual my cat has been using on me for years. And it's working. He gets the extra treats every single time. Michelle: That’s a perfect analogy, because it’s all about getting through to a mind that operates on a completely different wavelength. Today we’re diving into Talking to Crazy: How to Deal with the Irrational and Impossible People in Your Life by Dr. Mark Goulston. Mark: A doctor, okay. So there's some real science here, not just feline manipulation tactics. Michelle: Oh, it's much more than that. And this is the detail that changes everything. Dr. Goulston wasn't just a psychiatrist. He was a trainer for FBI and police hostage negotiators. Mark: Whoa. Hold on. So we're not talking about simple communication tips for awkward office parties. We're talking about high-stakes, life-or-death de-escalation strategies being applied to everyday life. Michelle: Exactly. He’s taking principles forged in the most extreme situations imaginable and showing us how to use them when your boss is having a meltdown, your teenager is slamming doors, or a customer is screaming at you. Mark: That completely reframes it. This isn't just about being a better communicator; it's about being a psychological first responder. Where do we even begin with that?

Michelle: We begin with his most fundamental, and most counterintuitive, rule. When someone is acting irrationally, you cannot, under any circumstances, use logic or reason to talk them down. Mark: But that’s everyone’s first instinct! You try to explain, to lay out the facts, to show them why they’re wrong. You’re saying that’s the worst thing you can do? Michelle: It’s the absolute worst. Goulston explains this using the model of the triune brain. You have the logical upper brain, the emotional mid-brain, and the primitive, fight-or-flight "lizard brain." When someone is truly irrational, their upper brain has gone offline. They are physically incapable of processing logic. They are all lizard brain. Mark: So arguing with them is like trying to explain calculus to a crocodile. You’re just making it angry. Michelle: Precisely. You're pouring gasoline on the fire. Their brain perceives your logic not as helpful information, but as an attack. It just confirms their feeling that they are under threat, and they dig in even deeper. Mark: Okay, so if logic is out, what’s left? What do the hostage negotiators do? Michelle: They do something that feels completely wrong. They "lean into the crazy." Mark: Lean into it? What does that even mean? You agree with them? If someone is yelling that the sky is green, you say, "You know what, it is looking a little teal today"? Michelle: Almost. But with a crucial distinction. You don't validate the facts, you validate the emotion behind the facts. You join them in their emotional reality. You find the kernel of truth in their feeling, even if their expression of it is completely off the rails. Mark: I’m trying to picture this. Give me an example. Let's say a coworker is furious, convinced you’re trying to sabotage their project. They're wrong, but they're livid. Michelle: Your instinct is to say, "That's not true! Here's the email proving I wasn't sabotaging you!" That's logic. That's an attack. Instead, you lean in. You might say something like, "It sounds like you feel completely blindsided and undermined right now. And that you’re worried this whole project is going to fail because of it." Mark: Huh. So you’re not saying "You're right, I'm a saboteur." You’re saying, "I hear that you feel attacked and are scared." You’re naming their emotional state. Michelle: Exactly. You’re holding up a mirror to their feelings. In that moment, their lizard brain, which was expecting a fight, suddenly hears an ally. It hears someone who understands. The threat level drops. And only when that threat level drops can their logical brain start to flicker back online. Mark: That’s a huge mental shift. You have to stop seeing the conversation as a debate to be won, and start seeing it as a de-escalation mission. Michelle: It’s the difference between being an opponent and being a partner in their distress. Goulston says you have to get them from "Oh no!" to "Oh, well." And you can't do that by telling them their "Oh no!" is stupid. You have to go into the "Oh no!" with them, and then gently guide them out. Mark: It’s like you’re a bomb disposal expert. You don't argue with the bomb; you calmly acknowledge its power and work with it to make it safe. Michelle: That’s a perfect way to put it. You have to disarm the emotion before you can ever hope to address the facts.

Mark: Okay, so that core principle of 'leaning in' makes a strange kind of sense. But how do you actually do it in the heat of the moment? It feels like it requires a lot of finesse. Michelle: It does, and that’s where his tactical toolkit comes in. He has over a dozen specific techniques, but two of them really illustrate the incredible range of this approach. Let's start with the gentler one, which has a very memorable name: The Belly Roll. Mark: The Belly Roll? What on earth is that? I'm picturing myself flopping on the floor in the middle of a board meeting. Please tell me that's not it. Michelle: Not quite, though the image is helpful. It comes from the animal kingdom. When a dog is confronted by a more dominant dog and wants to avoid a fight, what does it do? It rolls over and exposes its belly. It’s an act of submission that instantly de-escalates the situation. Mark: So I’m supposed to act like a scared puppy? How is that a power move? Michelle: Goulston calls it "assertive submission." You are consciously and strategically giving the other person a feeling of power and control. When an irrational person feels out of control, they lash out. By letting them "win" on a minor point, you give them the sense of control they're craving, which calms them down and, paradoxically, gives you control over the emotional temperature of the room. Mark: That’s fascinating. You’re letting them win the battle to win the war. Can you give me a non-canine example? Michelle: Sure. Imagine a manager is berating you for a mistake on a report. Instead of defending yourself or making excuses, you do a Belly Roll. You might say, "You're absolutely right. I completely missed that. I can't believe I let that slip through. Your eye for detail is so much sharper than mine on this." Mark: Wow. My ego would scream bloody murder. But I can see how that would just stop them in their tracks. They're geared up for a fight, and you just handed them a trophy. Michelle: Exactly. Their anger has nowhere to go. You've turned an assailant into an ally, or at least a confused and calmer person. Now you can have a productive conversation about fixing the report, which was the real goal all along. Mark: That's a powerful tool for everyday conflicts. But what about when things are more intense? When the stakes are higher? You mentioned a 'scary' technique. Michelle: Yes, this is the other end of the spectrum. It's a high-risk, high-reward strategy he calls the A-E-U Technique. It stands for Apologize, Empathize, and Uncover. Mark: Hold on. Apologize? Again? If they're the one being irrational, why am I apologizing? That feels like rewarding bad behavior or admitting fault when I've done nothing wrong. Michelle: This is the critical point, and why it's so scary. The apology is not an admission of factual guilt. It's an apology for your role in their distress. You are apologizing for the pain they are feeling. It has to be a genuine, heartfelt apology that cuts through their anger and connects with the vulnerable person underneath. Mark: I’m struggling with this. What would that even sound like? Michelle: Let's say you have a major fight with your partner. They're accusing you of never listening, of not caring. You think their accusation is unfair and exaggerated. The A-E-U approach would be to stop, look them in the eye, and say something like, "I am so, so sorry. I can see how much pain I've caused you. I'm sorry that my actions have made you feel unheard and unimportant. That must feel awful, and I hate that I'm the one who made you feel that way." Mark: Okay, that's... disarming. You’re not arguing the point. You’re apologizing for the emotional wound. That’s the 'A' and the 'E'—Apologize and Empathize. What's the 'U'—Uncover? Michelle: Once you've made that connection, and they've calmed down, you gently ask a question to uncover the deeper issue. "Can you help me understand what I do that makes you feel that way? I want to get this right." You're moving from the symptom—their anger—to the root cause. It's incredibly powerful, but it's risky because it requires you to be completely vulnerable and sincere, even when you feel you're the one being attacked.

Mark: These tools are undeniably potent. The Belly Roll, the A-E-U... but I have to admit, a part of me feels like this is all a bit manipulative. Like I'm learning psychological chess moves to outsmart people. Michelle: That's the perfect pivot to what Goulston says is the most important, and by far the most difficult, part of this entire process. He says before you can effectively use any of these tools on anyone else, you have to deal with the first irrational person in every conflict: yourself. Mark: Ah, the classic 'look in the mirror' moment. It always comes back to that, doesn't it? Michelle: It has to. Because if you don't understand your own irrational triggers, your own "crazy," then the moment someone pushes your buttons, all these clever techniques go right out the window. You'll get emotionally hijacked, your own lizard brain will take over, and you'll be right down in the mud with them. Mark: So it's about emotional self-defense. You can't de-escalate someone else if you're escalating internally. Michelle: Precisely. He dedicates a whole section to identifying your own irrational beliefs and triggers. What are the things that instantly make you defensive? What old wounds or insecurities can someone poke, intentionally or not, that send you into a spiral? He argues that self-awareness is the ultimate power tool. Mark: That makes a lot of sense. It’s like an airline safety video: you have to put on your own oxygen mask before helping others. If you're gasping for air emotionally, you're no good to anyone. Michelle: And he provides tools for this, too. One of the most practical is the "Eight-Step Pause." When you feel yourself getting triggered, you train yourself to pause and mentally walk through eight steps—like noticing your physical reaction, identifying the emotion, questioning its validity—before you react. It creates a circuit breaker between the stimulus and your response. Mark: So you’re creating a buffer zone for your rational brain to come back online before you say something you’ll regret. Michelle: Yes. It’s about moving from being a reactor to being a responder. And once you can manage your own state, your ability to manage others' becomes exponentially greater. You can stay calm in the eye of their hurricane because you've already weathered your own internal storm.

Michelle: And that really gets to the heart of the book's genius. It starts with this provocative, almost sensational title, Talking to Crazy, which, as some reader reviews point out, can be a bit polarizing. Mark: I can definitely see why. It could sound condescending or like you're just labeling people you disagree with. Michelle: It could. But when you get inside, you realize it's not about labeling people at all. It's a deeply empathetic and profoundly strategic manual for navigating the most difficult and painful parts of human interaction. It’s about a fundamental shift in perspective. Mark: What's the shift? Michelle: The shift is realizing that when someone is acting irrationally, they are not an adversary to be defeated. They are a person in a state of pain, fear, or overwhelm. And your job isn't to prove them wrong with logic, but to act as a guide to help lead them back to a feeling of safety. Mark: And the first person you have to guide back to safety is yourself. It’s not about winning the fight; it’s about changing the entire game from confrontation to connection. Michelle: Perfectly put. The ultimate takeaway is that logic is a tool for calm minds. For minds in chaos, strategic empathy is your only entry point. You have to connect with the feeling before you can ever correct the thinking. Mark: So for anyone listening who deals with this—which is everyone—maybe the first step Goulston would suggest is just to notice. What's one situation or one person that consistently pushes your buttons? Don't try to fix it, don't use the Belly Roll yet. Just notice your own reaction. That feels like the real starting line. Michelle: That’s a great, practical takeaway. It all begins with that moment of self-awareness. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.